FALL 2000 REPORTS
LAST REVISED 12/13/2000
SCSU
SURVEY
STATEWIDE
SURVEY OF MINNESOTA ADULTS
Prepared
by
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
I.
POLITICAL SECTION--RELEASED 10/26
II.
GOVERNOR VENTURA SECTION--RELEASED 12/1
III.
LEGISLATIVE ISSUES QUESTIONS--RELEASED 12/13
IV.
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION QUESTIONS RELEASED 12/13 (HARD
COPIES AVAILABLE-DUE TO COMPUTER PROBLEMS THEY WON'T BE ON WEB PAGE UNTIL ABOUT
12/19)
I. 10/26 POLITICAL SECTION
PRESS RELEASE
SCSU SURVEY
October 26, 2000
St. Cloud State
University
St. Cloud, MN
Bush leads Gore by slim margin among “more likely voters” but Gore leads Bush among all respondents
The SCSU Survey, the telephone public opinion research
center of St. Cloud State University, reports that among more likely voters in
this November’s presidential election, George Bush leads with 41% of the vote
to Al Gore’s 38%. Green Party candidate
Ralph Nader has a grasp on 10% of the voters.
However, among all respondents, Gore leads Bush, 39% to 38%,
respectively. Again, Nader is polling
10%. Buchanan is favored by 1% of all
respondents and of 1% of more likely voters.
Among more likely voters, Bush is favored heavily by
Republicans, but also has the support of many independents and DFL voters. Ninety percent of Republican Party
identifiers indicate they plan to vote for Bush, while 42% of independents and
6% of DFL voters are similarly inclined.
Gore has the support of 86% of DRLers and 42% of independents but only
6% of Republicans. Of those voters that
are conservative, 78% plan to vote for Bush compared to 12% for Gore. Among moderates, 38% support Bush and 51%
support Gore. Only 13% of liberals plan
to vote for Bush, but 72% plan to vote for Gore. Fifty-two percent of males, compare to 40% of women, favor Bush. Gore is polling 38% of males and 47% of
female voters. Thirty-five percent of
voters in the Twin Cities metro area prefer Bush compared to 41% for Gore.
The data suggests that Bush is benefiting by Nader’s
presence on the ballot. Nader is
favored by 15% of liberals, 11% of moderates and 10% of the conservative
voters. Among DFLers, Nader is polling
8%, but is only favored by 5% of Republicans.
However, 15% of independents indicated they plan to vote for Nader.
Dayton has a commanding lead over Grams among “more
likely voters” and all respondents
In terms of the U.S. Senate race, Mark Dayton has a
commanding lead over incumbent Rod Grams.
The SCSU Survey has Dayton polling 48% to Grams at 33% of more likely
voters, and among all respondents, Dayton has the support of 47% to Grams’ 30%. Among both more likely voters and all
respondents, Gibson is polling 6%.
Dayton’s support is strong among traditional DFL voters, but is also
doing well among likely Republican voters.
David Daniels, Eric Pakieser, David Swan and Rebecca Ellis combined are
polling 5%.
Among more likely voters, eight-four percent of DFL
voters and 16% of Republican voters support Dayton. Liberals (82%), moderates (58%) and conservatives (24%) support
Dayton. Male (46%) voters, as well as
women (58%) voters support Dayton.
Dayton, who has campaigned as a champion health care, social security,
is receiving significant support (57%) from those voters over the age 65.
When asked why they are going to vote for one of the
candidates for U.S. Senate respondents could give 22 or so reasons. Party affiliation
and character were the most frequently mentioned reasons with Gram and Dayton
being about even on party and Dayton supporters mentioning character about
twice as much as Gram supporters. Political ideology was the third most
mentioned reason with Dayton having a slight advantage in this category. Other
categories in order of mention were like as a person (Dayton 65%--Grams-29%),
good record or experience (46% Dayton--51% Grams), and health position (87%
Dayton-13% Grams). Other related findings can be found in the full packet of
material
Other Findings
Minnesotans' continue to feel upbeat about the direction
of the state. Seven of ten Minnesotans (70%) continue to believe the state is
on the right track and only 16% say the state is on the wrong track.
When asked to name the single most important problem
facing the state today, education has been increasing over the years and tops
the list at 21% followed by taxes at 17%. Crime has dropped from a high of 25%
in 1994 to 8% now. No party is seen to have an overall advantage in handling
the problem(s). There does appear to be a decline in Minnesotans who believe
the Reform Party can best handle the problem and a small switch to the
Independence Party.
When asked which party, if any from your district will
you vote for Congress no party has a clear advantage, Democrats are mentioned
by 34% of Minnesotans, Republicans by 30% and the Independence Party by 8%.
When ask about which party should control the Minnesota legislature,
Republicans are named by 18%, Democrats by 17%, Reform and Independence parties
by 6% combined.
The Survey again employed the University of Michigan's
feeling thermometer. U.S. Senate candidate James Gibson continues to suffer
from a major name recognition problem as 77% of all Minnesotans surveyed could
not judge or did not know him. The figures for Mark Dayton and Rod Grams are
16% and 11%. Among respondents who could give a rating on a scale of 0-100 with
100 being very warm and favorable an 0 very unfavorable for 12 public figures,
Terry Ventura and Jesse Ventura have very warm ratings of 62 and 60.
Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has a very low 31.
Political party affiliation and self-described political
ideology have changed little, if at all, over the years.
The SCSU Survey interviewed 629 Minnesotans from October
14th through 24th.
Respondents were chosen randomly from computer generated telephone
numbers. To ensure against response
bias toward a particular candidate, the names of the candidates were randomly
rotated. Respondents were asked, “If
the November, 2000 (presidential or U.S. Senate) election were being held
today, would you vote for ….”
The SCSU Survey conducts an omnibus statewide survey each
fall. This year’s survey consisted of
55 questions, asked of 629 respondents.
The survey has a margin of sampling error no greater than 3.9 percentage
points, plus or minus, at the 95 percent level of confidence.
Further information about these findings or about the
methodology of the survey can be obtained by calling Dr. Steve Frank, SCSU
Professor and Co-director of the SCSU Survey, at 320-255-4131, Dr. Steven
Wagner, SCSU Associate Professor and Co-director of the SCSU Survey, at
320-654-5423 or Dr. Michelle Kukoleca Hammes, SCSU Assistant Professor and Co-Director
of the SCSU Survey at 320-255-4130.
FREQUENCY TABLES
10/26 POLITICAL SECTION
|
Table 2: Direction
of the State |
||
|
“Do you think things in the State of Minnesota are generally going in the right direction, or do you feel things have gotten off on the wrong track?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Right Direction |
436 |
70 |
|
Neutral |
61 |
10 |
|
Wrong Track |
102 |
16 |
|
Don’t Know |
27 |
4 |
|
Total |
626 |
100% |
|
Table 3: Problems Facing the
State of Minnesota
|
||
|
“What do you think is the single most important problem facing the State of Minnesota today?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Abortion |
9 |
1% |
|
Agriculture-General |
4 |
1% |
|
Agriculture-
Probs./Farmers |
9 |
1% |
|
Budget/Surplus |
6 |
1% |
|
Candidate Character |
2 |
0% |
|
Crime/Gangs/Violence |
41 |
7% |
|
Drug Use |
17 |
3% |
|
Economic Issues (Jobs, Wages, etc.) |
12 |
2% |
|
Education |
128 |
21% |
|
Environmental Issues |
16 |
3% |
|
Family Issues |
2 |
0% |
|
Gambling |
1 |
0% |
|
Health Issues- Health Insurance, etc. |
41 |
7% |
|
Issue Relating to Indians |
1 |
0% |
|
Moral Issues |
11 |
2% |
|
Religious Issues |
2 |
0% |
|
Politics/Politicians |
10 |
2% |
|
Poverty/ Poor |
5 |
1% |
|
Roads, Highways,
Transportation |
19 |
3% |
|
Utility Prices, Gas,
Energy |
2 |
0% |
|
Senior Issues/ Elderly |
5 |
1% |
|
Jesse Ventura |
9 |
1% |
|
Taxes |
112 |
18% |
|
Welfare Issues, Waste,
Fraud |
14 |
2% |
|
Prescription Drugs |
4 |
1% |
|
Other |
74 |
12% |
|
No Problem Facing State |
4 |
1% |
|
Don’t Know |
65 |
9% |
|
Total |
625 |
100% |
|
Table 4: Which Party Can Better Fix Problems |
||
|
“Which political party, if any, do you think can do a better job of handling the problem you have just mentioned- the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, the Independence Party, or the Reform Party?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Republican |
174 |
27 |
|
Democratic |
152 |
28 |
|
Reform |
19 |
4 |
|
Independence Party |
63 |
12 |
|
Other- Volunteered |
11 |
2 |
|
Neither |
58 |
11 |
|
Don’t Know |
89 |
16 |
|
Total |
539 |
100 |
|
Table 5: Party Choice in U.S.
Congressional Races
|
||
|
“If the election for U.S. Congress were being held
today and you could choose between a Democratic candidate, a Republican
candidate, a Reform Party candidate, and Independence Party candidate,, or a
candidate who belongs to some other party, which party’s candidate would you
vote for?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Democrat |
206 |
34 |
|
Republican |
179 |
30 |
|
Reform |
16 |
3 |
|
Independence Party |
50 |
8 |
|
Other |
30 |
5 |
|
Don’t Know |
125 |
20 |
|
Total |
606 |
100 |
|
Table 6: Control of Minnesota Legislature |
||
|
“Looking ahead to next November’s election in which
all members of the Minnesota legislature will be elected, right now the
Republicans control the Minnesota House while the Democrats control the
Minnesota Senate. Which of the following would you like to see
happen- keep control the way it is now, the Republicans gain control of both
Houses, the Democrats gain control of both Houses, another party such as the
Reform Party of Independence Party gain control, or haven’t you thought much
about this issue?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Keep Divided Control |
144 |
23 |
|
Republican Control |
115 |
18 |
|
Democratic Control |
108 |
17 |
|
Another Party Controls |
35 |
6 |
|
Haven’t Thought Much About
Issue |
161 |
26 |
|
Other- Volunteered |
12 |
2 |
|
Don’t Know |
50 |
8 |
|
Total |
625 |
100 |
|
Table 7: 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.” (Interviewers do not tell the respondent who the
person is or any information about the person.) |
||||
|
Person |
Mean Response 2000 |
Mean Response 1999[1] |
Frequency of Don’t Know/ Can’t Judge 2000 |
Qualified Sample 2000 |
|
Bill Clinton |
46 |
46 |
12 |
617 |
|
Rod Grams |
46 |
46 |
73 |
556 |
|
Paul Wellstone |
51 |
50 |
59 |
570 |
|
Terry Ventura |
62 |
60 |
103 |
526 |
|
Al Gore |
49 |
47 |
21 |
608 |
|
Pat Buchanan |
31 |
|
113 |
516 |
|
Jesse Ventura |
60 |
54 |
8 |
621 |
|
Norm Coleman |
55 |
52 |
110 |
519 |
|
George W. Bush |
52 |
|
24 |
605 |
|
Mark Dayton |
52 |
|
106 |
532 |
|
James Gibson |
48 |
49 |
485 |
114 |
|
Ralph Nader |
49 |
|
126 |
503 |
|
Survey Total |
|
|
|
629 |
|
Table 8: 2000 Minnesota Senate Race All Respondents |
||
|
“If the November 2000 election for U.S. Senate were being held today would you vote for Republican candidate Rod Grams, Democratic candidate Mark Dayton, Independence Party candidate James Gibson, or a candidate or another party?” (If the candidate is not sure) “Although you are not sure, would you say you are leaning more toward Grams, Gibson, Dayton, or a candidate of another party?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Definitely Dayton |
214 |
35 |
|
Leaning Dayton |
75 |
12 |
|
Definitely Gibson |
27 |
4 |
|
Leaning Gibson |
11 |
2 |
|
Definitely Grams |
148 |
24 |
|
Leaning Grams |
33 |
6 |
|
Eric Pakieser- Libertarian
Party |
1 |
.5 |
|
David Swan- Constitution
Party |
0 |
0 |
|
David Daniels- Grassroots
Party |
2 |
.5 |
|
Other |
29 |
5 |
|
Won’t Vote |
8 |
1 |
|
Don’t Know |
63 |
10 |
|
Total |
611 |
100 |
|
Table 9: 2000 Minnesota Senate Race Likely Voters |
||
|
“If the November 2000 election for U.S. Senate were being held today would you vote for Republican candidate Rod Grams, Democratic candidate Mark Dayton, Independence Party candidate James Gibson, or a candidate or another party?” (If the candidate is not sure) “Although you are not sure, would you say you are leaning more toward Grams, Gibson, Dayton, or a candidate of another party?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Definitely Dayton |
179 |
36 |
|
Leaning Dayton |
60 |
12 |
|
Definitely Gibson |
21 |
4 |
|
Leaning Gibson |
10 |
2 |
|
Definitely Grams |
140 |
28 |
|
Leaning Grams |
26 |
5 |
|
Eric Pakieser- Libertarian
Party |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Other |
20 |
4 |
|
Won’t Vote |
1 |
.5 |
|
Don’t Know |
41 |
8 |
|
Total |
499 |
100 |
Where available.
A likely voter is one who is registered to vote or
planning to register to vote, voted in 1996 or had a good reason not to vote
(such as illness or not being 18 years of age), and indicate that they are very
interested or somewhat interested in this election. This screened out approximately 18% of the respondents.
|
Table 10: Reasons for Senate Candidate Choice |
||
|
“Why are you going to vote for this person?” (Interviewer probes for answer, but does not read
responses.) |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT OF ALL RESPONSES |
|
Same Political Party |
123 |
20 |
|
Same Political Ideology |
90 |
14 |
|
Like Candidate’s Character |
102 |
16 |
|
Like Candidate as a Person |
61 |
10 |
|
Somebody Different |
20 |
3 |
|
Not a Typical Candidate |
8 |
1 |
|
Good Track Record-
Experience |
34 |
5 |
|
No Particular Reason |
15 |
2 |
|
Position on Abortion |
12 |
2 |
|
Budget Surplus Position |
3 |
1 |
|
Like Candidate’s Ads |
12 |
2 |
|
Don’t Like Tactics of
Opponent |
37 |
6 |
|
Time for a Change |
14 |
2 |
|
Crime Position |
4 |
1 |
|
Education Position |
3 |
2 |
|
Position on the Environment |
10 |
2 |
|
Gun/Hunting Position |
12 |
2 |
|
Health Care Position |
36 |
6 |
|
Social Security Position |
8 |
1 |
|
Taxes |
10 |
2 |
|
Senior Issue Position |
6 |
1 |
|
Total Responses |
630 |
|
|
Total Respondents |
455 |
|
Multiple Responses Accepted
|
Table 11: Percentage of Candidate SupportOn Key Issues |
||||
Candidates ® |
Dayton |
Gibson |
Grams |
Other |
Issues¯ |
Percent |
|
|
|
|
Same Political Party |
46% |
5% |
47% |
2% |
|
Same Political Ideology |
54% |
7% |
38% |
1% |
|
Like Candidate’s Character |
61% |
7% |
31% |
0% |
|
Like Candidate as a Person |
65% |
4% |
29% |
2% |
|
Don’t Like Other
Candidates Tactics |
49% |
9% |
29% |
14% |
|
Somebody Different |
69% |
12% |
19% |
0% |
|
Good Track Record-
Experience |
46% |
3% |
51% |
0% |
|
Education Position |
58% |
9% |
33% |
0% |
|
Gun/Hunting Position |
17% |
0% |
83% |
19% |
|
Health Care Position |
87% |
0% |
13% |
0% |
|
Table 12: Demographics and Senate Candidate Support Among Likely Voters |
||||
|
Candidate ® |
Dayton |
Gibson |
Grams |
Other |
|
Demographic
Characteristic ¯ |
|
|
|
|
|
Gender- Male |
100 46 |
16 7 |
93 43 |
10 5 |
|
Female |
139 58 |
15 6 |
73 31 |
11 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age- 18-24 |
12 50 |
1 4 |
10 42 |
1 4 |
|
25-34 |
34 60 |
3 5 |
17 30 |
3 5 |
|
35-44 |
48 47 |
11 11 |
35 34 |
9 9 |
|
45-54 |
62 55 |
6 5 |
40 36 |
4 4 |
|
55-65 |
34 45 |
5 7 |
35 47 |
1 1 |
|
65+ |
48 57 |
5 6 |
28 33 |
3 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Party Affiliation- Democrat |
129 84 |
6 4 |
11 7 |
8 5 |
|
Republican |
21 16 |
5 4 |
104 79 |
2 2 |
|
Reform |
2 40 |
0 0 |
1 20 |
2 40 |
|
Independence |
15 52 |
2 7 |
11 38 |
1 3 |
|
independents |
49 50 |
16 16 |
28 29 |
5 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ideology- Liberal |
119 82 |
10 7 |
8 6 |
8 6 |
|
Moderate |
71 58 |
11 9 |
32 26 |
8 7 |
|
Conservative |
42 24 |
9 5 |
119 70 |
2 1 |
|
Table 13: 2000 U.S. Presidential Election All Respondents |
||
|
“If the November 2000 Presidential election were
being held today would you vote for Republican candidate George W. Bush,
Democratic candidate Al Gore, Reform Party candidate James Buchanan, Green
Party candidate Ralph Nader, or a candidate or another party?” (If the candidate is not sure) “Although you are not sure, would you say you
are leaning more toward Bush, Gore, Buchanan, Nader, or a candidate of
another party?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Definitely Gore |
188 |
31 |
|
Leaning Gore |
51 |
8 |
|
Definitely Bush |
199 |
32 |
|
Leaning Bush |
33 |
5 |
|
Definitely Buchanan |
5 |
1 |
|
Leaning Buchanan |
4 |
1 |
|
Definitely Nader |
44 |
7 |
|
Leaning Nader |
19 |
3 |
|
Other |
8 |
1 |
|
Won’t Vote |
4 |
1 |
|
Don’t Know |
61 |
10 |
|
Total |
616 |
100 |
|
Table 14: 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Likely Voters |
||
|
“If the November 2000 Presidential election were
being held today would you vote for Republican candidate George W. Bush,
Democratic candidate Al Gore, Reform Party candidate James Buchanan, Green
Party candidate Ralph Nader, or a candidate or another party?” (If the candidate is not sure) “Although you are not sure, would you say you
are leaning more toward Bush, Gore, Buchanan, Nader, or a candidate of
another party?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Definitely Gore |
152 |
30 |
|
Leaning Gore |
38 |
8 |
|
Definitely Bush |
179 |
36 |
|
Leaning Bush |
26 |
5 |
|
Definitely Nader |
38 |
8 |
|
Leaning Nader |
14 |
2 |
|
Definitely Buchanan |
2 |
0 |
|
Leaning Buchanan |
4 |
0 |
|
Other |
5 |
1 |
|
Don’t Know |
43 |
10 |
|
Total |
447 |
100 |
|
Table 15: Demographics and Presidential Candidate Support Among Likely Voters |
|||
|
Candidate ® |
Gore |
Bush |
Nader |
|
Demographic
Characteristic ¯ |
|
|
|
|
Gender- Male |
79 38 |
110 52 |
21 10 |
|
Female |
111 47 |
95 40 |
31 13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age- 18-24 |
6 24 |
12 48 |
7 28 |
|
25-34 |
22 38 |
31 53 |
5 9 |
|
35-44 |
49 48 |
36 35 |
17 17 |
|
45-54 |
49 45 |
50 46 |
9 8 |
|
55-65 |
29 43 |
34 50 |
5 7 |
|
65+ |
34 41 |
41 49 |
9 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Party Affiliation- Democrat |
128 86 |
9 6 |
12 8 |
|
Republican |
7 5 |
117 90 |
6 5 |
|
Reform |
0 0 |
0 0 |
3 100 |
|
Independence |
11 42 |
11 42 |
4 16 |
|
independents |
31 32 |
47 49 |
18 19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ideology- Liberal |
103 72 |
19 13 |
21 15 |
|
Moderate |
60 51 |
44 38 |
13 11 |
|
Conservative |
20 12 |
134 78 |
17 10 |
II.
12/1 GOVERNOR VENTURA SECTION
November
2000
For more on Governor Ventura read We Shocked the World! A Case
Study of Jesse Ventura's Election As Governor of Minnesota Harcourt College
Publishers 1999. [Second edition due early 2001] http://tigger.stcloudstate.edu/~t00001/book.html
iv. Indicators
of Jesse Ventura’s Performance as Governor of Minnesota
Is there one person who personifies a
state today? What political position is
the most powerful in a state today?
Whom does the public expect to lead the legislature and the bureaucracy? Who is the most influential person in
today’s state government? The answer to
all these questions is the state governor.
The contemporary governor fills a long roster of roles or jobs. Some of these include chief executive, chief
lawmaker, commander in chief, chief diplomat and political leader. This section of the report examines how
Minnesotans view or evaluate Governor Ventura performance of these roles.
First, we display a table to show the
growing support that Governor Ventura has in Minnesota. When
respondent categories, Did Not Vote, Don’t Know and Refused are removed
from the statistical analysis, the data shows that Ventura was supported by 45%
of our respondents, Coleman was supported by 26% and Humphrey by 23%. Governor Ventura received 37% of the vote in
1998, while Coleman received 34% and Humphrey received 29% of the vote in
1998. It is common, as time passes, to
find that voters who supported a candidate that lost an election eventually
indicate they voted for the winning candidate.
We asked the same question last year and found that only Humphrey voters
had deserted their candidate.
|
Table 2: 1998
Gubernatorial Vote |
||
|
“In the 1998 gubernatorial election, did you vote
for Jesse Ventura, Norm Coleman, Herbert H. Humphrey, some other candidate or
did you not vote?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Ventura |
210 |
34 |
|
Coleman |
122 |
19 |
|
Humphrey |
108 |
17 |
|
Other |
25 |
4 |
|
Did Not Vote |
122 |
19 |
|
Don’t Know |
18 |
3 |
|
Refused |
24 |
4 |
|
Total |
624 |
100 |
The first specific role investigated is Chief Legislator. An examination of Table 3
shows that 59 percent of the respondents suggested that Governor Ventura’s
performance is either excellent or pretty good. Of those respondents, 50 percent rated Ventura’s performance as a
leader of the legislature as pretty good.
Twenty percent of the respondents rated Ventura’s performance as only
fair and ten percent give Ventura’s performance a poor rating. Almost everyone interviewed had an opinion
about Ventura’s performance. Only four
percent could not rate Ventura’s performance as a leader of the
legislature.
|
Table 3: Governor’s
Role as Chief Legislator |
||
|
“One role is chief legislator, which is the ability
and success in initiating legislative programs, working with the state legislature,
and signing or vetoing bills sent them by the legislature. Would you rate Governor Ventura’s
performance as chief legislator as excellent, pretty good, only fair or
poor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Excellent |
57 |
9 |
|
Pretty Good |
309 |
50 |
|
Only Fair |
171 |
27 |
|
Poor |
61 |
10 |
|
Don’t Know |
26 |
4 |
|
Total |
624 |
100 |
The data clearly suggests the average
Minnesotan is satisfied with the job Ventura is doing as chief legislator. Unfortunately, follow up was not possible
with the respondents to inquire why they evaluate Ventura’s performance so
high. We speculate Minnesotan’s
evaluate Ventura’s performance high for several reasons. One, most Minnesotans received a tax rebate
each of the past two years. A causal
reading of newspaper letters to editors shows most Minnesotans associate the
rebates with action taken by Ventura.
Two, the successes he has achieved, such as preserving commuter rail in
the Twin Cities and increasing new housing construction for low-income
families, have compelled Minnesotans to evaluate Ventura’s performance as
favorable.
In some respects, the high rating
Ventura received is extraordinary.
After all, Ventura’s legislative agenda is rather thin. He tends to make grand announcements, such
as the Big Plan and the unicameral
legislature, but lacks a follow through.
In terms of Ventura’s working relationship with the legislature, he has
had several notable failures. Ventura’s
choice to lead the consolidation of two cabinet agencies, Steve Minn, was
rejected by the state senate and he had more vetoes overridden than any post
war Governor. Tables 3-7 shows that of
the five roles, Ventura’s second lowest rating is as chief legislator.
The second role investigated is Chief Executive. Similar to Governor
Ventura as Minnesota’s chief legislature, Minnesotans rate Ventura’s
performance, as the chief executive of
Minnesota very favorable. Table 4 shows
that eleven percent of the respondents rated Ventura’s performance as chief
executive as excellent, 50 percent gave his performance a pretty good rating,
27 percent rated him as only fair and only seven percent gave him a poor
evaluation. Only five percent indicated
they did not know enough about Ventura’s performance as chief executive to rate
him.
|
Table 4: Governor’s
Role as Chief Executive |
||
|
“Another role is chief executive, which is the
ability and success in coordinating the state’s bureaucracy, overseeing the preparation
of the state’s budget, and supervising major state programs. Would you rate Governor Ventura’s
performance as chief executive as excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Excellent |
67 |
11 |
|
Pretty Good |
312 |
50 |
|
Only Fair |
170 |
27 |
|
Poor |
44 |
7 |
|
Don’t Know |
33 |
5 |
|
Total |
626 |
100 |
The first question to come to mind is
why did 61 percent of Minnesotans interviewed give Ventura’s performance as chief
executive an excellent or pretty good rating.
His first two-year budget, submitted shortly after taking office, was
increased only for the rate of inflation.
Previous budgets were often increased at a rate higher than for annual
inflation. Ventura was able to
successfully assemble a cabinet. He
argued that party affiliation, race, and gender were not factors in his choices
for potential commissioners. Instead,
he sought highly trained, professional individuals to serve in this
cabinet. Most observers of the
Minnesota Capitol agree that Ventura assembled and has maintained a highly
qualified cabinet. Ventura’s
commissioners seem to have the power to manage their departments almost
completely unencumbered from Governor Ventura and have his full support
provided they stay within general operating parameters. Except for Ventura’s initial choice to lead
the Department of Natural Resources and the trouble his designee, Steve Minn,
ran into during the consolidation of the Departments of Commerce and Public
Service, Ventura has not encountered any problems with his cabinet appointees.
In terms of the operation of the state
bureaucracy, several problems have surfaced and they have not blemished
Ventura’s management record. For
example, near the end of the 1999-2000 K-12 school year, the state administered
high school graduation tests. A number
of students, who thought they passed, and therefore graduate, were notified
they failed. As it turned out, they
indeed passed but the firm the Department of Education and Learning Services
contracted with to administer the tests reported the students had failed and
thus they did not graduate. After
several parents sought to learn why their children failed, it was determined
that the firm had not scored some of the student tests correctly. At first, it seemed that the Ventura
administration was at fault, but the contract was let prior to Ventura taking
office and Ventura was able to deflect criticism arguing that he and his staff
was not responsible.
Third, Governor Ventura’s role as Commander in Chief is examined. Of the five roles investigated, Governor
Ventura received his highest performance grade for his role as commander in
chief. The second highest role
performance is chief diplomat. In terms
of commander in chief, 71 percent of the respondents gave him an excellent or
pretty good rating. Of those, 20
percent gave him an excellent and 51 percent gave in a pretty good rating. Twelve percent indicated that his
performance was only fair and four percent noted his performance was poor. Interestingly, 13 percent could not rate
Ventura performance as commander in chief.
This particular finding is not a surprise; much of what a governor does,
as commander in chief, is not a public activity.
|
Table 5: Governor’s
Role as Commander in Chief |
||
|
“Another role is commander in chief, which is the
ability and success in using the state national guard and other law
enforcement agencies in situation such as natural disasters like tornadoes,
strikes, and possible civil disputes.
Would you rate Governor Ventura’s performance as commander in chief as
excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Excellent |
123 |
20 |
|
Pretty Good |
316 |
51 |
|
Only Fair |
74 |
12 |
|
Poor |
23 |
4 |
|
Don’t Know |
82 |
13 |
|
Total |
618 |
100 |
At the same time, Ventura called out
the Minnesota Guard to participate in two emergency preparedness exercises at
nuclear facilities. He also used the Minnesota
Guard to help search of several lost individuals. In one instance, the individual was a kidnapped victim, and that
case received extensive publicity. He
called out the Guard to help with several disasters and they received favorable
publicity. Additionally, President
Clinton nationalized one of the Minnesota Guard units in 1999. Battery E of the 151st Field
Artillery, served in Kosovo for seven months.
Ventura participated in the embarkation activities and ceremonies. Although important, these activities do not
seem strong enough to compel the extraordinarily high performance rating
Ventura received.
We suggest that Ventura’s rating in
this area of his performance is particularly due to the entertainer persona of
Ventura. He often wears tee shirts,
hats, and coats from his service in the U.S. Navy SEALs. During his inauguration, his SEAL training
officer was on the speaker’s platform.
Ventura ended this inaugural speech with a SEAL rally cry and often concludes press conferences with that same
utterance. Ventura made his first
choice as commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources solely on the
basis that the individual also served in the SEALs. In Ventura’s autobiography, significant amount of the text is
devoted to his service in the SEALs. In
other words, Ventura uses his military past as part of his gubernatorial
persona. Does it have anything
significant to do with governing Minnesota?
No.
Next, we inquired about Governor
Ventura as the state’s Political Leader. The lowest performance rating Ventura
received of the five roles was for his job as political leader. Fifty three percent of the respondents gave
Ventura an excellent or pretty good rating.
Of those, 16 percent rated Ventura excellent and 37 percent gave him a
pretty good rating. Thirty percent gave
his political leadership abilities an only fair rating, while 14 percent gave
him a poor rating. Only three percent
could not rate Ventura’s performance as the state political leader.
|
Table 6: Governor’s
Role as Political Leader |
||
|
“Another role is that of political leader, which is
the ability and success in leading their political party, setting the
political agenda for the state, and helping lead and shape Minnesota public
opinion. Would you rate Governor
Ventura’s performance as political leader as excellent, pretty good, only
fair or poor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Excellent |
97 |
16 |
|
Pretty Good |
233 |
37 |
|
Only Fair |
188 |
30 |
|
Poor |
90 |
14 |
|
Don’t Know |
17 |
3 |
|
Total |
625 |
100 |
There can be no doubt, Ventura’s
success as leader of his political party is at best, mixed. Jesse Ventura ran for governor as a Reform
Party member. When the supporters of Pat
Buchanan took over the Reform Party, Ventura felt compelled to disassociate
himself from the party and reorganized the Minnesota Independence Party. How well Governor Ventura leads the
Independence Party will be determined in the coming years. So far, Ventura is the only member of his
party to enjoy electoral success. We
speculate this has harmed Ventura’s performance rating.
In this congressional election cycle,
several Independence Party candidates sought office. Not one was successful.
Two candidates ran for high profile offices, the U.S. Senate and in the
Fourth Congressional district. The
Senate candidate, James Gibson, seemed capable but lacked political experience
and had almost no campaign funds. He
received six percent of the vote. The Congressional
district candidate, Thomas Foley, a former DFLer and a very popular prosecutor
for Ramsey County had a long political resume but only limited campaign
funds. He placed a distant third behind
the DFL winner and her Republican challenger.
Governor Ventura was able to recruit
seven candidates to run for seats in the Minnesota Senate. All of them lost their election bids. On average, they each received seven percent
of the vote. In the Minnesota House, 21
Independent Party candidates ran. Two
of the 21 finished second in their respective races but the remaining 19
finished third and, on average, each received eight percent of the votes
cast. Thus, once again, Ventura will
face a Minnesota Legislature without a single party supporter. This can only harm his ability to transform
his policy agenda into law.
It is important to mention that this
was the first election for candidates representing the Independence Party. It may take several election cycles before Independence
Party candidates are known enough to successfully win office. It is common for candidates to seek office
several times before they are successful.
Mark Dayton had previously sought a seat in the Senate and in 1998 had
unsuccessfully run for governor.
Finally, the SCSU Survey asked about
Ventura as the state’s Chief Diplomat. Governor Ventura’s performance rating as
chief diplomat is the second highest of the five investigated. Twenty eight percent of the respondent
indicated Ventura is performing at an excellent level as chief diplomat. Forty-two percent noted he is a pretty good
diplomat, while 18 percent noted is diplomatic performance is only fair. Of all respondents, only seven percent think
his work in this area is poor and five percent are unable to judge his
performance.
|
Table 7: Governor’s
Role as Chief Diplomat |
||
|
“Another role is chief diplomat, which is the
ability and success in dealing with foreign governments and businesses, other
governors, Congress, and the President I promoting Minnesota trade and
industry. Would you rate Governor
Ventura’s performance as chief diplomat as excellent, pretty good, only fair
or poor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Excellent |
173 |
28 |
|
Pretty Good |
266 |
42 |
|
Only Fair |
115 |
18 |
|
Poor |
41 |
7 |
|
Don’t Know |
32 |
5 |
|
Total |
627 |
100 |
Governor Ventura’s interactions with
other government officials began soon after his election and before he took
office. He attended a training session
for newly elected governors and his celebrity status earned him significant
national media exposure. Did other
governors seek his counsel? No. Did that matter to the average Minnesota
voter? No. What mattered is that they saw their governor on national TV more
often in a few days then they had their previous governor in eight years.
Soon after taking office, Ventura
traveled to Japan to meet with officials about ensuring Minnesota products and
produce have a market in Japan. His
trip received extensive coverage on local television and in the print
media. Did Ventura and his advisors
solidify many trade agreements with the Japanese during the trip? No.
Did they oversee the formalization of existing agreements between
Minnesota and Japanese companies?
Yes. During the summer of 2000,
Ventura took a similar trip to Canada that obtained the same results. Minnesota media however did not cover this
trip nearly as extensively as the trip to Japan. In the fall of 2000, Ventura traveled to Mexico. Again, the work was largely symbolic.
Ventura met several times during the
first two years of his term with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al
Gore. Ventura appeared before a
congressional subcommittee and gave testimony on how milk price supports
benefited eastern dairy farmers to the harm of Minnesota dairy producers. In many respects, Ventura has only had
successes in this area. We think that
Minnesotans like to see their governor visit the White House, stay in the
Lincoln bedroom, visit foreign countries and other American cities. Whether these trips result in substantive
policy agreements is somewhat irrelevant.
As long as Ventura does not commit a gross error of judgment regarding
where he visits and clearly does not use these trips as state financed
vacations, most everyone in Minnesota will evaluate his travels and diplomatic
endeavors favorable.
Table 8 shows that the
strong evaluation Minnesota gives Governor Ventura for his role performance would
result in his reelection. Forty seven
percent of our respondents indicated they would vote for Governor Ventura’s
reelection. We think this data speaks
for itself!
|
Table 8: Voting
for Jesse Ventura |
||
|
“If the election for governor were held today,
would you vote for Jesse Ventura as Governor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Yes |
290 |
47 |
|
No |
221 |
36 |
|
Not Sure/Don’t Know |
107 |
17 |
|
Total |
618 |
100 |
Finally, we asked our respondents to rate Governor Ventura’s overall performance as Governor of Minnesota. Table 9 shows that 63 percent of Minnesotans think Governor Ventura is performing at the excellent or pretty good level. We asked this question in November 1999, and found 55 percent of Minnesotans rated his overall performance as excellent or pretty good. The November 1999 survey was conducted about one month following the publication of now infamous Playboy interview. Clearly, in the past year, Minnesotans have pardoned Governor Ventura’s for his comments to the Playboy interviewer and are once again rewarding his performance. The St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minnesota Poll have reported similar findings.
|
Table 9: Overall Rating of Jesse Ventura as Governor
|
||
|
“How would you rate the overall performance of
Jesse Ventura as Governor; excellent, pretty good, only fair or poor?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Excellent |
77 |
12 |
|
Pretty Good |
318 |
51 |
|
Only Fair |
175 |
28 |
|
Poor |
51 |
8 |
|
Don’t Know |
6 |
1 |
|
Total |
627 |
100 |
The data presented in this report
clearly shows that Minnesotans are favorable toward their governor. Jesse Ventura entered office with remarkable
high favorable ratings. Except for a brief
dip after his now infamous Playboy interview,
he has maintained extraordinary high favorable ratings. We suggest that Ventura’s favorable ratings
will remain high unless he commits a major error of judgment that shows the
public he is simply unfit to govern. We
do not think his recently announced job with the XFL rises to that level. We also think that if Ventura runs for and
wins a second term, his favorable ratings will decline. We suggest that during a second term, the
voters will evaluate Venture as a trained and seasoned professional
politician. For now, however, Ventura
is one of the most popular governors to serve the state of Minnesota. Table 10 confirms this statement.
|
Table
10: 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.” (Interviewers do not tell the respondent who the
person is or any information about the person.) |
|
Person |
Mean Response |
Frequency of Don’t Know/ Can’t Judge |
Number of Responses Mean is Based On |
|
Bill Clinton |
46 |
12 |
617 |
|
Rod Grams |
46 |
73 |
556 |
|
Paul Wellstone |
51 |
59 |
570 |
|
Terry Ventura |
62 |
103 |
526 |
|
Al Gore |
49 |
21 |
608 |
|
Pat Buchanan |
31 |
113 |
516 |
|
Jesse Ventura |
60 |
8 |
621 |
|
Norm Coleman |
55 |
110 |
519 |
|
George W. Bush |
52 |
24 |
605 |
|
Mark Dayton |
52 |
106 |
532 |
|
James Gibson |
48 |
485 |
114 |
|
Ralph Nader |
49 |
126 |
503 |
|
Survey Total |
|
|
629 |
II.
12/13 ANNUAL STATE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA SURVEY
IV. Legislative Agenda Substantive Findings
The
SCSU Survey is initiating its annual fall legislative agenda survey. We plan to ask a scientifically selected (random)
sample of Minnesota adults about various issues that either didn’t receive full
attention by the state legislature the immediate past spring session and seem
to deserve a revisit or new issues that have come to our attention. This year, we asked about a diverse group of
issues.
We
had taken notice that some cities across Minnesota are thinking about
installing photocop at some of their busy intersections. Table 2 shows that Minnesotans are very
mixed about whether they would like to see the installation of photocops
at intersections in their communities.
During
the immediate past legislative session, the legislature debated imposing felony
penalties for repeat Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) convictions. The debate centered on the number of DWI
convictions before felony charges would be levied and the cost to the taxpayer
for incarnation of those convicted of felony DWI. We are led to believe that the legislature in the 2001 session
will consider imposing felony charges after the fourth DWI conviction in a
ten-year period. The data presented in
Table 3 shows that 44 percent of our respondents think that after someone has
two DWI convictions, that person should be charged with a felony. Of all the respondents, 93 percent indicated
that after three DWI convictions a felony charge is appropriate.
A
second question we asked about driving, asked respondents to evaluate how
dangerous it is to drink and drive. We
asked the respondents to rate drinking and driving on a 0 to 10 scale, with 0
indicating not dangerous and 10 indicating very dangerous. As we expected, most respondents (64%)
indicated that drinking and driving is very dangerous. The mean response for this question is
8.9. We asked this question to obtain a
rating drinking and driving, but it was also asked to develop a benchmark to
allow us to rate how dangerous other activities are while driving.
To
that end, we asked the respondents to rate, on a scale of 0 to 10, how
dangerous it is to use a hand held cell telephone while driving in
traffic. Over 90 percent of the
respondents, on the 0 to 10 scale rated talking on a cell telephone in traffic
as a five. Compared to drinking and
driving, where 64 percent gave that activity a “10”, 29 percent rated talking
on a cell telephone in traffic as very dangerous and rated it a “10”. The mean rating is 7.37.
Next,
we asked about one of the most significant potential changes in state education
policy that might be implemented in the past 30 years. That is, replacing the local property tax as
a source of local public education financing with a statewide sales tax. Although a monumental potential policy
proposal, Minnesotans are not clear on whether the change is advised. Forty-five percent of the respondents agree
with the proposal but 42 disagree. It
is important to note that 13 percent of the respondents are unsure of don’t
know if they agree or disagree with replacing the local property tax with an
increased state sales tax so the state may fully finance local public
education.
Finally,
we asked if smoking should be prohibited in restaurants and bars that serve
food. Although several cities across
Minnesota have passed city ordinances to prohibit smoking in restaurants, the
general population of Minnesota remains mixed in terms of this sort of
action. Fifty-six percent of our
respondents agree that smoking in restaurants should be prohibited, but 40
percent disagree with imposing such a rule.
|
Table 2: “Photocop” Traffic Devices |
||
|
“Do you think cities in Minnesota should be allowed
to install ‘photocop’ cameras, which snap photographs of vehicles that pass
through an intersection after the stop light has turned red so that citations
could be automatically issued to the owner of the vehicle?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
Yes |
303 |
49 |
|
No |
294 |
47 |
|
Not Sure/Don’t Know |
29 |
4 |
|
Total |
626 |
100 |
|
Table 3: Felony
Penalties for DWI Offenses |
||
“After how many DWI offenses would you support felony
level penalties for DWI offenders?” |
||
|
RESPONSE |
FREQUENCY |
PERCENT |
|
One DWI Offense |
189 |
30 |
|
Two DWI Offenses |
274 |
44 |
|
Three DWI Offenses |
117 |
19 |
|
Four DWI Offenses |
10 |
2 |
|
Five DWI Offenses |
4 |
0 |
|
More Than Five DWI Offenses |
3 |
0 |
|
None- There should never
be a DWI Felony Level Penalty |
9 |
1 |
|
Not Sure |
22 |
4 |
|
Total |
628 |
100 |
|
|