St. Cloud State University SURVEY

STATEWIDE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA ADULTS

2003

[originally posted 12/13/03—last revised 12/16/03]

Dr. Stephen Frank

Dr. Steven Wagner

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Principal Investigators

SCSU Survey

Social Science Research Institute

College of Social Sciences

St. Cloud State University

St. Cloud, Minnesota

Drs. Frank, Wagner and Kukoleca are members of the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research (MAPOR) and the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) and subscribe to the code of ethics of the AAPOR.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Mission, Background, And Methodology 2

Direction of State 23

Rating of President Bush and Governor Pawlenty 30

Feeling Thermometer 36

Sports and Stadiums 39

Education 52

Immigration 62

Mascots 70
MISSION, BACKGROUND, AND METHODOLOGY

I. History and Mission of the Survey

The SCSU Survey is an ongoing survey research extension of the Social Science Research Institute in the College of Social Science at St. Cloud State University.  The SCSU Survey performs its research in the form of telephone interviews.  Telephone surveys are but one of the many types of research employed by researchers to collect data randomly.  The telephone survey is now the instrument of choice for a growing number of researchers.

Dr. Steve Frank began the SCSU Survey in 1980 conducting several omnibus surveys a year of central Minnesota adults in conjunction with his Political Science classes. The omnibus surveys are now done once a year. In addition to questions focusing on the research of the faculty directors, clients can buy into the survey or contract for specialized surveys.

Presently, the omnibus surveys have continued, but have shifted to a primary statewide focus.  These statewide surveys are conducted once a year in the fall and focus on statewide issues such as election races, current events, and other important issues that are present in the state of Minnesota.  Besides the annual fall survey, the SCSU Survey conducts an annual spring survey of SCSU students on various issues such as campus safety, alcohol and drug use, race, etc.  Lastly, the SCSU Survey conducts contract surveys for various public and private sector clients.  The Survey provides a useful service for the people and institutions of the State of Minnesota by furnishing valid data of the opinions, behaviors, and characteristics of adult Minnesotans.

The primary mission of the SCSU Survey is to serve the academic community and various clients through its commitment to high quality survey research and to provide education and experiential opportunities to researchers and students.  We strive to assure that all SCSU students and faculty directors contribute to the research process, as all are essential in making a research project successful.  This success is measured by our ability to obtain high quality survey data that is timely, accurate, and reliable while maintaining an environment that promotes the professional and personal growth of each staff member.  The survey procedures used by the SCSU Survey adhere to the highest quality academic standards.  The SCSU Survey maintains the highest ethical standards in its procedures and methods.  Both faculty and student directors demonstrate integrity and respect for dignity in all interactions with colleagues, clients, researchers, and survey participants.

II. Survey Staff

The Survey’s faculty directors are Dr. Steve Frank (SCSU Professor of Political Science), Dr. Steven Wagner (SCSU Associate Professor of Public and Non-Profit Administration) and Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes (SCSU Assistant Professor of Political Science).  The faculty directors are members of the Midwest Association Of Public Opinion Research (M.A.P.O.R.) and the American Association Of Public Opinion Research (A.A.P.O.R.). The directors subscribe to the code of ethics of A.A.P.O.R.

Stephen I. Frank

Dr. Frank holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science from Washington State University.  Dr. Frank teaches courses in American Politics, Public Opinion and Research Methods at St. Cloud State University.  Dr. Frank started the SCSU Survey in 1980 and has played a major role in the development, administration and analysis of over 150 telephone surveys for local and state governments, school districts and a variety of nonprofit agencies.  Dr. Frank has completed extensive postgraduate work in survey research at the University of Michigan.  Dr. Wagner and Dr. Frank have published two texts on Minnesota’s former Governor, Jesse Ventura. Frank and Wagner’s newest publication is The Maverick Campaign and Election of Jesse Ventura—S.C. Wagner and S.I. Frank in Campaigns and Elections: Issues, Concepts, Cases Robert P. Watson and Colton C. Campbell, editors 3/2003.  Frank has recently had published “New Directions In Public Opinion” in Perspectives On Minnesota Government & Politics 5^th Ed. Steven Hoffman, Homer Williamson and Kay Wolsborn editors, June, 2003.Frank is currently serving as President of the Minnesota Political Science Association.

