Gift Wrapped Election - Conservative Catch 22

One of the reasons Romney lost the election, according to Romney, is because of the gifts given out to various groups within the populace.

In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups. [...] With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift. Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.

I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. But it is not anything new. Consider the whole concept of amnesty to illegal aliens is an attempt to buy the votes of millions of "new citizens". And I know it worked that way. I had a landlord whose citizenship was owed directly to amnesty by Reagan in 1986 and he would repeatedly tell me that he will always vote Republican as a result, as would his wife.

It is an old tactic. Consider this hypocrisy from the anti-lobby as well as the people who regularly want corporate America to have fewer and fewer rights. Corporate America and lobbyists are routinely attacked for getting things from Congress in exchange for their financial support. But it is the same thing that Obama (and plenty more before him) do...give something to a group for the tacit acknowledgement of an exchange for that group's vote.

What the problem for a true conservative is lies in the very belief of smaller government and reducing spending. How do you convince someone who is getting freebies (at the expense of the rest of the nation) to vote for a principle that would require productivity from the freebie-beneficiary? "Hey, vote for smaller government even though it means you will lose all of your handouts and would actually have to work as a result."

Not an easy sell.

Or the other side of the coin, the proverbial 'hard place', is to join in the give-a-way game. Start buying votes like Obama has effectively done for the past 4 years. Then that will grow the budget, grow spending (which every Republican and Democrat Congress has done anyway, so calling any Congress "conservative" is a laugh) and growing the size of government. In essence this strategy is rooted on sacrificing the very principles that identify you to enable you to win so you can enact principles that identify you. But to maintain winning you will have to maintain sacrificing the principles that identify you so you can continue to win while giving lip service to the your "principles" that used to identify you.

Yes, the Democrats routinely buy votes. It is no secret and it is nothing new. The only scandalous part is that the hate-business crowd mysteriously loses their principled indignation when the "buy votes" coin goes in favor of their party.

The real rub is what strategy can conservatives employ that maintains their principles and can win consistently against the purchased votes?

Will They Still Want The Electoral College Scrapped

They wants the Electoral College done away with. My hunch was it was pure politics, a gambit to ferment discontent and fan the belief of disillusionment while misleading people to believe they were disenfranchised by the genius of the Electoral College. I did not believe their words to be sincere.

Polls and probabilities are showing a growing possibility of Romney winning the popular vote while Obama wins the election. That would give us a great chance to see if those people were hacks putting their party above any principles or if they actually believe what they said.

One fine example is Secretary Clinton and President Obama. Let us remember her position after the 2000 election.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Shortly after the 2000 election, as a newly-minted Senator-elect, Clinton called for direct elections of the president. She argued the country has changed since the Electoral College was put in place.

“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” Clinton said at a news conference.

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

And another example of a prominent politician who said the Electoral College needed to be done away was President Obama.

Obama said he supported eliminating the Electoral College as a Senate candidate during a WTTW television debate against Republican Alan Keyes in 2004.

When asked, “Yes or no, eliminate the Electoral College?” Obama responded, “Yes … I think, at this point, this is breaking down.”

Oh, don't worry. I won't be surprised to get some Righties pissing vinegar about the Electoral College. Here are some on the record for maintaining it.

Vice President Biden and Senator Orin Hatch vote against the idea the last time it reached the Senate floor in 1979. There is also Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell.

The Senate minority leader told the Associated Press two days after the 2000 election that presidential candidates would avoid small states if the Electoral College was eliminated.

“If we did away with the Electoral College, an awful lot of states would never get a visit from a presidential candidate,” McConnell said.

In 2011, McConnell blasted a national popular vote movement that would circumvent a constitutional amendment. He claimed it would lead to an extreme number of recounts.

“The proponents of this absurd and dangerous concept are trying to get this done while nobody notices, just sort of sneak this through,” and “we need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up.”

I agree with him.

There's more.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) — The chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee shares the same opinion as McConnell about smaller states losing power without the system.

"Washington (state) would be hurt dramatically,” Murray told a Vancouver, Wash., high school on Nov. 20, 2000.

"Presidential candidates wouldn't come here."

Notice the mixed company in opposition of the change?

Let me give the names of a few others wanting to do away with the Electoral College. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who is now Obama’s Secretary of Transportation, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y). Notice the homogeneity in party on this side? One of them had the most ridiculous concept for a justification. Durbin actually posited that people who vote for the loser in a state are disenfranchised.

"Our current system disenfranchises millions of voters who happen to vote for the losing presidential candidate in their state," Durbin said. “The electoral college is an 18th century invention that never should have survived to the 21st century.

