The poll shows that only 30 percent of adults want to see the two-term governor make a try for the White House three years from now, while 55 percent do not.
Pawlenty is still quite popular. So why do so few Minnesotans want to see him run for president? Minnesota has yet to produce a sitting president, and I would think Minnesotans would want to see a fellow Minnesotan in the White House.
The poll doesn’t go into any more detail, so we can’t be sure of why so few people want to see Pawlenty run. If I had to guess, though, I would say it’s because the Governor is already embarrassing himself and our state. In just a few short months, he has flip-flopped and pandered like a true pro. He has shown that he doesn’t have any true convictions, and that he’ll say or do absolutely anything that will get him elected.
My guess is that its due to his mediocrity. He has no substantive accomplishments as an executive. This is not a man that is presidential material.
He reminds me of The Simpson's episode: "A Streetcar named Marge" in which the play director tastes a brownie and exclaims "Would anyone else like a bite of banality?" Pawlenty is Minnesota's brownie.
But NMer — if they felt he was mediocre, why would he have a 55% approval rating, much higher than Franken's? Franken is supposed to be in his honeymoon phase from a ratings standpoint.
My speculation is that Pawlenty's break to the right as a talking head is something many Minnesotans don't like. His governing has not broken as far to the right as his rhetoric, which is why the job approval rating is still in the 50's, despite the unallotment which was quite unpopular.
For him to be in the 50's this year is actually quite strong.
Dan,
Please look at the original post at: http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/6247827...
Pawlenty's approval rating is not 55%. It is 49%. I do agree that Pawlenty's attempts at ingratiating himself to the Republican donor base are strikingly obvious. However, that was not the point of my post. Rather, that while playing defense to the DFL might be sufficient for a MN governor, it is surely not a marker of presidential acumen.
According to DtM 49=55 if a republican is having approval polled, and 60=50 if a Democrat is being polled. It's t3h new math.
The poll you cite was rigged. The questions asked regarding each candidate were DIFFERENT.
SUSA used normal methodology. The results are as follows:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g...
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Tim Pawlenty is doing as Governor?
Approve: 45 percent
Disapprove: 52 percent
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Al Franken is doing as United States Senator?
Approve: 49 percent
Disapprove: 44 percent
Is there a poll asking Minnesotans if they'd like to see Franken make a White House in three years? No. Then why does DtM find it analogous? Its not.
For once, I'd like to see the republicans address their weaknesses without trying to equivocate the issue or answer with the Democrats. Its getting old and not winning any elections for them.
Sorry - was simply trying to put the figure in context. When you see T-Paw's 56% approval from last week compared to Klobuchar or Franken, it then has some meaning. The other way I could put it in context, I guess, is by showing trend, and his job approval is near is 1-year highs right now.
With that said, I believe T-Paw would have a better chance of becoming President if he maintains the Centrist tendencies he has shown over hte past 6 years.
Oh, and I was comparing job approval with job approval, so those two metrics are analogous. Granted, that wasn't the subject of the original post.
As of last week T-Paw's approval was 56% from the Strib, identical to Klobuchar's.
Perhaps they are two different polls. http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/6003327...
The poll you cite was undertaken by Rasmussen and published 9/21 with a margin of error of 4.5 points. The poll I included was undertaken by the Star Tribune and published on 9/29. The Tribune utilized Princeton Survey Research Associates International and had a margin of error of 4.1 points. Without any more knowledge of methodology, I cannot say which is a more accurate snapshot.
I think the interesting part of this poll is the Homer aspect (as in a sports fan). I'd love to see Minnesota have a favorite son President. As is we are sort of the Vice Presidential State but no cigar for the Big Dog position… reminds me of the Vikings. So even with typical Minnesotan pride of place, lack of a presidential winner and favorite son shining light, 55% of Minnesotans want no part of his candidacy.
I think we just saw the kiss of political death once his GOP presidential competitors see that. Beyond the never-ending Bridge fall down references they will make, the argument could be made that the guy can't even carry his own state which has only a middling amount of electoral college votes anyway. This is the Great White Hope of the Republican Party? A bunch of whackjob Southerners are going to get excited about this stiff? They are the ones who will determine the GOP candidate.
With that in mind… RUN TIMMY RUN. Give it all you got… did he take lessons in being an opportunist from Norm?
I think there are a couple of big reasons for Minnesotans' reluctance to have Pawlenty on the national stage. During the last seven years, Minnesota has fallen in every econonic measure against the other 49 states. I even heard on MPR last week that Minnesota has fallen from first to third in the nation in the percentage of people with health insurance. This is an embarrassment; while the rest of the nation has fallen on hard times, Minnesota has fallen further faster.
Another big reason is the unallotment. This shows true despotism. People can cast blame where they will - and the DFL legislature deserves its share - but the unallotment is an act of one man steadfastly gripping his toys. Imagine that attitude at work on a national scale with international repercussions. Sounds like a previous administration…
I find it interesting that Pat Anderson is leveling charges against Marty Seifert insinuating that he somehow doesn't support the Republican platform. If you look at this article about her http://www.secretsofthecity.com/magazine/reportin... , it's pretty clear that Pat Anderson is the one with explaining to do.
-She supported pro-abortion, anti-free trader Ross Perot over the Republican nominee for President, George HW Bush in 1992. This is shocking to say the least and she freely admits throwing our Republican President under the bus for a 3rd party candidate!
-She strongly opposed drilling in ANWR! This is a very important issue for energy policy and in our platform! She said energy should "all be solar and wind." Here's a quote from the article: "But unlike other Republicans who furtively oppose drilling in ANWR, Awada is willing to take her opposition one step further. “If I was President Bush, the first thing I’d do is I’d announce that we would become self-sufficient on solar and wind.”
-In Eagan, she constantly fought for fancy palaces, like the new community center, that takes tons of tax money to subsidize it each year. In fact, she helped place the ballot question on for a very, very odd time of the year, avoiding higher turnout and rejection by the voters. Another quote from the article: Unlike her fellow Eaganite, Governor Tim Pawlenty, she refused to sign a “no tax” pledge during the 2002 campaign. “I’m very fiscally conservative, but there are certain things a community needs to do to create community. Especially in suburbia,” she says. When Awada was a suburban mayor, those things included controversial levies and bonding to acquire property for parks and to build recreational facilities. She often found herself at odds with Eagan’s anti-tax Republicans.
Read the article above and figure this out for yourself. Pat Anderson has no credibility questioning anyone's Republican credentials.
I think the confusion is based on two polls the Star Tribune published, not an interpretation error.