And so Michele Bachmann a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota has taken a race that was labeled by most as a safe Republican race in a strong Republican district, and now she is in the fight of her life.
It all started on October 18, 2008.
Most years, most of the time, I do not like Chris Matthews. He calls his show “Hardball” but frankly he is not one who consistently asks tough questions. But something about the tone of this election has gotten into his craw and he is pressing his questions with deadly accuracy.
What started out as a simple exchange on William Ayers, turned into a game changer for Michele Bachmann. Somehow the subject turned to the question about anti-Americanism, something that seemed more ripe for the McCarthy era in the 1950s with the red scare than something in 2008 during an economic crisis. But there she was talking about it. And there Chris Matthews was pressing her to tell him how many Congress people are in that anti-American crowd.
Finally she said it:
“What I would say — what I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.”
Again, normally, this type of thing would have gone unnoticed and unpunished. But the world is different in 2008.
On reason it is different is the world of Netroots. And the liberal blogs took this story and ran. With netroots organizations and fundraising ability, they were able to raise over $750,000 for Michele Bachmann’s opponent in just three days.
Wednesday, the Minnesota Star Tribune announced Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg had raised $1.3 million by Wednesday–less than a week after Rep. Bachmann’s comments.
“Bachmann’s comments during her 14-minute appearance ignited a firestorm in the liberal blogosphere and proved to be manna from heaven for her opponent, Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg. By Wednesday, his campaign had raised an additional $1.3 million — and, as the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza pointed out at the Fix (2), the Sixth District race had dramatically changed.”
How much has it changed?
Yesterday, the Minneapolis Star Tribune in addition to national sources report that the NRCC pulled about $50,000 worth of ads for Michele Bachmann.
“The national fundraising committee for GOP congressional candidates has canceled its Twin Cities TV advertising for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is using the flap over her comments about Barack Obama to raise money on her own.”
Meanwhile CQ Politics, one of the more respected analysts of Congressional races has changed their rating on this district from Republican Favored to Leans Republican.
“But for political drama, we just can’t top Minnesota’s 6th District, which is suddenly hosting one of the nation’s hottest races — because of highly controversial partisan remarks made by Michele Bachmann, the district’s freshman Republican incumbent.
Although Democrats had long branded Bachmann as a conservative hard-liner, and recruited a relatively centrist challenger in former state transportation secretary Elwyn Tinklenberg, the incumbent nonetheless looked to be cruising to a relatively easy victory in her Republican-leaning district — that is, until she dropped her “anti-A” bomb, stating on national television that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and unnamed members of Congress might have “anti-American views.” The huge flap that ensued has made Bachmann a much more visible target for Democratic activists nationwide, who in turn have poured money into Tinklenberg’s campaign to fuel a late-campaign blitz.
Because of the overall conservative tone in her district, CQ Politics still considers Bachmann a slight favorite for re-election, but will be watching further developments very closely.”
This is not just a story about Michele Bachmann, it is a story about the power of the left’s netroots. The ability to capture people’s attention, to seize on gaffe’s and misstatements and to funnel huge amounts of money into races like these is frankly unprecedented and really unmatched by Republicans.
The political climate has indeed favored Democrats in both 2006 and 2008. However, the ability of netroots to largely bridge the gap in fundraising has been huge.
And no one has utilized this any better than Barack Obama. Utilizing the web, they have raised money on a level no one has ever dreamed of before. When it is all over, we will be talking about $750 million–that’s three-quarters of a billion dollars.
How do they do it? They bombard their supporters with emails in part. They have a network now of over 3.1 million donors. This last month they raised $180 million mostly by small donors of less than $200 and an average of $86 per person. This month they are said to have already raised $133 million. That puts them at a huge advantage down the stretch.
Republicans are crying foul at this–the destruction of the public financing system. That’s really funny in a lot of ways. Some are using this as proof the media are biased toward Democrats, after all where’s the outrage.
What I do not think Republicans get is that there is a vast different between this type of fundraising and the huge amounts of money that Bush raised from oil interests, tobacco interests, defense interests, and other monied interests. The outrage is not the amount of money, it is the source of the money. Because of where Obama is getting his money from, who is he going to be beholden to? Ah that’s right, the people who gave him largely small donations. I know people who give him $25 or $35 every few weeks. It adds up over the course of a year. But it is a series of small donations from average citizens.
That is not something to be outraged about, it is something to celebrate.
The mobilization of people through netroots has really taken off this year and it has the potential to really change politics over the long term.
As for Michele Bachmann, she doesn’t seem to get it:
“Chris Matthews did what Chris Matthews is paid big bucks to do: Twist my words and set them up for full-fledged distortion when his next guest came on… And, when the liberal blogs got hold of little clips of my appearance, the spin machine really kicked into overdrive. … They’re motivated entirely by their hatred of me and my conservative beliefs.”
I do not know how Chris Matthews twisted your words since we have you have on tape Congresswoman, but I know one thing, you handed this to the liberal blogs and they willingly obliged by flaying you.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m glad to see Michele Bachman possibly not getting elected. We don’t need anymore of the Palin-like politicians in office.
I’m glad to see Michele Bachman possibly not getting elected. We don’t need anymore of the Palin-like politicians in office.
I’m glad to see Michele Bachman possibly not getting elected. We don’t need anymore of the Palin-like politicians in office.
I’m glad to see Michele Bachman possibly not getting elected. We don’t need anymore of the Palin-like politicians in office.
“Wednesday, the Minnesota Star Tribune announced Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg had raised $1.3 million by Wednesday–less than a week after Rep. Bachmann’s comments.”
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
“Wednesday, the Minnesota Star Tribune announced Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg had raised $1.3 million by Wednesday–less than a week after Rep. Bachmann’s comments.”
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
“Wednesday, the Minnesota Star Tribune announced Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg had raised $1.3 million by Wednesday–less than a week after Rep. Bachmann’s comments.”
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
“Wednesday, the Minnesota Star Tribune announced Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg had raised $1.3 million by Wednesday–less than a week after Rep. Bachmann’s comments.”
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
“This last month they raised $180 million mostly by small donors of less than $200 and an average of $86 per person…. Because of where Obama is getting his money from, who is he going to be beholden to?”
You might be interested in this recent New York Times article, which points out that Obama is getting as much money (in percentage terms and much more in absolute terms) from very large donors as GW Bush got from large donors in 2004.
Here are a few excerpts:
“Mr. Obama’s campaign has leaned on wealthy benefactors to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to him in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.
“As for Mr. Obama, about 2,000 people had donated $25,000 or more to his joint fund-raising committees through September, including more than 500 who have given $30,000 or more.
“More than 500 donors contributed more than $30,000 each to Mr. Obama. They included James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a power company based in Charlotte, N.C.; Melanie Griffith, the actress; and John M. Noel, chief executive of Travel Guard, an affiliate of the insurance giant AIG.”
I doubt that in a specific sense President Obama will be corrupted by the donations he has received. It is much more likely the case that he will be generally corrupted — to not, for example, want to place restrictions on large punitive damages awards which enrich trial lawyers who are giving him so much money.
More worrisome than corrupting our presidents, though, is the specific corruption of our members of Congress — the members of the tax-writing committees and subcommittees who will insert largely unnoticed tax breaks or welfare or giveaways or other favors to corporations and other rich donors; and the members of the appropriatons committees who will direct billions of dollars in spending to contractors who have helped finance their campaigns.
In all the years I have been observing politics can I recall a president vetoing a bill — usually these bills are hundreds of pages with thousands of provisions — because parts of it were corrupt, and said the source of that corruption was campaign finance. The rare vetoes we see are always due to the large provisions, not the thousands of small ones in every bill.
“This last month they raised $180 million mostly by small donors of less than $200 and an average of $86 per person…. Because of where Obama is getting his money from, who is he going to be beholden to?”
You might be interested in this recent New York Times article, which points out that Obama is getting as much money (in percentage terms and much more in absolute terms) from very large donors as GW Bush got from large donors in 2004.
Here are a few excerpts:
“Mr. Obama’s campaign has leaned on wealthy benefactors to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to him in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.
“As for Mr. Obama, about 2,000 people had donated $25,000 or more to his joint fund-raising committees through September, including more than 500 who have given $30,000 or more.
“More than 500 donors contributed more than $30,000 each to Mr. Obama. They included James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a power company based in Charlotte, N.C.; Melanie Griffith, the actress; and John M. Noel, chief executive of Travel Guard, an affiliate of the insurance giant AIG.”
I doubt that in a specific sense President Obama will be corrupted by the donations he has received. It is much more likely the case that he will be generally corrupted — to not, for example, want to place restrictions on large punitive damages awards which enrich trial lawyers who are giving him so much money.
More worrisome than corrupting our presidents, though, is the specific corruption of our members of Congress — the members of the tax-writing committees and subcommittees who will insert largely unnoticed tax breaks or welfare or giveaways or other favors to corporations and other rich donors; and the members of the appropriatons committees who will direct billions of dollars in spending to contractors who have helped finance their campaigns.
In all the years I have been observing politics can I recall a president vetoing a bill — usually these bills are hundreds of pages with thousands of provisions — because parts of it were corrupt, and said the source of that corruption was campaign finance. The rare vetoes we see are always due to the large provisions, not the thousands of small ones in every bill.
“This last month they raised $180 million mostly by small donors of less than $200 and an average of $86 per person…. Because of where Obama is getting his money from, who is he going to be beholden to?”
You might be interested in this recent New York Times article, which points out that Obama is getting as much money (in percentage terms and much more in absolute terms) from very large donors as GW Bush got from large donors in 2004.
Here are a few excerpts:
“Mr. Obama’s campaign has leaned on wealthy benefactors to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to him in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.
“As for Mr. Obama, about 2,000 people had donated $25,000 or more to his joint fund-raising committees through September, including more than 500 who have given $30,000 or more.
“More than 500 donors contributed more than $30,000 each to Mr. Obama. They included James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a power company based in Charlotte, N.C.; Melanie Griffith, the actress; and John M. Noel, chief executive of Travel Guard, an affiliate of the insurance giant AIG.”
I doubt that in a specific sense President Obama will be corrupted by the donations he has received. It is much more likely the case that he will be generally corrupted — to not, for example, want to place restrictions on large punitive damages awards which enrich trial lawyers who are giving him so much money.
More worrisome than corrupting our presidents, though, is the specific corruption of our members of Congress — the members of the tax-writing committees and subcommittees who will insert largely unnoticed tax breaks or welfare or giveaways or other favors to corporations and other rich donors; and the members of the appropriatons committees who will direct billions of dollars in spending to contractors who have helped finance their campaigns.
In all the years I have been observing politics can I recall a president vetoing a bill — usually these bills are hundreds of pages with thousands of provisions — because parts of it were corrupt, and said the source of that corruption was campaign finance. The rare vetoes we see are always due to the large provisions, not the thousands of small ones in every bill.
“This last month they raised $180 million mostly by small donors of less than $200 and an average of $86 per person…. Because of where Obama is getting his money from, who is he going to be beholden to?”
You might be interested in this recent New York Times article, which points out that Obama is getting as much money (in percentage terms and much more in absolute terms) from very large donors as GW Bush got from large donors in 2004.
Here are a few excerpts:
“Mr. Obama’s campaign has leaned on wealthy benefactors to contribute up to $33,100 at a time to complement his army of small donors over the Internet as he bypassed public financing for the general election. More than 600 donors contributed $25,000 or more to him in September alone, roughly three times the number who did the same for Senator John McCain.
“As for Mr. Obama, about 2,000 people had donated $25,000 or more to his joint fund-raising committees through September, including more than 500 who have given $30,000 or more.
“More than 500 donors contributed more than $30,000 each to Mr. Obama. They included James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, a power company based in Charlotte, N.C.; Melanie Griffith, the actress; and John M. Noel, chief executive of Travel Guard, an affiliate of the insurance giant AIG.”
I doubt that in a specific sense President Obama will be corrupted by the donations he has received. It is much more likely the case that he will be generally corrupted — to not, for example, want to place restrictions on large punitive damages awards which enrich trial lawyers who are giving him so much money.
More worrisome than corrupting our presidents, though, is the specific corruption of our members of Congress — the members of the tax-writing committees and subcommittees who will insert largely unnoticed tax breaks or welfare or giveaways or other favors to corporations and other rich donors; and the members of the appropriatons committees who will direct billions of dollars in spending to contractors who have helped finance their campaigns.
In all the years I have been observing politics can I recall a president vetoing a bill — usually these bills are hundreds of pages with thousands of provisions — because parts of it were corrupt, and said the source of that corruption was campaign finance. The rare vetoes we see are always due to the large provisions, not the thousands of small ones in every bill.
oops:
“In all the years I have been observing politics NEVER can I recall a president vetoing a bill…”
oops:
“In all the years I have been observing politics NEVER can I recall a president vetoing a bill…”
oops:
“In all the years I have been observing politics NEVER can I recall a president vetoing a bill…”
oops:
“In all the years I have been observing politics NEVER can I recall a president vetoing a bill…”
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
I had thought that it was O’bama, and that he was really Irish, sort of like Kennedy. But he seems to leave out the apostrophe most of the time.
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
I had thought that it was O’bama, and that he was really Irish, sort of like Kennedy. But he seems to leave out the apostrophe most of the time.
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
I had thought that it was O’bama, and that he was really Irish, sort of like Kennedy. But he seems to leave out the apostrophe most of the time.
I think her opponent would have a better chance of winning were his name not Elywyn Tinklenberg. Oy. Then again, I thought the same thing about Barack Obama.
I had thought that it was O’bama, and that he was really Irish, sort of like Kennedy. But he seems to leave out the apostrophe most of the time.
Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin sound and look no different than the female talking heads at Fox (Faux) News which spews forth its right-wing propaganda 24/7, using lies, half-truths omissions and smears. Questioning their opponent’s patriotism and character and assigning false labels to one’s adversary is standard operating procedure for right wing politicians and their toadies at Faux News.
They spew forth their nonsense: Obama is nothing more than a “celebrity” or an “elitist” who has never really been much more than a “community organizer” who “pals around with terrorists”, is “not pro-American”, is “not one of us”, is a “socialist” and he has communist tendencies.
When this election is over both of them can go to work for that phony Fox “news” network. Bachmann’s and Palin’s comments and conduct have demonstrated that they have what it takes to work there as they both are skilled at using innuendo and smears to make their bogus attacks and claims against Obama or anyone who disagrees with them. They will fit right in.
Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin sound and look no different than the female talking heads at Fox (Faux) News which spews forth its right-wing propaganda 24/7, using lies, half-truths omissions and smears. Questioning their opponent’s patriotism and character and assigning false labels to one’s adversary is standard operating procedure for right wing politicians and their toadies at Faux News.
They spew forth their nonsense: Obama is nothing more than a “celebrity” or an “elitist” who has never really been much more than a “community organizer” who “pals around with terrorists”, is “not pro-American”, is “not one of us”, is a “socialist” and he has communist tendencies.
When this election is over both of them can go to work for that phony Fox “news” network. Bachmann’s and Palin’s comments and conduct have demonstrated that they have what it takes to work there as they both are skilled at using innuendo and smears to make their bogus attacks and claims against Obama or anyone who disagrees with them. They will fit right in.
Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin sound and look no different than the female talking heads at Fox (Faux) News which spews forth its right-wing propaganda 24/7, using lies, half-truths omissions and smears. Questioning their opponent’s patriotism and character and assigning false labels to one’s adversary is standard operating procedure for right wing politicians and their toadies at Faux News.
They spew forth their nonsense: Obama is nothing more than a “celebrity” or an “elitist” who has never really been much more than a “community organizer” who “pals around with terrorists”, is “not pro-American”, is “not one of us”, is a “socialist” and he has communist tendencies.
When this election is over both of them can go to work for that phony Fox “news” network. Bachmann’s and Palin’s comments and conduct have demonstrated that they have what it takes to work there as they both are skilled at using innuendo and smears to make their bogus attacks and claims against Obama or anyone who disagrees with them. They will fit right in.
Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin sound and look no different than the female talking heads at Fox (Faux) News which spews forth its right-wing propaganda 24/7, using lies, half-truths omissions and smears. Questioning their opponent’s patriotism and character and assigning false labels to one’s adversary is standard operating procedure for right wing politicians and their toadies at Faux News.
They spew forth their nonsense: Obama is nothing more than a “celebrity” or an “elitist” who has never really been much more than a “community organizer” who “pals around with terrorists”, is “not pro-American”, is “not one of us”, is a “socialist” and he has communist tendencies.
When this election is over both of them can go to work for that phony Fox “news” network. Bachmann’s and Palin’s comments and conduct have demonstrated that they have what it takes to work there as they both are skilled at using innuendo and smears to make their bogus attacks and claims against Obama or anyone who disagrees with them. They will fit right in.
In processing the narrative of the 2004 election, the media (and perhaps many independent voters) have come to understand that the Swiftboat campaign ads were an over-the-top argument (that John Kerry was not really the honorable veteran that he is). It has even been made into a verb — “swiftboating”.
Possibly everyone is ready for Bachmann’s (“anti-American”) and Palin’s (“palling around with terrorists”) rhetoric this time so that it doesn’t have the same effect it did four years ago.
In processing the narrative of the 2004 election, the media (and perhaps many independent voters) have come to understand that the Swiftboat campaign ads were an over-the-top argument (that John Kerry was not really the honorable veteran that he is). It has even been made into a verb — “swiftboating”.
Possibly everyone is ready for Bachmann’s (“anti-American”) and Palin’s (“palling around with terrorists”) rhetoric this time so that it doesn’t have the same effect it did four years ago.
In processing the narrative of the 2004 election, the media (and perhaps many independent voters) have come to understand that the Swiftboat campaign ads were an over-the-top argument (that John Kerry was not really the honorable veteran that he is). It has even been made into a verb — “swiftboating”.
Possibly everyone is ready for Bachmann’s (“anti-American”) and Palin’s (“palling around with terrorists”) rhetoric this time so that it doesn’t have the same effect it did four years ago.
In processing the narrative of the 2004 election, the media (and perhaps many independent voters) have come to understand that the Swiftboat campaign ads were an over-the-top argument (that John Kerry was not really the honorable veteran that he is). It has even been made into a verb — “swiftboating”.
Possibly everyone is ready for Bachmann’s (“anti-American”) and Palin’s (“palling around with terrorists”) rhetoric this time so that it doesn’t have the same effect it did four years ago.
This is not worthy of its own post, so I’ll put it here. Interesting story from FiveThirtyEight.com from last week…
“So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”
Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.””
This is not worthy of its own post, so I’ll put it here. Interesting story from FiveThirtyEight.com from last week…
“So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”
Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.””
This is not worthy of its own post, so I’ll put it here. Interesting story from FiveThirtyEight.com from last week…
“So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”
Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.””
This is not worthy of its own post, so I’ll put it here. Interesting story from FiveThirtyEight.com from last week…
“So a canvasser goes to a woman’s door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she’s planning to vote for. She isn’t sure, has to ask her husband who she’s voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, “We’re votin’ for the n***er!”
Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: “We’re voting for the n***er.””
Anonymous 12:56 & 3:11 posts illustrates that, unfortunately, unless the democrats do a more effective job finding labels that stick on republicans and that resonate with independent voters, political races will continue to be much closer than they should be. Democrats have continually let republicans define both parties.
I can't think of a single label that the Obama campaign has made stick to McCain. Granted, Obama's campaign is very disciplined and will probably pull out the win. But again, the race is closer than it should be.
It may be noise
Anonymous 12:56 & 3:11 posts illustrates that, unfortunately, unless the democrats do a more effective job finding labels that stick on republicans and that resonate with independent voters, political races will continue to be much closer than they should be. Democrats have continually let republicans define both parties.
I can't think of a single label that the Obama campaign has made stick to McCain. Granted, Obama's campaign is very disciplined and will probably pull out the win. But again, the race is closer than it should be.
It may be noise
Anonymous 12:56 & 3:11 posts illustrates that, unfortunately, unless the democrats do a more effective job finding labels that stick on republicans and that resonate with independent voters, political races will continue to be much closer than they should be. Democrats have continually let republicans define both parties.
I can't think of a single label that the Obama campaign has made stick to McCain. Granted, Obama's campaign is very disciplined and will probably pull out the win. But again, the race is closer than it should be.
It may be noise
Anonymous 12:56 & 3:11 posts illustrates that, unfortunately, unless the democrats do a more effective job finding labels that stick on republicans and that resonate with independent voters, political races will continue to be much closer than they should be. Democrats have continually let republicans define both parties.
I can't think of a single label that the Obama campaign has made stick to McCain. Granted, Obama's campaign is very disciplined and will probably pull out the win. But again, the race is closer than it should be.
It may be noise
I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.
I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.
I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.
I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.
“I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.”
This is because you’re looking at it through a highly partisan lens. Look at it through middle-of-the-road middle-america swing voters’ point of view. I think the negative labels (socialist, anti-american, etc.) are sticking better than the “erratic” McCain, which is balance by “McCain” the war hero.
“I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.”
This is because you’re looking at it through a highly partisan lens. Look at it through middle-of-the-road middle-america swing voters’ point of view. I think the negative labels (socialist, anti-american, etc.) are sticking better than the “erratic” McCain, which is balance by “McCain” the war hero.
“I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.”
This is because you’re looking at it through a highly partisan lens. Look at it through middle-of-the-road middle-america swing voters’ point of view. I think the negative labels (socialist, anti-american, etc.) are sticking better than the “erratic” McCain, which is balance by “McCain” the war hero.
“I really disagree with you on that. I can’t think of anything that the McCain campaign has thrown on Obama that has stuck.
On the other hand, McCain was painted erratic by Obama and much of the country now question his leadership skills after his handling of the economic crisis. On the other hand, Sarah Palin only succeeded in labeling herself.”
This is because you’re looking at it through a highly partisan lens. Look at it through middle-of-the-road middle-america swing voters’ point of view. I think the negative labels (socialist, anti-american, etc.) are sticking better than the “erratic” McCain, which is balance by “McCain” the war hero.
What I’m actually doing is looking at the polling numbers and seeing what people are claiming to pollsters. I don’t have much else to go on other than that.
I don’t see any evidence of your claim in polls.
What I’m actually doing is looking at the polling numbers and seeing what people are claiming to pollsters. I don’t have much else to go on other than that.
I don’t see any evidence of your claim in polls.
What I’m actually doing is looking at the polling numbers and seeing what people are claiming to pollsters. I don’t have much else to go on other than that.
I don’t see any evidence of your claim in polls.
What I’m actually doing is looking at the polling numbers and seeing what people are claiming to pollsters. I don’t have much else to go on other than that.
I don’t see any evidence of your claim in polls.
sorry, “balanced by ‘McCain the war hero'”
It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.
National elections for democrats have been more in response to disgust with republicans than an acceptance of the democratic platform. That is what has to change. Democrats have no been effective in communicating how the democratic platform is better for Americans. Almost everyone agrees on that point. As a result, this is by and large a center-right country. It’s the democratic party’s responsibility to shift it the other direction. The sophistication of the Obama campaign can be used as a template for how that could be accomplished.
sorry, “balanced by ‘McCain the war hero'”
It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.
National elections for democrats have been more in response to disgust with republicans than an acceptance of the democratic platform. That is what has to change. Democrats have no been effective in communicating how the democratic platform is better for Americans. Almost everyone agrees on that point. As a result, this is by and large a center-right country. It’s the democratic party’s responsibility to shift it the other direction. The sophistication of the Obama campaign can be used as a template for how that could be accomplished.
sorry, “balanced by ‘McCain the war hero'”
It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.
National elections for democrats have been more in response to disgust with republicans than an acceptance of the democratic platform. That is what has to change. Democrats have no been effective in communicating how the democratic platform is better for Americans. Almost everyone agrees on that point. As a result, this is by and large a center-right country. It’s the democratic party’s responsibility to shift it the other direction. The sophistication of the Obama campaign can be used as a template for how that could be accomplished.
sorry, “balanced by ‘McCain the war hero'”
It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.
National elections for democrats have been more in response to disgust with republicans than an acceptance of the democratic platform. That is what has to change. Democrats have no been effective in communicating how the democratic platform is better for Americans. Almost everyone agrees on that point. As a result, this is by and large a center-right country. It’s the democratic party’s responsibility to shift it the other direction. The sophistication of the Obama campaign can be used as a template for how that could be accomplished.
I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.
I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.
I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.
I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.
“I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.”
I’ll concede this point if Obama wins big. If he wins by a narrow margin, then I don’t think much has changed.
Despite national disgust with Bush, despite his fundraising, despite his debating, despite his disciplined campaign, despite his clear command over a wider breadth of policy issues, despite his clearly superior VP running mate…this election is much closer than it should be. It’s taking the absolute best the democrats have to possibly barely beat a fairly weak opponent.
But like I said, if he does win big, then the future for democrats looks brighter.
“I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.”
I’ll concede this point if Obama wins big. If he wins by a narrow margin, then I don’t think much has changed.
Despite national disgust with Bush, despite his fundraising, despite his debating, despite his disciplined campaign, despite his clear command over a wider breadth of policy issues, despite his clearly superior VP running mate…this election is much closer than it should be. It’s taking the absolute best the democrats have to possibly barely beat a fairly weak opponent.
But like I said, if he does win big, then the future for democrats looks brighter.
“I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.”
I’ll concede this point if Obama wins big. If he wins by a narrow margin, then I don’t think much has changed.
Despite national disgust with Bush, despite his fundraising, despite his debating, despite his disciplined campaign, despite his clear command over a wider breadth of policy issues, despite his clearly superior VP running mate…this election is much closer than it should be. It’s taking the absolute best the democrats have to possibly barely beat a fairly weak opponent.
But like I said, if he does win big, then the future for democrats looks brighter.
“I think when this election is over, people will praise Obama’s ability to change the electoral map in key states where he organized and changed registration numbers.”
I’ll concede this point if Obama wins big. If he wins by a narrow margin, then I don’t think much has changed.
Despite national disgust with Bush, despite his fundraising, despite his debating, despite his disciplined campaign, despite his clear command over a wider breadth of policy issues, despite his clearly superior VP running mate…this election is much closer than it should be. It’s taking the absolute best the democrats have to possibly barely beat a fairly weak opponent.
But like I said, if he does win big, then the future for democrats looks brighter.
ANON 5:33
Let me play the Devil’s advocate.
“It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.”
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. House:
Repubs: 230
Dems: 204
Inds: 1
Today, this is the balance in the House:
Repubs: 199
Dems: 235
Inds: 1
If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. Senate:
Repubs: 54
Dems: 46
Today, this is the balance in the Senate:
Repubs: 49
Dems: 49
Inds: 2
Again, over the period you consider, Republicans have lost ground.
Moreover, the latest polls suggest that the Dems are going to have about 57 seats in the next Senate (plus Bernie Sanders in Vermont), not counting Lieberman, and an extra 9 seats in the House.
“National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
I don’t know what evidence you have to prove this. It remains the case that Republicans have been falling back and Democrats gaining. In the 3 presidential elections since 1994, the Democratic candidate has received more popular votes than the Republican has in two of them. Moreover, Obama is now expected to beat McCain in the popular vote by roughly 4-8 percent.
“Democrats have not been effective in communicating how the Democratic platform is better for Americans.”
If they have been so ineffective, how do you explain their almost continual rise in elections since 1995?
A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans. In generic polling — “which party do you agree with more?” — Democrats win handily, now. And with the specifics of the economic troubles we are now in, a strong majority blames Republicans more than Democrats. All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP, your assertions notwithstanding.
ANON 5:33
Let me play the Devil’s advocate.
“It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.”
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. House:
Repubs: 230
Dems: 204
Inds: 1
Today, this is the balance in the House:
Repubs: 199
Dems: 235
Inds: 1
If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. Senate:
Repubs: 54
Dems: 46
Today, this is the balance in the Senate:
Repubs: 49
Dems: 49
Inds: 2
Again, over the period you consider, Republicans have lost ground.
Moreover, the latest polls suggest that the Dems are going to have about 57 seats in the next Senate (plus Bernie Sanders in Vermont), not counting Lieberman, and an extra 9 seats in the House.
“National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
I don’t know what evidence you have to prove this. It remains the case that Republicans have been falling back and Democrats gaining. In the 3 presidential elections since 1994, the Democratic candidate has received more popular votes than the Republican has in two of them. Moreover, Obama is now expected to beat McCain in the popular vote by roughly 4-8 percent.
“Democrats have not been effective in communicating how the Democratic platform is better for Americans.”
If they have been so ineffective, how do you explain their almost continual rise in elections since 1995?
A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans. In generic polling — “which party do you agree with more?” — Democrats win handily, now. And with the specifics of the economic troubles we are now in, a strong majority blames Republicans more than Democrats. All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP, your assertions notwithstanding.
ANON 5:33
Let me play the Devil’s advocate.
“It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.”
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. House:
Repubs: 230
Dems: 204
Inds: 1
Today, this is the balance in the House:
Repubs: 199
Dems: 235
Inds: 1
If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. Senate:
Repubs: 54
Dems: 46
Today, this is the balance in the Senate:
Repubs: 49
Dems: 49
Inds: 2
Again, over the period you consider, Republicans have lost ground.
Moreover, the latest polls suggest that the Dems are going to have about 57 seats in the next Senate (plus Bernie Sanders in Vermont), not counting Lieberman, and an extra 9 seats in the House.
“National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
I don’t know what evidence you have to prove this. It remains the case that Republicans have been falling back and Democrats gaining. In the 3 presidential elections since 1994, the Democratic candidate has received more popular votes than the Republican has in two of them. Moreover, Obama is now expected to beat McCain in the popular vote by roughly 4-8 percent.
“Democrats have not been effective in communicating how the Democratic platform is better for Americans.”
If they have been so ineffective, how do you explain their almost continual rise in elections since 1995?
A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans. In generic polling — “which party do you agree with more?” — Democrats win handily, now. And with the specifics of the economic troubles we are now in, a strong majority blames Republicans more than Democrats. All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP, your assertions notwithstanding.
ANON 5:33
Let me play the Devil’s advocate.
“It’s generally accepted that since 1994 Republicans have had democrats on the defensive.”
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. House:
Repubs: 230
Dems: 204
Inds: 1
Today, this is the balance in the House:
Repubs: 199
Dems: 235
Inds: 1
If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?
After the 1994 general election, this was the partisan balance in the U.S. Senate:
Repubs: 54
Dems: 46
Today, this is the balance in the Senate:
Repubs: 49
Dems: 49
Inds: 2
Again, over the period you consider, Republicans have lost ground.
Moreover, the latest polls suggest that the Dems are going to have about 57 seats in the next Senate (plus Bernie Sanders in Vermont), not counting Lieberman, and an extra 9 seats in the House.
“National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
I don’t know what evidence you have to prove this. It remains the case that Republicans have been falling back and Democrats gaining. In the 3 presidential elections since 1994, the Democratic candidate has received more popular votes than the Republican has in two of them. Moreover, Obama is now expected to beat McCain in the popular vote by roughly 4-8 percent.
“Democrats have not been effective in communicating how the Democratic platform is better for Americans.”
If they have been so ineffective, how do you explain their almost continual rise in elections since 1995?
A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans. In generic polling — “which party do you agree with more?” — Democrats win handily, now. And with the specifics of the economic troubles we are now in, a strong majority blames Republicans more than Democrats. All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP, your assertions notwithstanding.
Not sure where it will end up, but I’m not exactly sure how close it or wide it should be.
I’ll assume the Real Clear numbers which are an average across the board, the race is a 7.6 point lead nationally, McCain around 42% TODAY in the average of polls.
Where does that place him? That places this as further apart than Dukakis lost to Bush Sr. Narrower than the three landslides: 1963, 1972, and 1984. In the range of Reagan over Carter. 1980 is probably the best analogy and 1980 was a game changing election. And that was just under 9 points on election day, this is at 7.6.
But really my comment was not about spread, it was about changing the electoral map. You have Obama competing in and probably winning a number of longtime red states and that was brought on by strategy and organization, to the point where the true toss ups of Florida and Ohio do not have to break for him in order to win this.
Not sure where it will end up, but I’m not exactly sure how close it or wide it should be.
I’ll assume the Real Clear numbers which are an average across the board, the race is a 7.6 point lead nationally, McCain around 42% TODAY in the average of polls.
Where does that place him? That places this as further apart than Dukakis lost to Bush Sr. Narrower than the three landslides: 1963, 1972, and 1984. In the range of Reagan over Carter. 1980 is probably the best analogy and 1980 was a game changing election. And that was just under 9 points on election day, this is at 7.6.
But really my comment was not about spread, it was about changing the electoral map. You have Obama competing in and probably winning a number of longtime red states and that was brought on by strategy and organization, to the point where the true toss ups of Florida and Ohio do not have to break for him in order to win this.
Not sure where it will end up, but I’m not exactly sure how close it or wide it should be.
I’ll assume the Real Clear numbers which are an average across the board, the race is a 7.6 point lead nationally, McCain around 42% TODAY in the average of polls.
Where does that place him? That places this as further apart than Dukakis lost to Bush Sr. Narrower than the three landslides: 1963, 1972, and 1984. In the range of Reagan over Carter. 1980 is probably the best analogy and 1980 was a game changing election. And that was just under 9 points on election day, this is at 7.6.
But really my comment was not about spread, it was about changing the electoral map. You have Obama competing in and probably winning a number of longtime red states and that was brought on by strategy and organization, to the point where the true toss ups of Florida and Ohio do not have to break for him in order to win this.
Not sure where it will end up, but I’m not exactly sure how close it or wide it should be.
I’ll assume the Real Clear numbers which are an average across the board, the race is a 7.6 point lead nationally, McCain around 42% TODAY in the average of polls.
Where does that place him? That places this as further apart than Dukakis lost to Bush Sr. Narrower than the three landslides: 1963, 1972, and 1984. In the range of Reagan over Carter. 1980 is probably the best analogy and 1980 was a game changing election. And that was just under 9 points on election day, this is at 7.6.
But really my comment was not about spread, it was about changing the electoral map. You have Obama competing in and probably winning a number of longtime red states and that was brought on by strategy and organization, to the point where the true toss ups of Florida and Ohio do not have to break for him in order to win this.
More from the Devil’s Advocate.
Anon claims: “National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
ANON, were you thinking of this June, 2008 public opinion poll by Hotline, which showed by 54-24% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 54-28% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the economy, and by 46-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the Iraq War?
Or were you thinking of the February, 2008 Pew Poll which showed Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on foreign policy by 45-40%, Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on immigration by 43-38%, by 49-37% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the taxes, by 44-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on morality, by 53-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on fixing the economy, by 55-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on education, by 56-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 50-25% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on reforming government, by 57-23% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on energy policy, or by 65-21% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the environment?
More from the Devil’s Advocate.
Anon claims: “National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
ANON, were you thinking of this June, 2008 public opinion poll by Hotline, which showed by 54-24% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 54-28% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the economy, and by 46-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the Iraq War?
Or were you thinking of the February, 2008 Pew Poll which showed Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on foreign policy by 45-40%, Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on immigration by 43-38%, by 49-37% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the taxes, by 44-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on morality, by 53-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on fixing the economy, by 55-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on education, by 56-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 50-25% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on reforming government, by 57-23% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on energy policy, or by 65-21% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the environment?
More from the Devil’s Advocate.
Anon claims: “National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
ANON, were you thinking of this June, 2008 public opinion poll by Hotline, which showed by 54-24% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 54-28% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the economy, and by 46-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the Iraq War?
Or were you thinking of the February, 2008 Pew Poll which showed Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on foreign policy by 45-40%, Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on immigration by 43-38%, by 49-37% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the taxes, by 44-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on morality, by 53-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on fixing the economy, by 55-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on education, by 56-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 50-25% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on reforming government, by 57-23% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on energy policy, or by 65-21% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the environment?
More from the Devil’s Advocate.
Anon claims: “National elections for Democrats have been more in response to disgust with Republicans than an acceptance of the Democratic platform.”
ANON, were you thinking of this June, 2008 public opinion poll by Hotline, which showed by 54-24% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 54-28% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the economy, and by 46-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the Iraq War?
Or were you thinking of the February, 2008 Pew Poll which showed Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on foreign policy by 45-40%, Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on immigration by 43-38%, by 49-37% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the taxes, by 44-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on morality, by 53-34% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on fixing the economy, by 55-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on education, by 56-26% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on health care, by 50-25% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on reforming government, by 57-23% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on energy policy, or by 65-21% Americans prefer the Dems over Repubs on the environment?
“If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?”
Rhetorically, they’ve had them on the defensive. I didn’t say that translated to figures. The numbers you cite are a result of the 2006 election. A backlash against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, not an embracement of the democratic platform, IMO.
The Senate figures are meaningless because they have no relationship to population.
There are many things about politics that pollsters and pundits have a hard time quantifying. I’m merely pointing out that we are still a center-right country and the republicans, until very recently, have been on the offensive. Democrats, even now, are pulling punches, probably because they don’t have to. But democrats haven’t done a good case of identifying exactly what they stand for. Obama’s campaign has come the closest to a succinct message I have seen in years.
“A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans.”
Again, meaningless unless they vote, which in this election they probably will. Will it hold? Who really knows.
“All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP,”
This is as bad as it can possibly get for the GOP and some polls state the race is closer than other polls, amazingly. Obviously polls are hard to trust.
The question for me is who has won the “rhetorical battle” over the past 20 years? Republicans. Democrats need to shift that table. Hopefully they can.
Rifkin, you’re pointing out all “snapshot in time” data in a very bad year for the GOP. It doesn’t get down to Americans’ core beliefs and value systems. I happen to be pleased with those figures, I don’t know if they will hold. If Obama is elected and the Dow drops to 6000 points, do the numbers change?
“If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?”
Rhetorically, they’ve had them on the defensive. I didn’t say that translated to figures. The numbers you cite are a result of the 2006 election. A backlash against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, not an embracement of the democratic platform, IMO.
The Senate figures are meaningless because they have no relationship to population.
There are many things about politics that pollsters and pundits have a hard time quantifying. I’m merely pointing out that we are still a center-right country and the republicans, until very recently, have been on the offensive. Democrats, even now, are pulling punches, probably because they don’t have to. But democrats haven’t done a good case of identifying exactly what they stand for. Obama’s campaign has come the closest to a succinct message I have seen in years.
“A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans.”
Again, meaningless unless they vote, which in this election they probably will. Will it hold? Who really knows.
“All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP,”
This is as bad as it can possibly get for the GOP and some polls state the race is closer than other polls, amazingly. Obviously polls are hard to trust.
The question for me is who has won the “rhetorical battle” over the past 20 years? Republicans. Democrats need to shift that table. Hopefully they can.
Rifkin, you’re pointing out all “snapshot in time” data in a very bad year for the GOP. It doesn’t get down to Americans’ core beliefs and value systems. I happen to be pleased with those figures, I don’t know if they will hold. If Obama is elected and the Dow drops to 6000 points, do the numbers change?
“If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?”
Rhetorically, they’ve had them on the defensive. I didn’t say that translated to figures. The numbers you cite are a result of the 2006 election. A backlash against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, not an embracement of the democratic platform, IMO.
The Senate figures are meaningless because they have no relationship to population.
There are many things about politics that pollsters and pundits have a hard time quantifying. I’m merely pointing out that we are still a center-right country and the republicans, until very recently, have been on the offensive. Democrats, even now, are pulling punches, probably because they don’t have to. But democrats haven’t done a good case of identifying exactly what they stand for. Obama’s campaign has come the closest to a succinct message I have seen in years.
“A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans.”
Again, meaningless unless they vote, which in this election they probably will. Will it hold? Who really knows.
“All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP,”
This is as bad as it can possibly get for the GOP and some polls state the race is closer than other polls, amazingly. Obviously polls are hard to trust.
The question for me is who has won the “rhetorical battle” over the past 20 years? Republicans. Democrats need to shift that table. Hopefully they can.
Rifkin, you’re pointing out all “snapshot in time” data in a very bad year for the GOP. It doesn’t get down to Americans’ core beliefs and value systems. I happen to be pleased with those figures, I don’t know if they will hold. If Obama is elected and the Dow drops to 6000 points, do the numbers change?
“If, as you say, “Republicans have had Democrats on the defensive,” why have the Republicans lost so many seats in the House over the period you speak of?”
Rhetorically, they’ve had them on the defensive. I didn’t say that translated to figures. The numbers you cite are a result of the 2006 election. A backlash against the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, not an embracement of the democratic platform, IMO.
The Senate figures are meaningless because they have no relationship to population.
There are many things about politics that pollsters and pundits have a hard time quantifying. I’m merely pointing out that we are still a center-right country and the republicans, until very recently, have been on the offensive. Democrats, even now, are pulling punches, probably because they don’t have to. But democrats haven’t done a good case of identifying exactly what they stand for. Obama’s campaign has come the closest to a succinct message I have seen in years.
“A few more things to consider: Democrats now have a substantial registration advantage over Republicans.”
Again, meaningless unless they vote, which in this election they probably will. Will it hold? Who really knows.
“All in all, it is a seriously bad time for the GOP,”
This is as bad as it can possibly get for the GOP and some polls state the race is closer than other polls, amazingly. Obviously polls are hard to trust.
The question for me is who has won the “rhetorical battle” over the past 20 years? Republicans. Democrats need to shift that table. Hopefully they can.
Rifkin, you’re pointing out all “snapshot in time” data in a very bad year for the GOP. It doesn’t get down to Americans’ core beliefs and value systems. I happen to be pleased with those figures, I don’t know if they will hold. If Obama is elected and the Dow drops to 6000 points, do the numbers change?
And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?
And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?
And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?
And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
Whoever wins the senate seat in Minnesota, Norm Coleman or Al Franken, will win without a majority of the vote. (There is a serious independent running, too, named Dean Barkley, who replaced Paul Wellstone as a US Senator for a few months when Wellstone died.)
If Minnesota had instant runoff voting (also known as choice voting), the winner would have the ultimate support of most voters in that state. Unfortunately, like with most states*, Minnesota does not have a runoff, and so the third candidate in effect can play the spoiler.
I don’t know who Barkley is hurting more, but if, for example, he is drawing most of his support from people who would much rather have Coleman than Franken, and Franken ends up winning by 1-2% (say 40-38%), then it would be the case that most Minnesota voters would have been poorly served by their state’s process.
With an instant runoff, voters for all candidates would rank the 3 men in their prefered order. If no one got a majority among the first ranks, the third place finisher (probably Barkley) would be eliminated, and his votes would go to the other two in the proportion that Barkley voters chose each as their second preference.
That kind of system serves 1) the best interest of voters whose first choice might not be very popular, but they would like to give him/her the vote without wasting their vote; and 2) the best interest of the majority of the electorate, as the most popular candidate will always win.
In a plurality winner scheme — like Minnesota has — less popular candidates play the role of spoiler, and cause unpopular outcomes. Infamously, that is what happened in Florida in 2000, where tens of thousands of Nader votes played a big role in giving that state to GW Bush by a very small margin. If Florida had choice voting in 2000, we never would have had GWB as president.
——–
* Georgia actually has a run-off election for its US Senator contests, when no one receives a majority. (There are other states in the Deep South which have these, too. They eminate from the historic lack of interparty competition.) However, Georgia’s run-off, contested between the first and second place finishers, is not instant. They hold an entire new election. That is problematic, in that a new election is expensive and the turnout historically for these run-offs has been very low, often with less than 20% turnout, reducing the likelihood that most of the population will be happy with the winner. This year in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent, leads Jim Martin (according to Nate Silver’s calculations of the polls) 50.3%-47.0%, with the rest going mostly to a Libertarian candidate. If Chambliss, therefore, declines by 0.3 percent, there will be a runoff in December for that senate seat. Like Minnesota, Georgia would be better off with choice voting.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
Whoever wins the senate seat in Minnesota, Norm Coleman or Al Franken, will win without a majority of the vote. (There is a serious independent running, too, named Dean Barkley, who replaced Paul Wellstone as a US Senator for a few months when Wellstone died.)
If Minnesota had instant runoff voting (also known as choice voting), the winner would have the ultimate support of most voters in that state. Unfortunately, like with most states*, Minnesota does not have a runoff, and so the third candidate in effect can play the spoiler.
I don’t know who Barkley is hurting more, but if, for example, he is drawing most of his support from people who would much rather have Coleman than Franken, and Franken ends up winning by 1-2% (say 40-38%), then it would be the case that most Minnesota voters would have been poorly served by their state’s process.
With an instant runoff, voters for all candidates would rank the 3 men in their prefered order. If no one got a majority among the first ranks, the third place finisher (probably Barkley) would be eliminated, and his votes would go to the other two in the proportion that Barkley voters chose each as their second preference.
That kind of system serves 1) the best interest of voters whose first choice might not be very popular, but they would like to give him/her the vote without wasting their vote; and 2) the best interest of the majority of the electorate, as the most popular candidate will always win.
In a plurality winner scheme — like Minnesota has — less popular candidates play the role of spoiler, and cause unpopular outcomes. Infamously, that is what happened in Florida in 2000, where tens of thousands of Nader votes played a big role in giving that state to GW Bush by a very small margin. If Florida had choice voting in 2000, we never would have had GWB as president.
——–
* Georgia actually has a run-off election for its US Senator contests, when no one receives a majority. (There are other states in the Deep South which have these, too. They eminate from the historic lack of interparty competition.) However, Georgia’s run-off, contested between the first and second place finishers, is not instant. They hold an entire new election. That is problematic, in that a new election is expensive and the turnout historically for these run-offs has been very low, often with less than 20% turnout, reducing the likelihood that most of the population will be happy with the winner. This year in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent, leads Jim Martin (according to Nate Silver’s calculations of the polls) 50.3%-47.0%, with the rest going mostly to a Libertarian candidate. If Chambliss, therefore, declines by 0.3 percent, there will be a runoff in December for that senate seat. Like Minnesota, Georgia would be better off with choice voting.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
Whoever wins the senate seat in Minnesota, Norm Coleman or Al Franken, will win without a majority of the vote. (There is a serious independent running, too, named Dean Barkley, who replaced Paul Wellstone as a US Senator for a few months when Wellstone died.)
If Minnesota had instant runoff voting (also known as choice voting), the winner would have the ultimate support of most voters in that state. Unfortunately, like with most states*, Minnesota does not have a runoff, and so the third candidate in effect can play the spoiler.
I don’t know who Barkley is hurting more, but if, for example, he is drawing most of his support from people who would much rather have Coleman than Franken, and Franken ends up winning by 1-2% (say 40-38%), then it would be the case that most Minnesota voters would have been poorly served by their state’s process.
With an instant runoff, voters for all candidates would rank the 3 men in their prefered order. If no one got a majority among the first ranks, the third place finisher (probably Barkley) would be eliminated, and his votes would go to the other two in the proportion that Barkley voters chose each as their second preference.
That kind of system serves 1) the best interest of voters whose first choice might not be very popular, but they would like to give him/her the vote without wasting their vote; and 2) the best interest of the majority of the electorate, as the most popular candidate will always win.
In a plurality winner scheme — like Minnesota has — less popular candidates play the role of spoiler, and cause unpopular outcomes. Infamously, that is what happened in Florida in 2000, where tens of thousands of Nader votes played a big role in giving that state to GW Bush by a very small margin. If Florida had choice voting in 2000, we never would have had GWB as president.
——–
* Georgia actually has a run-off election for its US Senator contests, when no one receives a majority. (There are other states in the Deep South which have these, too. They eminate from the historic lack of interparty competition.) However, Georgia’s run-off, contested between the first and second place finishers, is not instant. They hold an entire new election. That is problematic, in that a new election is expensive and the turnout historically for these run-offs has been very low, often with less than 20% turnout, reducing the likelihood that most of the population will be happy with the winner. This year in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent, leads Jim Martin (according to Nate Silver’s calculations of the polls) 50.3%-47.0%, with the rest going mostly to a Libertarian candidate. If Chambliss, therefore, declines by 0.3 percent, there will be a runoff in December for that senate seat. Like Minnesota, Georgia would be better off with choice voting.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
Whoever wins the senate seat in Minnesota, Norm Coleman or Al Franken, will win without a majority of the vote. (There is a serious independent running, too, named Dean Barkley, who replaced Paul Wellstone as a US Senator for a few months when Wellstone died.)
If Minnesota had instant runoff voting (also known as choice voting), the winner would have the ultimate support of most voters in that state. Unfortunately, like with most states*, Minnesota does not have a runoff, and so the third candidate in effect can play the spoiler.
I don’t know who Barkley is hurting more, but if, for example, he is drawing most of his support from people who would much rather have Coleman than Franken, and Franken ends up winning by 1-2% (say 40-38%), then it would be the case that most Minnesota voters would have been poorly served by their state’s process.
With an instant runoff, voters for all candidates would rank the 3 men in their prefered order. If no one got a majority among the first ranks, the third place finisher (probably Barkley) would be eliminated, and his votes would go to the other two in the proportion that Barkley voters chose each as their second preference.
That kind of system serves 1) the best interest of voters whose first choice might not be very popular, but they would like to give him/her the vote without wasting their vote; and 2) the best interest of the majority of the electorate, as the most popular candidate will always win.
In a plurality winner scheme — like Minnesota has — less popular candidates play the role of spoiler, and cause unpopular outcomes. Infamously, that is what happened in Florida in 2000, where tens of thousands of Nader votes played a big role in giving that state to GW Bush by a very small margin. If Florida had choice voting in 2000, we never would have had GWB as president.
——–
* Georgia actually has a run-off election for its US Senator contests, when no one receives a majority. (There are other states in the Deep South which have these, too. They eminate from the historic lack of interparty competition.) However, Georgia’s run-off, contested between the first and second place finishers, is not instant. They hold an entire new election. That is problematic, in that a new election is expensive and the turnout historically for these run-offs has been very low, often with less than 20% turnout, reducing the likelihood that most of the population will be happy with the winner. This year in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, the incumbent, leads Jim Martin (according to Nate Silver’s calculations of the polls) 50.3%-47.0%, with the rest going mostly to a Libertarian candidate. If Chambliss, therefore, declines by 0.3 percent, there will be a runoff in December for that senate seat. Like Minnesota, Georgia would be better off with choice voting.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.
“And to kick it up even another notch in Minnesota, it looks as though comedian Al Franken may win a seat!! WTF?”
Well, we have Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar — so is Franken such a stretch?
And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.
“And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.”
One reason that Jesse Ventura did so well to become governor is that there are actually some striking similarities between politics and pro wrestling.
Observers of each are usually questioning, “Is this for real?”
“And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.”
One reason that Jesse Ventura did so well to become governor is that there are actually some striking similarities between politics and pro wrestling.
Observers of each are usually questioning, “Is this for real?”
“And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.”
One reason that Jesse Ventura did so well to become governor is that there are actually some striking similarities between politics and pro wrestling.
Observers of each are usually questioning, “Is this for real?”
“And this is after Jesse Ventura had a stint as governor, there. After him, anything is possible.”
One reason that Jesse Ventura did so well to become governor is that there are actually some striking similarities between politics and pro wrestling.
Observers of each are usually questioning, “Is this for real?”
To All Posters,
The name calling and accusing is equal on both sides. David Greenwald do you really believe that story about the individual doing the canvassing? If you do I’d like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The absolute saddest part of all is the the obscene amount of money being spent on a name calling stupid election. That money could improve and save countless lives.
Instead it will go to serve some egotistical, self serving politician giving the public a verbal BJ. There are trees out there in the forest Davis, take a good look.
To All Posters,
The name calling and accusing is equal on both sides. David Greenwald do you really believe that story about the individual doing the canvassing? If you do I’d like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The absolute saddest part of all is the the obscene amount of money being spent on a name calling stupid election. That money could improve and save countless lives.
Instead it will go to serve some egotistical, self serving politician giving the public a verbal BJ. There are trees out there in the forest Davis, take a good look.
To All Posters,
The name calling and accusing is equal on both sides. David Greenwald do you really believe that story about the individual doing the canvassing? If you do I’d like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The absolute saddest part of all is the the obscene amount of money being spent on a name calling stupid election. That money could improve and save countless lives.
Instead it will go to serve some egotistical, self serving politician giving the public a verbal BJ. There are trees out there in the forest Davis, take a good look.
To All Posters,
The name calling and accusing is equal on both sides. David Greenwald do you really believe that story about the individual doing the canvassing? If you do I’d like to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
The absolute saddest part of all is the the obscene amount of money being spent on a name calling stupid election. That money could improve and save countless lives.
Instead it will go to serve some egotistical, self serving politician giving the public a verbal BJ. There are trees out there in the forest Davis, take a good look.
Given some of the stories my wife is telling me out of Reno, I’m not going to discount it. You’d be surprised what people say when you go door to door in some of these areas. Have you ever done it?
“That money could improve and save countless lives.”
It’s getting pumped into a lot of local economies, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing.
Given some of the stories my wife is telling me out of Reno, I’m not going to discount it. You’d be surprised what people say when you go door to door in some of these areas. Have you ever done it?
“That money could improve and save countless lives.”
It’s getting pumped into a lot of local economies, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing.
Given some of the stories my wife is telling me out of Reno, I’m not going to discount it. You’d be surprised what people say when you go door to door in some of these areas. Have you ever done it?
“That money could improve and save countless lives.”
It’s getting pumped into a lot of local economies, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing.
Given some of the stories my wife is telling me out of Reno, I’m not going to discount it. You’d be surprised what people say when you go door to door in some of these areas. Have you ever done it?
“That money could improve and save countless lives.”
It’s getting pumped into a lot of local economies, I don’t think that’s such a bad thing.
David and others,
Check out this week’s episode of NPR’s program, “This American Life”. It’s called “Ground Game”, and is a collection of interviews of volunteers for the presidential campaigns in Pennsylvania. When you hear some of the interviews, you can begin to see where McCain has some hope of winning.
Unfortunately, it’s ugly to listen to — all about racism.
But also some discussion of resentments among former Clinton supporters.
The link is here.
You can also download it at iTunes.
David and others,
Check out this week’s episode of NPR’s program, “This American Life”. It’s called “Ground Game”, and is a collection of interviews of volunteers for the presidential campaigns in Pennsylvania. When you hear some of the interviews, you can begin to see where McCain has some hope of winning.
Unfortunately, it’s ugly to listen to — all about racism.
But also some discussion of resentments among former Clinton supporters.
The link is here.
You can also download it at iTunes.
David and others,
Check out this week’s episode of NPR’s program, “This American Life”. It’s called “Ground Game”, and is a collection of interviews of volunteers for the presidential campaigns in Pennsylvania. When you hear some of the interviews, you can begin to see where McCain has some hope of winning.
Unfortunately, it’s ugly to listen to — all about racism.
But also some discussion of resentments among former Clinton supporters.
The link is here.
You can also download it at iTunes.
David and others,
Check out this week’s episode of NPR’s program, “This American Life”. It’s called “Ground Game”, and is a collection of interviews of volunteers for the presidential campaigns in Pennsylvania. When you hear some of the interviews, you can begin to see where McCain has some hope of winning.
Unfortunately, it’s ugly to listen to — all about racism.
But also some discussion of resentments among former Clinton supporters.
The link is here.
You can also download it at iTunes.
As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.
As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.
As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.
As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.”
It is very difficult to fathom. You really believe that being a military veteran from a war in and of itself, qualifies someone to lead? I mean, I’m not saying it disqualifies someone, but it doesn’t seem to be the end of the story.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.”
It is very difficult to fathom. You really believe that being a military veteran from a war in and of itself, qualifies someone to lead? I mean, I’m not saying it disqualifies someone, but it doesn’t seem to be the end of the story.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.”
It is very difficult to fathom. You really believe that being a military veteran from a war in and of itself, qualifies someone to lead? I mean, I’m not saying it disqualifies someone, but it doesn’t seem to be the end of the story.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.”
It is very difficult to fathom. You really believe that being a military veteran from a war in and of itself, qualifies someone to lead? I mean, I’m not saying it disqualifies someone, but it doesn’t seem to be the end of the story.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.
“As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.
DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.
DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.
DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.
DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.
“”As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.”
As far as lack of ability to lead?
“”As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.”
As far as lack of ability to lead?
“”As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.”
As far as lack of ability to lead?
“”As a Navy veteran from the Vietnam conflict, Jesse Ventura was and is eminently qualified to lead.
I realize that’s very hard for many on this blog to fathom.”
I put him right up there with GW Bush.”
As far as lack of ability to lead?
“DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.”
I was never impressed.
“DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.”
I was never impressed.
“DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.”
I was never impressed.
“DMG- you’re absolutely right. There is more to the “story”, much more.
Suffice it to say: “Jesse Ventura was not your average swabby”.”
I was never impressed.
DMG-Somebody who was impressed, and ordered the formation of men like Ventura. His name: John F. Kennedy
DMG-Somebody who was impressed, and ordered the formation of men like Ventura. His name: John F. Kennedy
DMG-Somebody who was impressed, and ordered the formation of men like Ventura. His name: John F. Kennedy
DMG-Somebody who was impressed, and ordered the formation of men like Ventura. His name: John F. Kennedy
I meant I was not impressed with him as a Governor.
I meant I was not impressed with him as a Governor.
I meant I was not impressed with him as a Governor.
I meant I was not impressed with him as a Governor.
DMG- I never said anything about him being “eminently” qualified to Govern.
DMG- I never said anything about him being “eminently” qualified to Govern.
DMG- I never said anything about him being “eminently” qualified to Govern.
DMG- I never said anything about him being “eminently” qualified to Govern.
If I could have, I would have voted for Jesse Ventura (aka James Janos) for governor of Minnesota in 1998. I was living next door in Wisconsin and followed the race closely. He ran against Norm Coleman and Skip Humphrey and neither of his opponents had any fresh ideas.
What I enjoyed about Jesse was his honesty. He was fun to listen to and he was the rare candidate who didn’t worry about political correctness. He didn’t try to offend people, but he often did. Policy wise, he was mostly a libertarian, but not rigidly so.
Liberals really hated Jesse, because he came across as a red ass and unsympathetic to a lot of their concerns. Conservatives hated him because he was contemptuous of their religiosity and their desire to mix church and state.
The real problem with Jesse in office was that he was a narcissist. He craved attention and wanted the whole world to revolve around him. He lacked the ability to compromise and picked petty fights with others, in government and in the press, if they dared challenge his supremacy. Being so self-centered served Jesse well as an entertainer, but in politics, it was his downfall. He ultimately failed as governor because he cared more about himself than he did about doing a good job. He spent more than half his time in office outside of Minnesota, including his stint doing commentary in the XFL. Once he decided that the press in Minnesota didn’t sufficiently love him, he stopped speaking with them, so he could focus talking with TV shows from New York, LA and Washington.
If I could have, I would have voted for Jesse Ventura (aka James Janos) for governor of Minnesota in 1998. I was living next door in Wisconsin and followed the race closely. He ran against Norm Coleman and Skip Humphrey and neither of his opponents had any fresh ideas.
What I enjoyed about Jesse was his honesty. He was fun to listen to and he was the rare candidate who didn’t worry about political correctness. He didn’t try to offend people, but he often did. Policy wise, he was mostly a libertarian, but not rigidly so.
Liberals really hated Jesse, because he came across as a red ass and unsympathetic to a lot of their concerns. Conservatives hated him because he was contemptuous of their religiosity and their desire to mix church and state.
The real problem with Jesse in office was that he was a narcissist. He craved attention and wanted the whole world to revolve around him. He lacked the ability to compromise and picked petty fights with others, in government and in the press, if they dared challenge his supremacy. Being so self-centered served Jesse well as an entertainer, but in politics, it was his downfall. He ultimately failed as governor because he cared more about himself than he did about doing a good job. He spent more than half his time in office outside of Minnesota, including his stint doing commentary in the XFL. Once he decided that the press in Minnesota didn’t sufficiently love him, he stopped speaking with them, so he could focus talking with TV shows from New York, LA and Washington.
If I could have, I would have voted for Jesse Ventura (aka James Janos) for governor of Minnesota in 1998. I was living next door in Wisconsin and followed the race closely. He ran against Norm Coleman and Skip Humphrey and neither of his opponents had any fresh ideas.
What I enjoyed about Jesse was his honesty. He was fun to listen to and he was the rare candidate who didn’t worry about political correctness. He didn’t try to offend people, but he often did. Policy wise, he was mostly a libertarian, but not rigidly so.
Liberals really hated Jesse, because he came across as a red ass and unsympathetic to a lot of their concerns. Conservatives hated him because he was contemptuous of their religiosity and their desire to mix church and state.
The real problem with Jesse in office was that he was a narcissist. He craved attention and wanted the whole world to revolve around him. He lacked the ability to compromise and picked petty fights with others, in government and in the press, if they dared challenge his supremacy. Being so self-centered served Jesse well as an entertainer, but in politics, it was his downfall. He ultimately failed as governor because he cared more about himself than he did about doing a good job. He spent more than half his time in office outside of Minnesota, including his stint doing commentary in the XFL. Once he decided that the press in Minnesota didn’t sufficiently love him, he stopped speaking with them, so he could focus talking with TV shows from New York, LA and Washington.
If I could have, I would have voted for Jesse Ventura (aka James Janos) for governor of Minnesota in 1998. I was living next door in Wisconsin and followed the race closely. He ran against Norm Coleman and Skip Humphrey and neither of his opponents had any fresh ideas.
What I enjoyed about Jesse was his honesty. He was fun to listen to and he was the rare candidate who didn’t worry about political correctness. He didn’t try to offend people, but he often did. Policy wise, he was mostly a libertarian, but not rigidly so.
Liberals really hated Jesse, because he came across as a red ass and unsympathetic to a lot of their concerns. Conservatives hated him because he was contemptuous of their religiosity and their desire to mix church and state.
The real problem with Jesse in office was that he was a narcissist. He craved attention and wanted the whole world to revolve around him. He lacked the ability to compromise and picked petty fights with others, in government and in the press, if they dared challenge his supremacy. Being so self-centered served Jesse well as an entertainer, but in politics, it was his downfall. He ultimately failed as governor because he cared more about himself than he did about doing a good job. He spent more than half his time in office outside of Minnesota, including his stint doing commentary in the XFL. Once he decided that the press in Minnesota didn’t sufficiently love him, he stopped speaking with them, so he could focus talking with TV shows from New York, LA and Washington.