SurveyUSA: Minnesota a tossup, Obama leads by 3

[ucscgaldamez]

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=f848e0e7-4b37-4480-9248-35238dba01ce

Obama leads McCain 49-46%

[Ronnie]

Outlier

[Verily]

SUSA has had a very odd Republican-friendly tendency (shared by no other pollster) with regards to Minnesota throughout this election season. No idea why; otherwise SUSA is mostly erratic but not really problematic anywhere.

[Boris]

Great, now we have to endure Rowan for another 44-45 hours or so.

[ucscgaldamez]

well, if it is an outlier, that may not be good news for Coleman.

[Lief 🗽]

what.

[MarkWarner08]

Obama is up by 3% and Franken is down by 5%. The Star-Trib poll has Obama up by 11% and Franken up by 4%.  It  seems like Franken is running 7-8 points behind Obama.

[cinyc]

Bizarre.  Obama is up by 8 in the Twin Cities and 6 in Northeastern MN.  McCain is only up by 5 in South MN and 9 in West MN - yet Obama only leads by 3 statewide.

[Verily]

well, if it is an outlier, that may not be good news for Coleman.

It's not really an outlier for SUSA in Minnesota; it's about what I would have expected from them given their past numbers in the state. Of course, that doesn't make it agree with everyone else any more, but SUSA has been a consistent outlier in Minnesota polling since polling of this election began. As I said above, I've no idea why (but I haven't given it much thought, either).

[Sam Spade]

As before, there is no real good reason for me to discount the poll (sampling-wise).  The reason to discount it because it doesn't match the others.

[Eraserhead]

If you consider this real, seek help.

[cinyc]

As before, there is no real good reason for me to discount the poll (sampling-wise).  The reason to discount it because it doesn't match the others.

One thing to keep in mind is that Minnesota was competitive in 2000 and 2004.  Bush lost it by 2.5 points in 2000 and 3.5 points in 2004.  It's not as much of a red state as most think.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This pisses me off. We hit 100% Obama on 538 yesterday. Now we're down to 99%. This eliminates any chance of hitting 100% again and we might drop to 98% as a result.

BTW, remember this?

[War on Want]

uber-outlier

[J. J.]

I don't believe it.  Outlier.

[memphis]

As before, there is no real good reason for me to discount the poll (sampling-wise).  The reason to discount it because it doesn't match the others.

One thing to keep in mind is that Minnesota was competitive in 2000 and 2004.  Bush lost it by 2.5 points in 2000 and 3.5 points in 2004.  It's not as much of a red state as most think.

What 2000 and 2004 demonstrate is that MN is about D +3 relative to the national average. This is not going to be a close election nationally.

[RuhanS]

just look for red in the 'spread' column ... and then look at the corresponding pollster!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mn/minnesota_mccain_vs_obama-550.html

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think MW08 might've cracked this one:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87455.msg1799811#msg1799811

[Verily]

As before, there is no real good reason for me to discount the poll (sampling-wise).  The reason to discount it because it doesn't match the others.

One thing to keep in mind is that Minnesota was competitive in 2000 and 2004.  Bush lost it by 2.5 points in 2000 and 3.5 points in 2004.  It's not as much of a red state as most think.

1992: "One thing to keep in mind is that Vermont has voted Republican in every election since 1964. Polls showing Clinton ahead by above his national lead are obviously wrong. Vermont is not a competitive state; it's a Republican state. Bush will win Vermont."

[Reds4]

This poll will look silly on election night.

[cinyc]

As before, there is no real good reason for me to discount the poll (sampling-wise).  The reason to discount it because it doesn't match the others.

One thing to keep in mind is that Minnesota was competitive in 2000 and 2004.  Bush lost it by 2.5 points in 2000 and 3.5 points in 2004.  It's not as much of a red state as most think.

1992: "One thing to keep in mind is that Vermont has voted Republican in every election since 1964. Polls showing Clinton ahead by above his national lead are obviously wrong. Vermont is not a competitive state; it's a Republican state. Bush will win Vermont."

I didn't say the poll is right or wrong.  It is what it is.  Nor did I say McCain will win the state. 

What I did say is that Minnesota isn't as red a state as most think.  It's no Illinois, New York or California.  It's the Democrat equivalent of Nevada or Colorado in 2004.  Obama +3 is plausible if the race is close.  It's hard to tell how close SUSA thinks the national race is, since they don't poll it.  I suspect they'd have it closer than many national pollsters.

[Rowan]

You guys are clearly missing the fact that this state is still a tossup like it was in the beginning.

[Franzl]

You guys are clearly missing the fact that this state is still a tossup like it was in the beginning.

and you need mental help.

[J. J.]

MN is the one state that I have never had as anything but Obama. 

[Hash]

You guys are clearly missing the fact that this state is still a tossup like it was in the beginning.

Please get help.