June 13-15, 2010
Jun 13 07:14 Tarryl Clark's struggles vs. Michele Bachmann Jun 13 09:43 Mark Dayton's deficit solution? Jun 13 20:44 Tarryl Clark: Voting Against Recovery Act a Vote for Higher Taxes Jun 14 08:06 Like Father, Like Son: Rory Reid Trailing in Polls Jun 14 15:50 DCCC adds Tarryl Clark to 'Red-to-Blue' List Jun 15 04:05 Dan Severson, Photo ID & Election Integrity Jun 15 11:38 Nuance, Eric Black & Tom Emmer Jun 15 22:33 Unhinged Democrat Attacks Tom Emmer
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Tarryl Clark's struggles vs. Michele Bachmann
Tarryl's latest statement criticizing Michele Bachmann sounds almost identical to her other statements criticizing Michele Bachmann. According to Tarryl, Michele doesn't spend time in the district and she doesn't represent the district:
"Congresswoman Bachmann's travels this week are like a reverse 'Beverly Hillbillies'; she starts in Beverly Hills and then heads off to discover Big Oil in Texas," Zach Rodvold, Tarryl Clark's Campaign Manager said. "But Beverly Hills is not Blaine, and while her travels to California and Texas help Michele Bachmann, they don't do a thing for her constituents."First off, Rodvold's whining reference to Orly Taitz is foolish because the average voter doesn't know and doesn't care who Orly Taitz is. It isn't like a voter will walk into a voting booth and say "OMG. Michele Bachmann attended a fundraiser with Orly Taitz, I can't vote for her." Those that will use that as an excuse are already predisposed to voting for Tarryl.
Last weekend, Bachmann was in Beverly Hills for a campaign appearance alongside the controversial leader of the 'birther' movement, Orly Taitz, the second time the two have appeared jointly.
PERSUASION FACTOR: 0 (meaning it won't change a single vote.)
Also, talking about Michele's constituents here in the Sixth District, the reality is that small businesses know that Michele won't raise taxes on them like Tarryl did. Further, they know that Michele isn't prone to excessive spending binges like Tarryl is.
During the final weekend push by Michele Bachmann in St. Cloud, Esme Murphy asked if I'd mind answering a few of her questions on why I supported Michele. I willingly agreed to that, saying that Michele's supporters won't abandon her because she won't abandon us on issues like cutting taxes, making it easier for small businesses to flourish, on pushing for a robust domestic, all-of-the-above energy policy that ends our reliance on foreign oil.
I further pointed out that Michele is strong on national/homeland security at a time when we needed to stay ever-vigilant against terrorists. At the time, I didn't know how important it was; I had no way of knowing how irresponsible this administration would be.
Simply put, the Clark press shop is a one-trick pony. Their press releases sound the same themes over and over again. The typical Clark statement talks about 'working for the district', Michele travelling yet again before finishing with a reminder that Tarryl is 'on our side.' (Never mind all the times she's tried killing small businesses with major tax increases. I guess those don't count.)
Frankly, I could write Tarryl's statements in my sleep. They don't require thought, at least not to any great extent. If Tarryl continues with this messaging, then she'll lose. She'll lose because her communications won't change votes.
That's bad news for Tarryl because her beliefs aren't a good fit for the Sixth District. Her voting for huge tax increases are utterly disastrous . Her votes against genuine health care reforms won't endear her to anyone, either.
The only thing that Tarryl Clark's communications will do is keep liberals in her camp. If that's Tarryl's planned path to victory, then she'd best start writing her concession speech because a liberals only path in the Sixth District isn't a winning path.
Posted Sunday, June 13, 2010 7:14 AM
Comment 1 by Callie Dierberger at 17-Sep-10 03:35 PM
Dear Gary Gross,
I am very happy to finally have found an article that supports Michele Bachmann. I am13, and I have known Michele since I was very little. One of her sons even babysat my two siblings and me! Your article is true, and I support it. Keep writing! I find it very amusing that Tarryl Clark can only use one excuse against Michele, saying that she doesn't spend enough time in the district, and so because of this, she doesn't really represent the district. Becoming a national voice can only enhance Michele's work for
Minnesota. Michele certainly represents our family's values and needs. We know Michele personally, and what you wrote is accurate. She is a kind, caring, determined, persevering, and strong woman. She has a great sense of humor. I was very happy when you reminded voters that she stands for cutting taxes, ending reliance on foreign oil, strong homeland security, and that she isn't prone to excessive spending binges. Overall, this article was well-written, interesting and accurate, and I hope you will keep writing
more like it!
Sincerely,
Callie Dierberger
Mark Dayton's deficit solution?
