Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 23, 2019, 02:17:36 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  Election Archive
| | |-+  All Archived Boards
| | | |-+  2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls (Moderators: AndrewTX, Likely Voter)
| | | | |-+  MN-Star Tribune/Mason-Dixon: Clinton +13
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: MN-Star Tribune/Mason-Dixon: Clinton +13  (Read 2130 times)
Fargobison
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,500



View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 01, 2016, 01:34:13 am »

Clinton 48
Trump 35

Clinton 49
Cruz 40

Sanders 53
Trump 38

Sanders 50
Cruz 36

http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Minnesota+Poll+presidential+race.pdf
Logged
NV less likely to flip than FL
xingkerui
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,656
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.63, S: -6.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2016, 01:37:40 am »

Yep, Trump isn't winning MN under any circumstances.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,134
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.87

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2016, 01:37:45 am »

Good. Hopefully this will get Minnesota off of "tossup" on the polling map.
Logged
Arch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,979
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2016, 01:44:09 am »

Safe D, as expected.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2016, 01:46:26 am »

New Poll: Minnesota President by Mason-Dixon on 2016-04-27

Summary: D: 48%, R: 35%, U: 17%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 01, 2016, 01:48:03 am »

Good. Hopefully this will get Minnesota off of "tossup" on the polling map.

Nah, we'll need another one with Hillary up 4 points or more to do that.
Logged
Eraserhead
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 42,289
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 01, 2016, 02:01:39 am »

Wasn't Mason Dixon awful here during the caucuses? It's hard to imagine that Clinton is performing nearly as well as Sanders here of all places.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2016, 02:02:34 am »

On that note, the comments from the older poll threads were pretty damn hilarious.

Looks like Hillary can do what Mondale couldn't; be the first Democrat to lose Minnesota since 1972.

Furthers my point that a Rubio v. Clinton general election would be Likely R nationally- maybe close to Safe R.  If Rubio beat Hillary by 9 in Minnesota, assuming uniform swing, the map would look something like this:



She will lose the rust belt for Democrats. She isn't electable at all lol
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,262


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 01, 2016, 02:02:59 am »

Wasn't Mason Dixon awful here during the caucuses? It's hard to imagine that Clinton is performing nearly as well as Sanders here of all places.

Only 57 points off. Tongue

http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 01, 2016, 02:44:12 am »

Wasn't Mason Dixon awful here during the caucuses? It's hard to imagine that Clinton is performing nearly as well as Sanders here of all places.

Only 57 points off. Tongue

http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html

Well, there's probably three reasons for that:

1) Mason Dixon is not a great pollster in general

2) It was conducted in January before his post NH surge

3) Judging from this poll, where it asks registered Democrats and Republicans who they want to be the nominee, I'm assuming it had the same format in the other poll.

This poll asks Republicans and Democrats only who they want to win, with the results:

Trump 34
Kasich 24
Cruz 23

Clinton 54
Sanders 39

It's difficult to draw too many conclusions on the GOP side considering Rubio, the winner, dropped out. But judging from Trump's awful showing there and Cruz's decent one, it looks like the caucus penalty hit Trump/helped Cruz once again. What effect it had on Rubio is unclear. The poll had him ahead by a couple points in January, but the bigger margin easily could've been explained by him gaining traction nationally as opposed to being caucus specific.

The Democratic side is interesting. The spread is slightly less than her margin among registered Democrats in Michigan, and that's also not taking into account the post NY/post Acela "momentum"/bandwagon jumpers. If Minnesota was a primary rather than a caucus, I'd guess it would have fallen somewhere between Michigan (where she won registered Ds by a similar margin) and Wisconsin (where they tied.) So probably a win for Bernie in the high single digits, whereas she lost the caucus by 24. So the caucus penalty hit her pretty hard as well, as expected.

Conclusion: It's very possible that in January of 2016 Hillary had a 34 point lead among registered Democrats in Minnesota. But they were very foolish, as expected from Mason Dixon, for not including independents in an open primary or more tightly screening for the caucus process. And not conducting a post NH poll just made it even worse looking.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,262


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 01, 2016, 03:02:24 am »

Wasn't Mason Dixon awful here during the caucuses? It's hard to imagine that Clinton is performing nearly as well as Sanders here of all places.

Only 57 points off. Tongue

http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_democratic_presidential_caucus-3585.html

Well, there's probably three reasons for that:

1) Mason Dixon is not a great pollster in general

2) It was conducted in January before his post NH surge

3) Judging from this poll, where it asks registered Democrats and Republicans who they want to be the nominee, I'm assuming it had the same format in the other poll.

This poll asks Republicans and Democrats only who they want to win, with the results:

Trump 34
Kasich 24
Cruz 23

Clinton 54
Sanders 39

It's difficult to draw too many conclusions on the GOP side considering Rubio, the winner, dropped out. But judging from Trump's awful showing there and Cruz's decent one, it looks like the caucus penalty hit Trump/helped Cruz once again. What effect it had on Rubio is unclear. The poll had him ahead by a couple points in January, but the bigger margin easily could've been explained by him gaining traction nationally as opposed to being caucus specific.

The Democratic side is interesting. The spread is slightly less than her margin among registered Democrats in Michigan, and that's also not taking into account the post NY/post Acela "momentum"/bandwagon jumpers. If Minnesota was a primary rather than a caucus, I'd guess it would have fallen somewhere between Michigan (where she won registered Ds by a similar margin) and Wisconsin (where they tied.) So probably a win for Bernie in the high single digits, whereas she lost the caucus by 24. So the caucus penalty hit her pretty hard as well, as expected.

Conclusion: It's very possible that in January of 2016 Hillary had a 34 point lead among registered Democrats in Minnesota. But they were very foolish, as expected from Mason Dixon, for not including independents in an open primary or more tightly screening for the caucus process. And not conducting a post NH poll just made it even worse looking.

Even if they were polling for a closed primary instead of an open caucus, there's no way Hillary ever had a 34 point lead this year.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30,708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -5.70

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 01, 2016, 03:29:27 am »

Maybe 34 is a bit high, but something like 25 would not be out of the question for January. This was back when Hillary still had a 15-20 point lead in the national polls after all (which means it was even higher among registered Ds, though somewhat counteracted by the fact that MN registered Ds would inherently be more Bernie friendly than nationwide ones.)
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 45,262


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 01, 2016, 03:30:16 am »

Maybe 34 is a bit high, but something like 25 would not be out of the question for January. This was back when Hillary still had a 15-20 point lead in the national polls after all (which means it was even higher among registered Ds, though somewhat counteracted by the fact that MN registered Ds would inherently be more Bernie friendly than nationwide ones.)

Anything more than around 10 points for Hillary would have been absurd.
Logged
BetoBro
semocrat08
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,348
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2016, 04:06:33 am »

Buuuuutttt Minnesota is trending R, y'all. It COULD be in play! Tongue
Logged
Virgini
Virginia C
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13,782
Ukraine


P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2016, 09:05:11 am »

Yep, Trump isn't winning MN under any circumstances.

but what about the aggrieved white working class voters! Won't somebody please think of the white working class voters?!
Logged
Julian Assange is a Snowflake
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 85,413
Ukraine


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 01, 2016, 12:08:13 pm »

This should be a wonderful county map!
Logged
standwrand
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 585
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.55, S: -2.74

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 01, 2016, 01:36:36 pm »

I'm still sure Rubio could have put MN in play.
Logged
Ronnie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,848
United States
P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2016, 01:39:46 pm »

I'm still sure Rubio could have put MN in play.

He couldn't even put his home state into play in the primary...
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,472
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2016, 02:05:08 pm »

Minnesota hasn't gone R since 1972, and the country was much more conservative back then.  I see no reason why it would be trending R now, especially considering how much buying power the Tea Party has within the GOP...
Logged
Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,947
Austria


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2016, 04:17:42 pm »

That was a rumor back in 1998-2002 because of Ventura being elected with the DFLer in third and the GOP taking the house.  Then in 2002 the DFL barely held a senate majority while the gov went to Pawlenty and Coleman won the senate seat.  That was, of course, 9/11 aftermath...

In 2004 the DFL flipped 19 seats in the state house and another 16 in 2006 with a veto proof majority in the senate and elected DFLers to all statewide offices except Pawlenty's 0.9% reelection margin. 

In 2008 we threw out Coleman for Franken and gained more in the legislature.  Then in 2010 we gave the legislature to the GOP for the first time ever but elected DFLers to all statewide offices with Dayton as gov.  In 2012 we gained back CD8 for the DFL, and returned the legislature to the DFL.  In 2014 the GOP retook the house, but could very easily lose it again this year.  Plus CD2 is in play for the DFL...

A good DFL year would mean both senate seats, 6 of 8 house seats, all statewide offices, and the legislature would be in DFL control. 

so lets stop that stupid myth.
Logged
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,913
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

P P

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2016, 05:58:14 pm »

Whatever the long-term prospects are (and, as someone has mentioned upthread, Minnesota's been about to become a Republican state for about 20 years, and somehow never quite does), it's pretty clear that Trump's shtick tends to work very poorly in the Dukakis Midwest states.
Logged
olowakandi
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,544
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2016, 06:15:22 pm »

Whatever the long-term prospects are (and, as someone has mentioned upthread, Minnesota's been about to become a Republican state for about 20 years, and somehow never quite does), it's pretty clear that Trump's shtick tends to work very poorly in the Dukakis Midwest states.

Minnesota voted for Pawlenty and Ventura and Norm Coleman non partisan GOPers.  It was never a GOP state. But had an Indy streak.

But Dayton, Khlobuchar and Franken are true DFL liberals.
Logged
Minnesota Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 879


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2016, 08:30:29 pm »

Whatever the long-term prospects are (and, as someone has mentioned upthread, Minnesota's been about to become a Republican state for about 20 years, and somehow never quite does), it's pretty clear that Trump's shtick tends to work very poorly in the Dukakis Midwest states.

FWIW it has been 10 years since any Republican has won a statewide race in Minnesota (Tim Pawlenty 2006) and 22 years since any Republican has gotten 50%+ of the vote (Arne Carlson 1994).  If anything Minnesota is trending Democratic.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,565
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2016, 10:13:05 pm »

But muh PVI!!!
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,958
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2016, 10:46:46 pm »

I'm still sure Rubio could have put MN in play.

Rubio? If he couldn't remain popular in a Lean R state (Florida), what causes anyone to think that he would do well in Minnesota? Kasich might put Minnesota in play in a 40-state landslide... if the political dynamics remained as they were around a month ago.

Minnesota does not swing much. It may have gone decisively for Obama in 2008, but not by the blowout margins by which he won in a bunch of other states. It was the worst state for Reagan in 1984 and the second-worst for Nixon in 1972 in 49-state blowouts.

The last Republican to win Minnesota decisively was Dwight Eisenhower. But overlay elections of Obama and Eisenhower and you will see some amazing coincidences for two Presidents from the opposite Parties. (Then again, I see similarities of temperament that probably fit some political cultures of some states, and I figure that both Presidents were similarly effective and will be so regarded in the future). 
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines