Hill Reports on Unprecedented Chances for Dem Gains in MN 08

by Matt Martin | 29 Comments
October 8, 2007, 9:50 am | Category: CD3, CD6 and MN 2008: Senate | Tags: , , .

29 Responses to “Hill Reports on Unprecedented Chances for Dem Gains in MN 08”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address
  • John S
    October 8, 2007 at 9:55 am

    I’d say this makes upticket more of a deciding factor than ever. I have every faith in a lot of DFLers to work very long hours. I have no huge gripes with who are congressional candidates.

    I just worry that it might end up being easier, and more effective, for Bachmann, Kline, or whoever gets nominated in the 3rd to ‘run’ against Franken or Clinton and hold the seats. If I’m Kline, do I want to go toe to toe with someone who has a lot more recent military cred? No, I start putting words like ‘Comedian’ or ‘Hillary’ in every add, and try to hold on.

  • Chris
    October 8, 2007 at 10:12 am

    With Congress’ approval half that of Bush’s in recent polls, I have a hard time believing it’s going to be a stellar year for the DFL.

  • Randy
    October 8, 2007 at 10:24 am

    Chris — “Congress” isn’t running anywhere, but individuals are. No matter how poorly people think of thelegislative branch in general, incumbents tend to hang on to their seats (“Yeah, Congress is bad, but my guy is ok.”)

  • John S
    October 8, 2007 at 10:50 am

    What Randy said.

    Congress’ approval rating is probably the most meaningless number in politics. Congress isn’t on the ballot. The local rep/Senator is, and more often than not, there constituents thank they are the one honest one, its the other 434/99 that are the crooks.

    Its the individual’s approval rating in their area that matters. Klobuchar’s is sky, despite the low approval rating of Congress. Coleman’s - so low.

  • Nitro
    October 8, 2007 at 11:26 am

    Congress’s approval ratings up a bit…due to Republicans?

    “Congress Approval Rises Slightly to 24%
    Gain almost entirely due to improved ratings from Republicans

    by Lydia Saad

    GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

    PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s 2007 polling from January through August chronicled a nearly relentless decline in public approval of the job Congress is doing. However, after sinking to a record-tying low of 18% last month, Congress approval has rebounded to 24% — the largest one-month increase in support for Congress seen since the Democrats took majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January.”

    http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28741

    Spin that, righties.

  • bajonimi
    October 8, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    I nominate the entire Republican congressional delegation for inclusion in the Idaho Hall of Fame.

  • DavidD
    October 8, 2007 at 5:07 pm

    Tinklenberg won’t win. He’ll alienate women’s rights groups and gay rights groups. As much as I hate to say it, Michele Bachmann is virtually unbeatable. The only kind of person who could potentially beat her is a more libertarian type of candidate who would have the ability to, perhaps, take 20ish percent of the R vote and perhaps 20% of the democrat vote…but there’s no one like that with enough fund raising power at this point.

  • Sean
    October 8, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    He’ll alienate women’s rights groups and gay rights groups.

    Because the 6th is a hotbed of both?

    I think that Women’s Rights groups and gay rights groups will look long and hard at electibility in the 6th, and then support which ever Democrat has the best choice of being in Washington on January 3rd 2009 casting a vote for a second term for Nancy Pelosi.

    Sean

  • Mockingbird
    October 8, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    Bachmann? Bachmann?
    You really think the people in that district are that unreachable?

    What has she done except grope Bush & grandstand?

    God No - no more Pelosi at any rate.
    The same old middle is what feels ineffectual about the Dems.

    John Murtha brought them to the dance in 2006 -
    and then she went with Steny H???

  • John S
    October 8, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    There is the one card El does have - he generally seems stable and sane. Bachmann, with enough time near enough microphones, is bound to say something whacked out nuts.

  • purpleblogdog
    October 8, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    Wright County elects Bachmann. You can flap your arms all you want, but that will not change. 6th elected Kennedy in o4 by a wider margin than Bachmann.

    The state is now blue, the 6th, not so much, but I like your positive attitude!

  • Blogger
    October 8, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    At the risk of getting ridiculed….

    Could a 3rd party candidate win in the 3rd? Somebody very moderate would could appeal to those between the 25th and 75th percentiles on the ideological spectrum?

    If you take Hennepin County minus Minneapolis, which is basically what the 3rd is, you can see that Ventura carried it in 1998, 38% to 37% to 25%. I’m not saying that electing Jesse was a great thing, but I am saying that the 3rd has at least once shown an inclination to vote for a 3rd party.

    How about a Jim Hovlan or a self-funded Kelly Doran running as an ‘I’? Longshot, I know. But it has been done before.

    Probably a moot point if both parties put forward a moderate candidate.

  • Blogger
    October 8, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    Sorry for my obvious typos… don’t mind the spelling.

  • Eva Young
    October 8, 2007 at 10:16 pm

    Jesse Ventura was a fluke. Third parties don’t have the organizing voter ID infrastructure that the major parties do.

    The Republicans have been successful at defining Al Franken before he could define himself with Minnesotans. His negatives should concern people.

  • Nitro
    October 9, 2007 at 7:48 am

    “The Republicans have been successful at defining Al Franken before he could define himself with Minnesotans. His negatives should concern people.”

    I think what concerns people much much more is a Republican party completely dependent on personal attacks to win elections, rather than the stregnth of their stance on the issues.

  • Kerosene Hat
    October 9, 2007 at 8:50 am

    Franken defined himself before the Republicans had him in their sights. He was an admitted long term user of hard drugs, has mixed, has a well documented history of saying unpalatable things (not just to be funny), was in support of the war in the beginning and is every bit the carpetbagger he is made out to be. He is an unbelievably awful candidate on his own without any help from the Republican attack dogs.

    As far as people making massive shift away from Republicans and into the outstretched arms of Democrats I think the latest poll in the Strib says it best. The people that affiliate themselves with either party is the same now as it was in 2001 though Republicans have lost 5 points and Democrats 3 since the last poll in 2005. Meanwhile those that consider themselves independents has gone up 7 points in the last 2 years. Right now when asked how a person affiliates themselves 24% say Republican, 29% Democrat and 38% independent.

    Anybody who thinks the Democrats have a groundswell of support is deluding themselves. People see how incompetent and corrupt both parties are and the Democrats just happen to be the lesser of the two evils this time around. Neither party can gain more support than a nonentity. Not much to be proud of if you are a party loyalist.

  • Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 9:41 am

    “I think what concerns people much much more is a Republican party completely dependent on personal attacks to win elections, rather than the stregnth of their stance on the issues.”

    Relying on personal attacks instead of the strength of their stances on this issues has been a Republican hallmark for a long time. It has been successful in the past and will be successful in the future. If this election is about what a crappy senator Norm Coleman has been, the Democrats should win. But Franken gives the Republicans an out, and makes the election about Al Franken.

  • DantheMan
    October 9, 2007 at 10:12 am

    Say what?

    The Republicans rely on personal attacks instead of stances? This coming from the Democrats who, had they taken strong positions on anything this decade, would have owned the Presidency for the past two terms?

    People were begging John Kerry and the Dems to give them a reason to vote for him in 2004. Had he put any kind of vision out there, he would have won by 5 points.

    Instead, the Dems have been relying on a message of “The Republicans are wrong”. OK - maybe you’re right. But what will do you differently, because I can’t vote for you unless I know.

    For each Republican personal attack you highlight, I’ll show you a Democratic one.

  • Kathy
    October 9, 2007 at 10:12 am

    Psrt of the reason Congress’s ratings are low is more due to the politicking on the part of Republicans blocking good bills by their “NO” votes and threats to uphold Bush Vetoes.

    Being that the GOP is in the Minority at the National and State Levels, both Bush and Pawlenty are pushing the Veto pens hard, telling their Republican supporters to block any proposals by the Democrats to override their said vetoes. It’s Politics behind the scenes as usual. Happens on both sides unfortunately.

    Bachmann and Kline are part of the problem here in Minnesota. Niether Rep has gone to their constituents face to face explaining why they have voted against them as they have done. That’s not honest Government on their part taking place. That is putting Party and Bush Policy Loyalty first before the needs and concerns of the people they actually work for. Sounds a lot like Norm Coleman regarding his Iraq votes over the concerns of Minnesotans.

    The races in the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th CDs will be interesting to say the least. Both Bachmann and Kline will be called out to defend their dismal voting records to the voters. Let the voters decide this with the information that is there. Let them answer if they are really looking out for the people in the Districts they say they represent or is it the President they really work for.

  • Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 10:23 am

    “The Republicans are wrong” is not a personal attack. It may not be such a great idea for a campaign if you don’t have an alternative - I agree that the lack of vision by Kerry and other Democrats has hurt them. But its not the same thing as, for example, the swiftboat ads, which were lies used to smear Kerry’s patriotism. You are confusing the Democrats’ ineptitude with Republican smears. You won’t find nearly as many real personal attacks coming from the Democratic side.

    Unfortuntely for us, one of the few Democrats who has used personal attacks is our likely nominee, Al Franken. Everytime they go negative on Franken, they can bring up Franken calling Coleman “Butt Boy” and Limbaugh a “fat jerk.” Those are personal attacks. I guarantee you that when this campaign is over (and Coleman has won) Coleman will be perceived as the guy taking the high road.

  • DantheMan
    October 9, 2007 at 10:28 am

    “You are confusing the Democrats’ ineptitude with Republican smears.”

    Fair point - I can buy that.

  • Kerosene Hat
    October 9, 2007 at 10:45 am

    Kathy,

    Remember that most of the people who voted for Kline and Bachman very well won’t think that the votes they made are awful. That being the case the vetoes and failure to over-ride them is looked at as doing their jobs and showing strength. The same way Democrats failed to show strength with war funding, Patriot Act and other votes. If you don’t like the idea of socialized medicine upholding the veto on the SCHIP expansion may not look so bad. Those votes can also show that they work for their constituents and don’t bend to national polls or Democratic pressure.

  • DantheMan
    October 9, 2007 at 11:37 am

    What Kerosene said.

    I also think there is a BIG difference between Kline and Bachman. Kline is giving his district exactly what they expected: competent, clear representation which happens to be conservative. While I don’t agree with all of his votes, I can’t help but look at him and say he is an effective Congressman.

    I’m not sure I can say the same for Bachman. She has had a couple missteps and always has you wondering if her judgment is sound….

    To me, Kline and Bachman are two very different cases. I don’t see Kline losing unless his constituents have shifted materially to the left in two years.

  • Kathy
    October 9, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Bachmann professed last year that she was “a Fool for Christ”. Many of the Bills she voted “No” on reflected helping those in need be that Student Loan reductions, more benifits for Veterans, Hate Crimes, Minimum Wage Increases, and other Bills that affect people’s lives.

    Christ says in Matthew 25 when He speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven to the Lambs and Goats, the Goats will not enjoy Eternal Life with Him. The Goats are confused. Christ tells them that because they did not care for Him as did the Lambs when he was hungry, naked, sick, homeless, or being treated unjustly, they are sentenced to the fires of Hell. The Goats ask, “How did we know it was you, Lord?” To where as Christ replies, “The least you did onto my people, you did unto Me.”

    I wonder if Bachmann, who is so deeply Religious in her views, takes this piece of Scripture into account when she votes “NO”. Does she not think Christ is watching her? I use this example to delve into her judgement, which she has a lot to answer for.

  • DantheMan
    October 9, 2007 at 12:38 pm

    To provide a benefit for someone, we also need to take someone’s wealth away from them.

    I consider myself a Republican (a moderate at that). I’m telling you, I would LOVE to provide all the benefits that our students need, that those without health coverage need, that those who are making low wages need. If there was only one side to this equation, I’d just love to say “Here - here are some resources. Go and make your life better. Maybe now you can accomplish your dreams.” I mean that.

    Ah - but there is another side to that equation. The “take” side. And as a Republican, I also give much thought to the people who are funding the Government. Can I, in good conscience, go to the guy working on the highways, or the mother raising her family while working, or the retiree collecting interest on the life-long savings he built up, and say “Hey - I need more. C’mon - we decided to have another program - and you’re paying for it. And you have no choice in the matter”.

    And what is the right level of someone’s income to take? 20%? 40%? 60% At what point have I stopped following Christ because I’m taking resources from someone without their consent??

  • Dan
    October 9, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    DantheMan:

    That is a fair argument, and is basically what Republicans used to be all about. Instead of drowning government, they just believed that the government needed to take less and provide less.

    A couple of points though. The Democrats aren’t seeking to raise the taxes of the guy working on the highway or the working mother. They are seeking to raise the taxes of the wealthy - those who are able to afford to give something up. The Bush tax cuts, on the other hand, provided most of the tax relief to the wealthy. The highway guy and the working mother didn’t see too much of it. Or take the estate tax, which now has an exemption for the first $2 million, and when Bush took office, kicked in at $675,000, which is far more than most people save up. So when you make the argument about taking (and its a valid argument) remember its the wealthy and the children of the wealthy you are talking about, and not the highway worker and working mother.

  • Kerosene Hat
    October 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Kathy,

    While I agree that the teachings of Jesus as viewed in the Bible have a strong socialist bend to them those of the religious right have a simple counter to your argument. Those actions are the job of the church and not the federal government. One of the many reasons the Democrats fail to win elections and support commensurate with the general publics dissatisfaction with Republicans is that they fail to acknowledge any view but their own. They simply say to themselves that “people will wake up” and “see Republicans for who they are”. The truth is that a majority of the public in this country is rightfully cautious about increasing the power of the government (and taxes) in order to provide programs for which they may not benefit. People don’t like view themselves as needy even if Democrats would like them to.

  • DantheMan
    October 9, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    Take a little wealth from the citizens, and in return provide a functional and efficient public infrastructure. That is what the Republicans used to be about. I’m as sad as anyone that they have changed so much.

    The redistribution of wealth is a can of worms — deciding who “can afford to pay” is dangerously arbitrary and subjective. What if that couple making $185,000 per year was about to give $20,000 to causes they believed in. Now it is going to the Govt instead, to be put into programs that they either know little about or may not support.

    But I agree — this becomes a much more intelligent discussion if we were all Eisenhower Republicans instead of NeoCons.

  • john
    October 9, 2007 at 2:45 pm

    Kathy, what is a “hate crime”?..a crime is a crime, why do we need to punish “thought”? Bachmann has voted no on silly legislation, she is doing what we asked her to do, stand as a balwark against Socialism

Leave a Reply