Category Archives: Poltiics

Why Tim Pawlenty Will Help Romney Win Minnesota

Posted on by

Dear Mitt Romney:

Whatever you do, please don’t pick Tim Pawlenty for your Vice Presidential nominee.  As an avid Obama supporter in Minnesota, I would HATE to see that.  It would guarantee that you would immediately erase Obama’s large lead in Minnesota, and shake up the nation’s electoral map.

Pay no attention to bitter bloggers who claim that Pawlenty is politically impotent in Minnesota.  It is true that he ended his tenure as Minnesota Governor with record low approval ratings from Minnesotans.  But that was a long time ago.

And, yes, Pawlenty campaigned night and day for months to try to win Minnesota for John McCain, only to get pasted by 10 points.  But that was just a fluke.

Sure the negative Nellies also point out that Minnesota’s bemulleted favorite son also was trailing President Obama in his own home state, before his premature evacuation from the GOP nomination fight.   But Governor Tim is right, you can’t believe polls any more than you can believe the climate scientists.

And it is true that, after Governor Pawlenty pulled out of the primaries, he threw all of his Minnesota political muscle behind you, only to see the Pawlenty-backed Romney campaign lose the Minnesota GOP caucus vote, by 28 points, to a protest candidate endorsing legalized hookers and heroin.  But this was clearly the media’s fault.

Finally, never you mind that Pawlenty currently would be getting pummeled by 15-points  by Minnesota’s freshman  Senator Amy Kloubachar.  Maybe the poll has a 15-point margin of error?

So Governor Romney, whatever you do, please DO NOT choose Minnesota’s favorite son as your running mate.  Such a stunningly brilliant move would ensure a Minnesota massacre for Barack Obama.

What Exactly Do Minnesota Republicans Have Against Minneapolis?

Posted on by

There is something about Minneapolis that disproportionately irks Minnesota Republicans.   A recent Public Policy Polling survey found that a strong majority of Minnesota Republicans loves them some Duluth, and are fine with St. Paul and Rochester.

But a majority of them just don’t approve of Minneapolis.

At first, I thought the obvious explanation is that Minneapolis is a DFL stronghold.  After all, Hennepin County gave Barack Obama 65% of the vote in 2008, and I could see how that wouldn’t go over well at the country club or Tea Party rally.

But that explanation doesn’t really hold up especially well, because Duluth’s St. Louis County and St. Paul’s Ramsey County are as about blue as Minneapolis’s Hennepin.  In fact, St. Louis and Ramsey gave Obama 67% in 2008, slightly more than Hennepin’s 65%.  Moreover, Republicans didn’t express strong preference for GOP-friendly Rochester (Olmstead: 52% for Obama in 2008) over the DFL strongholds of Duluth or St. Paul.

So I don’t get it.  Maybe it’s all of those descendants of Sweden, what with that nation’s despicable insistence on providing comprehensive access to education and health care to all its citizens.  What a cancer that would be if it spread across the Minnesota motherland.

I’d sure like to think that it’s not because Minneapolis was named the Gayest City in America by The Advocate, or that it has the largest Somali and Hmong population in the nation, and the second largest Vietnamese and Ethiopian populations in America.

On paper, it would seem like there might be a lot Republicans would love about the City of Lakes.  CNBC named Minneapolis one of its “Top Places for Business.” Forbes calls it one of the most innovative cities in America.  Many rankers have listed Minneapolis as one of the best places to find a job and make a living, or start a small business.

Holy free market felicity, Minneapolis sounds like a Republican nirvana.  What’s not to love?

I honestly don’t know what it is.  But if you’re new to Minnesota and are planning a get together with a Republican friend, here’s a little tip:  DO NOT SUGGEST MINNEAPOLIS.

– Loveland

 

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

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.

How Liberal Wonks Like Me Are Inadvertently Making the Conservatives’ Case

Posted on by

There is a recurring pattern in modern political discourse that goes like this:  Republicans make a ridiculous charge about President Obama being a socialist on Issue X, which is outrageous because Obama has been blocked by Republicans from being even somewhat liberal, much less socialist.

Outraged liberals then come to the rescue!  We start spouting data proving that Republicans are overstating their case.  But to the casually involved public, the liberals’ rebuttal sounds a lot like liberals are asserting that “Obama is actually a conservative.”  More conservative than Bush, for instance.

With both sides sounding like they are claiming to be conservative, the public concludes that the conservative position must be the good and right position.

The pattern repeats over and over.  Here are specific examples: Continue reading →

The Minnesota Vikings and The Butterfly Effect

Posted on by

Part of chaos theory is something called the butterfly effect, the notion that even a minor change in a nonlinear system, such as the flutter of a butterfly’s wings, can result in large differences in outcome later on, such as the change in the path of a tornado.

Politics is a decidedly non-linear system, where small changes can definitely cause large swings in outcomes. Here are a few the behind-the-scenes flutters that caused the Vikings to finally prevail in their decade-long effort to secure stadium subsidies at the State Capitol.

A Recount.  00.4% of the vote.  That was Mark Dayton’s margin in a general election recount in 2010.  As a result, “Landslide Dayton” became the Vikings most powerful and committed supporter.

But what if Dayton’s 2010 opponent Tom Emmer had not started his campaign so gaffe-prone?  What if pennies had not been dumped on Emmer, turning an obscure issue like tip credits into an enduring symbol of an ideologically extreme candidate?

In a Republican wave election year, it’s easy to imagine that a few small improvements in Emmer’s campaign could have given Emmer an additional 00.5% of the vote, and the helm of state government.

If Emmer had prevailed, he would not have been as aggressively pro-Vikings Stadium as Dayton.  MPR captured Emmer’s position in 2010:

 “I support a solution for a Vikings stadium, but I don’t think you give $700 million in taxpayer money and hand it over to a private business.”

Emmer suggested a voter referendum linking funds from a new casino to pay for the stadium. He also suggested community ownership (Green Bay Packers model) or giving Wilf the Metrodome.

The Vikings viewed all of Emmer’s demands to be bill killers.  So if Dayton hadn’t squeezed into the electoral end zone — after an instant replay review by the officials — the Vikings likely would not have squeezed into their stadium subsidy end zone.

A Leader.  Powerful House GOP Speaker Kurt Zellers opposed the Vikings bill.  So did powerful House GOP Majority Leader Matt Dean.  That could easily have spelled the end for the Vikings.  After all, there aren’t too many major bills that pass the House with the leadership of both parties opposing the bill.

So if the DFL’s highest ranking House member, the often powerless Minority Leader Paul Thissen, had joined Zellers and Dean in opposing the bill, the Vikings fragile coalition probably could not have scored.

It’s not often that a minority party leader swings the balance in our polarized Legislature, but Thissen did.

A City Attorney.  With the Metrodome site as the only viable option at the end of the session, the whole effort would have collapsed without an endorsement by the Minneapolis City Council, a very tall order at the time.  And if Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal had not ruled that a city referendum provision didn’t apply to the City’s stadium proposal, because the City didn’t control the funding in question, City Council Member Sandy Colvin Roy made it pretty clear that she would not have been the final swing vote in support of the proposal.

Vikings MVP?

Think about that a minute.  If a political pundit had predicted before the session that someone named Susan Segal would be the key to whether the Vikings would get their new stadium, even many political savants would have said “who?”

But Susan Segal, Paul Thissen and 00.4% of Minnesotans all fluttered their relatively small wings, and the Vikings decade-long stadium loss streak finally came to an end.

“A game of inches,” indeed.

– 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.

