Home › Blogs › Ironman's blog ›

Is Minnesota gonna be nice?

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 10/25/2008 - 13:11
in

Minnesota may turn out to be the most promsing of all the "blue" states, barring perhaps the traditional McCain playground of New Hampshire. A recent poll shows McCain within 5 points there and Coleman regaining the lead for the Senate

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/688a8abb-f1a6-4ef1-a588-63fcb2b3bed1

Now MN's 10 EV's aren't PA's 21, but it still seems like PA is further out of reach than this despite immense effort brought to bear by the McCaniacs.  Besides, Obama has pretty much thought MN was in his corner previously.

MN is also a state where Palin's outdoorswomen background could be expected to be a plus; besides she sounds like the police chief in this famous movie. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film).

It will be interesting to see if McCain or Palin make any appearances here over the last week. Certaintly Norm Coleman and Michelle Bachmann could use the help in the final days.

 

2
Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

Comments

Intellectually lazy

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 10/25/2008 - 14:07.

This is not the first time someone has posted the suggestion that Palin would be boffo in Minnesota becasue it is cold there and lots of people play hockey. Sorry to be harsh, but that is just intellectual laziness. Afterall, how well did that ploy work in Michigan??

Sarah Palin is the problem, not the solution.

The $150K wardrobe thing is very big news there, becasue a good chunk of it was purchased in Minneapolis. Cue pictures of 7-yr old Piper Palin holding a $2,000 Louis Vitton bag. That pretty much destroys the "hockey mom" line of attack.

The Big Ten Poll from Oct 23 shows Palin with a majority unfavorable rating in Minnesota - 53.3%.

And McCain should not go anywhere near Bachmann, as she is now toxic and beyond redemption.

Minnesota is gone.

Bachmann shot herself in the foot

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 10/25/2008 - 17:04.

By not simply sticking to her assertion that by associating with terrorists such as Ayers and Dohrn, and anti-American figures such as Jeremiah Wright and Rashid Khalidi, it's entirely possible that Barack Obama shares their ideologies and is in fact un-American as Matthews suggested. 

I don't think she's toxic, but I do think she did not show the courage of her convictions.  Being right or wrong as a politician doesn't seem to be nearly as risky as shifting positions back and forth and then admitting naively to being "trapped".  We're seeing that play out with the House GOP members who switched their "no" votes to "yes" votes on the bailout and will soon be joining the rest of us in the real world outside the Beltway.  It seems to work better to stay the course even if it's controversial and prove that you believe something rather than rapidly shift from one position to the other. Even John Murtha knew it would be better to apologize later on than to waffle back and forth on whether he really thinks his constituents are racists or rednecks. 

I still wish Bachman luck in the election, but if she has another opportunity to serve the people of Michigan again, she might want to work overtime rather than step into the spotlight with the Lefty news media unless she's really willing to either be very graceful or very full of conviction (hopefully both). 

I disagree with your critique of Palin.  She's villified by the hard Left and dismissed by the Old and/or Elite Right, but she does resonate with many average people in the center/right in spite of all the propaganda to the contrary.  LoL, 53.3 unfavorability rating in MN is still far more favorable than the single digits the Congress has, and watch how many of them will get re-elected. 

Agree, disagree

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 10/25/2008 - 18:11.

Minnesota, not Michigan.

Agree that, as is so often the case, Bachmann's big error was not in the original statement but in how she dealt with the fallout. But she wasn't trapped by the lefty media - she said what she thought. But then in the following days she was all over the place about whether she stood by thos remarks or not, and that is what made it snowball.

Disagree - strongly - about Palin. The longer she is in the public eye, the lower her approval ratings drop. That is NOT a winning trend for a polician. It is almost impossible to suceed with majority negatives. And, to make a second obvious point: McCain/Palin aren't running against Congress.

I am none of your 3 (Left , Old and/or Elite Right) but the idea that she could be President by Super Bowl Sunday scares the living daylights out of me.

 

Thank you for correcting Michelle + MN

Submitted by lagomorph on Sat, 10/25/2008 - 18:39.

Where is that "edit" key when I need it? 

I've heard her interviews with Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh, and watched several interviews with Sarah Palin on CNN and Fox lately.   I'm getting a lot more comfortable with her ability to climb a steep learning curve with agility and competence, so that's increased my comfort level greatly since the Gibson/Couric fiasco.  Today, Newser had a little article called Hate Palin?  You Just Haven't Met her:

Many of Sarah Palin’s critics have something in common: They haven't met her. Virtually everyone who has come into the governor’s presence leaves impressed, writes Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard. Even Alaska politicians she’s quarreled with say she’s smart and capable. “Her politics aren’t my politics,” said SNL’s Lorne Michaels, but meeting her, “you can see she’s a very powerful, very disciplined, incredibly gracious woman.”

But Palin’s harshest critics, including conservatives like Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, and David Brooks, have never met the woman. So who’s the better judge of Palin—those who know her, or those who don’t? “The answer is a no-brainer,” says Barnes. Of course, Barnes is probably biased: He’s met Palin multiple times. Needless to say, he was impressed.

Something I find interesting is how some very unexpected Feminist Democrats have lined up behind her such as Lynn Forester de Rothschild ("I think she rips pretty well") and Shelly Mandel, L.A. Chapter president of the National Organization for Women ("This is what a feminist looks like"). 

Another thing I find even more interesting is how willing people are to accept the very untested Barack Obama and his sort of nutty professor sidekick Joe Biden (high IQ, low common sense).  Unless John McCain hits the deck on Day One, Palin will have plenty of time to come very much up to speed before she's tested in the #1 slot, as opposed to Biden's warning that Obama will be tested within the first several months. 

The Shelly Mandel video, linked above, has a great quote from Albert Einstein:

Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity;

And I'm not sure about the universe.

Einstein rocks, does he not?

 

So, your argument is

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 12:00.

trust the media elites who have been "so privleged" as to have met her?

Sorry - I can't ignore the vacuous word salads, the refusal to answer the questions asked at the debates, the failure to hold a press conference, go on the Sunday shows, or unwillingness to face an interviewer more "tough" that the fearsome Katie Couric.

Here's what Alaska's largest paper says:

[D]espite her formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

 

 

and your argument is one liberal paper doesn't like her

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 12:05.

based on that theory, let's just disband the whole party since the elite press pretty much has no use for us.

I make up my own mind.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 15:57.

No, my argument is I don't like here, becasue I can see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears that she does not have the required intelligence and mettle to be President. As I clearly stated in my last post.

And have a look at her declining numbers. What is the point of having a candidate that the base loves but the great mass of independent voters does not like? I'll bet that just a few months ago you were hoping the Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for just that reason - she would have been the easy one to run against.

Thanks to the malpractice of the Bush Administration, the Republican Party alone is not big enough to elect a president on its own - candidates have got to be able to appeal to the middle.

well, you quoted from the paper, hence I concluded you agreed

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/26/2008 - 16:06.

you know, let's just meet down at Katie's restaurant in Wilmington and see whether they have a good word salad these days.  

http://www.delawareonline.com/blogs/secondhelpings/2008/10/joe-gives-delaware-shout-outs.html

Re: "terrible negatives" and Hillary. I think Rick Lazio was counting on that all the way to the concession speech