If I have to see Erik say "He Approves This Ad" in front of another one of his vile TV Ads, I think I will be voting for Phillips on principle. How hopeless can Erik be if he can not promote his accomplishments and how he has helped the people of MN?
At least Phillips puts some humor into his ads.
At least Phillips puts some humor into his ads.
39 comments:
I don't think you can do it, vote for a democrat.
Of course I can... I have done it before...
I liked Terri Bonoff !!! She was the only DEM that ever talked about holding Teachers accountable. The rests pander to the questionable public employees. :-)
"How hopeless can Erik be if he can not promote his accomplishments and how he has helped the people of MN?"
NARRATOR: Erik Paulsen didn't have any accomplishments to promote.
GovTrack seems to disagree
It looks like he has been working with others to sponsor bills. The challenge of course is that I am not sure if Congress in general is passing much...
538 has an interesting site
Negative advertising is designed to drive turnout down. And negative advertising is really succeeding right now. At this point, Paulsen looks like the favorite.
--Hiram
Sponsoring bills is not an accomplishment.
Paulsen was involved a lot with the tax bill fiddling. The theory is that the economy will improve if we can borrow a lot of money, give it to rich people, and let them trickle it down to the rest of us.
--Hiram
Sean,
So you are going to hold one man personally accountable for the failures and gridlock of the system?
The reality is that pretty much none of the congress people "accomplish" anything today.
My frustration with Erik is that his "both ways" communication skills seem poor.
Hiram,
Currently RCP polls have Phillips in the lead.
And I thought negative ads were meant to get people to the polls. "We must show up to keep that terrible person out of office..."
I think those polls way overestimate DFL strength. I actually agree with Republicans on this. I don't blame anyone, I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything. I don't think it's bias It's just a problem in the ways polls are conducted. In any event, applying the margin of error. polls rarely shown any contested election as anything other than a dead heat.
--Hiram
The big question in this years election...
Can the DEMs get their supporters to show up to mid-term elections?
It looks like Paulsen has quite a few press releases. I'll need to take some time to look through them.
Paulsen has a curious aversion to meeting voters. It's always been one of his political weaknesses. Ad and press releases help to fill that gap. He helps him seem a lot more present than he is.
--Hiram
I definitely understand his aversion to the recent trend of "mob rule" town hall meetings where non-constituents show up to create a scene.
I am curious though how he gets "voice of constituent" feedback?
Or maybe it is not so important in American politics. I mean our system does not encourage a nuanced response.
"So you are going to hold one man personally accountable for the failures and gridlock of the system?"
No, I'm going to hold him accountable for all of his other failures.
"I am curious though how he gets "voice of constituent" feedback?"
At a very basic level, he doesn't care about constituent feedback. That's why he hasn't done town halls. That's why he largely avoided debates in cycles before this one. He's only changed his ways this year because he's facing a tough race.
"I definitely understand his aversion to the recent trend of "mob rule" town hall meetings where non-constituents show up to create a scene."
Tea Party Republicans were the ones who turned town hall meetings into the mess they are today, by the way. It's awful convenient for Republicans to turn away from them now.
What "other failures"? Or is it just because you disagree with his beliefs?
There are a lot of ways to get "Voice of Customer or Constituent". One can use focus groups, surveys, analyze incoming emails/comments, etc. I am not sure that Townhalls are a very productive method.
I actually like Erik's ticket idea. Anything to ensure that only his constituents were in the room. And the smaller the group the better.
So do you have a source backing up your belief that Tea Party individuals disrupted the townhalls of Democrat politicians. I must have missed that reporting.
Usually I hear about the Liberal protester getting thrown out of the Trump rally.
Well you may be correct
This an interesting history
And this a pretty pragmatic view of why TH Mtgs may be short lived
Can the DEMs get their supporters to show up to mid-term elections?
As a rule we can't. It is the point of negative advertising to drive down turnout and it is working, even with me. We won the popular vote in 2016 but lost the election. How can I tell people their vote counts with a straight face? When I know that millions of them will thrown out anyway? That there are in fact rules requiring the throwing away of votes?
--Hiram
"What "other failures"? Or is it just because you disagree with his beliefs?"
His failure to engage with constituents is key. He sure hasn't provided any sort of check on Trump (refuses to support bills to protect Mueller, refuses to force Trump to reveal his taxes, etc.) As for his beliefs, who the heck knows? He ran on cutting deficits, but has voted for policy after policy that has blown up the debt.
"Well you may be correct"
Yes, I was alive in 2009 and 2010 and have a functioning memory.
Hiram,
I don't think apathy and hopelessness looks good on you. :-)
Sean,
But what if the majority of constituents are fine with Trump, Tax Cuts, etc. Then he has a firm grasp of what his constituents want. Remember my view that most all voters vote their wallet and care little about the debt they are leaving their children and grand children.
However you could be wrong based on my second link. :-) I mean townhall disruption is just form of civil disobedience, and it seems that the Left has been using that for a very long time.
My guess the disruptions had more to do with a combination of things:
- Minority group having no power (ie DEMs controlled all)
- Social media making it easier to organize
- Growing polarization due to social media and cable news
By the way, that would be why the Liberal citizens are acting like a mob lately...
- Minority group having no power (ie GOP controls all)
- Social media making it easier to organize
- Growing polarization due to social media and cable news
The proverbial shoe has changed feet. :-)
liberals are the majority, the fact that they have no power means we don't live in a true democracy.
As always... Thank heavens...
It would be bad if the Urban Coastal citizens ruled the country.
definition of democracy:
control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
btw we here in the midwest / MN we are also majority liberal
partisan is arguing in favor of minority rule.
Strangely... Apparently most everybody is "partisan".
Partisan: a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person
especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance
political partisans who see only one side of the problem
So let's cut out the fluff.
Partisan: a firm adherent to a cause exhibiting unreasoning allegiance and only seeing one side of the problem.
To me that seems like a member of Tribe Liberal or Tribe Conservative. :-)
Laurie,
So I can understand why Liberals are upset that our country is not a national democracy like some other smaller countries. I mean straight majority rule sounds idealistic.
The 51% can pretty well order the society as they wish, even if they live in a small portion of the country. My favorite example is Iraq's fledging democracy where the Shiites pretty much rule the roost.
I just disagree with such a simplistic system as you know. I want the government looking out for best interest of the whole country, not just the regions in the densely populated regions. Therefore I like the US system.
Can you consider the benefits and down sides of both positions?
Liberals are upset that our country is not a national democracy like some other smaller countries. I mean straight majority rule sounds idealistic.
Actually counting votes does sound idealistic but that isn't an argument against it.
The 51% can pretty well order the society as they wish, even if they live in a small portion of the country.
The alternative is allowing a minority to order the country. People who live in a house in Wyoming live in exactly the portion of the country that people who live in a house of the same size in New York do. Nobody lives in all of Wyoming at once.
--Hiram
To me... The alternative is that the Parties need to work harder to support solutions that work for citizens who live in different regions of the country.
Not just focus on folks of a certain region / belief set.
Just like if Iraq ever wants to be stable like the USA, they will need to work together to implement policies and power sharing that meets the needs of the Shia in the South, the Sunni in the NW and the Kurds in the NE...
So from your view, apparently you think the Shia (urban liberals) should order the countries as they wish... I just don't see that ending well in either country.
But right now you have a rural minority that is ordering the country as they wish. Why is that preferable?
"By the way, that would be why the Liberal citizens are acting like a mob lately..."
I'm sure Heather Heyer would be amused by your thoughts, except for the fact that she's dead, killed by the member of a right-wing mob.
I guess I have not seen the rural / suburban minority ordering much... Mostly they have simply slowed some changes instead of letting themselves be run over...
ACA is still in place.
Gay marriage is still legal.
Illegal workers still live here en masse.
Medicaid and welfare still exist.
EPA and most laws are still on the books.
And as you note, the government keeps spending...
As for Heather Heyer... When a mob comes to obstruct a legal gathering of like minded people marching down the street... Tempers can flare and bad things can happen. Do you think Heather would be dead if the counter protesters had not escalated the tensions?
I know you don't like comparing the 2 crowds, but they both raised the tensions...
"When a mob comes to obstruct a legal gathering"
The group you call "a mob" was also a legal gathering that also had a permit.
"I know you don't like comparing the 2 crowds, but they both raised the tensions..."
Sure, we can compare them. One group that "raised the tensions" were Nazis. One group wasn't. Comparison over.
Oh, and by the way, has anyone complaining about a "left-wing mob" watched a Trump rally recently? The sight of the "due process for Kavanaugh" crowd shouting "lock her up" about any woman who crosses Trump is precious.
Even Alt Right and Nazis have the right to gather and speak out in the USA. It seems to me that the counter protesters were trying to stifle that right, and it looks like the counter protester's permit was for a different park.
Imagine how the Left would complain and gnash their teeth if people got in the way of a BLM march... And how angry they get when the police clear those folks from our highways.
My point is if folks choose to "stand up" to other folks... Injuries and/or death may occur. That is the risk both participants take.
I do agree that both sides are equally capable of being hypocrites... (ie lock her/him up) No doubt there.
But not both sides care about being charged with hypocrisy. It's a curious feature of our politics.
--Hiram
Post a Comment