According to recent statements , Mark Dayton's deficit reduction plan appears to be to chase Minnesota's snowbirds into permanent hibernation in Florida, Texas and Arizona:
Mark Dayton, who has made "tax the rich" his gubernatorial campaign mantra, in the near future probably won't be making any fundraising trips to Naples, Fla., or any other Southern destinations where Minnesotans spend winters.Dayton's policy, if implemented, would incent Minnesota's snowbirds to move to warmer climates, thus guaranteeing more capital flight from Minnesota. Rather than eliminating Minnesota's deficit problem, Dayton's plan would exacerbate the problem.
In a recent expansion of his "tax the rich" campaign, Dayton has said that he wants to tax all those wealthy Minnesotans who head to warmer climes during the long winters.
" I would ensure that anyone who spends significant time in Minnesota pays Minnesota taxes ," Dayton was recently quoted as saying . He, along with Matt Entenza, is challenging the DFL's endorsed candidate, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, in the August primary.
Dayton's plan, if it can be properly called a plan, is DFL orthodoxy. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with solving problems. It appears that Dayton's tax policy is about reflexively raising taxes.
The capital flight aspect of Dayton's plan isn't its only flaw. Another flaw is that Dayton's revenue projections aren't realistic. I posted about that here . In that post, I cited this information from a Strib article :
Dayton, a DFLer, has a simple answer to lop off two-thirds of the problem: taxes. "Make taxes progressive. Make the richest people in Minnesota pay their fair share," Dayton said.Predicting that his tax increase on 'the rich' would increase revenues by $4 billion isn't choosing fuzzy math. It's expecting people to buy into a delusion. As the article points out, the DFL's tax increase legislation, that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed, would've increased revenues by $435,000,000 over the biennium. The DFL's legislation would've created a new income tax bracket. with a marginal tax rate of 9.25 percent.
He said hiking taxes on Minnesota's highest earners could raise $4 billion for the state in two years, much more than recent tax increase proposals . One failed proposal this year would have hiked the income tax rate for married couples with taxable income of more than $250,000 a year, raising about $500 million in the next biennium.
To generate the type of revenues that Sen. Dayton is talking about, you'd either have to make that top tax rate significantly higher or you'd have to raise taxes on people well into Minnesota's shrinking middle class.
Even then, those projections would only come true if there wasn't a massive flight of capital to better business climates, something that's anything but guaranteed.
That's before considering a previous Dayton statement in which he said that he'd use the additional revenue to increase funding for education :
Former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton has frequently promised to tax the rich if he's elected governor, but now he wants the current state Legislature to pass his proposed income tax increase and direct the new revenue to public schools.Memo to Mr. Dayton: You can't simultaneously use these revenues to eliminate the deficit and increase spending. You can use it for one or the other, assuming that the revenues increase as projected, something that I'm not willing to concede.
The proposal, which would face a certain veto from Gov. Pawlenty, would raise income tax rates by 2 to 3 percent on people making $1 million or more per year. It also appeared to be a challenge to House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, the DFL endorsed candidate for governor, who Dayton will face in the Aug. 10 primary. He denied his plan was aimed at Kelliher.
"I'm not talking specifically about anybody," Dayton said. "I'm enlisting the Legislature as an ally."
Dayton outlined his plan today during a State Capitol news conference. He said a tax increase on millionaires could help restore cuts made in education under Pawlenty.
In reality-based Minnesota, that's the type of thing that people consider intellectually insulting. Mr. Dayton might get away with that type of assertion in the DFL primary but it'll get him beat this November.
That's before talking about another fatal flaw in Dayton's budget, the fact that Dayton isn't serious about examining spending as it currently exists. Gubernatorial candidates that don't re-examine spending levels within the context of restructuring state government's priorities aren't on the same page as the Minnesota people.
My final analysis, irrespective of partisan politics, is that Dayton's deficit solution isn't a solution because the numbers don't add up. My political analysis is that Dayton's so-called solution isn't a winning message.
Dayton would be wise to heed the old cliche that good policy makes for great politics because Dayton's policies are bad policies and awful politics.
Posted Sunday, June 13, 2010 9:43 AM
Comment 1 by Chad at 13-Jun-10 03:37 PM
Crazy D's solution to the budget problem is typical DFL thinking, raise taxes. His proposal only included 3 areas in which he'd cut spending but it had 10 or 12 areas where he'd raise taxes, including hiring more govt. revenue people to chase down the rich to make sure they "pay their fair share". God help us if any of the 3 DFL boobs gets elected.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jun-10 06:11 PM
Chad, the good news is that none of the DFL's 'Triangle of (Fiscal) Terror' has a shot at winning this year. All across the nation & all across the state, the appetite for raising taxes is almost nil (A little soccer lingo there for you World Cup fans.) & the appetite for HCR that's more radical than Obamacare is less than that.
PREDICTION: Tom Horner will draw more votes from Dayton than he will from Emmer.
Tarryl Clark: Voting Against Recovery Act a Vote for Higher Taxes
I just finished watching Esme Murphy's interview of Tarryl Clark. One thing that Tarryl said was so utterly absurd that I replayed it 3 times to make sure I heard Tarryl right. During one of her answers, Tarryl said that "she voted for higher taxes for 95 percent of Americans when she voted against the Recovery Act."
Tarryl's statement was a reply to a question about fiscal responsibility. What spending $862,000,000,000 on pork projects and keeping government inflated and paying off public unions has to do with fiscal responsibility is beyond me.
I'm guessing, but I'm anything but sure on this, that Tarryl is spinning this to mean that voting against the one-time rebate checks is the equivalent to a tax increase.
The logic, if that applies in this instance, is this: a vote against spending money on a $600 rebate is a vote for tax increases. In reality, it's just a vote against increasing spending and a vote against skyrocketing deficits.
President Obama touts the $600 checks as a tax cut but it's nothing of the sort. It isn't attached to anything in the tax code. In truth, it's just money spent.
I'd further argue that voting to not lower taxes isn't a tax increase. A tax increase is when you vote to raise the marginal tax rate on small businesses, which is what Tarryl did when she cast the 67th and decisive vote to create a higher income tax bracket for small businesses. That tax legislation would've created a top marginal rate of 9.25 percent, significantly higher than the current top marginal tax rate of 7.86 percent.
Early in the interview, Tarryl said that "Washington still isn't working for Minnesota and Congresswoman Bachmann certainly isn't." Yes, it's true that Washington isn't working for Minnesotans or anyone else. It's dominated with Democrats who repeatedly refused to listen to the people in passing the stimulus bill without reading it and passing Obamacare against the wishes of the people and without reading the legislation.
Tarryl's solution to Washington being broken? Send more Democrats to Washington to rubberstamp President Obama's radical agenda that gets anemic support in the heartland but gets stratospheric support on K Street. That's so intellectually inconsistent that it's insulting.
Later, Tarryl says that Minnesotans want someone who will fight for them, not fight for their own agenda. Let's stipulate that that's true. When Michele called for a rally in DC to oppose Obamacare, polls showed that Obamacare had a net approval rating nearing -20, meaning 60 percent of the people opposed Obamacare while 40 percent approved of it.
I'd argue, based on those verifiable facts, that Michele was fighting for what Minnesotans wanted.
I'd argue that voting against the ARRA was voting the way Minnesotans wanted, too, because ARRA was nothing more than a payoff to big government unions. That certainly isn't what Minnesotans supported.
That's quite the opposite of Tarryl casting the 67th and tie-breaking vote to raise taxes on small businesses. That certainly isn't fighting for the things that Minnesotans want. Just because it gets the Matt Entenza/Dane Smith stamp of approval doesn't mean it gets Minnesota's stamp of approval.
Later in the interview, Tarryl said that Michele voted to raise her own salary, something that didn't happen. Meanwhile, Tarryl said that she reduced the cost of her staffing. I can't verify whether that's true or not but what I can verify is that Tarryl voted in 2007 to raise her per diem from $66/day to $96/day.
Factoring in the 43 days of out-of-session per diem she collected in 2008 plus the 280 days of regular session per diem at $96/day, that's a total of $31,008 in per diem payments. Had Tarryl voted against raising per diem those $30/day, that total would've been $21,318, or $9,690 less than less than she collected.
Note that that's just counting the per diem paid in between one session and another. That isn't counting the out-of-session per diem paid to Tarryl in other years. Note that that money doesn't factor in the rent subsidies legislators get or the gas money they get reimbursed for. That's per diem only.
Let's question why Tarryl thinks that a state legislator needs $96/day for incidental costs. There's just a little catch with that, though. House members get paid a paltry $77/day in per diem. Why does the Senate deserve an additional $19/day for their per diem than the House gets?
Tarryl, do St. Paul restaurants charge senators $19/day more than House members?
That's before factoring in Tarryl voting against Amy Koch's amendment to restore per diem to its pre-2007 rate of $66/day. What's Tarryl's justification for not returning to the still substantial $66/day per diem when the state was running a $6,400,000,000 deficit?
I'd submit that Tarryl can't justify that $96/day per diem any time, much less with Minnesota facing a $6,400,000,000 deficit. I'd further submit that Tarryl's argument that she's the fiscally responsible candidate in this race is pure spin, that it's part of Tarryl's PR campaign, that it isn't based on reality.
I've always thought that too many of Tarryl's statements were fabrications. During a 4:56 interview, Tarryl said at least 3 things that were effortlessly proven as spin or fabrications.
If Tarryl can't be more credible than that, she'll get pounded this election because voters aren't in the mood for spin and PR. This election, voters are demanding the straight truth, something that's apparently in short supply in the Clark campaign office.
Posted Sunday, June 13, 2010 9:16 PM
No comments.
Like Father, Like Son: Rory Reid Trailing in Polls
The day after the Nevada Republican primary, Scott Rasmussen's polling showed Sharron Angle leading Harry Reid by 11 points. Rasmussen's polling shows Rory Reid trailing Brian Sandoval by 23 points :
Brian Sandoval, fresh off his Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now leads Democratic nominee Rory Reid 54% to 31% in the race for governor of Nevada, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state.This is a terrible environment for entrenched incumbents and Washington insiders to run for office. It's a great year for eliminating dead weight from Washington, however.
Three percent (3%) of Likely Voters in Nevada prefer some other candidate, and 13% remain undecided.
The numbers in this race have changed little in surveys going back to February. In late April, Sandoval earned 53% of the vote to 35% for Reid, who faced only token opposition in the state's Democratic Primary on Tuesday.
This set of statistics should scare Nevada Democrats:
But Republicans seem to be quickly coalescing around his candidacy and that of Senate nominee Sharron Angle. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the state's GOP voters now support Sandoval, while Reid earns just 58% support among Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party prefer the Republican by a two-to-one margin.There's alot of unity within the Republican Party in Nevada. There's lots of division within Nevada's Democrats. Alot of the discord amongst Nevada's Democrats might stem from the unpopularity of the Reid 'brand name'. This isn't unlike the unpopularity of the Bush family name in 2008.
It's also possible that Rory Reid isn't doing well because he's a lobbyist. Since lobbyists are seen as part of the DC establishment, that's sure to be taking its toll on Rory Reid, too.
Predictably, Harry Reid is starting with ads touting the clout he has in DC :
Reid's commercials, with the tag line "No one can do more," spotlight the efforts by the four-term incumbent to obtain funding for clean-energy jobs in Nevada. The same theme marks his campaign literature, which touts the value to the state of Reid's position as leader of the Senate Democratic majority.This is almost too easy. For all of Reid's supposed clout, Nevada's unemployment is above the national average by 3 points.
"We wanted to start off with Senator Reid's positive accomplishments," his campaign manager, Brandon Hall, told reporters in Las Vegas yesterday.
Conditions in Nevada don't suggest that Reid is indispensible as much as Sen. Reid's voting record suggest that his voting record is indefensible.
I'm thinking that Nevadans are thinking it's just time to put the Reid family business out of business.
The day after the Nevada Republican primary, Scott Rasmussen's polling showed Sharron Angle leading Harry Reid by 11 points. Rasmussen's polling shows Rory Reid trailing Brian Sandoval by 23 points :
Brian Sandoval, fresh off his Republican Primary win on Tuesday, now leads Democratic nominee Rory Reid 54% to 31% in the race for governor of Nevada, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state.This is a terrible environment for entrenched incumbents and Washington insiders to run for office. It's a great year for eliminating dead weight from Washington, however.
Three percent (3%) of Likely Voters in Nevada prefer some other candidate, and 13% remain undecided.
The numbers in this race have changed little in surveys going back to February. In late April, Sandoval earned 53% of the vote to 35% for Reid, who faced only token opposition in the state's Democratic Primary on Tuesday.
This set of statistics should scare Nevada Democrats:
But Republicans seem to be quickly coalescing around his candidacy and that of Senate nominee Sharron Angle. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the state's GOP voters now support Sandoval, while Reid earns just 58% support among Democrats . Voters not affiliated with either party prefer the Republican by a two-to-one margin.There's alot of unity within the Republican Party in Nevada. There's lots of division within Nevada's Democrats. Alot of the discord amongst Nevada's Democrats might stem from the unpopularity of the Reid 'brand name'. This isn't unlike the unpopularity of the Bush family name in 2008.
It's also possible that Rory Reid isn't doing well because he's a lobbyist. Since lobbyists are seen as part of the DC establishment, that's sure to be taking its toll on Rory Reid, too.
Predictably, Harry Reid is starting with ads touting the clout he has in DC :
Reid's commercials, with the tag line "No one can do more," spotlight the efforts by the four-term incumbent to obtain funding for clean-energy jobs in Nevada. The same theme marks his campaign literature, which touts the value to the state of Reid's position as leader of the Senate Democratic majority.This is almost too easy. For all of Reid's supposed clout, Nevada's unemployment is above the national average by 3 points.
"We wanted to start off with Senator Reid's positive accomplishments," his campaign manager, Brandon Hall, told reporters in Las Vegas yesterday.
Conditions in Nevada don't suggest that Reid is indispensible as much as Sen. Reid's voting record suggest that his voting record is indefensible.
I'm thinking that Nevadans are thinking it's just time to put the Reid family business out of business.
Posted Monday, June 14, 2010 8:16 AM
No comments.
DCCC adds Tarryl Clark to 'Red-to-Blue' List
Eric Roper's post says that the DCCC has upgraded the Michele Bachmann-Tarryl Clark the Red-to-Blue status, meaning that they'll spend money on the race:
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced this morning that they have added Bachmann's DFL challenger Tarryl Clark to a "Red to Blue" list of candidates that they are supporting this fall.The last 2 years, adding a race to the DCCC's Red-to-Blue list brought fear and trembling to Republicans. This designation doesn't bring fear or trembling. It brings a 'yeah, whatever' reaction.
Clark was previously featured on a DCCC list of 26 races "to watch" in 2010.
Making the "Red to Blue" list means the DCCC will be lending Clark's campaign a hand with fundraising, communications and building grassroots support. It will also likely add to the national interest in the race as it heats up this summer.
With incumbents like Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin in trouble and with Democrats trailing badly on the generic ballot , the DCCC will have lots of fires to put out. Keeping the majority will be an uphill struggle.
The Bachmann-Clark race might be one of the more competitive races on the DCCC's radar. That doesn't mean it's a highly competitive race.
Republican candidates now hold a 10-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 13. That ties the GOP's largest ever lead, first reached in April, since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.The Democrats are still spinning. Last week, they started a new campaign to sell their health care anew even though almost 60 percent of Americans want it repealed. Their stimulus plan failed.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. A week ago, Republicans led 44% to 36%.
While solid majorities of Democrats and Republicans support the candidates of their own party, the plurality (47%) of voters not affiliated with either major party prefer the Republican candidate, while 19% like the Democrat. These findings have remained fairly consistent for months now.
During an interview with WCCO's Esme Murphy, Tarryl didn't distance herself from the failed Recovery Act . Instead, she accused Michele of voting "for higher taxes for 95 percent of Americans when she voted against the Recovery Act."
When I told King about Tarryl's quote, he made this important point:
"What Bachmann did was refuse to go along with the charade of bribing voters with their own future money."King is exactly right. I've said repeatedly that the stimulus was a payoff to the Democrats' allies in the public service unions. Obviously, the stimulus didn't jumpstart the economy. In addition to paying off the unions with our money, the stimulus will force higher taxes on John Q. Taxpayer to pay for that bribe.
If Tarryl continues making statements that are that easily debunked, she'll talk herself off the DCCC's list. My solution? Get her a bigger megaphone.
Posted Monday, June 14, 2010 4:16 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Jun-10 11:19 PM
Wait a minute they didn't already have this race on this list. By all logic it should've already made the list a long time ago.
Michelle won by just 3 points.
Michelle is hated by Democrats.
The fact that they are now just doing it shows that they aren't serious which surprises me since Michelle is hated as much as Sarah Pallin.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jun-10 11:27 PM
This isn't surprising in the least, Walter. They know that the 2008 election was artificially close because of Michele's Hardball appearance. Without that appearance, Michele wins by 12-15 points in a strong Democrat year.
This still isn't a tight race, though Michele can't take anything for granted. It's just one of the tightest races, which means Democrats should start bracing for terrible results this November.
Dan Severson, Photo ID & Election Integrity
If there's anything that the DFL hates about Dan Severson's agenda, it's his insistence on implementing photo ID as part of significant election reform. They don't like it because it stands in stark contrast with Mark Ritchie's refusal to enact meaningful election reform. Monday morning, Dan Severson made his case for implementing a photo ID system, arguing that photo ID, in addition to eliminating voter fraud, will help streamline the voting process:
"When citizens have confidence in an election system, they are more likely to participate in it. In Indiana, voter turnout increased after implementation of a photo ID law there a few years ago, by 13 percent in 2006 and 2 percent in 2008," explained Severson.In April, 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that the Indiana Photo ID law was constitutional . Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the majority opinion for Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, said this:
"In the modern world, ballot access should have at least the same degree of integrity as renting a movie, boarding a commercial airplane, cashing a check, or disposing of leaves at the county compost site," said Severson.
The justifications for the law "should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators," Justice Stevens wrote.It's important that we notice that it was Indiana's photo ID law was ruled constitutional and Indiana where voter turnout increased in 2008. This eliminates the DFL's argument that voters would be disenfranchised if photo ID was implemented.
Rep. Severson said that, in addition to guaranteeing election integrity, implementing photo ID would make lines move quicker on Election Day:
"A quick swipe of a photo ID through a card reader could populate the data fields in the state's voter registration system, thereby eliminating common data-entry mistakes that take place with the current pen-and-paper registration system. It would also eliminate the ambiguities, duplication, and other errors in the voters registration system that arise when it takes weeks or even months for county election administrators to get all the voter registration information data-entered. And, it would save county governments tens of thousands of dollars in staff costs, because there would be no need to do data entry by hand anymore," explained Severson.At a time when local and state governments are looking for ways to streamline operations while being more responsive to the public, implementing a system that streamlines operations and tightens security is a win-win situation.