Someone who votes and whose vote is tallied cannot by definition be disenfranchised. This is a buzzword to make people believe the speaker's position is a moral imperative and in that vein is a very specious and despicable method of communication.

I saved this one for last mostly because he both changed his story and did it while erroneously leading people to believe that not being visited by the candidates constitutes disenfranchisement.

Former Vice President Al Gore — After the 2000 election, Gore continued to support the current system. But Gore reversed course during this year’s Democratic National Convention, criticizing the process that ignores voters outside of swing states and cost him the election.

“I’ve seen how these states are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race. And I really do now think it is time to change that,” Gore said on Current TV.

Sorry, that is nowhere close to disenfranchisement and it only perpetuates a broken victim mentality.

From the World English Dictionary:

1. to deprive (a person) of the right to vote or other rights of citizenship

It is like they do not know what it means...or are counting on the public to be too stupid to know what it means.

Anyway, we might get to see a lot of people suddenly rationalizing a 180 in their "beliefs" and principles. Should be fun to watch.

If It Is True Then I Feel Better About My Vote.

If this is true then I feel better about casting a vote for one of the two major Presidential candidates for the first time in 8 years (as opposed to third party candidates),

A man claiming to be a close pal to President Obama during college made contact with Republican operatives recently, ready to go public with claims that Obama used and sold cocaine in college...

Most politicians would have held onto the story and then had some staffer "leak" the information which would be officially unauthorized but unofficially coordinated. A slime ball, spineless evil politician would have heard of this information and, regardless of if it were factual, she would run with the story as if it was absolutely certain and a Biblical mission to destroy the opponent.

Romney's campaign...what did they do?

Operatives close to the Romney campaign were contacted and rejected the information, the source told Radar.

“They didn’t want anything to do with it,” the source said. “They thought it was not anything they wanted to be associated with or anything their candidate would want to be associated with.”

In fact, the man’s charges about Obama never reached Mitt Romney. [Emphasis added]

I know. There are plenty of crazy people who make stuff up all of the time to smear their opponents. There are plenty of unscrupulous people who will knowingly disseminate damaging details even when they know the details are false or a distortion. Some will even intentionally fabricate details or edit context just to denigrate someone who does not goose-step their way. I know several people personally who do this.

So what vetting has been done with this guy? Not much, but it is interesting what the reporting article claims.

A proposal of the man’s story was created and viewed by Radar. The document claims that there are multiple sources who can back up allegations that Obama used and sold cocaine in college.

The alleged pal was willing to go on the record for the story and take a polygraph test, according to the source.

Again, the point of this post is to show the stark contrast from the norm that is Romney's campaign. And to admit that, if this is true, I am pleasantly surprised.

Someone not in the Romney campaign but working to help Romney knew what the value of this story would be (regardless of its truth).

“The operatives close to the Romney campaign believed the man’s story would be the ultimate October Surprise but they got nowhere. “People who would have taken the information to the highest levels of Romney’s campaign just wouldn’t touch it. “They don’t want their candidate smeared with this type of activity.”

And the staffers didn't bat an eyelash. This a big difference from, say for example, 6 years ago when Klobuchar's staffers illegally accessed their opponent's unreleased campaign ads. Color me pleasantly surprised and very satisfied with my vote this year.

Predictions the day before

This is the 'day before' market predictions for races that I have been tracking on TradeSports. I might also be going into these briefly on tomorrow night's election night coverage on KNSI starting at 7PM.

MN US SENATOR
Kennedy to win: 7.0%
Don't let this price fool you too much. There is no interest in this contract so the 7.0% is a bit of a premium. This contract never went above 50% and was only AT 50% on the day the contract started (December 2005). It has been on a steady decline its entire life last being over 40% in early June and permanently residing under 30% since mid-July. Since mid-September this contract has had only one day over 10%.

MN GOVERNOR
Pawlenty to win: 46.0%
This contract seemed to be a strong possibility to win. Since its inception at the end of March it stayed strongly between 60% and 80% through August 1 (with a 2 day sting slightly under 60% in mid-July). On August 1 this contract shot up above 80% and stayed between 80% and 85% until the Mark Foley scandal broke. That day this (and many other GOP contracts) fell hard. This one fell quickly to 60% and then steadily to as low as 23% by the 3rd week of October. It has not been above 50% since mid-October. The good news for this contract is a new and strong uptrend over the past few days has it rebounding from its new resting place of 30% about ready to break 50% again. At this very moment upward resistance is so weak that a purchase of 7 contracts would push the price back to 59%. The Bid/Ask is very active and also trending upwards.

MN 6th CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Bachmann to win: 40.0%
Wetterling to win: 40.0%
These contracts started late and have had non-existent interest so prices are not very strong indicators as a predictor. There are two offers on Wetterling (people trying to sell) set at 37.5% and two bids on Bachmann set at 40% & 60%.

US SENATE MAJORITY
GOP hold majority: 72.0%
This is a strange pricing. In the previous post I listed the predictions for all of the US Senate races and there was only two toss-ups (both leaning Democrat). The balance of those contracts gave a party count of GOP 49, DEM 49, IND 2. The other paradoxical thing about this contract is its resiliance. From January 2006 until Mark Foley (beginning of October) this contract was strong residing in the 75%-90% range. After Foley it found a new and very volatile home in the 60% to 80%. Activity is very heavy. The floor-ceiling prices are around 70.0%/77.0%.

US HOUSE MAJORITY
GOP hold majority: 22.4%
This contract started 13 months ago in October 2006 and jumped up to 85%. Since then it has been a steady decline to its present spot. The truly disturbing data for this contract is the lead-like drop since the beginning of November 2006...from 30% to nearly 20%. The strongest support is at about 21.0% and the ceiling for resistance is at 25.0% (though there is a lot of resistance before that batch).

US HOUSE DEM PICKUP
Remember these are listed in 1/2 seats to avoid a push. Prcies followed by the prices last Tuesday in parenthesis.
Gain .5 seats: 98.7 (98.8)
Gain 4.5 seats: 97.4 (94.8)
Gain 9.5 seats: 95.0 (89.9)
Gain 14.5 seats: 85.5 (74.0) (needed for DEM Majority)
Gain 19.5 seats: 69.4 (63.8)
Gain 24.5 seats: 44.0 (38.5)
Gain 29.5 seats: 30.3 (29.5
Gain 34.5 seats: 22.0 (added on November 3)
Gain 39.5 seats: 15.0 (added on November 3)
Gain 44.5 seats: 10.0 (added on November 3)
There is no mistaking the trend in the market. The Democrats will gain seats and the closer the elections get the more seats the market is believing will be gained. Safe money is now on 20+ seats.

US CONGRESS ELECTION PARLAYS
GOP House, GOP Senate: 22.0 (25.0)
DEM House, GOP Senate: 57.0 (46.0)
GOP House, DEM Senate: 2.0 (6.0)
DEM House, DEM Senate: 30.0 (25.0)
The trend here mimics the trend in other contracts...The House will change hands. Control of the Senate reflects the same schizophrenia that is mention previously, leading to a conclusion that the Senate Majority is too close to call.

With the parlays the "Dem House" contracts with both the GOP Senate and Dem Senate are rising in price. Granted, the GOP Senate is +11.0% over the past week while the Dem Senate is only +5.0%, they are both still rising. This coincides with the US SENATE MAJORITY contract mentioned above...the GOP is likely to hold the Senate.

The individual Senate contracts are painting a picture contrary to that...the Party breakdown will be split (49-49-2), though the 2 IND will be on the DEM side of the aisle in reality. There are only 2 toss-ups (MO and VA) in the individual contracts, both leaning DEM. If those toss-ups remain with the GOP or if they split then the breakdown will be a technical GOP Majority (51-47-2 or 50-48-2). Difficult to say and these likely will not have a strong indicator until the returns start coming in tomorrow.

And yes, you can trade on these until certification (typically in December).

There you have it...TradeSports day before predictions. If I get an early enough start to my day tomorrow I may give a Same Day update.

Predictions the day before--US Senate

I wanted to do this a little more frequently, but it was labor intensive in many ways. The first (and only previous) installment of the TradeSports predictions on the US Senate races can be found here. This is the 'day before' market predictions. I might also be going into these briefly on tomorrow night's election night coverage on KNSI starting at 7PM. And, some info about the coverage:

Hosted by Tony Garcia from KNSI’s Race to the Right, Don Lyons from KNSI’s Hot Talk with the Ox, and KNSI News Reporter Cassie Hart.

You’ll stay up-to-the-minute on the latest vote tallies as they come in. All local and state races will be covered along with national updates throughout the evening.

Featuring:
* Dan “The Ox” Ochsner broadcasting live from the Minnesota Republican Party Election Night Headquarters at the Sheraton South, Bloomington.
* Former Congressional Candidate Janet Robert broadcasting live from the DFL Headquarters at the Crown Plaza, St.Paul.
* Dave Phipps from KNSI’s Creative Department broadcasting live from various locations throughout the St.Cloud area.
* St.Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis broadcasting live from the Public Safety Referendum Headquarters in St.Cloud.
* Former St.Cloud Mayor Larry Meyer providing in-studio analysis and historical perspective of local races.
* Special interviews with Police Chief Dennis Ballentine, Fire Chief Bill Mund, and public safety officials planning the 2008 GOP National Convention in Minnesota.

The station's release did not mention it because it was not confirmed at the time, but Marty Andrade will also be helping with the election night coverage behind the scenes. Arguably his job will be the toughest of all. He will be compiling updates for scores upon scores of races (federal, state, county, local...) and updating them on the web for KNSI's listeners to also view...while also feeding them to me for on-air reporting.

OK, back to the US Senate races. Below are the TradeSports market-based predictions (and the chance of it coming to fruition).

If you need a primer on what the percentages relate to go this posting. There is a chart that helps convert the percentages to NFL Point Spreads, fractional odds and plain English.

For the sake of ease for me I am listing the state and the party predicted to win and the percentage of chance for that party winning being given by the market and then the party of the incumbent. (Bold/underline races are within the 'up for grabs' range of 40%-60%.) A note of technicality...these are based on the price of the last transaction rather than the more indicative buy/sell. However, this way is less labor intensive and at this point I need that.

State...Predicted Winner...% chance (% in 4/2005)...result
AZ...GOP...90.0 (89.0) GOP hold
CA...DEM...96.6 (96.8) DEM hold
CT...IND...96.6 (94.5) IND gain
DE...DEM...96.0 (96.0) DEM hold
FL...DEM...98.5 (82.0) DEM hold
HI...DEM...95.1 (96.0) DEM hold
IN...GOP...95.6 (96.0) GOP hold
ME...GOP...98.0 (95.0) GOP hold
MD...DEM...68.0 (62.9) (open) DEM hold
MA...DEM...96.5 (90.0) DEM hold
MI...DEM...94.9 (90.0) DEM hold
MN...DEM...92.9 (63.9) (open) DEM hold
MS...GOP...95.5 (96.0) GOP hold
MO...DEM...56.5 (GOP 59.5) DEM gain
MT...DEM...69.1 (55.0) DEM gain
NE...DEM...95.5 (90.0) DEM hold
NV...GOP...90.0 (90.0) GOP hold
NJ...DEM...91.0 (62.0) DEM hold
NM...DEM...95.5 (99.9) DEM hold
NY...DEM...99.6 (97.0) DEM hold
ND...DEM...95.0 (93.0) DEM hold
OH...DEM...95.0 (GOP 53.0) DEM gain
PA...DEM...94.9 (69.9) DEM gain
RI...DEM...78.0 (55.0) DEM gain
TN...GOP...82.9 (72.5) GOP hold
TX...GOP...97.0 (96.0) GOP hold
UT...GOP...95.5 (96.0) GOP hold
VT...IND...70.0 (90.0) IND hold
VA...DEM...52.0 (GOP 89.0) DEM gain
WA...DEM...92.2 (79.8) DEM hold
WV...DEM...97.0 (87.0) DEM hold
WI...DEM...95.0 (90.0) DEM hold
WY...GOP...95.0 (96.0) GOP hold

What is the total...DEM: +5, GOP: -6, IND: +1. In reality the 2 IND will be no different from being DEM seats. That would make the 2007-2008 Senate makeup GOP 49, DEM 49, IND 2.

Why Kiffmeyer should not be re-elected

First, Marty interviewed Mary Kiffmeyer for his podcast. In light of the "substance" of the interview and the things that Kiffmeyer’s campaign and her supporters are claiming it is time to put her record together.

Kiffmeyer and her word
Now, last week I sent the following e-mail to the address listed on the Kiffmeyer election website.

Dear Kiffmeyer campaign,
I host a radio show in the St Cloud area on Sundays on 1450 KNSI. My
name is Tony Garcia. I would like to offer Mary Kiffmeyer 10 minutes
this coming Sunday (October 29) from 1:10 to 1:20.

Thank you,
Tony

Two hours later I received the following:

Tony. I would be glad to be on. Just need the info etc. Thanks Mary

However, I knew it to be a lie. First, the e-mail came from "James Kiffmeyer" according to the header information. Second, Kiffmeyer's record has been 4 confirmed appearances (all confirmations no futher out than 48 hours) and ONE actual follow-through. Of those four, only the fourth was after any criticism whatsoever by the show. Third, I know Kiffmeyer is unable to defend herself and so she would not show up, especially since her biggest apologist would not be there to protect her from hard questions.

Out of respect I posted the interview being scheduled on this blog, the show's websites and on the station's website. My show prep for the 10 minute segment: nothing for an interview. I was banking that she would not show up and prepared the segment to outline failures from just the past 2 months.

Now Marty was allowed to interview her. In his interview he took some cheap shots at Kiffmeyer's opponents based on absolutely nothing. Among them, comparing their websites to those of alien cover-up conspiracy theorists. This is type of "discourse" has been typical from the partisan hacks of both sides, so it is not new. But I wanted to point out that Kiffmeyer's running away from tough questions is worse than most other candidates...because there are a number legitimate issues that she should be questioned about (and she should be given the chance to offer her side) and there are a number of claims by her directly and by her ads that are in dire need of fact corrections.

Partisanship in the office of Secretary of State
This is obviously a subjective charge. I think the case can more easily be made that many of the rulings from Kiffmeyer have been favorable for her party. It has also been charged that Kiffmeyer broke from the norm by using political appointees for her elections staff rather than civil service. Kiffmeyer's ONLY response is "those are just partisan attacks against me." Without some actual refutation from the embattled incumbent it is more reasonable to believe she does operate the SoS office with partisan advancement as a high priority. Sadly, of all of the non-judicial offices on the ballot THIS is the one that should be the LEAST partisan. Charges of a partisan governor or senator are, well, silly. Charges of a partisan Attorney General should be taken seriously...and the burden of proof to should be on the incumbent to demonstrate non-partisanship while in office. For the Secretary of State this should be even moreso. Charges of partisanship in the SoS office should be taken seriously by voters...and the defense should be more than, 'wa-a-a-h, the attacks are just partisan'. Even if you accept that the charges are partisan it does not automatically mean the charges are false...and a SoS that uses a "two wrongs make a right" arguement are too childish to be returned to office.

Taking credit for voter turnout
"In fact the voter turnout has gone up every year."--from Marty's interview with Kiffmeyer, accessed 11/2/06.

I talked with Marty about his interview before I heard it. He said she did not take credit for rising voter turnout in Minnesota during her reign. Less than an hour later I heard an advertisement on the radio that actually did do that. Then hearing the above quote from Mary's mouth answering Marty's question of 'why should voters re-elect you' I feel compelled to point out the fallacy of her claim.

Nationally voter turn out in Presidential Election years has been as follows ¹:

Year	Pct	Chg
2004	60.3%	6.1
2000	54.2%	2.5
1996	51.7%	(4.4)

Notice a trend? Rising.

In the Midwest for the same period the results are:

.	IA		MN		SD		WI		National		Midwest
Year	pct	chg	pct	chg	pct	chg	pct	chg	pct	chg	pct	chg
2004	69.3	6.1	76.8	7.2	68.9	11.2	76.2	8.6	60.3	6.1	72.8	8.3
2000	63.2	4.4	69.6	3.5	57.7	-3.4	67.6	9.2	54.2	2.5	64.5	3.4
1996	58.8	-5.5	66.1	-5.5	61.1	-2.5	58.4	-9.6	51.7	-4.4	61.1	-5.8

Notice that the change from previous election data shows Minnesota to be following the national trend and following the trend in the Midwest. Notice also that when compared to the other three states compiled in the Midwest figures Minnesota during Kiffmeyer's terms is 3rd out of 4 in cycle-to-cycle comparison.

I know what the partisan talking point response is. "Minnesota has the highest actual turnout rate." Certainly is the case...and has been for long before Kiffmeyer...that Minnesota's citizens are amongst the top in terms of turnout. Kiffmeyer does not deserve credit for this.

"But Minnesota's rank was falling until Kiffmeyer showed up." This is a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc or "Coincidental Correlation". The key ingredients that are missing from this claim of Kiffmeyer's are (1) events since 1998 and (2) demographics of Minnesota.

EVENTS SINCE 1998
Jesse. That sparked more interest and as a result higher turnout in Minnesota not only for 1998 but into 2000.

The 2000 election debacle had a significant affect on voter turnout. First, disaffected people began to believe that their vote could count. Second, party hacks became more entrenched and more energized.

9/11 made it a few more people feel that their patriotic duty in voting now also stood as defiance against the terrorists. That carried into the 2002 elections as did the deepening of partisan entrenchment now focused on the War of Terror, the Axis of Evil speech and what to do with Iraq. Hate for and support for Bush drove turnout trends upwards. In Minnesota the newfound energy from 1998 continued and a good portion of it was rooted in vindicating Minnesota internationally to make up for Jesse. This was also the Wellstone-Coleman matchup. If you had to pick just one person to credit for turnout in MN in 2002 it is not Kiffmeyer but your pick of the speakers from the Wellstone rally.

2004 was seen as a referrendum for/against Bush/Iraq. Mobilization nationally continued the upward turnout trend. A sense of needing to re-legitimize or re-establish legitimacy to the elections drove both parties and their supporters as well. The regular mantra of "these elections will shape the US Supreme Court" also helped drive turnout.

None of those could Kiffmeyer legitimately claim any credit over. Nothing Kiffmeyer purported to do to help turnout could be seriously considered to have near the impact as these events.

BATTLEGROUND STATE
In 1998 the GOP took over control of the state House for the first time since 1987. Minnesota had become a free-for-all. Third parties were on the rise with one being elected as Governor and two third-parties obtaining major party status. The 2002 election brought the Congressional delegation to a more balanced (3:5) split for the first time since the 1988 election. The 2004 election gave Minnesota an evenly split Congressional delegation for the first time since 1972. Minnesota was considered a battleground state which brings a bump in turnout.

How much of a bump? From 2000 to 2004, 9 battleground states had an aggregate turnout rate of 66.3%, up 8.4 points from the 2000 rate. Among the other 42 states (including DC) the aggregate was up 4.7 points to 58.9%. ^{2 3}

DEMOGRAPHICS OF MINNESOTA
Keep in mind other factors that affect turnout.

Whether the state had Election Day registration had a positive effect on turnout...As the percentage of Hispanics in the county’s population increased, turnout declined. The same was true of African-Americans. The percentage of senior citizens and college graduates in the county and household median income had positive effects on turnout. ⁴

Minnesota has had Same Day Registration since 1973. (Turnout for Minnesota should be expected to be higher.) Minnesota's population of Hispanics and African-Americans is far below the national average. ⁵. (Turnout for Minnesota should be expected to be higher.) Median household income in Minnesota is over 13% higher than the national average. ⁶ (Turnout for Minnesota should be expected to be higher.) The age groups demographics for Minnesota between (18-21 and 65+) had been rising as a percentage of the entire state population between 1990 and 2004. ^{7 8 9 10} (Turnout for Minnesota should be expected to be higher.)

The mid-term numbers show the same basic trends and have the same factors.

Oops, You mean timely is part of the SoS job
ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND BATTERED WOMEN SHELTER UPDATE
Failure to report clearly report election laws changes in a timely fashion is also an issue. ^{11 12 13}

ELECTION RESULTS...STILL INCOMPLETE
An issue that is covered in the next section is odd-year reporting...or lack thereof. However a part of that issue falls under Kiffmeyer's failures regarding timeliness. In 2001 general election results were not immediately reported (and a minor note...it seems some precints still have not reported). Why?

This site is presented as a pilot for local elections. Only certain counties are participating in this pilot.

And in 2003...

The Office of the Secretary of State is reporting election results for selected local elections held November 4, 2003 as part of its pilot to advance local election information and results reporting.

OK, 2-4 years so far for the "pilot". And for 2005...well, the pilot must be over. And the result is...? Either the pilot was a success and 2005 should have reported out-state results or the pilot was a failure and the claim "Minnesota is among the first states to pilot real-time election results reporting to the precinct level for cities and school districts" is falacious. Either way it has been a year since the 2005 elections and NOTHING has been reported.

TRANSPORTATION AMENDMENT
How long ago was the MVST Constitutional Amendment signed? Longer than a few weeks ago. And when were the ballots being finalized for printing? Again, longer than a couple of weeks ago. So why is it that less than three weeks away from the election the Secretary of State, Mary Kiffmeyer, still does not have a workable plan for counting/reporting the results for MVST? ¹⁴

Hennepin County elections specialist David Maeda said Kiffmeyer's plan would require someone in his office to manually enter the voter totals for all 426 county precincts. That might happen on election night, he said, if there are no snags. (emphasis added)

For someone being hailed as "competent" this does not sound like evidence of that competence.

Maeda said he suggested that Kiffmeyer's office program its computers to count blank votes, which Hennepin County collects electronically.

Others have ideas for solutions...why not Kiffmeyer?

Kiffmeyer's defense: "accuracy trumps expediency". Timeliness and competency would have had this addressed and solved back in July or August. For an office that claims to be leading the nation in reporting and innovation and technology it is interesting that there is not an ability of the heralded technology to properly count the number of ballots it scanned compared with the number of MVST "yes" votes.

Service

Why should you be re-elected? Because of the "...increased level of service..."

