Category Archives: Polling

Minnesota Republicans And That Old Egyptian River

Posted on by

“It’s not that Republicans have the wrong message…” – Amy Koch, GOP Former Senate Majority Leader

“As I read you some state spending cuts being considered to fix the budget deficit, please tell me which one would be most acceptable to you.

8%:  Reducing health care assistance for lower income people, the elderly and disabled
13%: Reducing aid to cities and counties
15%: Reducing aid to colleges and universities”

Star Tribune Minnesota Poll

“…it is how we are delivering the message…” – Koch

“By a whopping 2-1 margin, Minnesotans blame the Republicans who control both houses of the Legislature for Continue reading →

Obama Should Denounce The Electoral College, Even If It Saves Him

Posted on by

The New York Times’ poll-aggregating oddsmaker Nate Silver currently puts the chances of President Obama winning the Electoral College at about 86%, but his chances of winning the popular vote at only 51%.

In other words, there is a very real chance — a 6.9% chance according to Silver — that President Obama could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote, as happened to President George W. Bush in his race against Al Gore in 2000.

In case you were sleeping through the film strip in Civics Class the day they covered the Constitutional Convention and the Virginia Plan, the Electoral College is what counts.   Quite incredibly, the United States of America is the only democracy on the planet where candidates can and do become the national leader without having won the highest number of votes. Continue reading →

Could Gay Rights Turnout Operation Sink the First Pro-Gay Marriage President in History?

Posted on by

In the Halloween season it’s always fun to tell far-fetched scary stories.  This one is pretty darn scary, and may not be as far-fetched as some.

What if the opponents of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage inadvertently helped unseat the first President in history to endorse gay marriage?

Here is how it could happen: Continue reading →

Governors Glum and Glummer Team Up In Voter Restriction Ad

Posted on by

In an era of extreme partisan polarization, DFL Governor Mark Dayton and Republican former Governor Arne Carlson have teamed up in an interesting bipartisan effort to defeat the highly partisan voter restriction constitutional amendment.

While I admire the integrity of both men, let’s just say these are not two of the more perky pitchmen you’ll ever hear. Minnesota has been host to the filming of Grumpy Old Men, Grumpier Old Men, and, now, Grumpiest Old Men. Continue reading →

Why Minnesotans Might Re-hire the Worst Legislature in History

Posted on by

Most Minnesotans like their kids’ teachers, but not the overall K-12 system.

They like their doctor, but not the overall health care system.

They like the individual they can connect with personally in their immediate sphere, but have disdain for the individual’s institution.  Once we have looked someone in the eye, pressed their flesh, and heard their life stories, we form human connections that drown out our critical thinking.

Nowhere is this phenomenon more prevalent than in politics.  In politics, people often express emphatic disapproval for legislative bodies, yet they keep returning their own representative to that body.

And then they wonder why nothing changes in the legislative body.  What’s that old definition of insanity? Continue reading →

Debate Over The Debate: Judge v. Jury Verdicts

Posted on by

Groucho Marx once observed “I was married by a judge.  I should have asked for a jury.”

I am having a similar reaction after browsing the coverage of last night’s final Presidential debate. Continue reading →

Is Target Still Playing Kingmaker?

Posted on by

About 16-months ago at Minnesota-based Target Corporation’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, an embattled Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel stressed that Target would heretofore remain neutral on the issue of gay rights, but would continue to make political donations.   A June 9, 2011 Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal headline characterized the balancing act Steinhafel was attempting:

CEO: Target will be neutral on marriage vote, will still give politically

Steinhafel’s neutrality pledge came on the heels of a customer backlash prompted by the corporation making a large political donation to anti-gay rights Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.  Remember all the news stories, boycotts, social media rants, and flash dance protests?

At the time Steinhafel made this announcement in Pittsburgh, I wondered how Target could  possibly manage to support political candidates while keeping its neutrality pledge, since virtually all candidates take positions on gay rights issues.   After all, the world community would no longer consider Switzerland neutral if it was funding a combatant.

