More analysis to come shortly. But for now, here are some excerpts from the Rassmussen Reports polling results (emphasis mine):
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found Al Franken slightly ahead of incumbent Senator Norm Coleman in what is likely to be a closely contested campaign. Franken, a former comedian and political commentator, leads Coleman 49% to 46%. If the Democrats nominate trial attorney Mike Ciresi, the poll shows Coleman attracting 47% of the vote while Ciresi earns 45%.
These results show a significant improvement for Franken since an early November poll found him trailing by seven-points. That same survey found Coleman with a three point lead over Ciresi.
…
Coleman is viewed favorably by 55% of Minnesota voters and unfavorably by 42%. Fifty-percent (50%) of voters view Franken favorably, while 42% view him unfavorably. Ciresi is viewed favorably by 46% of voters, and unfavorably by 42%.
Two quick thoughts before I expand on this shortly:
- Franken has gained seriously ground on his favorable/unfavorable breakdown. This is the most common critique of Al as a candidate but his unfavorables are now equal to both Coleman and Ciresi while his favorables have risen 13 points, now besting Ciresi’s. This should seriously deflate concerns (but likely not eradicate) that Franken will not be able to combat his image as a comedian-pundit and reach out to Minnesotans.
- This result is again within the margin of error but agree generally with the result of two other polls within the last month showing Franken at a statistical tie with Coleman. This is a big story as the Republican party early on decided to make the narrative of this race Al Franken’s polarizing unelectablity. That he has gained significant ground, continues to gain ground, and is in a dead-heat with Coleman will be the political story of this cycle if this race remains competitive.
Loading ...
Now you got numbers to go with the fervor, and I’m not ashamed to say it, but its nice to see the favorables and unfaborables move. In fact, I’d say its a big weight of my chest, considering the lack of viable alternatives.
What will Franken’s unfavroables rise to after the Coleman campaign runs Franken’s gay bashing routines in campaign ads?
About the senate race, my father went to his county convention (in Chippewa Co) and Jack Nelson Pallmeyer got the 2 delegates from his county.
It seems like Franken and his campaign are doing good work and all that work is starting to show.
A correction. I was at the Chippewa County convention myself. Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer got all three of the delegates there. Of the alternates, 1 was strong Franken, 1 leaning Franken and 1 undecided.
(Full disclosure: I am not a staff person, but I am a committed volunteer in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s campaign.)
If the story is about negatives, it might be wise to consider Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer. He has none. Once people hear him, even if they go in supporting another candidate, they typically leave supporting Jack.
The county convention story is a little different however. It is a lot about who the candidate’s local supporters are. In Chippewa County, Jack had an amazing local surrogate who spoke with passion and gravitas about Jack. That’s where the votes came from.
The next day, in Grant County, it was a different story. Jack’s campaign had no strong local supporter and was only able to sway one delegate to “undecided.” Ciresi had some strong local support. Plus they pulled out all the big guns. Mike himself came, as did son Dominique, Mike’s beautiful wife and a full complement of paid staff. Even so, of the delegates, Ciresi got only 1 (to 1 Franken, the 1 undecided that I mentioned), and he got only 2 of the alternates (1 going to Franken).
It hard to draw firm conclusions from county conventions, but I have two working ones. One is that Franken support is fairly thin, even in Greater Minnesota where most people haven’t even heard of Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer or Mike Ciresi either. My second working conclusion is that, at this point, Jack is actually showing more strength in the endorsement process than Mike Ciresi. This is what I have been getting from the Senate straw polls that I heard about from the precinct caucuses, and this is what I am seeing so far at the few county conventions we know about.
No question: people know about Franken. No question (for me, at least): Franken’s challenge is still his high negatives, while Ciresi and Nelson-Pallmeyer have the challenge of name recognition. In my opinion, this is still a wide-open race, three Democrats each vastly superior to the guy currently holding Paul Wellstone’s Senate seat.
Matt, didn’t you get the memo. you need to alternate Republican and Conservative. before the word Rasmussen every time you use their poll *laughing*. This is no Liberal Media number set. This is the GOP’s preferred pollster.
“”What will Franken’s unfavroables rise to after the Coleman campaign runs Franken’s gay bashing routines in campaign ads?””
They will continue to improve as Coleman’s drop like a Rock for thinking the MN Electorate is so naive as to not be able to separate someones satirical acting as a career with their real self. But don’t tell Mikey, he needs to run with it. He is on a DFL winning streak and everything he touches lately turns to Democratic Gold. We will need his help to see Al Franken elected Senator, so mums the word *grin*
Flash http://centrisity.com
Right now is a great time to discuss Franken’s negatives and dismissing them does not help us. If he does get the endorsement and begins offically running against Norm it will be too late at that point. This is a wide open race and we have long way to go before we have our candidate. I like Jack. He has no negatives.
What really matters is who will turn out the party’s base. Turning out the base is how the Republicans won elections for years. Ciresi and Franken both are running on the “approximatly progressive” platform. Wow. Puts passion in ya, doesn’t it?
Jack has first rate progressive power. His backers have supported him with enough campaign cash and substantial volunteer time. He’s come from, in the words of Lori Sturdyvant, Star Tribune writer, “the supporting cast”, to be have made this a three way race for the delegate endorsement. The base is turning out for him, and that’s what counts. If you want a winner, go where the base is going. Especially when that candidate is such a nice, likeable person.
“He has no negatives.”
Mr. Larsen, your post contradicts itself. You want us to analyze Franken’s negatives before it is too late, but claim JNP has no negatives. Everyone has negatives. I won’t hi-jack this thread to grocery list them. Flash
Charley, apologies on my factual errors, I was a bit distracted when my father was telling me about the co. convention he had said the JNP had swept the delegates and I had thought he had there were two, and he had mentioned the local surrogate… studying microbiology and physiology will mess with your perceptions.
I’m confused about turning out the base with strong progressive- Isn’t high turnout nearly guarenteed in presidential election yr? Isn’t the most electable candidate the one who will do well with swing voters? Which candidate would that be? Maybe any of the three would beat Norm this year. I do get to vote on this at my SD convention this spring and like reading views here on the candidates.
This looks like some GW Bush “fuzzy math” to me. Preaching that someone has momentum when all are TIED is a little absurd. To assert Franken is rising while others sink is ridiculous: THE NUMBERS AREN’T THERE!
Further, EITHER Democrat will give Coleman a run for his money.
Long and short of it is the post is much ado about nothing. Either Democrat is, at this point, EQUALLY positioned to win or lose. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves and follow James Carville analysis that this election is ours to win “unless we talk ourselves out of it.”
One thing that we haven’t looked at is the depth of disapproval. For example, some folks may disagree with Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer’s support for the failed 55 miles per hour speed limit. But they know a 55 limit probably wouldn’t pass even if pigs take flight. On the other hand, Franken’s angry outbursts will merit deep disapproval from most Minnesotans should he be on the ballot in November and give Coleman an easy reelection.
Laurie,
(Wellstone) Base building is about building from within. You start with those closest to you and those of like mind first and build outward. Your base will be the ones who are going to do all the work (identifying, persuading, and getting out the vote) to win the election. So the bigger the base and coalitions (veterans for Wellstone, nurses, teachers, immigrants steelworkers, peace activists etc.) The more successful you will be. Most recently Keith Ellison’s campaign did an excellent job of this. An easy way to think of it is how do you plan a party? Who do you invite first? Your friends, family, co-workers people you are in sports with etc. not people who you hardly know or strangers.
In contrast The Clinton/DLCC style is to try to appeal to the swing voters while basically igoring or taking your base for granted. There are problems with this such as appearing inauthentic when you modify your positions based upon focus groups or polls for example. You may have heard people say that “some politicians lick their finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing.” “Electability” is a beltway term which came about because of this Clinton style of electoral politics (of course people have been concerned with winning elections since the beginning of time, so don’t get me wrong. This is not a new concept). In fairness this came about after the butt kicking experienced by George Mcgovern in 1972 and the Democrats, and rightly so, were concerned about it never happening again. However, the electoral pendulum swings back and forth and we will win some elections and lose some. It is important to stick to your principles after a big loss and not throw in the towel and basically concede to the opponent that the country is “conservative” and the only way we can win is to modify our positions and move to the “mythological middle” to not seem too liberal. There is no left to right scale from 1-10 liberal to conservative, it does not exist. Some peope are pure conservatives and some pure liberals. Others are partial conservatives or partial progressives that may be conservative on one issues and liberal on another.
In comparison, the Republicans lost big to LBJ (Barry Goldwaters’ butt kicking in 1964) but they did not give up and move to the “left.” They may be wrong, or mean, or evil, but they NEVER move to the left. This strategy may be easier to sell in other areas of the country but in Minnesota, we are intelligent, independent thinkers. In Minnesota, “Electable” means we pick the best candidate and elect them.
I can appreciate Democrats longing to win elections, but I would also question how successful this Clinton style is. Just because Bill Clinton won the presidency twice, does not mean this could work for everyone. (Hillary is having trouble with it right now) He got a lot of help from Ross Perot, is a good politician (not necessarily a compliment), and is incredibly charismatic. I would also question what we won. Bill Clinton did more to alienate and harm his own base such as passing NAFTA and Welfare reform.
