tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70780983930817740132024-02-19T20:07:37.991-06:00minn-DonkeyMinnesota Politics from a donkey's perspective.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.comBlogger205125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-16427348175157555642012-05-21T01:18:00.001-05:002012-05-21T01:18:25.231-05:00GoodbyeWhile I haven't really been writing here much lately, I'm going to make it official. The site will stay alive as an archive, but no more new material will be posted here.
I am now blogging at <a href="http://left.mn">left.mn</a>, check it out!TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-55171790020371533772012-04-05T07:53:00.001-05:002012-04-05T07:57:22.336-05:00The Enthusiasm Gap is back<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/04/dems-winning-on-enthusiasm.html">It's back</a>! The dreaded juggernaut that toppled Democratic legislative majorities all over the country in 2010, the Enthusiasm Gap, has again reared it's head, huffing and snorting for more politicians blood.<br />
<br />
Only this time, the Enthusiasm Gap appears to have switched sides and will now be trampling over GOPers.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://dailykos.com/weeklypolling/2012/3/22">PPP</a> (3/26):<br />
<blockquote>"Are you very excited, somewhat excited, or not at all excited about voting in the 2012 elections?"<br />
<br />
Democrats<br />
<b>Very excited</b> 57<br />
<b>Somewhat excited</b> 28<br />
<b>Not at all excited</b> 15<br />
<br />
Republicans<br />
<b>Very excited</b> 46<br />
<b>Somewhat excited</b> 30<br />
<b>Not at all excited</b> 24<br />
(MoE: ±3.1%)</blockquote><br />
57% very excited Democrats and 46% very excited Republicans is a gap of 11 points. On March 28th 2011, almost exactly one year before this poll was taken, the Democrats numbers were about the same, 55% very excited. The big difference is that last year 56% of Republicans were very excited as well. <br />
<br />
This graph helps to illustrate my point:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><img src="http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8697/2012enthusiasmgap.png" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br />
<br />
The blue line is Democrats who are very excited and the red line is Republicans who are very excited. The black lines running through them are linear trend lines, which highlight the erosion of Republican enthusiasm since the start of the GOP nominating process.<br />
<br />
Past performance, as they say, is no guarantee of future results. Its too early for us to conclude that this dynamic will persist until November, but the Enthusiasm Gap is in our favor right now and has been steadily moving that way for months now, so we can have some confidence in the trends.<br />
<br />
To be sure, this weekend you should offer up a sacrifice of Grilled Foodstuffs and Fermented Beverages to the almighty Enthusiasm Gap so that it may see our gratitude and remain on our side for the coming battle. If you have any recommendations for Foodstuffs and Beverages that may please the Enthusiasm Gap please leave them in the comments so that we may prepare a pleasing offering to our new ally.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-30001253447447212322012-02-27T07:39:00.001-06:002012-02-27T07:41:41.883-06:00Not Almanac Episode 6: Redistricting!<img align="right" src="http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3410/notalmanaclogo.png" alt="Not Almanac logo"/>In this weeks episode we talk about redistricting... for the whole show.<br />
<br />
<div><audio controls="controls" id="auidoplayerhtml5podbean2dc2294ed8e9353ea406d6eac420585c"><br />
<source src="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/csn25x/NotAlmanac2-27-12.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" autoplay="no"><br />
Your browser does not support the audio element.<br />
</audio><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var audioTag = document.createElement('audio');
if (!(!!(audioTag.canPlayType) && ("no" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")) && ("" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")))) {
document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean2dc2294ed8e9353ea406d6eac420585c').parentNode.removeChild(document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean2dc2294ed8e9353ea406d6eac420585c'));
document.write('<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="210" height="25" id="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/csn25x/NotAlmanac2-27-12.mp3&autoStart=no" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
<embed src="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/csn25x/NotAlmanac2-27-12.mp3&autoStart=no" quality="high" width="210" height="25" name="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object>');
}
</script></div><br />
<a href="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/">Download here</a>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-75774702486148785332012-02-21T13:04:00.002-06:002012-02-27T07:37:18.138-06:00The Maps Have LandedObama/McCain %:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/67/partisannumbers.png" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br />
<br />
Population distribution:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3986/populationdispersion.png" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br />
<br />
Pretty much a text book example of "least change," which the some in the GOP were trying to say was just not possible.<br />
<br />
Only Betty McCollum and John Kline retained less then 90% of their constituents, and both of their districts went in the other direction from a partisan perspective, although in Betty's case, it's hardly anything to worry about as she's still in a deeply Democratic district.<br />
<br />
John Kline is a different story though. His district is now an Obama majority district, having cast 50.5% of their vote for the President. This doesn't mean that Kline is suddenly on the watch list, but if the GOP congress continues to be as unpopular as it is and quality candidate emerges, he could be in for a real fight.<br />
<br />
While this isn't as good as the map the DFL submitted, it is probably the best we could have expected in a court map. This is a scenario that many saw as possible based on the redistricting principal of not splitting counties, and by keeping Dakota county whole, the court added a bunch of DFLers to Kline's district.<br />
<br />
Here's the map, more info when I get it.<br />
<br />
<img width="450" src="http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/3743/newmapi.png" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br />
<br />
And the cities close up.<br />
<br />
<img width="450" src="http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6096/newcities.png" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br />
<br />
Quick thoughts, 2 got a lot bluer!TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-74025577749184575432012-02-20T11:00:00.001-06:002012-02-20T11:00:06.182-06:00Not Almanac Episode 5: More GOP BS<img align="right" src="http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3410/notalmanaclogo.png" alt="Not Almanac logo"/>This week we talk about: more Republican bullshit, a legislative skills test, and we get into the weeds on some of the bills floating around the capitol.<br />
<br />
<div><audio controls="controls" id="auidoplayerhtml5podbeand5e83536f2329098293e2c469efad327"><br />
<source src="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/3nvvn9/NotAlmanac2-20-12.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" autoplay="no"><br />
Your browser does not support the audio element.<br />
</audio><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var audioTag = document.createElement('audio');
if (!(!!(audioTag.canPlayType) && ("no" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")) && ("" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")))) {
document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbeand5e83536f2329098293e2c469efad327').parentNode.removeChild(document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbeand5e83536f2329098293e2c469efad327'));
document.write('<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="210" height="25" id="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/3nvvn9/NotAlmanac2-20-12.mp3&autoStart=no" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/3nvvn9/NotAlmanac2-20-12.mp3&autoStart=no" quality="high" width="210" height="25" name="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object>');
}
</script></div><br />
<a href="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/">Download here</a>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-18340309909808639052012-02-13T11:30:00.001-06:002012-02-13T11:30:02.406-06:00Not Almanac Episode 4: That ALEC guy<img align="right" src="http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3410/notalmanaclogo.png" alt="Not Almanac logo"/>This week we talk about: bullshit, Mark Dayton’s sharp elbows and of course that one guy, ALEC. Also in this edition we have an actual guest, Jesse Ross will talk with us about design in politics.<br />
<br />
<div><audio controls="controls" id="auidoplayerhtml5podbean211ecf522715125bc0db47287b694ad2"><br />
<source src="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/afcd5d/NotAlmanac2-13-12.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" autoplay="no"><br />
Your browser does not support the audio element.<br />
</audio><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var audioTag = document.createElement('audio');
if (!(!!(audioTag.canPlayType) && ("no" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")) && ("" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")))) {
document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean211ecf522715125bc0db47287b694ad2').parentNode.removeChild(document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean211ecf522715125bc0db47287b694ad2'));
document.write('<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="210" height="25" id="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/afcd5d/NotAlmanac2-13-12.mp3&autoStart=no" />
<param name="quality" value="high" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent" />
<embed src="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/afcd5d/NotAlmanac2-13-12.mp3&autoStart=no" quality="high" width="210" height="25" name="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object>');
}
</script></div><br />
<a href="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/">Download here</a>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-18406399209797565462012-02-10T07:57:00.001-06:002012-02-10T08:04:51.701-06:00A-Klo, Dayton and the terrible, rotten, no-good Legislature<img align="right" width="200" src="http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa388/MNProgressive/Headshots/amy_klobuchar.jpg" border="0" alt="Amy Klobuchar" title="Amy Klobuchar">This is me, <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2012/01/klo-still-crushing.html">two weeks ago</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Posts about Amy Klobuchar polls are not really that fun to write. Every one is exactly the same, Amy is at around 55% and when you're at 55% it doesn't really matter what your challengers are doing.<br />
<br />
And hey, look at that, this poll shows her at 55%. Against everyone. Again. For the third time. Call me shocked.</blockquote><br />
And <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/11/klo-cruising.html">ten weeks before that</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I might as well just write up a template for all these A-Klo poll posts, because they've all been the same so far. Amy Klobuchar is polling well over 50% against her announced opponents and is polling at 50% against the MN GOP's A-team, who can't even crack 40% against her.</blockquote><br />
And today:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d951555b-842e-42a3-a7e0-a404b45611ba">SurveyUSA</a> (2/3, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=98e06008-a002-4bda-b2dc-d5093903734a">11/8</a> in parenthesis):<br />
<blockquote><b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 56 (55)<br />
<b>Dan Severson (R)</b> 29 (23)<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 15 (22)<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 59 (56)<br />
<b>Joe Arwood (R)</b> 28 (22)<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 14 (22)<br />
(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
The real notable thing about this poll is that some of the undecideds have come off the fence and almost all of them went into the Republican candidates column, both Severson and Arwood are up 6 points since the last SUSA poll.<br />
<br />
While that may seem like a bit of a worrying trend, it's not. It's was simply undecided Republicans, deciding to go with the Republican, which was going to happen anyway.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Observe:<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>Change in undecideds by party affiliation</B></CAPTION>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Severson</TD> <td ALIGN=right>Rep</TD> <td ALIGN=right>Dem</TD> <td ALIGN=right>Ind</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>8-Nov</TD> <td ALIGN=right>23</TD> <td ALIGN=right>12</TD> <td ALIGN=right>28</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>3-Feb</TD> <td ALIGN=right>9</TD> <td ALIGN=right>10</TD> <td ALIGN=right>23</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Change</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-14</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-5</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right></TD> <td ALIGN=right></TD> <td ALIGN=right></TD> <td ALIGN=right></TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Arwood</TD> <td ALIGN=right>Rep</TD> <td ALIGN=right>Dem</TD> <td ALIGN=right>Ind</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>8-Nov</TD> <td ALIGN=right>24</TD> <td ALIGN=right>12</TD> <td ALIGN=right>27</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>3-Feb</TD> <td ALIGN=right>10</TD> <td ALIGN=right>8</TD> <td ALIGN=right>22</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Change</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-14</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-4</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-5</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>What the above table shows is the percentage of undecided voters in the two match ups, broken out by party affiliation. What you see is that in the November poll there were a lot more undecided Republicans than there are now, which explains why the GOP candidates have gained.<br />
<br />
The problem for them is that there are only so many undecided Republicans.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Compared to Amy's numbers, Mark Dayton may not look that impressive, but compared to the Republican lead Minnesota Legislature, he's smelling like roses.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=ac5942cc-72eb-437a-9400-ed7119b546cd&c=72">SurveuUSA</a> (2/3, no trend lines):<br />
<blockquote>"Do you approve or disapprove of the job Mark Dayton is doing as Governor?"<br />
<br />
<b>Approve</b> 50<br />
<b>Disapprove</b> 33<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 17<br />
<br />
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the State Legislature is doing?"<br />
<br />
<b>Approve</b> 17<br />
<b>Disapprove</b> 65<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 18<br />
(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
