ELECTIONATE JUNE 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
With ad spending increasing each week, it's clear by now what the battleground states are—and it's clear that Minnesota isn't one of them. It may not be surprising that neither campaign has aired ads in the North Star State, as Minnesota is perhaps best known in politics as the state with the longest consecutive streak of voting for Democratic presidential candidates, having last voted Republican in 1972. The fundamentals, however, point toward a tight race in Minnesota, so it's interesting that the Romney campaign has not tried to contest the state.
In reality, the state is not as blue as its New Deal liberal legacy suggests: The state has actually taken on a purple hue since 1992. Between 1992 and 2004, Democrats never exceeded 51.1 percent of the vote in presidential elections. During that period, Michigan voted more for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry than Minnesota. In 2008, Republicans chose to host the RNC in Minneapolis, and McCain vigorously contested the state, even outspending Obama 2:1 in the Minneapolis media market. As a result, Obama carried Minnesota with just 54.1 percent of the popular vote, only slightly better than his 52.9 percent nationally and less than any other state won by Kerry in 2004.
Closest Kerry States in 2008
State
Obama %
Minnesota
54.06%
New Hampshire
54.14%
Pennsylvania
54.47%
Wisconsin
56.22%
Oregon
56.75%
New Jersey
57.14%
Michigan
57.33%
Although Obama's tally was suppressed by McCain's concerted efforts, the state's demographics point toward significant additional opportunities for Romney. Obama has lost considerable support among working class whites nationally, and 45 percent of Obama supporters in Minnesota were whites without a college degree, comparable to other states in the Midwest. Obama can't fall back on non-white voters, since 90 percent of the Minnesota electorate was white in 2008.
Given the fundamentals, the Romney campaign's apparent decision to concede the state is surprising. Why would the Romney campaign choose to compete in Michigan over Minnesota? Michigan is more expensive, more diverse, and better for Democrats over each of the last five presidential elections. Perhaps Boston believes that Romney's semblance of a home state advantage will help, but surely that is canceled out by Romney's opposition to the auto-bailout, especially since Romney's chances in Michigan rest on white working class voters. The answer must be the polls.
While the fundamentals point toward a tight race in Minnesota, sparse polling shows Obama with an 11 point lead in the RCP average. There is some reason to question the size of that margin, as all but one of the Minnesota polls were conducted by SurveyUSA or PPP, two firms showing a Democratic house effect so far this cycle. Nonetheless, Obama and Romney's decision to stay out of Minnesota probably indicates that the polls are on to something. If Obama holds a big lead in Minnesota, it would be surprising given the competitive races in Iowa and Wisconsin. The three Upper Midwestern states have roughly moved in unison over the last six elections and it seems unlikely that Obama would be weak in two of those states without the third nearby. It is a little frustrating not to have a compelling explanation for Obama's relative resilience in Minnesota. It might be the case that the Romney campaign's polling shows a relatively close race in Minnesota, but one just out of reach in a close national election.
4 comments
The Rombot camp may not be spending but what about Karl Rove and his minions? With the billions they're spending I figured they'd be in MN.
- tmmats
June 19, 2012 at 5:58pm
"Obama has lost considerable support among working class whites nationally, and 45 percent of Obama supporters in Minnesota were whites without a college degree" The decline in support for Obama among working-class whites is almost entirely confined to the former Confederacy. Old-time working-class populism is not dead in Minnesota, particularly in the northeastern part of the state. OTOH, I expect Romney or his surrogates will indeed contest Minnesota eventually.
- K_Wilson
June 20, 2012 at 10:07am
I would be wary of that assessment K_Wilson. In the Republican tidal wave of 2010, the northeastern "Iron Range" voted for a Tea Party shrill in Chip Cravaack, who upset Jim Oberstar, easily one of the most admirable representatives from a progressive point of view in history. While there are some iron ore jobs (mostly taconite mining), little of the Iron Range is seen as a manufacturing or goods producing area. Instead, tourism has taken over their economy. In the wintertime, with those bitter Minnesota winters, there is nothing to do, and lots of idleness and unemployment. It reminds me of the north shore here in MA, where Tisei, another Tea Party shrill, is probably going to win the representative seat in Congress over Tierney. The north shore too had a bustling industry with fishing, shipbuilding, etc., but that is all on the decline. Republicans are experts at tapping into that angst, and promising jobs and tax cuts. Democrats don't elicit anger, but measured centrism which is a plaything for rich people. The only fighting Democrats are union people, and there are not enough of them, and even when they do fight they get turned on by the national DNC, who chase after Wall Street dollars even after they scorned Wall Street. In effect, Democrats consistently turn their backs on their core constituents, and the Obama administration is the perfect example. I will always remember Robert Gibbs throwing his base under the bus in 2010. And Obama's economy does indeed suck, unless you were born into wealthier circumstances (or higher income brackets because I believe Tim Noah's critique that wealth is overrated). I'm tired of apologizing for this wait-and-see President who constantly hides his best achievements (like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake restoration initiative, his Sustainable Cities grants, hell HEALTH CARE. Do you ever see anyone defending his law EVER??) If people don't know what you did, how can you expect them to turn out for you?
- RedState
June 20, 2012 at 5:31pm
Oberstar had outlived his time and was vulnerable. It's not surprising he was taken out. I'm frankly surprised it had not happened earlier. The sad news is that an idiot like Cravaack saw the handwriting on the wall before the Democratic Party did. Given Oberstar's electoral longevity, it's hard to imagine that a decent Democrat could not take out Cravaack. But the party better not wait too long. Inertia has a way of taking hold in the region.
- Claris
June 21, 2012 at 2:17pm