In my opinion and from what I have witnessed, The Wellstone model is the best, and the one I believe in. In other words, if you are firing up and uniting your base you are doing well. This is what I believe the person is saying who talks about “turning out the progressive base.”
Believe me I am very concerned about idealism AND being practical. I want to win BADLY. It’s just that recently the Democrats have paid way too much attention to the politics and not enough to the principal when selecting their candidates. So the two most irritating words to me right now are electability and pragmatism. Trying to be everything to everyone results in being nothing to no one (look at Hillary) and compromising first is a terrible way to negotiate.
Vote for whoever you think is best. I would just challenge you to think independently and vote for who you think is the right candidate, not who someone is telling you is “electable.”
I am a Jack Nelson Pallmeyer supporter. Andy
Andy,
Thanks for the detailed explanation on winning candidates and elections. It made a lot of sense. I was already planning to vote for the candidate I think is best, once I decide who that is. I vote more based on wholistic impressions of integrity, leadership, experience etc. than analysis of policy positions (mpr’s simplistic survey rated all 3 nearly equal in matching my views on the issues.) I’m currently between Ciresi and J. Nelson Pallmeyer, but would have no problem voting for Franken if his name is on the ballot in Nov. I’ve enjoyed this site since recently rediscovering it and will be checking in on opinions frequently over the next few weeks. Laurie
Andrew,
While your views are interesting they contain a couple fundamental flaws. The Republican party had two distinct camps since the days of Teddy Roosevelt. The divide was roughly viewed as the northern progressives and the western libertarians. The Democrats too were a divided party with the newer progressives that took after FDR and the southern Democrats that were fundamentally still pissed off at the Republicans for the Civil war. The Dixiecrats were a very powerful group due to congressional rules that emphasized seniority more than they do today.
The 1964 election was the election that was the first after a fundamental change happened in both parties. The civil rights movement and changes in congressional rules allowed LBJ to neuter the Dixiecrats and gain support from the Rockefeller Republican voters and many libertarian Republicans who were appalled at what was happening in the south. At the same time the Dixiecrats, after a failed attempt at an independent run in 1960, moved to the Republican party to take advantage of their core belief in states rights.
Goldwater’s drubbing in ’64 caused the party to make a fundamental change.
and move to a “big government conservatism” that used LBJ’s strategy as a model. They would use the power of the federal government to promise benefits to their constituents that were greater than the costs those groups would have to bare. This included supporting programs that would have been unthinkable just a couple of cycles earlier. Nixon and his price controls, indexed social security, elimination of the gold standard and creation of the EPA and OSHA constituted a massive move to the traditional “left”. Nixon was also elected in part to end the war in Vietnam that had been started and escalated by the two previous Democratic presidents. The fact that his methods of doing so were disastrous does not change that.
Reagan made overtures to the old libertarian wing of the party in 1980. This didn’t take much after a relatively liberal Nixon and very liberal Carter. Reagan’s early tax cuts were quickly reversed and any pressure he put to reduce the size of government was more than countered by his strong arm, activist foreign policies.
GWB has completed the parties move from that of a small government, economic liberal one to one that mirrors the Democratic party in almost every way. The primary difference now being the constituents that each side is trying to please. The fact that the Republican party holds many of the cultural conservatives does not mean they are still the conservative party that nominated Goldwater in 1964.
p.s. Your arrogance about Minnesota voters and ability to consider all Republicans as “wrong, or mean, or evil” probably has more to do with why those who think like you can’t generate more support than any particular policy position.
p.p.s. There is a good book that was recently published called “The Next Civil War” that is very complete on this very subject.
It’s always difficult to communicate via email instead of having a dialogue in person, and people are bound to be misunderstood. I am echoing the anger of a lot of Democrats I hear that call Republicans mean and evil. This may be the case when talking about the use of Owellian language, or lying us into a war for example. However, simply pointing out the truth about your opponent will not set you free and is not an effective strategy for persuading voters. This is a myth among Progressives that I was pointing out and had very little to do with my point. It’s unfortunate that you misunderstood me.
Personally I like all different types of people and am interested in making friends with political adversaries and finding common ground on policy. As I have grown up and matured, I have been more willing to do this. Some of my biggest heroes like George McGovern, Gene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone were famous for making friends with Republicans and finding common ground on politics. They are examples that I try to emulate. So of course I don’t blanket all Republicans as bad because of the neocons. There are many Republicans who feel the same way I do about George W.
I stand by my statement that Minnesota is above average and that the voters here are more independent minded than other states when it comes to voting.
Fair enough Andrew.