Making Sense of the 2014 Minnesota Legislative Session–A Tale in Four Parts

  
Legislative sessions in Minnesota produce defining themes.  These narratives allow observers to make sense out the political debates and the policies that emerge. Often times these narratives also influence the legislators themselves, acting almost as invisible hands that move participants in ways that look as if they are serving broader goals.  The 2014 legislative session too had its defining themes; in this case four stand out.

The DFL Delivered the Goods
    For good or bad, the DFL delivered on their promises because they were in charge.  This is the result of unified government.  When all is told the Democrats largely did what they promised.  They raised the minimum wage, passed anti-bullying legislation, cut taxes, passed a massive bonding bill, and also did more.  The DFL acted like, well, Democrats are expected to act and they made no real missteps or mistakes in the process.  They did fail to address the constitutional problems with the civil commitment process for sexual offenders, but no one seriously thought they would do that in an election year.  They also failed miserably to pass new disclosure laws for campaigns and elections, but outside Representative Winker and Senator Marty DFLers seem to have little appetite  for government ethics issues.  But come November they will tell the voters that they did what the aimed to do, that it bettered Minnesota, and that because of that they deserve to retain single party control.
    But for all that they did, the Republicans will use it against them.  All of the accomplishments or victories that the DFL will triumph the Republicans will say is the reason why they should be elected.  They will argue that the DFL damaged the economy with a higher minimum wage, that the tax cuts are illusionary given the massive increases the year before, that  the Democrats overreached into social issues, and that the bonding bill was simply an example of wasteful pork to buy votes. They will also try to talk about the botched rollout of MNSURE and excess spending on a new Senate office building.  Republicans will say the DFL acted like Democrats–as tax and spend liberals–and that their party has a better or different vision on state government.  Republicans and Democrats will offer contrasting views on the role of the state in Minnesota, with both parties making the election a referendum on the DFL’s performance. 

Dayton is in Charge
    What became clear here is the extent to which Dayton is in charge–not only as governor but also in terms of the legislative session.  His agenda largely defined what happened.  He wanted tax cuts and got them despite the desire of Tom Baak to save more of the surplus.  Dayton wanted a larger bonding bill, he got it.  Dayton was originally opposed to medical marijuana and the bill was dead until late in the session when he changed his mind and the policy got a second wind.  Dayton also used the bully pulpit effectively to structure what would go into many of the other laws that were passed–sprinklers for high end homes–and he generally imposed line of the legislature to act and the generally followed.  The governor in his first two years often took a passive roll in the legislative process.  Think about the law legalizing same-sex marriage.   For much of that debate he simply said that if the legislature passes the law he would sign it.  Dayton took that position on many bills.  But this session he went from being a passive participant to an active force in the legislature.

Suburban Soccer Moms Win (sort of)
    Suburbs are the battle ground for political power and control in Minnesota and the votes that drive who wins there are the soccer moms.  The suburban soccer mom is the single most important  swing voter in the state, and whoever wins or controls their vote wins statewide office and control of the legislature.
    Women in general, but especially the soccer mom, are central to Democrat and DFL success. Nationally there is a huge gender gap, with women far more likely to vote for Democrats than Republicans.  Suburban women have left the Republican party for many reasons–reproductive rights, health care, and other family security issues, even while their male counterparts stay with the GOP.  Women are a larger percentage of the electorate than men and inn presidential election years they show up to vote.  But in now presidential years, they do not.  In part that is why Democrats do so badly in midterm elections.  This was the case in 2010 when Democrats nationally and in Minnesota were routed, but Dayton managed to capture enough female voters to win.  Come November 2014  what women will do–vote or stay home–will determine the fate of the Democrats.
    It should not come as a surprise then that in 2014 the DFL did what it could to reach out to female voters, giving them a reason to vote Democrat.  For the most part, women did well this session and one could say that the soccer mom in Edina with three kids was the winner.  Consider  four pieces of legislation.
    First, the passage of the anti-bulling legislation addressed an issue of core concern to mothers–their children being bullied.  No parent wants their children bullied, but this is an issue that resonates with moms more than dads.  Second, the Women’s Economic Security Act was a high profile bill aimed to eliminate employment and economic barriers facing women such as child care, discrimination, and sexual harassment issues.  Third, legalization of  medical marijuana was entirely an issue driven by women.  The so called “mommy lobby” was instrumental in overcoming the Governor’s reluctance in opposing the law enforcement community (one of his biggest supporters).  In fact, not until after Dayton was confronted with women telling stories about how their children needed medical marijuana did he move.  The mommy lobby gave the DFL cover on this issue.  The one surprise?  The DFL did not pass the Toxic Chemicals bill, a law that would have given parents more information about children's products to disclose presence of chemicals of concern in them.  This should have been a no-brainer, but it failed, perhaps due the lobbying presence of Minnesota’s  powerful food industry.  But on balance, suburban women did well by the DFL.

Evidence-Based Policy
    Ronald Reagan once said facts were stubborn things.  Facts can empower but often times facts have little impact on decisions, or at least certain kinds of facts.  Many of us hope that legislators will make policy based on evidence, but as I have written in American Politics in the Age of Ignorance: Why Lawmakers Choose Belief Over Research, there are many reasons why this is often not the case.  Alternatively, what lawmakers consider as facts is different from what social scientists or scientists consider as facts.  Consider again the medical marijuana bill.
    The medical profession is absolutely correct–there is no evidence substantiating the therapeutic effects of medical marijuana.  The type of evidence they are looking for is the classic controlled experiment, perhaps a double-blind test involving placebos.  But this type of evidence is seldom what moves policy makers.  For them, personal stories from constituents, often anecdotal, is seen as compelling and powerful.   Moms testifying before the legislature with children in hand, telling personal stories about how medical marijuana helped their children, is hard to resist.  These political facts are more likely to move  public officials than the kind that sway doctors and scientists and they were enough to move the governor and legislature this term on a host of issues that might otherwise lack real evidentiary support.   It is these kind of political facts that also move voters.
    Thus when it comes time to spin the story of the 2014 Minnesota legislative session the above four narratives define what happened.  How compelling these stories are, what they mean, and how the parties will frame them, will determine to a large extent who wins the 2014 elections.

Soccer Moms and Swing State Politics: The Missing Narratives

On the eve of the final presidential debate the race has come down to three predictable points–developing a compelling narrative to move soccer moms in the swing states to vote for Romney or Obama.  None of this should come as a surprise.

           

Politics is about the power of telling a compelling narrative about yourself, why you are running for office, what you hope to accomplish, and what you think the world looks like. It is your vision of yourself and the world that you seek to sell to others.

Everyone loves a good story or narrative. We all love a good movie, television show, joke, and perhaps a book if it has a good plot and story.

Politics is no different. To be successful in politics, candidates need a narrative.  For most candidates, simply explaining why they are running for office is not enough. A good political narrative has several components: (1) it explains why the candidate is running for us; (2) it is a narrative describing who the candidate is; (3) it must describe the candidate(s vision of the world; and (4) it must describe what the candidate wants to accomplish if elected(it is their platform.

Narratives are important. Back in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush cast off the importance of narratives by stating that he did not need the (vision thing( to get reelected. He may not have had an explicit vision, but he certainly had a narrative. He had a narrative about winning the Cold War, creating a kinder and gentler society; one guided by a thousand points of light. Bush successfully convinced many Americans about a way to think about the world and him; they believed that by voting for him, they would get a particular type of government that would secure a specific view of the world without new taxes. Unfortunately for him, he did raise taxes. His story turned out to be a lie for some, and he lost in 1992 to Bill Clinton.

In 2008 Obama ran with a powerful narrative–change.  Change is a compelling  narrative, especially when you are the opposition. Gerald Pomper, one of my former political science professors at Rutgers University, once pointed out that Obama’s use of change as a slogan was similar to those of Eisenhower and Kennedy. Change seems to be the narrative to use when wanting to out incumbents or when voters are weary of the status quo.

      

The generational narrative of 2008 about change, then, captured age, technology, being cool, and being connected to Americans. Obama and the Democrats had a great narrative, but then 2010 happened. In a year where the economy still stunk, how did Obama defend his stimulus bill, financial reform, and health care changes? The situation was clear: they had no good narrative. I could not find a single compelling narrative for the Democrats in 2010 to defend what they had done.

But then a new narrative emerged–“It could have been worse” (had we not acted). This narrative grew out of comments from Obama and Tim Geithner, who talked about all the things they had done, such as bailing out the banks, GM, and so on. Had these steps not been taken, said Obama and Geithner, things would have been worse. I do not know about you, but for me “It could have been worse” hardly inspires voters or wins over swing voters. Still, that was their narrative, and Democrats lost big when Republicans ran on the narrative change in 2010.   

The basic problem Obama has had in this campaign is finding a narrative, vision, or argument for four more years. Romney is correctly criticizing Obama for his lack of vision for the future.  Obama‘s “forward” does not offer it, and throughout the debates and even his speech at the DNC one is still looking to hear the argument of Obama’s for why he deserves four more years and what he hopes to do.  Simply saying “I am not Romney” may not be enough.  What the 2012 campaign is offering is one candidate lacking a narrative versus another whose narrative of change is vacuous, disingenuous, or simply flawed.  However, the power of Romney’s narrative is identical to Reagan’s “Are you better off now” and Obama seems unable to articulate a Reaganesque “Morning in America” response. 

The missing narrative gets to the second factor dominating the closing days of the presidential election–appealing to soccer moms.  I have consistently argued for years that soccer moms are the single most influential swing voter in American politics.  Women are the majority of the electorate now and vote in greater percentages than men.  Women are more likely to be Democrats than men. Many former GOP women have left that party because of the issues the Republicans push now.  These women are not yet willing to call themselves Democrats and thus they are swing voters who  vote on issues different from men. Women were a critical constituency to Obama’s 2008 win but they stayed home in 2010.  How they vote will be critical in 2012.

While Democrats have enjoyed a gender gap for years, this year Obama appeared to be opening up a huge lead among women.  But then it began to shrink.  This is the main reason for the tightening in the polls since the first debate.  Soccer moms are shifting–not in large numbers, but enough to make a difference.  This is why Democrats are seizing on Romney’s “Binders of women” slip.  It is an effort to portray Romney as out of touch with women.  The reality is that the “binders” comment was probably simply a miss-statement that means nothing.   Yet Romney seemed like he did not get it when it comes to gender discrimination issues.  That was the real gaffe.  He failed to understand women still face workplace discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, being paid 76% that of men, glass ceilings, and other problems of being single parents or double standards.  Yet the problem for Obama is that he too has failed to describe an agenda appealing to women, and his failure to craft a narrative about the economy, student loans, education, and a host of other matters means that some soccer moms are unsure about who to vote for.

Finally, the problem of narratives and appealing to soccer moms comes down yet again to the swing states.  As it had been for the last several election cycles, the entire race comes down to about ten states that are swing and which will determine who gets to 270 electoral votes.  Thus, the race is simple–finding a narrative to move a handful of swing soccer moms in a handful of swing states.

Neither candidate seems overly appealing to the soccer mom. Neither offers a narrative or message that addresses their concerns or needs.  Despite the fact that women are the majority of the electorate American politics seems fixed in a masculine voice telling a story that is either absent or unappealing.

And the Winner Is....Predicting the 2012 Presidential Election

Note: Several months ago I published an article predicting the 2012 presidential race.  On July 26, 2012 I was the keynote speaker at the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Summer Conference/Annual Awards Dinner where I updated my prediction.  Here is a summary of my talk and prediction.

    Presidential public opinion polls are perplexing. Some polls put Obama ahead of Romney, some say the race is tightening. Others find Obama ahead in critical swing states while others describe swing voters as perhaps moving toward Romney. 

    Ignore all of these polls.  The only three numbers I think that are important are these:  10/10/270.   Let me explain.

    You should ignore the polls first because they are snapshots in time, more than almost four months before the November elections.  Too many things can happen–a collapsing economy, war in Syria, gas prices, campaign gaffes–which can impact the race in the next few months.  Ignore the polls also because they are national opinion polls reflecting aggregate opinion across the county.  As Florida in the 2000 presidential election taught us, one can win the popular vote in a presidential election (as Al Gore did) but still lose the presidency in the Electoral College.  What matters most is winning 270 electoral votes.  The presidency is a battle not across 50 states but in 50 states.  In contrast to the Republican presidential contest that has turned less from winning individual states than to amassing delegates, the general election in November is really one of winning enough electoral votes to reach 270–a majority of the 538 electoral votes at stake.

    What complicates the race to 270 is that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the remaining 48 states plus the District of Columbia award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis.  Whichever candidate wins a plurality of the popular vote in a particular state wins all of its electoral votes.  Thus the general election is both about winning states and amassing delegates.

    Why is all of this important?  Simply the presidential race is over in 40 states.  There are some states that are reliably Democratic or Republican.  No one seriously thinks a Republican is going to win New York and even though Mitt Romney is its former governor, neither he nor any other Republican has a prayer to win Massachusetts.  Conversely, even though Romney’s recent bad news was that he could not prevail in Alabama and Mississippi, the good news for him and Republicans is that no Democrat is going to win there.  The race for the presidency is simply over in these states and Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California might as well do something else besides casting presidential votes in November.

    Barack Obama is reasonably assured of winning California (55 electoral votes), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (20), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (11), New Jersey (14), New York (29),  Oregon (7),  Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), Washington state (12) and Washington, D.C. (3).  And despite protests from Republicans that Minnesota (10) is competitive, that is a fairy tale. If Minnesota is a swing state then it is truly over for Obama. Don’t look for the candidates or TV ads to be here come October. Thus, Obama starts with 15 states (plus D.C.) and 196 electoral votes.

    Conversely, Mitt Romney or any other Republican nominee is reasonably assured of winning Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), Idaho (4), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (8), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (9), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (38), Utah (6), West Virginia (5) and Wyoming (3).  Moreover, it was luck in 2008 that Obama won Indiana (11) and that is not in the cards this year.  This is a total of 21 states and 170 electoral votes. 

    Initially, this means a total of 14 states, with 172 electoral votes, are potentially in play. These swing states will determine the outcome of the election and within them, swing voters–roughly 10-15% of the voters–will make the difference.  Thus, the battle for the presidency is really over what a handful of swing voters do in 14 swing states.  These states are:  Arizona (11), Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15) Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20) Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).

    Now some of the states are debatable as swing.  It is a long shot for Democrats to win Arizona even with a strong Hispanic turnout.  In hopes of winning North Carolina Democrats are holding their convention in Charlotte.  But there is no evidence that there is a convention bump; look to the Republican National Convention in Minnesota in 2008 as rendering North Carolina a long shot.  Similarly, Republicans consistently see Pennsylvania as one that they can win, but the Keystone State, as well as Michigan, remain more Democratic than Republican.  The last time the GOP won Pennsylvania was in 1984 with Ronald Reagan. In the case of Michigan, Republicans running against the auto bailout seem to be a losing strategy.  Thus, the original 14 state list could be reduced to ten, leaving Obama with 232 electoral votes, and a Republican nominee with 196.  This leaves 110 electoral votes in contest.

    These states are: Colorado (9), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Missouri (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (18), Virginia (13), and Wisconsin (10).

    If pressed I could even make the argument that it is over in Wisconsin (Obama) and Missouri (Romney) but will not.

    In these swing states the percentage of undecideds ranges from 10% in Colorado, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Iowa, and Missouri, to about 7 percent in Nevada, with the overall undecideds in the country at 10%. Thus this is how I arrive at 10/10/270–Ten percent of the voters in ten states determine who gets to 270.

    Now the question is who the undecideds are and what will move them. Politics is about moving marginals (swing voters) (politics as a bar fight) Consider who these voters are and the issues that concern them. 

    First they are the unemployed, struggling middle class affected by the economy gas prices, and unemployment. These are the white working class. Bad news for Obama is that he does not connect with them. Good news for Obama, they also do not connect with Romney.

    The second group of swing voters include moderate women concerned by recent debates over reproductive rights, birth control, and family issues. These are the soccer moms. The swing to the right has alienated many of these women from the GOP and Obama and the Democrats seem to be enjoying an unusually large gender gap this year.

    The third group of swing voters are young people under thirty. It is odd to call them swing voters especially since four years ago they came out strong for Obama. This time around they are nowhere near as excited by him as they were in 2008, mostly because of economic issues and the failure of Obama really to connect with them.. These voters should be part of Obama’s base but because of their unpredictable turnout it is apt to call them swing voters.  If they do show up they will vote for Obama.

    Potentially these three groups and issues overlap; making it difficult to decide which is the most important or will tip the balance in the election.  But assume for minute that this presidential election is similar to many others in that it is a economic referendum on the incumbent–then it is the economy that is the main issue.  How is the economy doing in these swing states?  It is a mixed bag, with unemployment levels stagnating along with economic growth.  Moreover, neither candidate seems to be doing a good job coming up with an election narrative except for saying “I’m not Obama” or “I’m not Romney.”

    Having said all that, here is how I think the remaining states are tipping now.

    Add to Obama’s 232 the following states: Colorado (9), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), and Wisconsin (10).  This is 34 more electoral votes that gets him to 268, two short of the necessary 270.

    Add to Romney’s 196 :  Missouri (10), Virginia (13).  This is 23 more electoral votes and gets him to 219,still 51 short.

    Three states, Florida (29), Iowa (6), Ohio (18), total 53 electoral votes, and they are too close to call at this time. Romney needs all three states to win, Obama one state to win.

    Unless this election is a replay of 1980 where disgust for the status quo and Carter was so strong that it tipped millions of swing voters in the last 72 hours to vote for Reagan, I do not see Romney presenting winning all three of these states.  Obama wins at least one of these states, thereby ensuring his re-election.  Obama wins with 274-321 electoral votes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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