Could Trump turn Minnesota red in 2020? Anything’s possible, but there’s little evidence to support the case

REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
Supporters gathered to rally with then-nominee Donald Trump in a cargo hangar at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Nov. 6, 2016.

One of the most famous Yogi Berra-isms is that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” I agree, with full knowledge that we won’t stop trying to see the future, or guess at it.

Political strategists in presidential cycles have to play the game of guessing whether one state or another might do something different than it has done over recent cycles. Donald Trump’s team in 2016 saw signs that it could flip some states in the so-called “Blue Wall,” so-called because they had given their electoral votes to the Democratic ticket five or more times in a row.

And, as you know, they got three big ones, Michigan and Pennsylvania (which had gone blue six straight times), and Wisconsin (seven straight). And that is one big way of explaining how Trump won an Electoral College majority. (He lost the national popular vote, in case you hadn’t heard.)

And, if you stayed up late watching the returns in November 2016, as I did, you may recall wondering, “Why aren’t they declaring Minnesota for the Democratic ticket?” as I did. Before Election Day, few of the know-alls had rated Minnesota as a likely swing state. In the end, the Clinton-Kaine ticket eked out a win in Minnesota by a shockingly small 1.5 percentage point margin.

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale said: “Obviously, we have to go back and win Michigan again, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. We plan on also being in Minnesota very soon.”

Of course they will. They’d be crazy not to focus on those states, the three former “blue wall” states they carried in 2016 by a combined 78,000 votes, and Minnesota, which is the state that went blue in 2016 by the smallest margin of any state Trump lost. And the results in those four states might well determine the outcome. (I say “might well,” since I know nothing along these lines is certain a year and a half out, and I doubt anyone who says they do know.)

But I’m here to argue that there is little evidence to suggest the Trump has much chance of turning Minnesota red. Here’s some evidence for that statement:

Minnesota has been bluer than the other blue wall states that turned red in 2016. Minnesota has the current longest blue streak in presidential elections of any state, by far. The streak is 11 presidential elections. Minnesota last gave its electoral votes to the Republican nominee in 1972, the year Richard Nixon carried 49 states against George McGovern. Massachusetts (my native state) was the only one he didn’t get, which led to bumper stickers that I recall over the ensuing rough Watergate years that read: “Don’t blame me. I’m from Massachusetts.”

Minnesota’s longest-streak thing results from a similar fluke, true, because Ronald Reagan carried the other 49 states in 1984 against native-son Walter Mondale.

Still, in the seven presidential elections since 1972, Minnesota has remained true to the blue, mostly by solid margins, until last time. Another bit of ancient-but-notable history: Since 1932, Democratic presidential nominees have gone 19-3 in carrying the Gopher State in presidential elections. That’s not a fluke.

But it’s way more than that. The evidence for Minnesota’s blue-ness runs through all the statewide races going back to the 1950s. DFLers have won the last three governor’s races, all by solid margins. Before that, we had two terms of Tim Pawlenty, however you classify him on the moderate-to-conservative Republican spectrum. And there was Jesse Ventura, whatever that indicates.

But in the big picture, although there have been Republican governors (though generally moderate progressive ones, like Arne Carlson and Al Quie) during a 70-year span that started after the Dems and the Farmer-Labor party merged, the state has had 18 years of Republicans in the governor’s office, compared to 36 for the DFL when Tim Walz comes up for re-election in 2022.

There has been roughly comparable DFL domination in recent history of races for the other top statewide elective offices, secretary of state and attorney general.

Of course, all that could be dismissed as ancient history — if we hadn’t had a very recent election. After Trump came close in to carrying the state in 2016, 2018 was a colossal sweep for DFLers, winning all of the statewide races and a solid majority in the state House of Representatives. (Republicans control the state Senate, but Senate seats weren’t on the ballot in 2018.)

Minnesota’s races for Congress in 2018 went five for the DFL and three for the Republicans, which preserved the status quo. Both Senate seats were on the ballot. Both went for the DFLers. Tina Smith won by a double-digit margin, and Amy Klobuchar won by 24 points.

You can quibble with some of this, I suppose, but the evidence against Minnesota being classifiable as a solid blue state is hard to find.