Mark Dayton continues to hover right around the 50% mark, PPP had him at pretty much the same numbers <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2012/01/unpacking-odds-and-ends.html">two weeks ago</a> (53-34).<br />
<br />
The numbers for the legislature though are just straight up dismal. They're at a comically bad -48 spread. Even self-identified Republicans disapprove of the legislature's job performance by a remarkably bad -21 spread. <br />
<br />
If you thinks that's bad though, check this: 30% of Republicans approve of the job the legislature is doing. 26% of Republicans approve of the job Mark Dayton is doing. <br />
<br />
Worst. Legislature. Ever.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-67672515139108007682012-02-09T10:00:00.000-06:002012-02-09T10:00:08.653-06:00Not Almanac, Episode 3: Photo ID for thee, but not me<img align="right" src="http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3410/notalmanaclogo.png" alt="Not Almanac logo"/>In this post-precinct-caucus edition we discuss such things as: Photo ID, the before mentioned and just concluded Minnesota precinct caucus and some intra party DFL nomination battles.<br />
<br />
<div><audio controls="controls" id="auidoplayerhtml5podbean6bbe969bb1b31bd3cbcd9363676a5c88"><br />
<source src="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/h3qtt7/NotAlmanacE03.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" autoplay="no"><br />
Your browser does not support the audio element.<br />
</audio><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var audioTag = document.createElement('audio');
if (!(!!(audioTag.canPlayType) && ("no" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")) && ("" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")))) {
document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean6bbe969bb1b31bd3cbcd9363676a5c88').parentNode.removeChild(document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean6bbe969bb1b31bd3cbcd9363676a5c88'));
document.write('<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="210" height="25" id="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/h3qtt7/NotAlmanacE03.mp3&autoStart=no" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/h3qtt7/NotAlmanacE03.mp3&autoStart=no" quality="high" width="210" height="25" name="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object>');
}
</script></div><br />
<a href="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/">Download here</a>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-13899325946827045422012-02-09T08:58:00.005-06:002012-02-09T09:03:16.659-06:00Three Minnesota Constitutional Amendment Polls<img width="150" align="right" src="http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa388/MNProgressive/samesexmarriage_02.jpg" border="0" alt="Gay Marriage">Back on February 3rd SurveyUSA, polling for KSTP, released a poll and I completely missed it for six days. So now, like a magazine that's been in the bathroom for a week, the corners bent and it's content exhausted, I'll finally bring it out for inspection.<br />
<br />
The folks at SUSA asked about one constitutional amendment that's already on the ballot and two that seem like they're destined for that same fate.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e8bdfd5d-1ea0-47fa-b1f4-536070f107f3">SurveyUSA</a> (2/3, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=98e06008-a002-4bda-b2dc-d5093903734a">11/8</a> in parenthesis, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=be72dc6c-d8fe-4da2-ab5d-07ce56bc7bee">5/25</a> in brackets):<br />
<blockquote>"An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution on the ballot defines marriage as between one man and one woman, will you vote..."<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>For</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>47</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(46)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[51]</TD> </TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Against</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>39</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(40)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[40]</TD> </TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Not vote</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>10</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(10)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[8]</TD> </TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Not sure</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>4</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(4)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[2]</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
This issue has essentially stabilized over the last six months, with amendment supporters holding a small but consistent ~4 point advantage in the average of polls. SurveyUSA though is the only pollster who has given respondants the option of not voting for the amendment and they find 10% who utilize this option. <br />
<br />
Those not votes, by people who cast a ballot, will count the same as no votes so it's tempting to simply lump them together and say that the amendment is actually losing slightly 49-47. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It's not quite that simple though. If you look at the cross tabs of that 10% (and here we get into issues of sample size, so beware) you see that they are distributed across the political and ideological spectrum, but those who say they will not vote on the question tend to share many non-political demographic traits with those who tend to support the amendment: high-school education and less then $40k income. <br />
<br />
I don't doubt that some of these people will not vote on the amendment, as they claim, but I also think that some amount of them will end up on one side or the other.<br />
<br />
I would guess that it probably ends up braking down that half of these people actually don't vote on the question while the other half split and half vote for, half against. Under that scenario, you get 49% for the amendment, 41% against and 5% not voting. Add it all up and the amendment has a 49-46 plurality.<br />
<br />
That's all conjecture though.<br />
<br />
If we only look back to polls taken since November of last year, support for the amendment has polled in a 48-46 point range while opposition has been in a 44-40 point range. So we're looking at about a 5 point deficit. I suspect that there will be about 5% who don't vote on the amendment, and depending on the ordering it could even be higher.<br />
<br />
So right now it looks like a 50/50 proposition if I had to place odds on it, not a terrible place to be with nine months to go.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e8bdfd5d-1ea0-47fa-b1f4-536070f107f3">SurveyUSA</a> (2/3, no trend lines):<br />
<blockquote>"If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot that would designate Minnesota as a "right to work" state, meaning it would be easier for workers to opt out of unions and union dues, how would you vote?"<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr><th ALIGN=right><b>For</b></TH><td ALIGN=center>55</TD></TR>
<tr><th ALIGN=right><b>Against</b></TH><td ALIGN=center>24</TD></TR>
<tr><th ALIGN=right><b>Not vote</b></TH><td ALIGN=center>9</TD></TR>
<tr><th ALIGN=right><b>Not sure</b></TH><td ALIGN=center>12</TD></TR>
</TABLE>(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
And if you think that's depressing...<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=e8bdfd5d-1ea0-47fa-b1f4-536070f107f3">SurveyUSA</a> (2/3, no trend lines):<br />
<blockquote>"If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot that would require voters to show photo I.D.'s in order to vote on Election Day, how would you vote?"<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr><th ALIGN=right><b>For</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>70</TD></TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Against</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>23</TD></TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Not vote</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>4</TD></TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Not sure</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>4</TD></TR>
</TABLE>(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
There is no silver lining in any of these numbers. Every single demographic group identified in SUSA's cross tabs says they will vote for both of these amendments. That means self described Democrats and liberals. If we are going to have any chance whatsoever to defeat these amendments we must start with getting our ideological brethren on our side.<br />
<br />
Democrats will have to be unified against these amendments to the same degree that Republicans are unified for them. That task began at the precinct caucus's on Tuesday, but it will have to continue. What worries me is that if we have to get into the weeds on the details of all these different amendments with voters we aren't going to get much headway.<br />
<br />
In the end, what helps us most may be Republicans themselves. If they put even four amendments on the ballot, and especially if there's more than that, it's a lot easier to paint them all as a political power grab and run a vote no on everything campaign.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-90080603800971559142012-01-31T08:00:00.000-06:002012-01-31T08:00:03.689-06:00Not Almanac, Episode 2: Controversial controversy<img align="right" src="http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3410/notalmanaclogo.png" alt="Not Almanac logo"/>In this, the second episode, we (Aaron Klemz, Steve Timmer and myself) discuss the start to the legislative session, including the disappearing DFL senate staff, the Voter ID Amendment in search of substance, and the ongoing saga of the Minnesota GOP’s money problems.<br />
<br />
<div><audio controls="controls" id="auidoplayerhtml5podbeand460bdbd2b18a2e33f2576dcbdc6d2d8"><br />
<source src="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/v9fxkp/NotAlmanacE02.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" autoplay="no"><br />
Your browser does not support the audio element.<br />
</audio><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var audioTag = document.createElement('audio');
if (!(!!(audioTag.canPlayType) && ("no" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")) && ("" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")))) {
document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbeand460bdbd2b18a2e33f2576dcbdc6d2d8').parentNode.removeChild(document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbeand460bdbd2b18a2e33f2576dcbdc6d2d8'));
document.write('<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="210" height="25" id="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/v9fxkp/NotAlmanacE02.mp3&autoStart=no" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/v9fxkp/NotAlmanacE02.mp3&autoStart=no" quality="high" width="210" height="25" name="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object>');
}
</script></div>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-16259283986200542652012-01-31T07:00:00.001-06:002012-01-31T07:00:17.030-06:00Unpacking the Odds and Ends<img width="150" align="right" src="http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/479/pressdayton.jpg" alt="Governor Mark Dayton"/>Last week PPP released the last set of data from their recent foray into Minnesota. The "Odds and Ends" release, as PPP refers to it, contains a lot of interesting data that is worth unpacking. So that's what I'm going to do. Right now in fact.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf">PPP</a> (1/27, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_06011118.pdf">6/1</a> in parenthesis):<br />
<blockquote>"Do you approve or disapprove of Governor Mark Dayton’s job performance?"<br />
<br />
<b>Approve</b> 53 (51)<br />
<b>Disapprove</b> 34 (38)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 13 (10)<br />
(MoE: ±2.8%)</blockquote><br />
Mark Dayton is proving himself to be a capable and likable Governor and these numbers reflect that. PPP's <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/minnesota-odds-and-ends.html">write up of the poll</a> sums it up nicely:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Mark Dayton's numbers have improved since PPP last polled Minnesota in May and he's one of the most popular Governors in the country. 53% of voters approve of the job he's doing to 34% who disapprove. That +19 spread is up 6 points from May when he was at +13 (51/38). Dayton has near unanimous approval from Democrats (85/5), is very strong with independents (51/33), and even has a decent amount of support from Republicans (19%). Dayton's 53% approval ties him for the 8th highest out of more than 40 sitting Governors PPP has polled on.</blockquote><br />
It's been since Arne Carlson that a candidate for Governor in Minnesota received more than 50% of the vote in an election. Of course we'll have to see what happens with the stadium and how that moves the needle. <br />
<br />
Speaking of the stadium, PPP asked about that as well:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf">PPP</a> (1/27, no trend lines):<blockquote>"Do you think public money should cover part of the cost for a new stadium for the Vikings, or not?"<br />
<br />
<b>Public money should cover part of the cost</b> 33<br />
<b>It should not</b> 59<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 8<br />
(MoE: ±2.8%)</blockquote><br />
That's not much of a surprise really, the public is overwhelmingly against paying for a Vikings stadium. Well, they are when you ask the question that way. If instead, you ask the question the following way you get a much different result:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf">PPP</a> (1/27, no trend lines):<blockquote>"If the choice was between the Vikings moving out of Minnesota and public money covering part of the cost for a new stadium, which would you prefer?"<br />
<br />
<b>Would prefer the Vikings moving out of Minnesota</b> 39<br />
<b>Would prefer having the public pay for part of the cost of a new stadium</b> 46<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 15<br />
(MoE: ±2.8%)</blockquote><br />
If the question is put this way, as a choice between keeping the Vikings and building a stadium with public money or simply letting them move out of the state, then a plurality is actually in favor of building the Vikings their stadium.<br />
<br />
The public's willingness to spend money on a stadium seems to be directly tied to the possibility of the team leaving. Therefore the amount of public money, if any, that will be spent on a stadium will in some ways be determined by the amount of leverage that the Vikings actually have. <br />
<br />
All of which seems obvious, but it's nice to have confirmation via polling.<br />
<br />
Also confirmed via polling, the Republican majorities in the legislature are becoming increasingly unpopular:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf">PPP</a> (1/27, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_06011118.pdf">6/1</a> in parenthesis):<br />
<blockquote>"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the DFL members of the legislature are doing?"<br />
<br />
<b>Approve</b> 31 (39)<br />
<b>Disapprove</b> 49 (45)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 20 (16)<br />
<br />
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Republican members of the legislature are doing?"<br />
<br />
<b>Approve</b> 23 (29)<br />
<b>Disapprove</b> 62 (58)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 16 (13)<br />
<br />
