Minneapolis poll on local leaders and the ballot measures
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:48:33 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Minneapolis poll on local leaders and the ballot measures
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Minneapolis poll on local leaders and the ballot measures  (Read 421 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 22, 2021, 10:38:32 PM »

It's a pretty interesting: www.mprnews.org/story/2021/09/19/poll-support-for-frey-council-split

Main takeaways:

-Jacob Frey sits at 35-36 favorable/unfavorable ratings, with the City Council at 28-44. (No head to head mayoral numbers, possibly because they don't want to deal with polling IRV.)

That doesn't sound too hot for Frey on paper, but my anecdotal observations is that almost all of the people who are neither favorable or unfavorable but familiar with him are voting for him, due to his weak and easy to criticize opponents. I'm hearing all sorts of "Ugh I don't want to vote for Frey but his opponents are just sooooooooooo ridiculous" type things. Also he won both the Reddit and NextDoor polls easily with lots of people criticizing him but offering reluctant support in the comments. Standard grain of salt, etc. remarks about such polls applies obviously.

The three ballot questions were polled, although each more with a vague "do you support what this measure claims to do?" poll question instead of outright asking for the vote on it. Regardless:

-Question 1 would change the city government to a "strong mayor" system, and this is supported 47-28.
-Question 3 is a rent control measure, albeit a pretty milquetoast one, it doesn't implement any rent control policies itself, and merely empowers the City Council to pass "rent stabilization" measures. There is a rent control measure also up for vote in St. Paul but it actually implements policies and would be one of the strongest in the US if passed. Please note that both are on very dubious legal ground to Minnesota state law and would almost certainly be immediately challenged if passed. However when asked if the City Council should be allowed to "regulate rent on private property", 46% supported it to 39% opposed.

Meanwhile the most watched amendment got its own article: www.mprnews.org/story/2021/09/18/poll-shows-support-for-public-safety-amendment-but-not-for-cutting-police-force

-Question 2 would replace the Minneapolis Police Department with a new "Department of Public Safety" umbrella department that "may, if necessary" employ police which it now refers to as "peace officers" and abolish the City Charter's minimum staffing requirements. This description is supported 49-41. However actually shrinking the police department is opposed 55-29, with some interesting crosstabs:



It also shows the Minneapolis PD at 20 points net disapproval at 53-33, however Chief Arradondo is popular at 55 approve-22 disapprove.

The replace the police department question also has some interesting crosstabs:



Based on these, you'd expect all three ballot measures to be in a prime position to pass. However I'd be hesitant in regards to the latter two, since the questions are asking more about the vague concept and not the actual wording of the amendments (Question 2 is notoriously confusing to many and turning them off to it) and also turnout, the blacks will definitely turn out with their churches and Frey's machine (they are far more supportive of Frey in the poll than other demographics), as will the affluent people in places like Lynden Hills and Frey's old City Council Ward*, while the sort of pot-smoking Millennial who raves about hating Republicans on social media types who I bet are supportive of both aren't as likely. So we'll see.

We also have an interesting City Council race in my ward which is open after Lisa Bender opted not to run again, basically three "progressives" vs. three "establishment" candidates, I'm probably going to be one of the few "ticket splitters" and intend to rank one of the progressives as my first choice but two of the "establishment" candidates for my next two slots. Basically the reason is one of the progressives is pretty awesome, a really intelligent young woman with some pretty well thought out plans, while the other two are ridiculous, one is basically a walking stereotype of formerly Tumblr/now Twitter woke buzzword throwing types and the other is the most ridiculous "DSA member who isn't endorsed by the DSA" candidate since Joshua Collins and that guy in San Antonio who came close to calling for the death of Barack Obama and got like 4%.

*It's not uniformly affluent, but it does include the single most affluent and expensive part of the city.
Logged
neostassenite31
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 564
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2021, 05:07:05 PM »

The whole situation with progressives vs establishment type candidates in local contests is fairly typical for most larger cities. It's also probably notable that the poll shows that Republicans make up 7% of the electorate in the city (and 11% actually voted for Trump last election).

With how the elimination system works in RCV and the number of candidates running, one would think these voters could still make a sizable impact if the margin is close between candidates. General elections in Minneapolis are still not completely synonymous with a Democratic primary, as not only is 7% of the electorate Republican, 32% identify as independents (not the more Dem friendly "moderates").  

While these rather specific policy discussions are no doubt very important for residents of the city, a much more important question as far as suburbanites like myself is concerned is how Question 2 might affect crucial statewide contests and state legislature races next fall. The ghost of a potential Republican trifecta should haunt all voters in Minneapolis as they head to the polls this fall.   
Logged
Farmlands
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,181
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 0.77, S: -0.14

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2021, 07:46:15 PM »

I really can't understand what makes people think abolishing their city's police force is a sensible thing. And look, the resident African Americans, who Twitter folks love to speak for on these issues, are some of the few most against the measure...
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2021, 01:28:00 AM »

I don't support question 2 because it replaces the police department with something else.

