Over the last few months we've focused a lot, rightfully, on the governor's race. It's the most important thing on the ballot this coming November.
But there's also a big race underway in my home congressional district, currently "represented" by so-called Moderate Republican Erik Paulsen. In the 3rd District we have two DFL candidates vying for the party's endorsement. They've participated in three debates, at nine Senate District conventions so far, and have spent the last few months campaigning hard for every delegate they've earned.
But only one candidate has proven they have what it takes to win. My endorsement to follow after the break.
The following senate district conventions are coming up this weekend:
SD33
SD34
SD44
SD45
SD50
SD52
SD54
SD55
SD67
These conventions will elect a total of 161 delegates to the DFL state convention, to bring the overall total up to 1131 and leave just 69 left to elect next weekend.
I'm also pleased to report that the Delegate Tracker now includes every single convention held to date -- that means all 970 delegates elected so far are accounted for even if our results from all those conventions aren't quite complete.
I've added in a big block of county units that held their conventions and elected a total of 57 delegates -- I've coded those totals accordingly. You'll see when I post the tracker over the weekend. Of those 970, we're tracking 904.5 (93.25%) of them, so I feel pretty good about our numbers. With that additional block added in, Margaret Anderson Kelliher is holding an extremely slim two-delegate lead over R.T. Rybak, 145.5 to 143.5.
Of course, "Uncommitted" still leads the way with 414, but we've been through that topic a few times before.
If there are any conventions this weekend that are not listed above, let us know and I'll add them in. We're in the home-stretch here, so if you're attending any of these conventions, make sure to report in with complete results!
As always, thanks for your help with this project. It's kind of a big deal. Otherwise, treat this as an open thread for anything at all.
Sheila Kihne is currently the Vice Chair of the GOP's 3rd CD; she has a seat on the Executive Committee. She also runs a blog - "The Activist Next Door" - where she's taken shots at the DFL Endorsed Candidate for State Senate (Ron Case) - first here and then here.
Now, first I'd like to say that I've met Sheila; and I find her to be a very bright, intelligent, and passionate individual devoted to her cause: "conservatism." And this is not - NOT - an attempt to smear nor discredit Sheila as a person; as a person, I happen to like her.
That said, this is simply another example of pointing out, once again:
"Hypocrisy, Thy Party Is GOP"
OK, first with the "then":
Sheila is highly active in GOP SD42 politics. SD42 is the home to GOP endorsed Mayor Phil Young and Council Member Brad Aho (well, Council Member Jon Duckstad too, but Duckstand doesn't have a candidate website that I can find).
And if you go to those old candidate websites, of those two GOPers, you'll see (and I took screenshots of 'em, in case they scrub - or dump - those old websites) a few pictures of those then-candidates posing for pictures in and/or in front of government (read=taxpayer paid) facilities.
In other words, back then, GOPers posed, and used, taxpayer paid facilities for PUBLIC gain - to win elections. Now, astute readers will note "public" is capitalized; with what elected officials put in their pockets for doing their elected duties, no one can claim elected officials are doing it for PERSONAL gain; there simply isn't enough in the check to compensate for the time spent our elected officials spend.
OK, does anybody really expect that Sheila Kihne objected to those GOPers doing that, then?
Of course not.
Fast forward to "now" - and Sheila going off on DFL Candidate Ron Case:
House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher picked up another superdelegate endorsement today, this time from State Sen. Ron Latz (D-St. Louis Park). Latz previously supported Steve Kelley, who preceded him in his SD44 seat prior to 2007 and ran unsuccessfully for the DFL gubernatorial endorsement this year.
Latz represents superdelegate #46 for MAK, whose base of support among her elected colleagues is a formidable advantage over the other candidates, none of whom has anywhere near that many automatic endorsement votes.
I told a commenter recently that I would put together a standalone page containing the complete delegate chase picture, combining the Superdelegate tracker and our frequent pledged delegate updates -- guess it's time to catch up on that promise.
You folks are awesome. When I wake up and find that there are 56 new comments on a single post -- one from a community member and not a frontpager, no less -- it warms the cockles of my heart to know that one of MPP's purposes is being fulfilled. Just remember that there are still human beings on the other side of the comments that so inflame our political passion.
What I'm hearing, based on 17 comments here, 10 comments here, 44 here, 71 commentshere, and another 27 here sums up to the following points:
We want a strong, progressive gubernatorial candidate
We want a candidate who can win
The DFL endorsement process has some issues that may or may not be ameliorated through a competitive primary
We're tired of elected DFLers not being able to follow through on campaign promises and platform planks
Those are all pretty reasonable precepts, I think, and use neutral enough language that they shouldn't anger anyone too much. The neutrality of the language is important, because one comment I see far too frequently (related to the fourth point) is that "Dems have no spine" and I think that's inaccurate.
It's not that elected DFLers and Democrats nationally don't have confidence and courage in their convictions. Seriously -- it's a matter of having the political instincts and tactical skills to make them happen. That, I think, is an important consideration in this gubernatorial race: who has not just the platform, the issues, and the charisma to win, but also the strategic talent to actually put those values into practice through thoughtful, progressive, effective government policy?
I'm not looking to or away from any one candidate on this -- rather, I'm looking for an approach to politics that says "look, I hold our ideals sacred, and I can and will use every political ninjitsu move in the book to get them into law. Singing kumbaya and hoping for the best isn't good enough anymore."
Eric Black penned a piece yesterday noting the role the Renew.MN effort may have on the DFL gubernatorial endorsement, and it's worth a read. In that same vein, a reader wrote in and offered some more details from inside the effort:
my understanding is that reNEW folks will be free to vote as they like the first ballot, from the three endorsed candidates. At some point, whether it's after the first ballot or what, the reNEW delegates will make a decision as a group as to who to swing their support to. reNEW delegates sign a pledge that they are committed to supporting this process, which is no guarantee, of course, but does mean something.
...
I wouldn't assume that if Margaret is ahead on the first vote, reNEW swings that way, particularly because her lead is primarily due to automatic delegates. Also keep in mind that a number of reNEW people may have gotten through named candidate subcaucuses or subcaucuses without reNEW in them, which means that some of the "hard" numbers you have for the reNEW candidates could evaporate once reNEW swings to one candidate. This is a bit of a chicken-or-egg question, but it's interesting that the three top delegate counts are for reNEW candidates: perhaps partly because reNEW ended up endorsing the three strongest candidates, but perhaps partially due to reNEW's support as well: who knows.
As promised, here are the delegate chase totals from our Delegate Tracker:
MN-03 (I'm missing a couple pledged dels here)
Maureen Hackett: 27
Jim Meffert: 15
MN-06
Tarryl Clark: 53
Maureen Reed: 22
The race in my Third congressional district is witnessing a bit more contention around these delegate totals: the Hackett campaign has crowed about their lead in pledged delegates (their published margin is 30-15) while Team Meffert has -- correctly, in my estimation -- responded that there is a huge number of uncommitted delegates in the race. More than one close observer of the race has told me that Meffert is doing just fine among those delegates, who at this rate will outnumber their pledged counterparts approximately 3:1 at the CD3 convention on April 10th.
In the Sixth, the picture is a bit more clear: Tarryl Clark opened up a big lead in this past weekend's conventions, which appear to have included more subcaucuses named for the congressional candidate than those in CD3 did. But some of the same caveats apply: there's still a large number of uncommitted delegates out there, by virtue of there being a competitive race higher on the ballot than this one.
Here's the full spreadsheet, cut down to include only those subcaucuses that include one of these candidates' names. Trying to break out all the uncommitted subcaucuses by CD would be a disaster, as there are several conventions that cross CD lines had to split up along those lines to complete their business.
When I wrote a post yesterday talking about validation for our delegate tracking efforts, I didn't expect quite so much conversation in the comments.
I am in no way complaining.
Two comments toward the end jumped out at me, this one:
I personally like this system better than a primary. This is a PARTY function and I do not want my party subject to the whims of low information voters manipulated by whoever has the largest campaign chest to buy advertising. The caucus/convention system is a manifestation of grassroots democracy of people who are active in the party. It is perfect? NO. Does it always make the right choice? NO. Can some working people be adversely affected? YES. But like I said, this is a PARTY function that is open to people who consider themselves PARTY members. It takes committment, it takes time, it takes effort. The ultimate fate of the party lies with the time, committment, and effort of its members.
Let the party insiders, hacks, groupies, special interests, and the odd real activist make their ceremonial endorsement. Then, let the people decide, "low information voters" and all. If a candidate can't survive a primary, they've got no business representing the DFL on the general election ballot.
I happen to agree with both of these statements. The endorsement can be a good thing, and the primary can be a good thing in the very same election cycle, especially if the party's endorsee can take the endorsement and create a real people-powered grassroots machine instead of leaning on it and hoping the party can do the campaign's work for it.
The best role I think we in the online space can fill is holding all the candidates at every stage of the race accountable for themselves, their platforms, and their campaigns -- to the most accountable and strongest progressive candidate (meaning policies and campaign strength too) go the spoils.
Politics in Minnesota is checking in on our delegate tracking efforts:
The Democratic side (as usual) is much murkier. But MN Progressive Project's Joe Bodell has put together a list of pledged delegates that campaign officials say is pretty accurate. By far the biggest chunk of delegates - 369 - are uncommitted to any candidate.
...
This tally, however, doesn't consider superdelegates, where Kelliher has a substantial lead over the other challengers. The upshot: no candidate is anywhere remotely close to the 60 percent level of support that will be needed to win the party's endorsement.
Thanks go to the "campaign officials" for the validation. Now to keep making these tallies more and more accurate as we get closer to next weekend's final big chunk of conventions.
The campaign that builds excitement is going to win. I think MAK has the best technical direction. MAK people have picked up on entering many subcaucuses to build a perception of huge support. (Expect 50 subcaucuses at conventions this weekend, as other campaigns follow suit.) I think Rybak has the best spirit and political theater. I saw that Ryback group doing the wave yesterday in subcaucuses. Rybak supporters left energized and happy.
Approximately 300 more DFL state convention delegates were elected this weekend -- so where does the gubernatorial endorsement race stand?
First, standard caveats apply: 970 delegates have been elected so far, and we have conventions that add up to 913. Of those 913, we have results covering 843.5 -- this means our results are not complete. That being said, they are complete enough to get a good idea of where things stand -- just not an exact one.
With that said, on to the totals:
Gubernatorial pledged delegates Uncommitted: 369
R.T. Rybak: 143.5
MAK: 137.5
Paul Thissen: 58.5
John Marty: 49
Tom Rukavina: 41
Matt Entenza: 25
Tom Bakk: 20
The full spreadsheet is posted below. Highlights from the weekend:
R.T Rybak obviously had a very solid weekend, going from about three delegates down to six delegates up in our count. The spreadsheet bears this out -- although Margaret Anderson Kelliher kept up her solid gains and is still comfortably in the overall lead due to superdelegate endorsements, Rybak had a very good day in the west metro suburbs and in Olmstead County, where he appears to have picked up 8 (!) delegates.
Nevertheless, MAK is still in the lead overall, and will likely lead on the first ballot in April. If you factor in the superdelegate endorsements we already know of, and accept Team MAK's claims that fifty more are waiting in the wings, she already has about 17% of the first ballot racked up. Figure in at least a strong portion of the uncommitted delegates to date, and she's approaching 30% already, which will be tough for anyone to beat.
John Marty had a great weekend too, making significant gains in pledged delegates in places like Rice and Itasca counties. He stopped by SD42 briefly during subcaucusing, and we chatted for a minute, during which I expressed my sincere appreciation for his engagement with the MPP community.
Paul Thissen stalled out a little bit in the suburban conventions. His wonderful wife Karen spoke on his behalf at several events on Saturday, but there's a pretty big gap in his section of the spreadsheet in the recent conventions. He'll have support at the convention, but right now he's closer to the second tier than he is to the first.
Props to the members of the Bakk/Choi subcaucus. Certain nomination for Best Subcaucus Name of 2010.
Renew.mn is going to be a player one way or the other. Do they endorse MAK after the first ballot and nip the floor fight in the bud? Do they move toward R.T. Rybak or Paul Thissen and oppose the probable first-ballot leader? Only the ReNew.MN delegates know...and there are quite a few of them.
I'll have an update on the three competitive congressional endorsement races either later today or tomorrow morning. Here's the full spreadsheet -- as always, if you see discrepancies or districts where we're missing delegate totals, help us complete the puzzle. This little project has only gotten to where it is because of the efforts of the entire MPP community, and that's how it will continue to be right through the DFL state convention.
All in all, the SD42 convention was a pretty tame affair. We had a simple endorsement for State Senate (for Eden Prairie City Councilman Ron Case) and a re-endorsement for local favorite Maria Ruud.
Walking subcaucuses were interesting, as always. With the help of SD42's new associate chair, I called an MN Progressive Project subcaucus. There was only one other uncommitted subcaucus (for both the gubernatorial and CD3 races) out of the 27 called, so we were positioned in the room next to one another (this is important later).
On the first walk, I talked to some folks who moseyed over, and convinced a few to stand with us in the MPP/uncommitted subcaucus. We ended up with 13, a pretty solid number given initial projections that the viability number would be around 12. At the end of the first walk, the convention chair announced that the viability number was actually 13 -- so we felt pretty good about where we were.
A point of order was raised on the floor -- several subcaucuses thought they would be viable with 12 members, but were caught unawares by the announcement that they would not be. The rules were suspended successfully to give those groups 5 minutes to gather one more delegate, and this was seen as a positive move by most delegates.
Unfortunately, the second uncommitted group was left with 11 members, so we chatted with them briefly while the rule suspension was in effect and agreed that they would merge into our group, giving us 24 members and a great shot at a second delegate due to remainder rules.
As this was going on, one of the gubernatorial campaigns tipped us off that another campaign might try to send one of its non-viable groups into ours to elect one of their committed members. Political ninjitsu: after the fact, I was told that yet another campaign was about to try the same thing. But neither scenario came to pass, and we ended up absorbing a couple more delegates to reach 26 -- enough for two delegates to the Congressional and State conventions.
Our group decided to separate the male and female delegate elections (gender balance is a requirement) and hold a mini-straw poll for our gubernatorial and congressional preferences: although we were an uncommitted subcaucus, we generally agreed that it would be a good idea for our delegates to use their judgment as well as the group's leanings in deciding who to vote for at the upcoming conventions. At the congressional level, our group favored Maureen Hackett over Jim Meffert; in the gubernatorial race, R.T. Rybak, Paul Thissen, and Margaret Anderson Kelliher all got votes.
As I noted in a comment yesterday, I was elected as our male delegate (thanks everyone!) and our group chose a St. Olaf student named Kate as our female delegate -- we really broke the average delegate age curve :)
So there's the hands-on account -- results are coming in from other conventions across the state. First impressions: R.T. Rybak had a VERY good day in the suburbs, and appears to be in a virtual tie with Margaret Anderson Kelliher among elected delegates. At the congressional level, Maureen Hackett had a good day pledged delegates, as did Tarryl Clark in CD6. I'll post the full totals tomorrow morning once I (hopefully) get back up above 90% coverage (we're at 78% now).
I have SD42 covered -- if you're attending any of the others (either listed here or missing from my list) or otherwise have exact results (subcaucus names and delegate allotments for each) for any of them, you can report them in the comments on this post.
And remember that this is important stuff going on. That being said, whether because of that importance or because you're simply having fun, make sure it's a positive experience.
Via Outstate Politics, we have on our hands a Republican candidate who blatantly disrespects an honorably discharged Army veteran who has the temerity -- the GALL! -- to run for office as a DFLer.
That DFLer is Hal Kimball, someone I'm proud to know and support, and who I'm fairly certain is not "dangerous."
Benoit said he supports the endorsing process. He said there is so much at stake "and my opponent, Hal Kimball, is a dangerous guy."
You want to disagree with Hal on the issues, fine. You want to connect him to those evil libruls from Minneapolis, that's your prerogative. But calling an Army veteran "dangerous" without qualifying it in any way, shape, or form...gosh, it's almost like the speaker was playing in the political sandbox instead of having an honest conversation about the problems our state faces.
You can support Hal's campaign here -- I strongly encourage you to do so. More choice quotes from Hal's GOP opponents can be found here -- plenty of "drown government in a bathtub" Kool-Aid to go around.
The other day, the MN GOP got its undies in a bunch over some money Charlie Rangel (D-NY) gave to Minnesota Democrats Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison, Tim Walz, and Al Franken. According to MudSlingerMike's spokestool Luke Hellier at Minnesota Democrats Exposed, here's the breakdown:
Donations To Minnesota Democrats From Rangel's National Leadership PAC:
Tim Walz Received $15,000 In 2006 & 2008. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)
Al Franken Received $10,000 In 2008. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)
Keith Ellison Received $7,000 In 2006. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)
Betty McCollum Received $5,000 In 2000. (OpenSecrets.org, Accessed February 26, 2010)
Now, there's a reason I always say "Hypocrisy, Thy Party Is GOP" - and here's today's example.
And here's a cut 'n paste about merely one example of some really, Really, REALLY tainted dough ol' Smokescreen, who was essentially court-certified as The Fourth Most Corrupt Senator, took:
Norm Coleman got dirty money from Alaska
The Big E's picture
Submitted by The Big E on October 5, 2007 - 11:40am.
Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has received $6,000 from VECO Corp executives. Norm may complain about Al Franken getting Hollywood money, but Norm is flush with dirty Alaskan oil money.
.
.
.
VECO founder Bill Allen and former company vice president Rick Smith have pleaded guilty to bribing public officials. They also admitted running a company "special bonus program" that steered money to favored candidates, violated federal tax laws and sent untold amounts of corporate money into political coffers.
...
Coleman's office said his campaign books were closed and the money was already spent. (MnBlue.com)
OK, "Coleman's office said..." Hmmm - I wonder who at Coleman's office said that? Thank God for google!
Coleman spokesman Mark Drake said the Minnesota senator is rejecting Democrats' calls that he donate to charity an amount equal to the $6,000 that his campaign got from Allen, Smith and two other Veco executives on July 9, 2002, because that money "has been spent and is not an issue." (AnchorageDailyNews.com)
Hmmm...hmmm...Mark Drake....Mark Drake.... Hey! Is that THIS "Mark Drake"??!?
Communications
Mark Drake
Communications Director
mhd@mngop.com
(MnGOP.com)
So, the same "Mark Drake" that defended Norm Coleman over campaign donations, is now the Communications Director for a GOP that is demanding that some Democrats do what Coleman wouldn't??!?
