BY: LISA GROVES, GROVE INSIGHTS

This analysis is based on 600 interviews among registered voters in Minnesota. The survey was conducted April 22-25, 2009. A voter file sample was used and the data set reflects the true partisan, age, gender and geographic composition of the electorate. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points at the 95% level of confidence.

Nearly six in 10 (59%) believe that Norm Coleman should concede to Al Franken. Only one-third (34%) do not feel Coleman should throw in the towel and another 7% are undecided. Even a significant number of self-identified Republicans (34%) are ready for Coleman to call it quits.

This may be due, in part, to the fact that nearly the same percentage – 61% -- believe the recount process has been “fair, impartial, accurate and carried out according to Minnesota law.” With less than one-quarter (24%) now questioning the process, it is clear that voters are ready to move on. Indeed, even a large number of self-identified Republicans (40%) believe the process has been fair, while self-identified Democrats (78%) and Independents (60%) are even more likely to feel this way.

A majority is also now convinced that Franken was the victor last November. Well over half (54%) believe Franken won the election. One-quarter (26%) are now of the opinion that Coleman pulled it off. Less than one in five believe the two contenders either tied (5%) or are unsure of who came out ahead (14%). While voters are a bit more divided on whether or not they back Coleman’s legal challenge (42% favor, 50% oppose), it is clear they want this saga to be over and Franken in the Senate. Keep in mind that those who “strongly” oppose Coleman’s legal challenge (41%) outnumber “strong” supporters (29%) by a 12 point margin.

Lest we not forget, Minnesotans are still paying attention. Two-thirds (67%) are following the recount and court cases at least “somewhat closely” with one-quarter even more intent in their tracking of this issue (25% “very closely”).

Voters adopt a no-nonsense view of why Pawlenty should sign the certificate once the Minnesota Supreme court makes a final decision. When asked to provide the best reason for Pawlenty to sign a certificate declaring a winner from a list offered to them, the three top reasons include: a) the Supreme Court should have the final say (26%); b) Franken won (23%); and c) according to state law, it is Governor Pawlenty’s responsibility (22%).

Governor Pawlenty and the Recount

Tim Pawlenty remains a fairly popular figure (50% favorable, 29% unfavorable). Though Minnesota voters give the Governor net negative job approval ratings, which are often a better measure of electoral strength.

The Governor’s negative approval ratings approach a majority (48%) and are four points higher than his positive job numbers (44%). In sharp contrast, President Obama is both better liked (64% favorable, 19% unfavorable), and receives positive approval ratings from a large majority of the electorate right now (58% positive, 32% negative).

What ought to be of concern to Governor Pawlenty is the fallout should he refuse to sign a certificate of election. A clear majority (58%) believe that failure to certify Franken after the Minnesota Supreme Court rules raises at least “somewhat serious doubts” about Tim Pawlenty. This number grows to 64% when voters are told that the governor is legally required to sign an election certificate. In fact, even four in 10 (40%) self-identified Republicans say they would have “serious doubts” with their Republican Governor should he fail to sign an election certificate after the Minnesota Supreme Court rules.

When given two opposing viewpoints, nearly half the electorate ascribe to the view that Pawlenty’s motivations are not based on legitimate concerns about the process, but a desire to play partisan politics and help conservative Republicans in Congress. In fact, Minnesota voters are more likely to see the failure to certify as an emblem of Pawlenty’s ambition than they are to believe that he prudently is waiting for the matter to be resolved in the federal courts.

 

READ THE MEMO »