Here's a quick reference list of MN Progressive Project interviews with the various DFL gubernatorial hopefuls, going all the way back to early 2007. No, that's not a typo!
Joe Bodell's Interviews with Candidates for Governor:
In this year's session, the Legislature gave him some of the things he wanted, including about half of his proposed funding for a sex offender treatment center, and the tab came to just under a billion dollars.
Instead of vetoing it outright, Pawlenty then line-item vetoed the bill down to $680 million -- $45 million below his original proposal.
Huh?
This is an elected leader who wants America to see him as prepared for the Oval Office? Let's review.
2008: Pawlenty's veto of the Transportation bill was overridden thanks to six Republican State Representatives who paid a steep political price for their moderation.
2009: Pawlenty improperly used the Governor's unallotment power to get what he wanted out of the state budget, and is in the process of being beaten down by the Minnesota Supreme Court for the move, which targeted the most vulnerable and powerless people in the state.
2010: Pawlenty used the line-item veto to hamstring the state's ability to fund capital projects, generate jobs, and improve crumbling infrastructure by borrowing money cheaply -- which won't be as palatable an option at some point after he leaves office next year. The federal line-item veto has been ruled unconstitutional, by the way. And by reducing the bill to below his own proposal, he looks good to the fiscal reactionaries who comprise a big chunk of the Republican primary electorate, but like a petulant fool to the other 90% of us.
Much like a child stomping and screaming to get an extra fifteen minutes before bed, Tim Pawlenty is using all the tools at his disposal to get his way -- whether those tools are legal or not, whether they screw Minnesota or not.
Another great weekend of delegate chasing across the state. We're still waiting on reconciliation of a two-delegate discrepancy in SD52, and we still don't have results from the 11-delegate Otter Tail County convention. However, other than those thirteen delegates, we're now looking at two virtual ties in the pledged delegate chase, which is almost at an end. I'm including the superdelegates here so we have as close to a complete picture as possible.
Candidate
Pledged Del.
Superdel.
Total
Uncommitted
481
~80
~560
MAK
177.5
46
223.5
Rybak
176.5
1
177.5
Marty
71
4
75
Thissen
66
4
70
Rukavina
45.5
3
48.5
Bakk
25.5
18
43.5
Entenza
29.5
11
40.5
After completing the numbers from several previously missing county conventions, Margaret Anderson Kelliher held a(n approximated) 7-delegate lead among pledged delegates. However, R.T. Rybak had another really good day in the West Metro, and made up that margin to pull within just one. MAK still holds a commanding lead overall, assuming that all the superdelegates show up in Duluth and vote on the floor of the convention.
State Sen. John Marty also had a very good weekend, pulling even with or just ahead of State Rep. Paul Thissen.
Assuming the remaining fifty delegates yet to be elected split somewhat evenly (even if they don't, they won't have a huge effect on these totals), there are basically four tiers here:
1.) MAK vs. Rybak. The two frontrunners will duke it out for uncommitted delegates and the pleasure of being a first-ballot leader in Duluth. It matters.
2.) Thissen vs. Marty. Being in the second tier isn't a bad place to be -- having a base of strong support means you can dictate the course of events, get supporters on to committees that decide how business will be done at the convention, and make deals with other candidates.
3.) Rukavina + Bakk. Rumors of a deal between the two northern Minnesota candidates have not abated -- combining their support bases would launch that candidate (at this point, it would be Rukavina) right into the second tier and might make for an interesting move on the convention floor.
4.) Entenza. The odd man out -- or is he? There have been numerous reports of strong Entenza supporters getting themselves elected out of uncommitted subcaucuses, a good strategic move when you don't have the support base to create your own subcaucuses. Entenza will likely outperform his pledged total indicated here, but by how much?
I'm having some issues creating a screenshot of the entire Delegate Tracker spreadsheet (it's getting very large), so I'll update the post with that later today. Hopefully by then we'll have those thirteen delegates straightened out too.
Still waiting on results from several conventions:
SD33 SD34
SD44
SD52
Otter Tail
If anyone was in attendance and has results from these conventions, drop'em in the comments.
I'm reconciling some numbers from yesterday, but at present it appears that both Margaret Anderson Kelliher and John Marty had great days -- Marty appears to have moved into a virtual tie with Paul Thissen for third place in pledged delegates. MAK has put a little daylight between herself and R.T. Rybak in that measure, but we'll see what happens when we pull in those remaining conventions.
You folks are awesome. When I wake up and find that there are 56 new comments on a single post -- one from a community member and not a frontpager, no less -- it warms the cockles of my heart to know that one of MPP's purposes is being fulfilled. Just remember that there are still human beings on the other side of the comments that so inflame our political passion.
What I'm hearing, based on 17 comments here, 10 comments here, 44 here, 71 commentshere, and another 27 here sums up to the following points:
We want a strong, progressive gubernatorial candidate
We want a candidate who can win
The DFL endorsement process has some issues that may or may not be ameliorated through a competitive primary
We're tired of elected DFLers not being able to follow through on campaign promises and platform planks
Those are all pretty reasonable precepts, I think, and use neutral enough language that they shouldn't anger anyone too much. The neutrality of the language is important, because one comment I see far too frequently (related to the fourth point) is that "Dems have no spine" and I think that's inaccurate.
It's not that elected DFLers and Democrats nationally don't have confidence and courage in their convictions. Seriously -- it's a matter of having the political instincts and tactical skills to make them happen. That, I think, is an important consideration in this gubernatorial race: who has not just the platform, the issues, and the charisma to win, but also the strategic talent to actually put those values into practice through thoughtful, progressive, effective government policy?
I'm not looking to or away from any one candidate on this -- rather, I'm looking for an approach to politics that says "look, I hold our ideals sacred, and I can and will use every political ninjitsu move in the book to get them into law. Singing kumbaya and hoping for the best isn't good enough anymore."
I have SD42 covered -- if you're attending any of the others (either listed here or missing from my list) or otherwise have exact results (subcaucus names and delegate allotments for each) for any of them, you can report them in the comments on this post.
And remember that this is important stuff going on. That being said, whether because of that importance or because you're simply having fun, make sure it's a positive experience.
I've gotten a couple of requests to include the superdelegates -- elected officials and state party leaders who automatically get votes at the DFL state convention in April -- in our running tally. In addition, I did get some numbers back from those County Unit conventions where I previously only had Paul Thissen's numbers, so the inflation factor there has dropped a little bit.
If we include the superdelegates, here's what we have right now:
Candidate
Pledged
Super
Total
MAK
82.5
45
127.5
R.T. Rybak
79.5
1
80.5
Paul Thissen
48
4
52
Tom Rukavina
29
3
32
Tom Bakk
13.5
18
31.5
John Marty
26
4
30
Matt Entenza
4*
11
15*
Entenza gets an asterisk because I know for a fact I'm missing a few pledged delegates in his total -- I just can't get confirmation on them. However, he's still trailing the leading candidates in the delegate chase by a pretty hefty margin.
The elected delegates so far plus the superdelegates who have publicly endorsed a candidate represent about 45% of the total delegates who will be eligible to vote on the endorsement (~630/~1400). Like it or hate it, the superdelegates get votes, and when you include them Margaret Anderson Kelliher has a big advantage already -- but as we've said several times already, there are a LOT of uncommitted delegates out there still, as there will continue to be in the next few rounds of conventions starting this weekend.
In challenging times like ours, it is important to step back and look at the big picture. In the Senate we wrestle with painful choices to balance the state budget. Some factors affecting the budget are outside of our control, some we can control, and others fall somewhere in-between. While most legislative work addresses things we have direct control over, we should at least understand other factors influencing the resources available.
With the gubernatorial race at the top of this year's ticket, it's generally pretty easy to see where things stand on the pledged delegate chase for that race.
At the congressional endorsement level, it's a bit different. With so many delegates in Gubernatorial-candidate subcaucuses and so few in Congressional-candidate subcaucuses, there's a lot of room for strong supporters to hide in "uncommitted" subcaucuses and for the campaigns to press the flesh among those delegates that are actually uncommitted in their races.
With all that being said, here's what we have so far, with the same caveats (86% statewide coverage) that apply in the gubernatorial race:
CD2 Shelley Madore: 4
Dan Powers: 0
CD3 Maureen Hackett: 12
Jim Meffert: 9
CD6 Tarryl Clark: 16
Maureen Reed: 11
CD2 is missing numbers and still has a few conventions to go. In the case of CD3, both campaigns are starting to snipe about the delegate totals -- Team Hackett has been making public statements declaring a "clear lead" in the delegate chase while sources close to the Meffert effort have noted that their candidate is picking up greater support from uncommitted delegates.
So who knows.
Clark vs. Reed is an interesting case -- alternately, I've received reports that Clark wrecked Reed at local conventions and that Reed's supporters out-organized Clark's by a big margin. My impression is that Clark is winning, but Reed is not going away quietly.
As promised, we've gotten what appear to be accurate reports from Sunday's conventions, and also knocked a couple of previous conventions off the board (Blue Earth CU, Morrison CU, Lac Qui Parle CU). We've also corrected a 1-delegate discrepancy from SD60, and thanks are due to the eagle-eyed Marty supporter who caught it.
The updated totals:
Candidate
Pledged Delegates
Uncommitted
195
Margaret Anderson Kelliher
77.5
R.T. Rybak
72
Paul Thissen
47
Tom Rukavina
28
John Marty
25
Tom Bakk
13.5
Matt Entenza
4
As noted previously, Uncommitted is winning, although there are definitely "hidden" delegates (those actually supporting one candidate or another) in that big total. As also previously noted, Paul Thissen's total here is a bit inflated due to several counties where his are the only results so far -- although Morrison was one of those until we completed it last night.
Updated grid is below. We're now at 86% coverage -- hopefully we can cover about ten of the remaining fourteen percent by the next round of conventions this weekend.
Wild Weekend was...well, wild. More than 500 of 1200 eventual delegates have now been selected -- and we're tracking 77% (415) of those delegates right here.
Of those 415 we now have tracked, here are the totals:
Candidate
Pledged Delegates
Uncommitted
176
Margaret Anderson Kelliher
71.5
R.T. Rybak
65.5
Paul Thissen
43.5
Tom Rukavina
26
John Marty
22
Tom Bakk
7.5
Matt Entenza
2
A few general notes about these totals:
In the screenshot below, you'll see where the discrepancies are -- we did extremely well this weekend tracking the Senate District conventions, but we're still missing totals from several County Unit conventions -- if you were at one or know someone who was and can get us accurate totals, let us know
I know for a fact we're missing a few Entenza delegates, but I simply have not been able to get first-hand reports from those conventions (Nobles County, in particular). So his totals are a tad low.
Similarly, because the reports I got from several of last weekend's conventions were from a Thissen supporter (whom I have no reason to believe isn't being accurate with Thissen's totals), his strong third-place showing right now is likely a bit inflated, as we're missing the rest of the delegates from those conventions. HOWEVER, it is clear that Thissen is doing quite well in rural delegate elections given his metro base (witness his strong performance in his home district of SD63).
The other item of note now that we have considerable totals under our belts is the ReNew.mn factor. Technically, the basic "Uncommitted/Renew.mn" subcaucus is uncommitted in the gubernatorial race. In the purest sense that's true; in reality those delegates (at least 24 of them so far) are probably only going to vote for Rybak, Paul Thissen, or MAK -- in that order -- when push comes to shove in Duluth. Also witness that the only named subcaucuses that include ReNew.mn's name are for those three candidates.
It's not against any rules, but we've heard that a few people here and there have been a bit miffed at the organization calling its delegates "uncommitted." On the other hand, they're an advocacy group, and they're doing a good job of pushing their values through the endorsement process. YMMV, as it's said.
A future post will focus on the congressional campaign breakouts -- some interesting items in there as well.
Here's that full spreadsheet -- discrepancies are color-coded at the bottom. A big thanks to the MPP community for helping make this happen -- we're all looking forward to next week's conventions for more of the same!
A highly placed source informs me that yesterday's SD-05 DFL Convention in the heart of the Iron Range was a blowout. State Rep. Tom Rukavina took 16 delegates to fellow Iron Ranger Tom Bakk's mere 3. Four delegates were elected as uncommitted.
While Rukavina's win is not surprising, this is a blow to Bakk who needed to do a little better here. Next week's remaining conventions will be very telling. Check out more analysis at my blog, MinnesotaBrown.com.
UPDATE: Reports are swirling on the Range that Rukavina and Bakk will unite forces before the state convention based on who has the most support. That would make this next weekend Bakk's best chance to score remaining Range and Duluth delegates. Stay tuned.
Despite having only two real contenders, the Republican Party's endorsement fight figures to be just as (if not more) interesting than its DFL counterpart.
Brian Sullivan and Vin Weber announced today that they're backing Tom Emmer's bid for governor. The two said Emmer is best suited to bring together all factions of the GOP. Both Weber and Sullivan may not be known too well to the general public but they're well known in GOP circles.
In terms of their voting records, State Representatives Marty Seifert and Tom Emmer really haven't been that dissimilar: in the past four sessions, they've been in the same small minority, supporting the same vetoes from Tim Pawlenty and not doing much else.
So it's interesting that the movers and shakers in the GOP's conservative wing are flocking to Emmer, while Seifert -- who theoretically should be pulling plenty of conservatives to his side for leading the way in blocking the DFL's legislative agenda -- hasn't gotten a whole lot of their support.
In the end, if Seifert wins the endorsement, does all this make Seifert look more moderate, and better geared for a general election? Do conservatives stay home because Emmer isn't the endorsee? The answer to both questions is probably "no," but it's still interesting to watch. In a race that should have been a cakewalk for someone running from Seifert's position, news like this makes things a lot less sure.
Here's what's happened so far on this year's bonding bill:
Tim Pawlenty puts out a version of the bill he'd like to see. It's relatively small, and not very bold despite interest rates being low and bonds for construction projects that would put people back to work being available cheaply.
Who cares what Pawlenty thinks? He's not a legislator. Rightfully, the Legislature, under the leadership of the Senate Majority Leader and the House Speaker, put together a bonding bill that's about 40% larger than Pawlenty's proposal.
Before it passes, Pawlenty says he won't sign it.
The Legislature passes it anyway
Pawlenty vetoes it
The Legislature's leaders run away, send the bill back to the State Senate, with some mumbled statements about "sitting down with Pawlenty to find common ground."
The bonding bill is NOT like the GAMC extension. There is no moral cudgel to use against Pawlenty when he vetoes a bill focused on issuing bonds and funding construction projects. And when Pawlenty vetoes the bill, you can be pretty darned sure he knows going in that the DFL wouldn't have the votes to override that veto.
If the legislative leadership had instead done the following, what do you think could have happened?
Before any votes are taken on final passage, Pawlenty threatens to veto.
DFL leadership threatens right back to override Pawlenty's veto, and takes the case for the bonding bill public with a quick PR blitz
In the ensuing standoff, THEN the DFL offers to sit down with Pawlenty to find common ground -- BEFORE any votes are taken.
I'm thinking it would have the following effects:
You look good to the base for standing up to the Governor.
You have an even chance of Pawlenty actually sitting down to compromise on some things.
You might even get the bill passed.
Obviously, one solution to the quandary in which the DFL's overwhelming legislative majorities find themselves is to elect a DFL governor. That would certainly make this whole governing thing easier. In the interim, however, leadership needs to learn a thing or two about basic game theory and how to apply it in a political setting.
It's. Not. Difficult.
Update: Pawlenty has not yet vetoed the bill -- it was passed but then sent back to the Senate for rework. I misheard the report on this morning's news on that point. However, the criticism still stands -- why were the passage votes taken if a certain veto was waiting?
Okay, some hefty updates: I've altered the format of the spreadsheet a little bit to (hopefully) make it a bit more readable. I've also reconciled some conflicting reports out of a few Senate District conventions, and added in reports from a small pack of rural county conventions. You'll note that Paul Thissen appears to have a considerable number of pledged delegates from those conventions, but it's obvious that the Thissen campaign wasn't about to give me other candidates' totals from those conventions -- if you were at one of those conventions, let us know.
The bottom lines in the spreadsheet indicate how many delegates each of these conventions was allotted (Thanks Judeling!) and how many we have identified from volunteer or campaign reports. Those in red have discrepancies; those in green appear to be complete.
Also, there appears to have been some confusion about what the numbers in the Congressional candidate column mean -- those are only there so that the candidates for each district sort correctly next to their opponents rather than a mishmash across both CDs.
So the updated totals I have as of right now (with those discrepancies indicated as a caveat):
As noted previously, according to reports of delegates in uncommitted subcaucuses later committing, it's probably safe to say that MAK is leading. But still, we report what we've got.
