Opinion: Maureen Reed Is Wasting Our Time, Handing Another Victory To Michele Bachmann

I disagree with this (0.00 / 0)

because, last Saturday I heard Maureen Reed speak at District 51's convention.  I must say that what I heard from her at that point was nothing short of excellent.  She correctly said that Minnesota has a problem in Washington and her name is Michele Bachmann.  When I asked her and/or her campaign manager if she would be interested in talking with our Senate District 63's LGBT Caucus and does she support equal rights for LGBT people, her answer was a qualified YES.  She spoke about how no one vilifies LGBT people more than Michele Bachmann and that America will not truly be a land of the free until all of it's citizens enjoy full equal protection of their rights under the law.

I think it is wrong to declare Maureen Reed unelectable just yet.  There is more to come.  Give the woman a chance.

---

by: BearBudMN @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:28:47 PM CST

I don't understand you, BearBud (0.00 / 0)

Your comment says basically this:

1) Reed correctly stated that Bachmann's a problem
2) That she supports equal rights for LGBT people.

Given that all of that is true: how does that add up to a winning vote total for Reed in the election? (I mean, I can see why those two Reed statements you identified would appeal to some voters--but why do you assume from those to items that Reed is electable?)

What we're looking for here are numbers, votes. I don't see those in your argument--Clark's sewn up the unions and there's been no momentum away from Clark and towards Reed. So how do you get "electible" out of the facts you presented here? Do you have any more facts that would persuade anyway that Reed is electible?

Reed has had a chance every day to prove that she can win this thing, the problem is that so far she hasn't met that challenge. I don't know that anyone has met that challenge, but it's wrong to say that Reed hasn't been given a chance. She's got money and she claims she's got support, if she can't clinch the party support that's not somehow "the party's fault."

By the way, I'm not a die-hard Clark supporter, I'd flip to Reed if someone could ever produce a convincing argument showing that Reed could win. (So far the only "Reed beats Bachmann scenario" I ever received was ridiculous, it might as well have included "hobbits.")

Here, Dusty is presenting a convincing argument why Reed should get out of the race, and I can't see where he's got his facts wrong. Can you?  

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:42:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Query (0.00 / 0)

Your points are well taken, but has Clark accomplished any of these things?   Getting the DFL endorsement doesn't count for anything other than the ability to endear yourself to party insiders who have a long record of picking unelectable candidates.  

After introducing the single dumbest bill of this session this week, I really wonder how much Clark has going for her.  

---

by: Dan @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:43:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

In replying to BearBud, I just wanted (0.00 / 0)

to dispose of the idea that just because a candidate's agenda is attractive to us, that makes them "the most electable."

That kind of thinking has its place at political rallies, and if a person is a campaign operative or a backer of a particular political horse--they believe that they "have to" talk like that. (I'm not saying that BearBud is any of those things--but I hear that kind of thinking all the time from people who trying to involve themselves in the campaign ("I support this candidate, therefore she must be electable.")

I made my own position clear in this thread--for many years now, I've been looking for a straight, no BS account of how this particular political problem can be addressed. I can give any of you a credible, no BS account of how Bachmann wins--and I did that the last two elections, and so did other people (though they may not have printed it.) And it's not that we're geniuses or psychics--me, I just listened to the facts about the voting demographics of the district, about the money coming in to Bachmann post first term election, about the GOTV org she automatically gets via the evangelicals, about the independent voters who loathe the DFL and the liberals, about the crap press coverage of Bachmann's extremism... and I got my straight-up, no BS scenario that said that Bachmann wins the last two times around.

I'm still waiting for someone to write the credible scenario of how that doesn't happen, next time around. If you know how this can happen, it should be easy--when I do the Bachmann scenario above, I don't get big laughs, because it's all too credible, all too historical.  But try to write the "how Maureen Reed wins" and not get laughs from the assembled.

So, given the numbers and the inability of challengers to write a persuasive victory scenario: who really cares about the "my candidate is the solution" v. the "no, MY candidate is the solution?" debate? Who, except DFL campaign ops and volunteers and candidate partisan "masterminds" who are trying to "squeak through via a miracle?"

I agree that Clark's latest legislation probably isn't going to win over the votes she needs. But hey, we could be wrong. And I put that particular Clark "maneuver" down to the counsel of other candidate partisan masterminds, perhaps a committee decision by the same.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 12:48:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK, I accept... (0.00 / 0)

Bill,

You've thrown down the gauntlet, I accept the challenge.  I'll write a post on this topic.  It'll have to be after this weekend, though.  It's State Hockey Tournament time!

---

by: The Big E @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 14:46:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You are a tough egg, Big E (0.00 / 0)

...when I throw this gauntlet down, motivated and committed Dems I respect either clam up judiciously (see Houle) or offer the rah rah talk that I get from the campaigns. My blood type is "cynical" so I don't see the latter as helpful; the most I can offer is to "not openly disagree with it" when it is spread.

But if there is a real strategy for a victory in the contest I definitely want to know and will be the first to change my tune. That's why I "chased Houle down the hall" in this comment thread to ask him "the big question."

No snark when I say: you go, Big E, you know a lot and I hope you kick this particular challenge's ass. The credible story of "how the Dem beats Bachmann this year" is necessary, to build the morale and money necessary to actually do it.  

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 16:16:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So, On That Bill About Violent Porn (0.00 / 0)

How will the state determine what is and isn't violent porn?  Will they pay a state employee to watch porn all day to determine what is and isn't "violent?"  Or will they just outsource that to Haliburton?

---

by: Dana Houle @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 17:34:16 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I don't get it...and Clark is (0.00 / 0)

my candidate, and I just don't get it.

For the
1.14purposes of this section, "pornographic image or performance" means a sexually explicit
1.15image or performance that objectifies or exploits its subjects by eroticizing domination,
1.16degradation, or violence.

Why this, now? Would the bill survive judicial review? Why this issue, is it a reach out to gain credibility for this liberal with "social conservatives?"

I just don't get it. Pornography is a problem, "violent pornography" degrades human beings, but it's not the Sixth District's biggest problem, and the proposal has problems in and of itself (debates about whether the consensual spanking video gets banned by the hotels...this is the Clark issue this year? She's much much better than this.) I...just...don't... get...it.

Maybe someone on the Clark team can explain "why this, why now."

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 18:12:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To Win in that District, You Probably Don't Want... (0.00 / 0)

...to needlessly irritate independents and libertarian-friendly moderates. This probably does that, and I can't imagine it does anything to pry social conservatives away from Bachmann.

But who knows, maybe they have polling contradicting what's just my gut reaction. But it does seem very much like the stuff that Dick Morris convinced Clinton to champion in 1996...which was the lowest presidential turnout since, iirc, the 1920's, and in which Clinton failed to clear 50%.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 18:32:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

I didn't even think it that far through - would it be like the supreme court "know it when you see it" standard?  Does spanking count as violence?

I guess I was just thinking that state employees watching porn on business trips just wasn't much of a concern.  How would you know anyway - the titles don't appear on the bill.    

---

by: Dan @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 21:44:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's a Solution In Search of a Problem (0.00 / 0)

First of all, state employees shouldn't be reimbursed for pay-per-view television. State employees shouldn't be treated like crap, but c'mon, they can watch what's on the standard channels, or they can read, or they can go to a movie or something.  It's not up to the taxpayers to give them entertainment beyond what's available for free. So, porn or non-porn, violent porn or non-violent porn, taxpayers shouldn't be paying for any pay-per-view.  And that's a policy that can be promulgated by the executive branch, probably already exists, and shouldn't need to be legislated.

Second, yes, how the hell would you define it?

Third, if it's free--and is porn really free on hotel televisions?--then the state doesn't need to get in to what its employees are watching at night as long as their job performance isn't effected and it's not costing taxpayers anything extra.

It seems like the implied legislative intent--if there really is legislative intent beyond the political intent--is to push some kind of disinvestment approach against "violent porn."  I'll make no case for or against porn, but I will point out that this seems like the state using its purchasing power to punish hotels that supposedly support the "violent porn industry."  I guess one can say that's legitimate (even though this is so poorly conceived I don't know how it would be effective), but politically, like I said above, the votes Clark needs to get aren't the steadfast religious conservatives, because they're never going to vote for her, they're sticking with Bachmann. No, she needs to peel off some of the voters who are sick of Bachmann's extremism, but she especially needs to get more of the voters who wouldn't vote for Bachmann in 2008 but also wouldn't vote for Tinklenberg, so they instead voted for the IP.  And the folks voting for the IP, in that district, aren't going to be particularly impressed by this kind of legislation, and in fact, are probably libertarian-minded, don't like the government telling them what to do, and won't interpret this legislation as saving them their tax dollars before they're squandered.  Instead, they're going to interpret this as a case of the government getting in to their business, and they wont' like it.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:32:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hmmm, Well... (4.00 / 1)

>I also think it's pretty disingenuous to call yourself the most electable candidate in the race and then have to go to the primary because nobody thinks you're electable within the local party<

Implied in that is the notion that the local party, through the DFL endorsement process, is adept at determining who the nominees should be, that electability goes in to their calculations, and that this process has been shown to be as good or better than putting things to the voters to decide.  I think that's a dubious assumption, especially considering that Minnesota--a pretty damn progressive state compared to the rest of the country--has gone longer than all but 2 states in electing a Democratic governor, and that the DFL hasn't endorsed a successful non-incumbent to that office in 40 years.  

When I explain to just about anyone outside of Minnesota that a small number of people go through a months-long process to bestow their endorsement on a candidate, but that they generally will only bestow that endorsement on someone if before that process begins the candidate pledges to not let a broader universe of Democratic primary voters have their say, the people I explain this to are usually shocked at what a strange system exists in Minnesota.  One can, I guess, come up with plenty of arguments why you should maintain this anachronistic process.  But choosing candidates who are best suited and well-prepared to win in November is not, in my mind, something this process driven by only a couple hundred people willing to spend several nights and weekends in what can often be a tedious or chaotic endeavor, has been successful in doing  

So, while I'm no fan of Maureen Reed, in particular because of her background as a spoiler, I can't get upset with her for taking her race to a primary, because that's a far more small-d democratic process, and also one which, I think is repeatedly shown outside the state of Minnesota, more often than not results in the nomination going to someone best or at least very well-suited to be a competitive general election candidate.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:33:39 PM CST

Yeah but (0.00 / 0)

...never mind all that, Dana Houle.

What's the best way to beat Bachmann? You're the expert, presumably you studied the demographics of the Sixth when you with Tinklenberg--how do we win this thing in a nuthouse conservative demographic, against apparently insurmountable odds?

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:44:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll Abstain (0.00 / 0)

The only way you generally can win an R+7 seat is with a bad Republican candidate, a break here or there, and a Democrat who's a good fit for the district.  Since I worked for El, and because we're not talking about abstractions but about two specific candidates running for the DFL nomination, I'll abstain about getting in to what I see as their potential strengths and weaknesses.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 16:55:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Spoken like a statesman (0.00 / 0)

...but just think how fascinating your candid answer would have been! I will have to wait for the memoirs, I guess.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 17:00:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well, thank you for deigning to come... (0.00 / 0)

.....down from your mountain to preach to us unwashed about the "undemocratic" nature of our "anachronisitic" andf "tedious" endeavor. I'm sorry that we refuse to want either smoke-filled rooms or rich people paying for advertising to manipulate low information voters like in a primary. This is still a PARTY function, not a feel-good Kumbayah session. This a an open process by party members, not any yahoo who is moved by a slick television ad. Sorry if you feel this example of empowering, direct, grassroots democracy doesn't appeal to your elitist sensibilities (sorry, but to a lowly peon like me, a former dkos front pager who pretty much has his choice of campaigns to work on is "elite" to me). Oh well....  

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

---

by: lams712 @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 20:25:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Man, You Hate Voters (0.00 / 0)

>not any yahoo who is moved by a slick television ad<

Apparently you think voters are "yahoos."  Talk about elitism.

And I prefer my grassroots democracy to not require multiple sessions over several months where someone has to leave work, get a babysitter, etc, culminating in a several hour drive and paying for a hotel room just to get a vote on something that's non-binding.  

If it was such a great practice, and so empowering, you'd think that in a state of over 5 million people, the top vote getter in this supposed wonderful, grass roots empowering process could have managed to garner more than 3,500 votes.

Your comment shows that for you at least--and I have to wonder if it's the same for others as well--that part of the appeal of the DFL process is the feeling that you're not dealing with those people you call "yahoos" but that I call fellow citizens.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 17:05:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dana (0.00 / 0)

I think your attacks on the endorsement process are absolutely ridiculous, the people who run this Party decide who gets the endorsement.  This begs the question of "who runs this party?"

The people who run this party put in the time and effort to show up to meetings month after month in big election years, and off election years.  They are the ones who show up to events a year before the election to listen to the candidates who are running.  They are the ones who ask candidates and their staff tough questions.  But most importantly they are the ones who show up to the phone banks, the rallies, the door knocks, and the lit drops.  In other words, they show up.  It doesn't take a whole lot to get involved to help make decisions that affect the party, but it does take a lot of work to actually win.  Since you can reasonably be expected to be elected a delegate at caucuses with a letter of nomination, at minimum two Saturdays are all the meetings you need to attend to be one of the few who decides the nomination.

Two days really too much to ask to work on the direction of the Party and endorse a candidate?

Our endorsement process is a grassroots process for the Party.  So, if candidates cannot get the nod from DFL activists, is the Primary voter going to work to get them elected?

The definition of elitism is saying "boy I guess I didn't appeal to the people who do all the volunteer work getting Democrats elected...well screw them I have enough money to run TV ads and get people to vote for me anyways."

---

by: arronolson @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 09:55:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Eh, Whatever (0.00 / 0)

You think my "attacks" are attacks.  Whatever.  But why not entertain the possibility that you guys are too enamored with a process to question whether it achieves what it's supposed to achieve?  Or is the process itself your goal?  

And again, I say, it's hard to imagine it's such a great empowering process when the top vote-getter in the straw poll for Gov, in a state with over five million people, couldn't even garner 3500 votes.  

Finally, anyone can say "the definition of..." Is that a definition you ever saw, used or thought of prior to this morning?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:49:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, One Other Thing (0.00 / 0)

If the "people who run this party" was synonymous with the people who control the finances of the party, you wouldn't have the UDF. You have people who control a process, but those aren't the same people who control the party.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:07:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Well (0.00 / 0)

"Two days really too much to ask to work on the direction of the Party and endorse a candidate?"

Yes, if you have to work nights, or have to travel for work, or have child care issues, or are in the active military, two days is too much.  These people are competely disenfranchised.

And those people who do all that hard work?  When they choose a rotten candidate to represent the party, it makes everything they do - every phone call, every door knock, etc. - a complete waste.  

---

by: Dan @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 12:49:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe. I hate low information, apathetic people.... (0.00 / 0)

....holding sway over a party function. Seriously, why should non-party members have any influence in a party process? I know that this process takes away employment opportunities from the professional consulting class that you come from and that a primary-only system would make your job far easier, but this is about a political party organization and its operations.

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

---

by: lams712 @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:33:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hilarious (0.00 / 0)

> I know that this process takes away employment opportunities from the professional consulting class<

What a joke.  In fact, this process CREATES more jobs, because it allows a bunch of candidates who wouldn't otherwise have any credible chance of being a competitive candidate to hire a bunch of campaign staff and keep them employed for several months.  

As for your "party function," like too many people, you're in love with a "party function" but you apparently don't bother asking yourself if it works, or if it's sufficient democratic.  You should ask who the "party function" is serving, and what purpose it serves.    

Also, nice job of assuming that everyone who can't get a babysitter, can't miss work if a caucus occurs during their work hours, etc, is "low information" and "apathetic."  That's EXACTLY the kind of empathy toward others that the Democratic party is based on!

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 11:00:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow, first, I would like your help in picking the... (0.00 / 0)

....Powerball numbers for this Saturday's drawing since you must have ESP or something. If you can read into my statement about disliking apathy as "assuming that everyone who can't get a babysitter...", etc IS "low information" and "apathetic" when I said no such thing. I think we are talking about two classes of people: I AM referring to uninvolved, low information people and you are referring to DFLers that are unable due to life circumstances to participate in the caucus/convention system. You are operating under the false assumption that the ONLY people that vote in the DFL primary are people that are normally active or would be active but for certain circumstances. I think that's preposterous, given the fact that MN does not have party registration, so indeed ANY yahoo who is moved by a slick ad CAN vote on something that should be a PARTY matter. This is simple fake "concern trolling" on your part.

Let's just say what's really going on here. People like you HATE people like me. Insiders who make up the consulting class hate the activist base. What you are REALLY concerned about is NOT some party members that may be disenfranchised by a caucus system, you are concerned that you can't "consult" the easy way, in a primary election where you do not have to deal with the "dirty fucking hippies" or the (thanks, Rahm) "fucking retards" that form the base of the party.


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

---

by: lams712 @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 12:07:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Look Up "Implication" (0.00 / 0)

You should be familiar with the concept that what you say often implies other things you didn't say, and can even imply those things if you're not aware it implies those things, and even if you find those implications uncomfortable or in conflict with what you want to believe, want others to believe, or in fact do believe.  

As for your open primary complaint, so what?  The primary is what's legally binding, so the DFL endorsement is just a big charade, and often the endorsed candidate doesn't win.  Hell, the guy endorsed for Senate in 2000 finished fourth in the primary. Rybak wasn't endorsed his first two times for mayor and ran and won anyway. Perpich wasn't endorsed when he won the seat back. Freeman finished third in the primary when he was endorsed. I can go on and on.  

