New 6th District Poll: Bachmann 50, Wetterling 41, Binkowski 5
September 19th, 2006 – 11:48 AM by Eric BlackKSTP TV aired last night the first public poll of the race for Congress from the Minnesota 6th District.
Based on automated interviews (this is the robo-dialing technique that I keep cautioning about) with 641 likely voters, Survey USA found the race at:
Republican Michele Bachmann: 50 percent.
Democrat nominee Patty Wetterling: 41 percent
Independence Party-ite John Binkowski: 5 percent
Survey USA said the margin for sampling error was plus or minus 3.9 percent.
134 Responses to "New 6th District Poll: Bachmann 50, Wetterling 41, Binkowski 5"
About what I’d expect, given Wetterling’s huge name-recognition advantage.
BTW, the reference to Binkowski as being of the Independence Party is important. I hear a lot of people identifying themselves with the IP while calling themselves “independant”. The IP is a party just like any other and it’s members are not “independent”. Nothing particularly wrong with the IP (not my cup of tea), but being a member of a party has less cache these days than proclaiming yourself a true independent.
Anyone surprised?
The question, to me, is: who will start with the negative ads? Did Wetterling have any negative ads on Kennedy in 04? Does Binkowski have the budget to publicize some of Bachmann’s more fringe views? Does Bachmann need to bash her opponents, or can she take the high road & keep her lead?
I think people are supporting Bachmann because they think she’s a conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan. They don’t know that she is, in reality, some kind of extremist nut.
But Eric Black knows that. He asked me for a copy of document that Bachmann authored, and I sent it to him. In that document, she claimed that our GOP majority Congress had enacted laws creating an American government “opposed to both free enterprise and representative government.” She also accuses the US Government (remember, we’re talking about Bush and the GOP Congress here) of imposing a new national public school curriculum that “is used that embraces a socialist,globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America.”
You can read the document online by going here:
http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/Resources/%202001%20Bachmann%20charges%20US%20g.pdf
She authored this and put her name to it. I think Bachmann’s poll numbers would be lower if major newspapers told their readers about this kind of thing and told them about other Bachmann quotes–she’s got plenty of nutty quotes, some of them are real macadamias.
But for some reason, Eric Black won’t comment on or write about stuff like that in this blog.
He’s supposed to be informing voters about the trustworthiness of the candidates; fact check their statements. What could be his reason for refusing to acquaint his readers with Bachmann’s craziest claims?
The conventional wisdom was that the Democratic tide nationally and Bachman’s extreme views would make this a nail biter. That doesn’t appear to be the case. The fact is Bachman fits the make up of this district.
Here’s my post on the SurveyUSA Poll.
The truth is that Tom K’s got it exactly right: Sen. Bachmann is a perfect fit for the district.
Sen. Bachmann’s answers to the social safety net questions went quite a ways to dispelling the image that Democrats, starting with Tarryl Clark, have been crafting of her being the “Devil in a blue dress.”
After last night’s debate, expect the gap to widen a bit. Sen. Bachmann really won people over with her enforcement first immigration stance.
I wouldn’t believe this poll since it uses the robo-diaing technique. Let’s see what the numbers are when a legitimate poll is taken. I am not saying that Wetterling is ahead, but I think it is much closer than what this poll indicates.
I think its probably much closer to. And I question an only 3 percent undecided.
I think people are missing (including her campaign) a key advantage for Wetterling. Through her push for child safety, she’s worked with a great number of law enforcement and members of both major political parties. I would think this would carry over to make her an effective voice to work with the law enforcement aspects of homeland security (which I think most people would agree that the front line of this war really is).
Wetterling in the House would be a positive step towards ending this polarization in the house. If the Dems take the House back, she could wind up a key player in helping both sides work together.
Wetterling took 46% in ’04, I have a hard time believing that she has somehow lost 4 percentage points in the past two years while the entire rest of the United States of America has moved her way.
I think this will be closer than 50-41.
How have the demographics of the region changed?
What else do polls from the region say? I’m thinking in terms of general satisfaction with the direction the country/state is going; Pres/Congressional approval ratings, etc.
Just getting the horserace numbers is pretty uninformative.
Good point Ryan. I didn’t look back to 2004.
I used to live in the Sixth a number of years ago, but don’t really know it. So I don’t know whether the people there will elect her or not.
But it will be a shame if they don’t — she’s a jewel. There isn’t always a choice like this where you have someone on one side who kind of transcends politics (Wetterling) against someone who defines it (Bachmann).
I’m sure we’ll all be watching to see what the people there decide.
Chip:
I too would like to see a non robo dialed survey. Your points on Wetterlings child safety advocacy are well taken. Normally that would point to the possiblity for some crossover. In the Senate race for example Klobachar is getting some crossover vote from moderate Republicans. No doubt her work as a prosecuter is reassuring.
However, the sixth district is not a predominately Republican district it is an ardently pro-life, pro-gun, Catholic district. The voters tend to be socially Conservative first, Party ID second. That does not bode well for Wetterling as voters who identify socially Conservative issues first, do not cross over and vote for people with opposing views.
I
Bachmann is already going negative. She has been doing a bunch of attack direct email.
Click here to see proof. It is number 6 on the list. http://tray.com/cgi-win/x_IndepExp_SQL.exe?DoFn=&sYR=2006 Independent expendures need to be for or against a candidate and it must state the goal with the FEC
Here is some of the stuff being sent out by Bachmann.
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/09/anti-gay-lit-piece-on-wetterling.html
Check that, I have a hard time believing she would loose 6% in two years.
Tom K
Thanks. Your points are also well taken. I’ve seen several posts, however, that make it sound like Bachmann belongs to a church that takes a strong stand against Catholics, and I wouldn’t think that would sit well with those Catholics. But I don’t know the fact behind the allegations, do you?
I guess I don’t even know Wetterling’s stands on pro-life, pro-gun (I’m a Catholic too, but I don’t base my vote on these two issues). I kind of think those issues are secondary to homeland security, the war in Iraq and how the middle class are faring in this economy (I DO like Wetterling’s targeted tax cuts). But I’m not the district’s demographic.
It would be interesting to see polling from the Star Trib on these congressional races — Eric Black, is that something we are likely to see????
My bad; click on the link and you shall be free. Here’re some hints at the questions I asked, from kstp:
“Of those who approve of President George W. Bush’s job performance, 87 percent choose Bachmann.
Of those who disapprove of Bush’s job performance, 77 percent choose Wetterling. President Bush’s job approval among likely voters in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District is 46 percent. ”
Still only a scratch in the surface, but something.
Forgot to add — if Bachmann’s church is anti-Catholic, its probably not as big a problem for her, as I think Wetterling is less likely to run negative ads on it than Bachmann would be if their roles were reversed.
And Catholics traditionally vote with Democratic majorities. The ones taht vote Republican would be very connected with Bachman on the abortion and economic issues.
MJ, thanks for the clarification on the IP – I’m one of the few real independents this election season, and virtually every event invitation and endorsement inquiry misidentifies me as a member of the Independene Party.
No way I’d be affiliated with the party who’s candidate for the US House hopes to abolish the progressive federal income tax in favor of a regressive consumption tax.
Tom K nails the issue with the 6th. The electorate there seriously considers homosexuality a threat to their way of life. If they had their way, the legislature would actually convine in my wife’s uterus. This is absolutely opposed to a conservative point of view which admires a limited sphere of influence for government and a wide respect for personal liberty.
I am not sure that Catholicism could be rightly blamed for the state of MN 6. Catholics observe the beatitudes, take the teachings of St. Matthew to heart, and by and large have been well served by separate heads of church and state. This is what I find so puzzling.
I don’t think we can blame so called social conservatism on a particularly strict interpretation of religious doctrine, or especially on a particular religious denomination. If these views were founded on such interpretation, where is the outcry against mixed polyester/cotton shirts, and where is the grassroots movement to apply the death penalty to disobedient wives?
Instead of arguing that they were particularly catholic there, I would argue that the economic, educational and social environment in the 6th makes its residents particularly vulnerable to being manipuated by a strong message that primarially focuses blame on undesireable groups rather than proposes a progressive path to a better tomorrow. So while they don’t identify as Republicans first, they are very receptive to the GOP efforts to scapegoat gays or portray the left as baby-killers.
“to being manipuated by a strong message ”
Wow…so they are manipulated in their views about abortion and gay marriage?
Unlike you I have respect for the way people choose their positions on issues. I understand that they have their own interests that may conflict with mine.
Being pro-life and “anti-gay” are legitiamate policy positions to take. That you or I disagree with them does not mean they are being manipulated away from the “true” view of these issues.
Robo-dialing? Ugh, that explains a lot about SUSA’s polls.
SUSA had a poll recently where they had Lieberman leading Lamont 51% to 38%, and Lieberman was crowing about that until the new Rasmussen poll came out showing Lamont down only by two, 45%-43% — less than half of the poll’s 4.5% margin of error. (Bear in mind that Rasmussen is a GOP pollster, too.)
I found another poll googling around. Majority Watch did a generic poll. (Do you plan to vote for the Republican canidate, or the Democrat, no names were mentioned). The generic Republican won 42% to 35%. The Survey USA poll is in that ball park.
Interestingly, the generic Repbulican was up 24% in Washington County, the generic Democrat was up 6% in Anoka County and the Generic Republican was up 15% in the Western portion of the district.
“Interestingly, the generic Repbulican was up 24% in Washington County, the generic Democrat was up 6% in Anoka County and the Generic Republican was up 15% in the Western portion of the district. ”
That is a very usual split.
Again, the UGH about Robo-dialing shows how little you know about polling.
Sampling is the most critical aspect of polling. That, you just pass over. WHo cares about sampling.
But the dialing, now that is a major problem. If you sample the population right you can survey them in any manner and get consistent results. If you have a poor sample selection you can have James Earl Jones doing the calling in his deep baritone and you are going to get crappy results.
Sampling doesn’t mean jack in the face of properly phrased questions. You can have the best sample God’s ever created, but if you ask biased, leading questions, the results don’t mean jack. Go learn something about polling, fool.
Again, the UGH about Robo-dialing shows how little you know about polling.
Nice to see you dissing Eric Black, too, Mark. Carry on!
Sampling is the most critical aspect of polling. That, you just pass over.
So that means that in the CT-Senate race, SUSA is right and Rasmussen is wrong? Interesting to hear a Republican dissing Rasmussen.
BSimon:
Note how Mark totally passed over the fact that Rasmussen — which, though GOP, is pretty consistently predictably so (one can shave off two to three points from the GOP total and you’ll be close to reality; as opposed to Gallup, which is all over the map lately and is a tremendous GOP outlier much of the time) — and SUSA have vastly different results for the same race (namely, Lieberman/Lamont)?
I find the drift of this discussion alarming. I’m reading you guys and you’re writing about how B’s ahead in this poll because the polling method is flawed, because there’s a lot of Catholics in the 6th, these polls are better, et cetera.
The reason she’s ahead in this poll, or any poll, is that the GOP supporters in the 6th don’t know that she’s a NUT. An extremist nut. Not just a nut on the subject of gaysâ€â€she’s paranoid about plots by the federal government (including the GOP Congress), paranoid about public education (she’s taken more than fifty grand from an organization pledged to ending public education entirely), she’s the protégé of the Council For National Policy (James Dobson, Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind books, et al.) She’s even accused the Pawlenty administration of having a socialist agenda in Minnesota!
And she’s ahead in this poll because the newspapers aren’t acquainting voters with this fact: she’s a nut. The papers aren’t asking her questions about nutty statements she’s made over the past six years; they’re not printing those statements so that voters can learn who she really is and what she’s all about. So GOP voters in the 6th district still think of her as a conservative in the tradition of Reagan, not as an extremist nut in the tradition of the John Birch society.
Againâ€â€go to this link and click on “Bachmann Quotesâ€Â, the words that have come out of her own mouth. http://www.thebachmannrecord.com/ The reason that she can be the Republican nominee at all, is that the papers never printed the crazy stuff she’s said, the crazy extremist positions she’s taken.
If she continues to do well in the polls and ultimately wins this race, it will be because the newspapers never acquainted the electorate with the *real* Michele Bachmannâ€â€an extremist nut posing as a mainstream GOP conservative.
My latest comment is awaiting moderation–again. The second time in one day. EB never used to send my comments into moderation limbo, what’s going on?
Bill, when one of my comments went into moderation, it had a questionable word, which I assumed was the reason. Your post might have the same problem.
Regarding your hypothesis, I agree. If you ask me, its the result of consistently attacking the media as being biased. In order to appear neutral, the media avoids stories that point out such extremism. Either that, or the 6th knows exactly what its getting, and looks foward to it – a position taken by some posting here.
Mister Prendergast;
I honestly believe that if you printed the material from The Bachmann Record and distributed it to every household in the 6th, she would still win. The 6th is *that* conservative.
Mark, do you agree with this assessment?
Wetterling took 46% in ‘04, I have a hard time believing that she has somehow lost 4 percentage points in the past two years while the entire rest of the United States of America has moved her way. I think this will be closer than 50-41.
First of all, I don’t have any trouble believing that she’s lost 4 points from 2004 when you consider how conservative MN-6 is & you factor in her call last year for all the troops to come home by this Thanksgiving.
She brought that up at last night’s debate & it went over like a lead balloon.
It’s important to note that there’s a significant active- & reserve-duty & retired military population in MN-6. Telling that bunch that Iraq isn’t part of the war on terror is a mistake that will cost her the election.
Expect Bachmann to win this seat with 54-57 percent of the vote.
Here’s a comment the media passed over from our clueless president. “It’s unacceptable to think there’s any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective” No mr.president, what’s really unacceptable is you and your PNAC cronies starting wars just because you can. Of course the thousands of innocent women and children bush has killed are different since freedom is on the march and that democracy stuff is messy business.
Lucky for bush the media protects his sorry behind.
bsimon–thanks for explaining the “moderation” trigger.
mds– you wrote:
I honestly believe that if you printed the material from The Bachmann Record and distributed it to every household in the 6th, she would still win. The 6th is *that* conservative.
Wow. Maybe you’re right, I don’t know. Personally, I don’t think that all conservative and GOP voters are as “lock step” as you seem to think. Some of them might be so disenchanted after finding out about Bachmann’s “real” nature that they might stay home on election day.
But even if you’re right, and she wins—that’s no excuse for not printing her most extreme statements in the papers, is it? They’re facts, they’re documented, they’re who this candidate really is–and if a political candidate is a nut, an extremist, don’t the papers have a professional duty to acquaint people with the evidence? Especially if she wins and goes to represent us in Congress.
No one’s interest is served by a media blackout on Bachmann’s craziness, except Bachmann herself.
Bill, more embarrassing for the media is that the question he was asked was about Colin Powell’s letter questioning whether the Bush policy was indicative of a moral failing in our fight against terrorism. Somehow Bush turned that into a comparison between us and islamic extremists.
“Sampling doesn’t mean jack in the face of properly phrased questions. You can have the best sample God’s ever created, but if you ask biased, leading questions, the results don’t mean jack. Go learn something about polling, fool. ”
Acually properly phrased questions are immaterial. If you have a correct sample you will get the “correct” answer to your question, even if it means something other than you intended.
If you have a poor sample then it does not matter what questions you ask, your results will be invalid.
Why is there even a debate on this poll. If Wetterling was a race horse she would have been put down long ago. She is so bad that Mark Kennedy even beat her. My dog could beat her in an election. I think she should fold up the tent and go home. The only people voting for Wetterling are in reality only voting against Bachmann. Bachmann can start picking out wallpaper now. This race was over before it started.
How did Bill turn a blog on the incompetence of Patty Wetterling into a Bush bash. Seriously Bill and Bsimon, let it go. Your hatred towards the president is mind numbingly boring. He is the president, not some czar or king. He honestly doesn’t have as much power as you clearly think. Clearly you can have your opinion on GW but my god, it has been too long. Let the anger go. You sound like spoiled little children who don’t get there way. I am sure you both have one of those Impeach Bush stickers on your VW Bugs. Just like the Republicans had to put up with a lying, adultress Clinton, you too can suck it up like an adult.
Cartwa:
Thanks for providing some humor.
Leave it to some Bush loving hypocrite to resort to ad hominem attacks.
“She is so bad that Mark Kennedy even beat her”
I love that Cartwa (and Mark for that matter) have now given up hope in the Senate race that they have turned on the annointed one Mark Kennedy. You guys make it sound like Kennedy is the republican version of Ole Savior. He is 3 for 3 in elections beating two sitting incumbants. But it has become clear that he will not win this time, so the right wing echo chamber is now changing… Wetterling cant even beat a washed up, lightweight fraud like Kennedy- Bachmann has it in the bag…
If you guys are so down on him, and high on Bachmann- why didnt you talk her into running for senate?
What’s too bad about this is that there is no good choice. Bachmann is a nut. She is extremist to the extreme. But Wetterling barely knows the difference between Iran and Iraq. If you’ve heard her on MPR or in a debate, she barely understands the questions, much less the answers. So 6th districters can choose between someone who will knowingly do crazy things, and someone who won’t know what she’s doing at all. Best of luck.
Gary- being against a very unpopular war would not loose you 6% points in the same district two years later. In the 6th we are talking about 20,000 people. Her stance on Iraq wouldnt cost her that many votes even in a strongly Republican district (55% isnt that strong by the way)
People like you wouldnt have voted for her the first time around- you are overestimating the elasticity of the votes based on the war- while disregarding the overall sentiment against Republicans on nearly every other issue.
Mark has, once again, shown that he knows nothing about opinion polling (but might have read about it in school).
Properly phrased questions are _the_ key to a survey. Ask stupid questions of a meticulously-drawn sample and you’ll get meaningless answers.
Anybody with three neurons to rub together can draw a stratified random sample.
The trick is what you do with it.
Properly phrase questions are immaterial Mark? That’s utterly ridiculous. From Polling Report:
Can wording of questions bias poll results?
How questions in a poll are worded is as important as sampling procedure in obtaining valid results.
Most professional polling organizations and their media clients review the wording of questions as carefully as editors would examine a manuscript before publication. This process usually calls for a review of several drafts prior to fielding a poll. Questions are checked for balance: Are they worded in a neutral fashion, without taking sides on an issue? Does the question represent both sides of an issue fairly? Answer choices read to poll respondents must also be balanced; e.g., approve or disapprove, favor or oppose.
The order of questions must be logical. That is, general questions are asked before specific questions. For example, overall job approval of an incumbent must be asked before specific questions are asked that may remind respondents about the incumbent’s successes or failures. The same goes for questions asking respondents what side they take on an issue which may influence a later question about opinion of a candidate who takes the opposite side.
Questions are written using clear, unambiguous, concise language to insure that all respondents, regardless of educational level, understand them. And since most polls are conducted by phone, a writing style suitable for the ear is often adopted as opposed to a style more suitable for reading.
Mark is right–sampling is critical to getting good poll results. And Mark is wrong–the phrasing of questions is EQUALLY critical. Biased questions change your results as much as a skewed sample. Feel free to look into it and get back to us on it after you do, and not before.
Bill P.’s point about people not understanding what a nut M.B. is should be at the crux of the debate. While on some level I understand that probably there are more people dangling off the far right end of the political spectrum than I imagine there to be, I have a really hard time believing that there are that many people who are really that extreme. Maybe my optimism is misplaced. I can’t help but think that people might start to change their minds with more information about who she really is and what she stands for. That’s what the media are supposed to be for. When the media are owned by those whose interests lie in having people like that win elected office, the content and tone of the stories changes. If you don’t believe me, Google “media consolidation”; it’ll at least give you something to think about. You can’t count on newspapers to tell you the things that are most relevant to you (to them, yes, to you, no). So why the kid gloves with Michele? They could put her through the wringer with what they already have on hand, no legwork required. They just don’t.
And I too have questions about P.W.’s qualifications. Her work in child safety is admirable, but there is much more to running a country. I have met her and she seems tentative in a lot of areas, and she seems not to be aware of this as she keeps running for office. I would pick tentative over reactionary any day but it’s too bad the 6th district didn’t end up with better choices.
“Anybody with three neurons to rub together can draw a stratified random sample.”
Well Gremlin, Mark insists in the Q&A thread that the MN Poll is consistently wrong because Rob Daves doesn’t know how to sample correctly.
“…why the kid gloves with Michele? They could put her through the wringer with what they already have on hand, no legwork required. They just don’t.”
You’re damn right, RLW.
This, I surmise, is the thought process of Strib journalists:
“Look. You guys don’t understand. Sure, Bachmann’s said some crazy stuff. Sure, she’s a real nut, trying to pass herself off as a mainstream conservative. We know it; that stuff’s documented.
“But we can’t print that stuff in the Strib. We just can’t, don’tcha understand? We’d get in trouble, if we printed that stuffâ€â€even though it’s true, even though we know it’s true. We’d get in TROUBLEâ€â€don’t you understand that?
“We’re already losing conservative readers, they already hate us. The only reason a few conservative readers are hanging on to us is for the sports and comics.”
“What do you think is going to happen if we go in a month before an election and reveal that the GOP nominee is actually a nut? We can’t afford to lose them. And what about our business advertisers? If we tell the public the truth about Bachmannâ€â€most of those guys are Republicans! My God, can you imagine what management would do to us if we lost those guys because we told the truth about Bachmann?
“It’s just not worth it, I tells ya. This ISN’T about some stupid Congressional race, this ISN’T about who’s gonna represent us in Congress. This is about us–US–the journalists of the Star Tribune–our careers, our jobs, our mortgages. You want us to put all that on the line, just to keep a nut from going to Congress? Are you that selfish? That self-absorbed? What about US? The reporters who work at the Strib?
“It’s just not worth it, printing the truth. Look at that picture of Eric Black. He ain’t getting’ any younger man. You want him to risk his job by telling voters how crazy Bachmann really is? You want him to risk that job, the salary, the prestige, the free coffee, the saucy little interns at the office flirting with him because they’re under the delusion he’s gonna get them a regular job at the paper? You want him to risk all that, just to keep one “nuclear option in Iran†nut out of Congress?
“You gotta understand. Please. Don’t be mad at us. And don’t say that Mr. Black’s column is all about delivering an even-handed result for each of the candidates. It’s not, even though it looks that way. Even if it’s clear from the blog that he is going for as even-handed a result as possible, even if he goes on the page and says how sorry he is that he couldn’t turn up a false statement by Klobuchar, even if he won’t fact-check or even print the crazy statements of Michele Bachmannâ€â€don’t you folks conclude that he’s trying to produce an even-handed result for all the candidates. He’s going to keep saying he’s not, whether you believe him or not. So please don’t say that. Pleeeease.
And please keep buying the paper, whether we’re willing to print the truth or not. Please subscribe. We need that money. Don’t go to the internet, to the wire services to read the newsâ€â€who’s gonna filter it for you, and decide what you should or should not read, based on their contempt for your intelligence?
“And we don’t want to lose our jobs. The newspaper industry is already dying, there’s layoffs everywhere in the industry, we can’t print the truth about Bachmannâ€â€IT WOULD BE A RISK TO OUR CAREERS! Don’t you get it? Don’tcha understand? Pleeease don’t hold that against us, pleeeasse! Don’t stop reading us because we’re a-scared to print the truth about Bachmann! Please read us anyway, no matter what you think of us!â€Â
“Pleeeasse…Pleeease…”
“Properly phrased questions are _the_ key to a survey. Ask stupid questions of a meticulously-drawn sample and you’ll get meaningless answers.”
Please read what I said before you act like fools. I said that the questions are immaterial if the sampling is done correctly. You will get teh correct answer to the question you asked.
Here is my quote: “If you have a correct sample you will get the “correct†answer to your question, even if it means something other than you intended. If you have a poor sample then it does not matter what questions you ask, your results will be invalid.”
Hence my claim for why sampling is makes the questions asked in a poll immaterial.
“Anybody with three neurons to rub together can draw a stratified random sample.”
Again, this shows that have absolutely no understanding on how polling is done. It is very difficult to predict the likely voter universe. It is then even more difficult to replicate this universe from the lists of names you have. Without beimg able to do that you will not get an accurate poll.
You’re making a foolish claim Mark.
“How questions in a poll are worded is as important as sampling procedure in obtaining valid results.”
Unless you have trouble with reading comprehension, this doesn’t mean that if sampling is done correctly the questions are immaterial. That may be what you’re saying but the National Council on Public Polls has more crediblity on this than you. Face it. You’re assertion is wrong. Period.
No, if the sampling is done correctly it will answer your question correctly. If you ask the “wrong” question you will get the correct answer to the wrong question.
FOr example, if you are doing consumer surveys on a product and you phrase the questions wrong, or in an order that makes it confusing to the respondent, you will get an answer that may not be what you intended. It will make any interpetation of that survey difficult at best and probably lead you to wrong conclusions. But the fact of the matter is that the respondents gave you the “correct” answer to your question.
However, if you create a sample that does not reflect your marketplace, then your entire results are invalid.
According to your quote the “National Council on Public Polls” claims that it is AS IMPORTANT. I claim, for the above reasons that sampling is more important, in fact, of primary importance. I support my conclusions with definitive argument and they can support theirs. Having worke for more than 15 years in data analysis, designing state of the art statistical projects I contend that I am correct.
You contend you are correct eh Mark. Well I got a good laugh out of that! Of course you would contend that. No one, not even an association of polling experts that was established in 1969, might possibly know more than you. You are most certainly a legend in your own mind Mark.
REPUBLICANS LOVE TORTURE. WHAT A BUNCH OF SOCIOPATHS!!!!!
” No one, not even an association of polling experts that was established in 1969, might possibly know more than you”
They can believe what they want to believe. I have done the work and know from practical experience what is important and what is not.
Michelle Bachmann is leading in the polls because she is photogenic and knows how to cradle a microphone during interviews.
DJ:
Great way to select a “leader”.
Oh Mark, you’re on a roll. Another good laugh! You’re actually suggesting that the organization of polling experts isn’t made up of people who work in the field. ha, ha, that’s a good one alright.
ha ha ha…do you think that in such a field that every issue has some sort of a unanimous consensus? Do you think that there might be more than one school of thought on such issues?
THey say they are of equal importance. I say that sampling is much more important than copy.
Lets put it this way, if the wording of the survey is critical the interpetation of it is more qualititative to begin with. YOu have to interpet the results from the very start.
But if you ask the survey questions to the wrong sample you will always get the wrong answers no matter what your questions are.
Find me another reputable pollster or polling organization that agrees with your “school of thought” on it Mark. You won’t be able to because that group sets that standards by which pollsters operate. So on this point I’d say yeah, there is a consensus. What you don’t get here is that your opinion on this doesn’t matter. You’re not a professional pollster.
Mark, even though I’m a godless liberal, I pray to the Lord On High that you would shut up.
So your candidate’s a sociopath–but you spill virtually all your ink defending interpretations of the poll, principally your own. Yet you pay essentially no attention defending your candidate, nor bother rebutting some of her more alarming and outrageous public pronouncements.
Who says that Michelle Bachman is MY CANDIDATE?
At best I am a lukewarm supporter of hers and only for economic and foreign policy reasons. I will probably cast my ballot for her on these reasons and these reasons alone.
“Mark, even though I’m a godless liberal, I pray to the Lord On High that you would shut up.”
Again, this is a real adult way of dealing with people who disagree with you. Tell them to shut up. Go and look at the final information I posted in the Rob Daves Q&A thread and see if you can counter it?? Make your arguments and support them.
The fact is that all of the information supports my contention.
“You’re not a professional pollster”
Wrong. I am (or was) a professional statistician and I have done probably as much survey and statistical work than most people in the industry.
a “professional statistician” is not the same as a professional public opinion pollster.
Put it this way Mark. Just because a Neurosurgeon and an Allergist are both MD’s it doesn’t mean the Allergist can do brain surgery.
There is absolutely no information to support your contention that “properly phrased questions are immaterial”. None. Nada. Zip.
Well, if the allergist was paid to do brain surgery they are a professional neurosurgeon. I have been paid to do the statistical work, including work on surveys, and I contend I am a professional in the business.
Again, it is immaterial, especially for such standard opinion polling like candidate preference. THe questions are routine.
Any type of opinion polling or surveying that the copy had any impact on would be difficult to interpet anyways.
If you are conducting a partisan poll, that is using gimmick questions and leading questions then there really is not that much information to interpet anyways.
Regardless, the questions are answered correctly within the sample. It is then up to the people using the survey information to interpet the results.
A reputable Allergist wouldn’t attempt to do brain surgery because they know they aren’t qualified and wouldn’t contend they are.
There is nothing more to say on the subject. You don’t have the guts to admit you’re wrong so you go right ahead and continue to bloviate trying to convince that you know what you’re talking about even though all the evidence says otherwise. You seem to need that.
Carry on Mark.
In your world it is a matter of “guts”. You do not have the expertise to analyze anything I have stated. You have absolutely no understanding, only partisan bitterness. I have vast experience in doing survey and other statistical work. I know what I am talking about and people have paid me lots of money because of it. The information I provided them made them even more.
Again, go to the Q&A thread. ROb Daves indicated that the reason for the error in the Strib polling is that there was a Republican SURGE. He has “empirical” evidence.
Unfortunately for Mr. Daves the evidence does not support him. Every other polling firm (except Gallup and Zogby Internet Polling) had captured this apparent surge.
And, in fact, the surge was a Kerry “surge”. Exit polling indicted that more voters decided late for Kerry than Bush.
This exposes the fact that Daves is lying or making excuses.
It would be nice if the Klobuchar Kennedy Fitzgerald polling were broken down District by District. That would be a way to fathom whether the “fits the mood of the Sixth District” claim actually fits the District into a particular mood.
If the Klobuchar Kennedy gap is less there, that would fit with Bachmann having a higher voter rating.
But who, so far has gotten more press in MN 6? Bachmann, because of the names of the people in town for her fundraising.
Wetterling has long-standing name recognition, but for now it looks as if Bachmann is the more active candidate. That might have an effect on present polling.
In time, activity and attractiveness might diverge. Still, in 2004 the District slanted toward the GOP.
The demographics probably explain why the GOP is putting a great deal of effort and money into the race.
But Bachmann? Give her a Mr. Yuk sticker, for being such an extremist individual. And for a record of divisiveness AND ineffectiveness.
If the folks in MN 6 are carping over the traffic jams, can they really expect such a divisive and ineffective state senator to do better in DC? To get them highway pork projects that Mark Kennedy could not deliver?
That thought might sink in as we get closer to election day.
Michele Bachmann alienated her own party’s leadership in the state senate by being such an iedalogue and a grandstanding opportunist, as she was; and got dumped from a state senate leadership position.
Her own colleagues disdained her and that fact gets far too little recognition. Any “debate” where she is not forced to admit that, is not a “debate” but a propaganda opportunity for Michele Bachmann.
I read an chapter yesterday that addressed the origins of the anger and bitterness in partisan attacks. Close examination of the claims of the most outspoken consistently reveals that they are themselves what they claim to hate (think Rush Limbaugh saying “drug addicts should be shot” or Newt Gingrich attacking Clinton’s sexual mores, for example). They project their own anger and self-loathing onto others, while they are what they accuse others of being. Interesting stuff; don’t know what made me think of it.
RLW – I have listened to enough Rush to agree that he is most assuredly what he hates. I’m just glad I’m astute enough to hate him too; but for different reasons.
Eric – No truer words have been written about the Bachmann. I think that the MN 6th has decided that the only way to get her to move out of the state is to elect her to federal office. Then, like Norm Coleman, she will go to Washington, embarrass herself, and hopefully never return or get reelected.
I’m good with that plan.
Please read Mark’s posts on the AG race commentary, and the sick description of torture he offers…then determine if this ersatz statistician is worth a bother.
Mark, the moron is not worth any bother. It’s sad how he has attempted to monopolize every blog on this thing. I can’t believe my eyes when I see 3 or 4 postings in a row from him without any posts from anyone else in between. I think he is talking to himself. This is also a guy who thinks that the planning for the war in Iraq was “brilliant”. He’s a loon but there’s no use discussing it with him because, like the Bush administration, he doesn’t listen to anyone that doesn’t just say “Yes sir, you’re right”. It would be fun to go through all of his posts and pull out every egotistical (I make more money than you), conceited and ridiculing comment has has made. It would be a long list.
Maybe he has gone to school for statistics and does it for a living, but he doesn’t realize that you don’t convince people by telling them how stupid and foolish they are if they don’t agree with him. He criticizes people for being critical of him while his posts are littered with rude and uncalled-for remarks.
Mark is *not* a moron. Look, I disagree with just about everything he’s ever typed in this forum, and I’d like nothing more than if he stayed home on election day. That being said, he’s well-spoken, erudite, and has some sound reasoning behind what he types. Reasoning I disagree with, but sound nonetheless. He drops too many insults and barbs into his posts, but then look back at what people have been saying to/about him as well. The worst I can say about Mark is that I consider him to be misguided. Moron? No. Stupid? No.
I still want him to stay home on election day, though.
OK mds, I’ll go with the fact that Mark’s not a moron in the traditional sense of the word, but that’s not how I meant it. You took me too literally. He should be ablet to string some sentences together. After all, as he’s pointed out several times, he did work hard in graduate school.
The reason people are saying those things to him is because he is the first to take the jabs. Personally, I don’t give a crap if he goes out on election day. He has the right to vote for his choice of candidates. That’s what a democracy is all about. I’m not going to tell him who to vote for, but I’ll be happy to tell him why I choose to vote for my candidates.
Mark doesn’t seem like the kind of guy who’ll stay home on election day and that’s probably the most redeemable quality he has to contribute.
“The reason people are saying those things to him is because he is the first to take the jabs”
I think ye protest to much. If you say something stupid I say you said something stupid. I have never said anything personal to anyone.
Further, your problem is that you just cannot tolerate anyone disagreeing with you.
You can claim I am wrong, but if you go back to the thread on the Minnesota Poll and look at the evidence I presented, and still think that I am wrong I feel sorry for you.
Since I think you are too lazy….the claim was made that the Minesota Poll is correct because even though it consistently undercounts REpublican voters they claim their is a Republican SURGE that comes after the poll is closed.
However, I showed several other polling firms from the 2004 election cycle over time. They all had this so called Republcian Surge already in their results. Then I showed exit polling fromt he 2004 presidential election that showed that late deciding voters, those that decided AFTER the Minnesota Poll, broke for John Kerry.
You can claim that I am misguided and even have “sound reasoning” but that is just a way for saying your opponent was right.
Keith, you wrote:
“I think that the MN 6th has decided that the only way to get her to move out of the state is to elect her to federal office. Then, like Norm Coleman, she will go to Washington, embarrass herself, and hopefully never return or get reelected.
I’m good with that plan.”
Sorry, but that thinking is just crazy. It’s almost a crazy as Bachmann herself.
If a nut in state government is trying to advance herself politically, you don’t get rid of her by promoting her into Congress! She can do *more* harm to the district and Minnesota in Congress than she’s ever done as a state legislator.
1) If she wins Congress, you get more Bachmann clones in the state government–her victory and career trajectory inspires more extremists to pose as GOP conservatives, and they go to the state house as Republican nominees and candidates. (If she loses because she’s exposed as a nut in the media–the GOP is less likey to back future nuts.)
2) If she wins, she’ll do whatever she can to further her own career. That would be a political and economic disaster for the 6th district. Look at her record in representing the Stillwater area, it’s pathetic. Look at the soaring property taxes in her hometown; she’s afraid to appear in public there! She never got anything significant done in her constituency, not in six years–she’s simply not interested in them. For MB, it’s all about MB.
It will be the same story if she gets to Congress–”If it can’t build my national image with conservatives outside my Congressional district, screw it. I’m not going to “deliver for the district”, like Kennedy–it’s cutting projects and infrastructure and public education funding to my own district–that’s what will build me a national following among conservatives.”
3) She’s a NUT! She’s a macadamia, a filbert, a cashew! You don’t send a NUT to represent you in Congress, no matter how bad you want them out of your state government! You don’t a nut a vote on the Iraq war, or on nuclear war!
Solution: Tell people all over the 6th district about her; tell them about what she is, tell them why they shouldn’t vote for her for anything–remember the reason: she’s a nut!
Mark, this is the evidence that you don’t even understand the comments that are being made toward you. I have NEVER said I don’t agree with your insights about the polling. I don’t give a rat’s a** about the polling. I haven’t said anything about your ideas on this topic. Therefore, I don’t have a problem with the fact that you disagree with me. What I have a problem with is your “I’m better than thou, and everyone else for that matter” attitude. You’re stuffy and conceited. You and Cartwa should go out and have a beer together so you can bash all the idiotic liberals in the world who have some compassion for the poeple who aren’t as well off as you are.
Bill says:
“Sorry, but that thinking is just crazy… If a nut in state government is trying to advance herself politically, you don’t get rid of her by promoting her into Congress! She can do *more* harm to the district and Minnesota in Congress than she’s ever done as a state legislator”
I don’t know Bill, it looks like it worked for Texas…
“I’m better than thou, and everyone else for that matterâ€Â
Again, that is a perception that you feel. It comes from your own inner self.
bsimon,
It “didn’t” work for Texas! If that was someone’s plan–to get Bush out of the state so he wouldn’t be representing them anymore–it backfired.
He’s still representing Texas and Texans–politically and on the world stage. They never live it down, not for generations. And they’re losin’ kids in Iraq and payin’ these ridiculously high gas prices down in Texas, too, pardner.
Wow. That’s the last time I come to Mark’s defense. So much for trying to foster good and honest debate.
Thanks pal. Thanks a lot.
WHat is one person’s nut is another person’s US Congressman…hence Congressman Ellison.
Whatever happened to polling “likely voters”? Perhaps the 6th has more Bachmann supporters, but in this election there are many indicators that the Democratic voters are more energized. Translation: they are more likely to actually show up and vote in November. Robo-dialing doesn’t seem to be measuring that.
Bill, of course you are correct. But in my own defense, it was an irresistable one-liner.
T.Scott, in theory the polls account for the ‘likely voters.’ If you review the shouting match / discussion of the Senate poll results & MN Poll in general, you’ll see that one prominent argument is that some polls do a poor job of picking the likely voters correctly.
Michelle Bachman headstrong,well to do person,far right= looking for a hobby job….
If Bachmann wins it proves that 6th district voters approves of bigortry and falls for the BS of God’s Own Party being fiscaly conservative. Patty needs to hire a few tough PR people to expose who Bachmann really is. Michalle is all sound bites with a pretty face.
Gregg–
I’m not sure that if Bachmann wins it proves the 6th District approves of bigotry.
I think everyone pretty much knows she’s against gay marriage, but I’m not sure they know exactly how nutty she is. She got elected in Stillwater, and there are a hell of a lot of people here who aren’t bigots. There are even Republicans here who aren’t bigots–the Republicans in the St. Croix valley voted her in in the first place because she was the Republican in the race–for example:she didn’t run on an anti-gay platform,that side of her got publicized AFTER she was elected, and she’s dropped the issue this year to fool people into thinking she’s more mainstream, again.
People here in the Valley just plain didn’t know what an irresponsible hate-monger she was when they voted her in. This quote, for example, is from 2004, not 2000 (when she broke into state politics):
On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.†–Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The Newsâ€Â, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
To this day, most Republican voters just don’t know that she’s said things like that. The newspapers didn’t report statements like that when Bachmann made them. They didn’t report that she was appearing in forums with names like “Prophetic Views In the News, either (a program dedicated to analyzing current affairs in light of “end times” prophecy, a program whose host regularly tells listeners that we are living in “the last days.”)
A lot of the GOP voters have gay friends, relatives, etc. They know that these people aren’t “targeting our children,” and some of them (even if they’re against gay marriage) might be offended by the idea of casting their vote for a politician who makes such a hateful, unfair, panic-mongering charge to further her own political fortunes.
The problem, as I’ve said, is that they just don’t know she’s said a lot of stuff like that, a lot of crazy stuff that furthers her own career by panicking her paranoid base. The papers just don’t report it. The solution is to get that information about Bachmann out in front of the voters of the Sixth District. She’s nuts, but most of the people who live in that district aren’t.
Well, more Minnesotans in this state oppose gay marriage than support it. This is not an extreme position to take and it is well supported in the 6th District.
I think it is extreme to call someone “nuts” who has a mainstream position on this issue.
Mark–
Hey, let’s get the story right, Mark. You missed the point, maybe deliberately. I’m not calling Bachmann a nut because she opposes gay marriage.
I’m calling her a nut because of the public statements she’s made, her lies, her tactics. I think it’s nuts for an elected official to go on a program called “Prophetic Views In The News” and tell a Christian fundamentalist radio audience that gays are “targeting our children,” that our children are the prize for the gay community in this debate about gay marriage. Do agree with that statement, with what she said, Mark? It’s a hateful lie, and if she really believed that when she said it–she’s nuts. If you think her statement is trueâ€â€well, we must agree to disagree.
Another reason I keep referring to her as a nut is that she told the listening audience to come down to St. Paul, to come inside the capitol, into the Rotunda, into the offices of the legislators, to protest gay marriage and get her amendment on the ballot. That’s nutsâ€â€because she’s a state legislator. Now it’s fine for you or me or a private citizen to organize a demonstration down at the state capitol to put pressure on the legislature. But for an elected official to try to use the radio to organize a mob of her supporters to go down to the Capitol, to tell them that they should go into their offices and intimidate her fellow legislators, disrupt the business of the legislatureâ€â€that’s nuts, Mark. And she did try to do this; her attempts are recorded on the Prophetic Views In the News broadcast.
Another reason I think she’s nutsâ€â€getting up in front of an audience of conservative voters and telling them that fellow Republican Tim Pawlenty’s tax free zones initiative is an attempt to turn the Minnesota economy over to the Communist principle of “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.†Well, that’s just plain nuts for one conservative Republican to say that about another conservative Republicanâ€â€isn’t it? Doesn’t the claim itself sound irrational to you, based on what you know about the Pawlenty administration?
I could give lots of examples of Bachmann’s nuttiness that have absolutely nothing to do with her opposition to gay marriage, that have nothing to do with her homophobia. That’s why I call her a nut; because she says and does and apparently believes nutty things. But why list them all here; the comment would be waaay too long. You can read lots of examples of her nuttiness at the Bachmann Record web page, if you want to find out why so many people think she’s nuts.
1. With respect to gays “targeting our children” I do not agree with that statement. However, I do not think what she has said is an outlandish statement either. Many people in the state and the country are very uncomfortable with the way homosexuality is presented in the schools and modern culture. Often this presentation is different than what the parents teach at home and they have a right to present these differences.
2. I dont think it is nuts for an elected official to call a protest at the state capital. I have absolutely no problem with it. I can guarantee that this type of “mob” practice is conducted 50 times by liberal causes for every one conservative cause. I am not sure how that is “nuts”.
3. I have supported tax free zones from Jack Kemp on. I believe that they are a rational extension of supply side economics.
I also can understand why a state senator from a prosperous suburb would oppose such proposals because it would impact the interests of her constituents.
Her negative views on it are overblown, but what she is pointing out is correct. Any type of tax free zone is centralized planning. The Central Planners make decisions on which areas will receive preferential treatment and the taxpayers and businesses in the non-selected areas will have to pay for it.
Again, I support such initiatives because I believe that the value of wealth and job creation in the inner city is worth the cost.
4. I suggest that you continue your hard work on Michelle Bachman. Once she wins her Congressional seat she will be easily reelected in 2008 and 2010. Then she is going to be a much more formidable contender than Mark Kennedy against Amy Klochubar. Bachman is telegenic, well spoken, and well positioned. Like I said, her views are mainstream in Minnesota. She will run very well in a state wide campaign.
Mark–
Bachmann is indeed telegenic, well spoken, and well positioned. She is also a nut, as I have demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate. She may well win, as you say, but your attempts to cast her crazier statements in a more reasonable light are ineffectual, at best.
1. It doesn’t matter whether you or I disagree with her statementâ€â€Ã¢â‚¬Å“Gays are targeting our childrenâ€Ââ€â€Bachmann does. It’s a nutty statement, an insanely irresponsible accusation that feeds homophobia. As you have demonstrated, it is possible to present arguments against teaching tolerance for gays in public schools without accusing gays of targeting our children. Senator Bachmann did not limit herself to such arguments; she chose to add hateful and false claims about gay Americans. That’s because she is indeed a paranoid homophobic demagogueâ€â€a nut who’s convinced herself and others that gays are out to get our kids.
2. You do not consider her call for citizens to come down to the capitol, go into the rotunda and confront legislators in their office to be “nutty.†I will concede this point to you if you can indeed cite “50 times†that the liberal legislators have done the same thing.
Remember nowâ€â€we are looking for instances in which liberal LEGISLATORSâ€â€members of the legislature–have called on mobs to come down to the capitol, invade the Rotunda and the offices of their state representatives. If that is a recurring practice of liberal legislators (as you have indicated), I will withdraw my “nut†accusation on that score.
3. I am pleased to find out that you and I both support Governor Pawlenty’s tax free zones initiatives. Of course you realize that makes us, in Michele Bachmann’s eyes at least, unwitting dupes of a conservative Republican administration with a secret Marxist agenda. Her negative views on this issue are not merely “overblown”, they are nutty–the product of a paranoid, conspiracy-haunted worldview.
4. I agree with most of this statement, I agree that her chances of election are very good and that she may easily win re-election if she wins her first term. I do not agree with part of your statement; the part about her views being considered “mainstream†in Minnesota. For example: I doubt that “mainstream Minnesotans†believe that their gay neighbors are out to “get†other people’s kids; I doubt that “mainstream Minnesotans would accept the view that Tim Pawlenty is implementing policy on the basis of a hidden Marxist agenda. These are the sort of views that are commonly held by people outside of the mainstream; i.e. “nuts.â€Â
She may win, but she is certainly a nut. And if you continue to support a nut for Congress, you do so at your own perilâ€â€and ours.
” doubt that “mainstream Minnesotans†believe that their gay neighbors are out to “get†other people’s kids”
No, I disagree with you there. Homophobia is a mainstream fact. People really do not want gay people living near them or their kids.
Even affluent and educated people are uncomfortable around gays. They may tolerate it, but the issue still remains. These views are especially prevalent outside of the Metro area. Michelle Bachman just says these things outloud. She is not a nut.
I think that your views of what “mainstream” is are too focused on what you know. FOr example, go out to the 7th Concressional District and see if your views of what is mainstream are still the mainstream out there?
“but your attempts to cast her crazier statements in a more reasonable light are ineffectual,”
Again, I am not trying to convert you. I am just showing that her views and statements are not that crazy.
It is obvious that you have a very low tolerance for disagreement with your positions and a low threshold for what is right and what is wrong. You can call them nuts or dangerous, or whatever you want, but they have a right to their views and a right to vote for the candidates they choose.
The same goes for the 4th and 5th Congressional District. They can choose a candidate as liberal as they want, and they do!
My view is you get what you ask for. I look at the urban city Congressional district that have voted Democrat for every election since about 1930 and wonder what they are really getting for their vote. Blacks vote for Democratic candidates with 90+% margins. The Democrats promise good schools and jobs, etc, etc, etc but the inner city is still the Inner City. The drop out rate, the murder rate, the illicite drug usage, and illegitimatcey rate are still terrible. The schools suck and no one is crazy enough to give these people jobs. THey live in servitude to the government. HOw have the Democrats advanced their interests?
With that in mind, voting for Michelle Bachman for Congress is not that bad of a thing….I think I will, she is way cuter than what I thought she was.
It does not matter if homophobia is mainstream. It is wrong, and against our Constitution and mores.
If you are uncomfortable around gays, that’s your dysfunction, and it should never be written into law.
That is why Bachmann is wrong in any position in government, and that you Mark should seek professional help to deal with your homophobia.
“That is why Bachmann is wrong in any position in government, and that you Mark should seek professional help to deal with your homophobia. ”
When did I mention anything about my views on the subject? Your violent reaction to hearing information that goes against what is set in your head really sets you off. There is professional help for that.
“It does not matter if homophobia is mainstream. It is wrong, and against our Constitution and mores.”
Says you? People have the right to association and also a right to determine how their children are raised. And, as I have just demonstrated, the MORES of this country are homophobic.
YOu do not have the power to determine what other people think is morally right anymore than I do. The less you react to people like Michelle Bachman the better off you will be.
Even if you’re right about homophobia being a mainstream attitude (you’re not, but even if you are) homophobia isn’t a mainstream political position. No mainstream politician owns up to homophobia–even extremists like Bachmann deny the charge. She won’t make the charge that “our childrend are the prize for the gay community” when there are TV cameras around reporters from the Strib and PiPress around. She knows her homophobia aren’t mainstream, even if you don’t.
I’ll go this far–I’ll concede that there are a lot of homophobes in the world, and that they vote. I think you and I and Bachmann all agree with this. Where we disagree is whether it’s okay to exploit irrational hatred and fear in order to get into office, to make horrible charges against innocent citizens to get elected. You and Bachmann see nothing wrong with that; I think it’s repulsive, crazy, and dangerous to the republic.
She’s a nut because she says things that are plainly false and clearly irrational. Things that smear other people, in some cases her fellow Republicans and conservatives. You just ignore that and say you’ll vote for her because she’s cute. Well, she is cute, but she’s a nut–and you denying that in the face of all the nutty claims she’s made, is not going to change that fact.
You wrote: “Again, I am not trying to convert you. I am just showing that her views and statements are not that crazy.”
I know you’re not trying to convert me. But you could convert me, on the issue on her nuttiness, if you really were able “to show that her views and statements are not that crazy.”
You haven’t shown that. You haven’t even really tried. You haven’t dealt at any length with any of the Bachmann statements I’ve cited, the words out of her own mouth, and explained to us how they’re sane and responsible. You said there were fifty liberal instances to every one conservative instance of legislators calling for demonstrators to go into the state capitol and intimidate fellow legislators in their offices (as Bachmann did over the radio.) I asked you to send in examples. What’s going on with that, have you found any yet?
If you want to show me that Bachmann behavior like that isn’t nutty, you have to send me the counter-evidence. It should be easy to find, if you’re right and there’s really fifty liberal examples for every conservative one. But if you don’t have that evidence, you shouldn’t just make up evidence out of your own head. Send some examples in, please. Like I say, I’ll withdraw the Bachmann is a nut charge on that particular score, if can prove that what you said is true.
Instead of dealing directly with her remarks, you’re sending in other statements of your own–homophobia really being mainstream, etc–as if assertions like yours, if true, could make her disgusting charge against all gay Americans into something sane and plausible.
You have to skip a lot of logic and facts to get to the conclusion you want to get to, Mark, and that’s never a good sign.
And I’m not trying to convert you either, I’m pretty sure I can’t. But maybe this dialogue we’re having will be helpful to anyone who’s still following it. Your remarks in particular, will show them something about the way that modern conservatives argue–changing the subject when the facts don’t suit your view, for example. Attempting to prove that a nutty statement (“the gay community is targeting our children”) isn’t nuts by asserting that a lot of people really are homophobes–logical sequencing problems, with that argument. And of course, asserting questionable claims without bringing in the evidence to support them (“(Bachmann’s)type of “mob†practice is conducted 50 times by liberal causes for every one conservative cause.”)
If this is the only kind of stuff you’ve got, Mark, it only goes to show that you’re going to vote for her whether her record and character are defensible or not.
Mark, Mark, Mark.
Obviously personal insight is not one of your strengths.
And I can accept that because you are so much fun to watch.
“Even if you’re right about homophobia being a mainstream attitude (you’re not, but even if you are) ”
You must not get out much then. Go to a farming community or on the Iron Range and report back to me the progressive attitudes these residents have on the issues of homosexuality. Go ahead, I dare ya to wander out into the hinterland.
And, it isn’t just the small towns and backward people out there. Listen to the jokes around the water cooler. Most people maybe civil to gays and will tolerate them, but they are still wary of them.
“Where we disagree is whether it’s okay to exploit irrational hatred and fear in order to get into office”
It is irrational but it is not exploitation if you believe it.Most people really do.
“You and Bachmann see nothing wrong with that; I think it’s repulsive, crazy, and dangerous to the republic.”
NOw you know how I feel when I hear mainstream politicians on the Left talking about how Bush lied and led out country into a war for Haliburton. That type of talk is much more dangerous than anything Michelle Bachman has said about homosexuality.
” know you’re not trying to convert me. But you could convert me, on the issue on her nuttiness, if you really were able “to show that her views and statements are not that crazy.â€Â
No, you are not convertible. I have demonstrated to you the basis of her statements which are very reasonable. You and I may disagree with this basis but that is just a perogative and does not make her “wrong” or “crazy”.
” It should be easy to find, if you’re right and there’s really fifty liberal examples for every conservative one.”
I never claimed that 50 liberal elected officials have done this but the office take over is a liberal protest tactic that is done over and over again. I think John Kline is the biggest target in Minnesota.
“Attempting to prove that a nutty statement (â€Âthe gay community is targeting our childrenâ€Â) isn’t nuts by asserting that a lot of people really are homophobes–logical sequencing problems”
How is that illoical. I am right about the homophobia. Maybe in your little liberal cluster of the world or in midtown Manhattan or in most of San Franscisco this is not true but in most of the US it is. These people have the right to express their opinions in the same way that Keith Ellison can express his opinions with respect to his support of Louis Farrakans (however it is spelled) positions that are just a little extreme.
That is the nature of the political process. In one district, numbered 5, the electorate is so liberal that an outlier like Keith Ellison will be the next US Congressman. Add one to the district, the electorate is so conservative a person like Michelle Bachman will most certainly be the next US Congressman.
I do not like homophobia any more than you do. Our approaches on “solving” the issue is different though. I think that social issues like these are slow moving trains that need to be encouraed to move. Your approach is to knock the train off its tracks to get on another train. People don’t like being derailed and forced to go on antoher train.
You have made the issue an us against them situation that only makes the different groups dig in their heels, employ more extensive and outrageous language, and not get anything done.
Question for you. If making homosexual marriage illegal is such a “non-mainstream” position to take, how come the Democrats will not let the citizens of the state of Minnesota vote on such an issue? I mean, if you are right about your measurement you should see any banning of such unions defeated by large margins.
Mark–
You still don’t get it. The statement in your last paragraph indicates you’re not even capable of comprehending, not capable of listening, not capable of even acknowledging your opponent’s point of view in an argument.
Mark wrote:
“if making homosexual marriage is illegal is such a “non-mainstream” position to take–”
That’s not my view, Mark, and you know it isn’t–yet you attribute to me in this discussion, you ask me a question based on a premise I don’t hold. That’s dishonest, Mark, to attribute a view to me that I have not expresseed and do not hold.
What I said was that homophobia is not a mainstream political position. If you want to persuade me I’m wrong, give me some quotes from mainstream elected officials and candidates–quotes where these types accuse gay Americans of targeting our kids–as Bachmann charged.
So it turns out you can’t give me ANY examples of any elected official trying to do what Bachmann did–go on the radio and try to organize a mob to enter the capitol building and intimidate her elected colleagues face to face? To the best of your knowledge, no Minnesota elected official besides Bachmann has ever tried that? Guess why they don’t do that, Mark. It’s nuts. When an elected leader tries to circumvent the legislative process and do that to her own colleagues–that’s a threat to republican government, to representative government. That’s what’s nuts about it, Mark–and you have yet to defend it as a tactic, you have yet to show that any other elected official tried to do something that crazy.
I am convertible–I will drop the ‘nut’ accusations if you can show how any of the statements and tactics I’ve cited is rational, reasonable, supported by facts.
Mark wrote:
I have demonstrated to you the basis of her statements which are very reasonable.
No you haven’t. If what you mean to say is that you have demonstrated that the bases of his statements are very reasonableâ€Ââ€â€you haven’t demonstrated that at all. You haven’t demonstrated that gays are targeting “our kidsâ€Â, or that the Pawlenty administration is following a Marxist agenda. Those views aren’t reasonable, and you haven’t demonstrated that they are. If you say that you have, you simply aren’t telling the truth.
Mark wrote:
I am just showing that her views and statements are not that crazy.
We’re disagreeing about a fact. You haven’t proved to me that her views are not “that†crazy. You haven’t given any support for her statements; no support for the view that gay citizens are targeting other people’s kids, no support for her claim that the Pawlenty administration is pursuing a Marxist agenda. You can’t defend them, because there’s no credible support for such viewsâ€â€they are the views of a nut. Your rationalizations aren’t even rationalizations for *her* views; they’re rationalizations for *your own* views.
Before I sign off here, let’s remind readers of the Bachmann views we’re discussing, so we can distinguish them from Mark’s views and mine. Let’s remind everybody of the Bachmann views that Mark is trying to defend as “not that crazy:â€Â
On the gay community and same-sex marriage: “This is a very serious matter, because it is our children who are the prize for this community, they are specifically targeting our children.†–Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The Newsâ€Â, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.
On Governor Pawlenty’s “Tax-Free Zones†initiative: “…it’s all for the planned redistribution of wealth which is also stated in this document, the redistribution of wealth which is based on a new concept called equity. And it says this: we must not lose sight of equity, or fairness based on need. Where have you heard that here, today? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.†–Senator Michele Bachmann, Edwatch conference, October 10-11, 2003
To paraphrase Patsy Cline and Willie Nelson:
“She’s cray-zee for lyin’ and cray-zee for tryin’…â€Â
“You haven’t given any support for her statements; no support for the view that gay citizens are targeting other people’s kids,”
Yes I have. If you want me to “prove” it I won’t because it is not true and I have stated this.
However, I did give you the rational behind why they think gays are “targeting” their kids. They feel that there is a “gay” agenda and are abhored by how homosexuality is presented in schools and modern culture. To add to that, these people feel the same thing about sex in general. They are entitled to these opinions. In some cases I think they are even correct as some teachers and media go beyond what is good taste (like a 3rd grade teacher using fonts made up of stylized stick figures in various sexual positions on a spelling homework…by accident supposedly).
” no support for her claim that the Pawlenty administration is pursuing a Marxist agenda”
I told you on that issue she is right on her statement in general. Any type of targeting is centralized planning.
“Your rationalizations aren’t even rationalizations for *her* views; they’re rationalizations for *your own* views. ”
No, not really. I support tax free zones. I support gay marriage. I support some form of affirmative action. I am generally pro-choice and would never vote to totally prohibit abortions. My views on most social issues are completely at odds with Michelle’s. I just have a better understanding of her views, I am willing to listen to her views without prejudice, and I know the basis of her views. You are too inflexible to do any of those things.
You say you views on most social issues are completely at odds with Bachmann yet you also say: “voting for Michelle Bachman for Congress is not that bad of a thing….I think I will,”
Why would you vote for someone whose views you are at odds with? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
See, only you and your ilk can conclude that just because I do not agree with a candidate on all issues I am a liar.
Maybe you do not understand, but you are not required to agree with a candidate on every issue to vote for them. In fact, I believe that is almost impossible situation to occur.
There are priorities and lesser issues in life. I believe that these social issues are very low priorities and so I can easily set aside my policy disagreements with my fellow Republicans on those issues and vote for them.
I find it hilarious how the liberals pose as these enlightened people and then demonstrate their narrow mindedness. It never fails. They are more intolerant than Michelle Bachman. At least Michelle believes that if she prays for you, that you will be saved.
Bill:“You haven’t given any support for her statements; no support for the view that gay citizens are targeting other people’s kids,â€Â
Mark: Yes I have. If you want me to “prove†it I won’t because it is not true and I have stated this.
You see how your first sentence contradicts your second? You say, “Yes I have (given support for her statement that gays are targeting our kids, that our kids are the prize for the gay community.) And then in the very next sentence, you say the claim is false. Can’t have it both way, Mark.
You’re trying to defend Bachmann against the charge of being a nut, but you’re admitting that she made these irreponsible, indefensible statements–you can’t, you haven’t rebutted this evidence that of her nuttiness.
Mark: “However, I did give you the rational behind why they think gays are “targeting†their kids.”
But I didn’t ask for any such rationale. You think her charge is not true, I think it’s not true–but Bachmann thinks it’s true, a nutty irresponsible statement and belief. Who cares if a lot of other people are homophobic, too? What’s that got to do with whether her claims are rational or not?
Keep your eyes on the prize: we’re debating whether Bachmann’s a nut or not, whether it’s fair for me to call her that. You admit her statement about gays targeting children is false, but you don’t want to go where that conclusion leads you: to the fact that because she makes these nutty statements, does nutty things, and believes in the statements and in the nutty things that she does–she’s a nut.
I guess you’re conceding, at least for now, that it’s crazy for a state legislator to use the radio to try to organize demonstrators to go into the capitol and intimidate her fellow legislators in their offices–you haven’t given me any examples of other legislators trying that. So I guess you’ve given up trying to defend that nutty behavior, at least. Congratulations.
Bill: (Bachmann’s) claim that the Pawlenty administration is pursuing a Marxist agendaâ€Â
Mark: I told you on that issue she is right on her statement in general.
Wait a minute–you think that she’s right about that? You agree with Bachmann, that the Pawlenty administration’s tax free zones initiative is part of a conservative Republican plan to implement the Marxist principle of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs?” You think that that is Governor Pawlenty’s plan?
I’m not asking you whether you believe that “any type of targeting is centralized planning”–I’m asking you if you personally, agree with Bachmann’s charge—that Pawlenty’s tax free zones plan is part of a Marxist-inspired agenda. She didn’t just accuse this Republican administration of “centralized planning”, she accused them of making economic policy based Marxist principles. You really believe that Bachmann is basically right about that, that Pawlenty’s tax free zones plan means his administration is implementing a Marxist agenda in Minnesota? I hope you don’t believe that, please clear that up for us.
Bill: “Your rationalizations aren’t even rationalizations for *her* views; they’re rationalizations for *your own* views. â€Â
Mark: No, not really.
Yes, really. Once again, you launch into a paragraph about your views, not hers. You don’t defend the sanity of her views, the words that have come out her own mouth–because you can’t. They’re indefensible, crazy. You don’t even want to associate yourself with the Bachmann views I’ve quoted. You’re taking pains to present your views instead of the Bachmann views you making a half-hearted attempt to defend. You’re even taking pains to distance yourself from her on her core issues.
But you’re voting for her anyway, even though you can’t defend her statements, i.e. even though you know she’s nuts.
And you say I’m inflexible?
“And then in the very next sentence, you say the claim is false. Can’t have it both way, Mark.”
No, not contradictory at all. I am saying that gays are not “targeting” children but Bachman means something completely different when she talks about targeting. She has her viewpoint on this issue. To her targeting is the way homosexuality is portrayed in the schools and media. I do not think that is targeting. You do not think that is targeting. But she does. And, I can understand her viewpoint on that issue.
How is it “nuts” for people with strong religious beliefs to object to the way that homosexuality is protrayed in schools and media if it offends them? I do not think it is unreasonable even though I disagree with her.
“of the Bachmann views you making a half-hearted attempt to defend”
No, I can understand why she has her views. I have no interest in defending them.
“But you’re voting for her anyway, even though you can’t defend her statements, i.e. even though you know she’s nuts.”
I am voting for her because on important issues I agree with her. I can care less about the social issues, they are minor.
“Pawlenty’s tax free zones plan means his administration is implementing a Marxist agenda in Minnesota? ”
I read the quote you provided and do not see how you can interpet those comments to that conclusion. In the quote she is just commenting that the language used in the legislation rang true with some quotations from Marx. I doubt that Michelle even really thinks the Pawlenty administration are just cover communists.
“And you say I’m inflexible? ”
yes, because you give absolutely no credence to the views of others. If they disagree with you on a sensitive subject they are nuts.
For example, I am critical of the positions most liberals take on economic and foreign policy issues. But, that does not mean that I think they are nuts (even though I may use that word from time to time). I understand their basis for their beliefs. Most of them are very caring in their own ways and want what is best. I just think their views are misguided and unrealistic, and in some cases cause more harm than good.
you’re the one that said you didn’t agree with her on most issues. It’s highly unlikely that anyone would agree with a candidate on all issues (unless you’re a single issue voter I guess). But it’s beyond me why you would vote for someone that you don’t agree wih on most issues.
only you and your ilk can conclude that just because I do not agree with a candidate on all issues I am a liar
No you’re concluding that. I never said that you have to agree on all issues.
“And you say I’m inflexible? â€Â
Mark: yes, because you give absolutely no credence to the views of others. If they disagree with you on a sensitive subject they are nuts.
That’s quite a statement. Could you give the people here some examples of other times that I’ve referred to people as “nuts”–people besides Bachmann?
I asked for examples of what you’re talking about before, and you couldn’t come up with any. But I really think you should back up that last claim against me, if you’re trying to make this personal, about my character. So far as I can remember, Bachmann is the only person I’ve called a nut here.
And do you really believe, based on what you’ve read by me here that I “give absolutely no credence to the views of others?” Don’t you think you may be overstating that, just a little bit? I can think of many people that I agree with on particular issues; I even agree with you on some issues. Do you want to amend that statement, make it a little more accurate?
Dora–it’s beyond me why Mark would vote for someone when he seems to disagree with her top issues. But, to be fair: I hate Phil Krinkie’s tax policies, but if the only two candidates in this race were Phil Krinkie and Michele Bachmann, I’d vote for Phil. Because he’s not a nut.
“you’re the one that said you didn’t agree with her on most issues.”
I said most SOCIAL issues. You were the one who concluded I am lying about voting for Bachman based on that statement alone.
I agree with her on the most important issues to me, taxes, fiscal policy and foreign policy.
Social issues like gay marriage are very, very minor issues to me when determining a candidate.
“And do you really believe, based on what you’ve read by me here that I “give absolutely no credence to the views of others?†Don’t you think you may be overstating that, just a little bit?”
Yes, actually. You give absolutely no credence to her views or others. You refuse to understand the basis of her positions. You think it is impossible for other people to believe that way and therefore conclude she is “nuts”.
Her positions are valid positions on the issues. If you believed that children were being “exposed” to the gay agenda that you oppose then you would do, say, and support the things Michelle does.
And, I will say that the only evidence I have is about this is your views on MB. However, I extend that view because I know that more people support her positions on these issues than otherwise.
Now, I think you are overreacting to the term “inflexible”. There is no reason to consider that an insult. You believe what you believe and that is fine.
I do not think there is anything wrong with the vehement opposition. In fact, if you remember, I advised you to continue your efforts because the US House of Representatives will probably not be the last level of campaign Michelle Bachman undertakes. I think she will be a formidable statewide candidate and will run much better against Amy Klochubar, the presumed 2006 winner, than Mark Kennedy ever dreamed.
I don’t think “inflexible” is necessarily insulting. I don’t think I’m inflexible–I’ve indicated that I’d vote for any conservative Republican who stood a chance of beating Bachmann if that was the only alternative; I’m that flexible because she’s that nutty, that dangerous.
But–no offense Mark–some your last comment is kind of incoherent. For example, the opening:
Bill: “And do you really believe, based on what you’ve read by me here that I “give absolutely no credence to the views of others?†Don’t you think you may be overstating that, just a little bit?â€Â
Mark: Yes, actually.
“Yes, actually,” you think you may be overstating things a bit? I don’t think this is what you meant to write, the rest of your comment contradicts that. Did you mean to start your answer by saying: “No, actually?”
Some of the other things in the comment are kind of incoherent, too. Could you rephrase your latest thoughts and post them again? I will check back here later tonight.
Regards, Bill
Michelles view on tax free zones: it’s all for the planned redistribution of wealth which is also stated in this document, the redistribution of wealth which is based on a new concept called equity. And it says this: we must not lose sight of equity, or fairness based on need. Where have you heard that here, today? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.â€Â
Marks view of tax free zones: I have supported tax free zones from Jack Kemp on. I believe that they are a rational extension of supply side economics I support such initiatives because I believe that the value of wealth and job creation in the inner city is worth the cost
So you don’t agree with her on that. What are her positions on taxes and fiscal policy that you do agree with?
On foreign policy I’m sure she’d toe the Republican line so you agree with the Republicans on that.
When all is said and done the individual issues you agree or disagree with her on doesn’t really matter because she will do what the Republican Caucus tells her to do just like the others. So you support the Republicans and where they’ve taken this country in the last 6 years.
No surprise there.
She will vote to extend Bush’s tax cut program. That alone makes her my choice. Call me a single issue voter then.
And of course I support the Republicans and where they have taken the country lately. Unemployment 4.7%, GDP growth that has average around 3.5% annually. Low taxes, low interest rates, and low inflation. Our military is strong and things are progressing in Iraq.
On the tax free zones I understand her point. Tax free zones are redistributionist and central planning. It is allowing central planners to determine the allocation of capital rather than the market. Further, it places companies outside such zones at distinct advantage. Her comments about the similarity of the wording on the initiative and Marx is rather powerful in its own way.
When you consider such initiatives like the tax free zone it is necessary to review the objectives of the program. We must ask is it in the public’s interest. If this is true we must ask, is this a proper role for the government to undertake. IF that is true we must finally ask are the public welfare benefits worth the cost that the public will have to pay. On this issue I agree that it is. Michelle obviously has a different opinion.
To Bill:
I never answered the “overstating” things. Yes, I think I overstate things at times and I did with you. Sometimes the words “absolute” or “totally” come out in these types of discussions and I am sure you use them too.
But, my point still stands. Lets put it more nicely, just for you, I do not think that you put much effort into understanding how other people view issues, especially on social matters.
Again, my viewpoint on this is that these matters are best left alone. Time is progress and these views on homosexuality will change with time. The more vocal and strident the conflict between social sides the less progress there will be. Homosexuals have essentially been repressed for millenia, what is the hurry?
But, I am not homosexual so it does not impact me. Nor do I have religious views on the matter. It is just a no-win issue for all sides that they shoudl drop it.
I guess Mark has left this topic.
Dora–I don’t think Mark is able to see that a lot of what he’s saying is self-contradicting. Sometimes he makes sweeping statements and then fails to show examples of what he’s talking about. And he certainly seems unlikely to acknowledge the obvious flaws in his argument; he’s more likely to pass over them or ignore them when they’re pointed out to him.
And strangely, he seems to be under the impression that he can get away with that sort of thing in an argument without anyone noticing.
That’s too bad, because I am a liberal and not a leftist I sometimes find that I’m in agreement with libertarian conservatives on some points–for instance, I agree with Mark about permitting gay marriage and about the desirability of tax free zones.
I think Mark came into this argument with a closed mind on the issue of whether or not Bachmann’s a nut, and he got stuck with proving the impossible: that these Bachmann statements (the ones we’ve cited) are rational and defensible.
It’s been hours and he hasn’t written back here; perhaps it is best to move on.
“that these Bachmann statements (the ones we’ve cited) are rational and defensible. ”
THey are defensible. Her rhetoric may be overblown and she certainly has dug her heels in on these issues. But her views are defensible.
People are very upset with the way their kids are exposed to homosexuality and sexuality in general in school and in the media. That is what they refer to as “targeting”. This is a very legitimate position to have even if you do not agree with it.
On the tax free zones she is just stating her obvious disagreement with another government policy. Her claims are correct and her comparison to Marx’s statement is a legitimate observation. Everything she says in her statement is correct, it is redistributionist.
Just as there is a Zengerian view of libel, can someone be a nut if they say the truth?
I am not sure how someone who can see someone else’s point without calling them a nut is closed minded. But, being closed minded is not the worse thing in the world. I could think that the liberal positions on economic issues were dandy!
You keep wearing those rose colored glasses Mark. But most people don’t agree with you about how the Republicans are handling the economy or Iraq.
“But most people don’t agree with you about how the Republicans are handling the economy or Iraq. ”
I dont care. The numbers speak for themselves. Call me out of the mainstream but the numbers are great. THe Democrats do a very good job of talking down the economy and scaring people about these issues. Like I said, when Bill CLinton was president all of the economic numbers would be wonderful. Now they suck. I will take the level of job growth, 4.7% unemployment, 3.5% real GDP growth anyday.
In Iraq we have seen great progress in all facets and hopefully more progress to come. I see Iraq, in 25 years, as being a garden spot of the world, a major travel destination.
Hey, you’re back!
Look, let’s wrap this up and move on to the next topic. I’ll let you have the last word, but please no more about the flaws in my character.
Mark: People are very upset with the way their kids are exposed to homosexuality and sexuality in general in school and in the media.
Some people are; that’s true, especially the Christian fundamentalist audience Bachmann was addressing when she made the “gays are targeting our kids” remark on that “Prophetic Views Behind The News” broadcast. You’re right, no disagreement.
“That is what they refer to as “targetingâ€Â. This is a very legitimate position to have even if you do not agree with it.”"
If that really is what Bachmann meant, she should have left it at that. She should have limited her comments to your interpretation. She didn’t. She indicted an entire American minority and insinuated that their goal was pedophilia. She said that the gay community was “targeting our children” and that our children were “the prize” for the gay community.
She could have limited her remarks to your interpretation, but she didn’t. She chose not to. She made panicky homophobic statements like that in order to increase the turnout for her “no gay marriage rally” at the state capitorl–she was trying to sow panic among a Christian audience who listen to a program dedicated to the proposition that we are in “the end times”, “the last days.” It was–as you would agree–a false charge against the gay community. It was an irresponsible, hateful nutty thing to do, but she did it, and you’re stuck with the fact that she didn’t limit herself to the sentiments you attribute to her.
On “the Pawlenty adminstration
Mark: can someone be a nut if they say the truth?
She didn’t speak the truth. The Pawleny administration does not base its own policies on the policy priorities of Karl Marx. Even you don’t believe that one, and it’s crazy to tell an audience that.
Perhaps I should give you the context for that statement she made, then you will understand it better and you may end up concluding that she is indeed a nut. Bachmann was addressing a conference of EdWatch when she made that statement about Pawlenty’s tax free zones. EdWatch is Minnesota organization that has backed her in politics since at least 2000. Go to the bachmann record website and click on the link marked “Bachmann Claims US Government Plans to End Free Market Economy And Representative Government.”
This links to a document that Bachmann co-authored with one of the leaders of EdWatch. In this document, they accuse the United States Congress (GOP majority) of adopting and maintaining a governance structure opposed to the free market and representative government. She also accuses the GOP majority Congress of implementing a new national school curriculum with a socialist, globalist worldview.
This is what Bachmann and EdWatch believe about *Republicans* in the federal and state governments. She believes that her *fellow conservatives* are sponsoring a new socialist order in the US and Minnesota. Her Edwatch audience would have no trouble believing her when she claimed that Tim Pawlenty’s administration was following a secret Marxist agenda, and that tax-free zones were a part of that agenda.
She believes that, too. Because she’s nuts, Mark.
I wish you well, and I hope that you are some day able to see her for exactly what she is.
You are truly delusional Mark.
from Job Watch: go read it: http://www.jobwatch.org/
Sluggish private job growth indicates failure of tax cuts
Recent job gains lag far behind historical norms
There are two reasons that unemployment rates drop: because job growth is strong, or because fewer people are looking for work.
Which is it under Bush? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data the number of those dropping out of the labor force had increased almost twice as much as the number of new jobs, even when using “seasonally-adjusted” numbers. Using non-seasonally adjusted numbers for the last month alone, the 652,0000 workers dropping out of the labor force is over 3 times the number of new jobs created. This info comes from here: http://tinyurl.com/zgldj. Go read the rest. It has charts. Should be right up your alley. Unless of course you don’t want to read anything that challenges your beliefs as you accuse others.
And your statements about Iraq are bizarre. You’ve been paying too much attention to cheering for torture and have lost sight of what is happening. Or more than likely you simply choose to ignore it. Where’s your links to show how well things are going? Oh that’s right. You don’t want to confuse your opinions with facts.
Billie,
“She didn’t speak the truth. The Pawleny administration does not base its own policies on the policy priorities of Karl Marx. Even you don’t believe that one, and it’s crazy to tell an audience that.”
I have read the statements you have posted on this and do not see how you make this claim. She stated that the LANGUAGE used to decribe the bill was similar to Marx. She is against redistribution, or did you not get that?
“insinuated that their goal was pedophilia. She said that the gay community was “targeting our children†and that our children were “the prize†for the gay community.”
Not in the comments that you mentioned. You are the one who is concluding she is insinuation pedophilia. She is not. They think they are broader targets than that. THey do not want their children to believe that homosexuality is anything other than what the paretns tell them it is.
“dedicated to the proposition that we are in “the end timesâ€Â, “the last days.†It was–as you would agree–a false charge against the gay community.”
THis is the first time you have brought up “armagedon” because of the homosexual Sodom and Gammorah.
But clearly, if you a reporter who covers politics you know that politicians use this type of rhetoric all the time.
I think the Democrats have claimed that Tim Pawlenty will “Destroy the Minnesota Nice Standard of Living”. Outlandish..
“In this document, they accuse the United States Congress (GOP majority) of adopting and maintaining a governance structure opposed to the free market and representative government. She also accuses the GOP majority Congress of implementing a new national school curriculum with a socialist, globalist worldview.”
So, Michelle wants to eliminate corporate welfare and get rid of the No Child Left Behind Act. Isnt that something that most Democrats would support too?
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics data the number of those dropping out of the labor force had increased almost twice as much as the number of new jobs”
I am sorry but if you actually go to the BLS and look at the data you will see this is incorrect. The BLS publishes statistics on number of employed, number of unemployed, and not in labor force.
For 2006 the number of employed for the first 8 months were:
143074 143257 143641 143688 143976 144363 144329 144579 (thousands)
unemployed:
7040 7193 7011 7123 7015 6957 7205 7119 (thousands)
not in labor force:
77439 77314 77323 77388 77437 77350 77379 77469
These numbers do not support anything you say. Labor force participation (which it total employed+unemployed/total employed+unemployed+not in work force) was 66.0 at the beginning of the year and 66.2 in August. 66.0 was the low for the year and 66.2 was the high (notmuch change in labor force participation)
I suggest you go read the Brookings Iraq Index. I have linked this many times and you can find it yourself. It shows the progress being made in Iraq both materially and security wise. It also shows that the majority of Iraqis beleive they are better off than before Saddam and that things will be getting better over the next 6 months. The people of Iraq beliee things are better in Iraq than the American people do? I wonder why?
The blog post I linked to has the actual BLS chart and links to the source. I find the analysis there infinitely more believable than what you say.
The people of Iraq beliee things are better in Iraq than the American people do?
The Brookings Iraq Index says no such thing. Prove me wrong. Links Mark. Links. And go check out this: http://www.factcheck.org/article334.htmlAnd make sure you click on the State Department link embedded there.
Progress security wise? Tell it to all those being killed daily, including the troops who are being killed. And since the report was completed in May, things have gotten much much worse. Remember reading how they want to build a trench around Baghdad to try to stop the violence?
You have absolutely no credibility about Iraq. Read this carefully now Mark. Nobody. believes. you.
Flash Memory Cards
can you provide more info ?
lad scally
gay scally lad twink
blood root paste skin tags
Didn’t notice it before . . . quite clever.
myspace free web proxy
great blog, keep it comming.
coleman outdoor fireplace on wheels
Didn’t notice it before . . . quite clever.
heil air conditioning tampa
Like what you have to say. Your blog makes good since to me.
cheap discount airlines cheap discounte airline ticket ercan
Good observation, your ideas are right on.
plano lowest airfares airline ticket
great blog, keep it comming.
offshore outsourcing payroll
great blog, keep it comming.
best rated cell phone
great blog, keep it comming.
timex telephone clock radio
Your post is on target. Keep it up.
Interesting comments.. 
The information I found here was rather helpful. Thank you for this.
E evidente che il luogo e stato fatto dalla persona che realmente conosce il mestiere!
um… buoni, realmente buoni luogo e molto utile;)
Lo trovo piuttosto impressionante. Lavoro grande fatto..)
WOW!! I like it!
Free animal sex stories.
Gay animal sex. Animal sex stories animal. Sex with animal. Animal sex movie. Animal sex.
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.
Do you use Twitter? Follow The Big Question.
Subscribe to The Big Question
Learn more about RSS
Politically Connected Blogs
Archives
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
Categories
- 1st District (3)
- 2nd District (2)
- 3rd District (9)
- 4th District (2)
- 5th District (5)
- 6th District (1)
- Al Franken (27)
- Amy Klobuchar (1)
- Barack Obama (7)
- Collin Peterson (1)
- Conventions (7)
- economy (9)
- Erik Paulsen (2)
- Fred Thompson (2)
- health care (15)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (6)
- House (3)
- In Congress (1)
- Iraq (14)
- John Edwards (3)
- John Kline (2)
- John McCain (11)
- Keith Ellison (1)
- Main (1184)
- Michele Bachmann (22)
- Mike Ciresi (10)
- Mike Huckabee (1)
- Mitt Romney (3)
- Norm Coleman (33)
- Presidential (26)
- Presidential Democratic (16)
- Presidential Republican (19)
- Ron Paul (4)
- Rudy Giuliani (2)
- San Brownback (1)
- Senate (17)
- State (11)
- Tim Pawlenty (13)
- Tim Walz (1)
- Tom Tancredo (1)