Minnesota Constitutional Politics

Note:  Back in May,last year I posted this blog about the history of amending the Minnesota Constitution.  I thought it a great time to repost it in light of all the talk about constitutional politics in the 2012 Legislature.

All indications are there will be at least one if not multiple state constitutional amendments on the 2012 ballot for Minnesotans to consider. Possibilities include a ban on same-sex marriage, photo identification for voting, a requirement for a 60% legislative vote to raise taxes, and perhaps one on making Minnesota a right-to-work state.

Supporters of these proposals contend the public has a right to vote on them, critics respond no; asserting that resorting to amending the Minnesota Constitution is unprecedented and inappropriate. Who is right? There may be no definitive answer, yet state history reveals 150 plus years of amendments, yielding interesting conclusions about constitutional politics.

Since ratification of the Minnesota Constitution in 1858, there have been 211 constitutional amendments proposed to the voters, with 119 adopted. Until 1898, constitutional amendments required a majority of both houses in the legislature to propose them to the voters, with a simple majority of those voting on the amendments to approve them.

In 1898 the amending process was changed, thereafter requiring a qualified majority of all who voted in a specific election to vote in favor the amendment. Voting in the election but not voting on the amendment counted as a no vote. Amending the Constitution was made more difficult because critics claimed special interests and groups were using the process to further their politics.

Over time, interesting patterns have developed regarding when amendments have been offered and adopted.

Era	Dates	Proposed	Adopted	Percentage Adopted
Nineteenth Century	1858-1898	66	48	73%
Progressive Era	1900-1918	45	10	22%
1920s	1920-1928	15	7	47%
Depression and WW II	1930-1944	20	8	40%
Total	1958-2010	211	119	56%

During the 19th century, 73% of the 66 proposed amendments were adopted. After changes in the amendment process, the Progressive Era—a period supposedly notable for significant social and economic reform in the Minnesota and across the country, only 10 of 45 or 22% of the amendments were adopted. Many amendments were offered during this time but few were accepted by the voters. Conversely, since WWII, and especially since the Constitution was reorganized in 1974, nearly 70% of all proposed amendments were adopted.

Constitutional amendments come in bunches. Many times in Minnesota history three, four, or more amendments have been on the ballot at the same time. The record is 1914, 11 amendments proposed, one adopted. Because of frequent amending, no definitive pattern emerges regarding whether they encouraged turnout, but there is no doubt than in their day proposals to let women vote or authorize gambling drove excitement and turnout. Moreover, in years when more than one amendment appeared on the ballot, usually one dominated the public’s attention, sometimes damaging the prospects of the other amendments from passing.

Looking at the types of amendments proposed, they fall into four groups. There are structural amendments addressing the organization of government, such as the length of the legislative session, giving the governor the veto, or regulating the size of the judiciary. Financial amendments include authorizing the state to impose taxes, bond, give special bonuses to military veterans, or otherwise to spend money. Rights amendments deal with matters of individual rights, such as franchise and jury trials. Finally, regulatory amendments dealt with various aspects of regulating private corporations, such as the liability of its officers.

Of the 211 amendments proposed, they can be classified as follows:

Type	Proposed	Adopted	Adopted Percentage
Structure of government	97	51	53%
Finance (taxes, bonding)	82	50	61%
Individual rights	17	12	71%
Regulatory (corporations)	15	6	40%
Total	211	119	56%

What do we learn about the content of the amendments proposed and passed? Clearly many addressed contentious issues of the time. No, they did not address abortion or marriage and surprisingly none sought to ban alcohol sales. These are today’s hot button issues, or ones that we might consider contentious. But controversial is relative to the times, and amendments dealing with regulation of railroads during the robber baron era, or giving women or Blacks the right to vote were the headlines of the day. Resorting to constitutional amendments as a populist political strategy has been a part of Minnesota politics from the beginning.

But looking at the content of the amendments adopted, some interesting patterns emerge. Among the 12 adopted Amendments addressing individual rights, five of them expanded voting rights. In the entire history of the state only one constitutional amendment, in 1896, restricted voting rights. Here it limited the practice in place until then that allowed aliens or non-citizens to vote in Minnesota. This practice encouraged and welcomed Scandinavians to Minnesota.

Three other amendments also limited rights, addressing issues surrounding use of juries in civil and misdemeanors. The message is clear—amendments to the Constitution have generally expanded rights, especially voting, and not contracted them.

Second, among the 50 adopted amendments dealing with finance, 17 authorized new taxes, bonding authority, or spending, and only six restricted or made it more difficult for public spending. Of those six, four in the nineteenth century restricted the ability to use public money to help the railroads (again seeking to limit the power of the robber barons), one in the nineteenth century barred the spending of public money for religious schools (Minnesota’s Blaine Amendment, similar to those adopted in many other states about the same time), and then one amendment during the Depression prohibited the taxing of personal property and farm equipment. Minnesota’s history thus demonstrates more a pattern of enabling spending to build schools and undertake public projects than to restrict it.

Votes and not history will decide whether amendments on the ballot in 2012 will pass. Yet the current amendments directed toward restricting rights, voting, and public financing seem out of sync with Minnesota’s history. But for good or bad, resorting to the amendment process is a part of Minnesota history to address politically charged issues of the day.

The Swinger Voter in the 2012 Elections

Winning politics is often about identifying and mobilizing the swing voter.  But in light of allegations of Newt Gingrich’s desire for an open marriage, maybe candidates should be reaching out for the swinger voters. What do we know about them?

In 1992 while stories of candidate Bill Clinton surfaced about an extramarital affair with Gennifer Flowers, I published “Expose Yourself to Politics,” documenting what we know about voter political orientations and sexual activity.  In general, the more sexually active the less likely to vote.  No surprise here!   But what do we know today about the swinger voter?

Examining the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) data 1972 to 2010 here is what we know.

Among individuals who identify themselves as a strong Democrat, 9% have had more than one sex partner in the last year.   This compares to 6.4% strong Republican.  Among those who consider themselves regular Democrats it is 8%, regular Republican 9.8%.  Slightly more Democrats have more multiple partners than the Republicans. Conversely, more Republicans have had no sexual partners in the last year compared to Democrats.  This might tell us something about why the GOP is more likely to turnout than Democrats.

But now let’s get to the critical question about swinger voters.  Among strong Democrats, 16% claim to have had an extramarital affair compared to 9.4% of strong Republicans.  Among regular Democrats, it is 18.2% and for regular Republicans, it is 15.9%.  For independents, the percentage is 15.7%

According to NORC survey results, 12.5% of the population admits to being unfaithful.   The promiscuous are not an insignificant voting bloc, especially when 73.3% of them claimed to have voted (compared to 74.3% who did not have an affair).  Capturing nearly 13% of the population is a great way to begin to build a winning coalition.


But what if some swingers, as noted above, are hardcore partisans in that they may personally stray but politically remain faithful?  Of the 12.5% who are personally unfaithful, nearly 16% claim to be political independents.  Alas these individuals are the true swinger voters and the voting outcome of these few individuals comprising approximately 2% of the population could very well determine who wins in 2012.  The question that remains then are what are the hot bottom issues that appeal to these voters?  I look forward to answers in 2012.

Respublica Factio Est Omnis Divisa in Partes Tres (The Republican Party is divided into three parts)

As Julius Caesar once described all Gaul as divided into three parts, so too is the Republican Party after the South Carolina primary.  And while both Caesar and Mitt Romney aimed to come, see, and conquer their respective territories, it was Newt Gingrich who crossed the political Rubicon and inserted uncertainty into the GOP primary process by winning in South Carolina.

Face it, Mr. Inevitable is still in trouble. Seven days ago Romney was the winner in Iowa and New Hampshire and he was cruising to a double-digit lead in South Carolina.  A win there would have probably cemented the nomination for him.  But then the sky fell in.  Santorum is certified the winner in Iowa by a nose and now Romney’s 25% second place finish does not look so good–placing him exactly where he was four years ago.  Yes he does win NH but he was supposed to, as he did in 2008.

Then there were all the missteps about economics.  That he payed about 15% income taxes, and that he did not make much in speaking fees–only about seven times the average household income in America.  Then Gingrich unleashed his attack on him and vulture capitalism (far better than any offered by Obama or the liberals excluding Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders)  in a state where economic unease is high.  It also did not hurt that Gingrich played the race card in SC by talking about welfare. Top that off with Romney playing it safe in the two debates while Gingrich did to him what Rome did to Hannibal, and the sack of Mitt was complete.

The Republican Party is clearly divided into three parts.  Santorum wins the evangelical midwest, Romney the business northeast, and Gingrich the racially divided south.  These are the three bases of the Republican Party with Paul representing a fourth libertarian wing that is mostly outside of the  party as it is composed of students anti-war activists, and libertarians, not your normal GOP fare.   There is no real sign that the party is coalescing around one candidate–at least not Romney.  Instead,  if anything, the momentum may be shifting to Gingrich.

Gingrich won big in SC.  Exit polls show that he won evangelicals and non-evangelicals, TEA partiers and none, and he won among those who felt economically insecure and with those whose main aim was to beat  Obama.   Romney did well with moderates–all three of them living in Charleston.   Gingrich’s marriage issues did not seem to matter (I presume the swinger vote went for him) and CNN’s opening and predictable question in the Thursday’s debate about it gave Newt the perfect opportunity to bash the media and score points.  Endorsements by Rick Perry and Sarah Palin (along with Chuck Norris) in South Carolina portend that he might be the frontrunner now.

Mitt still can point to money, organization, and polls in Florida, but one should not count on that.  Mitt underwent a double-digit collapse in SC in one week and nothing prevents the same by January  31.    But South Carolina is also a perfect bellwether–since 1980, every GOP winner of its primary has eventually received the party nomination.  Four years ago SC stopped Mitt’s presidential prospects and the same seems to be a possibility today. I can only imagine Romney last night muttering  “Et tu Newt?”

Understanding Occupy Wall Street

A packed house at Hennepin United Methodist Church on Thursday night as I spoke to Citizens for Global Solutions. The title of my talk: "Occupy Wall Street and the Twilight of American Capitalism." Thanks to all who came; it was a warm reception on a chilly night.

Obama’s Bar Fight: Politics is about winning over the swing voters and Obama ain’t doing it

President Obama is in the middle of a bar fight that he may lose. The NY Times reports that only 31% of the swing voters this year support him, this compares to 52% in 2008. (Of course the good news is no one likes the GOP and what they have to offer!) So why is this a bar fight?

E.E. Schattschneider, one of the most astute political scientists in last 50 years drew a comparison between politics, swing voters, and bar fights in his 1960 The Semisovereign People. He noted that bar fights are won or lost depending on who the audience supports. The same is true in politics. In an era when no political party commands a majority, the battle for victory resides in capturing the swing voter. Politics is thus about moving marginals (swing voters). Politics is a bar fight.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats of course will do their best to mobilize their political bases in a effort to win an election. But that is generally not enough. According to a recent Rasmussen reports poll, 35.4% of the American adult population considers themselves to be Republican while 32.7% consider themselves to be Democrats.

These numbers reflect a historic switch in the post WW II era were Democratic affiliation was much greater than for Republicans. Recent Gallup surveys place the ranks of Democrats at 43%, the GOP at 40%. This survey seems more consistent with the historic slight edge given to the Democrats. But both surveys highlight the same point–neither party commands 50% of more of the electorate. For Rasmussen, 32% report no or other for party affiliation, for Gallup, it is 17%.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats command a majority of the population as their base. They therefore cannot win elections as a rule simply by mobilizing their base. Instead they have to win over some swing voters to their side. Real swing voters are those who do shift sides and preferences in voting, as opposed to voters who claim no party affiliation but nonetheless still vote consistently for one party or another.

The battle for control of much of American politics, especially at the presidential level, is an effort to capture swing voters to support you. As discussed earlier presidential politics revolves around swing states. It is also true that in many state and local races the demographics and district lines for offices make few seats uncompetitive. Some estimates are that in Congress at best only about 15% or so of seats are truly competitive. But in many races, and at the presidential level, the battle is to move swing voters in a few swing states. Who are these swing voters?

Efforts to define swing voters are often elusive. In his The Swing Voter in American Politics William G Meyer notes that there is no one single swing voter. Instead, there a clusters of several types. There are the suburban soccer moms, many formerly Republican but who have left the party (while their husbands have not) because of its stand on many issues. These women care about family issues such as health insurance and education and are more moderate on issues such as abortion and gay rights. There also are the NASCAR dads who fit into this category. One can also locate young people. The list of groups is broad but finite.

In many cases the swing voters are not only politically not partisan but moderate in their political views. In some cases they are highly educated; often they are not always highly motivated to vote and therefore not always reliable or cannot be counted on to show up. In some cases these voters know about the issues, and they may get their political information from tradition or non-traditional sources. In other cases, they are not politically engaged and not well informed about the issues.

The difficult task for candidates going after swing voters is twofold. First, identifying the demographic they wish to reach given their issues, and second, deciding whether it is better to try to mobilize or demobilize them. If you demobilize them they will not vote for the opposition. That is good. Seeking to mobilize them to support you is good, but it may be costly to reach them. Also, they may represent niche demographics and therefore hard to reach or locate. Moreover, one you reach them you then have to give them reason to vote. Thus swing voters present two troubles: How to locate and reach them and then get them to vote for you. These are separate problems but often intertwined.

Who are the most important swing voters in American politics? The simple answer is that it depends on the election. However, some arguments can be made that the soccer mom is still one of the most important swing voters. While Democrats do enjoy a gender gap advantage in terms of getting a greater percentage of women as opposed to men to vote for them in recent elections, this may be due to the fact that Democrats have been more successful in reaching out to them as the Republican Party has moved in a more conservative direction. Critical to presidential success in recent elections has been to look at where the female voters go–if they break in large numbers for the Democrats then it is more likely the Democratic candidate wins.

However, the argument can also be made that other swing voters, include young people under 30, are important. These are individuals whose turnout is mercurial and not dependable. If the overall turnout rates in America for voting in national elections is approximately 60%, turnout for those under 30 is perhaps 20 or more points lower. Barack Obama was very successful in appealing to them and having them turnout to vote, although again some polls suggest that their turnout in 2008 was not unusually larger.

Finally, swing voters might also be potentially include individuals whose politics may not line up neatly with the two major parties. There are pro-choice and pro-gay-rights voters who nonetheless are fiscally conservative. These individuals face dilemmas in partisan voting and may be swing voters.

Whatever the final composition of swing voters, it is simply enough to say that it is a bar fight to win them over. When we think of a presidential election, one might be able to say that the real battle is to win over swing voters in swing suburbs in swing states. This is actually a pretty small battleground.

Yet Again--the Fraud on Voter Fraud: My Comments on Politics Nation

Yet again the fraud on voter fraud rears its ugly head.

James O’Keefe of Project Veritas tried to punk New Hampshire election judges by impersonating dead people and seeking to vote. Unfortunately for him the only fraud committed may be by him. I comment on O’Keefe’s scam on Al Sharpton’s Politics Nation and in Talking Points Memorandum.

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein closes his Tractatus with the wonderful line: “Of which we have no experience, we must remain silent.” His statement is a plea about the need to have empirical proof to resolve many matters of debate. Wittgenstein’s admonition precisely addresses the debate on proof about voter fraud. I have commented on this point before and will do again in light of the video alleging voter fraud in New Hampshire.

First, producers of the video are caught in a contradiction. They want to demonstrate how easy it is to commit in-person voter fraud by simulating it. However, one of two things are true. First, if they want to demonstrate how easy it is to commit this fraud they actually need to consummate the act. They did not do that if they actually did not cast a vote. Had they cast the vote then voter fraud occurs. But if they stopped short of that we actually do not know if they would have gotten away with the fraud. We do not know if they have been caught and prosecuted once records were check to see if any dead had voted. We also do not know if the canvass or any complaints would have been filed to catch them. Thus, we really do not have in this video here clear examples of voter fraud.

Conversely, if the producers in the video did actually commit voter fraud to prove their point then they are essentially estopped from claiming they did not violate the law.

But more generally, isolated case studies are a few examples of false impersonation here do not constitute good empirical evidence of widespread voter fraud. The fact that this video depicted potentially how easy it is to commit false impersonation does not support the proposition that in fact widespread voter fraud exists. A robbery at one bank does not prove banks are unsafe. As the saying goes one swallow does not constitute a spring. Single case studies are the weakest form of empirical evidence there is. Thus, this video, for whatever it says, fails to say much about the reality of voter fraud.

Immanuel Kant spoke of metaphysical versus empirical statements. Too much of the voter fraud discussion is simply the former-broad assertions without real evidence. It is like faith-based claims. Voter fraud is an empirical debate but is not treated as that. It is an article of faith for those who believe it does and rigorous social science inquiry will not resolve the issue. Voter fraud is a political narrative asserted on a plain that is not about empirical evidence. No amount of evidence will resolve the issue. It is like debates over whether the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot exist or whether there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll.

I have made these comments several times. I have also sought to make this point in a piece “Is Voter Fraud Like Littering?: Empirical and Methodological Considerations.” However, regardless of my pointing out the circularity of the debate on the topic of fraud, it goes on and I am confident that it will persist regardless of what the evidence does or does not say.

Capitalism versus Democracy: The Free Market and the 2012 Elections

A spectre is haunting American capitalism–the spectre of democracy and the 2012 elections.

As the 2012 campaign season unfolds what has become so fascinating is the degree to which it is becoming a referendum on capitalism both in the United States and across the world. Yet this is not an election where the most forceful criticism is coming from the socialist left demanding a revolution, but at least in the United States it is being driven from the right by the TEA Party and the likes of Newt Gingrich criticizing Mitt Romney and venture capitalism. All of this highlights the tension or unease there is in reconciling democracy and free markets, populism and capitalism.

Historically many argue that there is an interconnection between the rise of capitalism, religion, and democracy. Both emerged roughly at the same time in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Scholars asserted that the concept of economic liberty and being free to act as the pejorative economic man in the market place reinforced and gave impetus to the individual liberty and the right to make choices in the political marketplace. Limited government protected both economic and political liberty.

Milton Friedman, in his classic Capitalism and Freedom emphasized this connection, seeing not only historical connections between free markets and individual freedom, but such a connection remained critical to the present. When the gates of communism came crashing down in the 1990s many argued that a prerequisite to building democracy in these former totalitarian states was first privatization of state enterprises and the establishment of market economies. To a large extent, the evolution of western capitalism and democracy have been inextricably connected. To many, it is no coincidence that the American Declaration of Independence and Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations were both penned in the same year.

Yet capitalism and democracy or free markets and limited government are not always reinforcing but can be in tension. Chile under Allende was the epitome of free market capitalism and totalitarianism. Similarly China has perhaps the most successful capitalist system in the world right now under the direction of an oppressive state with limited political freedom. But in the United States, we supposedly have blended the right combination of capitalism and democracy. But in 2012, that blend is on the ballot this November.

Now of course one immediately thinks that the questioning is coming from the left. The Occupy Wall Street “We are the other 99%” is a serious critique of the growing mal-distributions of wealth in America since the 1970s that come to equal that of the early 20th century. Repeated reports document a country where the rich have vastly increased their incomes and share of the wealth at the expense of others. It is a country where social mobility and the belief of anyone can emerge from poverty and become rich is tempered by the reality that the US has the lowest social mobility of any major western country. We are a country torn by high degrees of economic and racial segregation in schools and neighborhoods. One would think this would be the referendum on capitalism slated for this November.

Or perhaps it is Obama-socialism, at least as described by those on the right that is what is driving the critique. One might think that Obama’s tepid embrace of Occupy Wall Street, his push for universal health care, his bailouts of banks and the auto industry, and his flaccid regulatory reforms would be the cause of placing capitalism on the ballot. But it is not. Instead it comes from the right.

Internationally, the European debt crisis that started in Greece and spread to Italy has been driven the critique not against capitalism but democracy. With clear political majorities in these countries rejecting the type of financial restructuring and cuts in government services demanded by the European Central Bank, the IMF, and the World Bank, Greece and Italy were forced to remove their leaders and replace them with technocrats more supportive of what the financial institutions wanted.

In the US, the most forceful criticism has come from the TEA and Republican Parties. The Tea Party is a populist group critical of what it perceives to be the creeping socialism of Obama and the Democrats. Michele Bachmann repeatedly excoriated Obama as a socialist. But she did the same in her attacks on fellow Republicans.

But now there is Romney. Romney is the Gordon Gecko of 2012. His work as a venture capitalist at Bain led to the take over and destruction of many companies and jobs and, fair enough, the creation of many other news jobs. But Gingrich and Perry have attacked him, making venture capitalism as dirty word as socialism. Their critiques about Romney destroying jobs, companies, and communities and creating new ones overseas or at wages far inferior to the old ones lost are devastating. Gingrich right now is offering the most powerful critique of capitalism there is. But so is Ron Paul in demanding return to the gold standard and in attacking the Federal Reserve. Both are playing on the anxiety of an electorate rightly worried that capitalism has abandoned them.

The Republican nomination process thus is surprisingly turning into a referendum on capitalism. Romney is the mainstream candidate who is the pro-business-cut-the-taxes type of candidate. He is opposed by Gingrich, Paul, and Perry, who are seeking to rally popular support against this type of capitalism. Never mind that they may be hypocrites or that their solutions are perhaps more capitalism and less democracy or government regulation of business and economic redistribution to solve the problems of capitalism.

These attacks on Romney scare too many Republicans as hitting too close to home and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Demands from many Republicans to knock off the on swipes at venture capitalism are illuminating the popular anxiety many have that perhaps free markets do not always serve the people, and capitalists themselves may not always be supportive of democracy.

The Iowa Caucus Results: And the winner is...

Not Romney. Not Bachmann. The winners are Obama, big money, and the massive divide in the Republican Party as the primaries head to New Hampshire and South Carolina.

A first look at the results suggests clear winners and losers. Romney, Santorum, and Paul are the clear winners. Romney wins a state only a few weeks ago he conceded. Santorum comes out of nowhere to almost win, and Paul does well enough to stay near the top. In fact Paul is the most consistent of all the Republicans. He came in second in the August, 2011 straw poll and now finishes a close third.

But look deeper and the fortunes of these candidates look very different.

Romney's Win
Yes, Romney wins Iowa and he will no doubt win New Hampshire. Many candidates are bypassing that state and are aiming for South Carolina on January 21. Romney leads in polls in all the early states, he has the money, and he has the organization to succeed. Yet he lacks a passionate base, and so Iowa was not a great victory for him. Recall that in 2008 Romney came in second in Iowa with 25%–this is exactly where he is today. It is not that Romney is a stronger candidate today than a month ago (let alone four years ago). Instead, the GOP base–especially the social conservatives–are more divided today than in 08. Romney tremendously benefited on Tuesday from a fractured conservative base.

Think back to 08. Huckabee wins Iowa with 34%. Add his percent to Fred Thompson’s 13% and the social conservatives have 47% of the vote. Now shift to 2012. Romney has 24.6%. Compare that to Santorum (24.5), Perry (10.3), and Bachmann (5.0) and that totals 39.8%. Yes the clear social conservatives have a lower percentage, but they are more divided, especially if one concedes that some of Gingrich’s votes too might come from the social-conservatives.

But think also about how Paul went from 10% in 2008 to 21.4% in 2012. He more that doubles his vote. One message from Iowa is how with Romney stuck at 255 in two caucuses, he has failed to win over the more conservative wings of his party. He is in no better shape than before, he just looks better because of a more divided party.

But Romney’s win came also with big money. Super Pacs were the big winner in Iowa spending more than $16 in ads. Romney benefitted from this spending and lethal attack ads on Gingrich. Thus, were it not for big money and a divided conservative field, Romney would look no better today than four years ago.

Romney has failed to close the gap with the majority of the GOP base. He has been stuck at 25% in Iowa and across the country for months. He still faces a distrust problem among conservatives and there is still little passion for him. As I said before, he is Mr. Inevitable but that hardly is the basis for a party rallying around you. Going forward he needs to win over the conservatives and that may not happen easily. Look to see rumors or calls for others to enter the race and with the GOP now running primaries on a proportional and not a winner-take-all basis, candidates such as Paul have every incentive to stay in the race, pickup delegates, and prevent a sealing of the deal for Romney.

Santorum's Close Second
Santorum wins but this is a short-lived one, perhaps. He is the latest beneficiary from the “Anybody but Romney” vote. Unlike others such as Bachmann and Perry who rose and there was time for media vetting and scrutiny, this did not happen with Santorum. He benefitted from the implosion of other conservatives, the Anti-Romney feeling, conservative endorsements, and luck of timing. He will face more scrutiny now and Romney and Super Pacs will turn on him. Santorum has little organization and money going forward and he challenge will be to capitalize on Iowa.

Given all this division, Obama must be thrilled. The GOP are divided and will spend resources fighting one another. This is good news, especially to hope that the social conservatives do not quickly rally around Romney or someone else. However, Obama should not rejoice yet. The potentially long GOP primaries may mean that Republican candidates spend a lot of time and get a lot of air time criticizing him and it may also mean that the candidate who survives is a better campaigner as a result of the long primary fight.

Perry and Bachmann
Now the clearest losers are Perry and Bachmann. Perry has money to go on but he is so damaged that he is returning to Texas to reassess his campaign. Wise move.

The bigger story if Bachmann’s fall from first in the Iowa straw poll to essentially last in the caucus. Her fall from grace is told in City Pages.

Her errors are numerous and she never grew as a candidate. In fact, her presidential campaign simply magnified her flaws from her congressional campaigns where her easy victories were more a consequence of good district lines and weak opponents. But Bachmann was a one trick pony–She never tired in repeating a line–“I will not rest until Obamacare is repealed”–but she had nothing beyond that. She lacked a real narrative or vision for her presidency and it showed.

What will Bachmann do next? She will go onto SC but she lacks money, staff, and a media presence after today. She is a zombie–walking dead–or a piece of toast.

Bachmann is no shoe-in to get re-elected for Congress in MN for a couple of reasons.

First, Minnesota's have soured on her and that too may be within her district. Statewide I have seen polls putting her negatives in the upper 50% range. Whether the same is true for her district is a good question. However, many were upset that she began her presidential campaign or at least announcement that she was considering a run for the White House on the day she was to be sworn in for Congress back in January 2011. They look at that, her rhetoric in Iowa confessing her roots there and love for the state to be a turning of her back on MN. She will have to explain all this rhetoric and abandoning her district should she decide to return home to run again.

Second, the bigger problem is redistricting. We will not know until February 22 what her district lines will look like. Her district is way over in population and needs to be apportioned with other congressional ones to achieve one-person, one vote. Currently she has benefited from one of the most solidly pro-GOP districts in the state. No guarantee that will happen again. Moreover, at least one plan for redistricting--puts her home of Stillwater, MN in Democrat Representative Betty McCollum's district. McCollum's district is a solidly Democrat one that includes mostly St. Paul. It make a lot of sense to redraw McCollum's district to extend out to the Wisconsin border. If that happens, Bachmann would have to decide to run against McCollum in a district that favors a Democrat. Other possible districting scenarios are also possible and we will not know until the MN courts finish their work in February.

Under MN law, Bachmann does not have to declare her candidacy for Congress again until June. However, the MN caucuses are on February 7, and if she decides to run she may want to declare sooner to prepare. Right now, uncertainly about redistricting and whether she will run again have depressed other GOP candidates from being able to gain traction or declare. One rumor is that Tom Emmer--former GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2010--wants to run.

My guess for Bachmann? If she runs and wins it is a prologue to her then challenging Franken for the US Senate in 2014. If she does not run, she tries for a political commentator job on CNN or Fox. CNN needs her more. However, her poor performance in Iowa and bad book sales have hurt her value. Maybe she goes on the speaking circuit. But to do any of this she needs to do better in SC to raise her value. That is perhaps why she goes on: to salvage something.