So, what is Target doing now?  In the 2012 election, what candidates are being funded by Target, or has Target decided to stay out of politics altogether?

My drive-by Googling can’t find the answer to this question.  After all that coverage and controversy in 2010 and 2011, could it be no business or political reporter has followed up with Target?

Key To Photo ID Outcome: Continued Persuasion of Seniors, Minorities and Independents

Posted on by

When proponents of the photo ID constitutional amendment burst onto the scene, they identified themselves as “reformers.”  As a result, many reform-minded Minnesotans initially accepted their reform claim at face value.  In June, a poll found the proposal was backed by nearly six-out-of-ten (58%) voters.

But over the course of the summer and fall, Minnesotans began to scrutinize the “reformer” claim more closely.  Many discovered that the alleged “reformers” were trying to deceive them with what amounts to a really bad fake ID.

As the non-partisan League of Women Voters and many others have pointed out, the voting “reformers” are actually voting restricters, intentionally seeking to suppress the votes of people least likely to have photo IDs – seniors, minorities, poor people and college students.  This message is finally starting to get out.

Who is figuring it out the fastest? Non-white Minnesotans.   Though I earlier noted that 68% of non-white Minnesota voters supported the photo ID in an early June 2012 Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey, that number has decreased dramatically to 55% in an October PPP survey.  Clearly minority voters, whose families have endured literacy tests and scores of other procedural barriers to keep them from voting, are beginning to smell another voter suppression rat.

Seniors are catching on too.  The support of Minnesotans older than 65 years old has decreased from 55% in June to 45% in October.  This is a key development, because Minnesota has a lot of seniors, and they are more reliable voters than many other groups.

Independent voters are also getting it, though a bit less slowly.  In June, 58% of self-identified Independents supported the photo ID amendment, and this month that number had decreased a bit to 52%.

The momentum with minorities (13-point swing), seniors (10-point swing) and Independents (six-point swing) over this four-month period is encouraging news for photo ID amendment opponents.  But it is still remarkable that the support for photo ID among these groups is  relatively high, in the 45-to-55% range.
Therefore, the battleground over the next three weeks includes Independent, senior and minority voters.  If the momentum among those voting blocks continues through the next month, the “reformers’’” fake ID scam could be fully exposed by Election Day.
– Loveland
Note:  This post was also featured in the “Best of the Blogs” portion of the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report.

Was The Brodkorb Firing Just A “Palace Coup?”

Posted on by

Michael Brodkorb, the Republican Minnesota Senate Communications Director who was fired for having an extramarital affair with former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch (R-Buffalo), is in the midst of a media blitz to frame his firing as being nothing more than collateral damage from a “palace coup” on behalf of Senator David Hann (R-Eden Prairie).

Those darn Republican l’élite politique francophiles, always showing off their French.   To translate for the commoners:  The bard Brodkorb claims Prince David used the royal tryst as a political weapon to clear the way for him to take possession of Queen Amy’s throne.

Brodkorb’s palace coup d’état allegation is not implausible.  But beyond Brodkorb’s assertion, my guess is that there were multiple motives behind Brodkorb’s firing:

  • HR Propriety.  In the face of this news, there may have been legitimate workplace management reasons to remove Brodkorb.  For instance, corporate Human Relations (HR) Departments sometimes worry that such affairs can cloud the ability of the lovebirds to be objective in their decision making, and can create the reality or perception of favoritism that can harm operations and/or make the organization legally liable in the future.
  • Brodkorb Coup.  Brodkorb is a bare knuckle political brawler.  Because of that, many Republicans Senators that were bruised and bloodied by Mr. Brodkorb over the years may have resented his style enough to want HIM gone.  In other words, the coup may have been aimed at the Queen’s staff more than the Queen.
  • Political Damage Control.  Mr. Brodkorb is not just any staffer.  For years he has been in the center of high profile political battles, practicing his scorched Earth approach to both politics and governance.  He is Minnesota’s version of Karl Rove, except more bombastic and more fond of the limelight.  Because of Brodkorb’s fame or infamy, depending on your point of view, his involvement in the romantic rendezvous made the whole matter infinitely more newsworthy than your more run-of-the-mill staff-politician affair.  Because it was more newsworthy, it was more political damaging for Republicans.  Because it was more political damaging, it needed to be nipped in the bud.

