Minnesota has crept into the news cycle recently with senior campaign surrogates stumping in the state and campaign dollars flowing to a state once thought out of reach for Republicans this cycle. I received a lot of push-back over my conclusion regarding Minnesota’s competitiveness based on Rochester, Minnesota being a top 10 ad market this week. Upon closer inspection, however, the evidence keeps piling up that the Land of 10,000 Lakes should be on everyone’s radar for an election night surprise.
The latest is a poll released yesterday from SurveyUSA gives President Obama a 10-point lead over Mitt Romney, 50 to 40. Romney leads by 3-points among Independents 45 to 42 with 4% are voting 3rd party and 6% are Undecided. Shouldn’t a 10-point lead definitely mean it is not a Battleground? If you believe that, you must be new to this blog. A 10-point lead would largely be safe at this juncture if the poll were an honest representation of Minnesota today (and remember other polls have it as close as 4). But this SurveyUSA poll is far from a fair representation of the Minnesota electorate. Before I get too deep into this flawed poll I give SurveyUSA credit for making all of the data available unlike too many other polling firms. This allows critics to make their own judgements on what is lying beneath the top-line numbers and justify their criticism with facts and figures and not just flippant calls of bias.
Party ID
The biggest issue with the poll is the Party ID. I understand polling firm do not weight their polls by party ID, but when they re-weight their polls based on age, race, etc and the outcome of respondents is a party ID disparity that defies all logic and reason, that means something is deeply wrong with the sample group they gleaned their answers from. This poll specifically has a disgraceful disparity between Democrats and Republicans surveyed. The Party ID is D +10 (Dem 37, Rep 27, Ind 30). This compares to 2008 of D +4 (Dem 40, Rep 36, Ind 25) and 2004 of D + 3 (Dem 38, Rep 35, Ind 27). First and foremost we see a Democrat advantage in the sampling 2.5x greater than that the 2008 peak of hopey-changey. This is ludicrous for many of the enthusiasm reasons often cited:
- Democrat enthusiasm down 10% from 4 years ago while enthusiasm among Republicans is up 10% over the same period
- This is translating into early vote trend in 2012 strongly favoring Republicans which is offsetting a huge Obama 2008 advantage
- Enthusiasm for Obama among seniors, youth and hispanics is meaningfully lower than 2008
- Enthusiasm for Obama is down among African-Americans
- Enthusiasm for Obama is down among Jewish voters
- Republicans have dramatically cut into and at times surpassed Democrats 2008 voter registration advantage
Basically, for the above reasons there is a dramatically increased probability Republicans will vote with greater propensity in 2012 than they did in 2008 while the inverse is true for Democrats. But that is only one of the reasons this poll and party ID are ludicrous.
The Changing Minnesota
Minnesota is no ordinary state politically. The most important thing to know about Minnesota is the state is rapidly changing in favor of Republicans and has been for years. Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics did the seminal work in this regard. His state-by-state analysis of voting trends shows that over the last 8 elections the performance of Republican candidates in Minnesota has steadily gotten closer to the candidate’s national performance. That is, when a Republican Presidential candidate got 50.1% of the vote in 1980, you could expect them to get 43% in Minnesota. In 2008, the under-performance versus the national shrunk to 1%, meaning had John McCain received 51% of the national vote, he could have expected to get 50% of the vote in Minnesota.
If we apply only the most superficial analysis of Minnesota today and we see Mitt Romney leading in the national average by only a few points, let alone as much as 7-points, it would seem more than likely he would carry Minnesota based solely that lead and the 30-year trend in Republicans favor shown above.
Party ID Recent History
This brings me back to the Party ID issue. In 2008 Minnesota’s political affiliation change was unlike most of America. Between 2004 and 2008 we saw Battleground States experience wide swings in their party ID as citizens bought into the magnetic story of Barack Obama. States like Ohio saw its Party ID swing 13-points in favor of Democrats; Nevada swung 12-points in favor of Democrats; North Carolina swung 12-points in favor of Democrats; Virginia swung 10-points; New Hampshire 9-points; and on and on all towards the Democrats. Minnesota’s party affiliation, however, only swung 1-point towards the Democrats. This was smaller than every party affiliation move among even the most remote of contested state. This lack of change during the Democrat tidal wave of 2008 is a major component of hidden Republican strength demonstrated in the chart above. Minnesota is, and has been, a state trending steadily Republican even in the face of the incredible Democrat wave seen in 2008.
