MN-06: Tinklenberg set to enter race

[MarkWarner08]

http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_7027601

PVI: R+5
2006 Result: Bachman won by 8%
Combined spending by candidates in the previous election: $6,827,547
Amount spent by Patty Wetterling's campaign: $4,273,801
Number of MN GOP Congressional seats in 2006: 5
Number of GOP Congressional seats in 2009 if MN-03, MN-06, and Coleman's seat shift parties: 1

Elwyn Tinklenberg's socially and fiscally conservative views could negate Bachmann's advantage on traditional Republican and help move the debate towards more Democrat-friendly topics like Iraq, the economy, health care, and the environment. The addition of Tinklenberg to the Democratic primary field likely vaults this race onto the competitive seats lists of national political prognosticators.

MN-06 now joins MI-07 and MI-09 as Upper Midwest House contests where the Democrats successfully recruited their first choice candidate.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Number of MN GOP Congressional seats in 2006: 5
Number of GOP Congressional seats in 2009 if MN-03, MN-06, and Coleman's seat shift parties: 1

5 – 3 = 1?

[True Democrat]

Number of MN GOP Congressional seats in 2006: 5
Number of GOP Congressional seats in 2009 if MN-03, MN-06, and Coleman's seat shift parties: 1

5 – 3 = 1?

I think "in 2006" means before the 2006 election.

[ilikeverin]

Uh, the Democrats have no chance in this district.  Sorry.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Uh, the Democrats have no chance in this district.  Sorry.

You missed the memo.  Any district that is less Republican than Tom DeLay's old district is totally on the table for 2008 (and a likely D pickup), while any open seat with a Republican advantage of 10 or less is a toss-up at best for the GOP candidate.

[Mr.Phips]

Uh, the Democrats have no chance in this district.  Sorry.

You missed the memo.  Any district that is less Republican than Tom DeLay's old district is totally on the table for 2008 (and a likely D pickup), while any open seat with a Republican advantage of 10 or less is a toss-up at best for the GOP candidate.

Real cute.

[Conan]

Uh, the Democrats have no chance in this district.  Sorry.

You missed the memo.  Any district that is less Republican than Tom DeLay's old district is totally on the table for 2008 (and a likely D pickup), while any open seat with a Republican advantage of 10 or less is a toss-up at best for the GOP candidate.

Real cute.

Very.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Considering that Wetterling was a pretty weak candidate who would've lost by about a point with the IP candidate's votes who I'm pretty sure would've gone predominately to Wetterling for obvious reasons, and Tinklenberg is a much stronger candidate than Wetterling, I don't see why the Democrats would have no chance. Maybe no chance if a sane Republican held it, but that's not the case.

[MarkWarner08]

Number of MN GOP Congressional seats in 2006: 5
Number of GOP Congressional seats in 2009 if MN-03, MN-06, and Coleman's seat shift parties: 1

5 – 3 = 1?

I think "in 2006" means before the 2006 election.

Bingo. Congress is sworn in on odd years, not even years. Minnesota's Congressional Delegation had 5, count them, five Republicans in the 109th Congress. In the 110th Congress, they have four Republicans. 4-3=1.

[MarkWarner08]

Uh, the Democrats have no chance in this district.  Sorry.

You missed the memo.  Any district that is less Republican than Tom DeLay's old district is totally on the table for 2008 (and a likely D pickup), while any open seat with a Republican advantage of 10 or less is a toss-up at best for the GOP candidate.

How many Democratic Congressman (outside of the 2003 Texas gerrymandering fiasco) have lost their seats in the last two Congressional cycles? The answer: One. The only Democratic Congressperson to lose his seat was Baron Hill, who was defeated in 2004 by less than 1%. Hill triumphantly bounced back in 2006 and avenged his prior loss with a comfortable 4% rematch of a rematch win.   Democrats incumbents in competitive districts like KS-03 and IL-08 are not losing because they aren’t dependent on polarizing political issues like gay marriage and immigration for victory. Their campaigns are based on their constituents services, their middle of the road, conciliatory leadership styles, and their aversion to divisive politics. Voters in many suburban districts now feel more comfortable with Democrats (the new Rockefeller Republicans) than the Republicans ( the neo-George Wallace demagogue party).

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

Republican open seats like MN-03, IL-14, AZ-01, OH-15, and others are in grave danger of flipping to the Democrats because the issue dynamics nationwide (the unpopular War in Iraq, growing support for universal health coverage, diminishing eagerness for culture wars, and increased concern over the economy and global warming) favor a center-left party. R+10 and D+10 are not competitive unless the parties either find savvy candidates like Chet Edwards and Jim Matheson or the incumbents self-implode after choking a mistress or being implicated in a corruption scandal. Barring a massive change in the Iraq or an upward move in Bush's approvals, the 2008 Congressional elections should look like a much more mild version of 1932 (of course, mitigated by the effects of computer-generated redistricting and the immense advantages of modern incumbency).

[Sam Spade]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

[Verily]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

He did say "non-9/11-related", and the 2002 elections were nothing if not 9/11-related.

[MarkWarner08]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

He did say "non-9/11-related", and the 2002 elections were nothing if not 9/11-related.

Sam, I'm sorry if I wasn't more explicit.  2002 bucked the trend of midterm elections which normally result in gains for the President's opposition party.  Many here surely remember that Bush's early September 2001 approvals skidded around the 50% mark. It took a cataclysmic event to rally the nation around the Commander in Chief and help the Republicans overcome history in 2002.

re: Don't give too much power to one party refrain. That didn't really hold water in 2002 or 2004.  Much of the poignancy of the appeal seems to depend on the President. Avoiding the  vestment of too much power in the hands of an equivocator like Clinton was surely a persuasive case. If only Clinton had listened to Bob Reich and focus ed on "big ideas" instead of V-Chips and school uniforms...

[Sam Spade]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

He did say "non-9/11-related", and the 2002 elections were nothing if not 9/11-related.

Sam, I'm sorry if I wasn't more explicit.  2002 bucked the trend of midterm elections which normally result in gains for the President's opposition party.  Many here surely remember that Bush's early September 2001 approvals skidded around the 50% mark. It took a cataclysmic event to rally the nation around the Commander in Chief  and help the Republicans overcome history in 2002.

Oh, the Republicans would have lost seats in 2002 without 9/11 and the Iraq conflict buildup, that's for sure (which the Democrats did not know how to handle).  And truthfully, 2008 should be a good Democratic year.  Even in a neutral environment, Democrats should probably still gain a couple of Senate seats.  But comparing it to 1932 is a bit much.

Oh, and Clinton didn't get above 50% b/c of Ross Perot, not really b/c of the campaign that he ran.  Democrats didn't show up b/c they viewed the race as over, and Democratic operatives didn't push them to come out for the other elections.  Kind of like 1988 in reverse.

[MarkWarner08]

Democrats have been on offensive in the House in every single non-9/11 related election since 1994. They had a rough year in 1996 only because of Clinton's selfish desire to win 50% by dissociating himself from the Democratic Party.  His "Third Way' politics didn't help him reach 50% and the Democrats failed to win back the House. GOP reached its beachhead in 1994, and it's all been downhill in their House standing since then.

I'm guessing that you slept through 2002.  Also, in 1996, the Republicans towards the last couple of weeks of the campaign (with Dole failing, as he always did) ran a "don't place too much power in the Democrats' hands" type of campaign.

If the same thing happens in 2008, don't be surprised to see a similar refrain.

He did say "non-9/11-related", and the 2002 elections were nothing if not 9/11-related.

Sam, I'm sorry if I wasn't more explicit.  2002 bucked the trend of midterm elections which normally result in gains for the President's opposition party.  Many here surely remember that Bush's early September 2001 approvals skidded around the 50% mark. It took a cataclysmic event to rally the nation around the Commander in Chief  and help the Republicans overcome history in 2002.

Oh, the Republicans would have lost seats in 2002 without 9/11 and the Iraq conflict buildup, that's for sure (which the Democrats did not know how to handle).  And truthfully, 2008 should be a good Democratic year.  Even in a neutral environment, Democrats should probably still gain a couple of Senate seats.  But comparing it to 1932 is a bit much.

I never said the GOP wouldn't have picked up seats w/o 9/11 or the Iraq buildup, two events which are intrinsically linked, but their gains would likely have been relegated to easy redistricting related pickups like David Boiner's mutilated district. 1932 as a comparison point may be a stretch, but it's the only modern example of  the bookend of back to back wave elections.

Agreed about Perot. But the White House fundraising scandals didn't help either.

[Sam Spade]

Getting this thread back on topic, I should pause to say that I think Bachmann is a good bit stronger candidate than Mark Kennedy ever was.

(waiting for BRTD reply...)

[MarkWarner08]

Getting this thread back on topic, I should pause to say that I think Bachmann is a good bit stronger candidate than Mark Kennedy ever was.

(waiting for BRTD reply...)

Late-night provocateur, eh? Bachmann is Jean Schmidt with a little less crazy and a little more religion. Basically, a Marylin Musgrave type who likes to hug the POTUS.

What's with all the nutty Republican women. Where have all the Millicent Fenwicks (sarcasm alert) gone?

[Sam Spade]

Getting this thread back on topic, I should pause to say that I think Bachmann is a good bit stronger candidate than Mark Kennedy ever was.

(waiting for BRTD reply...)

Late-night provocateur, eh? Bachmann is Jean Schmidt with a little less crazy and a little more religion. Basically, a Marylin Musgrave type who likes to hug the POTUS.

Not really - I happen to believe that.  Look, in such a terrible GOP year, she managed to beat Wetterling by the same margin that Kennedy did in 2004 (granted, with the help of a third party, but third parties were not helping the GOP in 2006). 

And I watched the debate in that race, she beat her pretty solidly there too.  Granted, Wetterling was a bad candidate, but I don't see how she could have been much better in 2004.  Keep in mind, this does not mean Bachmann is a super-strong incumbent or whatever - it means she's stronger than Mark Kennedy, for whatever that means.

Just because you're a right-wing nut, that does not necessarily mean that you are a weak candidate - same thing goes with the left, btw.

[MarkWarner08]

Getting this thread back on topic, I should pause to say that I think Bachmann is a good bit stronger candidate than Mark Kennedy ever was.

(waiting for BRTD reply...)

Late-night provocateur, eh? Bachmann is Jean Schmidt with a little less crazy and a little more religion. Basically, a Marylin Musgrave type who likes to hug the POTUS.

Not really - I happen to believe that.  Look, in such a terrible GOP year, she managed to beat Wetterling by the same margin that Kennedy did in 2004 (granted, with the help of a third party, but third parties were not helping the GOP in 2006). 

And I watched the debate in that race, she beat her pretty solidly there too.  Granted, Wetterling was a bad candidate, but I don't see how she could have been much better in 2004.  Keep in mind, this does not mean Bachmann is a super-strong incumbent or whatever - it means she's stronger than Mark Kennedy, for whatever that means.

Just because you're a right-wing nut, that does not necessarily mean that you are a weak candidate - same thing goes with the left, btw.

In regards to electability, extreme positions aren't always are handicap -- look no further to Minnesota's Paul Wellstone. 

Two differences between '04 and '06. 1.  in 2006, a smart, well-organized 3rd party candidate running an avowedly anti-war campaign took votes away from the Democrat. 2. Wetterling didn't sneak up on Bachmann like she did to Kennedy in 2004. All of Wetterling's flaws were present and her decision making was suspect (that October Foley ad was despicable). 

If Tinklenberg had been the nominee, the race would've been much tighter.

[HardRCafé]

Forget all about how heavily recruited Patty Wetterling and Coleen Rowley were.  They were terrible candidates, sure.

[defe07]

What are the chances of the Independence Party in that district?

[MarkWarner08]

Forget all about how heavily recruited Patty Wetterling and Coleen Rowley were.  They were terrible candidates, sure.

Forget about how heavily touted Dario Herra was in NV-03 in 2002. Some candidates look great on paper and then under perform. Some candidates barely get noticed and then defeat two term incumbents in wave elections. Paging Carol Shea-Porter!

HRC, what's your point?

[HardRCafé]

That they were probably sour anyway.

This really isn't rocket science, people.