Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Minnesota only voted for Biden over Trump by 7 points and Trump is polling 9 points better in 2024 than he did in 2020, ergo in all probability, Trump would win Minnesota if the election were today.
Clinton won Minnesota by less than 2% in 2016. 46.44 to 44.93 for Trump.
I think in the final analysis MN goes to Biden, as does CA. The fact that this is even being discussed seems to be bad news for Biden. I wonder if NY starts trending towards Trump in view of the fact that he is detained in NY four days a week and in effect is campaigning there. Also the local Democrats' performance in local office has not been dazzling.
CA to anyone other than Biden? That's only being discussed here in the dark recesses of this thread!
CA to anyone other than Biden? That's only being discussed here in the dark recesses of this thread!
I did not say "CA." That being said, California went Republican last in 1988, one election later than New York and most of the remaining New England states. California has long and actually pretty conservative Republican history. I don't think that California is in play in this election period. I am saying that New York could get interesting though I do not expect New York, in the final analysis, to flip.
I think in the final analysis MN goes to Biden, as does CA. The fact that this is even being discussed seems to be bad news for Biden. I wonder if NY starts trending towards Trump in view of the fact that he is detained in NY four days a week and in effect is campaigning there. Also the local Democrats' performance in local office has not been dazzling.
Big difference between Minnesota and Cali, Biden won Cali by 29 points but Minnesota only by 7 in 2020, with Trump polling about 9 points better than 2020, that would cut the Cali margin to 20 points but Trump would win Minnesota (not that he needs it, just a piling on scenario).
Clinton won Minnesota by less than 2% in 2016. 46.44 to 44.93 for Trump.
Correct, Minnesota is more than in play, it's a slight edge to Trump. Minnesotans have seen just how badly Democrats have destroyed the Twin Cities...from 2009 to 2021, Minneapolis went from 18 murders to 93.
Big difference between Minnesota and Cali, Biden won Cali by 29 points but Minnesota only by 7 in 2020, with Trump polling about 9 points better than 2020, that would cut the Cali margin to 20 points but Trump would win Minnesota (not that he needs it, just a piling on scenario).
While politically I am a Liberal Democrat, it is obvious to me that the Republicans have not spent any resources keeping states such as California, Illinois and New York in play. First, the GOP concedes roughly 112 EV's right off the bat. The Democrats do not have to spend a dime to hold those states, unless they are seriously put in play. Minnesota has ten electoral votes. In my view, the best Republican strategy would be to campaign almost everywhere. Writing off large states is a major mistake. With large states being written off, the Democrats can throw a lot of resources into states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania come on which are seriously in doubt. Thus, it is not wasting money to spend resources in states such as New York and California. California, especially, has a Republican history, and a rather conservative one.
The Democrats are making a royal mess out of their governance of these states. This should be a sweet and easy target.
Minnesota to Trump? Thanks for providing me my hearty laugh of the morning.
How about this one--100,000 Republicans voted for Nikki Haley in Indiana last night. Safe to assume these are never Trumpers in one of the reddest states around. Should we start a rumor about Indiana going to Biden?
Protest votes are very real. It says to the candidate that while they are not likely to vote for for the other side in the general election, they don't necessarily have a mandate over all members of the party. A 20% protest vote isn't crushing though, especially not in a primary.
Of course if you only win with 55% of the vote, or worse by getting just a plurality in a multi-candidate contest, then that is an indicator that you need to tread carefully.
At 80% of Indiana's primary vote Trump doesn't have to change tact.
I voted for a candidate here in Maryland who is not likely to win my state's primary election, and since I am in a deeeeep blue state, Larry Hogan (who is likely to win the primary) is going to have a hard sell to win the general election even though he is very popular with most R's, most I's, and even some D's. My vote is simply to say that Larry Hogan is a RINO and that even if he wins he doesn't necessarily have a mandate to do whatever he wants. We won't know the results until later tonight, but my hope is that Hogan's margin of victory is as low as possible (or if my candidate won, that would be awesome, as unlikely as it is).
Point is, there's nothing wrong with a "protest vote", people cast them all the time even when they know their preferred candidate is very unlikely to win. This is especially true in primaries, and less so in the general elections.
All that aside, recent trends indicate that while Maryland isn't going to go red and won't even become purple any time soon, there is more and more support for the right, especially among men, and especially with black men leading the shift toward the right in percentage terms. So Larry Hogan, while not my ideal candidate, is still preferable to any hard leftist and I'll back him in the general if he does win. If Hogan is on the ballot in the general and if Democrats field a relatively weak candidate then Hogan very much has a chance in statewide elections as proven by his two terms as governor.
While politically I am a Liberal Democrat, it is obvious to me that the Republicans have not spent any resources keeping states such as California, Illinois and New York in play. First, the GOP concedes roughly 112 EV's right off the bat. The Democrats do not have to spend a dime to hold those states, unless they are seriously put in play. Minnesota has ten electoral votes. In my view, the best Republican strategy would be to campaign almost everywhere. Writing off large states is a major mistake. With large states being written off, the Democrats can throw a lot of resources into states such as Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania come on which are seriously in doubt. Thus, it is not wasting money to spend resources in states such as New York and California. California, especially, has a Republican history, and a rather conservative one.
The Democrats are making a royal mess out of their governance of these states. This should be a sweet and easy target.
I really don't see how spending resources in Cali, Illinois and NY would do the GOP any good, smart money is to focus on the battleground states IMO. Minnesota is a new battleground state which if he wins would just be adding to his EC total. If the Repubs internal polls looked like NY, Cali or Illinois were in play, they would put resources to try to win it.
Especially with CA, NY and IL loosing EV's and Texas and FL gaining, and likely NC as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