Republicans have surged in local politics
But more than just a macro statistical argument, Republicans have made dramatic strides at the ballot box. Over the last four years Minnesota caught the 2010 midterm wave for the GOP and flipped both houses of its state legislature, and in dramatic fashion:
- Republicans gained a State Senate majority of 55/45 which was a dramatic shift from the 31/69 disparity previously (based on percentages not actual seats)
- Republicans also gained a State House e majority of 54/46 which was also a dramatic shift from the 35/65 split previously (based on percentages not actual seats)
- At the Federal level, Republicans picked up one seat balancing out the Congressional delegation at 4 for each party
Despite all of these substantial moves in favor of the Republican party, polls like SurveyUSA’s D +10 turnout still show up and is the basis for people to argue Minnesota is out of reach this election.
But what if Minnesota is not D +10 or anywhere near that?
Below I breakdown the exact same SurveyUSA poll. First, as they have it with D +10. Second with the 2008 party ID of D +4 and then prospectively with an even party breakdown for all of the reasons outlined above. I use with the same number of Independents for the 2012 estimate that SurveyUSA found in their poll although I suspect Independents will be even higher on election day. Pollsters, campaigns, or individuals can make their own assumptions, these are just mine.
This following needs to be clear up front:
- Party ID does not equal 100% in the SurveyUSA poll so I make Other 6%. Also, the “Other” category in the survey was unusually high at 6% but instead of eliminating that I shaved 3% from the two major parties for 2008 and 2012 est. Also the Other voters overwhelmingly supported 3rd party candidates in the poll so their impact on this analysis is small.
- The vote total also does not equal 100% because of Undecideds which are also 6%. Due to space constraints I put Undecideds and Other on the same line which can look, when reading from left-to-right, like there are 106% of voters. But this is not Cook County, it is just labeled that way so you know where the numbers come from. “Other” turns out to be +1% for each candidate and Undecideds are expected to break at least 2/3 for the challenger which is +2 for Obama and +4 for Romney. Note: adding in Undecideds to the SurveyUSA poll gives the candidates final totals of Obama 52 and Romney 44.
Calculating the vote
- The vote totals are calculated through the following formula: (Rep Party ID x Rep Party support %) + (Dem Party ID x Dem Party support %) + (Ind Party ID x Ind Party support %) + (Other Party ID x Other Party support %) + (Undecided x Expected %) = vote total
- For example, with President Obama in the SurveyUSA Party ID section this breaks down as (27 x .06) + (37 x .93) + (30 x .42) + (6 x .17) + (6 x .33) = 51.7 or 52
| Scenario 1: Survey USA Party ID | 27 | 37 | 30 | 6 | [6] | Vote Total |
| Republicans % | Democrats % | Independents % | Other % | Undecided % | ||
| Obama | 6 | 93 | 42 | 17 | 33 | 51.7 |
| Romney | 89 | 4 | 45 | 17 | 66 | 44.0 |
| Scenario 2: 2008 Party ID | 33 | 37 | 25 | 6 | [6] | |
| Republicans % | Democrats % | Independents % | Other % | Undecided % | ||
| Obama | 6 | 93 | 42 | 17 | 33 | 49.9 |
| Romney | 89 | 4 | 45 | 17 | 66 | 47.1 |
| Scenario 3: 2012 Party ID est. | 32 | 32 | 30 | 6 | [6] | |
| Republicans % | Democrats % | Independents % | Other % | Undecided % | ||
| Obama | 6 | 93 | 42 | 17 | 33 | 47.3 |
| Romney | 89 | 4 | 45 | 17 | 66 | 48.2 |
Our three scenarios produce the following results:
- Party ID D +10: Obama wins by 8
- Party ID D +4: Obama wins by 3
- Party ID even: Romney wins by 1
The point of running these scenarios is the initial read of an Obama 10-point lead based on a D +10 party affiliation is folly. With Undecideds factored in that lead drop to 8 even in this unrealistic scenario. If there is no party affiliation shift from 2008 despite the overwhelming evidence provided, Romney is only down 2.8 points with an unconsolidated base (think a visit might help?) as well as conservative estimates on Undecideds. If, however, Republicans have burnished their brand and the enthusiasm issue is as meaningful as polling would indicate, the decades-long steady rise in Republican performance in Minnesota should deliver a victory for Romney on November 6. Enhancing every one of these scenarios is the prospect of a decided national popular vote victory for Romney evidenced by the national tracking polls from Gallup and Rasmussen Reports. If that happens, deep purple Minnesota will turn red on election night.
