If it takes an 8-point oversample in Tom Emmer's favor to get him up to a tie, I feel pretty great about Mark Dayton's chances in a real electorate in which younger, cell-phone-only voters show up.
But aside from the weird methodology, check out the published crosstabs:
There's a lot of room for movement there, but there is virtually no way Emmer picks up significant enough ground among independent voters to make a dent in the overall results. Keep in mind that this is a mid-term election, and the non-partisan vote is generally going to be a lot lower than it is in presidential years, so given a normal partisan breakdown, or even a slightly GOP-leaning one, Emmer has a LOT of ground to make up.
2. The gender gap: MPR's writeup indicates that there's no significant gender gap -- that women are currently favoring Mark Dayton by a similar margin to men favoring Tom Emmer. However, what they fail to mention directly is that the sample includes 52% women (about normal for Minnesota) which is yet another built-in advantage for Dayton. Again, given a more reasonable partisan sample, this will go straight through to the final results of this election.
3. Age gap? MPR doesn't appear to have published the support breakdowns by age, only the sample sizes -- which look weird in and of themselves, since it's a decent bet the senior vote will be bigger than this poll indicates. If it is, it's another good bet that those voters will go with Dayton in big numbers, especially outside the city -- as we found in the DFL primary, these voters are more likely than not to go with the name they know and trust, and that is Mark Dayton.
Again, if it takes a huge GOP over-sample to get Tom Emmer up to a bare tie, I think Mark Dayton is in pretty darned good shape right now.
At a press conference today, Luke Hellier of Minnesota Democrats Exposed was allowed to ask a "gotcha" question of DFL gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton, and tripped him up a little bit. Bravo, Luke. Glad to see you can read so well from a script that came from...who knows where.
There are some bigger issues here:
1. The real screw-up here is on the part of the organizers, whether that be the Dayton campaign staff, the DFL, or whoever was running the show, in allowing a publicly known Republican blogger, activist, and operative in the room, let alone into a position where he could open his mouth.
2. Pat Kessler asking a follow-on question to something asked by a publicly known Republican operative in such a setting is absolutely preposterous, and truly bends the standards of journalistic decency. Kessler is a good reporter, but this was just absolutely stupid.
3. The money quote from Dayton in the exchange is unlikely to get much play from the likes of MDE:
I just think it's way out of bounds to in terms of what people care about in this election.
People are hurting, and Dayton actually has proposals on the table for helping Minnesota get back on the right track economically (which Emmer does not, beyond "MORE OF WHAT PAWLENTY GAVE US"). So obviously this is how the GOP and Team Emmer think they're going to win: by talking about decade-old records from Dayton's divorce.
It's a pretty good example of the Chewbacca Defense, really: throw as much disjointed, irrelevant information at the wall and hope the jury is so confused that they don't notice you're an idiot, and thus acquit elect your guy who still thinks the waitstaff at your local restaurant are overpaid.
Pitiful. Disgusting and totally in character, but pitiful.
They just did a big piece on her in Minnesota Monthly--the link is at the end of this post.
It's a long piece...too bad they gave the subject so much space and said so little. That's understandable, because the piece is largely composed of "what people are saying about Michele Bachmann," rather than "who is Michele Bachmann and what does she actually represent." And even within the limitations it sets for itself, the piece is flawed from the get-go. Because the reporter started out asking the wrong questions:
...does Bachmann mean what she says? And does she practice what she preaches?
Better questions are:
Is she really--as her opponents charge--a nut, a liar, and a bigot?
Exactly how and why did this person come to national prominence in American politics?
It doesn't make sense to ask whether Bachmann "really means what she says." Bachmann has been speaking on national issues since the beginning of her career. None of us have any idea what Michele Bachmann would do if she was handed actual power--say, the power to shape national policy and legislation after a major GOP pickup of seats this November.
For example: Would she really advocate use of nuclear weapons to stop Iran? (As a candidate, she said that use of the nuclear option against Iran shouldn't be "taken off the table." Would she really want Congress to spend all its time doing nothing but issue subpoenas to the GOP's political opposition? (She's said this, but it didn't make the article--is that really what she would do if she had the power?)
(continued)
Here's what President Obama said about the controversy about plans for a mosque near Ground Zero in New York:
"Let me be clear: as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable."
And of course, the headline from your liberal media:
This was in response to the president himself clearly making this distinction. He's not getting into the identity of the builders or whether he agrees the exact placement. They have the right to build on private property. We're Americans. We'd don't discriminate on the basis of religion.
What stands out here is that there is nothing surprising about Obama's stance since I believe this is the stance of most people who take a 1st Amendment stance on this. Who the people behind the project are is beside the point. Getting drawn into the design of the building is irrelevant. We don't discriminate on the basis of religion. Call it the American values position.
After Mark Dayton was declared the victor in the DFL primary yesterday, the dead-tree media immediately started pushing the theme that the two major parties had picked candidates from their ideological poles, begging their readers to whine for a better option.
This kind of valueless, factless statement does a disservice to readers, citizens, and voters everywhere.
Tom Emmer has repeatedly made clear that he is from the conservative wing of what is now an extremely conservative, small-tent party. He advocates tax cuts for the rich, tip penalties for working class servers, and deregulating business to turn Minnesota into a prairieland banana republic. Emmer is an extremist, and proud of it.
But what exactly about Dayton's platform is extreme, I ask the media? He advocates raising taxes on the rich, including himself, so that everyone up and down the economic scale pays the same effective tax rate. That's extreme? I call that fair, common-sense populism. Like the candidates he defeated in Tuesday's primary, Dayton advocates for expanding renewable energy solutions -- that's extreme? I call that smart, especially given that we have more and more proof every day that big investments in green energy can yield concrete benefits.
Dayton's platform is largely common-sense progressive solutions to pull the state out of the mess caused by too many years of the same Pawlentyism a Governor Emmer would continue and expand.
In short, there's nothing about Dayton's platform or background that makes him anywhere near the polar opposite of Tom Emmer's self-aggrandizing extremism; quite the contrary. The Twin Cities media does itself, its readers, and the entire state of Minnesota a disservice by sexing up the story of this election by trying to pitch it as such a matchup.
And putting recently-kind-of-not-really-a-Republican-consultant-anymore-but-now-third-party candidate Tom Horner in the amorphous, squishy middle of that analysis just makes it all the more useless.
We can, we must demand better from our news media.
I would link directly to the Wall Street Journal's incorrect and fairly offensive editorial on Citizens United and Target's little problem with MNForward, but I'd rather you read Dante Atkins' explanation of its mendaciousness instead.
The first problem with hacks like Taranto is that they are exclusively focused on the marketplace and unable to see beyond it. Thus, Taranto and his ilk see no problem with political donations being an exclusively economic investment designed to generate a maximum rate of return from a government official made more pliant--or more elected--by the contribution made. But while the rare mega-corporation with a conscience, such as Target, may be swayed by the lobbying of a group far less economically influential than the corporation itself, the vast majority of corporate "speech"--that is to say, political investment--will not be. No amount of interest group pressure, for instance, could possibly convince the far-right Koch Industries not to contribute a million dollars to the Republican Governors Association.
Corporate contributions are not speech. They are often, instead, calculated investments made by a legal fiction with no other legal motive besides profit--something which Justice Stevens explained all too well in his [Citizens United] dissent
Worth a read to remind ourselves and our neighbors exactly what "corporate free speech" really means to the Roberts court and to the health of American democracy.
WCCO News had brief coverage this morning on Tom Emmer's ridiculous claims about waiters making $100,000/year and his proposal to reduce their wages. Emmer, of course, followed up with a self-contradictory non-apology, which should be no surprise. What's sad (and also not entirely surprising) is that the traditional media really can't make itself analyze the meat of what Emmer really said -- for fear of losing access or drawing the ire of the Big Scary Republican Party of Minnesota, all they could say is that Emmer's comments "caused controversy."
No. Sorry. This is completely incorrect. There is NO controversy over Emmer's statements. No one is defending them -- all Emmer's campaign and political benefactors could come up with was a limp, mumbled counterattack against "something something liberals something something." In no way did they defend Emmer's proposal, which is factually, politically, economically, and morally wrong.
There is no controversy, because there's no "other side." Emmer is wrong on this and wrong for Minnesota. And everyone outside of Emmer's inner monologue knows it.
Eric Roper of the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote an article today about the fundraising of Michele Bachmann and Tarryl Clark. Once again, the Strib glosses over Bachmann's insane conspiracy theories, lying and bigotry. The strongest language Roper uses is "outspoken" and polarizing."
Bachmann certainly is these things, but when will the Strib EVER provide any analysis of what she actually said? When will it ever be appropriate to discuss her insane statements, lies and bigotry?
It's not like Bachmann doesn't provide enough material or do so often enough. It's simply a matter of the Strib has ALWAYS glossed over her insanity, lying and bigotry.
Will Roper and et al ever ask Bachmann any tough questions? Will they ever examine the truth of what comes out of her mouth? Are Roper and company averse to reporting the truth about her?
Personally, I'm not holding my breathe for any investigative or analytical political journalism to come from the Star Tribune anytime before November ... or ever, actually. Their journalistic standards are just so low.
What was most infuriating about the Star Tribune publishing Michael Gerson's attack on Sen. Al Franken? Could it be that a really excellent speech pointing out the truth about our Supreme Court was completely misrepresented by George W. Bush's former speechwriter? Could it be the Strib's limited coverage of politics? Could it be they failed to cover a really excellent speech by Franken? Could it be they've always had it in for Franken?
Let's start with Gerson. He wrote speeches for Bush from 1999 to 2006. He wrote the speeches Bush gave as he lied us into war with Iraq. He wrote the Mission Accomplished speech. Since resigning from the Bush Administration, he's been attacking anyone who points out the truth about conservatives and telling lies to push the far right's agenda. He's in high dudgeon because someone spoke out against an icon of the far right. His first six paragraphs are simply ad hominem attacks on Franken.
What about the Strib editors? This is the same group who did everything they could to get Norm Coleman reelected. The paper's political coverage is so poor and so slanted rightwards that I would be criticizing their editorial page several times a week if I didn't have better things to do with my life. They almost completely rely on DC pundits to provide commentary on national issues.
So the only way that their readers knew Franken gave a speech is because a far right ideologue attacked him for it on their editorial page. They can't hire any more people to help them cover politics because their reader base is disintegrating and their ad revenue is in steady decline. Who is in charge of covering Franken? Apparently nobody. So they rely on hacks like Gerson.
There is two parts of Gerson's attack piece that are true: Al Franken is a Senator from Minnesota and this quote from the speech:
... The "Roberts court has consistently and intentionally protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans."
I mean--it's not great. But it's not bad, and a payroll journalist on a major paper did it.
It's in the Washington Post. The reporter and editor who did this one are actually "alive" to the fact that Bachmann's a demagogue. In other words, they understand that the mere fact that she's popular with millions--doesn't mean that's she actually produced anything of note for those conservative millions during a ten year career in politics.
That's something that Bachmann doesn't like to talk about, but in this profile the WaPo "goes there" in an interview with her. Interviews with Bachmann in Bachmann-friendly forums (evangelical radio, the Pat Robertson show, Fox News, other forums where conservatives "moderate") are quite common. But, as the WaPo piece points out--Bachmann resists talking to media that doesn't openly side with her political career and proposed agenda.
And that's how we get this, which I found hilarious:
(CONTINUED)
The Star Tribune's choice of headlines lately is very revealing.
When King Timmy signs a bill full of smoke and mirrors, stealing money from schools, guaranteed to worsen the budget problem in upcoming years and forcing local municipalities to pass along the state's tax increases in the form of higher property taxes, the headline reads: "Pawlenty signs bill to erase $3 billion deficit."
Earlier, when the guv was preparing to veto a far more reasonable budget bill, the headline read, "Pawlenty's eager to veto DFL taxes."
It's depressing enough to see political journalists get paid to print unwitting BS--but it's downright disheartening to see political journalists print intentional BS.
"Pundit" Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post has gone into the business of naming the most influential Republicans in the country, regularly. The "blatant BS" part is that Cillizza identifies our departing GOP governor, Tim Pawlenty, as "fourth" in terms of influence in the GOP.
Of course that's nonsense. In the four quarters of the globe, who reads a Pawlenty book? or goes to a Pawlenty rally? or looks at a Pawlenty picture? What does the world yet owe to Pawlenty policy? What new solutions has Pawlenty discovered? what old problems has Pawlenty analyzed and solved?
You look at Pawlenty's record in Minnesota, and all you see is failure. If you're a working conservative, all you see is a sell-out (he was dyin' to be McCain's running mate before Palin got the nod.)
Who looks to Pawlenty for national leadership? Not America, not Minnesota (where polls show no endorsement of his presidential hopes.) The GOP doesn't. In yet another poll of Republican voters last week, Pawlenty comes in seventh--after years of pursuing a spot on a White House ticket.
But--for reasons that remain mysterious to this writer--professional journalists and news organs around the country persist in telling their audiences that Pawlenty is "influential," a major figure in GOP thinking. It's as if corporate news media and reporters are trying to keep him relevant, simply by telling their audiences over and over again that he is. It's like Pawlenty's a product they're being paid to market.
The video clip (linked below) begins with statements from the President, followed by Bachmann repeating her charges of "gangster government" by the White House and the Dems in Congress.
Bachmann asserts that government intervention in the collapse of GM constitutes "gangster government." And Democratic proposals for federal regulation of Wall Street merit the adjective "gangster," criminal.
The problem of course, is that none the policies cited by Bachmann are criminal or anything close to criminal. No arrests, no indictments, no nothing--the only significance in the charge is that she insists on making it, regularly. She has been going around the country and on television to assert that laws passed by Congress with the approval of the White House amount to criminal behavior and conspiracy--that the people in the White House and in the Dem Congress are indeed criminals.
Without criminal charges against the elected officials to support the rhetoric, it's calumny and a lie. And the most weak minded extremists in the country will not care about Bachmann's silly rationalizations for the charge--all they will hear is a US Congressman telling them what many of them already believe: that the US government has been taken over by criminals, that the US government itself is outlaw.
As I've written before, this is Bachmann and her supporters putting bulleyes on the backs of the President and Democrats in Congress. The facts about right wing kooks with guns and bombs are as available to Bachmann as they are to any of us; the death threats continue to come in. It is clear that Bachmann's purpose in using the charge of gangsterism by the White House and Congressional majority is to fan the flames.
I expected more of Geraldo. (There's another sentence I never thought I'd write.)
(CONTINUED)
Direct quote from Tom Hauser, overheard near the media riser:
"They debate for fifteen minutes whether to take twenty-five minutes to decide something. And they want to run our state?"
Followed by a smug shake of the head.
Slight correction, Tom, with all due respect: The people who are debating are following the rules of order in order to select the people they want to run the state.
Slight difference. Obviously that doesn't matter to the Twin Cities' fairest and balanced political reporter media personality.
That's the strategy for Washington Republicans. Even when Democrats are receiving death threats, pictures of nooses faxed to their offices, having racial epithets hurled at them, and their siblings' homes are being attacked, the GOP says "we're being threatened too!" and "it's the Dems' fault!"
Meanwhile, some Republicans accused Democrats of using the reports of threats for political gain. "To use such threats as political weapons is reprehensible," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican whip, who said a shot was fired through a window of his campaign office in Richmond, Va., this week, but that he had chosen not to publicize the incident. "By ratcheting up the rhetoric, some will only inflame these situations to dangerous levels."
What's the problem? Take a look at a local AP report from Cantor's area:
A bullet that hit a window in Republican U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor's office building was fired randomly into the air, police said Thursday.
...
Later Thursday, however, Richmond police said in a news release that the bullet had been fired into the air around 1 a.m. Tuesday. It finished its random arc back to earth at a sharp downward trajectory, breaking a window pane on the bottom floor of the two-story brick building where Cantor's campaign leases the top floor.
The spent bullet hit the floor about one foot inside the shattered pane. No one was in the building at the time. A police investigation has yielded no suspects.
Slight difference in interpretation, methinks.
These threats and attacks are impermissible under any circumstances, are violations of the law, and should be prosecuted as such. They also have not yet been leveled at any Republicans.