"A quick swipe of an ID at the sign-in table in the polling place on Election Day would eliminate the need to line up by parts of the alphabet and would greatly speed up the lines in the polling places. It would also increase privacy, because you would not have to say out loud your name when you approached the polling place worker with the voter roster," said Severson.
It's impossible to argue that the 'technology' that's been used in bait shops the last decade to fill out hunting and fishing licenses swiftly and accurately can't be used to improve Election Day operations. It's equally impossible to argue that this trailing edge 'technology' wouldn't streamline post-Election Day voter administration, too.
This isn't a partisan issue, either. Across the nation, overwhelming majorities support implementing photo ID :
When it comes to showing photo identification at a polling place before voting, 83 percent of Americans say they think it is a good idea to require it, because it helps avoid fraud. Only 15 percent of Americans agree with the Justice Department that such a policy is a bad idea.Opponents of photo ID argue that there's no need for it because voter fraud is "mathematically insignificant ." I won't argue with people on that basis. Rather, I'll argue that the benchmark should be whether voter fraud exists on an electorally significant basis. In an election where 40,000 votes are cast, which is roughly the amount of votes cast in a state senate race, several races were decided by less than 100 votes. That's a margin less than 0.25 percent of the total votes cast.
This sentiment is spread across party lines, with large majorities of Republicans (92 percent), Democrats (76 percent) and independents (84 percent) agreeing with a policy that requires voters to show photo ID before voting.
I'd also argue that we shouldn't wait for fraud to appear, that we should install a system that's so well thought out and that relies on verifiable information that it tells everyone that the system can't be compromised.
It's time Minnesota modernized, optimized and streamlined their election system to take advantage of time-tested 'technologies' like card scanners and new technologies like photo ID's to create a voting system that will meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:05 AM
Comment 1 by Just a minor suggestion at 15-Jun-10 01:33 PM
just a minor suggestion that you change "In an election where 40,000 votes are cast, which is roughly the amount of votes cast in a state senate race," to just under 3,000,000 votes cast.
This suggestion is because based on what it appears you have written, only 40,000 people voted in Minnesota in 2008. I think it was closer to 3,000,000.
If you do change it to 3,000,000 than the margin would also have to change from .25 percent to .003 percent.
But, perhaps I am wrong and don't understand where you got the 40,000. Could you please expand that part of your article? Or, perhaps you could better explain the 40,000.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jun-10 01:39 PM
Just, I specifically said state senate election, not U.S. Senate election.
In some state senate elections, whose winners serve in the Minnesota state legislature in St. Paul, the total number of votes cast might approach 45,000. FYI- You're right that there were approximately 3,000,000 votes cast in the Coleman-Franken U.S. Senate election.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Nuance, Eric Black & Tom Emmer
Eric Black's post suggests that Tom's explanations are a little thin and possibly disingenuous:
Presumptive Repub Guv Nominee Tom Emmer of Delano feels people (his opponents and members of the media) are saying untrue things about him, so on Emmerforgov.com, he has launched a feature called " EmmerTruth ," in which he will set the record straight about distortions of his record, position and statements.It's disappointing that Eric Black didn't explain at the top of the post that Tom's answer was in the context of the true state budget, including the budgets from dedicated funds. Tom made a clear distinction that he wasn't talking about the general fund budget . Here's the transcript of the relevant portion of Tom's interview with Gary Eichten:
The first couple of entries, though, are pretty weak. In one, he complains that MPR reporter Tom Scheck said that Emmer would cut $20 billion in state spending. But Emmer says he never said he would cut $20 billion, only that he could.
Just on the face of it, this one seems to be slicing the baloney kinda thin. Even in trying to slap down the Scheck piece, EmmerTruth doesn't say that Emmer won't cut that much, just that he didn't say he would.
Gary Eichten: I understand that this is a little bit of an unfair question ; let's say for purposes of discussion, the state has a biennial budget of $30 billion (plus or minus) If you could wave a wand today, what should be the size of the state budget?It's exceptionally clear that Tom is talking about more than the state's general fund budget in this interview. Nonetheless, Eric Black continues pressing his flimsy argument:
Tom Emmer: Yeah, if you want a number, you're using the general fund number Gary - the total number with dedicated funds is closer to $60 billion and I think really, if we're going to compare ourselves with what it's supposed to be,
Gary Eichten: Well let's stick with the $30 billion, that's the number that's usually talked about.
Tom Emmer: Well, no I'm going to tell you that the overall budget should probably be around $40 billion. Once you get done, and I'm talking out of that $60 billion -
Gary Eichten: So eliminate about a third of what the state is spending?
