April 24, 2008
Could Pawlenty Bring Minnesota?
Note: Click on the images to see a clearer picture.
I’m a well-known member of the “Pawlenty for VP” brigade, but I believe in intellectual honesty, so I’ve been examining polls, maps, etc, to get a realistic sense of how likely Pawlenty would be to bring in his home state. We have two new polls that give us some sense of where we are in the state without Pawlenty, and the numbers aren’t encouraging. We have a SurveyUSA poll that shows McCain trailing by 6%. Today’s Rasmussen poll has Obama leading McCain by 14%. The Upper Northwest is a strength of Obama’s, so McCain’s bound to struggle here. First let me show you a map of the 2000 election in Minnesota, as a sort of baseline.
The bluer the county, the more Republican it is. Notice that the vast majority of the states counties are heavily blue. How is it, then, that Bush lost the state by 3 points in 2000? To answer that, I’ll direct you to another map, of the same election.
I’ve now highlighted two regions of the state; the areas enclosed by red are counties bordering Hennepin and Ramsey counties, the two largest counties in the state (and the two light blue or Democratic counties within the region). Roughly 50% of the state’s population is enclosed in this region. The green areas surrounding the red, are those additional counties which comprise the broader Twin Cities. Including these counties, you’re now closer to 60% of the state’s population. Moving on, let’s look at a map from the 2004 election, with the same counties encircled.
It’s a virtually identical map, as you can see, and again Bush lost by 3%. Now let’s look at how Bush actually performed in these regions. In 2004, Bush lost Hennepin (the largest county) by 20%, and Ramsey (the second largest county) by 28%. He lost the entire red region by 137k votes. He won 45.8% of the two person vote here (-8.4% relative to Kerry). Expanding into the green region, the greater Twin Cities, and more burby Republican areas, Bush cut his loss to to 117k votes, winning 46.8% of the two person vote (-6.4% relative to Kerry). Bush lost in 2000 and 2004 because he lost the Twin Cities, by far the state’s greatest population center, by serious margin. If Bush had broken even in the red region in 2004, he would have won the state by 38k votes, and about 1.5%. Now let’s flash backwards to 2002. Here’s a map of Tim Pawlenty’s first gubernatorial election.
Now, if you hadn’t followed my population center explanation, it would look like Pawlenty did considerably worse then Bush. But, this misleading. First of all, the light blue areas in the lower right hand corner are areas won by independent candidate Tim Penny. They’re still Republican regions in a two-person race (as you’ll see when we look at the 2006 map). The only areas of the state where Bush ran genuinely ahead of Pawlenty, are a few deeply rural (10 people per square mile rural) counties in the upper northwest. This is understandable given Bush’s electoral strength with rural voters, but almost none of Minnesota’s population is concentrated in this region. Again, we must look to the highlighted areas. Notice the now blue Hennepin County, which Bush lost by 20%; in 2002 Pawlenty lost here by about .5%. Moving over to Ramsey County, which Bush lost by 28%, we see a similar shift; Pawlenty lost by a mere 7%. In the red region, rather then losing by 8.4% (as Bush did), Pawlenty won the two-person vote with 55.5% (+11%). In the greater Twin Cities, Pawlenty won with 56.1% of the vote (+12.2%). On the whole, the 2002 version of Pawlenty ran 20 points better then Bush in the Twin Cities generally. This is almost entirely responsible for his 7 point victory. Now, let’s fast-forward again to 2006.
This looks more like the 2004 and 2000 maps, though Pawlenty still runs a little behind Bush’s totals in the upper-northwest. The independent candidate in 2006 also wasn’t nearly as strong as Tim Penny in 2002, thus making most of the lower-northeast Republican again. But, let’s take a look at our counties of interest. In Hennepin County, which Pawlenty lost by .5% in 2002 and Bush lost by 20% in 2004, Pawlenty lost by 10% in 2006. In Ramsey County, which Pawlenty lost by 7% in 2002, and Bush lost by 28% in 2004, Pawlenty lost by 17% in 2006. In 2006 Pawlenty won the red region by a mere 5k votes (essentially 50-50) and in green region (the greater Twin Cities) Pawlenty won by 27k votes (51-49). All in all, Pawlenty gained 20 points on Bush in the Twin Cities in 2002, and gave back around 11% in 2006. At first glance, this seems like a serious loss, and a deep blow to his strength in the state.
But, there are a few things to consider here; first of all, once again, his victory in the Twin Cities accounted for almost the entire margin of his victory in the state generally. He won the Twin Cities by 27k votes, and he won the state by 21k votes. And he still ran 9 points ahead of Bush in the region, despite only running 4 points ahead of him in the state generally. Even in 2006, Pawlenty was inordinately strong in the major population center. It’s also worth considering what sort of voters generally accounted for Pawlenty’s gains in 2002 in this region, and what sort of voters abandoned him in 2006. I don’t have any exit polls from 2002, but based on anecdotal evidence, and knowledge of the demographics, it seems likely that Pawlenty won a colossal number of urban and suburban blue-collar Democrats/Independents in 2002, and only won an impressive number in 2006.
But, again this is somewhat misleading. Looking back to 2004, we’ll notice that Bush won non-college educated voters (probably the best correlater to blue collar) by 6%, and essentially split college educated voters. Fast forward to 2006, and we notice that Republicans lost non-college educated voters by 8% and only lost college educated voters by 6%. Now let’s look at the urban/suburban/rural gains and losses. Bush lost urban voters by 9% in 2004, and he won suburban voters by 5% and rural voters by 15%. In 2006, Republicans lost urban voters by 24%, suburban voters by 2% and won rural voters by 2%. Republicans lost the most ground in the cities (-14%) and in rural areas (-13%). Where blue-collar voters most heavily concentrated? In the cities and in rural areas. In other words, Republicans across the country lost the most ground among blue collar voters between 2004 and 2006. They were the folks most broadly suffering from Bush fatigue. In this context, it’s very likely that Pawlenty’s losses in the Twin Cities had almost nothing to do with any decreased Pawlenty-fever, and everything to do with a paralyzing Bush fatigue among blue-collar voters. What’s remarkable is that Pawlenty STILL ran so far ahead of Bush here.
But, you ask, isn’t 2008 likely to be just as bad in this respect? Not quite. First of all, John McCain is quite explicitly NOT Bush. Second of all, we’ll be facing Obama, who has failed miserably to win blue collar whites in both rural and urban areas. These folks aren’t going to reflexively vote Democratic in 2008. They’re open to voting Republican. Obama might make up these losses with gains among upscale whites, but I think, given what we know about the state, the answer to our original question “Can Pawlenty Bring Minnesota”, is a big “Maybe”. But, we have almost no chance in the state without him. I’ll leave you with one last bit of data/trivia. The last time a Republican carried Hennepin County (the largest county in the state) was 1972. Richard Nixon carried it by 5%. That was also the last time the Republican Party carried the state (again by 5 points). As I mentioned before, in 2002, Pawlenty came within .5% of winning the County. Food for thought.
http://race42008.com/2008/04/24/could-pawlenty-bring-minnesota/trackback/
April 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The Rombots (who consider 2008 of secondary importance to Mitt’s chances in 2012) remind us that McCain lost the MN caucus, it should be noted that McCain is exactly the kind of candidate (against the grain/party line/etc) that would perform poorly in MN caucuses, made up mainly of by-the-book conservatives.
That and we don’t assign electoral votes in caucuses so they aren’t relevant in any evaluation.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“made up mainly of by-the-book conservatives.”
…and we will remind you that you won’t get anywhere without the strong support of “by-the-book Conservatives”.
Look, maybe Pawlenty could bring Minnesota - but that is pretty much it. I know Wisconsin keeps coming up, but I haven’t seen any evidence on it.
and, maybe Romney bring Michigan - he probably has as good as or better shot than Pawlenty does in MA, and Romney could help out west.
But lets assume that all Romney helps in is Michigan - he still brings more electoral votes than Pawlenty.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Act, he wasn’t governor of Michigan. Only his dad was. Pawlenty is the currently serving governor of MN.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
And your point is…?
Romney has ties to Michigan, he grew up here, he watched his father work here, he has experienece with the kinds of problems Michigan is facing.
Both his experience and his name have pull - even if he was never actually governor here himself.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Not nearly enough pull to make all too much of a difference. Nothing like an actual governor would.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Why does anybody argue with act-blog any more? It’s simply blind faith Romney worship. There is no reasoning to be done. Just ignore.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Haven’t studied Matt’s post yet, but I think it’s very dangerous to draw too many inferences from the 2002 Pawlenty-Moe vote split, given the Penny factor.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
By the book party hard-liners are the loud minority when it comes to elections. Even they couldn’t rally behind Romney and instead went for guys like Fred who had the reputation (fair or not) of hardly wanting the job at all.
The fact that an against-the-grainer like McCain was able to win the primary speaks of his appeal. Pairing with Mitt only costs him that appeal and gives him gains nowhere. Regardless of how bad anyone wants him to be the guy in 2012. I care much more right now about winning 2008. If Romney rebrands himself between then and now-wonderful. I can’t lose sleep over a millionaire and his vanity project.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
In a short answer: No, he can’t.
On the other hand, can Mitt Romney help in Michigan, Massachusset, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, etc.? Maybe.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
On the other hand, can Mitt Romney help in Michigan, Massachusset, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, etc.? Maybe.
Give some damn proof other than he won the primaries/caucuses here.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Do you understand the meaning of “maybe”?.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Falz,
Maybe Pawlenty will help McCain win California, New York, and Washington State!
April 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Eric, don’t forget DC! I hear he has lots of appeal there.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
It seems to me that Eric slammed Romney fans in the first post, before anyone mentioned Romney. So, he started this posting’s version of the increasingly tiresome Pawlenty/Romney brawl.
Does Pawlenty have any private-sector experience outside of being an attorney?
I hope McCain picks Bobby Jindal. He’s brilliant, inspiring, Catholic, exotic, qualified and experienced despite his young age.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Excellent work, Matthew.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I’m not particularly happy about my role in this. Just my frustration at the inevitable and tired Rombot comments that seem to be required in a VP thread.
I’m not slamming Romney fans. I was a Romney guy! But it is over. He brings nothing to the table for McCain, and our comments are constantly flooded by two guys who can’t get over their fear that Romney won’t be able to run in 2012 if somebody is else the veep. I promise, I’m done with the Romney-slamming.
I’ll take any candidate that doesn’t tick off the socons too bad that they don’t show, and who doesn’t ruin McCain’s crossover and independent appeal.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Jindal’s youth and diversity will help McCain’s crossover appeal, and the young governor is also a so-con’s ideal.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
I don’t know a ton about Jindal. I’ll educate myself. The Pawlenty-MN thing is intriguing. Norm Coleman’s lead in the Senate race vs Franken is widening. I can’t imagine a lot of people voting against Franken and against a Pawlenty ticket.
If Mac takes MN and Obama gives him PA, can anybody find those 30+ electoral votes for Obama? Anywhere?
April 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Matthew:
I only spent a few minutes looking at the returns on CNN, but I believe that Pawlenty will not help the ticket. The most germane comparison, I think, is Bush in 2004 and Pawlenty in 2006—the general attitude in MN was about the same regarding the GOP. For 2006, I added the percentages of Mike Hatch and Tim Hutchinson. Tim Hutchison differed from Tim Penny by quite a lot. Tim Penny ran as a moderate—he was a former conservative Democrat. Tim Hutchison ran as an urban uberliberal who had the answers to fix the messes in St. Paul. Sound familiar? I definitely think Tim Hutchison people will vote for Obama—TH voters are more urban, liberal and educated. (I know this from experience b/c of my friends). Here’s why Pawlenty won’t help much:
The Core Counties:
Hennepin: 2004: Kerry 59, Bush 40 —– 2006 Hatch 51 + TH 7 = 58, Pawlenty 41
Ramsey: 2004: Kerry 63, Bush 36 ——- 2006 Hatch 53 + TH 10 = 63, Pawlenty 36
Isn’t that amazing, almost the exact same percentages!
The Swinging Suburbs:
Carver (ultra GOP stronghold): 2004: Bush 63, Kerry 36 —– 2006 Pawlenty 64, Hatch 30 + TH 6 = 36
Dakota (Pawlenty’s home county): 2004: Bush 51, Kerry 49 —– 2006, Pawlenty 52, Hatch 41 + TH 7 = 48
Washington (affluent, swing suburbs, now replete with 3M chemicals!): 2004: Bush 51, Kerry 48 —– 2006, Pawlenty 48, Hatch 45 + TH 6 = 51!
Once again almost the exact same percentages. Hence I think my hypo is right. Tim Hutchison votes are more than likely to vote Democratic, especially for uber Snobama. What’s interesting here is that Pawlenty doesn’t do much better in Dakota, where he was a state rep. And he loses Washington County. As fellow MNs here can tell you, MN voters are plugged in: they pay attention. We have the best voting rate in the country. Thus, Pawlenty did not have much of a net advantage above Hatch except for Tim Hutchison. Thus, without Tim Hutchison running as an IP, Pawlenty would not have won in 2006. End of story.
The Pennsylvania Test: The Iron Range
This is the gritty part of MN, where I think is probably the most like the working class areas of PA. These people are pro-life (Jim Oberstar is one of the most pro-life congressmen in the county, despite his status as a dem and head of the trans committee), but these people are socialists. Still, if there was going to be a Bradley effect among hard-core dems, it would be here.
St. Louis County (Duluth, depressed mining cities like Virginia): 2004: Kerry 65, Bush 34 —– 2006 Hatch 65 + TH 5 = 70, Pawlenty 29
Carlton County, Hibbing, literally no jobs left, 2004 Kerry 63, Bush 36 —- 2006 Hatch 62 + TH 5 = 67, Pawlenty 32
This basically tells me that Pawlenty will under perform in the one region where a blue collar republican could out perform an uber demn like Obama. Unfortunately, Pawlenty seems to not have gone over up in the Iron Range. And now it’s worse because Pawlenty’s health commission has been covering up IR health problems.
The Conclusion: serious questions whether Pawlenty can deliver MN. I actually think he won’t. McCain might outperform Bush though. The senate race according to Rasmussen is Coleman 50 – 43 Franken. Maybe if Snobama gets bloodied enough, it could get closer. Still, Pawlenty is not a net benefit. He would’ve lost in 2006 w/o Hutchison, which I thank G*d b/c my taxes would have gone up big time. Still, I think it’s better to go with a gramchanger: it’s time to go with PALIN!
April 24th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Jindal needs to be left to LA for a while, it needs him.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
The country’s needs should come before those of any state.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
He’s also only been governor for a little bit. He needs to get more experience, and he wouldn’t serve our ‘Obama is a rookie’ argument well, being so new himself.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Obama as a rookie doesn’t help us much in a vacuum, it is his rookie mistakes on the path that help us in my opinion.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Eric, only a fairly small portion of my wanting Romney has to do with later on. I want him for the voter excitement and appeal this time, and for the help of being a good President he will bring to McCain. 2012 or 2016 is just icing on the cake for me.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Pawlenty couldn’t even deliver Minnesota for McCain during the primaries, what makes anyone think he would do it during the general election.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
YOU ARE GOING TO BE BLASTED SO HARD SEAN.. Don’t you know that was a caucus, not a primary? Its only the core and fabric of the Republicans that he couldn’t deliver. The dumb bunny sheep are believed on here to be willing to follow, even though their core is not.
But I whole heartedly think it says a great deal about the strength of his appeal and leadership in the state, when the core of the party paid not attention and voted overwhelmingly for Mitt in a romp? So, the short anser is I don’ think he can deliver Minnesota. Mitt may very well though!
April 24th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Mitt may very well though!
You were trying to be funny there, I hope?
April 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
No, not at all. He did just beat the crap out of McCain with 59% of the caucus vote. Why would that not strengthen McCain???
April 24th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Romney got 41% actually. And the fact that they voted for Romney doesn’t mean they won’t end up voting for McCain.
Also, if Romney had enough pull here to win it for McCain, then how, by god, would Pawlenty not do the same?
April 24th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Jindal has much more real success and experience than Obama. Actually, I think the comparison between those two would be wonderful. Jindal has been a university president, a senior member of a state administration, a senior member of a presidential administration, a congressman and now a governor. And he’s catholic, pro-life, smart as a whip and ethnic.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I thought that Matthew E. Miller was a member of the “Carcieri for VP brigade”?
April 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Alex Knepper,
I like them both. Carcieri is my number two. I felt that I needed to diversify, so I went hunting for folks I thought would be as helpful as Pawlenty. Carcieri and Keating (who most folks don’t seem to want) were the only ones I found.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“get over their fear that Romney won’t be able to run in 2012 if somebody is else the veep”
Fear isn’t the right word - but it is a rational concern - no sitting VP has been beaten for their party’s nomination, and because of McCain’s age, it seems that he has to pick someone who could run in 2012.
—
“And the fact that they voted for Romney doesn’t mean they won’t end up voting for McCain”
This is true - but without a strong, well-known Conservative on the ticket, I’m not convinced that McCain can really motivate the large numbers of base conservatives to vote for him.
—
As for primaries/caucus results - sorry, but they are all we have. No one has done polling on potential VP options, so the best thing we have at our disposal are primary resutls.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
David - Romney had 41% - McCain had 22% - Pawlenty worked his tail off for McCain.
Who is it that gets the vote out? Am I not right in saying that it the very people who attend the caucuses? That’s right, it is the very same people. Now, why are you attempting to tell me that suddenly Pawlenty is going to get them excited to work their tails off for McCain this time, when he didn’t invigorate them at all the first time around. Who would we naturally look to in Minnesota to fire them up and get them working like they would never work otherwise, and give money like crazy? Obviously, the same person who they liked so much the first time around. I think its a very honest argument to suggest that no one can prove that the loyalty of the worker bees of the party have changed one iota. Mitt Romney helps in Minnesota. An even bigger argument can be made for helping in Iowa.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
IR-MN,
I think you’re probably right about Pawlenty winning because of Hutchison, though 2-person races often have considerably different dynamics then 3-person races. But, I think you’re simply wrong to assume that all of Hutchison’s voters would have gone for Hatch. If I recall, exit polls had Hutchison folks selecting Hatch as their second choice, with something like a 65-35 split (a little under 2-1). That still leaves Pawlenty running above George Bush’s totals in the major population centers. I think it’s also important to note that while it may seem accurate to say “Pawlenty circa 2006 was kinda like Bush circa 2004″ (though, I’d dispute this and do with the analysis above), it’s not at all accurate to say that 2006 was like 2004. It wasn’t. At all. Republicans across the country ran 20 points worse. The Minnesota GOP lost how many seats in the senate and the House? So to say, even if I accept your contention, that Pawlenty ran only a little better then Bush in these population centers, isn’t to say that Pawlenty’s not a net benefit to the ticket. The ideas are barely connected. He’ll certainly be a net benefit in Minnesota, in the sense that any generic Republican running for Governor in Minnesota would have lost the state by 20 points in 2006. But, if we’re asking whether or not Pawlenty could deliver the state, we have to consider whether 2008 is going to be more like 2002-2004 or more like 2006. And it’s my contention that, with Obama as the Democratic nominee and McCain as the Republican nominee, it’s likely to be closer to the former.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
IllinoisGuy,
We’re not telling you that base conservatives in Minnesota will be more excited about the ticket because of Pawlenty (although a recent Rasmussen poll says that 60% of Minnesota Republicans would be more likely to vote for the ticket if Pawlenty was on it, with a very small percentage less likely). We’re arguing that all sorts of folks that wouldn’t have voted for McCain on his lonesome will now vote for McCain with Pawlenty. It’s not just about getting some folks excited. Barry Goldwater had the most excited followers in history. You know what their slogan was after the campaign? “27 million people can’t be wrong”. Well, wrong or not, they got shellacked. George McGovern had an awful lot of excited liberals voting for him. He just didn’t have any unexcited voters casting their ballots for him. 55-60% of registered voters vote in a presidential election; at a certain point, attempts to increase turnout result in diminishing returns. And 55%, the basic baseline for a presidential election, is pretty near that point. After that, it’s all about base expansion.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
And I am arguing that ‘all sorts of folks that wouldn’t have voted for McCain on his lonesome will now vote for McCain with Romney’. If they could like McCain better with Pawlenty, think how much more they would like McCain with the guy on the ticket that fired them up so much during the caucus season, in spite of your hero trying to convince them otherwise.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Who does Pawlenty attract outside of MN? Actually, lets start in Minnesota.
Who does McCain already attract? Moderates, Independents, fed up Democrats. Who is he going to have trouble with? Conservatives. Has Pawlenty shown that he is best able to attract Conservatives in MN? Not really - Romney kicked his butt in the primary.
Now, moving outside of MN. Like or not, Pawlenty is an unknown outside of MN and political circles. Romney, at the very least, is well known. Romney, at the very least, has earned the support of conservatives on a national level. Romney, at the very least, has already recieved the support of major conservative leaders. Maybe Pawlenty could do all those things to - but even if he could, it could take some time, and that isn’t something we have to spare.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I gave Romney the max and I think he’d make a great president, but I don’t think it’s true that he’s a “favorite” of conservatives. I would say he’s a favorite of economics-first, “enterprise” Republicans. In these times, with the perception of the economy being what it is, adding Romney would add economic bonafides to the Republican ticket that the Democrats would be unlikely to match. So, I like Romney as VP, but I think I like Jindal more.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Romney won 25,990 votes from Minnesota in 2008.
Pawlenty won 1,030,236 votes from Minnesota in 2006.
There’s no evidence Romney has support in Minnesota besides his 25,990 Republican supporters in the caucus.
Pawlenty won a 47% of Minnesota voters and 92% of Minnesota Republicans.
Rombots come back to reality please.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Doug you’re comparing apples to oranges here. The fact is that Pawlenty couldn’t dleiver Minnesota to McCain on Feb 5th.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Sean, I’m comparing how much KNOWN SUPPORT, Pawlenty and Romney have in Minnesota.
We know Pawlenty had the support of 10,30,236 voters 2 years ago.
We know Romney had the support of 25,990 voters this year.
There’s little evidence Romney could get anyone besides those 25,990 voters to turn out in Minnesota just because he was the VP.
April 24th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Look at gas prices….. Walmart, Costco and Sams are rationing flour, rice. Eggs increased by 38% in the last year. McCain had better pick wisely or many many voters will just sit home and save gas.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:58 am
[...] the question my distinguished colleague Matthew Miller (no relation) at Race 4 2008 asks in this post replete with graphics, vote totals and sound analysis. His prognosis? [...]
April 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Come on Doug - that’s really lame! Jiminitly
April 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
What a BORING article.
April 25th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
A little off-topic, but still relevant to this post.
If you stare at these maps long enough and focus on the black instead of the different blue colors, does anybody else see a face profile on the right side (similar to an Alfred Hitchcock film)?
April 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
I gave Michigan a cursory look. One intriguing thing is that the areas where Bush struggled a lot in Michigan were Oakland and Macomb counties, and those two counties were among the strongest for Romney over McCain. I think Michigan is more likely to go for McCain anyway. If it was Hillary Clinton it might be different, but Minnesota is just tailor-made for Obama. If Republicans had a crystal ball and knew Obama would be the nominee, they would never have had their convention in Minnesota.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:32 am
[...] race42008.com » Blog Archive » Could Pawlenty Bring Minnesota? (tags: politicalmaps minnesota) [...]