July 11-16, 2016
Jul 11 17:10 Darrell Downs, MnSCU & real change Jul 11 19:16 Tornado blogging Jul 12 18:38 Gowdy, Lynch expose Hillary Jul 13 02:04 2016 & the GOP Senate majority Jul 13 19:30 Is Hillary blowing it again? Jul 14 18:31 Dorholt's deceptive stunt Jul 15 02:45 Nice, ISIS & I'm pissed Megyn Jul 16 02:09 Rubio up big in Florida Jul 16 14:04 Questioning the special session
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Darrell Downs, MnSCU & real change
I hope I get to meet Dr. Darrell Downs someday, hopefully soon. Dr. Downs' op-ed is the most thoughtful, yet provocative, op-eds I've ever read. Having written more than a few LTEs and op-eds myself, I know what goes into writing something of this length and quality.
First, I'd like to thank Dr. Downs for his avoidance of using euphemisms and sugarcoating. It was refreshing to read Dr. Downs say "Minnesota State College and University (MnSCU) or 'Minnesota State,' as it has recently renamed itself, is in need of real change. It does not need re-branding gimmicks, new statewide strategic planning, or re-alignments that ignore campus input. As Minnesota State's June report on financial sustainability said, 'Houston: the system has a problem' - I would agree except I would clarify that the system 'is' the problem. It's time to face the reality that the broad authority granted to it by the legislature in 1991 has left the Minnesota State trustees with little formal allegiance and no accountability to the campuses they were appointed to govern."
This identifies MnSCU's bad habits quickly. The structure was flawed from the start. It established a bureaucracy without establishing who was responsible for ensuring accountability to the taxpayers. That's likely because accountability wasn't that high of a priority. Then Dr. Downs cuts to the heart of the matter of what's broken:
Minnesota State is led by 15 trustees appointed by the Governor and is run by a central bureaucracy comparable in size to the largest of our state universities. The trustees possess overall governing authority, as well as the authority to set academic policy. Bit by bit, this authority has imposed uniformity on how the campuses are managed and increasingly on how the courses are taught, with rare, if ever, meaningful input from campus communities.
Let's examine this a bit. Let's think of this from the standpoint that different communities and different regions of the state have different workforce requirements. Top-down bureaucracies don't specialize in customization. They specialize (if that's the right word) in one-size-fits-all 'solutions' that are frequently counterproductive.
Next, let's examine this situation:
Minnesota State's June report reflects the same tin ear to the value of campuses. It even takes aim on labor agreements so it can more easily create 'dedicated administrative structures.' Campuses and their instructional spending are apparently viewed as the key cost drivers while the administrative side of the house is somehow in need of protection. Pardon me for complaining that a system devoted to education now views administration as a fixed cost, while spending on instruction is viewed as a variable cost. This is the same wrong-headedness that led to the MnSCU faculty rejecting the Chancellor's Charting the Future plan in 2015, and the state university faculty's votes of no confidence in his leadership.
Think about this. Colleges and universities are where students go to learn, at least theoretically. Based on MnSCU's 'business model', it sounds like the Trustees' highest priority is to provide administration without providing a great educational product. That's as foolish as I've ever heard.
If you don't take anything else from this post, highlight this:
It noted that while administrative spending per student was presented by MnSCU to be low compared to other states, the audit found that it depends on how you count administrative spending, and if all administrative supports are counted, MnSCU ranks well above other states in spending per student. So who among the trustees is charged with protecting the instructional priorities on the campuses?
Like I said earlier, there is a bureaucracy established. Its priorities, however, aren't established, or, more to the point, their priorities aren't the right priorities.
Dr. Downs is right. It's time to kick down the doors. It's time for real change within MnSCU. This isn't just a warning to the bureaucrats. It's putting legislators on notice that we aren't satisfied with the product MnSCU has been producing and we're not going to take it anymore.
Posted Monday, July 11, 2016 5:10 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 12-Jul-16 03:49 PM
[Think about this. Colleges and universities are where students go to learn, at least theoretically.]
These days, it's where they report to be programmed.
Tornado blogging
About 45 minutes ago, the sirens went off. A minute later, the local weather station announced a tornado warning for "Benton and Stearns counties." At the time, the tornado warning was set to expire at 6:45 pm. At that time, the tornado that had touched down was moving northeast at 35 mph.
The tornado warning has been extended until 7:15 pm.
Further, weather spotters reported that a tornado had touched down in Sartell, about 5-6 miles to the north of me.
UPDATE: A friend just called me. My friend said that a funnel cloud had passed to the north of Cathedral High School. When I asked where the storm had passed, my friend said it passed to the St. Cloud Hospital side of Cathedral.
UPDATE II: A tornado has been spotted east of St. Cloud. Foley is expected to get hit within the next 3-5 minutes.
UPDATE III: The NWS has issued a severe thunderstorm east of Foley. That cell is moving at 20 mph. Additionally, the tornado warning for Kandiyohi County has expired but another tornado warning has been issued for central Stearns County.
The tornado warning for eastern Benton County is set to expire at 7:45. Stay tuned, though. This cell has spawned at least 4 tornado touchdowns.
UPDATE IV: This should get people's attention:
Posted Monday, July 11, 2016 7:46 PM
No comments.
Gowdy, Lynch expose Hillary
If I could pass a law or if I could mandate a particular type of behavior, I'd require every senator and every representative from both parties ask the types of probing, cut-through-the-BS questions that Trey Gowdy consistently asks.
Chairman Gowdy isn't into grandstanding. He isn't prone to making speeches for the purpose of scoring political points. He's prone to doing his homework first so he's a self-taught expert on whatever subject he's addressing. He's prone to asking questions that elicit informative, substantive answers that enlighten citizens and exposes politicians.
It isn't difficult to think that Loretta Lynch was squirming while she was being questioned by Chairman Gowdy. Watch this video and tell me whether you think Chairman Gowdy is making Ms. Lynch squirm. I'm thinking Ms. Lynch's answers made Mrs. Clinton squirm, too. One of the questions that likely made Mrs. Clinton squirm came when Chairman Gowdy asked Ms. Lynch "Why do you think it's important to use official email to conduct official business"?
That likely didn't make Mrs. Clinton squirm as much as when Chairman Gowdy said "I doubt that you even use your usdoj -dot- gov account to send classified information, do you?" Ms. Lynch replied that she didn't use that account, noting that "we have separate systems. There would be a classified system for that." That's when Chairman Gowdy moved in for the kill against Mrs. Clinton:
GOWDY: So not only do you not use personal email. You don't even use your usdoj -dot- gov account. You've got a separate, dedicated system to handle classified information. Why?
LYNCH: We have a separate system to handle security needs.
GOWDY: But my question is why. Why is it important to you to not use your personal email to conduct official business and to use a separate system, more safely-guarded system when you do handle classified information?
GOWDY: But it's not just a personal preference, is it?
LYNCH: It allows for the protection of the information.
It's painfully obvious that Hillary knew that was the system. It's painfully obvious because she once was a US senator who had to obey the rules established by the committee chairs on viewing confidential information. Mrs. Clinton had been to Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, aka SCIFs. SCIFs are defined as "accredited area, room, group of rooms, or installation where sensitive compartmented information may be stored, used, discussed, or electronically processed." Access is limited. Electronic devices aren't allowed to be brought into a SCIF because of the sensitive information stored in SCIFs.
Knowing about the existence of and the purpose for SCIFs, why did Mrs. Clinton ignore that phalanx of security precautions and use a system that a high school kid could hack into? Was it because Mrs. Clinton didn't care about protecting top secret information? Or was it because Mrs. Clinton wanted to hide her emails from the public at all costs? Or did she do it for both reasons?
Posted Tuesday, July 12, 2016 6:38 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jul-16 06:38 AM
Do you suppose Gowdy's concerned to assure the security of his own email communication? Above and beyond ordinary Senate or House caution? It would be a good bet.
What do you think of the State Department resuming their suspended investigation into email activity? They stepped back to not possibly interfere with FBI matters.
And do you fault career FBI career rank and file agents, or only Comey? He has feet planted firmly in Bushco times and actions. His campaign contributions record is GOP.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Jul-16 06:54 AM
Trey Gowdy is pretty straightforward. What you see is what you get. He's an old-fashioned prosecutor & a damn good one. He's also an old-fashioned statesman & patriot. Is he a good politician? Definitely. Is that his who he is? Definitely not.
2016 & the GOP Senate majority
Since the start of 2016 or earlier, pundits have predicted that Democrats would retake their majority in the US Senate. That's been the conventional wisdom pretty much the entire year. According to this article , those predictions might be greatly exaggerated.
This article isn't the only thing that points to a contrary outcome in November. The latest Quinnipiac Swing State Poll brought smiles to the NRSC leadership team. Quinnipiac's poll starts by saying "Republican incumbent U.S. Senators in three critical swing states fare better today as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida leads either of two Democratic challengers, while Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey outpoints his Democratic challenger and Ohio Sen. Rob Portman is in a dead heat with a well-known challenger, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today."
It then highlights the fact that "Sen. Rubio leads U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy 47-40 percent and tops U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson 48-40 percent." Amelia Chasse talked about the Florida race in a rather unflattering light towards Democrats:
Another DSCC primary pick, Florida's Patrick Murphy, has had his inflated resume methodically torn apart by a series of investigative reports, to the point where Salon called him a "disaster candidate."
Prior to that, Chasse spoke about Katie McGinty, the Democrats' candidate in Pennsylvania in an unflattering light:
Establishment groups spent nearly $5 million to drag Katie McGinty, a bureaucrat with a revolving door problem, through another contentious primary, only to have her claim to be the first in her family to attend college immediately exposed as a lie.
According to Quinnipiac's Swing State Poll, McGinty trails incumbent Pat Toomey "49%-40%." That isn't the type of margin that's likely to produce a November nailbiter. In Ohio, pundits predicted Rob Portman's demise. That might not happen:
Sen. Rob Portman is in a dead heat with former Gov. Ted Strickland in Ohio. But that is an improvement for Portman, who earlier in the campaign was down as much as 9 points.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that Republicans are leading in the 2 biggest swing states and that they're in much better shape in Ohio than they were a couple months ago.
Then there's Ron Johnson. Though that race is tight, Wisconsin's GOP GOTV operation is a powerful machine. Further, Feingold is running into difficulty explaining why he did nothing to fix the VA hospital in Tomah after getting notified about its difficulties.
That's before talking about some potential GOP pickups. This video shows why Darryl Glenn has positioned himself well in Colorado:
Talking about a recent case of black-on-black violence in San Bernardino, CA, Glenn said that BLM wasn't part of the solution before saying that what's required is for policy leaders, community leaders and law enforcement to get together in a room and have a substantive conversation about the things that need to happen to end the distrust between law enforcement and minority communities. Couple the fact that he's endorsed by Ted Cruz and that much of Cruz's GOTV operation is now working for Glenn. That's a powerful combination in Colorado.
Finally, don't think that Harry Reid's seat isn't in play, too. If these things come together, it isn't impossible to see Republicans holding a similar margin in 2017 as they have right now.
Posted Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:04 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 13-Jul-16 06:28 AM
Easy. Grayson over Rubio in an eyeblink. No contest. Unfortunately, from Minnesota, my vote does not count.
Hillary, if really wanting cred among progressives should pick Grayon as VP. It would be substantial, (besides token farting around on platform this-and-that, which is window dressing/table scraps). It would be a hoot to watch Grayson going on attack mode against Trump and his business foibles. Grayson has a business background, success without inheriting it.
Not that Trump's vulnerable . . .
Last, with Hillary's age, Grayson a heartbeat away would be reassuring.
Is Hillary blowing it again?
In 2008, Hillary was considered the presumptive Democrat nominee. Pundits said that she'd win the nomination, then win the general election. They were wrong both with both predictions. This Quinnipiac Swing State Poll must be close to Hillary's nightmare scenario.
What do you think she's thinking when she sees that Trump is tied with Mrs. Clinton in Ohio and that he leads Mrs. Clinton in Pennsylvania and Florida? Imagine Mrs. Clinton reading "The presidential matchups show: Florida - Trump at 42 percent to Clinton's 39, compared to a 47-39 percent Clinton lead June 21; Ohio - Clinton and Trump tied 41-41 percent, compared to a 40-40 percent tie June 21; Pennsylvania - Trump at 43 percent to Clinton's 41 percent, compared to June 21, when Clinton had 42 percent to Trump's 41 percent."
If Mrs. Clinton lost those 3 states, she'd lose to Trump. It's that simple. I can't picture Mrs. Clinton losing Pennsylvania but winning North Carolina. That just doesn't seem possible. These statistics are part of this RedState post with a headline glaring "Hillary Loses Ground After Outspending Trump $57M to $4M."
This is just part of the pattern for Hillary. She's outspending Trump by orders of magnitude but she's losing ground to him while outspending Trump.
What's more troubling for Hillary is that she won't get Bernie Sanders' voters in the percentages that she'd hoped for:
Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.
The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign, offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire Tuesday. 'Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today,' he said.
What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned. In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.
This won't blow over anytime soon. Some of Bernie's supporters are true believers. A woman named Ashley Marie tweeted "Used to be a Bernie fan but now that he's joined Hillary, who supports everything he's supposedly against, I'm a Trump fan. #NeverHillary" Dan LaMorte tweeted "Bernie Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton feels so much like when the girl you love starts dating the guy you hate most."
Perhaps, the best tweet came from Craig, who said "Revolution? I guess political revolution meant something different to Bernie. I was willing to fight corruption to the death. #NeverHillary"
Apparently, Bernie's supporters were true believers. Apparently, true believers don't fit with Hillary's people.
This doesn't mean Hillary will lose this November. It just means Hillary's team will need to order tons more Maalox.
Posted Wednesday, July 13, 2016 7:30 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Jul-16 10:06 AM
Sorehead sweepstakes:
http://www.jill2016.com/
https://johnsonweld.com/
Aside from that, Trump VP sweepstakes - my bet, Pence.
One day before the announcement.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 14-Jul-16 02:07 PM
Just think of what the polls would look like if the Republicans were running a human being against Hillary.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 14-Jul-16 05:37 PM
The polls would be far more in Hillary's favor if the Republicans were "running a human" because the people are tired of what the Republicans have been putting up as candidates the last two presidential cycles. Just look at all the "humans" Trump rolled over to get the presumptive nomination. No one wanted them, they wanted Trump. I'm no Trump supporter but I'll hold my nose in November to vote for Trump just like I did for McCain and Romney. Better Trump than Hillary.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 15-Jul-16 03:02 PM
Trump received 44 percent of the total Republican vote, IIRC, yet got a majority of the delegates. Yet he's the one who complains the system is 'rigged'. Riiiiiight.
Your liberal is no better than theirs. The Republican Party is about to endorse the only one of its major candidates who cannot beat Hillary Clinton.
Never Trump. Never Clinton. Neither one is fit for office.
Comment 5 by Bob J. at 15-Jul-16 03:03 PM
[ I'll hold my nose in November to vote for Trump just like I did for McCain and Romney.]
Oh ... and you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
Comment 6 by eric z at 15-Jul-16 03:26 PM
I would imagine the Republicans would be STRONGER TOGETHER.
Comment 7 by Chad Q at 17-Jul-16 09:31 AM
A) He's not my liberal (see how many times I've said he's not my guy in previous posts)
B) And your solution is? Stay home and pout or vote for an unknown? I'm sure Hillary and Nolan love your support.
C) If Trump can't beat Hillary, how come he's leading in some of the polls? I don't think any of the other GOP candidates were ever shown to beat Hillary in a head to head.
I don't like Trump but if he's the nominee, as Eric Z stated above, we are stronger TOGETHER.
Dorholt's deceptive stunt
Based on what he tweeted this morning , Chris Bremseth sounds like a Dorholt supporter. Bremseth's tweet insisted that Zach Dorholt had "signed a pledged to get big money politics out of St Cloud." Actually, that isn't what Dorholt pledged to do. Dorholt's own communication tells a totally different story, saying "In an effort to reduce the negative influence of outside spending during the upcoming election season, Minnesota House of Representatives District 14B candidate Zachary Dorholt authored a pledge to issue a bipartisan call for outside groups to disclose their donors before spending in the district."
This is part of the DFL's political showmanship. It's substantively meaningless because special interests can (and will) ignore Dorholt's pledge. It isn't a coincidence that the item at the top of Dorholt's priorities page is titled "Political Climate." Dorholt said "The 2016 elections will be a defining moment in Minnesota politics. We will decide not only who will lead our government, but the manner in which we select them. Are we going to allow shadowy organizations with millions of dollars select our leaders or will we stand up and make sure that all citizens have a proportionate share in our elections?"
That's laughable and disgusting. Dorholt's 2014 campaign finance disclosure report shows that he raised $37,709.00, of which $5,675.00 was contributed by Minnesota individuals. Of that $5,675.00 raised in Minnesota, a whopping total of $225.00 came from a St. Cloud resident. That means $32,034 came from contributors in Philadelphia, PA, West Hollywood, CA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL and other places. That means that Dorholt, as an incumbent DFL legislator, raised 0.6% of his money from the city he supposedly represents.
When it came to lobbyists and special interest PACs, Dorholt was well-funded, getting $5,175 in cash contributions from them. Let's summarize these totals. During the 2014 election cycle, Zach Dorholt, the incumbent legislator, raised $225 from the city he represents while raising $10,875 from other Minnesotans, from lobbyists and special interest PACs.
Why should the people Mr. Dorholt supposedly represents think that he represents them while he raises the overwhelming percentage of his Minnesota contributions come from Twin Cities elites and from lobbyists and special interest PACs? The people Mr. Dorholt supposedly represents shouldn't pay attention to this PR stunt of a pledge:
Based on how much money the special interests and the PACs support him and how Mr. Dorholt faithfully votes for their agenda, isn't it safe to say that this pledge is a PR stunt?
Originally posted Thursday, July 14, 2016, revised 15-Jul 9:17 AM
No comments.
Nice, ISIS & I'm pissed Megyn
Yesterday, a truck-driving terrorist killed at least 80 people attending the Bastille Day fireworks in Nice, France. NBC is reporting that a "truck plowed into pedestrians during Bastille Day celebrations in the popular French seaside city of Nice Thursday, leaving at least 80 people dead in what the nation's president called 'obviously a terrorist attack.'"
Thursday night's terrorist attack isn't unprecedented. Though trucks of this size have never been used like this before, the idea was written about in 2010 . Why didn't we hear that Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula's Inspire magazine "dedicated an entire article to the use of vehicles to kill" in their fall 2010 publication.
The article got specific, telling potential future terrorists to "Pick your location and timing carefully. Go for the most crowed locations. Narrower spots are also better because it gives less chance for the people to run away. Avoid locations where other vehicles may intercept you."
Further, it said "To achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can while still retaining good control of your vehicle in order to maximize your inertia and be able to strike as many people as possible in your first run."
Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, the man who should be Donald Trump's Secretary of Defense if he's elected, was irate. Appearing on Megyn Kelly's show, Gen. Flynn unloaded. If you don't watch any other video this week, this video is must see material:
Here's part of what Gen. Flynn said:
This is just a larger scale version of a tactic that we've seen used. They've used this tactic before. We know this has been used in the Middle East against the Israelis. The thing that I'm worried about -- there is a warning that's coming across social media for Germany and I've gotten little bits and pieces about the potential for Berlin so I don't know what activities are going on there but I'm putting that out. I've already contacted my friends over there to let them know because I have social media capabilities that we look at.
Gen. Flynn was just getting started. Later, he said this:
We've captured their campaign plan over the last decade. We've actually captured it twice and it is essentially the same thing so we're going to hear how well we're doing in Iraq and Syria, that we're pushing them back, we fought them out of Fallujah. Actually, that's not what I see and that's not what I hear. There is so much chatter right tonight by what I would call the jihadi soldiers, the jihadi army on Twitter and on Telegram on social media. There's no chatter by leaders but we don't know who these guys are but I know that there's a lot of chatter by their soldiers praising what just happened.
Then Gen. Flynn lowered the boom on the entire Obama administration, Hillary included:
These guys are executing a campaign plan. Thiessen, who you just had on recently, he read it out of their magazine ... What we have not done -- and I will stop here and get off my soapbox in just a minute -- but what we have not done, from an international standpoint, we have not established a set of strategic objectives to go after this vicious, very barbaric enemy. They have declared war on us. This is a world war. This is a world war. It's not like it was in the history books of World War II. It might not feel like tanks on the desert and planes and ships at sea but this is a world war. They declared war on us. We must, internationally, we must create a new Twenty-First Century alliance, but we have got to take the Arab Muslim world to task, the leaders in this world.
If Trump gets elected, Gen. Flynn needs to become his first Secretary of Defense and John Bolton his first Secretary of State. They'd send the signal that America is serious about killing terrorists again.
President Obama has been the world president in terms of national security in my lifetime. He's far worse than Jimmy Carter. That's something I never thought I'd say.
Watch the entire video. It's compelling viewing. Gen. Flynn on his soapbox on fighting terrorists is must see TV. You'll learn more in 5 minutes of listening to him than you'd learn in listening to Hillary Clinton for her entire time as Secretary of State.
Posted Friday, July 15, 2016 2:45 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 15-Jul-16 03:00 PM
[President Obama has been the world president in terms of national security in my lifetime]
There's a whale of a typo (unintentional, I'm sure).
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Jul-16 03:22 PM
THE SURGE.
Trump.
Surging.
On This blog. Forget yesterday's NEVERTRUMP.
Visions and Revisions. Lesser evil. Lesser evil. Lesser evil. Lesser evil. Lesser evil.
Okay. Moving on toward November.
It's fair to reevaluate. But the two party chokehold is doing the citizens no favor; and that's yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Sure both stink; one the lesser stinker. But there are third parties. Green and Libertarian.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-16 09:38 PM
I was Never Trump until the terrorists started killing people on a monthly basis. When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do? Clinton is a disaster when it comes to fighting terrorists. Obama hasn't fought terrorists in a serious way, either.
Rubio up big in Florida
This article isn't good news for Chuck Schumer. Sen. Schumer wants to be the Senate Majority Leader in January. At this point, that's looking like an uphill fight. The worse news is that it's looking like the Democrats' fight is getting more uphill by the week.
The article's second paragraph says "The Quinnipiac University poll of more than 1,000 Florida voters shows Rubio with a double-digit lead over each of the two likely Democratic nominees, Rep. Patrick Murphy (50%-37%) and Rep. Alan Grayson (50%-38%). The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points."
This is now a safe Republican seat. That poll takes this seat off the list of seats that the Democrats might potentially pick up.
That's quite a difference from when Sen. Rubio initially announced that he'd seek re-election. At the time, the Cook Political Report said "Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio has reversed his decision to retire from the Senate at the end of this Congress and will run for a second term. In doing so, he has breathed new life into the GOP's chances of holding the seat, but that doesn't mean that he has become anything more than the very slightest of favorites in November. The race will remain in the Toss Up column ." It will be interesting to see how Cook explains what tipped that race that quickly.
Remember that this poll happened before the terrorist attack in Nice, France. If I were a betting man, I'd bet the proverbial ranch that Rubio will have opened up a bigger lead next month, especially if the tempo of ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks keeps increasing.
Quinnipiac's Swing State Poll isn't good news for Ohio Democrats, either. Their poll says "Sen. Rob Portman [leads]former Gov. Ted Strickland 47-40%." A couple months back, Portman trailed by 9 points. The next Quinnipiac Swing State Poll had them tied. Now, Portman has opened an outside-the-margin-of-error lead over Gov. Strickland. Clearly, it's trending in Sen. Portman's direction. What's interesting about this is the fact that Gov. Strickland has higher name recognition than Sen. Portman.
Finally, it's safe to say that Sen. Toomey is sitting in a strong position for re-election :
The man-woman matchup in the Pennsylvania Senate race produces only a small gender gap. Men back Toomey 53%-35%, while women are divided with 45 percent for Toomey and 42 percent for McGinty.
In the pure horse race poll, "Sen. Pat Toomey over Democrat Katie McGinty 49%-39%." It's probably too early to say this race is over but it isn't too early to say that Sen. Toomey is in a solid position to win re-election.
Posted Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Jul-16 09:24 AM
Rubio looks to have an easy Florida reelection.
Is the view that Pence balances the ticket?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Jul-16 10:52 AM
The view is, as near as I can tell, that Pence is a serious man with a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments. Whether that's accurate or not is another story. It's certainly getting touted that way.
Questioning the special session
According to this article , Sen. Bakk, Speaker Daudt and Gov. Dayton are close to an agreement on a special session. I question the accuracy of that statement.
The article opens by saying "A special Minnesota legislative session to approve tax cuts, transportation projects and public works construction could happen in a month, but the governor and key legislators are not quite ready to promise that." Notice the hint that all is not well? Saying that "the governor and key legislators are not quite ready to promise that" set off red flags with me. Several paragraphs later, my suspicions were vindicated.
The vindication came when the article said a "major unresolved issue continues to be whether to approve a light rail line from downtown Minneapolis to the southwestern suburbs." That's indisputable. That's the line Republicans shouldn't cross under any circumstances. It's the Minnesota equivalent to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere .
Speaker Daudt needs to realize that he's sitting in the power position. I'm betting that DFL candidates aren't popular because Gov. Dayton vetoed a major tax cut bill. Bakk and Dayton aren't striking a more conciliatory tone because they're altruistic. They're striking a more conciliatory tone because they aren't getting the response they'd hoped for.
Speaker Daudt, Sen. Hann and all Republicans should stand steadfast against the SWLRT project. If metro DFL legislators object, fine. Republicans don't need to flip urban seats to flip the Senate. They need to flip seats in rural Minnesota. That's where the tax cut bill is popular. If DFL candidates and incumbents want to defend Gov. Dayton's veto of the Tax Bill, Republicans should rejoice that the DFL is giving them that gift.
Further, I'd encourage Republican House and Senate candidates to highlight the fact that the DFL put broadband and SWLRT at the top of their priority list and that Republicans put gutting taxes on farmers, the middle class, the military and small businesses at the top of their priority list.
Let's fight that fight on our side of the battlefield. Let's see if the DFL is capable of fighting that fight. I'm betting they'll lose that fight by a significant margin.
Posted Saturday, July 16, 2016 2:04 PM
No comments.
