Chanting Points Memo: The Humphrey Institute Poll
By Mitch Berg
So yesterday Minnesota DFLers were grinning like toddlers that’d just made a good pants at this MPR report that referred to this Humphrey Institute poll that showed Dayton beating the DFL primary field, and – more importantly – beating Emmer.
But the media reports on this poll have been, to be charitable, sloppy. To be less charitable, they tip us off at the very least to the Humphrey Institute’s and most likely the media’s bias.
For those of you from out of state, the Humphrey Institute is a University of Minnesota think tank that is largely dedicated toward – wait for it – “better”, bigger government. It tends to be a DFL feeder program.
The story is up-front about the criteria for the DFL primary poll (I’ve added emphasis):
Among likely voters, Mark Dayton (38%) leads Kelliher (28%) and Entenza (6%) in the contest
for the August 10th primary to choose the Democratic Party’s nominee.
That is as opposed to “registered voters”; likely voters are the ones who are most likely to actually make it to the polls.
Now, here is what the Humphrey institute wrote about the GOP race:
The most striking and unusual pattern in the Dayton/Emmer match-up is that a third of
Republicans are defecting from their Party’s candidate, an unusual pattern within the GOP
electorate. Dayton is drawing 11% of Republicans as compared to the 3% of Democrats
supporting Emmer. This may be a temporary blip as Emmer launches his campaign or a sign
that his conservatism may pose a challenge to unifying his party against Dayton.
“Defecting?”
Interesting word choice; it implies that a third of Republicans started out firmly in the Emmer camp, but have left. Is there some prior poll over the past two and a half weeks – which was when Emmer was endorsed in the first place – that showed Republicans were completely united? Sure, there are still some Seifert supporters with ruffled feathers; there are some Ron Paul people who are making a point of remaining undecided; there are still some Arne Carlson and Dave Durenberger “Republicans” – read “Democrats with better suits” – lurking around the party.
Which means Emmer’s got his work cut out for him – and the campaign knows that, just as they knew it when they lost the straw poll at the GOP Central Committee meeting by a fairly decisive margin.
So is it a sign that Emmer’s “conservatism” is a problem? It’s possible – but it can not possibly be inferred by any of the data in a single, initial poll five months before the election.
Not that the Twin Cities media will say so.
May 20th, 2010 at 7:10 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by mitchpberg, NARN2. NARN2 said: So did the media and the Humphrey Institute oversell the result of their poll? http://bit.ly/bhcPTk #narn2 #hhrs – read it and tell me. […]
May 20th, 2010 at 9:17 am
“Interesting word choice; it implies that a third of Republicans started out firmly in the Emmer camp, but have left.”
I think they are implying that of the people that started out firmly in the Republicans camp, a third of them were uhappy enough with Emmer to take their votes outside the party.
I agree that the poll means very little at this point, but going up against a candidate more conservative than moderate is going to give the Democrats a better chance of winning the general election.
May 20th, 2010 at 9:52 am
I think they are implying that of the people that started out firmly in the Republicans camp, a third of them were uhappy enough with Emmer to take their votes outside the party.
Well, then the poll accomplished its mission of obfuscating the race, implying causation that the data supports in no way – indeed, that the data is utterly silent about.
It says a third of Republicans are undecided or voting for hamsters; it leaves it to reporters and pundits to assume it’s because “Emmer’s too conservative” or “Horner is dreamy”, rather than “Emmer is a metro candidate who isn’t as well-known outstate” or “the Paulbots and Tea Party Republicans are flexing their muscles by staying splendidly above it all for the moment”.
I agree that the poll means very little at this point, but going up against a candidate more conservative than moderate is going to give the Democrats a better chance of winning the general election.
You state that as a given. The fact is, Emmer is conservative – in ways that most Minnesotans are. Mostly silent on social issues; a spending hawk.
I said it yesterday, I’ll say it today; people who meet Emmer are likely as not to walk away convinced. People who meet Dayton fall asleep. People who meet Kelliher? I don’t know a lot of non-DFL-activists who have…
May 20th, 2010 at 10:15 am
“Mostly silent on social issues;”
His support of the new Arizona immigration law may skew that perception to the contrary. That aside, I think you touched on some good points.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:17 am
His support of the new Arizona immigration law may skew that perception to the contrary.
Well, let’s be accurate; he supported the law as passed, which tightened up the criteria for making stops. That, of course, is not what the chanting point says, of course.
And he supports tightening up on illegal immigration in general, which most Minnesotans do as well (according to the usually leftward-skewing HHH/MPR poll).
May 20th, 2010 at 10:24 am
apathyboy said:
“His support of the new Arizona immigration law …”
Smart people wouldn’t classify that as a “social issue”. It is more of a “reading comprehension” or “obstinate denial of fact” issue.
May 20th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Apathboy might be right about Emmer’s support for the AZ immigration law peeling off 10% of GOP voters.
Republican businessmen are notoriously pro-illegal immigration. Pocket book trumps patriotism for some economic conservatives.
May 20th, 2010 at 11:14 am
“Dayton is drawing 11% of Republicans as compared to the 3% of Democrats supporting Emmer. ”
BALDERDASH!!!!!!!!!!!
May 20th, 2010 at 11:49 am
His support of the new Arizona immigration law may skew that perception to the contrary.
As a practical matter, anyone whose vote in a Minnesota election hinges upon the state of Arizona law is probably in the camp that wasn’t going to consider Emmer under any circumstance. I doubt that issue will move the needle.
May 20th, 2010 at 11:59 am
“BALDERDASH!!!!!!!!!!!”
Strib said it. Must be true.
May 20th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Indeed (SNARK)
May 21st, 2010 at 6:59 am
[…] fairly sure that’s behind a good chunk of the “defection” from Tom Emmer that the MPR/Hubert Humphrey Institute poll purported to show; they’re keeping their options open until they’re convinced which […]