Archive for the ‘Polling’ Category
For most of the life of this blog, I’ve advocated for politicians to ditch their jargon. Instead, I’ve argued that politicians should use the language of Main Street. This morning, while perusing RealClealPolitics, I gained a powerful ally in Scott Rasmussen. To avoid any confusion, I’ll first state that I met Scott Rasmussen last summer at the RightOnline Conference. That meeting, coupled with his many TV appearances, proved that he’s a man who uses Main Street Speak.
Here’s what Scott Rasmussen wrote that caught my attention:
This gap was highlighted by a recent Pew Research Center poll showing that “for 18 of 19 programs tested, majorities want either to increase spending or maintain it at current levels.”
On the surface, those results appear to support the Political Class conceit that voters like spending cuts in the abstract but not in specific programs. That’s the way it was reported by most media outlets.
But the reality is quite different. The Pew results actually show support for what official Washington would consider massive spending cuts.
Just to be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Pew poll questions or results. The raw numbers are similar to what we find at Rasmussen Reports. The problem is with the way the numbers were reported.
The questions were asked using the language of America, but they were reported using the language of the Political Class.
To most Americans, maintaining spending at current levels would mean spending the same amount in 2013 as we spent in 2012. However, to those experienced in the mysterious ways of Washington, maintaining spending at current levels means spending $3.5 trillion this year and $4.5 trillion in five years. To most Americans, that’s a trillion dollars in spending growth.
The Political Class, on the other hand, would consider holding spending unchanged at current levels to be a massive spending cut. Why? Because it wouldn’t allow for the trillion dollar spending growth that is already built into the budget.
Normal people don’t expect pay raises on autopilot. The federal government does.
Washington, DC would throw a hissy fit if they were forced to use zero-based budgeting instead of using baseline budgeting. Without baseline budgeting helps DC pay off their political allies. Zero-based budgeting wouldn’t let that happen. That’s why politicians and lobbyists insist on baseline budgeting. Frankly, it makes their jobs easier.
Speaking candidly, I don’t want to make life easy for politicians or lobbyists. I’d prefer they have to justify every penny of their spending. That’s the only way to guarantee that every penny of the taxpayers’ money is spent wisely.
Thanks, Scott, for speaking so clearly on this important issue. Let’s just hope it’s contageous.
It’s important to not accept a poll’s horserace numbers as Gospel fact. This poll is fatally flawed but it’s quite fixable. Here’s the horserace number:
Romney/Ryan, leaners: 49%
Obama/Biden, leaners: 49%
If people just read the horserace number, they’d think this race was a tie. They’d be wrong. This CNN poll has a D/R/I index of 41/30/29. In 2008, a year that was a tidal wave election, Democrats represented 39% of the electorate while Republicans represented 32% of the electorate. That means this poll vastly oversampled Democrats. Gallup recently did a poll of who would vote in this year’s election. Here’s what it said:
Independents 38%, Democrats 32%, Republicans 30%.
According to the CNN poll’s internals, Gov. Romney is getting 99% of the Republicans’ vote, 59% of the independents’ vote and 5% of the Democrats’ votes. Now let’s plug those numbers into my votes per hundred method. If Romney is getting 99% of the Republicans’ votes and Republicans represent 30% of all likely voters, that means he’ll get 29.7 votes per hundred from Republicans. If Mitt gets 59% of independents’ votes and they represent 38 voters per 100, that means Mitt would get 22.42 votes per hundred from independents. If Mitt gets 5% of the Democrats’ votes and they represent 32 voters per 100, that means he’ll get an additional 1.6 votes for a grand total of 53.72 votes per 100 for Mitt.
I don’t believe, however, that Mitt’s getting 99% of the Republicans’ votes. I don’t buy that President Obama is getting 95% of the Democrats’ vote. I think Mitt’s getting 85-90% of the Republicans’ votes. Likewise, I think President Obama is getting 85-90% of the Democrats’ votes. That changes the numbers to Mitt getting 25.5 votes per 100 of Republicans’ votes and 4.8 votes per 100 from Democrats. The independents’ number would stay the same. That means Mitt would get 52.72 votes per 100.
Far from being tied, this poll actually shows Mitt with a dominant 52.7%-47.3% lead. I’m betting that’s a ‘tie’ Mitt Romney would embrace tomorrow night.
