Rassmussen has released its latest poll on the Minnesota Senate race, showing Mark Kennedy and Amy Klobuchar still within the margin of error, but with Klobuchar leading by 3%. The poll shows some trouble for Kennedy:
Klobuchar is viewed favorably by 57% of likely voters, unfavorably by 29%; 14% are “not sure” what to think of her. Kennedy is viewed favorably by 46%, unfavorably by 41%, with 12% “not sure.”
Democrats are somewhat more enthusiastic about Klobuchar than Republicans are about Kennedy. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Democrats view Klobuchar favorably; 50% view her “very” favorably. By contrast, Kennedy gets thumbs up from 72% of Republicans, only one half of whom (36% of all GOP voters) view him “very” favorably.
That isn’t too surprising – the Democrats are motivated this year. The campaign hasn’t really begun, but it’s clear Kennedy is the one who needs to work the hardest to gain momentum. Some of the shine around Klobuchar will likely come off once the campaign begins – she’s not a particularly effective campaigner and she has the benefit of not carrying around much political baggage at this point. All of that gives Klobuchar an initial advantage, but when the campaign begins in earnest anything could change.
Right now Kennedy’s numbers are likely depressed. There is a significant fraction of the Republican voting bloc that is angry at the GOP Congress for failing to enact significant spending and immigration reforms – and that means that while the Democrats are motivated to support their candidates, the Republicans are not.
With only 7% undecided, the Kennedy campaign needs to concentrate on securing their base. Kennedy needs to come out strongly on fiscal transparency and immigration enforcement. With a deficit of only 3% and weak numbers with his own party, Kennedy can easily close the gap if he can motivate GOP voters to support him. Klobuchar will be a difficult candidate to beat, but with only 7% undecided, she’s going to have a tough time building her numbers – while Kennedy still has some room to both improve his own standing and potentially steal some support for Klobuchar. That’s a tall political order, and Kennedy is certainly down, but he’s far from out.
“The campaign hasn’t really begun”
Which is mind-blowing considering this race has long been hyped as one of the marquee races of the nation. Yet not a peep in any Minnesota advertising market thus far. Wellstone and Coleman were already fully engaged by March of 2002. It’s like this race is a time warp back to the 1994 open seat (Wynia v. Grams) in those quaint days where elections didn’t heat up until after Labor Day.
“Some of the shine around Klobuchar will likely come off once the campaign begins – she’s not a particularly effective campaigner and she has the benefit of not carrying around much political baggage at this point.”
You’re the only one who believes Klobuchar is a lackluster campaigner. Even professional GOP hacks like Sarah Janecek and David Strom concede Klobuchar is a very strong candidate. And having seen her on the stump, I was impressed….particularly compared to the plodding dullard Kennedy. On the other hand, there’s some controversy swirling around her tenure as Hennepin County Attorney, namely that her underlings seem to hate her guts. Kennedy might be able to make some hay out of that if he plays his cards right.
“Right now Kennedy’s numbers are likely depressed.”
It might actually be the opposite. Klobuchar’s name ID is unlikely to be high outside of Hennepin County while Kennedy would be familiar to nearly 40% of Minnesota voters that he’s represented in Congress during his six-year tenure in two almost completely different districts. Alot of Democratic or swing voters in places like St. Cloud, Willmar, and Worthington may be siding with Kennedy for now because they are familiar with him because he represented them in Congress in the past, but as Klobuchar’s name ID rises when the campaign heats up, she could steal some of those voters away from Kennedy. With that said, I’m not expecting Klobuchar to do very well in outstate Minnesota…..even compared to John Kerry.
Your analysis of the race being tied right now (and probably up to the end) suggests only one conclusion: after all is said and done, Americans don’t really care for either candidate a) or b). Put differently – the nation (or rather the state) is torn and deeply divided. I see the same thing in Germany, and there can be only one explanation: parisan politics has failed. People don’t give a damn about Republican or Democrat lip service. They don’t care too much about messages. They would not give a rat’s backside for content and conviction. Polls only tell you whether the electorate consider a candidate likable or not.
The only number in the polls that is of some interest is how many people actually will go out and vote. Once the candidates become more or less interchangeable, voter turnout is the only tool for measuring people’s contentment with the situation.
J.
David Broder’s Sunday column profiles the Minnesota Senate race and closes with Klobuchar’s stump speech one-liner that slices right into Kennedy and his biggest campaign vulnerability: lockstep allegiance with the Bush administration.
Klobuchar’s line: “He follows the Lone Star. I’ll follow the North Star.”
Ouch!
It is a good column. The problem with it is that George W. Bush is not on the ballot. It’s the same Democratic strategy as before, they can’t run on their own records, but they can try to tear down the President. That says something about the sad state of the Democratic Party these days…
“The problem with it is that George W. Bush is not on the ballot.”
Which is a fair point. Given Kennedy’s ties to multiple regions of the state, I’m expecting him to win support even among many voters who despise Bush, particularly the rural DFL bastions of west-central Minnesota where he was born. On the other hand, the Republicans’ successfully ran against Bill Clinton in 1994, another guy who was “not on the ballot”. They fared best in regions of the country where Clinton was the least popular (the South and Rocky Mountain West) and had the least success in the northeast where Clinton was not radioactive.
Gambling on voters not connecting the dots between an unpopular President and a Senate candidate whose voting record is proof positive that he’ll be a loyal lieutenant to that President strikes me as a bad strategy. And while you can attempt to trash Klobuchar for “not having a message”, what the hell message does Kennedy have that will win him any favors?
Except in 1994 the Republicans had a very forward-looking agenda in the “Contract with America”. The Democrat’s Nude Erection… err New Direction for America doesn’t even come close.
Which so happens to be the case in every single election in the past 20 years…
Bush’s approval ratings don’t mean anything. Hell, I’d give him low marks on a whole host of issues, but that hardly makes me a potential Klobuchar voter…
“Except in 1994 the Republicans had a very forward-looking agenda in the “Contract with Americaâ€.”
But do you really think that the “Contract with America” was the dealmaker for the dozens of Republicans voted into office in 1994? It undoubtedly helped, but I suspect the GOP would have gained most of the seats they did in ’94 even without the Contract….simply because the country was in the mood for a change.
“New Direction for America doesn’t even come close.”
Yes, but it has such a bedazzling rhetorical flair to it that voters will be falling over themselves heading to the polls to vote in the masterful wordsmiths who engineered this “New Direction”. Seriously though, voters are much more engaged in politics in 2006 than they were in 1994. Whether that helps or hurts the Democratic cause remains to be seen.
“Bush’s approval ratings don’t mean anything.”
Which is a stupid thing to say since every blue state Republican is racing to distance him or herself from this man who “doesn’t mean anything”. Remember when Tom Kean missed Bush’s fundraiser for him in New Jersey because “he got stuck in traffic”? Extreme disapproval of the Bush agenda WILL work against Republicans in blue areas where a large number of endangered Republicans are running….and the last I checked Minnesota was one of those blue areas. But just as few of the GOP’s 1994 gains came from blue areas where Clinton was moderately popular, I expect the Dems will make few gains in the red areas where the Democratic Party is still less popular than Bush. They’ll probably even lose a couple of seats in the South and border states.