Klobuchar 56, Kennedy 32, Fitzgerald 3

September 17th, 2006 – 9:07 PM by Eric Black

Uh-oh. The new Minnesota Poll of the Senate race — which just went up on the Strib website and will be in the Monday editions of the paper — shows DFLer Amy Klobuchar with a staggering 24 percentage point lead over Republican Mark Kennedy.

The numbers, based on interviews with 820 likely voters conducted Wednesday through Friday, are (in case you missed it in the headline of this post):

DFLer Amy Klobuchar: 56.
Republican Mark Kennedy: 32.
Independence-ite Robert Fitzgerald: 3.

Why do I say “uh-oh.” Only because I can imagine the level of grief my esteemed colleague Rob Daves, director of the Minnesota Poll, is going to take over this from Republicans.

It’s natural of course, for the GOP to disparage a poll that looks so bad for their side. But the GOP has been working up a grudge against Daves for years. In 2004, they called for him to be fired over his polling of the Bush-Kerry race in Minnesota.

In the end, there is no final reality check for a poll taken this far before the election. (And, if you go by a comparison between the last pre-election poll and the election results, Rob hit the Kerry-Bush-Minnesota ’04 race on the nose.) I’m not enough of a poll scientist to have an opinion on the merits of one pollster’s likely voter screen over another’s. Actually, I’m not any kind of poll scientist. But I do know that Rob is incredibly conscientious and highly regarded within the profession.

Anyway, what do you think of the state of the Senate race?

161 Responses to "Klobuchar 56, Kennedy 32, Fitzgerald 3"

St.Paul says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:16 pm

Be ready DFLers the wailing is about to begin. All I can say is stick a fork in the Repubs they are DONE!

Michael B. Brodkorb says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:16 pm

Eric:

Mr. Daves polls are highly suspect.

##

• Since 1998, the Minnesota Poll has underestimated the GOP result in elections by an average of 7.26 percent but underestimated the DFL result by only .054 percent.

• In 1998, the final Minnesota Poll predicted that Skip Humphrey would get 35 percent of the vote and win. On election day, Skip Humphrey finished in last place with 28 percent of the vote and Jesse Ventura, who was listed in third place in the final Minnesota Poll with 27 percent won the election with 37 percent.

• In 2000, the final Minnesota Poll predicted that Governor George W. Bush would get 37 percent of the vote and Vice President Al Gore would get 47 percent. The headline read: “Gore Takes 10-point lead in state.” On election day, Bush received 45.5 percent and Gore received 47.9 percent, a margin of 2.4 percent.

• In 2002, the final Minnesota Poll had Walter Mondale with a 5-point lead over Norm Coleman. On election day, Norm Coleman received 49.53 percent of the vote, over 8.53 percent more than the Minnesota Poll predicted. The Pioneer Press’s final poll predicted Norm Coleman’s victory by within three percentage points.

Mr Kottah says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:22 pm

No one is saying that polls are a terrific predicter of election results, but it does show that the conservative agenda does seem to be played out. How many more countries do we want to invade? How many more tax cuts can we give the rich? How much more can we take from our children. Perhaps the tide is turning and the coservative pendulum is reached its zenith.

Michael B. Brodkorb says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:24 pm

Sorry – I had a typo in my previous post.

##

Eric:

Mr. Daves’ polls are highly suspect.

##

• Since 1998, the Minnesota Poll has underestimated the GOP result in elections by an average of 7.26 percent but underestimated the DFL result by only .054 percent.

• In 1998, the final Minnesota Poll predicted that Skip Humphrey would get 35 percent of the vote and win. On election day, Skip Humphrey finished in last place with 28 percent of the vote and Jesse Ventura, who was listed in third place in the final Minnesota Poll with 27 percent won the election with 37 percent.

• In 2000, the final Minnesota Poll predicted that Governor George W. Bush would get 37 percent of the vote and Vice President Al Gore would get 47 percent. The headline read: “Gore Takes 10-point lead in state.” On election day, Bush received 45.5 percent and Gore received 47.9 percent, a margin of 2.4 percent.

• In 2002, the final Minnesota Poll had Walter Mondale with a 5-point lead over Norm Coleman. On election day, Norm Coleman received 49.53 percent of the vote, over 8.53 percent more than the Minnesota Poll predicted. The Pioneer Press’s final poll predicted Norm Coleman’s victory by within three percentage points.

idealist says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:26 pm

Interesting that they don’t argue with the poll numbers that show Hatch and Pawlenty in a dead heat except to say that Pawlenty should be up a few more points. You CANNOT explain away 24 pts Michael! Kennedy is a loser who is going to lose! Here is the confirmation of why he is going negative already. Obviously his internal polls are showing similar results.

Michael B. Brodkorb says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:31 pm

Why do Mr. Daves’ polls usually underestimate Republican turnout?

JohnMelin says:

September 17th, 2006 at 9:40 pm

The Minnesota poll is always tighter on voter turnout and tends to lower the weaker party and independents. Which brings up something else. Why in the hell didn’t Robert Fitzgerald remind Pat Lopez that he polled at eight percent in two other polls? If he didn’t it was stupid. If he did, that is one hell of a selective quote in the paper.

Ed Caffrey says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:03 pm

So if the Minnesota Poll regularly underestimates the Republican vote in the state of Minnesota by 7.26% and the margin of error is 3.4% if you add those together(10.66%) and subtract from the 24%lead shown in the poll then Klobuchar is still beating Kennedy by at least 15%. And in the national scope of things even that percentage is enough to keep a lot of national special interest money out of this state. And that will be good for the voters who are sick of seeing “issue ads” that are nothing more than character assasinations of the opposition candidate. If we are really lucky, maybe ALL of that money will stay away and we can have a race about issues instead of attacks on a candidates profession and what investments their mutul fund portfolio holds.

Tom Kelly says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:03 pm

The Minnesota Poll has Klobuchar ahead of Kennedy by 24 points. Is there anybody out there willing to wager a beer that Klobuchar wins by 24? If there is, I’ll take Kennedy and the points.

The problem with the Minnesota Poll on this race is that it is a complete outlier. Every other poll has the race between 5 and 10 points. I think the Strib owes its readers an explanation of why its poll differs so dramatically from all of the others, and why its pollster thinks he is right and everybody else is wrong.

Ed Caffrey says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pm

Sorry, it would be at least 13% not 15%.

Gary Gross says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:05 pm

The poll’s numbers aren’t credible in the least, especially when you consider that 37% of Minnesota’s registered voters are Republicans. Mark Kennedy’s ratings amongst Republicans is every bit as high as Gov. Pawlenty’s but he gets only 32% of the vote? Riiiight.

And the notion that a Democrat leads amongst men is patently absurd. That this poll says Ms. Klobuchar leads amongst men by 18 points isn’t fiction…it’s Democratic fantasy. In his best years, Bill Clinton couldn’t totally erase the male gender gap. Am I supposed to believe that Ms. Klobuchar has done what Bill Clinton couldn’t do in his re-election? That they’re saying this is insulting.

Keith says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:10 pm

Go Amy, Go.

I saw one of Kennedy’s Republican smear commercials against Amy. It is so pathtic to watch a candidate (Kennedy) who can’t run on his record and does the Rove technique of simply smearing their opposition. Hope Minnesota doesn’t go stupid and start believing that crap.

Go Amy, go.

Paul Thillen says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:18 pm

Michael,

Your first comment about GOP results being underestimated by 7.26 percent and DFL results underestimated by .054 make me wonder if you can provide all the results of the MN Poll for the last 8 years and the results of each of the elections they are predicting? You gave us some numbers but appear to be missing a few as well.I think it would help us all make an informed judgement on the issue.

Bill Prendergast says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:24 pm

Tom K–

I won’t wager a beer that Klobuchar wins the election by 24 points. It’s only September, anything can happen next month. If they get footage of Klobuchar on a video surveillance camera robbing a liquor store, that could send Kennedy’s numbers rocketing up as much as five per cent. I’d be crazy to take the spread you’re offering.

But, historically speaking, whose political polls have been the best indicators of election results in Minnesota races? Over the last ten years or so, I mean.

Chuck says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:25 pm

Tom – Would you like to wager a beer (or two) on who will be the next senator (regardless of spread)?

Dick says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:49 pm

It is too early to say much about what the result will be. There are weeks to go and the Republicans have not begun their gutter smear campaign yet.

Flash says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:56 pm

Paul:

MDE Posted a PDF of historical Minnesota Poll results here:

http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/Minnesota%20Poll%20-%20Complete%20Chart%20-%20Blog.pdf

Flash
Centrisity.com

dave says:

September 17th, 2006 at 10:59 pm

I’d say at about 815 on election night, all the networks (except Fox News) will correctly declare that Minnesota senate seat will be a pickup by the democrats. Fox News will report it at 1030.

Matt S. says:

September 17th, 2006 at 11:35 pm

Anyone who thinks this is a 24 point race is delerious at best. However, it should be concerning to all that Kennedy is running 10 points behind Pawlenty. Its always easy to play armchair political strategist. However, I would like to see Kennedy talk more about his record on family values and sportsmen issues to appeal to Greater MN voters. How about judges?? Is Amy Klobachar going to be like Dayton and block Bush’s judges? If so, she is not an agent of change. Does she like activist judges that want to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance or rule against the Boy Scouts? What are her views on the Boy Scouts? If there’s anything the Dems are weak on, its values and defense/security issues.

Matt S. says:

September 17th, 2006 at 11:41 pm

Has Amy Klobachar every held a fishing pole or been in a boat? Has she ever held a hunting rifle or driven on a backroad? Has she ever seen a natural wetland? Considering she has never lived outside a large metro area, there is probably a good chance that the answer to all of these questions is NO! If she has never done the things that are part of Minnesota’s rich heritage, how can she represent the “average” Minnesotan?

Phoenix Woman says:

September 17th, 2006 at 11:52 pm

Considering that Michael Brodkorb runs the GOP slime site “Minnesota Democrats Exposed”, I seriously doubt he’s here as an impartial commentator. (Neither am I, but at least I’ll admit my biases.)

But as other commentators have noted, the same Republicans who whined endlessly about the Klobuchar-Kennedy numbers didn’t say boo about the previous Hatch-Pawlenty Minnesota Poll. Why? Probably because that poll had Pawlenty up by a significant margin. (The newest one, of course, does not — which means the whiners are whining even louder now.)

Oh, and if Rob Daves’ polling is out of line, tell that to the people talking to David Broder, and who apparently used Kennedy’s own internal polling to state that “the bottom has fallen out” of the Kennedy campaign. “The bottom has fallen out” means that they couldn’t see how any amount of money could rescue Kennedy — and considering how much the Republicans wanted that Senate seat, that’s saying something.

Morley Safer says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:04 am

I have talked to a number of Republicans who have suggested that the national republican congressional committee yanked their resources from Kennedy BEFORE Labor Day. I highly doubt they would have cut and run if Kennedy were within a few points, as Mr. Brodkorb (A Kennedy campaign employee) would like people to believe.

Phoenix Woman says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:07 am

Matt S. said:

Has Amy Klobachar every held a fishing pole or been in a boat? Has she ever held a hunting rifle or driven on a backroad? Has she ever seen a natural wetland? Considering she has never lived outside a large metro area, there is probably a good chance that the answer to all of these questions is NO! If she has never done the things that are part of Minnesota’s rich heritage, how can she represent the “average” Minnesotan?

Uh, Matt?

Amy Klobuchar’s the daughter of famous Iron Ranger and sporting enthusiast Jim Klobuchar.

You should already know that, if you’re an “average” Minnesotan.

Phoenix Woman says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:14 am

I have talked to a number of Republicans who have suggested that the national republican congressional committee yanked their resources from Kennedy BEFORE Labor Day.

Wow, Morley. That makes sense. It would explain the sudden curtailing of both his warm-and-fuzzy ads and his I’m-not-a-Bush-clone-really ads. The only ad on his behalf I’ve seen in the last week was the one that bashed Klobuchar for attacking lobbyists even though she was one herself at one time; of course, what the ad didn’t say was that she was going after CORRUPT lobbyists.

Josh says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:24 am

OK! I believe this proves how really bogus the Star Tribune polls actually are. I hope they didn’t make the mistake of using the 5th district’s DFL convention list to conduct this poll.

Tommie says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:26 am

Eric was right. Let’s attack the messenger. But I’ll take his word over anything I’ve read here. Kennedy is in deep trouble. Believe it!

Gary Gross says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:43 am

Whose political polls have been the best indicators of election results in Minnesota races?

Gallup, followed by Rasmussen.

You know this is pure propaganda when 27% of self-identified conservatives support Ms. Klobuchar especially when you consider that Mark Kennedy grades out higher amongst conservatives than does Gov. Pawlenty.

Follow this link for accurate analysis.

It’s pollitorials like this that strip the Strib of any credibility it had left.

M Anderson says:

September 18th, 2006 at 1:39 am

Matt S., nice job slipping in the failing Republican talking points…

“If there’s anything the Dems are weak on, its values and defense/security issues.”

We all know that isn’t true.

Values? Lying us into a war? Removing constitutional freedoms and calling it the “Patriot Act?” Paying reporters to promote Child Left Behind? Inventing fake news services like Talon News? I know, I know… Clinton got a b* j*. What did Bush get from Jeff Gannon/James Guckert?

Defense and security issues? Other than raising new security alerts when the poll numbers go down, what have they done to make us safer? I know, I know… Clinton could have killed Bin Laden in ’98. George’s family is still working with the Bin Ladens. This goes back decades.

Environment? Who’s been gutting the EPA standards? Who’s removed whistle blower protection from EPA employees? I know, I know… Clinton… well Clinton did a pretty good job here didn’t he. Except that he cost a lot of coal powered electric plants big money.

I could go on but it has nothing to do with polling numbers.

My point is…

there are plenty of good reasons for Republican poll numbers to be really really low but I don’t think that matters to them. Between Fox News and ABC television dramas (“the events of the following broadcast are not true, we just made them looks as believable as possible”), corrupt religious leaders pushing selective ignorance from the pulpit, and voting machines that are practically built by the GOP; Joseph Stalin’s famous quote “It’s not the votes that count, it’s who counts the votes.” provides Republicans the margin of victory they seek.

Mr. Matt S, I too vote for values, security, environment, education and economy. I also vote for constitutional rights, Habeas Corpus, diplomacy, the Geneva Conventions, fiscal responsibility, protecting our intelligence community, etc. I ask you sir, please turn off Fox News, find a few foreign news services and educate yourself before you vote.

Bill Prendergast says:

September 18th, 2006 at 1:41 am

Thanks for answering my question, Gary.
Gallup, followed by Rasmussen.

But I followed the link in your post and it just led to another angry conservative screed about the poll results and “lies” and how the Strib’s like Baghdad Bob and Pravda. I can already read that kind of stuff here.

But thanks for the tip on Gallup and Rasmussen.

Chip says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:43 am

If I see Michael Brodkorb’s name in connection with any “fact”, I automatically tune out. He has lost all credibility through his selective use on his site.

We’re close to Kennedy’s old district, and I think voters in the metro might remember his attack ads on Wetterling last time around, so he was a non-starter out of the gate.

His drag on the ticket is probably responsible for the governor’s race being considered a dead heat at this time. Who knows, if Pawlenty hadn’t maken his “weenie” remarks about Kennedy distancing from Bush, Hatch might even have been up a few points.

If you were the Republicans with an anchor on the ticket like Kennedy, soft support for your governor and with a pair of congressmen in lockstep with an unpopular president, what do you do to turn it around?

Perhaps “go negative” but eight weeks of that is an eternity.

Chip says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:48 am

Brodkorb “forgot” his usual disclaimer that he is a paid consultant to the Mark Kennedy campaign. I’m sure he regets this omission.

Hweaver says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:27 am

Eric — I wonder if you could invite Rob Daves to come over to the BQ and address some of the concerns and accusations that have surfaced in this thread? (I can understand why he might not want to wander into the thicket, but it could be illuminating if he did).

Barbara says:

September 18th, 2006 at 7:50 am

Summary:
(1) Republicans and Democrats are more polarized than at any other time in recent history. Including Vietnam era.
(2) Some partisans are immensely snarky.
(3) Michael Brodkorb has a blog that traffics in vicious attacks, rumors, and gossip. He is a GOP precinct chair. He is paid staff for Mark Kennedy.
(4) There are differing poll results.
(5) Amy Klobuchar will win this race. Bottom line is bottom line is bottom line.

Peder says:

September 18th, 2006 at 7:55 am

Phoenix Woman and Chip, if you could actually debunk the numbers that Brodkorb is presenting then you’re worth a listen. If your argument is only ‘he works for the Kennedy campaign’, then you’re not debunking anyone. This poll has a history of overselling DFLers.
Oh, and for all of the talk about the right whining, I think the message has been pretty clear. A tied poll for governor shows a clear lead for Pawlenty. The senate poll still shows a big lead for Klobuchar but not 24 points. My guess is a 10 point Klobuchar win and 7 points Pawlenty. But please, just ignore any dissenting view and crawl back into your cocoon.

Andy P. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 8:38 am

I love reading all these comments, keep up the good work. I think we all know Mrs. Klobuchar will be the next Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Kennedy bit off more than he can swallow in this election. Lets focus on the next 2-4 years and how we can make this state, and country better with more Democratic leadership and sensibilities.

Thanks.

AP

Dave Nelson says:

September 18th, 2006 at 8:51 am

The Minnesota Poll is an absolute joke and should be killed to put it out of its misery.

Eric Black, I know you’re very much to the left, but on this blog I’ve been pleasantly surprised that you’ve actually been mostly evenhanded. But you really strain credibility here when you state “In the end, there is no final reality check for a poll taken this far before the election.” Uh, actually there are numerous “reality checks” – try independent nationally recognized polls. At least 4 of these: Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Zogby, and USA Today/Gallup have this race between 5 and 10 points. A 24-point lead for Klobuchar is 3 times the average of these reality checks.

Eric, you said the poll director is your friend, and so obviously that’s clouding your judgement, but if you really want to be seen as an impartial umpire of this race, then you must call obviously foul balls foul.

Jonathan P. Scoll says:

September 18th, 2006 at 9:00 am

Amy Klobuchar is way ahead because of who she is, and has been, over the years. Kennedy trails because of who he is, or better, what he is: a faceless right-wing nonentity, whose political strategy is out of the Rove slash-and-burn playbook. Why do these Bush clones who abhor the public sector and have no sense of the “common good” run for office in the first place? Minnesota has produced distinguished Republican office holders, and will again, once the Age of George has passed.

Chip says:

September 18th, 2006 at 9:07 am

Peder, I have no interest in even looking at anything Michael Brodkorp has produced, as I thought I made it clear that his distortions in the past have stripped him of any credibility — he is a non-entity any more.

Dave, as far as using other polls for reality checks, USA Today and Zogby both show Hatch ahead of Pawlenty by one point. Rasmussen makes a disclaimer on their results that Pawelenty’s numbers are low for an incumbent, and that by election time when the DFL chickens come home to roost Pawlenty’s 10 point lead in their results will disappear.

When you find a poll that has any good news for a Republican running in Minnesota this year, just keep looking at it and ignore any other data.

The governors race is just heating up and TPaw has a chance. But Kennedy is yesterday’s news. How many other women will ride her coat tails into office? I think the landscape has really improved for Wetterling, Rowley, Swanson and Otto. Maybe even for Tim Walz.

Michael Blaine says:

September 18th, 2006 at 10:29 am

Both parties are execrable, full of selfish blowhards who harm our nation. And Eric Black and the StarTribune are their lackeys and accomplices. All should be shunned by the citizenry. We need real choices and real public servants to make our democracy work.

Brad Voves says:

September 18th, 2006 at 10:47 am

It is possible that the people that change their minds between polling and the election tend to go from DFL to GOP candidates.
Or it is posssible that many “polled” people that claim they are for a DFL candidate do not show up to vote.

Dan Kauppi says:

September 18th, 2006 at 10:47 am

Brodkorb’s arguments cherry pick results and are specious at best.

He refers both in ’98 Gov, ’00 Pres, and ’02 Sen to the “final Minnesota Poll” differing from election day results. That may be true in all instances, but the conclusion that the Minnesota Poll is faulty DOES NOT FOLLOW.

’98 Gov was a highly volatile, three-way race that involved a very late surge for Ventura, as well as large numbers of new registrants (or, “unlikely voters”) who only came out to vote for a celebrity. It would be a very difficult race to poll.

’02 Sen was another unique race where the final Minnesota Poll was conducted long before events that had an effect on election day took place. The Wellstone memorial backlash obviously altered the final election results.

Republicans have a better “ground game” in elections, ie, they do a better job at identifying their voters and turning them out. It follows that even if the MN Poll underestimates final Republican vote tallies, it may still accurately reflect the views of the population at large.

Additionally, Republicans like Brodkorb like to whine a lot about the poll being wrong, but advance no theories as to WHY it might be wrong beyond their belief that the Star Tribune is a commie rag.

If you begin with the assumption it’s a commie rag, obviously you’ll hate the results that come from the poll, which you then use to support your contention it’s a commie rag. Republican whining about the Star Trib is fundamentally circular.

Basically, Brodkorb, do you have any evidence that the MN Poll either intentionally or unintentionally skews its results in favor of DFLers? Please provide it, or else shut up already.

Gary Gross says:

September 18th, 2006 at 10:50 am

I’d say at about 815 on election night, all the networks (except Fox News) will correctly declare that Minnesota senate seat will be a pickup by the democrats. Fox News will report it at 1030.

Dude, I hate telling you this but the Minnesota seat is currently held by Mark Dayton. I also hate telling you that Ms. Klobuchar won’t win because she’s an idiot on national security.

She’s on the record as saying that she’d force the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan for getting us out of Iraq. That’s impossible because the Legislative Branch can’t command the Joint Chiefs to do anything because the Joint Chiefs are part of the Executive Branch. That sticky little thing called the Constitution gets in the way of that.

She also didn’t know that Tom Ridge was the first Secretary of Homeland Security. She thought FEMA director Mike Brown was.

Ms. Klobuchar will also lose support in a hurry when people find out that she’s supported by several vehement anti-war groups, including the Tides Foundation & United for Peace & Justice (UFPJ).

A few years back, the Tides Foundation gave a grant to the National Lawyers Guild. One of the ways that money was used was to support Lynne Stewart’s defense of the Blind Sheikh, who planned the first World Trade Center bombing. Ms. Stewart is so radical that she’s quoted as saying “I don’t believe in anarchist violence but in directed violence,” she told the New York Times in 1995. “That would be violence directed at the institutions which perpetuate capitalism, racism, sexism, and at the people who are the appointed guardians of those institutions and accompanied by popular support.”

UFPJ is so anti-war that they don’t even want the US to consider the military option against Iran.

Also, as I reported here, Amy Klobuchar is vigorously supported by someone who signed the Not In Our Name (NION) petition.

For those who haven’t read about NION in the Strib or other Agenda Media newspapers, NION circulated a petition a week after 9/11 saying that they didn’t want America going to war with al Qaida & the Taliban in their names. They said that they detested war of all sorts.

Given the fact that Ms. Klobuchar’s statements on the Iraq war sound almost identical to NION’s goals of getting us out of Iraq, it isn’t unreasonable to ask why such anti-war groups are supporting a so-called moderate.

I supect it’s because Ms. Klobuchar isn’t a moderate.

Dan Kauppi says:

September 18th, 2006 at 10:56 am

What a joke, Gary.

“UFPJ” supports Amy, whoever they are, therefore Amy supports some lawyer UFPJ supports via a third party?

I know a guy who’s racist through and through, and he’s a Republican.

Therefore Mark Kennedy is a racist and a bigot!

Your logic is impeccable.

Johnny V says:

September 18th, 2006 at 10:57 am

The poll definitley leans to the left and anyone who looks at the history of the poll and says different is kidding themselves.
The MN Senate race is not that close because the DFL finally found a solid candidate. Any attempt by Kennedy to go negative will be viewed as desperate unless they have proof of illegal behavior, which is highly unlikely (although that won’t make a difference in the 5th district race).
This will not be a Democratic pick-up as previously stated by someone, since she will be replacing Dayton.

Johnny V says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:02 am

Gary:

Two-thirds of of the U.S. in any poll is not happy with the direction we have gone in Iraq. If Amy supports that position, I’d say she is more of a moderate than Mark is.

Michelle says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:07 am

Hey DFLer’s

Congrats on the Minnesota Poll!! It was big talk at the Y this AM. The moms left energized and ready to campaign. They were going home to make donations and get yard signs. A couple of them are even going to be election judges!! These mom’s are college educated, raising their kids, and are really concerned about the direction of this country. That is why we are calling, donating, and supporting Mark.

Good Luck!

Dan Kauppi says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:09 am

Michelle, we Dems better watch out.

If Kennedy goes down to 20% we’re definitely screwed, because you moms are gonna work oh-so-hard!

I won’t be sleeping well tonight!

Wally S. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:35 am

Why is Mark Kennedy, as it seems to be with most Republicans, afraid to run on his record? As he used smear campaign against Patty Wetterling, he is now launched a smear campaign against Amy Klobuchar. Is his record that bad?

Michelle says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:43 am

Hey Dan,

If you want to get personal, that is fine. Remember two words- Fertility Gap.

Even if you win this battle, you will lose the war. We are raising the next generation while you are outsourcing your parenting or just aborting the little ones.

The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. No Fear Here!

Buck Danielson says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:45 am

The only thing she lacks is gravitas. If that were present in her person she might be considered a serious candidate for the United States Senate.

Ed Bradly says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:29 pm

Buck,
Please enlighten me with your definition of the word “Gravitas”. I am just a pig farmer’s son from Skylar Nebraska and a neophyte to the political scene. Is it safe to assume you have “Gravitas” due to your ability to identify those who lack it?

Sarah says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pm

Is there any concern over potential fall-out from Amy’s numbers being this high? Any risk of her losing money to another campaign or getting “lost in the shuffle.”

We’ve heard people unhappy from the Kennedy camp. I don’t think there is one “happy” person from the Kennedy supporters.

We’ve heard the celebrations from the Amy camp. Just curious if there are “unhappy” people from the Klobuchar side.

Jeff E. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:33 pm

>Why is Mark Kennedy, as it seems to be with most Republicans, afraid to run on his record? As he used smear campaign against Patty Wetterling, he is now launched a smear campaign against Amy Klobuchar. Is his record that bad?

The answer, Wally, is because it works. Unless and until voters start taking their job more seriously, and stop parroting what they hear on TV commercials, elections will continue to be decided by such important issues as ‘what stocks are in Klobuchar’s mutual fund’.

MR says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:38 pm

Wasn’t Katie Couric’s line something like “Gravitas is a code word for testicles”?

Grace Kelly says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

I thought polls were always best compared to previous polls. A poll of what people think and a poll of people who will actually go vote just happen to be different things. Plus there are problems like voting places being moved without voters knowing about this. I think the difference just shows how well the Republicans do at getting out the vote, apparently a 7.26% difference. Here is where reality ought to hit home!

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:46 pm

MR said “Wasn’t Katie Couric’s line something like “Gravitas is a code word for testicles”? “

no, No, NO. Gravitas is a code word for “cojones.”

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pm

Grace Kelly said “I think the difference just shows how well the Republicans do at getting out the vote, apparently a 7.26% difference. Here is where reality ought to hit home! ”

No doubt. Much like Ventura’s win was the result of attracting non-traditional voters, recent Repub victories are largely attributed to the party’s recent success at their GOTV drives. Some speculate that it was just that machine that saved Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island from losing the primary to a challenger.

I doubt whether such an effort could overcome Kennedy’s or Fine’s deficits to Klobuchar & Ellison, but other GOPers seen as ‘in trouble’ like Kline and Pawlenty are likely to have more comfortable victories than the polls currently suggest.

Ed Bradly says:

September 18th, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Why is Mark Kennedy, as it seems to be with most Republicans, afraid to run on his record? The answer, Wally, is Mark Kennedy has been a “Bushie Butt Boy” the entire time he has been in Washington. It’s kinda hard for Mr. Kennedy to convince voters that he will grow a spine or have a spine implant if he is elected.

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 1:04 pm

One more thing, will Mark Kennedy & other Republicans try to get out in front of President Bush before he flip-flops on global warming, or will they wait & fall in line afterward?

Gary Gross says:

September 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

Two-thirds of of the U.S. in any poll is not happy with the direction we have gone in Iraq. If Amy supports that position, I’d say she is more of a moderate than Mark is.

It still hasn’t dawned on people that part of those people would rather have seen the administration put more troops on the ground after toppling Saddam. Why people automatically assume that that figure means two thirds of the people want us out of Iraq is beyond me.

As for Ms. Klobuchar, moderate isn’t the adjective I’d use to describe her. Clever maybe but not not moderate.

As for the basis of my claims isn’t just that one anti-war group supports her or that one anti-war activist contributed to her. It’s that a whole series of vehemently anti-war groups have supported her financially, have views that sound nearly identical to Ms. Klobuchar’s & that have attended her campaign rallies.

If you can’t distinguish between “I know a Republican who’s a bigot; therefore Mark Kennedy is a bigot” & being surrounded by anti-war groups, some of which have members that oppose capitalism but support “directed violence” then you need to think things through more clearly.

Dan Kauppi says:

September 18th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

Michelle: You’re the one being a sarcastic snot. I’m just pointing out that I’m not exactly quaking in my boots because you claim you’re energized because you’re getting crushed.

Gary: I think you could use some remedial course work in logic.

If you can’t realize there is no distinction between “a woman who advocates violence belongs to a group that supports Amy Klobuchar, therefore Amy Klobuchar supports violence” and “a racist supports Mark Kennedy, therefore Mark Kennedy is a racist,” then YOU need to think things through more clearly.

Patrick King says:

September 18th, 2006 at 1:59 pm

As a neutral party on this Senate race, I am now paynig attention and see Amy Klobuchar as a very thoughtful and articulate leader and Mark Kennedy as being in way over his head–kind of a Bush hack.
Additionally, re: the email from Michelle re: fertility gap–there is a chlling movie coming out called Jesus Camp–a documentary about the kind of camp she maybe sends her children to: They are being trained to be “warriors” and be the generation “that brings Jesus home”, in the words of one of the young campers. Among the scenes–children actually worshiping a picture of George Bush

Travis says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:00 pm

Don’t worry, Gary…we wouldn’t use moderate to describe your political position, either.

However, by advancing a specious six-degrees-of-guilt-by-association argument to attack Ms. Klobuchar, then dismiss the “logic” of this attack when applied in equal measure to your preferred candidate, we’re also forced to eliminate “clever” in describing your position as well.

But, here’s your shot at redemption, Mr. Gross: take a moment to describe why the Hatch-Pawlenty poll is acceptable.

Will someone (preferably a right-wing sophist like Blobkar or Gross) please make a coherent, logically consistent argument why the data for one poll is categorically flawed, but unassailable (judging by the silence) in another?

Jeffrey says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

The question that’s been bugging me is : Of what advantage is it to the Star Tribune to running a biased poll? Is the purpose to sell more papers to DFL leanning people? If those people see the polls consistently wrong – won’t they be upset? If Pawlenty is truly comfortably ahead of Hatch and if the Kennedy/Klobuchar race is truly close – How does the Star Tribune gain in tricking people? I am not saying they aren’t – I am just trying to understand the motivation.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:05 pm

Even though I think the election results will be closer than 24 points because of the inherent (and purposeful in my opinion) bias in the Star-Tribune poll, a great chance for a Republican pick up was lost here in MN.

The Democrats ran a very weak candidate. Mark Kennedy was only a step above that level. I think Pawlenty would have been a better candidate but clearly a second term in the state house was much more attractive.

It is amazing how weak the candidate pool is in this state for both parties if this is the best either could do. THe fact that Kennedy was the best state wide candidate amongst the Republican congressment and that there really was not a challenger to Klochubar is amazing in a state that has created some pretty amazing political candidates from Stassen, Humphrey, Mondale, Boschwitz, Durenburger, Wellstone, and Norm Coleman.

In politics you live with your disappointment, lick your wounds and wait for the right opportunity. A Pawlenty candidacy in 2012 is probably somehting to look forward to.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:09 pm

“Of what advantage is it to the Star Tribune to running a biased poll?”

I think you answered you own question. The poll has been “off” by pretty much the same error for many election cycles. This is almost entirely to do with determining who is a likely voter and oversampling the Democrats in the sample.

With that said, the Klochubar-Kennedy race is probably not as close as I would hope. The Zogby interactive polling showed a 9 point margin and that poll also has shown some Democratic bias.

MJ says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

Here’s a record for Kennedy to run on: A booming economy in the wake of a dotcom bust/terrorist attack, adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, cutting taxes for everyone and aggressively protecting this country from another terrorist attack.

Dem answer: Raise taxes on “rich” people (why? Because they have it and we want it!), there is no war on islamic fascists (it’s more of a problem for local cops), leave Iraq now (bin Laden said he loved it when we cut/run from Somalia in the 90s) and give away college tuition and healthcare (again, because other people have it and we want it!).

And by the way, you call Kennedy a Bush clone. How exactly does Klobuchar differ from Howard Dean? Ted Kennedy? Nancy Pelosi? Mark Dayton (her hero)?

MR says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:15 pm

Wasn’t Pawlenty going to run for senate in 2002, but the RNC wanted Norm to run instead? Actually, if I recall correctly, Pawlenty was actually polling ahead of Norm leading up to the primary.

It seems that the general trend of the polls is that Klobuchar is up by a lead wider than the margin of error–probably 5-10 points, and the gov’s race is basically neck-and-neck, with Pawlenty having a slight lead. I don’t buy 24 points, but I’d buy that Klobuchar is up pretty significantly.
I think that Kennedy also showed that things are looking bad when he started the hit pieces already.

Travis says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:19 pm

Dan Kauppi:

Don’t worry about Gary or the selective “reporting” of paid Kennedy campaign consultant Blogkorb offering logical reasoning. After all, they’re only following Mr. Kenneyd’s lead: one who pleads his goose-stepping to Pres. Bush’s legislative demands is not and should not be on the ballot, but in the same breadth insists Ms. Klobuchar is a proxy for Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Mark Dayton all at once.

In pursuing this line of argument, conservatives like Mr. Kennedy (and the consultant industry supporting them) do not rely on logic, but traffic in confusion.

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

Mark, you must be the only guy that characterizes Norm Coleman as a “pretty amazing” candidate. Seriously, what has the guy done? His claim to fame is holding hearings on the UN oil-for-food scandal. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out; is that really the most important thing to be investigating these days? And even then, he got pasted by Galloway in the hearings. Coleman is a boob. We can do better.

Wally S. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:57 pm

MJ:

Booming economy? not really. May I remind you that the largest federal deficits in history have occured during the G. Bush and R. Reagan administrations. We both know the Medicare prescription drug benefit is a hopelessly bungled bureaucratic nightmare. Tax cuts for everyone? Your income must be considerably higher than mine. My tax cut has been exactly ZERO. Agressively protecting me? We are supposedly under the protection of the Department of Homeland Security. If I am not mistaken, this is the same agency that responded to Hurricane Katrina. Now, I understand that Katrina was not a terrorist attack. However, if this is an example of how this agency works, we are in deep trouble! I will feel “agressively protected” when our Department of Homeland Security can break up a terrorist cell as they did in Great Britain. I will feel “agressively protected” when our intelligence agencies begin to work together for the common good rather than advancing their own political agenda. I will feel much safer when the incumbent administration can run on it’s record rather than using fear and smear tactics every time they show badly in the polls.

Wally S. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pm

Mark:

Had it not been for a tragic accident, Norm Coleman would be back in Brooklyn where he belongs.

Michael B. Brodkorb says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:09 pm

Can’t anyone refute the data I posted on my blog?

The Minnesota Poll is biased.

Gary Gross says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:20 pm

Mr. Gross: take a moment to describe why the Hatch-Pawlenty poll is acceptable.

If you read my comments on the Hatch-Pawlenty polling, you’d know that I didn’t think that it was acceptable. To say that it’s a scientific poll is laughable.

Here’s why I say that:

1. There’s a consistent oversampling of Democrats & a consistent undersampling of Republicans.

In other words, demographics matter. The Census bureau says that there’s currently as many registered Republicans as Democrats, with each group representing a little over 35% of all registered voters.

2. Factoring in those demographics, the Hatch-Pawlenty race can’t be tied based on the reporting. In that article, they said that 85% of Democrats supported Hatch & that 87% of Republicans supported Pawlenty. The article also stated that Gov. Pawlenty led amongst independents 40%-30%.

3. Summarizing, how can Gov. Pawlenty get more support from Republicans than Hatch gets from Democrats and substantially more support from independents but the race is still tied?

Let me illustrate. Approximately 2,450,000 people voted in the last midterm election. Using demographics, that means that 36% of those voters were Republicans, 36% were Democrats & 28% were independents. If we use those numbers for this poll, then Gov. Pawlenty would finish with 1,063,000 votes while Hatch would finish with approximately 960,000 votes. Does that sound like a tie to you?

Don’t worry about Gary or the selective “reporting” of paid Kennedy campaign consultant Blogkorb offering logical reasoning. After all, they’re only following Mr. Kenneyd’s lead: one who pleads his goose-stepping to Pres. Bush’s legislative demands is not and should not be on the ballot, but in the same breadth insists Ms. Klobuchar is a proxy for Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Mark Dayton all at once.

The hateful fringe of the Democratic Party just doesn’t get it that individuals like myself actually go out & find information on the internet so that we form our own opinions.

Even more disgusting is the hatred shown in the statement that a major party candidate “should not be on the ballot” because he doesn’t march lockstep with you. The last I heard, that’s called censorship.

Furthermore, Here’s the link to an article that lays out what agendas these anti-war groups have:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18322

Let me be brief: CAIR lobbied Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, John Conyers, John Dingell & numerous other Democrats to get the Patriot Act repealed. Notice that I didn’t say that they wanted certain of the provisions to lapse. They wanted the Patriot Act repealed.

Amy Klobuchar, Walter Mondale, Mike Hatch, Matt Entenza & R.T. Rybak were invited to speak at a CAIR convention a couple years ago to tell them how to get involved in the political process.

There’s nothing illegal about that. It’s just that I’m opposed to their legislative agenda. I’m also opposed to their agenda, which included a rally in DC that voiced their disapproval of Israeli attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza.

CAIR didn’t seem to notice that Hezbollah had initiated the war by attacking Israel. CAIR didn’t seem to notice that Hezbollah hid amongst the civilians in Lebanon.

It’s also well-known that several CAIR leaders have supported terrorists like Hamas. Here’s what Charles Schumer said about Nihad Awad & Hamas:

In his opening remarks, Senator Schumer stated that prominent members of CAIR, referring specifically to Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmed, have “intimate links with Hamas.” Later, he remarked that “we know [CAIR] has ties to terrorism.”

Here’s a quote from Mr. Awad:

At a 1994 meeting at Barry University, Nihad Awad stated succinctly, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.”

Even Senator Richard Durbin, who has made common cause with some of America’s Wahhabi-backed groups, came down hard on CAIR. In his final comments he conceded that CAIR is “unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect,” and requested that the committee seek the testimony of mainstream Muslim groups in its place in the future.

Now that we’ve made a direct connection between CAIR & Ms. Klobuchar & that we’ve established that CAIR isn’t the moderate group they pretend to be, isn’t it time to start asking why Ms. Klobuchar would choose to associate herself with them?

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Dora says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:21 pm

I didn’t see you address Dan Kauppi post of 10:47 Michael.

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pm

MDE says “Can’t anyone refute the data I posted on my blog?

The Minnesota Poll is biased. ”

No. I don’t read your blog.

Most people seem to agree that the MN Poll is an outlier, at best. Most people also seem to agree that Kennedy is unlikely to reverse his downward trend.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pm

“My tax cut has been exactly ZERO.”

YOu are either a liar or you do not pay taxes. It is mathematically impossible get a zero tax reduction with the Bush tax cuts.

“Mark, you must be the only guy that characterizes Norm Coleman as a “pretty amazing” candidate. Seriously, what has the guy done?”

He is a very good candidate, maybe the last one we have for a while in the state. WHat you forget on the “oil-for-food” hearings is that he is a the chairman of a very important committee as a freshman senator. And, the only way that you can believe that Galloway pasted Coleman in hearings is if you believe that circus acts can substitute for real issues. Galloway is a fraud and was exposed as such.

“Had it not been for a tragic accident,”

Probably, but at worst it would have been a very close election. Paul Wellstone really had to fight and even the Democratic substitution of an “icon” could not beat Coleman.

Likewise, you may even be correct here too. Because if the Democrats would not have been exposed as the complete morons they are during the Wellstone funeral Coleman may not have got the boost he needed to beat Mondale. All of the major networks airing that live was several hours of paid political advertising for Norm Coleman, we thank you very much.

Dan Kauppi says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm

Thanks, Dora. I’ll repost to get through the clutter.

“Brodkorb’s arguments cherry pick results and are specious at best.

He refers both in ‘98 Gov, ‘00 Pres, and ‘02 Sen to the “final Minnesota Poll” differing from election day results. That may be true in all instances, but the conclusion that the Minnesota Poll is faulty DOES NOT FOLLOW.

‘98 Gov was a highly volatile, three-way race that involved a very late surge for Ventura, as well as large numbers of new registrants (or, “unlikely voters”) who only came out to vote for a celebrity. It would be a very difficult race to poll.

‘02 Sen was another unique race where the final Minnesota Poll was conducted long before events that had an effect on election day took place. The Wellstone memorial backlash obviously altered the final election results.

Republicans have a better “ground game” in elections, ie, they do a better job at identifying their voters and turning them out. It follows that even if the MN Poll underestimates final Republican vote tallies, it may still accurately reflect the views of the population at large.

Additionally, Republicans like Brodkorb like to whine a lot about the poll being wrong, but advance no theories as to WHY it might be wrong beyond their belief that the Star Tribune is a commie rag.

If you begin with the assumption it’s a commie rag, obviously you’ll hate the results that come from the poll, which you then use to support your contention it’s a commie rag. Republican whining about the Star Trib is fundamentally circular.

Basically, Brodkorb, do you have any evidence that the MN Poll either intentionally or unintentionally skews its results in favor of DFLers? Please provide it, or else shut up already. “

Bob Belbeck says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:48 pm

Hey, the only tool Republicans have left is shooting the messenger or dissing the opponents. If they ran on the budget, which they destroyed, they would lose. If they ran on Iraq they would lose. If they ran on torturing prisoners they would lose. If they ran on protecting the ports and mail they would lose. It they ran on the abuse of the bill of rights they would lose. If they ran on the preservation of hunting and recreational land they would lose. If they ran on their tax plans they would lose. They are hoping that fellow Republicans ignore the issues and go into the voting booth blindfolded.

MR says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:50 pm

Bob Collins over at Polinaut brings up an interesting and worthwhile point about polls in this post:
http://www.publicradio.org/columns/minnesota/polinaut/archive/2006/09/working_the_pol.php
Basically, you should a particular poll not to other polls but to the same poll taken at a different time, and compare the trends to other polls. Theoretically, that would remove what bias there may or may not be in a poll.

NJR says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pm

Michael’s point is well taken. This poll is flawed.

Maybe Mr. Black can see past his personal friendships and do a “Is that a Fact” on the poll methodology.

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:51 pm

Mark, 3 paragraphs and you can’t come up with an example of why Coleman is a “pretty amazing” candidate? What does he stand for? He stands for whichever way the wind is blowing. Noticing that Galloway made Coleman out for the fool he is is in no way giving a pass to Galloway, it merely points out an example of Coleman’s inadequacy for the job. He’s in the Dayton category: a one term wonder. The difference is, Coleman will lose an election, rather than seeing the writing on the wall and quitting while he’s ahead.

Chip says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Michael Brodkorp, go crawl back under your rock. Your 15 minutes is up.

Matt S. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:52 pm

Kennedy was a conservative before Bush came along and he will be a conservative long after Bush leaves office.

Why do the Dems have to rely on the Star Tribune to put out wacky polls to try and sway the election? Don’t the Dems have a platform to run on? Why do they have to be so lazy and out of touch to run their own campaigns. Can’t the Dems stand on their own two feet?

MR says:

September 18th, 2006 at 3:57 pm

Can’t Kennedy say anything nice in his campaigns? The hit pieces have already started.

Travis says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pm

If reality stubbornly resists your agenda, then distort, repeat yourself ad nasuem, and call in confederates to back up your “point.”

Thanks to NJR and Brodkorp for illustrating page 1 of the Republican campaign handbook.

Nouf says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pm

LOL, Michelle.

Dan-who is being a sarcastic snot?

You’re the one who claims he “won’t be sleeping well tonight!” I assume you weren’t serious & that was sarcasm.

Michelle’s point, OTOH, isn’t sarcastic at all! This state is tilting right as the Republicans continue to make gains in the booming suburbs while the DFL’s base is shrinking in the Iron Range & stagnant in Urban centers.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:15 pm

Norm Coleman will easily win reelection in 2008. I doubt the Democrats will even put up a serious contender for the spot especially when Amy Klochubar is the best they can do for an open seat in an election year were they need to retain the Dayton seat.

And, to claim that Galloway made a fool of Coleman is ridiculous. I am not sure what you have read about it but the person who is a fool is Galloway. HE is a liar who was on the Iraqi payroll. ENough said on that.

bsimon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:22 pm

Mark, still no substance on Coleman? If the winds shift this year, how can you be so sure he’ll even run as a GOP candidate in 08? Its not like he has a solid, decades-long affiliation with your party, or the convictions that come with such history & dedication.

Gordon says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pm

I just hope the Democrats have some alternatives to Al Franken in ’08, or better yet the Independence Party will be in position for a strong run. The thought of a Norm Coleman/Al Franken race is dreary. Norm Coleman is the Hollow Man as I saw someone refer to him on this blog recently. But Al Franken is an uninspiring carpetbagger. Bill Maher and Garrison Keillor are hilarious and make some really insightful remarks about Republicans. Al Franken isn’t funny and isn’t really all that smart. Franken constantly ahh and ums while speaking. He should take a basic Toastmasters speaking course to clean up his speaking skills.

Let’s hope his bags of fundraising money don’t scare off some real qualified candidates in ’08.

Dora says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pm

This poll sure does bother the righties. They are getting increasingly hysterical in their posts. Take a breath people. I wonder what you’d be saying if the poll results were the other way around?

Clearly the poll shows Amy has the momentum and Mark doesn’t. And that’s certainlly what I found in the phone polling I was doing in my SD. It’s also what I’m hearing from other SD polling too. MR’s link from Polinaut is a good rule of thumb.

If the poll is so “flawed” then why not release the results of the internal polling that is being done? Most likely it’s similar to what the Strib’s poll is showing.

Dan: wonder if he’ll ignore it this time too.

Bruce Rowan says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:40 pm

It seems obvious to me: This poll is a Republican ploy to get DFL voters to stay home on Election Day.

Jeff E. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

I guess I’d need to be convinced of the underling premise behind these claims of bias. Is there evidence that faulty polls translate into votes?

Dan Kauppi says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:04 pm

Nouf:

My post was self-evidently sarcastic, in response to Michelle’s smug “Congrats, DFLers!” comment.

And yeah, our urban centers with our high levels of educated professionals and cultural opportunities are truly the stagnant areas.

We’ve got nothing on endless tracts of McMansions and desolate parking lot oceans interspersed with the occasional Walmart and chain restaurant. Vibrant suburbs, indeed.

Eric Zaetsch says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

In 2004, Kennedy did a few percentage points worse than Bushm in MN 6, while the GOP candidate there. This poll shows that lower-than differential is still valid, but now statewide with both down in approval, in parallel.

EB I presume the 800+ sample size was of registered voters from 2004, balanced statewide and not weighed too heavily to the metro area – the likelier voters this time, although given it is not a presidential election year the total turnout should be less, even with the state population up.

Given the perception of Kennedy as a Bush followler, the parallel lower appeal fits.

My curiosity is that Michele Bachmann has been the one GOP candidate most directly tied to the administration – Bush himself, Cheney and even Rove coming into the state and pumping for Bachmann donor dollars – and Rove even doing so in the Sixth District where Bachmann is running.

It looks as if at least some of the GOP party bucks now are going in Minnesota to maximize the Congressional seats.

There has been at least one GOP RNCC mailing for Bachmann touting her gay marriage stance [actually a negative piece against Wetterling, but it's the same thing, given the source, as if Bachmann herself put it out - in terms of intent and hoped-for effect].

Are those kinds of double side 9 x 6 cardstock items showing up in other Congressional districts from NRCC, and going negative this early? I would expect it for Kline.

Does that mean nationally the GOP feels better about holding the Senate [counting Lieberman in their camp] than in holding the House?

Eric Zaetsch says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:20 pm

Gordon, who would you suggest against Coleman? Steve Kelly, Ford Bell?

Both had their names out this cycle.

Has Mark Dayton announced any plans for the future now that he has been to DC and become disenchanted with how things there get done?

I presume he intends to return to Minnesota and not stay east.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:26 pm

Steve Kelly and Ford Bell???? WOW, enough to make Norm quiver.

Steve Kelly could not even beat a no name as the endorsed DFL candidate in the AG primary. He also gave up his state senate seat so he will not have a political office to run from.

Jeff E. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:31 pm

Al Franken has as much as announced he will run for that seat.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 5:39 pm

I hope it is Franken because he will be easy to beat. He is a loud mouth that will look very common next to Coleman.

Again, this is the level of stature in the DFL party?

Jeff E. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:10 pm

As opposed to the Republicans, who are only holding a Senate seat by virtue of a defected Democrat.

John E. Iacono says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:14 pm

I get all kinds of e-mails from all kinds of candidates, but I am quite concerned about one I received today from a Kennedy supporter which came from the Kennedy campaign. If it is true that four other polls, including Gallup, show much different figures, the Star poll looks to be biased just as Kennedy claims.
Eric — could you verify these claims?

“Let’s take a look at some recent polls:

Survey USA 47-42 (July 25)
Zogby 49-40 (Aug 29 – Sept 5)
Rasmussen 47-40 (Aug 29)
USA Today/Gallup 50-40 Likely Voters (Aug 23 – 27)
USA Today/Gallup 44-37 Registered Voters (Aug 23 – 27)

“The Kennedy campaign’s internal polling numbers show that this is an 8-10 point race.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pm

Last I looked Norm Coleman had a R by his name.

In the Republican Party we can overlook the predilations of youth. YOu see, we understand that if you are young and not liberal you do not have a heart, and that if you are old and not a conservative you do not have a brain.

Ronald Bandor says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:19 pm

This is funny.

“Democrats suck. Tell me who you’re going to run next time.”

“Uhhh. How about…”

“No, he sucks, too.”

Don’t you think the Republican haters could say the same thing?

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:32 pm

Well, NO, because unless something dire happens like a plane crash, it is obvious who the Republicans will run in 2008 for US Senate.

mds says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:52 pm

Matt S – Please stop using my name. You’re making me look bad, along with any other Matt S’s out there.

To the forum: I’ll tell you why Franken can win in ’08. Because this is the state that elected Ventura. Unregistered and normally not voting people will come out and vote for Franken because he will talk normally and give straight answers, some of which will be humorous. Coleman (like in his prior loss to Ventura) will lose because he will sound like a standard-issue politician. Polls will favor Coleman up until election night, when the same “X-factor” that elected Ventura will come into play.

Bob E. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 7:03 pm

Eric – can you tell us where to go to find out, of the number of people polled, what was the breakdown by party affiliation? If what I think is true, the weighting of the numbers may have skewed the poll outcome.

pollinfo says:

September 18th, 2006 at 7:09 pm

Found this online re the Strib Poll:

This report is based on the most recent Star Tribune Minnesota Poll, a random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone survey of 820 adults statewide Sept. 13-15. One adult (18 or older) per household was interviewed.

The Information Specialists Group of Eden Prairie conducted the interviewing from its central interviewing facility where interviewers were trained prior to calling, and supervised and monitored during the interviewing.

They used a stratified, area-probability sample that the newspaper provided. Researchers stratified the sample by county, and thus it was a probability-proportionate-to-size (PPS) sample.

The Star Tribune’s news research department provided the sample of telephone numbers from the department’s telephone sampling database, which contains all working residential area code-prefix combinations in the state. (Consequently, all adults in the state who live in households with landline telephones were potential respondents; the sample was not limited to those with listed phone numbers, or newspaper subscribers, or other inappropriate populations.)

Interviewers also used the most-recent-birthday technique to ensure that the adult from each household who was interviewed was selected at random.

Weighting accounts for the fact that people have different probabilities of turning out to vote. In Minnesota, residents can register to vote on Election Day, and consequently all adults (except for some special populations such as felons, aliens, and those in certain group quarters), are likely voters. Some, however, are more likely to vote than others, and the likely voter model the Minnesota Poll uses takes into account predictors of voting, including registration status, voting history, interest in the election, and self-described likelihood of voting to give the responses of those most likely to vote heavier weights and those least likely to vote lesser weights. The sample is assumed to be representative of likely voters at this point in the election campaign, within the margin of sampling error.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 7:30 pm

Of course Franken CAN win in ’08 but it is not likely. THere is a big differnece between Jesse and Al Franken as a candidate. Al Franken is an extreme liberal. Jesse came across as the common guy just wanting to get the auto registration fee on his Porshe lowered. Coleman and Humphreys were at a loss how to deal with such a candidate. Franken, however, will be endorsed by the DFL (if he is the candidate) and have to cater to the DFL’s interest groups.

Frank J. says:

September 18th, 2006 at 7:51 pm

The U of M has for a long time taught wonderful classes on polling, I had the pleasure of studying under Bill Flanigan some years ago and one of the things we learned very early on is that even with a margin of error of 4% or 5% you can be off by 20%, 30% even 100%. A survey has both a margin of error and a confidence level. The MOE tells you the the likely range of results you can expect. The confidence level tells you how likely those ranges are correct. Most surveys have a 90% to 95% confidnece level, meaning 1 in 10 or 1 in 20 times the survey is completely wrong. Thats pretty fair odds that the data is just skewed. What the not so liberal commentaors seem to miss is that most surveys show Kennedy losing by enough to matter.

Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 8:02 pm

But the margins of error and confidence level are within the polling sample. If the sample is incorrectly weighted and does not represent the actual voting population then the errors can be off by much, much more.

Whysoangry... says:

September 18th, 2006 at 8:52 pm

“But I do know that Rob is incredibly conscientious and highly regarded within the profession.”

He can be as conscientious all he wants, but he’s always wildly incorrect. And no, I don’t believe he is highly regarded. Pollsters that are always wrong by a huge margin don’t tend to be highly regarded by other pollsters.

Bottom line is that your Minnesota Poll is a joke, and an obvious instrument of your agenda ‘journalism’.

DJ says:

September 19th, 2006 at 6:30 am

“Michelle says:

September 18th, 2006 at 11:43 am

Hey Dan,

If you want to get personal, that is fine. Remember two words- Fertility Gap.

Even if you win this battle, you will lose the war. We are raising the next generation while you are outsourcing your parenting or just aborting the little ones.

The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world. No Fear Here!”

Omigod!! Michelle Bachmann has time to blog?!? Her vileness is everywhere these days!!

DJ says:

September 19th, 2006 at 6:35 am

“Mark says:

September 18th, 2006 at 6:16 pm

Last I looked Norm Coleman had a R by his name.

In the Republican Party we can overlook the predilations of youth. YOu see, we understand that if you are young and not liberal you do not have a heart, and that if you are old and not a conservative you do not have a brain.”

Hence, all of the bashing of Keith Ellison and his supposed ties to the Nation of Islam is an illusion?

Wally S. says:

September 19th, 2006 at 7:46 am

Mark:

In the Republican Party we can overlook the predilations of youth. YOu see, we understand that if you are young and not liberal you do not have a heart, and that if you are old and not a conservative you do not have a brain.

I started as a radical conservative and as I have gotten older I have become increasing liberal. As I have gotten older, in addition to my brain, I have discovered my social conscience. Sadly, that is somethijng that seems to be lacking in the Republican party. Compassionate conservatism is an oxymoron. I have a hard time understanding how you Republicans can look at yourselves in the mirror every morning, considering the mess you have made of things in the last 6 years.

Also, I resent being called a liar. If you had your facts straight, which you obviously do not, you would now that the Bush tax cuts affected the upper 20 % of the wage earners. They had little effect on people such as myself who work for a living!

bsimon says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:05 am

Mark said “Last I looked Norm Coleman had a R by his name.”

That’s the problem with Norm – you have to keep looking, to see if he’s switched.

HA Ha ha!! Senator Finger-in-the-wind…

REB says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:16 am

Wally S. says:

September 19th, 2006 at 7:46 am

Mark:

Amen Amen great answer Wally

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:26 am

“. If you had your facts straight, which you obviously do not, you would now that the Bush tax cuts affected the upper 20 % of the wage earners”

I think you are fool, rather than a liar. Lets look at one example. In the 2001 Bush tax legislation a new tax bracket was created for the the lowest brakcet. THis lowered the taxes on this income from 15% to 10%. Also, the 15% tax bracket was “widened”.

Mathematically this proves that you are a fool. By lowering the lowest tax bracket 33% this means every one who pays taxes gets a tax reduction.

IF you had $10,000 in taxable income before the Bush tax cuts you paid $1,500 in federal income taxes. After the cut you paid $1,000. You saved $500. I wish my taxes were lowered by 33%.

“how you Republicans can look at yourselves in the mirror every morning”

Really? When Bill CLinton was president then a 4.7% unemployment rate was great. I thought it was too. Bill CLinton was a great Eisenhower-Republican president. The difference between us is that I could look at the world and think things were great regardless of my partisan affiliation.

You, on the other hand, refuse to recognize anything because you are too partisan to acknowledge excellent economic growth and low unemployment.

“They had little effect on people such as myself who work for a living! ”

Ah, so I don’t work? Only “poor” people work? THe fact is I work harder than you do and have done it for a longer time. Working hard is one reason the upper income people are upper income.

Why somehow it is more NOBLE work when you are poor and that only poor people can be “WORKING FAMILIES” escapes me.

The reason I am a Republican now is that the folly of basing your economic policies from the bottom up is very disturbing. Poor, or rather to use the term correctly, “working” people do not create jobs and growth. THey do not create new businesses. They are not innovators.

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:34 am

“That’s the problem with Norm – you have to keep looking, to see if he’s switched. ”

Well, I guess you are right on that one, even though I dont think he is going to change affiliations again.

“HA Ha ha!! Senator Finger-in-the-wind…”

Well, I guess he learned that from the master, Bill Clinton. Of course, Clinton called it “triangulation”.

Bill Clinton even ran foreign policy by poll making. When the terrorists bombed our embassy he had Bill Morris go out and run an opinion poll to determine his course of action! BE TOUGH, the AMerican people said, so Bill was!

bsimon says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:39 am

Well, thanks for acknowledging the joke, before changing the subject to Clinton-bashing.

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 11:20 am

“before changing the subject to Clinton-bashing. ”

I am not a Clinton basher. I think he was a fine Eisenhower Republican.

Wally S. says:

September 19th, 2006 at 12:06 pm

Can you prove you work harder than I? Can you prove you have worked longer that I?

Dudley says:

September 19th, 2006 at 12:46 pm

I think part of the reason Mark may be losing is his new ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGBcuM9nrUQ

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 12:51 pm

You said you “work” for a living, implying that others who make more money than you do not. Poor working guy.

If fact, maybe I dont work harder than you but I prolly get paid more! But then, I worked hard in college and graduate school to get to where I am. The market rewards these things.

Wally S. says:

September 19th, 2006 at 1:35 pm

Mark:

There you go again, suggesting I didn’t attend college. Well, I worked my through one of the finest public universties in the country. And just like you, my friend, the market has also rewarded me. You probably do make more than I, good for you!

I will concede one point. I am surely a fool for engaging in this diatribe.

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

Well, lay off the “poor working guy”. They are just cliches.

And, you are not a fool for engaging in a debate. YOu are a fool for claiming things that are not true.

“I did not get a tax cut. I am just a poor working guy”. If you believe it then you are a fool. If you know better you are a liar.

bsimon says:

September 19th, 2006 at 3:07 pm

Maybe a better way of saying it would be something like “I got a tax cut, that I didn’t even notice because it was so effin’ pitiful.”

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

“I got a tax cut, that I didn’t even notice because it was so effin’ pitiful.”

Maybe, but it is still a tax cut. If your cut was effin’ small then what you pay in taxes is also effin’ small.

On a percentage basis the lower brackets got a more substantial tax cut than the upper brackets. It is impossible to argue otherwise.

Further, as I have said before, if you oppose the Bush tax cuts your are not obligated to take them. You can pay your taxes based on the old brackets and forgo any tax credits you have coming.

For that matter, you can go back to the pre-REagan days and pay those tax rates. Since in those days tax brackets were not indexed you might be in for a big surprise.

rod says:

September 19th, 2006 at 7:47 pm

If you don’t blame Amy Klobuchar, who do you blame?
Angry drive-thru customer opens fire, wounding manager
A Brooklyn Park man was arrested today after he argued with a Wendy’s drive-through clerk about prices after midnight and returned minutes later to fire shots into the pickup window, slightly wounding a manager, police said.

Capt. Greg Roehl said police were called about 12:45 a.m. by a Wendy’s worker who described the man’s car and threats that he would return with a gun. He had argued with an order-taker about food prices, Roehl said. Minutes after the man left, his car returned and several shots were fired through the pickup window, witnesses said. A 28-year-old manager, who is pregnant, was hit in the back by glass or other debris after the shot was fired, Roehl said. She was bruised and didn’t need treatment, he said.

Police stopped the car about 2:20 a.m., and the owner identified another man who had was driving it earlier that night. A SWAT team went to the house about 8:30 a.m., where the suspect was living in Brooklyn Park and arrested him and his girlfriend, who was in the car at Wendy’s, Roehl said.

He said the suspect, being held pending charges, was convicted in 2004 of a drive-by shooting in Minneapolis.

Why was this piece of crap not in prison? Maybe the “prosecutor” was busy campaigning?

Dora says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:06 pm

Boy are you reaching rod. Looks like she did her job by convicting him in 2004. The question is, why was he released? She doesn’t control the judicial or prison system. And where did he get the gun? Maybe from one of his friends who has a permit for it.

Jeff says:

September 19th, 2006 at 10:25 pm

>Maybe, but it is still a tax cut.

It’s too bad there hasn’t been a corresponding spending cut to go along with these tax cuts. Mark, your boys talk a big game, but never saw a spending bill that they didn’t like. Bridges to nowhere.

Yeah, like this isn’t gonna bite us in the ass.

It’s the spending, not the taxes. Your guys can’t get a handle on that, they’re not solving the problem.

Mark says:

September 19th, 2006 at 11:49 pm

“It’s the spending, not the taxes. Your guys can’t get a handle on that, they’re not solving the problem. ”

And do you think that the Democrats can? Do you recall any program, other than national defense in a true emergency like the war on terrorism, that the Democrats do not advocate spending more money on? Name one: Agriculture, Transportation, Social Welfare, Health Care?????

A prime example is the Medicare Drug Bill. The DEmocrats are not satisfied with this massive increase in federal spending. Their bills were at least four times the costs of the final Bush bill.

Government is going to waste money and protect spending like the bridge to no where because that is the nature of such bureacracies. Important debate about spending priorities are impossible because in politics you make the electorate decide between giving up important programs rather than make the cuts.

My favortie example on this is the Corproation For Public Broadcast that claimed that any budget cut would force them to cancel Barney and Sesame Street. THey made the debate center on cuts the public would not tolerate and making the cuts themselves.

Jeff says:

September 20th, 2006 at 9:39 am

The fact remains. You keep talking about how much money people “saved”. But, there is NO savings with these tax cuts. We’re just putting it on the credit card. This is not fiscal responsibility.

Angela says:

September 20th, 2006 at 11:30 am

I’ll be honest I don’t know a whole lot about politics. But I have gotten a lot more interested with the up coming race. For myself I’m wondering why everyone automatically goes for the big guys. (Democrates and Rebublicans) Is it because those are the only parties that we have really had? Whats wrong with the underdog? It seems like no one EVER talks about the independant party.

Like I said I don’t know a whole lot about this whole election thing. I just want to become educated. Thanks!

Bernice Vetsch says:

September 20th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Re: Norm Coleman and Oil for Food

Senator Coleman’s “job” for the Bush administration is to discredit Kofi Annan, a strong critic of the Iraq invasion and occupation; John Bolton’s job is to weaken the UN so it more cheerily accedes to US wishes.

Senator Coleman knows that the 2004
investigatory commission headed by Paul Volcker found Kofi Annan completely free of guilt for any oil for food financial shenanigans. Each transaction of that program was approved by Security Council member countries, including the US. Mr. Volcker named several Minnesota corporations that were involved in illegal doings, but NOT Mr. Annan.

How strange is it that, a mere two years later, the Senator has forgotten the Volcker findings and has again accused Kofi Annan of corruption in the oil for food scandal?

(And Bolton kept the world from learning that Iraq had no chemical WMD in 2002/3 by getting the director of the agency concerned with that voted out of office when he called for sending UN chemical inspectors into Iraq. The UN called the election illegal, but the director, Mr. Bustani, somehow was gone. Bolton and Coleman are loyal servants of the neoconservative right.)

Bernice Vetsch says:

September 20th, 2006 at 2:12 pm

Angela: I agree. Members of minority parties often discuss issues and policies in a far more intelligent way than main candidates, who have to spend a lot of time defending themselves against mean nonsense.

In Australia, voters are allowed to make a first and second choice for every office. When the votes are being counted and it becomes apparent that your choice No. 1 did not win, your vote rolls over to choice No. 2.

In America, we often vote for our No. 2 because we think he/she will win. If we had instant-runoff-voting like Australia and felt more free to fully vote our hearts and minds, I think minority party candidates would have a better chance of being elected. (And even in a 2-party race, like the Bush-Gore 2000 election, Ralph Nader’s voters would no doubt have picked Gore as their second choice and he’d have gotten enough votes to out-number Bush by way too many votes to require a recount.)

DJ says:

September 20th, 2006 at 6:40 pm

Please check out the impartial http://www.pollster.com. site.

It averages out all of the major polls taken for this senate race(and all others). No matter how you slice it, Mark Kennedy is not doing well in any of the more recent polls. And his latest television & radio ads are surely signs of desperation.

I feel so badly for all of the people who sent money to his campaign, trusting that he would run a decent, honorable race.

His campaign strategy is an embarrassment to himself, his handsome family, sweet parents and to all of his supporters.

rod says:

September 21st, 2006 at 8:55 am

5% and 24% is a big difference.

Jeff says:

September 21st, 2006 at 4:55 pm

Where do you get 5% from? Pollster.com has one poll (from two months) ago that has it that close.

I’m wondering why you’ve ignored the half-dozen more recent polls. Oh wait, I think I can guess. It’s probably because you’re trying to do exactly the same thing that you’re accusing the Minnesota Poll of.

Rook says:

October 30th, 2006 at 6:08 pm

Bennett

Honours change manners…

wyzqg rnfxb says:

November 16th, 2006 at 5:33 am

dhxrln whrled ltwcmgd qhfomld wkeygd tnus ajne

irmqhcat dnaflgq says:

November 16th, 2006 at 5:33 am

xpil hgod iqjbogckx ikqv vtahpfrc cqfhmup njhu gfzvd xogct

kjm says:

November 16th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

hey… how about that MN poll eh?

you guy sure were RIGHT… it was WAY off….

10m Duplex Fiber Optic Cable says:

November 28th, 2006 at 7:19 pm

10m Duplex Fiber Optic Cable

Your post is on target. Keep it up.

palm multiplayer hold 'em says:

December 6th, 2006 at 4:46 pm

palm multiplayer hold ‘em

great blog, keep it comming.

razor se 100 electric scooter says:

December 20th, 2006 at 6:03 am

razor se 100 electric scooter

great blog, keep it comming.

w4200 42 high definition plasma tv says:

January 1st, 2007 at 11:53 am

w4200 42 high definition plasma tv

Like what you have to say. Your blog makes good since to me.

occupational therapy school based says:

January 1st, 2007 at 6:26 pm

occupational therapy school based

Like what you have to say. Your blog makes good since to me.

fleetguard oil filter says:

January 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 pm

fleetguard oil filter

Didn’t notice it before . . . quite clever.

Joshua says:

January 5th, 2007 at 5:13 am

Readed

Instant gratification takes too long

Anthony says:

January 5th, 2007 at 6:47 am

Ping

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny

Emily says:

January 5th, 2007 at 7:01 am

Follow

The whole point of being alive is to evolve into the complete person you were intended to be

Madison says:

January 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Link

At the end of the day, whether or not those people are comfortable with how you’re living your life doesn’t matter. What matters is whether you’re comfortable with it

cheap discount airlines cheap discounte airline ticket aswan says:

January 6th, 2007 at 2:38 am

cheap discount airlines cheap discounte airline ticket aswan

Didn’t notice it before . . . quite clever.

Abigail says:

January 8th, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Linked

Between the wish and the thing life lies waiting

Jacob says:

January 9th, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Link

There are more pleasant things to do than beat up people

Olivia says:

January 10th, 2007 at 9:38 pm

Linked

The thing that is really hard, and really amazing, is giving up on being perfect and beginning the work of becoming yourself

Joshua says:

January 11th, 2007 at 5:19 am

Link

A girl can’t analyze marriage, and a woman dare not

best russian caviar beluga caviar says:

January 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pm

best russian caviar beluga caviar

Your post is on target. Keep it up.

Jacob says:

January 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm

Follow

Obsessions and fixations are not really my field. All I know, when the mind really grabs hold of something, look out

Madison says:

January 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm

Ping

Writing is not necessarily something to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards

tramdol says:

January 26th, 2007 at 2:12 am

I always have terrible trouble with comment-related plugins that require me to put some line in the comment loop; I can never seem to find the right spot. Can anyone tell me where I should put the php line in my comments loop? I haven not modified anything much, and I would be very grateful. Thanks!

This is a place where open-minded critical thinkers of all political persuasions encounter information and arguments that both support and challenge their preconceptions. The goal is not to eliminate differences but to narrow and clarify them. We begin with a bedrock agreement that the search for insight and clarity is important, serious - and fun.

We ask commenters to be civil and substantive and, if possible, good humored. We reserve the right to delete comments that disregard this request.

Follow The Big Question on Twitter Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.