Yes, sure, presidential elections are different and special, and anything might happen in 2020. We don’t have much of clue whom the Dems will nominate against Trump and all that. And whoever it is, Team Trump will focus more on driving the opponent’s numbers down, by such mature tactics as assigning the opponent a derogatory nickname.

I don’t believe in making predictions and I’m not. I’m just talking about things that have happened, and things that can be measured now. Even stupid things like approval ratings. Not that you can take those to the bank of course but …

On this page, Morning Consult, which takes approval polls, enables you to track the approval ratings of President Trump, state by state, and month by month Trump’s inauguration. In January of 2017, Donald Trump’s Minnesota approval rating, according to Morning Consult, was a three points above water (meaning three percentage points higher approval than disapproval). By April 2017, it was nine points below water. By July of that year, it was minus 17. By November it broke through the 20-below barrier. During 2019, it has fluctuated from the low-teens to the high-teens in percentage points below water. The most recent number on there is for March: minus 14. I can find only ten states where it’s worse.

All I’m saying is that, if this is evidence for the Trump team that Minnesota looks promising for them, I’d hate to see what looks unpromising.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (59)

  1. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 05/02/2019 - 09:53 am.

    Cue left end of the spectrum screeching; but, we are in the “break glass in case of emergency” in terms of removing Trump. And if flipping PA, MI, and WI is the critical element, Biden is easily the best candidate to do it: a native of PA, and the best working class approach to MI and WI.

    My personal views/enthusiasm most closely align with Warren who has the experience, smarts and has put the most thought into what she would do if elected.

    Moving on from the current dysfunctional mess is the top priority and if things in the D race stays close to current conditions Biden should be the choice….

    • Submitted by chuck holtman on 05/02/2019 - 03:51 pm.

      Yet Warren’s background and economic policies both should make her very appealing to the “Rust Belt” voter. It seems that she suffers most from the Democratic party’s inability (or unwillingness) to advance a strong and consistent populist message for which she would be the natural leader. It would be deeply unfortunate to have to accept Biden simply because the party is incapable of messaging a substantive platform for the general welfare. Particularly since the threat to the nation isn’t Trump, it’s the Republican party, and Biden’s inability to recognize that those old bipartisan days are long gone will ensure that even under his watch, the march away from the rule of law and into autocracy will continue. .

    • Submitted by Sean Olsen on 05/03/2019 - 01:26 pm.

      I guess I don’t buy that Biden has to be the default choice — the road to winning those states doesn’t have to go through white men. Democrats lost Wisconsin and Michigan in large part because base voters in Milwaukee and Detroit stayed home. I don’t think Biden’s the only person who could create a winning scenario in those states.

    • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 05/08/2019 - 08:56 am.

      I wonder why it has to be Biden when I think that it’s very possible that Klobuchar will be able to check every box Biden has and then some. Plus, unless you actually believe the fork story, Klobuchar doesn’t have the baggage that Biden does. The only minuses for Klobuchar vs. Biden is a lack of name recognition (which, admittedly, is huge) and that she’s a woman (which is, also, huge…but maybe also a plus?). The latter, by the way, is making the former worse. The media’s bias is still gendered.

  2. Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/02/2019 - 09:57 am.

    Trump hasn’t once stopped in any of these important Midwest states and talked to farmers about his tariffs and the devastation they are causing. That’s because he thinks they are rubes content with guns and abortion. None of these states should be in play for Republicans in 2020 realistically.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 05/02/2019 - 10:28 am.

      Well, the intro picture tells why Trump remains a threat to be re-elected.

      Some guy gets a T shirt, a can of black spray paint, an Exacto knife, some stiff stencil paper and spends a few hours crafting his own Trump 2016 T Shirt.

      If he devoted the same amount of time to understanding candidate positions and their impact on his life, he may wish the T shirt was still blank…

  3. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 05/02/2019 - 10:06 am.

    True enough. Ultimately, however, most elections come down to the state of the economy. If the economy continues to grow through the next election, the election is Trump’s to lose. If there is a downturn, he will likely get ousted.

    But then, Dem and liberal obsession with Russiagate, and their focus on the troubles of immigrant communities, does nothing to ingratiate them with Bernie or Trump fans. As long as Dems and Liberals fail to look at their own choices that led to Trump winning, specifically, their ignoring of the economic needs of working class American citizens, they are likely to lose 2020, esp if the economy is relatively strong.

    • Submitted by Edward Blaise on 05/02/2019 - 10:18 am.

      I can agree with your thoughts; but, the goodness of the strength of economy should also translate into concurrent Presidential favor-ability.

      Clinton, with the plus of a strong economy and the minus of an actual impeachment hung around 60% in 1998.

      Trump can’t seem to get to 50% no matter what: nothing he can do will alienate his base and nothing he can do will build his base.

      His only hope are the unknown hoards of Trump “hidden voters” who are too ashamed or lack the courage to vocalize their support; but, in the privacy of the voting booth….

      • Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/02/2019 - 10:38 am.

        Strength of the economy is a weak argument. He won Michigan by 10,000 votes. Then he gave corporations a maybe tax cut. Ask the auto-workers in Michigan how that turned out. Too much credit is being given to Trump. The economy is great for certain people but not the majority.

        • Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/02/2019 - 10:42 am.

          *massive tax cut.

          Also more corporations than ever before are not paying taxes. That really fair to the middle class.

        • Submitted by joe smith on 05/02/2019 - 10:58 am.

          He will win Michigan again. Trump has brought back manufacturing jobs at a rate called impossible by Obama Administration. Middle class wages are finally going up. For every .1 percent increase in GDP that is 200 BILLION new dollars being pumped into our economy, everybody feels it.

          The denial of our economy improving is absolutely false.

          • Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/02/2019 - 11:10 am.

            I didn’t deny the economy. I clarified that it’s not working for everyone. I suggest you read the news about the GM layoffs in Michigan in late January 2019.

            • Submitted by Tim Smith on 05/02/2019 - 01:16 pm.

              has there been a moment in time that you can’t say it isn’t working for everyone? Under prior occupant could you have said that? Are there more people worse off today? I think not…

              • Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/02/2019 - 05:11 pm.

                Of course there are. The gig economy, and corporate socialism had made like very difficult for the middle class. The wealth gap continues to grow, and more and more people are left with medical bills they can’t afford, or frozen out of the housing market or buried under student loans.

          • Submitted by Jackson Cage on 05/02/2019 - 12:09 pm.

            It’s an absolute myth that middle-class wages are up. The amount of corporate tax cuts that were passed on in the form of higher wages was minimal. And the majority of those were in the form of one time bonuses, not permanent wage increase.

            The Minnesota question is easily answered. Trump didn’t win Minnesota last time and a large segment of his 2016 voters have been completely turned off by him since he took office. The 2018 elections were just a preview

            • Submitted by joe smith on 05/02/2019 - 03:12 pm.

              Jackson, read the USAtoday article on middle class income. USAtoday is hardly a right wing paper.

              • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/02/2019 - 04:50 pm.

                But its analyses tend to be lightweight.
                Some definitions of ‘middle class’ include the top 10%.
                If you look at the middle quartiles (25% to 75%) you get a very different picture.

              • Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/02/2019 - 05:12 pm.

                USA today is a corporate shill.

              • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 05/03/2019 - 07:19 am.

                Most people have seen little actual income gains since, well, 1980? Middle class and working poor especially. It is more about perception, and the wide perception is that the economy is strong…not because it is, but because the chattering class repeats that it is, without much evidence, a million times a day.

                Interestingly, Trump fans were often critical of the BS economic numbers coming out of Gov before Trump. Those numbers are just as massaged or more, than they were in Obama’s time, but Trump fans act like they are gospel now. Like the low unemployment rate, but less people working relative to population than there were in 1985. Go figure.

              • Submitted by Jackson Cage on 05/03/2019 - 08:48 am.

                Sorry Joe. you’ve lost this one. Look at articles at NBC news, Vox and that Lefty rag, the Wall Street Journal. I didn’t even include left-leaning sites or those whose affiliation I didn’t know.

                As people finished their taxes, they finally realized the beating they took.

          • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/03/2019 - 10:02 am.

            “Middle class wages are finally going up.”

            Real wage growth is close to zero, when inflation is considered.

            “For every .1 percent increase in GDP that is 200 BILLION new dollars being pumped into our economy, everybody feels it.”

            You’re making the blithe and almost comically inaccurate assumption that economic growth in the United States is distributed evenly.

            • Submitted by joe smith on 05/03/2019 - 11:02 am.

              Read the NABE report. Wages are up over Trump’s 1st 2 years. Not that hard to look at data. Anybody who thinks that a country introducing trillions more new money into their economy is not helping everyone, doesn’t understand economics. So you are saying our country was better off with 1.8% GDP growth than 3.2% ? Interesting.

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/03/2019 - 12:06 pm.

                “Anybody who thinks that a country introducing trillions more new money into their economy is not helping everyone, doesn’t understand economics.”

                And anybody who thinks that everyone is “helped” to any noticeable degree doesn’t understand reality.

                • Submitted by joe smith on 05/03/2019 - 01:06 pm.

                  More great news today for the American worker. Salaries are going up faster for middle class workers than higher end jobs….. Imagine that?. Just doesn’t fit the narrative here that average workers are not doing better…. Again, interesting folks are not excited for average workers doing better. 27.77 average hourly salary, all time high….

              • Submitted by joe smith on 05/03/2019 - 12:16 pm.

                Also read CNBC economic report from today . Hardly a pro Trump outlet

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/03/2019 - 02:19 pm.

                  Let’s balance incremental improvements in income with the utter lawlessness and corruption of the Trump administration. How about the utter disdain for the Constitution that conservatives profess to love, love, love so much? Perhaps you can tell me why it’s okay to ignore the creeping authoritarianism from the White House in exchange for a bump in pay that is the equivalent of the cost of a take-out pizza.

                  Not everything can be monetized, Mr. Smith.

                  • Submitted by joe smith on 05/04/2019 - 08:01 am.

                    RB, so the economy is doing better and average salaries for middle class workers are improving. That is what Trump promised. Earlier you claimed that wasn’t the case. Now your argument is,”Trump is a bad guy” so the extra money, better job, increase in IRA or 401k is not worth it. Tell that to blue collar workers across America…. Good luck.

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/05/2019 - 12:38 pm.

                      My point was that the improvements are small, and aren’t making all that much difference to the majority of American workers.

                      Now, you’re telling me that they are willing to sacrifice American democracy and constitutional government for a few more dollars. That is a pretty grim picture of the state of our citizenry.

                • Submitted by chuck holtman on 05/03/2019 - 03:22 pm.

                  Hear, hear, Mr. Holbrook. It’s astounding that commenters are joyful to trade an imperfect democracy for an authoritarianism unaccountable to laws or citizens, if it will put a few dollars in the pocket.

                  But even from a purely economic standpoint, when a tax cut that disproportionately favors the top is financed by cutting social insurance programs, the benefits of which are much more evenly distributed, it’s a net loss for everyone not at the top regardless of whether they suddenly have a pizza’s worth of cash from Uncle Sam.

      • Submitted by Richard Steuland on 05/03/2019 - 11:44 pm.

        Let’s remember that Trump is declining mentally. He will be further along in the disease when it’s time for more public debates. Then you have more and more evidence of his dishonest, immoral and cruelty. It’s important to not come across about to get him and also focus on his debasement of the highest office in the land.

  4. Submitted by Ray Schoch on 05/02/2019 - 10:28 am.

    On this one, I end up siding with Edward Blaise. I like Elizabeth Warren a lot, and for several reasons, but some of those reasons are the same ones that others will think disqualify her from the Oval Office, and task #1, more important than any other, is to get Donald Trump back into the private sector where even a sycophant Attorney-General won’t be able to protect him from the numerous crimes, some petty, some enormous, of which he seems obviously guilty. If Trump drags down the rest of his family and numerous henchmen (and women) in the process, so be it.

  5. Submitted by Alan Straka on 05/02/2019 - 10:42 am.

    The question isn’t can Trump turn Minnesota blue, its will the Democrats turn Minnesota blue? As the article points out, they nearly managed it in 2016 by nominating Hillary Clinton. It will come down to whom they nominate and the field right now does not inspire much confidence.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/02/2019 - 12:38 pm.

      We’ve already elected a Blue governor and two Blue senators.
      This is the best predictor of statewide elections.

    • Submitted by Bob Petersen on 05/02/2019 - 01:35 pm.

