I’m going to go back to Dave Mindeman’s piece at mnpACT, about the most recent Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey of Minnesota politics, for the numbers on some issues that don’t pertain to Governor Dayton and the Legislature.
Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is headed for a close vote. 48% of voters say they support it while 44% are opposed.
I neither support nor oppose the Amendment, but I have a fearless prediction; if the PPP poll, which trends a little left and features a left-heavy sample, calls it a four point race today, it’ll be 49-41 in November.
Let’s go back to the whole “people like their own bastards” bit: Mindeman, mindful of the poll results, asks:
So, WHERE is the DFL candidates for MN-02 and MN-06 ? MN-03 and MN-08 seem to have multiple candidates in the mix …. if there are going to be any coattails from the top to help the State Legislature candidates, doesn’t there need to be someone in every district ?
There are two answers: First, it’s further evidence that people like their own bastards; while national polling shows that Congress is less popular than Slobodan Milosevic, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know that John Kline and Michele Bachmann will win their districts by 30 and 15 points respectively, even if the Dems endorsed Zombie JFK to run for the office.
“Even though Congress is unpopular?”
Yep. As noted earlier today, polls of legislative bodies as a whole are almost always misleading. Congress may be unpopular; Kline and Bachmann are not.
BTW … do you think the mature approach that Governor Dayton has taken on the Vikiings stadium has helped … even if the taxpayers don’t want to pay for it, they sure don’t want to the lose the business … and obviously the Governor is trying.
If by “mature approach” Mindeman means coming out of his closet long enough to croak “Uh want ivverbaddy to git to WOARK and sulve the prollum”, then retreating to the closet and letting the Legislature, the cities, the counties, the NFL and Wilf do all the work? It may or may not be “mature”, but it’s certainly easier on the poll numbers.
In Hawaii we now have civil unions, approved by an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature and signed into law by a Democrat governor. The usual suspects are suing the state, saying that it needs to be marriage or it violates the state constitution.
Which is why a state constitutional amendment is the way to go. It’s not a matter of letting the people decide in any case, the pro gay marriage forces will seek to enshrine the right in the constitution using the courts unless the constitution expressly forbids it.
I realize that you think my opinions are nothing short of drivel, but it would be preferable if you would at least attribute these quotes to the proper source. The last two quotes in your “piece” were from a commenter, not me.
And by the way, since you are a Constitutional purist (I think), why would you want an amendment that has a breakdown showing people over 65 are inclined to favor…while a large majority of under 65 voters are against it. Even if you are in favor of such an amendment, why saddle the future citizens of this state with, what to them, is a very unpopular provision? Why won’t you address that?
I realize that you think my opinions are nothing short of drivel,
Good lord, Mindeman – I started the damn piece by complimenting you. At least as far as I ever compliment leftybloggers. What do you want?
but it would be preferable if you would at least attribute these quotes to the proper source. The last two quotes in your “piece” were from a commenter, not me.
OK…
And by the way, since you are a Constitutional purist (I think), why would you want an amendment that has a breakdown showing people over 65 are inclined to favor…while a large majority of under 65 voters are against it.
Not sure what polling has to do with constitutional purism. And I’ve seen polling that shows other results.
Even if you are in favor of such an amendment, why saddle the future citizens of this state with, what to them, is a very unpopular provision? Why won’t you address that?
You mean, “why don’t I address it in this piece?”, don’t you? Because I have addressed it. I support civil unions, and getting government out of the marriage business. I am ambivalent about the amendment. But I know why they’re pushing it, and I suspect so do you, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Speaking of which, Dave – since you brought it up, why do you suppose the DFL never pushed legalization during the four years they controlled the entire Legislature? And don’t say “because Pawlenty would have vetoed it”, because if the majority of the people had supported gay marriage, that would have been good for the DFL in the longer term.
Why do you suppose that is? I have my theory, but I love hearing DFLers’ explanations…
Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.