Racial Minorities Overwhelmingly Support the Photo ID Amendment That Suppresses Their Vote

Posted on by

The case against the state constitutional amendment to require photo identification at Minnesota voting sites is that the requirement will disproportionately suppress turnout of, among others, racial minorities.  State Senator Patricia Torres-Ray:

 It’s going to make voting more difficult for thousands of law-abiding Minnesotans, and the brunt of that burden will fall on communities of color.

Amendment opponents need to more effectively make their case to communities of color, because in a obscure crosstab of a new Public Policy Polling survey released this week it is clear that racial minorities in Minnesota are currently overwhelmly supportive of the amendment, even significantly more so than white Minnesotans.

To state the obvious, a particular specialty of mine:  If opponents can’t even convince the primary victims of this amendment to oppose it, the Photo ID Amendment is headed for easy passage.

There is a LOT of work to do here.

– Loveland

 

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

Did Walker win? Or did recalls lose?

Posted on by

A New York Times exit poll suggest that that the general notion of a policy-based recall election was bothering  an overwhelming majority of Wisconsin voters.

Exit pollsters asked “Do you think recall elections are appropriate?”  To quote the late, great Richard Dawson, “survey SAYS:”

  • For any reason:  27%
  • Only for official misconduct:  60%
  • Never:  10%

In other words, seven-out-of-ten Wisconsin voters thought a recall election over a policy disagreement, such as anti-union legislation, was inappropriate.  So many Wisconsinites may have opposed the recall of Scott Walker more because they disliked mid-term recalls based on policy disagreements, rather than because they loved Governor Walker.

This would help explain why exit polls showed that the same voters who gave Walker a 8-point win were also picking The Antiwalker, President Obama, over Walker supporter Mitt Romney by 7 points.  Some of those Obama supporters who opposed recalling Walker may just have been uncomfortable with the idea of the concept of this recall.

– Loveland

 

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

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

Will Changes Among Religious Minnesotans Make the Difference In Minnesota’s Gay Marriage Vote?

Posted on by

One politically interesting aspect of the marriage ban amendment on Minnesota’s ballot this November is the potential Lutheran Effect.

Even if we didn’t have Garrison Keillor to constantly remind us, it’s no secret that Minnesota has a lot of Lutherans.  Wikipedia tells me that something like a million Minnesotans are Lutheran (24% of the state), with 81% of Minnesota worshiping under the banner of the  Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which is much more progressive than the Missouri Synod brand of Lutherans.

In fact, Minnesota has one of the highest percentages of Lutherans of any state in the nation.  The religious landscape in Minnesota is vastly different than it is in, say, North Carolina, which recently was the latest in a long line of states to pass a marriage ban amendment.    Luternans are 24% of the population in Minnesota, but just 2% in North Carolina.

All of this raises the question:  What impact will Minnesota’s Lutheran-heavy religious landscape have on the marriage ban amendment Republicans have put on Minnesota’s November ballot.

Relatively speaking, the Lutherans are progressive on the issue of gay rights.  Four synods of the local ELCA-ers recently formally opposed the Minnesota marriage ban amendment pushed by Minnesota’s social conservatives, and I don’t think the votes were close.

Lutheranophile Garrison Keillor observes:

“Lutherans…are the sort of people you could call up when you’re in deep distress. If you’re dying, they’ll comfort you. If you’re lonely, they’ll talk to you. And if you’re hungry, they’ll give you tuna salad.”

And if you’re discriminated against?

This charitable attitude looks to be even stronger among young Lutherans.  For instance, a popular song among Lutheran youth, “Party in the ELCA” (a parody of Miley Cyrus’s “Party in the USA”) has the following lyrics:

“We’re coming as we are (sinners and saints),
Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay.
YEAH! It’s a party in the ELCA!
”

“Doesn’t matter if you’re straight or gay,” indeed.  This “Party in the ELCA” is not exactly the type of religious party the Minnesota Republican Party is hoping for on Election Day 2012.

And it’s not just the Lutheran Effect.  It’s now also the Methodist Effect.  Over the weekend, the Methodists just took  basically the same position as the ELCA.  Methodists make up another 4% of Minnesotans, making them the fourth largest denomination in Minnesota, just behind the Baptists at 5%.

And what about Catholics, who are almost tied with Lutherans as the top religion in Minnesota, claiming 25% of the population?  Can we presume that Minnesota Catholics want to ban gay marriage?

Yes, but it’s not as overwhelming as some might think.  If Minnesota Catholics are anything like national Catholics, 46% of national Catholics support gay marriage, rapidly trending upwards from 40% in 2007.

Hmmm, the times are changing for Catholics too?  “Doesn’t matter if your straight or gay?  It’s a party in the Opus Dei?”

Many Minnesota social conservatives seem to make the mistake of assuming that the  marriage ban amendment debate is a strictly battle of the religious versus the irreligious, and that they will therefore easily win because the irreligious are so few (14% in Minnesota).

But increasingly, religious Minnesotans – looking to the empathetic teachings of the Golden Rule and the tolerance teachings of the Sermon on the Mount – are opposing gay bashing schemes like the proposed marriage ban amendment.

– Loveland

 

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

Minnesota Now Has To Look To South Dakota For Interesting Political Ads

Posted on by

For a time, the nation looked to Minnesota for innovative political ads.  Working with local ad pros in 1990, an obscure college professor’s “Fast Paul” and “Looking for Rudy” TV ads were a national sensation.

Since then, Minnesota’s pols have gone conventional.  Most ads now follow The Recipe:

Ominously droning music.  Grainy photo of Evil Opponent caught in an unflattering facial expression. The Big Accusation(s).

Transition to heroic music!  Lovely images of Our Photoshopped Candidate helping school children read, seniors do paperwork, and veterans secure their lapel pins! Images of Our Photshopped Candidate working at his desk in the wee hours, and in front of a sea of flags inspiring the masses with a forceful finger jab in the air! Call-to-action!  Logo!  Disclaimer.

Sound familiar?  The ingredients to The Recipe never change appreciably.  Just add special interest money, and repeat ad nauseum.

The Recipe produces ads that are so similar in tone and feel that it is very easy for voters to tune them out.  Nothing about them sparks enough curiosity to prevent voters from closing their ears, changing the channel, or skipping the commercial via DVR.  For this reason, The Recipe remains more effective than most tactics, but much less effective than it once was.

Still, year after year, political consultants convince politicians and special interests to bake up enormous batches of The Recipe.  Consultants push it because it is relatively fast to produce, low-budget, and low-risk.  Just shoot stock video and drop it into the template.  Those are somewhat defensible reasons.  But consultants also push mass production of The Recipe because it earns them a high profit margin, in the same way that any assembly line has higher profit margins than customized craftsmanship.  The Recipe often serves the constulant’s needs more than the candidate’s needs.

In every election cycle, there are a few exceptions to the rule.  Wellstone in 1990 was one.  Jesse Ventura had a few.   A couple of years ago, Steve Novick in Oregon was another.  This month, there is a pretty decent non-conventional web video from South Dakota congressional candidate Jeff Barth:

Scoff at the production value if you like.  Look down your nose at the campy humor.  But this video, airing for free, has had over 150,000 YouTube viewings, due to peer-to-peer sharing, and referrals from free airings on news programs.  For a primary candidate in a state of 380,00 voters, that’s a big deal.  And unlike conventional ads, it is airing for free.

Why is something like this successful? After all, it’s not nearly as glossy, glib or compact as The Recipe.  Barth’s video is successful because it is many things that the 30-second cookie cutter ads are not.  It’s unique enough to draw you in.  It’s funny enough to cause you to want to share it.  It’s informative enough to make it worth your while.  It’s provocative enough to stick in your memory.

Even if you only watch this video once, you come away knowing something about the candidate’s background, personality and approach to life and politics.  This video leaves me thinking this guy Barth might not be another risk averse  congressional clone.  In a year when job approval ratings for Congress are at 10% that “not like the others” message is a strategically important leave behind.

Will anyone in Minnesota be imaginative and courageous enough to do anything unique with their political ads this election cycle, or can we look forward to heapin’ helpins of The Recipe?

Loveland

Polls: Minnesota GOP’s Libertarian Lunge Looks Like A Loser

Posted on by

Devotees of libertarian candidate Ron Paul occupied the Minnesota GOP State Convention this weekend, winning all but one of the national convention delegate positions.  It was a remarkable organizing feat.

But will the Minnesota GOP’s dramatic lunge to libertarianism be a winner on Election Day?  Polling on issues pushed by Paul isn’t promising:

  • LEGALIZING DRUGS – 84% OPPOSE.  In a Rasmussen poll released yesterday, Paul’s support for legalizing cocaine is opposed by 84% of Americans.
  • LEGALIZING PROSTUTION – 81% OPPOSE.  A national survey from the mid-1990s found Paul’s position of of legalizing prostitution running opposed by 81%.
  • CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY – 72% OPPOSE.  A June 2011 PPP survey of Minnesotans shows 72% of all voters, 69% of Independents and 61% of Tea Partiers, oppose cuts in Social Security.  Paul says the national Social Security program is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.
  • CUTTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS – 77% OPPOSE.  An August 2011 PPP survey didn’t find much support in Minnesota for Paul’s call to cut environmental regulations.  Over three-fourths (77%) of Minnesotans say environmental laws should not be weakened or repealed for industries, even if industries claim the move is necessary to create jobs.

I couldn’t find any polling on eliminating the Federal Reserve or switching to the gold standard.  I’m just guessing here, but there might be a pretty solid majority for “Not Sure” on those obscure Ron Paul fetishes.

One Paul position that does have a plurality of support is pulling out of Afghanistan.  Almost half (47%) of Americans would like to withdraw from Afghanistan sooner than the current timetable.  Congressman Paul’s opposition to banning same sex marriage also has majority support in some polls.

But with those exceptions, an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans don’t seem to be nearly as enamored with Paul’s libertarian policy agenda as Minnesota Republican activists are.

Loveland

Buffaloed By Bills

Posted on by

Minnesota Republicans endorsed State Rep. Kurt Bills to challenge Democratic Senator Amy Kloubachar in November.  His nomination win was an impressive feat, fueled by support from delegates supporting Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate who promises to legalize heroin, cocaine, and prostitution under the banner of “the party of traditional family values,” which makes perfect sense.

Republican Convention delegates seemed particularly smitten with Bills’ anger at the federal debt.  Anger is the coin of the realm at party conventions, and, make no mistake, Bills is hopping mad about the debt.  (Not the debt that he put on Minnesota schools as a member of the State House, a different debt.)

Fair enough.  The federal debt is a big issue.  So let’s take a look at the causes of it:

In summary, to address the causes of the skyrocketing debt, the answer is pretty clear:  Undo what Bush did.    If you do that — cut off war spending and the Bush tax cuts — the debt trend line very quickly flattens.

What are Rep. Bills’ positions on these issues?  Well, I couldn’t tell a lot from his slim website position paper or media clippings.  There looks to be a good reason why MinnPost’s Erik Black recently wrote a piece called “Guessing Where Kurt Bills Stands on The Issues.”  (Black can’t get an interview.)  So guess we must, along with a little help from his website.  From what I can tell, it doesn’t look like Rep. Bills is too keen on putting the breaks on the primary drivers of the debt increase:

  • BILLS WON’T CUT BUSH’S TAX CUTS.  It doesn’t appear Rep. Bills supports eliminating the Bush tax cuts, the largest cause of the debt increase.
  • BILLS WON’T CUT BUSH’S FOREIGN WARS.  If Rep. Bills is for immediately withdrawing from the middle east wars, another big driver of the debt increase, he doesn’t mention it in his website foreign policy section.

I imagine Rep. Bills was opposed to the Recovery Act.  But you can see the Recovery Act cost is a much smaller contributor than the Bush wars and tax cuts.  Moreover, the up to 2.4 million jobs the Recovery Act created prevented additional debt that would have been caused by an even more severe economic meltdown.  Finally, the Recovery Act is now done, so in terms of Rep. Bill’s future debt reduction plan, it is a mute point.

Instead of undoing what Bush did to create the debt, Rep. Bills seems to want to double down on Bushonomics — tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of high flying industries and aggressive use of the military.  If that’s true, “Bills” could end up being a prophetic name.

– Loveland

Pulling Back the Curtain on the Minnesota Legislature

Posted on by

The one thing that Vikings Stadium proponents and opponents in the Legislature should be able to agree on:  The debate was very bad for all of their reputations.

Why?  Because there was an audience.  While the masses usually are mostly blind to what happens in legislative floor debates, a sizeable audience of casually involved Minnesotans were engaged enough in the high profile stadium issue to seek out legislative coverage on TV or the Internet.   My sense is that they were appalled.

Legislators didn’t really act much worse during the Vikings Stadium debate than they typically do at the end of any session.  It’s just that they usually behave badly in relative anonymity.  Usually, the only witnesses are jaded Capitol insiders, who can no longer be shocked.  Capitol dwellers – legislators, lobbyists, reporters and staff – take it for granted that legislators are breathtakingly rude and disrespectful to each other.  Every day, they see legislators use shallow “if she is for it, then I MUST be against it” policy logic.  To Capitol dwellers, self-serving partisan pranks are de rigueur.

But this is news to ordinary Minnesotans.  They hear about it, but they don’t often see it.

“I hardly ever watch the Legislature, but I tuned in for some of the big stadium debate…,” friends have been telling me.  Then their eyes bug out, and their mouths gape, as if they had just caught a glimpse of Lobster Boy and the Elephant Man at the carnival’s side show.  “Oh my.  I had NO idea.”

This reaction came regardless of how the individual felt about the outcome of the Vikings Stadium debate.  In a way, winners still felt like losers.

Lobster Boy indeed.  Half-baked Plan Z’s were sprung in the closing hours of a decade long debate.  The House’s top “leader” declared he was voting against the bill, but hoped it would pass.  Reckless amendment after reckless amendment were added, making the bill read like the contents of an elementary school Suggestion Box, instead of the product of a decade’s worth of expert study and analysis.

In the midst of a blinding blizzard of amendments, freshman Rep. John Kriesel plaintively held up a sign from the House floor reading “Help!”  From Baudette to Blooming Prairie, ordinary Minnesotans’ on both sides of the issue were collectively nodding at the sentiment.

A recent SurveyUSA poll found that only one of five (21%) Minnesotans approves of the job the Legislature is doing.  That number might be even smaller among those who watched a chunk of the Vikings Stadium debate.  Incidentally, Governor Dayton’s approval rating (56%) is about three times higher than the Legislature’s, despite the fact that he was in the center of the bruising stadium debate.  Demeanor probably explains some of this difference.  Dayton wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t Lobster Boy.

When Dorothy of Kansas was shocked by what she found behind the Wizard of Oz’s curtain, she declared “you’re a very bad man.”  After Minnesotans pulled back the curtain of public indifference that usually covers up St. Paul’s secrets, they may be feeling the same way.

But most of the legislators aren’t bad people.  It’s just that powerful special interests, partisan bullies and fatigue don’t bring out the best in them.  Sometimes good people can be bad leaders.  As the Wizard of Oz sheepishly responded in his defense, “Oh no, my dear.  I’m a very good man.  I’m just a very bad wizard.”

Loveland

 

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

Three Myths About Minnesotans and Same Sex Marriage

Posted on by

A recent SurveyUSA poll of Minnesotans included this question:

“President Obama says that same sex couples should be able to get married.  Do you agree with the president? Or disagree?”

The poll findings bust three popular myths about Minnesotans and same sex marriage:

Myth #1:  “Over Greater Minnesota’s Dead Body.”   The political conventional wisdom goes like this:  “The purple haired hipsters in Uptown may be for gay marriage, but traditional Main Street folks in Greater Minnesota will never stand for it.”  That conventional wisdom is wrong.  There is very little regional difference in support for gay marriage.  Support is roughly the same in the Twin Cities (53%), southern Minnesota (54%), and western Minnesota (51%).  Those three regions all fall within the 4% margin of error.  Only northeastern Minnesota (49% support) falls below the majority threshold, and is statistically different from the Twin Cities, but just barely.   Republicans need to realize that Main Street is not Narrow Street.

Myth #2:  “Only Radical Liberal Extremists Want Gay Marriage.”   This has been the conservative line for years.  But it doesn’t stand up to the data.  A pretty solid majority (55%) of self-described “moderates” and “independents” (54%) in Minnesota agree with the President on gay marriage.  If a majority of moderates support something, it can hardly be considered radical.  Support for gay marriage is now a mainstream position in Minnesota.

Myth #3:  “Marriage ban amendments pass everywhere, so it can’t be defeated in Minnesota.”  This poll found that 52% of Minnesotans support the President’s position and 42% oppose it.  There is a long way to go before the November election, but if this isn’t a dead myth, it is surely a rapidly dying one.  Literally.  The biggest source of opposition comes from people over 65 years old (only 33% support) support, and as time marches on younger generations will hold more electoral sway.  The support among Minnesota’s 18-34 year olds is running at an overwhelming 68%.

It’s very clear where this issue is headed.  In 2012, gay Minnesotans are hardly the societal aberrations they’ve been portrayed to be my whole life.  Statistically speaking, the 82% of Tea Partiers who adamantly oppose Obama on gay marriage are now the societal aberrations.

Loveland

Vikings Post Game Show

Posted on by

Is the Vikings Stadium bill a political boon or bust?  A new SurveyUSA poll brings political hand wringers mixed messages.

Post-game pondering.

One the one hand, Governor Mark Dayton, who unapologetically led a bone-crushing stadium drive, still has a very respectable 56% approval rating.  In other good news for supporters, 55% of Minnesotans are fine with expanding gambling, the primary state financing mechanism used in the bill.  Most (57%) believe that the Vikings will leave without a new stadium.  Bottom line:  An impressive 70% say that if a lawmaker backed the bill, it would either make no difference in their voting (47%) or make them more likely to support that politician (23%).

So, backlash?  What backlash?

But the news in the poll isn’t all skol-worthy.   A slim majority of Minnesotans (52%) either want the Vikings to stay in the Metrodome in its current plain Jane state (16%) or renovate the Metrodome (36%).  In addition, most citizens prefer racino (26% support) and a downtown casino (36% support) over the bill’s heavy reliance on electronic pulltabs (15% support).  Overall, 58% say the Vikings Stadium should be funded entirely with public funding.  Finally, a whopping two-thirds (67%) of Minnesotans say there should be “a public vote before any taxes are raised to pay for a Vikings Stadium,” something the Vikings bill does not allow.

So, political armageddon is nigh, correct?

The fact is, polling on the Vikings Stadium is a bit of a political Rorschach Test.  Politicians can see what they want to see in today’s polling, because Minnesotans’ collective druthers are divided.  As certain as state politicians and pundits’ claim to be about what they think voters want, voters themselves don’t seem to be at all certain.

Is a vote in favor of the Vikings Stadium a political “W” or “L?”  Well, the most difficult day to be a Vikings Stadium supporter was probably last Wednesday.  The most difficult day to be an opponent of the Stadium will be the Minneapolis-hosted Super Sunday in 2016 or 2017.   To every thing, there is a season.

– Loveland