Category: GOP Politics

by Dave Mindeman

Yesterday's post on the GOP Governor race between Emmer and Seifert drew some interesting reactions. Let me note that nobody disputed the idea that this will be a very contentious convention fight. But the disagreement was on what happens after the convention. The conservatives that commented are convinced that it will be peaches and honey once the endorsement is decided.

OK, so let's talk about that.

Bill Jungbauer, an Emmer supporter, made his comment;

Totally wrong. We will all unite behind whoever is nominated at the convention. We are all very aware of the importance of how hard we must work together in keeping the governor's seat from a liberal.

That sounds pretty certain. But then, the convention is still a ways off and the fight has only really begun. It's easy to be sure at this stage of the game.

Frequent commenter on this site, MN Central (a centrist leaner), added another element:

Yes, it is going to be bloody. It makes me wonder if Seifert would be helped by a Primary Challenge … Emmer is so hard right that voters may see Seifert as more moderate than he is. That said, the MN-GOP voters will have a choice in November … Vote with the nominee (my bet today is Emmer) or look at Tom Horner and the IP Party...

Jungbauer responded to that:

The majority of Libertarian voters could be described as socially-moderate, fiscally-conservative Republicans. They are just one of the group of voters who are backing Tom Emmer big time. You will not see a big cross over vote like we did in 2008 because the lesson has been learned about moderates. A candidate with principles gets the respect they deserve. If you are lukewarm I shall spit you out. That is what happened to a couple of candidates in 08. Not this year.

Spit...bleeeaaaachh...spit it out. While Jungbauer expects the party to unite around the nominee, I have the feeling that the conservative thought process is that the nominee is assumed to be Emmer. And its interesting that he should mention Libertarians.

The Ron Paul faction of the party seems to be supporting Emmer. During the last cycle they were a little steamed at the way Rep. Paul was treated, as well as the way national delegates were selected. Now, I would speculate that if the Paulites are pushed aside again there will be a stronger backlash reaction.

But let's move to Mitch Berg of Shot in the Dark, who likes to weigh in on these sorts of things as well. He did his little "fisk" on the post here...

Again, he does not dispute that this will be a very tough fight. In fact, he looks forward to the battle....

So campaign like hell for whomever your candidate is – Seifert or Emmer. Because for once, conservatives are in a win-win situation. Whomever gets the nomination will be a better, more conservative governor than any of the alternatives available to us today. Neither will be perfect – but perfect, as they say, is the enemy of “plenty good enough”.

Again, easy to think of it all in those terms because the battle has not been fully joined. But Berg brings up a different point based on past history. He believes that the 2002 battle between Pawlenty and Sullivan to be a reference case in point. He says that the outcome of the 2002 battle proves that the GOP can fight the good fight and then move forward together.

Let me take you back in time to 2002. Brian Sullivan – who was and is every bit as conservative as Tom Emmer – had the backing of the conservative base. Tim Pawlenty – who held the same position in the GOP caucus that Seifert does today – and Sullivan were every bit as closely locked together as Seifert and Emmer are today. And some of the punditry, especially on the left, predicted exactly the same result; that Sullivan’s supporters would stay home, that conservatives would break away, that the GOP would battle itself into irrelevance. But the convention, as long and brutal as it got, had exactly the opposite effect. To win the endorsement, Tim Pawlenty had to adopt one of Sullivan’s key driving points – the Taxpayers League’s “No New Taxes” pledge. And for the imponderably vast majority of Minnesota conservatives, that was more than enough.

I thought about 2002 as well. But there are a few key differences in today's struggle. The fight in 2002 was a policy fight. The "no new taxes" pledge was the line in the sand. Pawlenty crossed it to get the endorsement -- end of division. Emmer and Seifert don't have any differences in tax policy. Theirs is a difference in personality and style. It is also a question of support. Conservative base vs. party establishment. Those are differences that can lead to stronger divisiveness. There is no "quit claim deed" to sign and appease the opposition.

Personality clashes can, as the definition implies, get personal. And supporters can take it personally as well. This race is dead even and the campaigns are going to do things that will capitalize on any weakness, any foible, any voting nuance.

The high ideals that I hear from conservatives at the moment can get quickly buried in the mud of attack politics. And the Republicans are masters at it -- they think it is the only way to win. Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment? Ha! You only have to look to NY-23 to see how that plays out.

Again to quote Mitch Berg:

In short, the bruising endorsement process had exactly the effect it was supposed to; a candidate won, but as a result of his fight to get endorsed, he took the keystone of his challenger’s platform to the Governor’s Mansion with him.

And what is the keystone in the current contest? What line can either of these candidates cross that will say all is well?

Seifert is the master of the malaprop. He likes to demean his opponent. And you can call Emmer a principled speaker, a zealous advocate, or man of conviction -- it all boils down to the basic criticism that is oh, so true, he's a boilerplate hothead and a loose cannon.

That's the confrontation that the GOP will have at the end of April.

As I said before, there will be blood.

Update: Here's an interesting tidbit. Wigley of The Taxpayer's League has endorsed Emmer. Yet, according to the Polinaut Blog, Seifert has signed the No New Taxes pledge, while Emmer has not.
Hmmmmmmmmmm....

Category: DFL Gov 2010

by Dave Mindeman

Over the course of the last few weeks the DFL county and senate district conventions are producing the final group that will determine the DFL endorsement. With all that activity happening, there has been an enormous amount of speculation as to what it all means. So, what does it mean?

I have heard a number of ideas put out there, heard a lot of campaign theories, and observed a lot of the usual convention tactics.

After homogenizing all of this together, the answers are just as elusive as when we started. The delegate counts need to be taken with a grain of salt. Although the MPP count and my unofficial tally are reasonably close in numbers, don't look at it as any kind of definitive show of strength for any particular candidate.

Even when delegates come form "named" candidate subcaucuses, that delegate might be only marginal in real support. Having been through the subcaucus process a number of times, it is less about candidate support and more about just going to the convention.

With so many candidates involved, delegates can filter through any viable subcaucus without naming whom they actually support. Sometimes on purpose, sometimes because that support is only lukewarm anyway.

The Kelliher campaign has taken the most traditional method at the conventions. They have been getting their supporters together and directly naming their caucus. Delegate support from those groups should be pretty solid. The Rybak campaign has followed that up to a point, but they have been making a concerted effort to filter into the undecided caucuses as well. I heard one anecdotal story that said when the subcaucuses at one convention were all named and the vast majority were listed as "undecided", this person said they saw a group of Rybak people take off their stickers and filter into different undecided groups.

There is nothing wrong with that; it's a perfectly legitimate strategy, especially in this type of year where we are not pared down to one or two major candidates.

In addition to all that, the Congressional candidates strive to get their people through as well. Getting named subcaucuses to be viable for a Congressional candidate is often difficult and a lot of them get absorbed into other groups. That doesn't mean their supporters aren't making it through to the conventions.... it just means they aren't as visible.

The massive number of listed undecideds is very unusual. And, while a lot of them are not "true" undecideds, I believe that a majority of them are....I know I am.

There has been speculation that Mark Dayton and Matt Entenza are trying to work the undecideds heavily to form some kind of block. I talked to several people close to the Dayton campaign and they are telling me that no such plan is being done. Supporters may be doing it on their own but there is no campaign activity in that regard. I can't be as certain about the Entenza campaign, but I doubt they are doing anything of that nature either. There are just too many candidates and too many unknowns.

Then there is ReNEW Minnesota. A block of delegates that are pledged to an endorsement process that favors Rybak, Kelliher, or Thissen. But since they have 3 candidates involved, its hard to figure out how that is a factor unless they move as a block to one candidate right away. I doubt that that is the plan. I would assume their actions will be later in the convention when we have eliminated some candidates already. Their three will probably be in it all the way. So, again, its all an unknown.

Oh, I heard other stories, too. At one convention, Matt Entenza's father in law emerged as a delegate from an undecided caucus -- you think he is really undecided? Other places got burned by some of the rule changes. In Brainerd, a Thissen subcaucus lost its viability when the viable number got increased by one and they had just moved one of their number to another group to make that group viable as well. At least one of them was dissolved because they were one short.

It's a wild process at times, but it is also a good test of campaign organization. Who has the numbers and who has the communication to make it work for their own campaign. Obviously, the Kelliher and Rybak campaigns have been pretty successful so far, but as a commenter pointed out on this blog -- the numbers are a virtual reflection of the Precinct Caucus straw poll. Nobody has really improved upon the numbers they started with.

So we have about a month and a half to go. Several conventions still need to convene. The legislature is in session througout the process. And there is no sign that anybody is dropping out.

So, we are right back to where we started.

It's anybody's game.