Small Business Support for Clean Energy A Key to 2010 Elections?

by: NRDC Action Fund

Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 07:57:36 AM MST

With all that in mind, a recent national survey by Al Quinlan of Greenburg Quinlan Rosner Research has potentially powerful implications for the 2010 elections, providing yet more evidence that climate legislation - despite a fallacious "mainstream media" narrative arguing otherwise - is actually good politics.  The key findings are threefold (note: the document talks about strategy for the Democratic Party, but could apply to Republicans as well):

1. Small businesses "are among America's most popular entities," with an eye-popping 44:1 favorable to unfavorable ratio ("the highest we have ever seen in our polling on any topic")
2. Generating support from small business owners, for either political party, is a key to success in the upcoming mid-term elections.
3. Small business owners strongly agree "that a move to clean energy will help restart the economy and lead to job creation by small businesses."  In fact, according to Greenburg Quinlan, "One of the most surprising findings of the survey is that despite the fact that nearly two thirds of business owners believe it would increase costs for their businesses, a majority still want to move forward on clean energy and climate policy."

As if that's not evidence enough that there's broad support out there for comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation, how about this Benenson Survey Group survey, conducted in late May/early June 2010?  The key findings of this poll are:

*65% of "likely 2010 voters" believe that "the federal government should invest much more than it currently invests [or] somewhat more than it currently invests."  
*63% of "likely 2010 voters" support an energy bill that would "limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy...in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like gas."
*Among "undecided voters," "62% support the bill and just 21% oppose."

There is also strong evidence from this polling that voters - including independent voters by a 2.5:1 margin - are strongly inclined, by around a 2:1 margin, to be "more likely to re-elect" their Senator if he or she voted for a strong, comprehensive, clean energy and climate bill.

In sum, solid majorities of small businesspeople and the public at large both support comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation.  Which is why, once again - as we pointed out yesterday - the "mainstream media" narrative, that voting for limits on carbon pollution is bad politics, is just dead wrong. To the contrary, victory this November could go to the candidates - and the party - that seizes this issue and makes it their own.  Ideally, it would be great to see both Republicans and Democrats fighting to be the "greenest" candidate, and not just in terms of how much money they raise.

UPDATE: Add another poll to the list, this one by WSJ-NBC indicating that "Respondents favored comprehensive energy and carbon pollution reduction legislation by 63 percent to 31 percent - a two to one margin."

Van Dyk Aiming for $2k -- Needs Some Help

by: Matt Singer

Wed Jun 16, 2010 at 15:45:43 PM MST

In short, this is a super important race - and now is a great time to throw a little green to Kendall Van Dyk.

For Those of You "Crossing Over" in the Gallatin County Primary...

by: somewhereinthemiddle

Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 06:55:48 AM MST

Cheers!

Van Dyk - Brown Contest Gonna Be Fierce

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 14:52:04 PM MST

Kendall is well on track to shatter records...except that Brown is shattering them even faster. Kendall already raised nearly $70,000. Brown already raised nearly $80,000.

Good news for progressives is that this race won't just be about money. Bad news is that we still gotta keep our guy competitive.

This will probably become a frequent plug on Left in the West, but if you have a chance, kick in another $25 on ActBlue to Kendall's campaign. He's got 133 supporters on ActBlue right now. I think we can bump that number up to 150 by the time the polls close tomorrow night.

Rehberg's Taxpayer Funded GOTV Campaign

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jun 07, 2010 at 11:44:46 AM MST

I've never seen this level of interest in GOTV from a Congressional office. I certainly didn't see it in last month's school board elections.

In unrelated news, Tyler Gernant picked up Jay's endorsement below, James Conners' support in the Flathead, and just sent out an email by popular Missoula Mayor John Engen.

My read right now -- Gernant has momentum and energy. It ain't a ton, but it beats the rest of the field by a country mile. I'd make a small bet that he pulls off this primary tomorrow evening -- a victory that will be newsworthy for his age and the fact that McDonald should have this in a walk.

Can we perhaps just turn up the love a bit?

by: Twohundertseventy

Sun Jun 06, 2010 at 00:58:58 AM MST

We're all Democrats, and we agree on 95% of our policy ideas. Dennis McDonald is a good Democrat. Tyler Gernant is a good Democrat. Melinda Gopher is a good Democrat. Sam Rankin... well, okay, forget it, probably.

But what I'm trying to say is that, well, our main focus should be on beating Rehberg. And if there is some friendly competition about who should be selected to do that, all the better.

But lately we're busy sniping at each other in blog comments here and over at 4&20 blackbirds and now DailyKos. I don't like that, even though I admit that I participated in it.

Last summer, when I was a full-time intern for a month with Tyler's campaign, I talked to Dennis at  Sen. Baucus' Sieben Ranch fundraiser for Jon Tester. And even though I was wearing a Tyler sticker, he was 100% friendly and told me that 'in the end, all that matters is that we're Democrats. It's all about beating Rehberg.'

And I'm sure that Tyler agrees with that.
So let's just dial the rhetoric down a little bit and pledge to get behind the primary winner on Tuesday, whoever that will be.

That doesn't mean that we can't blog about or advocate for our favorites, but I think that Pres. Reagan had one good idea with his 11th commandment-- 'Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican'.

It's certainly more productive than having endless fights on the metrics that should be used to compare fundraising records.

Can we just do that? What do you think?

Fixing Montana's Permanent Absentee System

by: Matt Singer

Mon May 24, 2010 at 08:42:48 AM MST

That little green card, though, should make it clear that this isn't actually a "permanent" list. It is a "perpetual opt-in" list. To be mailed ballots every election, an individual has to request that status every single year.

This time intensive process is ostensibly imposed in order to prevent fraud. What is striking, though, is the different standard for mail ballot elections, currently used for a number of city and school board elections, that the clerks want to bring to us for every election in the state. In these elections, every registered voter at an address receives a ballot. The lists are maintained with the assistance of the post office, not by forcing people to reaffirm residence annually.

If this system is good enough for some of our elections, why can't we simply implement it now for the permanent absentee list? Implementing it would save local and state resources, plus it would significantly expand the number of individuals voting absentee, which is helpful for county clerks.

All of this, though, highlights a bigger problem with the maintenance of our voter records. Because we rely on individuals to maintain their own registrations, our systems are often hopelessly out of date. For city elections, my house often receives several ballots for individuals who no longer reside in the house (for the record, no, I don't fill them out and send them back in). With the number of ways that individuals interact with government, there is really no good reason why we can't use data from other systems -- the driver's license, vehicle registration, tax returns, public assistance agencies, etc. -- to maintain an up-to-date list of eligible voters.

Voter registration started in this country as a means of excluding people from the electorate. In those days, it was legal exclusion of black people, poor people, women, etc. Today, it is simply unnecessary jumping through hoops for a lot of people in a way that both makes people's lives harder and decreases the integrity of our elections. It is really truly absurd.

Bottom-line -- the state could make some easy fixes next legislative session to transform the perpetual opt-in absentee system into a true permanent absentee system. There's also some low-hanging fruit in terms of address update stuff, especially within counties, with models from Oregon and other states with universal vote-by-mail.

Analyis of Rehberg's False Statements on the Deficit This Week

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sun May 23, 2010 at 21:43:06 PM MST

For example, his third most ridiculous claim in the questionnaire was:

I am a fifth-Generation Montana rancher from Billings.

When in reality, we know that Rehberg is a wealthy trust-funder who inherited millions then turned the family ranch into a subdivision.  In fact, Rehberg is so used to the finer things in life that he tried several times to stick us with the $54 million dollar bill for elite luxury gulf-stream jets to fly lawmakers around. The ultimate luxury perk, these jets are powered Rolls-Royce engines and feature divans that transform into double beds, telephones, pop-up 26 inch LCD monitors, fax machines, DVD players, multiple oversized restrooms and a full service galley.

His second most ridiculous claim was this:

Yet, in just one year of controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, national Democrats have quadrupled the national deficit as a share of the economy.

THE FACTS:  

During rehberg's first term in office, the deficit as a share of the economy quadrupled, during his second term it more than doubled again.  In fact, under Dennis Rehberg's watch (not even including the last year he mentions above) the national deficit has increased by 1000% (ten times) as a share of the economy. You can see it for yourself here.  

Oh, and under Obama's first year in office, the deficit has nowhere near quadrupled.

I'll present his most ridiculous claim in a future post.  

GOP Candidate Tom Burnett = Glenn Beck Wannabe + Crazier

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu May 20, 2010 at 20:35:29 PM MST

The whole site is odd, a little scary, and some of it is almost completely random.

Take for example (typos candidate's own):

People are angry with anger. They blame Republicans for standing int he way of the good work of government expansion in Congress. Their opinions seem tailored by CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS. They hate bickering, blaming mostly Republicans. Of course, their loathing and vituperation would disappear were they elected. They are angrier than the Mitch McConnell they blame.

Reading through his absurd fantasies and his melodramatic bluster, you have to wonder what would happen if he actually got elected and made speeches like this on the house floor.

What, for example is one supposed to make of this?

An eleven year-old boy approached as I was tying my campaign sign on the Lewis lawn to a green ash tree. He inquired if I was campaigning. I said yes, for myself. "I'm Tom Burnett." He seemed pleased. He expressed disapproval of the president. He hadn't heard of the suntan tax. He was shaken by it. He was sure that, to pay for national health, Congress would be tempted to tax video games. That alarmed him. His name was Uno.

It's very difficult to know how this is supposed to be taken. Jon Stewart nailed it when he lampooned Beck himself - "Tell us, random word on the chalk-board, what's the truth?"  

Like Beck, Burnett's posts seem to be nothing more than incendiary words thrown randomly together to illicit an emotional response and then tell us whom to blame (like the poor or Indians.)  

UPDATE:Burnett's GOP primary opponent has dropped out. He'll face the popular, effective and sane Representative J.P. Pomnichowski in the general.

Dennis Rehberg's Plan for the Economy: Ship Montana Jobs Overseas

by: Montana Cowgirl

Wed May 19, 2010 at 22:17:04 PM MST

Rehberg can talk all he wants about "jobs" but the fact remains that he supports trade arrangements that will ship the jobs of hardworking Montana families overseas.  We deserve a Representative who will work to create jobs right here at home and stand up for the middle class, not someone like Rehberg who wants to ship our jobs overseas.

Dennis Rehberg claims he bases his votes on what he hears in his so-called "listening sessions," he says:

"I think there's a direct correlation between how a representative votes and how much time they've spent listening to the people they represent. After hearing what Montanans had to say about these important issues, I can't imagine voting differently than I have."

HUH?!?

Just where, exactly, is he hearing the support for expanding unfair free trade agreements that ship Montana jobs overseas? 

If what Rehberg says above is true, Rehberg's spent more time listening to (and representing) the multi-national corporation lobbyists who line his pockets than ordinary Montanans.
 
REHBERG RECORD:

"Free trade is a critical part of American business," [Rehberg Press release 11.8.07]

Unlike Most Democratic Sheep, Schweitzer Not Afraid to Stick Dagger in Tea Party, on National TV

by: Montana Cowgirl

Mon May 17, 2010 at 16:44:32 PM MST

The Tea Party movement has spooked many Democrats.  Watch the national news, and see how most Democrats who serve in competitive states or districts are not willing to stand up and take the Tea Partiers on. Instead, they walk on eggshells, always reluctant to criticize them for fear of becoming a target of them or for fear of losing a few independent voters who get their news from Fox. "You are seeing some understandable anger" is the usual refrain uttered by everybody from the President to just about every Democratic US Senator or member of Congress or Governor, unless they are lucky enough to serve an electorate that is heavily democratic and thus safe.

But here is a clip of Schweitzer on the Rachel Maddow show (yay!), calmly sticking a long dagger into the Tea folks, making them look like the foolish and ignorant hypocrites they are. Here's a link to the transcript for those of you reading this at work.  And here's a quote I especially like:

The tea party people get up in the morning and they make phone calls to each other that they're going to go to a rally.  And they use a subsidized telephone system.  Then they drive down a road that was built by the government that is protected by government workers called highway patrolmen. They get to a rally and they carry their signs and they are protected by the firemen and the policemen who are in that town.  And then they eagerly drive home and say, "It was a success.  We're against the government."

I also like his stance on education,

It's not a sin to be frugal.  It's not a sin to challenge expenses. But it is a sin to cut back on education for our most valuable resource.

This is far from the only place where Schweitzer isn't afraid to say what is right even if it doesn't poll well or get him conservative voters.  Here in one of the more conservative states in America, he has made speeches praising the Canadian health system (daring Montana voters to find a Canadian citizen that doesn't like her country's healthcare).

He has openly advocated a withdrawal from Afghanistan--a war which he sees as not worth the lives or expense. He has welcomed American Indians into his government and into the political system with an emphasis not seen in Montana's political history, treating them as the sovereigns they are.  He has gone after the Obama Administration, (and perhaps Baucus and Tester, implicitly...), for selling out to Big Pharma, and not allowing Montana citizens to buy cheap medication from Canada; and recently, he went to Butte to stand up publicly in defense of Saudi and other Arab students who were being taunted and attacked by local redneck douchebags.

He has made historic investments in Montana's HHS budget, in help for the poor, the disabled, and education, and has been happy to tout them even as the Tea Party criticizes him.

Gernant Makes Coal a Primary Issue Against McDonald

by: Matt Singer

Thu May 06, 2010 at 10:48:59 AM MST

At a recent candidate forum at the University of Montana, McDonald said unequivocally that he supports coal mining in Montana's Otter Creek area, stating "I have been very much in favor of developing all of our resources; coal should be a big part of it." Gernant responded, "I thought I was in a Democratic primary, but it sounds like I'm running against Sarah Palin.  McDonald is using the same rhetoric to describe his energy policy that Sarah Palin used to describe her backward-thinking ideas for America's energy future."

Bowen Greenwood: Helper, Smoking Cessation Guru, Republican ED

by: Matt Singer

Mon May 03, 2010 at 08:34:00 AM MST

Bowen talks about how this connects him with the "Montanans [who] need two jobs to make ends meet." Sure, I suppose so. But does being executive director of the Republican Party really pay so poorly that he needs a second job to make ends meet? And who is running the show over there if this guy has the time to have a second job and run for office? All of those are basically full-time gigs.

I've got to give it to Bowen, though. The man has stones. Running in a 3-way Republican primary with a headline of "Helping people" takes courage. Of course, talking about platitudes doesn't. And for all the mention of responsibility in government, spending and debt, the man in charge of Montana's Republican Party doesn't appear to have a single solution to actually reduce spending, he can't appear to acknowledge that the state isn't currently in debt, and he can't point out where government is being irresponsible.

So kudos for wanting to help people. Now if only we had some idea what that meant.

Fundraising Analysis of the 2010 Democratic Congressional Primary Race

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sat Apr 24, 2010 at 17:46:10 PM MST

Here are the most recent Democratic congressional candidate fundraising totals based on the FEC reports as of April 24, 2010:

Dennis McDonald (D) $139,261
Tyler Gernant (D)  $103,014
Sam Rankin (D)  $8,639
Melinda Gopher (D) $ 0

Of the candidates, the top recipient of in-state contributions was Dennis McDonald, while the top recipient of out-of-state cash was Tyler Gernant, according to Open Secrets.

They report that McDonald raised twice as much in-state money as Gernant. That's more money from actual constituents who will be represented by the winner of this contest, people who care the most about its outcome.

It says something that McDonald has more money, but where the money comes from also speaks volumes.  

Blind Justice and Strange Bedfellows

by: Matt Singer

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 11:46:03 AM MST

Baker is drawing more progressive donors, including Bob Ream and Mary Sexton. Many of the other donors Dennison highlights include moderate Democrats like Mike Halligan and Joe Mazurek. Marc Racicot, Baker's former boss, is a supporter. So is Karla Gray, former chief justice.

Swandal's support comes from a number of conservative Republicans including Tim Fox and Steve Daines. But he has some moderate support, too, including Gray's predecessor Jean Turnage. And Dorothy Bradley is apparently backing Swandal.

More interesting to me is that Swandal, as a sitting judge, donated repeatedly to the Republican Party and candidates. That's not illegal, but it is highly unusual for a sitting judge.

The Double Speak Petitioners

by: Matt Singer

Fri Apr 23, 2010 at 09:52:19 AM MST

"CI-105 would prohibit a tax that does not exist. It would embed that prohibition in Montana's state constitution," said MEA-MFT President Eric Feaver. "It is at root an anti-government measure."

CI-105 would constitutionally prohibit a real estate transfer tax. CI-105 could also potentially prevent local governments and public schools from using local impact fees to cover the costs of new subdivisions and student enrollment growth.

For the past several weeks, signature gatherers have stationed themselves in parking lots and public areas across the state, gathering signatures to qualify CI-105 for the November ballot. Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth has reported receiving numerous complaints about fraud and deception.

"I have heard reports of paid signature gatherers who misrepresent what CI-105 is all about.  Apparently, they will say anything to get people to sign their petitions. Some signature gatherers are from out of state, which is against Montana state law," said Terry Minow, MEA-MFT Political Director.

And some signature gatherers have been reported to claim, fraudulently, that CI-105 abolishes the "inheritance tax," which, like the real estate transfer tax, does not exist in Montana.

I've heard from others that the initiative has been misrepresented to them by signature gatherers who don't really understand the issue they're working on.

Signature gathering fraud has a lively history in Montana sadly. The good news is that the courts stepped in last time and cracked down on this.

Based on the number of petitioners running around, the Realtors (or whoever their ultimate backers are) are spending a hell of a lot of money on this initiative. They might be learning a valuable lesson soon about the importance of hiring credible signature gatherers and running a professional operation if they want to take part in the initiative process.

Reckless Writing by Dennis Rehberg

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 18:48:54 PM MST

In the most baffling attempt to score political points based on a tragedy I've ever seen, Rehberg attempts to lure in readers to his hypocritical op-ed that claims he's against government spending by reminding readers of the boat wreck he shirked responsibility for by refusing to designate a sober driver.  Read it online in the Clark Fork Chronicle.

Rehberg: Reckless speeds in dangerous waters

by Rep. Denny Rehberg

Long after the unsinkable Titanic settled at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, people asked whether the disaster had been avoidable. Titanic had been the greatest ship the world had ever seen, but hubris excused reckless speeds in dangerous waters and critical warning signs were ignored.

Is it just me, or is this a recklessly bizarre way for Dennis Rehberg to begin an editorial.

Not to mention the fact that--in Rehberg's own words, on his own website--Rehberg has recklessly posted a whopping 406 press releases in support of earmarks during his 10 years in congress: for example here, and only 9 claims that he will supposedly hold the line on spending over the same 10 years.

To put this in perspective, he has 26 press releases tooting his own horn (for example this or this), 80 on ribbon cutting and fluff like this ridiculousness or this, or this, and 5 taking credit for the work of others (claiming to sponsor legislation he only co-sponsored), when the facts show otherwise, on legislation so unpopular that it failed anyway no less.  

If Rehberg's priorities line up with what he says is important enough to put out a press release about, holding the line on spending ranks fairly low, down with taking credit for the work of others on failed legislation (both have single digit numbers of releases).

Perhaps Rehberg has been too reckless to realize what message he's been sending out over the years.  He certainly doesn't seem to realize the bizarre message he's sending this week.

Redistricting and Third Parties

by: Matt Singer

Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 09:40:40 AM MST

It also made me realize that my spreadsheets were based on election night results, not final canvasses. So I updated my spreadsheets and the numbers come out a little bit different, but not radically so. I'll update my old post with the correct numbers.

I made an off-hand reference to third parties because there is no doubt that there has probably been some spoiler factor in Montana. Constitutionalists in particular have mounted campaigns in a few districts where Democrats have won narrowly.

But I think this analysis is off-base for a few reasons. Here's why:

1. Even including all third party candidates, conservatives are over-represented in the Montana Senate. According to my numbers, Democrats received 203,930 votes for Senate in '06 and '08. Republicans and all other candidates combined received 204,452 votes. Even assuming all "other" votes would prefer a Republican (a very presumptuous position), Democrats are basically at parity (the difference is .12%), yet are distinctly in the minority in the Senate.
2. We Can't Assume Second Round Preferences. Voters who selected a Libertarian or a Constitutionalist often did that in a district presumably knowing that they could vote for a Republican. They still went third party. Exit data shows all sorts of interesting things about third party voters. But rarely does the exit polling show that these voters stick closely to a traditional left-right analysis of voting habits.
3. Redistricting Isn't Responsible for Spoiler Effects. This is really the important piece. Third party campaigns are not really a feature of redistricting, except that highly competitive districts should theoretically minimize the incentive for third party candidates. In fact, most large third party vote totals occurred in districts with limited competition. The strongest Constitutionalist vote totals occurred in 2008 in districts that only had one major party candidate. The flip side of this, of course, is that a state could be districted to be highly competitive or highly uncompetitive and third parties could still file and still deny "their side" the seat.

Roy Brown Has His Facts Wrong on Health Reform

by: Matt Singer

Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 16:49:57 PM MST

KULR-8 has the Billings Senator on video. In that clip, he makes two notable arguments, both of which are patently false:

1. First, that every single person in this country buy a product. There are huge classes of people not required to buy any product. Individuals insured through their employer or by another government program (including Medicaid, which will be available to all low-income Americans by the time the individual mandate kicks in) or for whom the purchase would represent a financial hardship are exempt from the mandate. In other words, the tax for not having insurance only applies to working Americans who make too much to qualify for Medicaid and choose to remain uninsured. They pay an extra tax in exchange for having access to the insurance regulations and protections, like the end of pre-existing condition discrimination, available under the bill to all Americans.
2. If you don't buy insurance you get fined and if you don't get fined you go to jail. Actually the law explicitly prevents people from being jailed:

   The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.

   Enforcement would occur through the holding of tax refunds or other mechanisms presumably in the meantime.

Rehberg's Dirty Dozen: Orange hunting vests? So last week. The suit to have is the orange jumpsuit

by: Montana Cowgirl

Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 14:29:57 PM MST

Check out the Rehberg Dirty Dozen below the fold.

Is character still important to Montana voters? Is it still important to elect leaders that value character? Even George W. Bush said "A leader must surround himself with honorable people."

When you see who Rehberg chooses as his associates, staff, and advisors, what does it tell you about his judgment? What does it say when he selects people like this to advise him on matters that are so important?

This is a story that definitely speaks for itself.