Klobuchar for President? Her Chances Are Less than Most Minnesotans Think

More than likely, Amy Klobuchar will announce on February 10, she is running for president. As
Minnesota’s most popular elected official, winning her last US Senate campaign with 60% of the popular vote, everyone in the state thinks her presidential prospects are terrific.   But living in the state it will not be popular to say what this, but her prospects of being a successful candidate are against her and contrary to received wisdom in Minnesota, she faces enormous obstacles either as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate.
There are many problems Klobuchar confronts as a presidential candidate, some unique to her, some to coming from Minnesota, some given the direction of the Democratic Party, and in many ways all three of these items are connected.
Consider first Klobuchar first as candidate.  Yes she is well-known in Minnesota but nationally she is still barely a blip in public opinion polls.  A recent Washington Post poll among Democrats gave her only 2 % support.  Other polls at barely 1%.  Outside of Minnesota she remains largely unknown. Part of that problem is that Klobuchar comes from the Midwest–flyover zone for those on the coasts–outside of the major media markets where candidates such as Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren come from.  They simply have higher name recognition given their states.  This geographic isolation of Minnesota has historically been a challenge for Minnesota presidential candidates.
Second, Klobuchar is not a rock star exciting persona, instead a classic more subdued Minnesotan.  The personality that might play well in Minnesota politics does not necessarily play well on the national level.  Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, Tim Pawlenty, and Michele Bachmann resonated well in Minnesota but not so well nationally.  Minnesotans like their politicians, but the state’s exceptionalism in politics perhaps means that a different skill set and persona are needed here compared to the national level.
Third, Klobuchar faces a narrative problem.  All candidates need a narrative or message and reason for running.  Hillary Clinton’s problem both in 2008 and 2016 was that she had no narrative beyond she was not Bush (in 2008) or Trump (2016) and it was her turn now.  What is Klobuchar’s narrative?  Simply being against Trump is not enough–all the Democrats running in 2020 will be that.  Klobuchar needs to be more than that, and it is not clear what her narrative is, or it is one that may not play.  By that, most of Klobuchar’s tenure as Senator has been in the minority where she has had little chance to make substantive policy in a polarized partisan environment. Her rel record of accomplishment is thin.
Klobuchar’s major selling point is that she can reach across the aisle and work with Republicans.  It is not clear this is a selling point with a Democratic Party–especially during the primaries–that is moving to the left.
Klobuchar is running as a centrist and that is not where Democrats are now, and rarely has  “Running to the right” been a winning strategy for them at the national level.  Campaigning with the endorsement of George Will does not cut it with liberals.  Clinton in 2016 said her strength was going to be winning over moderate Republicans and winning white southerners (as she did against Sanders in the primaries), and look how well that strategy worked.  The US is even more polarized now and it is less clear that now a Democrat can garner Republican votes.  Orthodoxy in the Democratic Party is now for Medicare for all, free college education, and other big idea economic redistributive ideas.  Is this where Klobuchar is?
Klobuchar’s narrative is her experience–again much like what Clinton ran on in 2008 and 2016. She is a former country attorney and three-term Senator.  But Kamala Harris is a former state legislator, San Francisco prosecutor, California Attorney General, and US Senator; equally if not more impressive credentials, even on the topic of law and order.
Klobuchar also seems to be relying on an Iowa strategy to energize her political campaign.  First, it assumes that because Minnesota is next to Iowa and part of the former’s media market extends into the latter, people in Iowa know her.  Second, since Jimmy Carter in 1976, candidates  look to Iowa for a win to capitulate them into a subsequent victory in New Hampshire and beyond.  There are several problems with this strategy, assuming it has worked and that it will be winning formula in 2020.
Bachmann and Pawlenty thought the Minnesota-Iowa connection would work for them and it did not.  Second, since 1972, there have been 10 Democratic and eight Republican contested caucuses. Only six of the Democratic caucus winners and three of the Republican caucus winners have gone on to win their party’s nomination–only 50% does the Iowa winner go on to capture the party nomination.
But in 2020 things also change in a dramatic way–California and Texas move up their primaries to March 3, and the early voting for the former will start about the same time as the date of the Iowa caucus scheduled for February 3.  Moving up the California and Texas primaries changes the importance of Iowa and the logic of campaigning.  Relatively speaking running in Iowa was cheap by comparison to California and Texas which will take millions of dollars and lots of name recognition.  Kamala Harris for one, will be advantaged by the early California primary and if she does well there and Klobuchar not, Iowa may not matter at all no matter how well the Minnesota senator does.
Finally, what about the theory that Klobuchar’s real aim in running for president is to be I’ve-president?  Contrary to all the folk wisdom (and empirical political science including mine supports this), few if any vice-presidential candidates really matter to tickets or voters.  There is a belief in geographic or other balance with vice-presidents as running mates, ut one has to ask what would Klobuchar add to a presidential ticket?  Will she help a Democrat carry Minnesota?  Will she pick up votes in New York?  Is she a pit bull or attack dog like some Veeps are?  Simply being a nice person whom everyone likes in Minnesota does not make one a strategically good choice for vice-president.
Perhaps Amy Klobuchar will defy the odds and win.  One can wish her well.  But an honest appraisal suggests the odds are against her.

The Crisis of Mainstream Republicanism (and why the Democrats are not far behind)

There may be a simple reason why Bush, Christie, and Kasich are doing so poorly and Carson and Trump so well, at least by comparison–mainstream Reagan Republicanism is exhausted and bankrupt.
There is a terrific piece recently in Politico by Michael Lind that makes that point.  The mainstream Republicanism that Bush and Christie are part of is indebted to Reagan.  He makes a good point but I argued the same point five years ago. The battle to build the Reagan brand of Republicanism had  its roots in Goldwater’s victory over Rockefeller.  As I stated then:

The contemporary battle for the Republican orthodoxy begins in 1964 when Barry Goldwater challenged the Rockefeller wing of the GOP for dominance. Goldwater’s “Extremism in defense of liberty” speech was a repudiation of the accommodation with the New Deal that Eisenhower, Javits, and the Rockefeller wing had reached. Goldwater may have lost the election but he propelled the GOP in a direction that first triumphed with Reagan’s victory in 1980 and his inaugural speech declaration that government is the problem, not the solution.

The Reagan coalition blended together often contradictory movements of economic liberty and social conservatism. The former requires a minimalist state protecting individual choice, the later requires an activist one second-guessing freedom. While ideological, it was still willing to compromise within its party and with Democrats, producing notable and important legislation such as the 1986 tax reform and the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. From 1980 to 2008 the Reagan brand is what defined the party. But beginning with the presidency of George Bush in 2001, and clearly by its end the Reagan brand had worn thin and when McCain ran and lost in 2008 it was clear that Reaganism was dead. Obama’s victory, along with Democratic gains in 06-08, signaled that change. For whatever it meant, it was preferred to Reaganism.
Reaganism was a brand–anti government, anti-taxes, and in so many ways, really anti working class, even though ostensibly its rhetoric was populist.  It won over the white working class, the Reagan Democrats, the then Archie Bunkers of the world, mostly because of either the perception or reality that the Democrats were no longer on their side.  Reaganism was successful because of its powerful narrative and because of the weak one Democrats had.

I also argued back in 2010 that the Reagan brand was exhausted, dead by 2008 with the Palin-Bachman remaking of the party.  That remaking is essentially complete, leaving Bush and Christie out.
But the remaking failed to win in 2008 and 2012.  It is still failing yet the mainstream Republicans have yet to figure this out.  Neither the Reagan version nor the one that emerged should be able to hold  white working class America, the group that has seen its economic position gradually erode more and more.  Trump’s success speaks to the failure of both the Reagan and Palin-Bachmann brands of Republicanism.   Trump may not have a plan to help white working class America, but he taps into a sentiment and angst that so far neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have addressed.
There is no good reason why either verison of  Republicanism (Reagan or Palin-Bachmann) should be able to hold on to white middle America  except for the fact that the Democrats have yet to articulate a plan and narrative that speaks to them.  Enter Sanders. The Sanders-Clinton split in the party in part is about the failure of the Democrats to speak to white working class America, suggesting that the Bill Clinton-Obama party brand too may be exhausted. That is the story for another blog another day.

Politics in the Age of Silver Bullets and One-Trick Ponies

Note:  My latest blog was originally published on August 22, 2013, in Politics in Minnesota where it and other good political news can be found.

“Simple solutions from simple people.”  This is how one of my graduate school professors used to deride flavor-of-the-month or single-minded ideas proposed by many politicians, interest groups, and advocates for a cause.  He was correct.  There is a penchant in business, and now in politics these days, to believe that there are a simple solutions to our problems and that all that  needs to be done is to do one thing and poof, the problem is solved.  The reality is that there are no silver bullets and those who believe they exist are at best one-trick ponies who are conflating marketing and ideology with governance and public policy.

            The world of business and marketing is all about silver bullets.  Marketing is selling simple solutions to our complex problems. Can’t lose weight?  Try this pill or this diet.  Unpopular? buy this car, use this toothpaste, or wear this overpriced clothing with a logo on it.  Conversely, managers and leaders look for the silver bullet to solve a problem, sell a product, or save a company.  They believe there is a “killer app,” feature, or marketing solution that will do it all.

            Even the art of management has been reduced to silver bullets and one trick pony ideas. Just consider some of the titles of leading business books over the last few years.  There is the One Minute Manager, apparently a guide for those lacking time to think.  Then there is Emotional Management for Project Managers–a book for those who do not or cannot think and need to do it with emotion.  Conversely there is The Intuitive Mind: Profiting from the Power of Your Sixth Sense and A Sixth Sense for Project Management–books with titles that seems to conjure up your inner clairvoyant or ESP to be a successful manager.  And then there are silly titles such as The Lazy Project Manager, Winnie-the Pooh on Management, The Zen Leader, and of course Managing for Dummies, Project Management for Dummies, and Leadership for Dummies.  I guess you do not have to be an Einstein, or even close, to be a successful manager.

            We also have six sigma, balanced scorecard, dashboards, and strategic management.  All these are supposed to be tools that solve all of our management problems. MBA programs drool over Machiavelli’s Prince and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War as models of successful management, believing that good leaders are like ruthless military or political leaders and that you need to have a my way or highway approach to management.  And then there are those dreary books by Jack Welch, Donald Trump. and other former corporate CEOs telling you how you can replicate what they did, even though GE actually underperformed according to many analysts (and did not pay taxes and had a record of serious pollution) or that’s Trump’s success comes the old-fashioned way (he takes over his father’s successful real estate company) and his companies have filed for bankruptcy four times.  For that he deserves to be fired!  Instead, he has his own show telling others how to manage their businesses.

            All of these books, programs, and leaders promise the same thing–some simple technique that will make you an effective manager.  They all seem to say that the gateway to success is adopting their simple single technique and it alone will transform you into a great manager and improve the performance of your business, non-profit, or government agency.  It is a surprise that they do not claim it will cure baldness or help you lose  20 pounds–much like the old quack miracle elixirs of the old days.

            It’s bad enough that business is so simple minded, but politics has increasingly turned down that road.  Yes there has always been zealots who told what Plato called the “big lie”–proposing a single comprehensive solution to solving all of our complex social, economic, or political problems.  Hitler of course was the most extreme–the Jews were the problem and their extermination was the solution.  But less extreme than that, over the course of American history racial minorities, communists, and more recently, welfare queens, immigrants, and gays and lesbians have been singled out as the cause America’s budget deficits, economic woes, or decline in morality, thereby demanding simple solutions such as elimination of welfare, building armed walls around our borders, or banning same-sex marriage.

            It is not enough to single out one group to persecute as a cure for our political problems, There are also the silver bullet solutions, often proposed by those of the political right these days. (Remember when they criticized liberals as simply wanting to throw money at a problem?)  Cutting taxes is the best example.  It seems no matter what the problem is, cutting taxes is the solution for some.  Unemployment too high?  Cut taxes.  Spending too much or deficits too high?  Cut taxes.  Government waste?  Cut taxes.  Government running a surplus (as it was during the end of the Clinton era)?  Cut taxes.  Need to lure business to the state?  Cut taxes.  Cutting taxes cannot be the answer to all these questions or problems.  Cutting taxes is not public policy idea, it is a marketing gimmick.

            During the 2012 presidential debates Herman Cain proposed “9-9-9" as his tax plan.  He was quickly followed by Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich who also proposed catchy but generally meaningless and impractical tax ideas.  Michele Bachmann talked of wanting to reenact Reagan’s tax cuts, whatever she meant by that.  None of these ideas were really well thought out, researched, or evidence-backed theories.  They were simple-minded slogans to sell a candidate or a cause, not solve a problem.  They are ideas proposed by zealots who have confused sloganeering and ideology with thoughtful public policy deliberation.

            Look beyond taxes to see other examples of this.  The gun debate is a great example.  More guns mean less crime and more personal security for the NRA types.  Privatization and choice is the solution to failing schools or bloated uncompetitive bureaucracies.  Deregulation will cure business competitiveness.   And, until very recently, arresting more people for longer periods of time is the solution to our drug problem.  Less anyone think that Republicans, Tea Partiers,  and conservatives have a monopoly on being one-trick ponies with silver bullets. Spending more money alone will not solve underachievement problems with students, and banning guns will not solve all the problems surrounding crime, suicide, and domestic abuse.

            Legal philosopher Lon Fuller once declared that many of society’s problem are “polycentric.”  By that he meant there was not one center or problem but that often social ills have many interconnected causes and problems, demanding complex solutions with many parts. The reality is that except in the movies where a silver bullet kills the zombie or gets the bad guy, there are no silver bullets.  There are no single solutions or one-size fits all fixes that can solve all of our problems.  For those interested in improving governance and making more effective public policy, this is an important point worth remembering.

Minnesota Republicans and the 2014 Elections: Opportunity Lost?

These should be heady times for Minnesota Republicans.  The 2014 elections should be a great opening for them to make political inroads in Minnesota, yet for all the advantages they have, they will probably do no better in the state than retain a congressional seat that they should have held all along.
    Consider the state of 2014 elections.  It will be midterm elections with no presidential candidate on the ticket.  During presidential elections Minnesota’s voter turnout is about 77%.  In non-presidential years it drops significantly, with the majority of those who stay home being the youth and those more likely to voter for Democrats.  Republicans generally do well in off-year elections.  In 2010 state turnout dropped to about 53%.  Given that there is a US Senate and governor’s race, do not expect a drop that far; anticipate perhaps a 60% turnout.  This is still respectable compared to other states, but certainly not great compared to presidential years.  Expect to see many Democrats and swing voters (especially the young) stay home.  This is especially the case given that unlike in 2012 when the elections and marriage amendments drove voters to the polls.  Now with same-sex marriage legal, many Millennials may decide their work is done and they may get involved some other way.  On balance, this is an election with an electorate more favorable to Republicans.
    Historically second term midterm elections are also bad for the president’s party.  Few think the Democrats can take back the House–especially with so few competitive seats in existence–and with Democrats having to defend so many Senate seats and many of their strong incumbents retiring, the prospects for a GOP senate are strong.  Obama has a 50% approval rating, but the job market and economy are still tepid and Obamacare will have implementation problems.  All told, the political climate favors Republicans.
    Now consider Minnesota.  Two of the closest races in Minnesota history have their DFL incumbents up for election in 2014. While once governor Dayton rode high in the popularity polls, his approval rating is now below 50% and his disapprovals are close to that.  In theory he is vulnerable. Senator Franken, who won by 312 votes in 2008, is also up for election.  He too should be vulnerable.  And Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has declared that he is not running for election.  That creates another opportunity.  Finally, the Minnesota House of Representatives faces election next year.  Many Republicans may think that rasing taxes on the wealthy, same-sex marriage, and bills to allow for union votes with daycare workers smells of overreach, offering a rallying cry and opportunity to retake that chamber in 2014.
    Yet despite these opportunities, the GOP may not capitalize on any of them.  In the case of Dayton and Franken, the Republicans do not have a varsity candidate to run against them.  So far no household names have emerged.  Perhaps some will, but it better happen soon.  At least with the Senate race, a successful candidate may need to raise $20 million to win.  Franken has good approvals, name recognition, and money in the bank.  The clock is ticking for Republicans to find someone soon.   In terms of legislative races, perhaps only about 20 House seats are competitive.  This is enough to switch party control, but Republicans need a message, candidates, and money.
     For governor, the issue is money too, and the state Republican Party is broke and split.  It is a party torn between Ron Paul supporters, Tea Party followers, and the few remaining moderates that it has.  It lacks a common message and theme and organizationally it is not clear it can provide the resources to support both a statewide race and at the same time assist in the House races next year.  While the House GOP caucus generally supports its candidates, it needs help from the party  and it will not get much of that.  Do not count on the House caucus having too many resources to help out with the governor’s race either.
    But the more curious issue is why the empty bench?  Why are there so few if any varsity GOP candidates for governor, senate, and even Secretary of State?   First, the losses of 2012 depleted the GOP of candidates–majority legislative leaders lost power and position.  Other such as Amy Koch self-destructed.  Additionally, the party has moved far to the right while the state as a whole remains centrist.  While there are strong pockets of conservatism across the state–such as in the 6th Congressional district and in many state legislative seats–on balance Minnesota’s voter registration and party breakdown favor Democrats in a statewide election.
    This brings us then to the 6th Congressional district.  Many fellow political scientists were convinced that Bachmann was vulnerable and Graves could win.  Maybe, yet for the last three elections Democrats have gotten it wrong in the 6th.  Bachmann remained a good candidate in a district strongly favoring a Republican.  Her base would not have cared about the ethics issues and  Bachmann could have turned them into assets.  Graves had little money and could perhaps only go so far as the anti-Bachmann candidate.  Having said that, he was the “Great Democratic Hope” in that district.  With him out, probably any Republican can win.
    Tom Emmer is already in.  He has name recognition and politics that match the district.  Yet  as he showed in 2010, he is not a great campaigner and some Republicans resent that he did not win  then. He may be the Republican that Democrats have the best chance to beat–if they can find a candidate. Senator Mary Kiffmeyer has a perfect political alignment with the 6th district–Bachmann without the baggage–and in 2014 she can run without giving up her legislative seat.    Yet she could also be a candidate for Secretary of State again.  The other name mentioned is Matt Dean.  He is a decent, quiet person who could garner moderate support.  Whether he can excite the base remains to be seen.
    There is a window of opportunity for Minnesota Republicans, but it is closing quickly except perhaps for the 6th Congressional district.  The challenge is not to let the need to defend this safe seat overwhelm the other chances out there.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Beginning and End of Minnesota Politics: A Tale of Four Circles

