Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

MN: 2010 Gov (SurveyUSA 5/3-5)

Topics: Minnesota , poll

SurveyUSA / KSTP-TV
5/3-5/10; 588 likely voters, 4.1% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(SurveyUSA release)

Minnesota

2010 Governor
41% Emmer (R), 33% Kelliher (D), 9% Horner (I)
42% Emmer (R), 345 Dayton (D), 9% Horner (I)
42% Emmer (D), 31% Entenza (D), 10% Horner (I)

 

Comments
Farleftandproud:

Sad that again Dems have a progressive independent to deal with. It almost cost Al Franken a senate seat in 2008

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Actually horner isn't a progressive after all after learning more about him; I may describe him as a moderate. I just noticed he was a gop staffer. I don't believe this poll at all. Minnesota is too strong of a Democratic state for this poll to be accurate.

____________________

Thaddeus:

No welcome to MN where we no longer believe in majority based democracy. Our current governor never cleared 50% either time, but governs like Bush did, where he's the decider. Even getting a smack down recently from the head of the MN Supreme Court, who he used to work for and named as chief justice.

____________________

jmartin4s:

I think Minnesota needs to indtroduce run-offs or party fusion into the game. Its seems like Amy Klobuchar is one of the few politicians in Minnesota that actually got over 50% between in any recent years.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

The most important takeaway from these numbers is the high number of voters who identify themselves as Republicans in Minnesota.

____________________

sacman701:

Hopeless third-party candidates are common in most states, but why do they always get so many votes in Minnesota? But I wonder if setting up a poll like that overstates their support just by mentioning them along with the D and R candidates. If they had substituted a libertarian (or even another independent) for Horner, would he have gotten as much support?

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

Sacman
I believe that every poll is a set up to influence the opinions of their readers. This place is proof positive.

____________________

I think SUSA is way off its game so far in the 2010 polling season. Several of their most recent polls appear to be way off the beaten track and classify as 'outliers' in polling parlance. Foremost among them was the WA poll showing Sen. Murray losing in Seattle!!!!

The next poll out, from another pollster showed Murray getting 71% in Seattle against the same GOP opponent (Rossi, who hasn't even said he's running).

Further, in Minnesota, SUSA shows Republicans outnumbering Democrats by 1% in the state. That's ridiculous. If I was SUSA, I'd look to recalibrate my demographics; something is far wrong in their system right now.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Without looking at data, and by going by my own intuition I would say this poll is close, but slightly off for party ID. I would think DFLers out number Republicans by 5 points or so.

The two biggest problems are endorsing MAK (Kelliher) over Rybak the Independence party. That party is a center-left party that always eats at DFL numbers. As for Kelliher, she'll win the primary and end up losing to Emmer. Emmer is more conservative than Pawlenty, and he is out of touch with the state. However, Kelliher is a bad candidate and bad politician. She agreed to adopt some form of state single-payer health care, when the health care billed that just passed is unpopular, in a Republican year. Dumb. She got endorsed by the party insiders because she is Speaker of the House. She's a bad speaker, not a good tactician, etc.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Should read "Rybak and the Independence Party."

____________________

Field Marshal:

Gopher,

What is DFL? Democrat Far left?

____________________

Gopherguy:

Nice one FM.

It stands for Democratic-Farmer-Labor. Nationally, it's the Democratic party, it's the same ideologically, but in Minnesota the party is the DFL not the Democratic party. To make a long story short the Farmer-Labor party and Democratic party joined together in 1944 give or take a few years; thus, the DFL.

____________________

Stillow:

Third parties can be your best freind or worst nightmare. Perot got Clinton elected twice. An argument can be made Nader got Bush elected in 2000.

3rd parties provide an outlet for those who feel the two main parties don't represent accurately there views. The country would benefit from another large mainstream party.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Stillow,

I mostly agree with what you say. Although, I think Perot could be disputed.

The theory of a dominant 3rd party is a good one, but it's not very practical.

To have a vibrant 3rd party, the party would need to be ideologically cohesive throughout the country. This doesn't seem possible.