Tom Emmer: Actually, you can absolutely start, but you can't just talk about the state, Gary; you've also got to talk about a county level and a city level, the local level. But yes, I believe you can reduce government easily by 20% in the next four years, easily.
EmmerTruth also doesn't link to the actual piece it is criticizing, which costs more points for intellectual honesty. In the online evnironment, if we want credibility, we make it easy to check our work. But it's gotta be this piece , a very strong piece of reporting by Scheck, that contains several devastating knockdowns of Emmer claims. And EmmerTruth doesn't take any of them on.Actually, Eric, the article you link to gets a couple important facts wrong, starting with this:
In late April, he suggested he could eliminate a third of overall state spending, roughly $20 billion. Last month, Emmer told Minnesota Public Radio News that he would cut or merge several large state government departments.There's a difference between would and could. Tom Emmer said that they will look at "all of the duplication and excess in government" before saying that they might "reduce them down to 12."
"We will go and look at all of the duplication and excess in government," Emmer said. "You could look at some 26 agencies and reduce them down to 12."
Let's look at the root of these claims. When budget bills are written, passed and signed into law, they include tails, which are essentially the out years of the current budget bills. In 2007, the tails to the omnibus budget bills called for outrageous-sized tails. Just cutting the rate of growth over 4 years would easily yield a significant reduction in the general fund budget.
That's before reforming programs like MinnesotaCare, which would reduce Minnesota's budget even further.
Also, I'll take issue with Black calling Tom Emmer the "presumptive nominee." Black was at the state convention where Tom won the GOP endorsement, which concluded with Marty Seifert's uber-gracious gesture of conceding after the second ballot, then telling his supporters to tear off their Seifert for Governor stickers and putting on their Emmer bumper stickers.
There's nothing presumptive about that.
Finally, another key thing missing from Eric Black's article is that Tom made these statements in the context of 4 years of budgeting, not 2 years.
Putting things in context is important. Hopefully in the future, Eric Black will put things in their proper context.
Posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010 11:38 AM
Comment 1 by Tim at 15-Jun-10 03:33 PM
If people don't take what Tom says out of context, they can't spin it to create hysteria. What Emmer says is what he means, he is not making false promises to garnish opinion, he is what he says he is, able to do this job. I sincerely hope that, even if you hate Tom Emmer or conservative ideas, you do the homework and quit let the bloggers think for you. Thanks for standing up for the truth LFR!
Comment 2 by Leslie Davis at 16-Jun-10 07:46 AM
"presumptive nominee" is correct.
The Emmer campaign would like to ignore the very real fact that Leslie Davis will be in the August 10th Republican primary and take down uber-Emmer.
For the people,
Leslie Davis the un-uber candidate for Minnesota Governor
www.LeslieDavis.org
P.S. Visit "The Davis Money Plan"
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-10 07:56 AM
There's a reason why the Emmer campaign is ignoring you: You'll get beat & not by a few points.
Comment 3 by Colin at 16-Jun-10 09:03 AM
The difference between "would" and "could" is the difference between answering a straightforward budget question with an honest answer or dodging the question by making promises you never intend to keep. Emmer chose the latter. The reason why there IS any context to what Emmer said is because it was deceptive.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-10 09:23 AM
Colin, What divination permits you to know that Tom Emmer is making promises that he doesn't intend to keep? For that matter, what promises has Tom Emmer made that you're refering to that he isn't keeping?
I'd appreciate it if you could answer that straightforward question ASAP.
Comment 4 by Colin at 16-Jun-10 09:46 AM
Responding to a question what you "would" do with an answer about what you "could" do leaves a false impression with listeners. That false impression appears to be intentional. When Emmer responds that he "could" cut $20B from the $60B total flowing through state government (including federal money), voters infer that he intends to try unless he says otherwise. If he was misinterpreted, he should have asked the paper to print a clarification.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-10 09:49 AM
Actually, to people who actually listen, it's a simple task to understand the difference between a hypothetical question & a question asking about a specific policy.
Comment 5 by Colin at 16-Jun-10 11:31 AM
I shouldn't have to parse every word with Black's law dictionary open to understand what he intends for our state. He should say what he means and mean what he says.
Comment 6 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-10 02:21 PM
Colin, It isn't Tom's policies that are confusing. It's EB's words that are confusing.
Tom's plans are straightforward. If you think things through, things become quite clear.
Unhinged Democrat Attacks Tom Emmer
This afternoon, I made the mistake of reading an LTE in the Worthington Daily Globe from an unhhinged liberal. It's nothing if not loaded with DFL talking points. Here's a sample:
Over the past eight years, under the Republicans, Minnesota has lost thousands of jobs. The Republicans' answer to that is Tom Emmer.The Twitterlibs are complaining that Tom Emmer hasn't produced a detailed budget plan. Cliff Bowman, the man who wrote this LTE, is certain that Tom Emmer will slash jobs in education and human services. As a member of Tom's Steering Committee, I've heard of nothing even remotely similar to this.
