First Poll Of Revote Issue In Minnesota: It's Split Down The Middle
We now have our first poll in a long time out of Minnesota, from Rasmussen, testing what people think of the never-ending Senate race -- and it raises as many questions as it answers.
When asked, "Who will ultimately be declared Minnesota's next U.S. Senator: Al Franken or Norm Coleman?" the poll shows 47% of likely voters seeing Franken as the eventual winner, to 35% who think Coleman will come out on top.
This question was asked next, and is sure to be used as political ammunition by the GOP: "Should there be a revote for the Senate seat between Al Franken and Norm Coleman?" The result: Yes 46%, No 44%. The narrow plurality for a new election, within the ±4% margin of error, certainly does suggest that a lot of voters aren't satisfied with the situation as it is now -- obviously Republicans are almost all for it, but it also leads by 12 points among independents.
We'll see what other polls have to say as Coleman's revote gambit continues to play out in the local media -- for example, a small-town newspaper that endorsed Coleman in 2008 has now declared their opposition to it.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
In my mind, any issue poll from Rasmussen is suspect. I'd like to see results on a similar poll by a less partisan pollster.
March 5, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen- don't believe it for a second.
March 5, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on Joseph. Those numbers don't look at all right.
March 5, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to think Rasmussen plays a lot of games, but this one isn't too complicated:
2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate Election
Results Certified January 5 ,2009
41.991% Al Franken
41.984% Norm Coleman
15.153% Dean Barkley
Revote:
46% Yes
44% No
Yes got most of the Norm Vote and change.
No got most of the Al Vote and change.
Does anyone honestly think a Norm or Al voter is going to answer that question much differently than the one that would favor their candidate?
Honestly... this isn't even worth being posted by Eric. And that's acknowledging the wonderful job he's doing covering the trial.
John
March 5, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, its ratsmussen, what do you expect. The real poll results would probably be 55% to 60% no re-vote and 25% to 33% yes. That would make more sense with a semi-accurate figure of republican voters.
Incidentally, I heard the other day on soft-ball I think that franken has very high unfavorables and that is one of the reasons why he isn't taking this battle to the air waves. That is problematic.
March 5, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I heard that too, but remember to consider the source. Who did the poll? Why did we only hear of it on Hardball?
I'd like to see the citation for that information, wouldn't you?
March 5, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't people like Franken? Do they like him less than Coleman? Since they are virtually tied for the vote, it would seem that neither one is well liked.
March 5, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the other guys said Eric,we've become suspect of Rassmussen polls without seeing all the questions.
That said, the other factor to me that might support these numbers, as reflected by the number of independent voters want a revote, is the 16% that voted for Barkley. Those folks might instinctively prefer another chance to make a choice.
March 5, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Coleman loses in court, maybe he should establish a shadow Senatorial seat a la López Obrador after the Mexican Presidental elections.
March 5, 2009 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see they failed to ask the necessary followup - whether people know that there is no provision whatever in MN law for a "revote" in this or any other election.
They also didn't ask whether people know that the Senate needs a 2/3 supermajority vote to change standing rules and seat someone without a certification of election. (Yes, Democratic Senate-bashers, I'm looking at you.)
The press and online sources are doing a terrible job of informing people of these facts, as both notions seem to surface over and over again in discussions. And Rasmussen's "poll" adds nothing to inform anyone. If there is a real story here, that's it.
March 5, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. It doesn't matter a freaking bit what the poll says--this one is being decided in the courts, methinks.
March 5, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
A revote would be a train-wreck. Barkley has said he would run again. I reckon both Coleman and Franken would fight it, trying to make it a 2-way runoff. This, of course, wouldn't fly due to there being nothing of the sort in MN law. Both would humiliate themselves, Barkley would end up on the ballot, and we'd get the same net result, albeit with a higher vote percentage for Barkley.
Well, it appears as such to me anyway... but then, I don't know MN
March 5, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Barkley a mainline Party person at one time - repub or Dem? In other words which way would he lean if were to be elected in the future?
March 5, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barkley was a founder of the Minnesota Reform Party, which eventually became the Independence Party of Minnesota. All of his campaigns, going back to his 1992 House bid, have been as an independent. He chaired Jesse Ventura's independent gubernatorial campaign, and Ventura named him to direct the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. Ventura eventually appointed Barkley to serve the few remaining weeks of the late Senator Wellstone's term. I can't find anything that indicates was ever a mainline party person, except that he volunteered for George McGovern's 1972 campaign because he opposed the war in Vietnam.
March 5, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that Rasmussen hasn't adjusted the weight of GOP responses in proportion to the percent of the population identifying as Republicans. I doubt they've even adjusted downwards at all to reflect the steady downward movement of GOP membership.
Overall: 36% of Americans now identify as Democrats and only 28% as Republicans. In Minnesota, it's a 15% point gap in favor of Dems.
March 5, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think I heard it on npr, again, but the gap is now more than 10 points and republicans are down to 25%. I think dems were at 38% or so. Indies now outnumber republicans.
March 5, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very likely. I grabbed the Pew poll from January. The GOP brand has only gotten less popular in the meantime.
March 5, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why, in the name of God, would Rasmussen (or anyone else) ask a so-called "poll question" about a revote which cannot legally happen, under any circumstances?
Does somebody actually want to argue here that Rasmussen didn't know that MN law does not provide for Coleman's proposed "do-over", when they asked the question? Really?
And does this not suggest that Rasmussen is complicit with the Coleman campaign, in attempting to float such an impossibility, as a possibility?
This STINKS.
March 5, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Question: Why do the poll with a republican hack polling organization?
Answer: To give republicans a bs talking point.
March 5, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never say never. What if the three judges rule that it is impossible to determine who received the greater number of legal votes?
See this article for more. There is a lot of other interesting articles at this site about the Minnesota Senate election from a law perspective.
March 5, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I've read the article. My takeaway is that it's about the impartiality and meticulousness of the MN court; but beyond that, I see no suggestion at all that there's any legal avenue for anyone to order a new election.
The suggestion that the court will not be able to determine, in the end, who received the greater number of legal votes seems to be of your own creation. In fact, the author implies that there will be absolutely be a decision, and that this decision (unlike in other, less-evolved states) will be a product of the MN court's preeminent fairness.
I don't see your point, and I don't think the court is going there.
March 5, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Running Barkley's campaign in a runoff would be fun.
Many appealing slogans given that this drawn out court case makes both the dem and rep look bad.
Some slogans: END PARTISAN BICKERING: VOTE BARKLEY,
VOTE THE BIPARTISAN PARTY -- BARKLEY FOR SENATE,
WHY NOT VOTE FOR A CHRISTIAN -- BARKLEY IS THE ONLY ONE.
March 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
VOTE FOR BARKLEY - HE CAUSED THIS WHOLE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Thanks, but no thanks.
March 5, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, a race can be just as tied 40-40-20 as 50-50. The existence of a third-party candidate did not in itself cause the results to be this improbably close.
March 5, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, allay my suspicions that disaffected DFL'ers put off by, and to a great extent encouraged by, intraparty attacks such as the lamentable Betty McCollum comments (I will never vote for her again, I'll just leave Rep. blank as long as it's her.) and Priscilla Lord Farris (sp?) slagging Franken, were outnumbered or equaled by Republicans who fell out of the Quimby line.
No Barkley, and it's Franken by 15 points is my guess. The Independence Party ought to stand down, they've given us Pawlenty twice too. (Thanks, guys.)
March 5, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, fair enough. But that stuff's not on Barkley. And still, most close races don't get this crazy-close — it was quite a fluke to have a multimillion-vote contest decided in the low triple digits.
Also, given all the sniping you (rightly) cite as turning Dems off of the race, what makes you so sure they would've all voted for Franken were it not for Barkley? I imagine many would've stayed home, and many others would've voted for Coleman. True, the best guess is that Franken would've scooped up the plurality of the Barkley vote, but I think the ultimate margin of victory would've been way less than 15%.
March 5, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
What's the thought process for someone like Barkley deciding almost too late to even file that he wants to run again? "I know there's no way I'll win this thing, but gosh my ego sure needs feeding. I haven't seen my name in the papers for almost six years now."
March 5, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
surprise surprise, the republican's favorite polling organization would be the first ones to poll for people's opinion, on an option that is not legally available.
March 5, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its one thing to say MN law makes no provision for a re-vote. Its another to say MN law forbids a re-vote. Why can't the state legislature pass & the Gov sign a law mandating a new election? Prediction: After a coupla visits by my beloved Commander-in-Chief, it will be Franken 70%, Coleman 30%.
March 5, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 17th Amendment authorizes the Minnesota legislature to direct a special election only when the Senate seat is vacant. In this case, I think that the U.S. Senate, as judge of the election (pursuant to Article 1, Sec. 5, cl. 1) would need to declare the seat vacant, but its an interesting question.
March 5, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
They only polled 500 people, that is ridiculous.
March 5, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does Mn law abide a 'do over?' I think whoever gets the plurality and survives court challenge is issued a certificate to enable them to be seated. It's unlikely the court could wash it's hands of it and declare a tie. This will drag on, which is the Republican strategy, for as long as it takes. The lawyers don't mind. Imagine the billing hours. Although it is the Coleman lawyers who keep filing motions requiring rebuttal motions. The Franken camp just filed a dismissal motion and the Coleman lawyers filed an intervention letter. The coleman side took at least 5 weeks to present their side and then rested with reservations. Franken should be done in less than 3 weeks. Watching this on 'The Uptake.org is drier than a popcorn fart.
March 5, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO
March 5, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MN statutes actually call for a coin flip in the event of an exact tie. No joke.
March 5, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rasmussen says that
which sounds like a Republican talking point. Coleman had the lead on Election Night by 775 votes, but that no more made him the “winner” than whoever was ahead after the first precinct reported in.
March 5, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how the response would be if the question was: Do you favor $20 million spent on a revote, or the same amount of money spent to improve education? Or better yet, from a Republican perspective, that same amount of money in tax reductions?
Then for those who want a revote, simply tell them there is no basis in law to do so.
March 5, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one question I would like to see polled was not even asked, "In the event of a revote who would you vote for?" I am genuinely interested in head to head polling of these two candidates since the voters have seen their behavior in the recount.
March 5, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are irrelevant. MN does not provide for a re-vote by statute.
March 5, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, King Soloman will resolve this mess: Cutting them in half, I will then take a top from one and a bottom from the other and put them back together and finally get a Senator that is neither this or that and neither here nor there. In this way he will be like the other senators who speak vaguely while somehow managing to pull in S10,000 weekly so as to campaign for the next election.
March 5, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
even with the understanding that a revote is not provided for in MN election law, I'd like to see the question asked as "Should the state of Minnesota pay X millions of dollars to hold a new election?"
March 5, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's have a poll to see who wants a poll about a revote. Get real. We are a nation and a state of laws. The laws don't include a redo of the Minnesota election.
March 5, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Best Minnesota writing on this whole business is in Joel Weiner in MinnPost. It's up to date and complete. You can google it up easily, or go directly to it here:
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/03/06/7222/coleman-franken_trial_week_six_ends_with_an_avalanche_of_numbers_to_ponder
March 6, 2009 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink