Covid 19 and Minnesota 2020 Legislative Session: How it changed everything and nothing

Covid-19 changed everything and nothing in the 2020 Minnesota Legislative session.  The state
entered the session with a partisanly-divided legislature preparing for the 2020 elections, and it exited on May 18, looking at a predictable special session to get its work done.

Where we were then and Where we are now

Remember where Minnesota in February 2020?  The State had an imaginary budget surplus of $1.5 billion+.  It was imagine because while inflation is counted for revenue but not obligations,  this surplus was barely 3% of the nearly $48 billion adopted biennial budget.  With inflation from 2019 and 2020 running at 2%, the real surplus was maybe $500 million.

The Minnesota DFL and Republicans were in a race to how to spend the money.  Child care?  Tax cuts?  Special education?  It was poised to be an election year spend to win year, with both parties hugely divided in terms of priorities.

But then in two fateful weeks in October it all changed.  Covid-19 hit and by April it was clear the state was not imaginarily $1.5 billion surplus, but $2.4 billion in the hole.  All non-related Covid-19 spending was out and the state was going to need to address the health crisis and think about what to do with this deficit.  The DFL House and the GOP Senate were so divided to the point of partisan wearing of masks or not.

By law, Minnesota cannot have an operating deficit.  It should have addressed this issue by May 17,  or run the risk of making it worse later on.  It did not.  It  did not adopt a bonding bill.  It also did not ratify the collective bargaining agreement with state workers.   It was divided over the Governor’s executive orders and the handling of Covid-19. It also  did not do a lot of other stuff, necessitating a special session.

Covid-19 may have changed the issues but it did not alter the pre-existing partisan geographic divide.  It only gave it a new face.

The New Normal or Special Sessionaplooza

It should not then be a surprise that yet again Minnesota is having a special session.  This is part of the New Normal that began in 1997-98.

Since statehood in 1858 we have had a total of 54 special sessions, including the anticipated one later this year.  This means that out of the 162 years of statehood, there is an average of one special session every three years (33.3%).

From 1858 through 1996 there were a total of 36 special sessions, averaging about once every four years (0.26).

From 1997 through and including 2020 (24 years), there have been 17  special sessions.  This means on average there are three special sessions out of every four years (75%).  I pick 1997-98 as a benchmark for what I call the new normal.  The new normal or era of MN politics begins in about 1997-98 with the election of Ventura as governor in 1998 and the GOP take over of the MN House.  This time period represents the point when DFL political power and influence waned in MN and the politics of the state became more polarized and divided.

Of the 53 special sessions that occurred since statehood. 22 or 45.2% were called to finish required work not completed during regular session.  Since 1997 nine out of 17 or 52.9% have been to complete budget matters that needed to be completed.  Two thoughts.  First, getting all the work done during the constitutional deadline has always been a problem but it is even more so in the last 21 years.  Second, it is clearly the case that in the last 20-21 years special sessions are far more frequent and have shifted from occurring on average once every four years to three out of four years.  Third, since 1998, we have had two partial governmental shut downs (one under Dayton in 2011, one under Pawlenty in 2005), and a near shutdown under Ventura in 2001.  Also under Pawlenty in 2009 there was a significant budget fight that involved his unallotment of money to balance the budget that was eventually struck down by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010.

Prior to 1997-1998 there were no government shutdowns in Minnesota history.  Minnesota also appears to be at the top or near the top–at least in the last 20 or so years–in terms of the number of shutdowns (2) plus a near shutdown (1).  In the entire history of Minnesota, there has been a total of five uses of unallotment, three occurred since 1997-1998.

So yes, it is clearly the case that the last 22 years does represent a new normal in many ways for Minnesota government, marked by the frequency of special sessions, shutdowns, use of unallotments.  Minnesota, right down to having the only party-divided state legislature in America, is a mini version of the USA as a whole.

What is Next?  Deja vu all over again

There will be a special session.  A deal on bonding bill is possible but not guaranteed.  But looming as even more pressing but ignored is the fate of the $2.4 billion deficit.  No one seems to be talking about how and when it will be addressed.  This is like 2002 all over again.

In 2002 in the last year of the Ventura administration the US and Minnesota economies crashed as a result of the 9/11 attacks.  The state had gone from a massive budget surplus to a growing deficit.  The Ventura administration responsibility proposed some tax increases and budget cuts to address the problem.  Roger Moe majority leader in the Senate, and Tim Pawlenty, majority leader in the House teamed up and punted.  They produced a phony bill that counted inflation for revenue but not obligations and delayed or pushed some spending into the next fiscal year, creating the illusion of a budget solution.  We have never recovered from that political expediency.

Look to see in this election year 201 legislators do the same.  They will delay the hard choices until after the election and into next year and make the budget problems worse than they are now.

Before there was Trump there was Ventura: The Lessons from Minnesota

Today's blog also appears in the Huffington Post.

            America–You are about to experience with Donald Trump as president what Minnesota experienced with Jesse Ventura as governor 18 years ago. Both are politainers within a world of politainment where the traditional boundaries between politics and entertainment have merged and the normal rules defining conflict of interest and the personal and public roles of individuals have collapsed.  And if the experiences of Ventura are any indication, America is in for an entertaining four years with Trump as president.

            Eighteen years ago, James Janos “shocked the world” when he was elected governor of Minnesota.   Better known as Jesse Ventura, a professional wrestler and a B movie actor, he marketed his media skills and persona to fuel his candidacy.  He ran as an anti-establishment, pro working class, truth-talking, third party candidate who would shake things up in St. Paul, Minnesota.  And he did.  When first elected one of my graduate students and I described him as the culmination of a new breed of candidates for a new era.  He was a politainer–a politician and an entertainer combined–operating in a world where politics and entertainment–politainment–had emerged.  What does it mean to be a politainer?

            Back in 1999 we wrote that a “politainer has a dual career: he uses his entertainment career to benefit his political career, and he uses his political career to benefit his entertainment career.”  We described the entertainment persona of politainers as fiction, yet we elect as a politician the persona and not the person.   The persona is the political and vice versa. The politainer persona is a commodity to be sold using multi-media venues and marketing techniques to deliver a message that simultaneously convenes both a personal brand and a political statement.

            We saw Ventura as the perfect embodiment of a trend in American politics that started with television back in the 1950s.  Presidential politics had been remade by television, and presidential candidates capable of selling themselves there have gone on to succeed.  There are many examples such as the first political commercials in the 1965s proclaiming “I like Ike.” Or the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy presidential debate, the 1968 Nixon appearance on the television show Laugh In, Reagan the actor and his ability to deliver his lines, Bill Clinton on Arsenio Hall donning dark glasses and a saxophone to play Heart Break Hotel, or simply the emergence of Comedy Central and SNL as major pop culture players in politics.  Politics and entertainment had collapsed into one another and Ventura understood that.

            As governor Ventura never seemed able to separate marketing his persona from his job as governor—in many ways he was a perfect case study in conflict of interest.  He hosted the XFL while governor, claiming to do on his time off.  He appeared on his favorite soap opera, and he acted in his persona to host a professional wrestling match while portraying his role as governor.  When criticized for all these adventures as conflicts of interest–and I filed several of those complaints as executive of Common Cause Minnesota–he dismissed them, saying that these rules did not apply to him but only to professional politicians or everyone else in the executive branch but him.  Trump’s governorship was in part about the triumph of personal interest over the public interest, or at most the pursuit of his interest defined as the public interest.  And on top of it all, Ventura had a thin skin for criticism, attacking as “jackals” the very media who made him.   By the time his governorship ended, his popularity and support wearied a state that once gave him record approval.  Minnesota survived Ventura, but his legacy is at best mixed in terms of what he accomplished.

            Minnesotans see Trump as Ventura redux, a politainer for a new generation who also shocked the pundits and media with his election. His political success too is rooted in his entertainment persona–he understood how to market himself to a 24/7 news cycle hungry for ratings and controversy, and he delivered a fresh news story and drama every day that satiated the media hunger for ratings and clicks.   But he also mastered the social media, transforming the made for television presidency into the made for Twitter and Facebook one.  Trump declared outrageous claims to promote himself and the media took him literally while his supporters took him figuratively, selling himself, the country, and his supporters the belief that his election would represent the victory for the little guy–that is what would make America great again. Conflicts of interest?  That is something for professional politicians which is why during the transition he continues to mix personal business with politics, signaling that what is good for Trump the brand will be good for the nation and vice versa.

            If Ventura’s experience is any guide, Trump too at best will leave a mixed legacy.  At best, it will be a presidency marked by a petty, thin skinned politician who had a chance to change the political paradigm but did not. At worst, it too will be train wreck of shameless self-promotion and marketing gimmicks that confuse the public and private interest.  Minnesotans have already lived through an earlier version of Trump and we are ready for his presidency.  Are you America?

How Trump may shock the world again and why Clinton is running as a Republican

Six months ago few predicted that Donald Trump would be a serous presidential candidate let alone win the Republican Party nomination.  But with a win in Indiana Donald Trump has effectively secured the GOP nomination.  Now party operatives and pundits say he cannot win the presidency.  How wrong they may be.  Like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota in 1998, Trump may soon shock the world by defeating Hillary Clinton were she to become the Democratic nominee.
In many ways Trump and Ventura are similar candidates.  Brash, outspoken perhaps even to some obnoxious personalities who successfully used their media pop culture personas to help succeed politically.  They are both politainers-politicians and entertainers–who understand the powerful convergence of the media, pop culture, and politics and manipulated that to their advantage while their opponents looked stiff and wooden.  Both Ventura and Trump speak to voters who felt that the two major parties left them behind.  For Ventura the route to success was through third party politics, for Trump it was the take over of the Republican Party and the killing off of any remaining legacy that the Reagan brand still held over it.  Ventura and Trump looked fresh in the face of stale old party politics and candidates.  Ventura went on to be elected Minnesota’s governor by defeating two tired looking establishment candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties.  Trump might well do the same if Clinton is the nominee.
Polls right now suggest that Clinton has a ten or more point lead over Trump in aggregate nation surveys and newspapers such as the New York Times declare that it is an uphill battle for the latter. Just like they said he could not win the GOP nomination they are making the same claim about Trump winning the presidency.  How wrong again they may be, failing to see trends that suggest that he can win, or at least the Clinton could lose.
First ignore the polls.  How many times has Clinton had insurmountable poll leads over Sanders only to see them collapse.  Indiana is only the most recent example of a state that Clinton  supposedly was going to win and nail down the nomination but failed to do so.  It seems every time she has a lead in the polls, even in 2008, Clinton gets complacent and loses it.  While the Democratic primary has made Clinton a stronger candidate in some ways, it has also exposed powerful weaknesses that will be exploited by Trump in the general election.
Moreover, national polls mean nothing.  Presidential elections are fought in a 50 state Electoral College battle and the real issue is how Trump and Clinton do among the 10% of the swing votes in the ten swing states that include Ohio, Florida, and Virginia.  Here polling suggests a tighter race.  Even more, given the weaknesses that Sanders exposed in Clinton regarding free trade agreements and globalization, normally safe Democratic states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania will be contested, forcing her to devote resources to races normally not defended.
Trump and Clinton have enormous negatives, the highest among any recent presidential candidates.  This too creates a variable that complicates a Clinton victory.  Yes more than half the country dislikes Trump but the same can be said about Clinton where the cadre of Hillary haters is long and deep among both Republican and many independent voters who may come out in droves against her.  How that affects swing voters and voter turnout could also be critical.  With that, Clinton needs the Sanders’ youth vote and so far there is no indication that she can win it and it is not clear that even if Sanders supports her that his voters will flock to her.  Part of the problem is her uninspiring political narrative and campaign, both in comparison to Sanders and even to Trump.  Trump has a message–good or bad–that resonants and inspires voters who are passionate about him.  The same cannot be said about Clinton.
Finally, this is an anti-establishment year.  Clinton is the face of the Washington establishment, Trump is not.  In a race where running as an outsider is an advantage Clinton just does not have it.
But yes Clinton does have something else going for her–effectively running as a Republican.  With the Republican Party panicking over a Trump candidacy and how it may impact their control of Congress, prominent Republicans are considering supporting Clinton. In fact, the New York Times reports that Hillary is now seeking support or endorsements from them.  This suggests three points.  First, so much for Republicans labeling her a liberal–she was and is not.  Second, for many who have argued that Clinton is really an old-fashioned Republican in disguise, this lends credence to that assertion.  Finally, it appears that Clinton his preparing to give up on the Sanders’s supporters and the liberals in the Democratic Party and instead embracing Republicans.  This might mean that these  individuals stay home on election day.  Moreover, if Clinton does do this it suggests creation of a new Democratic center-right party that brings down the Republican and Democratic parties as we know them now.  Perhaps this is good short term politics but Clinton but not necessarily in terms of party building for the future with Millennials. This is a fascinating strategy but one that counts on Republicans detesting Trump more than Clinton.
Overall, for those of us from Minnesota who once saw  another brash outsider named Jesse Ventura shock the world and became our governor, it would not be a surprise to see Donald Trump do the same by defeating Hillary Clinton.

Jerry Springer Without Jerry: Thoughts on the First Republican Presidential Debate

Let’s be serious–this was not a debate it was pure entertainment.  More accurately, the first Republican presidential debate (including the junior debate for the also-rans or wannabees) was pure politainment.  It was the spectacle of demonstrating what happens when we merge politics and entertainment, we get politainiment.  It is about the transformation of news into entertainment where the focus is on ratings and making money, and it is about the effort of candidates to become media personas to succeed in politics.  This is what Ronald Reagan did, as did Jesse Ventura.  Now we have FOX, Donald Trump, the first debate,  and might I say, the departure of Jon Stewart from Comedy Central all occurring on the same night.  Welcome to politainment and the 2016 election cycle.

Jon Stewart and Comedy Central never pretended to be real news but so many people treated like it was.  It was pure politainment representing the fine line between politics and entertainment.  But FOX national news (as opposed to the local FOX affiliates) has be pure partisan politics pretending to be news.  It has brilliantly figured out (in ways that MSNBC has yet to) how to break down the walls of partisanship, news, and entertainment and package it into a multi-billion dollar force that serves as the unofficial house organ for the Republican Party and often crackpot conservatives theories.   Thus Fox is conflicted with competing demands of pushing ideology, making money via ratings, and entertaining.  This is the context of the Thursday so-called debate.
Had this been a real debate the first question would not have been about honoring party endorsements and third party candidacies.  It would have been one asking candidates questions about global warming, ISIS, unemployment, or their stand of the treaty with Iran and what alternatives they had.  I heard so many people say the journalists did a good job asking tough questions.  No, they were terrible in terms of encouraging a debate on serious matters of public policy.  Instead they were provocateurs do their best to ask questions to hype ratings and get a fight started–no different than what Jerry Springer did so successfully.

The debate was made for Trump.  He is the ultimate politainer of our age.  Setting up with an opening question to get Trump mad was brilliant entertainment. It made for perfect theater.  And in setting up a format where Trump was the star–and also the object to be attacked–perhaps Fox was also trying to protect mainstream Republicanism from what it has become–Trump.
So much has been made of Trump’s racism with his immigration comments and sexism with comments about women and allusion to Ms. Kelly and her menstrual cycle (at least he did not say she was “on the rag” or was PMS but you knew he wanted to say that).  But the fact of the matter is that the other candidates are just as harsh on immigration.  They have all taken extreme positions on abortion and women’s health.  Even though no federal funds pay for abortion, they all want to cut Planned Parenthood off from federal funds that pay for women’s health.  Jeb Bush said too much money is being spent on women’s health.  Huckabee said he would send in federal troops to prevent abortions.  Rubio will not support abortions even when a woman’s life in endanger.
Trump scares the Republican Party because he actually is what the GOP has become, except he is not shy to run away from his racism and sexism.  The rest of the party wants the benefits of racism and sexism but without owning up to it.  They pretty up their policy positions–no immigration, no abortions, restrictions on voting–but want to deny the real reasons or implications of their policies.  Texas tried to justify its voting restrictions but a Fifth Circuit this past week upheld a lower court decision finding a racial impact to its voter ID laws.  Trump is laying bare where and what the Republican Party is and has become, and   faced with that reality FOX is trapped.  Does it come to the defense of the kinder and gentler Republicanism that wants and cake and eat it too or does it exploit Trump for all the money and ratings they can garner?  This is the problem for FOX and the Republican Party now.

Rebating the Nonexistent Minnesota Surplus: Dumb, Dumber, and Brilliant Politics

So Keith Downey and the Republican Party of Minnesota are running ads saying they want to give back all of the $1.9 billion state surplus to Minnesotans.  Quiz time.
    This idea is:
    a)    Something they actually believe.
    b)    A way to make Kurt Daubt and the House Caucus ideas seem reasonable.
    c)    A smart political move.
    d)    A fiscally dumb idea.
    e)    All of the above.

    The  answer is (e), all of the above.  Why is that the correct answer?  Examining the politics of the budget surplus and how the DFL are just about ready to get out-maneuvered politically by the Republicans on it tells one a lot about state politics and the fortunes of the two parties.
    Let us begin first my declaring that rebating the surplus is actually something that Downey and most Republicans actually believe.  Rebating the surplus is really a continuation of  the party mantra for the last 35 years which has stressed tax cuts as a Republican solution for almost every problem confronted.  Economy in a funk, cut taxes.  Economy doing well, cut taxes.  Need better roads and bridges?  Cut taxes.  Expensive housing?  Cut taxes.  It is a one size fits all answer but it has been a successful one for the GOP fortunes.  Their base loves the idea of tax cuts and many actually do believe that it is the best way to help the economy.  When GOP Keith Downey was a legislator he never met a tax cut he did not like, and no surprise that he along with many other Republican legislators believe that the best thing for the state of Minnesota is simply to rebate all of the money back.
    Yet even if it is an idea that Downey does not actually believe, it is a terrific way to make Speaker Kurt Daubt and the Republican House caucus proposals look good.  Their ideas various call for cutting taxes, spending more on education, and also using the money to repair roads, bridges, and highways.  These are all great ideas that appeal both to their base who want tax cuts, but also to rural constituents who feel that too much spending is going to Twin Cities mass transportation.  Spending on education is a good priority that appeals to swing voters, and it is also a way to help undermine  some of the equalization formulae that try to rectify imbalances in tax bases across Minnesota school districts.  The problem with their proposal of course is that $1.9 will not go very far toward paying for many of these projects.  Additionally, so far the House has not been clear in that the big winners of  their proposals, especially the tax cuts, will not be working or middle class Minnesotans. 
    But nonetheless, the call for rebating all of the surplus is politically brilliant.  The public hears surplus and thinks the government has too much of my money, I should get some back.  The  idea of rebates sounds terrific–mailing checks to voters or giving them rebates at a time when Minnesotans are doing their taxes.  It was a tactic used once by Governor Ventura and the legislature back in 1999-2000 and it was popular.  Everyone loves Santa Claus; everyone loves people who give us gifts.
    Tax cuts have been a staple message of Republicans for decades and there is no reason to think why it should not continue to be a successful message into the future.  It is a great wedge issue against Democrats.  How can they oppose giving the people their money back?  If the DFL does not support it they are just the tax and spend liberals we know they are.  They are the party of big government and extravagant state office buildings, refusing to help working Minnesotans out by sending them a few hundred dollars back.
    But rebating is simply dumb on so many grounds.  One again needs to point out that of the $1.9 billion the first billion does not exist.    If all of the current programs funded by the state are continued at their same spending level into the next biennium it will cost the state another $1 billion to fund them because of inflation.  In order to reap this first billion as a surplus one needs to cut one billion in spending first.  Second, the surplus is only a surplus because of the tax increases. Cut the taxes and the surplus disappears.  There is no structural surplus.  Third, the other $900 million is hardly a surplus either.  With Dayton having proposed a $40 billion biennium, that $900 M is barely 2%.  If we think of the total real obligations that the State has for the next two years which includes both what Minnesota pays for along with the federal government, real spending obligations increase by tens of billions of more dollars.  That $900 M is nothing.  Assume any serous federal budget cuts or another shutdown and the state is still on the hook and it has no money as a cushion.  Or assume that there are other natural disasters that  occurs and a special appropriation is needed.  Or simply assume a slowdown in the economy or even that the surplus forecast is off just a percent or so.  Suddenly that $900 million is gone.
    The margins for error are great here.  Giving away this remaining $900 million is bad accounting.  Generally accepted accounting practices declare that organizations should have contingency funds or accounts set aside.  It should be a certain percentage of a budget.  The exact size of the contingency depends on risk, but a 5% contingency of an entire budget is not out of line.  Thus, smart budgeting suggests that saving this remaining $900 million would be good accounting.
    On top of which, the last time the state gave away it surplus was back when Ventura was governor.  The state of Minnesota went from an approximately $4.5 billion surplus in 1999 to a multi-billion dollar deficit in 2002.  To this day Minnesota has yet to recover from the stupidly of this move along with the changes in budgetary law that have continued to create the fiscal problems  that face the state.
    Thus, the correct answer is all of the above. Those of you who gave this as an answer can go to the head of the class.

The Last Hurrah of Jesse Ventura

Whatever the verdict in the libel case against Chris Kyle, Jesse Ventura has lost.  He had lost years before the trial and everyone knew that except for Ventura himself.  In so many ways this trial revealed that Ventura came to believe all the hype about himself that he was a popular and respected political figure.  The reality is that he was never the icon that the media and he made himself out to be and this trial is Ventura's last gasp for fame.

            The basis of Ventura’s lawsuit against Chris Kyle, to quote his legal complaint, is that the published statements in his book the American Sniper “negatively affected, and will continue to negatively affect Governor Ventura in connection with his businesses and professions, including but not limited to his current and future opportunities as a political candidate, political commentator, author, speaker, television host and personality.”  Ventura denies that he made disparaging remarks about other Navy Seals and that Kyle knocked him down.  Ventura asserts that Kyle knew these statements were false, and therefore they damaged Ventura’s career.

            Whatever damage that has come to Ventura’s career was mostly self-inflicted.  Yes, Ventura was elected governor, but remember first that he received only 37% of the vote–63% of Minnesotans  did not vote for him.  He ran at a time with nearly a $5 billion state surplus and an unemployment rate of 2.2%. Ventura benefitted from great economic times, a popular but largely unknown political persona, disenchantment with the establishment candidates of Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman,  and promises to give the entire surplus if elected.  He ran against government.

            One interpretation of his victory was that 37% of the voters gave the state the middle finger.  Ventura’s initial popularity  as governor soared to record levels, but that was a consequence of him giving tax rebates or “Jesse checks” back to voters along with a careful national media campaign that fawned over him.  By the time he left office his popularity had dramatically fallen, in part as a result of actions taken by Mr. Ventura himself.  These actions may have included his public performance as governor as well as personal behavior in hosting events such as XFL football, his famous Playboy interview, or his combative posture that he took with the media and with political opponents.  By the time he left office as governor his popularity was wearing thin, and had he decided to run for governor in 2002 it is uncertain whether he would have been re-elected.

            In the decade since Mr. Ventura left office he has taken a series of actions that have probably done damage to his political fortunes.  His comments about the war in Iraq, 9/11, his failed television shows, boorish interviews, bland books, and moving to Baja, Mexico have all made him less of a popular figure than in the past.   Also, continuing the law suit against Kyle’s widow after he was murdered did not help.  The morally decent thing to do would have been to drop the case and walk away.  But he did not and that decision too has not helped Ventura’s reputation.  What made Ventura so interesting and successful initially was his ability to combine his entertainment pop culture persona with politics; his politainer status as I once argued.  But now it is boring and predictable–every time he says he is going to run for office again or every time he makes a media appearance it is for self-promotional purposes. 

            What Ventura most wants but cannot get is to be relevant and taken seriously.  The lawsuit against Chris Kyle is about relevance, but it also about vanity or ego.  If Kyle  is telling the truth, he decked Ventura, bruising the latter’s ego before fellow Navy Seals.  That he could not take, nor could he take that Kyle’s book was selling but his were not.  They were just ignored.  And even as Kyle’s book came out he was ignored–his reputation was largely unaffected.

            Two surveys by Public Policy Polling (PPP) largely show that Kyle’s book had no impact on Ventura’s reputation. The first one was dated June 6, 2011, before Chris Kyle’s book came out.  The second survey is dated October 8, 2012, several months after the book was published.  Among the many questions that PPP asked Minnesotans was "Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Jesse Ventura?" 

            In the first poll 29% said "Favorable, "58% said "Unfavorable," and 13% said "Not sure."  The poll was subject to a margin of error of  +/-2.9%. In the second poll 29% said "Favorable, "53% said "Unfavorable," and 18% said "Not sure."  The poll was subject to a margin of error of  +/-3.2%. There was no change in  aggregate public opinion regarding Ventura's favorable views between the time before Kyle's book and several months afterwards.  More importantly, the second poll reveals a 5% decrease in Ventura's unfavorable views between the time before Kyle's book and several months afterwards, along with a shift of opinion away from unfavorable to undecided.  Given the margins of error in the two polls, it is either possible that:  1) Ventura's unfavorable views decreased after Kyle’s book; or 2) there was no real change in public opinion attitudes among Minnesotans regarding Ventura as a result of Kyle's book. 

            These two polls therefore suggest that Kyle’s book had no real aggregate impact in terms of damaging Ventura's reputation, at least in Minnesota. Perhaps that was the case because largely Minnesotans’ views on Ventura have largely been made up, or perhaps no one is really paying attention to him anymore.  Given that PPP no longer asks about Ventura, that itself may speak to his irrelevance.

            Ventura’s lawsuit was a cry for help.  It was a last gasp to take him seriously and be relevant.

Note:  This essay originally appeared in Politics in Minnesota on July 24, 2014.

The Political Legacy of Hubert Humphrey

    What is Hubert Humphrey’s political legacy?  The dedication of the new monument in his honor has provoked an outpouring of commentary and analysis on his career and legacy.  The simple answer is that from 1948 until his death he was the face of Minnesota politics to the rest of the US and within the state of Minnesota he defined and personified the DFL party with a set of values that ended with Paul Wellstone’s plane crash in 2002.

    Much can be said about Humphrey’s career.  He was mayor of Minneapolis, senator, vice-president, and presidential candidate.  But this resume fails to capture the whole story.  His is a story of the courage of his convictions–both honoring them and not going far enough.  The two most important values–courage and loyalty. In terms of honoring them, Humphrey comes to national prominence at the 1948 Democratic Party National Convention in Philadelphia where he gave what most historians consider to be one of the greatest political speeches of the 20th century.  There he defended a minority report urging the party to support civil rights.  While today a Democrat urging civil rights would seem inordinary, in 1948 it was an act of courage with a party still captured by southern Dixiecrats and state’s rights.  In Humphrey’s words:

    "My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights. People -- human beings -- this is the issue of the 20th century. People of all kinds -- all sorts of people -- and these people are looking to America for leadership, and they’re looking to America for precept and example."

     This speech led to many Democrats walking out of the convention, including Strom Thurmond who ran for president that year.  Humphrey’s speech changed Democrat politics.  The line from this speech connects to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and the transformation of the Democratic Party into the party of civil rights and freedom, stealing than banner away from the Republicans who had held it since the Civil War.  If LBJ in signing the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was prescient in declaring that the Democrats had lost the south for the rest of the century, it was Humphrey’s speech that began that loss.  By his speech, when the Democrats embraced civil rights it set in motion the forces of political alignment that persist to this day across the country with the Republicans a party of the South and the Democrats one of the North and coasts.

    That 1948 speech was an act of courage and demonstrated loyalty to human dignity. Humphrey always cared about the underdog. Humphrey came to embody the classic image of the Post WW II Liberal-Democrat. It was a party of the New Deal, the Great Society, and a respect for civil rights and human dignity. There was passion in the values and a courage to espouse them. Yet twenty years later in 1968 as a presidential candidate a different loyalty did him in–his loyalty to LBJ. Humphrey (as LBJ’s vice-president) remained loyal, perhaps too loyal to the president, failing to break from him and criticize the Vietnam War. By failing to do that Humphrey failed to capture the banner of the anti-war crowd that first cheered for rival Minnesotan Senator Eugene McCarthy and then Bobby Kennedy.  Some say that had he remained true to his values, had he broken sooner and criticized the war, he would have won the presidency. But despite this loss, Humphrey went onto complete a significant career in the Senate, with perhaps the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Bill one of his crowning achievements. The law guaranteed a job to everyone who wanted to work–too bad the law would be watered down to nothing.

    Humphrey was Minnesota’s face to America.  He was part of legacy or lineage of Minnesota politicians that included Orville Freeman, Walter Mondale, Wendell Anderson, Paul Wellstone, and to a lesser degree, mayors Don Frazier, George Latimer, and Representatives Bruce Vento and Martin Sabo. Nationally they embodied the essence of what the Democrat Party used to be, and they were also the definition of what the DFL was once in Minnesota.

    But that era ended. How and why is a stpry for another day. But I remember first coming to Minnesota in 1986, noting how the DFL party was then in the hands of what I described as the sons of former or dead DFLers. The new generation of Democrats sang homage to Humphrey but they were hardly of the same mold. Now a quarter of a century later, the DFL Party is in the hands of the grandsons and daughters of former and dead Democrats.  They still sing homage to Humphrey but this hardly the party of Hubert. It is a party that is insular, having failed to renew its values and broaden its membership beyond the core of party regulars and hacks who have failed to honor values of Humphrey while updating for the 21st century. The last hurrah for the party of Humphrey was Paul Wellstone, but with his plane crash in 2002 an era closed and the DFL that once existed died too.

    Minnesota is no longer the party of Humphrey.  We are a state of Jesse Ventura, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, government shutdowns, budget impasses, voter ID, and attempts to ban same-sex marriage.  We are a state where bridges fall down, more children are without health care coverage, racial disparities in education and incarceration, and political polarization.  This is not the Minnesota of Humphrey. The DFL in the legislature and the state seem incapable of producing leaders and passion that capture what he stood for.  Finally, the national Democratic party too is a faint shadow  of the Party of Hubert Humphrey.  Clinton was no Humphrey, as is the same with Obama.  Neither  have ever demonstrated the courage, compassion, and commitment to fairness and the underdog that the Happy Warrior did. Were Hubert Humphrey alive today he would not recognize his party, his state, or his country.

The New Minnesota Normal: Special Sessions and Government Shutdowns

The 2011 regular session of the Minnesota Legislature limps to an end without a budget deal. No news here, it was entirely predictable. Not since 1999–the first year of Jesse Ventura’s term as governor–has a budget session of the Minnesota Legislature ended on time without a special session, partial governmental shutdown, or a controversial ending such as in 2009 when Pawlenty used his unallotment power (subsequently declared illegal by the Minnesota Supreme Court) to balance the budget.

What has emerged is the new normal for Minnesota politics. The new normal is that the completion of the budget does not occur by the constitutionally-mandated deadline in May but instead July 1–the commencement of the new budget year. That seems to be the new deadline. But even then, that date, like October 1, for the federal government, appears more suggestive than drop dead. A threatened partial shut down in 2003 and then a real one in 2007 too eased the stigma of missing July 1, in Minnesota.


Why the New Normal?

The question becomes why? Why has the new normal emerged? Why does it seem impossible to reach budget agreement? One answer is divided government, yet even back to the days when Perpich was governor and the DFL controlled the legislature there were special sessions to address the budget such as in 1985. Under Carlson and then Ventura they became more frequent and then under Pawlenty and now Dayton they have emerged as the new normal. No; divided government is only a partial answer.

There are two causes explaining the rise of the new normal. The first is a growing ideological divide over the nature of government. The second is structural, questioning the efficacy of the current budget process.

Why Government?

The governor and the GOP-led legislature are as far apart today as they were in January regarding all the essentials over the budget. Dayton wants to spend $37 billion and erase the $5 billion deficit with some cuts that do not hurt the poor or education and with tax increases on the wealthy. The GOP wants to spend $34 billion and erase the deficit with cuts alone that seem to burden the poor, elderly, education, and local governments.

At the heart of the dispute between the Governor and the GOP is a basic difference in their rival views of the government versus the market. The GOP generally seems to see government and taxes as bad, an intruding upon the wisdom and functioning of markets. Let markets act and they will generate jobs prosperity, and solve the basic problems of society.

For Dayton, while market solutions and the private sector are the preferred places to produce jobs and make decisions, they recognize markets fail. Markets fail to address needs of equity. They produce inequities in wealth and income distribution, they fail to address core problems of education funding and disparities, they fail to address problems in infrastructure investment.

No, it does not look like the GOP wants no government. Many still find it necessary to hire police and enforce basic laws, and apparently to enact laws to prevent same-sex couples from marrying and women from terminating pregnancies or give tax breaks to the wealthy. The real difference between the GOP and Dayton and the DFL is over how much government and what government should do in our society. It is a debate between rivaling views-government versus the market, the individual versus society.

The debate over “why government” is ideological. Arising simultaneously are two other phenomena aggravating the debate over why government–the triumph of ideology over pragmatism and party polarization.

Daniel Bell famously wrote in the 1960s a book entitled “The End of Ideology.” There it is described a United States where belief was that we had reached consensus on basic issues of what constitutes the good life and the role of government in society. The issue was not ideology or goals but merely technique of the means to the end. Nearly 50 years later, we now seem to be living not with the end of ideology but with its resurgence.

There are basic ideological divides over means and ends. But more importantly, the ideological divide for some means all or nothing. By that, if one side is right the other must be wrong and therefore no compromise is possible. Thus, the emergence of ideology over pragmatism.

Political parties nationally and in Minnesota seem more polarized than 20, 30, or 40 years ago. There is more ideological cohesion in the parties, especially for the GOP, than in the past. This is a product of special interest politics and caucuses which are dominated by ideological extremists.

Thus, combine politically polarized parties with a take no prisoners ideological divide over the role of government and what do you get?

A Flawed Budget Process

But the polarization is only one problem. The second is the flawed budget process in Minnesota. It is a process built for the horse and buggy days trying to operate in the 21st century. Government is so much more complex, the budget numbers so much larger, the functions more diverse, that it is perhaps impossible to reach consensus and make decisions between the beginning of January and the State Constitution forbids the legislature to meet in regular session after the first Monday following the third Saturday in May in any year. There simply may not be enough time to do the budget by law.

But think also how flawed the current budget process is right now. The old governor makes the initial budget. New governor is elected and needs to update it to reflect his priorities and the fiscal forecast in November. The Legislature comes to work in early January and then it waits until late January or so for the governor to release the budget. Then they all wait until late February for the updated fiscal forecast.

Thus, it is really not until late February or March that the work on the budget commences. And even then, there are separate hearings in the House and Senate, forcing conference committees to act. The budget also is really ten separate bills, with spending distinct from taxation, and no real work gets done until there are agreements on the different spending targets for each of the areas such as HHS, K-12, and so on.

Sound confusing? It is. It is also inefficient. At least two months are wasted at the beginning of every budget cycle waiting for the governor’s budget, the fiscal forecast, and then agreement on budget targets. Now add more wrinkle–budgets are created right after state elections when often many new legislators or constitutional officers are elected. They are green, often learning on the job while creating a new budget. In a distant past when life and budgets were less complicated (and smaller), perhaps it was possible to do all this with a part-time citizen legislature. But those days have passed. A new budget process is needed, with new time lines and ways to move the work along.

Thus, as the session ends the only real question is whether there is a budget by July 1. The bet here is 60/40 odds of a partial shutdown. The reasons are ideological and process-driven, producing the new normal.

You’re Hired: Trump for President?

“You can make the transition, but it is a hard transition to make,” said Schultz, who added that he doesn’t think Trump is seriously considering a run. “It might work in a political atmosphere where people don't want traditional candidate -- if he can carve a message and convince voters he is a viable candidate.”
----David Schultz, Fox 9 News, April 19, 2011



Donald Trump for president?! Rising popularity for Trump among many in the GOP (as evidenced by recent Iowa and other polls) and speeches by him to the Tea Party fuel speculation that he is running for president. Moreover, his pandering to the right by joining the birther movement all point to the belief he is a serious candidate for president. This was the subject of a April 19, 2011 Fox 9 news story in which I was interviewed. Follow this link to the video and story.

Republican activist and former Lt. Governor Annette Meeks dismissed Trump’s candidacy as a joke, and many voters in Minneapolis when ask, also questioned his viability. Some thought that he was a reality show celeb but that did not qualify him for the presidency. Others thought his businessman status might make him qualified. All this is grist for good debate.

The core questions are: 1) Is Trump a viable candidate and 2) Is he going to run?

The Case for Trump
Trump brings to the presidential table many assets and equally as many liabilities. The four biggest assets are his name recognition, personal wealth, his business experience, and the aura of the unknown. In terms of name recognition, everyone knows the Trump name even if they do not know who he is. Some many say reality show star, others that he is a businessman. It does not matter. He has name recognition and in the world of politics that counts for a ton. Ask Tim Pawlenty about this, as he travels the country and people say “Tim Who?”

Being a rock star or a politainer (politician and entertainer combined) is a major boast to success in politics. It gives you a buzz and a heads up on other candidates. It shows your ability to market yourself, establish a political brand, attract media attention, and to perform many of the functions critical to success in contemporary politics. Trump has already demonstrated these skills, suggesting they can be transferred to politics.

Name recognition will be critical in 2012. Everyone knows Obama. He too is a rock star and it is hard to beat an incumbent president. Trump’s advantage is a media presence that is greater than anyone else on the GOP side. This gives him a head start against Obama.

Second, Trump is wealthy. Obama plans to raise $1 billion for his reelection. It will be nearly impossible for any Republican to rival this. However a self-financed candidate such as Trump might be able to counter the Obama money. Thus, Trump has a money advantage.

Third, Trump is a businessman. The GOP and the electorate like the idea of a businessperson running for president, even if in reality they do not elect such people. Ask Mitt Romney. Trump can claim to be a Ross Perot type candidate, bringing business sense and decisiveness to government. Think of all the people he will say “You’re fired” to if elected. Many find this attractive.

Finally, there is the aura of the unknown. No one really knows what Trump believes and they glom on to him what they hope and believe.

Trump thus has many assets. At a time when the GOP is searching for a viable candidate and there is no hands down leader, Trump has a window.

But some argue he is merely a reality show star, how can anyone take him seriously? Jesse Ventura was no better than a wrestler and B-movie star and Arnold was an actor yet both made the transition to the governorships. In an atmosphere where people do not like government and traditional politicians, Jesse and Arnold emerged. The same might be true for Donald and that is perhaps why he is attractive to the TEA Party folks.

Trump’s Lumps
But Trump has liabilities. He has high name recognition but also high negatives. Many people just do not like him. He is arrogant, bossy, loud, and obnoxious. He is not likeable. Likeability (sic) is a critical factor when people vote for president. John Kerry learned this when he challenged Bush in 2004–voters personally liked Bush more.

Trump also has the seriousness problem. Yes he is a reality show star who can leverage that brand politically. But he needs to make that transition. He needs to convince people he is real candidate and not simply a joke. He can do it, but the high negatives he has (or I am sure he has) suggests a different road for him versus Jesse or Arnold who did not have the same high negatives when they began their campaigns.

Many also do not trust Trump. Fox 9 reported that he gave millions to the Democrats. How will that be viewed among many GOP faithful. There is the allure of the unknown but also the fear that he cannot be trusted to hew a political line. Sure this is an asset for many, but for others a fear of unpredictability. There is also the fear that his bluntness will alienate many voters. In part, this is where Ms. Meeks is coming from.

Finally, Trump the person is a problem. He has filed for bankruptcy a couple of times, he personal life has divorces in it, and there is no sense that he follows an orthodoxy on social issues such as abortion or gay marriage. These are all problems for many GOP, and in many circles, for swing voters.

In short, Donald Trump is out there, but out there are many things that can be attacked and it is not clear in a debate how well he will come off beyond being an obnoxious New Yorker.

But will he run?
No. Trump is not really going to run. He is a genius of self-promotion and branding. Were he to run his television show is off the air due to the equal time doctrine. His candidacy will risk his business brand and Trump will not take a chance to hurt that brand. Instead, as I said to Fox 9, he will flirt with running for months to enhance his brand and then decide not to do it. In the process, he will be a distraction to the GOP in their search for a viable and real candidate, thereby hurting their efforts to unite behind someone to take on Obama. Trump will steal the headlines away from the other candidates and divert attention from the case against Obama. This is also what Ms. Meeks fears. The Democrats must be loving this.

As Minnesota Goes, So Goes the Nation? Not in 2010

The phrase used to be “As Maine goes, so goes the nation.” The origin and irony of the phrase was in the state’s reputation as a political bellwether for national presidential politics, culminating in 1936 when it supported Alf Landon over FDR for president.

Yet just the opposite seems to be true for Minnesota. It was the only state to go for Mondale in 1984 when the rest of the country boarded the Reagan landslide train. Minnesota has a reputation for third party politics–think of Floyd Olson and Jesse Ventura. It also has a progressive streak that included socialists in the 1920s and 30s, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Eugene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone. Minnesota seems to march to its own drummer. In 2010 that exceptionalism may lead to mark Dayton winning the governorship.

Minnesota: The Fargo Factor v. Lake Wobegon?
Minnesota has the Fargo factor (think the movie) with an endearing sense of traditionalism and Nordic rugged individualism. But there is a Lake Wobegon aspect where we do think all the children are above average. The reality of Minnesota is caught somewhere between these two pop culture images.

Explanations for the state’s political idiosyncrasy are varied. Some locate it in Minnesota’s political culture, but stating that tells us nothing. It is like saying there is something in the drinking water. Others contend that the Scandianian culture is an explanation. Perhaps true, but the state is more German than Nordic and the influx of immigrants from other parts of the world should have a bigger impact on politics than it has if this were true.

I describe Minnesota as a very religious state with a tradition of religious activism that expresses a dislike of corruption and a demand for reform and clean government. It is a liberal state with conservative pulls. It has a populist tradition, a commitment to equality, and a generally positive view of an activist government. Historically is has expressed a fear of accumulation of power in business, with government historically viewed to protect people from business. Some of this may be changing, but this is the core of Minnesota politically.


Explaining Minnesota’s Independent Streak
How do we explain Minnesota’s independent streak? The state has numerous groups and regions that compete and none of them are dominant. This means that the key to winning in Minnesota is by building alliances to forge coalitions. The process of coalition building has resulted in tight party competition, occasional third party support, and high voter turnout.

In addition, Minnesota has a long tradition of non-partisan and partisan elections. This combination of two types of elections produces an electorate that is not historically as committed to party voting as one might see in other states. For example, from 1913 to 1974 the Minnesota Legislature was non-partisan. Local races remain non-partisan, as is true with judicial races. Parties have and remain powerful forces in the state, but their allure is waning. No party–DFL, GOP, or GOP–commands 51% of the population. Today I think it is DFL 35%, GOP 30%, Independence 10%, and no party at 25%. The point here is that politics is competitive and the balance of power is in mobilizing the base but more importantly, in moving the swing voters to your side. Win the swings, win the state.

Minnesota v USA in 2010
Winning over the swings is not Einstein politics. This is real simple Politics 101. But it is often forgotten by many. The DFL for years lost control of the center which is why it has not won the governor’s race since 1986 and why in 1998 it lost the House. It was not until 2004 and 2006 that it learned to recapture the center and was rewarded with control of the House again. The same problem has plagued the national Democrats. Yet in 2008 it captured the center and the result was Obama’s victory along with strong congressional majorities.

Now the national Democrats have lost the center again, with the swings moving to the GOP this year. One can debate the reasons for this loss and whether Obama had alternative options with the progressives. Yet it is clear that in 2010 the Democrats have lost the swing voters, that jobs and opposition to taxes are major policy drivers, and that the GOP has the political narrative this year–it is “Change.” Sound familar?

All this should suggest a great year for the GOP in Minnesota and that Emmer is the next governor. But not necessarily so.

Tons of polls and surveys have been done this year. Many are awful. But some truths emerge. First, large majorities of Minnesotans recognize that taxes need to go up to address services. They have seen schools, roads, and bridges decay and now about 60% or so recognize a need for tax increases. Thus unlike nationally, the anti-tax message has limited appeal beyond a GOP base plus some swings.

Second, polls suggest that Dayton is capturing the bulk of the swing voters. Emmer is not getting many swings. Horner is getting them. Emmer is running base politics. By that, from the day he accepted his party nomination he declared he would run from the right and not from the center. Dumb move! He forgot the battle is from and for the center. He ran as and let the DFL paint him as a right-winger and he is paying the price. He is still in the race because Dayton has run a lackluster campaign and his supporters are not as excited or passionate about him as the Emmer voters are for their candidate. This explains Obama’s pep rally for Dayton over the weekend. Dayton needs his base–plus women and swings–to get excited and vote for him. If they do, Dayton bucks the national trend and wins.

Emmer may still win, but it is a battle. He needs his base to vote–and they will–he needs to pickup more swings–hard to see how–and he needs Dayton’s people to stay home on election day.

On the Horn(er) of a Dilemma: The Fading Prospects of a Third Party Governor in Minnesota

It looked all so promising only two weeks ago. Momentum and buzz suggested Tom Horner was gaining ground and he had a real chance to be governor. Polls showed strong gains, he was ahead of where Jesse Ventura was in 1998 at this time, and rumor had it he was racking in piles of money. Horner, a former public relations person, also knew how to package his statements for the media. It all looked so good.

However, I think the window of opportunity he had has closed. Why?

First, think about the polls. Two recent polls, one last Friday by Fox 9 and Rasmussen, and then Sunday by the Star Tribune, point in the same direction. In the Fox 9 poll, Horner initially looks good, polling 18%. He gets the same 18% in the Star Tribune Poll. But then Fox 9 throws in “leaners,” asking people who they are leaning toward, and Horner drops to 9%. This is not good news.

If Horner has momentum, he should have more than 18% when the leaners are added. Instead, his 18% is cut in half. When push comes to shove, voters are leaning toward Dayton or Emmer and not Horner. This is a sign of political polarization and not a good sign for a third party candidate.

More bad news. Depending on the poll read, both Dayton and Emmer are holding their bases. About 75-80% of DFLers and GOPers are supporting their candidate. Additionally, the Fox 9 poll shows Dayton grabbing far more of the moderate vote than Horner. The latter is especially troubling for Horner. Both the Fox 9 and Star Tribune polls show 27% and 28% of the state respectively not aligned with either of the two major parties. One cannot assume all of these people are moderates but many are. Horner needs to win his base Independence Party vote (I assume this to be about 8-10%), win the majority of unaligned or unaffiliated voters, and pull disaffected voters from the two major parties. However, the polls do not support that happening.

The simple answer to explain Horner’s fate is that he is no Jesse. Jesse was a politainer, a celebrity politician-entertainer (thus politainer) who could get media attention by just walking down the street. He ran during good times in MN with a $4.5 billion state surplus and 2.2% unemployment. He did not look like Skip Humphrey and Norm Coleman who looked alike and were tired and boring career politicians. Jesse was fresh and plain talking. When he won, as one of my friends once said, it was with 37% of the state giving the major parties the middle finger. Things were going well in the state so what the heck, take a chance.

Now the state is almost $6 billion in the hole and with 7% or so unemployment. Horner looks no different than Dayton and Emmer; all three are political insiders who look and sound boring. Horner gets no instant media attention by who he is. He needs to manufacture it or buy advertising.

Here is the horn(er) of the dilemma. Horner needs media attention to get his message out. He can only do that with money. He can only raise money if he lets people know he is running and what his message is, however he needs money to do that. Horner is trapped in a cycle and he may not be able to get out of it.

But not being Jesse and not having money is only part of the problem. MN’s flirtation with third party politics runs in cycles. Third party candidates do well when the state is economically doing very well or very badly and there is high disenchantment with the major parties. Think Floyd Olson (Farmer-Labor Party elected during prohibition) and Ventura during the flush times of the 90s.

These conditions exist now. But two factors mitigate against a third party now.
First, Florida 2000. The lesson many in MN and nationwide draw from Florida 2000 is that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Both parties learned the message that supporting a third party candidate may help the candidate you least like. That message was again reinforced in the 2006 Franken, Coleman, Barkley senate race in MN.

Second, the 2002 plane crash of Paul Wellstone reinforced the political polarization of that begin with Florida 2000. Prior to the crash third party candidate Tim Penny was leading or tied for lead for governor. After the crash he faded fast and finished a distant third. That crash, chats that Norm Coleman was an accidental senator, the debacle of the Wellstone eulogy, and Ventura’s pouting last year as governor, all came together to end MN’s most recent third party enthusiasm.
All of these factors are suggested in recent Fox 9 Rasmussen polls showing 47% of the electorate less likely to vote for a third party candidate now than in the past.

MN has a polarized electorate. The major candidates are holding their bases. The swings are not swinging to a third party. He has little money to message, and the structural dynamics do not favor a third party candidate in a post Florida 2000 Wellstone plane crash era. Things do not look good for Horner and I think the opportunity to change minds is closing or has already closed.
As it stands, Horner may wind up pulling in no more than the core Independence Party vote, getting numbers similar to what Peter Hutchinson got in 2006.