As governor, Tom Emmer's first move would be to get rid of thousands of jobs by slashing the state work force. Emmer has not produced a job plan because his plan is to eliminate jobs in education and human services.
I'm speculating on this but it's worth questioning whether Mr. Bowman's information came from AFB's blog. It's certainly no less accurate than AFB's blog, which they've titled Tom Emmer's Minnesota. I highlighted here some of the outlandish inaccuracies in their posts. Here's one example:
What do I mean? I mean drastic cuts to school budgets, essentials services like road plowing in the winter, and Minnesotans having to hold out their tin cup begging for a charity check-up from their doctor.Sounds pretty similar, doesn't it? Drastic cuts in education based on what? In the end, it's based on nothing.
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota, known from this point forward as AFB, isn't concerned with the truth. Obviously, neither is Cliff Bowmann because his statements aren't verifiable. Here's another of Mr. Bowmann's misstatements:
We finally passed real health care insurance reform legislation that would benefit thousands of Minnesota families. Rep. Emmer authored a bill in the State House of Representatives that would allow Minnesota to nullify federal laws and effectively eliminate the benefits of health care reform for Minnesotans. That's a bleak future indeed.Let's start with the most important point of this paragraph. Tom Emmer authored a bill that would force Minnesota's Attorney General to enforce the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That's the heart of Mr. Bowman's complaint.
Next, let's examine how accurate it is to describe Obamacare as true reform. I'd argue that it's the antithesis of reform, starting with the fact that at least 51 percent of the people who have health insurance will be forced off their current insurance and forced to buy from government-run insurance exchanges. The only insurance policies available on these exchanges are mandate-filled, expensive policies.
The legislation that's now Obamacare also eliminates HSA's, increases taxes by $670,000,000,000 over the next 10 years and cuts $500,000,000,000 from Medicare over the next 10 years while essentially eliminating states' ability to do real health care reform. That's before considering the fact that CBO says Obamacare is driving costs up .
Calling Obamacare "real health care reform" isn't just stretching the truth. It's delusion.
Progressives using the extremist label on Tom Emmer fall woefully flat because 60 percent of Americans want Obamacare repealed. Let's see how mr. Bowmann argues that 60 percent of Americans are either too inept at seeing the Republicans' spin or are extremists themselves.
Tom Emmer supports cutting and reforming taxes, which is supported by 60 percent of Minnesotans. He also supports implementing photo ID, which is supported by 75 percent of Minnesotans.
Inexplicably, the vast majority of Minnesotans support Tom Emmer's supposedly extremist policies. Perhaps Mr. Bowmann and AFB should rethink what constitutes an extremist policy. If they think that policies that get 60-75 percent support are extremist policies, that speaks volumes about what type of extremists Bowmann and AFB are.
Originally posted Tuesday, June 15, 2010, revised 21-Jul 2:48 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Jun-10 01:47 AM
There are only two rational explanations for this sort of liberal claptrap. First is the possibility that they believe that if they call Tom Emmer an extremist often enough, loudly enough, people will start to believe it. If the only thing I knew about him were what these DFL harpies said about him, I wouldn't vote for him. I don't think that we can put 70% of the electorate in that unfortunate category. The second rational explanation is that these folks are simply irrational. The BELIEVE what they are saying is true, despite its internal contradictions, and are increasingly frustrated as so many people simply "don't recognize the truth" as they tell it. Well, excuuuuse us for living in the real world!
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 16-Jun-10 04:37 AM
Jerry, I'd argue that it's a third option: that they don't really believe this but think it's the only way they'll have a serious opportunity to defeat him because their list of candidates are losers.
Comment 3 by Tim at 16-Jun-10 03:39 PM
Once again, you make sense of the myriad of misinformed bloggers, left wing spin, and, at least where you can, effectively pose and argument that is true. Thanks!
Comment 4 by Eric B at 21-Jul-10 01:16 PM
Last I saw only 39% of Americans wanted to repeal ACA. I see NO evidence for the notion that 60% of the population.
http://pollingreport.com/health.htm
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Jul-10 02:51 PM
Eric, Perhaps you should check this poll:
At the end of June, 52% of voters expected health care costs to increase under the new law. Just after the bill was signed into law in March, 55% felt that way. The number of voters who expect costs to go down under the new plan has stayed within a narrow range of 17% to 21%.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters now favor repeal of the law, while 38% oppose repeal. Those numbers include 47% who Strongly Favor repeal and 25% who are Strongly Opposed.56% isn't quite 60% but it's substantially closer to 60% than to 39%.