Abolish the police means abolish the police, not "disband and replace with something else under a similar name"
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2021, 09:44:56 AM »

I don't support question 2 because it replaces the police department with something else.

Abolish the police means abolish the police, not "disband and replace with something else under a similar name"

Well abolish the police completely is almost guaranteed to fail, that one ultra-Democrat suburb in Chicagoland this year that voted against 80 to 20. If it continues under a completely different name (the Department of War becoming the Department of Defense), it allows a certain segment of partisans to claim victory that they abolished the police while really the police are still in force. So virtue signaling bullsh**t.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2021, 10:10:08 AM »
« Edited: September 27, 2021, 11:40:22 AM by Oryxslayer »

I don't support question 2 because it replaces the police department with something else.

Abolish the police means abolish the police, not "disband and replace with something else under a similar name"

Well abolish the police completely is almost guaranteed to fail, that one ultra-Democrat suburb in Chicagoland this year that voted against 80 to 20. If it continues under a completely different name (the Department of War becoming the Department of Defense), it allows a certain segment of partisans to claim victory that they abolished the police while really the police are still in force. So virtue signaling bullsh**t.

I mean, reconstitution offers some advantages for the advocates, and there are favorable examples to point to. You end the police department, effectively firing all the institutional rot that has built up. The new department can start from scratch and put all the reforms viewed as necessary into it's code without pushback. It then can begin to rehire, but those that disagreed with the reforms won't be signing on. New guys will who accept the new order.

Very similar to union busting, and it works cause the executive holds the majority of leverage.

Same s*** is weirdly enough happening with vaccine mandates. Partisan Cops, state troopers, and other enforcers are resigning rather than take the shot which is clearing out institutional rot and opening the door for a new generation without memory of a time before reforms.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2021, 11:44:59 AM »
« Edited: September 27, 2021, 11:51:29 AM by StateBoiler »

I don't support question 2 because it replaces the police department with something else.

Abolish the police means abolish the police, not "disband and replace with something else under a similar name"

Well abolish the police completely is almost guaranteed to fail, that one ultra-Democrat suburb in Chicagoland this year that voted against 80 to 20. If it continues under a completely different name (the Department of War becoming the Department of Defense), it allows a certain segment of partisans to claim victory that they abolished the police while really the police are still in force. So virtue signaling bullsh**t.

I mean, reconstitution offers some advantages for the advocates, and there are favorable examples to point to. You end the police department, effectively firing all the institutional rot that has built up. The new department can start from scratch and put all the reforms viewed as necessary into it's code without pushback. It then can begin to rehire, but those that disagreed with the reforms won't be signing on. New guys will who accept the new order.

So you want to disband the Iraqi Army, and then reconstitute a new Iraqi Army?

This board can be Reddit sometimes.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,724


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2021, 01:00:59 PM »

I don't support question 2 because it replaces the police department with something else.

Abolish the police means abolish the police, not "disband and replace with something else under a similar name"

Well abolish the police completely is almost guaranteed to fail, that one ultra-Democrat suburb in Chicagoland this year that voted against 80 to 20. If it continues under a completely different name (the Department of War becoming the Department of Defense), it allows a certain segment of partisans to claim victory that they abolished the police while really the police are still in force. So virtue signaling bullsh**t.

I mean, reconstitution offers some advantages for the advocates, and there are favorable examples to point to. You end the police department, effectively firing all the institutional rot that has built up. The new department can start from scratch and put all the reforms viewed as necessary into it's code without pushback. It then can begin to rehire, but those that disagreed with the reforms won't be signing on. New guys will who accept the new order.

So you want to disband the Iraqi Army, and then reconstitute a new Iraqi Army?

This board can be Reddit sometimes.

Except it has historically worked in a number of locales because law enforcement is a tiny % of the population compared to an army. You can afford to piss off several thousand to give jobs to another several thousand. The job market isn't also going through a warzone, you got plenty of other options that would value your experience but not put others lives in danger. This is why states and cities are fine with a good number of cops resigning right now over COVID, cause they know they can find new people and the resignees are happy to go somewhere where they don't have to take the shot.

Scabbing would never have become a thing if labor wasn't replaceable.
Logged
neostassenite31
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 564
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2021, 01:11:54 PM »
« Edited: September 27, 2021, 01:15:38 PM by neostassenite31 »

While we delve into the technical dimensions and pros vs cons of these city level policies, let's not forget the big picture.

What really matters in the case of question 2 isn't what it does substantively to policing or public safety in Mpls but rather how it will look to moderates and independents, most of whom don't even live in the core but will decide the outcome of next year's most crucial elections. That is the real and quite frankly only question DFL leadership in St. Paul is really scrutinizing right now with regard to this year's municipal elections.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 11 queries.