Steven C. Wagner

Dr. Wagner holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and a Master of Public Administration from Northern Illinois University.  Dr. Wagner earned his Bachelor of Science in Political Science from Illinois State University.  Dr. Wagner teaches courses in American Politics and Public and Nonprofit Management at St. Cloud State University.  Dr. Wagner joined the SCSU Survey in 1997.  Before coming to SCSU, Dr. Wagner taught in Kansas where he engaged in community-based survey research and before that was staff researcher for the U.S. General Accounting Office.  Dr. Wagner has written many papers on taxation, health care delivery and state politics and has published articles on voting behavior, federal funding of local services and organizational decision making. Dr. Wagner and Dr. Frank have published two texts on Minnesota’s former Governor, Jesse Ventura. Frank and Wagner’s newest publication is The Maverick Campaign and Election of Jesse Ventura—S.C. Wagner and S.I. Frank in Campaigns and Elections: Issues, Concepts, Cases Robert P. Watson and Colton C. Campbell, editors 3/2003. 

Michelle K. Hammes

Dr. Kukoleca Hammes holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science and a Masters in Political Science from the State University of New York at Binghamton.  Dr. Kukoleca Hammes earned her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Niagara University.  Kr. Kukoleca Hammes’ is a comparativist with an area focus on North America and Western Europe.  Her substantive focus is representative governmental institutions.  She teaches courses in American Government, Introduction to Ideas and Institutions, Western European Politics, and a Capstone in Political Science at St. Cloud State University.  Dr. Kukoleca Hammes has recently joined the survey team and will be using her extensive graduate school training in political methodology to aid in questionnaire construction and results analysis. Kukoleca Hammes has recently had published “The ‘State’ of Participation” in Perspectives On Minnesota Government & Politics 5^th Ed. Steven Hoffman, Homer Williamson and Kay Wolsborn editors, June, 2003. Kukoleca Hammes is currently serving on the board of the Minnesota Political Science Association.

STUDENT DIRECTORS AND TECHNICAL STAFF

STUDENT SUPERVISING DIRECTOR

Ms. Angela Jabs, Junior, Education Major, Jordan, Minnesota

SCSU Survey Lab Student DIRECTORS/Consultants

Ms. Tesha Peterson, Junior, Special Education Major, Almena, Wisconsin

Ms. Marisol Rodriguez, Senior, Political Science Major, Houston, Texas

Mr. Paul Ben-Yehuda, Senior, Political Science and Communication Studies Majors, St. Cloud, Minnesota

Ms. Melissa Ackerman, Senior, Social Science Major with Political Science emphasis, Cottage Grove, Minnesota

Mr. Jason Lunser, Junior, Political Science Major, Cold Spring, Minnesota

Ms. Ginger Becker, Junior, Political Science Major, Deer Creek, Minnesota

Ms. Kasey Lussier, Senior,  Political Science Major, Spanish Minor, South Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Ms. Adriana Dobrzycka, Senior, Anthropology and Political Science Majors, Spanish Minor, Florence, Italy

student Technical Consultant

Mr. Jason Amunrud  Sophomore, Computer Science Major, Shoreview, Minnesota

After five or more hours of training and screening approximately 50 students from Political Science 195 classes (introductory American National Government Class) taught by Drs. Frank and Wagner completed the calling.  Faculty directors monitored the calling shifts.  Student directors conducted both general training sessions and one-on-one training sessions as well as monitoring all calling shifts.

 III. Methodology

The SCSU Survey is operated out of Stewart Hall 324.  It is also known as the CATI Lab, which stands for Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing Lab.  It is equipped with 13 interviewer stations that each includes a computer, a phone, and a headset.  In addition to the interviewer stations, there is the Supervisor Station, which is used to monitor the survey while it is in progress. The SCSU Survey has its own server designated solely for the use of the survey. 

