Can Bachmann win?


After Michele Bachmann officially announced her candidacy yesterday, CNN asked me to assess her chances of winning the nomination.  My response is now featured at their site, which discusses the historical obstacles facing House members who make presidential nomination bids.  Not one sitting Congressman has ever won a party’s nomination since the beginning of the primary era in 1912, but Bachmann might be an exception:

Anything is impossible until someone does it. The problem for House candidates is that they lack solid constituencies. Where senators and governors win statewide elections and can lay claim to fairly broad constituencies, any House member represents only around 800,000 people at most. …

Bachmann has an answer for that in the Tea Party. She began devoting time and attention to the Tea Party when it began, and she is now one of its leading lights. That gives Bachmann a claim to a national constituency that most candidates coming out of the House cannot match.

At the moment, she doesn’t have any Tea Party competition for the nomination, which means that she can harness the group’s enthusiasm and organizing efforts. That would change if Sarah Palin enters the race, and could also change if Texas Gov. Rick Perry throws his hat in the ring, although to a lesser degree. If not, Bachmann would have the kind of grass-roots support that could make the difference in a race without a breakaway frontrunner — especially in Iowa’s opening caucuses, where organization plays a critical role in success.

My friend Eric Ostermeier did some intriguing historical research on the topic of House members and presidential bids.  Since Rep. Champ Clark managed to wangle a first-ballot lead in the 1912 Democratic convention, more than thirty House members have launched official bids for a presidential nomination.  Twenty-one of those came after 1972.  While the efforts were entirely unsuccessful, the candidates themselves usually won their re-election bids if they chose to run (with only Bob Dornan being the exception).  That bodes well for Bachmann if her bid follows the usual historical trajectory, although Bachmann has a fairly safe district anyway.

The differences between Bachmann and the earlier candidates go beyond the Tea Party, although they’re linked to it.  Bachmann has high name recognition, in part because of the Tea Party, but also in part because she regularly jousts with opponents on cable-TV shows.  Bachmann is also a prodigious fundraiser.  In fact, she has so much money in her coffers after the 2010 cycle (in which she barely broke a sweat in winning her re-election over Taryl Clark) that Minnesotans figured she was aiming for a Senate run against Amy Klobuchar before Bachmann began showing an interest in a presidential run.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Bill Clinton’s old friend, George Stephanopoulos warned Bachmann: Media Will Investigate Your 23 Foster Children.

So, the dinosaur media (George still works at ABC, right?) has decided to do its job once again?
Running investigations against potential candidates.

Too bad they didn’t see fit to do that about Obama’s super-thin resume and background.
We wouldn’t have him as president right now.
It would have been either McCain or Hillary Clinton.
either one would have been better for Americans.

IMHO, Sarah Palin Has better odds by far than Michelle Bachmann. I have great respect for Michelle Bachmann and I think she would be a fine CIC, however,the MSM will do a major job on Bachmann, her family AND her adoptees, all of them. It will be the worst kind of character assasination ever done on any U.S. politician. Evern worse than what was done to Sarah Palin. Talk about vetting?? Sarah Palin has been vetted like no other candidate in history, period. in order to beat POTUS Obama, we need a candidate who has the vigor and will to take the fight to the man! Sarah Palin has the unique ability do do so like no other and is that person. She will wade into battle knee deep in blood politically and do major damage to the Obama persona. She also has extensive knowledge on all issues relevant to our national interests. there are numerous editorials and posts she has penned on everything from the economy to our defense posture worldwide. Hat tip; Sarah Palin IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT! She will be victorious against all comers! Prediction; announcement on or about July 4th, 2011, Most likely July 3rd. If she runs, I am all in!


@Liberal1 (objectivity):

A very precise, well-thought out response. I especially liked your discussion explaining the reasons for your response…………………………..oh wait, nevermind.

Fox’s Chris Wallace,who couldn’t carry his father’s water bucket,asked Bachmann if she was a flake and then apologized.
She rejected his apology. She’s got more guts than the rest of the combatants combined.I believe she’s got a puncher’s chance at winning the nomination.Obviously a Perry or Palin entry would hurt her and help Romney.

I see a clear bias at FOX forming against the conservative candidates, all of which have been given the “unelectable” phrase used on about their campaigns. This indicates to me that FOX is aligned in favor of establishment/progressive Republicans. This is a purposeful, classic manipulation tactic, whereby you tell the people that “so-and-so doesn’t have a chance to win” so that the public believes the claim and rejects that candidate. They don’t want the people to make up their own minds, but want to make them up for the. When the same lie is told many time, some begin to believe it.

The actual fact is: If a conservative can get more votes than the others, they can win the primary.

Ditto If you can’t count on Fox what hope?

WELL DONE, they need to be reminded that not every one will give them a pass
on their mean attack underneath their collar to discredit a smart person like her,
she has a lot of class, and he felt smaller than her, just by the way he shout that flake question,
he under estimate her POISE AND SUPERIORITY OVER HIM,

blogforce one, july 3rd now, do you know any news about her?


Who said there is no hope? Certainly not I. Not all the FOX news-staff is anti-conservative, and if conservative viewers will continue to flood FOX with angry letter and emails those who are might act more fair towards conservative candidates. Having said that, more and more people are turning to internet news providers because they are simply getting fed up the biased spinning of the news by all MSM providers.

The goal to elect a conservative Republican is not at all hopeless and is certainly possible in spite of the business as usual crowd.

Ditto Did you catch FOX Conservative news commentator Liz Trotta suggesting Palin and Bachmann both studied American history and got degrees from Fleabag U. Scathing commentary on their seemingly never ending gaffes.
Maybe Fox is becoming more “fair and balanced”


Liz Trotta has no room to talk having made multiple gaffs of her own. Your savior Obama and his sidekick Biden have made plenty of dumb statements all on their own, as has already been pointed out numerous time here on FA and elsewhere. Palin’s statement about Paul Revere’s ride was a bit tortured but not all that inaccurate if you were to take Revere’s own biographical account of his ride, over that of the version given by the poet Logfellow:

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

Cornell law professor William Jacobson asserted last week that

Palin was correct, linking to Revere quotes on his conservative blog and said Palin’s critics are the ones in need of a history lesson. “It seems to be a historical fact that this happened,” he said. “A lot of the criticism is unfair and made by people who are themselves ignorant of history.”

Bachman’s has owned up to her error. Which is more than Obama or Biden have done. Or do you really believe that there are “57 states” which Obama stated as fact, and Biden’s historical account of how FDR went on television to calm the people down about the depression?

Ditto, yes, and those mistake are not dangerous,on anyone, and going to ruin any COUNTRY,
BUT TO FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF MISTAKE as oppose to focus on the person which is better to help shape an opinion on the resolve of that person, her qualitys, her success in her life and work,
that is more telling, funny how some MEDIA miss the most visible negatives on THE LAST ELECTION,,
and now are scrutinysing our CONSERVATIVES, that present class and poise, by asking questions
like : are you a flake? or repeating question about gais problems, which is not relating to the presidency.
that is very telling on them,

Ditto Bottom line we all make mistakes and gaffes.Some more than others. But I ask DO YOU believe Obama thought there were 57 states?
Follow up DO YOU believe Obama was born in Kenya,Hawaii,USSR,elsewhere?
MSBees and Ditto My point was that FOX was going after the ladies again which TO ME was unexpected,

@ Rich Wheeler

Typical Democratic response: Avoid the question by asking a totally unrelated question.

Ditto What question did I avoid? You clearly AVOIDED my TWO simple questions.

@Rich Wheeler

This question posed to you Rich Wheeler which you avoided by throwing it back at me: …do you really believe that there are “57 states” which Obama stated as fact, and Biden’s historical account of how FDR went on television to calm the people down about the depression?

Additionally, Do you think that Paul Revere rode through the streets calling out “The British are coming!”

You answer my questions first then I will answer yours.

@rich wheeler:

Follow up DO YOU believe Obama was born in Kenya,Hawaii,USSR,elsewhere?

Why do you feel so compelled to bring up extraneous, irrelevant questions that are clearly unrelated to the topic being discussed?


Aye The birther question helps me gage the “sanity” of the poster.
#20 All are welcomed to judge my sanity. Do you think he’ll answer MY questions as he said he would?

@rich wheeler:

Rich my man…you’re an unrepentant Obama voter…hardly a good person to be judging the “sanity” of others, eh?

@rich wheeler:

The birther question helps me gage the “sanity” of the poster.

That is a detestable way of debating, or even engaging in simple conversation and discussion. Why must you “gage the sanity” of a poster? Is it so that you can then discount everything else they state, assuming they answer that question like you believe a “birther” would, even if their original statements have nothing to do with the “birther” issue? In effect, you wish to attack the poster, and never the content of their post. Typical liberal tactic.

Now I understand why you never fully engage in debate with anyone. Everything from you is simple one-liners that have little to do with the actual discussion at hand, and inviting the poster to answer, somehow, in a way that you then deem them “insane”, so that you do not have to actually answer their questions put to you, or address the comments they make. Again, detestable.

JohnG. I try to answer as best I can all questions put to me.Yes I believe when possible KISS is best.
You seem to enjoy personally attacking me. Sad and unbecoming a member of my “Sister Service” Semper Fi

@rich wheeler:

You seem to enjoy personally attacking me. Sad

No, Rich. I don’t. But you’ve asked me that same question here;

Since you’ve taken time to defend Smorg I’m interested in your thoughts on validity of birth certificate and Obama’s place of birth Kenya,Hawaii,Other? Thanks

I believe that gives me every right to comment on your use of that question, particularly as you tried to “gage” my sanity. I also believe that I have every right to feel indignation because of it, as well.

John Please be as righteously indignant as you want. That’s your right.Ditto asks me questions.I answer.I query him.Silence

Exit ? If someone adamantly suggested O.J. Simpson did not kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown would that influence your opinion on their ability to rationally debate other subjects?

johngalt, I’m sure his sanity is quite shaky, and his friends
must have discovered from the beginning of their relationship.
we cannot even compare with the IQ OF OUR GROUP HERE AT FA,
because I could not compete, but only learn so much, ALL THE TIME,

@rich wheeler:

If someone adamantly suggested O.J. Simpson did not kill Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown would that influence your opinion on their ability to rationally debate other subjects?

Not at all. Assuming, of course, that their arguments to that effect are logical and cogent, and that they have valid points. Which, I might add, some people who you would term a “birther”, have. You, however, seem to discount such people simply because they believe one thing, and you believe another, without ever actually attempting to verify the authenticity or factual evidence of their statements. That is not debate, Rich. That is simply shouting someone down because they don’t believe as you do.

JohnG. i ‘m sorry John but you or others can logically, rationally,cogently and with great “validity” argue that O.J.’ s not a muderer,the Holocaust never happened and BHO wasn’t born in Hawaii. I ain’t buying it and don’t try selling me ANYTHING.

@rich wheeler:

Nice addition of the holocaust, Rich. Nowhere in the discussion previously was this ever brought up. You are attempting to include a proven event in with those that have meritable debate, and so change the entire argument, or disagreement. And the fact that you wouldn’t even allow debate, concerning OJ’s guilt, and especially BHO’s birth, is the mark of a truly closed mind.

John Do you personally decide what is proven vs meritable debate? Many believe the Holocaust did not occur,the moon landing was phony etc. Many believe Obama has proven his Hawaiian birth. What hubris for YOU to decide what is PROVEN and what isn’t,what warrants debate and what doesn’t.

@Rich Wheeler

I do not accept that you are qualified to gauge my sanity, nor that of anyone else. FYI my wife has a degree in psychology and considers me one of the sanest individuals she knows.

Regarding your number three of my questions to you: Do you think that Paul Revere rode through the streets calling out “The British are coming!” Your answer:


“Something similar” is not good enough. either you know the answer or you don’t, and clearly you don’t: What Paul Revere told the British colonists was “The regulars are coming.” In this period of time, the colonists still considered themselves British subjects. These are facts that most of the MSM got wrong and Sarah Palin got right.

Now, in answer to question #1:

I ask DO YOU believe Obama thought there were 57 states?

which I will answer thus:

Obama stated this during the presidential elections. He never put forth a correction or admitted he was in error. He must have thought what he said was correct, but he clearly didn’t know. Having seen numerous Tonight Show Jaywalking segments, I am not surprised that people make such errors, however someone running for the office of President should know how many states he will be representing.

I have already stated numerous time here in FA my answer to your question #2:

DO YOU believe Obama was born in Kenya,Hawaii,USSR,elsewhere?

Am I a “birther”? No, I am wholly agnostic regarding where Obama was born, because there has not been sufficient proof given to determine just where he was born. The “certificate of live birth ” did not prove that he was born in the US, because such a document only recognizes that a baby was born, and not where or whether the child is or is not a natural born citizen. The “long form Birth certificate” that was released by the administration is a clear electronic forgery, and an amateurishly accomplished one at that. I examined this piece of electronic “artwork,” and find it laughable that anyone with any professional experience in computer imagery would place their reputation on the line to consider it “authentic.” I could tell that at first glance that it was fake before even zooming in to pixel level. I have fifteen years background as a computer graphics artist, and have considerable experience editing, touching-up and creating finely detailed original electronic art using a wide variety of professional computer software. Were I willing to delve into the illegal realm of creating forgeries, I could in a handful of days have created a document that would pass the examinations of most experts, unlike that pathetic fraudulent document.

@rich wheeler:

Many believe Obama has proven his Hawaiian birth.

And some believe that he hasn’t. Both sides have decent arguments, but to cut out one side, and imply that if they are “birthers”, that they are insane, and that you won’t hear anything more from them, even on another subject, is asinine. A debate, or discussion, rests on the premise that one side listens to the other, counters their argument, and presents arguments of their own, while the other side presents their argument, then listens to the other side, and counters when given the opportunity. Your method seems to be that you request a “sanity” test beforehand that rests entirely on your own beliefs and assumptions, and that if the other side doesn’t meet that, then everything else they say is moot.

rich wheeler, because they have a good judgement, therefor they can decide
on their own what debate they wish to take on ,
not what debate they are push to take on,
that’s what you can call free will, and good judgement,

Ditto Extremely long winded and evasive.Do you actually believe Columbia and Harvard educated BHO believed there were 57 states? Get help from your wife if need be.
Agnostic on place of birth you say.Doesn’t get it .If not Hawaii where? Don’t think you need help on that one.
BTW on my answer to #3 British are coming vs Regulars(Brit) are coming pretty damn similar.
JG Again I say what makes you the determiner of what can and can’t be debated? Why can’t one ask another his opinion on any issue? There should be little or no censorship, Agreed
Any response on my question re your rebuke of NYT?

Ditto, yes she is definitly right,
I thought so too. so that reenforce my judgement

I know that johngalt never give a lightweight comment,
just to bla bla, he is too serious and professional for that.

Extremely long winded and evasive.

I stated clearly my position without evasion of any kind, It is often necessary to give full lengthy answers when replying to ideologs, otherwise they will try to twist what you say. Did Obama believe there were 57 states? Watch the video:


Obama clearly did not know how many of the states he had traveled to. His exact words were:

“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

Not only did Obama assert that there were fifty-seven states, he said that there was one more left to go to. (Alaska and Hawaii, which are incidentally, two distinctively different and unconnected states.) Some have said that he mispoke and meant to say that he had visited 47 states. My math is pretty good, and I know that 47+1 does not =50, but is 48. Rightly counting Alaska and Hawaii as two states gives us 47+2 which equals 49 (looks like Obama math is still a little fuzzy there, as he is still one state shy of a full nation). Later at another campaign stop Obama said the following:

“I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh…” At which point, an aide cut him off and ushered journalists out.

Where Obama now admits his math is… (something other than correct). I expect that Obama now knows that there are fifty states, but he certainly was clueless at the time

ag·nos·tic [ ag nóstik ]

1. somebody denying God’s existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.
2. somebody denying something is knowable: somebody who doubts that a question has one correct answer or that something can be completely understood.

Synonyms: doubting, uncertain, unsure, unconvinced, skeptical, undecided, doubtful, dubious,

When I say “agnostic” on this issue I clearly mean definition #2 which correctly indicates my skeptical neutrality towards accepting any of the given birth-sites as being the proven location. Lacking definitive evidence to prove a statement, it it can not be said to have been proven. The falsification of data tends to make me highly suspicious of any claim, but it does not necessarily disprove said claim. No side has proven their case on where Obama was born. It is not possible for me to be any clearer than that.

(Note: My wife says that in her professional opinion, you are an assh*** and that I am wasting my time even replying to you. I think I’ll except her judgment.)

Ditto I wish you had accepted your wife’s professional judgement rather than wasting time with that response.
If you are going to accuse me of being an ideologue at least learn how to spell.
Semper Fi

@rich wheeler:

I never said that I determine what others should debate about. That is you misrepresenting what I’ve said. You can ask anyone their opinion on anything. They also will, or won’t, answer you. And, of course, vice versa.

My responses to you have centered around your admission that you use the BHO birthplace question as a “gage” of someone’s sanity. I injected a thought that you did so in order to determine if you would listen to anything else that person has to comment on, based on your own definition of their sanity.

As to the NYT, and my comments on that article, concerning Krugman, maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough. The continued employment of Krugman by that paper, and the hype that the paper gives him, because of his articles, shows a serious lack of judgment by the paper in who they employ. I have given the NYT, and Krugman himself, plenty of opportunity to show me different, in the past. They still continue to espouse the liberal ideas, particularly Krugman, that I detest. Because of that, it renders the rest of their paper, and the articles contained therein, irrelevant.

Is that clear enough for you? And no, it isn’t the same case as you. You state, without any prequalification, such as having read someone’s comments prior, that your question, to you, determines the sanity of that commenter, in your mind. I am assuming, of course, that after you hear a positive answer to whether or not they are a “birther”, that you immediately shut them off. Is this not true? You never did correct my assumptions above, even when I asked for clarification.

JG You have misinterpreted my request.I will most certainly listen to comments from birthers, holocaust deniers and those who’ve witnessed the Loch Ness Monster.Similar to your appraisal of Krugman and the NYT I might well consider the rest of their judgements flawed or as you suggest irrelevant.

@rich wheeler:

My point is that you seem to use that birther question as some sort of ‘precondition’ to deciding whether or not a poster is “sane” enough for you to have a discussion with.

In my case, I’ve read countless Krugman articles, not to mention some of their other writers, and the fact that they continue to employ someone who epitomizes Einstein’s definition of insanity, shows their judgment in who they employ as lacking, particularly in the dept. of conservative writers. Therefore, I will not choose to read their pieces willingly, and consider them, the NYT, irrelevant, especially towards an actual discussion on an issue. You seem to have missed the part where I explained that I’ve given them, and Krugman, countless chances to say something, anything, that makes even a modicum of sense.