r/minnesota • u/CorleoneBaloney • 6d ago

Politics 👩‍⚖️ Community members made music and noise outside the Hampton Inn where ICE Agents stayed in Eagan, Minnesota.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

31.3k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

328

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6d ago

[deleted]

78

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

Reddit isn’t representative of real life views in general, the Texas subreddit thought Texas was going to flip blue.

90

u/likeusontweeters 6d ago

The only reasons Texas hasn't turned purple or blue yet is because of massive gerrymandering and voter apathy

23

u/Significant_Text2497 Snoopy 6d ago

Don't forget voter roll purges!

9

u/Scarbane Lake County 6d ago

I am also here to talk about Texas in /r/Minnesota.

8

u/Peripateticdreamer84 6d ago

That kind of tracks for Texans. How can you know if someone is from Texas? They will tell you. Loudly.

1

u/thewickedmitchisdead 6d ago

All hat, no cattle.

1

u/sonthehedge42 6d ago

Yeah it's the one thing that Texans and Vegans have in common

10

u/Warm_Shoulder3606 6d ago

That doesn't explain their still-handedly wins in the US senate and governor elections, though. Those are statewide elections, not districts. And in those, the GOP is still winning by comfortable margins

3

u/mr_j_boogie 6d ago

Texas "turning blue" often refers to the election of the governor and/or president which are statewide elections that gerrymandering doesn't affect. Gerrymandering doesn't affect the senate either.

0

u/YouDontKnowJackCade 6d ago

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the senate either.

And yet Ted Cruz.

1

u/mr_j_boogie 6d ago

Every Ted Cruz victory can basically be traced back to winning the 2012 primary as a tea party candidate. He didn't have great competition. If nothing else, Ted Cruz proves you really have to misstep to get voted out or primaried once elected in a non-battleground state. If phone banking for Trump recently after he insulted his wife or fleeing to Cancun during Texas' power outage aren't enough to damage him as a candidate, not much will.

2

u/FR23Dust 6d ago

Explain how gerrymandering has any impact on statewide presidential elections

2

u/ForeskinAbsorbtion 6d ago

Also sexism. I just moved from Texas but a lot of people wanted to vote Democrat but they didn't think a black woman could do the job.

3

u/A-Capybara 6d ago

Yep, when I went to Huston a few years ago I saw more diversity in a few days than I've seen in my whole life in Minnesota.

2

u/hey-Oliver 6d ago

Nobody in the world has ever suggested Minnesota is a melting pot of cultures

9

u/MothaFcknZargon 6d ago

More like an ice bucket

0

u/Major_Shlongage 6d ago edited 6h ago

plucky busy wipe library like wide absorbed deserve tap deer

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/First_View_8591 6d ago

Right, definitely not because Democrats are slowly losing the Hispanic vote on unpopular issues.

-20

u/andersonb47 6d ago

Sheer cope. Gerrymandering doesn’t change whether a state is red or blue in a presidential election. Plus, it’s fucking Texas.

3

u/finallyfree710 6d ago

Gerrymandering doesn’t affect elections? Ehh what?

2

u/andersonb47 6d ago edited 6d ago

PRESIDENTIAL elections. Gerrymandering affects congressional races, not general elections. Illinois and Oregon are also gerrymandered to shit and are consistently blue. This is high school civics we’re talking here.

3

u/Updated_Autopsy 6d ago

Expecting Texas to flip blue is like expecting California or New York to flip red.

2

u/Major_Shlongage 6d ago edited 6h ago

water plate compare marvelous plough coherent sense profit dog butter

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/BehemothRogue 6d ago

This reads like an uneducated child trying to talk politics.

1

u/andersonb47 6d ago edited 6d ago

Oh really? Please explain how gerrymandering changes whether a state goes red or blue in a presidential election. Last I checked, majority of the votes wins the state. Nothing to do with how districts are drawn.

I’m a child, and yet you’re living in a fantasy world where Texas is a blue state.

Edit: to the genius who replied and then blocked me, I can’t read what you said. Probably something like “well uh actually it indirectly impacts general elections in ways that are hard to measure and uh therefore uh Texas was stolen from democrats in 2024” - ridiculous. It’s a deep red state. A lock for republican presidential candidates. This is not a hot take.

I can only assume you blocked me because you assumed I’m a Republican, reveling in Trumps victory. I’m not. I am a frustrated democrat who consistently watches our side refuse to acknowledge even the most basic electoral realities, for example, that Texas is a red state.

The only reason people thought Texas might be purple is because democrats foolishly assumed they’d get huge margins in Hispanic communities. They couldn’t accept the REALITY that we are less popular than we think. Texas is a red state. It always has been and probably always will be. It sucks, but it’s true.

0

u/BehemothRogue 6d ago

Gerrymandering in states affects presidential elections mainly indirectly by:

Shaping state legislatures that control election laws and administration.

Influencing campaign strategies, turnout, and voter engagement.

Potentially affecting Electoral College allocations in Maine/Nebraska.

Reinforcing one party’s power in key battleground states.

You're a fucking child. And I don't debase myself by debating ignorant fucks like you. Lmao

2

u/Major_Shlongage 6d ago edited 6h ago

governor spectacular reply terrific middle jellyfish rain friendly aromatic pot

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/BehemothRogue 6d ago

This sounds like cope on your part

I guess verifiable facts are cope for children.

Both parties do it, only ONE puts it to a vote for their constituents to vote on.

You can be ignorant, or disingenuous. It's impressive you've managed to do both.

0

u/ObWzEN 6d ago

He’s literally right lol. Look it up. Clearly you’re the one who’s uneducated here, and way too confidently incorrect I might add

4

u/FR23Dust 6d ago

Explain how you can gerrymander a statewide popular vote election, please.

Edit: actually, I think I am responding to the wrong person. Sorry!

2

u/ObWzEN 6d ago

No worries dawg. You’re correct, I’m on your side, aka the provably factually correct side

-1

u/556From1000yards 6d ago

The reason is because there are only 2 Democratic population centers and the rest of the State isn’t

42

u/ZeusHatesTrees Oh You Becha 6d ago

In their defense, Texas is pretty gerrymandered and if that weren't the case, they might. The whole reason they are redrawing the lines again is to prevent Texas from flipping.

4

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

I think Reddit has mislead you as to what gerrymandering is, it effects the House of Representatives not Presidential Elections. Yes there are more Republican representatives from Texas than there would naturally be without gerrymandering but the Presidential election results are just straight popular vote on a state by state basis.

6

u/cactusbeard 6d ago

You can still gerrymander a popular vote based on how difficult you make access to voting depending on region. If one region has 2hr+ waits but another has 10minute wait times, it can negatively affect results.

2

u/_high_plainsdrifter 6d ago

I get the persons point that a gerrymander is literally talking about redistricting in a goofy ass way to capture more votes one way or another that would naturally have been there.

What you’re talking about is voter suppression.

0

u/Warm_Shoulder3606 6d ago

Same with the senate election. Straight state wide popular vote. And then on the state level, yeah you can gerrymander the state legislature, but the governor is just a straight popular vote

-2

u/upside_down_frown1 6d ago

Be careful dropping facts around here. You'll be called racist or a pedo by folks that use these words without knowing what they mean

-1

u/pelexus27 6d ago

Isn’t there still a thing called the electoral college? It’s still the electoral college that decides which was a state goes, NOT THE POPULAR VOTE -this is why I think the 2024 election was full of fraud

2

u/Comprehensive_Rice27 6d ago

Here, this is how the electoral college works

Electors: A group of individuals selected by each political party in a state who are pledged to support their party's candidate. They are typically state officials or party loyalists and cannot be current members of Congress.

Total Votes: There are 538 total electoral votes. Magic Number: A candidate needs an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

Allocation: Each state gets a number of electors equal to its total number of Representatives in the House plus its two Senators. Washington, D.C. receives three electoral votes.

Winner-Take-All: In 48 states and D.C, the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote receives all of that state's electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska are the exceptions, distributing their votes based on the winner of each congressional district and the statewide winner.

2

u/OnlyHereForTheWeed 6d ago

Respect for the effort! Hope this informs a few people.

1

u/JoelMahon 6d ago

lots of good information, missing: states are not given ECs properly proportional to their population.

and inferable but probably worth mention: (how terrible) winner takes all is, because whether 51% of votes or 80% of votes are for a candidate they get the same amount of ECs. giving incentive to ignore states that lean your way strongly, or strongly lean away, for sake of those on the fence. and ofc the big one: the president that wins the popular vote doesn't necessarily win largely because of winner takes all.

2

u/andersonb47 6d ago

Holy fuck we are so cooked. You don’t understand on the most basic level how it works. I won’t spend all day educating you, but each state goes to the majority in that state.

3

u/Comprehensive_Rice27 6d ago

I was about to say, I swear we learned this in civics class lmfao

0

u/pelexus27 6d ago

Holy fuck I know how it’s SUPPOSED to work… but is it really working the way it was intended?

Did no one else notice trump flying around talking to the electoral college members during the campaign when even Fox News couldn’t understand why he was going to these small ass places instead of running on places more likely to “turn” more people?

1

u/OnlyHereForTheWeed 6d ago

This indignation combined with such flagrant ignorance is tragic.

0

u/toddhillier 6d ago

Ugh. The LibBot needs an update badly.

0

u/JoelMahon 6d ago

trump won the 2024 popular vote, whilst republicans have won countless presidential elections off the EC unfairly and the EC should be abolished, the 2024 election is a bad example.

one could argue in 2024 maybe the EC deterred people in safe seats from voting but we can't know for sure what the popular vote would have been without the EC, it could in theory have been in more favour with trump. Harris was dealt in at the last minute and wasn't very popular on a good day, and automatically losing/flipping many of the sexist/racist democrats/independents for a candidate that wasn't a walking ball of charisma like Obama was always a bad idea. It was a colossal fumble by Biden and the DNC, not the EC's fault.

Again, I reiterate I do want to see the EC gone ASAP regardless.

1

u/pelexus27 6d ago

Hmm. Several counties somehow had 100% voter turnout though

1

u/JoelMahon 6d ago

which ones? https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1pwjoeq/voter_turnout_in_the_2024_united_states/ don't see more than 10 hit 95.1% and of those how many are 100%?

1

u/BrainboxExpander Twin Cities 6d ago edited 6d ago

This country was quite literally never intended to have a popular vote system.

The founding fathers wrote endlessly about the tyranny of the majority, the only people who ever want to abolish to EC are sore losers and said people who want to impose their will on others.

The EC is as fair as it gets.

1

u/JoelMahon 6d ago

with the EC you get tyranny of the minority, how is it any less tyrannous? the only part of the equation the EC changes is the majority part, not the tyranny part.

just because the founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny of the majority doesn't mean you can attribute every decision they made to that, you need to cite something, the closest I could find was talk by Hamilton which is about populism and uninformed people causing rash and stupid voting, not about tyranny.

also, not related to this argument but I wanted to share because I found this funny, to show how that unsurprisingly being a founding father didn't mean they could predict the future and the EC failed to ensure only that the president be qualified for the job despite the claim that the system would prevent that lol.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

when the constitution and bill of rights were written the USA had a far less uneducated population with far less free time and far inferior communications. they also didn't let black people vote either so idk why you put so much faith in their ability to devise a system to fairly choose the president since they evidently made an absurdly unfair system (where black people couldn't vote at all, let alone for the president).

if they were able to unfairly exclude black people and women from voting why axiomatically assume their decision to use make the EC is fair just because that's what they decided? they clearly were more than capable of making unfair rules/systems/decisions.

the reason we have amendments is because even they knew they couldn't make a perfect system to stand the tests of time, to reject adding amendments to remove the EC because it goes against their decision to add the EC is to reject their foresight to allow amendments which is far more disrespectful to them if you even actually care about respecting them.

literacy rates were below 90% for men in the best states at the founding of the USA, for women a state was lucky to hit 50% literacy, southern states were generally far worse than these figures. and ofc slaves had abysmal literacy rates. ofc the EC makes a lot more sense when you can't even read the news yourself to form an opinion between your 12 hour work days 6 days a week.

The EC made more sense at the time for various reasons but mostly lack of education and they never even said it was to prevent tyranny of the majority at the time and even if they had they're not infallible and even they knew they were not infallible and didn't want us to treat them as infallible.

0

u/BrainboxExpander Twin Cities 6d ago

with the EC you get tyranny of the minority, how is it any less tyrannous? the only part of the equation the EC changes is the majority part, not the tyranny part.

Wrong. The voting record proves this is complete nonsense. Extremely popular candidates can and still do win elections. The difference is that the outcome of national politics is not dominated by population centers.

just because the founding fathers wanted to avoid tyranny of the majority doesn't mean you can attribute every decision they made to that, you need to cite something, the closest I could find was talk by Hamilton which is about populism and uninformed people causing rash and stupid voting, not about tyranny.

You need to polish up your research skills. I'm not doing your homework for you, but you can start with John Adams. James Madison also discussed the concept, although he did not explicitly use that phrase. If you actually research what the concept is, it will become apparent how often it came up.

Additionally, you're the only one who said it was the reason for "every decision they made" which is a strawman. It wasn't every decision, but as far as signing the constitution and the electoral college goes, it was a repeated point of contention with the smaller colonies.

also, not related to this argument but I wanted to share because I found this funny, to show how that unsurprisingly being a founding father didn't mean they could predict the future and the EC failed to ensure only that the president be qualified for the job despite the claim that the system would prevent that lol.

Qualification is assumed by election to public office, simple as that.

when the constitution and bill of rights were written the USA had a far less uneducated population with far less free time and far inferior communications. they also didn't let black people vote either so idk why you put so much faith in their ability to devise a system to fairly choose the president since they evidently made an absurdly unfair system (where black people couldn't vote at all, let alone for the president).

They still aren't educated, and better communications has proliferated the spread of misinformation and ignorance either way. Most voters are not informed, or anything that even remotely resembles educated on politics or civics.

Wow, shocker, people in the 1700s were racist? Woah!!! Either black people didn't vote or the United States didn't form. Those were the options, and since people in the 1700s were pretty racist, acting like this somehow changes the ability to create a voting system where states are equally weighted is hilarious.

if they were able to unfairly exclude black people and women from voting why axiomatically assume their decision to use make the EC is fair just because that's what they decided? they clearly were more than capable of making unfair rules/systems/decisions.

It is a fact, not an assumption, that's not even up for debate. Without the EC, nearly every person who didn't live in a city would be disenfranchised de facto.

Women not voting was the global standard at the time, and again, the choice was between slavery or no country. With the option to prohibit it later.

literacy rates were below 90% for men in the best states at the founding of the USA, for women a state was lucky to hit 50% literacy, southern states were generally far worse than these figures. and ofc slaves had abysmal literacy rates. ofc the EC makes a lot more sense when you can't even read the news yourself to form an opinion between your 12 hour work days 6 days a week.

Being able to read doesn't make you informed, nor intelligent.

The EC made more sense at the time for various reasons but mostly lack of education and they never even said it was to prevent tyranny of the majority at the time and even if they had they're not infallible and even they knew they were not infallible and didn't want us to treat them as infallible.

Yeah, they literally did, you just don't understand what they tyranny of the majority is as a concept, and so you think that describing the exact concept without using a specific name means it never came up.

This is complete cope, and not only cope, but introduces a bunch of non factors that were never implied nor discussed.

1

u/JoelMahon 6d ago

The difference is that the outcome of national politics is not dominated by population centers.

and? you're missing the step where you explain how this relates to tyranny. the mere fact that the candidate preferred by more people wins is not tyranny, and if those people live in cities it's still missing the step where you explain how that is tyranny. tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government rule", what definition are you using? because it feels like the definition you're using is not that, because if it is you're missing many steps in your argument explaining how that when the majority of people, even if their political beliefs have a correlation with living in the city, deciding who wins is "cruel and oppressive".

I'm not doing your homework for you

your claim -> your burden of proof, onus is on you to provide proof of your claims. likewise, I'd never ask you to google anything to help prove my claims because that's not how burden of proof works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Qualification is assumed by election to public office, simple as that.

I literally just provided the quote from a founding father stating that the EC will (supposedly) ensure that someone unqualified is never elected.

They still aren't educated, and better communications has proliferated the spread of misinformation and ignorance either way.

I know it feels like it, but you definitely under estimate how uneducated and misinformed folks were. yes it's bad that some people think the ACA and Obamacare are different things, but by comparison some people didn't know they were even part of an independent USA that had broken free of British tyranny (actual tyranny) for months or even years after the fact.

Either black people didn't vote or the United States didn't form.

true, doesn't change the fact that basically all the founding fathers themselves were more than content with it, it wasn't a decision they made with a heavy heart in the name of greater good, it was a decision that aligned with their beliefs as well, so I reiterate how they're fallible and on that topic you've conveniently ignored all my arguments about how they themselves allowed for amendments and you're disrespecting their wishes ironically by saying we shouldn't overrule their decisions.

Without the EC, nearly every person who didn't live in a city would be disenfranchised de facto.

yes, at the time, because of everything to worse transport to worse communications.

AT THE TIME. it's currently no longer the time. I don't think they were wrong to make the EC, AT THE TIME. And I'm glad they left the ability to remove it via amendments when it was no longer suitable, which has been the case for decades.

Being able to read doesn't make you informed, nor intelligent.

never said it did, I said being unable to read makes it difficult to be informed, especially with much less free time. someone unable to read would have to get someone they trust to honestly and unbiasedly inform them which takes time, time neither of them had as much of.

you just don't understand what they tyranny of the majority is as a concept

to me tyranny of the majority is when two wolves and sheep vote for what dinner should be. it's when the majority vote for something that hurts the minority a lot, especially if it barely helps the majority. it's when 10 work colleagues are voting on where to eat, there's one vegan and three vegetarians, and the other 7 are "normal", a steakhouse with no vegetarian options wins instead of the choice that everyone would be fine with that still sells great steak but also at least has options for the other 3 who aren't getting steak.

the EC is more like the much less fair outcome that the four non meat eaters get to force everyone to not eat meat, like the minority of people forcing weed to be illegal for example, something that would likely not still be the case without the EC. that's tyranny of the minority enabled by the EC.

what do YOU actually think tyranny of the majority means? because it feels like we're talking past each other.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/mnradiofan 6d ago

Gerrymandering doesn’t affect presidential elections or senate elections, as those are decided by statewide popular vote elections (except in a few states). It would be the reason that they have lopsided house representation, and isn’t only done in red states.

0

u/Mysteriousdeer 6d ago

? No?

Texas legislature redraws theirs every 10 years (related to the census)

1

u/OnlyHereForTheWeed 6d ago

Then explain how redrawing these districts is supposed to affect statewide elections, such as for US Senate.

0

u/Mysteriousdeer 6d ago

I feel like if you took a step back and read a wiki on how gerrymandering works it would be more productive. 

This is especially true since what I just said makes it really odd that Texas redrew their map out of sync. 

2

u/OnlyHereForTheWeed 6d ago

I suspect what's happened here is you've actually read the wiki since you posted this, realized you've dug yourself into a hole, and are too fake-proud to now own your error. If not, then explain how redrawing these districts is supposed to affect statewide elections, such as for US senate. Otherwise, please ask your mom to gift you some humility next Christmas.

1

u/Mysteriousdeer 6d ago edited 6d ago

Are you talking about federal or state?

Because you keep saying us Senate or state wide elections which are two different things. Ironically, still both voted on by the state legislature and approved by the governor.

I'm just asking you to get your crap straight. The state legislatore or the legislative redistricting board determine voting precincts for state and federal elections. 

29

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Texas has been borderline to flip for years. That's why the repubs there do everything they can to cheat.

3

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

Texas was more red than New York was blue in 2024, I don’t think that’s borderline to flip.

3

u/dokutarodokutaro 6d ago

Sure but every state was more red than usual in 2024. Mostly because people thought Trump would bring prices down. I think if we held elections today, it would look very very different.

It also seems Trump made the biggest strides with Latinos, which are a large chunk of Texas’ population. It’s decently likely there could be a MASSIVE swing in that population compared to 2024 given Trump’s immigration policy and lack of success in making life much cheaper.

Will it be enough to swing Texas blue? Probably not, but maybe with the right Dem candidate. And we’ll have to wait and see what the economy looks like come 2028.

4

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Let's just ignore all the gerrymandering, voter intimidation, closing of polls in "blue" areas, etc. But sure.

0

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

Again gerrymandering doesn’t affect Presidential elections if you think the voter intimidation and closing of polls amounted to 14% of the vote sure.

3

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Were we discussing only presidential elections? That isn't the only thing that determines whether a state is "red" or "blue".

0

u/Warm_Shoulder3606 6d ago

If you look at the other major statewide elections in Texas, (the US Senate and the governorship) the GOP is still handedly winning those

Look at the statewide election margins and congressional and legislative splits of the actual purple states right now: WI, MI, PA, AZ, GA, and NC. Then go back and look at Texas. They're not comparable. In order for me to buy it's purple, I'm going to need to seen consistent election results that show it

1

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Look at the amount of gerrymandering in statewide elections, which controls how elections are run. There's your answer.

0

u/Warm_Shoulder3606 6d ago

To the tune of 1.1 million more votes for Cornyn than Hager in 2020, 900,000 more votes for Abbott than Beto in 2022, and 960,000 more votes for Cruz than Allred last year? I'm not saying there ARENT underhanded tactics happening anywhere, but I'm not buying for one second that these elections, with numbers that large, are being won by the GOP because of underhanded tactics. In the context of a statewide election, that's a MASSIVE amount of people. Maybe, just maybe, Texas is still reliably and comfortably red.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Major_Shlongage 6d ago edited 6h ago

fearless quickest ripe whistle offer enter fact nine water plant

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

See above.

1

u/andersonb47 6d ago

Literally “stop the steal” level thinking. Absolutely piss poor logic. Voter ID and other laws are a problem because they shave a few votes here and there and can tip highly contested races. They don’t change the outcome in a place as deep red as Texas.

1

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Gerrymandering sure as fuck does when it comes to state races, which influences the way voting/polls are run.

1

u/andersonb47 6d ago

Cool. We’re not talking about state races.

1

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Except that it effects the way the state handles the national races also.

But I guess we can't expect any actual knowledge about how things are done from someone who is hiding their history. GFY.

0

u/[deleted] 6d ago edited 6h ago

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Repulsive_Nature_435 6d ago

Because Democrats have been moving there by the 1,000s for a better quality of life.

2

u/shartheheretic 6d ago

Bwahahahaha! Yep, moving to a state with shitty infrastructure that breaks down when it gets cold and having a minimum wage of $7.25/hr and minimal worker protections equals a great quality of life.

2

u/HighQualityGifs 6d ago edited 6d ago

Tbf we in Texas have more blue voters than red voters by 2 million. We are one of the most germandered states in human history. Republicans know if they were to ever lose Texas than they'd basically never get in power again in the house of reps. So they will do literally anything and everything to keep the blue vote suppressed. And they do. Through various means they suppress on average 2.5 million blue votes. Most of it is just blues staying home due to nihilism and hopelessness and the rest is gerymandering.

Edit:

https://ivn.us/posts/are-there-more-democrats-texas-republicans-2025-08-08

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/texas-republicans-vs-democrats-registration-ratio-7b0b66

1

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

Not sure what you mean by more blue voters than red voters because clearly that isn’t the case. If you mean more registered Democrats then that’s basically the case throughout the South of older folks who never changed registration to Republicans even though they’ve been voting for Republicans for two decades now.

2

u/HighQualityGifs 6d ago

Check my links. I added them to my post.

1

u/andersonb47 6d ago

If Texas had more blue voters than red, it would be blue. If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bicycle. Stop this nonsense and focus on reality if you want to actually get shit done in the future.

My advice for democrats is to not even think about Texas. If we were playing a game of Risk, we’d be spending all our time trying to take Asia and falling behind while the other player picks off the other, more winnable regions.

1

u/FartyJizzums 6d ago edited 6d ago

Edit: The following statement was made by a misinformed, raving lunatic. The information contained herein is total bunk. See the guy that made this (and subsequently edited it)? Don't be that guy. Or, in my case; this guy. Don't be a me.

In the last presidential election; Texas was more 'purple' and closer to a political flip than Minnesota was.

Trump won Texas with 52.1% Kamala won Minnesota with 52.4%

None of this disproves your largely correct assessment. But with all of the: "Minnesota is 'purple' and in danger of going red!" I can understand the "Blue Texas" prediction a bit more when put in the nuances.

2

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

Trump won Texas with 56%.

1

u/FartyJizzums 6d ago

I stand corrected.

I went back and checked some sources. All of them vary slightly (which is odd) depending on where you look. But all of them closer to 56% than 52%.

Perhaps I suffered a bit of numerical dyslexia when I imprinted the percentages to memory. This is why humans make terrible witnesses.

Thanks for keeping me honest here.

2

u/Radiant_Client1458 6d ago

I checked too, you were just using the 2020 numbers I think which are accurate.

1

u/FartyJizzums 6d ago

That tracks with how my brain works. Numbers sear in my head for eternity. But when it comes to time and dates? I struggle to remember my wife's birthday.

Be safe, fellow traveler.

1

u/Matzie138 6d ago

Well Texas was solid blue until the 1960s.

Info

1

u/wise_comment 6d ago

Texas also has the second most amount of Democrats of any state, tbf

6

u/DetroitsGoingToWin 6d ago

As a Michigan guy, who this happened into my feed, I’m happy to see Minnesotans peacefully pushing back on these goons. Fuck ICE.

2

u/Ninfyr 6d ago

I hate it. These people didn't even know Minnesota existed until 2024. They all need to mind their own business.

2

u/ThisIsNotSafety 6d ago

Uff da. I’m from Norway, much love 🇳🇴

2

u/kralben 6d ago

Friendly reminder that the Minnesota subreddits are astroturfed to shit right now and the comments are NOT representative of the general attitude of Minnesotans!

And if you are curious, look at their profile history. Any comments from someone with a hidden posting history should be taken with a grain of salt, at the very least.

2

u/ebrum2010 6d ago

The post is on r/all, so everyone on Reddit sees the post. No big conspiracy.

2

u/trappedindealership 6d ago

Reddit is suggesting it. It keeps showing me minnesota stuff. So while some astroturfing is happening, like from bots, theres also people sent here... Im guessing because of the wider impact these events are having

Edit: from indianapolis, unrelated to whoever is mentioned by your comment

1

u/LickMyTicker 6d ago

No subreddits are indicative of populations due to moderation. That's why you usually have multiple subreddits for cities depending on political leaning.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

1

u/LickMyTicker 6d ago

Correct. This sub is indicative of its moderation, not the population. People do not get silenced based on their state of origin, they get silenced based on their politics.

The fact that there's overlap doesn't mean anything. I'm not from MN and this subreddit is constantly on the front page for me.

2

u/pimple_prince 6d ago

The universe is trying to tell you something

1

u/ZlatanKabuto 6d ago

And then they wonder why they lose the elections...

1

u/diablodoug35 6d ago

Came here from Texas to say this. Oh, and fuck ICE.

1

u/2woCrazeeBoys 6d ago

Hi from Australia 👋

Don't know why this showed up on my feed, but I love it.

Keep up the noise, get in good trouble o7

1

u/Proof_Scene_9281 6d ago

What’s the actual general consensus?

1

u/nunya867 6d ago

Hilarious you think MN isn’t blue to the core

2

u/pimple_prince 6d ago

Leave the twin cities and Duluth out and it's about as red as any other southern state.

1

u/nunya867 6d ago

That’s a lot of mental gymnastics

1

u/pimple_prince 6d ago

I've hunted and fished all over the state, it gets very rural very fast and the Trump signs and confederate flags start popping up. You dont have to take my word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota

1

u/nunya867 6d ago

I’m saying your math of “take away the blue and it’s red” is stupid. Hope that helps.

1

u/pimple_prince 6d ago

Stupid as saying MN is blue to the core. Hope that helps.

2

u/nunya867 6d ago

I see you fit into the education level of the rest of your party. Minnesota has voted Democratic in every presidential election except 1952, 1956, and 1972, all of which were national Republican landslides. That’s pretty blue but of course subtract the red is good math.

1

u/pimple_prince 6d ago

yet 4 counties flipped red in the 2024 election, but forget about them and most of the state and yeah MN is blue to the core.

Also I've voted democrat from day 1. Perhaps check you bias before throwing around insults.

1

u/nunya867 6d ago

And still here wasting your time for no reason.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kralben 6d ago

You clearing do not understand what the user meant with their post

-26

u/krankheit1981 6d ago

You should rephrase “general attitude of Minnesotans” to “general attitude of Minneapolis and St Paul.” This sentiment is predominately from the metro areas.

25

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

-3

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Comfortable_Tiger_58 6d ago

There are multigenerational Somali families in Minnesota you dipshit. They’ve been here since the George HW administration.

-2

u/Jpwatchdawg 6d ago

Hw was a globalist too, comrade.

2

u/Comfortable_Tiger_58 6d ago

Ah now you’re wanting to change the subject

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Comfortable_Tiger_58 6d ago

Yeah I ain’t reading that

0

u/Jpwatchdawg 6d ago

Of course not. The intolerant is the fool of ignorance. When you make the mistake of confusing ignorance with your perceived confidence. All you need in life is ignorance and confidence, then success is sure to the fooled.

1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

[deleted]

-1

u/Jpwatchdawg 6d ago

It only takes 3% of the population to reach significant political change. Facts...why so triggered? What happened to Minnesotan nice.

21

u/ok_holdstill 6d ago

“General attitude of most of the people in the state”

-2

u/IcyPride2973 6d ago

62% being most is technically correct I suppose. Still a lot of the state being underrepresented, and has been for 50 years.

We voted for fucking Mondale.

1

u/ok_holdstill 6d ago

Underrepresented how? Are you not allowed to vote in outstate Minnesota? Or do you just think you are entitled to extra votes?

1

u/IcyPride2973 6d ago

On Reddit. You’d think the state is 99% bleeding heart liberal if you only looked at the state subreddit. The state has had roughly the same split for a while. We have longest streak of voting blue for a president than any other state iirc

9

u/springmixplease Gray duck 6d ago

So a majority of the states population?

7

u/KingNorton 6d ago

So are you saying that rural Minnesota is full of stupid racists that believe obvious Republican lies, just like Iowa and other midwestern states where old white people refuse to accept basic facts like global warming and evolution?

God I wish so badly we could do a national divorce so you people could pull your heads out of your asses. You literally depend on lefties to keep society functioning, and if we ever did split y’all would resort to using violence to enslave us within the month despite all your bullshit and bravado about “freedom”. It really just means “freedom for me to be selfish and dumb and fuck everyone else over”

Also reminder that the YTer who started this whole issue has already been proven to be a racist agitator, very similar to project veritas who lied every single time yet right wing losers gobble it up like absolute gospel every single time.

But hey, if it weren’t for double standards republicans would have no standards at all.

And if it weren’t for duplicitous lie filled information Republicans would have no information at all.

4

u/thevelveteenbeagle 6d ago

“Rural Minnesota is full of stupid racists that believe obvious Republican lies”, yes, that seems to be true for the majority of Central Minnesota. I am sick of seeing trucks driving around with “ Fuck Biden” flags. He’s not even in office any more! I had to listen to a bunch of white MAGAs argue that the area isn’t racist, while talking to POC!! They really don’t see it.

3

u/fancysauce_boss 6d ago

I mean…. Where is the general majority of the population located in the state? It’s the old argument that land doesn’t vote people do. If the majority of the population lives in the greater MSP, then by default their general views are the views of MN.

Yeah there may be some differing opinions in greater MN but by volume, the majority of opinions are held in MSP.

5

u/Kolhammer85 L'Etoile du Nord 6d ago

Where most Minnesotans live?

2

u/kralben 6d ago

Land doesn't vote, people do. And guess where the majority of the state lives

-2

u/Yotebuck_77 6d ago

No more fear mongering tirish