The best thing that could happen to the Republican Party of Minnesota (RPM) if not the national Republican Party,  is for same-sex  marriage to be legalized.  Its legalization would remove from the agenda one that the Republicans are losing on, and one that is continuing to alienate them from younger millennial voters and moderates.  Legalization of same-sex marriage would permit Republicans to move away from social issues and concentrate on their core economic and limited government message.
    Assuming Monday’s passage of same-sex marriage by the Minnesota Senate the state will have come full circle four ways.  The first circle to close is  Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971).  Minnesota is home to the first case in the nation adjudicating bans on same-sex marriage.  In Baker at issue was whether a state law lacking  an express statutory prohibition against same-sex marriages signaled  a legislative intent to authorize such marriages. The Minnesota Supreme Court declared not, contending furthermore than the ban on same-sex marriage did not violate the First, Eighth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Legalization of same-sex marriage in Minnesota would thus overturn Baker, bringing to an end the first and original precedent standing against marriage equality.
    The second circle to close involves Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act, and same-sex marriage.    Bachman’s political career is intertwined with opposition to same-sex marriage.  In 1997 the Minnesota legislature adopted Minn. Stat. § 517.01, Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) restricting marriage to that of couples of the opposite sex.  DOMA and Baker should have been enough to persuade social conservatives that same-sex marriage would not become the law of the land in Minnesota.  But it was not. 
    Bachmann’s 2000 run for the Minnesota Senate and successful defeat of a Republican moderate was premised as much upon opposition to gay rights and same-sex marriage as it was on her anti-tax positions.  Once elected she sponsored first in 2003 and then in 2005 state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage.  Her fear?  A Minnesota Supreme Court would overturn Baker and DOMA.  Fear of  same-sex marriage played well as a springboard and theme in her 2006 election to Congress in a deeply conservative Catholic district.    Adoption of same-sex marriage in Minnesota, as well as the turning of the tide on the issue across the country, undercuts one of the defining themes of her political career.  She may continue to get elected as defending an embattled minority, but she will look increasingly anachronistic and shrill, making it even more difficult for her to win re-election in 2014.
    The third circle to close is on the RPM’s failed marriage amendment in 2012.  While Bachmann was no longer in the Minnesota legislature, her opposition to same-sex marriage lived on in a political party.  When the RPM was swept into control of the Minnesota Legislature in the 2010 elections the Republicans declared that the economy was job one.  Speakers Zellers pronounced it was all about jobs and not social issues.  Yet soon they strayed from that message.  Minnesota witnessed a budget gridlock and state shutdown and the defining theme of Republican control became their overreach on social issues, including the elections and marriage amendments.  Both went down to surprising defeats in 2012.
    The reasons for the crash of the marriage amendment are many.  It was about over-reach by Republicans and a misreading of their mandate (their mandate was actually more rooted in the 2010 opposition to Obama and the Democrats than in anything they offered).  It was about the cynicism  of some legislators saying that pushing the two amendments was a way to turn out their base in the 2012 elections, seeking to yet against rekindle the successful formula Karl Rove and the Republicans had used since 2004.  It was almost about the failure to see how the issue of same-sex marriage was a defining issue for the Millennials and how public opinion had shifted.  Republicans just did not see how the issue of same-sex marriage would counter-mobilize.
    Going into the 2013 legislative session many Democrats and Republicans argued that the 2012 results were not a mandate to support same-sex marriage but instead simple opposition to a constitutional amendment against it.  Some cautioned that pushing same-sex marriage would run the risk of DFL overreach, and initially Democratic leadership seemed to agree.  But others contended that were it not for the issue of same-sex marriage the Democrats would not have won in 2012 and therefore they had to deliver on the issue less than alienate their base.  The latter theory prevailed.  But it did so in a self-fulfilling way.  The momentum to oppose the marriage amendment was quickly turned around to support for same-sex marriage and quietly and slowly support for its legalization  was built.  Thus, the third circle–from a failed marriage amendment to legalization of same-sex marriage–also closes.
    The last circle is the re-redefining the RPM. The DFL wins on this issue, but potentially not as big as the RPM could.  DFLers were expected to push this issue and they delivered.  That is good for them.  But with the legalization of same-sex marriage the GOP loses a thorn it its side.  This issue drove many away from their side.  They had lost an entire generation of young people because of this issue.  Take same-sex marriage off the issue and it opens up new possibilities for the RPM to redefine a base that is old.  Of course the real danger for Republicans is that the social conservatives will seek retribution in the 2014 primaries and conventions, but what are they really able to accomplish?  They can destroy the party with unproductive infighting, or they too can move on.  For Republicans who voted to legalize same-sex marriage, if they can survive intraparty fights, they may emerge as the new voice of a redefined  GOP in a post-same-sex marriage world that focuses more on economics and small government than social issues.  This is where the party was a generation ago when the Arnie Carlsons and David Durenbergers were the face of the RPM.

News of Michele Bachmann’s Vulnerability are Greatly Exaggerated

Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon recently penned that three pending ethics investigations surrounding Congresswoman Bachmann could doom her in the next election.  At least this is the hope of the Democrats and many other observers. Of course this is an interesting thesis but  Democrats are too quick to assume that she is as vulnerable as they think.

No doubt Bachmann has a close scare last year against newcomer Jim Graves. Perhaps had he received more money and better support earlier from the DCCC  maybe he would have won.  Running again in 2014 Graves brings many advantages in terms of name recognition and better campaign skills.  and the ethics accusations surrounding Bachmann add additional cogency to his campaign.

But one should not forget that 2012 was a unique year that will not repeat itself in 2014.  Nationally 2012 was a presidential year with higher turnout.   It featured an incumbent president running against a weak Republican.  Romney was especially weak in MN, having done badly here in the caucuses. Minnesota’s turnout was approximately 75% and it also featured Senator Klobuchar running for reelection.  On the ballot were two controversial constitutional amendments (a ban on same-sex marriage and a Voter ID Amendment) that strongly drove DFL turnout and backlashed against Republicans in Minnesota.  None of this will exist in 2014.

In 2014 there will be a governor’s race and Senator Franken is up again.  Both may draw Democratic attention and away from Bachmann.  Moreover, Democrats nationally will be battling to hold on to the US Senate whereas there seems little chance to regain the House.  These factors may divert money and resources away from a Bachman race.  Furthermore, some believe Representative John Klein is also vulnerable and that race too may divert resources and attention.

 Second, midterm elections generally do not favor the President’s party and in Minnesota and across the country expect a significant downturn in turnout.  Constitutional amendments will not be on the ballot either.  Overall, expect there to be voter turnout in the mid 50s and not 70s in 2014, with such turnout favoring a more Republican voting block.

