David Trinh

Fresh off of new polling that Rep. Mark Kirk is leading Illinois State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias in the race for President Obama’s former Senate seat comes even more devastating news for Illinois Democrats:

Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) has now declared that the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, businessman Scott Lee Cohen, should consider withdrawing from the race in the wake of publicity surrounding a 2005 arrest for domestic violence…

The big problem Quinn has here is that while Cohen is technically his “running mate,” in the sense that they will be listed together on the general election ballot in the same way that we vote for president and vice president, Quinn did not pick him. Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in Illinois are nominated in separate primaries, but then run together as a ticket.

I have to say, the system that Illinois uses to select lieutenant governors is completely insane.  It’s one thing to expect people to actually pay attention to a down-ballot race for an office that has little-to-no real power, but if you’re going to insist that the people select the candidates individually in the primary, you should probably let them make the same choice during the general election.  These sort of mandated shotgun political weddings are a disaster in governance waiting to happen.

On a broader note, I think this story only emphasizes an element of American democracy that Matt Yglesias is rightly fond of harping on—namely the fact that our electoral system forces voters to select way too many candidates.  The fact that Scott Cohen was able to slip through the scrutiny of the media and the voters to earn a spot on the ballot line of a major party to potentially become the Lt. Governor of the nation’s fifth most populace state is absolutely astounding.

It’s not like Illinois voters are particularly inept either.  This sort of miscarriage of democracy happens all the time.  My favorite example from Minnesotan politics is the 1994 Attorney General’s race when Sharon Anderson, a very crazy self-proclaimed witch and pagan worshipper, managed to win the Republican primary.  Republicans ended up having to endorse the Democratic nominee; I’m a pretty partisan Democrat, but I’ll concede that the process was hurt by a lack of real electoral competition for the office.

Voters don’t want to make these types of terrible choices but when they’re forced to choose candidates for upwards of sixteen different offices, they prioritize some races and vote solely on the basis of Scandinavian last names in others.   This is a bad way to run a democracy and until we fix it we’re going to keep seeing more Scott Cohens and Sharon Andersons.

I’ve secretly been an admirer of Tim Pawlenty for a long time.  Not because any of his politics resonate with my own beliefs, far from it in fact, but because I was under the impression that he belonged to the ‘grownup wing’ of the Republican Party.  As a strong proponent of a competitive two-party system, I thought our good ‘ol boy from Minnesota was poised to become a leading figure in the effort to remake the Republican Party.  Oh boy, was I wrong.  Recently Governor Pawlenty sat down for an interview with the Washington Post and gave some pretty devastating answers on a wide variety of questions:

After starting off with a pretty weak self-deprecating joke, Pawlenty tried to pivot to typical conservative budget fluff:

FINEMAN: How would you propose to balance the federal budget?

PAWLENTY: Rather than looking to raise taxes, we should pass an amendment to require a balanced budget with exceptions for war, natural disasters, and other emergencies. Congress should reduce discretionary spending, with exceptions for key programs such as the military, veterans, and public safety. (Bold mine, DT)

Err, nevermind the fact that outside of such ‘key programs,’ there isn’t really much discretionary spending left to cut.  Few things annoy me more than when politicians treat defense spending as if it belongs in some magical realm where dollars for extravagant weapons programs materialize out of thin air.  Contrary to this line of reasoning, a dollar spent on an unnecessary plane is a dollar that can’t be spent in some other portion of the budget.  What’s more, there’s plenty of fat to cut in the defense budget!

FINEMAN: How do we pay for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

PAWLENTY: We have to push for more fiscal responsibility elsewhere. Congress should cut current domestic spending and reject costly new proposals like a government takeover of health care. (Bold mine, DT)

Said ‘government takeover of health care’ reduces the deficit– ’nuff said.

FINEMAN: Was the TARP a good idea?

PAWLENTY: No. I had numerous problems with it. The goal was to ensure that we didn’t have a lending freeze. [But] there was no requirement that lending would occur, and it hasn’t. No. 2, there were no criteria for who would get the money and under what circumstances and for what. I also thought it was too large. (Bold mine, DT)

Excessively generous lending by financial institutions is what caused the financial crisis!  Pawlenty would have preferred a recovery plan that required banks to make the same risky investments which precipitated the crisis to begin with– really?  The key objective of TARP was to provide the banking system with enough capital to restore balance sheets back to relatively sane levels– not to permit the same kind of foolhardy lending to continue unabated.

FINEMAN: Let me ask you about social issues your party has been dealing with. In her book, Palin claims that McCain’s handlers wanted her to be silent about her belief in creationism. How would you describe your view?

PAWLENTY: I can tell you how we handle it in Minnesota. We leave it to the local school districts. We don’t mandate a curriculum or an approach. We allow for something called “intelligent design” to be discussed as a comparative theory. It doesn’t have to be in science class. (Bold mine, DT)

Uh… that’s actually not how the Minnesota school system operates.  I dunno what state Pawlenty has been running for the past seven years but I am reasonably confident that evolution is mandated at the state level and that teachers don’t have the power to teach intelligent design.  After all, if they did have this flexibility, I would have learned nothing but intelligent design in my hometown.

Tim, what happened?  You’re turning into a joke.

Over at MN Progressive Project, Joe Bordell has an interesting, if slightly wonky, post detailing the challenges which face the GOP if they want to carry Minnesota in a presidential election.  I have no problems with Joe’s analysis or his contention that Minnesota is unlikely to flip from Blue to Red in 2012.  I would only add that this is a pretty obvious point that has been obscured over the past few years by talk of Minnesota as a ‘swing state.’

Sure, Minnesota is a ‘swing state’ in some sense of the term—we tend to have competitive gubernatorial and Senate races—but at the Presidential level we’re relatively uncompetitive compared to states like Colorado, Florida or Ohio.  Could Minnesota flip?  In a bad year for Democrats, yes.  But really, if Minnesota is voting Republican than the election is probably a lost cause to begin with.  Remember, the last time Minnesota voted for a Republican presidential candidate was Nixon in 1972.   Minnesota has the longest continuous streak of casting electoral votes for Democrats in the nation; somehow I doubt that Tim Pawlenty’s mediocre approval ratings are going to allow him to break this long tradition in 2012.

Tonight I heard a fascinating tidbit about Minnesota from Peter Beinart, this evening’s guest at the Yale Political Union.  The story is summed up in this paragraph from an interview with Oleg Troyanovski:

OT: Well, bluffing was part of Khrushchev’s strategy. There was some bluffing when he delivered those ultimatums about Berlin, because he didn’t quite know where we go from there. And by the way, I can tell you a rather amusing story. When Senator Humphrey came to this country, he had a long talk at dinner, I think, with Khrushchev, and Khrushchev started bluffing a little bit about how strong we were in missiles, and he said, “What’s your home town, Senator?” And Humphrey said, “It’s Minneapolis, Minnesota.” So Khrushchev went to a big map he had in his office, and drew a ring around Minneapolis and said, “I must not forget that we shouldn’t hit that town.” (Laughs) And Humphrey said, “Where is your home town?” Khrushchev said, “Moscow.” And Humphrey said, “Oh, sorry.” (Laughter)

Good stuff.  I certainly hope that Minneapolis is on some sort of do-not-strike list in the event we ever end up in a shooting war with the Soviets.

I think TwoPuttTommy over at MN Progressive Report is a little too quick to dismiss the threat of a real challenge against Collin Peterson in MN-07.  I say this not only as one of Peterson’s constituents but also as a strong Democrat who isn’t inclined towards the wishful thinking that might sway the opinions of a GOP hack like Michael Brodkorb.

To begin, Peterson is not likely to enjoy strong support from his base in 2010.  Not only did Peterson lead the charge in sabotaging the cap and trade bill in the House but he’s also been less than willing to follow the progressive line on issues like health care reform.  Democrats like myself vote for Democratic politicians in the hope that they will vote for progressive legislation once in office.  If the only vote that Peterson casts in the House is a vote for Pelosi, why should I continue to support him?

Second, this little brouhaha underscores one of Peterson’s real weaknesses: he is down-right terrible when it comes to being accessible to his constituents.  Not only does Peterson refuse to hold town hall meetings, but like I said earlier this week, he refuses to meet with DFLers who are trying to give him money.  During my six years that I lived in Alexandria, I am aware of Peterson coming in and speaking to voters precisely one time in 2002.  Keep in mind that Alexandria is one of the largest cities in the seventh congressional district—I shudder to think how many times Peterson makes it out to the multitude of small hamlets which dot rural western Minnesota.

Finally, 2010 is shaping up to be a pretty rough cycle for Democrats.  While I doubt we’re going to see another purge à la 1994, I would not be surprised if some complacent Democrats in conservative leaning districts were unexpectedly toppled as Republicans begin to regain their footing on conservative leaning turf.  Peterson will probably not be one of those Democrats who actually loses; however, I would not at all be surprised if his share of the vote tumbled into the low 60s or high 50s.   Remember, swings of twenty points, while uncommon, are not together unheard of.  Doesn’t anyone remember what happened to Rep. Kelly, Walsh and Hart in 2006?

At the end of the day, we can only speculate at how the people of the seventh writ large will respond to being slighted and ignored by their Congressman; however, I can attest that at least I will be switching my vote from Peterson to his Republican challenger.

Over at MN Publius, Jeff Rosenberg argues for an earlier primary here in Minnesota:

Both the DFL and GOP will have hard-fought, bruising conventions, that will eventually end up with a single candidate endorsed. After that, though, the two parties will diverge. Several well-funded DFLers will commit to an even-more-bruising primary fight, while Republican kingmakers will step in to threaten all non-endorsed Republicans that they’ll never work again if they contest the election.

From the convention until the September primary, the DFL candidates will spend millions of dollars attacking each other. Finally, one candidate will emerge victorious. Cash depleted and exhausted from the primary battle, he or she will then have about 7 weeks to raise a new war chest, introduce himself to the voters, and draw distinctions with his opponent, who will have been steadily building support and raising money for about 3 months already.

In theory, I think the idea of a contested primary is a good thing. It gets more people involved in the political process and allows a party to pick stronger candidates. I say “in theory” because when your state holds its primaries in early September, there’s never enough time to actually run a general election campaign. A party that can avoid a primary fight is instantly favored to win in the general election, because 7 weeks just isn’t enough time to catch up. Republicans, having a more top-down organizational structure than Democrats, are more likely to accept the decisions of party kingmakers and avoid a primary. (Bold mine-DT)

Rosenberg is absolutely right.  The stereotype about the Republican Party of Minnesota being more “top-down” than the DFL is one of the few simplifications in politics that actually rings true.  Time and again, Democrats have fought bruising primary battles, only to find themselves too battered after winning the nomination to mount a spirited campaign in the fall.

This isn’t to say that Republicans don’t have contested inter-party conflicts, as anyone who watched the Republican contest for the GOP nomination in MN-06 during 2006 can attest.  However, Republicans allow themselves ample time to unify the party following these divisions while Democrats don’t get started patching up these splits until less than two months before Election Day.

Moving the state primary up would obviously raise some problems; specifically, when it comes to voter participation, as Minnesotans prefer to spend time on the lake instead of in the voting booth during the summer.  That said, Democrats have much more to gain than they do to lose from primary reform and if DFLers do manage to take the statehouse in 2010 this should be one of the first changes (in addition to reforming the absentee balloting process) to election law that they make.

Additionally, I might add that one could object to moving up the primary by claiming that this would increase the potency of the DFL party endorsement.  After all, an early primary would mean that a losing candidate at the convention would have little time to recover before they go on to a battle for the nomination at the ballot box.  This criticism is valid; however, I would argue that this is a feature of an early primary, rather than a bug.

We have conventions for a reason.  Delegates are party stalwarts who are given a unique opportunity to vet potential gubernatorial candidates up close.  This is not an experience that can be replicated at the level of a statewide primary.  Further, delegates are generally better informed than the wider electorate and pay much more attention to the political process.   The opinions of the delegates (who, let’s remember, are still elected at the local level) should matter.  If we shorten the time between the endorsement and the primary, the judgment of the delegates will (rightly) carry more clout.

A poll released last Friday showed Barack Obama with a sizable lead over Gov. Pawlenty in a hypothetical presidential matchup in Minnesota:

A new survey from Public Policy Polling of Minnesotans–those lucky souls now boasting a full contingent of two US senators–shows Obama beating Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty in a potential head-to-head presidential matchup, 51 percent to 40 percent. Obama beat John McCain in Minnesota last year by 10 points, carrying 45 counties.

I’m not at all surprised by these numbers.  Obama is still very popular in Minnesota (although his numbers have softened a bit recently) and Pawlenty just made some unpopular budget cuts that are going to adversely affect a wide swath of Minnesotans.  Also, it’s important to remember that Minnesota is a very blue state.  We’ve voted more times in a row for a Democratic presidential candidate than any other state in the Union, gosh darn it!

Should Tim Pawlenty be concerned about these numbers?  Maybe.  In a general election, it sure would help Pawlenty if he could carry Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin which collectively have as many electoral votes as Florida.  Still, I think Gov. Pawlenty could play well throughout the Midwest and old-Northwest (particularly in Ohio and Indiana); in fact, it’s entirely possible Minnesota might be his worst state in a hypothetical campaign, especially in light of voters’ familiarity with some of his more unpopular policies and the Gopher state’s generally left-leaning record.

Andrew, over at Swing State Project offers up a very good diary detailing redistricting in Minnesota:

Minnesota is going to possibly lose a seat and with a DFL governor, we’ll be able to do some damage.  These districts should pass any compactness laws as nothing is gerrymandered beyond unacceptability.  My 8 seat map is in the works and near done and both of these maps reflect what I think is possible and appropriate for Minnesota, all Dem seats with one GOP dump district.

Andrews clever proposal is essentially guided by two principals: (1) split up Minneapolis-St. Paul between three congressional districts which would allow DFLers to use these blue bastions to form three very blue districts and (2) eliminate Michele Bachmann’s district and force her to run against John Kline in a reconfigured (and very red) 2^nd district. 

This is brilliant!  While this redistricting plan would no doubt put Republicans up in arms, it’s difficult to see how the Republicans could accuse DFLers of heavily gerrymandering the map.  The three districts created out of the twin cities would all be reasonably compact and the reshaped 2^nd district would be no more convoluted than the current 6^th district.  Who knows if DFLers will actually have the fortitude to propose such an audacious redistricting plan but in Democrats finally manage to secure the governor’s mansion after a nearly two decade hiatus, the newly minted chief-executive, along with a heavily Democratic state legislature, could very well make this map a reality.

MN Progressive Report notes an item that I also heard on the drive to work this morning:

MPR cited a curious statistic during its morning show today: Minnesota now has the most living former U.S. Senators of any state in the country.

It’s a curiosity that means … not a whole lot, on its face. Dig a bit deeper, however, and it means that Minnesota is way down the seniority list in the Senate, something that materially and negatively affects our state’s influence in the World’s Most Exclusive Club.

That is a curious and interesting statistic! While we’re a little short of the number necessary for a baseball team, Minnesota does have an impressive roster of toppled and retired US Senators– apparently more than any other state.  I would guess that the confluence of Minnesota’s purple nature and its sky-high life expectancy are the reasons why Minnesota can claim this bit of arcane political trivia as its own.  Joe Bodell tries to make a bit more of this tidbit by claiming that Minnesota’s relative lack of seniority is “going to be a great argument for Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken in their likely reelection bids in 2012 and 2014,” but I’m not so sure this larger claim holds out.

Sure, states like Alaska have come to relish the spoils that come with the seniority system (so much so that they nearly reelected a convicted felon in 2008) but for whatever reason Minnesotan voters do not seem to take seniority into account at the ballot box.  I’d posit that this is largely because Minnesota historically has not had to rely on the federal government to support its high level of services (we’re willing to tax ourselves instead) and because Minnesota’s voters pay an unusual amount of attention to issues that don’t involve a politician’s ability to bring the bacon home.

*At the very least, this seems to be true on the Senate side of Minnesotan politics, as representatives Collin Peterson and Jim Oberstar are famous for looking after their district’s special interests—especially in the committees they chair.

I’m glad to see that Taste of Minnesota is revamping itself a little bit, because I must say my experience on Harriet Island the past few years has been pretty dismal.  The fireworks are alright, but because it’s held on the weekend of the 4^th of July, they’re really not all that special.  For an event that bills itself as a culinary spectacle the slightly-dressed up offerings one normally finds at the State Fair really don’t measure up and good lord, the music… don’t even get me started.  Avoid, unless you really can’t pass up a ‘frozen Jolly Rancher’ cocktail.

[Update: I've learned that the frozen Jolly Rancher is not alcoholic-- you really have no reason to go now.]