Shannon Drury, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Organization for Women, said the group "strongly opposes" a repeal of the law.

Drury said that as long as inequities exist, there is a need for the law.

PDF of story.pdf

02.01.11 Minnesota Independent Drury Women's Pay.pdf

Minnesota Republicans have introduced legislation that would repeal the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act (LGPEA), which directs local governments to ensure that women are paid the same as men. While local governments say reporting requirements are costly, equal rights groups say the law needs to stay intact in order to ensure fair pay, especially for women of color.

HF7/SF159 would repeal a laundry list of mandates on local governments -- including regulations on part-time police officers, agricultural programs for low-income farmers and grants for libraries -- but buried in the bill is a full repeal of the LGPEA.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is pushing the repeal. In a December report on public employee compensation, the group wrote, "State pay equity/comparable worth law should be repealed. Its purpose is outdated, and requiring governments to correct perceived 'errors' in labor markets based on bureaucratic and subjective assessments of the relative value of government jobs is an unnecessary and costly mandate."

Shannon Drury, president of the Minnesota chapter of the National Organization for Women, said the group "strongly opposes" a repeal of the law.

"Why the legislature would repeal this measure in such a difficult economic climate is beyond me," said Drury. "Women are now the majority of the American workforce, due in part to the recession's disproportionate toll on men."

She added, "In simpler terms, women's paychecks are crucial to families' survival. This bill would remove protections that ensure women's full compensation under the law."

Several recent studies have pointed to continued discrepancies in pay for women in Minnesota.

In June, the Women's Foundation of Minnesota and the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota found that, overall, women still earn less than men in the state. White women earned 76 cents for every dollar that men earn, and the numbers were much worse for women of color: Native American women earned 69 cents to the dollar, African American women 61 cents and Hispanic women earned 51 cents to the dollar.

Those numbers were for all workers in the state, not just the public sector.

The Office of Minnesota Management and Budget looked at 2010 levels of pay for women in a report released in early January. In a report to the Minnesota Legislature, the MMB found that there was almost a 10 percent inequity in the wages that women were paid in public sector jobs.

"Before the inequities were corrected, the average pay for females in the examples was $16.27 per hour," the report noted. "After adjustments were made, the average pay for females was $17.86 per hour.

The MMB directs municipalities, school districts, counties and other public employers to correct pay differences.

"Prior to the adjustments, females were paid 83% of what males were paid, but after the adjustments, the wage gap narrowed and females were paid 91% of what males were paid," the report said.

Minnesota was the first state to pass pay equity laws: In 1982, it passed the State Government Pay Equity Act, which covered state employees, and in 1984 the LGPEA was passed to cover all public employees in the state.

The law doesn't say that cities can't give performance raises or pay more to workers who have seniority, but over broad classes of employees there cannot be substantial pay differences between jobs held by men and jobs held by women. And each public institution needs to track the pay of its employees and report to the state every three years.

If a public entity fails to file a report or to take corrective action if pay inequities occur, it could lose a portion of its government aid.

Drury said that as long as inequities exist, there is a need for the law.

"Pay equity laws won't be archaic until pay discrimination ends," Drury said, noting the Minnesota Chamber's assertion that the law is outdated. "As long as discrimination exists, these measures will remain necessary to ensure compliance. Repealing this law takes money out of women's wallets. It's that simple."

In the Senate, the bill was introduced by Republican Sens. John Carlson of Bemidji, Mike Parry of Waseca, Al DeKruif of Madison Lake, Gretchen Hoffman of Vergas, and Paul Gazelka of Brainerd.

In the House, it was introduced by Republican Reps. Steve Drazkowski of Mazeppa, Roger Crawford of Mora, King Banaian of St. Cloud, Kurt Daudt of Crown, Bud Nornes of Fergus Falls, Kelby Woodard of Belle Plaine, Duane Quam of Byron, Bob Barrett of Shafer, Joe McDonald of Delano, Peggy Scott of Andover, Bruce Anderson of Buffalo, Glenn Gruenhagen of Glencoe, David Hancock of Bemidji, Mark Murdock of Ottertail, Keith Downey of Edina, Tim Kelly of Red Wing and Doug Wardlow of Eagan

2.08.11 CBS Minnesota Fitzpatrick Gender Pay.pdf

PDF of story

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) - For nearly a century, researchers have found that equal pay for equal work isn't happening for men and women in the United States.

A study by the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and the Women's Foundation of Minnesota found that women earn 76 cents for every dollar a man makes.

So, why don't women make as much as men?

"That's an important question," said Lee Roper-Batker, President of the Women's Foundation of Minnesota.

She said the first factor is that women work disproportionately in lower-paying fields. It's called job clustering.

"It's a huge issue that I think starts in grade school. When we're talking to students about what kind of career choices they want to go in, when we're calling on boys more in science than girls," she said.

According to the study, 52 percent of Minnesota's working women are in service, sales and office jobs. In those fields, the median earnings for a full-time woman range from $24,697 to $33,744. That compares to 30 percent of working men in those fields.

Research has found that men tend to work in more dirty, dangerous and financially risky jobs and those come with higher rewards.

"The other reason is the mommy track. Women who choose to stay home and raise kids while their young: we don't have enough on and off ramps for them, so they're pay can suffer as a result," said Roper-Batker.

Researchers have designed studies where they factor in the choice of job, experience, the mommy track. "Every time you put a factor in, the gap closes, but it doesn't go away," said Dr. Teresa Rothausen, a professor at the University of St. Thomas' Opus College of Business.

"If you give someone the exact same resume, but you put a woman's name or a man's name on and say how much is this person worth or how much would you pay this person, and you randomize that," she said, "they'll say they're gonna pay the man more."

A new study published in Health Affairs looked at hires right out of medical school, hires that shouldn't have any of the influences or factors that affect women later in their careers. But female heart surgeons were paid $27,000 dollars less than men. Female pulmonary disease specialists earn $44,000 less than men.

"Discrimination is less overt than it used to be, but it's still really part of how we're socialized," said Debra Fitzpatrick, a researcher at the University of Minnesota.

Rothausen echoed that thought. Hiring managers have an "image of what a strong powerful mover and shaker is," she said, "and it might not be as feminine as it is masculine."

She noted that there are several discriminating factors that subconsciously affect pay rates.

"CEOs who are taller get paid more than CEOs who are shorter. I don't see this as hugely different from that; it's not just about gender," said Rothausen.

The search is on for a new dean for the high-profile Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

PDF of story

12.08.10 Crookston Times Atwood Search for New Dean.pdf

1qqq

Minneapolis, Minn. -- The search is on for a new dean for the high-profile Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.
The current dean, Brian Atwood, will leave the institute next month to become chair of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development in Paris. Professor Greg Lindsey will be the interim dean.
University Provost Tom Sullivan on Tuesday appointed a search committee for a new dean. David Wippman will chair the committee. He's dean of the university's law school.
The job will be advertised nationally. The committee will work with a search firm to identify the semi-finalists. Finalists will be invited to campus to meet with faculty, students and alumni.

The search is on for a new dean for the high-profile Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

PDF of Story

12.08.10 KSTP Atwood Search for New Dean.pdf

The search is on for a new dean for the high-profile Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

The current dean, Brian Atwood, will leave the institute next month to become chair of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development in Paris. Professor Greg Lindsey will be the interim dean.

University Provost Tom Sullivan on Tuesday appointed a search committee for a new dean. David Wippman will chair the committee. He's dean of the university's law school.

The job will be advertised nationally. The committee will work with a search firm to identify the semi-finalists. Finalists will be invited to campus to meet with faculty, students and alumni.

Research Associate and founder of the University's SmartPolitics blog Dr. Eric Ostermeier has analyzed the State of the Union addresses since 1934 to determine grade reading levels.

"The scores reflect far more than a speech's "intelligence"; they can be seen as a sign of the purpose of a particular State of the Union. "There's a lot of these shorter, direct sentences" in recent speeches, that seem designed to "rally the troops and have the members of your party stand up and cheer."

PDF of story

01.25.11 U.S. News and World Report, Ostermeier, State of Union Grade Reading Levels.pdf

Tonight, President Obama will deliver the 221st State of the Union address. Yet despite its regularity, numerous traditions surrounding the address have changed. Until 1934, for example, the speech was delivered in December, not January. The medium of transmission has changed as well, from paper to radio to television and Web streaming. According to the Congressional Research Service, the address has not always been known by the same name; the "President's Annual Message to Congress" only became the "State of the Union" in the mid-to-late 1940s. And data shows what may be the start of a new trend: our most recent presidents have been among the easiest to understand. [Read A Brief History of the State of the Union Address.]
Click here to find out more!

