Validation?

I'm New to This -- (0.00 / 0)

Two things strike me square in the face and -- from the few non-spinning comments that others with no agenda bother to post -- I'm left with the surprising impression that I'm the only one finding either of them remarkable.  (1) This blog's diligence is commendable but why is it necessary?  Why does it not rise to remarkable -- never mind outrageous -- that the DFL fails to make public the definitive information that it must have (unless it is completely incompetent).  Each convention records the given name of each viable subcaucus and the number of delegates awarded, don't they?  Why isn't that kept on the DFL website for all to see?  Don't interested Minnesota democrats not in the bag for a particular candidate care that the party is seen by nonpolitical types statewide as of an out of touch and not-especially-trustworthy group of insiders?  How does the way this is handled do anything but reinforce that perception?  (2) Isn't the lede for this story, continually:  "No Campaign Can Improve on Its Straw Poll Percentage -- Some Campaigns in Each Tier Have Fallen Off."  There is no credible claim to momentum or inevitability that any spinners can credibly make once these delegate numbers are accompanied by percentages.  But they never are.  Do you all love the horserace so much that you have made an implicit pact to overlook this stuff?

---

by: Fairfield6 @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 16:43:27 PM CST

I'm new too, (0.00 / 0)

and I think both of your points are valid and interesting.

I'd suspect that the reason the DFL doesn't make these things more public is that they really don't mean all that much-- for better or worse, the endorsement is determined solely by the actual people who show up as delegates in Duluth.  Their subcaucus name really doesn't matter-- they can change their mind, lie to get elected, abandon their candidate after 1 ballot, etc., etc....  So making the whole thing public might impart a bit more certainty than really exists.

That said, the more I see of the whole process, the less I like it.  As you point out, no campaign has a particularly high % of the delegates, so it really is going to come down to the worst kind of smoke-filled-room horse trading (or so it seems).  The fact that people are even talking about someone other than MAK or RT getting endorsed, i.e., someone who got less than 10% of the straw poll votes... well, let's just say, I think a no-endorsement is our best bet.  Let 'em all fight it out in a primary....

---

by: mtullius @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 16:54:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I would also say.... (0.00 / 0)

The official DFL probably does not want to get involved at the local level and look like they are picking sides. The endorsement should come organically from precinct to district and build. If it is seen as top down, it might dampen enthusiasm. The DFL as a statewide entity does not get involved until the statewide level.  

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 17:03:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As a Republican (0.00 / 1)

I agree with your assessment of the delegate process.  Delegates should be allowed to make their own best choice.

---

by: Dave Thul @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:07:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

wellll... (0.00 / 0)

I think the value of the endorsement process is the 1-on-1 interaction the delegates get with the candidates. Huge ad buys don't help very much, and there is value in trusting one's contemporaries, friends, and neighbors to vet these candidates rather than depending on masses of low-information voters to make a good decision despite the early date on the calendar.

Will horses be traded? Sure. But part of our efforts here have been focuses on reducing the amount of back-roominess and smokiness of those transactions. Sunlight has always been and continues to be the best disinefectant, and there will definitely be value in an endorsement that's determined out in the open ad in full public view.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 17:07:43 PM CST

The problem (0.00 / 0)

"and there is value in trusting one's contemporaries, friends, and neighbors to vet these candidates rather than depending on masses of low-information voters to make a good decision despite the early date on the calendar."

Really?  Because the "contemporaries, friends and neigbors" have made horrible decisions again and again and again.  In other states where "low information voters" choose the candidates, Democrats somehow manage to pick good candidates and even win an election from time to time.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:27:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not to mention (0.00 / 0)

that the process tends to shut out the poor and the working class folks who can't take time off of work, or can't arrange childcare, to attend an all-day Senate district convention and another all day state convention.... So our friends and neighbors tend to be middle class and up....

---

by: mtullius @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:17:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is a fair point (0.00 / 0)

which I believe has been raised in previous discussions on how to improve the caucus/endorsement process. As I said then, this is an issue, I'm just not sure how to solve it other than to help the poor and working class raise their standards of living so they can participate.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:28:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

my view on how to improve the process (0.00 / 0)

I have a couple of ideas for improvement of the process.

One easy change for the better on SD conventions would be to allow the first hour for short speeches by candidates or their surrogates, then in the second hour move right away to delegate selection with walking subcaucuses. The attendees who don't want to spend most of the day  considering resolutions or electing people to fill dfl party positions could express their preference for contested races in a meaningful way and get on with their day, in less than two hours.  The diehard politicos can stick around all day to take care of all the minutia. More people would be willing to attend a 2 hour vs. 4-5 hour convention.

In my low turnout suburb, little would be lost by canceling the precinct caucuses altogether, and going straight to the SD convention. We were allowed more than 30 delegates in my precinct and only 6 signed up to go to the senate district convention. For those who don't go to senate district the caucuses are a waste of time, because their candidate preferences basically counts for nothing. Why not skip the caucus and all 15 could help choose delegates to state convention in a single 2 hour meeting. By electing delegates to state based on the preference of say 150 people rather than 35, a better candidate with broader appeal would be more likely to be endorsed.

---

by: lc in cd2 @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:03:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I seem to recall an election or two we have won.... (4.00 / 1)

Dayton,Klobuchar,Franken,Richie,Swanson, to name a few statewide. At the congressional level we hold a 5 to 3 advantage. Seems like we picked a few winners. We have a veto proof majority in the state senate. Picked a few winners on the local level there. We are only 3 away from a veto proof majority in the house. Doing pretty damn good there.

Seems to me, that these "contemporaries, friends, and neighbors" have done pretty damn awesome at picking winners from the local level to statewide office. We've sucked huge ass at getting the governor. To say we've made horrible decisions defies all logic. The three biggies are Senators and Gov. We hold two of three.

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:50:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clueless (0.00 / 0)

"Dayton,Klobuchar,Franken,Richie,Swanson, to name a few statewide."

Dayton was not endorsed.  The "contemporaries, friends, and neighbors" did such a lousy job endorsing a candidate in 2000 (Jerry Janesich) that everyone just ignored the endorsement and ran in the primary.

Lori Swanson also was not endorsed for AG.  In 2006 the DFL endorsed Entenza for AG, and after scandal forced Entenza from the race, Steve Kelley was endorsed.  

Franken and Klobuchar were obviously endorsed, but neither one had a competitive endorsement contest.  Not even the DFL could screw those races up.  To say the endorsement process produced those candidates is a joke.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:23:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

The DFL endorsment process is a corrupt, elitist, undemocratic joke.  If it produced winning candidates, maybe that would be ok, but it doesn't.  The last thing the DFL wants to do is shine a light on this horrible process.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:29:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

oops (0.00 / 0)

supposed to be a reply to Fairfield6

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 18:30:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

what if... (0.00 / 0)

This is a sincere question, Dan: what if by shining a light on some of the aspects of the process, we managed to help improve it to the point where it actually did help select a winning candidate?

Now, I don't hold the conceit to believe that our little project here is going to be singularly responsible for electing a DFL Governor. But are we doing our part, even in this thread right here, to help get people more involved and engaged, to the point where we might be able to make it happen?

I dunno, maybe that's overly idealistic of me.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:34:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

First of all, I think what you are doing is fantastic.  Prior to this the DFL endorsement process was about as transparent as the selection of the pope.  Only good can come from shining a light on the process.  

When you are saying you are doing your part to keep people more involved and engaged, what does that mean?  I am curious as to the results, but I can't do anything about them.  I didn't get elected to go to the state convention so all I can do is sit and wait and see what the delegates do.

If I thought there was a way to improve the process, I would be all for it.  I just don't see what can be done other than scrapping it altogether.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:32:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Answer me this.... (0.00 / 0)

Do you honestly think, if we went straight primary, that guys like Rukavina, Thissen, Marty, etc. would even be in the conversation?

I am not saying this system is perfect, but it seems to allow for more underdogs and for people to win by organization instead of just money. There is no way to prove this, but I am certain, under a primary system we would have Dayton, Entenza, MAK, and Rybak to choose from. Period. How is that better?

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:35:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I sure hope not (0.00 / 0)

If a candidate can't be competitive in a primary, why the hell would we want them to be the nominee?  Why is giving underdogs a chance even a consideration here?    

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:35:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Would Wellstone have won in a primary? (0.00 / 0)

I honestly don't know the answer to this, but he seems like the type of guy who could have only won with the DFL machinery behind him. He was a professor, so they is no way in hell he could self fund a primary run.

I agree that it sucks we have perpetually picked crappy candidates for governor, but you have to admit that DFL endorsed candidates have done pretty darn well overall.  

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:42:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

"I agree that it sucks we have perpetually picked crappy candidates for governor, but you have to admit that DFL endorsed candidates have done pretty darn well overall."  

No, if you look at competitive endorsement races, we haven't done well at all.  We have succeeded in spite of the endorsement process (i.e. Dayton in 2000).  The process has been a miserable stinking failure all the way around.

The candidate with the most money doesn't always win, even in states without an endorsement process.  Charisma, organization, and other things can overcome money.  Wellstone was a great candidate and a great senator, but people are way off if the message they take from him is that any underfunded obscure candidate can win.  Wellstone was one in a million, and he got very lucky.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:48:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Realy?? (0.00 / 0)

I was a state delegate in 2008. Being originally from Wisconsin I didn't even know what a caucus was, and I made it all the way as a delegate in a very competitive year. All the people from my St. Paul group were also regular Joe's and Jane's. It was an extremely organic process. I assume my group was not unique. None of us were "party insiders", elitist, or clique like. All of us were working class, or working poor. I for one was the antithesis of an insider and I had the same voice as anyone.

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:44:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

2008 (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't go in 2008 because my kid was sick.  I could have dragged him to the voting booth with me for 5 minutes, but I couldn't take him to a caucus for 2 hours.  So I was disenfranchised.  Just like all the other people with kids who couldn't go.  Just like all the people who had to work.  Just like people in the active military and all the other people you believe deserve no input into the process.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:42:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ummm... (0.00 / 0)

All those people you mentioned, including yourself, aren't allowed to vote in the primary? Weird. As an independent body, why can't the DFL endorse whoever the hell they want to endorse. Unions have their process, editorial boards have their process, why shouldn't the DFL be allowed their process?

the bottom line is that the DFL can endorse whoever and you can still vote for whoever you want in the primary. None of the people you mentioned were disenfranchised because they can still vote in the primary and general.

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:46:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Fair enough (0.00 / 0)

The problem is that the candidates I like have agreed to abide, so I may never get to vote for them.  Unless some change their mind (which I hope Joe's light shining process will help do) my choices are Entenza and Dayton.  

This year we are actually lucky to have a choice.  Some years everyone abides and we are stuck with the shit sandwich the party hacks pick for us.

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:52:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The alternative (0.00 / 0)

Is a corrupt, elitist, undemocratic statement.

---

by: Jlubby @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 22:05:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WTF? (0.00 / 0)

What does that even mean?  The alternative is an election, in which everyone can participate, and the results are completely transparent.  

---

by: Dan @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 22:18:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More coffee (0.00 / 0)

Leads to a better response.  My apologies.

In a primary-only system, the only people who get to the primary are the ones who self-finance or are a favorite of party insiders, essentially the same group likely in a caucus+primary system.  However, there is no similar method for pre-vetting those candidates against a group of very likely voters.  The results of the election may be transparent, but the method of getting to that election is far, far less so.

---

by: Jlubby @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:15:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

The problem with that is the pre-vetting process is completely worthless.  Instead of producing good candidates, the "vetting" process seems to consistently produce poor ones, leading to election losses.  In states without an endorsement process like ours, "low information" primary voters do a much, much better job vetting candidates then the "informed" delegates do.    

There is this idea that the caucus system is necessary to create a sort of affirmative action program for marginal candidates.  I don't think that is something we need - if you can't be competitive in a primary on your own, you have no business running for office in the first place.  The reality is that in most cases the marginal candidates don't get picked - the party establishment candidates (Moe, Hatch)do.  And when the marginal candidates get picked (Janesich) everyone just ignores the endorsement.  Watch what happens this year.  There are at least a few viable, good candidates, but we are probably going to get stuck with Kelliher, who is simply awful.    

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:59:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And then there are those supers. (0.00 / 0)

That is the LEAST democratic part of this whole song and dance.

---

by: blogvirgin @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:53:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The solution is a primary- (0.00 / 0)

For all statewide offices. No more letting the local DFL cliques, groupies, and special interest groups pick the candidates. The primary is fair- a vote for every DFLer whether they can spend all day at conventions or not.

---

by: dyna @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 19:39:50 PM CST

Mostly Agree (0.00 / 0)

I think the primary is most fair to voters. Most people who vote in the primary are going to be motivated by knowing something about the issues and the candidates otherwise they wouldn't be voting.  I have the following concern. If everyone had to run in a primary to get the nomination, could everyone who runs now afford to run in the primary?

---

by: EP Dem @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:16:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

with Entenza, Dayton, etc. going to primary.... (0.00 / 0)

Isn't this the perfect system? The DFL gets to endorse whoever the hell they want to pick, as is their right. Then the voters all get to pick whoever they want in the primary. The voters will still get to choose between Entenza, Dayton, Rybak, and someone else. At least the Rukavina's/Thissen/Marty's etc. have a chance with the caucus system. I would be fine with everyone going to the primary even after the endorsement.  

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:39:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Rybak (0.00 / 0)

I thought Rybak agreed to abide by the party endorsement - am I wrong?

---

by: EP Dem @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:46:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are correct (0.00 / 0)

RT Rybak has said that he will abide by the DFL endorsement.

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:50:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But RT can probably block an endorsement- (0.00 / 0)

Just like he did in 2001 and 2005. After a couple ballots MAK will be at maybe 50% with 60% needed for endorsement and RT holding 30% of the votes. All RT has to do is block MAK's endorsement and he can run in the primary without breaking his promise to abide.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:09:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

But that doesn't solve it (0.00 / 0)

The cliques, groupies, and special interests decide who will get to the primary and have no reason to tell anyone else their reasoning or where and when they make these decisions.  You literally don't know what or whom you're missing.

---

by: Jlubby @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 22:10:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think the caucus system (0.00 / 0)

has some value. A primary only system will tend limit the selection process to the cliques and groupies with money or extend the campaign season into years to build a grassroots support network.

At the same time the limits of the caucus system are apparent. Then again the "local DFL cliques, groupies, and special interest groups" are to a large extent the party and should have a significant say in the process.

My suggestion:
Eliminate super delegates. On caucus day hold a firehouse primary that awards 1/2 the delegates to the endorsement convention those delegates will be selected by the respective candidates. Caucus/CU process continues as normal to select the other 1/2 of the delegates.  

If you remember 08 lots more people voted then stayed around to caucus. I assume even in an off year election that would remain true. So this is a way to connect "casual" democrats to the selection process.

Remember we would still have a summer primary.

---

by: Judeling @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 23:28:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Like it n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Dan @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:00:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Appreciate the comments - to flesh out my other point: (0.00 / 0)

Right now NO candidate can make a nonfrivolous claim to be "winning".  Most, including the 2 "frontrunners," are failing to hold their straw poll percentage.  Using the Bodell numbers:
UNC 44%
Rybak 17%
Kelliher 16%
Thissen 7%
Marty 6%
Rukavina 5%
Entenza 3%
Bakk 2%  

---

by: Fairfield6 @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 20:52:25 PM CST

If the link (0.00 / 1)

gives legitimacy to MPP for the delegate count, does that mean it also gives legitimacy to MDE for its delegate count?

---

by: Dave Thul @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:10:03 PM CST

Which count? (0.00 / 0)

apparently they have two different counts.

---

by: Alec @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:19:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, one reason the numbers aren't... (4.00 / 1)

.....public on the DFL website is that there's still too much uncertainty. There are so many uncommitteds and even those in named subcaucuses are technically under no obligation to vote that way. The situation is way too fluid. We can give "best guess" estimates, but really the only thing that counts is the ACTUAL VOTING at the convention.

I personally like this system better than a primary. This is a PARTY function and I do not want my party subject to the whims of low information voters manipulated by whoever has the largest campaign chest to buy advertising. The caucus/convention system is a manifestation of grassroots democracy of people who are active in the party. It is perfect? NO. Does it always make the right choice? NO. Can some working people be adversely affected? YES. But like I said, this is a PARTY function that is open to people who consider themselves PARTY members. It takes committment, it takes time, it takes effort. The ultimate fate of the party lies with the time, committment, and effort of its members. It should NOT be subject to the candidate with the biggest bankroll nor to voters who don't really give a crap.

"...if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine..."----Bob Dylan, 1965.

---

by: lams712 @ Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 21:44:09 PM CST

It's hard to make an argument against democracy... (0.00 / 0)

Especially when you're the Democratic Farmer Labor Party. Let the party insiders, hacks, groupies, special interests, and the odd real activist make their ceremonial endorsement. Then, let the people decide, "low information voters" and all. If a candidate can't survive a primary, they've got no business representing the DFL on the general election ballot.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 07:25:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Opinion of a Party Hack/Groupie/Insider (4.00 / 1)

I fail to see how the nomination process is suspect.  Decisions are made by those who show up, and the caucus and convention system we employ is for building the party via resolutions, electing party officers, and yes endorsing candidates.

The reason we even have a party is first define what we want...then who we want to represent us.  Should we really scrap the process and leave it up to people with the means to run TV ads?!?  The argument that the nomination process is elitist is ridiculous when the remedy is primary only.

When it comes to participating, a lot of people vote, some people donate, and few people volunteer.  The endorsement process is for the people who volunteer, it is for the people who do all the work of electing a candidate.  It seems like those criticizing the nomination process either do not involve themselves and/or do not understand the process.

---

by: arronolson @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:22:57 PM CST

Endorsement Process (0.00 / 0)

I believe there are a significant number of people who attend caucuses who don't volunteer.

---

by: EP Dem @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 08:15:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I like the Connecticut/Utah system (0.00 / 0)

If someone gets a super majority (not sure if they set it as 60 percent or if it's higher) they simply win the endorsement and there is no primary. But if no single candidate can reach that threshold anyone that meets a viability threshold of some sort (15 percent, say) is able to advance to the primary.

It keeps our "friends and neighbours" as the vetters of candidates and keeps the caucus turnout that keeps the local DFL parties alive while still allowing a primary with it's advantages. So in this race, depending on how exactly it was structured we'd probably end up with MAK, RT, Marty and Thissen. Of course, Entenza and Dayton would have put more effort into the caucuses, so maybe they would have still made it, but they wouldn't have been able to skip that whole process or only make a token effort.

That's just my opinion though.

---

by: Populista @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 20:00:10 PM CST