I have described previously the Kiffmeyer Office's trend of providing the absolute minimum service to the state that is required. The event that turned me away from passive supporter of Kiffmeyer to unsupportive of her re-election is her failure to provide the citizens of Minnesota statewide election results last year. Why? As her office said when I called, "We are not required to carry those in odd year elections." What her office instead suggested was that citizens find newspapers or other info gatherers throughout the state to get that information. Why not do that voluntarily to provide a service for the entire state or at least provide links to the varioud localities websites that provide those results? "We are not required by statute to do that." A year later according to the Secretary of State's information the only races in 2005 in Minnesota were:

* Mayor in St. Paul and Maplewood
* City Council in Maplewood, Roseville and White Bear Lake
* School Board Member in Saint Paul School District, Cloquet School District and Saint Paul School District

That is not good service from Kiffmeyer.

Consider this as well...the 2003 results are a bit more comprehensive. So why the DOWNGRADE in service from Kiffmeyer in 2005? Incompetence? Maybe. Not legally forced to do so, therefore she didn't? Very likely. The question has yet to be answered and as of Tuesday time should be up.

Let us not forget the kindergarten-like tantrum Kiffmeyer pitched in her first term. Why? Because she could not get her way from the Legislature. So she shut down her office...making things difficult for business.

Why should you be re-elected? Because I have "...decreased the fees..."

Fees...yep, plenty of them. And she cuts them...after she is criticized for them. ¹⁵

Rhetoric and deceit
"when you lay aside all the rhetoric"
Granted, this one is not her doing, but it should be pointed out. ¹⁶

Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer appears to be picking up endorsements right and left in her re-election bid: in a single week, she nabbed the nod from the Bemidji Pioneer, the Daily Globe in Worthington, the West Central Tribune in Willmar, and the Duluth News Tribune. And so does her ticketmate, Republican Jeff Johnson, who is running for attorney general: within days, he got noteworthy endorsements from the Detroit Lakes Tribune and the same Willmar and Worthington papers as Kiffmeyer.

But what looks like a Republican groundswell surging across rural Minnesota can be explained more simply: all seven editorials expressed the political preferences of one man, a practice that's more common than you might expect.

William C. Marcil is the president and CEO of a media mini-empire that owns the Fargo-Moorhead Forum, all the newspapers mentioned above, and around 30 other publications--not to mention a half dozen printing houses, three broadcast stations and an internet service provider. But when it comes to political endorsements, the company name, Forum Communications, is a bit of a misnomer: endorsements aren't determined through open debate and discussion by members of a local editorial board; they're decided upon by Marcil in his Fargo office and emailed to papers in Minnesota, the Dakotas, and Wisconsin.

Brad Swenson, editorial page editor of the Bemidji Pioneer, confirmed the policy in an interview yesterday. "Technically, it's part of the job. He owns the paper, he can say who gets endorsed," he says, adding, "Personally, in a lot of those races, I'm not voting that way."

I know that the apologists will have reasons why none of this stuff matters. But they do not have the ability to refute the following: Kiffmeyer does as little as possible; Kiffmeyer engages in partisan politics in her office; Kiffmeyer accomplishments are not what they seem to be; Kiffmeyer's positive actions come mostly as a result of intense criticism, legal requirements or court rulings; Kiffmeyer does little if anything that she is not obligated, required, ordered or mandated.

If THAT is what you Republicans want to be your representative, then so be it. But do not allow yourselves to be fooled that she is doing a good job, or even doing the job voluntarily.

----
FOOTNOTES
¹ Minnesota Voters Turnout, accessed 11/2/06
²"How Exceptional Was Turnout in 2004?" by Scott L. Althaus, accessed 11/2/06
³United States Elections Project, accessed 11/2/06
⁴”Protecting the franchise, or restricting it? The effects of voter identification requirements on turnout”, Timothy Vercellotti (Rutgers University) and David Anderson (Rutgers University), accessed 11/2/06
⁵US Census Bureau, accessed 11/2/06
⁶US Census Bureau, accessed 11/2/06
⁷US Census Bureau, accessed 11/2/06
⁸US Census Bureau, accessed 11/2/06
⁹US Census Bureau, accessed 11/2/06
¹⁰US Census Bureau, accessed 11/2/06
¹¹"Kiffmeyer selectively implementing election laws, Ritchie claims", accessed 11/2/06
¹²"Secretary of State’s Office Found in Violation of Legislation", accessed 11/2/06
¹³"DFL files complaint against Kiffmeyer", accessed 11/2/06
¹⁴"Transportation Amendment Results Could Be Delayed", accessed 11/2/06
¹⁵"Why not elect Mark Ritchie to do the job he's already doing?", accessed 11/2/06
¹⁶"One man, many votes: On owner-driven endorsements", accessed 11/2/06

Pete's Take: Kennedy, Klobuchar, Fitzgerald Debate

There is a debate going on as I write this between Robert Fitzgerald (I), Mark Kennedy (R), and Amy Klobuchar (D).

I love these debates. I would hardly call them debates however, as the subjects change not based on the topics, but what the "contestants" want to say or about what they want to poke at.
Here is my view on the debate:

The Social Security question was brought up. Kennedy points out how the current deficit is partly due to the War on Terror... then from the crowd you hear commenting, and angrily hushed "no's" and "boos" by the audience... after, of course, clapping earlier for Klobuchar when she commented on moving away from Kerry’s comments (actual quote below). It is made obvious here that the people in the crowd are defiantly not Republican, nor do they have much common sense.

Klobuchar points out how she wants to cut the Bush tax cuts (ie. raise your taxes), because they are mostly for the rich. This is a great example of the socialist "Lets force everyone to be equal" crap. I wish Klobuchar would have pointed out how the Top 1% Pay 34.27% of taxes and the top 50% pay 96.54% of all income taxes.

Fitzgerald mentions that we can't deficit spend our way to fixing Medicare and social security while we are spending so much on a war... Hmmmm... Didn’t the audience boo earlier when Kennedy pointed out that part of the deficit is due to the War on Terror?

Klobuchar on embryonic steam cell research, and Fitzgerald mentions how it doesn’t make since to tie our hands on embryonic stem cell research.

To quote Wall Street Journal: Europe In their September 3, 2001 issue, page 36, by Richard Miniter:

Of the 15 US biotech companies solely devoted to developing cures using stem cells, only two focus on embryos. Embryo stem cell research is at the drawing-board stage – not for lack of funds but for lack of promising research to finance. Venture capitalists have no agenda beyond making money; if they see embryo projects that are likely to bear fruit over the next five to seven years – the usual VC time horizon – they will fund them. That the market is speaking so loudly against embryo stem cell research probably explains why embryo researchers are so eager to reverse the ban on government funding.

Kennedy says that the adult stem cells are more useful and it is not the government’s place to charge people for what they do not morally believe in.

The question on abortion: Where do you stand on the issue on abortion and why:

Fitsgerald’s answer stuck out more then Kennedy (who is against) or Klobuchar (who said she wants a reduction in the number, against all but … Fitsgerald says, and I quote: “only fanatical zealots believe that passing legislation will reduce the number of abortions.” Interesting way to word that, there, Robert. I believe that is best met with no response, because If I say anything, I will seam like a “Fanatical Zealot.”

In his closing remarks, Kennedy mentioned, in part, John Kerry’s “disparaging remarks,” and this again was met with hushed anger from the crowd, and a soft clapping when the audience was queued to clap. Earlier Klobuchar said “unlike the congressman, I don’t think the people in Minnesota are interested in going back and redoing the Kerry bush fight, they want to talk about the elections in November, and it is time for a change” where she was interrupted with clapping form the audience.

When Robert Fitzgerald finished, there was quick, louder clapping from the audience. He blathered on about minnesota’s having a responsibility to reclaim the government that’s gotten away from us. May I remind the people reading this that Minnesota is a Blue State? Oh good, it wouldn’t be complete without bashing Big Oil and Big Pharmaceuticals, that wraps it up nicely.

And Amy Klobuhcar’s remarks are typical liberal. Holy crap, friends, I can’t make this stuff up. Listen to this excerpt:

Too many of these guys are lost in their own wilderness, they’ve been led astray by the Enron’s, the Exxon’s, and the Halliburton’s, and they need a compass, they need a moral compass (light clapping), but the only problem is all they’ve got is the congressional compass, and it only points in one direction, and that toward “W” as in George W, and I can tell you this, when I’m your senator, I won’t be following the Loan Star, I’ll be following the North Star (clapping again)…

She mentions that its about "energy independence, investing in the farmers and the workers of the mid west instead of the Oil Cartels of the mid east"

Great, what a way to win on the current topics, lets point some more fingers and blame Big Oil, The Rich, and George W Bush for whatever we can. Gesh... and don't forget... "Energy Independence" from the "oil cartels of the mid east" apparently doesn't mean using our own oil (ANWR), now does it?

Man, I let these crazy liberals get to me far too often, but it can’t be helped when they say stupid stuff like that.

Go Mark Kennedy. You’ve got my vote.