Dr. Eric Ostermeier, a research associate at the University of Minnesota's Center for the Study of Politics and Governance and founder of the University's SmartPolitics blog, has analyzed State of the Union addresses since 1934 to determine their grade reading levels. To do this, he used the Flesch-Kincaid scale, which takes into account the number of words per sentence and number of syllables per word. The results show that Obama, despite his reputation for erudition, ranks among the modern presidents with the lowest average State of the Union grade reading level. Kennedy, meanwhile, ranks highest, with all three of his addresses at a level of 12.0--the highest possible score on the scale.

Below are the 13 most recent presidents with their average State of the Union grade reading levels:
Rank President Average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (oral addresses only)
1 John F. Kennedy 12.0
2 Dwight Eisenhower 11.9
3 Richard Nixon 11.5
4 Franklin D. Roosevelt 11.4
5 Gerald Ford 11.2
6 Jimmy Carter 10.8
7 Harry Truman 10.5
8 Lyndon Johnson 10.4
8 George W. Bush 10.4
10 Ronald Reagan 10.3
11 Bill Clinton 9.5
12 Barack Obama 8.8
13 George H. W. Bush 8.6

The results, which put George W. Bush well ahead of both Obama and Clinton, contradict popular narratives about those presidents: Bush was often lampooned during his presidency as inarticulate, while Rhodes Scholar Clinton and law professor Obama have been praised for their elocution.

But Ostermeier says that the scores reflect far more than a speech's "intelligence"; they can be seen as a sign of the purpose of a particular State of the Union. "There's a lot of these shorter, direct sentences" in recent speeches, he says, that seem designed to "rally the troops and have the members of your party stand up and cheer." Recent addresses, like Obama's last State of the Union, he says, have many of these concise, simple lines that generate the lengthy standing ovations that have become a hallmark of the annual address.

Grade level scores can also be influenced by a speech's content. "Bush's speeches were much more focused on foreign policy. His last State of the Union was over 55 percent foreign policy, whereas Obama's was only 10 percent [in his speech to a joint session of Congress] in 2009 and 14 percent [in his State of the Union address] in 2010. So perhaps it's easier to talk in simpler terms when it's about things people can grasp better," like taxes and the economy, says Ostermeier.

It may be, then, that recession is responsible for Obama's comparatively low grade level score; his 2010 State of the Union used the monosyllabic "jobs" 23 times. Given the stubborn unemployment rate, this year's speech may once again rank among the simpler State of the Union addresses in recent memory.

* See photos of the Obamas behind the scenes.
* Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.
* See a slide show of the 10 keys to an Obama comeback.

"Tim Pawlenty's biggest accomplishment was tapping the brakes on taxes and spending,"

"http://www.twincities.com/ci_16915194?nclick_check=1">

Professor Larry Jacobs pens an editorial encouraging the governor to appoint an impartial commission for redistricting.

"History suggests that if the new Legislature and governor choose to shoulder the redistricting responsibility themselves, they are in for a time-consuming, highly politicized and ultimately fruitless fight, leaving the courts to draw the final maps."

PDF of story

12.22.10 Strib Jacobs Redistricting.pdf

Aggressive efforts to count every Minnesotan in the 2010 census paid off for Minnesota.

The state's big census push last spring in all likelihood provided the nearly 2,000-person advantage that allowed the state to keep eight seats in the U.S. House for another 10 years.

That's good news, especially considering the state's below-average growth in the past decade -- 7.8 percent, compared with a 9.7 percent national average -- and America's continuing population drift toward the southwest.

Other Midwestern states -- Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Ohio -- weren't as fortunate. They learned Tuesday that their congressional delegations will shrink.

Losing a congressional seat would have been a blow to Minnesota, with implications beyond a career change for one of the eight Minnesotans now serving in the U.S. House.

The opportunity to bring a Minnesota perspective to national policymaking would have been lessened. The state would have lost an Electoral College vote, costing it influence in presidential elections.

Retaining all of its districts also spares the state from what would have been an intensely partisan tussle over how to shrink eight districts into seven.

But redistricting still presents ample opportunity for a DFL governor and Republican-controlled Legislature to disagree.

