If the Midwest was split entirely by "Lower Midwest" and "Upper Midwest", which part would Iowa be in? (fit in, live)

[Tusco]

Its pretty easy to assume which part the other Midwestern states would be in.

[Heel82]

I’m not sure what either of these terms mean, or how they fit in to the terms I’ve mostly heard of Great Lakes Midwest and Great Plains Midwest. I’d lump Iowa with Nebraska, then Minnesota, then Illinois, however that shakes out.

[Tusco]

Originally Posted by Heel82

I’m not sure what either of these terms mean, or how they fit in to the terms I’ve mostly heard of Great Lakes Midwest and Great Plains Midwest. I’d lump Iowa with Nebraska, then Minnesota, then Illinois, however that shakes out.

Upper Midwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
Lower Midwest: Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio

[sub]

Culturally I'd say it's a bit more upper.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

I'd say Upper. No part of the state has any real Southern influence, and it was historically pretty Democratic for a rural state, like Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Iowa actually does have more Scandinavian ancestry than I thought, over a quarter in some counties. Although maybe this isn't the best metric --- Iowa, Nebraska (definitely not Upper Midwestern), and the UP (definitely Upper Midwestern) are all around the same level. Still, it's one way Iowa is distinguished from states like Indiana and Ohio.

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by Tusco

Upper Midwest: Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan
Lower Midwest: Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio

If those are the definitions, then I'd say Lower. Though IA has a split personality. North of I-80, more Catholics, more Germans, more Scandanavians, more Irish. South of I-80, more Evangelicals and Baptists, more Scots-Irish, more Welsh. Accents are different between the two areas, too.

[manitopiaaa]

Iowa is turning into another Missouri politically, unlike MN, MI, WI.

It also doesn't have the vast forest expanses and Great Lakes presence that gives the Upper Midwest its unique topographic identity.

So I vote Lower Midwest.

[jas75]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

Iowa is turning into another Missouri politically, unlike MN, MI, WI.

The key reason why Iowa is becoming a solid red state is that it has no large metropolitan areas anywhere close to the size of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Detroit or Milwaukee. Aside from a few recreation oriented counties, the small town and rural areas of those three states are just about as solidly red as rural Iowa - but unlike in Iowa they usually don't have enough votes to decide the statewide results. I would still say that Iowa is more Upper than Lower Midwest in terms of its overall character.

[sub]

Originally Posted by manitopiaaa

Iowa is turning into another Missouri politically, unlike MN, MI, WI.

It also doesn't have the vast forest expanses and Great Lakes presence that gives the Upper Midwest its unique topographic identity.

So I vote Lower Midwest.

Politics has nothing to do with it.
I've lived in Missouri, now in Wisconsin. Wouldn't be a stretch to see Wisconsin go completely red at some point. Maybe Michigan too.... or not. Point is, that doesn't play into the conversation at all.
The rural northern forested parts can actually be the most red, except for that politically weird area known as Minnesota's North Shore and the far northern tip of Wisconsin up there.

Both upper and lower have forests and cornfields. Iowa is primarily cornfields.

The overall look, feel, and character of Iowa definitely leans upper regardless of who they vote for or where they go to church.
While there is some north/south separation within Iowa, it's barely enough to mention. Border states like Missouri is where the bigger differences lie.

[EscAlaMike]

What about speech patterns? Do most people from Iowa have a stronger accent like someone from Minnesota or Wisconsin; or is it less pronounced like someone from Ohio or Indiana? I think that would factor into which side to group Iowa with.