Heck, in Minnesota alone, the Independence Party doesn't even have a cohesive platform. Endorsed candidates in the party in the same election cycle often have strikingly different views on issues. The biggest commonality between candidates in the Independence Party is the idea of a 3rd party, though it does skew left most of the time.

How can a 3rd party in Minnesota, that's not entirely lock-in-step with itself, unite with 3rd parties from CA, NY, FL, of TX? I suspect each 3rd party in those states would differ vastly from the other states.

Essentially, 3rd parties are grown locally and focus on local issues. To get a real 3rd party it would have to start nationally and spread. I don't know where you could find the money, the organization, or the leaders to successfully sustain a vibrant, successful 3rd party that could actually run and win in a majority or significant minority of districts or states for decades.

If you can find that, I'm for third parties. If you can't, then all a 3rd party does is play spoiler. To effectuate change, you need to be successful and vibrant in a significant portion of the population and states.

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

Perot did not get Clinton elected. MOst of his votes were cast by people who were voting against the incumbent, Bush Sr. Those people would have voted for Clinton or stayed home. i know several people myself that voted for Perot but 2nd choice would have been Clinton or no one.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Chris,

I would tend to agree with you, but let's ignore Perot and focus on what Stillow said. The main focus of his argument is intriguing and should be expanded upon. Let's not get bogged down in a Perot debate.

____________________

Stillow:

Well I guess you can argue perot, I think it was obvious without perot, Bush would have killed Clinton...anyway, thats an argument for antoher day.

IMO, there's a gap between what the two parties give us and where the people are.

Where does a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal/libertarian go? There's no party out there that is mainstream that is saying we are fiscally responsible and conservative, but we also support gay marriage or abortion irghts.

That is the camp I am in, along with many others. With the tax and spend mentality of the Dems I cannot really support them, but with the GOP's resistance to gay rights or abortion rights, etc....I'm not exactly welcomed at the local GOP dinner either.

I and others like me have to basically choose if we will ovte our fiscal values or our social values each election.

But your right, a third party just isn't practical. Even over in England, the liberal Dems are only modestly relevant....and little more so now that no one reached a majoirty.

____________________

Thaddeus:

In Mn this year will be interesting, as Gopher mentions about the IP party here, it doesn't have a cohesive platform (think Ventura). The last couple cycles they have run more liberal candidates and it stole significant votes from the DFL. This time it looks like a more conservative candidate, so it will be interesting if it pulls the Repubs who are more centrist and don't want to cut the MN budget by 30% like Emmer proposes.

I agree with you Stillow, Repubs like to say that we live in a center-right country, that's fine with me, but why are centrist dems called blue dogs and centrist Repubs called "Mavericks"? If we're a center right nation where are the center right politicians? (Rhetorical) I know in MN we have this wonderful caucus system where the party activists like to have the candidates swear that they won't run in the primaries, so they can nominate who will run (think Utah last week-end). At least some Dems are standing up to that this year, thus the Dayton and Entenza on the poll.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Yeah, you fall into a murky place. Fortunately, for you gay rights will eventually gain traction, but the social right will keep most of its other issues.

I think the best bet for political reform comes from campaign finance reform. All Federal elections should be federally funded. With every citizen paying an equal amount, essentially a $50 or $100 tax. The money would be distributed based on the media markets in the district or state, with both parties getting equal money. Free television and radio time could also be included.

That would get rid of every single special interest, union, and corporation from owning politicians. Sure, those people could, should still be able to lobby, but the money is the biggest driving factor. It would also have the benefit of allowing our representatives to stop dialing for dollars multiple hours a day. Instead, they would actually have to do more legislating.

Term limits isn't necessarily a bad idea either, but they should be fairly lengthy. While there are downsides to career politicians, it is important to have experience people who know how to go through the process. Three or four terms for a senator seems about right to me. Congressmen could get 8-12.

____________________

Thaddeus:

If Dems are Tax and Spend, then the last bunch of Rebus that ran the system (2000-2006) were: Spend and Don't Tax. I personally rate that as worse, at least looking at the long-view of economic prosperity. (sorry for the double post)

____________________

Gopherguy:

Agreed Thaddeus. The caucus system in Minnesota stinks. Why should 1,500 people decide who the candidate is? Primaries are much better. They tend to select stronger candidates, and they allow the entire voting population, or in actuality, a much larger population to determine the candidates then these inside, wannabe, hacks for both parties.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Well I guess you can argue perot, I think it was obvious without perot, Bush would have killed Clinton"

An argument can be made either way.

Most 1992 professional analysis concluded that Perot pulled votes more or less evenly from both Clinton and Bush (probably slightly more from Bush than Clinton), and his coalition included a lot of people who would normally would not have voted for either an R or a D, so the 4-5 point margin probably would have held for Clinton.

But, you can see Perot's effect in the exit polls for 1992 and how it hurt Bush. Clinton's coalition included the standard ~40% of whites, +60% of hispanics, and +80% of blacks that democrats always get, although somewhat lower across all 3 than usual.

But Perot got 14% of all hispanics and a critical 20% of all whites. Those votes may have been unique votes for 3rd party Perot, but given Clinton's performance, they probably would have gone mostly for Bush.

So I don't really know. My gut tells me Bush would have lost due to Clinton's charisma factor alone. Charisma almost always wins elections, expecially when one is charismatic and other is woefully not.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Term limits isn't necessarily a bad idea either, but they should be fairly lengthy. While there are downsides to career politicians, it is important to have experience people who know how to go through the process."

You do realize this would take a constitutional amendment, and that Madison argues against it in Federalist #53? He was against it because of the experience issue as you suggest and because he felt inexperience would lend itself to gullibility and vulnerability.

Good luck getting 2/3 of congress to limit their own power, and a 2/3 convention of the states has never happened.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

Hamilton also argues against term limits, this time for the executive, in Federalist #72.

John Adams was also against term limits in his arguments for the constitution:

"There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice.... They must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people....Such a rotation will only increase and multiply factions."

p.294

http://books.google.com/books?id=kujutU9O-yQC&pg=PA294&lpg=PA294&dq=There+is+no+right+clearer,+and+few+of+more+importance,+than+that+the+people+should+be+at+liberty+to+choose+the+ablest+and+best+men&source=bl&ots=EksdUANMLw&sig=qHQ-1QjML6egzvJ0enJr2EB7DJQ&hl=en&ei=PGvoS-WrF8Hflgf25oGkAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Term limitation seems like a Glenn Beckian idea to me. For all his love of the constitution, he seems to not be very clear on the arguments that were made if favor of it since his positions are mostly what the anti-federalists like Patrick Henry would have said.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - Perot provided a viable option to vote for for all the people who were angry at the read my lips fiasco. They were not going to go to Clinton, perot came in and munched them up. Obviously we'll never know what happened if.........

I actually do support term limits. career politicans become drunk with power, they get rich off our backs....some of these guys are so old they don't even know what they are doing.

Its my humble opinion we woudl benefit more from a constant influx of new talent and ideas....rather than letting incumbants become entrenched and ally themselves with intrest groups to make it near impossible to knock of an incumbant with a lot of resources at his disposal.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Aaron,I'm well aware of what it would take. That's fine what some of the founding fathers believed, but I don't have to believe it.

In fact, I have the right to disagree. Just because the founding fathers said something doesn't mean it is relevant and/or should apply today. Times change, the world changes, societies change.

Many founding fathers disagreed with each other on a gamut of issues. The finally made concessions and compromises to come up with the constitution. These men while instrumental, are not all knowing. They don't possess any more brain power than most of the well educated in today's society, so their opinions can be disputed.

Also, an amendment takes 3/4 of the states not 2/3.

As for Glenn Beck, please don't equate anything I have to say with Glenn Beck. I'm a lawyer, I've been through multiple semesters of constitutional law back in law school, and I received As in them. Glenn Beck is a dunce, and has no idea what clauses in the constitution actually mean.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Stillow,

I might be on the left, and you might generally considered to be on the right, but at least we can agree on a few things.

I rather enjoy discussing with you on here when partisan hack mode is turned off. :)

Only kidding about that last bit.

____________________

Gopherguy:

One other tidbit. Check out Amendment XXVII. It was passed a little less than 20 years ago. Congress sure seemed to have the will to limit their pay increases.

____________________

I'm still stressing that SUSA is way off base here. It showed Emmer winning the Twin Cities by a large margin, which seems to me to be as ridiculous as Rossi beating Sen. Murray in Seattle in the WA polling.

Any of you Minnesotans care to comment on that one?

____________________

Stillow:

Some of the argument opposing term limits aren't really valid anymore. The constitution was written when only a fraction of citizens could read and write. That is not the case any longer. We live in an educated world with access to news and current events 24/7. We have the Internet and technology to allow instant communication.

I'm probably a real hard line ron term limits. I think senators shoudl be permitted 1 six year term and reps 2 two year terms. Perhaps then they would be more interested in doign the right things and not doing what will get them money from there big donors.

these incumbants get incredibly wealthy and powerful over time. They become disconnected with the world the rest of us live in. I'd bet more senators could not tell you what a gallon of milk costs than could.

You can make a valid argument either way on tis issue, I just ahppen to support strong limits on them and as a result strong limits on power. It would be nice to get new people constantly bringing in new and fresh ideas as the world changes...and not having these senators in office for 60 years.

____________________

Gopherguy:

If Emmer won the Twin Cities then the election would be his in a landslide. The poll was also financed by Hubbard Broadcasting, which runs the local ABC affiliate television station. Hubbard is a huge Republican. I don't know if that has anything to do with it, but it's something to snack on.

Also, it depends on what the poll defines as Twin Cities. Does it mean Minneapolis and Saint Paul, or is it including the suburbs or even the exurbs?

The Twin Cities have massive urban sprawl, so unless we know how the poll defines Twin Cities we can't really interpret the data.

Finally, nobody knows who Tom Emmer is. He's a state rep. with a small name from an exurb in Bachmann's district. People only know he's a Republican, they don't know that he said he wanted the Capitol to burn down.

Essentially, just ignore the polls in Minnesota for right now.

People don't know Tom Emmer, and people haven't even made up their minds for the DFL candidate. Wait until September when you hear about how far to the right he is. He's said many outlandish things and has beliefs that Minnesotans don't.

I'm not saying Emmer can't win, I'm just saying that I wouldn't put much stock in this poll.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

It is unfortunate to see another 4 more years of a Republican in MN. Vt had a third party extremely progressive guy, who is qualified for absolutely nothing. His name is Pollina. He isn't much more qualified to be governor of VT than I would be which is pretty pathetic.

It would seem that if this poll is accurate that Democrats are doing a lousy job.

____________________

Cody Jones:

Being a Minnesotan I know how this turns out because time and time again we have the same result. At this point last year Republican Senator Norm Coleman dominated the polls. MAK in my eyes is a female Al Franken. Shes and unattractive candidate (both literally and figuratively) but come September the polls will be tight. My best bet it's MAK by 1% or if Dayton wins the primary its Emmer by 22% (Dayton would be a disaster)

____________________

Gopherguy:

Rybak should've been the nominee. Rybak would win no question.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Amy Klobuchar is one of my favorite senators. You don't really need liberal third parties if the Democrats can nominate someone with progressive values.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

You have to wonder what the hell is wrong with Democrats in this election. THey are not getting strong enough candidates for governor. Do they really care about our country's future? Why didn't Rybak run?

____________________

StatyPolly:

Why didn't Rybak run?

I'll throw my guess in - Good Political Instincts.

Same reason Beau Biden did not run, and Bayh and Obey retired. Just to name a couple.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Also, an amendment takes 3/4 of the states not 2/3."

2/3 to convene the convention, 3/4 to ratify the amendment. If I'm not mistaken.

"As for Glenn Beck, please don't equate anything I have to say with Glenn Beck."

I think I heard term limits discussed on his show a while back...sorry, I didn't mean to insult you by that association.

"They don't possess any more brain power than most of the well educated in today's society,"

Not higher IQ, no. I wasn't trying to say that.

Speaking as an historian and judging by their writings and what we know of their reading habits and education, I would argue that the "top tier" of the founding fathers that framed and argued for the constitution: Jay, Madison, Hamilton, Randolph, Paterson, Sherman, Jefferson (less enthusiastic), Adams, were the equivalent of our brightest PhD's in political science today. They knew intimate details of all the world's major governments at the time as well as ancient government and philosophy. So not all-knowing but certainly well informed. Definitely more educated than your average 4-year college graduate today, who probably takes at best 3-4 survey courses dealing with all that, most likely less. Believe me, I teach at a college, we're lucky if students graduate understanding that there are 3 branches and what they do.

I think Madison's & Adams' contentions about congressional term limits were sound. Instituting limits would increase the influence of lobbies because the new members would be inexperienced and vulnerable to what they offer. They would not know how to wield their own influence or powers to counter them. There would just be more backstage conflicts and struggles for influence - ie: more contested primary than general election battles, influence built by picking lines of succession, etc...

At least that's my take on it. I'll be glad to hear why you think it would work.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"We live in an educated world with access to news and current events 24/7. We have the Internet and technology to allow instant communication."

I mean this seriously.

Do you really think the internet and 24/7 media make us any smarter? There's more information available but so much of it is wrong. At least it used to go through the filter of publishers or editors to clean up some of the mess.

Schools educate more people, but the outcomes across the board are down.

Seriously, Stillow, I have 21-year old students that don't know there are 3 branches of gov't in America. They are products of our K-12 system.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Um, Polly, Rybak ran in the caucus and lost. He chose to abide by the endorsement rather than go to a primary.

He finished second due to other house members, ie, Tom Ruckavina endorsing MAK on stage, with his entire staff putting MAK shirts on and ordering all his supporters to do this same. The video is online.

Good guess though.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Aaron,

We agree, but to a point. I think those problems can be mitigated by have lengthy terms. I don't think we'd have a problem with undue influence if we have senators who can serve for 24 years.

It's ultimately a balancing act. There are dangers with term limits and without, but I think we can address the problems without term limits by creating fairly lengthy limits.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Aaron,

We mostly agree. However, I think the dangers of term limits can be mitigated by having lengthy limits. Allowing a senator to serve for 24 years is a very long time. If we allowed that, then I think we don't have to worry about undue influence on inexperienced senators.

Ultimately, it's a balancing act. Long term limits can give us the best of both worlds.

Aaron, don't forget about the 14th Amendment. You're a history guy so you'll know what I'm talking about. When our country was formulated, corporations were not legal people. However, through the 14th Amendment corporations become legal people. Thus, the founding fathers did not foresee nor have to deal with corporations having such monstrous influence on elected officials. While this certainly isn't a damning factor, it would have been taken into consideration. Throwing out corrupt politicians tied to special interests by a statute of limitations would be a powerful way to eliminate them without having to run against them. Maybe the term would have to be shorter than 4 terms, maybe 3. I'm not sure what the right amount of time would be, but it's interesting to think about.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Thanks, Gopher

I stand corrected.

Or sit, as it were..

____________________

HoosierDaddy:

The last time the folks in Minny elected a Democrat as Governor it was 1986. Winning candidates usually dont get more than 45% because Independants make things interesting.

____________________

Stillow:

aaron - No, access to info does not make one smarter. My point was access. In 1776 most people could not spell there own name on paper. You can not and should not equate access with knowledge, or knowledge with intelligence. You can have two brilliant minds come to totally oppositte resolutions to a given situation.

But ther eis a difference in the average citizen now and then.

I will always remain a staunch proponent of term limits. These career politicans are out of touch...and that makes governing properly very difficult. Power does indeed corrupt.

While I understand the logic behind opposing limits, it just seems to me we would be better off with a constant stream of new ideas and a more broad spectrum of those doing the governing. I'm probably driven somewhat by my inherant distrust of g'ment and by extension the politicans serving in that g'ment.


____________________



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.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR