Posted on 06/03/2003 8:06:33 AM PDT by rhema
Gov. Tim Pawlenty's many successes with the Legislature this year — following the large Republican gains in the 2002 state elections — reveal big changes in Minnesota politics. But are these changes a blip, or a lasting alteration in the basic fabric of the state's public life?
At minimum, they are a very big blip. The GOP changed state policy on carrying handguns, instituted a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and enacted unprecedented large cuts in spending to achieve budget balance.
But Minnesota has experienced conservative waves in state government in the past. Recall the 1978 "Minnesota Massacre" of the DFL that swept Republican Al Quie into the governorship and won the GOP control of the state House. In 1990, Arne Carlson upset Rudy Perpich and sought to moderate the spending impulses of the DFL-controlled Legislature.
Both of those Republican governors faced large budget shortfalls, and both accepted significant tax increases in order to solve the problem. This year, Pawlenty has not, despite criticism from both Quie and Carlson. Pawlenty's response to them is instructive. He notes that it is not 1970 or 1990, but 2003. Pawlenty claims a new, more conservative era has finally dawned in state politics.
If that trend has dawned and is to persist, Minnesota voters will have to support it over time. A look at trends in the 2002 Minnesota vote can help us determine the likely durability of the conservative shift. Employing data from a project on Minnesota public life now under way at Carleton College, we can examine those trends in some depth.
The GOP victory in 2002 probably will be more durable if it was rooted in areas with high population change, high turnout and younger voters. It is likely a fluke if it came from older voters located in declining population counties with lighter turnout.
Our geographical analysis of the 2002 vote points clearly in the direction of durable change in support of the GOP. Pawlenty's vote totals show a substantial trend of increase in high population growth and high-income counties. In the large suburban "doughnut" surrounding Hennepin and Ramsey counties, Pawlenty received a majority of all votes cast.
Using a statistical technique of "ecological inference" created by Professor Gary King of Harvard University, we were able to estimate statewide voting support for Pawlenty among differing demographic groups. By these estimates, Pawlenty had his strongest showings — just over 48 percent support — among those under 65 and among those with a bachelor's degree or higher. These are disproportionately the voters of Minnesota's future.
Roger Moe's support in 2002 was the mirror opposite of Pawlenty's. Moe's vote shows a substantial trend of decrease in growing counties and high-turnout counties. He fared best with voters over 65 and those without bachelor's degrees. Moe finished third among college-educated voters — behind Pawlenty and Independence Party candidate Tim Penny. Green Party candidate Ken Pentel, in a troubling contrast for the DFL, also did best in high growth counties.
If these trends persist, Minnesota is in the midst of a big shift to the GOP. Several complications, though, may prevent that outcome.
Penny's vote was heavily concentrated in his former congressional district and among college-educated voters. Will this large swing group head toward the GOP?
It could be that as voters age, they may well trend toward the DFL as they depend on more government benefits. This "life cycle" theory holds hope for the DFL. An alternative explanation holds that early generational experiences brand age groups with distinct voting patterns throughout their lives. Nationally, for example, older voters are more Republican than they were 15 years ago, as those who grew up in the more conservative 1950s are replacing those who came of age during the Democratic New Deal of the 1930s.
Future months will no doubt feature Democratic politicians highlighting negative aspects of the GOP budget cuts to move the "swing" segment of 2002 Penny voters into their ranks. The durability of a GOP trend will depend on how important groups of voters, such as younger, highly educated suburbanites, view the consequences of the new conservative policies.
If more concealed weapons produce a surge in gun violence and the public is widely disturbed by stories of human privation resulting from harsh cuts, the big Republican trend may well shrink to a blip. But if the public does not find the GOP policy changes distasteful, the GOP may remain in the driver's seat for some years to come.
That would produce a lasting "climate change" in Minnesota politics.
Schier and Johnson teach at Carleton College in Northfield. For more information on the Minnesota Social Capital Project that produced the data analyzed in this column, contact Johnson at bnjohnso@Carleton.edu.
To be fair, they focused exclusively on state matters and didn't discuss federal matters at all, like Dayton's reelect chances, Oberstar/Peterson pro-life Democrats, etc.
The DFL is the Democrat-Farmer-Labor Party (or something to that effect). It is a relic from an earlier era, but aligned with the national Democrat party.
My model of the parties is that the Democrats get their votes predominantly from the bottom of the income distribution and from the top of the the income distribution--from the inner cities and the toney suburbs. The two groups form a pincer against the middle class, which reacts by supporting the Republican Party.The low-income Democrats naturally don't contribute a lot to their party--don't even contribute to it at all, actually. So ironically the Democratic "party of the little guy" depends on larger donations from fewer, fatter cats than the Republican Party does.
This model agrees with the above quotation except that it suggests greater Democratic strength among those with more than a batchelor's degree.
You're correct about that.
A couple Iron Range democrats thinking of caucusing with the GOP :)
I once saw a demographic breakdown of dems and Republicans. I don't remember where it was, but I do remember this great line. The democrats are the party of both the under educated and the over-educated. I think that is a perfect description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.