In this week’s Rasmussen Poll, as in two previous ones, Minnesotans were asked if they’d be more or less likely to vote for a Republican presidential candidate if Tim Pawlenty were his wingman. Since the question first appeared, Pawlenty’s fortunes seem to have flipped: Last September, 38 percent of those polled said a potential “VP Tim” would make them more likely to cast a vote for the GOP, while 30 percent said they’d be less likely to vote for the ticket. In more recent polls — Feb. 2 and April 22 — around 30 percent (29 and 30, respectively) said the governor’s inclusion would increase their chance of voting GOP, while 35 percent, both times, said “less likely.”

Of these three poll findings, guess which one the Star Tribune covered?

When the numbers were more favorable for Pawlenty, the paper reported it, but when they weren’t, including this week, they left it out (the February poll wasn’t covered at all by the paper). There’s a reasonable explanation, says the Strib’s head politics editor, Doug Tice, who once toiled as a conservative columnist at the St. Paul Pioneer Press. So why is Strib coverage selectively citing polls that favor TP?

“It’s not as conspiratorial as all that,” Tice said. “We decided to use the elections figures and Pawlenty’s approvals — good, excellent, fair, poor — and just cut it off at that. We didn’t have a big discussion of it. It was a judgment call to leave it out this time.”

He says sometimes with polls created by external polling firms — ones where the paper doesn’t have “control or know as much about the methodology” — the Strib tries to “keep the story modest.” (As noted above, the Strib did cite this Rasmussen data-point when it skewed Pawlenty’s way last fall.)

“It’s just not so that we use the polls when they’re good for some people and not use them when they’re bad,” he concluded. “If you’re convinced it’s that way, then you won’t believe me, but it isn’t so.”