Moreover, Bachmann will not be unprepared this time.  She has way more in her campaign war chest now than Graves and she has already launched ads attacking Graves.  Her fundraising skills are still excellent with a terrific network of supporters across the country.  While Bachmann did not use it well in 2012, her district is not about plus 6 or 7 GOP, again giving her a real advantage in her district, again especially in the off-year elections.  In 2012 Bachmann’s congressional campaign suffered from her presidential adventures, including spending most of her first year of her term in Iowa.  This will not occur this time.

Finally, for many years her district has been forgiving and even embraced her often controversial and fact-challenged statements and there is no reason to think that they may discount them again in 2014.

Overall, Bachmann may be vulnerable in 2014 and perhaps the patience of her constituents is running out.  Her opponents have gotten it wrong in the last two election cycles against her, overestimating her weakness in 2010 and underestimating it in 2012.  Being burned twice is a note for caution.

Perhaps also the ethics issues will hurt her, but it is also possible by November, 2014  the story has run its course and Bachmann can again assert that it is a liberal media that is driving the attacks. Democrats have mis-estimated her political skills and they again may do they to their misfortune in 2014.  Much like Mark Twain once declaring that news of his death were greatly exaggerated, so too might be news of Michele Bachmann's political career.

A mandate or a rejection? Lessons from the 2012 elections

 Today's post appeared as a guest commentary on November 7, 2012 in Minnpost.

For a year that was not supposed to be theirs, the Democrats appeared to do well across the country and in Minnesota. But while the Democrats may conclude that it was a mandate for them, it is possible that their success was more a rejection of the Republicans. The election returns thus provide important lessons for both of the parties both across the country and in Minnesota.

At the presidential level, President Barack Obama scored a decisive Electoral College victory but a narrow popular-vote win (50%-48%, according to the New York Times). His margin was far less than in 2008, and the total number of votes he received in 2012 was 60 million compared to 69.5 million. Not the numbers of a mandate.

In so many ways this was a campaign he should have lost. Obama had economic numbers that doom most presidents, the public did not like his handling of the economy, and Obama never articulated the case for why he deserved four more years.  All this Mitt Romney seized on in his campaign. But Obama won because the public never really liked Romney as a person, he never connected with the average voter, and he, too, lacked a compelling narrative for why he should  be president. In too many ways, the rival arguments for Obama and Romney as to why they should be president came down to “I am not the other guy.”

Moreover, Romney proved to be a horrible campaigner. In the end he only won one swing state. Obama out-organized Romney and used better math and tracking to locate voters. One of the major stories in 2012 is that the polls called it exactly correct nationally and across the states. Republicans were in constant denial about the polls but they were wrong. Moving forward they need better field operations and campaign information.

The soul searching for the Republican Party thus begins again, much like four years ago.  In 2008 the conclusion was that McCain was not conservative enough, so in 2012 the GOP base – now dominated by Tea Party activists – toyed with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum before settling on a candidate who did not enthuse them or the American public.

Romney: a caretaker candidate

Romney was a caretaker candidate en route to the 2016 elections. The Republicans are an old, white, Christian, anti-gay and anti-immigrant party out of touch with the changing American demographics. But instead of dealing with that they will move further to the right, making Paul Ryan the obvious frontrunner for 2016. He was one of the few Republican winners.

The congressional elections represented lost opportunities for Republicans. There were 33 Senate races with 23 seats held by Democrats. Republicans lost Senate races in Missouri and Indiana that they should not have. They did it by nominating candidates so out of touch with mainstream America, or with retreads such as Tommy Thompson, that even weak Democrats won.

The Senate also witnessed the loss of some moderates such as Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe. The result is a more polarized Senate with more conservative  Republicans. Democrats still have control, again by default. Finally, the House represents little change from the existing one, with no party taking comfort that they achieved a real victory. More gridlock is the message, along with the reality that the 2014 elections are now less than two years away.

The most interesting of surprises: Minnesota

Minnesota turned out to be the most interesting of all surprises. The Republicans were routed. They had won surprise control over the Legislature in 2010 with talk of jobs and the economy. They failed to deliver on it, and balanced a budget with gimmicks and a government shutdown. They overreached with social issues and pushed an elections amendment and marriage amendment. Both amendments represented a go-for-broke strategy to change the Constitution permanently, and the public rejected the amendments along with the Republicans.

It is possible that this overreach cost Chip Cravaack his seat and almost unseated Michele Bachmann. Bachmann should have won big in a tailor-made district for her, coupled with her money and name recognition advantage. It is doubtful she will be chastened by her narrow escape, but she certainly is a weaker leader for the Tea Party and less a 2014 Senate threat to Sen. Al Franken than before.

Republicans have handed to the DFL the keys to the Minnesota government.  Democrats control all the constitutional offices, including the governor and the Legislature. This is the first unified party control since 1990. Dayton can potentially move his agenda finally, but the Democrats  should heed the lessons of the Republicans in that they need to be cautious about claims of mandates. They may have won simply because the Republicans were inept and awkward, embracing issues that fail to appeal to mainstream and centrist Minnesotans.

The mandate is not here for Democrats. Nor is there a mandate for the Republicans. Neither should assume that the election returns mean the public is happy with them.  The public still wants a change, but perhaps not the type that either party wants to consider for themselves.

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 Paranoid Style of Michele Bachmann

“In my opinion the State Department, which is one of the most important government departments, is thoroughly infested with communists.” –Senator Joseph McCarthy, 1950.

 

“Information has recently come to light that raises serious questions about Department of State policies and activities that appear to be a result of influence operations conducted by individuals and organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood."  –Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 2012.

    Fear and prejudice make people do stupid things.

    *    In 1692 Salem, Massachusetts, fear of the new world and prejudice against the unknown resulted in the deaths of 24 people—19 hung, four dying in prison, and one crushed to death—all because they were accused of being witches. The story is told well in Arthur Miller’s The Crucible—a banned book.

    *    During WWI and the Depression 30s, fears arising out of hunger and desperation and prejudice against hope for a better life led to raids, beatings, and imprisonment for union members and those who wished to advocate for their political views.

    *    After Pearl Harbor, fear and prejudice against the Japanese led to the forcible relocation and internment of over125,000 loyal Americans into concentration camps.

    *    In the 1950s, fear of the Soviets and prejudice against those who saw the world differently from Senator Joe McCarthy were subject to communist witch hunts and Hollywood blacklists that led to the loss of life and livelihood of thousands.

    *    And in civil rights protests in the 1960s, and at the Stonewall Inn in 1969, fear and prejudice against those advocating equal rights for Blacks and gays were treated to beatings and police brutality.

    Then there is Michele Bachmann who seems to be cornering the market on fear and prejudice with her defamatory remarks about Congressman Keith Ellison and Huma Abedin as being members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Bachmann’s latest accusations are so ugly and dirty that even Republicans such as John McCain and Speaker John Boehner are condemning them.  Her comments  and accusations about Muslims and the State Department take a page from Senator McCarthy’s comments about Communists and the State Department in 1950.
    America is a beautiful nation, often filled with hope and promise of a better life for us and our children. Yet this country has an ugly side to it that we often forget and ignore.  It is the story of America as told so well by Richard Hofstadter in his The Paranoid Style of American Politics. We often cloak fear and prejudice in the flag and persecute minorities or blame individual liberties as the cause of our insecurities.  If only the government had more power or authority, if only people had less rights, some promise, then we could root out witches, communists, disloyal Americans, homosexuals,  immigrants, terrorists, and Muslims and make the country safe for the rest of us God-fearing Christian Americans.
    Yet Bachmann’s recent attacks are only the most recent episode of her appeal to fear, prejudice, and ignorance. Recall again her 2012 presidential candidacy.  After a first place victory in the August, 2011 Iowa straw poll, she was on top of the world.  Yet she suddenly fell from political grace.  Yes the entrance of Texas Governor Rick Perry hurt her campaign by carving into her political base, but it was also her comments about vaccines that doomed her.  In a September 12, 2001 presidential debate Bachmann criticized Perry for an executive order he issued mandating that all sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV) as a measure to prevent cervical cancer.  Bachmann’s criticism was that such an order was an overreach of government authority and an infringement upon individual liberty.  This is a fair criticism.  But she continued her attack the next day on the NBC Today Show.  Describing her conversation with a woman after the debate Bachmann recounted:  “She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter. There is no second chance for these little girls if there is any dangerous consequences to their bodies.”.
    Bachmann’s repeating of the urban legend that vaccines cause cognitive problems—retardation—was swiftly condemned by the medical community.  The source of this claim was a long discredited and doctored study that purported to find this link.  The medical evidence was significant—there was no connection and instead one could argue, as Governor Perry had correctly suggested in the debate, that HPV and other vaccines would be medically beneficial and would better promote public health than not getting the vaccine.  Yet because of this urban legend connecting vaccines with autism, parents were refusing to inoculate their children.
    Bachmann’s repeating and apparent embrace of this myth was roundly criticized.  Suddenly she looked like some type of crackpot, ready to embrace outlandish and fringe ideas.  Some might have concluded that Michele Bachmann believes the world is flat, the Earth is at the center of a universe God created on the evening of Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC (according to calculations by Medieval Bishop James Ussher), and that Elvis is still alive and well and living in hiding somewhere, thereby explaining why she wished him happy birthday on the anniversary of his alleged death.
    Bachmann boiled a cauldron of fringe views and crank beliefs. She was often criticized for factual inaccuracies in many claims, ranging from assertions that the American Constitutional framers freed the slaves (they did not) to the claim that Dodd-Frank (the bill passed in 2010 to regulate Wall Street financial transactions to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) have already lead to the loss of millions of American jobs or increased health care costs despite the fact that most of the major provisions of both had yet to go into effect.  She also simply and repeatedly made other assertions that were simply wrong or widely exaggerated.  Louis Jacobson of Polifact points out that Bachmann through 2010 had earned five “Pants on Fire” on the Truth-O-Meter and has never scored better than “false” in her five truth tests.  She is the hall of famer of political lies and inaccuracies.
    I am not sure what is worse.  Is she lying for political advantage?  Is she that ignorant about  facts and history?  Is she dumb, lying, or appealing to prejudice?  Neither of these explanations are praiseworthy.  With the comments about the Muslim brotherhood I am not sure if her main failing  is the falsehood about Ellison and Abedin or equating being Muslim with being un-American?
    Joseph McCarthy’s end came in 1952 whenJoseph Welch, Special Counsel to the Army asked of him in a hearing:  “Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
    I wonder the same about Bachmann.  Maybe the turning point came this week when Senator  John McCain declared: "When anyone, not least a member of Congress, launches specious and degrading attacks against fellow Americans on the basis of nothing more than fear of who they are and ignorance of what they stand for, it defames the spirit of our nation, and we all grow poorer because of it.”

Pity the Banker: The Lessons of Financial Meltdown

“Which is the greater crime, to rob a bank or own one?

–Bertold Brecht

“I'm pleased to offer a full repeal of the job-killing Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill.”

–Michelle Bachmann

            It must be tough times to be a banker.  If one listens to the likes of Michelle Bachmann and the Wall Street Journal crowd the federal government is simply picking on banks too much.  The government so over-regulates the banks that they can no longer make money.  Regulations such as Sarbanes-Oxley (passed in 2002 in response to significant corporate fraud and financial misstatements on Wall Street in companies such as Enron, Credit Swiss, and Arthur Andersen among scores of others) and Dodd-Frank (passed in 2010) to address Wall Street financial self-dealing , conflicts of interest and gambling) are job killers draining down the economy.  Obama is Wall Street’s public enemy number one, with record amounts of their money directed at opposing his re-election after record amounts of their money endorsed his candidacy in 2008.

            All of this pity for banks seems so ironic, and wrong.  Bachmann, as she is prone so often to, proves she don’t know much about history as Sam Cooke once sung, and the Wall Street sympathizers have forgotten the role of the banks in bringing about the worst economic crashes in American history.

            One does not have to go back to the Credit Mobilier scandal of the 1870s in the US which involved the self-dealing of construction contracts by a major bank in building of railroads.  Nor does one have to go back to the roaring 1920s when banks so speculated on securities that their behavior helped precipitate Black Friday and the Depression.  It was this speculation which lead to banking reform in 1933 including the Glass-Steagall Act which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to ensure depositor’s money and separated investment bankers (those that speculate in securities) from commercial banks (which do mortgages).  Instead, one needs only to look at more recent history to see how banking and Wall Street speculation has wrought economic destruction in America...and across the world.

            The American economy crashed in 2002 after “irrational exuberance” of late 1990s revealed that many companies such as Enron and WorldCom simply lied about their financial health.  Jeffrey Skilling and Bernie Ebbers among others simply lied to the SEC and investors about their finances.  Cynthia Cooper, former chief auditor for WorldCom tells of the misdeeds in Extraordinary Circumstances and the movie/book The Smartest Guys in the Room tells the same at Enron.  Enron financial manipulation was amazing, bankrupting California, bringing down its governor, and wiping out the savings of tens of thousands of investors and employees.  Because of these scandals Congress adopted Sarbanes-Oxley to require companies to impose controls to make sure their balance sheets were accurate, requiring CEOS and CFOs to swear under penalty of perjury that their SEC reports were true and accurate.

            And then it all hit the fan in 2008.  Investment banks, speculating on mortgages and on Wall Street as a result of repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, extended sub-prime loans to many individuals, often without income verification, sold off the loans to the secondary mortgage market, and then used the proceedings to gamble on Wall Street.  All of the collapsed in 2008 when the bets came due, banks lacked the resources to cover their losses, and the economic crash spread around the world. 

            The Bush presidency offered TARP to bail out the banks and the Obama administration followed up with trillions in credit and loans to help Wall Street.  In fact, Obama was perceived by Wall Street as their savior, bestowing on him record amounts of cash to help him win election.  Obama was the best friend Wall Street could have at the time.  Banks got bailed out ahead of consumers and homeowners and profitability was restored to the financial sector.   Moreover in a effort to prevent some of the worst excesses from returning Congress passed Dodd-Frank in 2010 which imposed minimal new regulations and order to banks and investment houses.

            For all of this, banks and Wall Street demonstrated their gratitude by turning on him.  They accused Obama of using a rhetoric that made them the enemy.  They were instead simply innocent victims of federal regulatory excess.  They were being robbed at gunpoint by federal regulation.

            But look at where banking and Wall Street is today.

            *          Jamie Dimon and JPMorgan fraud on trading hits $5.8 billion

            *          Barclays and other banks have manipulated Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate)

            *          Wells-Fargo agrees to a record payout to settle charges of race discrimination in their steering of people of color to sub-prime loans.

Yet despite these scandals, the Financial Times also notes how Wells-Fargo and JPMorgan have economically recovered, with the former experiencing a 17% increase in second quarter profits.

            Banks and Wall Street today are again solvent thanks to trillions of tax dollar credits and investments.  Many are experiencing record profits, yet many are also continuing to speculate, self-deal, or engage in other anti-social behavior.  And then there is the call for repeal of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank and the ouster of Obama from the presidency.  Biting the hand that feeds them is the understatement of the year.

            Recent news events point not to the need to weaken regulation but to the imperative to do even more.  Banks and Wall Street still lack the oversight and controls necessary to ensure that they serve the interests of the American public.  Restoring Glass-Steagall, further limits on self-dealing, more Wall Street prosecutions, use of anti-trust laws, and even more serious consideration of public control of credit are needed if we want to ensure that the financial sector serves the interests of the people and investors and not simply those who run those institutions.