Category Archives: Minnesota DFL Party

Why Are Top DFLers Outperforming DFLers in State Legislature?

Posted on by

Minnesota’s top DFLers got good news from a recent Public Policy Polling survey.  They are receiving public support that dwarfs Minnesota’s leading Republicans.  The approval rating for Senator Al Franken stands at 49% and the approval rating for Governor Mark Dayton is at 48%, while the favorability ratings for former Governor Tim Pawlenty (40%), former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (35%), and U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (29%) are much lower.

Moreover, Franken would handily defeat any of the three top Republicans if the election were held today.  Franken would defeat Bachmann by 12 points, Pawlenty by 7 points, and Norm Coleman, who Franken barely defeated two years ago, by 7 points.

Why are top DFLers polling so much stronger than top Republicans?  Some might theorize that these DFLers are simply more talented and charismatic politicians, and that explains the gap.

But in terms of being articulate media magnates, the top three Republicans are more accomplished than the top two DFLers. Former comedian and talk show host Franken is obviously capable of being articulate and grabbing the spotlight.  But the fact is, Franken has been very low key since becoming a U.S. Senator two years ago.  Dayton is an earnest but awkward communicator, and is easily the most low-key of the bunch.  At the same time, Pawlenty, Coleman and Bachmann are very articulate leaders who regularly get themselves on national news programs.   But despite the charisma gap, Franken and Dayton are much more popular with Minnesotans.

If political talent and charisma don’t explain why top DFL politicians are more popular than top GOP politicians, another theory might be that ideology is behind the gap.  That is, maybe Minnesota is becoming a more progressive state these days.

However, that doesn’t bear out in PPP’s polling on state legislative races.

When asked who they are inclined to support in a state legislative race in their district, Minnesotans are split, with the generic DFL candidate chosen by 47% of the respondents and the generic GOP candidate chosen by 44% of the respondents, a 3% margin that falls within the 3.4% margin of cerror.

So, what explains the difference between the strong performance of top of the ticket DFLers and the mediocre performance of the DFLers in the state legislature?

It’s far from the only explanation, but one big factor is messaging.  The messaging of Franken and Dayton is clear and consistent, and it is proving to be compelling with Minnesotans.  On the other hand, DFL legislative candidates are offering up a cacophony of scattershot messages that each individual candidate crafts on their own to appeal to their respective districts.

I’ve argued that legislative candidates should unite under a common statewide campaign theme along the lines of “replace the worst legislature ever,” to make the election into a referendum on the unpopular GOP-controlled Legislature.   After all “worst ever” is the verdict Minnesotans have given the current GOP-controlled Legislature, with a 19% approval rating, which appears to be the lowest level ever recorded.  That kind of sticky, unifying campaign umbrella would convert the the legislators’ confusing cacophony into the kind of consistent messaging that is benefiting top-of-the-ticket DFLers.

Whether caused by messaging or something else, the gap between the performance of the upper echelon DFLers and the DFLers in the State Legislature is striking.  DFL legislative candidates would be wise to study the approaches of Franken and Dayton, and replicate them.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Will GOP-Backed Ballot Questions Help or Hurt DFL Candidates?

Posted on by

This year, Minnesota Republicans are pushing two controversial constitutional amendments on the ballot, requiring voters to have photo IDs and banning gay Minnesotans from getting married. Why? Well, political operatives typically add constitutional amendments to the ballot for three primary reasons.  The first two are fairly well-known:

CONVICTION.  First, many genuinely believe in these issues.  Much of the rationale for ballot initiatives is borne of politics, but some of it is borne of values and conviction.  Some really do view unfamiliar forms of love and commitment as a personal or cultural threat, for instance. It’s grossly misguided conviction, but it’s conviction nonetheless.

 PARTICIPATION.  Second, impacting turnout is also a primary goal of ballot initiatives.  Political operators want the existence of the ballot questions to lure like-minded voters to the polls to help their candidates win.  For instance, Republicans know that some on the Christian right hate gays more than they love Romney, so promoting an amendment to take away the rights of gays is their back door way of ensuring that unenthusiastic conservatives show up to hold their nose and vote for Romney.    (And of course, in the case of the photo ID amendment, conservatives want to suppress long-term electoral participation of groups with an annoying propensity to vote against them.)

