Wetterling to make announcement on Friday

Posted at 1:27 PM on February 1, 2006 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)

Patty Wetterling will make an announcement on Friday. Asked whether she is running for the 6th District, an aide said only, "we'll see you Friday," according to MPR's Tom Scheck.

Check and Balances (registration required) reports on internal polling from the Wetterling camp:

In a poll of 400 Sixth Congressional Districts residents with a margin of error of +/-4%, Wetterling beats all comers in a head-to-head match-up. The poll was weighted heavily in favor of Republican voters with 40% represented and only 28% being Democratic voters. Of the respondents 42% percent self-identified as Conservative, 24% self identified as Liberal and 29% self-identified as Moderates.

In hard name identification Wetterling polled at 76% while Elwyn Tinklenberg barely made double digits at 15%. In the break down:

Of the respondents, only 4% had never heard of Wetterling and 22% did not know enough to form an opinion, compared to 45% had never heard of Tinklenberg, and of those who had, 40% did not know enough to form an opinion.

---

Comments (4)

Bob: Did you see the poll before you reported on the results?

I called a few reporters to ask them if they would write a story about poll numbers provided by a campaign without actually seeing the poll. The responses were "are you joking?", "never"," and "no."

Posted by Michael B. Brodkorb | February 1, 2006 5:09 PM

---

No, I don't have the poll numbers. And I agree with the reporters, I wouldn't write a story without seeing the results either. And I didn't.

I will say that generally speaking, I don't particularly trust polls commissioned by candidates. I find that polls of that nature will generally say what the person paying for them would like them to say.

Is that the case here? I have no idea. Is it -- legitimate or not -- a factor in what Wetterling has decided to do? If I had to guess, Michael, I'd say probably so.

It's entirely possible that the fact I relayed what C&B was reporting -- or, as I often do, what MDE or other bloggers are writing -- creates the impression that it makes it fact. I don't think it does. It means that the blogs are cooking and people should check them out.

Are the numbers right? Who knows? Like I asked a week or so ago, what constitutes right?

Now be kind, man, when you go off on me. (g)

Posted by Bob Collins | February 1, 2006 5:45 PM

---

Here's the problem: I write a blog called Minnesota Democrats Exposed, you write a blog for Minnesota Public Radio.

While I have a responsibility to be accurate, I have no responsibility to be fair and balanced. I am not the League of Women Voters. I am Republican and my blog exposes Democrats.

When a prominent media organization reports poll results that have not been independently verified, it raises flags.

I understand this is a blog, but it is still a blog for Minnesota Public Radio. I just spoke with someone who said "MPR is publishing Checks and Balances story about Wetterling's [expletive]poll."

Now to be technically accurate, I informed this person that it was being reported on MPR's blog, but this didn't make any difference.

Regardless of where the information appeared (blog v. front page), I think your standards for posting poll numbers should be the same since this is an MPR blog.

Posted by Michael B. Brodkorb | February 1, 2006 6:14 PM

---

What you're saying is there's a perceptual difference in the reliability of information on MDE (or any other non-mainstream blog) and Polinaut (or any other MSM "blog") and that may be true. But should there be?

Should MSM not blog? Should they -- it -- not call attention to the work of MDE, or C&B, or MNPublius or any of the other bloggers in the same medium merely because they don't do it on
the radio? Or in the newspaper.

You know? I don't have the answer to that question but the fact you're raising it is going to push the issue into the public discourse where it needs to be.

MSM is changing and part of that is calling attention to what's being published out there.

I think in the long run people are going to have to be educated that there are two media worlds colliding and that what's happening in the blogs right now -- especially politically and especially in Minnesota -- is much more dynamic than what's happening in MSM. I think people are going to have to get educated on what blogs are, what the blogosphere is, how it differs, and in the process learn which sites exist for what reason.

Personally, I don't feel that the fact some people might think a post that says "Checks and Balances" is reporting this or that is equivalent to Tom Crann reporting it or it appearing on the news section of the Web site is a good enough reason to not to do it. I think it's a good reason to begin the discussion.

I hope we can do that and I'd be delighted to talk to you or anybody else about it any time and any place in order to learn more about this.

I don't have the answers. I have a lot of questions and I'd like to explore the issue further in those conversations.

Posted by Bob Collins | February 1, 2006 6:34 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

Email Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Save to Delicious
• Submit to Digg
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories

Become a Sponsor