Minnesota's population has shifted toward exurbia and away from rural and inner-city areas in the past decade, and legislative and congressional district lines must be adjusted accordingly to equalize their populations.

History suggests that if the new Legislature and governor choose to shoulder the redistricting responsibility themselves, they are in for a time-consuming, highly politicized and ultimately fruitless fight, leaving the courts to draw the final maps.

That has been the story in four of the past five Minnesota redistricting exercises.

This year ought to be different.

That's so especially given the gravity of the immediate challenge before state lawmakers -- closing the largest gap in state history between revenues and scheduled spending. That problem, not a new district map, deserves the best of lawmakers' time and talent.

The 2011 Legislature would be wise to hand off mapmaking responsibilities at the outset to an appointed commission. That's what happens in 21 of the 50 states, under a variety of rubrics that either involve elected officials or keep them on the sidelines.

The commission proposal that has gained traction in Minnesota would have the Legislature assign the mapmaking next spring to five retired district judges, four chosen by the four partisan legislative caucuses and one by the other four members.

No judge formerly elected to partisan office would be eligible. The panel's recommendations would return to the Legislature as many as three times for yes-or-no votes, with no amendments allowed.

The governor would have to sign the bill. If that process failed to produce consensus, then the courts would take over.

That sensible proposal emanates from a study sponsored by the Humphrey Institute and has the backing of a bipartisan group of elder statesmen, including former Vice President Walter Mondale, a DFLer, and former Republican Govs. Al Quie and Arne Carlson.

It won state Senate approval in 2009, and received expressions of interest from Gov.-elect Mark Dayton during the fall campaign.

Since then, however, the commission idea has faded from view, as both Dayton and the Republican Legislature gear up to tackle the job.

Leading legislators have been given the redistricting portfolio -- Republicans Sen. Geoff Michel of Edina and Rep. Sarah Anderson of Plymouth, and DFL Rep. Erin Murphy of St. Paul, to name three.

The Republican Party has tapped a GOP Senate staffer, Michael Brodkorb (who is also the party's deputy chairman), to keep close tabs on its redistricting interests.

The DFL Senate staff's redistricting guru, Peter Wattson, has been tapped by Dayton as his general counsel and, undoubtedly, his redistricting adviser.

Able as those lawmakers are, it's hard to argue that they will overcome the partisan divide they bring to the work, or that redistricting is the highest and best use of their abilities in coming months.

The Civic Caucus, a bipartisan group of good government advocates, collected 118 signatures last week in support of assigning Minnesota's redistricting to a commission. We second their motion.

Argued in a fascinating paper for the Russell Sage Foundation, the health care program also remains vulnerable because the administration settled on health care exchanges that were run by the states rather than the federal government.

PDF of story.pdf

12.20.10 CNN Jacobs Health Care.pdf12.20.10 CNN Jacobs Helath Care.pdf

When U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the mandate to purchase health insurance in the new law was unconstitutional, many people began looking to the Supreme Court for a final determination.

Supporters and opponents of President Obama's health care bill are speculating as to whether the highest court in the land might rule the president's signature measure unconstitutional.

But the truth is that a Supreme Court ruling along these lines, which is against the odds, is probably not the greatest threat that health care faces. Nor is outright repeal. As Americans become more familiar with the benefits of the program, Republicans will find it more difficult to attack health care outright. With all the discussion about constitutional challenge or congressional repeal, the more likely threat is that Republicans will gradually weaken the program to the point that it is ineffective.

Although the administration has liked to point out that programs such as Social Security started small and gradually expanded over time, it is worth noting that there are other programs, such as environmental regulations, that became weaker over time even when they remained on the books.

Since Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, Republicans learned it was more politically effective to undermine programs through funding cuts and administrative appointments than it was to mount outright challenges that aimed to dismantle public policies. When Republicans directly targeted benefits, such as Reagan's effort to cut Social Security benefits 1981 or the effort by the Republican Congress to reduce Medicare spending in 1995, they were burned.

So Republicans mastered an alternative strategy that has proven to be damaging to government programs. Instead of directly attacking programs, they have relied on more subtle mechanisms to scale back government. For example, both parties in Congress have found they can use the power of the purse as a weapon.

In several cases, conservatives have been able to prevent Congress from updating programs for many years. As a result, programs such as the minimum wage diminished in value.

