Misleading Vikings Stadium Poll from Home Field Advantage Meets Media Scrutiny #wilfare

The latest Vikings stadium push poll hit the press on Friday. While early reports focused on regurgitation, local media outlets gained maturity throughout the day with some ignoring the push poll entirely.

The poll was conducted by Home Field Advantage. This is a group of local business and community leaders who are not interested in spending their own money to subsidize Zygi Wilf’s private business, but are cool with spending other people’s money to subsidize Zygi Wilf’s private business. With that in mind, how would you expect the results funded from a group like this to lean? Pro-wilfare? BINGO.

Among the first members of the media to regurgitate the poll results were FOX 9 and 1500 ESPN:

– 61 Percent Support New Vikings Stadium? FOX 9 News
– Statewide poll shows majority of Minnesotans support Vikings stadium? 1500 ESPN

Fox 9 and 1500 ESPN gave Homefield Advantage exactly what they were looking for: Headlines suggesting that a poll conducted by a pro-Wilfare group are somehow relevant.

An exception to this was MPR, who’s first story preceding the official push poll release was titled: DIY: Stadium poll. The story by Tim Nelson begins:

Stadium supporters are rolling out poll results on the Minneapolis stadium plan later today at the State Office Building.

Home Field Advantage, the coalition of business and community leaders in Minneapolis, sponsored a phone poll of 1,000 registered Minnesota voters to gauge interest in building the Vikings a new stadium.

Nelson also embedded a copy of the poll conducted:

Vikings Poll

EXCEPT, that wasn’t the poll conducted. That’s what the poll looked like based on the questions Home Field Advantage decided to release to the public. MPR’s Tim Nelson tweeted a link to the unabridged questions asked in the poll, which included:

Questions Disappeared from Home Field Advantage's Poll

Interesting, eh?

Why didn’t Home Field Advantage release the poll results to the question, “How important is it to you that the Vikings stay in Minnesota?”

Why didn’t Home Field Advantage release the poll results to the question, “If the Vikings were to leave Minnesota because a new stadium was not authorized, who would you feel is most responsible?”

Why didn’t Home Field Advantage release the poll results to the question, “You said _____ (answer from above) would the Vikings were to leave Minnesota. How strongly do you feel that way?”

Why? Let’s go with the obvious: The poll results to those questions must not have supported the positions they are trying to convince politicians, the media, and the public to take.

Why would the public feel that way? The poll was conducted over an absolutely beautiful spring week in Minnesota. In fact, it was so nice out that it reminded me of the beautiful fall days Minnesota has while people sit inside watching the Vikings on Sundays. Perhaps people realized that life goes on without spending more than half a billion dollars to subsidize 8 games (+2 preseason) per year of football? It’s not that they don’t like it, but realize that life would go on just fine without it.

Back to Friday March 23rd. Between the time the poll was released and when it hit that night’s news cycle, the Twittersphere got to the bottom of the riduculousness of Home Field Advantage’s poll. CityPages has a good roundup of this in Pro-Vikings stadium group releases pro-stadium poll, sparking Twitter controversy where they provided a round-up of tweets identifying the poll’s bias.

The headlines began to soften from what Home Field Advantage was looking for. For example:

Poll by pro-stadium business group says most Minnesotans support current Vikings stadium plan
Business group: 61 percent statewide want new Vikings stadium
Poll Says Minnesotans Seem To Want The Vikings Stadium

That’s the media’s way of saying, “Here’s some BS for ya. We won’t actually call BS on the methodology of the poll, but at least we told you who’s BS’ing you.”

KARE 11 appears to have gone further. KARE 11 appears to have take the “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all” approach to Home Field Advantage’s poll:

KARE 11 Vikings Stadium Poll Results

Seem to want?

They do seem to want if you make it seem like the deal is far better than the deal actually is. Put another way: It turns out that misleading people can mislead people. Below is the single poll question Home Field Advantage released to the public with a few caveats to each question that they conveniently left out in their attempt to mislead 1,000 polled Minnesotans:

2) Let’s assume a new Vikings stadium proposal at the existing Metrodome site included the following four requirements:

– The Vikings would fund over 50% of the stadium’s construction and operating costs over the life of their lease. (That is, if you don’t count the additional property tax free downtown land (increasing the tax burdens on property tax owners who’ll have to make up the difference, the tens of millions in tax exemptions for construction materials, the ability to run tax-free restaurants and other businesses on the property that compete with local businesses, and other tax benefits we haven’t identified yet.)

– A majority of the public contribution would come from gambling dollars, with no new tax increases or use of general-revenue funds. (Today, those gambling dollars are generated through pull-tab revenues, which historically have gone to supporting local charities, including nursing homes, homeless shelters, and many youth and amateur sports leagues.)

– The City of Minneapolis contribution would use existing city hospitality taxes and would not raise any new taxes. (The source of money currently used to pay off the Convention Center’s mortgage would be shifted to pay for a portion of a Metrodome replacement. The Convention Center is 20 years old with a leaky roof and needs to remain competitive with other cities in order to attract conventions.)

– Even though the Vikings would fund over 50% of the overall costs, the public would own the new stadium and it would be available for various public uses for at least 300 days out of the year. (By allowing the public to own the stadium, Zygi Wilf avoids paying property taxes on valuable downtown real estate. The current bill allows him to operate additional businesses on the property without paying property taxes. By not owning, Wilf is in a stronger position to negotiate his rent down to zero as he’s done at the Metrodome. He’s also in a stronger position to threaten to leave if the public doesn’t continue to spend hundreds of millions of the public’s money to continually upgrade the stadium to the NFL’s latest standards, whether the public can afford to or not. Oh, and did you hear that, while the public would own the stadium, Wilf would keep all of the revenues from the $100 million to $500 million in stadium naming rights?)

Based on this information, would you support or oppose a stadium financing proposal that used gambling and existing revenues along with a major contribution by the Vikings?

Based on more complete information about the true costs the public is being asked to take on, while also looking at the true benefits Zygi Wilf would receive, would those polled come in at 61% in favor? Or, would they be closer to the poll conducted by Survey USA that attempted to get a true feel for where the public stands on this issue? That poll found that 68% of Minnesotans support fully private funding for a new stadium (if one is built):

Survey USA Poll Results on Vikings Stadium

Fully Private?

“Fully private” means Zygi Wilf can, and should, pay for his own stadium.

But Zygi’s business partners, the NFL, Vikings season ticket holders, non-season ticket holders who see enough value in the team to send Zygi a check, and Zygi can do what other Minnesota businesses to every day: Go to a bank and take out a loan. I don’t think Zygi would have a hard time finding financing for a new stadium. He could point to the StarTribune’s article on how much money he’ll make on naming rights. He can point to the revenue from parking, from concessions, from hitting season ticket holders with PSLs to benefit him rather than reduce the public’s debt, from rent payments on uses of the stadium on the 355 days (on average) that he wouldn’t be using it. And, he can point to the revenue from NFL TV contracts to show that he’ll have no problem covering the debt payments.

It’s a beautiful thing. Minneapolis and Minnesota can be great hosts and great fans of our local NFL franchise without directly subsidizing the business. We loyally show up to watch the games, buy merchandise, and watch the games on TV at an incredibly high rate. All of these actions make Wilf money, as they should. But, providing direct subsidies of more than half a billion dollars? We don’t have it, and Wilf doesn’t need it.

27 thoughts on “Misleading Vikings Stadium Poll from Home Field Advantage Meets Media Scrutiny #wilfare”

  1. As Rick would say…WOW!!! Speaking of Rick, isn’t this where he usually comments about how we don’t understand the NFL’s model?

    But my favorite question of the poll is #3, which they use to qualify whether or not a respondent is worthy of being able to point a finger of blame should the Vikings leave town–
    –For even if the Lucky MN 1000 were MN Nice and answer moderately to #3 that their leaving town wasn’t very important to you, then you don’t get to answer questions #4 or #5…thank you very much for #1 and #2, we are done with your services now…you only matter to us if you are mad and want to blame someone like the City or the Gov.
    –Maybe the poll couldn’t release #4 and #5 because there weren’t enough respondents left?

    Speaking of Rick and our inability to understand the NFL’s model, how come question #4 didn’t add another entity to blame–
    –The NFL’s model

    It would have been my poll choice.

    In fact, if the current deal does get done, and Minneapolis conducts an Exit Poll to determine why I am leaving Minneapolis and who do I blame–my answer will be ‘The NFL’s model.’

  2. It appears that Rybak now has 7 votes on the council to push the deal back in to court of the GOP. It’s a game of hot potato. The GOP apparently is trying to abort the legislative session by Easter and now may not be able to do that.

    Brodkorb is apparently using his techniques formerly used to destroy the reputations of Democrats—now in some way to induce the GOP to action. This might have something to do with the idea of ending the session early. And who knows what documents he has or possibly pictures or even some video with sound could see the light of day? Get out of the capital….run as fast as possible…

    House GOP leader had pinned his Stadium inaction on two excuses–one was the council vote, which is now removed, and the other is the viability of electronic pull tabs. Unless Ed personally appears at the Capital to state his preference for paper pull tabs, this electronic pull-tab problem likely will be overcome with some backup revenue scheme and promise of more rewards to non-profits (in my view.)

    According to Brucato on MinnPost the Michel ethics hearing didn’t go well for the GOP on Friday. And during the GOP complaints in the hearing, MPR reported that the term “coverup” was actually used by GOP member Steve Sviggum in a past MPR interview. It seems they didn’t talk more about why this term was used. But it is even better reason to get out of town…the faster the better.

    The latest Homefield Advantage poll now gives cover to stadium supporters. Sure Ed can whine about his 68% being the objective tell all result about how the voters feel, but he doesn’t have any basis to say his number is any better than the most recent release by the downtown council. The only one who seems to debunk this is Ed….I haven’t seen any newsmedia attack the result yet.

    So we come down to a cram-down with the stadium. (In Other Mike’s case—it will be a cram-up!!!!)

    Councilwoman Betsy Hodges got her opinion piece published that shows how much she does operate just like the blockading TParty did with Obama –excepting she is on the left. Nobody wins when the debate is shut-off. She made it clear that she will never vote for Wilfare under any conditions—just like Ed.

  3. @Rick, the GOP stated that they wouldn’t move forward without a Minneapolis City Council vote. Today’s letters stated that they are not willing to vote.

    The pulltab challenge is the charities across the state that don’t want to compete with the for-profit Vikings for pulltab revenue. I don’t blame them. Using charitable gambling revenues to subsidize an NFL team is quite the stretch.

    Again, look at the various polls and decide for yourself which is more objective.

    Regarding Hodges: saying no to corporate welfare for an NFL franchise is not a bad position to take when your constituents don’t support corporate welfare.

  4. @The Other Mike, it’s cool that Mason-Dixon was able to release what they actually polled, if not the full results. It allows them to illustrate their clients’ bias.

  5. @ed…that is probably because Mason-Dixon is in the polling business and not the prop-up-pro-sports biz.

  6. @Rick…so Brodkorb is still around? I thought he was headed toward the Norm Coleman MNGOP retirement home?

  7. @Ed I guess you are having a hard time with the deal being crammed down.

    How sure are you that the legislature will NOT approve the deal without a city-council vote performed FIRST? You might want to double check your thought process before preaching that outcome. (I have never seen a mega-deal like this have all of the fine details worked out at the start.)

    As far as polls go, almost NOBODY apparently takes them as seriously as you do. The most current Homefield poll might well be biased and most polls are in some aspect.

    This poll did, however, establish that your Survey USA 68% unfavorable number is irrelevant and out of date because it only polled an open question without a specific deal on the table. You keep hanging your hat on a poll result that is fading from memory.

    The point is that the Homefield poll has given the politicians of both parties the cover they need to approve a deal.

    (And the stadium deal isn’t particularly a partisan deal anyway, while it is being led by two of the most powerful state DFL politicians, there are plenty of powerful GOPers who support it as well. And both parties have dissenters.)

    Hodges probably won’t be on top of any favor list for Rybak. Her stand could hurt her district–In Chicago Democratic party politics it would damage her district for sure. I don’t know how much she has infuriated Rybak —do you?

    @Other mike

    What is important here is that even before Brodkorb and Koch, the GOP was thrown off balance with the unpopular state shutdown and Sutton’s financial mismanagement. The GOP feared they have their last shot in power and that is why they are putting up stupid referendum issues. Koch just created more of a mess. Brodkorb was a important insider who wielded a lot of GOP internal power and has now become a threat.

    As has been reported extensively, the GOP has always been worried about being blamed if the stadium deal blows up—simply because the GOP basically represents voters outside of the Metro area—who don’t care if your taxes go up. As I see it, the GOP has been on edge for a number of months and now Brodkorb just threw salt in the wound.

  8. @Rick…excellent analysis of the political game. I mean that, no sarcasm.

    I find my problem however is that this political game entirely bypasses the overriding game–which is not polls, political cover, backroom deals, and political armtwisting.

    This is what is wrong with this stadium deal, it has become the main goal of politicians/NFL/Zygi, but it is not the main goal of the citizens or the NFL’s/Viking’s own fans. Certainly it is not the main goal of taxpayers.

    The ruling elite (and their political cover) are playing the wrong game at the wrong time in history; while society was able to support this game 20+ years ago, times have changed and this bad governance has never been more dangerous.

    By dangerous I don’t mean to dime-a-dozen politicians or our one party system. I mean to the NFL, the Vikings franchise, Minneapolis restaurants, hotels, et al. And I don’t mean the ‘r’ word, I just mean people are tapped out and will move away from supporting these businesses that refuse to provide value for their dollar. Times are tough and the first thing people do when squeezed is stop paying for entertainment. That is why dome area development is such a joke and will fail.

    You are wasting your time on political analysis/strategizing and instead you need to brush up on your socio-economic studies. The NFL, by losing sight of its fans and losing touch with its most loyal communities, is past peak.

    Similarly community leaders and their politicians who have lost touch, not only endanger political careers, they destroy the economic vibracy of their community for an entire generation.

    Any leader who also owns a business has also doomed their business to no-growth pattern, because the stadium deal is a one-way deal enriching NY-based NFL & banks and NJ-based Zygi. Last I looked the NFL/banks/Zygi were not offering rebates, do they?

  9. @other mike

    A number of years ago, I recall a work associate make nearly all the same arguments you are extending about the construction of the Mall of America. At that time, taxpayers were assisting these immigrant Canadians with accented speech who were in the theme park business. The argument I heard was that the Mall was destined to be a disaster, because there wuzn’t enough shopping power to support it and it would surely destroy Southdale and Rosedale and everything in between.

    It didn’t happen.

  10. It appears that Ed might be hoping that nobody looks at his blog when he puts the distasteful picture of toilet paper on the front page. Perhaps he is caving in on the Vikes issues and planning to flush the blog for good. (VBG)

    Having said that, there is a very interesting post this morning by Doug Grow on Minnpost about the stadium. My take is that if the stadium deal fails, it will not be due to lack of effort by the top DFL politicians to make it work. Grow alludes to comments that the GOP is in disarray and even the GOP House and GOP Senate can’t work together.

    I suspect that there is even more to it. Suddenly on Friday, the GOP talks about aborting the current legislative session by Easter. On the same day, the Michel ethics hearing is conducted and they take a break to vote on another issue and plan to reconvene. The DFL waits for the ethics hearing to re-start and the GOP members don’t show. Hmmmm…..

    Will we learn that the Brodkorb and Koch mess was intertwined by some aggressive stadium lobbying by anti-gaming interests?….(and you probably know who they are.) Clearly the GOP pussyfooted around on this matter and Sviggum alluded to a “cover up.” Perhaps the details are ugly enough that the rest of the GOP doesn’t want to get dragged in and they are willing to stop legislating and just go home early. Indications are strong that there is unrest in the world of the state GOP.

    So if the stadium proposal gets killed it might be due to an odd alliance between Ed’s interests and those of the GOP. It sure won’t be due to lack of support from Dayton, Rybak or the City Council.

    Not so long ago, Ed made a post about people who oppose politically supported building projects end up going to the ribbon cutting to celebrate what they opposed. If the GOP cuts the session short, the logic follows that Ed won’t have to go to the ribbon cutting to personally thank the Wilf’s for coming to MN!!!!

  11. Rick, you’re new around here–The Deets has been featuring TP fold photos for years, it is a ‘feature’ shall we say; and it historically has probably provided Ed more page views and click-thrus than stadium postings. The Deets is a blog foremost and will be along long after the Wilfs leave the Vikes behind.

    As for MOA and the Vikes Stadium…neither produce anything for the community, they are merely entertainment, places for people to piss away their hard-earned money. By that measure, this Vikes Stadium proposal will out-do the mall in extracting hard earned cash from wallets. Someone wins, but it won’t be Minnesotans.

  12. It appears that the only items holding up a stadium deal are a resolution with enough of the big charities on electronic pulltabs and/or a possible early end to the session by scared Republicans. For some reason yet undisclosed the GOP got wobbly legs after the Michel ethics hearing last Friday.

    Wuz a ” cover-up” exposed? That was a term used by Sviggum in an earlier MPR interview. It is really odd that one of the most Conservative Republicans, MR. Parry who used to be a close Brodkorb buddy was caught trying to prevent reporters from asking questions of the ethics chairwoman. Parry relented after being reminded the press has the right to ask question of public officials. Parry was planning to run for 1st district congress against Walz and Brodkorb was going to be Parrys campaign chairman while simultaneously working for and screwing Amy Koch.

    Sadly enough the need of the GOP to sidestep the ethics matter might lead to an aborted legislative session and the stadium deal would have to be revived in a special session.

    The GOP is saying that the ethics investigation could jeopardize the Brodkorb lawsuit. It seems that Michel is saying he lied to protect the identity of the whisteblower, Sheehan, who left state employment in about November to help with the anti-gambling lobbying for MIGA. Why would he need to protect someone who voluntarily left state employment —it’s BS. And then Michel claims this forced him to LIE. Oh your nose is gonna grow!!!!

    My guess is that it all depends on who was screwing who and if some of the leaders who decided that Brodkorb had to go because of a number of embarrassing conflicts or issues—just happened to be involved in their own dalliances at the same time Koch was tied up with Brodkorb. A connected attorney told NE he believes this to be the case. Hello Hollywood—you can’t make up a script as tantalizing as this.

  13. According to Strib article by Eric Roper about Minneapolis emails released related to the stadium issue, it appears that Ed and Other Mike were completely out to lunch in complaining that the business community was not doing enough to support the Stadium.

    Seems to me that Rybak and the Vikes are getting huge support. What planet do you guys live on?

  14. @Rick, the business community is not showing support by lobbying for corporate welfare. They show support by writing checks to lower the public’s cost if a stadium is important to them.

  15. @Ed. Who in the heck do you think is going to pay over $10000 per seat in the executive suites. Some drunken fan wearing purple and horns? The business communities willingness to pay high prices for seats is at the foundation of stadium funding.

    You just haven’t a clue about what goes on here in non-public view.

    And you refuse to accept that the Vikes have a very outdated stadium by NFL standards and that getting a modern facility will require Wilfare.

    Note that ColvinRoy was opposed to Wilfare until she decided that the alternatives were much worse.

    My guess is that you will eventually reverse course and get on board too–but your support will be grudgingly given and you will not consider apologies Merrifield nor will you end up thanking the Wilf’s—but, who knows, I have seen some more unlikely 180 degree turns. Prepare to be at the ribbon cutting to congratulate Dayton and Rybak….and Target tooooo….

  16. @Rick, you’re describing an economic reality that does not benefit the public, which is why the public doesn’t support it. Rybak’s a smart and influential mayor. But knows very well that there is NO chance that he could convince Minneapolis residents to support giving the city’s money to Zygi Wilf.

    If fans aren’t willing to pay $10,000/seat for a new stadium, the market is telling us that fans don’t value a new stadium enough to pay for one. If Target prefers to lobby for corporate welfare behind closed doors rather than write a check to support a business they claim to value, they are showing that they are not interested enough in saving the Vikings to put their own money where their lobbyists mouths are.

  17. @Ed. Let me make a comparison to your thinking to point out the flaws.

    One is that you seem to think you know for sure that there are not enough economic benefits to support a subsidized stadium. How do you think you know the outcome of a very complex analysis where the assumptions are fuzzy and the outcome subject to interpretation? You must think that Dayton and Rybak are totals fools who have been enlightened to your possesion of the “real truth”. You probably think they are proposing a subsidized stadium and agonizing long hours to put a feather in their caps. If that is the case, I think you ought to vote GOP next time. Emmer never would have supported gambling and of Wilfare!!! Right?

    As far as having public voting on these deals–it’s a wonderful thought and very unrealistic. Why would anyone in a city vote to pay for benefits that accrue to the entire state? I have friends who have no kids in public schools and they vote never to fund public education. Yep—it’s shortsided–but that is what voters do.

    You seem much like the typical Democrat convention attendee who exercised a right to vote for a Govenor nominee that is impossible to elect—Hatch was a good example–and the party ended up with Pawlently in power because a lot of liberal voters couldn’t stomach Hatch. Voting is democratic and wonderful, but leads to bad decisions sometimes—why would a stadium vote be any different???

  18. “One is that you seem to think you know for sure that there are not enough economic benefits to support a subsidized stadium.”

    Geez Rick, you’re not even trying to figure this out, are you? Why don’t you present your facts instead of ignoring months of postings on the Deets that debunked the so-called benefits and established the term wilfare.

    Post your stance, show your numbers.

  19. @other mike

    Here is some food for thought. I will disclose the source of this directly quoted material from an academic research study at a later time.

    “In contrast, most voters do not find it in their interest to oppose actively a referendum that may cost them $25 or $50 per year in additional taxes.

    The issue is complex, the subsidies are indirect, and the proponents have almost all of the information.

    Those who are motivated to oppose the subsidies frequently are poorly funded, disorganized and politically na?ve.

    Misleading “economic impact statements” commissioned by the proponents of subsidization often confuse the public.

    As we have seen, these studies are fraught with methodological errors that may be easily overlooked for those not trained in economics.

    Given the close votes, the studies can be enormously effective even if they deceive only 2 or 3 percent of the voters.”

    My observations are below

    First of all, it is pretty clear that you and Ed are typical of stadium funding opponents.

    Second, this type of analysis is complex and not well understood. And guys like you and Ed who oppose these deals typically don’t have the facts anyway. The supporters have the facts.

    Third, on a per capital basis, the cost (25 to 50 bucks per year in added taxes )isn’t so great and it is well worth it to the folks who need something to talk about at water coolers. Most fans never see a team perform at an NFL stadium…they just watch on TV and love to talk about the team for hours and hours because that is more interesting than most stuff like the weather (except for the latest foolish statements made by Palin or Bachmann….I suppose.)

    The true voting on subsidization is typically about half in favor and and half opposed and –more to the point– it is no where near the 68% opposition that Ed keeps harping about. That is quite evident when the study I quoted shows that supporters only need to mislead 2 to 3% of the population—-AND NOT the overwhelming 18% that is implied in Ed’s posts.

  20. Yes Rick, I too often harken back to that glorious past era.

    But those days are gone my friend.

  21. @rick. why not disclose the source of your quotes now? i’m guessing it’s because what you quoted never mentions a *pro sports* subsidy, and could be about anything at all. You are just taking a quote out of context to support your argument. Now i challenge you to produce a reference that shows real hard numbers in regards to a professional sports stadium that shows a net positive economic impact. I have researched this for a while and have not found a single example. I have found many that show how these deals have gone (Cincinnati and indianapolis just to name two). I make this challenge to every stadium supporter and have yet to see one stand up and offer some hard facts and figures. maybe you will be different, but i doubt it.

  22. This study was commissioned in the ’90s and published in 2000, which is why I commented above about how I harken back to that glorious past era. Both the Cincy and Indy stadium debacles have been built since 2000.

    I recommend we learn from and avoid NFL stadium public subsidy nightmares. If economic boom is so certain, then re-structure the deal AFTER the boom creates development. Just like if the polls show such unwavering support, then have the referendum to prove it once and for all.

  23. That question 4? Not having Zygi Wilf, or the Wilf family as a choice instead of “the Minnesota Vikings” seems to smell of bias to me, knowing what the most popular choice would have been, were the name “Wilf” to have appeared there.

    Phony baloney.

  24. As far as I know, all polls are biased to some degree. Anyone who takes a single poll result too seriously is doing so at their own peril. My guess is that the Homefield poll overstates the favorable rating at 61%.

    The Survey USA poll that Ed keeps referring to with 68% unfavorable is also flawed because it polls an open ended question without a specific proposal in mind.

    Let’s assume that the true numbers are probably about 50–50. From what I understand, most legislators are reporting feedback consistent with that. The legislature is likely going to approve the Dayton proposal because they don’t believe ED’s 68% statistic and they are the folks who need to get re-elected whether the proposal is approved or it dies.

    It’s too bad that the few DFL officials in this state , Dayton and Rybak, have a certain group of normally liberal voters who sound more like they belong to the right wing TParty on this issue. I bet some of them are so bitter that they will vote for a Republican over Rybak. They might even elect another Emmer.

    The TParty also likes referendums—no doubt they would’t object to adding the stadium to the list along with voterID, marriage, and right to work. At some point we need to trust the legislative process or kick the bums out. Just make sure you get the right bums.

  25. Rick, you keep coming back with those same old tired arguments with the same old tired solutions–
    –accept the NFL’s hostage taking deal
    –vote out a few dime a dozen politicians
    –smack your hands and get to work paying your taxes.

    So, then I need to come back with my same repeated solution–
    –You need to read more, and
    –You need to find 21st century solutions.

    Please read this and see if you can find better solutions–
    http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2012/03/the_economic_roots_of_your_life_crisis.html

    I’ll even give you a money quote–
    –“Today’s logic might be summarized thus, as two of my intellectual heroes, Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, have recently argued in their new book, Why Nations Fail:
    “Join us — we’re here to take advantage of you.” Acemoglu and Robinson call these extractive institutions — and according to them, institutions that extract value, instead of creating it (in my language, institutions that don’t create
    thick value), are the roaring engines of decline. A life crisis, I’d say, is a crisis of human potential foregone. It’s when you know you’re not living up to your potential, but it’s frustratingly difficult to see what, if anything, can be done about it. So what does one do about it? I think we dream big, and act bigger. For example: remember my tiny list of broken institutions? Put one in your crosshairs and reinvent it — not just in your own town, but so that your own town sets an example for the globe.”

    So Rick, what broken, extractive institution am I referring to?
    No, not gov’t…try again…no, not the GOP or Tparty or liberals or conservatives…try again, hint, it was once an entertaining business that generated some value to its fans and most loyal communities, but now has turned into a broken, extractive institution–
    –BINGO, the NFL.

    With their hostage-taking, taxpayer-bleeding model of business, they are past peak and the fans need to send them a clear message that Sundays are great days to take the family out for a long walk in the local state park–it is almost FREE!

    How many years past peak are they? I did more reading, and I can now give you the exact date when they tipped past peak–March 28, 1984. Check it out for yourself.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *