6th District race moving out of "competitive" territory, poll suggests

Posted at 8:24 AM on November 1, 2006 by Bob Collins (23 Comments)

Mike Mulcahy (who returns to Polinaut after Election Day, by the way) passes along the results of the Zogby/Reuters poll in the 6th District.

MINNESOTA 6 - Republican Michele Bachmann expanded her lead

over Democrat Patty Wetterling to 52 percent to 42 percent in

the race to succeed Rep. Mark Kennedy, who is running for

senator.

Of the 15 "key" races Zogby surveyed, Democrats are favored in 10 of them and Michele Bachmann is the only one in which a Republican has a double-digit lead.

---

Comments (23)

There you go. MPR's been covering her for six years, and for six years you guys have missed the gorilla in the room--the fact that Bachmann's a right wing lying nut.

So now she's pulling ahead, and she's likely to win, especially given her last minute voting rally orchestrated by James Dobson and focus on the family.

She never could have gotten this far if you guys had reported the truth about her to the public:

"There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.”—Senator Michele Bachmann, Bachmann-Wetterling-Binkowski candidates’ debate. October 7, 2006, Voter's Choice Candidate Forum

Implying Pawlenty's a Marxist because of his “Tax-Free Zones” initiative: “…it’s all for the planned redistribution of wealth which is also stated in this document, the redistribution of wealth which is based on a new concept called equity. And it says this: we must not lose sight of equity, or fairness based on need. Where have you heard that here, today? From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, EdWatch conference, October 10-11, 2003.

“This is not about hating homosexuals. I don’t. I love homosexuals.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 20, 2004.

Interviewer: “Answer the question, do you hate homos?” MB: “No, but ask my kids! (laughter)” — Senator Michele Bachmann, Tom Barnard Morning Show, KQRS, broadcast May 12, 2005.

A command from God, and a lie: "And in the midst of all this, as if we didn’t have enough to do, He called me to run for the Minnesota State Senate. I had no idea, and no desire to be in politics. Absolutely none." (A lie: a year previous to her Senate run in 2000, she'd run a vigorous public campaign as a GOP endorsed candidate in her hometown of Stillwater. Note that she told the lie while testifying for Jesus in church before the believers. Oct 14, 2006.)

Another command from God: "And in the midst of that calling, God then called me to run for the United States Congress."

And the worldview: “We’re in a state of crisis where our nation is literally ripping apart at the seams right now, and lawlessness is occurring from one ocean to the other. And we’re seeing the fulfillment of the Book of Judges here in our own time, where every man doing that which is right in his own eyes—in other words, anarchy.” – Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 1, 2006 11:19 AM

---

That's interesting, Bill, because about a week or so ago you posted that your work was finally getting through, that MSM was finally listening to you in what before had been an effort limited to letters to the editors and posts to blogs.

Let's assume that's true. Let's assume that your message was finally getting through.

Why did Bachmann's numbers go UP when they should -- if your theory holds -- been going down?

At some point, I think, one must consider that the possibility is that the problem isn't that the voters in the 6th District don't know Michele Bachmann, it might be because they do.

It's possible that the more you point out what you think are her "flaws," the majority of the voters find out more about here they like.

Isn't that possible?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 11:31 AM

---

Bob,
It's all about the facade that Bachmann is able to hide behind and I agree with Bill that the media came to the table way too late. I also believe that Wetterling's campaign has done a severe disservice to her by coming out negative and not staying above the fray as Klobuchar has done. Yes, Wetterling should be able to point out Bachmann's extremism but with the truth not half truths and misleading ads. And they could have promoted Patty's ideas for change. There was so much material for them to use and they chose to take the low road. I hold them responsible, not Patty.

The bottom line for voters to consider before marking their ballots is this: If they want change in Washington and in the Congress and want a resentative that will address the real issues that face this State and Country they will vote for Wetterling; if they want a representative that will hold the Constitution up as her guide and will really listen to her constituents and work for THEM they will vote for Wetterling a true voice of reason, a needed change. If the voters want a representative that will fall into the Republican fold and will continue the the policies of the do nothing Congress we have had over the past 6 years they will vote for Bachmann; if they want a representative that will vote her church and religious beliefs over the Constitution and the needs of her constituents they will vote for Bachmann.

I pray voters choose their Wetterling.

Posted by Kate | November 1, 2006 12:12 PM

---

Kate, I think you make good points. But I think when we look back to dissect this race, we might find that the attention paid to Bachmann's religious beliefs is exactly what fueled her support.

It's a fine line to define and I'm not sure the anti-Bachmann people have been very good at defining it. As much as calling attention to her religious beliefs, some of it could be interpreted as mocking her religion (look at the Avidor-produced videos of her church appearance. The graphics were gratuitous and could be misinterpreted).

The 6th District is the WRONG district to appear to mock someone's religion. I think that's why Wetterling's folks stayed away from taking that issue on and hoped the media would do it for them.

In that vein -- and I'm not concluding this and, yes, I know this will spawn plenty of comments and outrage -- I think it's at LEAST a POSSIBILITY that the non-Wetterling campaign, anti-Bachmann effort has hurt Wetterling as much as it helped.

That'll be for the aft-election analysis, though.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 12:24 PM

---

Bob--
You are exactly right--it may be the attention to Bachmann's PROFESSED Christianity that's driving a spike in poll numbers--

But my accusations agains the MSM and MPR were never limited to your failure to report his outre religious beliefs--you guys have also failed to report the global conspiracy theories she's signed on to and sponsored, you failed to report her ridiculous accusations against fellow Republicans

This candidacy would have broken up this candidacy months ago, if you'd just done your jobs and reported to the truth about this candidate and what she's said and where she stands. She wouldn't have even made it through the endorsement phase, if the MSM had been reporting her claims of fulfilled prophecies, crazy government conspiracy theories and hate rhetoric as they occurred.

That's not just my opinion--that BACHMANN'S opinion, and the opinion of her managers. That's why took special care to downplay those elements in her political agenda. There's nothing in her mailings or TV ads about God, or conspiracy rhetoric, or homophobia. That's for the "insider" audience--she KNOWS that that stuff would kill her off if you MSM guys reported it, that's why she's taken pains to turn it off in a run-up to an election.

You don't understand: I'm not a DFL activist or Wetterling campaign worker, who calculates political strategy. My belief is that the press should do its job and tell the public all the relevant facts about where a candidate stands--before election day-- REGARDLESS of how it affects vote totals.

It's not your place, as journalists, to "spike" the truth about a candidate's extremist positions. It's your duty to report them. That's why I'm criticizing the MSM's performance on covering this candidate.

When Bachmann goes into Congress and starts up with her hatemongering and extremism again--many of the voters will be able to say "I didn't know she was like that, the papers never told me, MPR never reported that she was like that." They will have the excuse of ignorance, because you guys sat on the facts.

You guys in the media don't have that excuse--"ignorance." You know what Bachmann is, because I, and other people, have made the evidence available to you guys, laid it in your lap for at least two months. You know what she is, and you failed to use your access to report it to the public--for years.

If she is elected, I predict that you will come to understand exactly how damning that criticism is.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 1, 2006 1:00 PM

---

You didn't answer my question, Bill. If, as you suggested, your "work" is finally getting a home -- if her "extreme" religious beliefs were finally reported -- City Pages and MSM that jumped on the church service -- why are Bachmann's numbers going up instead of down?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 1:06 PM

---

Because there are a lot religious extremists in the Sixth District, and because a lot of people's initial reaction to the MSM's covering of her religion is that she's "being attacked" for her religion. If the MSM had been reporting her the extreme nature of her politics and how they're tied to her religious beliefs--if you guys had been doing your job and reporting those facts all along--the voters would have had years to consider and evaluate Bachmann's profession of faith and politics. Instead, they've only got days--because you guys spiked the story; the facts.

That's--in my opinion--could be why her poll numbers are going up. Again--so you and everyone else get it--my anti-Bachmann activism was all about trying to get the media to report the truth about Bachmann to the public . What they do with the truth is up to them.

And you know--the media still hasn't printed most of the facts about Bachmann's extremism and hatemongering, Bob. Do you realize that? Most of the quotes I've been sending you and everyone else for the last two months, via "The Bachmann Record" just never made it into the papers or on to the radio. They may have influenced a couple of editors and reporters, and maybe they played a part in one of the Wetterling endorsments--but the public never saw all of Bachmann's documented craziness. You guys spiked it.

Okay, there's the answer to your question: now please answer mine, if we're here to answer each other's questions:

Why did you spike all the stuff I've sent you on Bachmann, Bob? All the documented stuff, all the extremist quotes? Why did you refuse to report the evangelical, Christian fundamentalist nature of her candidacy? Why did you and Tom fail to use your public platform to report the fact that she's a protege of Jim Dobson's national evangelical political movement? Why did you tell me that her Christian fundamentalist beliefs were no more relevant to her candidacy than your Methodism is to your reporting?
Why did you wait until other papers reported on her attempt to insert sectarian religious politics into our local politics, before you even started to talk about it here?

Why did you guys dismiss all those documented, sourced facts I directed you to--as irrelevant to the reporting on this particular political candidate? Why didn't you check it out and report the facts on this candidate to your readers, to your listeners on MPR?

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 1, 2006 1:51 PM

---

I'm in the camp that thinks bringing her religion into the race is a mistake. While on the one hand, the Wetterling campaign can be complimented on this point, on the other they dropped the ball by using misleading ads & mailers. They could easily have attacked Bachmann on her record without making religion on issue. Take her head-on on the 'A' issue, for instance. It is not a 'mainstream' position in Minnesota to ban all procedures, even in the case of rape & incest. Publicize her position on education, where she'd cut off public funding for schools. That is not a mainstream position. But they gave her a pass, and didn't press her on the claim that "Education is a high priority." Voters like to hear that its a priority, but if they find out what her exact priority is, they'll abandon her as a viable candidate. Trying to score points on the 'Fair Tax' plan and the latest ad about child safety are poorly done, ineffective and don't stand up to scrutiny. The Wetterling campaign's last hope is that the Republicans don't bother to vote.

Posted by bsimon | November 1, 2006 1:58 PM

---

No need for Republicans to go to the polls on Tuesday... a higher power has already anointed the "Chosen One".

Posted by Avidor | November 1, 2006 2:11 PM

---

Bob,
I agree that the Wetterling campaign should not have picked up on Bachmann's extreme religious beliefs but there is much more out there about her Senate record (or lack there of) and her real stances on the issues such as taxes to expose her for what she really is. Bill is right, many pointed out her extremism but no one in the MSM did anything but ignore it. Now it looks like the 6th has a good chance of electing as a representative a religious zealot that has no tolerance or understanding of those different than herself and who won't while voting uphold the First Amendment Establishment clause citing the separation of church and state; someone who condones people holding signs at a capitol rally that said 'Death to Homosexuals'; a representative that has lied about her record on lowering taxes and about being a tax litigation attorney, who doesn't think global warming is real. Bachmann being able to hide her real agenda has been supported by the MSM in ignoring and not publishing the reality of Michele Bachmann. Yes all of this will be dissected after the election and the MSM will act so surprised, won't they?

I hope I can take this all back on Nov. 8th, I pray that I will owe you an apology........

Posted by Kate | November 1, 2006 2:13 PM

---

You don't owe me anything one way or the other.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 2:23 PM

---

I have to agree with Mr. Prendergast. Viewed as impartially as possible, I would expect any media organization to have latched on to Bachmann's lunacy and shaken it like a small dog shakes a toy. Instead for some reason she is treated like a real candidate, legitimizing her views and further dragging the framework of politics off to the right. I can't fathom why the media goes so easy on this crazy person who is pursuing high office, but it sure seems irresponsible.

Posted by Albatross | November 1, 2006 2:34 PM

---

"lunacy" "crazy" "extremist"

As defined by?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 2:37 PM

---

Bob,

You've been hacking into my Rovian Brain Implant chip and downloading my thoughts again, haven't you.

This has been a constant theme of mine throughout the six month run of BvW, that the established media/secular world doesn't understand the effect they have on religious voters when do they things like, refer to Bachmann's appearance in the Living Word church as an "embarrassment."

They may think that, they may think that is the cultural norm, but religious voters firmly suspect that those who say such things about Bachmann believe it about them as well. And there will be more than a few votes cast Tuesday night for Bachmann because of it.

Another argument of mine is what you just pointed out. Bachmann has what is probably winning support in the 6th CD because voters darn well know where she stands on a lot of issues and they agree with her.

One thing that has struck me about the polls is their relative stability. And let me explain. There have been eight polls now that named the candidates. There was a ninth done by EMILY's List, but I don't include that in my running summary as they didn't release the internals. That one had Bachmann up by three, though. And, there was a generic poll at the end of August.

I discount the MN Poll because I think it underrepresented Republicans and overrepresented Independents and women.

The Majority Watch poll that had Wetterling up 5 was done during Foley Week. I have questions about the accuracy of the Majority Watch polls, too, because they seem to be underrepresenting Anoka and Washington Counties.

Setting those two aside, Bachmann has been ahead by varying degrees in every poll.

What's more, the number of undecided has been quite low in every poll, even going back to August. Just a few percent. 2 or 3% in some polls, 5% in others.

Generally speaking, Bachmann has good support among women, Wetterling has a slightly smaller lead among women. And you can see stability in other categories as well from poll to poll.

To me that suggests people made up their minds early. The religious voters said finally, we have one of our own to vote for. Everybody else gets someone from their camp, now it's our turn.

Add to that Wetterling's nutty campaign of trying to portray Bachmann as a tax raiser, and now the media's unseemly coverage (perceived as a sneering attack by religious voters) there's no way Wetterling was going to get any traction in this district.

Yes, the NRCC money has helped. But what I think it did was help keep down the noise generated the media's coverage of Bachmann.

Point me to where there has been supportive coverage of Bachmann in the media.

I think in the various debates, in the coverage of her religious views (and that originated in the swamps and was intended to hurt her), a majority/plurality of voters saw someone they agreed with, who shares their views on a lot of issues. Especially social and religious ones.

So, the Bills and Kates of the world can wonder why the voters don't see the same Bachmann they do. Well, I think they do see a lot of the same things, they just don't agree that it's "extreme" to let one's religious views influence one's political views.

Binkowski said on that impromptu debate on KSTP AM 1500 Friday night, "No one jumps into a Congressional race without something moving them to do it, and in Michele’s defense, whether it’s God, whether it’s your gut, whatever you want to call it, whether it’s some mystical something that drives you to try and do something good for the people you want to represent, it doesn’t really make any difference."

That, I think, in a nutshell is what the Bachmann-haters can't accept.

Posted by Jeff | November 1, 2006 2:43 PM

---

Bob asks, "lunacy, etc. as defined by whom?"

As defined by reasonable people.

Here's a short list of things that bother me about Bachmann:

- She thinks climate change is a hoax. When the scientific consensus is that it's real, this is an irresponsible position for a political leader to take. It is indeed lunacy to ignore experts on an issue that has serious consequences for all of us.

- She wants "Intelligent Design" taught in public schools. Again, she completely disregards reasoned scientific thought on this topic, not to mention constitutional protection of religion. That's extremist. It's not about free speech, it's about the establishment clause. Establishment of or support of a particular religion by the state is the biggest threat to religion.

- Her church belongs to a Lutheran sect that considers the Pope an antichrist.

This last point is more subtle than people understand. I'm a Catholic, so I have a fair amount of knowledge about this issue. "Antichrist" isn't like Damien in "The Omen." It is simply someone who claims the power and/or authority of Christ. Nothing supernatural about it. This is all explained pretty well on the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) site, which I give them credit for.

Where WELS gets it wrong is stating that the Pope claims this authority. The Pope has no such authority and has not claimed it. Even the "infallibility" teaching is only valid when the _ex_cathedra_ statement has approval from the other bishops of the Church (among other criteria). The Pope can't just state something and make it so. Remember, the Pope is simply the bishop of Rome, "first among equals" as they say.

Now that that (hopefully) informative bit of theology is out of the way, I'll get to what bugs me about Bachmann on this issue. She's been asked directly about this doctrine but refuses to address the question. She talks about having Catholic friends, etc. but never rejects this teaching of her synod.

Now, I'm not really offended by this, as it's ignorance on her part. But it bothers me that someone running for public office has such a fundamental misunderstanding of the faith of a significant number of people in this country, not to mention her district. It doesn't bode well for building realtionships with Muslims, for example, and that's something we need leadership on from Congress.

Posted by David Greene | November 1, 2006 2:57 PM

---

Was going to say, too.

I think there are two reasons the Wetterling campaign has stayed away from Bachmann's religious views.

You mentioned one. "The 6th District is the WRONG district to appear to mock someone's religion. I think that's why Wetterling's folks stayed away from taking that issue on and hoped the media would do it for them."

The other one I'll tell you off-line sometime. I don't want it put in on e-paper because I don't think it belongs in the debate anymore than Bachmann's religious views did.

(Maybe I'll have a chance to talk to you Tuesday. I was just over there today at the palatial MPR World HQ over the noon hour checking out the UBS Forum.)

And, credit where credit is due. I thought Tim Pugmire's recent piece on the 6th District was one of the fairest done during the race. It recapped what has gone on, mentioned Bachmann's religious views, and didn't seem like it was sneering behind its hand at the same time.

Posted by Jeff | November 1, 2006 3:04 PM

---

"That, I think, in a nutshell is what the Bachmann-haters can't accept."

Jeff, I don't hate Michele Bachmann, I love Michele Bachmann. Just like she loves me.......she wants to amend my civil rights out of the Constitution.

Posted by Kate | November 1, 2006 3:17 PM

---

Bill and Kate are absolutely right. I've been one of the Bachmann critics who has been feeding background information and tips to the media ever since Bachmann has been in office. Precious little has ever seen print or air time, other than my own letters to the editor and op/ed pieces, which carry far less weight than a news story.

If MPR and the rest of the MSM had spent a fraction of the time it spends on the "horse race" aspects of campaigns--polls, how much money was raised, etc.--and devoted it instead to WHERE the money comes from, who's behind the money, and what the candidates say when they don't think the cameras or tape records are rolling, we wouldn't be looking at Michele Bachmann leading this race. To suggest that you're doing your job by paying attention in the last two weeks of the campaign is sad.

Of all the money raised by Michele Bachmann, can you cite ONE MPR story that focused on where the money came from, rather than what celebrity Bushite came to town to raise it for Bachmann? Like how much she raised from outside the 6th CD? Or how much she's raised from a wealthy developer in Georgia and others who advocate an end to all public education (that's over $50,000, by the way)? Or who are among her contributors (leading John Birch Society members, politicians connected to Jack Abramoff and other scandalous figures)? Why was a story never done on how much Bachmann hates Tim Pawlenty's pet JOBZ Program, and how she considers it a socialist plot? Or how about the fact that Bachmann's own family business provides NO health care benefits to their 30 employees? What about the mysterious disappearance of Bachmann's hateful anti-gay rhetoric from her campaign? Have you ever reported on the fact that Bachmann considers being gay "part of Satan?" You've been offered a CD of that speech. Do you think the majority of voters in the 6th CD feel that way about their gay friends and neighbors? What about Bachmann lying about her family taking a vote on gay marriage--a lie that has been reported by TWO of her own family members, but only in blogs or the "alternative media"? Or her bizarre antics in Scandia, claiming to be trapped in a bathroom by militant homosexuals--an incident that resulted in a false police report by Bachmann.

This isn't the first time these issues have been presented to you guys--and been ignored. But these and dozens of other stories about the REAL Michele Bachmann have been under your nose for yeares, as Bill pointed out. The ONLY media that has done its job reporting them has been City Pages and a few blogs.

Yes, the Wetterling campaign has been awful. Her campaign manager has never even acknowledged the wealth of information and tips we've provided him, much less used them. But when you hire a kid who lives in Uptown Minneapolis to run a 6th CD race, what do you expect? The DCCC has been even worse. Ads that have been roundly criticized for being misleading continue to run ad nauseum and are based on the weakest, most invalid criticisms of Bachmann.

If Wetterling wins, it will be in spite of her terrible campaign and the kid-gloves treatment MPR and the rest of the MSM have treated Michele Bachmann with.

Posted by Karl | November 1, 2006 3:19 PM

---

Jeff wrote: Point me to where there has been supportive coverage of Bachmann in the media.

I have pointed it out to you. I've just pointed it out on this page, above, again, and so have several other people. The "supportive coverage" that the MSM has been their policy of spiking all coverage of her extremist views, her hatemongering, her conspiracy. Leaving that stuff out of their reporting on her is "supportive coverage."

Jeff wrote: they just don't agree that it's "extreme" to let one's religious views influence one's political views.

That's a ridiculous charge to make--a straw man argument--but I have no doubt you believe it, so I will answer it. 1) I have never said or argued or believed that it's extreme to let one's religious views influence one's political views. My religious views influence my political views; it's practically impossible to avoid that and that wouldn't be wrong at all--if that's all that Bachmann represented and stood for.

2) The objection to Bachmann's infusion of her personal religious agenda into public policy is based on the notions that a) it's wrong to use the law and the power of the state to impose sectarian religious views on fellow citizens who don't agree with those views. That's belief--that it's wrong to do that--is a core American value; that religion is a matter of private conscience, it's not a political football, and b) Bachmann's particular religious beliefs are bizarre and disturbing because her particular vision of Christianity gives her permission to peddle hatred and lies--in the name of Christ.

That's on the record; it's her words, not my deductions, that inevitably lead a fair minded person to that conclusion--she's a political and religious extremist. See the web page I run, "The Bachmann Record" for a list of the paranoid and hatemongering statements she's made over the years--you'll find it under the issue brief called "Bachmann Quotations."
The brief couldn't possibly include all of the out and out lies she's told over the years, but it will get you started.

Bob Collins still doesn't accept that she's an extremist and a dangerous hate peddler. He thinks it's a matter of opinion, not record, even thought the record has been there for him to see all along.

Bob wrote:
"lunacy" "crazy" "extremist"

As defined by?

As defined by the dictionary, as defined by her record and rhetoric. I've called Bob's attention and the attention of a number of other journalists and people who write on public affairs for months, and they still won't alert the public. Bob hasn't answered my questions about why MPR, for example, wouldn't acquaint their audience with her extremism--the documented stuff. The stuff that I and other people have recorded from video, audio, etc, that just never seems to get in the MSM.

The local MSM has failed in their duty to inform the electorate about this candidate's extremism and hate rhetoric, they've failed to inform the electorate that Bachmann is the local puppet of a nationally organized sectarian political movement. They didn't even begin to address the issue until their hand was forced by national coverage on Bachmann by the networks, the Washington Post, the New York Times.

It's too bad. It's a fascinating political story and MPR and the big dailies chose to ignore it; they blew their chance to blow her "mainstream Ronald Reagan conservative" cover, and they failed in their duty to inform the public about her extremism--for six years. What I am asking Bob is: why? Why did you spike the facts? The ones that show that this candidate is an extremist who views the world through a prism of fear and hatred and supernaturalism? Many people will pay for your mistake, because her political success will inspire political imitation.

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 1, 2006 4:22 PM

---

The complaint, as I see it, is you're ticked off at the news media becuase it has not pointed out that -- in the words I've seen here -- Michele Bachmann is crazy, extremist, nutshell, lunatic.

"As defined by what?" I asked.

"As defined by reasonable people," the answer came back.

And who defines what reasonable people are?

I'll ask again. If you acknowledfge that your "message" is getting through -- late, but getting throught -- then why are Bachmann's numbers going up, instead of down?

Of all the people who were in the church that Michele Bachmann was in, was there anybody there who was reasonable? Who? The ones who disagreed with her?

You're assuming that if Michele Bachmann gets elected, it's because people didn't know anything about her. But the louder the words come -- words like, lunatic, crazy, extremist, nutshell -- the higher her poll numbers go.

Why?

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 4:37 PM

---

Bob, 2 days ago there was a poll showing Bachmann with a 48-47 lead. Tom Scheck wrote:

Majority Watch has some new polling out. In the 6th, Republican Michele Bachmann has a one point lead over DFLer Patty Wetterling. Bachmann is polling at 48%, Wetterling is polling at 47%. The margin of error is 3.01%.

Today, you write,

6th District race moving out of "competitive" territory, poll suggests

No mention of the previous poll. Why not?

Posted by Pat Smith | November 1, 2006 6:02 PM

---

For the same reason I didn't mention the poll before that, and the poll before that and the poll before that. They've already been mentioned.

If you're asking me to compare the two polls, forget it.

I've already written the Polinaut for tomorrow's Senate poll -- but it won't roll up until 3 -- but I talk a little bit in there about this tendency to look at a poll and then compare it to another poll and conclude that there's some movement from one to another.

That's bad science. All you can do is compare one poll with one methodology to an earlier version of the same poll.

The last Reuters poll had Bachmann up 3. This one has her up 10.

What can we conclude about that? We can conclude that one poll had her up 3 and another had her up 10.

And then we can guess as to what it all means.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 1, 2006 6:12 PM

---

Bob--
You can't be that determined to miss the point. You asked me again, a question that I've already answered:

Bob wrote: I'll ask again. If you acknowledfge that your "message" is getting through -- late, but getting throught -- then why are Bachmann's numbers going up, instead of down?

Here's the answer to that question, an answer I've already given you in this same thread.

"Because there are a lot religious extremists in the Sixth District, and because a lot of people's initial reaction to the MSM's covering of her religion is that she's "being attacked" for her religion. If the MSM had been reporting her the extreme nature of her politics and how they're tied to her religious beliefs--if you guys had been doing your job and reporting those facts all along--the voters would have had years to consider and evaluate Bachmann's profession of faith and politics. Instead, they've only got days--because you guys spiked the story; the facts.

That's--in my opinion--could be why her poll numbers are going up."

So you there you have it again, Bob. Why are you pretending I haven't answered you're question?

You haven't answered any of mine, by the way. Instead, you wrote:

Bob: The complaint, as I see it, is you're ticked off at the news media becuase it has not pointed out that -- in the words I've seen here -- Michele Bachmann is crazy, extremist, nutshell, lunatic.

No, no, no. That's not the complaint at all! You misunderstand. The complaint is that the local news media--for the past six years, and through the current election cycle--has failed to report the *documented facts and statements* that would lead the voters to the conclusion that she is indeed a "nut", a "hatemonger". Do you understand the critical difference between the way you laid out the complaint, in the previous paragraph, and the way I've laid it out for you here, in this paragraph?

"the louder the words come -- words like, lunatic, crazy, extremist, nutshell -- the higher her poll numbers go."

Why do you care about how high her poll numbers go? Why don't you guys just print the newsworthy facts, publicize the newsworthy facts--and then let the poll numbers go where they will?

You *can't* be hinting to me that the reason you were spiking all the information about her lies and her craziest statements is that you and Tom and the Strib and the MSM were afraid that IF you printed those crazy Bachmann opinions ("Gay Americans are targeting our children", "the Pawlenty administration has a secret Marxist agenda", etc. etc.) her poll numbers would go up. That can't be what you mean.

You wouldn't take it upon yourselves to *suppress* the truth about a candidate's extremism to keep her poll numbers *down.*

Reasonable, rational people are disturbed by the very real possibility that an extremist, a divisive bigot, a conspiracy nut who relies on supernatural visions and commands sent directly to her by God in making her important decisions--has a very good chance of going to the United State Congress to represent their district.

Bob Collins wrote:
crazy, extremist, nutshell, lunatic.
"As defined by what?" I asked.

As defined by the dictionary, as defined by her rhetoric and record, I replied.

You must have read the Bachmann statements and positions I've been sending you for weeks. How can you pretend that there's any doubt about whether she's an extremist, hatemongering nut? How can you pretend that that's still just a matter of personal opinion? How can you disagree that statements like this aren't worthy of news coverage in a hotly contested, nationally covered political race for Congress? Look, Bob, she wrote this, this is one of a dozen examples of her lies and fearmongering, and she may be the next Representative for the Sixth District because you guys in the MSM never did a story on it, never even asked her about it:

On education reforms laws passed by the GOP-controlled US Congress: “Federal law forms a new governance structure that opposes both free enterprise and representative government…A new national curriculum is used that embraces a socialist, globalist worldview; loyalty to all government and not America.”. — Michael J. Chapman and Senator Michele Bachmann, “How New U.S. Policy Embraces a State-Planned Economy” © 2001.

Bob--you think there's a reasonable doubt about whether the person who wrote that, charged that, signed her name to that in her capacity as a Minnesota State Senator--is a political extremist?

Posted by Bill Prendergast | November 1, 2006 11:02 PM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• 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