Star Tribune, 9/13-9/15, 820 LV, MoE 3.4 (7/6-11 numbers in parenthesis)
Klobuchar: 56% (50%)
Kennedy: 32% (31%)

Before this campaign even started, I remember nearly endless Republican hype, often lapped up by the press, about what a great candidate Mark Kennedy was. No one ever seemed to bother to mention that in 2004, he under-performed Bush in his own district. And oh yeah--Bush lost Minnesota. And oh yeah--Bush has dropped at least 15 points in Minnesota since 2004. And oh yeah--in 2004, Kennedy edged out Patty Wetterling, who was getting crushed by Amy Klobuchar in the Democratic primary in Minnesota before she dropped out.

What amazes me is that anyone expected this race to be a nailbiter. What amazes me is that even many Democrats considered Kennedy a strong candidate, lapping up the same nonsense the press has lapped up all along. This poll probably exaggerates Klobuchar's lead, but no poll has shown Kennedy ahead in this race, ever. Most polls have down double-digit leads for Klobuchar. The truth is that Mark Kennedy is a sub-par campaigner and candidate who has an ability to woo Republican activists, largely because he is a hard-core conservative. For example, Kennedy was one of only 50 members of Congress who voted to build permanent military basis in Iraq. He wooed the Republican machinery, and so the Republican machinery pushed out lies about how he was a strong candidate. Not surprisingly, the media and many Dems bought into it. However, just taking a look at Kennedy's election history should have told anyone the truth from the get-go. For crying out loud, in 2000 he won an open seat his seat by 1% in a district that Bush won by 13.8%. No one who does that is a strong candidate. Republicans got suckered by a turkey in Kennedy, and a blow-out loss in Minnesota is their reward. I just hope that in the future lies about supposed Republican "rising stars" aren't swallowed so easily by people outside of the Republican infrastructure.

I'm changing up adwatch a bit.  Now you can grade the ads yourself using the polling feature, on a scale of 1-10.  Disagree with the assessment on the front page?  Fine, make your case in the comments, and vote.  The campaign usually reads this blog post, so you'll defintely register feedback.  I imagine the scale will be a bit inflated, since people often confuse criticism of ads with criticism of candidates.  Oh well.

Netroots candidate Patrick Murphy is using your money well. Aside from having a good candidate blog, Murphy's first ad hits the right messaging notes.

The ad, like Tessa Hafen's in Nevada, splashes 'Democrat for Congress' on the screen.  Nice to see some clarity on who the candidate is (for my money, the best Democratic-brand ad is Richard Morrison's, which cost $1500 to make).

The ad goes straight at Bush, promising change by ending Bush's blank check in Iraq.  It begins with a screenshot of John F. Kennedy, and pans through different pictures of Murphy while describing his background.  Then the theme shifts to Murphy's positive agenda, which is to change direction in Iraq, stop Bush's blank check policy, begin bringing troops home, and returning focus to the war on terror.

So kudos to Murphy for following the recommendations in our accountability memo - he's clear about holding Bush accountable, about being a Democrat, and about using Iraq as a way to introduce himself to voters.  

There are a few problems with the ad, naturally.  One small problem on messaging is that he talks about change in Iraq so we can refocus on the 'war on terror'.  The problem is that speaking in terms of the war on terror is a reactionary frame, and will immediately cause voters to look for a candidate promising a more authoritarian model.  That tends not to work for Democrats.  If I were running against him as a Republican, I would run an ad that says 'I agree with my colleage on the need to refocus on the war on terror, which is why I voted for terrorist surveillance and the Patriot Act.  Where does he stand?'  Democrats should keep the conversation on Iraq; stop Bush's blank check to refocus on the troops, or to refocus on a strategy for victory, or refocus on our problems at home, or something like that works more to our advantage.  Other than that, the messaging is good.

The production values could be better - I love the background music in Larry Kissell's ads, for instance; by contrast, the one in the Murphy spot scream 'generic political ad', which makes it more likely to be ignored.  Also, the ad could tell a story instead of presenting a resume.  For example, Michael Steele, Mark Kennedy, Eliot Spitzer, Rick Santorum, and Ned Lamont are running exceptional ads that tell stories connecting their values to their campaigns.  These two (here and here) from Steele are great.  Kennedy, Santorum, and Lamont use their families to tell stories about who they are as people, Kennedy and Lamont through humor and Santorum through sentimental though effective creepiness.  Spitzer uses a more populist theme to tell a story about government and passion, but all of these candidates use a narrative flow that tells a story about the candidate that connects their strength as individuals to their ability to project strength in office.  

Murphy's ad doesn't quite reach that level; it's more like a field goal than a touchdown.  I'm going to give it a 6.

There's more...

Hot off the heels of last week's poll showing Amy Klobuchar with a commanding 19-point lead in the Minnesota Senate race, the DSCC has a new poll conducted by Bennett, Petts & Blumenthal (Mystery Pollster's firm) that shows Klobuchar up by a very similar, 16-point margin:Klobuchar: 50
Kennedy: 34
Other: 1
Undecided: 15 The poll was actually worse for Kennedy without leaners. Then, Klobuchar led 48-30, an even wider 18 point margin. So far, there have only been two telephone polls released on this race. One shows Klobuchar up 19%, and another shows Klobuchar up 16%. The Kennedy camp and the Minnesota right-wing will claim "bias." The truth, however, is that Mark Kennedy is not a very good campaigner, and the weakness of the conservative Minnesota netroots is starting to show.

In 2000, when Kennedy first ran for Congress, he won a squeaker with 48% of the vote in a district that Bush won by 13.8% in that same year (see district 2, 1992 redistricting data, in link). In other words, he under-performed Bush by over 13 points in 2000. He also under-performed relative to Bush in 2004. Now, when Bush currently has a 34% approval rating in Minnesota, we are supposed to throw away all polling on the race and believe that Kennedy isn't getting shelled? How can someone who consistently under-performs Bush possible be competitive in a state where Bush has a 34% approval rating?

I'm sure Kennedy has internal polling on the race. If his polls are so much better than this, then maybe he should release those polls to the public in order to show how wrong these other polls have been. But again, he hasn't done that. I wonder why.

Unless something dramatic happens, Amy Klobuchar is well on pace to become the next Senator from Minnesota, and Mark Kennedy's political career as an under-performing, conservative extremist will be over. It will also be nice that the vaunted Minnesota conservative netroots scene will look as ineffective as they really are. To name just a few, Power Line, Captain's Quarter's, and Lileks are major conservative blogs based in Minnesota. Just look at how much impact they are having.

This morning, AP writer Tom Raum noticed something I wrote about here a month ago. Republican candidates love the money President Bush can help them raise, but they sure aren't fond of being seen with the guy in public. When I first brought it up, I was talking about Republican Governors. Call this the Senate edition.

Many worried Republicans on the ballot in November have been pushing away from the White House, not wanting to be dragged under by President Bush's sinking approval ratings and growing anxiety over Iraq.

That doesn't mean they're also fleeing his cash offerings, however.

Despite approval ratings in the mid-to-upper 30s, Bush remains the nation's most successful fundraiser. Vice President Dick Cheney, whose poll numbers are even lower than Bush's, is not far behind. Both have raised tens of millions of dollars for GOP congressional and gubernatorial candidates running in this year's midterm elections.

Even as some Republicans are becoming increasingly defiant on a range of issues, they're still lining up dutifully for the president's campaign dollars.

The examples Raum gives are hilarious. Maryland Senate candidate Michael Steele appeared with Bush at an event that took in $500,000 after being a no-show at a Bush speech at the Naval Academy. It was a similar story for Minnesota Senate candidate Mark Kennedy. New Jersey Senate candidate Tom Kean Jr showed up late to a $400,000 fundraiser after Dick Cheney had already left, laughably blaming a traffic tie-up.

And he's not the only political writer who's noticed the trend. Steve Goldstein of The Philadelphia Inquirer catches Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum trying to run from the President's shadow publicly while accepting millions at country club fundraisers with Bush in private. The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire calls out Mark Kennedy and Steele, as well as Ohio Senator Mike DeWine, for publicly running away from Bush.

This is, of course, par for the political course. But it's still funny to watch the Republicans squirm. No matter how much they may want to distance themselves from Bush in the media, they're completely beholden to him and his money. Much in the same way McCain publicly criticizes Bush and then goes along with the White House agenda, this is all kabuki. Republicans aren't really jumping ship. They're 100% behind the guy running the ship headlong into an iceberg.

There's more...