Articles and Analysis


MN: 2010 Gov, Pawlenty (Rasmussen 3/10)

Topics: poll

3/10/10; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(Rasmussen release)
Update: Pawlenty


2010 Governor (trends)
38% Dayton (D), 35% Emmer (R), 7% Horner (i)
37% Emmer, 34% Kelliher (D), 10% Horner (i)
38% Rybak (D), 35% Emmer (R), 9% Horner (i)
39% Seifert (R), 38% Dayton (D), 7% Horner (i)
39% Seifert (R), 35% Kelliher (D). 8% Horner (i)
38% Seifert (R), 38% Rybak (D), 8% Horner (i)
36% Emmer (R), 29% Bakk (D), 8% Horner (i)
38% Emmer (R) 29% Rukavina (D), 7% Horner (i)
37% Emmer (R), 28% Entenza (D), 8% Horner (i)
37% Seifert (R), 30% Bakk (D), 9% Horner (i)
39% Seifert (R), 30% Rukavina (D), 9% Horner (i)
38% Seifert (R), 30% Entenza (D), 9% Horner (i)

Suppose Governor Tim Pawlenty runs for President in 2012 and wins the Republican nomination. If Pawlenty was the Republican Presidential candidate, would you vote for him?
38% yes, 50% No

Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 49 / 49 (chart)
Gov. Pawlenty: 50 / 49 (chart)
Sen. Klobuchar: 67 / 30 (chart)
Sen. Franken: 50 / 46 (chart)



Minnesota supporting third party candidates in large numbers, they still haven't learned their lesson from the Franken Coleman slugfest last year.



This state hasn't learned its lesson for more than a decade. The Independence Party in Minnesota has major party status. It also kills democrats running for statewide office because the Independence Party leans left. Pawlenty would have lost in 2006 had it not been for the Independence candidate. Hatch lost by less than 20,000 votes, and the Independence candidate took 10% of the vote, with 2/3 of those votes being DFLers, or democrats as the national press likes to label them. The same party got Ventura elected, kept Bachmann in office last cycle, and got Paulsen elected; although, the DFL nominated the wrong candidate for that district in Ashwin Madia.



This poll doesn't really mean anything until May after the caucuses are done. By then either Seifert or Emmer will be the GOP candidate and Keliher or Rybak will be eliminated from the DFL. Then, there will be a DFL primary in August. So, polling this state won't mean anything for awhile. No one has any idea who the candidates will be. It's pretty tough to poll when there are a dozen different combinations of potential candidates.

By the way, that Obama approval is low. People 53/45 is probably a better estimate.



Just wondering what we we're supposed to learn? We have a bill going through to fix many of the absentee ballot issues that was raised by the Coleman/Franken thing, which over all I think went much better than a hanging chad discussion...

Oh maybe you were taking about how as a state with one of the highest voter turnout in the country, we really just have to learn to suck it up and vote for a dem or rep. I mean those are the only options and if one doesn't listen to you, vote for the other and when that person doesn't listen to you try the other, and on and on and on. What surprises me more is that the Parties haven't learned, uhhh...30 some percent of people think your ideas suck so bad they vote for a washed up wrestler. I think the voters have learned, not much to be offered in a two party system and a threat of a third party at lest perks their ears (tea PARTY anyone?), all the sudden the focus isn't what are their ideas, it's how do we bring them into the Republican party...



Third parties can't effectuate change. They cannot consistently win, and they cannot win enough in a govern year to create a sizeable voting block.

Therefore, voting for a third party will change nothing because they do not have the power to make change. Instead, third parties play spoiler to the two big parties, who can effectuate change.

In this country, the two-party system is the only way to effectively govern and to pass an agenda. I'm not against 3rd parties, but until they are permanently viable throughout congress and the executive branch, a third party has no hope of governing.

Finally, third parties are a huge problem nationally. Third parties obtain their roots and platforms locally, this means that a third party candidate from California will have a different agenda from a third party candidate from Idaho. If both are elected we have 4 parties not 3. Third parties exist as niche parties that cannot effectively coalesce into a singular national agenda.

The current Tea Party is a perfect example. Some, like in California, have large religious influences. Some in other states have zero religious influence. The Tea Party holds so many different beliefs that it can't be considered a true party. It has no platform. It only has anger for government.



@ gopherguy

But you can say the same things about regional difference within the main political parties. Democrats from New York are not the same as Democrats from Nebraska. Rockefeller Republicans and the religious right have an alliance despite their differences in preferences, etc.

Third parties do have a role to play because they send a strong signal to the major parties that a significant issue or population group doesn't feel like their voices are being heard. Its up to the major parties to reach out and try to win back those who are passionate about politics but not loyal to the main parties.

I agree that they can act as spoilers, but I'm also wary of the assumptions that third party voters would have automatically have backed a given two party candidate. I also find it interesting that you would disparage a third party's ability to rule in a state which elected a third party governor in the not too distant past (for good or bad).

I agree that the so called Tea Party hasn't yet formed into an actual party (and I'm certainly not rooting for it to do so), but they could conceivably form into one given enough time.



I guess it just depends on what drives you to vote. While I just can't stand single issue voters on either side, from the people who only evaluate people on abortion issues to those who only focus on whether they supposed bike lanes to an appropriate level. I think people vote with whoever more aligns with their values at the time of the election. Our media likes to portray a wide left/right, while most are in the center and are moderate. I think that's why when the dems have the majority, it's in large part to the Blue Dogs which occupy the closest thing we have to a center.

The MN dem party has almost functioned as a teacher union the last cycles as in the seniority earns you a shot at the governor spot. Come on Moe, Hatch, can we find people less dynamic and stale. I actually attended a caucus where some people talked about not really liking Moe, but that he had earned his turn. What the heck is that?

Some vote their values even if it is a losing cause, hoping the parties change. At a national level it does get weird I fully admit, but why not encourage it at the local level, that's where the national stuff starts. I love'd watching the Ron Paul movement and Perot, feels like real grassroots stuff. getting banned from speaking at the National convention, and then speaking across town. Great stuff.


Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.