The current Republican Senate leadership wants Minnesotans to think this was ALL about them being proper business managers doing what any by-the-book corporate HR Director would do.  But it is difficult to believe that there wasn’t also an element of Koch coup, Brodkorb coup, and political damage control involved in their decision to fire Brodkorb.

My speculation is that political damage control was the top motivation for the firing, not a burning desire to oust Senator Koch, and not workplace law propriety.  But no one can know for sure.

The other interesting thing about Brodkorb’s media tour is the timing of it.  The timing was driven by the judge in Brodkorb’s lawsuit lifting a gag order on Friday.  But a guy like  Brodkorb, who lives and breathes electoral politics, also is fully aware that he is bringing the Repubilican’s most humiliating story back to the front pages just three weeks before the Republicans have to face surly voters, who already give the GOP-controlled Legislature the lowest approval rating on record.

It may or may not be true that Hann was using the Brodkorb-Koch affair as a political weapon in a palace coup.  But it certainly is true that Mr. Brodkorb is using a potent political weapon in his current media tour.

– Loveland

Photo by Talking Points Memo (TPM)

Note:  This post was also featured as a “Best of the Blogs” in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report, and a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Minnesota’s Government Spending Is Neither “Skyrocketing” Nor “Slashed,” But It Is Insufficient

Posted on by

In this year’s battle for control of the Minnesota State Capitol, Republicans and DFLers alike hyperventilate over government spending.  DFLers maintain Minnesota has drastically cut state and local government.  Republicans claim that state and local government spending is skyrocketing out-of-control.

Candidates on both sides exaggerate.  Over the last decade, Minnesota has had divided government – with Governor Dayton checked by a GOP-controlled Legislature and Governor Pawlenty checked by a DFL-controlled chamber of the Legislature.  Divided government has produced a remarkably flat price of state and local government for Minnesotans, hovering right around 15% of average annual income. Continue reading →

If Romney Is Politically Strong With “Makers,” Why Is He Losing Minnesota?

Posted on by

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney privately told his supporters that he has written off Americans who are not currently paying federal income taxes.  Those Americans aren’t worth the bother — too whiney, too dependent.  But he assures his uber wealthy funders that he’ll win in places with more “makers” than “takers.”

If that were the case, Minnesota would look to be Mitt Territory.  Mitt-esota even.  After all, only 30% of Minnesotans are not paying income taxes, which puts the state in a national tie for fifth in that category.

Surely, Romney is leading in a state with 70% of what he would classify as “makers,” right? But according to the most recent poll done in Minnesota, Romney is trailing Obama by a healthy margin, 44-51.

Ironically, most of the states with the highest percentage of Americans that Romney bitterly dismisses as takers are in Republican-dominated states, mostly in the deep south.  For instance, according to numbers from the Tax Policy Center, 45% of Mississippi citizens have no income tax liability, a much higher rate than the national average (36%).

But curiously, “taker” state Mississippi is a Republican stronghold.  In 2008, Republicans won Mississippi by a whopping 13 points.  I’d share a 2012 poll with you, but Mississippi is considered so far in the bag for Romney I can’t even find anyone who is polling there.

Romney’s assertion that our fellow Americans who are not currently paying income taxes won’t take personal responsibility for their lives is insulting.  These folks are retirees who worked their entire lifetimes, military personnel who are stepping up to serve their country, and poor people struggling to get their families out of a hole.  Moreover, most of these Americans are paying payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and/or sin taxes.  In fact, some of them are paying a larger proportion of their income in taxes than the wealthiest Americans.

Moreover, 100% of Americans are guilty of the sin Governor Romney described in his private rant, the sin of being dependent on government.  In fact, every citizen of every modern society on the planet is dependent on government.  Government funded military, police and fire personnel protect us all. Government funded environmental, safety and consumer protections safeguard us all.  Government funded infrastructure, education and research fuels the economy that supports us all.  Because we all benefit from government, we are all dependent on it.  We are all in this grand American experiment together.  That’s not scandalous, that’s just how successful modern societies work.

But substance aside, let’s return to Governor Romney’s electoral strategy.  If Romney was correct that he will do best in states with a high percentage of voters with income tax liability, I have just one question for him:  What about Minnesota?

– Loveland

Romney is Correct About Americans Being Government-Dependent

Posted on by

I hate to admit when Governor Mitt Romney is correct.  But when he said 47% of Americans are dependent on government, I have to face the facts.   Romney had it right.

He just understated the claim by 53%.

After all, 100% of us are dependent on government, and it’s been that way for the entire history of the nation.  One hundred percent of us are dependent on publicly funded national defense, roads, highways, bridges,  police, fire, water, sewage, environment and health protections and education.   We can’t compete and succeed without those things.  We are dependent. Continue reading →

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.

Whatever Happened to Firebrand Franken?

Posted on by

When Al Franken announced in 2007 that he was running for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat then held by Norm Coleman, I was worried whether he could sell in the land of Minnesota Nice.  Like others, I had an image of what I expected to see in Senator Al Franken. I expected to see a wise-cracking, fire-breathing, attention-seeking political hack who was constantly making mild mannered Minnesotans roll their eyes during an endless tour of contentious cable TV and talk radio appearances.

In other words, I expected Senator Al to be a lot like the Al that appeared on Air America Radio, and in books with titles like “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.”  I expected him to be, well, Michele Bachmann.  And Bachmann doesn’t sell statewide.

Last night, I was reminded once again  how wrong I was.  During MSNBC coverage of the Democratic Convention, host Rachel Maddow, Al’s former Air America Radio colleague, became positively giddy when the network secured a very brief, non-substantive interview with Franken.  Maddow repeatedly noted that Franken doesn’t give interviews to national media outlets, even to liberal outlets, even to outlets populated by his pleading friends and former colleagues. As Senator, Franken apparently has gone cold turkey on cable.

Moreover, what Franken said last night in the MSNBC interview was telling.  He repeatedly tried to put the national spotlight on his fellow Minnesotans, not just himself.  And frankly, he was only mildly funny, and pretty boring.

I have to imagine this is all by design.  Underexposed by design.  Locally focused by design.  Only mildly humorous by design.  Dispassionate by design.   Franken and his team have successfully navigated the evolution of Firebrand Comedian Franken, a national figure, to Thoughtful Senator Franken, a Minnesota figure.

And in Minnesota, it’s working.  Here is what a recent Public Policy Polling survey found about Franken’s political strength at home:

 Al Franken’s proven to be a stronger than might have been expected Senator. 50% of voters approve of him to 36% who disapprove. Democrats have ended up being pretty universally happy with him (85/4) and he’s strong with independents as well (48/33).

Franken leads hypothetical contests with Minnesota’s three leading Republicans. He has a 51-41 advantage over Norm Coleman, a 52-41 one over Tim Pawlenty, and a 57-35 advantage on Michele Bachmann. It’s impossible to say what the political climate will look like in 2014, but at least for now Franken finds himself in a strong position.

In 2008, Franken defeated Norm Coleman, now a Super PACman, by the slimmest of margins.  Now, polls show he would defeat Coleman handily, as well as the state’s other leading Republicans.

The lesson?  Al is minding his Minnesota manners, and it matters to Minnesotans.

– Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in the Politics in Minnesota Morning Report “Best of the Blogs” feature

What if Romney Picked Bachmann To Be His Running Mate? He Did.

Posted on by

Congressman Paul Ryan comes across well.  He’s attractive, smiles a lot, wears the presidential uniform well, and has a ready string of impressive-sounding statistics on the tip of his tongue.

But beyond the candidate packaging, what does this guy stand for?

When trying to understand something new entering our lives, the natural tendency is to seek out a local point-of-reference.  For instance, when Minnesota Timberwolves fans recently asked “who the heck is Alexy Shved,” a player the Wolves’ brain trust acquired this summer, Wolves PR people explained “He’s the Russian Rubio,” referencing their talented point guard Ricky Rubio.

Whether or not the “Russian Rubio” description turns out to be an apt description of Shved’s ability and style of play, it connected with Minnesotans, because it took something unknown and linked it to something known.

So with the Russian Rubio example in mind, what’s the Minnesota parallel to Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan?

Since he’s a popular, moderate-feeling Republican, is he “the Wisconsin Jim Ramstad?”   Since the Beltway media often labels him a “serious” numbers guy, is he “the Wisconsin Arne Carlson?”

Try “the Wisconsin Michele Bachmann.” An analysis of congressional voting patterns by DW-Nominate found that Paul Ryan’s voting record is nearly identical to  Michele Bachmann’s, the local politician who most consistently embarrasses Minnesotans with her ideologically extreme positions.

(Incidentally, another analysis found that Ryan was the most extreme conservative vice presidential nominee — the furthest from the center — since at least 1900.)

Ryan’s tone may be less grating than Bachmann’s, but once you remove the packaging, his policies are almost identical to Michele Bachmann’s.  Paul Ryan is Michele Bachmann, just with more lip control and less lipstick.

Knowing that, ask yourself this question: “If Mitt Romney had chosen Michele Bachman for his running mate, would that make Minnesotans more or less likely to support Romney?”  Because, substantively, that is the question Romney has now effectively posed to Minnesotans, and Americans.

Though Michele Bachman continually gets reelected in one of the most conservative parts of Minnesota, she is remarkably unpopular with Minnesotans as a whole.  A January 2012 PPP survey found that only 34% of Minnesotans view her favorably, while 57% view her unfavorably.  She would get crushed by a whopping 23 points in a head-to-head race versus U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar.

In other words, Governor Mitt Romney just picked the ideological twin of one of Minnesota’s least popular figures to join his ticket.  Good luck selling that in Minnesota.

– Loveland

Can Paul Ryan Put Wisconsin Into Play For Romney?

Posted on by

The political whiz kids at the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight blog are reporting that Paul Ryan’s elevation to the national ticket has significantly improved Republicans’ chances of Romney winning in neighboring Wisconsin this November.  In fact, chances have almost doubled.

But before folks get too excited about that, they should look more closely at the prognostication.  Before the Ryan announcement, FiveThirtyEight put the odds of Romney winning Wisconsin at 12%.  Post-Ryan announcement, Romney’s chances rose to 20%. Here’s their reasoning:

Those improved odds are based on a two percentage point bonus that the model accounts for in the home state of each vice-presidential candidate — the average bump that a running mate has added since 1920, according to a previous FiveThirtyEight analysis.

But the effect a vice-presidential candidate has had on his or her home state has varied widely. Is there any inherent aspect to Wisconsin’s political geography that might provide clues as to whether Mr. Ryan will have a larger, or smaller, impact on the Nov. 6 vote in Wisconsin?

…

Mr. Ryan has not represented an overwhelmingly conservative district. It has leaned slightly to the right, but Mr. Obama was able to carry the First District in 2008, albeit, with just 51 percent of the vote. Winning a district doesn’t earn you any points if you lose the state, but Mr. Ryan’s ability to win easily in a not-so-easy area suggests that he has some skill in winning over a skeptical audience — at least in Wisconsin.

Both Gov. Scott Walker and Mr. Obama have net positive approval ratings in Wisconsin. That suggests that there is a group of true independent voters in the state, who can be influenced to vote for either Mr. Romney or Mr. Obama…

In other words, moving up to 20 percent is real improvement.  Wisconsin is no longer in the “snowball’s chance in Hell” category for Romney.  It’s now more like snowball’s chance in Packers Training Camp,” which merely feels like Hell to Minnesotans.

– Loveland

Pawlenty Can’t Compete With A Guy Who Cuts The Boss’s Tax Rate To 1%

Posted on by

I must admit, I felt sorry for former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty this weekend.

Governor Pawlenty traveled the country cheerleading for Mitt Romney.  He swallowed his pride and lavishly praised one of the least likeable presidential candidates in modern history, hoping to finally move up from Groomsman to Best Man.   He had the power tie Double Windsored, and was pumped to be on the Sunday talk shows, with the pundits predicting he was the frontrunner.

But alas, it was not to be.  Again.

Four years ago, when Pawlenty was passed up for Sarah Palin, he recalled this glum little scene somewhere on an Eagan cul de sac:

 Just after I got off the phone with McCain, I took our dog out for a walk so she could do her dog’s duty…As I put the little bag over my hand and bent down to pick up her poop, I thought to myself, Well, this is the only number two I’ll be picking up today.

But this time, Mr. Pawlenty should have seen the brush off coming.  After all, how in the world do you compete with a guy who cuts the boss’s tax rate to 1%?

Actually, 0.82%.  That’s the effective tax rate, Mathew O’Brien at The Atlantic points out, that millionare Mitt would pay under Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, instead of the 13.9% he paid under the Bush tax rates.  Now, a 14% tax rate for a multi-millionaire might seem plenty shameful to most of us, but Congressman Ryan was savvy enough to sweeten the deal, and win the race to the bottom.  The Atlantic explains:

 “How would someone with more than $21 million in taxable income pay so little? Well, the vast majority of Romney’s income came from capital gains, interest, and dividends. And Ryan wants to eliminate all taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends.”

In the Republican Party, “1% for the 1%” is a proposition that is nearly impossible to top.  It makes the hearts of millionaire candidates and Super PAC funders go pitter-patter.

So, Governor Pawlenty, as you bent over the family dog’s offering this weekend, I hope you took solace in the knowledge that this time you never stood a chance.

– Loveland

Poor Kurt Bills Needs To Learn Modern GOP Fundraising Tactics

Posted on by

I’ve got a tip for poor Kurt Bills or any Republican candidate out there running low on cash:  Say something really, really bizzaro.

I don’t mean a mere gaffe, or run-of-the-mill lie.  I mean the kind of batty stuff that used to get people drummed out of politics.  Because in the increasingly outlandish Republican Party, such rantings are a money magnet.

In today’s Republican Party, if you caterwaul “YOU LIE!” at the President of the United States during a quiet moment of a formal occasion, you no longer will be interrogated by the authorities and have a lifelong security clearance flag on your record.  Instead, you will receive a quick infusion of $200,000 from adoring Republicans.

If you state as incontrovertible fact that 80 Members of the United States Congress are members of the Communist Party, with much less evidence than disgraced Joe McCarthy brought forth, you will no longer be marginalized in American politics.  Rather, you will immediately use your hallucination as fundraising fodder, and be rewarded with a seven-figure avalanche of cash.

If it comes to light that you sexually harassed numerous women while married, you will no longer be ostracized by vigilant marriage-defending Republicans.  You will immediately receive a flood of $400,000 from them, and see your poll numbers spike.

And if you give voice to your reckless McCarthyesque delusions about terrorists infiltrating Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, you will no longer see your career fade to irrelevance the way McCarthy’s did.  Instead, you will open your mailbox to find a cool million waiting for you.

All of which is to say, Minnesota congressional candidate Mike Parry is a political genius.  Because now that he has viciously accused the Governor of being a drug addict with absolutely no evidence, and even ultra-conservatives in his own party contradicting him, he will not be quietly walked off the Republican stage before he does the Party more damage.   Instead, he will probably see Minnesota Republican activists flock to him with wallets wide open.

Therefore, look for U.S. Senate candidate Kurt Bills, now sitting on a mere 6,000 bills, to say something kooky in the coming days to revitalize his somnolent campaign.  I’m talking even loopier than “look at me, I’m Paul Wellstone!”  Perhaps he could accuse Senator Kloubachar of being a cleverly disguised blood thirsty space alien pedophile cannibal commie intent on overthrowing God, and Smith & Wesson, through provisions she has secretly inserted into the tax code, in invisible ink.

That ought to get him a seat on Hannity tonight, and several million dollars in the bank by morning.

– Loveland

 

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

Twenty Debates? Oh No, Mr. Bills!

Posted on by

“Less is more,” minimalist designers tell us.  “The law of diminishing returns,” economists explain.

And so it goes with campaign debates.

Campaign debates serve a lot of important purposes for our democracy. They are a more efficient way to communicate with voters than door-knocking or pressing the flesh one clammy hand at a time.  They get candidates off-script, which captures rare moments of candor, humor, humanity, intelligence, stupidity and reality.  They cover more issues than ads, direct mail and other forms of political communications, which exposes candidates’ depth, or shallowness.

But clearly, there can be too much of a good thing.  In the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, Mark Dayton, Tom Horner, and Tom Emmer debated and debated, and debated some more.  They debated an eye-glazing 25 times.  Most of the debates ended up getting ignored by reporters, and just about everyone else, because they became complete and utter re-runs. I mean, even if you love Gilligan’s Island, and who amongst us does not,  the 25th time you see a re-run about Gilligan’s pedal powered bamboo car is significantly less riveting than the first 5 times.

As Washington University political scientist Steven Smith observed about the 2010 marathon debate-a-thon:

 “…there is a point of diminishing returns and I think in the Minnesota case we may have reached the point in the last month where there have been so many debates that the individual debates just don’t receive much attention.

Now in 2012, State Representative Kurt Bills wants to debate U.S. Senator Amy Kloubachar 20 times over about 90 days.  This desire likely has less to do with Bills‘ love of debates than it does with the fact that his campaign is broke and having a difficult time delivering his oddball Wellstonian-libertarian fusion messaging.

Though Kloubachar is a bright and skilled debater, her campaign strategists would prefer to keep the popular incumbent in highly controlled settings until Election Day, to preserve her large lead.  Therefore, so far they have agreed to two debates.  For context, former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman agreed to debate challenger Al Franken five times.

Somewhere between Kloubachar’s 2 and Bills’ 20 is a reasonable number.  I’d say the number is no higher than 10.

Here is my rationale:  Most of what is learned by undecided voters through debates is conveyed through news coverage.  After all, the people actually attending the debates, or monitoring them start-to-finish on TV or radio, are predominantly voters who made up their minds long ago.  So, when the news coverage stops, the debates pretty much stop yielding benefits for undecided voters.

Minnesota’s newsrooms continue to shrink dramatically, and are decreasingly willing to cover politics, particularly broadcast news outlets.   Given those unfortunate trends, I find it difficult to believe that the Minnesota’s press corps will give decent coverage to more than about 10 debates.

So, I’m all for debates.  And two is not enough.  But oh no, Mr. Bills, not 20.

– Loveland

 

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

Pawlenty and Romney Both Benefit from Third Party-Related Luck

Posted on by

In Minnesota, we know a little bit about the power of a third party to swing an election, even when the third party doesn’t reach double digits in electoral support.

After all, Tim Pawlenty never would have been a two-term Governor, and subsequently on the verge of being nominated to be a heartbeat away from being the leader of the free world, without a lot of help from third parties.

In 2002, prominent DFL career politician Tim Penny won 16% of the electorate and Green Party Ken Pentel took another 2%.  That may be why Pawlenty was able to defeat DFLer Roger Moe 44% to 36%.   I’m not completely convinced about that, because Penny had more Republican appeal than a typical Democrat, but a former Democratic and Green candidate siphoning off 18% of the vote did look to be a net positive for Pawlenty.

In 2006, however, I’m convinced.  Third parties clearly prevented Pawlenty from being swept out of office.  Independence Party candidate Peter Hutchinson, who had served for years in prominent roles in DFL administrations, and Green Party candidate Ken Pentel combined to win 7% of the vote.  With DFLer Mike Hatch only losing to Pawlenty by 1%, 46% to 45%, Pawlenty clearly would have lost the 2006 race without Hutchinson and Pentel on the ballot.

University of Minnesota political scientist Larry Jacobs concurs with this conclusion in a recent Nation article:

“Both elections featured Independent candidates, which exit polls showed drew more votes from Democrats in close races,” says Jacobs. “I looked closely at the data and there’s no doubt that Independence Party candidates accounted for Pawlenty’s margin, particularly in his re-election (in 2006).”

All of which leads me to one of the most significant, and underreported, political developments of 2012, the quiet demise of the potentially game-changing third party Americans Elect.

Americans Elect was the national third party movement that was to choose its nominee via an Internet-based “convention” this June and place them on the ballot nationally.  It burst onto the political scene with fanfare, and the reform halo the news media tends to bestow upon third party movements.  As New York Times columnist and bestselling author Thomas Friedman breathlessly described Americans Elect:

              Make Way for the Radical Center

“What Amazon.com did to books, what the blogosphere did to newspapers, what the iPod did to music, what drugstore.com did to pharmacies, Americans Elect plans to do to the two-party duopoly that has dominated American political life — remove the barriers to real competition, flatten the incumbents and let the people in.”

Such hyperbole aside, the Americans Elect movement was gaining momentum.  It was on the ballot in 28 states, including several swing states, such as Florida, Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.  The party-hating party was starting to look like a serious force in American presidential politics.

But the Americans Elect revolution crumbled before it formally began.  Under Americans Elect rules, to win the nomination candidates had to first prove their viability by winning a minimum number of preliminary votes of support via a complex Internet voting system.  As it turned out, no candidate met the viability threshold.  So on May 15th, Americans Elect unceremoniously folded its e-tent, and will not have a nominee on any ballots after all.

Meaning, May 15th may turn out to be the luckiest day of Mitt Romney’s political life.

Here is why:  The candidates who were leading contenders to get the Americans Elect nomination were Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Republican Governor Buddy Roemer.  As I understand it, both Paul and Roemer supporters were fairly close to achieving the Americans Elect qualification requirements.  (The Roemer campaign maintains that website irregularities held him back.)

If either of those Republicans had gotten on the ballots as Americans Elect candidates in key swing states, it’s not hard to imagine that they could have impacted the outcome of the General Election in President Obama’s favor, even if the Americans Elect nominee’s level of support stalled in the single digits.

Both because Roemer and Paul are Republicans, and because the polls show that Republican Romney is not generating as much enthusiasm among his supporters as President Obama is, it would have been very bad news for Romney if Paul or Roemer had gotten their names on 28 state ballots.  Unenthusiastic Romney supporters would be tempted by a Republican-leaning third party alternative right now, and it wouldn’t take very many defectors to impact what is expected to be a razor thin race.

Because third parties are rarely a threat to win elections outright, it’s easy for pundits and political reporters to cavalierly dismiss their relevance.  But if you want to understand what a difference a third party winning “only 7%” of the vote can make, and what a huge bullet Mitt Romney dodged on May 15th, Minnesota’s Mike Hatch could explain it to you.

 

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