Alida Will Not Be Amused

More results from the Survey USA poll from yesterday.

I gotta confess, this one surprised me.  Conventional wisdom has it that the Left’s suffocating blanket of spending and publicity, as well as the purported apathy of many voters to the issue, would scupper the Marriage Amendment.

According to this poll – which, remember, oversampled Democrats, 38 to 32% – it’s just not so:

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?

52% Vote For

37% Vote Against

5% Not Vote

6% Not Sure

Remember, “No answer” counts as a “no” on Constitutional votes in Minnesota.  So let’s say these results hold up ’til election day, and that every single “Not Sure” response in this poll ends up voting “no” or not voting (which won’t happen); the measure passes 52-48.

This, I did not expect.

And I’m a tad gratified to see that the poll shows people seem to be resisting, broadly, the DFL’s torrent of lies and innuendo about the Voter ID Amendment:

An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot would require voters to show photo I.D.’s in order to vote on Election Day. Will you vote FOR the amendment? Against the amendment? Or not vote on the measure?

65% Vote For

28% Vote Against

2% Not Vote

4% Not Sure

If the “Fors” stay put, and every single “Not Sure” votes against it (again, not gonna happen), the measure passes by almost 2:1.

While gay marriage isn’t an issue I care much about – I support civil unions – I’m glad to see that on at least a couple of issues, according to one mildly-DFL-leaning and slightly DFL-oversampled poll, the DFL’s huge, expensive, and slimy propaganda war seems at this moment to be crapping out.

6 thoughts on “Alida Will Not Be Amused

  1. You know, I’m against the marriage amendment, I will vote against it, and urge others to do so.

    If it passes, though, at least a lot of the right people will be pissed off.

  2. Don’t amendments require a 60% affirmative vote?

    If we can get around the lies being broadcast about this amendment, pointing out that it changes absolutely NOTHING in the laws regarding marriage, perhaps more people will see it as sensible, which it is.

  3. J: nope, simple majority.

    If a majority of all the electors voting at the election vote to ratify an amendment, it becomes a part of this constitution.

    https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/constitution/#article_9 (section 1)

    Non-votes still count as “no” votes. I’m not sure I agree with that principle. My first impression is that non-votes should not count at all. I’m willing to listen to persuasion otherwise.

  4. Additional thought: Say the Voter ID amendment passes. What other legal/political/legislative tricks will be tried to undo it? I’m sure a lawsuit will be filed with the hopes that SCOMN or whatever district federal circuit court we are under in MN, will declare the constitutional amendment unconstitutional like that federal activist judge did with Prop 8 in CA. THAT was a bit of legal flimflammery that even outdid Roe v. Wade.

    CA: We democratically elect to change our constitution to uphold a law that has previously been deemed unconstitutional
    Judge: No, that change would be unconstitutional.
    CA: Right, we want to CHANGE our constitution so that it our law ISN’T unconstitutional, and we legally voted to change the constitution.
    Judge: No. Bad dog. *smack with rolled up newspaper*

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.