This evening, I watched Paul Gigot interview GOP pollster Whit Ayres. His polling company, Resurgent Republic, shows Mitt Romney winning independents by a 51%-39% margin. Ayres then said “If anyone says they know who’s going to win, they’re either lying or they don’t know what they’re talking about.”
I’d love to hear Mr. Ayres tell Michael Barone that Michael Barone doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Duane Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt radio show wrote this post about the latest Marist Poll that captures what I was thinking after the Ayres interview:
So in order to believe the Marist poll, that Obama is up over the margin of error, you have to believe that the intensity level for Obama by party ID is higher now than it was in 2008. You have to believe that the swing from 2008 to 2010, where party ID went from D+8 to R+1, resulting in the election of a Republican governor, a Republican Senator, and control of the state house, all that has not only vanished, but recoiled even further in Obama’s direction.
You have to believe that the crowd of 80,000 Obama drew in 2008 in Cleveland the closing days of the campaign demonstrates less energy and passion for their candidate than the 4,000 did this morning. You have to believe that the 30,000 people last night at the Romney/Ryan rally shows less enthusiasm for their candidate than the 4,200 did in 2008 for John McCain.
You have to believe that Michael Barone, a man who you can introduce yourself to and tell him where you’re from, and he’ll tell you who won your Congressional district in 1966 from memory, is wrong when he reads that Cuyahoga County, long a Democratic stronghold in the Buckeye State, is way off in party registration. He’s also wrong when reports for early voting tend to favor Mitt Romney, and favor him big.
You also have to believe that Ohio Catholics and values voters don’t care about the HHS regulations. You also have to believe that Ohio, an energy state, doesn’t care about energy production.
Thanks, Duane, for that great explanation. God knows there aren’t enough conservatives who consistently display that high level of communication ability.
Day after day, polls have consistently shown 2 things: Mitt Romney leading with independents and a terrific pro-GOP enthusiasm gap. Now I’m supposed to believe that Mitt’s lead is either nonexistent or is exceptionally and historically thin and that the enthusiasm gap isn’t affecting polling results.
With all due respect to Mr. Ayres, that’s a bunch of malarkey. The crowds show it. Michael Barone recognizes it. Tuesday night will prove it.
Something’s gotta give. It’s impossible for Mitt Romney to be locked in a Florida 2000-like battle when he’s getting 90% of Republican voters, President Obama is getting 90% of Democratic voters and Mitt’s trouncing President Obama with independents by 12 points.
There’s only one way for President Obama to win with that type of situation, That’s if he’s getting better turnout of Democrats than he got in 2008. All of those indicators show that that isn’t happening.
Tags: Mitt Romney, Polling, Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Enthusiasm Gap, Registrations, Whit Ayres, Michael Barone, Battleground States, Turnout, Early Voting, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Election 2012
Dan McLaughlin’s post summarizes in statistical form why Mitt is likely to be the next president of the United States. These paragraphs sum things up nicely:
Everything in the latest polls suggests doom for Obama with independents. This morning’s Washington Post poll has him down 20 with independents, 58-38. The Rasmussen national tracker has him down 17 today. Today’s IBD/TIPP poll has him down 10, 48-38. SurveyUSA/Monmouth has him trailing by 19, 52-33. The outlier, SEIU/DailyKos pollster PPP, had Romney up 2 yesterday with independents, 47-45, after the PPP tracker showed him up 10, 51-41, three days earlier. In this morning’s swing state poll, Rasmussen shows Romney leading Obama by 11 with independents.
In Ohio, ARG has Obama down 20 with independents, 57-37, SurveyUSA has him down 8, 47-39; TIME has him down 15, 53-38; PPP has him down 7, 49-42; CBS/Quinnipiac has him down 7, 49-42; Gravis has him down 19, 52-33.
This explains why media organizations (notice that I didn’t call them news organizations) have vastly oversampled Democrats in their attempt to make it look like President Obama is leading. If these media organizations used statistically accurate registration models, their polls wouldn’t have shown President Obama leading nationally.
Most private polling companies figure Ohio as a D+2 state at most. Many of the media organizations’ polls are D+7-8 models. That rivals the PVI of 2008. Serious people know that President Obama doesn’t enjoy that type of PVI rating this year. It isn’t even close.
To make sense of the various polls, I’ve started looking beneath the horserace numbers. Based on Mr. McLaughlin’s methodology, it looks like I was right. What I’ve done is start looking at polls via a votes per 100 voters model. That’s what I did with this post.
Chip’s district is a D+2 or D+3 district. The KSTP-SurveyUSA poll is based on a D+7 model. Chip gets 89% of Republicans, 6% of DFLers and 53% of independents.
The proper weighting of the district is 35% DFL, 34% GOP, 31% independent. That means Chip gets 30.2 votes from Republicans, 2.1 votes from DFL voters and 16.5 votes from independents for every 100 voters. That’s 48.8 votes per hundred for Chip.
Adapting that methodology to Ohio, that means Republicans and Democrats (more or less) cancel each other out. That means independents will determine the winner. With Mitt winning independents by double-digit margins, there’s no reason to think he won’t win Ohio. President Obama certainly won’t have the type of turnout that he had in 2008 so he won’t be able to offset Mitt’s advantage with independents.
Here’s Mr. McLaughlin’s analysis of the race:
The waterfront of analyzing all the factors that go into my conclusion here is too large to cover in one post, but the signs of Obama’s defeat are too clear now to ignore. Given all the available information, Romney’s lead among independents, the outlier nature of the 2008 turnout model, the elections held since 2008, the party ID surveys, the voter registration, early voting and absentee ballot data, I have to conclude that there is no remaining path at this late date for Obama to win the national popular vote. He is toast.
The same things that are artificially propping up President Obama nationwide are artificially propping President Obama up in Ohio. President Obama’s message sounds more like the rantings of a spoiled brat throwing a temper tantrum than the words of the President of the United States.
Six days ago, KSTP announced that Michele Bachmann led her opponent by 9 points:
In an election today for the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District, high-profile incumbent Republican congresswoman Michele Bachmann is re-elected, defeating DFL challenger Jim Graves 50% to 41%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for KSTP-TV in the Twin Cities.
This morning, the Star Tribune’s poll shows Michele Bachmann leading by 6 points:
Bachmann, who is waging one of the most expensive House campaigns in the nation against a political newcomer, is favored by 51 percent of likely voters in Minnesota’s sprawling Sixth Congressional District, which stretches from west of St. Cloud into Woodbury. Another 45 percent would choose Graves, a St. Cloud native and owner of Graves Hospitality Corp., an expansive hotel chain. Four percent of voters are undecided.
It’d be foolish to say that this race is over. It isn’t foolish to say that Michele’s opponent is facing an increasingly uphill fight, though.
Michele is getting over the magical 50% mark, which definitely puts a smile on Michele’s campaign manager’s face. It doesn’t mean Chase Kroll’s life is all peaches and cream. It just means his client’s is in a positive position.
With closing arguments starting, and with Michele’s lead solidifying, it’ll be difficult for Michele’s opponent to get the traction he’d need to mount an effective rally.
This information is welcome news for Michele’s campaign:
The Graves campaign has been hitting Bachmann on economic issues, including the recent shutdown at the Verso Paper Corp. mill in Sartell, and working to cast Graves as the pro-business candidate in the race. But when asked which candidate would be more effective at working to improve the economy and create jobs in the district, 49 percent of poll respondents named Bachmann, 43 percent picked Graves and 7 percent were undecided.
This was supposed to be the logic behind Graves’ campaign. Instead, Michele’s viewed as the better choice for business. That’s probably because she’s vowed to work on fixing everything that’s fatally flawed with Dodd-Frank but it’s mostly because Michele’s promising to repeal the AHCA.
The strategy could resonate in a district where 55 percent of voters have said they wanted to see the Affordable Health Care Act repealed and only 38 percent want to keep it in place.
In short, Michele’s positioned herself well for her district. Her opponent, on the other hand, isn’t saying what he’s for. That’s why it’s impossible to tell whether he’s positioned himself well on the issue in the Sixth District.
With a little more than 2 weeks left in the campaign, Michele’s in a solid position. Defeating isn’t impossible, though it’d take an act of God to defeat her.
This morning, the Romney-Ryan ticket got great news. Scott Rasmussen’s polling in Florida must have President Obama worried:
Mitt Romney has crossed the 50% mark for the first time to widen his lead to four points in Florida. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Florida Voters finds Romney with 51% support to President Obama’s 47%. Two percent (2%) remain undecided.
That’s terrible news for the Obama campaign but it isn’t the only polling difficulty he’s experiencing. Reliable polling in Virginia indicates a major shift away from President Obama:
According to a McLaughlin & Associates poll that had an R+.02 sample, Romney leads Obama in Virginia 51%-44%. Among independents, Romney beats Obama by 11 points, 50%-39%.
If these leads stabilize over the next week, that will give the Romney campaign time to shift focus to a new set of states to compete in. By doing that, they’ll force President Obama to defend more states with a limited amount of cash on hand. If President Obama is forced to defend more states than first anticipated, that might spell disaster for the Obama administration.
The last spate of polls shows Mitt Romney opening up significant leads with independents. If that trend continues, it wouldn’t be a stretch to predict President Obama being on the defensive the rest of the way. That’s why it isn’t unreasonable to think Mitt could successfully compete in states like Michigan and New Jersey.
After it’s properly weighted, this KSTP-SurveyUSA poll shows Chip Cravaack leading Rick Nolan. Forget about the horserace tally because it’s dramatically overtilted to the Democrats.
First, this KSTP-SurveyUSA poll oversamples Democrats by a 7-point margin. That can’t be justified, especially considering the fact that the Cook Report listed MN-8 as a D+3 district in 2010. Chip’s won over more Iron Rangers, meaning the Cook Report’s PVI rating is more like D+2 this year.
Second, Chip gets 89% of MN-8 Republicans, 6% of MN-8 DFLers and 53% of MN-8 independents.
Third, the proper weighting of the district is 35% DFL, 34% GOP, 31% independent. That means Chip gets 30.2 votes from Republicans, 2.1 votes from DFL voters and 16.5 votes from independents for every 100 voters. That’s 48.8 votes per hundred for Chip. That’s assuming there isn’t an enthusiasm gap, which there is. That enthusiasm gap favors Chip by a pretty solid margin.
Fourth, Rick Nolan gets 7% of Republican votes, 87% of DFL voters and a pathetic 36% of independents. That means Nolan gets 2.4 votes from the GOP, 30.5 votes from the DFL and 11.2 votes from independents per 100 votes. That’s a total of 44.1 votes per 100 for Nolan.
After factoring the enthusiasm gap that favors Chip, this race isn’t as close as the horserace figures indicate. This race is still competitive. Still, this snapshot must have Chip’s campaign smiling.
The other thing that’s sure to have Chip’s campaign smiling are his fundraising totals:
(North Branch) – Today, the Cravaack for Congress campaign reports that $471,183 was raised for the third quarter (July-September). This election cycle, Cravaack has raised $1,929,176, with $1,131,433 cash on hand as of September 30.
Chip’s GOTV operation, combined with this significant fundraising advantage and a significant enthusiasm gap, means Mr. Nolan is facing an uphill fight down the home stretch.
This weekend, the Strib published its monthly ‘prop up the DFL memo’ otherwise known as the Minnesota Poll. I won’t go into detail on it because Mitch did a great job with it. I wouldn’t add a thing to what Mitch wrote. I’ll just say Mitch’s stuff is must reading.
It’s been an interesting day in terms of polling elsewhere, which is where this post is heading. This article offers insight into why the media’s prediction that this race is essentially over is wrong:
Two percentage points separate President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney in a state poll conducted for the Tribune-Review, even though the campaigns largely are ignoring Pennsylvania and concentrating on other battlegrounds.
Obama polled 47 percent to Romney’s 45 percent among likely Pennsylvania voters, with 6 percent of voters undecided and 44 days until Election Day, according to the survey by Susquehanna Polling & Research. The survey of 800 voters, conducted Sept. 18-20, has a margin of error of 3.46 percentage points.
The Lady Logician points out that this poll was taken before the Pennsylvania media started writing extensively about the EPA’s war on coal. That’s a point worth noting. This article explains why their poll looks different than other polls:
Our vote model for gauging the number of interviews conducted with voters of different demographic groups (things like party affiliation, racial background and age range, etc.) is a blend of turnout models from both the 2008 and 2004 presidential elections, but leans more towards 2004 VTO and is predicated on the belief that turnout this November will not be anywhere near ’08 levels when 5.9 million votes were cast.
First, our ratio of interviews conducted with Republicans and Democrats in our recent polls (49D – 43R) gives Democrats a 6-point advantage based on the fact that Democrats outnumber Republicans in actual registration. However, this ratio is slightly more Republican based on both national and state polling showing that Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats this year given high intensity among Republicans who strongly disapprove of the President’s job performance. Nonetheless, this +6 Democratic advantage is only one point less Democrat than the 7-point advantage these same exit polls gave Democrats in the 2008 presidential election. Besides, simply conducting more surveys with Democratic voters (as some have suggested) doesn’t necessarily translate into more votes for President Obama when you consider that Mitt Romney is winning Democratic-leaning counties in Western Pennsylvania by ten or more percentage points. Nonetheless, it is entirely appropriate to sample Republicans one or two points higher than in 2008 if you believe as we do that voter turnout this November will have little resemblance to the last presidential election.
Second, our ratio of younger to older voters reflects turnout that is likely to be slightly higher with older voters given the lack of enthusiasm from younger voters. In our surveys, 18-44 yr. olds make up 30% of all interviews and voters 45 years of age and older represent the remaining seventy percent. For instance, according to 2008 exit polls voter turnout among 18-29 year olds peaked at 18%, but national and state polling proves interest among younger voters down sharply this year due to higher unemployment with younger voters and college graduates in particular. So conducting approximately ten percent of surveys with 18-29 year olds is a reflection of this lower anticipated turnout among these less-enthusiastic voters. Besides, the fact that Obama backers have suggested that over sampling older voters skews results in favor of Mitt Romney is a striking revelation in a state like Pennsylvania known for having the 5th largest population of senior citizens in the country.
Third, recent polls showing a double-digit lead for Obama are not believable, and are probably using the 2008 voter turnout as the basis of their survey model. It is simply unrealistic to think Obama can or will win the Keystone State by the same double-digit margin he won by four years ago when you consider that most state and national polls continue to show most voters unhappy with the direction of the country after two straight years of unemployment at 8% or higher. This is why our statewide polls conducted every month since the primaries shows the President failing to hit fifty percent in most key measurements like favorable name ID, job approval and his ballot score. Plus, polling we have conducted in dozens of state senate and house races on behalf of incumbent legislators and other candidates, PACs and other special interest groups shows Obama’s support down an average of seven percent when compared with his vote margins in these same districts four years ago. We estimate this 7-point drop off could mean up to 434,000 fewer votes cast for Obama this November, leaving a margin of less than 200,000 votes between the candidates. Based on this, perhaps the Phil’ Inquirer poll showing Obama winning by a bigger margin than he won by four years ago is the real outlier.
Simply put, many of these media polls are junk to start with. The Minnesota Poll is famous for getting things badly wrong. Its history is filled with failure. Unfortunately, the Minnesota Poll has plenty of company. For the most part, I discount media polls. In fact, the only media poll I trust is the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll because they’re stunningly accurate.
Here’s something for the liberals who visit LFR to chew on: the Fox News Poll is junk. They’ve been commissioning polls for 5+ years and they’ve yet to be accurate. This year is no different. Saying that President Obama leads in Florida, Virginia and Ohio by 7 points, 7 points and 5 points respectively is pure foolishness.
The last article I read about Virginia said that Republicans have a significant advantage in the enthusiasm gap. People that think President Obama can lose the enthusiasm gap factor and lose on the individual issues and still be leading are wishing, not thinking.
This isn’t 2008 anymore. It isn’t 2010 either but it’s significantly closer to 2010 than 2008.
At the end of the proverbial day, I think most pundits are overthinking this. Bill Kristol wrote that Mitt needs to be more substantive, something I agree with but for a different reason.
I think most voters know the U.S. can’t survive 4 more years of President Obama. I think Mitt’s stump speech should be more substantive because it’ll help him win with a bigger margin of victory. That, in turn, will bring more GOP senators with him.
First, I don’t believe everything Dick Morris says in terms of analysis. That said, I agree with him that the media polls of the battleground states aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. This article is worth reading because it’s about state-by-state polling of likely voters.
These state-by-state polls, taken by an organization I trust (after forty years of polling) show the real story. The tally is based on more than 600 likely voter interviews in each swing state within the past eight days.
In short, this polling screens for likely voters. They sample large quantities of likely voters in each swing state, too. That means the MOE is tiny compared with the media polling.
Many of the polls that get included in the RCP averages don’t test for likely voters. In fact, one state included several polls that just screened for adults. That polling is worthless. They didn’t even bother to find out if these adults were registered to vote, much less if they were interested in voting.
This is the important information:
The trend line is distinctly pro-Romney. Of the thirteen states studied, he improved or Obama slipped in nine states while the reverse happened in only four. To read the media, one would think that Romney had a terrible month. In fact, the exact reverse is true.
Romney is currently leading in every state McCain carried plus: Indiana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Nevada, North Carolina, and Colorado. If he carries these states, he’ll have 228 electoral votes of the 270 he needs to win.
I’ve predicted Wisconsin tipping into the red state column. This polling confirms my belief. There’s more:
To win the election, Romney would then have to carry Florida where he trails by two points, and either Virginia (behind by two) or Ohio where he’s down by only one.
The Democrats’ mistake with Ohio’s military voters is hurting President Obama. I’d bet that if this polling organization polled Ohio again later this week, Romney would be leading by 1-2 points.
Mitt’s well-positioned in Virginia, too, because he’s a solutions-oriented candidate. Gov. McDonnell ran a solutions-oriented campaign in 2009. He won 76% of the independents while winning by almost 20 points.
Though the issue set is different this year, that doesn’t mean that they don’t favor Mitt. The massive military cuts heading Virginia’s direction can’t help President Obama. The Obama administration’s anti-coal and anti-oil policies can’t help, either.
If he carries all three of these states and also wins all the others where Obama is now at 50% or less, Iowa, New Mexico, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, he will get 351 electoral votes, a landslide about equal to Obama’s 363 vote tally in 2008.
Mitt won’t win all of those states. Then again, he doesn’t need to. If Mitt picks Paul Ryan, which I think he should, I wouldn’t be surprised if Mitt would win Iowa and Michigan, with an outside shot at winning Pennsylvania and Minnesota. In fact, Minnesota isn’t the longshot one might think:
Asked of 552 likely voters Margin of Sampling Error for this question = ± 4.3%
If the election for President were today, would you vote for … (choices rotated) Republican Mitt Romney? Democrat Barack Obama? Or one of the other candidates?
40% Mitt Romney (R)
46% Barack Obama (D)
President Obama’s media protectors might be attempting to tamp down Republican enthusiasm but it won’t work. The phrase that tells the story is “Election Day can’t come soon enough.” These are people on a mission. They won’t be upset by pro-Obama media infrastructure.
Faithful readers of LFR probably noticed that last week was a modest week in terms of blogging. I didn’t say anything about it at the time but the reason for the light blogging was because I was at the Benton County Fair, working the booth for Vote Yes on Photo ID.
The responses from people stopping past the booth were encouraging. A healthy number of people said that they needed their drivers license to cash a check, board a plane or get into a Michelle Obama event. (Yes, 4-5 people actually said that.)
Yesterday, a young lady in her mid-20′s was looking over the fact sheet about Photo ID. (This fact sheet is similar, though not identical, to the fact sheet this young lady was reading.) As she read, she chuckled. When I inquired why she was laughing, she said she couldn’t understand “why people think this is controversial.”
I reminded her that it’s only controversial in St. Paul. I told her about the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll that showed 92% of Republicans, 76% of independents and 59% of Democrats supported Photo ID.
The highlight from Saturday was one person saying that “we should’ve done this years ago”, then having another visitor to the booth saying “Yeah, at least 1 [gubernatorial] election and 1 senate election sooner.”
To be fair, most of the people stopping past the booth were Republicans. That said, a significant portion of the people stopping at the booth were independents.
One DFL heckler couldn’t resist the usual diatribe, shouting “It’s just another Republican scam.” Of course, this portrait in cowardice didn’t have the fortitude to back his statement up with verifiable information. I didn’t expect him to because the DFL’s nature is to shoot from the lip, then run before getting confronted with facts that contradict their statements.
Based on the responses I heard, and the intensity with which they were spoken, I think the proposed Photo ID constitutional amendment will pass. What’s most encouraging is that the arguments that the DFL is using won’t affect supporters of Photo ID even slightly.