The SCSU Survey is licensed to use Sawtooth Software’s Ci3 Questionnaire Authoring Version 4.1, a state-of-the-art windows-based computer-assisted interviewing package.  This program allow us to develop virtually any type of questionnaire while at the same time programming edit and consistency checks and other quality control measures to insure the most valid data.  Interviewing with Ci3 offers many advantages:

1. Complete control of what the interviewer sees;

2. Automatic skip or branch patterns based on previous answers, combinations of answers, or even mathematical computations performed on answers;

3. Randomization of response categories or question order;

4. Customized questionnaires using respondents’ previous responses, and,

5. Incorporation of data from the sample directly into the sample database.

6. All interview stations are networked for complete, ongoing sample management.

7. Data is updated immediately, ensuring maximum data integrity and allowing clients to get progress reports anytime.  Data is reviewed for quality and consistency.

8. Answers are entered directly into the computer.  Keypunching is eliminated, thus decreasing human error.  Data analysis can start immediately.

9. The computer handles call record keeping automatically, allowing interviewers and supervisors to focus on the interviewing task.

10. Callbacks are handled by the computer and made on a schedule.  We call each number ten times.  Interrupted surveys are easily completed.  Persons who are willing to be interviewed can do so when it is convenient to them, improving the quality of their responses.

11. Calls are made at various times during the week (Monday through Thursday, 4:30 to 9:30) and on weekends (Sunday, 2:30 to 9:30) to maximize contacts and ensure equal opportunities to respond among various demographic groups. Some daytime calls were made

12. Some calls were made to Spanish speaking respondents.

13. CATI maintains full and detailed records, including the number of attempts made to each number and the disposition of each attempt.

The survey was administered Sunday through Friday Monday through Sunday, not Friday or Saturday between November 7 and November 17. 2003. Most calls were made after 4:30 PM weekdays and during the afternoon on Sunday, November 9 and 16.

Several steps were taken to ensure that the telephone sample of Minnesota adults who were eighteen years of age or older was representative of the larger population. Survey Sampling Inc. of Fairfield, Connecticut prepared the random digit sample of telephone numbers. Random digit dialing makes available changed, new, and unlisted numbers. Drawing numbers from a telephone book may skip as many as 20 percent of Minnesota households. Within each household the particular respondent was determined in a statistically unbiased fashion. This means that the selection process alternated between men and women and older and younger respondents. Few substitutions were allowed. In order to reach hard-to-get respondents each number was called up to ten times over different days and times and appointments made as necessary to interview the designated respondent at her/his convenience. In addition, we were able to call back several Spanish speaking respondents and utilize a Spanish speaking director to help facilitate those calls in Spanish. Also, we take extra care to ensure that all persons we call have a chance to participate in the survey. To this end we also worked to obtain answers from an individual with special needs. To this end a trained director spent extra time on the phone with the individual to help them understand the questions and provide answers.

We have found Survey Sampling a particularly efficient sample production company.  They generate samples of very high quality because they:

1. construct a comprehensive database of all telephone working blocks which actually represent residential telephones;

2. obtain, update and cross check working block information from the local (U.S. West) telephone company;

3. confirm the estimated number of residential telephones with each working block, excluding sparsely populated working blocks (industry standard is to exclude those blocks with less than three known working residential telephones out of the 100 possible numbers);

4. assign working blocks known to contain residential telephones to geographic areas bases on zip code and most recent updates of census data;

5. mark each working block for demographic targeting;

6. check each RDD number against a list of known business telephone numbers and generate new numbers as necessary; and,

7. arrange the ending sample in a random order to eliminate potential calling order bias.

In samples of 605 interviews the overall sample error due to sampling and other random effects is approximately plus/minus 3.9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that if one were to have drawn 20 samples of the state and administered the same instrument it would be expected that the overall findings would be greater/lesser than 3.9 percent only one time in twenty.  However, in all sample surveys there are other possible sources of error for which precise estimates cannot be calculated. These include interviewer and coder error, respondent misinterpretation, and analysis errors. When analysis is made of sub-samples such as respondents who are Republicans or when the sample is broken down by variables such as gender the sample error may be larger.

The demographics of the sample match census and other known characteristics of the larger state population very well.  Usually surveys have to employ a statistical technique called weighting on demographics such as sex.  Most surveys usually over-sample females. The ratio of male to female adults in the sample was 48 to 52 percent, which almost perfectly matches the adult population. Although not needed the sample was weighted for sex. Other variables such as household income, political party affiliation and employment all closely match what is known of the Minnesota adult population.

The cooperation rate of the survey was 65 percent. This is above the average for professional marketing firms. When the SCSU Survey conducts specialized contract surveys, we use a smaller, more skilled group of student interviewers and the completion rate ranges often approach 80+ percent. Cooperation rate means that once an eligible household was reached, almost six of ten respondents agreed to participate in the survey.

The total survey consisted of 54 variables. Additional information was generated from the sample for area codes and country. Additional material on the survey's methodology and findings are available by contacting Steve Frank, Steven Wagner, or Michelle Kukoleca Hammes.  Contact information can be found on the back page of this report.

Methodology Table 1: Calling Record
Disposition Record	Frequency
Completed Calls	605
Not Working Numbers	807
Not Eligible – Respondent not available during the period of the study, language problems, hearing problems, not a Minnesota resident, cabin phone, illness, etc.	88
Callbacks – Appointments made but contact could not be made with designated respondent.	450
Refusals – Attempt to re-contact and convert refusals to a completion was made for most refusals.	204
Answering Machine – Live contact could not be made even after nine calls.	429
Business Phone	237
No Answers – Probable non-working numbers but some may be households on vacation, etc.	433
Fax/Modem	103
Busy	62
Call Blocking	26
Partial – Complete except for demographics	1
Partial – Incomplete, more than demographics left.	17
Total Calls Placed	3462

IV. Demographics

Methodological Notes

Shown below are frequency tables of the demographic indicators we collected as part of the sample or asked of the respondents. Also, we show demographic tables of party, age, income, and employment with some categories combined to facilitate cross tabulation analysis. The tables labeled “recoded” are used in the cross tabulation analysis.

Demographics Table 1: Gender
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Male	297	49
Female	308	51
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 1: Gender

Demographics Table 2: Party
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Always Votes Democratic	53	9
Democrat Who Sometimes Votes for Other Party	107	18
Always Votes Republican	49	8
Republican Who Sometimes Votes for Other Party	103	17
Always Votes Green	0	0
Green Who Sometimes Votes for Other Party	9	1
Always Votes MN Independence	5	1
MN Independence Who Sometimes Votes for Other Party	14	2
independent Closer to Democrats	72	12
independent Closer to Republicans	54	9
independent Closer to Green	10	2
independent Closer to MN Independence Party	21	3
Other	41	7
Apolitical	16	3
Don’t Know/ Refused	51	8
Total	605	100

Demographics Table 3: Recoded Party
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Democrat	232	38
Republican	206	34
Green	19	3
Independence	40	7
Other	92	15
Don’t Know/ Missing	13	3
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 2: Recoded Party Identification

Demographics Table 4: Age
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
18-24	62	10
25-34	85	14
35-44	114	19
45-54	141	23
55-65	101	17
65+	100	17
Don’t Know/ Refused	2	0
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 3: Age

Demographics Table 5: Recoded Age
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
18-24	146	24
35-64	357	59
65+	100	17
Don’t Know/ Missing	2	0
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 4: Recoded Age

Demographics Table 6: Employment
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Working Now	390	65
Laid Off	13	2
Unemployed	20	3
Retired	116	19
Disabled	11	2
Household Manager	25	4
Student	28	5
Don’t Know/ Refused	2	0
Total	605	100%

Demographics Table 7: Recoded Employment
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Working Now	390	64
Laid Off/ Unemployed	33	6
Retired	116	19
Disabled	11	2
Household Manager	25	4
Student	28	5
Don’t Know/ Refused	2	0
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 5: Recoded Employment

Demographics Table 8: Combined Household Income Level
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Under $10,000	26	4
$10,001-$15,000	27	4
$15,001-$20,000	12	2
$20,001-$25,000	34	6
$25,0001-$30,000	31	5
$30,001-$40,000	56	9
$40,001-$50,000	49	8
$50,001-$100,000	101	17
$100,000+	165	27
Refused	64	11
Don’t Know	41	7
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 6: Combined Household Income Level

Demographics Table 9: Recoded Income Level
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Under $25,000	98	16
$25,001-$50,000	136	22
$50,001-$100,000	101	17
$100,000+	165	27
Don’t Know/ Refused/ Missing	106	18
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 7: Recoded Income Level

Demographics Table 10: Area Code
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
218	97	16
320	78	13
507	100	17
612	37	6
651	113	19
763	93	15
952	86	14
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 8: Area Code

Demographics Table 11: Recoded Area of State (from Area Code)
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Twin Cities Metro	330	54
Northern Minnesota	97	16
Central Minnesota	78	13
Southern Minnesota	100	17
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 9: Recoded Area of State (from Area Code)

Demographics Table 12: County Code from Sample
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Seven Metro Counties	309	51
Greater Minnesota Counties	296	49
Total	605	100%

Demographics Figure 10: County Code From Sample

Recoded area code of the state was used for cross tabulation analysis for the Education, Immigration and Mascot questions. County code was used for the Direction, Problem, Governor and President Ratings, and Feeling Thermometer questions. The reminder of the report shows the substantive findings of the survey.

St. Cloud State University SURVEY

STATEWIDE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA ADULTS

2003

Direction and Biggest Problem of the State

December 2003

Prepared

By

Ms. Kasey Lussier

Survey Student Director

Supervised

By

Dr. Stephen Frank

Dr. Steven Wagner

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Principal Investigators

SCSU Survey

Substantial Findings

We began our survey by asking the respondent’s opinion on the direction of the state. We found that almost half (43%) of Minnesota residents believe that the state is going in the right direction. When comparing this with results from the past three years, we can see that the downward trend that occurred between 2000 and 2002 seems to be turning around. Where the number of Minnesotans that believe the state is going in the right direction has fallen by a quarter every year, this year it has risen by 10%. We also found that more women than men believe that the state is going in the wrong direction. It was also found that Republicans are almost two times as likely to think that the state is going in the right direction, while almost three times as many Democrats responded that the state is moving in the wrong direction. There were small differences by combined household income before taxes with higher income respondents feeling more positive. There were only a small differences in the responses by demographics such as gender, age and region of the state.

Direction of State Table 1: The Direction of the State 2000-2003
	2000		2001		2002		2003
Response	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent	Frequency	Percent
Right Direction	436	70	334	56	232	38	291	48
Neutral	61	10	66	11	83	14	48	8
Wrong Track	102	16	165	27	260	42	220	36
Don’t Know	27	4	35	6	35	6	44	8
Total	606	100	600	100	600	100	603	100

Direction of State Figure 1:

The Direction of the State 2000-2003

We next asked respondents what they feel is the biggest problem facing the state of Minnesota. The top five responses, in order, are Education, the Budget Deficit, Taxes, Economic Issues and Health Issues. In comparison to responses in the past, Minnesotans are no longer as concerned with Roads and Highways. Also, Minnesotans are less concerned with economic issues than they were last year. We compared the responses by gender and found that more women than men feel that education and health care are the largest problems facing the state. More men than women responded that taxes are the number one issue. Looking at the age of the respondents we found that Minnesotans between 24 and 55 were almost two times as concerned with education compared to other age groups. We also found that Minnesotans between 18 and 24 years old do not worry at all about health care. Among all income groups there was large concern about the budget deficit. We found that the higher the income level, the more Minnesotans believe that education is a large problem. Also, the higher the income level, fewer Minnesotans feel that economic issues such as jobs and wages are a problem. More Republicans feel that taxes are an issue, while more Democrats responded that education was the most important problem. People living in the 10 county metro area of the state are almost three times as worried about health care issues as those living in other parts of the state. We found that there was no significant difference among any demographics that the budget deficit is a problem. Regardless of income, gender, and age, and location, Minnesotans are concerned about the budget. Table 2 shows the responses of this years survey compared with the responses from the past three years.

Direction of State Table 2: The Five Most Important Problem Facing the State 2000-2003
	2000		2001		2002		2003
Rank	Problem	%	Problem	%	Problem	%	Problem	%
1	Education	21	Education	25	Education	23	Education Funding	25
2	Taxes	18	Welfare	12	Budget/Surplus	14	Budget Deficit	16
3	Health	7	Taxes	11	Economic Issues	13	Taxes	11
4	Crime	7	Economic Issues	7	Taxes	10	Economic Issues	9
5	Environment/Roads	3	Moral/ Religious Issues	7	Roads /Highways	7	Health Issues	6

Direction of State Figure 2:

The Five Most Important Problems Facing the State in 2003

We asked Minnesotans what party they feel could handle the above problem the best. Almost two times as many people responded that for economic issues, the Democratic Party could handle the problem the best. Minnesotans also feel that Democrats can solve the education problems. Almost five times as many people feel that Democrats can fix the problem of health care. Almost half (45%) of Minnesotans feel that Republicans can best deal with taxes. In response to the budget deficit, there was not significant difference between any of the parties. Table 3 shows the responses to this question.

Direction Table 3: Which party can best handle the above problem?
	2000		2001		2002		2003
Response	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%
Republican	174	27	154	30	166	27	132	24
Democratic	152	28	165	32	157	26	158	30
Independence	63	12	41	8	58	10	42	8
Reform (00/01) Green (02/03)	19	4	15	3	16	3	15	3
Other / weak independents	11	2	12	2	7	1	3	.5
Same	NA	NA	6	1	7	1	38	7
Neither	58	11	46	9	73	12	60	11
Don’t Know	89	16	79	15	118	20	94	17
Total	603	100	600	100	600	100	604	100

Direction Table 3:

St. Cloud State University SURVEY

STATEWIDE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA ADULTS

2003

Rating Questions

Gov.Pawlenty

&

PRESIDENT BUSH

December 2003

Prepared

By

Mr. Paul Ben-Yehuda

Survey Student Director

Supervised

By

Dr. Stephen Frank

Dr. Steven Wagner

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Principal Investigators

SCSU Survey

WHY WE ASKED QUESTIONS RATING GOVERNOR PAWLENTY'S AND PRESIDENT BUSH'S PERFORMANCE.

We asked respondents to rate the performance of Governor Pawlenty and President Bush to track their performance over time and to compare their performance to previous administrations.

Rating Table 1: Overall Rating of Governor Pawlenty's Performance
“How would you rate the overall performance of Governor Pawlenty; excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Excellent	54	9
Pretty Good	263	43
Only Fair	163	27
Poor	83	14
Don’t Know	41	7
Subtotal	604	100%

Table 1 displays the frequency and percentage results of the question on Governor Pawlenty's Performance. The data is clear, a majority of Minnesotans rate Governor Pawlenty's performance as favorable.

