After posting my 1st blog ever I was exhilarated by the rapidity of which I would learn my very next lesson.
I learned that many of the True Blue, Uber Informed liberals have an ardent allegiance to the parade of mediocre candidates and tepid election campaigns that plague the Democratic party. This lesson really stunned me.
The Minnesota DFL have been getting absolutely schooled by the Republicans for the last 25 years and most of the party faithful are busy pointing fingers at everybody but themselves or touting razor thin victories as a job well done.
Read the writing on the wall. In 2004 Kerry barely took Minnesota. In 2006 we lost the Gubernatorial race in a year of unprecedented Democratic landslides. In 2008, again a year of significant Democratic gains, we actually lost seats in the Minnesota house. And to consider Franken a victory is like saying that winning a coin toss is an accomplishment. It could have gone either way. This trend began in the mid 80's and has culminated in a nut case extremist like Emmer polling in the mid to high 30%'s. That would have never happened 20 years ago. Any one remember how Quist was laughed out of the 92 primary?
REMEMBER PEOPLE! THIS WAS A SOLIDLY BLUE STATE AT ONE TIME!!
When will it dawn on the DFL to try something different? Getting better phone systems or knocking more doors in key areas has its limitations. Those of you who do the work in a campaign know what its like talking to the Delegate, who is active and informed, as well as average voter, who is disengaged and ill-informed. What rank and file Democrats complain about most is not our policies or our tactics, its our message and our strategies. Instead of trying to win public office we should be trying to win over public opinion.
Our enemy isn't Emmer, or Pawlenty, or Coleman. Our biggest enemy is the public perception of who we are.
Turning on the news, we know the 1st thing we're gonna hear from any right of center talking head; "Big Government, Higher Taxes" . Every stinking time no matter the speaker, the topic or the venue, it's always the same statement. And do you know what the Democrat is going to say? NO. You don't know. Because nobody knows. But you DO know what you WON'T hear. You won't hear an effective marginalization of the right wing mantra. You won't hear a consistent or compelling argument for better ideas.
Change needs to come from the bottom and that is as true in the Minnesota DFL as it is in Washington. And speaking truth to power is as important, if not more so, in our own circle of friends as it is in the greater population. Because of that I've learned that I want to use this blog to help change the debate, help shift the perception, help make Minnesota a center-left state again.I don't see it happening by digging up more examples of how the Republicans are myopic, corrupt, greed mongering liars. That's just not a news flash. I believe we need to change the message to show that we want to move in a direction that is more prosperous, peaceful and free for our state and our country. Hopefully some of you feel the same way or I'll just sound like one more ranting lunatic on a cyber soap box.
Following up on What went wrong with Margaret's campaign, what about the other two? Like I said in the piece about the MAK campaign, I devoted the most pixels to that campaign because it's the one I volunteered for and knew best, but Dayton's is even more important to look at right now because it's the going concern rather than useful lessons for the future. Yes, we want to get better at this long-term, but right now, I really really really want to win the election for governor (next up in what makes me unique: I breathe oxygen).
I'm applying my own advice to get past the assumption that the winner did everything right and losers did everything wrong. Even a distant third place campaign might have done something right.
So on that note I'll take Matt Entenza first, and it seems from outside (those of you who were inside the campaigns will I hope chime in with corrections and details, and likewise Dayton supporters) that the Entenza campaign did a whole lot right. I'm going to look at two things most worthy of notice.
TwoPuttTommy suggested an after action report, like was routine when he in the service, and I agreed with the concept. I just didn't agree with the timing, the morning after the election. With results just in and reactions raw, it seemed a bit like starting the after action report as soon as you stick your head up out of your foxhole. Now however, it's been a few days, and hopefully heads are clearer and more facts are at hand. It's possible none of us have changed our minds from Wednesday, and I'll admit that my opinion of the core error in the campaign hasn't since I formed it even before election day.
From what I observed, there was one problem from which others flowed, one that might have changed the result.
What I do find weird is I haven't seen it stated anywhere else. I've seen it hinted at, and smaller mistakes identified that struck me as too little to account for the loss. Margaret's supporters, me included, point out that she was up against two wealthy candidates, one with huge name recognition, but that doesn't explain the mistake, just the disadvantages she was up against.
Critics of the endorsement pounced of course, but the endorsement process had nothing to do with how the campaign was run, nor did it hurt her. In fact, without the endorsement, and with the same disadvantages, Margaret would have been a minor candidate. The endorsement is why she nearly pulled off a huge upset, which indicates it's pretty potent; more potent, I suggest, than when Dayton defeated the endorsee for senator in 2000. It's possible the endorsement is the only way a non-millionaire candidate can run statewide, at least if a millionaire is among the candidates.
Let's also be aware of what makes up the box we're trying to think our way out of.
Yes, that's correct: subtract MAK's 39.93 from 100 (with 98% reporting), and the vaunted DFL Endorsement Process got spanked. Badly. Deservedly? I think so. And while that's not likely to win me many friends over at Plato Avenue, it's not like I have a lot over there anyway. So, I'll go ahead and say it - even though as a rule, I don't rip those in the DFL tent. Why should I? MudSlingerMike And His Minions do it all the time (even though they're usually just makin' sh*t up). But, real journalists (I make no claims to be 'journalist' - I'm a 'pundit' and there's a BIG difference) like Bob Collins over on Minnesota Public Radio are calling it like they see it, so in this post I will too. Back to Bob over at MPR:
People who vote on Primary Day in August are more likely to be the most engaged, often activist party members. That's what makes Sen. Mark Dayton's win over DFL-endorsed Margaret Anderson Kelliher more shocking. There are plenty of campaigns and political careers in tatters today, but the value of a DFL endorsement is -- at least for now -- on the trash heap of history. And someone's going to pay.
Indeed. Because someone (actually, a bunch) SHOULD pay; whether that actually happens remains to be seen. And that's just in MN-GOV; for instance, there's probably plenty of quotes - with language unprintable here at your family-friendly MPP - about the "value" of a DFL Endorsement from Team Powers down in CD-02, but: that's a tangent with different dynamics. I'm going to focus on MN-GOV (for now). Before that, I highly recommend MPP's dedicated readers go read this. Now. Bob Collins is writing nothing there that a lot of insiders have been muttering about for quite a while. My take? There should be resignations in a pile over at Plato Avenue - with Andy O'Leary's at the top.
Remember, Andy was "in charge" when the infamous "Grandma Learning English" YouTube was imbedded in an email blast to the DFL's media list.
Oops!!! In the subsequent search for the guilty, there was an attempted punishment of an innocent....
And while some may have forgotten 'bout that "oops!" (or, wish they could), I'm sure MudSlingerMike And His Minions haven't; that's one they won't have to make up.
So, what's transpired since then? Oh, a couple of Sample Ballot SNAFU's and other "minor" mistakes...
But, rather than dwell on that, let's go back to Duluth, in April:
I've been thinking about the DFL endorsement battles, and the battle to get elected in general. It's what I do. I think about elections, and how to win them, and how to organize to win them(among other things, I think about music, good books, and long walks on the beach). We all know that it really is a battle sometimes, elections can be rough.
We, as members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party have the same general outlook on the issues. We are a big tent, so there is a wide array of viewpoints, a wide array of ideas, and a wide array of how to implement those ideas that flow through the veins of the DFL. It's good to offer a strong defense of one's candidate. It's good to be excited about someone who you think can do all the things you want them to be able to do. But what else do our candidates really need from us and us from them?
I believe, as supporters, our candidates need us to ask them the hard questions, and to tell them the truth rather than painting a rosy picture if the horizon is darkening. Our candidates need us to ask them what they want from us, and we need them to ask for our help. We need to trust our candidates and their staffers' framework for the volunteer work that they ask of us. We need to know that they need us, and remember that they need us so that they can know about that particular thing (issue), or that particular person ("Tiffany, the DFLer from down the road?" "Yeah, she'd be a great volunteer! But don't call her on Tuesday until after 3pm.").
We're the candidates' local connection. Our candidates need us to be a mouthpiece (or keyboard, as it were), but our candidates need us to represent them in an honorable and non-politically damaging ways. I say this in particular to remind everyone that the internet can be unforgiving (there are snipers everywhere). Our candidates need us to listen, and our candidates need to let us in on their strategic thinking at least a little bit, (if we can be trusted (how do we measure that? I'm not sure.)) so that we can understand. We need to level with one another to understand what we want from each other. They need to set our expectations, and we need them to surpass ours. Our candidates need us to be able to think about the "big picture." Our candidates need us, uncommitted and committed alike, to tell our neighbors now why a DFLer is a better choice in a generic general election match-up in the fall.
After the endorsement/primary battle is over, our candidates need us all to work together again to make the phone calls, to walk and knock on those doors. Our candidates need us to come together and drink the wine of a united front rather than sipping on our sour grape juice alone in the corner. They need us, and the party needs us to go out and talk to our neighbors about why it is so important to vote in any election. They need us to help drop "off-year" from the presidential/occasional voter's vocabulary.
These are the things that we need from one another in order to ensure success.
Ten of our DFL candidates for Minnesota governor attended the recent December 5, 2009, DFL Latino caucus forum. While they talked, a packed room of my neighbors and fellow Minnesotans often nodded their heads in agreement and whispered to each other in both Spanish and English.
I read the forum questions and figured it would be the most informational forum of this entire political season. We were going to hear about family values, living wage jobs, worker rights, discrimination, health care, immigration, education, the housing crisis, and the American Dream.
For the audio, separated into opening statements and questions, go to http://bit.ly/6gEmx9
"Former" Governor Tim Pawlenty (who abandoned Minnesota some time ago to concentrate on his 2012 campaign for President) has recently been attacking President Obama for the current federal deficit and debt. On CNN last Sunday, Pawlenty said, "This nation has got a debt load and a deficit load that is unsustainable."
That's a valid observation, Tim, albeit in bad English. However, where have you been for the past eight years? During all that time, when a Republican President and a predominantly Republican Congress were running then-record budget deficits and adding a whopping $ 5 trillion to the national debt, Tim's grave concerns were nowhere to be heard. During all his meetings and appearances with President Bush, not once do I recall a single word of deficit criticism from the (former) Governor's mouth.
Facts, which are considered irrelevant by Republican politicians of the Karl Rove era, are still, in the words of President John Adams, "Stubborn things." The fiscal facts are that President Bill Clinton left office in January 2001 with the federal budget running a surplus and projected to continue annual surpluses for the following decade. When I arrived in the Senate that month, we discussed how completely the national debt should be paid down with those surpluses. (Then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan counseled to leave $ 1 Trillion remaining, so as not to disrupt the bond markets.)
In his first months in office, President Bush proposed to demolish those future surpluses with the largest upper-income tax cut in history, and the Republican-led House and Senate happily complied. Even after the disaster of 9/11, the commencement of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the return of federal deficit spending, President Bush and the Republican Congress proceeded in 2003 with another enormous tax cut, which also heavily favored the rich. They enacted what the non-partisan organization, The Concord Coalition, headed by former Republican Commerce Secretary Pete Peterson, called "the most reckless fiscal policy" in our nation's history.
That recklessness, however, did not provoke a murmur of protest from Tim Pawlenty.
The current federal fiscal year began on October 1, 2008. At that time and for the next four months, George Bush was still President. Congress had already passed, at his urgent insistence, an emergency financial rescue package, totaling $700 billion. In October, the non-partisan Office of Management and Budget projected that the federal deficit for this fiscal year would be $482 billion. And on January 20, 2009, the day President Barack Obama took office, the national debt stood at $ 10.6 trillion, $4.9 trillion higher than it was eight years ago.
The former Governor is correct that continuing federal deficits at the level President Obama inherited and their cumulative additions to the national debt would be unsustainable. However, the blame for this serious predicament belongs to his Republican friends in Washington. They shared Tim's penchant for favoring the rich with unfair and unsustainable tax cuts, which he has protected, to the detriment of Minnesota, as foolishly as they have, to the detriment of the country. What a disaster it would be, if they ever got together in Washington.
One of my standards for a politician is: "Who campaigns the best?" Part of that is: "Who works the Gay Pride event the best?"
The best most innovative feature was these arrows pointing at Mayor Rybak. Frequently, the people cannot tell who the politician is among the followers. Mayor Rybak was also working the whole parade very well. I confused him with my picture taking, so he gave he a picture of him and me, standing side by side. He did not realize that this was the picture that I wanted.
I really would recommend that campaigns consider doing this.
The question is how many of the DFL candidates for governor enter my sphere of contacts, with all of the diverse political functions that I attend. How often do I get a personal contact? I am a good test case for if DFL candidates for governor can reach out to activists across different groups. Reaching out to activists will ensure endorsement and a great base for a grassroots campaign. The DFL candidates that have the most parties, attend the most events and persuade the most activists win. So read beyond the fold for the insider report!
Mark Dayton was already successfully a US Senator, elected in a year when people would have given any Democratic candidate long odds. Yet he captured the hearts of Minnesotans and won enough votes. It is true that his opponent, Rod Grams, was very poor on constituent service. Yet the many foibles of Norm Coleman did not make Norm Coleman an easy candidate to defeat. Yet still political opponents tend to discount Mark Dayton.
Mark Dayton listens more than any other candidate. He wears his heart on his sleeve, you can see that he cares. He obviously is an introvert. Yet it is hard to spend any time around him and not trust him. How many politicians can you say that about? I trust him because I read online his many speeches on the war, when taking a peace stance was not popular.
On the issues, Mark Dayton is golden with well stated Democratic views. In fact, he has traction on the tax fairness issue, for he is rich. So when Mark Dayton is talking about the top 10% of earners paying their fair share, he leads and has high credibility.
One of the reasons, that Mark Dayton is so trustworthy is that he spent his own money on the campaign, so he was beholden to no other interests other than the voters. This campaign, he says that he needs to raise money. One of the greatest reasons to have money is to spend it the way you want. I think it would be a great use of money to fund ones own campaign. For me, it would be way better than those expensive yachts.
For every candidate, I try to ask a different surprise question. For Mark Dayton, I asked what his favorite political hero in history? His answer about Robert Kennedy is incredible and totally sincere. We had to pause the interview, so people in the room could cheer! I thought that his critique of Pawlenty's fatal flaw is the best yet!
(Congrats to Jeff for posting a "real" story :P - promoted by MNCampaignReport)
Acting US Attorney Rachel Paulose gained the support of Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) on Thursday, but it was not immediately clear if it would be in time for her to be confirmed this session.
Paulose, who has been serving as Acting US Attorney since March, was nominated to the permanent post by President George W. Bush. Her nomination has been in limbo, however, as Sen. Dayton had not agreed to support her, primarily because she had not sought a meeting with the him. Traditionally, the Senate will not move to confirm nominees to the post of US Attorney until both Senators from the nominee's state sign off.
Paulose had already secured the support of Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN), who called her "an extremely competent and capable professional."
Despite the endorsement by Dayton, it may be too late for Paulose to be confirmed this year. She would have to get through the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate before the body adjourns for the year. If Paulose is not confirmed before then, her nomination would die with the Congress, and would have to be resubmitted to the next Congress in January. Bush could also make a recess appointment of Paulose, which would be effective only through 2008.
One of my standards for a politician is: "Who campaigns the best?" Part of that is: "Who works the Gay Pride event the best?"
