How will Renew.MN will shake out?

Leads versus published leads (0.00 / 0)

It should probably be noted that we really don't know who is in the lead now. All we have is the published leads Joe has put together, which may not even reflect all the named subcaucuses at conventions so far. In that list, it appears that Rybak and Anderson Kelliher are nearly tied on named subcaucus delegates, but that Anderson Kelliher has more automatic delegates and thus appears to have more delegates at this point. But that's only in the universe of conventions that are included in Joe's report. In the wider universe, RT could be ahead, even when automatic delegates are considered. Or Anderson Kelliher could have a large lead, whether automatic delegates are considered or not. Or Bakk/Rukavina combined could get to the front of the line. Or Thissen, if he had a lot of delegates come through uncommitted subcaucuses. Or any other variation along those lines. We won't really know till April 24 when the first ballot is cast. And we won't really have a sense as to what will happen till we see what happens when candidates are no longer viable, and we know who their delegates will then choose to support.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:44:49 PM CST

Well (0.00 / 0)

Even if the remaining 5% that aren't even in our delegate tracker plus the 10% that are but don't have totals lean heavily one way or the other, they're not going to be exclusively in one column or another -- meaning they won't change the overall look of the race much. It's safe to say right now that MAK has a lead if superdelegates are counted, and the picture at the top between her and Rybak is murky at best when they're not. It's also probably safe to say that in the second tier, a LOT of things could happen between now and April to shake things up.

Other than that, we're simply reporting what we have as well as possible.

---

by: Joe Bodell @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 13:58:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Already weighed in ... (0.00 / 0)

http://www.mnprogressiveprojec...

---

by: The Big E @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 14:43:31 PM CST

Will ReNewMN's droid delegates throw the convention? (0.00 / 0)

Rumor has it that Hatch threw his delegates to Marty in '94 because Marty would be the weakest candidate to beat in a primary. This year there'll be no need for such outside intervention by a primary candidate- given half a chance, ReNewMN will probably manage to throw an endorsement to the weakest candidate. And to add insult to injury, ReNew MN will probably throw their votes to Thissen on the first ballot to drop Marty, who does more progressive activism in his sleep than Thissen does all day.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 14:52:00 PM CST

ReNew DROIDS? (0.00 / 0)

Dyna, Matt Entenza would be mortified and embarrassed to know his most enthusiastic supporters were speaking of other Dems with such vitriol.

I really like Matt and will work very hard to get him elected if he wins the primary.  He was my #1 choice for a long time.

Gotta say, however, that I kinda hope my door knocking buddy is not someone as sour as you or I may just stay home the second time.

 

---

by: blogvirgin @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:07:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hopefully the ReNew Mn delegates will prove me wrong... (0.00 / 0)

And vote their consciences.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:33:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

These are not the droids you're looking for (0.00 / 0)

This is nonsense, Dyna. The term "droids" implies that reNEW delegates will just do what their overlords tell them to do. There are no such overlords. The three candidates were endorsed in an open process, where the people interested in doing so had a chance to vote on the three candidates they wanted to support. From my memory, you had a bad experience that day, which is a shame, but because of that, you don't need to cast aspersions on a process and a group of people who really want to make Minnesota a better place.

Individual reNEW delegates will have the option to vote for who they like at least on that first ballot. They're not going to "throw their votes" to a candidate to get somebody else to drop. And they're certainly not going throw an endorsement to the weakest candidate. The entire point of reNEW is to endorse a strong candidate, help support that candidate through the primary and then in the general. There would be zero purpose to endorsing a "weak" candidate. All of the reNEW endorsees are abiding by the endorsement.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:58:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not what I heard in a ReNewMN subcaucus.... (0.00 / 0)

They insisted that everyone support their 3 candidates, despite the fact that some of the subcaucus members had arrived there from non ReNewMN subcaucuses that had merged.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:36:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That's how it works (0.00 / 0)

If non-reNEW subcaucuses want to join with a reNEW subcaucus, it's perfectly fine for the reNEW subcaucus to ask people to abide by the purpose of that subcaucus if they want to join. That's really no different than people in an uncommitted subcaucus wanting to join an Entenza subcaucus, for example. It would be silly if the uncommitted people were upset that those in the Entenza subcaucus wanted those joining to support Entenza if they wanted to join the subcaucus. It's really no different with reNEW.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:49:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, it's not OK. (0.00 / 0)

When subcaucuses merge it's by agreement, and ReNewMN needs to be upfront about their demands during the merger negotions rather than trying to enforce them later. Trying to "borg" other uncomitted subcaucuses into their bloc will only create bad feelings for ReNewMN that will haunt them later.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:39:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I still have a problem with reNEW.mn's process (0.00 / 0)

In Eric Black's penned piece from yesterday he wrote:

my understanding is that reNEW folks will be free to vote as they like the first ballot, from the three endorsed candidates.

My problem with this is the idea of uncommitted delegates going into the State Convention "committed" to electing one of the three candidates endorsed by reNEW.mn.  To me, those are not "uncommitted" delegates.  Uncommitted delegates should be free to elect either one of the three, or John Marty, or Matt Entenza, or any of the other DFL Candidates.  The fact that reNEW.mn's process is such that uncommitted delegates are suppose to elect ONLY one of their three endorsed candidates is not right.  It is unfair to the other candidates and I think it makes for bad government later on.

I think if reNEW.mn wants to make a real impact on the future of DFL elections that you endorse all candidates in the future and all uncommitted delegates should have the opportunity to elect any of the candidates, not just a limited three.  That is what I am having a problem with.  

---

by: BearBudMN @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:21:27 PM CST

Uncommitted (0.00 / 0)

BearBudMN:

I already shared my thoughts on this concern in the comments on your post, but the short version is:

1) There may be a very few uncommitted delegates that are open to supporting each and every candidate out there right now, but there probably aren't many.

2) Some uncommitted delegates are actually stealth delegates that are actively supporting one campaign or another, and they became delegates in an uncommitted subcaucus for a variety of reasons.

3) Other uncommitted delegates have narrowed their choices down to a few they are deciding between.

4) The uncommitted reNEW delegates, by labeling themselves reNEW delegates, are simply saying that the three candidates they are uncommitted between are Margaret, RT and Paul. You could spell that all out in a really long subcaucus name, but it's simpler to just say uncommitted reNEW. And the reality is that just like other uncommitted delegates, an uncommitted reNEW delegate may have narrowed his or her choices down to one or two candidates for the first ballot, while remaining open to the other reNEW candidates down the line, once the reNEW delegation makes a decision together.

5) Nobody is forcing people to become reNEW delegates and work through that process. That was their choice. If after the endorsements were decided upon by the people interested in the reNEW process, and they disagreed with those choices, they always had the option to no longer identify with reNEW and go their own way. It goes against the spirit of the process, but that's their call.

6) Endorsing all of the candidates would have been meaningless. That would have done nothing to guide the process towards getting a good outcome, which is having a progressive governor.

7) This is a new process that one group of people is pursuing. It's being down out in the open with transparency. reNEW could have chosen to just endorse one candidate, like unions and other groups do. I think giving people the choice between three candidates on the first ballot is nicer than corralling everybody towards one candidate from the get-go. It gives those three candidates more time to convince reNEW delegates to support them. Hopefully it leads to more progressive campaign positions that are followed through on during the campaign and once in office.

It's rough that Marty fell a few votes short in the endorsement process. Alas, that's how voting works.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:53:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, that's how auctions work! (0.00 / 0)

ReNewMN actually made it possible to become a member and pay one's dues online, then click over to the poll part of their website and cast a vote. I wonder how many republicans took advantage of this opportunity?

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:40:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually (0.00 / 0)

I am not a member, but I know that only members were allowed to vote, and their dues had to be paid up several weeks in advance.  I doubt republicans would donate money weeks in advance to cast a vote in a preference ballot for the DFL endorsement.

---

by: arronolson @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:54:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so arronolson (0.00 / 0)

I received an email from TakeActionMN the weekend of the Annual Dinner telling me I could signup online and vote.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:05:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Timeline (0.00 / 0)

The annual dinner was in the fall. The last day for voting was January 29. If I remember correctly, the last day people could join Take Action and still vote was January 15.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:13:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Worries (0.00 / 0)

I suppose one could worry that such a thing could happen. But you could also worry that Republicans would go to DFL caucuses, try to get elected a delegate by lying the whole time, and go to the convention and cause mischief. Or join some other group or union that does endorsements and cause mischief.

Take Action members were allowed to vote on the reNEW endorsement. People could become members by paying Take Action dues of $36 for the year. I suppose one could have envisioned Take Action allowing non-members to vote on the reNEW endorsement, but that would leave the process more open to manipulation, not less. Or you could envision Take Action not allowing anyone to become new members for six months before the vote. But that seems a bad way to get new people involved in a process.

People can always be dishonest. It's unfortunate. But I think the reNEW process was pretty open and transparent, and the people involved are doing the best they can, again, with a new way of doing things.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 17:56:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

exactly (0.00 / 0)

Kudos to the reNew/Take Action group for energizing so many activists.

---

by: arronolson @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:12:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Can I just say..... (0.00 / 0)

We are blessed with an embarrassment of riches. I think MAK is my least favorite candidate, and we would be blessed to have her as Governor.

Things that turn me onto a candidate are supporters who speak in glowing terms with specific achievements and rationale of their candidate.

Things that turn me off a candidate are supporters who bash other candidates, speak in absolutist terms, and are completely black and white in a complex world.  

---

by: Alec @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 15:24:01 PM CST

One part bothers me (4.00 / 1)

Maybe it's wrong or not clear, but this part bothers me: "may have gotten through named candidate subcaucuses"

Does that mean someone involved with renew would feel free to switch their vote even if the candidate to whom they were pledged were still on the ballot? If the subcaucus elected a delegate on a promise to support a specific candidate, the delegate may be legally free to vote how they want, but they're nonetheless honor bound to support the candidate they said they would support until that candidate is dropped or withdraws.

---

by: ericf @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 16:30:26 PM CST

Hmmm. (3.00 / 1)

I think that's a question true for really anybody elected from a subcaucus named for a candidate. Whether or not somebody is reNEW, if during the process of five, six, seven, eight, ten, or whatever rounds of balloting, are delegates ethically bound to not switch their vote? Are uncommitted delegates the only delegates allowed to switch their votes along with delegates whose candidate has dropped from the race? That creates a pretty locked-up situation, and gives uncommitted delegates more freedom of action than committed delegates.

In reality, I think any delegate's commitment should be 100% guaranteed on the first vote for sure, but as to how many votes it takes before that bond is loosened...

I'm interested in what people think.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 16:52:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think...... (0.00 / 0)

I think you vote your conscience. Part of your conscience is the obligation to vote how you were first elected. That definitely factors into it. However, especially for newbies, you don't really get the information blitz until after you are elected as a statewide delegate. It is the duty of the delegate to advocate for who they think is best. I think there is an obligation to try and maintain your position, but if you sincerely came to a change of heart through new information I see switching as okay. Switching on a whim or without a lot of thought isn't great, but I would not condemn anyone who came to a thoughtful and reasoned change of heart.

---

by: Alec @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:11:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's say guidelines instead of rules (4.00 / 1)

Let's say sticking by you subcaucus is a strong guideline rather than a rule. So if your candidate challenges Duke Cunningham for biggest bribe, do change. A good test is could you explain it to the people in your subcaucus who elected you? They would understand switching when the candidate turned out to be a crook, but that you were participating in renew and you chose to follow them instead of your candidate --- assuming this is a non-renew subcaucus --- not so explainable.  

---

by: ericf @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:04:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

ReNewMN- a good concept with some rough edges... (4.00 / 1)

That need to be worked on. The concept is good- getting more progressives involved in the DFL party is a good thing. The candidate forums were certainly a good idea, and the endorsements have their value too. But trying to make the membership support their endorsed candidates was a mistake that is not winning friends for ReNewMN. Perhaps ReNewMN can take a lession from the unions- the Teamsters have paid my way to a couple conventions even though I wasn't always supporting their endorsed candidate. They didn't mind- their goal was as much to get their union members involved in the process as it win the endorsement.

---

by: dyna @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 18:48:12 PM CST

ReNew (0.00 / 0)

Could be the deciding factor in assuring or denying an endorsement. If it plays out that way the drop in support will mean as much as the gain. I'm assuming that the ReNew delegates will have been voting for RT, MAK and Thissen all along. When that support is pulled both positive and negative momentum will be created.

Timing will be a real issue however. Do you wait for a stalemate and then shift or do you enhance a developing trend?

---

by: Judeling @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 19:52:43 PM CST

ReNewMinn Apparitions (4.00 / 1)

I've been part of TakeActionMinn for a long time. In an era of Democrats cowering in the corners, fearful or a Republican sneeze (Most dramatic in Congress but all too prevalent here) I feel passionately in the need for progressive conviction and courage. It's hard to understand how much of the previous comments have to do with ReNew, too much sounds like the babble of Fox. The huge contribution of TakeAction to this election cycle was getting thousands of people worked up and committed to a progressive agenda, no more Republican Lite. The huge rally turnout in St. Paul some months ago was for more than the DFL could have produced had they been so inclined.

I'm a state convention delegate. I ran clearly on a ReNew Rybak, Hackett subcaucus. No mystery, no promise to hide in a ReNew corner and spew forth votes at the state convention. I did sign the TakeAction pledge and I'm fulfilling it in supporting RT. Nothing insidious here.

As always, convention delegates are free to move around on votes. I just don't want a Roger Moe or Mike Hatch redux. I want to win this governor's race! One of my reasons for supporting RT in addition to his beliefs is the fact he's a super campaigner.

I'm so damn discouraged by democratic cowardice that this is probably my last election cycle participation unless we see massive spine implants.

---

by: Curmudgeon @ Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 20:16:28 PM CST

Be ready (0.00 / 0)

to sit out the next couple of election cycles.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 00:09:24 AM CST

[ Parent ]