The DFL leadership met with reporters at 2:00pm in room 181 of the State Office Building. Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller (DFL-59, Minneapolis) opened his comments saying, “Nothing exciting in the forecast.” He reiterated the fact the state deficit is nearly one billion and Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) has yet to propose a budget fully accounting for the deficit.

Pogemiller discussed the difference as a short-term problem, which through the veto hides the long-term budget problem. He said because of the veto by Pawlenty on the General Assistance Medical Care  (GAMC) the state is on a path to billions of dollars in deficit in the Health Care Access Fund.  The GAMC fix will now cost $1.4 billion upfront and $840 million in the next year. He also noted the $400 million anticipated by the Administrator still has yet to be allocated and it is not clear if the money will exist prior to the close of the legislative session.

Once again Pogemiller informed reporters how he will begin to tackle the budget crisis by passing the Governor’s proposed cuts in various department starting with Higher Education, Environment, State Government, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs, Public Safety and the Judiciary. He said it will be the Senate’s intent to match the Governor’s numbers, with a full expectation Republican legislators will not stomach as dramatic of cuts, especially in the areas of Local Government Aid and nursing homes.

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis) called on Pawlenty to return to the table to negotiate on the Bonding Bill. She said she learned to measure twice and only cut once saying the decisions by the governor amount to “kicking the can down the road.”

We asked House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-05B, Chisholm) about the intent of the counties to begin enrolling the people affected by the changes in GAMC as early as Friday and asked his plan with regard to the bill currently tabled in the House. He said, he will wait until a deal is reached. We followed with recognition of the Republicans members who had voted for the bill requested a delay until after the Revenue Forecast release to which Speaker Kelliher responded the cost of waiting is $12 million. She called the idea of waiting “irresponsible.”

In his press conference Governor Pawlenty produced a document we’ve seen previously showing the growth of State Government since 1960 from one biennium to the next. During Governor Karl Rolvaag (DFL) administration the rise in spending is shown as 22.6%, Harrold LeVander (R) 46.2%, Wendell Anderson (DFL) 34.4%, Rudy Perpich (DFL) 16.1%, Jesse Ventura (IP) 12.2% and Tim Pawlenty (R) 3.6%.

During his press conference we asked a question about the state’s fiscal health as judged by outside entities and quoted a Moody’s report entitled, MOODY'S REVISES STATE OF MINNESOTA'S OUTLOOK TO NEGATIVE FROM STABLE AND AFFIRMS Aa1 GENERAL OBLIGATION RATING. The article stated the following, which we read to Pawlenty “The negative outlook reflects Minnesota's ongoing financial and economic weakness, resulting from revenue underperformance and leading to sizeable out-year budget deficits, and tightening liquidity.” Then we asked what he intended to do to improve the state’s bonding position. He said, Minnesota like other states is experiencing a fiscal crisis and our state maintains a AAa (Triple A) Bond rating with two houses and this change has not yet been implemented.

Regarding the proposed process for implementing the cuts in the Senate he said, “we will take budget cuts anyway they want to deliver them.” If, “They may want to meter it out.” it is a procedural issue.

We asked him, as we had the House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers (R-32B, Maplegrove) what he said to the House Republican Caucus after the failed GAMC override, to which he said, “I told them thanks for supporting me. We are looking at a 30% increase of growth in the program.” When we asked Zellers he said the governor spoke to their caucus earlier in the legislative session than usual, but that he (Pawlenty) was willing to solve the GMAC problem and was ready to meet as early as that night to do so.

Pawlenty called on the DFL to present their budget by March 17^th and Pogemiller did say he expected the Senate Republicans to help pass the cuts in the budget as proposed by Pawlenty pointing out Sen. Assistant Majority Leader Geoff Michel (R-41, Edina) is often a critic but usually votes in favor of the final bills on the floor of the Senate.

The state’s future outlook is slightly improved over the projections announced in November. The forecast shows a $209 million projected change with $184 million in expenditure reductions and $25 million increases in revenues. The $184 million in expenditure reductions is largely offset by money from the federal stimulus and the increased revenue comes from corporate sales tax. We asked Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner his thoughts on the budget improvements stemming from the federal stimulus Tom Hanson to which he said, “It’s nice to have more money.”

As is always one of our main concerns we inquired as to the impact the budget figures will have on the State’s Debt Capacity and were told we would be informed the figure later in the day. During the press conference State Economist Tom Stinson was asked about the start time of the Bonding Bill and he said, an early start was better and as we move closer to the start of the construction season it will be better to employ people so they can be paid and begin spending monies in their communities. As somewhat of a political counter Hanson emphasized the importance of Bonding projects which will have a longer-term impact than just the time of their construction.

Now we are waiting for the Republican response at 12:30 pm in room 181 of the State Office Building, the DFL response to the report at 1:00 pm, and Governor Tim Pawlenty's (R) response at 2:00 pm in his reception room.   

Yesterday’s vote to override Governor Tim Pawlenty’s (R) veto on General Assistance Medical Coverage (GAMC) was a risky decision by leadership in the House, which was destined to fail on sharp political grounds. With a veto-proof majority in the Senate the entire play focuses on the House on the shoulders of Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis) and Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-05B, Chisholm) and their abilities to influence Republican members to buck their governor. The proposition is doubtful at best.

The merits of the issue are far less important than the message sent out loud and clear, which is unity for Republicans. With 87 DFL votes it takes three Republican members to challenge and overcome Pawlenty’s action and since it has happened once in the last eight years the likelihood of this happening again is a very distant possibility. Ultimately, only Rep. Larry Howes (R-04B, Walker) was willing to stand with the DFL Majority.

Recent history shows the repercussions when the Republican members break ranks. When the Transportation Bill was overridden, all of the six members lost their leadership positions on their respective committees, a decision made by then Minority Leader Marty Seifert (R-21A, Marshall).  Of the four who swayed only two remain, Reps. Jim Abeler (R-48B, Anoka) and Rod Hamilton (R-22B, Mountain Lake). In his floor speech Abeler, asked the majority to hold off on the vote until after the February Revenue Forecast in case more money is projected into the future, but the plea fell on deaf ears.

The decision to push forward is seen by some as a stand by the majority on principle, but ultimately it is the win that matters and voting before the forecast is seen as more of a political vote getting Republicans on the record with a bad vote. If another vote occurs on Thursday after the state’s fiscal health is fully known the matter may once again fail because the state could have even less money than thought before.

The weight of the argument on fiscal grounds is failing to break through the politics. Sound fiscal policy is a hard prospect in an election year when every member seeking reelection views every vote as a factor in their own personal electoral outcome. The hypersensitivity is nearly palpable.  On the floor in his speech Sertich stated waiting until after the forecast would produce one of three results: learning more money exists, less money exists or about the same exists.

Taking the vote asked Republicans to have blind faith in the future and hope for a positive outcome. This is a possibility in the first year of the biennium, but not in the last year pending an election.   

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) traveled to the third floor of the State Capitol yesterday to meet with members of the Republican House Caucus. He spent forty minutes discussing a range of issues with the membership, but mainly bolstering their support for his actions on legislation. As a former Majority Leader of the House Pawlenty knows how to lead those in power, but has no experience leading a team of underdogs and as a lame duck Governor he offers little in the way of support in November’s election.

We know little of what was said in the room, but upon his departure Rep. Larry Howes (R-04B, Walker) informed the room full of lobbyists assembled, he would not be casting another vote as he had done earlier in the day on the GMAC override. He is heard to have said, “Never again,” but that is the same line Sean Connory used when he retired from doing James Bond movies.         

When people look to Washington, D.C. they see the same situation there as they do here in Minnesota with one limited exception and that is the lack of a Chief Executive of the same political party. In Washington, Democrats have large legislative majorities just as they do here in Minnesota, but instead of President Barack Obama (D) holding the veto pen here, we see Governor Tim Pawlenty (R). The distinctive difference is quite stark and now maybe, just maybe Democrats across the state are regretting their lack of support for Attorney General Mike Hatch in 2006. We have argued at every opportunity the greater important to our state of the Chief Executive and not its U.S. Senator, which during elections the federal office gains, in our opinion far too much emphasis and attention.   

The current power differential becomes increasingly evident in issues we are seeing, like the Bonding Bill and support for GMAC. This then plays out in the endorsement battles in each party and later in the Primary Elections, but those are future contests and the problems facing our state stand front and center here today. This is where expectations, second guessing and Monday Morning Quarterbacking come to play.

 We know, there are criticisms mounting about the DFL House leadership’s and its ability to lead. The expectations for a big victory loom and DFL supporters want to see their side prevail again leading in the November’s elections. They want a tide to ride to victory in the fall with a run of the table, with a DFL Governor and continued DFL Majorities. If the DFL controls the corner office losses in the majority are mostly irrelevant.  Now, to be clear the legislative session is only four weeks old and resolution to the budget problems and the Bonding Bill still have a significant amount of time to play out, but politics is as  much about perception as it is reality. It is mainly about scoring points against ones opponent.

The scorecard is ready to be marked and those keeping score have their pencils sharpened. The pundits are all ready to make their opinions known and the spinmeisters are flexing their vocal chords. For those who think Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) has checked out, they had better be prepared for his return. He has too much at stake in his national aspirations to let his backyard get too messy.

After this weekend’s conventions slightly over half of the 1200 elected DFL delegates will be chosen. Better than a quarter of the delegates will be selected in the following districts: Aitkin, Blue Earth, Chisago, a portion of Goodhue, Isanti, Kandiyohi, Lac Qui Parle, CU 25 (Scott), SD05, SD37, SD39, SD43, SD46, SD47, SD58, SD59, SD60, SD61, SD63, SD66, Steele, Waseca, Winona, Yellow Medicine, Beltrami, Faribault, Freeborn and Mower. This accounts for 345 delegates or 28.75% of the 1,200.

As we are trying to frame our understanding of the horse race we are speaking regularly with each of the campaigns. People speculating on counts like the Minnesota Progressive Project are way off in their calculations and the analysis is skewed to the point one could speculate who their favorite candidate is. It would be good for those tabulating to learn the difference between a full and half delegate.

Here are our impressions, five of the candidates are over performing their precinct caucus straw poll numbers, two are underperforming, the uncommitted bloc is shrinking and two maybe even three candidates are completely irrelevant. The withdrawal of former Senator Steve Kelley (DFL) is a boon for the Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-63A, Minneapolis), as we first stated in just after precinct caucuses. Thissen picked up some of Kelley’s staff and seems to be picking up the meager number of supporters along the way. So combining Thissen’s straw poll result of 7.20% with Kelley’s 4.14% seems plausible to experience head counters we confide in.

People associated with Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis) are claiming a gain in support from many of the Uncommitted caucuses and performing a number of points better than her 20% showing in the Precinct Caucus Straw Poll. We hear, supporters believe 30% of the delegates is an attainable goal, especially with her holding the inside track on Super Delegates could make that a reality. From our viewpoint we can see the speaker climbing into the upper 20’s.

As the winner of the DFL Straw Poll, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak's (D) future will be significantly shaped by this weekend’s conventions. With all of the Senate Districts in Minneapolis holding their conventions he will get the best possible options for an additional boost beyond his 21.67% result in the straw poll. We expect he will be in the mid 20’s come Monday.

We still see signs of growing support for Sen. John Marty (DFL-54, Roseville). St. John is a purist and DFL delegates especially the extremists love an underdog. He is the single payer candidate and single of the right song sheet for the dogmatic zealots. We fully expect him to remain in third place on the first ballot of the DFL Convention. He too is moving ahead. We envision high teens for him.   

Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-05A, Virginia) is the little engine that could. What he lacks in stature he makes up in charm and enthusiasm. He is beyond a doubt the most likable candidate in the field, but as we have said before there is no prize for Miss Congeniality. We think Ruk will move into the middle teens after this weekend.

In spite of the pick-up of Dave Colling as Campaign Manager, it may be too late for former House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (DFL) to make much of a dent. His poor performance in the Straw Poll reinforces the idea he lacks any base of support in the party. He would likely have gained more solid support if he would have committed to the DFL endorsement, but even deciding to put his toe into the pool is not enough of a commitment for most delegates. He will remain in single digits.

Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-06-Cook) may have the right message on the state’s budget problems as a revenue problem, but he has yet to catch fire with the everyday activist. The support from the Building Trades unions may be of more significance with other with Education Minnesota yet to weigh in and AFSCME Council 5’s endorsement of former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton (D), but people need to show up to fill a void. We are hearing only scattered reports and it appears Bakk will be fighting for numbers close to those of Entenza.

Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner (D) despite securing the endorsement of the Women’s Political Caucus will not be much of a factor and she will garner some token support, but not much in the way of numbers. Her decision to go to head to the DFL Primary gives many people a reason not to give her much time of day. We expect she will be turning her attention toward the Primary after she speaks to the DFL Convention and we will not be surprised if she requests her nomination to be withdrawn. If she remains on the ballot her numbers will be slightly better than the two irrelevant candidates Ole Savior and Felix Montez we believe they are really not worth mentioning, but it looks like we did anyhow.

If people would like our opinion on the easiest way to be elected as a delegate to the DFL State Convention we suggest calling a subcaucus for a Congressional candidate, even an incumbent. The delegates selected to the DFL Congressional District Conventions are the same delegates who attend the DFL State Convention. Caucusing for the election or reelection of a Congressional candidate means not preference need be made on the gubernatorial race. This way a person is committed to one candidates' election, just not a candidate the big fight underway. We call this strategy hiding in plain sight. 

Dave Colling returns to politics to become the Campaign Manager for Matt Entenza (DFL). Colling a veteran manager with DFL endorsement chops, Steve Miles for U.S. Senate in 2000 and Keith Ellison for Congress in 2006, leaves the private she sector to once again support Entenza. He was Entenza's principal staff person while the DFL held the minority.

Here is the campaign's release

Dave Colling Joins Entenza Team

Experienced Political Veteran to Manage DFL Gubernatorial Campaign

ST. PAUL, Minn. - Matt Entenza's campaign for governor has hired Dave Colling
as manager.

Colling, a 20-year veteran of races in Minnesota and Michigan joins Entenza's campaign effective February 22^nd, 2010.

Notably, Colling managed Keith Ellison’s 2006 congressional race in which Ellison became the first Muslim ever elected to congress. Colling managed the campaign during a tough multi-candidate primary and steered Ellison to victory through the primary and general. He also worked alongside Matt Entenza in 2004, helping the DFL make significant gains and nearly wining control of the Minnesota House. Most recently he was the national media consultant for a major firm.
 
"I'm excited to be with Matt again, and look forward to helping him through the DFL endorsement process and winning in November," Colling said. "I'm ecstatic to be able to work with someone who's a great candidate and will be a great governor."

Colling can be reached at the Entenza campaign office at 651-647-1425.

"I feel incredibly fortunate to have great people like Dave on my campaign
staff," said Entenza. "This is a challenging race with many good candidates.
Dave’s experience both in campaigns and in the private sector will be invaluable as we
continue to pursue the DFL endorsement and victory in 2010."

Matt Entenza’s campaign for governor of Minnesota is about growing the economy, creating jobs all over Minnesota by focusing on the potential of clean energy, and refocusing on education as the engine of future job creation and economic competitiveness. Entenza was a white-collar crime prosecutor prior to representing St. Paul in the Minnesota legislature for 12 years, including four years during which he also served as House Leader and led the DFL to significant gains. In 2007, Entenza founded Minnesota 2020, a think tank that has been an important voice for progressive policy positions and which he chaired until April 2009. Entenza is a graduate of Worthington High School in Worthington, Minn., Macalester College in St. Paul, and the University of Minnesota Law School.

The DFL majorities need to understand Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) doesn’t really look to government for much. Yes, he did want to create a legacy with Lake Vermillion State Park and now he wants a place to park Sex Offenders. Moose Lake is his answer for protection of our state, but largely he doesn’t see government as a solution to any problem. As he pares down the budget and helps a variety of programs “wither on the vine,” he is acting as a fiscal conservative.  

The construction of the Bonding Bill is an inductive process and one the Chief Executive is excluded from. Yes, he can propose, but the legislature disposes and if the legislative branch fails to include his priorities in the final bill he is only left to veto the entire bill or line item various projects.

Tonight, when the House meets to approve the Conference Committee report on House File 2700 followed by the Senate,  they will be given only one choice to approve the Conference Committee report. Then the body of origination, the House, will prepare the bill for presentation to the Governor. As long as the bill arrives prior to 7:59 am, the start of a legislative day, the Governor has three legislative days in which to act on the bill.

We feel fairly well assured Pawlenty will veto the entire bill. Since Moose Lake isn’t in the bill why would he want to veto a project in one community and support one in another community? He is in a better position to throw the whole bill out and claim it was too expensive and had the wrong priorities. He will call upon the legislature to start over; feeling fairly well assured that he will not be over ridden.

This strategy has worked well in the past except in the case of the increase in sales tax for transportation in 2008. Rolling the dice in this instance, even as a lame duck governor seems like a safe bet. We doubt House Republicans will be willing to maintain their support for capital spending even in their communities and take a significant political risk. If the bill is vetoed, House DFLers still need Republican votes in order to get to 90. So looks like three of these members could lose out: Reps. Jim Abeler (R-48B, Anoka) Paul Anderson (R-13B, Starbuck) Greg Davids (R-31B, Prescott), Larry Howes (R-04B, Walker), Morrie Lanning (R-09A, Moorehead) and Bud Nornes (R-10A, Fergus Falls).

The question is which three pull the short straw. We think since three are needed it behooves all of them to stay together in order to protect their collective interests and ensuring the survival of their own project.

We have been one of the few sources to focus on the Republican Party political activity in Dakota County. This morning's announcement by Sen. Pat Pariseau (R-37, Farmington) is not a surprise. We started paying attention to Dakota County politics long ago and in 2002 we were first to call attention to the internal party and then primary challenge by Judi Lindsay (R) to "moderate" Rep. Dennis Ozment (R). In 2006, we highlighted the internal party challenge to first term Rep. Pat Garofalo (R-36A, Farmington) and in both cases noted their hard shifts to the right. Last election, we were alone in noting the Republican Party mailing supporting bullet balloting for a specific Republican candidate for the Mendota Heights School District 197.

The history of Republican Party politics in Dakota County is quite storied. Many of the people stem from the 1990 Campaign of John Grunseth (R). Governor Tim Pawlenty (R), former State Auditor Pat Awada now Anderson, former Rep. Tim Commers (R), current Republican Party Tony Sutton and Deputy Chair Michael Brodkorb all hail or emanate from Dakota County.

Last month, the Republican National Committee accepted a watered down version of for a litmus or purity test for Republican candidates. As we have listened to the recent rhetoric there is less focus on the social agenda and more on fiscal issues. It seems like the social issues are to be assumed and the public face is one of Ronald Reaganlike fiscal responsibility. What was old is new again, which is ironic, because George W. Bush (R) was better at implementing the policies of Reagan than Reagan himself was able to.

We think there is a consolidation of "good" Republicans underway and those who fail to follow along will be ground-up in the mill. Ensuring candidates and officeholders "toe the line" is possible when there is a strong political party and not possible when the party is weak. In this case the Republican Party does have an iron fist while the DFL Party has more of a limp wrist. In politics on both sides it is easy to define an extreme agenda and make it palatable to those of like mind, but in the broader electorate the sale is far less easy.

Let's be clear party politics is a blood sport and not one for the weak of mind, spirit or commitment. If a purge is ongoing it will be interesting to see who is standing when the smoke clears. This is where the moderates are cast aside. Once they are gone their like rarely returns. Pariseau joins the likes of Martha Robertson, Dave Bishop, Peggy Leppik and Dennis Ozment. Now the question is will Sen. Debbie Johnson (R-49, Ham Lake) take the hard or the easy route?

Here is Pariseau's departure announcement:

After 21 Years Senator Pat Pariseau to Retire

St. Paul - State Senator Pat Pariseau (R - Farmington) will be stepping down as the Senator from the 36th district after serving seven terms in the Minnesota Senate. 

“I have been carefully considering my retirement for quite a while now and want to step aside to let a new voice represent my beloved Senate district in St. Paul,” said Senator Pariseau.

Minority Leader David Senjem said, “Senator Pariseau has been a model of tireless work and dedication in the Senate.  We will miss her legendary expertise and knowledge particularly in the areas of environmental resources, trapping, hunting, and fishing, legislation.

The Senate won't be the same without Senator Pariseau.  We will miss her greatly and wish her only the very best as she moves into what will undoubtedly be another active and contributing chapter of her life."

Senator Pariseau was first elected to the Minnesota Senate in 1988 in a special election.  She went on to win re-election six more times.

She is the ranking Republican member on the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee and was a key player in the formation of the constitutional amendment giving Minnesotans the constitutional right to hunt and fish. 

A strong ally of the outdoorsman and farmers, Senator Pariseau was instrumental in work on many pieces of hunting and angling legislation including the creation of lifetime game, fishing, and trapping licenses in Minnesota, Minnesota’s concealed carry permit laws, bringing about the first dove hunting season in the state, trapper’s education requirements, and self protection and defense legislation. 

Senator Pariseau was also an early player in the movement to dedicate three sixteenths of existing sales tax money to hunting, fishing and habitat preservation.  Minnesotans passed a constitutional amendment which grew out of that movement two years ago when they passed the Lessard Heritage bill which raised a portion of new sales tax money and dedicated it to fund clean water, parks and trails, arts and cultural heritage.

A mother of six and widowed while in her sixth term in office, Senate Pariseau worked 6 years for United States Senator Rudy Boschwitz in his St. Paul office prior to beginning her work in the Minnesota Senate.

Pat Pariseau is serving her seventh term in the Minnesota State Senate.

 She encourages and appreciates constituent input, and can be reached a t 651-296-5252. By mail to 117 State Office Building, 100 Rev. Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN  55115, or via e-mail to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  

Here is the response for the Senate Republican Caucus coincidently sent out by Deputy Party Chair Michael Brodkorb:

STATEMENT FROM MINNESOTA SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER ON SENATOR PAT PARISEAU’S DECISION TO RETIRE FROM THE MINNESOTA SENATE

(St. Paul) Minnesota Senate Republican Leader David Senjem

(R-Rochester) released the following statement regarding the decision by Senator Pat Pariseau (R-Farmington) to retire from the Minnesota Senate.

“Senator Pariseau is a model of tireless work and dedication in the Senate.  We will miss her expertise and knowledge particularly in the areas of environmental resources, trapping, hunting, and fishing legislation.

Outdoorsmen, hunters and fisherman all owe Senator Pariseau a debt of gratitude for her work on such efforts as the Minnesota’s constitutional right to hunt and fish, lifetime hunting and fishing licenses, advancements of personal protection laws and firearms safety, Minnesota’s first dove hunting season, and a vast array of common sense natural resources legislation.

As we have said from the onset this election will revolve around various events and this morning an event occurred. Rep. Marty Seifert (R-21A, Marshall) tapped Anoka County Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah (R) as his pick for Lt. Governor. Checks & Balances readers may remember Sivarajah was the Campaign Manager for Rep. Phil Krinkie’s (R) unsuccessful bid for the 6^thMichele Bachmann (R-MN6).   Congressional District in 2006 where he lost to current Congresswoman

Sivarajah will help in Anoka County an important area for Republicans. As an eye pleasing conservative she may help erode support for Rep. Tom Emmer (R-19B, Delano) in the 6^thKrinkie and the Freedom Club. Congressional District. She also might be able to garner support from conservative groups like the Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota, headed coincidentally by

Many speculate Emmer will select a colleague Rep. Laura Brod (R-25B, New Prague). We will again note the current legal troubles for her brother and wonder how broad the implications of his bad choices will be.

We listened closely to House Speaker Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher’s (DFL-60A, Minneapolis) gubernatorial campaign announcement and got the impression she was entertaining the notion of stepping down as Speaker if she receives the DFL Party endorsement. We thought doing so during the legislative session could incur a great deal of chaos, just as the end game commences. Yesterday, we inquired as to her intentions regarding these potential occurrences and were personally assured; she will continue to serve no matter what transpires, until the end of the legislative session.

This means the DFL House election rests squarely on the shoulders of DFL House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-05B, Chisholm) and we will argue it always did. Kelliher is the Speaker of the House and is obligated to serve the institution, while Sertich leads and serves the majority members. Prior to the start of the legislative session we heard about talk about a possible battle for the job and people began speculating about potential challenges to Sertich’s ascension.

Some legislators made calls to their colleagues and some of the names we hear tossed about include: Reps. Joe Atkins (DFL-39B, Inver Grove Heights), Tina Liebling (DFL-30A, Rochester) and Al Juhnke (DFL-13A, Willmar). We spoke with Juhnke and he said he is supporting Sertich if all things stay the same or even if the DFL loses seats. To be fair we have yet to speak with either Atkins or Liebling and their thoughts may be in line with Juhnke’s.  With Kelliher’s departure the gender card may be in play, but likely Sertich will stand pat and the Majority Leader’s spot is where the battle will ensue. No matter who people speculate about we will be looking at who spends time outside of their own legislative district helping other House candidates raise money or on the campaign trail.

Even if Kelliher is endorsed and steps aside to focus on her gubernatorial race, Sertich may not call for an election and will serve as de facto until after the election. Some wonder if the electoral results will shape the leadership elections and we think it will. Firstly, if the DFL loses the majority, which we see as very unlikely, nearly a long shot, then the race is for minority leader and it’s doubtful Sertich runs in that case. But if the DFL loses a handful of seats, which in a non-Presidential year is likely, will there be enough justification to challenge someone who retained a majority, though not as large of one as 86 votes, doubtful. If the DFL picks up seats then a Sertich Speakership is assured. This is not one many speculate and neither do we, but as November beckons we may be willing to go out on a few limbs.

The list of who we are hearing interested in the second spot includes: Atkins, Liebling and Reps. Melissa Hortman (DFL-47A, Brooklyn Park), Steve Simon (DFL-44A, St. Louis Park), Al Junhke (DFL-13A, Willmar) and Deb Hilstrom (DFL-46B, Brooklyn Center) We think one of the best choices is someone not even putting their name forward and is often times over shadowed by his seat mate, and that is Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-39A, South St. Paul). He understands many of the needs of his caucus and though not the most outspoken caucus member, he is definitely one of the most well-respected, hardworking and deliberative tacticians in the caucus.

Last Thursday, Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) made his last State of the State address. After a number of jokes—which fell painfully flat—a speech by many accounts, existed as not more than a rehash of his last seven speeches, he put forward a proposal for the state’s two largest cities to take on the management of their area schools and tax plan which create obligations for future administrations and not his own. The context of Pawlenty’s swan song seemed to focus less on the room and those assembled and more on those looking in.

The reception by the legislature was mostly nonplussed. He ham-handedly delivered some unsolicited advice to his successor, some of who were present in the chamber and received token laughs in response to one of his most embarrassing moments at a Minnesota Wild game when he said “Drop the *uck” instead of “Drop the Puck.”

