Thursday, April 21, 2016

Paulsen vs Bonoff

Well I am bummed out now... I actually voted for DFL State Sen. Terri Bonoff, now it is likely I will choose to vote against her...  What a waste.  I would prefer her in the State Legislature fighting for increasing Teacher accountability.

Well I guess this is one race where I will need to do by homework before filling in the circle.  Thoughts?

MP Could 3rd Elect a Democrat
MP 3rd District Race

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think in running for Congress, a dysfunctional and dying institution, Terri is making a mistake. Besides, being in Congress is hardly any fun. Nevertheless, Terri would be a Congressman from the third district. Erik Paulsen is under some misapprehension that he is a Congressman from and representing the values of rural Kentucky. Certainly they seem to see him as often as we do.

--Hiram

John said...

Seems pretty aligned with the 3rd to me.

Gov Track

John said...

On the Issues

Paulsen Against Fed Funding Abortions

Anonymous said...

Republicans are for all the right things. They just aren't for making them happen.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

From Congressman Paulsen:

"Fostering greater competition by allowing insurance to be purchased across states lines and allowing small businesses to pool together."

Politicians of both parties don't understand economics. The difference between the two parties in this regard is that while Democrats know they don't, Republicans think they do. Allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines, which is standard Republican boilerplate, illustrates this in several different ways.

First off, there is the idea that competition makes things cheaper. This is self evident to politicians, but not obvious at all to those who think of these things outside a political context. To start with, competition is expensive. Competition requires expensive duplication of what competitors do. Each competitor has to have marketing departments, delivery operations, they have to R&D departments doing the same thing, often driving up the wages of the limited number of people who can do them. The main purpose of just about every merger you see is to reduce costs, something that may or may not influence prices.

Anonymous said...

Specifically, with reference to health care, the notion that insurance isn't presently sold across state lines is something of a fantasy, oddly shared by many Republicans. While it is technically true that insurance is sold by states incorporated within the states where the insurance is sold, the reality is that these companies are themselves owned and operated by national companies. If you don't believe that corporate policy is set nationally rather than locally, as recently demonstrated by United Healthcare's decision to withdrawal from a number of states simultaneously, I have a very nice bridge that extends from Brooklyn to Manhattan to sell you. I have to say, when I see news like that, I wonder if there are Repubicans anywhere who read the Wall Street Journal for anything besides the cartoons.

--Hiram

Anonymous said...

There are two ways to look at this sale of insurance across state line thing, and Republicans often seem confused about them. First, and this has been proposed by Republicans in the state legislature, is that insurance should be sold nationally, but exchanges established by the federal government. You hear about his every time there is blip with MnSure. What's strange about this isn't the notion that insurance should be sold using national exchanges, a reasonable policy which has it's good points and bad points. Rather it's why Republicans are advocating a policy which is clearly Democratic in nature. Whatever it's merits, nationalizing health insurance isn't a states rights kind of a deal.

The second way of looking at this, is to allow states to regulate the sale of health insurance which can be sold nationally. This is nonsense policy in several different ways on several different levels. To start with, consider the states rights argument. If states rights mean anything, it means that states should be able to set their own policy on issues. It can't mean that, for example, Minnesota policy should be set in Florida, a state with different interests, in which Minnesotans are not allowed to vote. States rights can't meant that Florida has the right to impose it's policies on Minnesotans. But secondly, where does anyone get the idea that Florida policies will be available in Minnesota, a state with among other things an entirely different set of actuarial circumstances, which are what determine insurance costs. Sure Florida companies could sell insurance in Minnesota, but they will sell policies adjusted to Minnesota conditions, pretty much losing their identity as Florida policies with the effect that Florida policies aren't sold across state lines in any meaningful way at all.

--Hiram

Laurie Wagner said...

I think the 3rd district is less conservative than you think. Obama won the district in 2012, as did Klobuchar (with 62%) In 2014 Franken lost by 0.1 % and Dayton lost by 3%, but Otto and Swanson won in statewide contests. In the state legislture dems won half the seats in the district.

Anyway, I think it is sort of a swing district, but Cook rates it as lean republican. I think Paulson will win based on what appears to me to be a moderate personality (presenting himself as moderate), which sometimes counts more than a conservative voting record.

Anonymous said...

The Third is trending Democratic and has been for some while. Minnesotans just have a natural tendency to vote for incumbents for Congress. We had a real opportunity to take this district immediately after Ramstand retired, but we sort of blew it. It is interesting to see that Terri is making this move now. She was always just about the only Democrat with a serious chance of beating Paulsen.

--Hiram