Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

MN-6: Bachmann 48%, Clark 39% (SurveyUSA 7/9-11)

Topics: Minnesota , poll

Survey USA / KSTP-TV
7/9-11/10; 565 likely voters, 4.2% margin of error
Mode: Automated phone
(SurveyUSA release)

Minnesota

2010 House
48% Bachmann (R), 39% Clark (DFL), 6% Anderson (I), 2% Immelman (i)

 

Comments
Paleo:

Clark's a good candidate, and well funded, but this is a Republican district. If it elected Michelle Nutjob the last two times, it's likely she'll win this time.

____________________

schakj:

Again only 13 percent of those surveyed were under the age of 35. I just think that it is implausible that only 1 out of 8 voters will be that young. It is not like we are talking about just college students, SurveyUSA is making assumptions of very low turnout from late twenty-somethings and early thirty-somethings.

____________________

schakj:

By the way, I grew-up in Minnesota and I personally believe the Bachmann will win. However, I think that her margin will be in single-digits, which is a poor performance for that district (probably the most conservative district in the state).

____________________

Farleftandproud:

Is survey USA Turning into the new Rasmussen? It certainly looks that way. This may be a conservative district, but I still don't quite see rural MN actually re-electing this crazy woman.

____________________

Farleftandproud:

I heard Rumors, that she didn't want people to take part in the census because she thought her district would be destroyed.

____________________

Paleo:

Why not? They re-elected her twice before.

____________________

Field Marshal:

What makes her crazy? She doesn't fly with the nutty-left ideology? I fully expect a post from lat/Obamalover/farleft to call her racist in an upcoming post.

____________________

vincent106:

I hope bachmann runs for senate in MN. We need more strong, intelligent women in politics. Not morons like Boxer, Hillary, and Maxine Waters. And given that a new study showed that Franken actually lost his election, she should be a shoe in in 2014.

____________________

rdw4potus:

I considered a move to Coon Rapids last year, until I realized who my Rep would be. Bachmann sends an even worse message about MN voters than Ventura and Franken. She's a disgrace.

____________________

TeaPartyRules:

I love Michelle Bachmann she is one hot MILF.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Why do liberals hate women so much? Palin, Bachmann, Coulter, Haley, Fiorina, etc. Is it because liberal are so ugly?

____________________

CHRIS MERKEY:

I heard her district will be eliminated due to the 2010 Census.

FM: Because most of her statements are sort of like Ann Coulter, She uses rhetoric such as Congress being Un-AMerican, etc. in order to fire up her base. She tries to be controversial in order to get publicity. I

Tea Party: I'll take Stifler's mom any day over her.

She was no real solutions for any of the problems in America just like most Republicans. 30 years of Republican rule (I would even say CLinton because he had to deal with a Republican Congress) destroyed this country

____________________

Field Marshal:

She was no real solutions for any of the problems in America just like most Republicans. 30 years of Republican rule (I would even say CLinton because he had to deal with a Republican Congress) destroyed this country

How so? The last 30 years including the recession last year, were the most prosperous in our history. Try again buddy. Making up facts is what liberals only know how to do and that WILL eventually destroy this country.

FM: Because most of her statements are sort of like Ann Coulter, She uses rhetoric such as Congress being Un-AMerican, etc. in order to fire up her base. She tries to be controversial in order to get publicity. I

You mean like Obama calling the AZ law unAmerican and using controversial statements to fire up his base and to get publicity? Okay.. makes sense to me... as i roll my eyes.. LOL.

____________________

Paleo:

"The last 30 years including the recession last year, were the most prosperous in our history."

I guess I gave you too much credit. You want the most prosperous period in U.S. history? Try the late 40s to the mid-70s.

____________________

melvin:

The evil one might win,but in the long run she is going to be the loser,because her district is going to be phased out by 2014.

____________________

Field Marshal:

I guess I gave you too much credit. You want the most prosperous period in U.S. history? Try the late 40s to the mid-70s.

LOL. You realize we had two of the worst recessions in our history in 1946-47 and 1973-74. The 70's were our worst decade other than the 30's.

That response was laughable. I can see if you said the 50's/early 60's or the 20's. But the late 40's and mid 70's? LOL!

The last 30 years, looking at almost ANY economic measure, be it GDP, GDP per capital, productivity, capital stock growth, etc. was the best in our history. You will find few economists, even Krugman, who disagree.

____________________

melvin:

Field Marshal check your fuken history,the unemployment rate back in 1947 and 1948 was around 3%,so dont put out false information trying to make one of our greatest Presidents look bad.

____________________

Field Marshal:

melvin,

Do you live in a cave? Judging by your writing style, i would say cave or some kind of underground lair. Maybe to save you from the evil Republicans who are coming to get you. WEAR THAT TIN FOIL!!

We had a recession in '45-'46 and again in '49. Unemployment in '46 was up around 6% which was high compared to just a few years earlier because of the war and GDP dropped over 13% (more than the current recession). In '49, its was over 8%. Maybe he's talking about '47- '48 being the best of times.

____________________

obamalover:

@TeaPartyRules
"I love Michelle Bachmann she is one hot MILF."

And that is how the GOP chooses their candidates.

____________________

vincent106:

is it any different than the dumbocrats who choose their candidate based on skin color and cool-factor?

____________________

melvin:

Field Marshal you are a liar just like your Republican friends on here.When Truman left office the unemployment rate was 2.9%,the unemployment rate was never over 6% doing Truman Presidency.

____________________

melvin:

You Republicans calls President Carter the worse President in the past 100 years,but check your history,the unemployment rate was 7.5% when Carter took office back in 1977,when Carter left it was 7.5%.Inflation under Carter only went up 2%, but you Republicans tells people inflation was 21% under Carter,but forgetting to tell people it was 19% when Carter took office.last month on Fox News Sean Hannity told his audience Carter took a low unemployment rate in shot it up over 10% which was a big lie.

____________________

Anthony Gonzalez:

I give the argument to Paleo. The 2000s were one of our worst decades based on job growth. The 1980s had a recession and the 1990s growth turned out to be based on false numbers and a massive bubble. The 1940s saw WWII give a huge boost to employment and the 50s and 60s continued it. Truman and Roosevelt and Eisenhower saw America's best days, Reagan, Clinton and Bush oversaw its decline. America is still the most competitive, largest, and greatest nation in the world, but nobody should be able to seriously argue that the last 30years were a golden age. 2008 turned those arguments upside down. :)

____________________

Field Marshal:

Field Marshal you are a liar just like your Republican friends on here.When Truman left office the unemployment rate was 2.9%,the unemployment rate was never over 6% doing Truman Presidency.

Paleo said the late 40's. Melvin, go do some research and find out when Truman left office. Check and mate...

Anthony, words cannot express how idiotic your entire paragraph is. The misinformation by gullible liberals continues...

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Anthony, words cannot express how idiotic your entire paragraph is. The misinformation by gullible liberals continues..."

It all depends on your perspective. We did have very strong growth from the 40s to the mid 70s, and the gap between rich and poor actually closed during that period. That's when the whole notion of "middle class" and "american dream" took hold. The idea of the "american dream" has only existed since circa 1890 and was only attainable by a majority after WWII (you can't find that phrase used before or even any variation of it) In the 1930s and prior, there was a small "middle class." Most Americans were "poor" by our standards. The "working class" back then made up the majority of the country and they were not what we would call "middle class."

The average person did not graduate high school or own his own home (if you were a woman you rarely did). The average american lived with someone else, probably family, who did own some land or a house and either worked a job and contributed to the household or worked for the property owner.

The middle class today makes up, what, 70-80% of the country? Their equivalents prior to WWII and the new deal made up maybe 25-40%.

I don't know exactly what you'd like to take us back to, but how Americans lived prior to WWII wouldn't be for me. I know speakeasies and flappers from the 20s looked fun, but a little secret....flappers were rich girls - the equivalent of sorority girls at spring break today. Life for the average person in the 1920s and prior was not all that pleasant (by our standards).

____________________

StatyPolly:

Unemployment is but one measure. Regardless of what the actual rates were back them.

After WWII, until mid/late 50's maybe there was plenty of work, but life was very tough and standards of living very low in comparison to the 20's and 60's and later.

Even in the "idyllic" late 50's/early 60's, the average family lived in a home that's only 1/3rd of today's size, one bathroom, had only one car, one TV, one phone set, no cell phone, no Fox News Channel, no Starbucks, very few ever traveled out of state, etc..

But sure, unemployment rates were low most of those years, I think.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"The last 30 years, looking at almost ANY economic measure, be it GDP, GDP per capital, productivity, capital stock growth, etc. was the best in our history. You will find few economists, even Krugman, who disagree."

Yes, those numbers have risen exponentially since the 80s, but who benefitted from that success? Krugman would surely ask that question.

Not the average person, whose wage growth has at best kept pace with inflation since the Carter years. The only success they've had since then has been because of the extension of credit.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Clearly, the typical middle-class American has lived much much larger in the past 30 years, than the 30 years prior to that.

Just travel alone is a good indication of quality of life for me personally. In the 50's and 60's only very select few had ever flown in an airplane. Overwhelming percentage of people never traveled more than 100 miles from where they were born their entire lives.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Even in the "idyllic" late 50's/early 60's, the average family lived in a home that's only 1/3rd of today's size, one bathroom, had only one car, one TV,"

That was a huge improvement over what you could get prior to WWII, and was attainable with a much smaller debt burden.

____________________

Paleo:

"You realize we had two of the worst recessions in our history in 1946-47 and 1973-74. The 70's were our worst decade other than the 30's.

That response was laughable. I can see if you said the 50's/early 60's or the 20's. But the late 40's and mid 70's? LOL!

The last 30 years, looking at almost ANY economic measure, be it GDP, GDP per capital, productivity, capital stock growth, etc. was the best in our history. You will find few economists, even Krugman, who disagree."

I said the late 40s, and 1973 is close to the mid-70s. And the 81-82 and 2007-2009 recessions were far worse than the 73-74 recession. Next, you'll be telling me it was worse than the Great Depression.

In terms of wage growth, unemployment rates, and economic inequality, the 30 year period you speak of, which had four recessions, can't compare to the 1948-1973 period. There was full employment, high growth in wages and GDP, low inflation, all with far less economic inequality than we've had the last 30 years.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"That was a huge improvement over what you could get prior to WWII, and was attainable with a much smaller debt burden."

No doubt, Aaron. I agree with nearly all your points on this thread. The original argument here was whether 40's to 70's were better than 70's to now.

____________________

Paleo:

"Field Marshal:
Field Marshal you are a liar just like your Republican friends on here.When Truman left office the unemployment rate was 2.9%,the unemployment rate was never over 6% doing Truman Presidency.

Paleo said the late 40's. Melvin, go do some research and find out when Truman left office. Check and mate..."

I hope you don't play chess. The unemployment rate was 3.8% in 1948. It spiked up to 5.9% ini 1949 before going back down to under 5% in 1950. But keep continuing to embarass yourself.

Here's a chart from 1950 to 2005. Which leaves out 2006-2010, when unemployment steadily rose.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Us_unemployment_rates_1950_2005.png

____________________

Paleo:

To add further:

1946 - 55.8% - 3.9%
1947 - 56.8% - 3.9%
1948 - 58.3% - 3.8%

1949 - 58.9% - 5.9%

So much for the 8% in 1949.

The period from the late 40s till the oil embargo in the fall of 1973 was the best economic period in the history of the U.S.

____________________

gabe:

Shocking, Farleft does not believe that Angle can win. lol

____________________

StatyPolly:

"economic inequality than we've had the last 30 years"

And there we have it.

Conservatives want everybody to do well and get as rich as they can, but libs want everybody to be more equal. I remember FNC running a clip of BOBO giving an interview to George Stephanopolous on This Week before he was elected. BOBO stated that he supports higher taxes for the rich EVEN IF that led to lower total taxes collected. George even followed up to make sure there was misunderstanding. BOBO said "IT'S A MATTER OF EQUITY". He is willing to raise rich people's taxes SIMPLY TO PUNISH THEM for being rich, even if that means others (beneficiaries of fed programs) suffer from that.

Pretty wacky ideology.

____________________

Paleo:

"He is willing to raise rich people's taxes SIMPLY TO PUNISH THEM for being rich"

The same stupid line the economic elitists always use. No one's being "punished." Rates are higher based on ability to pay. If it were "punishment," they would be entitled to due process protections such as a hearing. That's how ridiculous the claim is.

But keep crying those tears for the poor, oppressed, wealthy.

____________________

Gopherguy:

Bachmann will probably win here. I'd give her a 90-95% chance of winning. Had this been two years ago she probably would have lost. Clark is a very strong candidate, but she's in a bad year. She should run again in 2012, that could be her year to win.

I don't have time to read all the comments already posted on here, so let me address some of what's been said.

Bachmann's district is the most conservative by far in Minnesota. Also, it's not rural Minnesota. Nearly all of rural Minnesotans are represented by someone from the DFL. She represents exurb Twin Cities and St. Cloud.

Bachmann is not intelligent. She misquotes history and facts constantly. She wanted the Tea Party to charge to victory like the Light Brigade, except the Light Brigade actually got crushed in defeat. She wants a media expose looking for people who are American or anti-American (McCarthy-esque). When confronted about her expose comments, she said they were a myth and she never said that. Go to YouTube or ask Hannity or Colmes back when they worked together, you'll see she was lying through her teeth.

Bachmann will never run for Senate because she can't win statewide in Minnesota. Minnesota won't elect far right conservatives statewide. You can get elected and move far right: see Pawlenty (although he won't say nutty things like Bachmann.) Minnesota isn't like the Dakotas, Iowa, or Wisconsin. It's much more liberal than all of those states. Next to the Northeast or West Coast it's probably the most liberal state, and it is probably more so than many of those coastal states.

Whoever said that Franken actually lost on here is an idiot. You watched Fox news and you didn't get all the facts. That vast majority of data used in that report is faulty. In order to verify who is legal to vote, you need the actual birthday of people. Most of the data only had birth year. That's important because if my name is Matt Johnson and I'm born in 1968 there could be dozens of other Matt Johnsons born in the same year. In a state with many Johnsons, Olsons, and other Scandinavian names, it's impossible to say someone voted illegally without verifying the day that person was born. Also, the report didn't check to see if convicted felons had their rights restored, which happens frequently.

Finally, let's stop lying about numbers. Don't say 8% unemployment in a given year when we can look up a graph to prove that false in less than 1 minute. Sorry really, why lie? We can prove numbers true or false with little effort.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Again, Paleo, BOBO said he would raise tax rates on the rich EVEN IF that meant lower total federal tax revenue. He wants to raise rates to MAKE THINGS FAIR even if that means EVERYONE SUFFERS from these hikes, including the poor who benefit from the rich paying taxes that support them.

Try to think thru this logically before you reply.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Okay. You are arguing about a few basis points of unemployment. And the growth you are talking about is a couple of quarter at most, especially the 1974 number. That's ridiculous.

Bush II had 88 straight months of job growth. That's more than Clinton and Reagan. Job growth, GDP growth, and income growth were ALL substantially larger in the last 30 years than in any other 30 year period. Cherry picking a quarter or two of growth or a single-years' unemployment rate. Sure, overall the 40's might be a good decade for employment growth simply because of WWII but in peacetime expansions, nothing beats the 90's, secondly the 80's. The oughts were not great but were better than many other decades.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Again, Paleo, BOBO said he would raise tax rates on the rich EVEN IF that meant lower total federal tax revenue. He wants to raise rates to MAKE THINGS FAIR even if that means EVERYONE SUFFERS from these hikes, including the poor who benefit from the rich paying taxes that support them.

Try to think thru this logically before you reply.

____________________

Paleo:

"BOBO said he would raise tax rates on the rich EVEN IF that meant lower total federal tax revenue. He wants to raise rates to MAKE THINGS FAIR even if that means EVERYONE SUFFERS from these hikes, including the poor who benefit from the rich paying taxes that support them.

Try to think thru this logically before you reply."

Not only is that illogical, it's total BS. No statistical support. Just a justification for not taxing the wealthy at a higher rate. Reminds me of all the doom and gloom when the tax rate on the wealthy was raised in 1993. The economy grew at a decent pace, especially in the latter part of the decade, after that. And the best economic years this country ever had, 1948-1973, was accompanied by a top marginal income tax rate of 70%, and in some years 90%.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"No statistical support."

None needed. Stephanopousis asked him point blank "even if that leads to lower total revenues" or something exactly to that effect. It was clear that BOBO got the question. He replied "Yes, even if. It's a matter of equity".

I am not arguing whether higher rates lead to lower revenue. But BOBO was clearly more intend to punish the rich, rather than help the poor.

____________________

StatyPolly:

"But BOBO was clearly more intend to punish the rich, rather than help the poor."

And it's hard to argue that he hasn't governed using those principles since taking office.

____________________

melvin:

Truman left office in January of 1953 Field Marshal, he was President from 45-53.You should check your history.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Actually median family income has been pretty stagnant over the last 30 years, except when Bill was president. Although median family income had its greatest rise during LBJ's Great Society administration. I'm sure the rich have been doing quite well as of late but the vast majority of Americans haven't. Sorry to burst your bubble

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oFgRsiGSUuY/S_lr8a1WXlI/AAAAAAAAAAU/qfryk_MaYSU/s1600/Marginal+rates_smaller.png

Another swing and a miss for FM. LOL!

____________________

Gopherguy:

Also, Bachmann's Chief of Staff and fundraiser quit today. That's always fun.

One other important fact I meant to mention earlier, but it slipped my mind.

Bachmann is in a very catholic district. However, she's a WELS lutheran. This always struck me as odd because WELS lutheran's are taught that the pope is the antichrist. No, I'm not exaggerating, look it up. They really teach the pope is the antichrist. I'm guessing it's never been brought up as an issue and most people probably don't know that. She also originally ran for Congress because she said God chose her to run. So, there's that for whatever you think about it.

____________________

Aaron_in_TX:

"Stephanopousis asked him point blank "even if that leads to lower total revenues" or something exactly to that effect. It was clear that BOBO got the question. He replied "Yes, even if. It's a matter of equity".

I am not arguing whether higher rates lead to lower revenue. But BOBO was clearly more intend to punish the rich, rather than help the poor."

I don't know why you're so focused on that particular quote.

Of course it has to do with equity. The rich have been given much and thus have more societal responsibility. That is a Christian principle is it not? It's not about punishing anybody.

____________________

StatyPolly:

Aaron, I think I am still not representing the argument clearly.

Many economists argue that increasing tax rates on the rich actually causes reduction in total tax collection. JFK's and Reagan's policies are often cited as examples. Both, JFK and Reagan dramatically lowered upper bracket rates, and total tax collections went up significantly shortly thereafter. There are two main reasons that are usually given for this counter-intuitive phenomena. One, the rich will invest the extra money they get to keep in business, further stimulating economy, creating jobs and profits, which in turn generate further taxation. Meaning that even though the tax rates are lower, increased volume of the tax base more than offsets lower rates. Imagine two vendors selling hot dogs side by side. The cost for each hot dog is the same for both of them - $1. One marks up 50% and charges $1.50 and sells 100 a day for a profit of $50. The other one only marks up 10% and sells his dogs for $1.10 but because his price is better he sells a 1000 a day. His profit is $100. So he makes more even though his rates are lower.

The second reason why lower rates may lead to higher total tax collection is that the higher the rate, the lower the compliance. Meaning, if the rates are deemed reasonable by the taxpayers, they will be less likely to cheat by underreporting, hiding and offshoring income. Those are just some of the basics.

But I wasn't even arguing whether tax rates should be hiked or lowered. What I said that BObama replied to a very specific and doubly verified question. "Will you still want to raise taxes on the rich even if such tax hikes will result in lowered total tax collections?" That's probably not verbatim, but the meaning is precise. He replied "Yes, it's a matter of equity".

So you agree with that, Aaron? Do you support raising taxes on the rich even if that will lead to lower federal tax revenues, which will naturally lead to either decreased spending or increased deficits or a combination of thereof?

BOBO does. And under those assumptions, how exactly does it fulfill societal obligations? It's purely vindictive and hurts all members of society across the board.

____________________

Paleo:

It does not follow that because lowering tax rates may, in some cases, increase federal revenue, that raising tax rates will reduce federal revenue. The entire premise of your point is wrong.

____________________

Field Marshal:

Statypolly, arguing economics with liberals is like talking to a 2 year old about it. Its a useless quest to educate people with block-headed mentalities.

____________________

obamalover:

@FM

Except we have facts to back up our assertions:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_oFgRsiGSUuY/S_lr8a1WXlI/AAAAAAAAAAU/qfryk_MaYSU/s1600/Marginal+rates_smaller.png

I'm waiting for you to post these supposed charts proving your point. I won't be holding my breath though. Trickle down economics is a joke.

____________________

obamalover:

@ fM and StatyPolly

Here is the chart that proves supply side tax revenue argument is bull shit.
http://modeledbehavior.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/image9.png

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR