I live in Minneapolis, and I'm a bit tired of the pundit blather -- including here on Daily Kos -- that claims Minnesota is a swing state.
Doing so would require a pretty broad definition of "swing state" in my opinion. Here are the real stats from Wikipedia about how often Minnesota is a "blue state," and how often its a "red state":
- 2004, one of 19 blue states
- 2000, one of 20 blue states
- 1996, one of 30 blue states
- 1992, one of 32 blue states
- 1988, one of 10 blue states
- 1984, Regan landslide: the only blue state in the country!
- 1980, one of 6 blue states
- 1976, one of 23 blue states
- 1972, Nixon landslide: one of 49 red states
- 1968, one of 13 blue states
- 1964, one of 44 blue states
- 1960, one of 22 blue states
Besides Eisenhower and Nixon, Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican president in 80 years.
We do, however, like a nice balance of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the House. We know how the Washington game is played, and never put too many eggs in one basket. But as far as the presidential campaign goes? Please. We're no more a swing state than New York or California.
Some say, well what if Minnesota Governor Pawlenty was McCain's running mate? Wouldn't that make Minnesota a swing state? Nope. A recent poll by NPR shows that it would have little effect. In fact, having Pawlenty as VP makes Minnesotans less likely to vote for McCain!
So can we stop calling Minnesota a swing state please???
Or at least require pundits to provide some kind of compelling evidence to the contrary???
UPDATE: One commenter suggested that the "swing state" status is because Democrats took the state by less than 3.5%. True... but Minnesotans also vote for 3rd parties at nearly twice the national rate... mainly because we all feel the Presidential race is predetermined. Which also explains Jesse Ventura! If that didn't happen, Minnesota is safely out of the "swing state" territory. Meaning if Republicans ever did take Minnesota, we'd be shook up, and stay blue for a looooooong time.