More NRCC mailers playing games with Dillon

by: Joe Bodell

Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 16:48:30 PM CDT

And this one didn't take any reports from sources -- it showed up in my mailbox today. There are two choices here -- the NRCC's list managers are abject idiots, and can't tell that people like me and my wife are not GOP-leaning voters, or they know full-well the're sending these mailers to DFLers and are playing sleazy political games as usual.

Hint for undecided voters looking for a final push over the finish line and into the voting booth: if you care about affordable health coverage, if you want to see expanded stem cell and therapeutic research, vote for Ashwin Madia, whether you are a DFLer, a Republican, or independent.

If there was any doubt as to the NRCC's goals with the first mailer, that doubt is gone -- they are trying their damnedest to screw around with DFL voters in a desperate attempt for a win-by-third-party-spoiler.

It won't work, and we will send Ashwin Madia to Congress on Tuesday.

NRCC attacking Dillon -- or are they?

by: Joe Bodell

Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM CDT

The National Republican Congressional Committee's independent expenditure arm has started spending money to knock a third-party candidate in Minnesota's 3rd Congressional district, where one of the most competitive races in the country is under way to fill retiring Rep. Jim Ramstad's (R) seat.

...

The NRCC's IE unit spent $11,200 in mail opposing businessman David Dillon, the nominee of the Independence Party, according to online finance records. Although that is a small amount of money considering the millions of dollars both parties are investing in Congressional races, the spending suggests that Dillon is likely taking votes away from Paulsen.

Why would the NRCC be sending mail to strong Dems?  It's entirely possible their lists are just bad. On the other hand, my sources indicate that the mailer (visible at right) attacks David Dillon for being too liberal on the issues -- that doesn't sound like the NRCC is worried about conservative voters crossing over for the third party. Rather, it sounds like they're trying to encourage a little dissention in the ranks of strong Democrats, and get Madia voters to vote third party. Under this theory (which, admittedly, is what it is), the NRCC doesn't care about Dillon, but are trying to play reverse-psychology games with the DFL base in CD3.

Sneaky, but not out of character for the NRCC. I'm waiting on Here's a scan of the mailer so you can have a good look at it. For $11,000, the NRCC gets maybe 20,000 pieces of mail, perhaps 40,000 voters. Not a huge universe for a mail piece like this one, unless they're really, really worried about losing by a couple of points.

CD3 Debate wrap: Madia solid, Paulsen decent

by: Joe Bodell

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 15:38:58 PM CDT

That being said, DFLer Ashwin Madia turned in a solid performance this morning before a neutral crowd, unfriendly question framing, and often facing two opponents at once.

Madia aggressively stuck to his talking points, repeatedly using the word "specific" to describe his proposals on various issues. This is his strength: succinctly framing the issue at hand, and offering bullet-list proposals for solving it.

Republican opponent Erik Paulsen displayed plenty of message discipline as well, but at a higher, more meta-level. Paulsen was careful to slip in notes about how he has worked in a bi-partisan fashion in the State Legislature, citing an initiative on which he worked with Sen. Larry Pogemiller (I was reminded of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's 2006 ad in which he said he'd even worked with gasp Hillary Clinton...) even to this committed Democrat watching the debate, it's clear Paulsen knows his stuff, and his answers about education are somewhat reasonable (one issue among many).

But given the environment, Madia's performance stood out. He answered poison-pill questions about free trade (in which the moderator asked whether the candidates supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was likely to find plenty of support in a business-interest-oriented debate) by focusing on government's goal in ensuring an equal playing field on labor and environmental standards. On a question about the Employee Free Choice Act, Madia stood his ground despite a clearly anti-EFCA environment, by sticking to the facts (the EFCA will NOT remove the secret ballot in unionization votes) and by pivoting smoothly to large-scale economic policy changes.

This was my first chance to see Independence Party candidate David Dillon, and regardless of my preference in this race, he didn't do much to impress. He repeated his own rhetorical stylings several times ("we've heard that {issue x} is important, and it is..."), and came off as siding with Paulsen on several more issues than with Madia -- all that, in the same breaths as he derided partisan politics as a whole for causing the problems we face.

Dillon's answers were short, and his attempts to engage the other candidates by challenging them to follow his lead on a no-earmarks pledge (thus building his own leadership meme) fell flat. Madia engaged him only once, to pivot effectively back to his talking points on transportation policy, and Paulsen engaged him exactly never. If Dillon hopes to be a factor in this race, it will take more than today's performance to make it happen.

Bottom line from today's debate: Erik Paulsen is a nice guy, but he should have owned the debate from start to finish. Friendly audience, friendly questions, and he came off as merely so-so. Madia took tough questions, stuck to his guns, and hit yet another debate home run to deep left-center field.

Check out my liveblog from this morning for a blow-by-blow of the entire debate.