"If there was an election for the legislature today do you think you would vote for the DFL or Republican candidate from your district?"<br />
<br />
<b>DFL candidate</b> 48 (49)<br />
<b>Republican candidate</b> 39 (40)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 14 (11)<br />
(MoE: ±2.8%)</blockquote><br />
The DFLers in the legislature aren't fairing a whole lot better, but they are maintaining their nine point generic ballot lead, which if that holds, will almost certainly result in the DFL retaking both chambers.<br />
<br />
Lastly we get to the anti-family amendment:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf">PPP</a> (1/27, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_06011118.pdf">6/1</a> in parenthesis):<br />
<blockquote>"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"<br />
<br />
<b>Yes</b> 48 (46)<br />
<b>No</b> 44 (47)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 8 (7)<br />
(MoE: ±2.8%)</blockquote><br />
You can look at the cross tabs of this poll and try and parse out some problems (%15 of the "very liberal" are going to vote yes?), but the reality is that this is going to be a close one right down to the end. I've added this poll to the poll tracker I've set up for this issue which appears at the bottom of this post.<br />
<br />
PPP, like they did last time as well, tries some different approaches to the question:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012712.pdf">PPP</a> (1/27, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_06011118.pdf">6/1</a> in parenthesis):<br />
<blockquote>"Which of the following best describes your opinion on gay marriage: gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, or gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry, or there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship?"<br />
<br />
<b>Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry</b> 37 (38)<br />
<b>Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not marry</b> 34 (34)<br />
<b>There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship</b> 27 (26)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 2 (2)<br />
<br />
"Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal?"<br />
<br />
<b>Legal</b> 43 (46)<br />
<b>Illegal</b> 47 (45)<br />
<b>Not sure</b> 10 (9)<br />
(MoE: ±2.9%)</blockquote><br />
There hasn't been that much movement in these numbers, in fact the numbers of the first question above have been remarkably stable. That's partly due to the fact that there is almost no one who hasn't formed a view on the question of whether gay couples should receive some form of recognition.<br />
<br />
The disagreements of course come when you call that recognition marriage. Due to the lack of movement and small number of undecideds, I think it's fairly safe to say that the numbers in that question aren't going to change much.<br />
<br />
So the challenge will be to convince the 35% of Minnesotan's who are in favor of civil unions but not marriage to vote no or simply not vote. <br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<iframe width='300' height='250' frameborder='0' src='https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?hl=en_US&hl=en_US&key=0Ao3iZjz2mPXEdGV1Rkt1TC1RcHk2UXBEQnNXckRWM0E&single=true&gid=0&output=html&widget=true'></iframe>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-47853294268742199792012-01-25T10:00:00.001-06:002012-01-25T10:00:02.316-06:00Not Almanac, Episode 1: The Session Cometh<img align="right" src="http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3410/notalmanaclogo.png" alt="Not Almanac logo"/>Not Almanac is a new, weekly (for now) podcast on Minnesota politics, featuring Aaron Klemz and Steve Timmer from The Cucking Stool along with yours truly. <br />
<br />
This is the first episode, in which we discuss; the beginning of the Minnesota legislative session and the 800lb Gorilla named ALEC that will be stalking it. Also discussed, important dates coming up on the political calender.<br />
<br />
<div><audio controls="controls" id="auidoplayerhtml5podbean8b40d1f69e43a316314769d3d73f8eda"><br />
<source src="http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/h4wtpd/Not_Almanac_E01.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" autoplay="no"><br />
Your browser does not support the audio element.<br />
</audio><br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var audioTag = document.createElement('audio');
if (!(!!(audioTag.canPlayType) && ("no" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")) && ("" != audioTag.canPlayType("audio/mpeg")))) {
document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean8b40d1f69e43a316314769d3d73f8eda').parentNode.removeChild(document.getElementById('auidoplayerhtml5podbean8b40d1f69e43a316314769d3d73f8eda'));
document.write('<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,0,0" width="210" height="25" id="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="sameDomain" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/h4wtpd/Not_Almanac_E01.mp3&autoStart=no" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#ffffff" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed src="http://www.podbean.com/podcast-audio-video-blog-player/mp3playerlightsmallv3.swf?audioPath=http://notalmanac.podbean.com/mf/play/h4wtpd/Not_Almanac_E01.mp3&autoStart=no" quality="high" width="210" height="25" name="mp3playerlightsmallv3" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></embed></object>');
}</script></div>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-30923261547111455482012-01-25T07:36:00.001-06:002012-01-25T07:38:05.225-06:00A-Klo still crushing<img align="right" width="200" src="http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa388/MNProgressive/Headshots/amy_klobuchar.jpg" border="0" alt="Amy Klobuchar">Posts about Amy Klobuchar polls are not really that fun to write. Every one is exactly the same, Amy is at around 55% and when you're at 55% it doesn't really matter what your challengers are doing.<br />
<br />
And hey, look at that, this poll shows her at 55%. Against everyone. Again. For the third time. Call me shocked.<br />
<br />
For the sake of completeness though, here it is:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012312.pdf">PPP</a> (1/23, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_0602.pdf">6/2</a> in parenthesis, <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MN_12071023.pdf">12/7</a> in brackets):<br />
<blockquote><b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 54 (54) [53]<br />
<b>Tim Pawlenty</b> (R) 39 (41) [43]<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 7 (5) [4]<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 58 (57) [56]<br />
<b>Michele Bachmann (R)</b> 35 (37) [39]<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 7 (5) [4]<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 55 (56)<br />
<b>Dan Severson (R)</b> 32 (28)<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 13 (16)<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 55<br />
<b>Joe Arwood (R)</b> 30<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 15<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 55<br />
<b>Anthony Hernandez (R)</b> 29<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 16<br />
(MoE: ±2.9%)</blockquote><br />
You can see that their respective presidential runs haven't really helped the two Minnesota Republican heavyweights, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann. The trend lines only show incremental change though, not significant erosion. That's due to both of them already being at or close to the "Kennedy line."<br />
<br />
<i>(Ed: The term "Kennedy Line" refers to the share of the vote that Mark Kennedy got in the 2006 Senate race, the Kennedy line is essentially the GOP's floor)</i><br />
<br />
There's nothing about any poll of this race that's been done over that last year plus that has shown any real deviation from these numbers. And there's no silver lining for any of the GOP candidates when you delve into the crosstabs, 59% of Independents approve of Amy Klobuchar and even 32% of Republicans do.<br />
<br />
She has what you call "Cross-over appeal," and she's worked very hard to cultivate that appeal. And these are the dividends that pays.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>---<br />
<br />
Also polled by PPP, the 2014 Senate race and it paints a rosier re-election picture for Al Franken than I was expecting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MN_012312.pdf">PPP</a> (1/23):<br />
<blockquote><b>Al Franken (D-inc)</b> 49<br />
<b>Tim Pawlenty (R)</b> 43<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 8<br />
<br />
<b>Al Franken (D-inc)</b> 54<br />
<b>Michele Bachmann (R)</b> 39<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 7<br />
(MoE: ±2.9%)</blockquote><br />
Tim Pawlenty polled the best against Amy of anyone they put against her and he was still down 15 points. He's only within six points of Al however, which tells you everything you need to know about why Amy isn't attracting more substantial candidates. All of the GOPers with designs on a Senate seat will wait for 2014, in a non-presidential year, with a much more vulnerable Al Franken running.<br />
<br />
That said, he's already approaching 50% against the best the Minnesota GOP has to offer, so he may not be that vulnerable after all.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-79798752399759111802012-01-16T07:37:00.001-06:002012-01-16T07:38:00.307-06:00Redistricting: That ain't no least change<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>In response to <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2012/01/redistricting-oral-arguments.html">my post last Thursday</a> on the GOP's Redistricting Power Point <a href="https://twitter.com/Tom_Freeman">Tom Freeman</a> had this to say via the Twitter:<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2323/tomfreemantweet1.png" alt="you failed redistricting 101"/><br />
<br />
Which perplexed me a bit at first, because I didn't really know what he was talking about. I went back and reread my post and realized he must be referring to my use of the term "least change," which Tom confirmed in his next tweet.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8121/tomfreemantweet2.png" alt="least change is comical"/> <br />
<br />
So his point is that since congressional district six needs to lose around 96,000 people to achieve population equity there is no way to draw a least change map. That's too many people to move for the map to be least change. <br />
<br />
Which completely misunderstands the meaning of the phrase, least change. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Least change does not mean no change, or a small amount of change, or define any level of change except for the minimum amount required, which could actually be quite a lot. The minimum amount of change required will differ for every state, but regardless of how much change is taking place, there will, by definition, be a least change way of drawing the map.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/2395/tomfreemantweet3.png" alt="watch the hearing again"/><br />
<br />
Again, this statement completely misses the point of what a least change map is, but whatever, I'm past that now. Tom's point with this statement seems to be that simply keeping the current configuration and just making adjustments to the district boundaries is an unworkable solution and that I would benefit from watching the GOP lawyers spin this point to the judges once again.<br />
<br />
The reality is that this is simply not true. There is nothing about the demographic and population trends in Minnesota that say we have to blow up the map and start over. To the contrary, and as I said yesterday, it's because of where this growth occurred that a reworking of the current map is possible.<br />
<br />
Observe (this is the "court map" <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/06/redistricting-maps-round-three-court_24.html">I draw back in June</a>):<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr> <td><img width="240" src="http://img692.imageshack.us/img692/9742/leastchangemaponlynew.png"><br />
<i>A least change example</i><br />
</TD> <td><img width="230" src="http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1965/leastchangemapold.png"><br />
<i>The current map</i><br />
</TD> </TR>
</TABLE><img width="400" src="http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2045/leastchangemap.png" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us"/><br />
<i>The differences between the two</i><br />
<br />
As you can clearly see, there is nothing about the current configuration that prevents a least change map from being drawn. <br />
<br />
<img src="http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7621/tomfreemantweet4.png" alt="96,000"/><br />
<br />
What if we look at it like this; 96,000 people is less than 15% of the new ideal district size of 662,618. Is less than 15% significant and does it really matter? <br />
<br />
Because we didn't lose any seats, and because all of the population growth occurred in districts two and six, a least change map is not only possible, but probably the route the court will go.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
What's interesting to me is the apparent disconnect in Tom's argument. He was very concerned about those 96,000 people in congressional district six and what might become of them, and yet the GOP's redistricting Power Point spent a total of one sentence each in support of their drawing of districts two through six, which hold a total of 3.3 million people.<br />
<br />
That must have been quite the significant sentence! So let's take a look:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>6th District: A North and East Metro exurban district, similar to the Zachman 6th district<br />
5th District: Minneapolis and nearby northern suburbs, resulting in a minority opportunity district<br />
4th District: St. Paul and nearby suburbs, resulting in a minority opportunity district<br />
3rd District: A West Metro district<br />
2nd District: A “South of the River” District, combining similar communities in the south metro</blockquote><br />
Wow, those are quite significant sentence's after all!<br />
<br />
Oh and what is the second part of that very significant sentence describing the sixth district? Oh yea, "similar to the Zachman 6th district." <br />
<br />
In other words; least change!<br />
<br />
And that's the district that needs to move 96,000 people out of it and yet the GOP still managed to draw it "similar to the Zachman 6th district."<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4461/logicalimpossiblity.png" alt="logical impossibility"/><br />
<br />
I asked Tom a number of times during our Twitter discussion and he didn't answered my question, so I'll ask it again here: Given where all the population growth took place (hint: in the exurbs) why was it necessary to blow up districts seven and eight?<br />
<br />
I suspect that the reason Tom hasn't answered this question is because there is no reason, besides a partisan one. And so to defend the GOP's plan he's left with trying to distract and obfuscate.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-84108752899491163932012-01-12T07:45:00.002-06:002012-01-12T07:50:46.743-06:00Redistricting: Oral arguments = Power Points!<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>The parties involved with redistricting made oral arguments before the court on Wednesday January 4th. If you haven't seen the action (<a href="http://www.theuptake.org/2012/01/04/mn-court-hears-redistricting-arguments-2/">The Uptake has the videos</a>) you're not missing much, unless of course you're a Power Point presentation aficionado, but odds are you aren't.<br />
