February 1-4, 2014
Feb 01 07:44 Mills vs. Nolan Feb 01 17:24 Fearmonger: Monticello is the next Chernobyl Feb 03 07:52 Ken Martin's distraction Feb 03 12:05 Pinhead questions First Amendment Feb 03 12:46 Faulty theories, negative results Feb 03 14:11 Obama-O'Reilly confrontation Feb 04 02:08 Didn't vs. couldn't Feb 04 03:06 GOP gubernatorial race by the numbers Feb 04 15:08 It's Alida's party
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Mills vs. Nolan
Stewart Mills' campaign must be taken seriously after this news :
U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan's Republican challenger, Stewart Mills, raised more than $205,000 during the last three months of 2013, his campaign announced on Tuesday.
Mills has more than $306,000 in the bank. Mills, an executive for Mills Fleet Farm, did not make any personal loans to his campaign, a spokesman said.
Nolan has not reported his fourth quarter numbers to the Federal Election Commission yet; the deadline to do so is Friday. During the third quarter (July through September), Mills outraised Nolan by more than $110,000.
That's only part of Rep. Nolan's problem, although getting outraised by $110,000 is something worth worrying about. There's also this news :
Nolan, a Democrat, had $298,000 in the bank at the end of December after raising less than $145,000 during the last three months of 2013, according to a Friday filing with the Federal Elections Commission. Mills reported $305,000 on hand, and he outraised Nolan for the second straight quarter.
It's bad enough for Rep. Nolan that he got outraised by $110,000 in Q3 of 2013. It's another to get outraised by $60,000 the next quarter. That news indicates Rep. Nolan had better pray (forget hope) that the miners don't hold his anti-mining policies against him. If they turn on him, he's history. That'll be the end of Rep. Nolan's political career.
Nolan is a faux miner. He got taken to task by some environmentalists for not being green enough, which cause him to commit this mistake :
I assure you if and when that legislation (HR 761) comes to anywhere near close to becoming law as I said then, I will not vote for anything that is going to degrade our environment and that's my position and it has always been my position and I'm sticking with it.
That didn't satisfy Jesse Peterson:
The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, w ho characterized Nolan's responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as 'incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.'
Though I can't prove it, I suspect that Nolan voted for the mining deregulation bill because he got pushed by the mining unions. Voting against HR761 is Nolan's real position.
Mills doesn't have that difficulty. He doesn't have to tap-dance around issues like Nolan. He's simply pro-mining and unabashedly so. That's the advantage of not trying to serve 2 masters. Mills simply wants to grow the economy.
Posted Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:34 PM
No comments.
Fearmonger: Monticello is the next Chernobyl
This YTE from NukeWatch's John LaForge starts with this disturbing information:
On Feb. 11, 1985, the cover editorial of Forbes magazine declared, 'The failure of the US nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale.'
Fourteen months later, Chernobyl's reactor 4 in Ukraine exploded, burned for 40 days and spread radioactive fallout across the Northern Hemisphere, even contaminating Minnesota's milk.
The likelihood of similar or worse reactor disasters was frankly admitted by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) member James Asselstine, who testified to Congress that year: 'We can expect to see a core meltdown accident within the next 20 years, and it : could result in off-site releases of radiation as large as or larger than the releases at Chernobyl.' Still, nuclear power was not phased out.
This alarmist rhetoric has a single purpose: creating fear amongst the people living near the Monticello Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). Predictably, that was quickly addressed in the YTE:
There are 23 Fukushima-like reactors, identical General Electric Mark-I boiling water reactors, operating in the United States. One is the 43-year-old Monticello unit, 28 miles southeast of St. Cloud.
In 2006, it was given permission to run 20 years past its 2010 licensed retirement date. License extensions like this are common, even though a June 2011 Associated Press investigation found that no U.S. reactor was designed to run more than 40 years.
In January 2007, decades of Monticello's vibrations caused a 35,000-pound 'control box' to break loose from steel I-beams and smash a large steam pipe below. The crash caused malfunctions inside the box that opened large valves in other steam pipes. The loss of pressure triggered a reactor shutdown.
If I listened to Mr. LaForge's hysterical rantings, I'd conclude that Chernobyl resulted in a massive loss of life and catastrophic numbers of people who suffered tragic life-altering diseases. I don't doubt that that's what Mr. LaForge is hoping for.
Unfortunately, this official World Health Organization (WHO) report doesn't corroborate Mr. LaForge's hysterical rantings:
5 September 2005 | Geneva -A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.
As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers , many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.
The new numbers are presented in a landmark digest report, 'Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts,' just released by the Chernobyl Forum. The digest, based on a three-volume, 600-page report and incorporating the work of hundreds of scientists, economists and health experts, assesses the 20-year impact of the largest nuclear accident in history. The Forum is made up of 8 UN specialized agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN-OCHA), United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the World Bank, as well as the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.
'This compilation of the latest research can help to settle the outstanding questions about how much death, disease and economic fallout really resulted from the Chernobyl accident,' explains Dr. Burton Bennett, chairman of the Chernobyl Forum and an authority on radiation effects. 'The governments of the three most-affected countries have realized that they need to find a clear way forward, and that progress must be based on a sound consensus about environmental, health and economic consequences and some good advice and support from the international community.'
In other words, a tiny number of people died from the radiation. According to the WHO report, "almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident." In other words, Chernobyl's most significant long-term effect has been its PR value to environmental activists who want to stop nuclear power generation. Chernobyl's most significant long-term effect wasn't on people's health.
That's stunning information.
The important thing to remember in all this is that nuclear reactor accidents haven't caused many deaths. Movies predicting massive deaths are great theater but they aren't based on historical facts. Put differently, they're more about wild-eyed speculation by fearmongers like Mr. LaForge than they're based on history. Keep that in mind the next time you see one of these frantic editorials.
Posted Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:24 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Feb-14 11:14 AM
It's all stupid. Solar power has already caused more US deaths than nuclear. We have zero plants like Chernobyl, and only a few like Fukushima. Remember, nobody died from Fukushima despite an almost inconceivable natural disaster in which there was no significant radiation leakage. Likewise, if you had been living on Three Mile Island and run around in the "escaping radiation" you would have been better off than flying to Denver for a free weekend. You get more radiation sleeping with your wife than you do sleeping against a nuclear reactor. Wind power kills thousands of birds. Nuclear power is beneficial to threatened manatees. Which do you prefer?
Here is a suggestion for the alarmists. YOU give up all the electricity and power derived from energy sources you don't like, and buy it from sources you do like at their real cost. Then you can tell the rest of us how good it is and how bad we are. Heck, we might even listen.
Ken Martin's distraction
If it's Sunday morning, rest assured I'm taping At Issue. This week, DFL Party Chair Ken Martin was asked about the DFL filing a complaint with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Board. The DFL filed this nuisance complaint in an attempt to deflect complaints about 13 DFL senators willfully breaking campaign finance laws by coordinating their ad campaigns with outside groups.
Allegedly, the GOP spent some money but didn't report spending the money in the right place on the report. At best, the GOP might've committed a minor infraction. What the DFL did was painfully illegal :
On Tuesday the Board levied the fine against the DFL after it was discovered that 13 DFL candidates coordinated their campaigns illegally, since properly reclassifying the expenditures means that the candidates illegally exceeded their campaign contribution and/or spending limits. A total of over $300,000 in illegal contributions were not reported by the campaigns.. The board also plans to fine each individual campaign directly, according to a press release from the Minnesota Republican Party.
These 13 DFL senators broke one of the most straightforward campaign finance laws on the books. I knew that candidates couldn't coordinate their advertising campaigns with special interests' ad campaigns. That law's been on the books since the Nixon/Watergate era.
Putting this most succinctly, these DFL senate candidates wanted to win their races so badly that they didn't hesitate in breaking Minnesota's campaign finance laws. It isn't a stretch to think that Alida Messinger would've been willing to write the check for the fines in exchange for a DFL-controlled state government.
DFL lawmakers disagreed with the board's ruling said that they are glad to put the matter to rest.
'Ultimately, it is best to set this distraction aside and allow our members to focus on governing,' DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin said.
It's infuriating to hear Martin dismiss breaking one of Minnesota's biggest campaign finance laws by essentially calling it a "distraction." Then again, it shouldn't surprise people, especially considering the fact that Martin played a major role in the biggest smear campaigns in Minnesota gubernatorial history. Let's remember that Martin was an official with the Alliance for a Better Minnesota:
Martin is currently the director of 'Win Minnesota'. If you read this blog, you know who they are: they are a PAC that launders the Dayton family's political contributions to 'Alliance For A Better Minnesota' and the '2010 Fund' and the other arms of the Dayton Campaign's tightly-wound little money-laundering and distribution machine.
ABM was criticized by local reporters and national organizations for their lies. Martin was part of that. Now he's running the DFL, where he's dismissing outright cheating as a distraction.
Finally, Martin's statement that we shouldn't be 'distracted' by their cheating because they've got to govern is silly. Thus far, the DFL's governance has been a disaster. Their tax increases hurt the middle class more than they hurt "the rich." Their implementation of MNsure has been a total disaster. Gov. Dayton has made statements that question whether he knows what's happening within his administration.
It's time for Minnesota to head in a different direction.
Posted Monday, February 3, 2014 7:52 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Feb-14 07:46 AM
While I believe as you do that the DFL's governance has been a complete disaster, I also believe they (DFL) will retain both houses and the Governor's mansion in 2014 because most people just don't care anymore and want the government to be there caretaker. I really hope I am wrong but it is not looking good.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-14 10:16 AM
I'm confident that you're wrong. At minimum, the MNGOP will retake the House. I'm prepared to bet a hefty sum of money on that.
Pinhead questions First Amendment
David Shuster's monthly op-ed seldom disappoints in terms of questionable thinking from a leftist perspective. This month's op-ed is titled "Now corporations could have religious rights, too?" Here's part of Mr. Shuster's column:
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave corporations the individual right of free speech.
Energized by this success and the boundless loathing of the conservative movement for President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, for-profit companies are manipulating the judicial system for the right to practice a religion.
Like the Wizard bestowing a heart to the Tin Man, the court's decision to hear two cases - Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius - may magically grant corporate America a religious conscience. Unlike the 'Wizard of Oz,' this would not have a happy ending.
Independent voters, think about this before voting. In Mr. Shuster's mind, the Supreme Court "gave" corporations the same right to influence elections as individuals have. It didn't take long to find out that they didn't give corporations anything. They clarified the fact that corporations had that right all along. Here's the text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's nothing in the First Amendment's text that says it pertains exclusively to individuals. In fact, there is a reference in the text that protects an institution. Specifically, it says "the press" has the same rights as an individual.
That's why it's disheartening to hear Shuster talk about "magically grant[ing] corporate America" religious rights. In the eyes of the Constitution, there isn't a difference between churches and the Little Sisters of the Poor and corporations run by people of faith. That's because, like churches, corporations aren't inanimate buildings. They're groups of people.
I've used this argument repeatedly but it's still pertinent. Does the Fourth Amendment protect only individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures or does it protect corporations, too? Thoughtful people wouldn't dispute that corporations have the right to due process. Why should speech and religion pertain only to individuals?
Shuster makes the argument that incorporation creates a wall between a person's assets and a corporation's assets. I won't dispute that. Material things, however, aren't the same as God-given rights.
Posted Monday, February 3, 2014 12:05 PM
Comment 1 by MtkaMoose at 03-Feb-14 11:12 PM
Just think how much money could be saved by eliminating military barracks. Just put all the soldiers in hotels - they clearly aren't houses and those are the only living quarters specifically mentioned in the 3rd Amendment. Hotels don't have rights either!!! Even better if they have a restaurant - then we can feed them for free too...
Faulty theories, negative results
Michael Barone's WSJ op-ed questions some interesting assumptions. Here's an example:
Start with the assumption that just about everyone wants health insurance. You can easily find polls that support this proposition. ObamaCare architects assumed that if you offered health insurance with subsidies for those with relatively modest incomes, those currently uninsured would flock to apply. So far that seems not to have happened. A McKinsey & Co. survey of those thought to be eligible for ObamaCare health-care exchanges found that only 11% of those who bought new coverage between November 2013 and January 2014 were previously uninsured.
Two small insurance companies told Wall Street Journal reporters for a Jan. 17 article that only 25% and 35% of those purchasing their policies were previously uninsured. Larger insurers don't yet have numbers, but it seems that far fewer of the uninsured than expected are signing up. The latest Kaiser Family Foundation poll reported that only 24% of uninsured under 65 had a favorable view of ObamaCare while 47% had an unfavorable view.
Barone didn't just offer proof that the assumption didn't work. He explained why it might not have worked:
One reason may be that ObamaCare requires policies to cover not just the expenses of catastrophic illness - the sort of thing auto and home insurance policies cover - but routine medical expenses and procedures that many individuals will not need. To that extent ObamaCare policies are not insurance but prepayment of routine expenses. Apparently many of the uninsured aren't interested in prepaying for health insurance any more than they are interested in prepaying their credit cards.
What Barone is essentially saying is that the ABACA's essential health benefits, as determined by government. really aren't seen by people as essential. Calling them essential health benefits doesn't mean people think of these coverages as essential. This makes sense only if people think like politicians who think a specific outcome is important.
Thankfully, people don't think that way. Twenty-somethings don't think that having ambulatory care is essential for themselves. Similarly, fifty-somethings don't think pregnancy coverage is essential.
Frequently, politicians think that they know what families and individuals need. When they think like that, they're almost automatically wrong.
Posted Monday, February 3, 2014 12:46 PM
No comments.
Obama-O'Reilly confrontation
People who didn't see the Obama-O'Reilly confrontation on Super Bowl Sunday should follow this link to read the transcript of the interview. Saying that President Obama didn't look at the top of his game is understatement. Here's something where President Obama looked foolish:
O'REILLY: All right.
Was it the biggest mistake of your presidency to tell the nation over and over, if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?
OBAMA: Oh, Bill, you've got a long list of my mistakes of my presidency...
O'REILLY: But, no, really, for you...
OBAMA: -- as I've (INAUDIBLE)...
O'REILLY: -- wasn't that the biggest one?
OBAMA: But this is -- this is one that I regret and I've said I regretted, in part because we put in a grandfather clause in the original law saying that, in fact, you were supposed to be able to keep it. It obviously didn't cover everybody that we needed to and that's why we changed it, so that we further grandfathered in folks and many people who thought originally, when they got that cancellation notice, they couldn't keep it or not (INAUDIBLE)...
That's an outright lie. It wasn't a mistake that the grandfather clause offered little protection. It was intentionally written to force people off of their health insurance policies and into the exchanges. To quote Charles Krauthammer, it wasn't a glitch. It was a feature.
President Obama's deceitfulness hurt him in this exchange, too:
O'REILLY: All right. Libya, House Armed Services testimony, General Carter Ham, you know, the general?
OBAMA: Yes. Right.
O'REILLY: Security in Africa.
OBAMA: Yes.
O'REILLY: He testified that on the day that the ambassador was murdered and the three other Americans, all right, he told Secretary Panetta it was a terrorist attack. Shortly after Ham, General Ham, said that, Secretary Panetta came in to you.
OBAMA: Yes.
O'REILLY: Did he tell you, Secretary Panetta, it was a terrorist attack?
OBAMA: You know what he told me was that there was an attack on our compound...
O'REILLY: He didn't tell you...he didn't use the word "terror?"
OBAMA: You know, in the heat of the moment, Bill, what folks are focused on is what's happening on the ground, do we have eyes on it, how can we make sure our folks are secure...
O'REILLY: Because I just want to get this on the record...did he tell you it was a terror attack?
OBAMA: Bill -- and what I'm -- I'm answering your question. What he said to me was, we've got an attack on our compound. We don't know yet...
O'REILLY: No terror attack?
OBAMA: We don't know yet who's doing it. Understand, by definition, Bill, when somebody is attacking our compound. That's an act of terror, which is how I characterized it the day after it happened. So the question ends up being who, in fact, was attacking us?
O'REILLY: But it's more than that...because of Susan Rice.
OBAMA: No, it...
O'REILLY: It's more than that because if Susan Rice goes out and tells the world that it was a spontaneous demonstration...off a videotape but your...
OBAMA: Bill...
O'REILLY: -- your commanders and the secretary of Defense know it's a terror attack...
OBAMA: Now, Bill...
O'REILLY: -- I'm just confused.
OBAMA: And I'm trying to explain it to, if you want to listen. The fact of the matter is is that people understood, at the time, something very dangerous was happening, that we were focused on making sure that we did everything we can, to protect them. In the aftermath, what became clear was that the security was lax, that not all the precautions and that needed to be taken were taken and both myself and Secretary Clinton and others indicated as much.
First, it shouldn't have taken time to know that security was lax. Ambassabor Stevens had been screaming at the top of his lungs that al-Qa'ida was gaining strength in eastern Libya. There was a gigantic hole in the wall at the consulate. Secretary Clinton and President Obama both should've known about that because that isn't routine information that's handled by people low in the food chain. That's information they need to know about. That's why I'm certain that both of them knew about the deteriorating conditions in Benghazi.
It's more than that, though. O'Reilly is right in identifying Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows as a game-changing event. There's no reason for the administration to send out someone who wasn't properly informed. That's if you believe that she was ill-informed, which I don't believe. If she spred misinformation on those shows, then we're looking at an administration lying to protect themselves during a political campaign.
This part is especially damning:
OBAMA: Bill, listen, I've gone through this and we have had multiple hearings on it. What happens is you have an attack like this taking place and you have a mix of folks who are just troublemakers. You have folks who have an ideological agenda.
O'REILLY: All right.
OBAMA: You have some who are affiliated with terrorist organizations. You have some that are not. But the main thing that all of us have to take away from this is our diplomats are serving in some very dangerous places.
The attacks weren't random acts of violence. The military knew within moments that this was a well-coordinated attack executed with military precision. Right before Rice appeared on CBS's Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer interviewed the Libyan president. Libya's president said without hesitation that this was a terrorist attack carried out with military precision.
Rice then insists that it was the result of a riot that started because people objected to an internet video by an obscure videographer. That's utterly laughable, especially considering the fact that most people in northern Africa don't have access to the internet.
By this point, President Obama is clearly frustrated. He's frustrated because the lapdog media doesn't insist on getting to the bottom of things. This exchange shows how frustrated President Obama is:
O'REILLY: I've got to get to the IRS...
OBAMA: OK.
O'REILLY: but I just want to say that they're, your detractors believe that you did not tell the world it was a terror attack because your campaign didn't want that out.
OBAMA: Bill, think about...
O'REILLY: That's what they believe.
OBAMA: -- and they believe it because folks like you are telling them that.
O'REILLY: No, I'm not telling them that.
O'REILLY: I'm asking you whether you were told...
OBAMA: But -- and what I'm saying is...
O'REILLY: -- it was a terror attack and you...
OBAMA: -- and what I'm saying is that is inaccurate.
First, President Obama accuses O'Reilly of telling lies to the people. Then he says that he simply asked a question. Finally, he said that O'Reilly said some things that weren't accurate.
Essentially, what happened is that President Obama accused a journalist of lying to the people; when that didn't work, he insisted that he was simply asking a question. When that didn't work, President Obama resorted to form by accusing Mr. O'Reilly of people inaccurate information.
What's inescapable is the fact that President Obama isn't skilled at truthfully and fully answering tough questions. It's easy to see it frustrates him.
Posted Monday, February 3, 2014 2:59 PM
No comments.
Didn't vs. couldn't
This article highlights a clash between Rep. Kurt Daudt and Rep. Paul Thissen. It doesn't sound like much of a difference but it's significant:
Thissen, a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party member from Minneapolis, said "there's clearly been problems, significant problems, in the implementation of it" but that the bugs are getting worked out and the system will provide coverage for thousands who hadn't previously had it.
When Thissen started criticizing proposed GOP alternatives, Daudt, a Republican from Crown, jumped in, saying Minnesotans don't want a "blame game."
"The whole philosophy behind this is flawed," Daudt said of MNsure. Under the state's old system, he said, about 93 percent of people had coverage. "We scrapped the system that was a leader in the country," Daudt said, to go to one that's "riddled with problems."
But that 7 percent who couldn't get coverage under the old system represents about half a million people that the state has a moral obligation to help, Thissen said. Until Daudt has a solution for that group, "you ought to stop pointing fingers," he said.
When he was a member of one of the committees with jurisdiction on the HHS omnibus bill, Steve Gottwalt pointed out that 93% of Minnesotans had health insurance and that half of those that didn't have health insurance were eligible for a government-offered health insurance. That means approximately 96.5% of Minnesotans were eligible for government-offered insurance or had health insurance.
That's before questioning whether the other 3.5% of Minnesotans wanted insurance. It's possible that a significant portion of those people didn't want health insurance.
That's significant because it minimizes Speaker Thissen's argument that Minnesota "has a moral obligation" to help these people. First, why would Minnesota have an obligation to help people who might not want help? The simple answer is that they don't. Second, let's get rid of Speaker Thissen's fuzzy math. If the number of uninsured who can't get insured is actually 2%, not 5%, then Thissen's figure of "half a million people" is reduced to approximately 108,000 people.
Finally, Thissen saying that Republicans should stop their criticism until they have a plan is intellectually dishonest. Republicans have a plan. The DFL just doesn't like it. Rather than the DFL saying what they like or don't like about the GOP plan, the DFL pretends that Republicans don't have a plan.
The DFL created a health insurance exchange. Unfortunately, their plan, not just the HIX, stinks. The policies offered through MNsure are the cheapest in the nation. Unfortunately, these policies' premiums are more expensive than before the Anything But Affordable Care Act. That's before talking about his significantly higher deductibles, which means higher out-of-pocket expenses for families.
That means I'm still waiting for the DFL to offer legislation that provides real health insurance reform.
Posted Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:08 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 04-Feb-14 07:41 AM
The DFL's plan is the same old plan they have always had only under a different name, MNSure. Their plan is to make someone else pay for their plan and when that plan doesn't work, blame someone else for the problems, simple as that.
GOP gubernatorial race by the numbers
Last night, I received an email from Jim Kroger, an assistant professor in the Accounting & Business Law department at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Dr. Kroger had studied the campaign finance reports of the GOP gubernatorial candidates.
This post shouldn't be interpreted as me expressing my preference for who runs against Gov. Dayton. This post is simply about Dr. Kroger's studies.
Dr. Kroger's spreadsheet, which doesn't translate well into WordPress formatting, gives us some basic information. Specifically, it highlights the fundraising per week and the burn rate per week for each of the candidates. At this point, Marty Seifert has raised an average of $26,029 per week while spending $1,842 per week since entering the race in late November. By contrast, Scott Honour has raised an average of $14,142 per week while spending $14,132 per average week.
Kurt Zellers is raising $13,392 per week while spending $9,894 per week. He's followed by Jeff Johnson, who is raising an average of $7,041 per week while spending an average of $2,091 per week, followed by Dave Thompson, who has raised an average of $4,559 per week while spending $2,673 per week.
Here are some of Dr. Kroger's observations:
- Seifert's average weekly individual cash contributions of $26,029 exceed Dayton's average weekly individual cash contributions of $15,327 by $10,702. Presently, in Republican circles, one of the issues that is discussed is which candidate can raise enough money to be competitive against Dayton. Based on this analysis, which seeks to measure each candidate equally based on when they announced for governor, Seifert is by far the strongest fundraiser outperforming Honour by a margin of nearly 2 to 1.
- The average amount of cash burned per week by Zellers exceeds the average amount of cash burned per week by Dayton by 143%. The average amount of cash burned per week by Honour exceeds the average amount of cash burned per week by Dayton by 204% (more than double). In Republican circles it is often said that no candidate will be able to fundraise and spend more than Dayton. Based on how fast Zellers and Honour are blowing their cash and what they are burning it on, I would argue that both of their campaigns are wasteful and simply unsustainable on a long-term basis.
- Thompson ended the year with $50,283 cash on hand, but he also has unpaid bills of $28,235. This means that he essentially ended the year with approximately $20,000 cash on hand, which is the lowest next to Farnsworth. Given his monthly expenses, I would argue that Thompson's campaign is either dead in the water or running on fumes. I suspect that his announcement of a running mate was the last gasp as he attempts to gain momentum and save what appears to be a sinking ship.
- Zellers has $44,300 or 11% of his total receipts coming from out-of-state; however, I discovered what may be a red flag issue. Zellers received $21,000 from 38 individuals in 8 states (Missouri, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Illinois, Washington, DC, New Jersey, and Florida) and ALL 38 contributors listed Express Scripts, a mail-order pharmacy, as their employer. This raised a red flag in my mind. Is Express Scripts funneling money to Zellers through these individuals? What ties does Zellers have to Express Scripts? What will Express Scripts expect if he is elected? Is Express Scripts trying to skirt lobbyist regulations? I don't know the answers to these questions, but it presents an interesting puzzle.
- Honour has $295,847 or 48-58% of his total receipts coming from out-of-state. It is 48% if you include his $101,000 loan to himself in total receipts and 58% if you exclude it. 189 of 368 total contributions to Honour's campaign are from people outside of Minnesota and, in some cases, outside the United States (Singapore and London). 51% of all individuals contributing to Honour's campaign are not Minnesotans. I counted 13 contributions from Beverly Hills, CA, 29 from Los Angeles, CA, and 16 from New York City. It appears that bankers, lawyers, and even an actress are the ones who think Honour would make a good governor. If you disregard the $295,847 that came from outside of Minnesota and the $101,000 loan that he gave himself then he only raised $217,919 from Minnesotans, which is less than both Johnson and Zellers. Further, the deep pockets that he tapped from outside of Minnesota often gave $4,000 so they cannot contribute again. I would argue both that Honour is not supported by the people of Minnesota and that his campaign is likely not sustainable due to fundraising concerns and wasteful spending. Having exhausted his out-of-state deep pockets and squandered the money, he must now look to the people of Minnesota or himself to fund his campaign. He ended the year with $14,251 on hand. I would argue that Honour's campaign is more akin to the campaign of Farnsworth or Thompson and that Honour is nearly dead in the water or running on fumes.
Whether Dr. Kroger's opinions hold up is subject to the test of time. Another thing that'll require additional scrutiny is whether Marty Seifert can continue at his current fundraising pace. If he can, then he'll be a formidable opponent for Gov. Dayton. Jeff Johnson's figures aren't gaudy but his burn rate is under control. That will matter over the course of a long campaign.
Each of these candidates would be a significant improvement over Gov. Dayton. It's difficult to have faith in a politician who doesn't know what's in the bills he's signed and negotiated.
Finally, tonight is precinct caucus night in Minnesota. If you want to shape this election, there's no better place to be tonight than at your local precinct caucus. If you've never attended a precinct caucus, you'll want to attend. It's the best place to let your voice be heard. If you don't know where your precinct caucus is being held, follow this link , then enter your zip code. It's just that simple.
Posted Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:06 AM
No comments.
It's Alida's party
After the DFL's 2010 wipeout, Alida Messinger told then-DFL Party Chairman Brian Melendez that he would be resigning. If he didn't, she'd stop writing big checks to the DFL. Melendez resigned a week later. He was replaced by Ken Martin , who had worked for her at the Alliance for a Better Minnesota.
This morning, Gov. Dayton announced that Tina Smith, his current chief of staff, would be his running mate for the 2014 election . First, here's a little something from the Martin coronation article:
Most of the criticism of DFL state party chair Brian Melendez in the wake of Election Day has been confined to the liberal blogosphere. The three-term incumbent could likely survive those barbs.
But a much more important DFL supporter, wealthy donor Alida Messinger, is also apparently opposed to Melendez remaining as party chair. According to a reliable DFL source, there won't be any checks arriving in DFL coffers from the Rockefeller heir if Melendez remains in the post.
Of course, Ken Martin, the person most often cited as a potential rival for state party chair, is closely aligned with Messinger. He chaired the Win Minnesota Political Action Fund, which played a key role in the governor's race. The group's largest individual donor: Messinger.
Back then, I wrote that the DFL was quickly becoming a subsidiary of the Dayton Family Politics, Inc. This information provides important insight into Gov. Dayton's pick:
Smith is a longtime friend of Dayton's former wife, Alida Messinger, a significant donor to Dayton's first election effort and other prominent DFL causes .
When Dayton was searching for someone to help his campaign after winning the DFL primary, Messinger recommended Smith for the job.
This isn't surprising. Alida Messinger wants to create a political party that stands for the things she stands for. If that means filling the DFL power structure with her yes people, then that's what she'll do. In fact, we have proof that that's what she's doing right now.
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, is funded by her. Ditto with the DFL. One of her puppets is the DFL Party chairman. Now, because she doesn't trust Iron Rangers, she's hand-picked a candidate to be Gov. Dayton's candidate for lieutenant governor from the Twin Cities.
Simply put, Tina Smith was picked because Alida Messinger didn't trust another Iron Ranger as Gov. Dayton's lieutenant governor. In Alida's DFL, Iron Rangers are welcome for their votes. Unfortunately for people living on the Range, Alida's DFL doesn't like a pro-mining agenda. Gov. Dayton's pick of Tina Smith turns that opinion into fact.
Posted Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:08 PM
No comments.
