May 14, 2006
More coming ...
Sorry for my silence everyone. The past couple of days have just been extremely busy with birthday parties, church activities, and Mother's Day. Some interesting things have been happening concerning my favorite topic which I will expound upon later. Until then:
- The Minnesota Poll, while undoubtedly accurate, is really a non-issue at this point. It isn't telling us anything we didn't know before.
- County officials are very optimistic at this point which of course has me very optimistic.
- Sviggum is saying this could be the most productive legislative session we've had in a long time.
- T-Paw is saying that a Twins stadium and a Gophers stadium are "must have" items before the end of the legislative session.
- Many analysts are saying that this could all be over by Wednesday or even Tuesday.
- It has to be done by Saturday as it is unlikely the legislature will do anything on a Sunday (Sviggum's words).
So, this should be a fun week. More later.
Posted by snackeru at May 14, 2006 2:09 PM | Stadiums 2006
The results of the Minnesota poll are a wakeup call for legislators. Legislators who are winning by 5 points will be paying attention to this poll.
There's a huge gender gap in this poll. Women are much more opposed to stadium funding than men. Independents are also more strongly opposed that partisans of either stripe.
There is more support for the metro tax that also includes transit than a stadium only tax.
Sid Hartman is having a cow over this. Legislators do watch these polls when they are looking at reelection.
Posted by: Eva Young at May 14, 2006 6:46 PM
Eva, the women will forget all about the stadium once the next 13-hour sale is on at Marshall Fields.
Posted by: kevin in az at May 14, 2006 9:44 PM
This poll doesn't tell us anything new. What it does do is give legislators something to hind behind if they decide to chicken out on solving this issue.
As with any poll, it depends how you ask the question. If asked a general question, even I might be inclined to say no. If the question had been framed 'Assume that if a stadium is not built the Twins will leave Minnesota. Given that, do you favor the Hennepin county plan?' the #'s would be very different.
Posted by: David Howe at May 14, 2006 10:05 PM
"Eva, the women will forget all about the stadium once the next 13-hour sale is on at Marshall Fields."
EY: Clearly you don't have much respect for women.
Posted by: Eva Young at May 15, 2006 7:54 PM
Eva, I actually do. But honestly. I know many women who vote for a particular candidate because, "he's cute" or "he has a nice smile and an incredible ass"....You know when I hear comments like that in the workplace, I honestly don't think most women will give a rip about the stadium. And yes, I heard those comments when i lived and worked in Minnesota. You know those women exist and they are the majority. Being that you're a woman who considers these issues quite seriously you have to be ticked that MOST women really don't care because they'll still vote for Pawlenty next election because he's better looking and not based on the issues.
Posted by: kevin in az at May 15, 2006 10:03 PM
I wouldn't quite agree with those comments. But I would say that most women don't know thier legislator's stance on the statdium issue and won't base thier vote on it. Thier real feeling on the issue is 'indifferent.' They will cast thier vote based on other issues.
So, even though the poll shows more people are opposed, legislators may lose more votes by voting against the stadium. Those of us in favor, are strongly in favor, and will vote against a candidate if they oppose it. Where the majority of those saying 'No' are really indifferent when it comes right down to it.
Posted by: David H at May 16, 2006 5:09 AM
Wow. I can't say that I agree with Kevin here. Although we all know some people (women AND men) who are shallow enough to say they will vote for or against someone based solely on appearance etc., I think it's more likely that those people don't wind up voting at all.
I will concede David's point, though, that many stadium "opponents" (women AND men) aren't likely to base their vote solely on the stadium issue. It might factor in the decision, but probably not, since there are many other issues that will likely take precedence.
Posted by: spycake at May 16, 2006 1:19 PM
I agree, the issue is not women vs. men. The only factor that play is I'm guessing a greater % of baseball fans are men. With regards to the voting, I believe women vote on issues just as much as men, just not the same issue.
Most members of my family (women and men) would probably say "No" if they had been in the Star Tribune's poll, but none of them really care that much about the issue. They would not know their legislator's stance on this issue if I didn't tell them, and they won't base their vote in November on it.
Posted by: David H at May 16, 2006 9:19 PM
thank god almighty...Spycake doesn't agree with me!!!!!
Posted by: kevin in az at May 16, 2006 9:53 PM
Rather doubtful anyone will agree with you Kevin, as even the pro-stadium responses to your post suggest. That's because it is utter nonsense, to put it kindly. The preferences of a "majority of women" have nothing to do with your chauvinistic "hot-or-not" calculus. A majority of women vote party affiliation, and the majority of the remaining independents vote on issues other than looks. That this even has to be put in black-and-white is sad.
More remarkable than the fact you'd say something so foolish is that you'd actually try to defend it. Of course, your comments come from someone who makes "joking" reference to assaulting a female Hennepin County Board member for her emotional opposition to the no-referendum stadium tax.
It is likely that many women, as well as many men, would be interested in whether, for example, legislators who support increasing taxes to pay for stadiums continue to cling to no tax increase pledges when it comes to say, education or transportation funding. Is that a single-issue vote for most women, or most men? Unlikely, as those who share different priorities than stadiums vote their parties for those (other) reasons anyway.
In any event, a rather substantial majority of voting-aged women have a good deal broader voting perspective than, say, men who would vote against a candidate SOLELY because he or she voted against the no-referendum Twins stadium tax subsidy.
If that's what passes for broad, well-informed male "perspective," may the best-looking candidate win.
Posted by: David at May 17, 2006 2:03 PM