Minnesota

[curiousliberal]

Oct 22, 2020 22:20:36 GMT CatholicLeft said:

Oct 22, 2020 19:52:13 GMT conservativeestimate said:

Indeed, as we know. Are we likely to see a poll?

There was one Fischbach internal half a year ago showing her up 52% to 42%, but that's been it so far.

[conservativeestimate]

The key takeaway is that 538 gives the 30-year incumbent Peterson only a 1 in 4 (!) chance of winning in MN-07.

In 2010 another Minnesota Democrat, Jim Oberstar, lost after 36 years in the House iirc. His old seat flipped back in 2012 but was one of just three Republican gains in 2018.

[timmullen1]

Oct 23, 2020 10:49:55 GMT conservativeestimate said:

The key takeaway is that 538 gives the 30-year incumbent Peterson only a 1 in 4 (!) chance of winning.

In 2010 another Minnesota incumbent, Jim Oberstar lost after 36 years in the House iirc.

Slightly different I think in that Oberstar’s conquerer, Chip Cravaack, was a one termer before losing to a former Congressman for much of the District, Rick Nolan. Nolan might have been in a similar boat to Peterson but retired to care for his terminally ill daughter, and then launch a somewhat quixotic challenge to Tim Walz for the gubernatorial nomination. It should be said that Iron Range DFLers have long said Peterson is the only Democrat able to win that District and he would either run out of luck at the ballot box or retire, but either way the District would flip Republican sooner rather than later. My friend who’s on the Minnesota DFL executive thinks if Walz or Klobuchar had been on the ballot they might have dragged him over the line, but Tina Smith lacks coattails.

[AJS]

SurveyUSA — rated A by 538 — has a new poll giving Biden a lead of just 6% in Minnesota which is a little close for comfort given it voted Democrat last time.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/minnesota/

[timmullen1]

Oct 24, 2020 2:08:14 GMT AJS said:

SurveyUSA — rated A by 538 — has a new poll giving Biden a lead of just 6% in Minnesota which is a little close for comfort given it voted Democrat last time.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/minnesota/

But only by 1.5%, so still a sizeable swing to the Democrats, and bang on the 6.2% polling average.

[minionofmidas]

Oct 23, 2020 11:03:10 GMT timmullen1 said:

Oct 23, 2020 10:49:55 GMT conservativeestimate said:

The key takeaway is that 538 gives the 30-year incumbent Peterson only a 1 in 4 (!) chance of winning.

In 2010 another Minnesota incumbent, Jim Oberstar lost after 36 years in the House iirc.

Slightly different I think in that Oberstar’s conquerer, Chip Cravaack, was a one termer before losing to a former Congressman for much of the District, Rick Nolan. Nolan might have been in a similar boat to Peterson but retired to care for his terminally ill daughter, and then launch a somewhat quixotic challenge to Tim Walz for the gubernatorial nomination. It should be said that Iron Range DFLers have long said Peterson is the only Democrat able to win that District and he would either run out of luck at the ballot box or retire, but either way the District would flip Republican sooner rather than later. My friend who’s on the Minnesota DFL executive thinks if Walz or Klobuchar had been on the ballot they might have dragged him over the line, but Tina Smith lacks coattails.

the state is also losing a congressional district in 2022 and Peterson's is a fairly logical candidate to cut (with the 6th morphing into something much more rural). A new R incumbent with some clout complicates things; Peterson would have just retired in 2022.
Nolan's old district from way back when barely overlapped the modern 8th at their respective ne/sw extremities. It's otherwise split between the 1st, 6th and 7th now.

[heslingtonian]

Not much polling evidence this Trump target will be close. The only state Reagan never won incidentally. Biden 53%, Trump 44%

[conservativeestimate]

[David]

Keith Ellison limited Trump's rally to 250 people. Trump left the MN rally quickly, and went and spoke to the thousands waiting outside. Funny that. It's perfectly acceptable for terrorists to burn people's homes and businesses in that state, but a rally by your political opponent? That's apparently too far.

[mondialito]

Oct 31, 2020 1:03:06 GMT David said:

Keith Ellison limited Trump's rally to 250 people. Trump left the MN rally quickly, and went and spoke to the thousands waiting outside. Funny that. It's perfectly acceptable for terrorists to burn people's homes and businesses in that state, but a rally by your political opponent? That's apparently too far.

It probably has more to do with the ongoing pandemic the President didn't properly respond to.

[greenchristian]

Oct 31, 2020 1:03:06 GMT David said:

Keith Ellison limited Trump's rally to 250 people. Trump left the MN rally quickly, and went and spoke to the thousands waiting outside. Funny that. It's perfectly acceptable for terrorists to burn people's homes and businesses in that state, but a rally by your political opponent? That's apparently too far.

Ellison didn't specifically limit Trump's rally for political reasons. The limit was the result of Covid regulations which are intended to limit the spread of a pandemic disease. I'm unsure why you think it's worth posting this kind of misleading conspiracy theory on a forum of people who are incredibly unlikely to buy into it. It seems like a waste of both your time and ours.

[David]

Perhaps mondialito and greenchristian should read my post again. Terrorists
burned and looted homes and businesses at the very height of the pandemic and Ellison didn't crackdown on them, did he?

[timmullen1]

Oct 31, 2020 1:03:06 GMT David said:

Keith Ellison limited Trump's rally to 250 people. Trump left the MN rally quickly, and went and spoke to the thousands waiting outside. Funny that. It's perfectly acceptable for terrorists to burn people's homes and businesses in that state, but a rally by your political opponent? That's apparently too far.

Has the Department of Justice designated any of the Minnesota protestors as domestic terrorists? No? Then they weren’t terrorists. Grow. Up.

[David]

Oct 31, 2020 1:12:23 GMT timmullen1 said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:03:06 GMT David said:

Keith Ellison limited Trump's rally to 250 people. Trump left the MN rally quickly, and went and spoke to the thousands waiting outside. Funny that. It's perfectly acceptable for terrorists to burn people's homes and businesses in that state, but a rally by your political opponent? That's apparently too far.

Has the Department of Justice designated any of the Minnesota protestors as domestic terrorists? No? Then they weren’t terrorists. Grow. Up.

No, they were wonderful people. Murdering the innocent. The likes of you get so worked up at a bad word, and yet did we hear a peep when David Dorn was murdered?

[greenchristian]

Oct 31, 2020 1:16:02 GMT David said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:12:23 GMT timmullen1 said:

Has the Department of Justice designated any of the Minnesota protestors as domestic terrorists? No? Then they weren’t terrorists. Grow. Up.

No, they were wonderful people. Murdering the innocent. The likes of you get so worked up at a bad word, and yet did we hear a peep when David Dorn was murdered?

By which logic, I don't recall you condemning the terrorists in Charlottesville who Trump called "good people".

You are coming across as an uncritical partisan shill for Trump. The Trump rally was clearly restricted in order to prevent the spread of covid, and those rules would have applied to any other gathering of similar scale. Your post implied that it was done for partisan reasons. That is ridiculous. You are also justifying your condemnation on the basis of whataboutery, condemning Ellison's handling of protestors by incorrectly calling them terrorists.

You are coming across as if you were getting all your information about this kind of thing from Breitbart. So you really shouldn't be taking offence to people treating that appropriate.

[timmullen1]

Oct 31, 2020 1:16:02 GMT David said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:12:23 GMT timmullen1 said:

Has the Department of Justice designated any of the Minnesota protestors as domestic terrorists? No? Then they weren’t terrorists. Grow. Up.

No, they were wonderful people. Murdering the innocent. The likes of you get so worked up at a bad word, and yet did we hear a peep when David Dorn was murdered?

Keith Ellison is a State law officer, he can’t designate people as terrorists himself it’s outwith his job description, only the Federal government can make such a designation, they haven’t, ergo the protesters are not terrorists. Words matter.

Equally Mr Ellison can only prosecute what Minnesota statute defines as State crimes, i.e. what the State legislature (Republican controlled) has designated a Statewide criminal activity; the protests we saw, just like the killing of George Floyd that triggered them, were under the jurisdiction of the counties in which they occurred, so any prosecutions are the decision of the county prosecuting authority not Mr Ellison.

Got any facts for us yet? No, didn’t think so.

[David]

Oct 31, 2020 1:39:41 GMT greenchristian said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:16:02 GMT David said:

No, they were wonderful people. Murdering the innocent. The likes of you get so worked up at a bad word, and yet did we hear a peep when David Dorn was murdered?

By which logic, I don't recall you condemning the terrorists in Charlottesville who Trump called "good people".

You are coming across as an uncritical partisan shill for Trump. The Trump rally was clearly restricted in order to prevent the spread of covid, and those rules would have applied to any other gathering of similar scale. Your post implied that it was done for partisan reasons. That is ridiculous. You are also justifying your condemnation on the basis of whataboutery, condemning Ellison's handling of protestors by incorrectly calling them terrorists.

You are coming across as if you were getting all your information about this kind of thing from Breitbart. So you really shouldn't be taking offence to people treating that appropriate.

I wasn't a member of the forum at that time, but I would've condemned it. Indeed, if you read my list of pros and cons about each candidate, you should see "both sides" under Trump's name. Secondly, I have repeatedly condemned Donald Trump on this forum when I have disagreed with him. Just because I disagree with you on this forum regarding Trump, it doesn't mean I am any kind of shill. Though you are right, I am accusing Ellison of acting in a politically partial way in relation to Trump's rally. I am also not taking offence, but I do thin it needed to call out the hypocrisy of the left on this forum.

One thing is for sure, I have always been borderline disgusted by Trump and I was deeply unsure about my forum endorsement for him. The behaviour of the left however, only confirms that it was the correct choice.

[timmullen1]

Oct 31, 2020 1:58:18 GMT David said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:39:41 GMT greenchristian said:

By which logic, I don't recall you condemning the terrorists in Charlottesville who Trump called "good people".

You are coming across as an uncritical partisan shill for Trump. The Trump rally was clearly restricted in order to prevent the spread of covid, and those rules would have applied to any other gathering of similar scale. Your post implied that it was done for partisan reasons. That is ridiculous. You are also justifying your condemnation on the basis of whataboutery, condemning Ellison's handling of protestors by incorrectly calling them terrorists.

You are coming across as if you were getting all your information about this kind of thing from Breitbart. So you really shouldn't be taking offence to people treating that appropriate.

I wasn't a member of the forum at that time, but I would've condemned it. Indeed, if you read my list of pros and cons about each candidate, you should see "both sides" under Trump's name. Secondly, I have repeatedly condemned Donald Trump on this forum when I have disagreed with him. Just because I disagree with you on this forum regarding Trump, it doesn't mean I am any kind of shill. Though you are right, I am accusing Ellison of acting in a politically partial way in relation to Trump's rally. I am also not taking offence, but I do thin it needed to call out the hypocrisy of the left on this forum.

One thing is for sure, I have always been borderline disgusted by Trump and I was deeply unsure about my forum endorsement for him. The behaviour of the left however, only confirms that it was the correct choice.

So the fact that Ellison is using the same statute to prevent fans attending Minnesota Vikings home NFL games is partisan? Yeah, right.

[David]

Oct 31, 2020 1:42:57 GMT timmullen1 said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:16:02 GMT David said:

No, they were wonderful people. Murdering the innocent. The likes of you get so worked up at a bad word, and yet did we hear a peep when David Dorn was murdered?

Keith Ellison is a State law officer, he can’t designate people as terrorists himself it’s outwith his job description, only the Federal government can make such a designation, they haven’t, ergo the protesters are not terrorists. Words matter.

Equally Mr Ellison can only prosecute what Minnesota statute defines as State crimes, i.e. what the State legislature (Republican controlled) has designated a Statewide criminal activity; the protests we saw, just like the killing of George Floyd that triggered them, were under the jurisdiction of the counties in which they occurred, so any prosecutions are the decision of the county prosecuting authority not Mr Ellison.

Got any facts for us yet? No, didn’t think so.

"Words matter". They do. That's why if it burns shit down like a terrorist and murders people like a terrorist, I'm gonna call it a terrorist. As for Ellison's job description, first degree arson is a state law, no? Why isn't he prosecuting that?

[David]

Oct 31, 2020 2:00:31 GMT timmullen1 said:

Oct 31, 2020 1:58:18 GMT David said:

I wasn't a member of the forum at that time, but I would've condemned it. Indeed, if you read my list of pros and cons about each candidate, you should see "both sides" under Trump's name. Secondly, I have repeatedly condemned Donald Trump on this forum when I have disagreed with him. Just because I disagree with you on this forum regarding Trump, it doesn't mean I am any kind of shill. Though you are right, I am accusing Ellison of acting in a politically partial way in relation to Trump's rally. I am also not taking offence, but I do thin it needed to call out the hypocrisy of the left on this forum.

One thing is for sure, I have always been borderline disgusted by Trump and I was deeply unsure about my forum endorsement for him. The behaviour of the left however, only confirms that it was the correct choice.

So the fact that Ellison is using the same statute to prevent fans attending Minnesota Vikings home NFL games is partisan? Yeah, right.

A football game isn't the same thing. To repress a political rally at the climax of the most divisive, violent and, arguably, consequential election in generations is a choice he made. I, and anyone else on earth, has the right to criticise him for that.