Finally, there is a  third, less discussed, reason ballot initiatives are promoted:

DISTRACTION.  Beyond conviction and turnout-related motivations, ballot initiative proponents often hope to distract their opponents from the primary electoral task at hand.  In 2012, Republicans put the photo ID and marriage ban questions on the ballot to spread liberal donors and volunteers thin, and distract them from other important campaign tasks.

I was reminded of this distraction motive when recently visiting with a friend who is very involved in supporting a school levy referendum issue in his community.  While my friend is a strong opponent of the idiotic marriage ban amendment promoted by Republicans, he was lamenting the fact that it was difficult to get liberal volunteers and donations for the school funding campaign, because there is so much energy rightfully flowing into playing defense on the Republicans’ marriage ban.  I’ve heard candidates say the same thing.

I’m not arguing that civil rights is less important than school funding, or vice versa, I’m just pointing out that the conservative ballot initiative shenanigans do, to some extent, tie liberal activists into pretzels.  When liberals are playing defense on attempts to deny marriage and voting rights, they have fewer volunteers and dollars to play offense when it comes to Issue A and Candidate B.  It’s subtraction by addition, and it’s very intentional.

But the question remains, will it work out as Republicans intended?   GOP amendment sponsors should be wary of that old Law of Unintended Consequences.  The marriage ban amendment has lit a fire under a large, passionate and well-funded army of GLTB-supportive donors and volunteers, and that army will be driving turnout on Election Day that will help liberals up and down the ballot.  A polarizing issue like gay marriage generates more turnout on both sides.  Historically, it has produced a net benefit for conservatives.  But polls show that the popular tide is rapidly turning on that issue, and this could be the year that the existence of this GOP-sponsored issue on the ballot actually helps liberals more than conservatives.

– Loveland

 

Note:  The post was also featured in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Ballot Language Ruling Easily Could Come Back To Bite Minnesota GOP

Posted on by

In the wake of yesterday’s Minnesota Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the GOP Legislature’s ballot wording for two proposed constitutional amendments, endzone-dancing Republican leaders should keep something in mind.

The Supremes did not rule in favor of the Republican Party.  They ruled in favor of the legislature branch.   Important difference.

Here is what the Court said:

The proper role for the judiciary, however, is not to second-guess the wisdom of policy decisions that the constitution commits to one of the political branches.

…

The Secretary of State exceeded his authority … when he provided titles different from those passed by the Legislature.”

Granted, that’s good news for Republicans this year, because they’re the ones currently controlling  the legislative “policy decisions” of which the Court speaks.

But in future years, the same ruling could easily turn out to be very bad news for Republicans.  After all, the way Minnesota’s long-term demographics are trending – with the most rapid population growth happening in demographic groups historically more supportive of DFL candidates – the prospect of permanent GOP control of the Legislature is far from certain.

Future DFL-controlled Legislatures, stinging from the constitutional word games Republicans have played during their leadership reign, could do something equally absurd, or even more absurd.

For instance, a DFL-controlled Legislature could propose a constitutional amendment to require an enormous tax on the wealthiest Minnesotans to finance, let’s say, vacation homes for DFL leaders, or something else completely reckless.  Furthermore, taking a page out of the GOP’ 2012 playbook, the DFL-controlled Legislature could then deceptively present this proposal to voters on their ballots in benign-sounding euphamisms:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to support fairness in housing financing in Minnesota, effective July 1, 2015?”

As I understand yesterday’s ruling, the Supremes wouldn’t overrule that kind of a hypothetical ballot wording scam.  Not their job.  I exaggerate in my example, for I am a blogger and exaggeration is what we do, but you get the general idea.

This is not a problem that is going to go away under the status quo approach to wording ballot questions.  The majority party in the Legislature will probably continue to play word games in their drafting, and, again, the majority party may not always be to Speaker Zellers’ liking.

A few days ago I proposed what seems to me to be a more fair way of drafting ballot questions.  Whether the reform comes off of my cocktail napkin, or from someone who actually knows what they’re doing, reform of the current ballot initiative drafting system is needed.   If Minnesota politicians are going to persist in continually trying to amend the State Constitution to tickle their political fancy — and it seems pretty certain that they are — we need to at least get the proposals described to voters clearly and fairly.

– Loveland

Two Decades Of GOP Domination of the Minnesota Judicial Branch Finally Ends

Posted on by

The last time a Minnesota DFL Governor was able to appoint a State Supreme Court Justice, the Cold War was still officially underway.  Bill Clinton was an obscure Governor of a small state, a quixotic wannabe instead of an accomplished elder statesman.  Arnold Schwartzenegger was a cartoon character in The Terminator 2, instead of a disgraced former Governor. In fact, 1991 was so long ago that the Twins actually won a World Series that year, and something called the “Minnesota North Stars” was in the Stanley Cup Finals.

Twenty-one years is too long for any state to go with one party thoroughly controlling it’s State Supreme Court.  So, let’s celebrate Governor Dayton’s historic appointment of Minnesota’s first female African American Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, Wilhelmina Wright.  But let’s also celebrate the long overdue movement towards a return to balance in Minnesota’s judicial branch.

Hey General Mills, Make Pop Tarts, Not Politics

Posted on by

In this morning’s news, Best Buy and other corporations announced that they are joining a growing list of corporations pulling out of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ).  The corporations are doing so because they were worried about their valuable brands getting muddied from fallout due to ALEC’s aggressive advocacy of “stand your ground” gun laws, such as the one at the center of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder case in Florida.

Best Buy’s decision is smart brand management.  Goodness knows, it has enough issues of its own to solve.  Best Buy doesn’t need to add to its woes by putting its  brand in the middle of the political knife fights over the most polarizing political issues of our times.

Which brings me to General Mills and its opposition to the marriage ban amendment that will be on Minnesota ballots in November. Continue reading →

DFL Statewide Media Campaign Needed: “Replace The Worst Legislature Ever.”

Posted on by

“All politics is local,” Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill famously proclaimed.   To question this proclamation in DFL activist circles is a bit like questioning the Gospel in church circles.

But, unusual times dictate that the DFL candidates for the State Legislature broaden their messaging beyond the predictable O’Neilian “I brought home the bacon” messaging.  After all, the reality of these fiscally austere times in St. Paul is that Minnesota legislators have been bringing home festering carcasses, not bacon, and that is not going over real well locally.

(Incidentally, at the congressional level, New York Times whiz kid Nate Silver makes a compelling case that “all politics is local” hasn’t been true for a long time.)

Therefore, in 2012 I’d argue “all politics is local” is a dumb strategy for for DFL legislative candidates.  This year, the Minnesota DFL should use more of a statewide messaging and media strategy than they typically do.

I nominate this theme for a statewide TV and radio campaign to serve as an overlay for individual candidacies:

“Replace the worst Legislature ever.”

Real subtle, right?  And I’m not kidding.  This rallying cry works because it is simple, provocative, sticky, and, most of all, true.

Just ask the people of Minnesota.  The current GOP-controlled legislature is the proud recipient of a 19 percent approval rating, which appears to be the lowest approval rating  anyone can find on record.

Ponder on that for a moment.  The worst approval rating ever.  This is a truly putrid moment in Minnesota political history.  Therefore, the minority party needs to make “worst Legislature in history” the rallying cry of a unified TV and radio campaign to unseat the majority party that gave this special gift to Minnesotans .

Such a campaign might sound something like this:

 Who says the Republican-controlled Legislature is the worst in Minnesota history?

Minnesotans.  In surveys, Minnesotans give this current Legislature the lowest approval ratings in the entire history of our state.

Not just lousy.   Not just terrible. The.  Worst.  Ever.

Why?

Their shameful use of our local school funding as their own personal ATMs.

Their bizarre obsession with policing Minnesotans’ personal lives.

Their stubborn refusal to take a balanced approach to the state budget.

Their reckless shutdown of our state parks and government.

For the past two years, Minnesotans have watched all of this in horror.

Now, it’s time to send a clear message:  It’s time to replace the worst Legislature in Minnesota history…and move forward with a new Legislature, and a fresh start.

Tying together legislative races into more of a statewide campaign would mean the DFL would need to focus much more than usual on statewide messaging and media, and much less on localized messaging and media.   That’s an extremely unpopular proposition with local candidates, who want the campaign to be more about them personally.  But in times like these, statewide political leaders need to have the courage to seize the historic political opportunity before them.

Many voters – particularly the much larger group of less active voters that turn out in presidential election years – don’t know much, or anything, about the candidates in down ballot races.  A memorable theme can guide them.  “Replace the worst Legislature ever” does that.  “Support good old Senator Bob because he brings home the bacon” does not.

So sorry, Tip, this campaign needs to focus on the smelly statewide whole, not the local parts.  This year, the DFL can, and should, run a unified statewide campaign against the the Republican Party’s Frankenstein — the Legislature that Minnesota citizens say is the worst ever.

– Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured as part of the “Best of the Blogs” feature in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report.

Democrips, Rebloodlicans and the Venturattentionaddict

Posted on by

The scorpions in Jesse Ventura’s Baja backyard must not be giving him enough attention, so a predictably surly Jesse Ventura is back in the news this week.

What shocking news does Jesse’s new book bring to the world?  Jesse dislikes political parties.

This will come as an enormous surprise to Minnesotans, and readers of Ventura’s last four books.  After all, Jesse has never said THAT before.

So, it’s easy to see how that revelation landed him on the front page of the Pioneer Press.  Once again, Jesse has perfected the art of bashing the news media as a sure fire way of getting himself nearly unlimited news media coverage.

I haven’t read the book, Democrips and Rebloodlicans, but it sounds like a tour de force of false equivalency cop outs.  All politicians and all parties (i.e. all non-Jesses) are equally guilty of fighting too much, like the street gangs the Crips and the Bloods, get it?  This from a Governor who was so thin skinned that he was constantly at war with just about everyone in Minnesota, except for members of his Independence Party.

Until now.  Seemingly the only news made in this book is that former Governor Ventura now is denouncing the Independence Party as well.  Their unforgiveable sin?  They seek contributions.  In Jesse’s conspiracy-obsessed mind, this means that they are bought and paid for.  This makes perfect sense.  After all, Jesse has never sought to raise money for himself.

“We already have a two-headed monster. Why would we need a three-headed one?”

Jesse is also done with the Tea Party, because they are funded by corporations.  But so far, he is okay with Occupy Wall Street protesters.   After all, you have to save someone new to denounce…in the next book.

This is what the world looks like with Jesse Goggles on:  Everyone is a monster, gangster, or jackal out to get him.  That outlook of the world is many things — simplistic, delusional, and a cop out, among them.

But at this stage in Jesse’s career, there is one thing that such predictable ranting most assuredly is not.  News.

– Loveland

Note:  This post also was featured as a “best of the best” on Minnpost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Why DFLers Should Be Happy Scott Walker Won

Posted on by

Minnesota’s DFL Governor Mark Dayton has taken controversial positions that most Minnesotans oppose, such as support for a subsidized Vikings Stadium, an individual health insurance mandate and gay marriage.

So conservatives would be justified in launching a recall election to remove him from office, right?

Of course not.  Whether the target is liberal like Dayton or conservative like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, honest policy disagreements shouldn’t lead to mid-term recalls.  Recalls should be reserved for people who engage in proven criminal behavior.  For policy disagreements, we have a tried and true solution — regularly scheduled elections.

If a recall had succeeded in Wisconsin, more mid-term recalls would surely start to sprout around the nation, funded by corporations and billionaires who no longer are limited in their political spending.

And  what would policymaking look like if we were in a constant state of policy-based recall elections?  Chaos. You think the Minnesota State Capitol is chaotic, polarized and ineffective now?  Imagine it in perpetual recall campaign mode.

The other destructive outcome of a policy-based recall epidemic would be leaders who are even more afraid to take positions that don’t have strong majority support, for fear that doing so would make them a target of a multi-million dollar recall drive.

And here is the problem with leaders not questioning majority viewpoints:  Many times, the majority is just flat wrong.  The majority was very wrong on slavery and civil rights for a long time.  It was wrong on the Iraq War, trickle down economics, no new taxes, and single payer health care.  We need leaders who are not afraid of questioning the majority viewpoint.

What distinguishes Democrats from Republicans is that Democrats want government to be functional, because they know a dysfunctional public sector can’t help ordinary people pursue the American dream.   For that reason, they should oppose these policy-based recall elections that thrust government into mid-term chaos.

– Loveland