On Monday, he came out with his Supplemental Budget and quickly received criticism and rightly so for accounting for Federal dollars to the tune of $387 million, which Congress has yet to appropriate. Additionally, he once again stressed the importance of tax cuts in the corporate tax rate, small business tax, an Angel Investment Tax Credit, an R&D tax credit, a reduction in the Capital gains tax rate and a small business investment incentive.  These proposals create future obligations for the incoming administration effectively when he is headed out the door. If implemented they will create a structural deficit over $340 million in future years and none of the ideas guarantee addition revenue will result.

Nationwide Republicans who have decried the Federal Stimulus Package prior to its passage and then claim credit for it use or attend ribbon cutting ceremonies commemorating the monies use in the districts, looks like our Governor is of a similar state. He has called the Stimulus Package a “Ponzi Scheme” but he is quick to account for the money in his spreadsheets. He makes noise as if he is considering not accepting the money and then folds it into his budgets. This is nothing better than Gorilla dust. This Republican tactic is nothing short of being disingenuous, at best.

The hypocrisy of such actions does warrant consideration by the electorate, but with the election months away and the public’s mind focused on their own situation’s, we doubt much will be made of the imprudence. Although the electorate may be willing to punish someone who on hand opposes and on the other hand supports after the fact if the point is clearly made and emphasized during the campaign. Being a two-faced Roman God Janus could see in both directions, but since most politicians are thought to be two-faced anyway if it is pointed out and hammered upon it can impact the election.

In his pronounce for coming attractions of the legislative session, Pawlenty identified a personal priority he sought focus on, which is longer sentencing for Sex Offenders. Problem is with the obligation comes high fixed costs of which he failed to account for. It requires additional beds in correctional facilities and funding. He calls originally fell on deaf ears. Sen. Keith Langseth (DFL-09, Glyndon) did not add a line into the Bonding Bill in the Senate, but as we noted on our tweet, DFL House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-05B, Chisholm) said “Stay Tuned,” and as we anticipated the House included $10 million for improvements at the Moose Lake facility in Rep. Bill Hilty’s (DFL-08A, Finlayson) district. The amendment caught the House Minority flatfooted and prevented them from proposing a number of the amendments they had prepared to offer.

Speaking of the Bonding Bill, which passed on a 92-37 vote, it is notable to see who the “reasonable” Republicans are willing to pass the bill. The Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota put out a scathing press release against both the House Members and Senators who voted for the bill. Many people who the Taxpayer’s League criticizes become appreciated by the bulk of other more logical individuals. Once again Rep. Jim Abeler (R-48B, Anoka) leads the way mainly due to his last name, followed by Reps Paul Anderson (R-13B, Starbuck) Greg Davids (R-31B, Prescott), Larry Howes (R-04B, Walker), Morrie Lanning (R-09A, Moorehead) and Bud Nornes (R-10A, Fergus Falls).

We predict nothing of substance will take place in the budget negotiations between Governor Tim Pawlenty (R), House Speaker Rep. Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis), DFL House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-05B, Chisholm) and Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller (DFL-59, Minneapolis) will occur until after the DFL State Convention on April 23-25th. Because of the DFL Party politics and budget cutting will adversely impact a slew of constituent communities normally allied with the DFL, Kelliher will not be interested in facilitating opportunities for her opposition.

One of the groups who usually participate in DFL endorsements are state employees. Since the largest group of state employees exists in AFSCME Council 5, who endorse former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton (D), we will be interesting to see how this plays out on the floor of the DECC. It is also worthnoting again MAPE did endorse Kelliher.       

Last night’s Precinct Caucuses provided some invaluable information into both major political parties candidates for endorsement. We will dissect and disaggregate and expound on what we witnessed, have learned since and what we now conclude. Since most people are interested in one party or the other we will proceed to produce articles applicable to each respective organization.

In general, the turnout was better than expected on the Republican side and less than expected on the DFL side.  Again, we could discuss the Independence Party process by asking what process, but largely any conversation about the IP is a waste of time and keystrokes.

There will be a series of events which occur moving forward that will shape the field. Additional endorsements by organizations, people will become an ongoing theme of the various candidate press conferences. White papers and discussions advancing an idea, defending an attack or defining the opponents will become the flavor of the day.

We will enjoy the role as observer, critic and pundit as it all transpires. Just remember we discussed a result last evening which ascribed factors for determining a frontrunner on the Republican side and named Marty Siefert directly as the presumptive favorite to the position. Additionally, we discussed the precarious position Margaret Anderson Kelliher had in the expectation game in which she lost her spot as frontrunner on the DFL side. We also spoke to the roles, John Marty, Tom Rukavina, Matt Entenza and Steve Kelley could play.

Now we will take a hit on Paul Thissen as being one of the three left standing and find his Tweet of “Plop” to be interesting use of onomatopoeia suggesting to us he sees last night’s subpar performance as having potential ripple effect. We suggest you read the following articles to ascertain our reading of the tea leaves. We learned later this was actually a pocket posting from his Iphone, but if the political gods are playing it is interesting anyhow.

If the DFL candidates keep their eyes on the prize they will focus on the record of Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) and the Republican approach to government rather than trying to hamstring their DFL opponents they will do their cause a service. It is far too opportunistic to have a family squabble which displays ones dirty laundry for the neighborhood to see while claiming to have the state’s interests at the fore.  

As we can see from Minneapolis Mayor R.T. (Raymond Thomas) Rybak (DFL) response to last night’s Precinct Caucuses he has trained his sights on former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton (D). He surprisingly supplanted House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis) as the perceived frontrunner. We are awaiting the results by precinct in Senate District 60 to see who won the battle for home turf.

We attended Precinct 7-3 and were interested to see in the heart of Kelliher’s legislative district people sporting sticker’s for one of her potential replacements, Marion Greene and a sticker for Rybak. We inquired why the public support and learned the delegate was an ardent supporter of Kelliher’s previously, but had lost faith after the last legislative session in her ability to lead in finding a viable solution to the morass in state government. The person highlighted Rybak tension with things he faces in his role and found him to be more of a leader. The person also discussed he increase in profile post the I-35 disaster and his appeal to voters statewide and specifically in the suburbs.

One thing we witnessed was the creation of “under votes” in the straw poll. Oh, the horrors of Florida 2000 come to mind, but in this case as occurred in SD60 7-3, where 3 people voted for Dayton those votes were deemed to be spoiled ballots an went un reported and are not reflected in the overall totals. So we are willing to argue a similar situation as we did before the evening started, that Dayton absence would be felt and we think both Sen. John Marty (DFL-54, Roseville) and Rep. Tom Rukavina (DFL-05A, Virginia). Some can argue the nearly 15% of uncommitted could be seen as Dayton votes, but if these numbers are factored together it is likely Dayton would have been one of the three if not the top vote getter.     

In addition to Senate District 60, we want to see who won the battle in the Mill City. Did the Mayor prevail over the Speaker citywide? Again once the numbers are truly known we can make a better determination. What is clear is Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-63A, Minneapolis) did not fair well. He may have the misfortune of being many people’s second choice, but this is not a beauty contest and the consolation prize is not Miss Congeniality.  

Both Rybak and Kelliher did perform throughout the state, granted their domestic support helped to gain them votes in the overall but since this is a battle of attrition and a fight for delegates a vote in the Straw Poll in Minneapolis has less weight than does a vote elsewhere. Meaning a vote in Senate District 60 was an accumulation of over 1400 people which will result in a Senate District convention producing 29 state delegates. If we were to look at another location such as Senate District 05 on the Iron Range it is not an apples to apples comparison. With the number of votes cast being around 500 and the number of state delegates emerging in this area—another rich DFL stronghold—with 23 state delegates coming from this area  proportionately the SD60 caucus attendees  produce 1 state delegate at a 49/1 ratio while a SD05 caucus attendees does so at a 22/1basis.

The straw poll was largely a beauty contest and since it is not binding only serves to provide a snapshot of general candidate support, which is relevant in a Primary or General Election but far less in a delegate contest. The only candidate to win any actual delegates to the DFL State Convention was Rukavina, who picked up three and maybe more from Grant County.

We are also interested in seeing how Marty faired in Senate District 54, how Rukavina did on the Iron Range and in Duluth, former DFL House Minority Leader Matt Entenza did in Senate District 64 and former Senator Steve Kelley did in his old district Senate District 44. We heard Kelley came in third. Additionally, it will be interesting to see how both Marty and Entenza performed in Ramsey County.

We noted the lack of a true Greater Minnesota candidate other than those from the Iron Range and think all of these candidates will be set to make an appeal to potential delegates in the 1^st, 2^nd and 7^th Congressional Districts. We doubt either Rybak or Anderson Kelliher is willing to concede the 8^th Congressional District to Rukavina. So we will be looking to what role Duluth Mayor Don Ness (D) plays in the area and will note the silence of House Majority Leader Tony Sertich (DFL-05B, Chisholm).

We will also expect one of the candidates to operate in what we feel is an unadvisable strategy which is picking a running mate prior to the DFL State Convention. Since there is nothing to force these candidates from the race other than a lack of funding anyone can continue unrestricted into April. The poor performers can remain and become after thoughts just by continuing to participate. We encourage anyone hosting a debate or forum to prove people a courtesy and restrict the participants to those who received at least 7% of the vote. Granted this is an arbitrary number, but one must draw the line somewhere.

Now as things move forward we know people will be angling to cultivate an advantage for themselves which with help to distinguish their candidacy from their opponents. As potential delegates weigh the pros and cons or pluses and minuses for the field the result of the straw poll should remain a part of the calculus. In determining who is best to endorse we believe a path to the endorsement should be factored in. If a candidate is in single digits they we need to make a fairly obtuse argument as to how they can succeed.

Now as we view the field we see the following. The two leading candidates will gain support by virtue of their perceived positions. People who do not like Rybak will gravitate to Anderson Kelliher and vice a versa. Those with a distain for Minneapolis will look elsewhere. We see a few natural alliances.

We see few natural alliances for Marty since; he was a miserable candidate for Governor in 1994, has hosed up the campaign finance system to the point where a DFLer and not been elected as the Chief Executive in 30 years and is perceived and unrealistic and too idealistic in his approach to government. The only possible alliance would be similar to the one which occurred in 1994, which is to pick him as the worst possible choice for endorsement thereby advantaging his primary opponents. This means Dayton, Entenza and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaetner (D) might be willing to send delegates his way, but it is unlikely they will control many to begin with.

 If the Rangers coalesce, with the choice being Rukavina and Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook) checks his ego he could cultivate support for Ruk from the Building Trades. This could result in money, but again there is little which will force Bakk to do anything other than sit on his hands. If Bakk were to be the bigger man he could help solidify the non-Duluth parts of the Iron Range and allow Rukavina to build a base there.

Additionally, we see a natural ally for Thissen in Kelley. Timing and history have not treated Kelley well and it may be time for him to recognize it. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but not everyone is cut out for primetime and acknowledgement of this reality is nigh. Even if Kelley were to throw his support the numbers being as small as they are it would only have a symbolic effect, but in endorsement politics increments are monumental and perception is reality so momentum is invaluable.

These scenarios are only ones which enable a candidate to leapfrog into third place. Since each Senate District and County Unit convention has a cache of state delegates we will see who develops forward momentum. With this compressed schedule there will be an opportunity for epic peak and debilitating trenches at every turn. A candidate may be up one day to be followed by a dramatic turn of events. Some events will be manufactured and others will naturally occur, but again this process will be event driven.

We will be watching to see how labor unions who have endorsed Dayton operate during the DFL State Convention. Will the support the “weakest” candidate, vote “no endorsement” and jump around from candidate to candidate? Will Education Minnesota be willing to weigh in before the convention and allow EDMN President Tom Dooher to play a role as kingmaker? We hear EDMN just like AFSCME Council 5 was set to endorse St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman (D) until he burst that bubble. There are numerous factors to consider and we will be right there scrutinizing each decision.

As candidates seek to broaden their appeal by the selection of a running mate and we see a few match-ups worth noting this early in the process. We think Rybak in his need to broaden his appeal xrequires a geographic balance and see both Rukavina and Ness as viable selections. Picking Ness would be a direct slap at AFSCME Council 5 and could bode well in a General Election and less so in the Primary. In her quest to do the same, Anderson Kelliher could pick a former colleague, current head of the Minnesota Farmers Union Doug Peterson, which shores up her farm cred in spite of being the Milk Princess. Rukavina might do well asking Coleman to join his ticket this could divide the AFSCME vote and assist in the endorsement. Coleman was many people’s choice for a Mayor to enter the fray, but he declined and it should be noted many Governors were first Lt. Governors.   

The straw poll at precinct caucuses brought some clarity for Republicans last night.  As expected, former Republican House Minority Leader Rep. Marty Seifert (R-20A, Marshall) bested Rep. Tom Emmer (R-19B, Delano).  Many thought the margin would be wider, but at the end of the day, Seifert’s organization and huge financial advantage beat back the challenge from Emmer by slightly better than 10 points.  One of the surprises of the night was the weak showing by Sen. David Hann (R-42, Eden Prairie), who registered just over five percent points statewide.  It appears that Hann will continue in the race for now, but this begs the question what is Hann’s path to the endorsement? 

Some in GOP circles believe that the Seifert/Emmer battle will turn nasty and personal very quickly.  If that’s the case, Hann may believe he can emerge as the adult in the room.  Hann is quite intelligent, well-respected by leaders in the GOP and DFL, and has shown he can win in a district that is trending more Democratic in recent years.  However, it will likely be very difficult for Hann to raise significant money after his distant third place showing in the straw poll. 

Emmer’s campaign will also face a challenge in raising money unless he is able to convince potential donors he is a viable alternative to Seifert and can win in November.  While Emmer’s campaign downplayed expectations going into the caucuses, their hope was to finish close to Seifert and whether 10 points is close is debatable.  Emmer’s campaign entered 2010 with only $19,000 cash on hand (compared to over $133,000 for Seifert) and also carried $6,000 in debt. 

With the expenses leading up to the straw poll, it is likely that Emmer’s campaign treasury is virtually depleted though, he did send out a fundraising letter days before caucuses we wonder if those letters will not be returned with checks in the envelop. Seifert’s campaign now faces the challenge of claiming the mantle as the clear frontrunner.  Many have doubted Seifert’s campaign since its inception–however, he has over-performed in each of the three trial tests–first place at the October ’09 straw poll, best fundraising numbers of any GOP candidate by a huge margin, and last night’s victory.  Seifert’s win last night may convince a number of donors to come off the sidelines and put their money on him. 

As the battle intensifies between Seifert and Emmer, a few themes have become to emerge.  Emmer’s campaign was pushing theme that he is “Mr. Conservative.”  Meanwhile those supporting Seifert point to a number of votes that are inconsistent with the contention that Emmer is a more pure conservative.   A direct mail piece from Seifert made the argument that Emmer sided with DFL candidates for governor (Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Matt Entenza, and Tom Rukavina) and did not support an amendment to the Twins stadium bill, which would have forced a referendum for the sales tax increase on Hennepin County residents.  In addition, he has been an opponent of tort reform (voted against the “cheeseburger bill” which would have banned frivolous lawsuits by those suing fast food restaurants for being obese). 

While Seifert and Emmer will attack each other’s legislative records, both appear to be sufficiently conservative and acceptable to the large majority of Republican activists.  Now the focus of the campaign will shift to discerning which candidate has the metal and the temperament for the office. As is apt, this is where the comparison and the contrasting occurs.  So, the race may come down to personality and leadership style.  Emmer’s backers will point to his background as a tough hockey player who will run through walls to get things done.  Seifert will continue to remind activists that he has defeated Emmer twice for the Minority Leader position (once in 2007, when Emmer finished third to Seifert and now Congressman Erik Paulsen and again in 2009, when Seifert defeated Emmer for re-election to the post). Emmer’s conduct after losing to Seifert in the 2009 race for Minority Leader continues to be an issue in the race. 

It is clear that Emmer has a strong (some say intense) personal dislike for Seifert.  Emmer was so angry after losing to Seifert in 2009, he did not vote for Seifert for Speaker at the start of the 2009 session.  This was an unprecedented move that disappointed many of Emmer’s strongest supporters in the GOP Caucus.  During session, Emmer essentially boycotted Republican Caucus strategy meetings – only attending a couple meetings out of nearly fifty over the course of the session.  Many activists don’t like the ‘take your toys and go home’ attitude that Emmer displayed. 

As the BPOU conventions are held (most are in the last week of February and first week of March), it will be interesting to see if there are any “game changers” from the Seifert or Emmer campaigns.  There has been some discussion on running mates – an early announcement might provide a shot in the arm for either campaign.  While Rep. Laura Brod (R-25A, New Prague) pulled her name from consideration by Seifert, Brod is thought to be a likely running mate for Emmer.  However, Brod’s conservative credentials aren’t impeccable, especially on the stadium issue when she was a co-sponsor of the Twins stadium bill.  Emmer may also look at State Rep. Paul Kohls (R-34A, Victoria), who dropped out of the Governor’s race after gaining little traction. 

Seifert will likely pick a woman from the suburbs (as a sidenote:  it was surprising to see Seifert win by sizable margins in Olmsted county, Plymouth, Eagan, Woodbury, Burnsville and other suburbs – an area where many thought Seifert would struggle). While Emmer still has a path to the endorsement, it is much narrower after last night’s straw poll. 

His campaign team has few veteran operatives and many question whether they can successfully execute a statewide plan for endorsement.  Seifert’s path to the endorsement is much clearer – though he’ll have to avoid a number of pitfalls along the way now that he is the clear frontrunner on the GOP side. 

As is the case on the DFL side, the compressed window affords great positive swings and significant downward ones. Different factors are in play, but we think this side may result in a more bloody battle than will be seen in the DFL. 

We could start off will a number of bad puns associated with the movie Ground Hog’s Day, first could be quotes “You want a prediction about the weather, you're asking the wrong Phil. I'll give you a winter prediction: It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you for the rest of your life.” Bill Murray as Phil Conners. Or we could emphasis coming out of your hole in the ground and facing the world rather than hibernating. Now it’s ostriches who keep their heads in the sand, but this is Precinct Caucus Day, the venerable event where people come together for one sole purpose “politics.”  

Tonight, Minnesota DFLers and Republicans meet in churches, synagogues, schools and other public buildings across the state to cast a straw ballot for their respective candidates they would like to see on November’s election ballot. The Independence Party is holding their caucus online so no one will learn the depth, or lack thereof it’s participation numbers.

Republicans see 20,000 or better as a good turnout and on the DFL side the expectation is slightly better at 25,000. Also, this is the first step in the process where local precincts advance some of their friends and neighbors to the next step, local conventions. The first Republican Basic Party Organizational Unit (BPOU) meetings occur 10 days hence and here delegates will be selected for the Republican Party State Convention being held in Minneapolis at the Minneapolis Convention Center. The DFL Party is on an even faster pace with County Unit Conventions taking place on Saturday, February 6th in Brown, McLeod, Swift, Watonwan and Wright Counties. Who knows what the IP is up to and maybe they don’t even know. When you look at the IP fundraising figures it looks akin to a Campaign Finance report of an average State House Race.

Dear  

I want to remind you that my name will not appear on the DFL "straw ballot" at Tuesday's precinct caucuses.  My name will be on the DFL primary ballot later this year.  That is when I am requesting your support!

My very best,

Mark   

The question we have is where will Rukavina, former DFL House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (DFL), Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook), Sen. John Marty (DFL-54, Roseville) and former Sen. Steve Kelley fall. With three candidates, Anderson Kelliher, Rybak and Thissen all being Minneapolitans, in fact Southwest Minneapolitans it will be interesting how the 5th Congressional District shakes out. We believe Anderson Kelliher needs to come in first to meet expectations. We will be watching how Entenza and Marty do in the 4th Congressional to determine the size of their bases. If Rukavina outperforms Entenza or vice versa what does that mean?       

Snowfall may be an adverse element in Greater Minnesota this evening, which will reduce turnout and are trying to determine who it favors. This is key factor in determining which candidate actually has a statewide base. We feel the candidate who fairs best in the 1st, 2nd and 7th Congressional Districts will show this fact in spite of those areas not being essential to a DFL victory in November.

Since there are only two candidates from Greater Minnesota and both are Iron Rangers. Low Precinct Caucus attendance will have an impact on the number of votes cast statewide, but since the bulk of DFL delegates emanate from the 4th, 5th and 8th Congressional Districts we expect tonight’s numbers will reflect this assumption. We are hearing Rukavina is gaining local momentum over Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook), but the question is will this extend to other areas of the state or will Rukavina remain a regional candidate.  Some are speculating whether Rukavina is making a show for consideration as a running-mate to one of the metropolitan candidates. His firebrand, populist rhetoric plays a good foil against any Republican candidate.We also hear Entenza has been making a push in Great Minnesota and with Anderson Kelliher emphasizing her reign as the Milk Princess and time on the farm she may wrestle away votes. This area was ripe for but since he is a non-participant we wonder if Rukavina can benefit.   

The adverse weather will not likely have much impact on the urban or suburban candidates. We expect the result for former DFL House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (DFL), Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis), Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak (DFL) or Rep. Paul Thissen (DFL-63A, Minneapolis) will be an accurate reflection of their respective campaigns.   We note, Anderson Kelliher, Rybak and Thissen all received a favorable nod from Take Action Minnesota on January 31st at its annual meeting with coming in a close fourth. Some have criticized the result due to a heavier influence by the metropolitan communities, but the “progressive” community has weighed in. We expect Marty’s result tonight to be exemplified by the more radical fringe elements of the DFL Party and because these people are the most passionate in their beliefs we expect advancement in higher numbers than will be show in the straw poll.Now we just have to wait for the actual results and start speculating all over again.

We believe Uncommitted will not be a big number since it is a secret ballot and people are able to cast their vote without any undue impact.

We will be disaggregating the numbers of tonight’s Republican Straw poll trying to figure out who won the day and who is in the strongest position to secure the party’s endorsement. We conclude turnout over 20,000 will be considered high.  Many think the race is down to three candidates – Rep. Marty Siefert (R-21A, Marshall, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-19B, Delano), and Sen. David Hann (R-42, Eden Prairie). Republican caucus attendees will be able to write in an alternative choice to the field of candidates, but no one seems to be a natural choice.

Seifert is expected to perform well in Greater Minnesota and the straw poll is mainly an expectations game. Siefert is banking on support from Greater Minnesota and even if the raw vote in those communities is down he will likely still prevail in those communities because the delegates selected to advance are his supporters. Meaning Siefert’s support out of the 1st, 7th and 8th Congressional Districts even if low is disproportionate with his support moving forward. The magic number is 40% meaning if totals from these three Congressional Districts fall below 40% then turnout are down since 1, 7 and 8 account for 39% of the GOP State delegates.  

In turn, Emmer should do well in CD 6, as his home area (Wright County), which contains one of the largest blocks of delegates to the State Convention and Emmer’s BPOU is the largest in the state.  CD’s 4 (St Paul and suburbs) and CD 5 (Minneapolis and suburbs) have a small GOP presence and few delegates to the State Convention, though there is a larger contingent of Ron Paul/libertarian voters in these urban areas.  Hann should do well in parts of CD 3, as his home district (Eden Prairie) has a large block of delegates to the State Convention.  It appears that the battleground will be CD 2 (south metro) and parts of CD 3 (western suburbs). 

Many question how long Hann will remain in the race; we think he stays until the end since there is nothing to push him aside.   If he receives more than 10% of the vote, he will likely continue the campaign to watch for a slip-up from either Seifert or Emmer.  At some point, Hann may be able to play kingmaker and throw his support to either candidate.

There are questions about fundraising for both Hann and Emmer.  Hann entered the year with only $8,000 cash on hand (after raising just under $40,000 in 2009).  While Emmer raised $114,852 in 2009, this leads many to believe that Emmer’s campaign may have very little cash left.  The recent endorsements by former opponent Rep. Laura Brod (R-25A, New Prague) and former U.S. Senator Rod Grams have created an impression Emmer has momentum, but he will need a strong showing (close second place) to receive the jolt in the arm to raise additional money.

Most predict Seifert will prevail in the straw poll because of his statewide grassroots organization and financial advantage (his receipts $262,753 being and he entered 2010 with $133,072 cash on hand).  If Seifert wins by double digits, he can claim the mantle of the clear frontrunner.

There appears to be a very large number of undecided voters on the GOP side.  Most activists reported getting more direct mail pieces and volunteer phone calls from Seifert’s campaign.  Emmer and Hann both sent one mailing and made calls in their home areas.

We have assembled the campaign finance numbers for the gubernatorial candidates, the state parties and the legislative caucuses.  The figures are interesting. One interesting feature we noticed is the DFL Party spent over a million dollars in the off-year, which means their overhead is abominable. Also, one other component we acknowledge regarding the political parties is because they are not limited in their campaign contribution amounts they are able to On-Demand fundraising. This means they can spend and raise, spend and raise so maybe the DFL is not in as bad of a state as we suspect.

It’s hard to argue a Special Election that retains a seat for a particular party as a bellwether or indicator of any forthcoming trend, but the opposite can be true. With the State of the Union Address, start of the legislative session and the 2010 elections pending there are some factors in play, but we doubt the declining popularity of President Barack Obama (D) is one of those factors. Special Election outcomes are mainly about local issues.

Now we are not willing to go out on a limb and claim to be able to read the tea leaves of Owatonna, Faribault, Waseca or the surrounding communities, but here are dynamics we see in play. The field of candidates are: Jason John Engbrecht (DFL), Mike Parry (R) and Roy Srp (IP) and usually the Independence Party candidate—other than at a regional level like a Congressional District—has marginal impact on the overall result, but being the former Mayor of Waseca Srp could draw votes in a low turnout election. The question is which side will he draw from is dependent on his past municipal record if fiscally Conservative he could hurt the Parry especially in Waseca, where Parry served on the city council, if closer aligned with the DFL the impact may be felt by Engbrecht. We feel comfortable saying we believe Srp will not win.

Now Republicans want to retain the seat of their past Senate Minority Leader Dick Day (R), who became more of a caricature in recent years, in order to staunch the flow of loses in the Senate. Currently, the DFL holds a veto proof majority of 46 votes and another member only strengthens the majorities hand further.  The DFL has gained a foothold in the region with first the victory of Rep. Patty Fritz (DFL-26A, Faribault) over long-term incumbent Linda Boudreau (R) in 2004 and the election of Rep. Kory Kath (DFL-26B, Owatonna) in 2008 in an open seat vacated by Connie Ruth (R). Republicans are not overly confident. 

As a recently elected School Board Member, Engbrecht gets the advantage of being an officeholder without a long voting record to defend; Parry, who also has a short electoral career with one term on the Waseca City Council, appears to be emphasizing more of a business background, with his recent experience in Radio. The question is if Parry is more of a shock jock type as was Dan Ochsner (R) against Tarryl Clark (DFL) in St. Cloud the electorate could be turned off. The incident of Parry’s Tweet where he referred to President Obama as “…Power Hungry Angry Black Man,” may only encourage voters to see him as a person who speaks or tweets before he thinks. There is a question if racist statements have significant impact in all parts of the state.

Special Elections are beneficial to Republicans because of lower voter turnout and because Republican voters tend to attend church more regularly and thereby are easier to target the Sunday before an election thus providing great impact from a concentrated voting bloc. Littering a church parking lot with flyers and literature is standard practice in these elections. DFLers have not conceded the religious vote and seek a more tolerant voter concerned with broader social issues other than Abortion and Gay Marriage.        

If you look at the Special Election results over the last thirty years you will see the nearly unblemished string of Republican victories remain unblemished until the election of Mary Ellen Otremba (DFL) on November 4, 1997, to fill the vacancy left by the death of her husband Ken.  The election of a widow can be argued as a “sympathy” election, but it is the single break in the sequence of Special Election successes. Republicans ran the table starting with the election of Ben Omann (IR) on February 22, 1980 until the election of Rebecca Otto (DFL) February 11, 2003. Now of course one must exclude DFL victories in “safe” DFL districts like Minneapolis, St. Paul or Duluth so we believe the elections of Andy Dawkins (DFL) in 1987, Alice Hausman (DFL) in 1989, Carol Flynn (DFL) 1990 or Dale Swapinski (DFL) in 1999 do not challenge our premise. Although some may argue the election of Twila Ring (DFL) and Tony Kinkel (DFL) in 1999 are harbingers of the decline. The best place to see Special Election results is from the Legislative Reference Library. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/histleg/spelect.asp   

If the outbound bracket is the election of Bob Kerlin (R) in 1999, the argument is still valid. The ability for Republicans to have a slam dunk on Special Elections closed. Moving into the new Millennium the DFL began to challenge Republicans in marginal districts and even ones thought to be solidly in the Republican column. The election of Otto is the first example followed by DFL victories by Terri Bonoff (DFL) November 22, 2005, Tarryl Clark (DFL) and Larry Haws (DFL) December 27, 2005.

The DFL’s ability to deliver elections in “competitive” senate districts is directly attributable to the election methods of Mike Kennedy and the various teams he assembles. We have watched these elections deliver a focused message and a sharp differentiation between the DFL candidates and their respective opponents. In elections where the DFL is thought to be the odd one out somehow Kenner pulls another rabbit out of the hat. Will see how his luck holds today.

In an attempt to garner some street cred in the halls of the State Capitol Citypages scribe Matt Snyders penned a story entitled "Meet the Lobbyists: The Unseen Hands Behind Some of the Biggest Bills in Minnesota." Interestingly, the online version is entitled "The 10 Most Influential  Minnesota Lobbyists: Meet the Invisible Hands Behind Some of the State's Biggest Bills." There are some cute names for the different people singled out which we think are worthnoting, but the piece lacks any real punch if the Twin Cities alternative weekly seeks to stir the pot. Where isgraft, where is the coruption, or unsubstantiated allegations to that effect.

Gerald Seck=Mr. Ethanol, Mr. Nice Guy=Ted Grindal, Daddy Warbucks=John Knapp, The Chambermaid=Bill Blazer, Doctor Goodno=Kevin Goodno, The Black Widow=MaryAnn Campo, The Unholy Relic=Ron Jerich, The Rasputin of Parks and Rec=Brian Rice, The Weed Killer=James Backstrom and The Gambler=Dick Day.

The titles are interesting, but questions as to the value or the impact is something well worth debating.

Has our source for barbs and wit become an establishment periodicaL?

http://www.citypages.com/2010-01-20/news/the-10-most-influential-lobbyists-in-minnesota/     

Former Minnesota Republican Party Chair candidate and retired Veteran of both Iraq and Vietnam Joe Repya will enter the fray for the Independence Party endorsement for Governor. He contacted us early this morning to announce his plans. We had speculated his mulling of the idea when a website of RepyaforGovernor.com was registered and a post office box was opened under the same name in Eagan, where Repya resides. At the time denied any intentions or any knowledge of the filing, we learned of the PO Box later, thanks to one of our ever-vigilant informed sources.  

It appears the Indepence Party will not be a simple cakewalk this go round since Public Relations Executive Tom Horner, is preparing to file paperwork for the same. This is another former Republican headed off to the land of Independia. A place where there are fewer rules and fewer obligations.

The Indepence Party has maintained a slight impact in Minnesota statewide, mainly by playing the role of spoiler. The highwater mark, of course, being Jesse Ventura's election in 1998 with 36.98%. Dean Barkley is the next most sucessful IPer with 15.1% in the contentious U.S. Senate with Al Franken (D)and Norm Coleman (R).

We expect this contest will provide more grist for the mill.          

During her departure from the gubernatorial contest Republican Pat Anderson referred to the shadow of former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman’s anticipated arrival akin to Irish playwright Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot. She talked about the length of the shade Coleman cast in courting support both financially and with delegates.

Rather than looking for a comparative analogy across the pond we think the drama associated with Brett Favre sojourn to the Minnesota Viking’s applies an even more apt comparison. The will he/won’t he nature of Coleman intentions is not high drama. We expect he will make his decision, though not announce it until after precinct caucuses. This way his name will not appear on the Republican Sample Ballot.

The Sample Ballots will consist of all of the named Republican Candidates and a line for Write In. Even should Coleman’s name be written in lacking an organized campaign will afford a diminishment of the result.

Coleman avoids the three events leading into the Caucus/Convention process and if he chooses to run he will likely do so heading directly for a Primary. Making the argument of an appeal to the larger Republican Community rather than the insular community of party activists is an opportunity to position himself as a moderate. Although we think his Senate voting record in his early years, fundraising letter for Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN6) and attacks against Al Franken (D) in the last campaign portray him far differently.

When Democratic gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton released information about his battle with alcohol and relapse while in the Senate along with an ongoing fight with depression we saw the disclosure as tactical. For years in Democratic circles Dayton has been seen as peculiar. By making this known in advance of the heat of the campaign he has once again set the rules of engagement with his opponents as he did in 2000 by running commercials about health care and set the agenda with his challengers during the DFL Primary.

Although, in this case, it is clear to us the focus for Dayton is more the general election rather than the Primary. DFLers are less willing to dish that kind of dirt while Republicans have far less compunction.   

His pronouncement could have been taken from the pages of Wyoming Attorney Gerry Spence’s book How to Argue & Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Everyday. Spence discusses a hypothetical campaign where he states “People who run for public office (their campaigns are nothing more or less than arguments in support of their candidacy) should be up-front about their past. If I were a candidate I might write my opponent a letter that would read something like this:” He goes on to outline past foibles and indiscretions and says to his opponent he will accept the same type of letter and will not use the contents during their campaign. In the letter Spence figuratively includes a match for simplicity of disposal.

This admission will help buttress against some of the forthcoming personal attacks should he emerge victorious from the DFL Primary, in spite of the wishes of Republican bloggers to link Dayton’s past problems to his decision to close his Senate office post 9/11. The problem is these two issues are completely unrelated. To create the specter of weakness in Dayton for protection of his staff is such a specious argument the provocateurs need some new material.

(A must read for Republican Party activists and statewide candidates)

We sat down with the head of the state’s Republican Party head Tony Sutton in advance of the 2010 Election Year to discuss the endorsement process and the party’s role in support of its endorsed candidates. During the interview we talked about a strong party system currently in action by the MN GOP where the party will use its resources to support its endorsed candidates. This is the concept of similar scope as a strong mayor system, where the Chief Executive proposes the budget and has veto power, as seen in St. Paul, as opposed to a weak party system, which is currently in use by the DFL, which will could argue aligns with the weak mayor system in Minneapolis, which is the home to current DFL Party Chair and former Minneapolis DFL Chair Brian Melendez and Associate Chair Donna Cassutt.

We jokingly called the idea the Cooper Doctrine after former Republican Party Chairman Bill Cooper, under whom Sutton served as Executive Director. We gained a great deal of insight into the endorsement process and think this is a good primer for next month start of the caucus/convention season.      

C&B: In 1998, you were involved with the Republican Party as the Executive Director, with Bill Cooper as the Party Chairman, where he said “We will use all of the party’s resources at our disposal to support our endorsed gubernatorial candidate to help them in the primary against any challengers.”  By our understanding you have a similar believe, can you explain how this will be enacted and what will it entail?

Tony Sutton: “It is very similar and as a matter of fact it’s nothing new from my perspective. Bill Cooper ran for party chairman, one reason he ran was to fix the party endorsement process. If you recall, in 1994 the entire endorsed ticked had been defeated in the primary and in 1996 you couldn’t even endorse a candidate for U.S. Senate with the Boschwitz/McKasy fiasco up in Duluth and so Cooper thought that it was important if the party, if conservatives, were going to be successful that in order for that to be the case the party’s endorsement had to be meaningful.  It had to be something people wanted, it had value and people wanted to have and not only did they want to have it, that it was necessary to actually being on the ballot in the general election. If you  weren’t endorsed, then you weren’t going to be on that ballot general election as a Republican candidate. 

And it was very success, I believe, in helping make the party be more disciplined, helping make the party, as far as the message point of view, it helped making the endorsing process more valuable people have to participate in it. Because of that it also creates candidates who believe what the party believes. And so, I don’t think it’s any coincidence we started being more disciplined as a party and we took control of the legislature (House) in 98.  In fact, if it hadn’t been for Jesse Ventura, Norm Coleman would have been elected governor that year. There’s no doubt about that, as a matter of fact, I consider that to be the biggest regrets of my political career, how we allowed how we allowed Jesse Ventura to become governor of the state.  I think Governor Pawlenty has done a lot of good things, but it could have started sooner if we hadn’t  allowed a wrestler to become governor.  So, I take it very seriously, the endorsement process.

 First of all, from a sort of a philosophical point-of-view, our caucus system in Minnesota in both parties, when it works best, allows individuals to have influence in the political process more than one vote they may have in a primary or a general election or than the size of a check they may write to a candidate or to a political party.  Everyday people, housewives, blue collar, white collar whatever, their walk of life, in their professional life, they come to caucuses and become party leaders, party activists and they have a lot more influence. And it’s amazing sometimes some of the most powerful people in grassroots politics on the professional side tend to be very humble or modest in their background.  And I think that’s the strength of the system.  Philosophically, I believe in that I believe it results in better political leadership, because it’s a grassroots process in Minnesota. Minnesota has been the fountain of very active politicians in both parties, and you can make the argument Paul Wellstone and Rudy Boschwitz and all these people very strong leaders in Minnesota, Rudy Perpich and so forth all came up through this grassroots system in Minnesota. In a state like, you know, New York or other places you know it’s about money, popularity or things like that whereas here it’s less of a factor than your ability to put together a coalition of grassroots.

I tell the candidates and I told all of the candidates who are running for statewide office and many the candidates for local office and Congress that I have only one rule, you got to get endorsed and if you don’t get endorsed don’t run in a primary because we’ll beat you and we’ll do whatever it takes to win, because the importance of the party, the clout of the party and its activists is in the strength of the endorsing process. If that were to become weakened that would lower, that would lessen the influence of the party and the activists. And not just the people who are involved, but rank and file voters as well.

And so I think that’s one of the reasons why we’ve been so disciplined about it, and we’ve had a better track record.  It’s more important to us, than it is to the DFL for whatever reason. They have their own internal politics. I don’t pretend to understand it. I don’t mean that in a pejorative.  I just don’t follow it as closely, the internal machinations. It’s important to us and all of the candidates who are running have agreed to abide by the endorsement for governor, as an example.”

C&B: So what does that mean? What specific things would the party do if there is a challenger to the endorsed candidate for governor?

Sutton: “We would mobilize a primary election effort. Everything from the simple stuff, the sample ballots to get-out-the-vote phoning, both volunteers, paid calling, advertisements whatever we thought politically that it took. Look if we have our endorsed candidate and some gadfly files against him we’re not going to spend a million bucks in the primary. But if we have an endorsed candidate for governor and someone who we think is a legitimate challenger or threat to that endorsed candidate runs we will take appropriate measures to make sure that they are defeated and defeated soundly. It is important we come out of that primary showing that our endorsed candidate is very strong. My goal as party chair though is to avoid that. To make sure everybody who is running agrees to abide by to endorsement. I have been working hard already to talk to people behind the scenes and such to make sure that happens.”

C&B:  The general scenario people are thinking of here and most people are basing this thought on is the entrance of Norm Coleman into the competition. Now what was your role in 1998?

Sutton: “I was the Executive Director of the party, so I was running the party on a day-by-day basis and Bill Cooper was Chairman. He served as volunteer Chairman so he spent a lot of time raising money and focusing on the big picture stuff, but I ran the party on the day-by-day basis.  At the time in 1998 I think we had Bill Dahn ran in the primary, as kind of a goofy guy, gadfly, that’s putting it kindly, I think. Didn’t he file once with all pennies or something? That’s a kind of a ridiculous thing.  We didn’t even want to have that, we talked to the guy and figured out after about 30 seconds that he wasn’t a legitimate (candidate). He was just a gadfly and there wasn’t, no way of talking him out of it.

Beyond gadflies if certainly if someone were thinking about running against our endorsed candidate I would try and talk them out of it first. I would try to be nice about it but I would be firm. If they were to take on our endorsed candidate they would lose.”

C&B: Can you speak to the irony of the fact that all of those resources of the party were prepared to back Norm Coleman in 1998 and in 2010 all of those resources or same or similar resources would be used against him?

Sutton: “Well, I hate to deal in hypotheticals, I think if Senator Coleman were to run for Governor that he would seek the endorsement and abide by the endorsement. He hasn’t told me that I have no idea whether he is going to run or not, but I would have to believe that he knows having been part of this process over the years it would be very difficult to challenge the endorsed candidate. So that would be my goal in the case of this. Senator Coleman obliviously, there will be people will be whispering in his ear that he should go to a primary, but that would be foolish for him personally. Just because that puts us in a box having to strongly support our endorsed candidate and I don’t think he would go against that. I think he would put all of his effort trying to get endorsed.”

C&B: Do you think it is timely for a candidate to get into the race at this time or has the window actually closed?

Sutton: “I have talked to the delegates about it. I probably even shouldn’t say this, but I will. For a candidate with gravitas it’s still possible to get into the race.  I am putting on my analyst hat and I probably shouldn’t. I think a person without gravitas probably the window, if it hasn’t closed already, it is pretty darn close to closing.  But somebody with gravitas, a Congressman or something like that, you know, not that any of them have expressed interest, now I am not trying to make news, but somebody with some clout could get in, you know Januaryish and develop a potential player. But as you know from this grassroots process in both parties, that once this race has begun and candidates begin to work on delegates, the delegates pretty much choose up sides based on who’s available and running and they usually don’t move especially for first ballot commitments they usually don’t move. So if someone is committed to David Hahn right now, they’re probably not going to move I’m guessing on the first ballot. If it gets past the first ballot then Katie Bar the Door I think that people will move around. But anybody that gets in late is basing this on a multi-ballot strategy they are not trying to go for the kill and get 60% on the first ballot, I don’t think. People choose up sides based on the candidates available. I think if Senator Coleman were going to run I think he run for the endorsement.”

C&B: If you can explain the party process can you explain the role of the drop rule? Who sets the convention rules?

Sutton: “The process is a little bit, you know, you get precinct caucuses and there’s going to be a straw poll for governor at the caucuses. And the reason for that is actually state law for there to be a straw poll for governor. And we’re going to go ahead and do that. That will be another one of those interesting milestones, who does well on caucus night and those sorts of things, which to me is all part of the building blocks of a candidate trying to put together their proven candidacy. The caucuses are important, the delegates are elected at caucuses, we don’t have any sub-caucuses or anything like that its majority rule and all that kind of stuff.  They go onto the senate district and county conventions at that level we’ll elect delegates to State Convention. I am thinking if the candidates are organized there will be a lot of jockeying or slates of delegates, again it is a winner-take-all system so potentially if you have a majority of the delegates supporting you at a particular senate district you can election a 100% of the delegates for, actually for the candidate. We have seen in the recent past all of slates or slating of potential delegates for state convention.

At the convention itself, the proposed rules are put together by a Rules Committee of which I appoint the chair, and there’s members appointed by the Congressional Districts. It is usual there is a lot of jockeying on that, but typically if you look at our rules in 2008, go back to 1998 or 1988 their pretty similar, there isn’t a lot of tinkering or monkeying around with the rules and it is pretty simple you have to get 60% of the vote on a ballot to be endorsed. One thing that the rules do have typically is a drop-rule, so that multi-candidate situation, candidates who fail to reach a certain threshold after a so many ballots are usually dropped. Depending on the drop-rule it could be as soon as the third ballot, but usually the fifth ballot. If you don’t get 10% or 15% or something you drop and so all the message candidates or whatever they drop pretty fast and it gets down to three or two people in a hurry.

That’s where it can go like McKasy/Boschwitz or Sullivan/Pawlenty or it can go a longtime or it can go like Printy/Grunseth it can go fast, you know by third ballot it’s pretty much over. It really depends on the mood of the delegates. Something I have noticed in recent time’s people dug their heels in, even in local conventions people will dig their heels in and not move. It is possible for a candidate to block endorsement, the candidate successful at that is Rudy Boschwitz in a state convention. People just stayed and voted for him even though he had really no shot at being endorsed He didn’t have the critical mass to make the 60%, Bert McKasy was that close and couldn’t do it.

It’s a pretty straightforward process. The convention is pretty simple. The candidates will draw lots, they’ll speak and then the balloting will begin. Usually the first ballot is done as a roll call of the BPOU’s so everyone will go to the microphone and say Redwood County cast x number of votes ,da da da da. Sometimes we have done it with the entire convention by roll call and other times we just done the first ballot or two by roll call and everything else by comingling the ballots. That’s where politics enters into play because some candidates want it by roll call so they can track where the support is and others don’t want that, they want to hide their support and don’t want the opposition know where the support is.

It does effect how people vote. Especially the smaller counties or BPOU’s (Basic Party Organizational Unit) where there is maybe only a handful of delegates if everybody votes for candidate x then you know exactly who you voted for there’s no secret ballot. I think in the last convention there was one BPOU with one delegate and everybody knew exactly who that guy voted for. 

That’s part of the fun and the pageantry of it too you have this roll call like at a national convention and they get “Redwood County casts all of its votes for the next U.S. senator, whatever…” And it just goes on and the rules will sometimes build in breaks, like after so many ballots the candidates can speak again for a few minutes, or someone will move to suspend the rules to do that, you know, to allow the candidates to address the convention again. But usually you go through that roll call or vote counting and the announcement of the results and you go right to distributing the ballots again. There’s not a big break in that process. And the goal or the reason there is not a break is to get people to make-up their minds. You can not allow for a lot, theirs already a lot of arm twisting, you allow as little times as possible for game playing.”

C&B: As the former Executive Director as a former campaign manager for Sullivan in 2002, what’s the secret to moving blocks of votes?

Sutton: “You know some people like to be clever and they think there’s games playing where people hold back votes or they deliberately have vote to who they are supposed to. It happens a little bit, but people over play that. I think what moves votes is not the macro, by the time you get to the convention, its not the mailings, people come to the convention pretty much decided. There are very few people who are not decided. There are only 2000 delegates. At the end of the day, once that first ballot been conducted that’s where the real persuasion begins. It is all peer-to-peer local, its very retail, because the number of people that are moveable is still relatively small. The other thing is in a two person race like Pawlenty/Sullivan and they’re pretty much evenly split. The number of people who move back and forth in that convention where actually very small. There were fewer than 200, fewer than 10% that were in play about 200 were in play. The key is you do not know who those people are exactly. You kind of have a pretty good idea who the partisans are, ok, but there is this very small group of people the true undecideds, the true waiverers, the people who like both candidates and can go either way and that’s where it really comes down to that’s where it gets down to the minutiae.

Ah geez, you know  I think that guy looks better on TV or I think that guy or that gal gave a better speech, or geez I think they guy combs their hair well.  You get down to who can win. Electability is often times the biggest issue at these conventions. I’d be shocked, if by the time we get to the state convention if every single one of those 2000 delegates will have not spoken to the candidates all of the candidates for governor personally. Then it gets down to electability.  It’s not whose the most conservative or that kind of stuff, their all conservative enough for the delegates, but it comes down to who can win. And that is where electability gives you…”

C&B: So you’re saying perception, basically plays a stronger role in that instance?

Sutton: “Ya, cause what will happen, the people who are currently candidates, except for Leslie Davis are probably are going to be considered conservative enough, then it comes down to who can win. Ok, if there was like a liberal running for governor or something, you know, that would not be (accepted).  Their (delegates) are going to think they’re all (candidates) pretty conservative, so who has the best chance of winning.  That’s where the candidates have to spend the first part of the race, kind of like the right now phase, kind of proving their street cred on conservative issues. Then their going to spend probably, you know, January/February or certainly February/March demonstrating not only am I a good conservative, but that I am the most electable person running and here’s why. 

That’s how these things always have evolve.  If you look at Pawlenty/Sullivan it all came down to electability right at the end, who could actually beat the Democrats. And in Grunseth/Printy or matter-of-fact electability has been the key issue in tipping the endorsement to any particular candidate except in Quist/Carlson and that was such a special, it is almost the exception that proves the rule, because it was such an exceptional environment.

All these endorsements, in 1998, when Coleman was running against Benson and Quist, electability became the issue. Rod Grams when he got endorsed in 1994, it was huge he was a Congressman, he was in office, he could win.”

C&B: Over your duration of time what has the biggest shock you have seen?

Sutton: “I think I was most disappointed in 96 when we couldn’t endorse. People got their heels dug in some much we could not endorse a candidate, I thought they did a lot of damage to the party, in fact, I knew we were going to lose the general election driving home from Duluth, the party was in disarray that was the most disappointing endorsing convention.”

C&B: What was your role in 96?

Sutton: “I was just a supporter. I was working for a guy running for Congress. So I was just there as a delegate. I was a McKasy guy. A lot of party people were McKasy people.  It was disappointing you just weren’t going to win. You could feel it.

The most difficult convention for me was in 2002. My father passed away, so people describe that convention to me, I wasn’t there past 6 O’clock on Thursday night. To me I haven’t even seen video of it. My wife was there the entire time and has vivid memories of it, but I was in a different place.”

C&B: Structurally though, is the key step in the process the delegate selection at the BPOU conventions?

Sutton: “The key process really is who actually becomes a delegate. First of all, theoretically, hypothetically, a candidate can win it right there at the BPOU convention if they elected 60% of their people at every BPOU Convention they already have the delegates and they move. But also it’s the kind of people that you elect.  Are they going to be concerned about the ideological make-up of who the delegates are can change the (complexion). Are they people who are more concerned about fiscal issues, are they more concerned about pro-life. In the 1990’s, the big issue was the Profile in Learning and that shaped the delegation quite a bit because there were groups that were organizing on that issue and so they sent people out to precinct caucuses and that became a big issue at the 2002 state convention.”

C&B: So what’s the looming issue in 2010?

Sutton: “I think the fiscal issues. Opposition to stimulus packages and other bailout packages from Washington is really driven a lot of people, not just the Ron Paul people, but a lot of people, the Tea Party movement and things are driving a lot of people to becoming involved in the party. I think that’s going to drive the precinct caucuses and ultimately will drive the state convention. In a lot of ways that’s not bad, fiscal conservatism is good old fashioned Republicanism.  So in some ways this is getting back to our roots on that issue and so that’s what will drive the caucus’s conventions, all of these fiscal issues.”  

C&B: We have heard some conversations of there being a different delegate pool in 2010 from what there was in 2008 even though there was a Presidential election. Can you explain that?

Sutton: “Every two years there is turnover on the state convention because it not (the same) when you are involved with it, it seems pretty static but it’s not it changes and anywhere from, you know, 40 to 50% of the delegates will be different. So one of the common mistakes that campaigns make is they assume that the current state convention, you know, prior to the precinct caucuses the current make-up is going to be there a year from now, five months from now, four months from now or whatever a short period of time from now.  It’s not the case it’s never the case. It’s always new people, people drop off new people come up.  Who knows there may be something unforeseen that suddenly becomes the cause celeb around caucus time that drives people out.  Or certainly in March, during the BPOU convention season you know, that changes the complexion of the delegation. So this will be a different convention.

C&B: In 2008, we saw a strong Ron Paul contingent as a Presidential candidate.

Sutton: “There could be more people like that or there could be fewer it really depends on again the enthusiasm. I think regardless of the Ron Paul people or not there are going to be more people for whom this sort of fiscal conservativism, fiscal house in-order are going to be paramount issues. You know, Audit the Fed, you know, anti-TARP, anti-stimulus package, these are folks who are anti-public option to health care which is mostly based on fiscal reasons. And so there going to be a lot of people for whom fiscal issues are going to be A number 1 they are going to be showing up to caucuses. And not just showing  up, but those who are going to be motivated and it’s not just those who show up to caucuses, but those who are motivated and organized to go to the next level.

It’s partly a function of the campaigns, how organized they are, but it’s also the motivation of the people who are involved.  Because when you are at these caucuses, you know, let’s say there is 10 delegates allocated for that precinct, usually it’s the first ten people who raise their hands get to be delegates. That 11^th or 12 people doesn’t want to raise their hand and trigger an election so it’s usually the “early bird gets the worm”. You go to the next level, there’s more competition for the delegate spots because there’s a lot fewer of them it’s often times the same thing where the people who are the most wanting of those positions campaign for them, seek them out, get people together to vote for them or are on a slate of a candidate who does really well in that area.

If I was running a campaign for governor what I would do, as much as possible, put together slates of people who support my candidacy in every BPOU in the state or as many that I could possibly organize and try to get as many of those people elected as possible. Because if you wait until after, of if you leave it to kind of to chance and they just elect who they elect then you’ve got to persuade these delegates. It’s a lot easier to elect someone who’s already with ya than to persuade somebody whose not. Now that’s all in an ideal world. Nothing every works out easily. In some areas the slates will be successful for some candidates in others and such there will still be a pool of people who are, you know, swingable.

One could make the argument in this multi-candidate environment there might be a bigger pool of people willing to move.  They might vote for candidate “x” on the first ballot and some of them switch off and vote for candidate “y” on another ballot because they like both candidates.  Who knows all sorts of intangibles. You know this, who gives the best speech and sometimes it will surprise somebody because someone who is expected to do well gives a horrible speech, falls flat on their face and they lose 50 votes well that 50 votes can mean a lot on a first ballot. Usually it’s never just one thing, but I’ve seen presentations , David Printy is an example. In 1990, he was leading, he even led on the first ballot,  by only 3 votes, but what hurt him the most was his presentation. He was the leading candidate expected to do really well on the first ballot.  He got up there and gave his speech, he was basically shouting, I think he was nervous, his voice was kind of crackin a little bit he didn’t sound good. And then Jon Grunseth got up there and gives that big speech with that big voice he’s got. Gosh how many votes did Dave lose 30, 40 50 a 100?”

To be continued.

We will finish the rest of the interview in our next installment.  In this portion we tackle issue about what the Republican Party plans to do during the legislative session and whether or not the party is seeking specific candidates with a strict adherence to party dogma contained in the resolution being advanced at the next Republican National Committee meeting in Hawaii.

We have it on good authority one candidate for Governor on the Republican side will be making an announcement and be stepping down to seek another office. We are predicting Pat Anderson will be announcing her bid to seek reelection as State Auditor. Not a choice we would advise, but if she does as we expect this may open the door to more shuffling of the proverbial deck. Now this is not a new idea we have broached, in fact we have said this before and we’re glad to see Phil Krinkie agrees with us. We have made repeated references to Republicans sorting themselves out.

The question is will this open the door a crack for former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman? We understand from some of the gubernatorial candidates, fundraising has been hard partly due to the large field, but many times because donors are waiting for Norm.  If Anderson steps aside could it be the fear of a contest with Coleman in the primary? And will this be an encouragement for others to do the same?

The construction of a ticket for 2010 could be just the answer to the Republican chaos. Each person may be considered weak one their own, but a ticket of Norm Coleman for Governor, with running mate yet to be named, Tom Emmer for Attorney General, Rep. Dan Severson (R-14A, Sauk Rapids) for Secretary of State and Pat Anderson for State Auditor many people may find a great deal of attraction of a tightly wrapped package.

In the case of former Minority Leader Rep. Marty Seifert (R-21A, Marshall), unless he is tapped by Coleman as a running mate, he could be left holding the short straw, but the likelihood of him being brought into the fold has possibilities. Seifert has been received poorly with the Tea Party crowd and depending on their organizational efforts he might not do as well on Caucus Night. If the idea of a 2010 ticket begins to take hold it seems logical for Seifert to try and play the “Greater Minnesota Card,” but with Severson on the ticket, there may be less traction on this point. Again, Republicans like their conventions to be more coronations than they do endorsement contests. If the punditry is speculating and people are trying to move chess pieces this could be a King’s Gambit.

We are hearing a lot of chatter from people down in the New Prague area about the current troubles for Andrew Morris with the Minnesota State Department of Commerce. Morris is the owner of a title company and is accused of identity theft and fraud for forgery of signatures and misappropriation of funds. Here is a press release from the Department http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp/content.do?contentid=536919042&contenttype=EDITORIAL&subchannel=null&sc3=null&sc2=null&id=-536892418&agency=Commerce Morris is the brother of Rep. Laura Brod (R-25A, New Prague) and Treasurer of her legislative campaign. Gee, could this be a factor in why Commerce Communications Director Bill Walsh, a former Brod for Governor supporter, announced his intent to caucus for Tom Emmer on February 2nd?

There may be no connection between Brod and her brother professionally, but since Brod was previously an appraiser it is possible the professional relationship extended past the familial relationship. We have no knowledge of this occurring, but it is openly speculated amongst Republican Party activists in the area.

If you have not already done so you can maker suggestions to the State Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. They are actively seeking input into their rules and processes. The request can be found right on the front of their website.  http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us  

Lobbyist Jim DeMay is taking on a new task and a new employer in the New Year. He is leaving Citigroup to move over to U.S. Bank next week. DeMay is one of our more favorite people to follow since he is one of the most intelligent politicos we know and he already has great insight on complex situations. U.S. Bank has score a significant asset at the expense of Citigroup, but now maybe Citigroup can free up some money and pay back their TARP funds even earlier.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN6) has succeeded in making herself the bane of liberals and was tapped as the CNN’s Wingnut of the Year by John Avalon, former head speechwriter for former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani. Citypages ran a story on this announcement, but we want to give credit where credit is due and comment Kimberly Cope of Minneapolis for her earlier recognition.

Cope made a crop art portraiture we saw during the Great Minnesota Get Together. It was on display in the Agriculture/Horticulture building and seen by thousands.

We attended the various press conference held today discussing the pending shortfall for the current biennium. During the first press conference with Management and Budget Commission Tom Hanson, State Economist Tom Stinson and State Budget Direct Jim Schowalter we learned a few interesting items. The state is experiencing its third quarter of decline in wages which is unprecedented. As wages and employment fall the assumptions made in the February 2009 forecast are clearly wrong.

We asked Commissioner Hanson was the available debt service limit is coming into the next legislative session. He said, “ $725 million, which is based on an average of the last 10 years.” This means only five Bonding Bills. We asked Stinson if there were to be another federal economic stimulus package where he thought such money should be spent and he said reduction of the social security taxes and other taxes paid by lower income people would stimulate the economy the fastest. His comments occurred during a protest where one of the protesters shouted “Tax the rich, that’s where the best money comes from.” Stinson disagreed and finished his point of which had the protestor listened she would have probably agreed.

Later we attended Governor Tim Pawlenty’s press conference and it was clear the media is no longer taking a guarded approach as they question the lame duck governor. Right before we asked our question Pioneer Press Columnist Jim Ragsdale challenged the governor to change his travel schedule and show Minnesotan’s he was focused on economic development, job growth and promotion of Minnesota like his predecessor Rudy Perpich (DFL).

Here is what we asked:

C&B: As a Governor, you are talking today in more of a management standpoint, but also the position has leadership components to it. As you are coming into your last year and we look at the history of many deficits over the term of your office as well as small job growth early on and then significant job loss recently; how would you measure your term as successful?

Governor Tim Pawlenty: "What I would say Shawn is that this situation mirrors what's taking place to the whole country, it the worst economic downturn since World War II. And so Governor Doyle in Wisconsin, Governor Granholm in Michigan, the governor in Ohio and Governor Rendell in Pennsylvania and Democratic Governors across the country are struggling with the same issues. So, again, Minnesota from 2003 to 2008, amongst Great Lakes states, led or nearly led I should say the job growth during that period of time before the economic collapse; as to comparable states. The problem of course is that is not where the job growth in the country has been occurring it has been migrating to the south and the west. Almost every state in the country that has job growth higher than Minnesota ranked ordered from 2003 to 2008 in terms of government spending is lower than Minnesota and not higher. In other words there is a correlation between lower costs, more competitive places in job growth and a correlation between job loss and less optimistic by job figures places that high cost high regulation and a like and Minnesota falls into that latter category. There has been a fundamental change in the economy. So I would suggest to you this is not unique to Minnesota its not unique to my leadership, you have to put it in the context of the times in which we live in."

We tried to ask a follow-up: Governor staying ahead of the herd is one thing, but.

He quickly responded with the following: "Let's get to some other questions so that you don't monopolize it."

It is clear Pawlenty did not like the original question nor the follow-up.

Later at the DFL Press Conference we asked a question of the two DFL candidates for Governor.

C&B: There are two of you that are candidates for governor, what should Minnesotan's (have) heard out of the Governor's reception room today that they didn't hear? Either of you can go first.

Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher (DFL-60A, Minneapolis): "Well, I didn't hear him. So I don't know what was said other than seeking the tweets out of the particular meeting. I think that Minnesota's want a governor that can understand the financial situation that they're in. That they are all feeling very pinched right now and that they want a governor who understands them and wants put the state on the best foot forward "financially" as well as in making sure that the state is really prosporus going forward. That there is going to be a job for them, for their kids and that there is going to be a growing economy in Minnesota. That's the most important things to Minnesotan's right now. And I think that is one thing they want to hear from people."

She then made an aside to another question.

MAK: "I just would like to also address...I believe we always do what we believe is right not what is expedient and I think I have track record of doing that time after time. And I will keep doing that. In the budgets we propose, in the work that we've done, the Transportation Bill that was passed over the objection of the governor and we do that time after time."

Sen. Tom Bakk (DFL-06, Cook): "I think what was missing was any effort on his part to be willing to do any economic stimulus. I mean frankly the governor ought to agree to some new revenue and directly it to an economic stimulus. This problem is not going to go away, Dr. Stinson has made that very clear, we are not just going to grow our way out of this problem. It is going to take a total reinvention of our development economic efforts. And some of that is going to cost money and for the governor to just totally take money off the table, how then are we going to invest any money in an economic stimlus? That's what's missing. And I think the idea of a 3% cut across his statewide agencies, let's be honest about what that is, maybe it’s a $100 million, maybe, we shouldn't lead anybody to believe that somehow that's the solution and I think the governor leads you to believe that a 3% cut across state agencies is a solution to the problem with some cuts in LGA and the numbers don't add up, the math doesn't add up. But more money in an economic stimulus is what is missing and I think it what they expect of the legislature right now. 

Now as the various legislative committees meet to more areas of government which can stand further cuts we will pay close attention to who is hurt most and who remains least harmed.         

One aspect of politics we have always appreciated is structure. The rules, constitutions and ultimately statutes and laws establish boundaries for all political actions. These measures are all put in place to endure and last past the politics of the moment or the personalities of the time. For this reason there are higher thresholds for changing these matters and we believe there always should be. This is why in Minnesota a referendum must receive a majority of all of the people who vote in the election and not just the majority of people who vote on that specific question.

We have never supported the idea of Instant Run-off Voting (IRV), Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) or whatever new term of art is constructed to make an electoral process change from being two events into a single occurrence. We were disappointed when the citizens of St. Paul followed the uninformed decision of those in Minneapolis and adopted a one-time election rather than the tradition Primary/General Election process for municipal elections.

As we follow suit by the No Bad Ballots Committee to overturn the referendum results in the St. Paul election on the Instant Run-off Voting question, due to literature claiming endorsement of President Barack Obama (D), the League of Women Voters and the DFL Party we wonder if the question should have even been on the ballot in the first place. The same goes for Minneapolis.

On September 14, 2007, in a Secretary of State’s Technical Committee Report entitled RANKED CHOICE VOTING ISSUES GROUP TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT the following paragraph appeared at the end of the document and remains unresolved:

Statutory Authority  - The question of whether a charter city would be allowed to move forward with implementation without legislative changes was considered on several occasions.  Though statute section 410.21 appears to grant charter cities the authority to adopt their own election method and rules of conduct, section 205.02 states that general election law applies to all municipal elections.   The aforementioned letter from the Attorney General to the Secretary of State addresses this issue; we recommend that the Legislation/Rules committee consider this issue as we move forward with developing rules and legislative strategy. 

205.02 STATUTES APPLICABLE.Subdivision 1.Minnesota Election Law.

Except as provided in this chapter the provisions of the Minnesota Election Law apply to municipal elections, so far as practicable.

Subd. 2.City elections.In all statutory and home rule charter cities, the primary, general and special elections held for choosing city officials and deciding public questions relating to the city shall be held as provided in this chapter, except that sections 205.065, subdivisions 4 to 7; 205.07, subdivision 3; 205.10; 205.121; and 205.17, subdivisions 2 and 3, do not apply to a city whose charter provides the manner of holding its primary, general or special elections.https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=205.02 

410.21 APPLICATION OF GENERAL ELECTION LAWS.
The provisions of any charter of any such city adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be
valid and shall control as to nominations, primary elections, and elections for municipal offices,
notwithstanding that such charter provisions may be inconsistent with any general law relating
thereto, and such general laws shall apply only in so far as consistent with such charter.https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=410.21

On August 23, 2007, the committee received an opinion from Assistant Attorney General Christie B. Ellier, which states the need for legislative action in order for a change in voting procedures to ensue.  We followed the 2008 legislative session and are hard pressed to have seen any dramatic changes in election law that year. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D) brought forward a limited agenda and lacking the support of Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) was only able to advance “non-controversial” issues.

To view the letter click here:

Additionally, the St. Paul City Attorney John Choi rendered the following opinion on June 18, 2008 with the following conclusion:

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we answer your question as follows: The City is not obligated to place the proposed IRV Charter amendment on the ballot. The City is expressly precluded from enacting IRV as its voting system by Minn. Stat. § 205.02 and it is not impliedly authorized by the Minnesota Constitution. The Council, to void “a futile election and total waste of taxpayers’ money”, could wait to act until it knows the outcome of pending litigation regarding IRV.

To view the entire letter click here:

In June, the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled on IRV as a pre-emption to a lower court, but did not rule on an applied challenge. This means it is well-suited opportunity to bring forward a challenge to the entire election as being unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution.

Additionally, there is a fundamental problem in the case of multi-candidate elections. Minneapolis voters were instructed to vote for one person as their first choice in spite of there being two At-Large positions for the Board of Estimation and Taxation and three At-Large positions on the Park and Recreation Board. In multi-candidate elections for multiple positions voters are normally instructed to vote for the number of candidates up to the number positions available and even in a RCV system this should not have changed. This means any of the losing candidates in either race could bring suit and potentially have the election overturned based on the concept of one person one vote found in Reynolds v. Sims (1964).

We will look forward to any suit of this nature being brought and hope those who lost out for the Board of Estimation and Taxation: Carol Jean Becker, James Elliot Swartwood and Phil Wilkie along with those for the Park and Recreation Board: Tom Nordyke, Nancy Berhard, David Halstedt and  Mary Merrill Anderson pursue the matter.

We know any criticism of this new election process garners great scorn from RCV/IRV supporters. They are Orwellian in their dogmatic dedication to the cause in a cultish fashion. After passage in the two largest metropolitan areas we expect the next push will be for statewide use. The problem is elections are not about making people feel good they are about making a choice. Supporters of RCV/IRV seek a system where voters can vote in a “sense of the electorate manner” and prove these are good “liberal” communities rather than places where people make a definitive choice. Elections are not about making statements there are about making decisions.

The system was not broken and did not warrant being fixed.   

Last week, we published an article after a conversation with Interim Minneapolis Elections Director Pat O’Connor. During which time we discussed the implementation of the election new process, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), including the speed and costs associated with the new system. In our conversation, him he gave us the impression the costs in broad “ball park” parameters were somewhat comparable, but acknowledging the final costs will not be known until later.

In his analysis, O’Connor talked about the money used for training voters on the new system as one additional cost for implementation, but we believe there are far more to items to consider. In 2013, the costs for education will return, but this time the costs of delivery of the new voting machines from Business Information Systems should also be factored in and the associated training on the new voting machines.

The hand counting required the clearing out of the warehouse normally used for administration of elections and the rental of an adjacent bay. The city spent approximately $23,000 for tables and chairs for the hand counting and also rented vending equipment for use in the space by election judges. We acknowledge the city may have budgeted for overtime and comp time when figuring out the costs of this process and they did receive a $75,000 grant to offset, but are the cleaning costs for the warehouse being seen as an additional cost? We believe any repurposing of staff should be accounted for in the overall expenditures. The costs of the rental and the staff time to move things are a direct cost of this effort.

In preparation for the change, the city held a test election, we understand was slow process to complete, but the staff time for this exercise should be calculated. Another new cost includes the hiring of an efficiency expert to help determine the best ways for the election to proceed and this contract should be factored in as part of the overall costs.

The 2010 election for governor has the possibility for becoming a contest between three former U.S. Senators. If we track the current polls, both former U.S. Senators Mark Dayton (D) and Norm Coleman (R) are favored by slight margins and if former U.S. Senator Dean Barkley (I)—appointed by Governor Jesse Ventura to fill the bulk of Paul Wellstone’s term in 2002—makes a bid then the three formers Senator election exists at least until the primary.

The likelihood of this is not all that far afield. Both Dayton (2000) and Coleman (2002) have won statewide elections for Senate and Barkley ran and won the Independence Party Primary for Senate in 2008.

The lack of a sample ballot in Minneapolis can be seen as evidence of a significant challenge to the value of the DFL endorsement and the deliverables the party is able to provide. Because Minneapolis contains the largest bloc of voters and the highest DFL index—the lack of a final push on behalf of its endorsed candidates—could be an additional sign of party decline. The ballot was to identify 21 DFL endorsees and except for two citywide Park and Recreation slots all are likely to win once the numbers are finally tabulated. This latest indication along with constant discussion over the lack of financial support for the DFL Party is becoming potential lines for an epitaph.   

The reduction in Party identification has remained consistent in the post-Watergate era. Nationally, the 1974 Congressional elections saw success of candidates who ran against their own party and the institution of Congress and were still elected. Here in Minnesota, we have seen a consistent decrease in party identification and rise in third party support since 1978, the year the DFL lost control of the its two U.S. Senate seats, the Governorship and the House of Representatives. A growing number of people identify as independent or as unaffiliated resulting in the election of Jesse Ventura in 1998.

As the landscape changes, traditional avenues such as the DFL Party, are seen as monolithic institutions incapable of adaptation to meet the needs of a changing environment. This fosters support for ideas intended to co-opt or incorporate more dynamic political elements, which we will argue brought about the push for Instant Run-off Voting. The feeling of powerlessness and inability to move the population en mass left of center creates frustration for those in that side of the spectrum and often results in new methods to stem the tide, but more likely only hasten the demise of the institution they seek to support.

In the aftermath of the municipal elections, with the next statewide election lacking any statewide federal races, the competition for limited resources especially in these stressed financial times amongst the eleven announced DFL candidates and the DFL Party already exists. There are constant discussions about the diminishing resources for the DFL Party as organizations such as Win Minnesota and Minnesota 2010 have their own fundraising events and electoral successes. At a recent meeting DFL Party Chair Brian Melendez expressed his thoughts of other organizations existing to assist candidates in their elections as becoming a threat to the DFL Party. He was informed he could ask for support from one of those organizations and stated he would not come “hat in hand” seeking financial assistance.

The announcement by AFSCME Council 5 of their endorsement of former U.S. Senator Mark Dayton (D) is quite telling. Dayton had made his intentions clear he will compete directly in the 2010 DFL Primary. He will be joined in that pursuit by former DFL House Minority Leader Matt Entenza (D). The decision by AFSCME is a shot to the value of the DFL endorsement altogether. This reality has been in evidence for quite some time. In 2000, U.S. Senate candidate Mike Ciresi (D) did not commit to abiding by the DFL Party endorsement and came in a respectable 2nd place only to contend in the DFL Primary and again finish in 2nd with 22.35% to Dayton with 41.29%. In 2008, Ciresi was willing to abide by the DFL endorsement, but withdrew early experiencing the harsh reality and understanding his time for the commitment had past and his attractiveness a something fresh and new was also past.

In 2006, Attorney General and former DFL Party Chair made it clear Mike Hatch (D) he would “like” the DFL Party endorsement, but would head to the DFL Primary with or without it. This was a tough pill to swallow especially for party people who had supported Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman in 1994, because many believe Hatch had allied with the pro-life activists to provide the DFL endorsement to Sen. John Marty (DFL-54, Roseville) one who many saw as the weakest candidate in the field. Marty beat Hatch by a mere 1.40% with 37.80% compared to 36.40%.

The value of the DFL endorsement has been a hot property in the past. Its achievement has meant access to valuable lists for volunteers and money. Now the development of the Voter Action Network (VAN) helps bring these names forward without a need for the DFL Party. The overall question being asked is the value of the DFL Party endorsement worth the hassle. Many candidates mistakenly believe the endorsement results in ready cash. It doesn’t. Candidates need to reassess is what the DFL Party produce will after the endorsement?

As we have said many times, if the DFL Party, like the Republican Party, would put their teeth behind their endorsement and stated we will use all of our resources to oppose any candidate who will challenge our endorsement it would be a different story. The problem with this statement being made today might sound like its coming from a toothless bear, which is only able to growl and not bite, because it’s broke and money is what maintains it's vitality.

Now people need to ascertain whether the problems with the DFL Party are endemic to the institution or if they exist because of the current leaderhip. 

We have been following the circumstances regarding the failure of timely arrival for the DFL Sample Ballots in Minneapolis. There has been a great deal of speculation as to why the ballots have been arriving in mailboxes after the election. We have done some digging and the blame appears to fall squaring at the top of the food chain, with the DFL State Party.

The DFL State Party controls the use of the term DFL, the endorsement process and controls the DFL Sample Ballot. This means for any entity to use the terms DFL or DFL endorsed they must have received a 60% majority at an authorized DFL endorsing convention are from a DFL Central Committee.

The reason the Sample Ballot mailing is continuing to as late as Thursday is because in some cases the ballots were mailed on Election Day. We spoke with Minneapolis DFL Chair Dan McConnell, the one who is being unfairly blamed for the result, about what transpired and here is the timeline of the process as he explained it.

The Sample Ballots were completed and sent off for mailing on Thursday October 22nd. The Minneapolis Post Office completed the assemblage of the bulk mailing on October 27th. The target dates for the mailing to be sent out were originally October 25th and 26th—Later than the candidates wanted—but the 27th became the actual date, the first small problem. The second problem was one of far larger implications the bulk mailing permit printed on all of the Sample Ballots corresponds to the ST. Paul Post Office, meaning it needed to be shipped to the other side of the river to be sent out.

This problem remains unclear as to whose responsibility it was to arrange this some finger are being pointed at Impact Mailing, but the vendor only does as instructed so either the instructions from the DFL State Party were flawed or no specific instruction was given.

Upon learning the political mailing was at the wrong location it was moved to the Central Minneapolis Post Hub on October 30^th. Still on the wrong side of the river, but they were going to try and aid with the problem. This is where the third problem crops up the Bulk Mailing was not properly tagged with the red tag #57. In fact, we have learned as of Election Day 17 of the 48 trays involved in this bulk mailing were not properly tagged.

There were 21 endorsed candidates included in the citywide mailing including Mayor R.T. Rybak (DFL) the 13 city council members, Board of Estimate and Taxation and Park and Recreation Board. The total cost of the mailing was $14,000 and in order to be part of the Combined Campaign candidates needed to pay to play. City Council candidates paid $2,000 and Park and Recreation candidates $500.

It is clear the mailing failed to arrive on time and we understand some of the mailing also contained incorrect information. There are a number of Minneapolis members of the DFL Central Committee who are up in arms and some are demanding the DFL recompensate the campaigns for the foul up.

It is interesting to see the DFL Party led by Brian Melendez, the former Minneapolis Party Chair, failing to deliver for the DFL endorsed candidates in the state’s largest city. Many have accused the current leadership of being overly Minneapolis centric, but this is just the opposite.  We understand the orchestration of this was left to a low level person who works for Andy O’Leary, but any blame falling on this person seems unwarranted.  

In an election year with little going on electorally the main program is the Sample Ballot. What is happening on Plato Boulevard? Who is minding the store? Are programs the State DFL Party administers a worthwhile investment or is the State Party untrustworthy to follow standard procedures meant to ensure success? These are a few of the questions we are hearing being asked.

As we are awaiting the election returns we will be watching closely the election results in areas like Dakota County. There in a School Board Race in District 197 the Republican Party is working to build their "farm team." In a non-partisan election the GOP has endorsed a candidate and then sent out a mailing to likely Republican voters in favor of a specific candidate. This is a tactic worthnoting.

Current Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton understands the importance of build the party's electoral prospects early, his wife Bridgett is a School Board Member of District 199 in Inver Grove Heights.

As Election Day approaches you see strange things. While people are out raking the leaves candidates are out in force distributing literature. Today in Uptown we witnessed Minneapolis Board of Estimate and Taxation Candidate Phil Willkie place a flyer in an Employment Guide and Home Improvement Magazine Free Distribution Box. When asked if he knew he was breaking the law and he said "Yes, but the Star Tribune should be charged for breaking the law with their Editorial support the referendum."

We're not sure if he will be cited for this but if he is you heard it here first. 

The results of the Republican Straw Poll are in and Rep. Marty Siefert (R-21A, Marshall) won what he described as a plurality victory.  The top three are as we expected Siefert carried 454 votes for 37% followed by Rep. Tom Emmer (R-19B, Delano) 283 votes for 23% and former State Auditor Pat Anderson (R) with 174 votes for 14% . Sen. David Hann (R-42, Eden Prarie) came in fourth with 146 votes for 12% followed by None (A Combination of None of the Above and Spoiled Ballots) with 59 votes. Rep. Paul Kohls (R-34, Victoria) finished 6th and carried 58 for 5% and former Rep. Bill Haas (R) As expected Leslie Davis and Phil Herwig were dead last along with Sen. Michael Jungbauer (R-48, East Bethel) and former Rep. Bill Haas (R) all with 10 votes and 1%.

In the second choice category Hann finished first with 216 votes for 18%, Emmer second with 17%, Anderson third with 15%, In a tie for fourth it was Siefert and None for 14% with 171 and 172 respectively.

The only other candidates mentioned were Rep. Laura Brod (R-25A, New Prague), former U.S. Senator Norm Coleman, former Congressman Jim Ramstad, former House Speaker Steve Sviggum, Businessman Brian Sullivan, former Rep. Phil Krinkie, Businesswoman Sue Jeffers, Rep. Morrie Lanning (R-09A, Moorehead) and Erin Buli.

Last night’s debate of the eight announced Republican candidates should be characterized as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. With Sen. Michael Jungbauer out for rabies treatment after a bat bite it left seven men and one woman. If so then former State Auditor Pat Anderson (R) gets the lead role and the real question is who the other characters are? We think they are clear, Leslie Davis can be best seen as Dopey, Phil Herwig as Grumpy, Rep. Marty Siefert as Happy, Rep. Tom Emmer as Sneezy, former Rep. Bill Haas as Sleepy, Rep. Paul Kohls as Bashful and Sen. David Hann as Doc.  The one person not in the scene but ever present behind the scenes is of course the evil Queen and that role goes to former Representative and head of the Taxpayers League Phil Krinkie.

Now onto a more serious note the final credentials report shows the size of the delegation as 1192. With the larger delegations coming from the 2nd and 3rd Congressional Districts and those districts having a high turnout percentage the results will be interesting to watch. As we characterized in our previous story each Congressional District has different weighting as percentages of the overall convention. These numbers have shifted to another weigh point do to the turnout as reflected in the credentials report.

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R) spoke at 12:45 pm. He started with a joke saying, “there is one good aspect of the “Cash for Clunkers” program and that is it will get more cars with Obama stickers off of the road.” He then said, “As patriots, lovers of freedom and safety including Minnesota we are all concerned with the direction of the United States of America.” There are a lot of concerns in the air for conservatives and for good reasons. Then he invoked God at least three instances saying it is a good time to acknowledge God and then said, “The Minnesota Constitution the preamble to the Minnesota Constitution says, in the very first sentence in the very first paragraph it says, “We the people of the state of Minnesota grateful to God.” He then said, “In the Declaration of Independence it says “We are endowed by our creator…””

His reception was met with strong support and many people spent time showing him appreciation and stating their pride in his work and he was generally thankful.

The candidates are now speaking and then it will be onto the speeches by the candidates for governor. Jungbauer did speak to the delegates and compared his experience with rabies shots similar to a woman going through menopause.