November 3-5, 2012
Nov 03 03:32 Steve Murphy's delusional prediction Nov 03 14:27 Root rooting for Romney Nov 03 23:18 Duane Patterson's excellent explanation Nov 04 00:16 Is Minnesota flipping into the Romney column? Nov 04 06:57 Is Debbie Downer going down? Nov 04 10:49 Big Labor takes a big hit in Michigan Nov 05 02:26 Bill Clinton's intellectually dishonest op-ed Nov 05 03:40 Final forecast time Nov 05 08:14 Adjusted poll shows Mitt leading
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Steve Murphy's delusional prediction
During Friday night's Almanac Roundtable of former legislators, former State Senator Steve Murphy disagreed with former legislator John Tuma about the John Carlson-Tom Saxhaug race.
Sen. Murphy is best known for pushing the biggest tax increase in Minnesota history. During the fight, a Strib reporter asked Sen. Murphy why he'd hidden his massive tax increases in the bill . Here's Sen. Murphy's response:
' I'm not trying to fool anybody ,' said Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, sponsor of the measure that would increase funding for roads and transit by $1.5 billion a year once it was fully implemented in the next decade. ' There's a lot of taxes in this bill .'
When Tuma talked about the Carlson-Saxhaug race, he said he thought that was one of the races to watch. At that point, Sen. Murphy said he'd be surprised if Saxhaug didn't win that race by 2,500 votes.
I've stayed in contact in the Eighth District as well as any blogger. I've talked with numerous people. Sen. Carlson is exceptionally popular in Bemidji, the biggest city in that Senate district. Based on his campaigning in Bemidji and Grand Rapids, Saxhaug's home territory, Carlson will run up a big margin in Bemidji, then limit Saxhaug's vote total in Grand Rapids.
When the final vote is counted in that race, Saxhaug won't win by 2,500. In fact, he won't win. Period. Expect Sen. Carlson to win that race by 8-10 points.
While I'm at it, I might as well predict Chip Cravaack winning by 4-6 points over Rick Nolan. Nolan hasn't raised much money. He's run a mediocre campaign. Meanwhile, Chip's raised lots of money. He's kept his promises to the miners. He's been exceptionally solid with small business issues, too.
That isn't to say the DFL will get their heads handed to them like 2010. There are lots of interesting races worth watching. For all of the progressive special interest money being spent on these legislative races, I suspect these organizations will be a disappointed lot come Wednesday morning.
Tags: Almanac , Roundtable , Steve Murphy , Tom Saxhaug , Rick Nolan , Tax Increases , DFL , John Tuma , John Carlson , Chip Cravaack , Small Businesses , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:32 AM
No comments.
Root rooting for Romney
Wayne Allen Root's op-ed makes too much sense not to agree with his appraisal. The premise behind his op-ed is that President Obama has alienated too many voting groups to win. I agree with that perspective. For instance, this makes tons of sense:
Jewish voters . Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60s.
This isn't surprising. I wish it were. Like the man says, Obama's support of Israel has been weak. He stated that he wanted to create distance between the U.S. and Israel. He neglected to visit Israel in his only term in office. He criticized them while pandering to Muslims. That isn't the way to curry favor with the Jewish community.
Here's another point worth inspecting:
Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won't happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost.
While Obama's drop in popularity with Jewish voters will hurt him in Florida, President Obama's lack of appeal to Catholics will hurt him in Ohio. It won't help him in Pennsylvania, either. Between President Obama's war on the Catholic faith and his war on coal, coupled with Mitt's ability to attract upper middle class voters and independents, that might be enough to help him steal Pennsylvania.
That's before talking about the issues that are driving a wedge between President Obama and his 2008 coalition. Unemployment is driving young voters away in droves. This graphic tells the story of why young people are dienchanted with President Obama:
President Obama promised much and underdelivered. That's led to tons of cases of buyer's remorse. After the trust is gone, presidents don't get it back.
I don't expect the race to be called early Tuesday night. Nonetheless, I suspect it'll happen earlier than when pundits are predicting.
Tags: Wayne Allyn Root , Las Vegas , Oddsmaker , Jewish Voters , Catholics , Florida , Pennsylvania , Israel , Democrats , Mitt Romney , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2012 2:27 PM
No comments.
Duane Patterson's excellent explanation
This evening, I watched Paul Gigot interview GOP pollster Whit Ayres. His polling company, Resurgent Republic, shows Mitt Romney winning independents by a 51%-39% margin. Ayres then said "If anyone says they know who's going to win, they're either lying or they don't know what they're talking about."
I'd love to hear Mr. Ayres tell Michael Barone that Michael Barone doesn't know what he's talking about. Duane Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt radio show wrote this post about the latest Marist Poll that captures what I was thinking after the Ayres interview:
So in order to believe the Marist poll, that Obama is up over the margin of error, you have to believe that the intensity level for Obama by party ID is higher now than it was in 2008. You have to believe that the swing from 2008 to 2010, where party ID went from D+8 to R+1, resulting in the election of a Republican governor, a Republican Senator, and control of the state house, all that has not only vanished, but recoiled even further in Obama's direction.
You have to believe that the crowd of 80,000 Obama drew in 2008 in Cleveland the closing days of the campaign demonstrates less energy and passion for their candidate than the 4,000 did this morning. You have to believe that the 30,000 people last night at the Romney/Ryan rally shows less enthusiasm for their candidate than the 4,200 did in 2008 for John McCain.
You have to believe that Michael Barone , a man who you can introduce yourself to and tell him where you're from, and he'll tell you who won your Congressional district in 1966 from memory, is wrong when he reads that Cuyahoga County, long a Democratic stronghold in the Buckeye State, is way off in party registration. He's also wrong when reports for early voting tend to favor Mitt Romney, and favor him big.
You also have to believe that Ohio Catholics and values voters don't care about the HHS regulations. You also have to believe that Ohio, an energy state, doesn't care about energy production.
Thanks, Duane, for that great explanation. God knows there aren't enough conservatives who consistently display that high level of communication ability.
Day after day, polls have consistently shown 2 things: Mitt Romney leading with independents and a terrific pro-GOP enthusiasm gap. Now I'm supposed to believe that Mitt's lead is either nonexistent or is exceptionally and historically thin and that the enthusiasm gap isn't affecting polling results.
With all due respect to Mr. Ayres, that's a bunch of malarkey. The crowds show it. Michael Barone recognizes it. Tuesday night will prove it.
Something's gotta give. It's impossible for Mitt Romney to be locked in a Florida 2000-like battle when he's getting 90% of Republican voters, President Obama is getting 90% of Democratic voters and Mitt's trouncing President Obama with independents by 12 points.
There's only one way for President Obama to win with that type of situation, That's if he's getting better turnout of Democrats than he got in 2008. All of those indicators show that that isn't happening.
Tags: Mitt Romney , Polling , Independents , Republicans , Democrats , Enthusiasm Gap , Registrations , Whit Ayres , Michael Barone , Battleground States , Turnout , Early Voting , Ohio , Pennsylvania , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, November 3, 2012 11:18 PM
No comments.
Is Minnesota flipping into the Romney column?
Read more about it here . This poll would answer why Paul Ryan and Bill Clinton would campaign in Minnesota the last Sunday before the election.
Posted Sunday, November 4, 2012 12:16 AM
No comments.
Is Debbie Downer going down?
Based on this report , I'd say there's better than a 50-50 shot that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is defeated Tuesday night:
This past Saturday, Wasserman Schultz personally lambasted a longtime Democrat supporter from Miami-Dade County who was caught talking to Harrington. This same individual further annoyed Wasserman Schultz by refusing to display a 'Wasserman Schultz for Congress' sign and then told Debbie that he had already voted for Harrington instead of her.
This longtime Democrat leader, who shall remain anonymous for purposes of this report, indicated that he was disgusted and said that had never been so insulted in his life.
On Sunday, the Shark Tank visited one of the strongest Democrat precincts in Congressional District 23- the City of Hollywood's main public library- and in speaking to Democrats waiting in line as wells as those who just voted, many of them said that they voted for Harrington over Wasserman Schultz.
What a night Tuesday might be. It starts, of course, with Mitt defeating President Obama, ending this neverending economic nightmare. Defeating Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would be a nice bonus for Republicans nationwide who are tired of Ms. Wasserman-Schultz's lippy behavior.
This information is potentially enlightening:
Coincidentally, Harrington herself was working voters in the line, she indicated that she was receiving extraordinary support from Democrats and Independents who were waiting in line to vote. There's no doubt that there are many disaffected Democrats throughout the district are irritated with DWS's partisan rhetoric and her neglect of congressional responsibilities as the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.
DWS's district has lots of Jewish voters. It isn't a stretch to think that a healthy portion of the Democrats that are voting for Ms. Harrington are Jewish. Considering the possibility DWS spent considerable time defending President Obama's harsh treatment of Israel, it's entirely possible that Jewish voters are taking their frustrations out on DWS.
The recent Harrington v. Wasserman Schultz polling has the incumbent congresswoman with a 4.5% lead over there challenger, and some local politicos believe that not only is the race competitive, but also that an upset is possible.
This year's polls haven't been that trustworthy. That's especially true if they're basing their polls on 2008 turnout models. If people really have tired of DWS's boorish behavior, then I'd bet the polling is essentially irrelevant.
Tags: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz , Miami-Dade , Hollywood , Florida , Jewish Vote , Independents , Polling , DNC , President Obama , Democrats , Karen Harrington , Campaigning , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, November 4, 2012 6:57 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Nov-12 12:16 PM
Gary:
I was already hoping just for a Romney win, the Republicans retains the House, and getting the Republican count in the senate to 51 nationally (locally retain the legislature and the two amendments to pass)
I'm dreaming maybe Minnesota goes Romney.
This will be desert.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
This will be
Big Labor takes a big hit in Michigan
Eric Foster is the chief pollster for Foster McCollum White & Baydoun. The first thing that caught my attention was that Mitt Romney leads President Obama by a thin margin of 47%-46%. As stunning as that was, this question got my undivided attention:
Question #9:
Ballot Proposal 12-2, the "Protect Our Jobs" proposed constitutional amendment would establish a new constitutional right for public and private sector employees to organize and bargain collectively with employers, Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively and override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment by adding section 28 to Article I and amending Article XI section 5 to the state Constitution. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-2, the 'Protect Our Jobs' amendment?
Vote yes on the 'Protect Our Jobs' Amendment: 41.2%
Vote no on the 'Protect Our Jobs' Amendment: 51.3%
If Ballot Proposal 12-2 is defeated, that will be a stinging defeat for Big Labor. Coming right after Scott Walker defeated them in Wisconsin, they'll be wounded for quite some time.
I thought this was interesting, too:
Question #10:
Ballot Proposal 12-3, the Michigan Energy, Michigan Jobs constitutional amendment that would require utilities to obtain at least 25 percent of electricity from clean renewable energy sources (wind, solar, biomass and hydropower) by 2025; limit how much utilities can charge consumers for the cost of complying with this requirement; and require the legislature to create laws to encourage the development of Michigan clean energy jobs. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-3 the 'Clean Energy initiative' amendment?
Vote yes for the 'Clean Energy initiative" amendment: 35.91%
Vote no for the 'Clean Energy initiative" amendment: 57.49%
Vote yes for the 'Clean Energy initiative" amendment: 6.6%
If Ballot Proposal 12-3 is defeated by this type of margin, it will be a harsh defeat for environmentalists. It would be a major victory for homeowners.
Finally, this ballot question is interesting, too:
Question #11:
Ballot Proposal 12-4 is a constitutional amendment Proposal to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and provide collective bargaining for in-home care workers.
This proposal would allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC) and require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care and authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment. If the election was held today, how would you vote on Proposal 12-4 the 'home care council & collective bargaining' amendment?
Vote yes for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 41.08%
Vote no for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 53.21%
Undecided for the proposal 12-4 amendment: 5.72%
Sorry for sounding like a broken record but rejecting this amendment would be a stinging defeat for the SEIU and AFSCME.
The fact that Michigan voters are poised to defeat 3 constitutional amendments that liberals really wanted explains, at least to me, why Mitt Romney is competitive in Michigan. If those amendments are defeated and Mitt Romney wins Michigan's 16 electoral votes, conservatives will have plenty to squawk about Wednesday morning.
Tags: Constitutional Amendments , Renewable Energy , Unions , Child Care , Environmentalists , President Obama , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Michigan , Polling , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:29 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Nov-12 12:22 PM
Gary:
I think this reflects two things.
One, voters even in a state that is dominated by the Democrats has seen the light in that allow labor or environmental groups to run the state has destroyed it and they don't want it anymore.
And two, this is another sign of the cracks that the democrats will have to maintain this so called great long term coalition that Obama has built with Labor, youth, hispanics, and environmental people. Their particular agenda items are in conflict with the other members of the group. If the individual groups can't maintain their 50% + 1 support then that spells dooms for the democrats in the future.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Bill Clinton's intellectually dishonest op-ed
Bill Clinton is as intellectually dishonest today as he was when he said he "did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." Clinton's op-ed is typical Bill Clinton's spin:
Mitt Romney says that the economy is not fixed and if he is elected it will produce 12 million jobs in the next four years. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but that's exactly how many new jobs independent business forecaster Moody's Analytics says will be created if we don't mess up what the president already has done.
