Tim Pawlenty Pulls Even With Barack Obama in Minnesota

This is interesting, and has to do with a lot more than Pawlenty’s home-court advantage in Minnesota, one of the bluest blue states out there in terms of Presidential politics.

Ed Morrissey dives into the poll numbers at Hot Air:

For Pawlenty, his strong performance in a state-wide poll is rather remarkable, since Democrats here have been trying to dump blame on him for the current budget impasse in order to deflect criticism of the in-over-his-head new governor, Mark Dayton. . . . Most impressively, Pawlenty comes within four points of Obama among Twin Cities voters, which are usually a Democratic stronghold. He also wins all other regions, including an 11-point margin in southern Minnesota, which is represented by Democrats in Congress . . .

However, another way to look at this is that Obama has suddenly become very, very vulnerable in a state where he should be showing considerable strength. Despite efforts in the last three electoral cycles by national conservative organizations, Minnesota hasn’t come very close to going red in a presidential election. Upper Midwestern progressivism still thrives in Minnesota, even if it has seriously waned in Wisconsin. Republicans didn’t win a single state-wide office in the 2010 elections despite taking control of both chambers of the state legislature and scoring an upset in MN-08 with Chip Cravaack’s win over 18-term Rep. Jim Oberstar. Now, suddenly, Obama can’t score better than a tie against a candidate who has yet to gain significant national traction?

If I was Tim Pawlenty, I’d be encouraged by these results. If I was in Obama’s White House, I’d be very, very worried about them.

This seems fundamentally correct: the numbers are good for Pawlenty, but quite startling for the President. Morrissey has a lot more analysis–and a mini-roundup–at the link, so read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Jeffrey Goldberg has a decent profile of Pawlenty here.

About Joy McCann

Joy McCann has been blogging since the spring of 2003. She's an accomplished editor of cookbooks, Harley-Davidson guides, gun catalogs, and interior design magazines. Her online publications include everything from corporate blogs to articles on spirituality.

View all posts by Joy McCann →

Sandeni on November 18, 2012 at 11:12 pm said:

I did find it somewhat isnreentitg that Dr. Paul asserts that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and as part of his evidence is CIA assertions. This seems rather stranger. Part of the rationale for the Iraq invasion was based upon CIA assessments. Also, the CIA failed to prevent the 911 attacks. Given CIA’s dismal track recrod, why does Dr. Paul trust them to assess Iran’s nuclear program. If we assume they erred with regards to Iraq, then how do we know they haven’t erred with regards to Iran? If they allowed themselves to be used to support a political agenda with regards to Iraq, how do we know the conclusion that Iran does not have a viable nuclear weapons progarm is not an assertion based upon a political agenda rather than reality?Dr. Paul asserts that Iran wants nuclear weapons because surrounding powers do and America has no right to try and prevent this. While there may be some truth to the notion that Iran wants such weapons for the puropses of security and his assertions probably scored well with audience, there are sound reasons why we might not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. After all, Iran’s calling card is “death to America” and “death to Israel.” As such, such a weapon in their hands might be a grave concern. Unfortunately most Americans are wholly unaware of Iran’s calling card. As I’ve stated before, for any kind of aggressive confrontation with Iran to be successful, the narrative on this conflict will have to be changed. For Iran at least, this appears to go far beyond any coup in early 1950s and how much involvement America had in that. While the exchange between Mr. Santorum and Dr. Paul was quite isnreentitg, a discussion of American policy toward Iran is virtually impossible to address in a debate format. The issues involved are simply to complex to be covered in such a limited time as a debate format presents. Until the narrative regarding the Iranian/American conflict can be confronted and altered, our only real choice, as it appears to me, is to withdraw all of our forces from the Middle East and elsewhere in the world and redeploy them to our borders where at least they will have a fighting chance to defend our country. Finally, I would not necessarily be opposed to the use of a format such as the ICC to settle the issues regarding the Iranian/American conflict, however, there are several issues that will need to be addressed first. 1.)Given the rampant Anti-Americanism and the media bias against America and its interests, how can we ensure that America gets a fair trial? 2.)Should the court decide in favor of America or at least in favor of America on some issues and conclude that Iran needs to perform service, pay resitution or something as part of a judgement, how can we ensure Iranian compliance with the orders of the court? 3.)Given the massive power and reach of Russia and China who are close allies of Iran and the fact that Europe is heavily dependent upon Russia for its oil, there is a large potential for Russia, China, or both of them to bribe or blackmail members of the court and/or the governments of the nations from which they are from. How can we ensure this does not happen. It comes back to issue 1 of ensuring that America gets a fair trial. At a minimum, these issues would have to be seriously addressed before I could support going forward with using a forum like the International Criminal Court or something like this to settle this confilct.

3 comments

Toggle Comments

Rocketman on June 27, 2011 at 9:08 pm said:


I’ve got my eye on Pawlenty, and am at least willing to listen; which is more than I can say for Romney, Huntsman, or Paul. He’s saying a lot of the right things these days, and willing to admit to the mistaken positions of his past; though, like Mitch Daniels, I’ll forgive a former governor for catering to the constituents of his state. Unfortuately, also like Daniels he has a serious Charisma deficit to overcome when speaking publicly. Which, is ironic, since he does so well in interviews…

Glenn Mark Cassel on June 28, 2011 at 2:19 am said:

Gotta go with Rocketman on some of this…….. Pawlenty is on a roll and to me much more open and above board than Romney, Huntsman or Ron Paul. Possibly a good running mate for Michelle Bachmann. Can ya’ll see where I am going? Starting to like Mrs. Bachmann, a lot, as a presidential candidate.

Sandeni on November 18, 2012 at 11:12 pm said:


I did find it somewhat isnreentitg that Dr. Paul asserts that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and as part of his evidence is CIA assertions. This seems rather stranger. Part of the rationale for the Iraq invasion was based upon CIA assessments. Also, the CIA failed to prevent the 911 attacks. Given CIA’s dismal track recrod, why does Dr. Paul trust them to assess Iran’s nuclear program. If we assume they erred with regards to Iraq, then how do we know they haven’t erred with regards to Iran? If they allowed themselves to be used to support a political agenda with regards to Iraq, how do we know the conclusion that Iran does not have a viable nuclear weapons progarm is not an assertion based upon a political agenda rather than reality?Dr. Paul asserts that Iran wants nuclear weapons because surrounding powers do and America has no right to try and prevent this. While there may be some truth to the notion that Iran wants such weapons for the puropses of security and his assertions probably scored well with audience, there are sound reasons why we might not want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. After all, Iran’s calling card is “death to America” and “death to Israel.” As such, such a weapon in their hands might be a grave concern. Unfortunately most Americans are wholly unaware of Iran’s calling card. As I’ve stated before, for any kind of aggressive confrontation with Iran to be successful, the narrative on this conflict will have to be changed. For Iran at least, this appears to go far beyond any coup in early 1950s and how much involvement America had in that. While the exchange between Mr. Santorum and Dr. Paul was quite isnreentitg, a discussion of American policy toward Iran is virtually impossible to address in a debate format. The issues involved are simply to complex to be covered in such a limited time as a debate format presents. Until the narrative regarding the Iranian/American conflict can be confronted and altered, our only real choice, as it appears to me, is to withdraw all of our forces from the Middle East and elsewhere in the world and redeploy them to our borders where at least they will have a fighting chance to defend our country. Finally, I would not necessarily be opposed to the use of a format such as the ICC to settle the issues regarding the Iranian/American conflict, however, there are several issues that will need to be addressed first. 1.)Given the rampant Anti-Americanism and the media bias against America and its interests, how can we ensure that America gets a fair trial? 2.)Should the court decide in favor of America or at least in favor of America on some issues and conclude that Iran needs to perform service, pay resitution or something as part of a judgement, how can we ensure Iranian compliance with the orders of the court? 3.)Given the massive power and reach of Russia and China who are close allies of Iran and the fact that Europe is heavily dependent upon Russia for its oil, there is a large potential for Russia, China, or both of them to bribe or blackmail members of the court and/or the governments of the nations from which they are from. How can we ensure this does not happen. It comes back to issue 1 of ensuring that America gets a fair trial. At a minimum, these issues would have to be seriously addressed before I could support going forward with using a forum like the International Criminal Court or something like this to settle this confilct.

The Necropolitan Sentinel