41 Comments
wow. very good analysis.
DUDE. Very provocative. It’s predicated on undecideds breaking 2-to-1 for the challenger, which is by now an accepted trend in the conservative blogosphere, but will it hold in a historically blue state? I get the feeling that undecideds in stubborn states have a bit more inertia moving from their native color to a 2/1 split.
I didn’t mention in my last comment, but this is a fantastic, informative site. You have that rare combination of being a writer, a political junkie, and a total dork. Winning combination.
Thanks for the compliments … I think
Keith,
Rasmussen has a good poll out of Virginia (R50, O47). Looks like VA istatrting to trend towards Mitt…Poll was take post 2nd debate!
Dude, the 2/1 split is lower than the generally accepted number. Historically the break to the incumbent is somewhere between 70 to 80%
Welcome to the site. Feel free to browse around. I address Undecided voters previously and it ran on Real Clear politics.
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/08/gallup-national-poll-tied-at-47-and-how-undecideds-will-vote/
I use 2/3 breaking for the challenger to be conservative in my assumptions. Better to under-promise and over-deliver. Helps avoid disappointments.
May not happen in a given state but every election 65-85 break for challenger. May be on the high end with this economy.
I’ve heard stories of lifelong DEMS voting for Mitt in Minnesota. It’s happening.
Are the ad buys in southeast Minnesota exclusive to one party? We know Obama bought time there recently…are Romney ads on the rise there too?
Is there a schedule somewhere that shows Mitt’s planned rallies/campaign appearences? You’d think if the trends that are apparent are real, Mitt would gradually wind down appearences in Florida and Virginia and focus more on Ohio (already is), Iowa (ditto), and sprinkle in a surprise appearence in Pennsylvania or Minnesota…
I had MN as a Romney win back in June based on similar reasoning, but only assuming a comfortable R win nationally. Bush came within about 3 points of winning MN twice. In 2008 it was closer than WI, MI, and NV and about the same as PA, IA, NH, and CO which are all considered in-play. In 2010 Republicans missed the governorship by just 1% and took 49.25% of the 2-party House vote.
Still, that’s a lot of near-misses, and this year Klobuchar is running away with the Senate race creating possibly reverse coattails. I don’t see MN tipping unless Romney’s winning nationally by at least 3 points. But if he’s going to expand the map MN is probably an easier lift than PA or MI.
Since you’re evaluating outer-edge states, take a look at Oregon and Maine-2. Some tightening in NJ and CT as well, but they are going to have to wait for the 2016 re-elect.
There’s a new SurveyUSA poll that has Oregon 49% Barack, 42% Mitt Romney 5% Undecided, 4% Other That’s a 2 point swing since towards Mitt Romney since their last poll 5 weeks ago. Barack won Oregon by 16% in 2008.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=242a16b4-1a4c-47eb-a09e-52040667cc42
And Bush came within a hair’s breadth in 2000 and 3% or so in 2004. It had a razor close gubernatorial election and has a closely split legislature. But Republicans have a poor statewide record so it would take a national wave to push Romney over the top, probably 5% or so. You can be sure he won’t be spending any time or money there. Learned from Cheney’s ill-fated expedition to Hawaii in 2004.
For all the hate the Left has for Michele Bachmann, I would love to see Minnesota go red, but I want Nevada most of all. Harry Reid is a piece scum.
Agree wholeheartedly–as a Nevada resident myself.
That SUSA poll is insane. There’s no way in heck the ID will be +10. Up until a week ago or so, I was lamenting all the Obama signage that permeated the area. In the last week+ Romney and other conservative signs have proliferated very steadily. This is in the upper part of Ramsey county. This area is Betty McCollum’s district, but just south of the border of Bachmann’s. As I’ve mentioned before, though, MN has a Soros secretary of state who threw the Gov. race in ’10 and the Senate race that was clearly stolen for Al Frankenstein. Klobuchar is, for whatever reason, insanely popular. (She drives me insane in a completely different sense.) MN has a marriage amendment on the ballot that will probably pull out extra evangelical votes for Mitt. All these factors come into play for ’12. I’m not sure the unemployment, but judging how hard it is for me to find something, my guess is it stinks.
Unfortunately, Tim Pawlenty’s pastor, National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson, has not officially endorsed the amendment publicly. (Last I heard) Neither has the very influential Minneapolis pastor John Piper either, although he spoke well of it. Endorsements on their part would further increase evangelical turnout both for the amendment and for Mitt.
It would be nice to see Romney and Ryan making appearances in MI, MN, PA, etc now that polls show it’s closing up there.
It’s annoying that they’ve still been stuffing around in NC and FL so much….
I never would have thought MN would be in play. I spend a good deal of time in the twin cities and st Paul is so blue it you actually see peace circles in the parks. It’s horrible.
I was just as skepticle when the Univ of Colorado said MN would go red.
But the polls tightening, being in the top 10 of ad spending and surrogates of the president visiting (I know it’s only Jill Biden), it just tells me something is happening!
In all honesty, I don’t care if the Romney campaign tries for MN. I think the real low hanging fruit is Pennsylvania! If That goes red, it definately over, and on Nov 6 I’m going to bed when the eastern polls close!
I never understood why R/R wasted time and money in Michigan. For reasons stated in this fine write-up, MN is more in play (and PA for that matter) than MI. I think it being his home state played into it but you have to look at your most realistic chances.
That’s amazing, that Romney is within single-digits of Obama in Oregon.
I am wondering if we are going to see Romney again in Iowa. I am beginning to think that they have looked at the amount of money that Obama has invested into it and have decided that it is what it is, and not to put any more stake into it other than ads. Romney’s been burned twice in Iowa in the past. Both primaries.
Very possible. Out of all the lower EC battlegrounds, I think IA is the longest shot. NH is the best with Nevada close behind. Still though, if we can close those absentee requests before 11/6, we’ve got a fightin’ chance.
We recognize different assumptions must be made and certainly nothing is unreasonable here. However, we do not see MN as in play at http://www.insidepolling.com. We went ahead and modeled this poll and see this state pretty comfortably blue. If we were advising ROmney we would be istructing them not to spend resources here. We do agree it is closer than the 10% the reported in the poll. This is probably more like a D+5% state right now. You would have to get into R+2% voter turnout scenarios in our models to see a Romney victory here. Within reach yes, but probably not close enough to invest in the state at this time. Our sense at this time is that if this state goes Romney it will be because of a snowballing of support that carries him through some democratic leaning states as opposed to direct investment in those states.
I see a lot of these polls, not this one, but a lot are assuming a party ID model somewhere between 2008 and 2004. I would think Republicans can match or do better than what they did in 2004, and perhaps exceed 2010. People do not want Obama to be reelected.
interesting analysis….but I have to take the extremely glass half empty approach and say IF Obama or Romney thought that state was in danger they would be sending someone, anyone there to campaign hard.
Ohio is of course important. But that’s 18 votes….it would be as easy and somewhat cheaper to do Colorado and Minnesota aand grab 19 votes.
I just cannot believe MN is in play in anyway shape or form. I see it like a Michigan or PN….it will be close possibly even a 1-2 margin. but in the end 1-2 Margin for Obama is a re-elected Obama.
I posted this comment in the earlier Minnesota post. Strategically the problem for Obama in Minnesota is he is in a double bind. If he loses Minnesota he’ll likely have lost the election. But if he stumps there today, it will send a tremor through the entire campaign that he’s in such desperate shape to save what was thought to be a safe blue state. He’s damned if he does and he’s damned if he doesn’t.
As for Romney he’s focused on the 270 threshold so his core focus is Florida (to put it away), Virginia and Colorado (to create some daylight) and Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin (Obama’s firewall). He is husbanding resources there and to my knowledge there only there because that gets him to 270.
For my tastes at the start I would have gone heavy in Minnesota and not Michigan. If that were the case I think we’d be looking at a very interesting fight right now. But Romney chose Michigan because of his legacy in the state. That’s why he’s running for President and I’m blogging about it.
Yeah that would have been my push too if i was advising. But sometimes the candidate has a place they WANT and you have no choice but to oblige. I too would have given up Michigan and focused on a combo of Minnesota, Iowa and Colorado. I would have also given up Nevada (after the ron paul destruction of the state party) and focused that time and money on Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Most political advisers will agree campaign is pyshcological as well as physical. You don’t throw money at a state you have zero chance like michigan. But if you push into Pennsylvania and Minnesota the too super BLUE states that would have been a nuclear bomb like shock wave, especially when numbers moved. It would have forced Obama to abandon or at least pull defenses from the firewall to defend the front gate and it would have been destructive to the democrat base.
but like you said that is why you blog and I just advise people and he is running for POTUS
BTW, my explanation of Obama’s bind is all the more reason Romney should hold a rally in the state just to taunt the President. If I were running the campaign I would do things like that regularly, in August and September when you have excess free days. Right now the time and days are so precious you probably can’t afford such gamesmanship but it would be fun.
At first I thought your projection for 2012 election day party ID was a bit optimistic. It was D+4 in 2008, and I believe it was R+1 in 2010. 2008 was certainly an anomalous election, nationally, but there’s reason to believe 2010 was as well. After all, we saw Republicans across the country taking control of governors mansions and state houses they haven’t held for decades – sometimes since Reconstruction. My guess was that Minnesota was more likely to be D+1 or +2 than dead even in terms of election day turnout.
Then I looked a little deeper into the numbers. Rasmussen’s third quarter election year party ID poll tends to be fairly predictive of election night turnout – it usually favors Democrats compared to actual election turnout from by a few percent, but it’s a good leading indicator of the turnout trend.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/partisan_trends/summary_of_party_affiliation
For example, the third quarter poll average showed D+2.1, where the actual turnout number was just about even. 2006 showed D+4.7, where the actual number was more like D+2. 2004 also saw about a 2% difference – D+2 in the poll, vs even turnout on election day.
2008 was about dead on, though – D+6.3, vs. D+7 on election day. The October monthly poll was also D+7.
The 2012 3rd quarter poll shows R+2.6. Interestingly, this is the ONLY third quarter average in any year that has ever shown more Republicans than Democrats, going back to 2004 when the records start. If the poll favors Democrats in the same way it has in the past, then that means we can expect, nationally, R+2 to R+5 in turnout. That’s pretty huge – in this century, at least, the Democrats have not won a Presidential election or picked up seats in a mid-term without winning the national party turnout battle by at least a couple percent. I’m having trouble finding older numbers right at the moment, but I suspect that trend goes back at least to the 70.
If the trend shown in your graph and the Rasmussen numbers hold true, then I think an even turnout in Minnesota might actually be on the conservative side, which would suggest that Obama might be in big trouble there.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I did a post on this exact analysis a couple weeks ago. It should be pretty wild if it does turn out to an R+ turnout:
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/08/will-the-party-id-really-look-like-r-2-or-r-3/
Wild not just for this election, but for the long-term political landscape. If the trend-lines in that chart at the link continue to the point where the Democrat line crosses below the Independent line, we could well be in store for a significant party re-alignment (which is probably overdue anyway by historical standards).
I of course don’t necessarily mean the rise of a third party – depending on what political historian you ask, we’ve had anywhere from 3 to 6 “party systems” involving the same two parties since the election of Abraham Lincoln. But a shake-up in the coalitions that make up the two parties could certainly be on the horizon – something similar to the migration of pro-business Bourbon Democrats to the Republican Party in the 1890s, the rise of the New Deal coalition in the 1930s, or the conversion of the Solid South and the rise of the Reagan coalition between ’68 and ’80.
Of course, in the past, this was driven by competing economic interests – farmers vs. industrialists and bankers over the gold standard, or unions vs. entrepreneurs over regulation, entitlements, and public works spending. I used to think that ideology had replaced economic interest had replaced that now, but I’m starting to wonder. 81% of public housing recipients vote Democrat, naturally; our growing welfare class (the Coalition of the Dependent?) has become an increasingly powerful voting bloc that tends to vote its economic interests. Many of the ex-Obama voters I know who have jumped ship are affluent liberals who have just about run out of patience for busting their asses for 60 hours a week just to toss out a third of their paycheck to support welfare mamas whose only “contribution” to the greater good is popping out future criminals.
Forgive the stream of consciousness ramble that this comment has become, but I point you to the focus group results during the last debate. I think you posted a Tweet where Jonah Goldberg mentioned how the CNN focus group’s squiggles all went down when Obama mentioned the 47%. Could it be that Romney’s off-the-cuff remark struck more of a chord than either candidate cares to admit? Could more and more liberals who are not in the 47% be coming to a similar realization to my old ultra-liberal college friends who saw their first real paystubs from their first real jobs years after graduation – after years of bad-mouthing property rights and bleating for the “disenfranchised” – and shouted “Who the hell are FWT and OASDI and why do they get a third of my paycheck?!” Could Atlas finally be waking up and thinking about shrugging?
Hey, a guy can dream, can’t he?
I think Minnesota might be a forgotten swing state. It’s been Democratic for so long, to admit (especially so late in the game) that it is in fact competitive would be a PR nightmare for Obama. It’s like McCain having to admit that Indiana was competitive 4yrs ago. I don’t blame him for not heading there himself, but on the other hand, I’m not going to dance around when I say, I believe his margin for error in the Electoral College is extremely narrow and he must keep the 2004 Kerry states (like Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania) locked up on his side or else he’s kinda screwed. It would stink to go into a close election night fight just to lose because of a swing state you forgot to give your attention towards. Yeah, he kind of is in a hard bind. As for Romney, I don’t blame him for playing it conservatively…just stick to the states you know you can win and will get you to 270 for sure. If the Republican ground game is strong and it turns into a landslide with him winning PA,WI, MN, possibly MI, then it’s all over anyways, but he knows he at least secured the states that he knew for sure he could win even if it had been close nationally.
I’m of the belief that Penn. is a better shot than Ohio. No matter what happens, Mitt can’t seem to get ahead in OH, and yesterday a poll showed him +4 in Penn. Wisconsin and Iowa seem like losses. Ohio possibly too, but still close. Penn is the shot.
Minnesota goes red, hey??
Good luck with that!
RR
Certainly the GOP must have polls in the state. If they were reaching the same conclusion, wouldn’t they be getting Romney and Ryan some visits?
Precisely! If their internals gave them any indication that MN was in any way a realistic pull, they would probably schedule a stop or two for R&R, if for no other reason than to yank Obozo’s chain!
Maybe Rochester means more interest in Iowa’s Northeast counties than anything else. Too many liberals and Farmers feeding at the Federal trough for this state to go Red
I appreciate the academic analysis and cannot refute your conclusion based on the data, but dude, this is Minnesota, the state that elected a mentally-ill Democrat governor during the 2010 Republican wave election and where, dare I say it, Al Franken was elected Senator.
My understanding is the ad buys in Minnesota are to reach into Wisconsin.
I wish I could find a historiical site where it shows when blue switched to red or vice versa during an actual election in spite of polls and predictions.
KJames
Still blue. Not red, purple, or even indigo.
Just plain blue.
12 Trackbacks
[...] could ensure getting to 270 so it’s understandable they remain the sole focus despite the election night dreams for some of us: The “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney is making its most aggressive and [...]
[...] Read the Article [...]
[...] at any given time, it might even be correct; according to Battleground Watch, Minnesota, the numbers and the demographics indicate Minnesota just might be in play in the [...]
[...] Point 2: Some counter that Minnesota and Michigan are in play for Romney this cycle, example here (http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/10/19/election-night-surprise-why-minnesota-will-turn-red-on-novem…). [...]
[...] was my earlier explanation for why we should expect Minnesota party identification to trend Republican in this [...]
[...] heard it on this blog first that the Land of 10,000 Lakes would turn red on election night. Now the Romney campaign has a Rousimar Palhares leglock (look it up) on the Obama campaign and [...]
[...] But you guys knew that all along… [...]
[...] Election Night Surprise: Why Minnesota Will Turn Red on November 6 (Oct 19) [...]
[...] states in this election. He thinks the North Star State might flip to red! Here’s his article and a few [...]
[...] time Survey USA’s awful poll inspired me to write that Minnesota would be this year’s election night surprise, so who knows what’s in store for us with this [...]
[...] Battlegrounds” according to the official Obama campaign statements. This includes Minnesota and not North Carolina. I feel vindicated on both [...]
[...] for the challenger at rates upwards of 80%. If Obama hasn’t closed this out by now my election night surprise may just be the cherry on top of an election night [...]