Republicans have also gutted agencies so that they don't fulfill their missions. Reagan, for instance appointed James Watt as Secretary of Interior despite his staunch opposition to the policies he was responsible for. Assistant Secretary Housing and Urban Development Emanuel Savas, while on the job, wrote "Privatizing the Public Sector: How to Shrink Government."

The most striking example of this strategy has been environmental policy. Republicans have not had much success taking environmental policies off the books. Many middle-class Americans are supportive of the policies that have been put into place since the 1960s. But some Republicans who are not supportive of these regulations have been able to short-circuit the programs that are in place.

A case in point is the now famous Minerals Management Service which was responsible for overseeing offshore drilling. The Gulf oil crisis revealed that MMS had become an empty and corrupt shell by 2010. Scientists had been squeezed out of the decision making process. MMS allowed industry officials to complete their own inspection forms and officials received favors from the people they were regulating. When Obama took office he didn't do much to correct these problems, and the nation paid the price with the Gulf oil spill.

If the health care law remains in place, Republican opponents will turn to indirect attacks, if they follow the pattern set by conservatives since the 1970s. Because most of the benefits of health reform won't start until 2014, Republicans have an unusual amount of time in the implementation phase to mobilize against the program.

The most obvious line of attack will be on funding. House Republicans will propose appropriations that don't sufficiently fund key components of the program, such as Medicaid expansion, so that it cannot be implemented efficiently.

Republicans will also have the power to conduct hearings if they want to try to expose shortcomings in the law or stir up public opinion. Hearings have been effective in the past for both parties. During the 1970s, liberal Democrats sought to highlight the ways in which airline regulation did not benefit consumers. Senate hearings were used to dramatize their point by highlighting problems such as the mistreatment of pets in the shipping process.

As Professors Theda Skocpol (Harvard University) and Larry Jacobs (University of Minnesota) have argued in a fascinating paper for the Russell Sage Foundation, the health care program also remains vulnerable because the administration settled on health care exchanges that were run by the states rather than the federal government.

As a result, states controlled by Republicans governors will be able to weaken the administrative strength of the program and avoid enforcing many of its consumer protections.

Passing legislation was only one part of the battle for supporters of the health care law. Now comes an equally contentious stage -- the struggle over implementing the law. In many respects, the looming court battles over health care are the least of Obama's problems. The fight over implementation is where real challenge will lie for the program.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Julian E. Zelizer.

"It doesn't take much time with U.S. Rep.-elect Chip Cravaack to see the deficit hawk emerge.'

"http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/186774/">

Suggested weighting future polls to account for geographic variations. Jacobs also recommended other ways to improve the poll.

PDF Story

12.17.10 MPR Jacobs Review Poll.pdf

A few weeks ago, Minnesota Public Radio News and the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute announced a review of polling methodology and said an outside firm would audit the analysis.

The action was taken after an October poll showed Democrat Mark Dayton with a 12 percentage point lead over Republican Tom Emmer in the race for governor. Dayton was eventually elected, but the margin was much closer - less than a half a percentage point.

The review raised several questions about the poll. One key issue is that the people in the 612 area code responded to pollsters at a higher rate than people in the rest of the state. The 612 area code consists mostly of Minneapolis, a heavily DFL area. It appears the pollsters didn't adjust the results to take that into effect.

Larry Jacobs, who conducted the poll for the U of M's Humphrey Institute and MPR News, suggested weighting future polls to account for geographic variations. Jacobs also recommended other ways to improve the poll. They include changing the order of questions to try to determine which way undecided voters are leaning and conducting the survey closer to Election Day.

Frank Newport, Editor in Chief for Gallup, reviewed the recommendations and said it's common practice to weight a poll by region. He also suggested the U of M review how it screens for likely voters.

Chris Worthington, managing director of News at Minnesota Public Radio News, called the review a necessary step and said he looks forward to more conversation about the recommendations.

"81 percent of "612" voters participated when asked. Statewide, the figure was 67 percent."

PDF of story

12.17.10 Minn Post Jacobs Institue Poll.pdf

The Minnesota Public Radio and the University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute released critiques of their much-criticized 2010 election polls late Friday afternoon.

The two entities commissioned the review after their final poll put DFL gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton up 12; he beat Republican Tom Emmer by 0.4 percent. Republicans especially have howled about the result.

The U profs who direct the poll, Larry Jacobs and Joanne Miller, did an internal critique, which was reviewed by Gallup Editor-In-Chief Frank Newport.

Safe to say, Jacobs and Miller don't find a lot of fault with themselves; Newport, president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, was a tougher grader.

Too many 612s and black interviewers?
Newport says the "issue which appears most relevant" is a potential oversample of the 612 area code. The Minneapolis-anchored area favors Democrats.

According to the U profs, 81 percent of "612" voters participated when asked. Statewide, the figure was 67 percent.

This is one of the areas where Jacobs and Miller make the numbers dance a bit; Newport notes they should have compared "612s" to non-612s. The gap would've been even more stark.

Jacobs and Miller suggest weighting future polls by region. Newport agrees, somewhat witheringly: "This is commonly done in state polls, particularly in states where voting outcomes can vary significantly by region, as apparently is the case in Minnesota."

At one point, there's a jolting suggestion that the U employed too many African-American interviewers.

Jacobs and Miller wonder whether the proportion of African-American poll-takers -- 44 percent -- might've freaked out (presumably white) voters in a state that's only 5 percent black. However, they conclude, "This investigation failed to detect statistically significant differences" in candidate support.

However, Newport wonders if minority interviewers achieved higher cooperation rates among minority voters -- perhaps a factor in the high "612" cooperation rate, since that D-favoring area code also has a higher percentage of minorities. He suggests going back over the data.

Too light on weighting
During the campaign, SurveyUSA president Jay Leve criticized how the MPR/HHH poll weighted voters -- particularly how the poll simulated the preferences of so-called "cell-phone-only voters" (CPOs) who lack landlines. MPR/HHH did not call CPOs.

The Jacobs/Miller review only says that their methodology was sound, with a Columbia University expert confirming that evaluation.

However, Newport faults the U profs for not discussing the "particulars of the weighting other than to say that it was reviewed and approved. ... This is an important area of focus."

Taken alone, excluding CPOs wouldn't explain a too-big Dayton margin -- in fact, it would likely narrow it. Pollsters have generally shown that if CPOs have a partisan lean, it's toward Democrats.

However, the weighting issue here is broader. The important point is that Newport didn't have enough information to critique the formula.

(Jacobs, Miller and Newport agree that CPOs should be included in future polls, a more expensive process.)

The other guys did it
Even though the MPR/HHH poll, conducted eight to 12 days before Election Day, gave Dayton his biggest margin of the campaign, Jacobs and Miller contend it wasn't an outlier.

They examine Dayton's and Emmer's support versus four other polls in the field at least part of the time MPR was.

Dayton's support fell within the margin of sampling error of all four (St. Cloud State, Rasmussen, the Star Tribune and SurveyUSA). Emmer's support fell within St. Cloud's and the Strib's margin.

However, it's important to remember that St. Cloud (which showed Dayton up 10) has been criticized, too -- particularly for an ultra-long 12-day interviewing process that can carry three-week-old voter attitudes into a final-days result.

The Dayton number really wasn't the problem; Emmer's was the one that varied widely. The MPR poll didn't even catch all of the back end of the Strib's range, while missing SurveyUSA's and Rasmussen's entirely.

Jacobs has repeatedly noted polls aren't predictions, but a "snapshot in time" that may legitimately miss shifting voter attitudes.

However, Newport archly notes that "the MPR/HHH poll was second closest to Election Day" of the five "and reported the highest Democratic margin."

Other recommendations
If everyone is going to treat the final poll like a prediction, Jacobs and Miller recommend polling even closer to Election Day. That way, they have a better shot at catching voters' ultimate mood. Newport agrees.

(Interestingly, the Strib decided not to do a traditional final-week poll this year because it might influence voter, volunteer and/or donor behavior too much.)

The U profs also suggest reporting poll results differently. They favor including other polls with their own, and reporting candidates' support not as a single point, but a range within the error margin.

On the latter point, Newport is wary: "It does ... again, raise the question of the purpose of, and value of, pre-election polls if they are used only to estimate broad ranges of where the population stands."

As far as overcoming any interviewer "lack of rapport," Jacobs and Miller suggest asking innocuous questions before getting to the horse race question -- something other polls do. Newport suggests testing that theory before implementing it.

A MinnPost poke?
As regular readers know, I've loudly questioned the MPR poll, and there might be a bit of payback in the U's write-up. They repeatedly refer to the St. Cloud State survey as the "MinnPost/St. Cloud State" poll.

We did pay for three questions involving ranked-choice voting, not the topline result that's the focus here. Unlike the MPR/HHH poll, which was a joint production and labeled thusly, St. Cloud State's name stood alone on its survey.

At the very most, it should be "St. Cloud State/MinnPost," but unlike MPR/HHH, we didn't jointly determine the content of most of the lengthy questionnaire.

PDF story
12.17.10 MPR Jacobs Election Poll.pdf

St. Paul, Minn. -- Minnesota Public Radio and the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Friday released a review of the methodology used in this year's election polling, after the results of the poll in the Minnesota governor's race came under criticism.

The final MPR News-Humphrey Institute poll this election season came under scrutiny for showing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton ahead of Republican Tom Emmer by 12 points in late October. Dayton defeated Emmer by 8,770 votes, or just 0.42 points, less than two weeks later.

The review by University of Minnesota professors Larry Jacobs and Joanne Miller discussed several reasons why the poll may have skewed heavily in Dayton's favor.

Gallup editor in chief Frank Newport highlighted several areas in his independent audit of the review.

Both the poll's authors and Newport highlighted the poll's apparent failure to weight the survey sample by region. The review found higher participation rates from individuals in the 612 area code -- 81 percent compared to 67 percent statewide.

"Given that Democratic candidates traditionally fare well among voters in the 612 area code, the higher cooperation rate among likely voters in the 612 area code may explain why the estimate of Emmer's support by MPR/HHH was slightly lower than those by other polls conducted at around the same time," Jacobs and Miller wrote. In the future, they said, they would include geographical weighting.

Newport, of Gallup, wrote that weighting samples by region "is commonly done in state polls, particularly in states where voting outcomes can vary significantly by region, as apparently is the case in Minnesota."

Newport also questioned how the poll's authors determined "likely voters." He noted that the poll's authors didn't provide details about how they determined likely voters.

"This is an important area of focus," Newport wrote. "Screens for likely voters typically produce a more Republican estimate (than) if all registered voters' vote intentions are taken into account -- sometimes substantially so."

The review and Newport's audit also include recommendations to include cell phones in future polls, and to hold at least one final poll closer to Election Day.

The final poll this election season surveyed 751 likely Minnesota voters from Oct. 21 to Oct. 25. It had a conventional margin or sampling error of +/-3.6 percentage points, and a more conservative margin of 5.5 percentage points. Dayton's 12-point lead in the poll attracted considerable media attention.

Earlier polls indicated a tighter race. The MPR News-Humphrey Institute Poll conducted from Aug. 25 to Aug. 29 showed Dayton and Emmer tied with 34 percent of the vote. The second poll, conducted from Sept. 22 to Sept. 29, showed Dayton leading Emmer 38 percent to 27.

Both MPR News and professors Jacobs and Miller "jointly determined the content of the questions," the report said. The Humphrey Institute "oversaw the survey process and conducted the analysis of the polling data," the report said. MPR was responsible for deciding the timing of the surveys.

"This review was a necessary step, and we look forward to more conversation about the recommendations," said Chris Worthington, managing director of news at Minnesota Public Radio, in a statement released Friday.

"The last pre-election poll should be taken closer to the election, include the results of other polls, ask participants questions that build a rapport before asking about candidate preference, weight better by geographic region and include cell phone users."

PDF story

12.17.10 WKBT Jacobs pre-election.asp.pdf

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - Two University of Minnesota professors recommend several steps with their future political polling to avoid a repeat of a poll in Minnesota governor's race that came under criticism.

The final pre-election poll by Minnesota Public Radio and the university's Humphrey Institute gave Democrat Mark Dayton a 12-point lead over Republican Tom Emmer. But Dayton ended up winning with under half of 1%age point.

Professors Lawrence Jacobs and Joanne Miller say in an internal review that the last pre-election poll should be taken closer to the election, include the results of other polls, ask participants questions that build a rapport before asking about candidate preference, weight better by geographic region and include cell phone users.

The review stresses that all political polls are a "snapshot in time" and not intended to predict the results of an election.

"May all who pass through these portals recognize the invaluable contribution to worldwide development made by the First Lady of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

PDF of story

12.15.10 Washington Post Atwood Plaque is back.pdf

The plaque, which cost $27,388, plus tens of thousands more for shipping and installation, had an engraved excerpt from a speech she gave about "expanding the circle of human dignity."

Then there was this fulsome bit from the USAID administrator at the time, J. Brian Atwood: "May all who pass through these portals recognize the invaluable contribution to worldwide development made by the First Lady of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

When the George W. Bush administration came in two years later, naturally, there was some redecorating. The plaque was covered with a photo collage and later ripped down, replaced with ceramic tiles listing about 60 USAID employees who died while on duty. The various changes sent the bill up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The plaque was sent to a government warehouse in Maryland, where, as we wrote at the time, it lay "peacefully . . . waiting, waiting" for the next eight years.

But after President Obama's election, the plaque stirred.

It began positively quivering on Jan. 23, 2009, when Secretary of State Clinton went to USAID and mentioned that she had been "quite honored upon leaving the White House to have a plaque put up in the lobby recognizing my work."
ad_icon

"And if anybody knows where that plaque is - [laughter and applause] - you know," Clinton continued with a playful smile, looking at someone just off the stage to her right, and said, "I'd just love to see it again." [Laughter.]

The USAID people got right to work on that, but they couldn't displace a memorial to fallen employees. So, for an estimated $30,000, the agency, in the fall of 2009, was preparing to schlep the plaque from storage to put it up on another wall in the lobby.

After our inquiry, however, Clinton said she wanted no public funds used to put the plaque back up. And what she said in January "was a joke - not an RFP," or request for proposal, a Clinton aide said.

"We took some preparatory steps," a USAID statement said, such as ripping down part of a marble wall, "but have decided not to proceed with re-hanging the plaque."

But now they've apparently raised the money (not clear from whom), because workers have been on scaffolding preparing the wall to hold the plaque.

There's every likelihood that President Palin, in two years or six, will take it down again.

Your tax dollars - and private dollars - at work.

Contest deadline

Today, as in Wednesday, is the deadline for entries in the Loop Who Gets It First Contest. This is to guess which federal agency or individual will get the honor of receiving the first subpoena from incoming House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa.

To win, simply predict which agency or person will get the first Issa subpoena, and over what issue. As a tiebreaker, guess the date he will issue it.

Send your entry to firstsubpoena@washpost.com. As always, Hill and administration officials may submit entries on background. Those coveted In the Loop T-shirts will be awarded to the first 10 entrants with the correct answer. Please include a phone number.

Heigh ho, heigh ho . . .

So you're toiling away in Washington on the budget and taxes? Jealous that you're not in the Swiss Alps, where a few lucky government officials are staying at a beautiful Caux hotel school and conference center, overlooking Lake Geneva, in a week-long discussion gauging media efforts to make things better in war-torn countries?

Well, maybe you shouldn't be. Sure, the views are breathtaking, the nearby skiing doubtless fantastic. A couple of day trips look wonderful. But the 32 or so media experts have a jampacked day-and-night agenda assessing methods of measuring media impact in "conflict countries." You could get a headache.
ad_icon

The event is underwritten by a Swiss journalism organization, the Annenberg School at the University of Pennsylvania, the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors and the U.S. Institute of Peace.

The sponsors "priced it very carefully," BBG spokeswoman Letitia King told us, "and it turns out it was actually cheaper" for the handful of Americans attending to fly over there. Everyone is staying in student dorms, she added. Apparently there was another obstacle in obtaining U.S. visas for some of the foreign invitees. (The BBG contributed $50,000 - from a research budget of about $12 million - to help with conference costs and travel for those from conflict areas who couldn't afford to pay to get there.)

So maybe cheaper in the Alps than in beautiful downtown Crystal City. And the former luxury hotel, 1,000 meters up from the lake, is reported to have been the inspiration for the castle in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarves.

. . . and so is Jack

Disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff has finished his job at now-famous Tov Pizzeria, a kosher Baltimore eatery, and is on probation, the Associated Press reports. The former owner of a D.C. restaurant and a dreadful kosher deli, Abramoff went to prison four years ago after his conviction for fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy. He was transferred June 8 to a halfway house, which got him the gig at the pizzeria.

Unclear what his plans are. Consorting with a shady crowd might violate probation, so lobbying the Hill seems unlikely.