Eric Ostermeier

Mary's Campaign Notebook

tptadmin — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:36:33 -0500

McCain, Ventura and the rest of the big political news of the week courtesy of political reporter Mary Lahammer. Mary also drops in on a group of Minnesota bloggers...

Watch Your Votes: Strategic DFL-ers in Pawlenty Districts

Eric Ostermeier — Fri, 11 May 2007 08:28:25 -0500

Although I have previously written about the GOP's slim chances to win the House next year, it is true that several DFL legislators are in a precarious political position: disappointing their party leadership by voting against them on key legislation, or jeopardizing their reelection bids by voting with them.

You see, several House DFL-ers not only won extremely close elections in 2006, but they did so on Pawlenty soil. In addition to winning all 49 GOP-carried House districts, Governor Pawlenty also picked up 32 won by the DFL.

Of these 32 DFL legislators, 17 are serving their first term and 9 are serving only their second term. When Election 2008 arrives, the average length of service will just be 1.9 terms for these 32 DFL House members — not exactly making them household names with a strong incumbency advantage. Each of the 17 DFL freshmen won their districts by 9.3 points or less, with 11 of them winning by less than 5 points.

Because Pawlenty continues to remain a fairly popular state executive (who has been far from gun shy when it comes to vetoing DFL bills), these DFL-ers will have to account for their voting record in November 2008 within the political frame of being with or against the Governor. As such, many of these DFL legislators have been quite willing to depart from their party leadership with regards to high-profile social issue legislation, such as banning public funding of abortions, the DREAM Act, and domestic partner insurance benefits for state employees.

Of the 18 DFL-ers who voted for the ban on abortion funding, 14 hailed from House districts won by Pawlenty. Of the 19 DFL-ers who voted against the DREAM Act, 15 represent Pawlenty districts. And of the 17 DFL-ers who voted against domestic partner benefits, 14 came from constituencies that voted for Pawlenty. Overall, 80 percent of these vulnerable DFL legislators aligned themselves with the Governor and his GOP soldiers on salient social policy legislation.

This is none too surprising considering Pawlenty carried these 32 House districts by an average of 9 points, with more than half residing in the right-leaning 2nd, 3rd, and 6th Congressional Districts. Only 2 come from the liberal 4th Congressional District, and none from the even more liberal 5th. Moreover, seven first-term legislators (in House Districts 12b, 17b, 29b, 37a, 53a, 56a, and 56b) are also serving constituents that reelected Pawlenty by double-digit margins, and only narrowly elected them by 3.5 points or less.

Perhaps these legislators are voting their conscience, but perhaps they are also voting very shrewdly. Their political acumen might save them a lot of grief in November 2008

Pawlenty's Veto Pen Could Bolster Popularity

Eric Ostermeier — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:41:06 -0500

As the "Battle at the Capitol" comes to a head in the coming weeks, it is unlikely Republican Governor Tim Palwenty will lose much sleep over his differences with the DFL legislature — at least not insofar as his political standing and political future within the state is concerned. With every stroke of his veto pen, Pawlenty could actually enhance his support statewide, and deepen his popularity among independents and conservatives.

For starters, Pawlenty began this session with some pretty solid numbers demonstrating support for him statewide — despite winning a narrow gubernatorial race last November. Pawlenty defeated Mike Hatch in 5 of the state's 8 congressional districts, even though only 3 Republicans headed to Washington after the vote. Pawlenty also won 41 of Minnesota's 67 Senate districts (61 percent) — including 18 districts that were carried by the DFL.

Secondly, Pawlenty has maintained a strong job approval rating throughout the first three months of the session — hovering in the mid- to high-50s, with disapproval marks now dipping below 40 percent (SurveyUSA, March 2007).

Thirdly, Minnesotans will likely view a Pawlenty veto as the act of a strong executive. When the Humphrey Institute asked a series of questions on candidate image in a poll of likely voters a week before the election, Pawlenty scored very high on "providing strong leadership," with less than 25 percent of Minnesotans giving him negative marks on this measure. In fact, Pawlenty was seen as more strong than honest and more strong than caring in that poll. Even if a majority of Minnesotans disagree with Pawlenty on the details and substance of a bill, they will probably not be tuned in closely enough to find fault with the Governor for vetoing such legislation. What they will take away from a veto is the image of their Governor 'standing up' to the DFL legislature, and demonstrating 'strong leadership' on these issues. By contrast, President George W. Bush was frequently berated for not vetoing a single spending bill that crossed his desk during his first term.

If it seems as though Pawlenty might face a political backlash in vetoing DFL legislation, that is perhaps because he works in a media market that happens to be overwhelmingly Democratic (Pawlenty lost to Hatch by 35 points in the 5th Congressional district and by 14 points in the 4th). True, Minnesotans elected strong DFL majorities into the legislature, but they also sent Pawlenty back to St. Paul; and many voters did both.

Pawlenty is the face of Minnesota politics and his political defiance of the DFL will enhance his credibility as an executive who can make tough decisions. If you are a DFL-er, don't expect his popularity to take a hit anytime soon, so long as his ink well doesn't run dry.

Will '08 Convention Give Boost to GOP Party Ticket?

Eric Ostermeier — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:12:55 -0500

Even though President George W. Bush was officially not at the top of the Republican ballot in 2006, many political observers view the mini-landslide against the GOP last autumn as due in large part to the public voting against the President, who carried a very low job approval rating (at approximately 35 percent on Election Day in Minnesota) and a generally unpopular Iraq war strategy. It is the hope of Minnesota House Republicans that a stronger top of the ticket in 2008 will help their party make inroads on the large advantage held by the DFL in the lower chamber. One key component to the Republican strategy will be to leverage the positive statewide media coverage that will likely come out of the GOP National Convention (to be held in St. Paul at the Xcel Energy Center September 1-4, 2008) into votes for their party two months later — pigging backing onto what they hope will be a Republican nominee viewed favorably statewide.

The Republican Party in particular has used the national convention platform wisely in recent years by converging on blue states: Minnesota will mark the fourth consecutive GOP convention held in a state that voted Democratic in the previous presidential election cycle. But has planting the Republican flag on 'enemy territory' worked for the GOP in the past?

The trend began in 1996, when the GOP convention was held in San Diego. In the presidential election that year, Republican nominee Bob Dole performed about as well in California as compared to incumbent President George H.W. Bush's performance in 1992 (each losing to Clinton by 13 points). In 2000, the national convention was held in Philadelphia, and the GOP gained 5 points statewide in Pennsylvania from 1996. In 2004, the Republican convention was held in New York City and President George W. Bush gained 7 points in New York State from his campaign there in 2000.

Recent historical results thus show some evidence of a boost in support for Republican presidential nominees in the state in which its convention is held. This is a new strategy for the RNC who, from 1960 to 1992, held 8 of its 9 presidential conventions in states that were carried by Republican presidential nominees during the previous election.

A strong performance by Republican presidential nominees in the Gopher State has also had a positive impact on some lower ticket races in recent years. For example, in the last four elections in which the Republican presidential nominee has come within 7 points or less of victory in Minnesota (1980, 1984, 1988, 2000), the GOP deficit in the state Senate dropped by an average of 4 seats (excluding 2004, in which the Senate was not up for election).

House Republicans are, therefore, not only hoping a strong presidential nominee emerges from the convention in St. Paul, but that this translates into a more competitive performance for its candidates across the state in November — giving a shot of adrenaline to a party that suffered significant losses (and control of the House) in 2006.

The trend began in 1996, when the GOP convention was held in San Diego. In the presidential election that year, Republican nominee Bob Dole performed about as well in California as compared to incumbent President George H.W. Bush's performance in 1992 (each losing to Clinton by 13 points).

Fact Check: Pawlenty, Same-Sex Benefits, and VP Prospects

Eric Ostermeier — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:58:12 -0500

In a recent Brain Trust commentary (Legislature, Governor at Impasse on Several Issues), Joe Bodell suggested Governor Tim Palwenty's likely veto on a domestic partnership bill for state employees in same-sex relationships might not be a rational strategy in light of his rumored "national aspirations."

Bodell states Pawlenty should sign the domestic partnership bill because to veto it would further project his image of taking "hard-right stance(s) on social issues." However, such a veto would only be a hard-right political move if you buy into the premise that signing this bill is an act of centrism, and not 'hard-left.'

The truth is Minnesotans are nearly split in their attitudes toward this legislation — with support for such partnerships only just edging out opposition to it. A poll conducted by SurveyUSA last month found a bare majority (52%) supported allowing public agencies to grant health benefits to the "domestic partners of their employees." (Note: the polling question did not use the term "same-sex partners" to describe the bill's beneficiaries; had it done so it is likely the level of support would have dipped below the 50 percent mark).

With at least 40 odd percent of Minnesotans in opposition to the state providing these same-sex benefits, it is difficult to sustain the characterization of a bill veto as a "hard right" tactic or that it panders to the "radical conservative fringe" as Bodell writes.

Secondly, even if — hypothetically — a Pawlenty veto of this bill were tantamount to a rejection of the centrist views held by the average Minnesotan, it is not at all clear such an act would jeopardize Pawlenty's potential national ambitions. Bodell makes the mistake of suggesting a) the Governor's narrow electoral victories are indicative of his having low political currency statewide and b) that the Governor might be added to a John McCain presidential ticket in part to deliver the state in the General Election.

Bodell confuses Pawlenty's two plurality victories in 2002 and 2006 (44 and 47 percent respectively) with the popularity of the Governor among the electorate. The fact is a majority of Minnesotans have consistently approved of Pawlenty's job performance. In 17 of the last 19 monthly public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA dating back to September 2005, Pawlenty's approval rating has been at 50 percent or higher — frequently flirting with 60 percent (these ratings have been replicated in 2006 surveys by the Humphrey Institute and Minnesota Poll). Pawlenty's favorability ratings also outnumbered his unfavorable numbers in two MPR / Pioneer Press polls during Election 2006. The fact that third parties thrive in the Gopher state in gubernatorial elections — making it difficult for a winner to reach 50 percent of the vote — should not lead us to believe that Pawlenty himself is actually unpopular or his views out of touch with his constituency.

Furthermore, Bodell overestimates the likelihood that presidential candidates select running mates based on their ability to pick up the VP nominee's home state. This is rarely the case and VP nominees are notorious for their inability to sway elections. In fact, since 1976:

Three VP nominees failed to 'pick up' home states that the opposing party normally carries in presidential elections:

John Edwards, Democrat (North Carolina, 2004)
Jack Kemp, Republican (New York, 1996)
Lloyd Bensten, Democrat (Texas, 1988)

One additional VP nominee failed to carry her home state that was normally a safe 'hold':

Geraldine Ferraro, Democrat (New York, 1988)

Another six VP nominees hailed from states that are reliable 'safe states' in little danger of being lost by their running mate (in short, they were not added to the ticket to win their home state):

Dick Cheney, Republican (Wyoming, 2000 and 2004)
Joe Lieberman, Democrat (Connecticut, 2000)
Dan Quayle, Republican (Indiana, 1988 and 1992)
George H. W. Bush, Republican (Texas, 1980 and 1984)
Bob Dole, Republican (Kansas, 1976)
Walter Mondale, Democrat (Minnesota, 1976 and 1980)

Only one VP nominee hailed from a state that could actually be considered a true 'pick-up' for the ticket:

Al Gore (Tennessee, 1992 and 1996)

However, even these Democratic victories in Tennessee were more likely due to forces other than Gore's home-field advantage (as witnessed in 2000 when Gore lost the state as the Democratic presidential nominee). For one, Clinton hailed from the south as the former governor of Arkansas, and Tennessee was only one of several southern states the Democratic ticket won in 1992 (Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia) and 1996 (Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida). Additionally, Ross Perot's strong performance (picking up a disproportionate amount of independent and republican votes) likely tilted the state to Clinton. In 1992 Perot earned 10.1 percent in a race decided by 4.7 points. In 1996 Perot won 5.6 percent in a state Clinton won by just 2.4 points.

In sum, despite Pawlenty's popularity within Minnesota, it is unlikely he will be selected to be McCain's running mate for the primary purpose of increasing that ticket's advantage in winning the Gopher State's 10 Electoral College votes in 2008. Moreover, it is unlikely the governor will bend his principles on an issue like same-sex benefits, when a near majority of the state's residents actually agree with him on this issue. His political currency is strong enough to survive a veto on this issue.

2008 Revisited

Eric Ostermeier — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:37:11 -0500

Wholesale Buyer's Remorse for MN DFL House Officeholders Doubtful

My Monday entry for the Brain Trust (Republicans Unlikely to Take Back House in '08) prompted a quick reply by the GOP leadership. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert offered a thoughtful rejoinder (Democrats Unlikely to Retain House in '08) to my historical analysis demonstrating the rarity of turnover in party control in consecutive elections for the Minnesota House.

Seifert offered several arguments indicating why 2008 will be different — that the DFL will be in big trouble — including echoing the point I made in my piece that the DFL had won several close elections in 2006 and, therefore, will likely lose some of these seats back in 2008. To refresh, I wrote:

This is not to suggest the DFL won't lose seats in 2008; in fact, it is at a much greater risk to do just that. In 2006 the DFL picked up 13 seats by 5 points or less and an additional 6 seats by between 5 and 10 points. As a result, the DFL will have to defend 28 competitive districts: 19 pickups plus 9 held seats. The Republicans will only have to defend 18 competitive districts in 2008 — all seats held by the party in 2006.

The Minority Leader also stated Republicans will have stronger candidates at the top of the ticket (e.g. Norm Coleman) in 2008 than in 2006, benefiting the GOP state House candidates. I certainly do not disagree that Senator Coleman is a strong candidate. In fact, in my February 16th Brain Trust entry (Speaking Frankly: Al is No Jesse and 2008 Isn't 1998) I acknowledged the difficulties Mr. Franken will face in his Senate campaign.

However, citing early poll numbers (as the Minority Leader does) for the primary evidence of Franken's likely demise is a dangerous route to take. Perhaps Rep. Seifert has forgotten that in 2000 incumbent Republican Senator Rod Grams held a 17-point lead over Mark Dayton in a July 2000 Pioneer Press / MPR poll — just 4 months before the election. We are currently 19 months out now from the hypothetical Coleman-Franken matchup.

The Minority Leader is also a bit quick on the draw in discounting the relevance historical trends might have on projecting the 2008 election. He writes:

Giving statistics about House races from 1962 might show interesting historical facts, but the reality is that the 21st century in Minnesota shows a lot of independents and soft voters who gravitate back and forth.

While no one can predict the future with certainty, we can certainly study and learn from the past to establish baseline patterns in voting behavior. To further bolster my point that voters tend to stick with a new majority party for more than one legislative session, and that voting patterns over the past 50 years for the Minnesota House are not an anomaly, consider the following trends of voting behavior in the Upper Midwestern region.

In the Wisconsin Assembly and Iowa House, turnover in party control in consecutive elections has happened just one time in each state since 1960: from Democrat (1964) back to Republican (1966) control in both cases.
In the Iowa Senate, Minnesota Senate, and Wisconsin Senate such turnover in back-to-back elections has not happened once since at least 1960.

In other words, modern Upper Midwestern electoral history tells us the kind of "buyer's remorse" that would be required in the Minnesota electorate to prompt an immediate flip-flop back to the GOP in 2008 is a rarity: about once per 50 years for the House and even more rare for the Senate. The challenge for the GOP in 2008 is that, to take back control and win back a net 18 seats, they need to hope Minnesotans experience wholesale buyer's remorse for all the new DFL House officeholders they voted into office in purple, bluish-purple, and reddish-purple districts.

Wholesale Buyer's Remorse for MN DFL House Officeholders Doubtful

My Monday entry for the Brain Trust (Republicans Unlikely to Take Back House in '08) prompted a quick reply by the GOP leadership. House Minority Leader Marty Seifert offered a thoughtful rejoinder (Democrats Unlikely to Retain House in '08) to my historical analysis demonstrating the rarity of turnover in party control in consecutive elections for the Minnesota House.

Will Democrats Retain the House?

Mary Lahammer — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:52:50 -0500

I love that political observers, including political reporters, can't help but look a year or two ahead. Another great conversation is happening on our Brain Trust of select opinion leaders and bloggers. It started with University of Minnesota political thinker Eric Ostermeier and his posting "Republicans Unlikely to Take Back House in '08" where he stated:

First, party control of the House has only changed hands in consecutive elections one time in Minnesota since 1960: in 1984 the Republicans took control of the House, only to suffer a significant loss of nearly 20 seats to the DFL (and control of the chamber) in 1986.

Second, for the DFL to lose the House in 2008 at least 18 seats would have to shift back to the Republicans. The DFL netted 19 seats in 2006 and there have never been gains that large in back-to-back elections by different parties during the past 24 election cycles. In fact, after each 'landslide' election in modern legislative electoral history there has been a period of relative stability in the party composition of the House:
After the GOP won more than 20 seats in 1962, the DFL won only 2 back in 1964.
After the DFL gained 27 seats in 1974, there was no change in 1976.
After the GOP won 37 seats in 1978, the DFL won just 3 back in 1980.
After the DFL won 18 seats in 1986, the GOP netted only 2 seats in 1988."

Now, the quotable and feisty House Minority Leader Marty Seifert has an interesting response:

While looking at the snapshot of this session so far, one would believe that the Democrats are obsessed with raising taxes on all sorts people, places and things. This will undoubtedly bode ill for them with the electorate, especially moderate and suburban voters who were hood-winked into believing that the Democrats had changed from their tax & spend history.

I'd suggest that the tide can turn on the DFL quickly in 2008. Some reasons:
The DFL won control of the House just last year by picking up 18 seats, but by only about 8800 votes statewide out of 2 million votes cast. If they can win the House in one election cycle, why couldn't they lose it in one cycle? They ran the table on close races and even the most partisan DFLer will admit that.

There are many "low-hanging fruit" freshmen who are co-authoring and voting Democrat on virtually everything. They are not the "independent-minded" people that they promised to be last year.

Norm Coleman is beating Al Franken by 10 to 20 points in every poll and he will run strong next year, thus helping the entire ticket. There's no doubt that Mark Kennedy's 20 point loss last year hurt the down-ticket.

The early polls in the Coleman race are a bit surprising to the press after Coleman was quickly labeled one of the vulnerable senators in the nation. The problem for Franken is that Minnesotans tend to keep the two senate seats politically balanced. It's also interesting to hear how many high-ranking Republicans have been publicly and privately bashing and blaming Mark Kennedy.

Republicans Unlikely to Take Back House in '08

Eric Ostermeier — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:06:43 -0500

Regardless of how highly or how poorly one grades the performance of the DFL at the halfway point in the State House this legislative session, it is unlikely the DFL is at risk to lose its majority party status in the 2008 election.

In a study of nearly 50 years of Minnesota State House election returns dating back to 1960, there are several indicators that suggest the DFL will maintain its advantage in the lower chamber for at least a second election cycle.

First, party control of the House has only changed hands in consecutive elections one time in Minnesota since 1960: in 1984 the Republicans took control of the House, only to suffer a significant loss of nearly 20 seats to the DFL (and control of the chamber) in 1986.

Second, for the DFL to lose the House in 2008 at least 18 seats would have to shift back to the Republicans. The DFL netted 19 seats in 2006 and there have never been gains that large in back-to-back elections by different parties during the past 24 election cycles. In fact, after each 'landslide' election in modern legislative electoral history there has been a period of
relative stability in the party composition of the House:

After the GOP won more than 20 seats in 1962, the DFL won only 2 back in 1964.
After the DFL gained 27 seats in 1974, there was no change in 1976.
After the GOP won 37 seats in 1978, the DFL won just 3 back in 1980.
After the DFL won 18 seats in 1986, the GOP netted only 2 seats in 1988.

These very small 'corrections' indicate that after electing a new party into power — especially in definitive fashion like in 2006 — the Minnesota electorate is prone to give that party some time to implement its agenda — usually across several election cycles.

This is not to suggest the DFL won’t lose seats in 2008; in fact, it is at a much greater risk to do just that. In 2006 the DFL picked up 13 seats by 5 points or less and an additional 6 seats by between 5 and 10 points. As a result, the DFL will have to defend 28 competitive districts: 19 pickups plus 9 held seats. The Republicans will only have to defend 18 competitive districts in 2008 — all seats held by the party in 2006.

As a result, barring extraordinary events that will tilt independents and leaners significantly towards one party or the other, it is very likely the DFL will still be in power in the House two years from now, although with perhaps a slightly smaller advantage.

Why Tax Hikes Might Not Be Political Suicide for the DFL

Eric Ostermeier — Fri, 2 Mar 2007 09:11:40 -0600

In Representative Marty Seifert's February 24th blog (Growing Government by Any Other Name Is Just the Same) he both predicted the DFL would enact significant tax hikes this legislative session as well as cautioned that such increases would not be well-received by voters. Seifert stated the people are "smart enough to know when more money is leaving their pockets … (and) will always outsmart the politicians."

But have Minnesotans traditionally been hostile to such state revenue-raising ventures? There is little doubt that, for a core of Minnesotans, taxes are the premier issue that motivates their political behavior and party alignment. As a result, taxes have been and will continue to be viewed as one of the biggest problems facing the state. For example, in January 2000, 10 percent of the state viewed taxes as the most important problem facing Minnesota, second only to education (11 percent) (Minnesota Poll). Five years later, in January 2005, 13 percent cited taxes, behind education (19 percent) and the economy (14 percent) (Minnesota Poll). Last July 15 percent viewed taxes as the biggest problem in the Gopher State, second again only to education (22 percent) (Minnesota Poll).

Likewise, in last fall's Governor's race, tax and budget issues were consistently at or near the top of public opinion polling when people were asked what is the most important issue determining their vote choice (MPR/Pioneer Press poll, Humphrey Institute poll). However, even in these polls barely one-quarter to one-third of Minnesotans viewed taxes as the key issue. Moreover — and the important question Representative Seifert must ask — are these anti-tax residents the ones who voted the DFL into office last November? Unlikely.

The fact is the majority of Minnesotans have historically been quite open to tax increases, especially in targeted areas for designated programs. For example, in February 2001 more than 60 percent of state residents supported a 60-cent cigarette tax hike to balance the state budget (MPR/Pioneer Press poll). Likewise, in September 2002, more than half of the state (52 percent) supported increases in state gasoline taxes to fund road construction and improvements to mass transit (MPR/Pioneer Press poll). In that same year, a majority of Minnesotans polled (51 percent) indicated the Legislature had either cut taxes too much over the past three years, or were wrong to cut taxes at all (MPR/Pioneer Press poll).

Voter support for tax increases is, admittedly, sometimes tethered to the notion that the state should use this funding to balance the budget — not to burden the taxpayer with additional state programs. For example, in January 2005, state opposition to tax increases (30 percent) was dwarfed by supporters for the state to combine budget cuts with tax increases to get the state's budget under control (57 percent).

In truth, tax increases in and of themselves may not be tantamount to political suicide for the party in power at the state capitol. At least, not if that party is the DFL. Republicans, however, may be punished for supporting tax increases — as their core support captures those who are most vehemently against and concerned about taxes. Representative Seifert does well to advocate fiscal restraint on the part of the DFL leadership this session, but his words of warning will likely not be met with trepidation by the majority party. The DFL is assuredly well aware by now that Minnesotans en masse may not find taxes as bitter a pill to swallow as the Representative implies.

Speaking Frankly: Al Is No Jesse and 2008 Isn't 1998

Eric Ostermeier — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 08:02:58 -0600

Fellow Brain Trust contributor Rich Broderick recently wrote a commentary (Franken Wades In, 2/2/07) in which he stated, "(Al) Franken should prove a formidable candidate in a Senate race against Norm Coleman." But cut through the media buzz and pundit punchlines and it is plain that the candidacy of actor-comedian Al Franken is very much a long shot — and not of the Jesse Ventura variety.

True, the media has been quick to frame Franken's fate with reference to the Ventura factor: the Associated Press wrote this week that "Franken's candidacy will also test whether Minnesotans are in the mood for another celebrity-cum-politician, after the 1999-2003 governorship of former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura." (2/14/07)

But Franken's personality, politics, and attempted path to statewide electoral victory are much different than that of the former Minnesota governor.

First, Ventura — despite sidestepping political correctness at every turn — was in most ways a political moderate, whose self-proclaimed 'common sense' approach to politics appealed not only to independents, but also to the less-rabid wings of the DFL and GOP state parties. Franken meanwhile has garnered a reputation of being an attack dog and a 'Hollywood Liberal'; his platform is therefore likely to perceived to be a good deal to the left of the views held by the average Minnesotan.

Secondly, even if Franken could win the DFL nomination, he would have to do one thing Ventura did not — unseat an incumbent. Ventura ran to fill Arne Carlson's open seat, while Franken will be trying to take down a one-term senator. Of the 15 one-term incumbent U.S. Senators in Minnesota political history who have sought re-election since 1900, only 3 have been defeated: Rod Grams lost to Mark Dayton in 2000, Joseph H. Ball lost to Hubert H. Humphrey in 1948, and Frank B. Kellogg lost to Henrik Shipstead in 1922.

Thirdly, while Coleman has not endeared himself to all Minnesotans, he is not unpopular, with job approval ratings hovering between the high 40s and mid 50s throughout most of his term. Democrats may try to paint Coleman as a flip-flopper by linking his evolving positions on the Iraq War with a reminder that Coleman switched parties in 1996 while mayor of St. Paul. But not only was Coleman re-elected under the GOP banner that next autumn, he also closed his second term in 2001 with a 70+ percent approval rating in a city known to view 'Republican' as a dirty word.

An early poll released Wednesday by SurveyUSA indicates Franken begins his campaign with more than a 20-point deficit to Coleman, 57-35. Franken's low level of support in this poll is perhaps more likely a product of the state's generally positive view of Coleman rather than an unfamiliarity with the actor and satirist who has been rumored to be Coleman's challenger for the past two years. In truth, Franken may very well need to say many 'daily affirmations' as he fights an uphill battle during the coming months. But that's … OK.