As for the "base of the party," if you think the base of the party is only those who can afford to take all kinds of time to go through a byzantine process which empowers only 1200 people to cast a vote for the endorsement, man, you need to get out and meet more Democrats.  

As for hate, I'm quite comfortable with anyone reading this thread to conclude who it is who's more likely got issues with hate.  I point out flaws in the process, and all you do is indulge in ad hominems about how I'm the man and elitist and keeping you down, how I hate this, hate that, yada yada yada.  

You might want to take a look in a mirror sometime.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 13:57:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Comical, simply comical... (0.00 / 0)

.....if it doesn't matter, then tell that to all the candidates vying for the endorsement.

Maybe this system is best after all. The activists make their preference, but in the spirit of checks and balances, the voters make the final decision. I personally don't like it, but hey, others don't like the caucus/convention either.

I can assure you, I have met more Democrats in my 38 years than you can ever dream of. Maybe you need to come down from your commanding heights and rub some elbows with us lowly proles.

I too am quite comfortable with anybody reading this thread and decding who has the issues with hate. A member of the insider consulting class decides our way sucks, blah blah blah, yada yada yada.

And you might be the one that needs to look in that mirror.

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

---

by: lams712 @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 17:12:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

thanks lams712, I'll run it nt (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 22:19:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Endorsement (0.00 / 0)

Well I may be wrong but I believe the endorsement process is designed to endorse someone that DFL activists think is the best candidate. We can debate about whether or not DFL activists make the best decisions until we are blue in the face.

I think a lot of people who spend hours volunteering to make sure this party succeeds like the fact that we have a voice in determining who we endorse.

Where does this 3,500 number come from anyways? RT picked up 4,883, MAK had 4,518, and so on.

When it comes to the UDF and who runs this party, I meant the people who actually get DFL'ers elected.  And I'll give you a hint...its not the people on the UDF Board, and its not staffers like you.

You are missing the forest from the trees here when you talk about the process being undemocratic. People who have a lot of money and can "buy" votes is the antithesis of small d democracy. So when Susan Gaernter (who had 464 votes or 2%) or Matt Entenza (who had 1,539 votes or 6.8%) hint that they may run in the primary, it seems like the only way they will succeed is if they have the money to convince those who didn't vote for them on caucus night to show up for the primary.

Please discontinue your intellectually dishonest criticism of the endorsement process to make it seem like candidates running against endorsed candidates are right or justified in doing so.

---

by: arronolson @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 12:18:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

asdf (0.00 / 0)

"We can debate about whether or not DFL activists make the best decisions until we are blue in the face."

I guess you could debate anything until you are blue in the face, but its pretty clear that DFL activists have done just an awful job in picking candidates.

"I think a lot of people who spend hours volunteering to make sure this party succeeds like the fact that we have a voice in determining who we endorse."

And since they are so completely incompetent when it comes to picking candidates, the party would be better off if they did nothing.  All those hourse spent volunteering are just wasted anyway.

Putting aside the fact that the DFL endorsement process is corrupt, elistist and undemocratic, the biggest problem is that its a complete failure.  

---

by: Dan @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 12:56:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, Then it Was a Whopping 4,883!!! (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry, the wonderful DFL process also included taking three days to finish reporting the results.  I stopped looking for complete results some time on Thursday, two days after the caucuses, and at that time, RT had about 3500 votes and MAK was somewhere around, iirc, 3200.

So, out of over 5.1 million, it was 4,883!  Well, in THAT case, the participation was stupendous!

Look, all your arguments about how great the process is ignore the fact that it's mostly a waste of time.  It's not binding.  Even those straw poll votes weren't binding on the DFL process, they were simply a straw poll.  And now, no candidate has even 20% of the delegates declared to him or her, and almost half of the delegates are going as uncommitted.  So, you think it's even more democratic to have people go to caucuses and elect people who aren't even committed to a candidate?  Really?  Or are you comfortable because you know some of those people claiming to be uncommitted really are quietly committed to a candidate, and the virtue of the process is that it's based partly on the duplicity of some of the delegates?

When someone has arguments you can't refute or don't want to engage, it's not very flattering of you to resort to accusing them of intellectual dishonesty.  And also ponder whether you're in a bubble; describe the endorsement process to Democratic party activists in any other state, where they don't have what for too many people is an unquestioned tradition, and see if they think it sounds democratic and empowering.  You might be surprised by what you hear.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 14:08:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I see that... (0.00 / 0)

You are simply not getting it. The system we have ensures that candidates seeking the endorsement have to make a connection with DFL'ers. Is there something wrong with that. Our system also ensures that people who have the time and desire to determine the course of the party can do so.

I guess I am not going to apologize for believing that two or three meetings is too much to ask from someone who would like to be involved in the process. It doesn't require years of training or any sort of membership fees. Meetings of all kinds are free and open to whomever would like to attend.

You (and the Dems from other states) can be offended by our nomination process all you want, but most people can see through the fact you are attempting to cheapen the endorsements' effect for your own gain.

---

by: arronolson @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 15:18:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Wrong (0.00 / 0)

"The system we have ensures that candidates seeking the endorsement have to make a connection with DFL'ers."

No, the system ensures that the candidates seeking the endorsement have a connection to the clueless party hacks who don't have the faintest idea what DFLers believe in.  

"You (and the Dems from other states) can be offended by our nomination process all you want, but most people can see through the fact you are attempting to cheapen the endorsements' effect for your own gain."  

Its not about being offended - its about the fact that our nomination process is enabling Republicans.  I (and others) want to do away with the system because it is hurting Democrats and hurting this state.  

"I am not going to apologize for believing that two or three meetings is too much to ask from someone who would like to be involved in the process."  

I am not surprised that an elitist like you would have no problem with disenfranchising people in the military and those with night jobs and childcare requirements.  

---

by: Dan @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 15:36:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I am going to run (4.00 / 1)

the above comment exchange in this thread, as a piece on the front page of this blog--unless one of you (Houle, lams, Dan aronson (sp?) strenuously objects to me doing that. If one of you strenuously object, do so in this thread, and I won't run it. (Even though most of you are using aliases and are conducting this disagreement on strategy and procedure publicly, I don't want to put the spotlight on you if you have a serious problem with that.)

But I hope you guys won't object. We're off the front page, and I think this discussion would interest our readers very much. It would give them insight into perceived problems with the Minnesota Democrats and the party and make some of the mysterious, less mysterious. I don't see anything here in the debate that "gives the Republicans ammunition," because the issues you are discussing are obviously chronic topics of discussion within the DFL--and if the object is to nominate good, electable candidates, I think more people should know what the different views are on the current process.

I'm reprinting it, tomorrow, front page, okay?

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 16:43:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Please Do (0.00 / 0)

---

by: arronolson @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 17:21:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks arronolson, sorry I misspelled (0.00 / 0)

your alias (when you reply here, it only shows the alias of the particular person you're replying to.)

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 22:18:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

WTF Are You Doing? (0.00 / 0)

You're running on the front page ad hominem attacks by anonymous commenters?  And your idea of consent is that someone doesn't object even though they don't know you've even made the proposal?

Really?  

Wow.

---

by: Dana Houle @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 10:07:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Really--that's what I did. I explain why on the (0.00 / 0)

thread where I reprint this discussion. Yes, "my idea of consent is that someone doesn't object even though they don't know I've made the proposal"--if that personal is a newsmaker, a player in the political process, and signs his name to public comments on a political blog...as you did here.
It's a political blog, you're influential in the state's politics so what you say on politics is news, you signed your name to your posts, so you have even less right to a say in whether or not you're quoted than the guys who wrote in under aliases.

Please see what I wrote back to you in the reprint. What you said about the process is newsworthy, DH, coming as it does from a campaigner like you--and the fact that some Dems greeted you with anonymous ad hominem attacks is also newsworthy. So, yep, front page--my decision only, others at MPP did not push for it.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Sat Mar 13, 2010 at 19:46:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Regardless of any merits the system may have, (4.00 / 1)

it has failed to produce DFL candidates who can win a governors race. That alone makes it worthy of skepticism.

---

by: TonyAngelo @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 18:10:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Also, what arronolson says....n/t (0.00 / 0)

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

---

by: lams712 @ Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 10:38:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll take this a step further (0.00 / 0)

"I also think it's pretty disingenuous to call yourself the most electable candidate in the race and then have to go to the primary because nobody thinks you're electable within the local party."

The fact that a candidate can't or doesn't get the DFL endorsment has no bearing on a candidate's electability.  The party hacks who make the endorsements have such a bad track record, such a long history of endorsing unelectable candidates, that there is nothing disingenuous about Reed's claim.  

 

---

by: Dan @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 08:34:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What can win in an R+7 district (0.00 / 0)

First, if any of us knew, including Dusty, what the formula for winning the 6th was, don't you think we would have done it a long time ago?

Now, for my observations. It seems like Republicans/Independents will vote for someone they disagree with on ideology if that person is "straight shooter, almost firebrand" type.

Kind of Wellstone esque. You can hear the conservatives, "I can't stand his politics, but you know he's honest and speaks his mind."

That' part of Bachmann's appeal. She speaks her mind (crazy talk), and they love that. Ironically, you might need a really bold progressive. Someone who boldly says exactly what they are going to do, and then does it. We know that Tink was the "perfect" candidate. Policy chops, public service, moderate cred, preacher, etc. That did not work.

Alan Grayson's district is R+2. Not as bad, but still red.
Gordon Bart represents an R+13 district
Jason Altmire is a R+6
John Bochieri R+4
Dan Boren is in r+14!!
Rick Boucher is R+11
Allen Boyd R+6

So there are a ton of examples of democrats in hardcore Republican areas. That is jut getting through the B's.

Cooks PVI ratings
http://www.cookpolitical.com/s...
what lessons can we learn from these folks?

---

by: Alec @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 18:09:11 PM CST

Tinklenberg's name affected the race. (0.00 / 0)

Bob Anderson, little known independence candidate, got 10 % of the vote. With a more common name (perhaps scandinavian) or at least with a less unusual name, El might have defeated Bachmann.

I think the easiest way to win CD6 would be with a prolife dem (if he or she could win the dfl endorsment or primary.)  If I lived in CD6, I'd support a prolife candidate to win the seat from Michelle and provide good representation for me on most issues/votes.  

I think many people are sticking with the radical right wing GOP based on this single issue.

---

by: lc in cd2 @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 19:27:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Well... (0.00 / 0)

First, if any of us knew, including Dusty, what the formula for winning the 6th was, don't you think we would have done it a long time ago?

Not necessarily. I have observed the DFL in action. I am not convinced that even if there was was "a winning formula", they have the organizational chops to put that formula into in action. For example, the DFL knows what Dusty's pointed out here: that Reed's had a spoiler effect before and that Reed is hurting Clark--and they can't stop Reed, right?

And bear in mind that we've got seen all kinds of Dems and campaign operatives that have claimed to have "the winning formula" for the Sixth. Some of them are still running around claiming that, this year, claiming that "they are doing it," now.

I can't say I'm sorry I asked Dana Houle the question about how to win, because he's actually acquired a reputation for winning in districts that are tough for Dems. Unlike many other Dems who claim to know the formula, Houle's actually got the necessary resume. I would love to know what he really thinks, but he is probably wise not to say. I would take his parenthetical observations very seriously, but maybe that's because they coincide with what I already thought about the district.

There is no shortage of people on our side who claim this thing can be won, they are raising campaign contributions on those claims, and good luck to them. I hope they're right. Some of them claim to have new ideas about the winning formula, that the mistakes of the last two attempts won't be repeated. But when it comes to discussing the polling and the results of past elections and how those numbers are changing in the district, there is an eerie quiet.

I've heard people make the argument you're making here, Alec. I don't know about "the kind of Republicans that vote for Bachmann" crossing over to vote for a Wellstone type liberal who's a "straight shooter, almost firebrand" type. I think that the rabid conservatives see a living "Paul Wellstone" as a threat to America, because I read what they say about liberals and progressives on the blogs.

So I can understand why Dems don't run the kind of candidate you talk about--or put resources into that kind of candidacy in my district, one of the most conservative in Minnesota. Loyalty to Bachmann, as I regularly point out, reflects a kind of proto-fascist faith in her policy and in the belief that her "crazy talk" is true. I don't think that they love her just because she's outspoken, I think the reason that they love her is that she's outspoken and that the views you and I identify as "crazy" are widely held in her district.

The argument you make about Dems winning in Republican areas is impressive, but we have to bear in mind that during the last two election cycles we could run against Bush and a failed Republican Congress. That counts for a lot, too, and it's a condition that's changed. What isn't changing are the numbers of conservatives and independents in the Sixth District. The math of the demographic, is the killer.

I agree with you that a Tinklenberg type approach isn't likely to work, I despair of Clark winning if she's planning to run that way--but I always thought that.

The following view is mine, and it's marginal and unpopular with Dems this year. I think that if better and more experienced minds than mine see no plausible way to win this year--the very best thing the Dems can do this year is to run the kind of campaign that will tag Bachmann as an extremist in the mind of Minnesotans. An albatross like that around her neck would make a big dent in her prospects as a candidate for higher office.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 19:31:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What have they got to lose?(besides the election of course) (0.00 / 0)

Who knows if it'd work, but I agree with you that it would be nice to see an all out effort to attack the nut/bigot/liar aspect of Bachmann. Clark comes closer to that than Tink did. I also think Clark is rightfully acting the fact that Bachmann serves everyone but her district. Who knows. If Clark is going to go down, let's see her go down fighting.

As for the democgraphics, don't you think they are changing a little bit? Stillwater area went for the democrat last time, and that was a switch. I am having wishful thinking here.

I don't condemn Reed for going to the primary. I don't know if we can definitively say that it hurts Clark or the democratic chances. Remember there was zero media blitz on the race in 2008 until the Chris Matthews show. Maybe the primary will bring some media attention to the race. Lord knows, other than governor, there are no other interesting primaries out there.

You can always move to my district Bill. We have the best state rep, State Senator, and U.S. Representative.  

---

by: Alec @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 19:57:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now you're just rubbing it in... (0.00 / 0)

...with your best state rep, state senator, etc. I'd be bragging too, if I could say that. Moving out won't help, if they succeed in getting MB where I think they are aiming her.

Clark is running a little tougher than Tink, but not much--not enough to make a difference in my opinion. As long as Reed stays in, it's a death sentence for Dems--is my call. I guess I agree with Trice.

As for the demographics changing: no, I don't think they'll change significantly in time for it to affect this race. You're right about Stillwater--when people started to find out "what she was really like/really represents," they dropped her in Stillwater, Republican or no. (That's why I'm always on about getting the press to report "what she's really like/represents," that would hamstring her in Minnesota if the state press started doing that.)

Unfortunately, by the time they dropped her in Stillwater at election time, she was already running beyond Stillwater, in Wright and Stearns County. So the fact that persuadable voters in Stillwater got wise to her and didn't support her anymore became irrelevant. I don't see her base of 47% shifting much in any other direction, and if the splitters show up she's got another win with at least a plurality--perhaps a majority, if the "it's all a conspiracy" independents come over to her.

But I am always ready to listen to other views--I called this thing successfully the last two times around, but I am bit punch drunk after seeing this nut returned time and time again by the people of my district. I really do want to hear a convincing story about how someone could beat her, or about how someone can stop her from going higher.

---

by: Bill Prendergast @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 20:27:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What Dusty said. (0.00 / 0)

    I'm with Trice. As far as Maureen Reed goes, once a spoiler, always a spoiler.

---

by: Lynnell Mickelsen @ Wed Mar 10, 2010 at 21:12:39 PM CST

It can be done. (0.00 / 0)

Actually Tinklenberg won Stearn's County and Washington and Benton.

It was Wright, Sherburne and Anoka that gave Bachmann the victory and of those Wright and Sherburne was the only two that had a majority (50.5%) voting for Bachmann.

Of the 12,000 vote difference between Tinklenberg and Bachmann, 13,000 came from Wright and Sherburne.

Since the last election, Wright and Sherburne now lead the state in home foreclosures and have some of the highest unemployment rate in the state.

Reed has told delegates in Wright that she won't be putting much effort into these two counties and Clark has said that these counties are the key to the election.

---

by: taxpayingliberal @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:20:54 AM CST

If we learned anything from Howard Dean/Pres Obama (0.00 / 0)

The fifty state strategy works. Put them on defensive where they never had to go before. Fight for Wright and Sherburne county. Please Tarryl.

---

by: Alec @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:23:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I Miss Howard Dean (0.00 / 0)

Seriously.

"Those that forget the lessons of history, tend to vote GOP"

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 09:51:55 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Bachmann has plenty of ammo go after Reed, too (0.00 / 0)

It kinda grinds my gears that Reed refers to Clark as a "career politician" when the fact is that Tarryl didn't hold public office until 2006 following her win the the 2005 special election. (I've heard that "life begins at forty," but for crissakes...)

Reed's other claim is that she has no record to attack, and won't have to defend votes to increase taxes.

When she was a regent, she voted to raise tuition - often and by large amounts. And another commenter pointed out that as the medical director at "non-profit" HealthPartners, she was was in the position to deny coverage for procedures. You can bet that the GOP opposition research firms will be all over that too. You can already see the ads where a someone displays a signed letter from Reed denying care to a family member because it's "experimental" or "unproven." It might not even be fair criticism - but if Reed's on the ballot, I'll bet it will happen.

Finally, what ever happened to the idea of "working your way up" in politics? Why do private-sector big shots assume that their first run for office has to be for Congress or Governor? (Yes, Al Franken, I love you, but it applies to you too - and I'm glad it's working out!) If Reed wants to be a public servant, how about trying out the legislature? There's a real dink named Ray Vandeveer out Stillwater way - run against him!

---

by: fresnel @ Thu Mar 11, 2010 at 10:28:30 AM CST