Category Archives: Polling

Who is the MN GOP Representing on Gun Background Checks?

Posted on by
Reply

In politics, presidential candidates who win the support of over 60% of Americans are said to have won overwhelming “landslide” victories.  Harding’s 60.3% in 1920. FDR’s 60.8% in 1936. Johnson’s 61.1% in 1964. and Nixon’s 60.7% in 1972.  Landslides!

It is so difficult to get 60% of Americans to agree on politics, that such “landslide victories” are considered highly unusual indications of a historically overwhelming level of public sentiment.

In Minnesota right now, Minnesotans of all walks of life, including Republicans, Independents, gun owners and Greater Minnesota citizens, are giving a landslide victory to gun background checks:

The Minnesota Republicans’ point person on this issue, State Representative Tony Cornish (R-Vernon Center) shrugs off this Star Tribune Minnesota Poll with a cavalier “nobody really believes those polls.”

  • Or this poll — CNN/ORC (89% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Quinnipiac (91% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Morning Joe/Marist (87% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — CBS (90% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Fox News (85% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — ABC/Washington Post (90% support support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Pew/USA Today (83% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — University of Connecticut (69% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Gallup (91% support background checks)?
  • Or this poll — Associated Press-GfK (84% support background checks)?

For those who quibble about question wording, these polls all asked the question a bit differently.

For those who argue methodology, these polls all reached a different randomized sample of respondents, and relied on different methodologies.

For those who worry about sponsorship bias, these polls were sponsored by a wide variety of news outlets and academic institutions.

For those who stress that polls are blunt instruments, these polls did not find slim margins that conceivably could be slightly off.  They found support levels that are between 10 and 30 points higher than “landslide” threshold of support.

Make no mistake, on the issue of universal gun background checks, Minnesota Republicans are choosing to represent the will of NRA lobbyists over the will of the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans, including gun owners, Republicans, Independents and Greater Minnesota citizens.

Frankly, Minnesotans, Republicans just aren’t just not that into you.

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Norm Coleman To Return To His DFL Roots?

Posted on by
2

Former St. Paul Mayor and U.S. Senator Norm Coleman is nothing if not flexible.

  • When  leftist radicals were de rigueur in the 1960s, Norm 1.0 was a leftist radical.
  • When Skip Humphrey and Bill Clinton were on top of the political world, Norm 2.0 clung to them and the rest of the Democratic establishment.
  • When the easier path to higher office appeared to be through the GOP, Coleman retrofitted into GOP Norm 3.0.
  • When the Tea Partiers became power brokers, Norm 3.0 dutifully donned a tri-corner hat, formed a Super PAC to fund Tea Party-backed candidates, and endorsed Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann for, I kid you not, Vice President.

Then in 2012,  the going got tough for Senator Coleman and Tea Partiers, so the tough got a poll. In a St. Paul Pioneer Press commentary this week, Coleman advises Minnesotans  that he is in possession of scientific evidence indicating that “Minnesotans are not anti-government.”

New Norm

Accordingly, Senator Coleman is now telling his fellow Republicans that they should be more like him, Norm 2.5, center-right Norm.  Specifically,  Coleman’s commentary calls for his conservative followers to adopt a brand of conservatism that is “intent on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government,” while “ensuring that those who most need help in our society are able to have the support they need.”

This evolution is welcome news.  In the past Senator Coleman and his party often chose to perform his government repairs with a wrecking ball rather than WD-40.  For instance, in a 2005 vote Senator Coleman, according to www.ontheissues.com, voted to “reduce federal spending by $40 billion over five years by decreasing the amount of funds spent on Medicaid, Medicare, agriculture, employee pensions, conservation, and student loans.”

“It’s time to listen to what Minnesotans want”

But now Coleman’s commentary tells his followers that “it’s time for conservatives to listen to what Minnesotans want.”  Recent public opinion surveys tell us in no uncertain terms “what Minnesotans want:”

(Incidentally,  opinions’ on guns, marriage equality, voting restrictions, abortion, stem cell research and other social issues also are leaning decidedly left these days, but Coleman wants conservatives to de-emphasize social issues, so we will ignore “what Minnesotans want” on social issues for the purposes of this discussion.)

In other words, “listening to what Minnesotans want” leads Senator Coleman, after all these years in the political wilderness, back to the Democratic Party agenda.

