counter statistics

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Mike Hatch's Weakness Shown in Straw Poll Results

Checks and Balances:

DFL U.S. Senate

Amy Klobuchar 264
Ford Bell 109
Undecided 34

DFL Governor

Steve Kelley 144
Becky Lourey 117
Mike Hatch 67
Kelly Doran 36
Russ Koch 2
Undecided 33

Attorney General

There was a result, but since Matt Entenza is the only announced candidate the results were not read.

Secretary of State

Mark Ritchie 175
Christian Sande 131
Undecided 95

State Auditor
Rebecca Otto 190
Reggie Edwards 109
Undecided 98

The "800 pound gorilla" Governor Candidate Mike Hatch did very poorly. Steve Kelley organizing early has paid off. The question is whether if Hatch wasn't able to get his people out to this, will he be able to get his people out to the precinct caucuses? Hatch has union endorsements, but union endorsements are often not listened to by the rank and file. Union endorsements are good for money, but they are less effective at grass roots organizing - which for caucuses is key.

The results also make this claim from Hatch's campaign extremely questionable:

We also exceed our goals on the endorsement process. A very high percentage of state delegates have prior experience as either a state delegate or alternate. We surveyed 7,000 of those likely state delegates and found that 45% support Mike, 15% support Senator Lourey, 5% support Senator Kelley, and 2% Mr. Doran. There are over 30% that are undecided. The problem is that we don't know which people will show up to precinct caucuses on March 7, 2006, or if they do, whether they will run to be a state delegate. Mike has said he will be a candidate regardless of the endorsement as long as he has good support.

The results from this St Paul survey should be different, if the Hatch campaign reported numbers are correct.

It seems like they should have put a Hatch/Entenza matchup in the AG race.

Broken Nails comment from Prognosis Progress:

Comment from: S Q
Is it true Klobuchar bought tickets for over a hundred people? I heard it yesterday but haven't confirmed with another "supporter".

Take those away and her huge staff and its a dead-heat. Regardless, stacking the event and only getting 65%?
02/26/06 @ 01:12

At least Amy Klobuchar had supporters to buy tickets for. What about Mike Hatch? Was that part of the reason the organizers said towards the end that the event was free?

I think Klobuchar's poor showing (though she wins handily) was from a week of bad press over the trouble with her union local. Prognosis Progressive, a lefty blog has trouble with Sarah Janecek's column defending Klobuchar.

And remember kids - cronyism is okay!

Hey ladies! Fight for your right to be a power-mongering, syncophant-rewarding asshole too!

Sarah Janacek seems to raise the hackles of knee-jerk reactionaries like few others. So her column about female candidates, particularly Amy Klobuchar, not being judged by some ridiculous double standard blew people's minds.

But before joining other feminists in applause because she's seen the light, let's take a moment for a Prog Prog annecdote;

  • Have you ever tried to give a dog a pill? Shoving a small tablet into a puppy's throat can be a frustating experience. So what you should do is wrap it in something they like - watch them gobble it up!

Under the guise of feminism, Janacek slips in her poison. Since, "the supposed sin of hiring people who support their ambitions," is good enough for, "Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Norm Coleman or Klobuchar's likely GOP opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy," then gosh darn it, hiring people who support Klobuchar's ambitions is okay too.

  • FYI: Hiring people who support ambitions = cronyism.

Why didn't she throw President Bush into that GOP lineup? Has Klobuchar ever said, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of job" to one of her appointees? If she has, well according to Janacek, you must be an anti-feminist to even to call this into question.

Here's the point Janacek - The message to Klobuchar is: "DON'T USE YOUR OFFICE FOR POLITICAL GAIN AND CRONYISM! Janacek implies that somehow it is okay for Pawlenty, Coleman and Kennedy to give their toadies political appointments- it's not- and that to deny Klobuchar the same ambititous "right" is somehow wrong. Really? I thought doing so would be striking a blow for clean and transparent government.

There's a distinction between qualified and unqualified political hack appointments. The problem is there are getting to be way too many unqualified political hack appointments to important positions. The Bush administration appointment of Brownie to the FEMA director position is the most prominent of these. Tim Pawlenty's appointment of a big GOP contributor to the state Chief Information Officer position is a fairly recent, and appalling example.

There are a number of examples of Mark Kennedy using his current office in an inappropriate way to campaign for Senate. I'm still interested in finding out whether Kennedy's campaign or taxpayers paid the bill for his appearance at the Willmar Bachmann amendment rally. So when this comes Amy Klobuchar vs Mark Kennedy, this issue will be a wash.

UPDATE: Commenter MNObserver sez -

Prognosis Progressive won't accept comments from the riffraff, so Eva, I'm posting my reaction to their post here. Were I able to post over there, this is what I'd say:

Boy, did you miss the point of the Janecek column. Her problem is with those people who judge women by one standard that insists that they cannot be too ambitious or too successful, while applauding those same characteristics in male candidates. It's that same "He's a strong leader, she's a ball-busting bitch" that Janecek was speaking to, not whether Klobuchar did anything wrong.

And that is the double standard that every commenter seems to be missing. It's not seeking to have people go light on female candidates, it's about judging them all by the same standards, even ones that clash with traditional notions of how women are supposed to behave.