MN-GOV: 60 Percent of DFL Primary Voters Reject Endorsed Candidate, or...

State DFL Party Staff/Officers (0.00 / 0)

The State DFL party staff and officers work tirelessly year round for Statewide DFL efforts.   Your comments today calling for resignations...a few weeks before the General election... show more about your lack of understanding of what really goes on on Plato **BLVD** than their professionalism and competency.  Anyone who has been in the party knows it is a bottom-up organization.  The DFL party leaders do not write the platform and have just a handful of votes in the endorsement process.  And..really?  trashing an eulogy of a man memorializing a dear friend has got to be a new low for this blog.

It's ok to disagree, but let's not make it so personal.  It adds nothing to the discussion and just pushes people away from an organization that needs more diverse DFL opinions to succeed, not less.

Respectfully,

-D

Del Jenkins

---

by: DelJ @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 15:43:32 PM UTC

Del, respectfully.... (4.00 / 1)

Bullsh*t.

"The State DFL party staff and officers work tirelessly year round for Statewide DFL efforts..." except around the holidays, resulting in a special election loss to this guy.

"Anyone who has been in the party knows it is a bottom-up organization."

ROFLMAO!!!  Go with that Del - I know a whole bunch of veterans that highly disagree with you, especially in CD 8.

This one: "It's ok to disagree, but let's not make it so personal." comes after this one:  "show (sic) more about your lack of understanding... "

IOW - first you're calling me a dumb(cheney), then you're telling me not be disagreeable.

Say, Del?  Not to be disagreeable or anything, but:  who put you up to carrying water for Plato?

Here's my point, which you missed:  elections have consequences, and those that create a FUBAR need to be held accountable.

In the military, there's an old saying:  "lead, follow, or get the (cheney) out of the way."

Hopefully, someone will deliver that message, loud and clear, to Plato - and kindly inform them that culminating with yesterday's results, "leading" isn't an option.

And with that, I'm out of here; I'm hitting the road and the next blogpost will prolly be about the BP Oil Spill and how it's affected local fishing and the economy in the Keys.

I can't wait to belly up to the bar at Capt. Tony's...

Respectfully,

TPT

 

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

---

by: TwoPuttTommy @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 19:55:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why Think This is a Staff Problem? (4.00 / 1)

Is Andy O'Leary the reason a DFL'er hasn't been elected gov since 1986? That a non-incumbent DFL endorsed candidate hasn't won since 1970?  

Was Andy even alive in 1970?

Look, Minnesota is a progressive state, with many good potential candidates, but with a totally screwed-up process. This isn't about individuals, or blame, it's about a process that's not very democratic, that results in a quasi-permanent group of statewide delegates, about half were among the delegates the previous convention, and most of whom won't honestly commit to a candidate (unlike how it plays out in presidential caucuses).  

Minnesota uses a process where a very small group of people try to pick candidates they like and that they claim to think are good at winning an election. Some really don't care about electibility, they just want someone like them. Others think they're good at picking good candidates, and they're not.

There is no perfect process. But there are some processes that are more effective than others.  And having people get elected to stand for an election is much better than having people go through the very insular DFL endorsement process as a means of chosing people who will both be good office-holders but also effective election candidates.  

---

by: Dana Houle @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 00:13:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for saying what needs to be said! (0.00 / 1)

I'll stop short of calling for a total personnel change @ "the problem on Plato Boulevard". But what we have witnessed here is a total failure of the endorsement process. To compound the DFL's flawed endorsement, MAK's campaign co-opted virtually the entire party, depriving our down ballot congressional and legislative candidates of needed resources.

The DFL's State Central Committee meets again in a couple weeks. Hopefully after routinely endorsing Dayton and the other candidates that beat the DFL's endorsees they'll start the process of fixing the broken system that produced their failed endorsements.

---

by: dyna @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 15:58:38 PM UTC

Inaccurate (0.00 / 0)

Margaret's campaign was very willing to work with downballot races, perhaps to a fault. I can only hope Dayton does as well as Margaret did on that front.

---

by: MinnesotaBulldog @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 18:51:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That was one of my concerns about Dayton (0.00 / 0)

Dayton has a reputation for going it alone and leaving other candidates to get by as best they can. I hope he lives that down. Margaret tried to help other candidates, but at this mostly stage, she was usually the one with the tough primary fight. The benefit of GOTV is that it identifies voters likely to vote DFL down the ticket. I don't think people who criticize the "machine" understand the phone time and shoe leather that goes into that long before election day. In fact, had we not had this intense primary campaign, we would have continued what we started all the way last Winter, contacting drop-off voters to get them to show up for a midterm. Hopefully we still have time to do that, but I won't pretend I have confidence in Dayton on this point.

---

by: ericf @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 22:01:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

While I want to avoid (0.00 / 0)

a circular firing squad, Bob Collin's made a good point.  Yes, we need to revisit and revise, but let's not self-destruct over this.

I think Megan said we have four days to lick our wounds before we move on.  I second that.  

---

by: NorthernMNer @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 16:11:54 PM UTC

I agree with NorthernMNer (0.00 / 0)

This is too soon to start the circular firing squad. It's the morning after, and time for reconciliation, not bashing. Sorry Two-Putt, I can't take something written so quickly after the fact to be dispassionate. This was an intense primary, and if anyone thinks they're being dispassionate, well, see if you don't find yourself much calmer in a few days.

So forgive me not joining the bashing of party leaders, but other than that one remark of Brian's I've always felt appreciated since I was a newbie coming to my first DFL meetup as they were called a few years. Under Brian's leadership, the DFL has won every statewide office other than governor, plus it holds five of eight House seats and a big majority of legislative seats, almost every one held by endorsed candidates.

So before we get too caught up in misery or anger, let's step back and look at the overall record. Consider the difficulty of beating not just one but two wealthy candidates who outspent the endorsee 4-1, an one of those with near 100% name recognition. Let's also consider whether the problem with the nomination process is the endorsement. Could it be the open primary? Republicans have screwed Democratic primaries in other states, so why should we be immune? That 30% for Reed in CD6 sure sure seems to  giveaway a lot of crossover Republican voting. Does no one else find something peculiar in a system where a party's candidates can be chosen by voters intending to support another party in the general election? Given what happened in CD6, it's at least a reasonable suspicion that the Republicans, who made it clear they wanted to run against Dayton, acted to receive their wish.

What's the difference between a party whose procedures are being challenged and one that's a huge success? A few thousand votes.

---

by: ericf @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 16:29:08 PM UTC

Bob Collins (0.00 / 0)

not Bob Collin's.  Sorry for the typo.

One last point about the Republican meddling--I am certain some Republicans crossed over to interfere, but wouldn't a Republican calculus on who to vote for have favored Entenza, as he polled the weakest against Emmer?  Or maybe they felt Entenza was too far gone and wanted to upend the DFL process as much as they could by voting for Dayton?

Either way, we need to think seriously, calmly, and prudently about our criteria for endorsement.  Kelliher would have made an exemplary governor; that is beyond question.  The bigger question for me is that given the certainty of a primary, was Kelliher the consensus candidate with the best chances of claiming the nomination?  I wasn't in Duluth, as I live clear across the state, but that's just an open question to those at the endorsing convention.    

---

by: NorthernMNer @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 16:44:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You have to be a near consensus cnadidate (0.00 / 0)

Endorsement requires 60%, so that's getting close to consensus. We'll never know how Dayton would have fared since he dropped from the endorsement process in January before caucuses. He had a lot of supporters, and my sense was he had a serious chance. I took his dropping out to mean he didn't think he would win, or he though he had better odds in the primary.

---

by: ericf @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 16:54:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, but was Kelliher (0.00 / 0)

the strongest one to field against Dayton?  Would Rybak or Thissen been stronger?  I haven't ever met either of them, but that's just a question I have.  

---

by: NorthernMNer @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 17:26:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reasonable question (0.00 / 0)

Supporters of those candidates would probably say their candidate was stronger. I've met both and they both were completely viable candidates. I think they could have beaten Emmer, and actually I think Dayton can too, even though I thought MAK had a better chance. However, they would have the exact same disadvantages in money and name recognition versus Dayton. Any endorsee without the ability to self-finance would have had the same problem to overcome. If Dayton had gone for the endorsement and won, he would have been invulnerable in the primary.

---

by: ericf @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 17:39:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strength of candidate (4.00 / 1)

For this type of tough primary battle against well-financed opponents, you really need a dynamic candidate who can get people excited to vote for you.  Margaret was not that candidate.  She is excellent on policy, but she is not a great campaigner; she lacks the ability to light up a room and ignite passion.  

The DFL delegates had the chance to endorse RT Rybak but went for the "safe" choice instead, and this primary result shouldn't be a huge surprise.  

---

by: gp2009 @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 19:07:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I thought the same thing (3.00 / 1)

Not necessarily that Rybak was the only one who could pull it off, but that speechmaking isn't Margaret's strong point. I think I mentioned in one of my posts that Margaret seemed to have found her feet in speechifying terms Monday night. She improved a lot from her convention speech. I agree she was chosen for being able to implement policy. That's not to say Dayton is a better speaker, but he had a lot more margin for error.

---

by: ericf @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 22:06:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Candidate vs Governor (0.00 / 0)

Is the best candidate at the convention the best candidate in the primary?  Is the best candidate in the primary the best candidate in the general election?  Will the best candidate make the best Governor?

It's the never-ending struggle for balance between sometimes competing values.

But the bottom line is unless they get elected (best candidate), they'll never get the chance at the other.

The list of DFL candidates that would have made great (enter office here) but never got the chance because they could not get elected is long and distinguished.

It's part of the value of a primary that it reveals more of the strengths and weaknesses of the 'candidate'.  

Can we sustain the Party resources to build and support the ground game without the attraction of an endorsing convention?  If primary contestants were funneled through that same unified system and given access to it in a way that preserved their seperateness during the primary but then unified the data after, would the system be better or worse?

Who knows, but if we sacrifice the one at the expense of loosing the other, any "Wellstone-candidate" without personal fortune close at hand will face an awfully steep climb.  

Saepe mendosus, nunquam dubius.

---

by: Into The Woods @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:55:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think Tommy (0.00 / 0)

has given a lot of thought to what he posted and I doubt his opinion will change that much in a couple days.

---

by: TonyAngelo @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 17:10:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The overall record (0.00 / 0)

is absolute stinking failure.  I love that you are still trying to balance another failed endorsement with races where the endorsement process had no bearing on the outcome.  You should get a job doing PR for BP - you could talk about all the wells that haven't spilled millions of gallons of oil into the water.  

---

by: Dan @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:44:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Del and TPT both have good points. (3.50 / 2)

  Results matter.  There was a purity purge that took place after the convention and many chairs, vice chairs and directors were told to toe the line or leave. And they left. We can only hope they will return now.

In my area and around the State the entire focus of the coordinated campaign has been to contact so called "drop off Democrats. This was done to support the primary and not the general election.  In areas like mine where the vast majority of voters have yet to be I'd we have wasted 3 months talking to people who are already most likely going to vote for us in Nov rather than persuading independents and swing voters.  In this game we need to expand and the party is playing to hold on.

The party sent out a lot of mail last week. They sent it on behalf of Mak, Richie, Otto and Swanson. 3 of the 4 had no challengers yesterday.  Local St. House and Senate candidates were left off that list and they could have used some name recognition. Many people outstate think that the DFL has become the party of Mpls and the top of the ticket.

A change in the Party leadership is called for if for no other reason than bring in fresh blood will heal many wounds left from the last several election cycles.   The old cliché that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results may apply here.      

---

by: taxpayingliberal @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 16:32:33 PM UTC

Thoughts from a newbie----Superdelegates mess things up. (0.00 / 0)

The Senators and Representatives have too much power in the endorsement process.

#1. It bugs me that they each equal 1 delegate. RT or Thissen had to rally several supporters at caucus to get that 1 delegate to go to the convention. This overstated Margaret's support prior to the convention in the media.

#2. Their star power influences undecided delegates BIG TIME.  They can work the floor and gather up delegates so easily. I saw this at the convention.

But did these candidates door knock for Margaret? Steve Simon was amazingly supportive, but I don't think many others were as committed during the campaign to get Margaret supporters as they were on that convention floor.  

---

by: blogvirgin @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 17:58:35 PM UTC

It is time to go back to the old system (0.00 / 0)

Until recently, the legislators would meet in a convocation and elect a delegation of about 20 delegates.  They would basically serve as an additional county unit.

---

by: Ski U Mah Gopher @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:43:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What To Do With Superdelegates=Where to Move Deck Chairs (0.00 / 0)

DFL endorsement process=Titanic

---

by: Dana Houle @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 15:56:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Money Matters. So Does Culture. (0.00 / 0)

Unloading some pent up frustration over grievances (either personal or campaign) can sometimes lead us to overlook elements of a situation that don't support our outlook.

I may reach the same conclusion about the existence of major flaws in the process, and even share some concerns about how the Party operates, but I think three major elements are omitted from your discussion.

First, do you think MAK could have made up the difference in votes needed to win if she had a few more million dollars?  We can argue that the Party machinery and resources should be able to balance that advantage.  We can even argue that a candidate's message or ability to attract and deploy a grass-roots organization should balance that advantage.  But millions of dollars matter.  To ignore their impact in analyzing this primary contest weakens both the discussion and your conclusions.

Second, it ain't just Plato that's the problem.  The responsibility for the party's approach and direction may not be bottom up, but it is also not entirely top down.  

Culture eats strategy for breakfast.

And the culture of our Party is not established by Plato, at least not by Plato alone.

The Central Committee, the Congressional Districts and the local District organizations all contribute to that culture.  So do each and every one of our elected officials and candidates.  So do the volunteers for our Party and volunteers for those campaigns.

We could start changing that culture by not requiring a purity purge of our volunteers at a District level (or maybe even State level) every time we have a contested primary.  We could change the governing documents to remove or amend that self-destructive provision that elevates candidate-loyalty above party organization. The assumptions underlying the current policy are flawed and conflict with the long-term priorities of the Party.  

Maybe we could at least set a process and tentative post-election schedule to start looking into how that could be changed in a way that recognizes whatever need is deemed legitimate but finding a way to address it without forcing us to waste one of the most rare and valuable resources we have (local party officers).  We might also initiate a more comprehensive discussion up and down the part structure about how the endorsement process (and maybe even platform process) could be improved.

This is just one example.  I'm sure there are many others.

But changing faces over at Plato will do little if the culture just channels the efforts of the new faces in the same ways we believe are flawed.

Lastly, there is the issue of timing brought up by others.  Yes, eventually, the DFL needs to work on its foundation, but not until we've made sure the more immediate needs are addressed, like making sure the roof doesn't catch on fire.

See: Emmer FUDD* v Mark Dayton.  

Putting Governor in front of one of those names will result in a huge difference for Minnesota's future.  

Fight the battle that's in front of you or you may never get to fight the battle you see on the horizon.  

*Futz Up Darn-near Daily

Saepe mendosus, nunquam dubius.

---

by: Into The Woods @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 19:03:17 PM UTC

there are (4.00 / 1)

some valid points here from TPT.

I disagree with the mention of Chairman Melendez's comments during his tribute to Rick Nelson; that's taken a bit out of context and probably the weakest point here.

Regardless of the results of the general election, there should be a hard look at we do business as a party, particularly in terms of leadership.  Because as much as we like to believe that the organization is driven from the bottom up, there are a lot of decisions that are made and executed by those at the top. (and as a former member of the state central committee I can say that it's necessary as well)  And we have to ask ourselves if we're content with the way things are going and the plan for the future.

Right now there's an opportunity to gather information and consider some things, but I doubt there's room before the general election to do much more.  post-election is the time for that.  Turnover at this point would likely lead to chaos, and certainly would result in a party for ol' Mudslinger Mike as he spun tales of a DFL in disarray to all who would listen...and I suspect some curiously well-funded groups would broadcast it to all, and we wouldn't hear nearly as much about Emmer or Dayton in the actual election people are voting on.

Definitely a need for an AAR, preferably headed up by someone outside the insular world of Plato.

And glad to see a mention of CD2.  I feel bad for CD2 DFLers.  There are some great people down there, but the district itself is treated like Dirty Uncle Sal when he shows up unannounced for Turkey Day by the rest of the party much of the time.

---

by: JML @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 20:23:13 PM UTC

IntoTheWoods and JML (4.00 / 1)

Thank you. And anyone who scrolled past their comments, please scroll back up. Those of us who defend party leadership and the endorsement part of selecting candidates  are certainly open to other ideas, but it sure seems the ideas are scarce while the attacks are plenty. It's not like we don't have our own. In fact, in our senate district, when the 2008 caucuses turned into a debacle, we put considerable time into rethinking them. No one was regarded as disloyal for suggesting changes, and whoever wanted to speak up got included. We need a deliberative process at a calmer moment, not flame wars the morning after. After Acton Report, yes: doing it when we first poke our heads out of our foxholes, no.

---

by: ericf @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 22:14:33 PM UTC

SOMETHING needs to be done (3.00 / 1)

I am generally a supporter of the endorsement process, but given it's track record with regards to the governor's race, SOMETHING needs to be done.

I think this year was unusual in many ways. Mark Dayton did NOT win due to his superior finances, he won because of his near universal name recognition and 20+ year record of service in the state. MAK was not a terrible candidate that was simply a product of the endorsement process and 60% of people did NOT vote against her because she was the endorsed candidate. And given the fact that ALL THREE CANDIDATES were polling ahead of Emmer, it's not a case of the enodrsement process annointing an automatic loser.

People voted for who they thought was the best candidate, simple as that. The real lesson to be learned is NOT that the endorsement process was harmful or helpful for anyone, but that is was TOTALLY worthless, and it was pretty much worthless the second Mark Dayton announced he was by-passsing the process. Dayton could very well have won an endorsement battle had he tried, but even if he got the endorsement, he would have had to face a primary opponent anyway.

The reason why I preferred the endorsement process is because it is a PARTY function to determine who will carry the banner for the PARTY. It is empowering (or at least CAN be) and allow for dark horse candidates to get a foot in the door that they might not have gotten otherwise, and it puts the onus on candidates to get a grassroots organization going. But that is more for the smaller local levels. On the state level, it is apparent that it really doesn't matter, some are going to abide, some aren't, and voters will decide anyway, so the process is basically a waste of time.

I still think we need a system where PARTY decisions are made by people actually in the party (closed primary perhaps or the convention process used to narrow the number of candidates on the party's primary ballot like in Utah or Connecticut), but if candidates are not going to abide and if most people don't care, what is the point.

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

---

by: lams712 @ Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 22:24:27 PM UTC

Good to great organizations go out of their way to look at their warts (3.00 / 1)

Good to great organizations have a culture of brutal and courageous self inspection. Does the DFL have this culture? They/we need to really sit down and look at our procedures and policies. You can't blame the Powers/Madore fiasco on a rich candidate buying the election. With no money and no machine behind her, she won. We/the DFL really need to reflect on their practice as an organization. Figure out what went right, what went wrong, and change it. And don't make excuses that have no solutions. The answer is within. Maybe it's a tweak of the system, maybe it is a complete overhaul.

---

by: Alec @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:42:52 AM UTC

Wont happen (0.00 / 0)

I don't think there is an organization on this planet that is less wiling and/or capable of even mild self inspection than the DFL.  The people who run things - from the DFL chair to the precinct organizers - are too vested in the current system.  Everyone loves their caucuses.  Everyone loves being sucked up to by candidates.  Its like trying to convince people to vote to give themselves a pay cut.  

---

by: Dan @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:57:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agree completely (0.00 / 0)

When you've lost Two Putt Tommy, I think its pretty much over.  

Unfortunately, the apologists for ongoing DFL failures are going to keep coming up with excuses to defend the endorsement process.  What needs to happen is that candidates just have to realize what a joke the process is and what little clue DFL delegates have when it comes to picking winning candidates.  Those delegates only have power because candidates give it to them and they are having a snit now because they - and all the BS that took place at the convention - have been rendered completely irrelevant.  

And yeah, we need to clean house at headquarters.  We don't need the party run by people who refused to even let our nominee into the convention a few months back.  

---

by: Dan @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 01:49:37 AM UTC

There's no perfect system Dan (3.00 / 1)

DFL endorsement process is broken. You got it. Under your desired process we will never, ever get another Wellstone. Ever. I will not accept that. That has to be a better solution than either status quo or scrap the whole damn thing. I hope to god the DFL examines their process. I hope they check their egos at the door and say, "We just want to get better." You are fanatical, fundamental, and unbending as those "inside elites" that you rail against.

---

by: Alec @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:14:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wellstone (3.50 / 2)

I don't know that we will ever get another Wellstone either, but that is because Wellstone was a truly unique candidate.  He was far more than just some underfunded, unknown liberal like the subsequent candidates in the Wellstone mold (Janesich, Rukavina, etc.).  I was in college when he first ran for senate in 1990 and I knew the first time I saw him in person how special he was.  I haven't seen anyone even remotely close to Wellstone since that time.  

I also think that you are wrong in that another Wellstone could not emerge without the caucus system.  Money is huge, but its not everything.  Klobuchar didn't self-fund.  On the other side, Tim Pawlenty didn't self-fund.  Matt Entenza's millions didn't get him anywhere.  Kelliher was a pretty mediocre candidate and still almost beat Dayton.  A candidate as talented as Paul Wellstone still could break through.  

As far as the caucus system, I don't know how you fix it.  Kelliher got the nomination by wooing individual delegates and trading for the votes of Marty and Rukavina supporters.   Those skills (the wooing and horse trading) are completely useless for winning a general election.  The delegates really get to know the candidates, while primary voters may make their decisions based on slick ads or other shallow reasons.  Again, though, what happens in primaries far more like the general election than the caucus process.    

---

by: Dan @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:37:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well Tommy..... (0.00 / 0)

Now, I know that some folk are gonna be mighty unhappy for me writing this, but:  most of 'em are probably those that made mistakes, and the last thing they want is the light o' day shined on what went wrong.

True leaders would be the ones holding the spotlight. If they are about the organization enough, and have the courage to hold the spotlight on this debacle, keep them. If they truly do not want the light of day shine down, then they really have to go.  

---

by: Alec @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:21:36 AM UTC

Drop superdelegates (0.00 / 0)

Entirely.  All of them.  Sure, they're an important part of the party and many of them are fine people, but the idea that they should automatically get a vote in selecting future candidates can only serve to perpetuate the "establishment", which we've seen time and time again doesn't work.  If they want to vote on the convention floor, they should go through the same process as everyone else.  Only then will we see the benefits of an otherwise grassroots-style system.

---

by: tonyyarusso @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 07:15:34 AM UTC

The problem with (0.00 / 0)

"going through the same process as everyone else," is that it would produce a situation where you're at your Senate District convention, you want to be a state delegate, and your competition for a delegate slot is a state representative or state senator.  Is that fair?  The theory behind superdelegates is that they want to be at the state convention and the party wants them there, but we don't want them taking delegate slots from "regular" Dems.  Unfortunately the reality is that now they have a big influence in the process, as we saw in Duluth (where RT was ahead much of the time in non-superdelegates).

One solution would be to give the elected officials seats, but not votes.  Or only allow them to vote after a certain # of rounds, or something....

Not that I'm really looking for a solution along these lines.  I tend to be more of an "end it" than a "mend it" when it comes to the endorsement process.  Or at least "radically change it."

---

by: mtullius @ Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 16:17:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't see a problem (0.00 / 0)

with what has happened.  Margaret ran a very good campaign and used the DFL endorsement to her advantage.  Dayton had better recognition, especially with the voters most likely to vote - seniors.  We all have to remember that the last governor to actually win with over 50% of the vote was - Arne Carlson.  You do remember that he lost the Republican endorsement but went on to win the Republican primary and then the general election.  I don't see why Dayton can't do the same - especially in the anti-incumbent, anti-establishment political atmosphere.

However, the one thing that bothers me the most - I was never called by Margaret's campaign.  I was present and active at the precinct caucuses, present and active at my senate district, and active at my congressional district.  For whatever reason, the only campaign to contact me was Matt Entenza's.  

That would be my only complaint about the entire process because I believe Margaret's and the DFL's campaigns were working off a partial list of likely primary voters.  Someone should have cross checked that list with current year precinct caucus attendees.

---

by: ProgressivesUnite @ Mon Aug 16, 2010 at 05:46:29 AM UTC