Moody's Analytics is the company that said the stimulus bill would have us at 5.4% unemployment right now. Why would anyone trust their predictions? We've heard this administration lie to us repeatedly with their predictions. They said that the ACA would be deficit neutral and that it would cost less than $1,000,000,000,000 in the first decade. It's caused major deficits and its cost is close to $2,000,000,000,000.
Bill Clinton is a great prevaricator. There's a reason why he used to be called Slick Willie.
Does anyone seriously think that Obamanomics will create an average of 250,000 jobs per month for 4 years? Clinton wants us to believe that President Obama's policies of job-killing regulations, high energy prices, exploding deficits, monstrous tax increases on small businesses, high levels of economic uncertainty and expensive compliance costs will lead us to prosperity.
That's insulting.
This is insulting, too:
Romney also says that because the debt is a terrible problem, he will cut taxes for everybody by $5 trillion, increase defense spending $2 trillion more than the military has asked for, and tell you how he will pay for it after the election.
Democrats have been lying about Mitt Romney's tax reform proposal for months. That's because they can't resist playing the class warfare card. Clinton playing the class warfare card is as predictable as moths being attracted to flames. It's also because they can't talk about President Obama's accomplishments. If they spent time talking about the virtues of Obama's policies, this race would've been called a week ago.
The only thing that's prevented that has been President Obama's avoidance of a serious conversation of President Obama's economic policies. The list of contrivances created to avoid talking about the economic mess President Obama has presided over is lengthy for a reason.
The president's economic plan is better: Making investments in innovation, infrastructure, manufacturing, new sources of energy, education and training, and reducing the deficit by more than $4 trillion, with $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases on the most fortunate Americans.
There isn't a thinking person who thinks President Obama is even slightly interested in deficit reduction. He's always been about recklessly increasing spending. He's never been about making government efficient and limiting the scope of government.
There's a reason why President Clinton was known as Slick Willie. This op-ed is a perfect example of his indifference to the truth.
Tags: Bill Clinton , Barack Obama , Op-ed , Des Moines Register , Stimulus , Moody's Analytics , Unemployment , Forecasts , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Deficit Reduction , Economic Growth , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, November 5, 2012 2:26 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Nov-12 06:00 AM
The recently embraced term "intellectually dishonest" is somebody's bad invention for "disagrees with me."
My own my inconsistencies and biases, and bugaboos, they are "intellectually okay," a term I just invented. But one I expect should grow legs, given how many there are among us who adhere implicitly to the concept.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 05-Nov-12 07:35 AM
Eric, a person who commits adultery and perjury "disagrees with me" regardless of the spin.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Nov-12 07:47 AM
Eric, That's intellectual laziness on your behalf. I cited a specific instance when Mark Zandi/Moody's Analytics' predictions were off by orders of magnitude. Now that I'm citing their ineptitude, you accuse me of just not liking their prediction.
An honest reading of their predictions requires us to say their predictions are fatally flawed. I'd say the same thing if a right-leaning organization made this wild of a prediction.
Final forecast time
The DFL started setting up a phony storyline to propel them back into the majority in the Minnesota legislature during Gov. Dayton's State of the State Address in 2011. At a time when nobody was thinking about a possible special session to pass the budget, Gov. Dayton asked the legislature to pledge not to shut government down .
By early May, it was clear that Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen were hoping for a government shutdown. At midnight, July 1, 2011, the Dayton/DFL shutdown became reality.
Along the way, the DFL and ABM started talking about the do-nothing legislature. What's interesting is that the DFL legislature didn't submit a budget nor did they submit a set of redistricting maps. The DFL won't talk about that because that cost Minnesota taxpayers $188,000 in exchange for...nothing.
Here in Central Minnesota, the goal is to go 12 for 12 in '12. The goal is to elect Jeff Howe, Jim Newberger, David Fitzsimmons and Nick Zerwas to their first terms in the House. We expect to re-elect Tim O'Driscoll, Steve Gottwalt, King Banaian and Sondra Erickson to the House. We expect to send Michelle Fischbach, John Pederson and Dave Brown back to the Senate while adding Mary Kiffmeyer to the Senate.
While I haven't studied the entire state, a couple of races caught my attention. John Carlson is matched against Tom Saxhaug in SD-5. I'm picking Sen. Carlson to win by 8-10 points. Carolyn McElfatrick is paired against Tom Anzelc in HD-5B with Larry Howes matched against John Persell in HD-5A. I expect McElfatrick to win by 4-6 points. I expect Howes to squeak out a victory against Persell.
When the dust settles, I expect Republicans to keep control of the Legislature, mostly on the strength of their recent candidates. The fire-breathing zealots that Tom Bakk and Paul Thissen whined about will be returned to torture Mssrs. Bakk and Thissen. Republicans will have a 71-63 majority in the House and a 38-29 majority in the Senate.
As for the congressional races, John Kline, Erik Paulsen, Michele Bachmann and Chip Cravaack will win re-election. Rumors from Tuesday night that Alida Rockefeller-Dayton-Messinger is demanding Ken Martin's head on a platter shouldn't be taken seriously, though understanding why nobody's heard of his whereabouts should be taken seriously.
The quality of the GOP legislative candidates will be a major reason why Republicans did so well. The leadership at the BPOU and congressional district levels, with a couple exceptions, will be a GOP strength, too.
Tags: John Carlson , Carolyn McElfatrick , Larry Howes , Jeff Howe , Jim Newberger , David Fitzsimmons , Nick Zerwas , Michele Bachmann , Chip Cravaack , GOP , Tom Saxhaug , Tom Anzelc , John Persell , Ken Martin , Alida Messinger , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Monday, November 5, 2012 3:40 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Nov-12 05:57 AM
I read it, had to do a word search to confirm, there is one race you omitted, yes/no?
Comment 2 by gobigred at 05-Nov-12 08:50 AM
I am glad to hear the positive forecast. The MN 5 has a very good candidate, Chris Fields and the Republican Party has got to help get rid of you-know-who. He is making up for tons of good out-state candidates. There is so much Damage being done. Do not forget the people here who have no voice even though we vote and fund your candidates.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 05-Nov-12 06:51 PM
Gobigred:
What we need to do is get the 4th and the 5th to start being closer to 50-50 compared with 70-30. That is why we Governor Dayton, Miss Swanson, Mr. Ritchie, Amy K, and Al F.
That's what we need to do to start winning state wide!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 05-Nov-12 06:55 PM
Gary:
I feel sorry for Ken. He is going to be blamed because Obama is going to drag down the ticket. He is going to be blamed because the marriage amendment and voter ID will get new voters out. He is going to be blamed because a 30 seat victory which they're expecting isn't going to happen.
Maybe if they have a real agenda instead of wanting to shutdown the state government and spend money we don't have they might have a chance to win.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Adjusted poll shows Mitt leading
It's important to not accept a poll's horserace numbers as Gospel fact. This poll is fatally flawed but it's quite fixable. Here's the horserace number:
Romney/Ryan, leaners: 49%
Obama/Biden, leaners: 49%
If people just read the horserace number, they'd think this race was a tie. They'd be wrong. This CNN poll has a D/R/I index of 41/30/29. In 2008, a year that was a tidal wave election, Democrats represented 39% of the electorate while Republicans represented 32% of the electorate. That means this poll vastly oversampled Democrats. Gallup recently did a poll of who would vote in this year's election. Here's what it said :
Independents 38%, Democrats 32%, Republicans 30%.
According to the CNN poll's internals, Gov. Romney is getting 99% of the Republicans' vote, 59% of the independents' vote and 5% of the Democrats' votes. Now let's plug those numbers into my votes per hundred method. If Romney is getting 99% of the Republicans' votes and Republicans represent 30% of all likely voters, that means he'll get 29.7 votes per hundred from Republicans. If Mitt gets 59% of independents' votes and they represent 38 voters per 100, that means Mitt would get 22.42 votes per hundred from independents. If Mitt gets 5% of the Democrats' votes and they represent 32 voters per 100, that means he'll get an additional 1.6 votes for a grand total of 53.72 votes per 100 for Mitt.
I don't believe, however, that Mitt's getting 99% of the Republicans' votes. I don't buy that President Obama is getting 95% of the Democrats' vote. I think Mitt's getting 85-90% of the Republicans' votes. Likewise, I think President Obama is getting 85-90% of the Democrats' votes. That changes the numbers to Mitt getting 25.5 votes per 100 of Republicans' votes and 4.8 votes per 100 from Democrats. The independents' number would stay the same. That means Mitt would get 52.72 votes per 100.
Far from being tied, this poll actually shows Mitt with a dominant 52.7%-47.3% lead. I'm betting that's a 'tie' Mitt Romney would embrace tomorrow night.
Tags: Polling , Votes Per 100 , CNN , Independents , President Obama , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Republicans , Election 2012
Posted Monday, November 5, 2012 8:17 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Nov-12 12:06 PM
The polls I trust will be open tomorrow.
Then with Nathan Sproul still alive and presumably active, can we even trust tomorrow's polls?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 05-Nov-12 06:47 PM
Eric:
Are you going to be one of those people who wait for the early break exit polls and believe that President Kerry is elected?
President Romney wins what looks like 53-47%
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
