Posted on 09/13/2007 2:23:39 PM PDT by shrinkermd
In Minnesota, Senator Hillary Clinton (D) holds double digit leads over each of the top three Republican Presidential candidates. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found Clinton leading Fred Thompson by 11 (51% to 40%), Rudy Giuliani by 13 (50% to 37%), and Mitt Romney by 18 (52% to 34%).
Bill Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner’s husband, won the state’s 10 Electoral College votes twice by double digits in the 1990s.
In fact, Minnesota has voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate in eight straight elections. That’s a longer streak than any other state in the union because Minnesota was the only state to vote for Democrat Walter Mondale in Ronald Reagan's 1984 re-election landslide. Still, the Democratic margin has been shrinking in recent years. George W. Bush came within three points of John Kerry in the state during Election 2004 and he lost Minnesota to Al Gore by just two points in Election 2000.
...In a pattern seen in many other states, Clinton does much better among women than men. In Minnesota, she leads the three Republicans among women by margins ranging from 23 to 27 percentage points. Among men, Thompson has a four-point edge over Clinton while the Democrat has a narrow lead over the other Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
I wonder who Massachusetts favors for President?
Isn’t this the grand state that gave us a muslim congressman that demanded to be sworn in using a koran????
I was only a kid when he ran against Reagan, but I learned to despise Mondale in the 2002 senate debate with Norm Coleman when he kept refering to Norm Coleman as "Norman" As my father used to say about Larry Appleton, "What an a$$"!
Cause there idiots?
That’s just a lucky guess.
So glad we are holding the GOP convention in the land of lakes.
I’ve long wondered why most GOP conventions are held in places that aren’t going to vote for whoever is nominated.
Speaking as a Californian, it pains me to say that both Minnesota and California, are lost causes, politically speaking.
It shouldn’t surprise us that the pro-abortion, pro-gay-rights, pro-gun-control, pro-illegal-alien Rudy does so poorly in Minnesota. Minnesota hasn’t voted for a GOP presidential nominee since 1972, but it is mostly due to economic issues-—it is a mostly pro-life state, and Democrats outside of the Twin Cities core tend to be fairly conservative on most other social issues as well. President George W. Bush was able to get votes from enough rural and blue-collar Democrats to get 46% and 48% in 2000 and 2004, respectively, and the only RAT presidential nominee in the past 30 years to win by a lower percentage than W’s two opponents was Fritz Mondale in the 1984 Reagan landslide (in which Mondale barely won his home state and lost the 49 others).
I think that the socially conservative Fred Thompson has a fighting chance of putting MN in the GOP column, especially if he picks MN Governor Pawlenty as his runningmate. Rudy would do better than most Republicans in Minneapolis and a few liberal suburbs, but would get trounced in the rest of the state. The fact that Rudy is already losing worse than Thompson before voters even find out the extent of Rudy’s social liberalism (and all they know is that he was “America’s Mayor” during September 11) is a harbinger of what would happen not only in MN, but throughout the Midwest and much of the South and border states, if the GOP commits the grievous mistake of nominating Rudy Giuliani for President.
In some places, liberal minded people move there because it’s a center of their interests or work.
For example, in San Francisco, most of the large homosexual community did not grow up there; they moved there as adults because they like it. Liberal minded people in the performing arts and publishing and network news gravitate to Manhattan and the New York area.
Not everyone in the big cities is liberal, but there are enough to tip the balance of elections.
I believe that it has to do with the communal nature of town life. Several years ago we moved to a townhouse in a small, but very old, Eastern city. It is solid lib. People here just look after each other and have come to expect that others will take care of them. I see this in all kinds of ways such as taking in a neighbor's trash can, or collecting packages, or shoveling snow. When we lived in more conservative, rural areas, the people were more self sufficient. I don't believe that city dwellers are more generous or considerate, I just think that they see themselves living in co dependence as opposed to self sufficiency.
LOL. The land where they love taxes and government nannyism.
#####I’ve never quite understood what it is about urban living that makes one a liberal.#####
Big cities are the storm drains of society. Criminals, perverts, freeloaders, and other such types gravitate to big cities because there are more people there to prey off of, sponge off of, meet up with for liaisons, etc. Academic type liberals also congragate in big cities (there are a few exceptions to this general rule, such as Vermont) because they’re “soft” and don’t like to be inconvenienced by things such as long drives to find a high-class boutique or hairdresser. Then, you have all the government employees, since big cities usually have huge work forces, plus federal and state agencies have their offices mostly situated in the larger cities.
Living out in the country or in small towns creates a degree of self-reliance, even in today’s nationwide welfare state. There’s no public transportation, fewer government jobs, etc.
As liberal as Minn. is, those numbers are amazing only in that Bill’s Wife isn’t polling much higher. I would have guessed 60%+, easy.
Because, he's good enough,
smart enough,
and doggonnit, people like him!
Yeah, well just wait until the General Election Campaign starts and they find out that her husband received oral sex from a young intern in the Oval Office.......oh......wait a minute. Never mind.
And don’t forget, there is also the poet laureate of Lake Wobegon, Garrison Keillor. Not just by himself, but whole generations of Minnesotans that have never even considered rethinking their prejudices.
Fritz Mondale was just the picture of Norwegian exuberance, so you have some measure how fixed they are in their daily lives.
I just asked my wife, "What comes to mind when you think of a Hillary Clinton presidency? Why do so many women support her?"
Answer: "On top of the fact that she is a socialist? I couldn't endorse a candidate who is enough of a political whore to let her husband get away with disgracing her like that. Someone willing to trade her dignity for political expediency? These women are so clouded by the idea of a first female president, that they are overlooking everything else. Is that the example we want to set for our girls, that they should just let men trample all over them and swallow their pride, because if they don't, they lose social status or, and, you know, close doors? And is that the sort of historical first we want, that a woman had to be the wife of a previous president, people electing her because of her husband? Anyone who supports her, just because she is a woman especially, is just...ughh"
Hey der!
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.