<br />
In this post I'm going to take a look at the presentation given by the Hippert (GOP) intervenors. The other two parties presented Power Points as well, but I'm more interested in the case made by the GOP in support of their rural Minnesota gerrymander.<br />
<br />
Here are the two Power Points submitted by the Hippert (GOP) group.<br />
- <a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/55_-_Hippert-Powerpoint_in_Support_of_Plaintiffs_Redistricting_Plans.pdf">Power Point in Support of Plaintiffs Redistricting Plans</a><br />
- <a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/56_-_Hippert-Powerpoint_Opposing_Intervenors_Redistricting_Plans.pdf">Power Point Opposing Intervenors Redistricting Plans</a><br />
<br />
The Hippert power point presentation in support of their plan is 64 pages long. 35 of those pages deal with the congressional plan and 25 of those 35 pages are spent trying to sell their radical reworking of the three rural districts. They spend, literally, one page discussing districts 2 through 6. Not one page each, but one page.<br />
<br />
It's as if the drawing of those five districts is but an afterthought to the much more serious business of gerrymandering northern Minnesota to the sole benefit of the Republican party, all other considerations be damned.<br />
<br />
They assert, laughably, that a "least changes" map is not workable, which is simply nonsense. Why is it not workable? According to the Power Point it's because population changes in the last decade require significant changes and making those changes will cause a domino effect. Additionally, redistricting requires a broader view and none of the parties submitted a least changes map.<br />
<br />
And while the last point is indeed true, the others don't stand up to scrutiny.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Districts two and six need to lose territory to account for their higher growth and all the districts surrounding them need to add territory to account for their lower growth. So four and five get bigger in the center, eating into two and six, while one and seven get bigger and also eat into two and six.<br />
<br />
In actuality, it's because of where the population growth occurred that a least changes map actually makes a lot of sense. This is not to say that a least changes map is necessarily the best way to go, but the argument that a least changes map is "unworkable" simple doesn't hold water.<br />
<br />
They also make the argument that their map can accommodate future population changes, as if they somehow know where those future changes will be. Not only that, it's almost a certainty that Minnesota will lose a congressional seat in ten years during the next redistricting cycle. We were on the bubble this year, just barely hanging onto our eighth district. There is almost no way we hang on next time, unless nationwide migration patterns change drastically between now and then.<br />
<br />
In that context it's a certainly that whatever map gets drawn this cycle will have to get completely blown up next cycle when we only have seven congressional districts. With that in mind, a least changes map this cycle does make some sense, I mean, why blow up the map in two straight cycles if you don't have to.<br />
<br />
The GOP's justification for the configuration of the individual districts is equally as flimsy as their justification for why a least changes map is not workable. Their number one bullet point for why to configure the eighth congressional district in the way they have is; An "Up North" district. Really, that's their most salient reason, an "Up North" district. <br />
<br />
What's funny though is that the map of Minnesota they use to argue that Central Minnesota is a distinct region in need of it's own district, clearly shows a delineation between the Northwestern and Northeastern parts of the state, which sort of flies in the face of their whole "Up North" point.<br />
<br />
Really the only arguments you can make in support of the rural portion of the GOP's plan are flimsy ones. There is no rational, non-partisan reason for such a radical reconfiguration of those two districts. There are, however, <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/05/tea-party-protection-plan.html">plenty of partisan reasons</a> to try for such a plan.<br />
<br />
As I wrote all the way back in May when this plan was working it's way through the legislature:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>As it is currently drawn, CD7 is a natural GOP district with an R+5 tilt that is held by a DFLer, albeit a very conservative DFLer, but a DFLer nonetheless. Collin Peterson fits his district rather well ideologically, so from the DFLs perspective it doesn't really matter that he's on the conservative end of the spectrum because the district he represents is conservative.<br />
<br />
This is seen in the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/p/silver.html">SILVER scores for the Minnesota delegation</a>. For those who aren't familiar with them, SILVER scores are a measure of how partisan a legislator is in the context of the district they represent. The purpose is to measure the amount of partisan value a legislator provides to a party over or under what would be expected.<br />
<br />
Collin Peterson's SILVER score is -.04, about even. He's really conservative for a Democrat, but he represents a conservative district and it all comes out in the wash. But if you move Collin Peterson from his R+5 district to what would be a more liberal district than the current CD8, all of a sudden he becomes an asset for the GOP; a conservative Democrat in a liberal district. <br />
<br />
Since the GOP can't beat Peterson in the 7th, they simply move him to a different, more liberal, district and let the DFL deal with it. It's a truly devious little maneuver by the GOP, but unfortunately for them Tom Emmer did not win the Governor's race and I don't see Mark Dayton coming anywhere close to signing onto this plan.</blockquote><br />
So, to sum up, the vast majority of the GOP's Power Point presentation defending their plan was nothing more than a series of vapid and nonsensical points in support of a vapid and nonsensical plan.<br />
<br />
I guess you could say that's par for the course!TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-21687336689538685762012-01-02T13:19:00.003-06:002012-01-02T15:31:41.787-06:00Iowa's about to get frothy!<img align="right" height="150" src="http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/2048/ricksantorum.jpg" alt="Rick Santorum, frothy presidential candidate" title="Rick Santorum, frothy presidential candidate"/><a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Rick Santorum</a> will win the Iowa Caucuses on Tuesday.<br />
<br />
<i>But Tony, no poll has yet shown <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum</a> in the lead in Iowa and guru of election predictions Nate Silver, <a href="http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/iowa">currently has him pegged at just a 21% chance to win</a>, behind both Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, why would you be predicting a <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum</a> win?</i><br />
<br />
Observe...<br />
<br />
<b>Momentum</b>: <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Rick Santorum</a> is the only candidate with any right now. The table below is the difference in support between the two most recent PPP polls of Iowa; the most recent being <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_101914.pdf">released yesterday</a> and the previous one being <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_1227925.pdf">released on the 27th of December</a>, only five days earlier.<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Santorum</TD> <td ALIGN=right>8</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Gingrich</TD> <td ALIGN=right>1</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Perry</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Romney</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-1</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Bachmann</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-3</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Paul</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-4</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>It's usually a mistake to read too much into momentum. Because <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum</a> is surging now, doesn't mean he will be surging on Tuesday. But there are solid fundamentals on which to rest this particular surge theory, the next bolded word for instance.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b>Likability</b>: Iowa Republicans simply like <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum</a> better than everyone else, look at the candidates net favorabilty from the most recent <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_101914.pdf">PPP poll</a>:<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Santorum</TD> <td ALIGN=right>30</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Bachmann</TD> <td ALIGN=right>15</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Perry</TD> <td ALIGN=right>13</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Romney</TD> <td ALIGN=right>4</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Paul</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-8</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Gingrich</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-14</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>The combination of the <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum</a> is surging meme and Iowa Republican's already favorable views of him, are likely to help him sustain his current momentum. At this point there just isn't enough time for his opponents to respond to <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum's</a> rise, as everyone is now shifting to GOTV mode.<br />
<br />
<b>Second Choice</b>: Of the front runners, <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Rick Santorum</a> is the most popular second choice. Again from that <a href="http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_IA_101914.pdf">PPP poll</a> these are how the candidates fare on the second choice question.<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Perry</TD> <td ALIGN=right>15</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Santorum</TD> <td ALIGN=right>14</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Bachmann</TD> <td ALIGN=right>13</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Romney</TD> <td ALIGN=right>11</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Gingrich</TD> <td ALIGN=right>11</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>Paul</TD> <td ALIGN=right>8</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>One thing about the second choice question is that a candidates performance on the obviously more important first choice question will effect their performance on the second choice question. Meaning that when a candidate is chosen as someone's first choice, they have no chance of being that person's second choice. So the better you do as a first choice, the worse you will do on the second choice question.<br />
<br />
But this could still end up being worth a little bit to <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Santorum</a> on the margins. <br />
<br />
<b>Conclution</b>: This combination of factors has convinced me that <a href="http://spreadingsantorum.com/">Rick Santorum</a>, despite never leading in a single poll in Iowa all cycle, and despite his rather epic google problem will win the Iowa caucus's tomorrow and become the official, Iowa certified, not-Romney.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-56139362224250637612011-11-23T07:50:00.001-06:002011-11-23T18:02:02.562-06:00Redistricting Maps! Round Five - The Parties' Proposals, Outstate edition<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>Friday of last week was the deadline for parties in Minnesota's redistricting lawsuit to submit their maps. Three groups submitted maps; the Britton, Hippert (GOP) and Martin (DFL) intervenors. On Monday I went over the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/11/redistricting-partisan-numbers-for.html">partisan composition</a> of the three maps and yesterday I went over the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/11/redistricting-maps-round-five-parties.html">five metro area districts</a>. Today I'm going to discuss the way the three outstate districts were drawn.<br />
<br />
Before I get into the maps I'll once again recap the partisan numbers with this nifty color coded excel table.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9149/avedemdiff.png" alt="ave Dem% diff"/><br />
<br />
This is a table of the differences in the average Democratic vote %, color coded so that the districts that get the most Republican are redder and the ones that get the most Democratic are bluer.<br />
<br />
With that, on to the last of the maps!<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>For reference, this is the way things currently look:<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9053/currentstate.png" alt="Minnesota current district configuration"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD1</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9252/cd1britton.png" alt="CD1 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1992/cd1hippert.png" alt="CD1 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/9532/cd1martin.png" alt="CD1 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
The theme of these maps is that the Britton and Martin ones look similar and the Hippert one is a complete departure from the status quo.<br />
<br />
With CD1, they all make some fairly big changes though. The Hippert map keeps the current configuration, minus the counties that are lost to CD2 and adds all of the area south of the Minnesota river, which makes for a rather logical natural boundary. Notably in this map, CD1 loses Nicollet county <strike>and some parts of Tim Walz home town of Mankato</strike>.<br />
<br />
In both the Britton and Martin maps LeSueur and Rice <strike>Wabasha</strike> counties get added from CD2 (the Britton map also adds Goodhue), and CD1 loses a big chunk of it's Western counties.<br />
<br />
You can see the reasoning behind these different moves in the partisan numbers, the area south of the Minnesota river that the Hippert map includes is Republican friendly (although not by a huge degree) and the counties from CD2 that the Britton and Martin maps include is Democratic friendly (again though, not by a large degree).<br />
<br />
So the Hippert map seeks to weaken Walz, which is why it removes part of Mankato, while the other two plans shore up his district. <br />
<br />
In the last redistricting cycle, the judges <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/06/redistricting-maps-round-three-court.html">explained their decision</a> to draw the rural maps the way they did like this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>First, the first congressional district contains the community of interest that naturally arises along a highway such as Interstate 90 and tends to run in an east-to-west direction in southern Minnesota. <br />
<br />
Second, Minn. Const. art. IV, states that all districts must be composed of "convenient contiguous territory." In part, "convenient" means that a district must be "within easy reach; easily accessible." Of course, convenience is at times limited in Minnesota, as it is in other states, by the state's shape, the availability of accessible roads in Greater Minnesota, and the need for rural districts to grow in area as their populations shrink. Minnesota's western and northern borders may have roads that traverse them, but we have heard any number of objections to the inconvenience of using these roads and the difficulty a congressional representative would have in representing such districts. Conversely, Interstate 90 makes a district along the state's southern border the most convenient option.<br />
<br />
Third, of the new first, seventh and eighth congressional districts, only the eighth district has any population from the counties that are part of the metropolitan statistical area. This population resides in Isanti and Chisago Counties, which include only 12% of the districts population, are not part of the original seven-county metropolitan area, were part of the prior eighth district, and have common interests with counties to the west and north. This configuration of districts, then, best reflects the citizens of Minnesota living outside the metropolitan area.</blockquote><br />
Those first two points are still true, so that makes me think that the judges might yet again decide that it's best for CD1 to traverse the state, but you don't have to extend CD1 all the way up to the Minnesota river to achieve population equity, especially if you leave Mankato whole and Nicollet county in CD1.<br />
<br />
<b>CD7</b><br />
<br />
<img height="400" src="http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/655/cd7britton.png" alt="CD7 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/5097/cd7hippert.png" alt="CD7 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img height="400" src="http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2481/cd7martin.png" alt="CD7 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
Like I said earlier, the Martin and Britton maps look very similar and the Hippert map is a complete deviation. When the Republican controlled Minnesota legislature passed this map earlier in the year, it was the configuration of CD's 7 and 8 that got everyone's attention.<br />
<br />
The thinking here is; draw the eighth more liberal and put Peterson in it, that way he's out of the seventh, and Cravaack gets a much easier re-election in friendly territory. At the same time you stick one of the most conservative Democrats in the country into a rather liberal district and force the Democrats to deal with it.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately for the Republicans (and fortunately for us), I don't think the judges will buy this configuration simply because last cycle they made a point of saying that north eastern and north western Minnesota are separate communities of interest and have been for a long time and that a horizontal configuration (as opposed to the current vertical one) just wouldn't make as much sense.<br />
<br />
But if I'm right about CD1, and it continues to traverse the entire southern portion of the state then CD7 will end up looking like none of these versions and more like it's current iteration.<br />
<br />
<b>CD8</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1949/cd8britton.png" alt="CD8 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/2817/cd8hippert.png" alt="CD8 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/5475/cd8martin.png" alt="CD8 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
The eighth district isn't likely to change much, it doesn't need to add many people and there is no reason to change it's current configuration. I think that a reasonable case can be made that Isanti and Chisago counties in the south shouldn't be part of the eighth, but then you have to draw in St. Cloud or Bemidji and that might not make sense either.<br />
<br />
Additionally, removing those two counties would be highly controversial, because Rep. Cravaack lives in one, and I think the judges would want to avoid that. For those reasons and the reasons cited above in the CD7 section, I don't think the Hippert or Martin maps will fly.<br />
<br />
In this case the Britton map may be the closest to the final drawing. There are other way to draw in the additional people required, but that one, adding more of the already split Beltrami county, is as good as any other.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-71279286552334673762011-11-22T11:52:00.004-06:002012-01-26T17:30:00.260-06:00Redistricting Maps! Round Five - The Parties' Proposals, Metro edition<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>Yesterday I posted the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/11/redistricting-partisan-numbers-for.html">partisan numbers</a> of the proposed districts, today I'm going to look at the districts themselves, starting today in the metro and going outstate tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Before I get into that I just wanted to recap the numbers from yesterday in the form of a color coded excel table!<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9149/avedemdiff.png" alt="ave Dem% diff"/><br />
<br />
This is a table of the differences in the average Democratic vote %, color coded so that the districts that get the most Republican are redder and the ones that get the most Democratic are bluer.<br />
<br />
With that, on to the maps!<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Just for reference, this is what the metro area looks like right now:<br />
<br />
<img width="400" src="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6410/currentmetro.png" alt="Metro area"/><br />
<br />
<img width="400" src="http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4751/currenttwincities.png" alt="Twin Cities"/><br />
<br />
Now let's take a look at the proposed districts, starting in Minneapolis:<br />
<br />
<b>CD5</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1732/cd5britton.png" alt="CD5 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/7683/cd5hippert.png" alt="CD5 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8598/cd5martin.png" alt="CD5 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
For CD5 we see five different takes; the Britton map loses the southern Anoka burbs and Hopkins while adding Bloomington and most of Edina. The Hippert map changes things the least and simply adds Brooklyn Center and parts of Brooklyn Park, while the Martin map expands on this idea, losing Richfield and the airport in the south and adding Osseo, Brooklyn Center, and additional parts of Brooklyn Park.<br />
<br />
The only things constant among all of these maps are Minneapolis and the suburbs immediately west of it, which we can safely assume will be part of CD5 in any new map. But the question of exactly were the additional voters are added to CD5 from will effect how the suburban districts get drawn.<br />
<br />
I don't think the courts will draw Bloomington into the Minneapolis district, it's a large enough city in it's own right to have a separate congressional district from the states largest city. Which means it's highly likely that all of Brooklyn Center and parts of either Brooklyn Park or Edina will get added to CD5 to achieve population equality.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest question about CD5 is weather it will keep it's Anoka county tentacle or the court will opt to keep Anoka county whole.<br />
<br />
<b>CD4</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/9726/cd4britton.png" alt="CD4 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2629/cd4hippert.png" alt="CD4 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="400" src="http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1188/martincd4.png" alt="CD4 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
We see a similar pattern play out with CD4 as with CD5; the Britton plan expands one way, adding Inver Grove Heights and Eagan to it's existing collection of south suburban territory. The Martin map goes the the other way, losing all of Dakota county and adding almost all of Washington county. The Hippert map, as was the case with CD5, is the least change version, expanding by little bits in a few different directions.<br />
<br />
The only thing constant among these maps is that they contain the entirety of Ramsey county which seems very unlikely to change with a new map. Like with CD5 and Anoka county, a big question for CD4 is weather the court decides to reunite Dakota county or keep some of it's northern cities in CD4.<br />
<br />
This decision will drive where CD can pick up new voters from and a decision by the court to keep Dakota county whole will likely result in a version that looks very much like the Martin map. If the court decides to keep some of Dakota in CD4 though, then I would suspect that the final version would more resemble the Hippert version. <br />
<br />
<b>CD3</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/6749/cd3britton.png" alt="CD3 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6386/cd3hippert.png" alt="CD3 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/6400/cd3martin.png" alt="CD3 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
Now we get into the fun stuff. As you can see, there is a lot of disagreement about how to draw CD3 among the intervenors. The Britton and Hippert proposal's keep the "whatever's leftover of Hennepin county from CD5" format and go west to fill out the district. The Britton proposal going north-west, bringing in the northern edge of Wright county and the cities of Anoka and part of Ramsey from Anoka county. The Hippert map pushes CD3 south-west, grabbing all of Carver and McLeod counties and losing Coon Rapids.<br />
<br />
Both of these versions might have issues though because they incorporate a lot of new rural territory into what is right now a primarily suburban district. But if you're going to try and stick to the current version of CD3, you don't have much of an option but to go West.<br />
<br />
The Martin version solves this issue by envisioning an entirely new CD3. It loses the western and northern parts of Hennepin county and incorporates central and southern Hennepin county with northern parts of Dakota county and the part of Washington county that didn't get drawn into CD4.<br />
<br />
This makes CD3 an entirely suburban district and for that reason I think is a viable alternative to the CD3 status quo. Weather the court sees it that way is anyone's guess.<br />
<br />
<b>CD6</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6650/cd6britton.png" alt="CD6 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6370/cd6hippert.png" alt="CD6 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5981/cd6martin.png" alt="CD6 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
This assortment of CD6 versions are mostly driven by how the inner districts were drawn. The Britton map loses all of Wright and Sterns county (except St. Cloud) and adds the rest of Washington county, to create a meandering district exurban district.<br />
<br />
The Hippert map once again seeks to make as few changes as possible, shedding Benton county and part of Sterns from the northern part of the district. The Martin map seems to keep the "spirit" of CD6 while still making some changes. Because of how CD4 got drawn CD6 loses Washington county and it also loses Benton county. It picks up Chisago and Isanti counties, arguably a better fit here than in CD8 and all of Sterns county.<br />
<br />
What the court will do with CDs 6 and 2 will largely depend on the decisions they make regarding the inner three districts. All of the maps have the majority if not all of Sherburne and Anoka counties in them, so that much it seems is certain. How the rest of the district gets put together though will largely depend on what's left over from CD's 3, 4 and 5.<br />
<br />
<b>CD2</b><br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/1282/cd2britton.png" alt="CD2 - Britton"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1483/cd2hippert.png" alt="CD2 - Hippert"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/8905/cd2martin.png" alt="CD2 - Martin"/><br />
Martin proposal<br />
<br />
CD2's differing versions, like for CD6, are largely driven by the districts they are being drawn around. In the Britton map CD2 is reconfigured quite a bit from the current version, losing Goodhue, Rice and Le Sueur counties and picking up a bunch of counties to the West; Kandiyohi, Meeker, McLeod, Renville, Sibley and part of Wright.<br />
<br />
The Hippert version loses Carver to CD3 and picks up Wabash, Sibley and Nicollet save for a small portion of Mankato. For all the attention being paid to the DFL map and it's pairing of Michele and Betty and drawing Chip into CD6, little has been said of the GOP maps splitting of Tim Walz's home city.<br />
<br />
The Martin version loses LeSueur and Rice counties and the western and northern portions of Hennepin county that got drawn out of CD3 and resembles the meandering CD6 in the Britton map. Again, this is a product of how CD3 got drawn more than anything else.<br />
<br />
Here than is how the metro area of the three maps look:<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5280/metrobritton.png" alt="Metro area - Britton map"/><br />
Britton proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/7568/metrohippert.png" alt="Metro area - Hippert map"/><br />
Hippert proposal<br />
<br />
<img width="350" src="http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7611/metromartin.png" alt="Metro area - Martin map"/><br />
Martin proposalTonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-48932288481192345492011-11-21T07:32:00.001-06:002011-11-21T07:34:18.272-06:00Redistricting: Partisan numbers for proposed maps<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>I tried to resist the urge to break this up into multiple posts and instead just do one big post comparing all the proposals. That post quickly grew to unmanageable proportions though, so I'm going to go ahead and break it up anyway.<br />
<br />
So, today I'm going to go over the partisan numbers of the proposed districts and tomorrow I'll start breaking down the districts themselves.<br />
<br />
The three proposals are from the Britton, Hippert (GOP) and Martin (DFL) intervenors. The Hippert map is <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/05/tea-party-protection-plan.html">old news</a>, as it is the same map that passed through the GOP controlled legislature earlier this year and was vetoed by Governor Dayton. The two other maps are interesting in their similarities and their differences; drawing rural Minnesota almost exactly the same but taking completely different approaches in the metro area.<br />
<br />
Cutting to the chase though; here are the Obama percentages for the three maps:<br />
<br />
<b>Obama % for proposed maps</B><br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>CD</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Britton</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Hippert</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Martin</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Old</TH> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>1</TH> <td ALIGN=center>52%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>51%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>52%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>51%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>2</TH> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>49%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>3</TH> <td ALIGN=center>50%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>50%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>55%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>52%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>4</TH> <td ALIGN=center>64%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>64%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>62%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>64%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>5</TH> <td ALIGN=center>72%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>74%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>73%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>74%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>6</TH> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>43%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>7</TH> <td ALIGN=center>47%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>47%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>8</TH> <td ALIGN=center>53%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>56%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>54%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>53%</TD> </TR>
</TABLE><a name='more'></a>Here is the same table with the Average Democratic vote numbers instead of the Obama numbers:<br />
<br />
<b>Ave Dem % for proposed maps</B><br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>CD</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Britton</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Hippert</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Martin</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Old</TH> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>1</TH> <td ALIGN=center>52%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>51%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>52%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>51%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>2</TH> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>44%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>47%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>3</TH> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>47%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>53%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>50%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>4</TH> <td ALIGN=center>62%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>63%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>61%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>64%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>5</TH> <td ALIGN=center>71%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>73%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>73%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>74%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>6</TH> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>44%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>45%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>7</TH> <td ALIGN=center>48%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>47%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>49%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>49%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>8</TH> <td ALIGN=center>57%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>58%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>57%</TD> <td ALIGN=center>57%</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>What follows now are two tables showing the differences between the proposed map and the existing map by subtracting the partisan numbers of the old map from the new one. What this will tell us is if a district is made more Democratic or more Republican (positive numbers mean more Democratic, negative more Republican):<br />
<br />
<b>New Obama % minus Old</B><br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>CD</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Britton</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Hippert</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Martin</TH> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>1</TH> <td ALIGN=right>1.1%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.3%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.7%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>2</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-3.4%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.6%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2.9%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>3</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-2.1%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2.6%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>2.9%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>4</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-0.9%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.7%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2.4%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>5</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-2.2%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.2%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.7%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>6</TH> <td ALIGN=right>3.7%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.1%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-1.8%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>7</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-0.4%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2.5%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.1%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>8</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-0.1%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>2.8%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.9%</TD> </TR>
</TABLE><br />
And here's the table for the Ave Dem vote:<br />
<br />
<b>Ave Dem % for proposed maps</B><br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>CD</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Britton</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Hippert</TH> <th ALIGN=center>Martin</TH> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>1</TH> <td ALIGN=right>1.1%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.3%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.8%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>2</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-2.8%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>1.0%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-3.4%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>3</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-1.6%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2.8%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>2.9%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>4</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-1.1%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.7%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-2.5%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>5</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-2.7%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.3%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.8%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>6</TH> <td ALIGN=right>3.4%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.3%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-0.7%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>7</TH> <td ALIGN=right>-0.4%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-1.3%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.0%</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=center> <th ALIGN=center>8</TH> <td ALIGN=right>0.0%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>1.5%</TD> <td ALIGN=right>0.6%</TD> </TR>
</TABLE><br />
Getting to incumbent pairings; the Martin map draws Michele Bachmann's residence into CD4, and Chip Cravaack's residence into CD6, while keeping the vast majority of their constituents in their previous districts. As the Martin intervernor's point out in their brief though, there is almost no chance that either of these Representatives would run in their new districts.<br />
<br />
If you look at the numbers above though you can see what the different maps are trying to do. The Hippert map is clearly attempting to maximize Republican advantages, the Martin map is attempting to maximize DFL advantages and the Britton map, well, I don't really know what that map is trying to do other than get rid of Michele Bachmann.<br />
<br />
<b>The Hippert Map</b><br />
<br />
This map tries to keep the status quo in the metro area, with all of the metro districts retaining the majority of their constituents. It's northern Minnesota that this map seeks to change the most, dramatically changing the makeup of CDs 7 and 8. I've <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/05/tea-party-protection-plan.html">already been over</a> this map though.<br />
<br />
<b>The Britton Map</b><br />
<br />
This map shores up Tim Walz in CD1 a bit and shifts a bunch of Democratic voters into CD6, in an apparent attempt to make it a competitive district. But in the process of doing so this map makes CD's 2 and 3 redder and for the most part unattainable by Democrats for another ten years.<br />
<br />
<b>The Martin Map</b><br />
<br />
Which brings us to the Martin map. I'll try and tamper my excitement a little, but there's a lot for Democrats to like in this map. Tim Walz gets a little help in CD1, and CD8 loses it's southern conservative counties, making it a point bluer. But the real prize of this map is CD3, which becomes winnable for Democrats, not only in partisan leanings, but the district incorporates lot's of new constituents who have never before voted for Eric Paulsen.<br />
<br />
If you're a Democrat, there is nothing about the Martin map that should upset you. I'll repeat that for those who may have read that line a little too quickly, the Martin map is a good map for Democrats.<br />
<br />
So why is it then that <a href="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2011/11/mccollum_takes.shtml">some Democrats</a> are <a href="http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/134160393.html">complaining</a> about this map? <br />
<br />
Perhaps they're just really big Johnny Depp fans.<br />
<br />
<img src="http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/5398/johnnydeppcrybaby.png" title="Cause They're Cry Babies" alt="Cause They're Cry Babies"/>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-59776454560962398622011-11-15T07:32:00.002-06:002011-11-15T11:47:42.186-06:00Yet another poll on the anti-family amendment<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8F1fbJVF5x-exGT3K-cqT1XnjwwD-TlBOyKQB7dqQLFdNC3p_lYnMPZVnMbw26VItR43ofVXT4ILDi-wwXxJHQkKPpC0F3tu-eESSqzSmRfE71enSicPCbvO42xvROhYThgAwAwtzlzI/s1600/gay+pride+minnesota.jpg" width="120" align="right" alt="MNPride" title="MNPride"/>Around this time each year St. Cloud State University does a statewide poll and this years version featured a question about the anti-family amendment.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.stcloudstate.edu/news/newsrelease/default.asp?pubID=3&issueID=31749&storyID=36842">SCSU</a> (11/12, no trend lines):<br />
<blockquote>"Should the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one<br />
woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"<br />
<br />
<b>Yes</b> 44<br />
<b>No</b> 47<br />
<b>Don't know/refused</b> 9<br />
(MoE: ±5%)</blockquote><br />
This result runs contrary to the two polls from last week, by the Star Tribune (PSRA) and KSTP (SurveyUSA), who both found <strike>outside the margin of error</strike> leads for the amendment. And other than a PPP poll at the end of May that showed the amendment losing by a single point this is the only poll with the "one man, one woman" language to show the amendment losing outright. <br />
<br />
If we simply average the three latest polls we get this; 43% do not support the amendment and 46% do. This leaves 10-11% in the undecided/don't know category. It's that 10% who will decide the fate of the amendment.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>---<br />
<br />
Here's an updated table of all the polls conducted on the amendment using the "one man, one woman" language that will appear on the ballot:<br />
<br />
<table CELLSPACING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP>MN Anti-Family Amendment Polling</CAPTION>
<tr ALIGN=right> <th ALIGN=right>Pollster</TH> <th ALIGN=right>median date</TH> <th ALIGN=right>"No"</TH> <th ALIGN=right>"Yes"</TH> <th ALIGN=right>Un</TH> <th ALIGN=right>margin</TH> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>SurveyUSA</TD> <td ALIGN=right>5/24/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>40</TD> <td ALIGN=right>51</TD> <td ALIGN=right>10</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-11</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>PPP</TD> <td ALIGN=right>5/29/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>47</TD> <td ALIGN=right>46</TD> <td ALIGN=right>7</TD> <td ALIGN=right>1</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>PSRA</TD> <td ALIGN=right>11/3/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>43</TD> <td ALIGN=right>48</TD> <td ALIGN=right>8</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-5</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>SurveyUSA</TD> <td ALIGN=right>11/5/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>40</TD> <td ALIGN=right>46</TD> <td ALIGN=right>4</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-6</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>SCSU</TD> <td ALIGN=right>10/22/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>47</TD> <td ALIGN=right>44</TD> <td ALIGN=right>9</TD> <td ALIGN=right>3</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right><b>Ave</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>43</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>47</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>8</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>-3</b></TD> </TR>
</TABLE>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-61595382946376361632011-11-10T12:39:00.000-06:002011-11-10T12:39:51.121-06:00A-Klo cruising<img align="right" width="200" src="http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa388/MNProgressive/Headshots/amy_klobuchar.jpg" border="0" alt="Amy Klobuchar" title="Amy Klobuchar">In addition to testing the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/11/another-poll-shows-anti-family.html">anti-family amendment</a> and the <a href="http://mnpublius.com/post/12597493821/kstp-poll-minnesotans-hate-the-idea-of-a-new-vikings">Vikings stadium</a> SurveyUSA also tested the 2012 Senate race and to absolutely no one's surprise Amy Klobuchar has wide leads over her announced opposition, Dan/Doc Severson and first term city councilman Joe Arwood.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=98e06008-a002-4bda-b2dc-d5093903734a">SurveyUSA</a> (11/8, no trendlines):<blockquote><b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 49<br />
<b>Tim Pawlenty</b> (R) 37<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 14<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 50<br />
<b>Norm Coleman (R)</b> 37<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 14<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 55<br />
<b>Dan Severson (R)</b> 23<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 22<br />
<br />
<b>Amy Klobuchar (D-inc)</b> 56<br />
<b>Joe Arwood (R)</b> 22<br />
<b>Undecided</b> 22<br />
(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
I might as well just write up a template for all these A-Klo poll posts, because they've all been the same so far. Amy Klobuchar is polling well over 50% against her announced opponents and is polling at 50% against the MN GOP's A-team, who can't even crack 40% against her.<br />
<br />
You can see why she does so well by looking at the cross-tabs, she loses at most 7% of Democrats, while taking 17% of Republicans against the known names and 28% against the unknowns. And there is simply nothing in any of these numbers that indicate any vulnerability for the GOP to exploit.<br />
<br />
The only real question I have about this race is weather A-Klo can actually do better than the 58% she got in 2006.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-40770397660926547882011-11-10T11:39:00.001-06:002011-11-10T16:04:06.251-06:00Another poll shows the anti-family amendment winning<img width="150" align="right" src="http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa388/MNProgressive/samesexmarriage_02.jpg" border="0" alt="Gay Marriage">On Tuesday I posted about the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/11/minnesota-poll-anti-family-amendment.html">Minnesota Poll</a> and it's findings vis-a-vie the anti-family amendment, which were discouraging to say the least. Right on the heels of that comes a SurveyUSA poll showing basically the same result, Minnesota voters favoring the amendment by a handful of points.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=98e06008-a002-4bda-b2dc-d5093903734a">SurveyUSA</a> (11/8, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=be72dc6c-d8fe-4da2-ab5d-07ce56bc7bee">5/25</a> in parenthesis, <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a660ec80-a5fc-403a-9d51-ab21402fbb07">3/31</a> in brackets):<br />
<blockquote>"If an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution were on the ballot, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, would you vote..."<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>For</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>46</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(51)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[62]</TD> </TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Against</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>40</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(40)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[33]</TD> </TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Not vote</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>10</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(8)</TD> <td ALIGN=center> </TD> </TR>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right><b>Not sure</b></TH> <td ALIGN=center>4</TD> <td ALIGN=center>(2)</TD> <td ALIGN=center>[5]</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>(MoE: ±4.3%)</blockquote><br />
This somewhat mirror's the Strib's 48-43 result in favor of the amendment. The big difference though is that SurveyUSA gave people the "not vote" option, of which 10% availed themselves. <br />
<br />
If people actually voted this way next November the amendment would fail. This is because for an amendment to the Minnesota constitution to pass it needs to receive 50% + 1 of the entire electorate. Meaning not voting on the measure is as good as voting no.<br />
<br />
The other thing you can see is that actual support for the amendment has eroded quite a bit since SurveyUSA's first poll of the issue at the end of March, going from 62% support, to 51% to 46% now. Opposition to the amendment hasn't risen at the same level as support has fallen, meaning that many people who at first supported the amendment have moved into the "Not vote" and "Not sure" categories. <br />
<br />
Like in the Minnesota poll though, there are a substantial number of Democrats, 26% in this case, who are in favor of the amendment while only 58% are opposed. This will simply not do if we want to beat this thing. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>---<br />
<br />
Here's an updated table of all the polls conducted on the amendment (I've excluded the first Strib poll, as that one used more favorable question wording that doesn't reflect how the amendment will appear on the ballot):<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>MN Anti-Family Amendment Polling</B></CAPTION>
<tr> <th ALIGN=right>Pollster</TH> <th ALIGN=right>median date</TH> <th ALIGN=right>"No"</TH> <th ALIGN=right>"Yes"</TH> <th ALIGN=right>NoVote</TH> <th ALIGN=right>Un</TH> <th ALIGN=right>margin</TH> </TR>
<tr> <td ALIGN=center>SurveyUSA</TD> <td ALIGN=center>5/24/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=center>40</TD> <td ALIGN=center>51</TD> <td ALIGN=center></TD> <td ALIGN=center>10</TD> <td ALIGN=center>-11</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td ALIGN=center>PPP</TD> <td ALIGN=center>5/29/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=center>47</TD> <td ALIGN=center>46</TD> <td ALIGN=center></TD> <td ALIGN=center>7</TD> <td ALIGN=center>1</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td ALIGN=center>PSRA</TD> <td ALIGN=center>11/3/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=center>43</TD> <td ALIGN=center>48</TD> <td ALIGN=center></TD> <td ALIGN=center>8</TD> <td ALIGN=center>-5</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td ALIGN=center>SurveyUSA</TD> <td ALIGN=center>11/5/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=center>40</TD> <td ALIGN=center>46</TD> <td ALIGN=center>10</TD> <td ALIGN=center>4</TD> <td ALIGN=center>-6</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td ALIGN=center><b>Ave</b></TD> <td ALIGN=center></TD> <td ALIGN=center><b>43</b></TD> <td ALIGN=center><b>48</b></TD> <td ALIGN=center><b>10</b></TD> <td ALIGN=center><b>6</b></TD> <td ALIGN=center><b>-4</b></TD> </TR>
</TABLE>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-39510603505071476262011-11-08T10:42:00.001-06:002011-11-08T13:53:50.775-06:00Minnesota Poll: the anti-family amendment makes big gains<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8F1fbJVF5x-exGT3K-cqT1XnjwwD-TlBOyKQB7dqQLFdNC3p_lYnMPZVnMbw26VItR43ofVXT4ILDi-wwXxJHQkKPpC0F3tu-eESSqzSmRfE71enSicPCbvO42xvROhYThgAwAwtzlzI/s1600/gay+pride+minnesota.jpg" width="120" align="right" alt="MNPride" title="MNPride"/>There's no way to really sugar coat this one, since last time PSRA was in the field in Minnesota opposition to the anti-family amendment has softened by twelve points and support has increased by nine.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.startribune.com/politics/133367088.html">StarTribune (PSRA)</a> (11/8, <a href="http://www.startribune.com/politics/121725399.html">5/13</a> in parenthesis):<br />
<blockquote>"Would you favor or oppose amending the Minnesota Constitution to allow marriage only between a man and a woman?"<br />
<br />
<b>Favor</b> 48 (39)<br />
<b>Oppose</b> 43 (55)<br />
<b>Don't know/refused</b> 8 (7)<br />
(MoE: ±4.4%)</blockquote><br />
It's hard to say exactly what happened since May that would result in opposition going from plus sixteen points to minus five, but this certainly helps to illustrate the uncertainties of polling ballot questions, especially this particular ballot question.<br />
<br />
<i>[Note: I missed it at first, but the question wording is different from the May poll to this one and that is almost certainly what is driving the results.]</i><br />
<br />
Looking at the cross-tabs the changes come from some expected and some unexpected places. Back in May the 65+ cohort actually opposed the amendment, 51-44, now that same group is in favor of the amendment 70-26. This is a preposterously large swing and may be the root of the dramatic topline swing.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>If we look at some previous polls that have been done we find a decidedly mixed picture. SurveyUSA's May survey found a similar level of support among 65+ as the recent Strib survey; 66% supporting the amendment and 27% against. While in PPP's June survey they found 57% support and 34% opposition. <br />
<br />
Clearly the 65+ age group is in favor of the amendment, but to what degree? If the recent Strib poll and SurveyUSA are right, opposition to the amendment might be in more trouble then I had previously thought. If, on the other hand, PPP is right, then we are in for the tough fight that we all expect.<br />
<br />
More troubling perhaps, this isn't a case of Republicans "coming home," instead the increase in support is coming almost exclusively from Democrats and independents. In the Strib's previous poll Democrats opposed the amendment 71-24, but now that opposition is only 60-35, a stunning 22 point decline. And independents have gone from opposing the amendment 57-34 to supporting it 48-44, a 27 point swing.<br />
<br />
There is simply no way we can win this if 35% of Democrats support the amendment. Unifying the DFL on this issue has to be priority number one going forward or we're in big trouble.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Below are all the polls so far done on the anti-family amendment (at least all the one's I've got in my spreadsheet, let me know if I've missed any*) with a simple average at the bottom.<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>MN Anti-Family Amendment Polling</B></CAPTION>
<tr ALIGN=right> <th ALIGN=right>Pollster</TH> <th ALIGN=right>median date</TH> <th ALIGN=right>"No"</TH> <th ALIGN=right>"Yes"</TH> <th ALIGN=right>Un</TH> <th ALIGN=right>margin</TH> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>PSRA</TD> <td ALIGN=right>5/4/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>55</TD> <td ALIGN=right>39</TD> <td ALIGN=right>7</TD> <td ALIGN=right>16</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>SurveyUSA</TD> <td ALIGN=right>5/24/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>40</TD> <td ALIGN=right>51</TD> <td ALIGN=right>10</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-11</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>PPP</TD> <td ALIGN=right>5/29/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>47</TD> <td ALIGN=right>46</TD> <td ALIGN=right>7</TD> <td ALIGN=right>1</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right>PSRA</TD> <td ALIGN=right>11/3/2011</TD> <td ALIGN=right>43</TD> <td ALIGN=right>48</TD> <td ALIGN=right>8</TD> <td ALIGN=right>-5</TD> </TR>
<tr ALIGN=right> <td ALIGN=right><b>Ave</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>46</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>46</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>8</b></TD> <td ALIGN=right><b>0</b></TD> </TR>
</TABLE><i>* I'm not including the SurveyUSA poll from March because that was before the amendment actually passed the legislature.</i>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-5171988817482775692011-11-08T07:22:00.002-06:002011-11-08T07:24:51.452-06:00Redistricting: Special panel releases redistricting principals<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>In an order <a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/A110152Order11.4.11.pdf">filed on Friday</a> the Special Redistricting Panel released it's redistricting principals. These are the criteria the court will use to actually draw the maps we will be using for the next ten years. <br />
<br />
In this post I'm going to look at the principals in the court order and how they compare to the principals from the last redistricting cycle and also the principals submitted by the four intervenors.<br />
<br />
First, lets take a look at the principals and what they actually mean before looking at how the different parties put them in order.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b>Numbering</b> - for both the congressional districts and legislative districts there will be a principal that deals with how the districts should be numbered. This doesn't have any effect on how the districts will be drawn though, so for the purposes of this post I'm going to ignore these principals.<br />
<br />
<b>Equal Population</b> - This is the whole reason for redistricting in the first place, so it is clearly the most important principal. Other than the Voting Rights Act, it's also the only principal that needs to be met for a plan to pass federal scrutiny.<br />
<br />
For congressional districts this principal is absolute, districts must be <i>exactly</i> equal in population, so the deviations between districts will never be greater than one voter (the state has eight districts, and the statewide population is not evenly divisible by eight, so there will be five districts of 662,991 and three of 662,990).<br />
<br />
For legislative districts the state constitution allows a deviation between districts of as much as 5% between the district with the highest population and the district with the lowest.<br />
<br />
<b>Voting Rights Act (VRA)</b> - Easily the most misunderstood law as it concerns redistricting, the VRA has yet to be fully litigated so there are many uncertainties about what the law actually means. Additionally, VRA violations in redistricting are never black and white (no pun intended) and are instead decided on a case by case basis with judges asked to consider the "totality of the circumstances."<br />
<br />
There are two sections of the Voting Rights Act that effect redistricting, Section 2 and Section 5. Section 2 is the general ban on doing things that will have an adverse effect on minority representation. Section 5 is the requirement that specific jurisdictions (those with a checkered history of voting rights violations) need to get preclearance from the Department of Justice for any changes to voting procedures, of which, new political boundaries is one.<br />
<br />
As it relates to Minnesota the VRA will have a negligible impact on the congressional maps, as the greatest level of minority packing you can possibly achieve still falls well short of VRA standards. Not only that, there are precious few areas even on the legislative map that would compel the VRA to come into play in this state. <br />
<br />
Simply put, anytime a Minnesota politician makes claims about a map possibly being illegal because of the voting rights act they probably have no idea what they're talking about for two reasons; one, in Minnesota the VRA just doesn't come into play and two, there is absolutely no way for them to know for sure weather a map passes muster without first going through the legal process. <br />
<br />
<b>Districts shall be convenient, contiguous and compact</b> - The convenient and contiguous part means districts have to be one whole shape and not split into different geographic areas, and the compact part means that as much as possible they shouldn't have meandering tentacles.<br />
<br />
<b>Preserve political subdivisions (cities and counties)</b> - This is self explanatory, as much as possible try not to draw lines through counties and especially cities. In the end though, some cities and counties will have to get divided.<br />
<br />
<b>Preserve communities of interest</b> - This is a more nebulous and hard to define principal, but in terms of Minnesota, a good example is the Iron Range, which I think you can make a good case represents a community of interest.<br />
<br />
<b>Incumbent fairness</b> - This basically means that an effort will be made to not favor the incumbents of one party or the other and instead try and split the difference. This principal was included in the House Republicans list of principals, but not in their filing of proposed redistricting criteria. It was however in the DFL's filing of proposed criteria, so figure that one out.<br />
<br />
So, now that we have some basic terms established, let's see how this cycles redistricting principal's differ from last cycles.<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>Court Adopted Redistricting Criteria</B></CAPTION>
<tr> <th>2011</TH> <th>2001</TH> </TR>
<tr> <td>Equal population</TD> <td>Equal population</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>VRA</TD> <td>Contiguous, compact</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>Contiguous, compact</TD> <td>VRA</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>County, city</TD> <td>County, city</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>Communities</TD> <td>Communities</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>Fairness</TD> <td>Fairness</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>As you can see, things didn't change much. The only difference is that the special panel this time around slotted VRA consideration ahead of the contiguous and compact criteria. This makes sense simply because the VRA is federal law and the contiguous and compact principal is not.<br />
<br />
Since this is the only change in the principals from last cycle it's worth looking at what may have driven this reordering. I mentioned earlier that the VRA won't really have much of an impact on how the Minnesota map gets drawn this cycle, but that may not be the case next cycle, when the VRA could have significant implications on how the legislative map gets drawn because of demographic changes already underway.<br />
<br />
It may be that the panel is looking forward to that eventuality and wanted to set the precedent this cycle so that it would not be an issue next cycle. And even if that's not what the panel was thinking, it seems likely that's what the effect of this decision will be.<br />
<br />
But because the VRA will have such little impact on the map this cycle, the end result of this change is that essentially nothing has changed since last cycle and because of that I expect the eventual map will closely resemble our current map.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Now let's take a look at what the intervening parties proposed redistricting criteria looked like.<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>Court Adopted Redistricting Criteria</B></CAPTION>
<tr> <th><a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/31_-_Motion_to_adopt_redistricting_critera_Ritchie.pdf">Ritchie</a> (State)</TH> <th><a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/32_-_Motion_to_Adopt_Redistricting_criteria_Britton.pdf">Britton</a> </TH> <th><a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/33_-_Motion_to_adopt_propsed_redistricting_critera_Martin.pdf">Martin</a> (DFL)</TH> <th><a href="http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Court_Information_Office/2011Redistricting/34_-_Motion_to_adopt_proposed_redistricting_criteria_Hippert.pdf">Hippert</a> (GOP)</TH> </TR>
<tr> <td>Equal population</TD> <td>Equal population</TD> <td>Equal population</TD> <td>Equal population</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>Contiguous, compact</TD> <td>Contiguous</TD> <td>Contiguous</TD> <td>Contiguous</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>VRA</TD> <td>Communities</TD> <td>VRA</TD> <td>VRA</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>County, city</TD> <td>Compactness</TD> <td>Communities</TD> <td>County, city</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>Communities</TD> <td>VRA</TD> <td>County, city</TD> <td>Communities</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td></TD> <td>County, city</TD> <td>Compactness</TD> <td>Compactness</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td></TD> <td></TD> <td>Fairness</TD> <td></TD> </TR>
</TABLE>There are a few interesting things about how the intervenors criteria differed from the set the court approved. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, representing the State of Minnesota, used the criteria from last cycle. The group headed by Audrey Britton submitted the most abstract list of the group, elevating "communities of interest" ahead of the VRA, which just doesn't make much sense.<br />
<br />
But it's the criteria proposed by the two political parties that are the most interesting to me, both in their similarities and their differences. They agree on principals one through three, but they both do something that I like, they break off the compact principal into it's own consideration and slot it further down the list. It's like they've been reading my redistricting posts on the <a href="http://minn-donkey.blogspot.com/2011/01/redistricting-what-makes-fair-map.html">meaninglessness of the compactness principal</a> all along!<br />
<br />
The Britton group does this too, but they only do it in order to slot communities of interest ahead of compactness. The DFL and GOP groups take it one step further and slot compactness as the least important (or second least in the case of the DFL) principal.<br />
<br />
The other interesting thing about the DFL and GOP filings are the areas in which they differ. The DFL prioritized preserving communities of interest ahead of preserving cities and counties while the GOP did the opposite. I'm not sure what the reasoning was for this move on the part of the DFL, perhaps it's part of their effort to keep districts seven and eight looking similar, and wanting to use the community of interest argument to do it.<br />
<br />
In addition to that the DFL filing included the Incumbent fairness principal while the GOP filing did not, even though that principal was part of the GOP's legislative guidelines. <br />
<br />
Other than the fact that they slotted compactness at the bottom, the two political parties filings are substantially similar to what the court approved. We move into the next phase now, with the drawing of actual maps.TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7078098393081774013.post-78359268699874031932011-10-25T07:37:00.001-05:002011-10-25T07:37:36.764-05:00Redistricting Maps! Round Four - Draw the Line Minnesota<img align="right" width="150" src="http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8296/redistrictingminnesota.jpg" title="Redistricting Minnesota" alt="Redistricting Minnesota"/>On Friday, the Citizens’ Redistricting Commission, a group brought together by Draw the Line Minnesota, <a href="http://drawthelinemidwest.org/minnesota/commission-redistricting-report/">submitted it's maps</a> to the Special Redistricting Panel. Here's a statement for the group's chair, Candi Walz:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We’re taking advantage of this opportunity to share what we heard with the judicial panel and to ensure Minnesotans who attended our meetings have their voice heard. We heard from hundreds of Minnesotans that want our state’s Congressional and legislative districts drawn to reflect the lives and needs of our citizens and communities, rather partisan interests of any kind, and that’s what this report aims to communicate.</blockquote><br />
In response to this, Rep. Sarah Anderson, <a href="http://www.minnpost.com/politicalagenda/2011/10/21/32598/house_redistricting_chair_sarah_anderson_rips_citizens%E2%80%99_plan_for_new_boundaries#comments_section">had a comment of her own</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>As best we can tell Draw the Line has ripped apart at least three tribal communities and is carving up almost four times the number of cities they are reporting. Draw the Line’s top principle was to preserve communities of interest, yet they completely disregard city and county boundaries, ignored the Voting Rights Act altogether and disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans of their equal representation rights.</blockquote><br />
As we all know, Rep. Anderson has a knack for first-class hyperbole, but this is quite the statement, even for her. First of all, I don't really see how any plan that creates districts of equal population (as this one does) could "disenfranchise thousands of Minnesotans of their equal representation rights," but perhaps Rep. Anderson is using some sort of quantum theory of redistricting where things behave in ways that no one quite understands.<br />
<br />
But this is not what really makes Rep. Anderson upset:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote>It should be cause for great concern that Draw the Line is bringing politics into a process which should be about people. Their process has been run by David Wheeler, who was endorsed for public office by several Democrats including Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak and State Senator Scott Dibble, and their map was drawn by Linden Weiswerda, a former Obama for America staffer. This flies in the face of any sort of commission involvement and ultimately decisions were made by liberal staff members, not citizens or commission members.</blockquote><br />
ZOMG, Democrats were on the commission! Fraud!!1!<br />
<br />
Here's the thing, if this was a commission packed with Democrats who were trying to advance a Democratic agenda, then they are pretty terrible at drawing maps that advantage Democrats, unless the only goal of the whole thing was to get Chip Cravaack out of the eighth.<br />
<br />
While much of the attention will be on the fact that Cravaack gets drawn into the sixth district along with Michele Bachmann; the situation isn't any better for the DFL, as Colin Peterson's Detroit Lakes home gets drawn into the eighth, while almost his entire constituency still resides in the seventh. <br />
<br />
Not only that, but every single district except the eighth becomes more Republican than before. Really, the only thing about this map that DFLers will like is that Chip and Michele get drawn into the same district. But is that even a big deal? I mean, Cravaack doesn't even live in the state anymore, does it really matter what district his Minnesota residence is in?<br />
<br />
Here's the partisan breakdown of the congressional districts in the Draw the Line map.<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>Average Democratic Vote Share</B></CAPTION>
<tr> <th>CD</TH> <th>Old</TH> <th>New</TH> <th>Diff</TH> </TR>
<tr> <td>1</TD> <td>51.3%</TD> <td>51.0%</TD> <td>-0.3%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>2</TD> <td>47.4%</TD> <td>47.2%</TD> <td>-0.2%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>3</TD> <td>49.7%</TD> <td>48.6%</TD> <td>-1.1%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>4</TD> <td>63.5%</TD> <td>62.8%</TD> <td>-0.7%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>5</TD> <td>73.5%</TD> <td>71.9%</TD> <td>-1.6%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>6</TD> <td>45.0%</TD> <td>44.8%</TD> <td>-0.2%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>7</TD> <td>48.5%</TD> <td>48.3%</TD> <td>-0.2%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>8</TD> <td>56.6%</TD> <td>57.3%</TD> <td>0.7%</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>First thing you'll notice is that if you add up the percentages they don't equal zero, but are instead negative. This is because the two districts that most needed to shed voters are conservative districts, so the voters being added to other districts will primarily be conservatives.<br />
<br />
The only district that gains in Democratic vote share is the eighth, and this is probably what has conservatives up in arms, along with Cravaack getting drawn out of the district. The downside of course is that the third gets more than a point redder and the second marginally redder, losing conservative areas to the third, but picking some up from the seventh.<br />
<br />
The second district has the potential of getting drawn to be pretty swingy if the court decides to keep Dakota county whole and the second sheds some of it's rural fringes. If that were to happen, John Kline could be vulnerable to the same anti-incumbent, anti-leadership sentiment that swept Jim Oberstar out of office. Under this map, John Kline can once again walk to reelection.<br />
<br />
Not only that but the third goes from being a genuine pickup opportunity when Paulson runs for senate in 2014, to a seat that will be difficult for the DFL to win, even in an open seat race.<br />
<br />
My main point here is that if Draw the Line Minnesota was a Democratic front group than they suck at making maps to benefit Democrats.<br />
<br />
Of course, Draw the Line's stated goals were not partisan in nature anyway, unlike the goals that must have been behind the highly partisan maps produced by the distinguished professor of quantum redistricting bullshit, Representative Sarah Anderson.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
One of Draw the Lines goals was to create an American Indian opportunity district in northern Minnesota by drawing all the big tribal reservations up there into one district. Here's the racial breakdown of their map:<br />
<br />
<table CELLPADDING=5px><caption ALIGN=TOP><b>Percentage of Native Americans</B></CAPTION>
<tr> <th>CD</TH> <th>Old</TH> <th>New</TH> <th>Diff</TH> </TR>
<tr> <td>1</TD> <td>0.2%</TD> <td>0.3%</TD> <td>0.1%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>2</TD> <td>0.4%</TD> <td>0.4%</TD> <td>0.0%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>3</TD> <td>0.3%</TD> <td>0.3%</TD> <td>0.0%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>4</TD> <td>0.6%</TD> <td>0.6%</TD> <td>0.0%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>5</TD> <td>1.3%</TD> <td>1.2%</TD> <td>-0.1%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>6</TD> <td>0.4%</TD> <td>0.4%</TD> <td>0.0%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>7</TD> <td>2.7%</TD> <td>0.6%</TD> <td>-2.1%</TD> </TR>
<tr> <td>8</TD> <td>2.6%</TD> <td>4.5%</TD> <td>1.9%</TD> </TR>
</TABLE>As you can see, in this regard they succeeded in packing as many Native Americans into CD8 as possible. The question I would have to ask is this; is 4.5% enough of a voting bloc to justify how they've configured the eighth district?<br />
<br />
My view is that if 4.5% is the largest share of a minority population that can conceivably be drawn into a district than perhaps you shouldn't be going out of your way to draw that group into a district.<br />
<br />
While it may be considered a laudable goal, I just don't think the numbers are there to justify the creation of a district like this.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Here's what the actual districts look like in Draw the Lines' map. (Light green coloring means areas that were acquired by a district, pink means areas that were lost.)<br />
<br />
<b>CD1:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3408/drawthelinecd1.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD1"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD2:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1967/drawthelinecd2.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD2"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD3:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9296/drawthelinecd3.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD3"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD4:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9859/drawthelinecd4.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD4"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD5:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/1927/drawthelinecd5.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD5"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD6:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/8494/drawthelinecd6.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD6"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD7:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8488/drawthelinecd7.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD7"/><br />
<br />
<b>CD8:</b><br />
<br />
<img width="480" src="http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1669/drawthelinecd8.png" alt="Draw the Line - CD8"/>TonyAngelohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15959746372997929427noreply@blogger.com0