Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Does Anyone Care About Minnesota? (Polling the 2012 Presidential Race)

Bookmark and Share

The Gopher State has been polled in the presidential race at one-sixth the rate in 2012 compared to this stage of the 2008 cycle

minnesotaseal10.jpgEven though Barack Obama is expected to face a much tougher map to victory in 2012 than 2008, a new poll indicates the Democratic president seems to be in a stronger position to cruise to victory in Minnesota and collect its 10 Electoral College votes than he was four years ago.

That poll - conducted by KSTP/SurveyUSA from September 6-9 - finds President Obama leading Mitt Romney by a 50 to 40 percent margin among likely voters.

The 10-point lead is eight points better than a similarly conducted poll by the survey organization from four years ago when Obama was matched up against Republican nominee John McCain.

In that SurveyUSA poll, conducted September 10-11, 2008, Obama led McCain by a 49 to 47 percent margin among likely voters.

One notable difference between the two polls, however, is that the field dates in 2012 occurred at the tail end of the Democratic National Convention whereas the 2008 field dates took place shortly after the Republican National Convention (which was held in St. Paul).

But it isn't Obama's advantage over Romney in Minnesota that is the story coming out of this poll - it's the fact that the state was polled at all.

Only four non-partisan public opinion polls have been conducted in Minnesota thus far in 2012 - all by KSTP/SurveyUSA (excluding a few by the Democratic pollster, Public Opinion Polling).

Minnesota, of course, leads the nation with nine consecutive cycles voting for the Democratic presidential nominee - a mark which is also the 12th longest streak in the 180+ year history of the Party.

But does that explain why the Gopher State has been so infrequently polled this cycle?

At this stage of the 2008 campaign, six times as many non-partisan polls had been conducted in Minnesota:

· 9 by SurveyUSA
· 9 by Rasmussen
· 2 by the Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll
· 2 by Quinnipiac
· 1 by CNN/Time
· 1 by the Humphrey Institute/MPR

What has changed between 2008 and 2012 to make the state so uninteresting to pollsters?

After all, going into 2008, the state also had the longest-in-the-nation streak at eight consecutive wins for the Democratic presidential nominee.

In 2008 and 2010, Republicans, of course, suffered extremely narrow losses in high profile U.S. Senate (Norm Coleman to Al Franken) and gubernatorial (Tom Emmer to Mark Dayton) contests.

Still, the GOP enjoyed remarkable gains in the state senate and state house - taking control of both chambers for the first time since partisan elections resumed in the Gopher State for those offices in the early 1970s.

Moreover, the Party knocked off one of the Democratic lions in the U.S. House with Chip Cravaack upsetting 18-term incumbent Jim Oberstar in the 8th CD.

And yet, the admittedly Democratic-leaning state has been largely persona non grata for polling firms, save for the local news outfit KSTP who sponsors the SurveyUSA polls.

To be sure, polling can be expensive. But 4 vs. 24?

A clear example of just how much Minnesota has been ignored this cycle can be gleaned by examining neighboring Wisconsin, which has seen an increase in pollster activity in its state.

Wisconsin had been polled only 16 times at this stage of the 2008 campaign from January through early September, but has already seen 23 surveys issued by non-partisan polling organizations thus far in 2012.

Obama, by the way, carried Wisconsin by 3.7 more points than he did Minnesota in 2008.

Nonetheless, the Badger State is one of the most frequently mentioned toss up states this cycle - appearing on more media battleground maps than every state except Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, Nevada, and New Hampshire - due in part to the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's running-mate.

By contrast, Iowa, Minnesota's neighbor to the south, has failed to cash in on its battleground state credentials - perhaps because it carries four fewer Electoral College votes.

Only five non-partisan presidential matchup polls have been conducted in the Hawkeye State in 2012 compared to 15 at this stage of the race in 2008.

Follow Smart Politics on Twitter.

Previous post: Will a Libertarian Tilt Missouri's U.S. Senate Race?
Next post: Through the Dark-Colored Lenses of Mark Dayton

2 Comments


  • Minnesota simply is not among a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

    Presidential elections don't have to be this way.

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in more than 3/4ths of the states that now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

    The National Popular Vote bill would change existing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

    The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

    When the bill is enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes– enough Electoral College votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the Electoral College votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

    The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

    The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers in 21 states. The bill has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes - 49% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

    NationalPopularVote
    Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc

  • there is an interactive electoral map to do predictions, checkout how Minnesota will affect this elections votenight.com

  • 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