Rating Figure 1: Overall Rating of Governor Pawlenty's Performance

SUBSTANSIVE FINDINGS

There is no significant difference with gender, along with there being no significant difference of where respondents lived. The significant difference between ages was that those sixty five and over favored Governor Pawlenty more than the other age groups. Those in the highest household income bracket have a substantial more favorable opinion of Governor Pawlenty than those in the lowest income bracket. Also the household managers and retired were most likely to favor the Governor's performance. Party identification while not surprising that the self described Republicans favored the Governor more, the surprising result was the Republicans favored the Governor fifty percent more than the Democrats. When comparing Governor Pawlenty to the performance to former Governor Ventura, there was a significant difference in first year of their respective terms but in Governor Ventura's first year there was a significant state fiscal surplus. It is more appropriate to compare the last year of Governor Ventura to the first year of Governor Pawlenty in which both were similar in approval rating. The reason for this is the public knew Governor Ventura agenda and the future economic forecast was already known.

Rating Table 2: Overall Rating of President Bush
“How would you rate the overall performance of President Bush; excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?”
RESPONSE	FREQUENCY	PERCENT
Excellent	57	10
Pretty Good	201	33
Only Fair	167	28
Poor	169	28
Don’t Know	8	1
Total	602	100%

Table 2 displays the frequency results of the question on President Bush performance. The data is clear, a majority of Minnesotans rate President Bush's performance as unfavorable.

Rating Figure 2: Overall Rating of President Bush

Substantive Findings

There is no significant difference with gender as well as there being no significant difference between age of respondents and where they lived. The substantive findings are that those in the highest household income bracket have a slightly more favorable opinion of President Bush than those in the lowest income bracket. Also the household managers were most likely to favor the President's performance. Party identification while not surprising that the self described Republicans favored the President more, the surprising result was the Republicans favored the President fifty-four percent more than the Democrats. When comparing President Bush's performance to the national average, from the Gallup Poll from November 14-16, there was no significant difference between Minnesotans and the rest of the nation.

St. Cloud State University SURVEY

2003

STATEWIDE SURVEY OF MINNESOTA ADULTS

Feeling Thermometer

December 2003

Prepared

By

Ms. Ginger Becker

Survey Student Director

Supervised

By

Dr. Stephen Frank

Dr. Steven Wagner

Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes

Principal Investigators

SCSU Survey

The following displays the results to questions pertaining to public figures in the news and in politics that were asked this fall. We asked these questions because we wanted a feel on how people felt on a scale of 1 to 100 with these public figures. With this scale, it is apparent how many people can hear a name and know whom that person is pertaining to the state of Minnesota, or the whole United States.

Not only were questions about politicians asked, other questions pertaining to other prominent media figures were asked, including: Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Moore. The reason why we wanted to know how people felt about these certain “authority” figures is that they do affect public opinion at a high level.

When asking the question we asked the respondent to rate this person on a scale of 1-100, numbers between one and forty-nine meant that the respondent didn’t now feel too favorable or warm towards the person, and responses between fifty-one and one-hundred meant that you felt warm and favorable towards that person. If the respondent did recognize the name, but did not feel either warm or cold towards the person, they rated them at the fifty-degree mark. If they did not recognize the person, we did not give the respondent any information on whom that person was before they gave their score.

Substantive Findings

Feeling Thermometer Table 1: Feeling Thermometer “Please think of a thermometer that has a range of 0 to 100 degrees. I’d like you to rate your feelings toward some of our political leaders and other people who are in the news. Ratings on the thermometer between 50 and 100 degrees mean that you feel favorable and warm toward the person. Ratings between 0 and 50 mean that you do not feel too favorable toward the person. If we come to a person whose name you don’t recognize, you don’t need to rate that person. Just tell me and we will move on to the next one. If you do recognize the name, but do not feel particularly warm or cold toward the person, you would rate that person at the 50 degree mark.”
PERSON	MEAN RESPONSE 2001	MEAN RESPONSE 2002	Mean Response 2003	% CAN’T JUDGE/ DON’T KNOW 2003
George W. Bush	70	60	51	1%
Mike Hatch	Na	56	55	34
Hillary Rodham Clinton	Na	Na	46	6
Laura Bush	Na	Na	60	5
Tim Pawlenty	54	50	56	5
Arnold Schwarzengger	Na	Na	43