The Swingers

incomplete (0.00 / 0)

The question at the end is a good one, but incomplete.

The way it's set up, it looks like it's almost a push.  But there are a lot of other factors going on here.

CD3: Paulsen is in his first reelect.  He may be considered the more savvy candidate by some (in comparison to Bachmann, at least), but he's still not particularly well-known or liked in the district and a freshman in their first reelect should be considered vulnerable.  Paulsen is actually far more conservative than his "score" suggests; with so many party-line votes taken these days it's relatively easy to move a congress-critter's relative score with a few minor votes with little relevance to the actual politics going on in DC.  The district is very favorable for moderates overall, but issue-wise it's even better.  CD3 is pro-choice, pro-education, pro-environment and pretty disinterested in getting into conservative culture wars.  taxes are a big deal, but jobs might be a bigger deal.

CD6: Yes, bachmann is a loon.  All good DFLers know this, and so do liberals from coast-to-coast.  We know this, so it must be true!  Except for all that Bachmann says nut-ball stuff and takes extreme positions on policy...she's a damn good politician.  her base loves her, and she keeps herself visable (although increasingly not in her own district).  She does her constituent service.  The district is tougher territory than most people are willing to believe.  Cultural "conservatism" is alive and well in CD6, moreso than probably anywhere else in MN.

With this in consideration, I'd rather take on CD3.  But at the end of the day, if you have to pick one (a consideration I don't generally accept until the very end), pick the one with the strongest campaign and candidate.

---

by: JML @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 18:33:45 PM CDT

jml... you made a couple of statements there (0.00 / 0)

...I'd like you clarify, if you will.

You said, of Bachmann:

she's a damn good politician.

Could you give me your definition of "damn good politician?" I've heard some media figures say this about her, and it's very hard for me to figure out exactly what they mean when they present her to the public as such. Could you explain to me exactly what you mean, by the phrase "a damn good politician?"  

You also said, of Bachmann:

She does her constituent service.

Can I ask you what your authority for that is? I know it's your opinion, but what is the factual basis for that opinion?

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 23:43:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've seen (0.00 / 0)

a number of people in blogs outside of Minnesota, large and small, suggest MB has good political skills.  I'm not trying to speak for jml here, but I think that in most cases they've assumed that for a freak like that to be elected and reelected, in a blue state, means she must be politically 'savvy,' at some level.  In other words, they don't realize her district is gerrymandered to be a safe conservative seat.

---

by: dan.burns @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 09:36:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

sigh (0.00 / 0)

Bill, I'm not going to get into a back-and-forth with you on Bachmann's political skills.  It's just not worth it.

As for her doing her constituent service, I've only got anecdotal evidence, but actual residents of her district have told me personally that her office has been helpful and responsive on problems they've brought.  I'm sure that others will say they got nowhere.

I get that you hate her.  I can't stand her either, and think that's she's a nutball on wheels too.  But I refuse to underestimate her in any way shape or form.

---

by: JML @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 11:48:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why does it matter that you or I hate her? (0.00 / 0)

I'm just trying to "keep it real" here. BS shouldn't get passed into the mix, uncritically, on a progressive blog. You said some things in your first comment that are certainly true, and you said two other thing that you don't want to defend with facts:

she's a damn good politician.

She does her constituent service.

If I were you, I wouldn't want to get into a back and forth on the truth of that statement, either. I asked you how you defined "damn good politician" and you didn't want to do that--and I don't blame you, there isn't any factual support for that statement...unless your definition of "damn good politician" is restricted to "a Republican conservative that can win elections regularly in a +7 Republican district."

There aren't any other definitions of "damn good politician" that fit Bachmann. She's not a "damn good legislator", like LBJ or Humphrey, she's not "damn good at forging deals between the different sides" like Clinton, she's not "damn good on standing for principles" like Lincoln because she's got a history of dropping hot button issues once the time comes to perform on them.

I suspect that you stated that she's a "damn good politician" because you read that somewhere. That's what dan burns and I suggested to you in this same comment thread. The narrative "Bachmann is a damn good politician" is indeed being passed around the blogs; that is exactly the narrative that Fox News and Bachmann's conservative mentors want the blogs to pass around--so it disturbs me when people print that uncritically, without thinking about whether it's true or not--here on a progressive blog.

It's not true, because the facts don't support that narrative. I'm not surprised that you don't want to enter into a discussion of whether your statement was true or not. But please don't sigh at me because you made a statement that you don't want to defend--a false statement that the conservative media would love to promote shouldn't be passed into the thinking here. You should get called out to produce your facts, any time you repeat a reputation-enhancing remark about a kooky conservative that you'd rather not defend.

Your claim that "she does her constituent service": if you go to the Dump Bachmann site and enter the words "constituent service" in the search field, you'll get posts on letters to the editor and newspaper articles with complaints about Bachmann's lack of constituent service (including a news story about a kid who flew out to D.C. to see her after receiving no reply to his letters. She refused to see him.) You can also find Bachmann herself, well into her term of office, claiming publicly that she was going to focus on "constituent service"--as opposed to regular public appearances on TV and campaigning out-of-state to increase her nationwide conservative support. We know now that her focus stayed on her self-publicity, and not on producing tangible solutions for problems in her district.

But in asserting "she does her constituent service," you scrub the facts away--facts that other people have printed and collected for years.

It doesn't surprise me that your evidence for that one turns out to be "anecdotal," merely. It's not easy to produce hard evidence of Bachmann's "good constituent service." (I'd start with a search of her web page if you are really interested.) It may be that she's helped individual consituents if they supported her--but it's undoubtedly true that she's done nothing for her constituents or the district. It's just not there, but you're asserting that it is?

It doesn't matter whether you or I hate or her or love her: we deal in facts, not passing along nonsense other people would have us pass along. So please: before you say something positive about a nutty hatemonger--why don't you check it out? The next time someone writes or says "she's a great politician," ask that person why they say that, and be very suspicious if they can't give you good answer. The next time someone tells you an anecdote about her "good constituent service," point out that she's done nothing for the district in the way of legislation or returning their federal tax dollars to them.

That will eliminate a lot of nonsense passed off as "truth."

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 18:40:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Tony is presenting the readers with a false (0.00 / 0)

choice. Readers of this blog need not choose between "supporting one OR supporting the other." They can do something for either or both--just as people from all around the country are sending money to Tarryl Clark right now, even though those people are probably active in different races in their own districts.

Tony also writes:

This brings up the question of who the easier target is for Democrats this November, Eric Paulsen or Michelle Bachmann. (sic)

It's clear that Bachmann's a hard target, but that has never mattered because: again, the choice to help is not mutually exclusive. And I for one never thought that the difficulty mattered, if the "target was a dangerous loon with a national cult following (in the tradition of Joe McCarthy.) Bachmann is a McCarthy: except that this time around McCarthy's prettier, sober, and has a vast evangelical political machine behind her.

Let's not present the readers and Dems with a false choice between that fighting McCarthy "or" going after "an easier target."

Not only is it a false choice--even if it were a real one, giving up on the more dangerous target to improve your chances of taking out an easier one would be unwise, to say the least. We've already seen Bachmann imitators head into higher office in the wake of her success, we've seen state Republicans turn further right to exploit the base she's rallied. That trend of imitators will affect many people in many districts in Minnesota if it continues, and you can expect that trend to continue so long as she continues to hold high office representing Minnesotans.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 00:00:07 AM CDT

Of course there is no need (0.00 / 0)

to choose one race over the other, that was mearly a hypothetical question at the end of a post I wasn't sure where or how to end. The idea behind asking the hypothetical question was to provoke responses just like JML's.

---

by: TonyAngelo @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 07:17:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bachmann (0.00 / 0)

Bachmann doesn't seem to have any trouble fundraising, so deciding who to fund would not seem to be a difficult choice. Beyond that, she has near universal name recognition in the Sixth, so advertising isn't nearly as vital to her campaign as it might be. Third, while her loose cannon image is of concern to the national GOP, they know she is at sainthood status with a huge chunk of their supporters. They will stand behind her.

In some ways, the emergence of the tea party crazies, and Sarah Palin, for that matter, have made Bachmann look almost sane by comparison. God help us all.

---

by: blueJ @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 13:39:30 PM CDT

She was just ahead of the curve... (0.00 / 0)

...she was articulating the crazy before it was cool, that's one reason they love her, the bigoted buffoons.

The rest of your analysis is right on, but you left out the national conservative media: Fox, talk radio, the evangelical media. They've built her reputation for years in a way that amounts to free political advertising. If you were to turn that airtime into a dollar value, you'd see that "contribution" to Bachmann was worth millions--millions that don't show up as a part of the official campaign war chest.

And that never ends: local evangelical media began giving her free air time to promote her candidacies and agenda on religious broadcasting back in 1999. It's still going on today, and now the national conservative broadcasting has been added to the mix--making her a national star, not just a star among Minnesota conservatives.

You can't buy publicity like that, it has to be granted to you by people who want you in office--as their puppet.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 18:47:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]