Recent Posts

poll

Bachmann polls her real constituents: national evangelicals and conservatives

by The Big E on January 15, 2013

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has a poll up for her constituents. No, not the folks from Minnesota’s Sixth District. Minnesotans are not her constituents. They never have been nor ever will be.

She has a poll up for her national constituents: the evangelicals, Tea Party members and any other assorted conservatives at her campaign website … provided they make a donation.

Okay, I guess she only cares if they make a donation. Typical.

2013 Conservative Priorities Survey

As a conservative leader in the House of Representatives, I’m one of a limited number of voices fighting for your views and your concerns against President Barack Obama’s destructive liberal agenda in Washington, D.C.

That’s why I’ve created a special 2013 Conservative Priorities Survey for you to complete. From rising taxes and debt to Obamacare, soaring gas prices, and gun control — your answers are extremely important so please do not delay.

Please take a moment to complete the below survey, and afterwards make your most generous contribution to my campaign to ensure our voice is still heard loud and clear in Washington.



1.
How would you describe your ideological views?
 Very Conservative
 Conservative
 Libertarian
 Moderate
 Other

2.
Thinking about the recent election, do you think our country is heading in the right direction?
 Yes
 No
 Not Sure

3.
Under what circumstance would you consider raising the debt ceiling?
 With the enactment of a balanced budget
 If Congress cuts enough spending
 The debt ceiling needs to be raised regardless to protect the nation’s economy
 Under no circumstance

Please rate the following issues by their priority to you in the new Congress:

4.
Repealing Obamacare:
 Very Important
 Somewhat Important
Not Important
 Undecided

5.
Protecting our 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms:
 Very Important
 Somewhat Important
 Not Important
 Undecided

6.
Supporting the nation of Israel as one of America’s strongest allies in the War on Terror:
 Very Important
 Somewhat Important
 Not Important
 Undecided

7.
Securing our borders and rejecting amnesty for illegal aliens:
 Very Important
 Somewhat Important
 Not Important
 Undecided

8.
What issues are most important to you? (check all that apply)
 Fiscal Cliff and Tax Reform
 Health Care Reform
 The War on Terror and National Security
 Taxes
 Education
 Gun Control
 Economy / Job Creation
 Family Values
 Affordable Energy

9.
Which government programs do you support cutting to pay off our national debt? (check all that apply)
 Medicare
 Social Security
 Defense
 Medicaid
 Foreign Aid
 Sell off some government owned land

10.
Finally, I want to hear from you- what do you want to see the 113th Congress accomplish?




facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Cravaack failing to deny reality of poll numbers

by The Big E on October 23, 2012

A recent Pulse Opinion Research poll conducted for the Minneapolis Star Tribune indicates that Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN/NH) will likely be a one-term Member of Congress. DFL challenger Rick Nolan leads by 7% with 7% undecided and a 3% margin of error.

Since moving to New Hampshire hasn’t stopped Cravaack from representing Minnesota’s Eighth District, why would a poll?

If his right wing, Tea Party voting record hasn’t stopped him from attempting to position himself as a moderate, why would a poll slow him down?

The Cravaack campaign disputed the poll numbers, saying they do not track with other polls in the race. “There is not a single person who would say these numbers are reflective of the state of the race,” said Cravaack advisor Ben Golnik, who also took note of Star Tribune poll data showing Cravaack with a seven-point lead among independent voters. “As is always the case in Minnesota, independent voters determine the winner,” he said.
[my emphasis]

Oh, really? Not a single person, Mr. Golnick?

Why didn’t Golnik use a more plausible explanation like Cravaack’s internal polling shows the race much closer. Team Cravaack claimed that in 2010 and, most importantly, they were right.

Instead, Golnik just positions Cravaack as a reality denier.

And “independent voters determine the winner”, huh? Not necessarily. As I noted last week:

Cravaack won in a non-presidential year when turnout was low and the Tea Party was riding high. Cravaack and the GOP did a good job of getting their people out. And the DFL and allies failed utterly. Yet, Cravaack didn’t win by much.

277,081 voted in 2010. Cravaack won by just under 5,000. 375,284 voted in 2008. That’s a hair under 100,000 more votes. Even considering turnout in ’08 was freaky high, turnout in the previous presidential year (2004) was still 350,000. So expecting 70,000 more voters this time out isn’t unrealistic.

Everyone knows that when turnout is high, DFL candidates do better.

Independent voters may have given Cravaack the winning margin in 2010, but the largest percentage of the 70K who will turn up in two weeks are going to be DFLers.

Cravaack can try to deny the reality that he didn’t move to New Hampshire, isn’t a Tea Party Republican, doesn’t want to end Medicare and Social Security all he wants. He can try to position himself as a moderate and pretend his constituents could talk with him (at least the conservative ones were allowed to) all he wants.

But the reality looks like Rick Nolan will be returning to Congress.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

New KSTP/SUSA poll is Christmas in October

by Jeff Rosenberg on October 18, 2012

Remember when we told you that September’s KSTP/SurveyUSA poll was an outlier? It looks like we were right. A newly-released poll is chock full of wonderful news: The Marriage Discrimination Amendment appears headed for defeat, the Voter Restriction Amendment is surprisingly close to falling below 50% support, and the DFL has a big lead in the generic legislative ballot.

Q: Also on the ballot is a ballot measure about marriage. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”
A: Yes 47% No 46% Undecided 7%

Q: Also on the ballot is a measure about voter identification. It asks: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require all voters to present valid photo identification to vote and to require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters, effective July 1, 2013?”
A: Yes 53% No 40% Undecided 7%

Q: If the 2012 elections for the Minnesota Legislature were held today, would you be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate? a DFL candidate? Independence Party candidate? Or some other candidate?
A: Republican 36% DFL 45% Independence Party 8% Other 3% Undecided 9%

We called the September KSTP poll an outlier because it bizarrely showed 18-34 year-olds supporting the amendment by a large margin. Basic observation skills tell us that’s unlikely. The new poll shows them in opposition by one point. Even that overstates their support, I suspect, but it’s much closer to reality. Assuming that undecideds break against the amendment, as I expect they will, and the amendment looks poised for defeat.

The Voter Restriction Amendment would still pass if the election were held today, but every poll shows a tighter race than most political observers would have expected. There were three weeks left when the poll was taken, which means there’s still time for it to tighten even more. Can the momentum against the amendment be sustained? Here’s some good news on that front: The poll shows that 30 percent of DFLers still support the amendment. If the DFL and its candidates can manage to sharply decrease that number, the amendment can be defeated.
Finally, the DFL is in line for some big gains in the legislature. Asking about the Independence Party is a bit odd, but the crosstabs show that DFLers and Republicans said they’d vote for the IP in equal proportion, so the DFL’s 9-point advantage probably isn’t being skewed by the question. That’s a major lead, with major implications for the final House and Senate results.

According to Tony Petrangelo’s model, a 7-point lead probably equates to a 77-57 advantage in the House, and a 10-point lead to a 84-5 advantage. Similarly, a 7-point lead equates to a 41-26 advantage in the Senate, while a 10-point lead means a 46-21 advantage. Those numbers are just estimates, of course, but a 9-point lead means a DFL takeover in the legislature.

Christmas in October, indeed!

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Michele Bachmann: the SurveyUSA/KSTP poll

by Bill Prendergast on October 17, 2012

A Survey USA/KSTP poll reports Michele Bachmann currently running nine points ahead of her Dem opponent Jim Graves in this year’s race. The Minnesota Progressive Project blog contacted a reliable source familiar with the Graves campaign who offered the following information about polling…

A Greenberg Quinlan poll commissioned by the Graves campaign was conducted on Oct. 3-4. It shows the following:

Bachmann: 47
Graves: 45

That result is in line with other polls conducted this year:

June 12-14:  Bachmann 48, Graves 43
August 29-30:  Bachmann 48, Graves 46
October 3-4: Bachmann 47, Graves 45

The source concludes: the KSTP poll showing Bachmann up by nine points “appears to be nothing but an aberration.”

Let’s hope so. But here’s something else you need to know about the KSTP/SurveyUSA polling:
(CONTINUED)
At the beginning of September, a SurveyUSA/KSTP poll reported that “an amendment to define marriage in Minnesota as between one man and one woman is today favored to pass 50% to 43%.”

But in the same month, Public Policy Polling (PPP) found a virtual tie on the very same issue:

PPP’s newest poll on the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Minnesota finds it virtually tied, with 48% of voters supporting the ban to 47% who oppose it.

Which polling oufit was getting it right? The one that showed the “no gay marriage” lobby seven points ahead, or the one that showed a virtual tie on the issue?

Let’s see. Later in September, the Minneapolis Star Tribune poll showed “support the amendment: 49%–against the amendment 47%.”

A PPP poll conducted at the beginning of October and released on October 8 reported:
“support the amendment: 46% –against the amendment: 49%.”

It seems clear that the SurveyUSA/KSTP poll was the outlier on the gay marriage amendment. So their result showing Bachmann with a comfortable lead over Graves may be an outlier, too.

And: the Minnesota Progressive Project’s Dan Burns points out that DCCC has decided to get into this race this very week, to support the Graves campaign. Would they devote their considerable resources toward winning this race, at this moment–if their numbers showed that Bachmann was far ahead?

LINK: The SurveyUSA/KSTP poll. One interesting thing…”Bachmann’s lead comes entirely from men”…she’s losing women voters. Nine per cent undecided…
http://kstp.com/article/storie…

Next: Bachmann fundraising continues to astonish. From Brian Lambert at the MinnPost:

(So far this year) Bachmann’s fundraising haul likely exceeds the combined amount raised by all of the major party candidates in the other eight U.S. Senate and House races in (Minnesota.) … While capable of raising enormous sums of money, Bachmann’s fundraising apparatus is expensive to maintain. As MPR News reported last month, Bachmann’s campaign has spent on average about 16 cents of every dollar raised on bringing in more cash.” You’d almost think fund-raising is why she’s in Congress.

There’s evidence of that. Bachmann raised $4.5 millions dollars for this year’s re-election bid in just three months. Despite this, she’s still telling supporters that she desperately needs more money. From an email she sent out yesterday:

…your continued support has never been more important. The hyper-liberals at the DCCC are working day and night to defeat us, and we need to fight back. The fastest way to join our campaign is by making an online donation.

Won’t you please give my campaign “a boost” by making a donation of $25, $50, $100 or more?

God bless,

-Michele

P.S. Fellow Conservative — the DCCC is threatening to destroy the very values which you and I believe so strongly in. We will never be able to compete with their millions but with your donation we will be able to fight back and spread our conservative message across Minnesota. Please make your most generous contribution right away.

That’s pretty shameless, telling people that you really need their $25 bucks when you’re already sitting on more than $4.5 million and nearly twenty per cent of every dollar they’ve given you goes to more fundraising. But no one can doubt: the lie works.
http://www.minnpost.com/glean/…

Next: We suspected Bachmann’s wild charge was BS–and by God and as usual, it was:

Receiving the controversial HPV vaccine does not make young girls more likely to have sex, a new study says.

Human papillomavirus is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the U.S., and it can lead to several types of cancer. But there is political resistance to the HPV vaccine, in part because of fears that girls will become more promiscuous if they’ve been vaccinated…

…But fears of increased promiscuity are unfounded, according to a study published Monday in the journal Pediatrics…

Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were playing “religious right/hate big government” politics with the lives of young girls. They excoriated GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry for mandating the vaccine in Texas. Perry responded that he was trying to do the right thing in order to prevent cancer in young women.

The appearance of this study in Pediatrics arrives to late to help Perry. But it’s not too late to ask Bachmann if Perry did the right thing–if she still opposes a government cancer prevention program that doesn’t encourage promiscuity.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healt…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 1 comment }

Daddy’s little girl crushing grousing chauvinists

by Eric Ferguson on September 28, 2012

Sen. Amy Klobuchar is running against unknown chauvinist guyThe Kurt Bills campaign didn’t like the results of the Star Tribune’s Minnesota Poll. That part is easy to understand. Sen. Klobuchar leads State Rep. Bills (R-Goldbug) by 29 points. Over 60% don’t recognize Bills name. Yeah, um, they might come to recognize it now. Certainly the state’s women will come to recognize his name, and many no doubt recognized some of their own experience in the Bills campaign’s reaction.

Not content to respond by saying their internal numbers show only a 15 point deficit, they showed, well, a chauvinistic level of maturity:

In a news release on Thursday, Bills campaign manager Mike Osskopp said the poll oversampled Democrats and said, “Don’t forget, Amy’s Dad was a columnist for the Star Tribune for 3 decades. It’s no coincidence that they are pulling for Daddy’s little girl.” Later, Osskopp e-mailed a fundraising appeal to supporters that said “Daddy’s newspaper needs to protect daddy’s little girl.”

Jim Klobuchar was a columnist with the newspaper for 30 years before retiring in 1996.

Should we count the levels of stupid?
Where to start? Let’s go for the big one, using the phrase “daddy’s little girl” for an accomplished middle-aged woman. And come on, like a retired columnist runs the newspaper? It’s not like the younger Klobuchar came from the sort of privileged background that produces Republican presidential nominees. It’s also not like Osskopp and Bills have any excuse to be unaware the Star Tribune has changed ownership two or three times since Jim Klobuchar retired, or that most of the staff has turned over, including the people who run the paper, so they probably don’t even know Jim Klobuchar except for recognizing his name. Which is more stupid, the thought, or the deliberately offensive phrasing? I’ll say the phrasing, since not knowing about the Star Tribune can be attributed to ignorance, while the attitude requires a dose of meanness too.

Perhaps the stupid wasn’t in having that thought but expressing it, and not in an off-hand comment or as a quickly regretted and deleted tweet, but in an actual press release. Look again at the quote above, “In a news release…”. Osskopp said it again in a “…fundraising appeal to supporters…”. He meant to say it. That’s what he came up with after thinking it through. Did the candidate know that’s the sort of person he hired for a campaign manager, because it’s not the first time? Did Bills approve of the press release and fundraising letter? Maybe Osskopp gets to put out press releases and fundraising letters without checking with anyone, in which case, Bills needs to stop that and disavow what Osskopp said. So far, he hasn’t. If Bills approved, then his huge deficit is going to get so big he’ll already be trailing in his next election, if he ever runs for anything again, which seems like an eminently bad idea.

So let’s ask other Republicans if they still support their US Senate candidate, assuming they know who he is, and don’t pretend to be among the 60% asking “Bills who?” If they do, are they OK with referring to women who have their own accomplishments as “daddy’s little girl”? Do they care to explain that to women still thinking of voting for them?

The smart Republicans will be easy to identify. They’ll be separating themselves from Bills as quickly as possible. We would be fools not to urge them on to a decision.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Crosstabs explain bizarro results in KSTP/SUSA marriage poll

by The Big E on September 14, 2012

If you felt disheartened and/or worried by the KSTP/SUSA poll that found Minnesotans supported the so-called “marriage” amendment 50-43%, some of that can now be explained when you examine the crosstabs.

Are young Minnesotans, the 18-34 demographic, far more conservative on freedom to marry than nationally? If you believe SUSA, yes. But polling always relies on statistics and we all know that there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

So what does SUSA usually do to pad their numbers more conservatively? Increase the percentage of Republicans they poll. Polls in Minnesota in which the GOP is at 30% are inaccurate. The spread should be more like:

GOP DFL Ind
25% (+/- 2%) 40 (+/- 2%) 35%

Furthermore, only 23% of respondents were cell phone users. How many people in the 18-34 demographic that you know have landlines? That helped skew the numbers, too.

The SUSA poll is an outlier. The more recent PPP poll indicated that this is a dead heat.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 1 comment }

Michele Bachmann: new poll=election trouble for Bachmann

by Bill Prendergast on September 10, 2012

A new poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan indicates that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is more vulnerable to her Democratic challenger than previously believed.

The polling firm surveyed about registered likely voters in the Sixth Congressional district of Minnesota from August 29 to August 30.  The results indicate only forty per cent of the voters in Bachmann’s politically conservative district rate her performance “Excellent/Good.” Thirty-five per cent of those polled rate Bachmann’s performance “Poor.”

Asked who they would vote for if the election were held today, forty-eight per cent of those polled indicated that they would vote for incumbent Bachmann and forty-six per cent indicates they would vote for her opponent Jim Graves, a newcomer to politics.

Hmm… this may explain her “quietude” since the RNC. Yes, it’s a Dem-leaning polling outfit: but they’ve got a lot of integrity and a track record and Bachmann certainly takes them seriously…

…and Bachmann’s people are also taking the temperature of the voters in the district. Perhaps those internal results–are keeping a lid on Michele’s mouth this last week…

Here’s the thing. She’s in a little bind. She needs the money, and polls and news stories that show Michele in any kind of real or imagined plight are worth a million to her (she fundraises off them, the national bucks just roll in when she cites “they’re out to get Michele!” news.)

But the other way she amps up the fund-raising is by: saying something hateful and/or false in the national media. So she has a dilemma.
(CONTINUED)
This year the media began to come down hard on Paul Ryan for making patently false claims in his veep acceptance speech at the RNC. (That’s the Bachmann tradition, making patently false and even paranoid claims as a matter of political strategy.)

What is Bachmann to do, in the wake of a media that actually dared to point out Ryan is a “liar” after they caught him lying?

Bachmann’s not used to operating in that kind of media climate, certainly not here in Minnesota.

That’s the problem. Being quiet, costs her contributions from around the country. Shooting off another paranoid apocalyptic lie–will bring in the dough.

But the new poll indicates that her numbers are beginning to suffer because people in the district think that she’s doing too much of the paranoid showboating–and not enough about unemployment and home foreclosures in the district.

Tough week, Michele.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1054…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 3 comments }

New poll shows Bachmann vulnerable

by The Big E on June 27, 2012

For realz?

A new poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner show that Rep. Michele Bachmann is not particularly popular, is not leading her opponent by all that much and by all indications should be considered a vulnerable incumbent. DFLer Jim Graves appears to be within striking distance.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s unsuccessful bid for president had a clear and negative impact on her standing among voters in the new Minnesota 6th CD. She receives low marks on both her job performance and personal favorability. While she is well-defined and almost universally known, her support is below 50 percent in a two-way contest for U.S. Congress. Her weaker standing leaves her vulnerable to defeat in this November’s election against businessman Jim Graves.

A poll of 505 likely voters in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District shows that Bachmann comes to the 2012 elections with poor standing with voters in the district. Reactions to her are strongly negative, with 51 percent of voters giving her a cool, negative rating and just 35 percent giving her a warm, positive rating.

The race for U.S. Congress reflects her weakness, with Bachmann under 50 percent and leading by only 5 points (48 – 43 percent, with 9 percent undecided).
(jimgraves.com)

The margin of error for this poll is 4.4%.

Considering that she is now in a more conservative district and has an even better fundraising database than before, is this really credible?

However, no independent candidate has filed. If its just Graves vs. Bachmann, this would be the first time a straight up DFL-GOP race occurred. The anti-Bachmann vote has always been split in every prior election.

Will Graves be able to raise $2 million? We he run a flawless campaign unlike Tarryl Clark, El Tinklenberg and Patti Wetterling?

Will the two amendments push up conservative turnout like the MNGOP wants?

Here’s how to tell: trendlines and fundraising.

Let’s see what these polling numbers at the end of July look like. Let’s see how much Graves raises.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 2 comments }

A poll: Romney, Republican evangelicals and the Mormon thing.

by Bill Prendergast on June 23, 2012

For generations conservative evangelicals have been taught to dismiss the faith of the Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) as a heresy, a dangerous heresy.

Conservative evangelical leaders have taught recent generations of conservative evangelicals that Mormons and propagation of Mormon faith are dangerous. Because the Mormons (according to conservative evangelicals) teach people to worship a false version of Christ, they endanger people’s chances for eternal salvation. (By the way, conservative evangelical broadcasting teaches that anyone teaching anything contrary to their core doctrines is endangering other people’s eternal salvation. So they’re not just fear mongering about the Mormons; they’re fear mongering about me, you (if you’re not one of them)–*anybody* who teaches anything contrary to their core doctrines.)

Now you may not care about these doctrinal disputes between Christians who don’t consider other Christians to be Christian. But it’s going to play a role in who wins the presidency of the United States this year: so you even if you do not care about it, it is going to affect you–and therefore it matters.

Given the above, the following news reporting about a poll this week also matters…

(A recent) poll found that Mr. Romney’s Mormonism could help him among voters. The results of an online survey conducted by the Brookings Institute found that information about Mr. Romney’s religion actually had little effect among white evangelicals, which make up a vast majority of the Republican voting base.

Before we get to the meat, let’s not gloss over that last observation: “white evangelicals make up a vast majority of the Republican voting base.”
Conservative white evangelicals made George W. Bush president instead of John Kerry by a margin of millions. They’re here to stay as force in presidential politics, and if the Brookings Institution finding is any indication…

…they’re willing to vote for a Mormon to become president of the United States despite decade after decade of anti-Mormon propaganda. As you recall, during the last presidential contest Mitt Romney’s presidential bid ran aground in Iowa. Conservative evangelical candidate Mike Huckabee beat him easily after Romney had campaigned and spent heavily in the state primary. That result was due (in part) to conservative Iowa pastors doing “stop the Mormon” political activism. Romney’s attempt to win over the public and conservative evangelicals with an “a candidate’s religion shouldn’t matter” speech–failed.

But Romney’s back and the conservative evangelical vote is still key. And the Brookings poll says the doctrinal issue that mattered so much to conservative evangelical voters four years ago–doesn’t matter any more.

If you don’t like that poll, there’s another one that came out this week that says:

–eighteen per cent of voters will not vote for a Mormon candidate for president.
–twenty-five per cent of Democrats polled will not vote for a Mormon for president.
–and ten per cent of Republicans will not vote for a Mormon candidate for president.
(CONTINUED)
Those findings are from Gallup. If you believe the results, the reason that Mitt Romney may lose to Barack Obama in the fall may have more to do with his religion–than with his career of outsourcing American jobs, his expressed wish that General Motors be allowed to go bankrupt, or his Etch-A-Sketch lack of political principles.

Because the ten per cent of Republicans polled this year (the ones who say they won’t vote for a Mormon president) could cost Romney victory in a close election if their numbers are distributed across key states.

It would indeed be ironic if religious bigotry turned out to be an important factor in returning Barack Obama to the White House. Again: for decades leaders of conservative evangelical broadcast media have been relentless in sowing anti-Mormon paranoia in their vast listening audiences around the country.

Earlier this year those same leaders and associated national religious right figures made an attempt to topple Romney and replace him with Rick Santorum. That notorious failure means that the leaders of the Christian right must now do a 180 degree turn on decades of anti-Mormon propaganda. They must convince their supporters that something that was supposed to matter very much–matters not at all.

They have to do that in the space of a few months. And they may be able to do it; the process is already under way. The conservative evangelical voters have a proven tendency to adopt the opinion of the televangelists and leaders of “family values” activist groups–whatever that opinion may be; however contrary to the previous opinion. (Recall the religious right’s flip-flop on candidate John McCain in the last election. Faced with the prospect of Barack Obama and the loss of down-ticket elections due to lower conservative evangelical voter turnout: the conservative evangelicals can even be persuaded to support a candidate who denounced their brand of sectarian politics.)  

LINK:
http://www.capitolcolumn.com/n…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

Michele Bachmann: most unpopular Republican in Minnesota, sez new poll…

by Bill Prendergast on June 9, 2012

The City Pages on the result of the latest poll of Minnesotans:

With a 33/60 favorable/unfavorable split, PPP characterizes Michele as “Minnesota’s most unpopular politician.”

The results are from a Public Policy Polling survey of “973 Minnesota voters from May 31st to June 3rd. The margin of error for the survey is +/-3.1%. This poll was not paid for or authorized by any campaign or political organization.”

(Michele Bachmann) would actually cost Romney 6 points if he picked her (as a running mate), stretching Obama’s lead out to 56-35. Independents would support Obama by a whooping 61-26 margin if Bachmann was on the Republican ticket. Bachmann could probably lay claim to the title of Minnesota’s most unpopular politician. Just 33% of voters have a favorable opinion of her to 60% with a negative one.

The most influential Minnesota politician is also the most unpopular with Minnesotans…

…but–as Bachmann and her backers know: this is not a popularity contest. It’s about power; it’s about who gets to make the law, who gets to dominate the GOP, who gets to staff the legislature and bureaucracy with sympathetic supporters. As mysterious as it may seem to many, the Christian right have shown that they can dominate the game, even win the game regularly–without being popular with the independents.

The DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is currently posting oppo research pages on several Minnesota Republicans: Kline, Cravaack and of course: Bachmann.

Here’s how you get access to those oppo research pages:
(CONTINUED)
The Big E provides links:

Kline
http://www.dccc.org/races/dist…

Bachmann
http://www.dccc.org/races/dist…

Cravaack
http://www.dccc.org/races/dist…

Their Bachmann oppo page seems to be mostly clippings from wire and newspaper sources. There’s not much reliance on original reporting, which is why they don’t have a lot of Bachmann’s pre-Congress “hate on the liberals and gay and Democrat socialist take conspiracy” stuff. And they seem to have missed some of the post-Congress stuff, too.

But as for the stuff they did get: it’s handy to have it all in one place. Does anybody have any infoon how to contact the person or persons who put the page together–so we can send them some of the stuff they missed?

I guess I could try to get to the DCCC surreptitiously by phoning them up and telling them I want to donate five bucks and a latte coupon, but that seems disingenuous.

Does anyone have the phone number of someone who could get me to the people who do these oppo research pages for?  

LINKS:

City Pages, where EricF found the story:
http://blogs.citypages.com/blo…

Public Policy Polling with the data:
http://www.publicpolicypolling…

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries