I have not been a regular reader of the blog formerly known as Kennedy v the Machine since the election last fall. But I stopped by today and noticed that they have some great insight into the Republican field in CD 3.
Last week, MN Publius called former House Majority Leader Erik Paulsen the Republican frontrunner in the 3rd. Looks like that description was accurate:
TvM spoke with folks close to likely congressional candidate Erik Paulsen last evening and learned that the 7-term Eden Prairie conservative is quietly assembling a potent fundraising team.
Both Senator Boschwitz and fmr. GOP chair Ron Eibensteiner have signed on to spearhead Paulsen’s nascent bid. The state representative is said to be putting together an impressive “kitchen cabinet”.
So Paulsen is the frontrunner, but all is not well in Republican world:
At the same time, TvM is running into more and more nervous Republicans who are wondering whether the former Majority Leader has the profile and skills to win in a toss-up district with the wind potentially at the DFL’s back.
We agree with the nervous Republicans.
Meanwhile, another oft-meantioned Republican potential, St. Sen. Geoff Michel, is not doing so hot according to TvM:
Despite his name being repeatedly mentioned as a likely GOP candidate and stating that he’s weighing his options, St. Sen. Geoff Michel is doing nothing to indicate that he’s legitimately exploring a run. Michel has not been merely outpaced by quasi-frontrunner St. Rep. Erik Paulsen but seems to be at the starting gate mulling whether or not to tie his shoes. He’s not running.
Harsh.
As a sidenote, former Mark Kennedy Campaign Manager Pat Shortridge has signed on as a contributor over at TvM. This ought to be fun.
Loading ...
Hi, Zach. You’ll have to stop by more often. We have much better security these days ;) Cheers!
Surely, we can’t be down to Paulsen vs. Bonoff yet. They both might be fine candidates, but there must be others out there who we need to look at to get into the race. I sound hippocritical, I know, because I’m not offering up any names myself.
Mayors? Successful businesspeople? Educators? Ex-Military?
I thought K v. M lost all its hits when Kennedy stopped paying staffers?
Surely, we can’t be down to Paulsen vs. Bonoff yet. They both might be fine candidates, but there must be others out there who we need to look at to get into the race. I sound hippocritical, I know, because I’m not offering up any names myself.
Mayors? Successful businesspeople? Educators? Ex-Military?
Cogent post, Blogger. It _does_ seem like the both the IR and DFL fields are narrowing faster than they should.
And don’t criticize hippos. They’re slow to anger but can be quite nasty when riled.
So who will the Green and Independent parties nominate for their spoilers? It’ll be interesting to see how badly the left side is split this time.
I think a lot of people in the legislature were mayors and business people, and educators, and military members. The fact that the people being looked at this congressional seat are already elected officials does not mean that is all they are. They are just people who are willing to go through all the crap that running for office entails (which includes getting torn apart by bloggers)
I don’t know if the Green party knows where the 3rd district is. But I am sure Peter Hutchinson and his band of losers will find some joker to go out and get three percent.
I think a lot of people in the legislature were mayors and business people, and educators, and military members. The fact that the people being looked at this congressional seat are already elected officials does not mean that is all they are. They are just people who are willing to go through all the crap that running for office entails (which includes getting torn apart by bloggers)
I agree to point, but a relatively unknown high school teacher probably won’t work as a candidate in CD3 (this is not a criticism of Walz, just a recognition that CD3 is fundamentally different from CD1).
The talent pool on both sides is fairly deep. A demonstrated ability to get elected to any office, or broad name recognition, is likely to be a prerequisite for CD3 endorsement in the relatively moderate suburbs.
I don’t know if the Green party knows where the 3rd district is. But I am sure Peter Hutchinson and his band of losers will find some joker to go out and get three percent.
No kidding. Hutchinson and Ralph Nader, along with Tim Penny, have their own circle in hell.
Word, Disco, Word….
Maybe the Democrats can start rounding up the independents and put them in camps. I mean the Democrats like our Amy K have done so much since gaining control of congress with how they have taken a stance against the things the President wants I can just imagine how much better off we would be if the Dems had control of everything. Oh, wait they have proven themselves to be spineless and corrupt just like the Republicans, never mind.
Better yet you guys. Why don’t you guys join the Bush Republicans since your good against evil and us against them black and white ideology will fit right in.
KH, the point being made is that voting Green or IP is a waste of time. Its the Independence Party that is being ripped here, not independent voters. And I, for one, have been disappointed by the Democrats, and Amy Klobuchar in particular. The answer is to elect better Democrats and to pressure the ones we have to do the right thing. Voting Green or IP is the equivalent of staying home and watching TV instead of voting.
You are fine with independent voters as long as they vote Democrat. Great logic. The reason third parties get votes, despite having zero power because both major parties have over decades used every corrupt way imaginable made it so, is because is that some realize that voting either Republican or Democrat is a loose loose situation. Obviously voting Democrat gets you nothing in the way of better candidates given Amy K’s voting performance since the election and the fact that Al and Hillary are the front runners. You can’t elect better Democrats because there aren’t any.
This isn’t about whether I am “fine” with independent voters. There are always going to be a large number of independent voters. Its like being “fine” with the sky being blue. There is nothing I can do about it. It is what it is. I would like independent voters to vote Democratic, and I believe the Democratic party needs to work to earn the votes of independents.
Voting Republican or Democratic actually isn’t a lose-lose (I assume you don’t mean loose) situation, because either the Democrats or the Republicans are going to win. And while people may not like either party, under our electoral system, voting IP or Green is the equivalent of staying home.
And while I have been dissappointed in Klobuchar, she has been much better than Kennedy would have been. Klobuchar actually opposes the war. Her problem is that she doesn’t have the courage of her convictions. For what its worth, I think Al Franken is a terrible candidate, and while I don’t feel as strongly about Hillary, I certainly don’t support her. My plan is to support other Democratic candidates against Franken and Clinton, which, unlike voting IP or Green, actually might to some good.
You know KH, you seem to be finding straight dichotomies of Good vs. Evil and Black vs. White a lot quicker than any of us, with the blanket condemnations, accusations, and the like. You’ve even got the ‘casually dismissive of the whole political process’ thing down.
I am by no means casually dismissive. I am actively disappointed. I have helped on the campaigns of Democrats and caucused with each
major party in the state at least twice. If you would care to point out where I present something as simply good against evil I would be happy to clarify. As far as you being fine with independent voters your words state differently. Language about them being losers or them having their own circle in hell shows shows the same kind of self centered blind zealotry seen in the pro war neo-cons.
The truth is I still work to try and get the best candidates nominated in both parties. I just have decided not to give up my voice on election day. If both parties continue to present terrible candidates year after year I will continue to vote against them. Your logic that this is the same as staying home is ridiculous and shows how much of the party propaganda you have bought into and the lack of long term vision you posses. The people who vote a party line no matter what are the ones who have abdicated their civic responsibility and given their voice away to party leadership. Maybe if more people voted independently both parties would have to make some sort of effort to clean up their acts.
Maybe instead of blaming independents, who in the case of the governors race voted for the best person to be governor, for the loss of your candidate you should start looking at the candidates you support and why your party promotes them.
KH, with all due respect, I am not sure it is possible that anyone has ever missed the point as completely as you have here. No one is criticizing independent voters. The “circle of hell” is not for independent voters. It is for third-party candidates. Its for people like Peter Hutchinson and Ralph Nader who purport to support progressive ideals, but who just end up helping to elect Republicans.
No one is saying you have to vote the party line. The reason voting Green or IP is the same as staying home has nothing to do with party propaganda, and everything to do with junior high math.
Dan,
Again, you say you don’t mind independent voters unless they vote Democrat. What is the point of thinking independently as long as you are deride them for voting their beliefs. People who voted for Hutchinson may have kept Hatch from winning (as one myself I can tell you I would have voted for Pawlenty before Hatch) but you can’t blame us for the DFL running the corrupt, self serving Hatch. When you say the independent candidates are the ones you condemn it rings a little hollow since it is the voters that determine the election results.
Both major parties have platforms are a contradictory mix of beliefs that have been created by years of corruption and payouts to special interests. If you continue to blindly support their anointed candidates you are the ones who might as well stay home on election day. Instead you console yourself by the misguided belief that you are on the side of justice and the Republicans are the enemy. It is this myopic and short sighted viewpoint that will continue to get you Franken, Klobachar and Hillary. They get the nominations because they know how to work the party power structures, not because they have the best ideas or are the best candidates. They also will say one thing to gain the nomination and another during the general election. They know their inconsistencies are of little importance to the party faithful because they would vote for their party no matter who they ran. Amy K’s votes in the senate don’t matter because six years from now you will vote for her no matter what.
Explain why just voting for the candidate that wins gives you more power than a person that votes for an independent. If you lived in a district that always went republican would you still vote Democrat?
I don’t “mind” independent voters, no matter who they vote for. I’m not exactly sure where you are getting that from. If the Democrats nominate poor candidates (like Mike Hatch) and don’t earn the votes of independent voters like yourself, that is the Democrats’ fault.
If I get involved in the nomination process for the Democrats (or for the Republicans, if I was so inclined) I can have an effect on what kind of candidate the Democrats pick. I intend to do whatever I can to ensure that Al Franken is not the nominee. You can argue whether the process is ultimately truly (small d) democratic, but at the precinct caucus level, the people who show up vote on candidates and introduce and vote on resolutions that can ultimately become part of the party platform. If you don’t like Franken or Clinton, show up and vote for someone else. But if you go to the IP or Green caucuses (if there even is such a thing), you will have no effect on what the Democrats do.
I have no illusions about the fact that both major parties are controlled by special interest money. In a lot of cases, it really is a vote for the lesser of two evils. But there is a lot of difference between the two evils, and voting for the one I think is lesser (generally the Democrat) can effect the outcome, so there is power in that vote. Voting IP or Green won’t affect the outcome, except indirectly if you would have supported one of the major party candidates instead.
As I said I do work to get good candidates supported within both parties. Again, would you vote for a Democrat if you lived in a district where they had no chance? Really it is the same thing those of us who tend to vote for third party or independent candidates are doing. Those votes can have more to do with changing how the major parties behave than their own nomination process. The nomination process for both parties is a joke as they emphasize loyalty to the party above all else. When the choices you are given to begin with do not include a candidate that is worth supporting there is not much advantage to picking one over the other. Even within the Democratic party a candidate like Kucinich has no chance and does not effect the views of any of the candidates with a shot at the nomination. In the end both parties have tight control on their internal processes in order to keep the power at the top while maintaining the illusion of democracy. When in the end they can act this way and still be assured of you support there is no reason for them change.
The point is that voting for third parties does not change the behavior of the major parties in the nomination process. Well, actually it does, but not in the way you think. If, for example, far left voters vote Green and don’t get involved in the Democratic nomination process, that process occurs without their input, and the Democratic nominee will be less likely to represent their interests. So its not just that voting third-party is a complete waste of time — it can actually be counterproductive.
I am not sure why you think the nomination process is not (small d) democratic. The Democrats will choose their presidential nominee based on how those candidates do in primaries and caucuses. Kucinich is doing poorly in those races because people don’t like him or don’t think he should be president. Clinton is seen as the leading candidate because polling shows that people prefer her over the other candidates. The fact that you don’t like the candidate that wins does not make the process undemocratic.
There may be some truth to the notion that “the Democrats should have run a better candidate in 2000 (Gore), 2002 (Moe), 2006 (Hatch).”
However, it’s just pure speculation. There’s no way to prove either way what “would have” happened because it only happened one way. The truth is that Green and IP candidates siphon votes mainly from Democrats. It’s been demonstrated in post-election polls.
Nader helped elect Bush, Penny helped elect Pawlenty, and Hutchinson helped elect Pawlenty. It doesn’t matter how bad the Democratic candidates were. Those three elections were won with less than 50% of the vote, which to me is just flat wrong. When more than half of voters chose someone else, you have no mandate.
Clinton is in the lead because she had the operational infrastructure ready to go before anybody else. She had that because her husband was President. Not because of any democratic process. Her two biggest competitors were ordained as potential candidates during the last election when Obama was given a prime spot at the convention and Edwards the V.P. spot on the ticket. You get fooled into thinking the process is democratic because you get to vote. The vote comes after the decisions have been made and the polls taken so that you know who to vote for. Do any of you Democrat loyalists vote for a candidate during the primary/caucus that doesn’t win? If so, by your own logic, your participation is meaningless.
The truth is that both Democrats and Republicans represent only a small fraction of the people they govern. The parties have simply used their control of the system to shut out everybody else. At that point, like a slightly less violent version of the Spanish civil war, the zealots and loyalists from both sides forget reason in favor of victory. The victory of course made meaningless as they have given up their ideals in order to win.
Disco, of course it matters how bad the Democratic candidates were. If Hatch hadn’t been the candidate I might have voted for the Democrat.
If the problem is that only well-known and well-financed candidates are contenders for the presidency, I don’t think that has anything to do with what the Democrats do or don’t do. It costs a lot of money and takes a lot of exposure to get elected president. While Clinton does have built in advantages, five years ago Edwards and Obama were unknowns. They made themselves known and got V.P. and speaking positions as a result. It wasn’t simply handed to them. If your complaint is that only rich and connected people are contenders for the presidency, I can’t help you.
The idea that people only support winners (I actually have supported numerous primary losers, like John Edwards in 2004) is more a function of human psychology than Democratic zealotry. It also may be a function of rational decision making. Lets say there are three candidates for the Democratic nomination - one I really like, one who is ok, and one I can’t stand. If the one I really like is polling at 1 percent, and the one who is ok is in striking distance of the one I can’t stand, my interests are better served by supporting the one who is just ok. Maybe the one with one percent has a lot of supporters who think the same way and that is why he or she is at 1 percent. But that isn’t anyone’s fault - that is how people think.
Ron Erhardt?
So there it is. You will give up your support of the person who best represents you in order to back a candidate that can win. The problem with that of course is it destroys the basis on which democracy can be effective. My vote for Hutchinson should get both Republicans and Democrats to respect the rational point of view he advocated so they can hope to acquire some of those same voters during the next election. In this case Democrats would be more likely to do so since they were the ones who lost and losing elections is the only real motivation Democrats understand. Berating the candidates and their supporters because voting their beliefs causes your candidate to lose is egotistical and naive. Yes, Bush and Pawlenty got elected because voters chose to support other candidates. If that makes you mad blame the abilities and philosophies of your own party and not others for exercising their constitutional rights. If you did that maybe your party would rise out of the gutter enough to deserve a little more support and you would seem less like a Democratic footsoldier helping to make the minority the scapegoat.
“You will give up your support of the person who best represents you in order to back a candidate that can win. The problem with that of course is it destroys the basis on which democracy can be effective.”
It destroys the basis on which democracy can be effective? That’s absurd. If anything, voting for an optimal choice that can’t win makes my vote ineffective. Instead, I have made a choice between getting some of what I want and getting none of what I want.
Your vote for Hutchinson just demostrates that you got played for a chump. Hutchinson’s public career prior to this race has been marked by fraud and corruption. What’s the lesson? Nominate a lying sleazebag? Hutchinson was slightly to the left of Hatch, but basically had the same platform. But all he accomplished was to elect someone with positions far to the right of both of them. What was the point?
KH, if you were going to vote for Pawlenty over Hatch in a two way race, none of this really matters. Your vote for Hutchinson accomplished what you wanted. If you want me to admit that Hatch was a shitty candidate, I will. Hatch was a shitty candidate. We should have nominated someone else. But that really has nothing to do with the pointlessness of voting for a third-party candidate.
The only answer for all of the above is instant runoff voting for all local, state, and national races.
I would rather vote for Peter Hutchinson than have instant runoff voting.
I felt Peter Hutchinson brought a legitimate 3rd party presence to the race. The issue, as mentioned above, isn’t why people voted for Peter Hutchinson. To many, he was the best candidate. The better question for Dems is why they couldn’t field someone less polarizing than Mike Hatch.
The best way to prevent a 3rd-party guy from stealing your votes is to put forth a top-notch person yourself.
Dan, it’s not an either/or proposition. In fact, third party candidates, both left and right, would’ve benefit from instant runoff voting. By giving people a choice for first, second, and third candidates, let’s people vote their conscience and insures a majority candidate wins.
Top-notch people tend to have edges - the stand they took which might not have been A-grade with the party base, but which turned out to be right. Personally, my fear of third party candidates are that they are based on people using ‘my way, my way, my way or the highway’ ethos for selecting candidates to vote for. I’d rather not have to nominate BlandMan for the sake of keeping people who profess to want to see left of center policy made, but are willing to (effectively) vote for people who will make right of center policy because a candidate doesn’t agree with them down to the bottom. (think Florida Green Party for a great example of this.)
I understand instant runoff voting. I just think its crap.