Welcome home, Senator Coleman.  Welcome home.

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Star Tribune Survey Delivers Mixed News for Dayton Tax Package

Posted on by
3

For Governor Dayton’s bold package of tax increases, there was more good news than bad in the Star Tribune’s Minnesota Poll, released yesterday.

Bad News for Dayton

  • Bye Bye Professional Services Tax.  Only 28% of Minnesotans support a sales tax on business services.  With only 36% of DFLers supporting this idea, and an army of special interests mobilized against it, this part of the Governor’s budget is in deep political trouble.

So-So News for Dayton

The news is not universally awful on the services sales tax front, though:

  • Personal Services Tax?  Maybe.  While a sales tax on professional services is unpopular (28% support), a sales tax on “personal services such as haircuts and auto repair” has considerably more support (45% support, 48% oppose).  Interestingly, the difference between the DFL (44% support) and GOP (40% support) is nearly within the poll’s 3.5% margin of error.  To me, this is the most surprising finding.  This is politically difficult, but it may not be out-of-reach yet.

Good News for Dayton

On most other issues where the Governor and the GOP are battling fiercely, Minnesotans are siding with the Governor:

  • Wealthy Tax Rallies the Base.  A  majority (54%), though not an overwhelming one, support “raising state income taxes on married couples with taxable income over $250,000 and single filers with taxable income over $150,000.”  There is a ginormous partisan gap on this issue – 82% support among DFLers, and 37% support among GOPers.  Independents are in a statistical dead heat – 43% support and 45% oppose.  This is the defining partisan issue of our times.
  • All Over It Like A Cheap Suit.  About half (49%) of Minnesotans support instituting a sales tax on clothing items costing more than $100, while 42% oppose.  Even 44% of Republicans support this strategy, along with two-thirds of DFLers.  Interestingly, women (57% support) are much more likely to support the clothing sales tax proposal than men (40% support).
  • Last Call for Alcohol.  If Dayton, who has been open about the fact that he is a recovering alcoholic, needs to backfill for the loss of revenue from the demise of the services sales tax , an alcohol tax is a popular alternative that Dayton has not yet embraced.  Six-out-ten (61%) Minnesotans support “raising the state tax on alcohol in place of other proposed tax increases.”  Interestingly, there is a two-to-one gender gap on this issue, with women more likely to say “cheers” to the idea.
  • Tobacco Tax Support A Foregone Conclusion.  The Star Tribune didn’t even bother to poll on the Governor’s lifesaving tobacco tax proposal, probably because the public has been so overwhelmingly supportive in past polls.

Bottom line:  While part of the services sales tax looks to be toast, Dayton has pretty solid  support for most of the rest of his tax package.  In a state where tax increases have been considered politically radioactive for many years, Dayton has  reason to feel good about that.  At the moment, the data suggest Minnesota is a fairly progressive place.

- Loveland

Teacher LIF0 Reform: Weirdest. Politics. Ever.

Posted on by
10

Minnesota remains one of the few states in the nation that requires decisions about which public school teachers to hire, promote or  lay off to be made solely based on seniority, and not teacher performance measures, such as student progress or principal evaluations.  DFL Governor Dayton and the DFL-contolled Legislature want to keep it that way.

The DFL has faired well at the polls recently, but Minnesotans aren’t tracking with the DFL on this “last in, first out (LIFO)” issue.  The education reform group MinnCan commissioned a poll which put the following statement in front of a random sample of Minnesotans: “If teacher layoffs are required, seniority should be considered, but the primary factor in deciding which teachers to layoff should be based on teacher performance.”  An overwhelming 91% of Minnesotans support that notion (68% strongly support, 23% somewhat support), while just 9% oppose it (4% strongly oppose, 5% somewhat oppose).

The DFL majority in the Legislature  not only rejects making teacher performance the “primary factor” in layoff decisions, as the previously mentioned survey statement phrased it, it rejects making teacher performance even one of the factors considered in such decisions.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration’s Education Secretary of Education Arne Duncan agrees with 91% of Minnesotans:

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said seniority alone shouldn’t determine which teachers are let go during budget cuts. But he wouldn’t say whether seniority should be among several factors when it comes to layoffs.

“You have to make sure the teachers that are having the biggest impact on students’ lives have the opportunity to do that work,” he said.

Duncan was responding to a direct question from WNYC about whether, all things being equal, a teacher with 10 years’ experience should stay over a teacher with one year in the event of layoffs.

Think about this odd, odd political scenario for a minute.  I can’t name another issue where the DFL leaders are simultaneously at odds with over 90% of their constituents and the popular Obama Administration. Politically speaking, that simply does not happen very often, if ever.  In fact, if anyone can name another issue in recently memory that mirrors this scenario, I’d love to hear it.  Weirdest.  Politics. Ever.

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs and MinnPost’s Blog Cabin.

Really, Pioneer Press?

Posted on by
Reply

When South Dakota Governor Bill Janklow and Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich were taking verbal shots at each other in the early 1980s about business climate, that was news, mostly because Janklow and Perpich were the highest ranking elected officials of their respective states, and because in those days neighboring Governors  were typically genteel with each other.  This was something new.

But today the St. Paul Pioneer Press ran a breathless piece on its front page, above the fold, about a relatively obscure Tea Party-backed state legislator, Wisconsin State Rep. Erik Serverson (R-Osceola), who wrote a little letter taking a shot at Minnesota about taxes.

A Tea Partier griping about taxes.  Gee, I’ve never heard that before.  Seriously, this is news, Pioneer Press?  It would have been news if this Tea Partier wasn’t opposing Dayton’s tax reform plan.

If the Pioneer Press wants to put something like this in its political blog, an editorial, a Soucheray snark-o-gram or as a News Brief item, fine.  But front page news?  Above the fold?  Twenty-seven column inches?  Wow.

I know that the Pioneer Press is trying soooo hard to make itself into the conservative alternative to the Star Tribune.  (See it’s shameful editorial last fall in favor of banning gay marriage.)  That strikes me as an curious business decision for a publication serving one of the most liberal areas of the state — Obama won Ramsey County by 35 points in 2012, and won in neighboring Washington and Dakota Counties as well.

Still, taking a highly predictable pot shot from a low-level Tea Party-affiliated legislator and making it into front page news strains the bounds of journalistic credibility.

- Loveland

Note:  The post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

 

Can Norm Coleman Recover From His Recent Tea Party Cheerleading Role?

Posted on by
4

So, Norm Coleman won’t rule out a run for Minnesota Governor.  Well, let’s see, what has Norm been doing to ingratiate himself with Minnesota voters since he lost to Al Franken in 2008?  He:

1)   Moved out of Minnesota at the first opportunity.

2)   Became a Super PAC (Congressional Leadership Fund) political hit man doing the dirty work for a group of Tea Party-controlled House members sporting a 9% approval rating, an all-time historic low.

3)   Promoted Michele Bachman, Minnesota’s most irresponsible Tea Partier and McCarthyite, to serve a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Over the last four years, Norm bought into the Tea Party scene lock, stock and Bushmaster barrel.

So, how is Coleman’s Tea Party cheerleading role selling back in moderate Minnesota, a blue state which recently gave Democratic President Obama a relatively easy 8-point victory?  Not well.  In 2008, Norm Coleman only lost to Senator Al Franken by a small fraction of one percent.  But after watching Coleman go all Tea Party the last few years, Minnesotans now choose Al over Norm by a comfortable 7% margin.

Norm Coleman would be a better gubernatorial candidate for Republicans than, say, Kurt Bills or Michele Bachmann.  But that isn’t saying much.   Norm in 2013 is a much weaker candidate than he was when he lost in 2008 to a highly flawed DFL challenger.  His Super PAC adventures have further besmirched his image in recent years.  Minnesotan Republicans could do much better with a fresh face.

A Kinda Sorta Retraction on Constitutional Amendments

Posted on by
Reply

A while back, a communications strategist for the Minnesota House Republicans took umbrage with my assertion that the 2012 GOP-controlled Legislature had a historically low approval rating of 17% in part because Republican legislators were:

“Wasting all their time on constitutional amendments to limit Minnesotans’ freedoms to marry and vote.”

He took exception with my use of the word “all.”  To his credit, the Umbrage Taker was wielding supportive data, which earned him extra credit in my book.  I have no reason to dispute the data, and found them interesting, so I am happy to share them to hereby clear the record:

Wry Was Wrong

In light of this evidence, the Republican Wry reader asked for a correction.  I will oblige.   Using “all” in that sentence was incorrect.   I apologize for my mistake.

But…

While the “all” part of the statement was incorrect, I maintain that the overall spirit of the statement was correct.

While legislators weren’t wasting “all” of their time on these two issues, they certainly were wasting too much of their time.  The non-partisan League of Women Voters has shown that Minnesota basically has no voter fraud problem to fix.  At the same time, nine states have shown us that marriage equality poses no threat to citizens.   Spending any legislative time on solutions in search of problems is wasteful.

Finally, though the supplied data shows that the GOP legislators’ measures didn’t waste much of THEIR time on these issues, it is worth noting that they wasted plenty of OUR time.  The Legislature passed the policymaking buck to 2.9 million Minnesota voters, which meant that we had to spend exorbitant numbers of hours and dollars on these issues.

We didn’t much like it.  Those issues hurt Republicans with the swing voters they needed to win over.  According to a November 2012 Public Policy Polling survey, only 34% of self-identified moderates were with the Republicans on gay marriage, and only 38% voted were with them on voter restrictions.

But again, it is true that Republicans didn’t spend “all” of their legislative time on those two amendments, so I apologize.

(I never was very good at apologies.)

- Loveland

Note:  This blog was also featured by Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

Minnesota Republicans And That Old Egyptian River

Posted on by
Reply

“It’s not that Republicans have the wrong message…” - Amy Koch, GOP Former Senate Majority Leader

“As I read you some state spending cuts being considered to fix the budget deficit, please tell me which one would be most acceptable to you.

8%:  Reducing health care assistance for lower income people, the elderly and disabled
13%: Reducing aid to cities and counties
15%: Reducing aid to colleges and universities”

Star Tribune Minnesota Poll

“…it is how we are delivering the message…” – Koch

“By a whopping 2-1 margin, Minnesotans blame the Republicans who control both houses of the Legislature for the recent government shutdown more than they blame Gov. Mark Dayton, according to a poll taken this week for MinnPost.

Among independents, 46 percent “blamed” the Republicans, 18 percent blamed Dayton and 25 percent both.” - MinnPost/Daves Poll

“…and who is delivering the message.” – Koch

“A KSTP/USA poll released last week showed that just 17 percent of those polled approve of the work of the Legislature. By contrast, both polls showed Gov. Mark Dayton’s approval rating above 50 percent and rising.  The overall approval rating of state legislatures (nationally) was 35 percent, but currently the Minnesota Legislature is running half of that.”  - MinnPost

“This time the October surprise was a hurricane,” Kiffmeyer said, blaming Hurricane Sandy for sapping the momentum of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.”- Minnesota Representative Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake), Elk River Star News

“The day of the hurricane, President Obama at 48%, mitt romney at 47%. Look at the five days after the storm hit. Hey, again, President Obama ahead by the exact same 1%. Before Hurricane Sandy, President Obama ahead 1 or 2 points, afterwards, ahead by 1 or 2 points. This is the poll we know in retrospect was totally right. If we believe the polls which we all do now in America and the Ipsos-Reuters poll was the most accurate one in this presidential election proves there was no Romney momentum going into Hurricane Sandy that was moved by the storm. It just didn’t happen and is checkable.”  MSNBC

“For many, the reassessment starts with the message. Few Minnesota Republicans are willing to toss aside their smaller government, lower taxes ideals…”  - Star Tribune on GOP officials’ reactions

“Only 23 percent of respondents said that they favor a cuts-only approach (to balancing Minnesota’s state budget). A strong majority — 66 percent — say a combination of spending cuts and tax increases is the way to go. And the key swing group — Minnesotans who do not identify strongly with either major party — were closer to the DFL views. Among independents, it was 22 percent for no new taxes, 2 percent for no spending cuts and 72 percent for a combination of cuts and tax increases.” - MinnPost/Daves Poll

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a “Best of the Blogs” by Politics in Minnesota.

Obama Should Denounce The Electoral College, Even If It Saves Him

Posted on by
2

The New York Times’ poll-aggregating oddsmaker Nate Silver currently puts the chances of President Obama winning the Electoral College at about 86%, but his chances of winning the popular vote at only 51%.

In other words, there is a very real chance — a 6.9% chance according to Silver — that President Obama could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote, as happened to President George W. Bush in his race against Al Gore in 2000.

In case you were sleeping through the film strip in Civics Class the day they covered the Constitutional Convention and the Virginia Plan, the Electoral College is what counts.   Quite incredibly, the United States of America is the only democracy on the planet where candidates can and do become the national leader without having won the highest number of votes.

How embarrassing is that?   If any other nation calling itself a “democracy” was handing over power to the popular vote loser, we would rightfully denounce them.  Among other problems, the Electoral College-based system:

  • Goes against the whole principle of “one man one vote” that we preach to the rest of the world.
  • Effectively disenfranchises voters in non-swing states.
  • Discourages democratic participation in non-swing states.
  • Is needlessly complex, which breeds popular distrust and consequently weakens the legitimacy of our whole system of government.

Don’t get me wrong, if either Romney or Obama gets reelected without a popular vote plurality, he fully deserves to win.  After all, both candidates structured their campaign operations to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote, because that’s what our idiotic system demands of candidates.

Still, that doesn’t mean that Obama should embrace the Electoral College idiocy, even if it works to his benefit.  President Obama has opposed the Electoral College in the past, and he should oppose it now.

If Obama does take office without a popular vote plurality, imagine how powerful it would be for him to stand up with former President Bush to say something like this:

“I won election without having won a plurality of the popular vote, just as President Bush did in 2000.

That happened because the current Electoral College system demanded that both Governor Romney and I spend the vast majority of our campaign time, effort and resources in a small handful of swing states, to the near exclusion of all others.  Obviously, all candidates structure their campaigns to fit the election rules on the books, and that’s what we did.

So while we don’t apologize for playing by the Electoral College rules we were given, we do stand today in bipartisan unity to say that the Electoral College that benefited both of us makes no sense for the greatest democracy on Earth.  We are standing together to start a bipartisan drive to abolish the Electoral College in favor of a simple popular vote based system that is more true to our American values.”

It would be very powerful to have two Presidents of opposing parties who have benefited from the Electoral College system advocate it’s abolishment.  Suddenly, the argument for getting rid of the Electoral College system could not be said to be partisan or self-serving.  The two men could mobilze the bipartisan majority — 56% of Republicans and 75% of Democrats, according to Gallup – that already supports abolishing the Electoral College.

For the credibility of America’s democracy, let’s hope our next President wins both the popular vote and the Electoral College.  But if he doesn’t, let’s hope the beneficiary uses the event as a platform to change this silly system once and for all.

-Loveland

 

Could Gay Rights Turnout Operation Sink the First Pro-Gay Marriage President in History?

Posted on by
Reply

In the Halloween season it’s always fun to tell far-fetched scary stories.  This one is pretty darn scary, and may not be as far-fetched as some.

What if the opponents of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage inadvertently helped unseat the first President in history to endorse gay marriage?

Here is how it could happen:

President Obama’s lead looks to be narrowing in Minnesota.

At the same time, a massive and well-organized army of gay rights supporters, looking at razor thin poll margins of their own, is desperate to turn out anyone who will oppose the marriage ban amendment.

To win, marriage rights supporters need amendment opponents to vote, so you would assume they will go to great lengths — mailings, calls, door-knocking, rides to the polls — to make sure that happens.

Gay rights supporters need to turn out every single vote, including (cue the scary music) the 15% of amendment opponents who are Republicans.

Because a recent Star Tribune survey found that 93% of Minnesota Republicans are voting against President Obama, turning out pro-gay rights Republicans en masse could hurt the President’s reelection prospects in a close election.

And if turning out pro-gay rights, anti-Obama voters caused Minnesota to unexpectedly sneak into the Romney column, the electoral college math could get much more difficult for the President than it currently looks.

And so the question becomes, is Minnesotans United for All Families’ get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drive a treat, or a trick?

(Maniacal laugh)

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Governors Glum and Glummer Team Up In Voter Restriction Ad

Posted on by
2

In an era of extreme partisan polarization, DFL Governor Mark Dayton and Republican former Governor Arne Carlson have teamed up in an interesting bipartisan effort to defeat the highly partisan voter restriction constitutional amendment.

While I admire the integrity of both men, let’s just say these are not two of the more perky pitchmen you’ll ever hear. Minnesota has been host to the filming of Grumpy Old Men, Grumpier Old Men, and, now, Grumpiest Old Men.

For his part, Carlson has long been the Oscar the Grouch of Minnesota politics, perpetually fussing about all things fiscal.  The former State Auditor never met a spreadsheet that hasn’t made him sputter.  Governor Carlson was never mistaken for The Happy Warrior during his time in office.  No, he was known by both friend and foe as “Governor Grumpy,” and the nickname was well-earned.

Similarly, the anhedonic Governor Dayton has established himself as the Eyeore of the left, leading Minnesotans forward earnestly and droopily.  While the Grinch’s heart was two sizes too small, Dayton’s heart may well be two sizes too big, because he oozes agony over the constant stream of bad news for under-priveleged people flowing out of the GOP-controlled Legislature. When the world weary Dayton appears on the TV with more bad budget news to report, I hide the sharp objects in our house.

You might think that an ad featuring this non-dynamic duo engaged in an epic grimace-off could be too depressing to be effective, even for emotionally flat Minnesotans.

But it seems to work, because what Dayton and Carlson lack in charisma they make up in political good will.  Dayton’s approval rating is running around 50% these days, which is about 30-points stronger than the GOP-controlled Legislature that dreamed up this amendment.  Carlson left office with an approval rating in the 70′s, about thirty points higher than his Republican successor Tim Pawlenty.  Clearly, dour sells in Minnesota.

Recent polls are finding that the voter restriction amendment probably will pass, which will be an embarrassment and a tragedy for a state that has historically led the nation in encouraging voting.  But support levels for the amendment have decreased significantly in recent weeks, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed.  If anyone can cast a dark cloud over this shameful voter restriction proposal, maybe it’s Governors Glum and Glummer.

- Loveland

Note:  This also appeared in Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Why Minnesotans Might Re-hire the Worst Legislature in History

Posted on by
4

Most Minnesotans like their kids’ teachers, but not the overall K-12 system.

They like their doctor, but not the overall health care system.

They like the individual they can connect with personally in their immediate sphere, but have disdain for the individual’s institution.  Once we have looked someone in the eye, pressed their flesh, and heard their life stories, we form human connections that drown out our critical thinking.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in politics.  In politics, people often express emphatic disapproval for legislative bodies, yet they keep returning their own representative to that body.

And then they wonder why nothing changes in the legislative body.  What’s that old definition of insanity?

Take the Minnesota’s current Republican-controlled Legislature.  Please.  According to one public opinion poll, fewer than one in five Minnesotans (17%) approve of it.   At the same time, embattled DFL Governor Dayton’s approval rating is over thirty points higher than the Republicans.  To be clear, a majority of Minnesotans are not saying “a pox on both their houses.”  According to several polls, the public is aiming it’s pox squarely at Republicans.

This verdict is easy to understand when you consider Republican Legislature major “achievements”:

  • Using local schools as their own personal ATMs
  • Wasting all their time on constitutional amendments to limit Minnesotans’ freedoms to marry and vote
  • Killing job-creating capital investments in Minnesota’s future
  • Shutting down government to keep the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers from paying the same proportion of their income in taxes as the average taxpayer

With an outrageous record like that, and the lowest approval rating in recorded history, could Minnesotans possibly send the same Republicans back to control the Legislature for a repeat performance?   Are Minnesota voters really capable of simultaneously saying “you are the worst Legislature ever” and “we rehire you?”

You bet.  Again, many people are naturally inclined to return their local gal or guy, which would give us the same cast of characters, which would guarantee more gimmicks, buck-passing, divisive defacing of the Constitution, and shutdowns.

“Dance with the one who brung ya,” as they say.  Even if the record they’re spinning has been a death dirge?

- Loveland

 

Photo by CNN

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs” and Minnpost’s Blog Cabin.

Debate Over The Debate: Judge v. Jury Verdicts

Posted on by
Reply

Groucho Marx once observed “I was married by a judge.  I should have asked for a jury.”

I am having a similar reaction after browsing the coverage of last night’s final Presidential debate.

The Judges’ Verdicts

“I think it’s unequivocal Mitt Romney won.  Romney went large.  Obama went very, very small – shockingly small.” – Charles Krauthammer, Synidated columnist

Headline:  “Few seemed swayed by final presidential debate”  - Associated Press (The headline on 5460 articles, according to Google)

Headline:  “Presidential debate: Times opinionators divided on Monday’s winner” - Los Angeles Times

“Mitt Romney came across as reasonable, thoughtful, serious presidential, rational, not someone who is going to start another war in the Middle East.  …overall, I think they both did an effective job tonight.  I don’t think it changes anything.  You saw Mitt Romney talking about the economy tonight, messaging to Ohio.  I thought he was very effective talking about China.  Whether you agree or disagree with his positions on these issues, I think if you’re a worker in Ohio tonight, I think his message would have had some resonance.”  - MSNBC Analyst Steve Schmidt

“In a presidential debate largely lacking the combativeness of last week’s town hall, President Obama and Mitt Romney both seemed to achieve their goals in Monday’s foreign-policy face-off.”  - Christian Science Monitor

 

The Jury Verdict

However, instant polls of the voters’ reaction to the debate tell a dramatically different story.

 A CNN poll of registered voters:  Obama won: 48%.  Romney won: 40%.

A PPP poll of swing state debate watchers:  Obama won:  53%.  Romney won:  42%.

A CBS poll of uncommitted voters:  Obama won:  53%.  Romney won: 23%.

To be fair, these polls were done immediately after the debate, before voters were given their instructions by the judges.

- Loveland

 

Is Target Still Playing Kingmaker?

Posted on by
Reply

About 16-months ago at Minnesota-based Target Corporation’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, an embattled Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel stressed that Target would heretofore remain neutral on the issue of gay rights, but would continue to make political donations.   A June 9, 2011 Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal headline characterized the balancing act Steinhafel was attempting:

CEO: Target will be neutral on marriage vote, will still give politically

Steinhafel’s neutrality pledge came on the heels of a customer backlash prompted by the corporation making a large political donation to anti-gay rights Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.  Remember all the news stories, boycotts, social media rants, and flash dance protests?

At the time Steinhafel made this announcement in Pittsburgh, I wondered how Target could  possibly manage to support political candidates while keeping its neutrality pledge, since virtually all candidates take positions on gay rights issues.   After all, the world community would no longer consider Switzerland neutral if it was funding a combatant.

So, what is Target doing now?  In the 2012 election, what candidates are being funded by Target, or has Target decided to stay out of politics altogether?

My drive-by Googling can’t find the answer to this question.  After all that coverage and controversy in 2010 and 2011, could it be no business or political reporter has followed up with Target?

Key To Photo ID Outcome: Continued Persuasion of Seniors, Minorities and Independents

Posted on by
Reply

When proponents of the photo ID constitutional amendment burst onto the scene, they identified themselves as “reformers.”  As a result, many reform-minded Minnesotans initially accepted their reform claim at face value.  In June, a poll found the proposal was backed by nearly six-out-of-ten (58%) voters.

But over the course of the summer and fall, Minnesotans began to scrutinize the “reformer” claim more closely.  Many discovered that the alleged “reformers” were trying to deceive them with what amounts to a really bad fake ID.

As the non-partisan League of Women Voters and many others have pointed out, the voting “reformers” are actually voting restricters, intentionally seeking to suppress the votes of people least likely to have photo IDs – seniors, minorities, poor people and college students.  This message is finally starting to get out.

Who is figuring it out the fastest? Non-white Minnesotans.   Though I earlier noted that 68% of non-white Minnesota voters supported the photo ID in an early June 2012 Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, that number has decreased dramatically to 55% in an October PPP survey.  Clearly minority voters, whose families have endured literacy tests and scores of other procedural barriers to keep them from voting, are beginning to smell another voter suppression rat.

Seniors are catching on too.  The support of Minnesotans older than 65 years old has decreased from 55% in June to 45% in October.  This is a key development, because Minnesota has a lot of seniors, and they are more reliable voters than many other groups.

Independent voters are also getting it, though a bit less slowly.  In June, 58% of self-identified Independents supported the photo ID amendment, and this month that number had decreased a bit to 52%.

The momentum with minorities (13-point swing), seniors (10-point swing) and Independents (six-point swing) over this four-month period is encouraging news for photo ID amendment opponents.  But it is still remarkable that the support for photo ID among these groups is  relatively high, in the 45-to-55% range.
Therefore, the battleground over the next three weeks includes Independent, senior and minority voters.  If the momentum among those voting blocks continues through the next month, the “reformers’’” fake ID scam could be fully exposed by Election Day.
- Loveland
Note:  This post was also featured in the “Best of the Blogs” portion of the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report.