      Completely agree. The usual comments are of the same typical Trump hating rather than what is being posed by the also ever-Trump hating Mr. Black. Trump nearly won Minnesota because the Dems put up Hillary. Trump is flawed indeed, but Hillary is a very polarizing figure who had the machine basically cheat for her, she always seems to be angry and always blaming others, who illegally used a home server for her work at the State Department to which was easily hacked, systematically destroyed government computers and assets, mocked and insulted large swaths of the electorate, and whined about that she deserves more because she is female.
      Now, it seems that all of the Dems that are in the ring for 2020 are doing two things, be the loudest Anti-Trump out there and the other is to see how many giveaways they can propose where everyone knows will destroy the economy. In typical Dem fashion, the knives have already been out on Amy K and Joe B. The love seems to be for the socialists. Pick a socialist in an economy that was told by Obama that could never be done (while he had the easiest path to it coming out of a recession), and the flawed Trump will win the election again. But that;s okay. MN can still be in the blue column but still be losers once again and there will continue to be 4 more years of derangement over flawed accusations of rights tramping and crimes that have never been explained nor proven.

      • Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 05/02/2019 - 04:48 pm.

        Words can be funny. Present me with a collection that includes:

        whining
        polarizing
        cheat
        angry
        blaming others
        mocks and insults

        And I immediately think of Trump.

        BTW, as to having an easy time of it coming out of a recession – how easy they forget. It wasn’t “coming out of a recession”, we were on the brink of a depression.

        • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 05/08/2019 - 08:58 am.

          We were in a depression. There was a lot of spin employed to keep from calling it that for a number of reasons, not all of them good.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/02/2019 - 04:51 pm.

        But only Trump thinks that Hillary is still running.

      • Submitted by Nick Foreman on 05/03/2019 - 08:18 am.

        So much talk about socialism. More to worry about fascism.

  6. Submitted by Tim Smith on 05/02/2019 - 01:20 pm.

    Probably not, but this far out from last election no one would have dreamed it would be that close. Much of that had to do with Hillary just not a good candidate. It will depend on dem nominee and where the economy is at mostly.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/02/2019 - 04:53 pm.

      It will also greatly depend on Democratic turnout.
      It was low in 2016 — Trump is doing his best to increase the Democratic turnout in 2020.

      • Submitted by Tim Smith on 05/02/2019 - 05:55 pm.

        Low because no enthusiasm for Hillary..

      • Submitted by Frank Phelan on 05/02/2019 - 08:38 pm.

        He had a great warm up in 2018, let’s hope he really hits his stride next year.

      • Submitted by Solly Johnson on 05/03/2019 - 01:03 am.

        Many young people, who felt cheated by the Clinton nomination in 2016, did not turn out for the general election. Now many college democrats are revolting against DCCC rules, and opposition to Trump probably will not be enough to get them to the polls.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/03/2019 - 09:54 am.

          In 2016, it seemed likely that Senator Clinton would win. In 2020, the prospect of another Trump victory should be enough to get the “leftier than thou” purists to the polls.

  7. Submitted by Brian Simon on 05/02/2019 - 01:56 pm.

    Nobody currently in the race – except the incumbent – has negatives anywhere near those of Sec Clinton. If memory serves, Clinton lost by 1.5% or less in the “blue wall” states mentioned above. Except MN, of course, which stayed blue. There is zero evidence, so far, that any of the dems running will underperform relative to Clinton. The bigger lift will be for Trump, who will need to improve on his 2016 numbers. That will be a tall order.

  8. Submitted by John Evans on 05/02/2019 - 02:31 pm.

    Little evidence? First, the companies that own most of the local media seem to be all in for Trump. Name one that isn’t. Second, I expect that Trump will have a significant fundraising advantage this time.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/03/2019 - 09:13 am.

      His negatives a very strong, which may cancel out his fundraising advantage.

      In fact, his negatives are so strong that many potential donors might think twice about ponying up for him. Rightly or wrongly, they could face a backlash for their unpopular stance.

  9. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 05/02/2019 - 05:05 pm.

    Will Trump win MN? I depends on the behavior of the DFL.

    If the DFL run on a 20 cent a gallon tax increase – among other tax increases – the GOP have a chance.

    Perhaps the DFL tax increases will be rejected this year and the DFL will have a chance – not to lie about their true agenda – but in an act of democracy the 20 cent a gallon tax increase will be “on the ballot” for the poor and the middle class ( suburban voters) as an issue in 2020.

    We will see if the DFL have the courage of their convictions.

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 05/04/2019 - 08:09 am.

      Maybe RG, A different perspective 0n the 20 cent issue. More $ spent in the local economy, improving the local infrastructure, for local (well paying construction jobs) vs.on junk imported from low paying offshore jobs. The state infrastructure is just another perspective on the peoples house, seems like conservatives have little to no interest in keeping the peoples house in good working order.

      • Submitted by Doug Duwenhoegger on 05/06/2019 - 06:36 pm.

        By the time the gas tax takes full effect it will be 2013. It’s also a nearly null sum increase for people that actually vote. 5 cents a gallon wont even be noticed. Speedway locally controls the gas prices. Every Tuesday they raise the price of gas 5 cents. Then every other station follows. This will not effect most Minnesotans.

  10. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 05/02/2019 - 06:40 pm.

    Trump, that is all that needs to be said and many get a visceral reaction to what he has done and is doing to America. My first thought I get when I hear his name is LIAR. Everyone lies from time to time, but with Trump if his lips are moving he is lying. That is not Leadership!

    KIDS IN CAGES and now we find out Trump’s administration does not have any way to reunite kids with their parents. Absolutely HEARTLESS And DEVOID OF COMPASSION. Trump cast them all as rapists and murders to feed his RACISM. That is not Leadership!

    Trump believes the Russians intelligence over his own intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Trump is infatuated with the Russians and it has nothing to do with what’s best for America. In my mind that is CORRUPTION as he is working for himself, not the country. That is not Leadership!

    Trump’s style is DEMEANING. Trump is a highly insecure person so he needs to demean those around him to make himself look and feel better. That is not Leadership!

    Adding to Trump’s list of unenviable attributes are VINDICTIVENESS and IRRATIONAL. That is not Leadership

    Trump is totally INCAPABLE of WORKING WITH OTHERS. Trump models for leadership are the worlds authoritarian dictators. That is not Leadership!

    Trump has an ILLNESS that disqualifies him to lead our nation. The President of the United States of America should not need “guardrails” around him to keep him from doing something stupid, dangerous, heartless, or dangerous. That is not Leadership!

    If these attributes are what you look for in a president you have your IMMATURE boy child to vote for.
    LIAR
    KIDS IN CAGES
    HEARTLESS
    DEVOID OF COMPASSION
    RACISM
    CORRUPT
    DEMEANING
    VINDICTIVENESS
    IRRATIONAL
    INABILITY TO WORK WITH OTHERS
    ILLNESS
    IMMATURE

    There way too many smart Minnesotans that will keep Minnesota BLUE!

  11. Submitted by Tom Christensen on 05/03/2019 - 08:15 am.

    Trump is a name caller as he demeans those he feels are his opponents. I think the name calling he does are the attributes he sees in himself and he tries to overcome his weaknesses by passing them on to others. In reality, Trump’s name calling is a perfect reflection of him. “Little Marco Rubio” reflects how Trump sees himself, “Little”. That is why he always needs to hype how big and grandiose he is. “Nasty Kamala Harris” reflects Trump because he knows that is his personality, Nasty. “Low intelligence” Maxine Waters Reflects Trump as he is the king of self-inflicted wounds and, to quote Trump, “Stupid Ideas”. “Lyin’ Ted”, Now this one is dead center Trump, the LIAR. “Low Energy Jeb”, says the guy who spends most of his time watching TV. “Crooked Hillary” — Pretty Dumb, yup there is Trump in three words, “Crooked”, “Pretty Dumb”. “Crazy Bernie”, Trump is not of sound mind as his narcissism guides his life to do “Crazy” things much to his own detriment. It all boils down to Trump is not capable of being presidential.

    • Submitted by David Lundeen on 05/03/2019 - 10:46 am.

      That’s a good point you make. However, I would push this even further. And I’m quite dismayed that the press really does not pick up on this obvious reality, though (I have no way to prove it) it might be financially not as profitable to do so. Anyone who has taken the time to read about his time in office, and the Mueller report as well, is left with anecdote after anecdote about the lack of respect, and how deeply unqualified Trump is for the position by his own staff. The anecdotes are too numerous to list, but can be found with a simple google search.

      For example, read how the WaPo covers his tweets. You often see the words ‘rage’ or ‘slams’. However, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a rather impotent response to project control over something he has no idea how to control. It’s quite pathetic actually. These tweets need to stop being covered as serious responses, and instead covered as how they should be treated, with outright laughter and contempt.

  12. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 05/03/2019 - 12:37 pm.

    Healthcare, healthcare, healthcare…..

    That is the issue of the next election.

    Trump’s continued attempts to dismantle affordable healthcare and eliminate coverage of pre-existing conditions plus the proposed cuts in Medicare and Medicaid–plus the black-box of the secret healthcare plan to be voted in after the next election. Even people with employer-based insurance are reaching their limit with ever-increasing out-of-pocket expense.

    What party has done nothing but obstruct? What President is actively dismantling what little protection there is ?

    Run with it.

    • Submitted by Tom Christensen on 05/03/2019 - 01:29 pm.

      Every time Trump talks about what he is going to do healthcare the GOP backs away from his comments. They know they have absolutely nothing for healthcare. They have tried to repeal and replace the ACA over 70 times and each time they have come up empty. When Trump talks about it it’s part of his vindictiveness, all because it was called Obamacare. Trump has changed the ACA so now if there is a problem with Healthcare it’s on Trump because it is now called Trumpcare. Healthcare will be part of the election but I think a bigger part will be about the conscience of American. Right now, as a divided country, we don’t know who or what we want to be. We can’t move forward until we figure that out.

  13. Submitted by Hiram Foster on 05/05/2019 - 06:20 am.

    The problem confronting the DFL ,in Minnesota is that in this increasingly polarized political environment, the party doesn’t run particularly well. in rural Minnesota. This is something frequently commented upon, and the subject soul searching among Democrats. What is it that we don not “get”? What is left out in this analysis, is how well the DFL runs in urban and now suburban Minnesota where there are far more than enough votes to out weigh poor results in the rest of the state. In addition there is the state of play in Minnesota politics. Republicans do well in out state not Minnesota not because they have an agenda which serves the interest of outstate voters, but because in an entirely negative way they play to their sense of grievance on a number of issues some real but most mostly imagined. In effect, they are campaigning against the majority of voters in Minnesota, and it’s hard to see how that can ever be an effective electoral strategy.

    I talked about how DFLer’s spend a lot of time thinking about why they don’t run well out state. They have a legislative agenda designed to respond to their issues, an agenda which mostly dies in the Republican controlled senate. But on the other side, note how indifferent Republicans are to the concerns of the cities and the suburbs. They don’t have voters there, they don’t have legislators there, so they don’t really seem to have any concern for the interests of people who live where they don’t live. Until that changes. until rural Republicans get past their affected sense of grievance, until they stop projecting an attitude of of condescension on the city slickers, little will change in the dynamic of Minnesota statewide politics.

  14. Submitted by Andrew Engen on 05/06/2019 - 11:44 am.

    Two other fun facts to demonstrate how blue MN is.

    MN currently also has the longest streak of denying a Republican 50%+1 of the statewide vote. Not that a majority is required to win, but still interesting that compared to all the “bluer” states, we win that title, too. So even when Republicans do manage to win, they can’t get get a majority of voters. (1994, Arne Carlson won re-election with 63.3%. He is now practically a Democrat considering who he has been choosing to endorse.)

    MN is tied for the second longest streak of Democrats winning statewide races. The last time a Republican won statewide was in 2006, when Tim Pawlenty barely won re-election with 46.7% of the vote. (And he was the only GOPer to win that year statewide, the other 4 offices up that year all went DFL.) The longest string of Dem statewide victories currently is NY who last voted for a Republican statewide in 2002 when George Pataki won re-election to the gov’s office with 44.5%.

    I think 2016 was the low point for Democratic performance in the Upper Midwest and it can’t get any worse. And, Democrats won every statewide race during the 2018 elections in MN, WI, MI, and PA. While 2018 was a wave year and Democrats can’t expect that kind of over-performance, that’s extremely telling about Trump’s chances here.

  15. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 05/07/2019 - 09:34 am.

    There appear to be many folks that don’t understand, that they don’t understand, that they don’t understand, and what makes it worse is, they don’t want to understand. It appears they like taking organization and making it dis-organized, chaos is the new norm, they cheer the fall of our government institutions in favor of dictatorial rule and are proud of it. It has been and continues to be disheartening to watch our fellow country men and women, cheer on, racism, sexism, religious bias, and division among-st its peoples, like the slaughter in the gladiators arena, as Maximus would say “are you not entertained”

Leave a Reply