Update: The Pioneer Press post has been clarified to reflect the facts more accurately. [end update]
In the Pioneer Press Political Animal Tuesday, David Montgomery reports in Hagedorn gunning for 2016 rematch vs. Walz:
Hagedorn lost 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent, a comfortable victory for Walz but nevertheless the closest election the Democrat had since his 2006 election. Walz, 51, is in his fifth term.
Montgomery bases this on Hagedorn's spin on the 2014 race in the Republican's press release, Hagedorn Seeks 2015 Rematch With Walz:
Hagedorn . . . .earned the highest vote percentage (45.7%) against Walz since the incumbent was first elected in 2006. Hagedorn performed equal to or better than highly-bankrolled GOP challengers running in higher-profile races, in Minnesota and nationwide.
However, this was not the closest election Walz faced, as Montgomery phrased it.
That would be 2010, when three opponents kept Walz to under fifty percent. Randy Demmer took 44.05% of the vote to Walz's 49.34%. That 5.29 point margin is smaller than the 8.6 point spread between Walz and Hagedorn.
Indeed, Johnson and Wilson were conservative candidates; Hagedorn failed to capture much of the slack.
Finally, Demmer captured 109,242 votes in 2010, while Hagedorn took 103,536 votes in 2014. Walz received 122,365 votes in the more competitive 2010 race, while garnering 122,851 in 2014, which was not a high turnout year across Minnesota--or the First itself.
Voter turnout in 2010 was 56 percent statewide, but only 50 percent in 2014, according to CBS Minnesota. Both were midterm elections.
Photo: Jim Hagedron voting in the 2014 primary, via Mother Jones' article, House Candidate Called Female Senators "Undeserving Bimbos in Tennis Shoes."
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen P.O. Box 108, Maynard MN 56260) or use the paypal button below:
Email subscribers can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen at gmail.com as recipient. Donations are not tax deductible.
Comments