Kagan Makes Mundane Statement, Wingnuts Freak Out »« Steve King Against Griswold Ruling

Bachmann in a Real Reelection Fight

John Avlon takes a look at the battle between Michele Bachmann and Jim Graves for her seat in Congress, which looks like a close race despite a massive money advantage for Bachmann (she absurdly claims that she is being outspent when, in reality, she’s spending about 10 times what Graves is and has raised more money than all but two Senate candidates).

Polls show the race is now neck and neck—with 48 percent for Bachmann and 46 percent for Graves and the remaining still undecided, according to a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll (outside polling also shows Graves close behind, within single digits). Crucially, independent voters now lean toward Graves by a 15-point margin. Now the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is backing Graves in his campaign, showing it is very much in play.

But this is the most conservative district in Minnesota, compounded by redistricting. Moreover, Bachmann has been a successful conspiracy entrepreneur—raising millions of dollars in campaign donation by throwing out extreme statements—such as questioning how many fellow congressmen have “anti-American” views (to use one mild example)—and then fundraising off it by playing the victim.

“She makes these inflammatory comments for fundraising purposes,” Graves recognizes. “As soon as she says something outrageous, the money spigot opens up. I was just told she’s raised more than $20 million this race”—in fact that number includes the money she took in during her presidential primary run—”that’s unbelievable in a rural moderate Minnesota district. We’re more in the $2 million range—so she’s got a 10 to 1 advantage.”

I don’t think he’s gonna win here, but he’s keeping it interesting. If I was a praying man, I’d pray for her to lose. She’s not just stupid and crazy, she’s dangerous.

Comments

  1. trucreep says

    My sweet sweet Bachmann…my heart swoons for you! Even if you’re NUTS…who among our congressmen isn’t?!

  2. says

    I was having a conversation with a couple of guys yesterday, about the current PotUS race.

    One of the gents said that he doesn’t see any difference, none, between the two candidates but that the current president was worse. That’s the kind of magical thinking that a lot of people engage in. It’s something along the lines of:

    “I don’t like my lot in life, it’s someone else’s fault. I will vote for the guy that promises me the pony, even though I know he won’t do a fucking thing for me after the election.”.

    I told both of them that if they’re sick of the current state of affairs that they need to get involved in politics at the local level. They both looked at me like I have two heads.

  3. slc1 says

    The fact is that the folks in the Politburo didn’t see it that way. Khrushchev was ousted from power 2 years later, in part for what Brezhnev and company considered his dangerous adventurousness relative to placing nuclear weapons in the first place. They considered that placing the missiles in Cuba and then removing them under pressure was a sign of weakness, not strength.

    The liquid fueled missiles that were based in Turkey actually contributed nothing to deterrence as, in the event of a nuclear exchange, they would be eliminated before they could be fueled and launched. The real concession made by Kennedy was a promise not to repeat the Bay of Pigs invasion, a promise that has been adhered to ever since.

  4. slc1 says

    Re #4

    Oops, wrong blog. This should have been posted on Prof. Singham’s blog. If possible, Mr. Brayton should just delete comment @4.

  5. campbell says

    One of her chief fundraising guys is prominent among Jewish Conservative Republicans. They LOVE her for what they believe are her positions on Israel and paranoid rantings about Muslim Brotherhood taking over Congress. Strange bed-fellows, of course, as they’ll all just end up Left Behind cannon fodder if the fundigelicals get their way and do their best to bring on the 2nd Coming in the Middle East…

  6. dcsohl says

    No, I think comment #4 should stay. It makes as much sense in this conversation as anything Michele Bachmann might say.

  7. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    [Michele Bachman's] not just stupid and crazy, she’s dangerous.

    All Republicans are dangerous, the party monolithically denies anthropogenic global warming and successfully obstructs mitigation of its harm and threat.

    It’s as if we’re debating politics in 1933 while denying or avoiding the existence of the Nazi threat, actually our moral failure is far worse today since we know with a high degree of confidence what the implications of business-as-usual is when it comes to climate change; far better than we could project the worst case scenario for Nazism in ’33.

  8. blf says

    Comment 4 is a long more interesting (and, as far as I know, accurate) then anything Bachmann says (or, I presume, has ever said).
    I find it somewhat amusing a comment about a dangerous but historical situation is in a thread about a current and dangerous lunatic.

  9. matty1 says

    @3 Going by your report of the conversation I think the line of thinking is more along the lines of.

    “I don’t like my lot in life, it’s someone else’s fault. It must be that guy in charge so I’ll vote the other way that’ll show him”.

    This seems more consistent with voting against the incumbent despite not believing the other guy is better. Your original interpretation suggested they had reasons to actively support Romney (albeit stupid reasons).

  10. greg1466 says

    I think the real story here is that anyone will vote for someone so obviously dangerous, delusional and ignorant. Ditto Santorum, Perry, et. al. Says boat loads about the average American voter.

  11. says

    “Your original interpretation suggested they had reasons to actively support Romney (albeit stupid reasons).”

    Actually, no. They didn’t have “reasons”, they had “feelings”, well, feelings and racist thoughts, perhaps.

Leave a Reply