Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Can Mark Dayton Give Barack Obama a Boost in Minnesota in 2012?

Bookmark and Share

History suggests having a DFLer in St. Paul is unlikely to be a decisive factor, but may be worth +1.4 points to Obama in next year's presidential race

Democratic presidential candidates have had no trouble carrying the state of Minnesota in recent decades - winning nine consecutive races despite holding the governor's mansion during just three of these election cycles (1976, 1984, 1988).

Smart Politics previously debunked the myth that Democratic presidential candidates were at a disadvantage in carrying states with Republican governors at the helm in key 2012 battleground states.

That analysis of 550 statewide presidential election results dating back to 1968 found there to be no correlation between states won by Democratic and Republican presidential nominees and the partisan control of the governor's mansion. Democratic presidential candidates have won virtually an identical percentage of states in which they have held control of the governor's mansion (33.8 percent) as those in which Republicans had control (32.3 percent).

But what about in Minnesota?

A Smart Politics review of presidential elections in Minnesota since the DFL merger in 1944 finds that although Democratic presidential candidates have won a larger percentage of races and notched a larger percentage of the vote when the Gopher State governorship was under GOP control, they have performed an extra 1.4 points better than their national vote percentage when a DFLer rather than a Republican is in St. Paul.

Of course, electoral votes are all about wins and losses, and are not awarded according to expectations or beauty points.

On that score, Democratic presidential nominees - as the above study suggests - have not been deterred when Republicans hold the top statewide office in Minnesota.

Democrats have carried the Gopher State in eight out of nine presidential contests in the face of GOP governors, compared to five of seven elections with DFLers holding the governor's office. (Al Gore also won Minnesota in 2000 with a third party governor, Jesse Ventura, running the state).

The only time a Democratic presidential nominee failed to win Minnesota's electoral votes since the DFL merger with a Republican in St. Paul was in 1952, when Dwight Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson in Minnesota by 11.2 points.

Democratic nominees have also secured a larger average percentage of the vote (50.4 percent to 45.4 percent) and a larger average margin of victory, or lower average margin of loss (+7.7 points to +6.3 points) with Republicans rather than DFLers in the governor's office.

However, Democratic presidential candidates have enjoyed a slightly larger bump in Minnesota against their national vote percentage with a DFLer in the governor's mansion.

Democratic candidates have performed better in Minnesota than the nation as a whole in each of the seven contests with a DFLer running the state in St. Paul: in 1956 (+4.1 points), 1960 (+0.9 points), 1964 (+2.7 points), 1972 (+8.6 points), 1976 (+4.4 points), 1984 (+9.1 points), and 1988 (+7.2 points).

Of course, Minnesota has largely voted Democratic in presidential races more than the nation as a whole during this span, so a tilt above the national average is expected in the Gopher State - and it has been +4.7 points on average under DFL gubernatorial control since 1944.

With a Republican governor in office, Democratic presidential nominees have performed better in the Gopher State than the nation as a whole in seven of nine contests (excepting 1944 and 1952) and have performed +3.3 points better than the national average overall.

In short, gubernatorial control seems to have little effect in terms of winning or losing the presidential race in Minnesota, however a home-field advantage is associated with a +1.4-point boost for Democratic nominees as compared to when it is under GOP control.

Of course, if that +1.4 points is the difference for Obama in winning or losing Minnesota in 2012, the President's reelection chances are probably very slim.

Democratic Presidential Nominee Performance in Minnesota with State Under DFL vs. GOP Control, 1944-2008

Year
DFL Governor
MN Vote
MoV
% Dem
Nat'l
Diff.
1988
R. Perpich
Dukakis
7.0
52.9
45.7
7.2
1984
R. Perpich
Mondale
0.2
49.7
40.6
9.1
1976
W. Anderson
Carter
12.9
54.5
50.1
4.4
1972
W. Anderson
Nixon
-5.5
46.1
37.5
8.6
1964
K. Rolvaag
Johnson
27.8
63.8
61.1
2.7
1960
O. Freeman
Kennedy
1.4
50.6
49.7
0.9
1956
O. Freeman
Eisenhower
-7.6
46.1
42.0
4.1
 
Average
 
6.3
45.4
40.7
4.7
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Year
GOP Governor
MN Vote
MoV
% Dem
Nat'l
Diff.
2008
T. Pawlenty
Obama
10.2
54.1
52.9
1.2
2004
T. Pawlenty
Kerry
3.5
51.1
48.3
2.8
1996
A. Carlson
Clinton
16.1
51.1
49.2
1.9
1992
A. Carlson
Clinton
11.6
43.5
43.0
0.5
1980
A. Quie
Carter
3.9
46.5
41.0
5.5
1968
H. LeVander
Humphrey
12.5
54.0
42.7
11.3
1952
C.E. Anderson
Eisenhower
-11.2
44.1
44.3
-0.2
1948
L. Youngdahl
Truman
17.3
57.2
49.6
7.6
1944
E. Thye
Roosevelt
5.5
52.4
53.4
-1.0
 
Average
 
7.7
50.4
47.2
3.3
MoV column depicts the number of percentage points by which the Democratic presidential nominee won or lost Minnesota. Data compiled by Smart Politics.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Presidential Battleground States by the Numbers Since 1968
Next post: Meet the New Bellwether States: Ohio and Nevada

Leave a comment


Remains of the Data

Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

Political Crumbs

Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


more POLITICAL CRUMBS

Humphrey School Sites
CSPG
Humphrey New Media Hub

Issues />

<div id=
Abortion
Afghanistan
Budget and taxes
Campaign finances
Crime and punishment
Economy and jobs
Education
Energy
Environment
Foreign affairs
Gender
Health
Housing
Ideology
Immigration
Iraq
Media
Military
Partisanship
Race and ethnicity
Reapportionment
Redistricting
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Terrorism
Third parties
Transportation
Voting