Blanked Out

I’ll be doing some additional digging later into the poll but chew on this in the meantime:

Despite 52% of Minnesotans having a favorable impression of Senator Coleman only 45% approve of the job he’s doing.

I’ll explain the apparent contradiction after I whip some graphics up.

City Pages is reporting that while attending Hofstra University, a young Norm Coleman found himself in an argument with Tom Buggeln a Navy veteran who had spent time in Vietnam. At the time, Coleman was a student activist who frequently agitated against the Vietnam War:

[Buggeln] resented what he viewed as the privileged college kids protesting the war and lambasting U.S. policies. Buggeln allied himself with Young Americans for Freedom—a conservative campus group associated with William F. Buckley—and frequently clashed with Coleman. Buggeln remembers one particularly heated confrontation with Coleman after some antiwar students roughed up an ally who was distributing literature on campus. “I went to him and I bitched about it, and we got into it,” recalls Buggeln, now a sheriff’s deputy in Maricopa County, Arizona. The dustup culminated in Buggeln slapping Coleman across the face, giving him a bloody lip. “He ran down the hall screaming, ‘First blood of the revolution!’ or some shit like that.”

(more…)

First, the MN GOP was harping that Franken did not have enough financial support from Minnesota donors.

Now Republican operative Michael Brodkorb is complaining that Franken is taking small contributions from Minnesotans at the State Fair:

If Franken’s campaign is classifying people who buy $2 buttons at the State Fair “campaign donors”, then he may have found a way to quickly and artificially pad his donor base with Minnesotans.
-from minnesotademocratsexposed.com, August 28th 4:01pm

I’ll update this with additional information on why Brodkorb’s analysis is completely off the deep end in a bit – for now, let’s all take note of our watches. I have blogged in the past on how these types of political stories break and develop. I’m going to track this one in real time and see where it goes.

Brokorb’s time stamp on his post is 4:01 pm. Let’s try and assess how often D.J. Tice’s RSS reader refreshes or how far down Tice is on Brodkorb’s media call list.

Do you think he organizes it alphabetically or by importance?

Update - 6:42pm:

Let’s look at some of the key framing terms used by Brodkorb’s “dedicated readers” in the comments section of MDE:

• “[Franken’s] claims that he has a vast network of Minnesota donors rings hollow at best.”
• “I buy a button from Mr. Franken’s booth for $2.00, he would claim that I am a “contributor” to his Senate campaign? Sounds like a PR scam to me.“
• “Clever PR move… until it blows up”
• “If I recall, that fraud says over 90 percent of his donors gave “less than $100.” Looks like Al could say “over 90 percent gave less than $5″ and still be accurate.”

I’ve left out the more colorful language being used. All of these well meaning commentators are blissfully in ignorance of FEC law. All Senate campaigns are required to limit cash donations to $100 per individual over the entire 15-month cycle.

“But the buttons are $2 and…” Aha - they are. But consider this:

Month 1: Smith already thinks Franken is ok and buys a $2 button.

Month 3: Smith finds out Franken will be supporting Policy X. Now Smith think Franken is even better!
He buys two shirts for $25 a piece.

Month 10: Smith hears Franken speak and is so inspired he slaps a $50 bill down at the contribution table.Smith has now donated $102 to Franken and the campaign would be in violation of FEC law if they did not return the $2. Many campaigns fail to do this and are actually breaching heir fiduciary responsibilities.

To the author of that final screed, I would hope that 100% of Al’s contributors could be under $5.
Those who give $1 to $5 are usually students, blue collar workers or seniors on a fixed income. Should they not be counted?

Just how rich should you be to donate to politics in this country?

Democracy kept on rolling last week when Minnesota Senate Candidate, Al Franken, received the endorsement of netroots group Blue Majority. Several bloggers and several commentators became incensed upon learning of the early endorsement given that equally progressive* Democrat Mike Ciresi is still in the race. The two most common arguments were that this constituted interference in Minnesota’s political process and that the endorsement itself wasn’t transparent.

First the facts:

Blue Majority is a catchy phrase given to the ActBlue fundraising page collectively run by the websites MyDD, DailyKos, Swing State Project and Open Left. Chris Bowers, Matt Stoller, Jonathan Singer and Markos Moulitsas seem to be the most frequent pushers of their AcBlue page. Right now, Blue Majority has endorsed four candidates and BlogPAC.

None of the sites above are “establishment” sites. They receive no funding or Organizational support from the auspices of the Democratic Party. Neither do the above sites have any control over the endorsement process nor do they maintain general operating funds that are released to candidates. Their opinions only carry weight insofar as the wider netroots deem them to be useful. They are not the machine.

ActBlue (in the words of staff member Karl-Thomas Musselman) is “a partisan pro-Democratic organization which provides any individual with the power to create their own fundraising page of candidates or committees and promote it to whichever audience of donors they wish.” They don’t take a cut. They don’t match funds. They don’t organize phone banks. They don’t send ActBlue trained volunteers to battleground precincts. They - are also - not the machine.

Given this reality what do bloggers really want when they ask for “transparency” in the Blue Majority endorsement process? Chris Bowers decides that he’s supporting Al Franken and so he puts Franken on the community ActBlue page - what do you want Bowers’ internal monologue?

Hm, the Minnesota Senate Race. Who do I support? Let’s see:

• Both candidates are equally progressive.
  
• Both candidates are taking the fight to Coleman early.
  
• Franken already has an ActBlue page. Ciresi doesn’t. (At the time. Ciresi created one after the endorsement).
  
• Franken has robust You Tube, Facebook and Flickr pages.
  
• Franken is investing in innovative online organizing tools
  
• Franken has around 8,000 Minnesota Donors. Ciresi has some number less than 8,000.
  

Sold. I’ll punch out a post for Franken, update the ActBlue and endorsement completed. Well done, self.

In a nutshell, here’s how it works:

1. Bowers thinks Franken is good enough, smart enough and doggone it people just like him. Bowers likes him too! He decides to tell other people about it.
2. Bowers tells other people about Franken and posts some links. If they want to give money to Franken they can do so through ActBlue or Franken’s campaign website.
3. Some donate - some don’t. Free will is preserved.

Here’s how the national-level machine has worked in the past (from personal experience):

1. Party demands funds - paints apocalyptic scenario if dollar goal is not obtained.
2. Party does not take “requests” on whom the funds and resources should be distributed to - except from other party organs.
3. Two options here:
   -Party chooses preferential candidate and subsequently funds its own choice
   -In absence of party chosen candidate, other candidates grovel for diamond encrusted collar.

To hammer the point home - even several days after the Blue Majority endorsement Franken owes 38% of the $8,722 raised on ActBlue to pages not run by Blue Majority. Ciresi is currently running at a steady zero donors for zero dollars.

This doesn’t mean that Franken deserves the DFL endorsement right now and Ciresi should tearfully concede - all it means is that the portion of the netroots that contribute money online have made a clear and decisive choice.

Here’s a video clip of Al Franken thanking Blue Majority for the endorsement.

The Almanac debate between Minnesota Senate candidates Mike Ciresi, Al Franken and Jim Cohen started out as rather sleepy. A paint by the numbers affair – for the most part.

At one point Ciresi began to paint a whole different picture (transcript below is my own):

Eskola:
Yes or no would be great, are you in favor of legalizing gay marriage?

Ciresi:
(looking at the floor) I’m in favor of no discrimination in this county whatsoever. I am not in favor of imposing requirements on religious denominations.

Franken:
(looking directly at Eskola) Yes.

My ears picked up. Imposing what on the who now? Eh, no matter – probably just some political speak for cover in greater Minnesota. Yawn…

Eskola: (seeking clarification on Ciresi’s answer:) Are you…are you for legalizing gay marriage?

No. What I’ve said is for no discrimination whatsoever but in terms of marriage I am not in favor of imposing that on religious denominations.

Wait, what? No to gay marriage and no mention of civil unions? Same-sex marriage forced on religions? That just doesn’t make any sense. Is Ciresi’s ear piece hooked into a different debate? Oh, wait they’re on a couch.

Cohen:
::long answer, clear yes to civil unions::

Wurzer:
(redirects)I’m a little confused though, Mike Ciresi, about…(interrupting each other, laughing)

Ciresi:
What I said is, in terms of civil unions, I am in favor of that.

No, you did not!

I am not in favor - I do not favor any form of discrimination…

Yes, we know Mike.

…we have fought against this, our law firm has taken on many of these issues on a pro bono basis.

Totally true, great recovery. His law firm threw their heft behind equal access law suits and for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA]. All right, moving on, nothing to see here…

But…

Please stop.

I am not in favor of imposing on religious denominations that they have to marry gay people. I just don’t think that’s right.

What the @#$%? I can see why the hosts were confused.

Ciresi seems absolutely and genuinely convinced that forcing same-sex marriage on religions is somehow part and parcel of the marriage equality agenda. For those unfamiliar, it is not.

At the last Outfront Lobby Day I don’t recall organizers salivating at the thought of getting the National Guard to break down church doors and force their gay marriage upon the laity and clergy.

Not only is this not part of the equality agenda it’s also not part of the right-wing fundamentalist agenda either – and I’ve looked. The Family Research Council doesn’t even make this argument!

It’s like some orphaned bit of straw man rhetoric. For comparison and reference, here are Cohen’s and Franken’s crystal clear explanations of their positions from Andy Birkey at 11^th Ave South:

Jim Cohen: “There is no reason for any of the rights, privileges, benefits of any group on gender, sex, or any other basis to be different from any other. I am for the kind of result that occurred in Connecticut and several other states to make sure that civil unions with all of the benefits are exactly the same.”

Al Franken: “Look I have been married for 32 years. I don’t see gay marriage as a threat to my marriage. Now, I do understand that people have problems with it and that there are people like Jim and Mike who want to go the civil union route and I don’t want to see division, especially the Right throwing division in this for no reason. What I think is a more important issue is employment, is ENDA. Thirty-three states say it is legal to fire someone for being gay and I think that’s a bigger issue.”

Cohen’s answer is good, Franken’s response is better. Nuff said.

According to the new Survey USA poll (hat tip to MNCR).

Key points:

• The difference is within the margin of error (MOE).Remember: the MOE applies to both statistics. So if Coleman is at 49% and Franken at 42% with MOE +/- 4%, the true values might have Franken at 46% and Coleman at 45%.

• Coleman is getting 15% of his total support from Democrats! No, this isn’t a sign of Democrats rejecting Franken - even against Ciresi the numbers are almost identical.Did I say identical?I meant to say that Franken gets more Democrat, Republican and Independent voters than Ciresi does against Coleman. That’s what we call a “non-issue”. Zing Brodkorb!This is the soft underside to Coleman’s support level, which is already slipping. Once the campaign begins in earnest, that 15% is going to slowly fade away…
• Moderates support both Democrats over Coleman Brodkorb at Minnesota Democrats Exposed wrote, in reference to this survey, that Franken has said things that would make a “goat sick”. I guess there aren’t too many sensitive goats among Minnesotan moderates.
• Coleman also loses to the Democrats with:
  

• Women
• 65 year olds and over
• Registered Democrats! (Yes, this matters, since Democrats comprise 11% more of the registered electorate over Republicans). Woot!

I’ll whip up some visual aids later. I’ve got to get downtown…more on this later.