Posted on 10/17/2007 7:39:38 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued
"Demographically speaking, it's a toss-up district," she said. "It's one of the districts that either party could win, particularly if the parties put up moderate candidates."
"I have absolutely moved forward to set up a campaign and organize a strong campaign," said state Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Eden Prairie. Paulsen has hired campaign staff and filed the federal paperwork needed to raise money. Paulsen has served seven terms in the Minnesota House, including four years as the Republican Majority Leader.
Rep. Erik Paulsen, R-Eden Prairie.Much of his attention this week is focused on getting ready for a trip to India with Gov. Tim Pawlenty as part of a Minnesota trade delegation. But Paulsen is also lining up support for a congressional bid.
"This is absolutely another wonderful opportunity to enter public service at a different level, focusing on issues like globalization and issues that I think that I genuinely care about and I think have learned a lot about some expertise on now and try to carry that to a new level as we do try to educate our kids for a global economy," he said. "So that's something in the back of my mind that definitely interests me and the opportunity, and I think I would do a good job."
Paulsen isn't the only Republican interested in the 3rd District seat. Rep. Kurt Zellers, R- Maple Grove, said he's also weighing his options.
On the DFL side, Sen. Terri Bonoff, DFL- Minnetonka, has hired a campaign manager and set up a Web site where she is soliciting campaign donations. Her federal campaign finance report shows $88,500 raised in just one week at the end of September. One thing Bonoff hasn't done yet is make an official announcement of her candidacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at minnesota.publicradio.org ...
It’s Paulsn vs. Bonoff, it looks like. And it’ll be a 50/50 race, too. The voters of Minneapolis will be bombarded with TV ads for most of 2008.
The Democrats picked up 30 House seats in 2006, and in 27 of the 30 seats it was a male Democrat that won (the only females being Gabrielle Giffords in AZ-08, Nancy Boyda in KS-02 and Carol Shea-Porter in NH-01). Of course, one could argue that that's partly because more male Democrats than female Democrats run for Congress, which is a fair point. But the Democrats in successful races are only part of the story. If we look at the next 30 best takeover opportunities (on paper) for the Democrats---the seats that the Democrats could have picked up but didn't---we see that there were 19 female Democrats and only 11 male Democrats running for those seats! This includes races that, had one been told that the Democrats would pick up 30 seats, one would have never imagined could possibly be won by the Republicans. Let's start off with the most obvious missed opportunities for the Democrats. I think there is a consensus that, based on the GOP candidate and the district demographics, the 10 biggest missed opportunities for House Democrats in 2006 were (in no particular order) (1) the IL-06 open seat (Hyde's old seat), (2) Gerlach's PA-06, (3) Shays's CT-04 (the only House seat in New England still held by the GOP), (4) Pryce's OH-15, (5) Wilson's NM-01, (6) Reichert's WA-08, (7) the MN-06 open seat (Mark Kennedy's old seat), (8) Porter's NV-03 seat, (9) the FL-13 open seat (Harris's old seat) and (10) Drake's VA-02. Well, in those 10 biggest missed opportunities, the Democrats ran a female candidate in the first 9 (Tammy Duckworth, Lois Murphy, Diane Farrell, Mary Jo Kilroy, Patricia Madrid, Darcy Burner, Patty Wetterling, Tessa Hafen and Christine Jennings, respectively), and a male only in the VA-02 (Phil Kellam).
And if we see the next 20 biggest missed opportunities for Democrats, while the group now has 10 female candidates and 10 male candidates, it is clear that the male candidates came closer to winning despite running in far more Republican districts than their female counterparts. Male Democrats came close to winning in the overwhelmingly Republican CA-04 (Charlie Brown), KY-04 (Ken Lucas), ID-01 (Larry Grant) and Wyoming-At Large (Gary Trauner), as well as in several districts with strong Republican leans (Jack Davis in NY-26, Eric Massa in NY-29 and Larry Kissell in NC-08); the only female Democrats who came close to winning in such difficult districts were Victoria Wulsin in OH-02 and Angie Paccione in CO-04.
In conclusion, Republicans seem to do better in House races when running against female Democrats, especially in GOP-leaning districts. My hypothesis is that male Republican voters are less likely to vote for a female Democrat than for a male Democrat because it is harder for the female Democrat politician to project a "conservative" or "moderate" image. While the MN-03 that Jim Ramstad is vacating has only a slight GOP lean in presidential elections, it is historically Republican and normally favors the Republican House nominee. The fact that Democrats are poised to nominate a female candidate, Terri Bonoff, bodes well for GOP hopes of holding on to the seat. Remember, while Minnesota's two most highly publicized 2006 Democrat House challengers---Patty Wetterling and Coleen Rowley---were losing by wide margins, the little-known male Democrat in the MN-01, Tim Walz, pulled off the upset.
Sorry for the double post.
And Dr. Victoria "Vic" Wulsin was running against Congresswoman Jean Schmidt in OH-02.
This time around both Wulsin and Shcmidt have male primary opponents before a potential rematch. Schmidt's challenger is outraising her and I think Wulsin's is too.
So Goldwater, what does your analysis portend for Missus Clinton’s presidential run?
“So Goldwater, what does your analysis portend for Missus Clinton’s presidential run?”
If my hypothesis is correct and male Republicans are less likely to vote for female Democrats than for male Democrats because it is harder for the female Democrat to project a “conservative” or “moderate” image, then it does not look good for Hillary Clinton. Basically, she needs to do as well as her husband did in 1992 and 1996 in order to win 51%-49%, and if male Republicans who voted for Bill Clinton won’t vote for Hillary, then she can’t win.
BTW, the reason why I say that doing as well as Bill would give her a 51%-49% win is that that would be pretty close to Bill Clinton’s popular-vote margin in both 1992 and 1996 when one adjusts for the Perot factor (had Perot not been on the ballot, Bill Clinton would have gotten between 50%-51% of the popular vote in both 1992 and 1996, between 264-283 electoral votes in 1992, and between 268-291 EVs in 1996).
” In conclusion, Republicans seem to do better in House races when running against female Democrats, especially in GOP-leaning districts. My hypothesis is that male Republican voters are less likely to vote for a female Democrat than for a male Democrat because it is harder for the female Democrat politician to project a “conservative” or “moderate” image.”
Excellent analysis as always!
What the Democrats did, and Jim Webb, Ellsworth and that Admiral who beat Weldon are good examples - was make inroads in the male “Perot” moderates sick of certain aspects of Bush admin. - losing in Iraq, trade/loss-of-jobs/economy and the competence factor. Tim Walz, I recall, was lamenting the broken immigration system, sounding like a freeper practically (even though his solution was/is liberal).
“My hypothesis is that male Republican voters are less likely to vote for a female Democrat than for a male Democrat because it is harder for the female Democrat politician to project a “conservative” or “moderate” image.”
Correct, but the voting segment is probably the male independents. These are those males that voted Perot in 1992, helped the GOP win in 1994, and along with ‘security Moms’ support Bush in 2002 and 2004.
The GOP needs to ask: HOW DO WE WIN THEM BACK?
“So Goldwater, what does your analysis portend for Missus Clinton’s presidential run?”
Hillary’s going to get a comeuppance.
There may be a reason Edwards and Obama both poll better in the general election matchups.
At the same time, perhaps some Democrat voters will be more willing to vote for a female Republican, as it’s easier for her to project a moderate image.
Statewide in Ohio and certainly in my little corner of the state, we joke that being a woman is good for 4 or 5 points extra points.
While this is not true in GOP leaning congessional seats, it seems to be true for statewide races, state rep races, and judicial races.
“At the same time, perhaps some Democrat voters will be more willing to vote for a female Republican, as it’s easier for her to project a moderate image.”
Don’t forget Michelle Bachman. Patty Wetterling tried to milk his son’s death for all its worth. Also, liberal tried to portray Bachman as a Evangelical who hates Catholics. These cheat shops didn’t work on a Bachman who is a mother of several kids.
I just realized that I messed up, and that 4, not 3, Democrat women took over GOP House seats in 2006; I had forgotten about Kirsten Gillibrand in the NY-20. Still, 26 out of 30 takeovers were by male Democrats.
Not to mention, that Wetterling is a fraud, and
Michele is HOT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.