Is Minnesota changing?

That’s a question I’ve been asking myself recently, when I’ve looked at the voting trends of this once-Democratic bastion over the past decade. Minnesota, the only state that hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1972, has been showing much stronger support for Republicans in almost all levels of government recently—and I’m not just talking about the 2002 results.

Minnesota was part of the Republican sweep in 1994, when Rod Grams won a US Senate seat 49%-44%. The GOP also won the state’s gubernatorial race in 1994 64%-34%.

1996 was a bad year for Republicans at the presidential level, but Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone was re-elected by just 51%-42%, not a real landslide for a Democrat in a supposedly heavily Democratic state.

In the 3-way gubernatorial race of 1998, Republican Norm Coleman finished a very close second after Independent Jesse Ventura. Ventura received 37% of the vote, Coleman 35% and Democrat Humphrey 28%. What’s more, exit polling data showed which way voters would have voted if Ventura hadn’t been on the ballot. Coleman led Humphrey by 10 percentage points.

There has been gradual movement toward the GOP in the state’s congressional delegation. In 1998, Democrats led 6-2. In 2000, the Dems led 5-3. Now, in 2002, it’s a 4-4 tie between the parties.

In 1998, Democrats led the GOP 42-24 in the state senate and 70-64 in the state house of representatives. Just before the 2002 elections, the GOP led 71-63 in the state house, while the Dems led 39-27 in the state senate. Now, after the mid-term, the GOP leads 82-52 in the state house, while the Dems have been reduced to a slender 35-31 edge in the state senate.

Throughout the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush was extremely competitive in Minnesota, often holding a slight edge in independent surveys. On Election Day, Gore carried the state by the slenderest of margins 48%-46%. Naturally, the Democrats blamed Ralph Nader who took about 5% of the vote in Minnesota that year. But exit polling data showed that, had Ralph Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would only have widened his lead to about 4 points (roughly 52%-48%) in a 2-way race. That’s hardly a resounding margin for a “Democratic state”, especially when you consider Gore’s margins in states like Massachusetts, Hawaii or Rhode Island, with Nader on the ballot.

Republicans narrowly lost Rod Grams’ US Senate seat in 2000. But in 2002, even before Paul Wellstone died, the Democrats were struggling to keep Wellstone’s US Senate seat. After he died, favorite son Walter Mondale failed to retain the seat for his party, losing to Norm Coleman.

The 2002 elections also saw Republican Tim Pawlenty comfortably winning the open, 3-way gubernatorial race (44%-36%). The GOP also won the statewide offices for secretary of state and state auditor.

Finally, exit polling data over the past 8 or 10 years has shown that registered Democrats only narrowly outnumber Republicans in major elections. This contrasts sharply with heavily Democratic states.

Of great significance is the fact that Minnesota Republicans are truly conservative. Unlike the notorious RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), which are found in copious numbers in state governments like New York or Connecticut, the Minnesota GOP generally reflects strong conservative values on social issues. For instance, all the successful statewide GOP candidates in Minnesota in this past election were regarded as pro-life and were endorsed by pro-life groups. Before 2002, 2 out of the 3 Republicans in the state’s congressional delegation were regarded as strongly pro-life and all were regarded as opposing the homosexual agenda. Amazingly, in yet another sign of the state’s socially conservative bent, 2 of the 5 Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation were also regarded as pro-life. Minnesota’s Republican-controlled state house of representatives has few friends on the left, either.

So, what does all this mean? Is this just ephemeral, meaningless data, or is it a long term trend? My guess is the latter. The trend nationwide in states with a conservative undercurrent has been all away from the Democratic Party (or the “Democrat Farmer Labor Party” as it’s known in the North Star state). I wouldn’t venture to say that the GOP is the majority party there, but it’s certainly more than it used to be. Democratic liberalism, stupidity and self-destructive tactics have caused their party to implode in many of their former strongholds in the South and Midwest.

With 10 electoral votes at stake, the Democrats can ill afford to lose Minnesota, and the Republicans mustn’t miss the opportunity to chip away at the Democratic base. A recent survey found that a large majority of Minnesotans approve of President Bush’s job performance. The message to him and his team is that the state isn’t just that it’s winnable, but that it’s very winnable and should be consistently cultivated for 2004.

"The Wellstone re-election number in 1996 was much closer than 51-42. It was more like 51-49... please re-check."

Well, I wish I could say it was closer, but I checked and the information I have says it was 51% for Wellstone, 42% for Boschwitz and 7% for an Independent candidate. If somehow I'm wrong, please give me a link.

As for 2002, Coleman beat Mondale 50%-47%.

I find very interesting your comments on the demographics of the state. A couple auxiliary tidbits: Exit polling showed that Catholics constituted 27% of the electorate in 2000. Of those, Bush beat Gore 51%-42%, while amongst Protestants, the two candidate were virtually tied. This, however, was not the case in 1996 or 1998 for the GOP.

Your other points are also very interesting on the changes in the state. I'm not entirely sure where they're all coming from, but nobody can deny that something good is happening for the GOP. If you have any links to info on this, I'd be delighted to have it.

"Bush will target MN, IA, and WI in 2004. No free ride for the RATS in any of these states; he lost each by an eyelash in 2000."

You can add Oregon and New Mexico to the eyelash list. And don't count out states like PA, WA and ME. They're all winnable.

Your other points are also very interesting on the changes in the state. I'm not entirely sure where they're all coming from, but nobody can deny that something good is happening for the GOP. If you have any links to info on this, I'd be delighted to have it.

Some of these are intuitive, some from the state GOP, and some from the Almanac of American Politics (Michael Barone).

You can add Oregon and New Mexico to the eyelash list. And don't count out states like PA, WA and ME. They're all winnable.

Yes, indeed. I was referring only to the upper midwest. Frankly, almost all of the states are winnable in 2004 for GWB.

Pennsylvania is winnable. Filthadelphia is Pennsylvania's problem.

Gore won PA by way of filthadelphia alone. Even Pittsburgh didn't put out the democratic numbers like it used to in the past.

If Bush can find a way to watch rat fraud and cut into rat votes in filthadelphia Pennsylvania will be in the bag.

Three issues are key Abortion, Guns, and Homosexuals.

The Republican Economic issues don't work in heavy Union PA. You have to run on Social Issues.

If Bush runs Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, Anti-Homosexual he should be able to overcome the filthadelphia garbage by gleaning votes from the rest of the state that is very socially conservative.

Economic issues are NOT the way to go in PA.

I am a resident of MN and am a biased right winger. Hey, where do I sign up for that right wing conspiracy thinggy?

Anywho, I wonder if part of the answer here in MN has to do with the lose of the family farm? The DFL had always had a lock on them and with more and more family farms going by the wayside, so goes the DFL?

Also, I think the electorate is much more educated today then in the past. I waited in line for 30 minutes to vote the last election (at 7:30 in the AM no less) which was pretty impressive. The only other dynamic here in Mn is the Twin Cities. St. Paul is more Republican then Mpls. Mpls is a hand out city. You are either there to get a hand out, or you are there handing out (mostly others money).

I do believe that Our President will take MN in 2004. Educated & overtaxed electorate will see to it.

Voting for Bradley does not indicate support, only a lack of options. Wendelboe is already talking about finding somebody credible to run, and that may turn out to be Bob Smith. Stephens is another Young Democrat (and what is it with these pansy Young Republicans in NH and the lack of military involvement...boy oh boy in Stephens a pannnnzzzzy.

Bradley did well in a Republican year: Big Deal. If he ends up having to run against Smith, issues regarding his draft status and "mystery wealth" will come to the forefront. Bradley is a draft dodger (apparently something not too important to today's Young Republicans) as well as an effete fop. He'll be as marginalized and irrelevant to the legislative process as Charlie Bass currently is.

A sociology degree from Tufts while young men your age are in combat, itinerant magician throughout Europe, inherited wealth and Reagan-era liberal democrat. It is a disgrace somebody of so little ability and accomplishment is representing Southern New Hampshire

Charlie Bass' influence on public policy might be in dispute, but he's a safe candidate. There's no one they can throw at him to beat him. Same with Bradley-- there's no one that can beat him. Fran won't run against Bradley. I spoke with her at the WMUR Sununu-Shaheen debate. She will likely go to the state senate in the future. She was offered it until redistricting screwed things up.

Bob Smith sure as hell won't go to the House with his tail between his legs. He couldn't even get over his loss to Sununu to meet the President in NH. You really think that Mary Jo will let him be a congressman representing Sununu's old district while Sununu represents the state in the Senate? No. Smith is done. He won't risk another humiliating defeat.

Our new NHGOP chair (Jayne Marcucci Millerick) is a YR. She'll be great.

People have to realize that since 1968 a Minnesotan has been on the democratic presidental ticket 4 times(68,76,80,84). That drastically increases the rat influence in the state, since they would really get out the vote to support one of their own. It also serves as a drawn for the non-political. Individuals with no strong political views would vote rat to support the local guy. As Minnesota moves away from the fritz years, the advantage it once gave them decreases.

Well said. An independent survey just before the last election found that more Minnesotans regarded themselves as Republicans than DFL'ers by a margin of 44%-41%.

And here's a quote by failed DFL Secretary of State candidate Buck Humphrey: “It’s not the liberal bastion it was... Minnesota had a reputation as being a liberal place but I don’t think it’s been that way since the 1980s.”

Humphrey is like Mondale, a well-known prominent name in Minnesota. This is a golden opportunity for the GOP. Let's hope they make the best of it, for the good of Minnesotans.

Great post! I'd meant to do something similar after the last election but wanted to wait until the State House and Senate races were complete (one seat in the Senate is still in doubt, with the Pubbies suing to overturn an 11 vote loss in a district in which a DFL Election Judge has admitted to burning 17 ballots in her fireplace!). Three points that should also be included:

1. The GOP took the House four years ago, powered largely by Ventura, and "first-time", voters. Before that it had been in DFL hands for years.

2. The Pubbies control more Senate seats than they have in 30 years.

3. Except for Atty. Gen. Mike Hatch (who worked closely with Republican Secretary of State Kiffmeyer during last years election mess) the Pubbies hold all of the State's Constitutional offices.

Indeed, Minnesota now more closely mirrors the country in many ways. It's cities are Dem bastions where no Republican can compete, while it's suburbs and rural areas trend Republican, save for the Iron Range and parts of Northern Minnesota where conservative Dems have not yet jumped ship. It will be interesting to see what happens to those areas when Oberstar (8th) and Peterson (7th) decide to retire. The latter, it should be noted, is a true "Blue Dog Democrat". He's pro gun and, believe it or not, used to date Katherine Harris! Other House seats range from safe Dem (the 4th and 5th), and safe Rep (3rd), to leaning (strongly) Rep (1st, 2nd, and 6th), all of which should be "safe" for their Rep incumbents, barring scandal, for years to come.

One last note: The state party has done all of this while remaining overwhelmingly conservative. RINOS are rare, but neither has the "far right" been allowed to completely co-opt the party. Pawlenty will be the most Conservative Governor in my lifetime, perhaps ever, yet he had to beat off a strong challenge -- FROM THE RIGHT!!! -- during the endorsement process. One result is that he's viewed by many as a "moderate". Imagine that! Conservative posistions on taxes, conceal and carry, etc, marketed as mainstream! In Minnesota, no less!

Marcucci is pro-abortion. She is precisely the type of person who'd have worked against Reagan in 1976 and 1980...I remember these fools like it was yesterday.

As for Smith, whether he runs or not, he is certainly capable of aggressively campaigning for somebody. He was never afraid to campaign for Reagan-Republicans in the past and I see no reason, especially given Bradley's championing of abortion and homosexuality, that he'd hesitate to support an primary challenger: Ditto Humphrey.

Then there is the Bradley-cowardice factor. The fact that your not disturbed by a draft dodger representing Southern New Hampshire says much about you.

Jayne Marcucci Millerick worked for Bob Smith on campaigns. I doubt he has much of a problem with her.

I think you're trying to draw conclusions about me based on tagential analysis. I was only saying that Bradley will be as hard to defeat as Bass. That is a true statement whether you want to believe it or not.

Bob Smith is done. He's going to fade away. Gordon Humphrey is done with politics, too, and won't support a primary challenge to Bradley. Humphrey gave money to Charlie Bass who isn't a conservative. He also gave money to the state GOP-- which gave money to Bass and Bradley.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.