Politicizing Lake Wobegon: The New Target Corporation Mistake?

Gay/lesbian activists and Democrats were outraged by Target Corporation’s political contributions to Minnesota Forward. Now Republicans may have their parallel beef with Garrison Keillor and his use of Lake Wobegon to endorse Tarryl Clark. Both actions demonstrate the stupidity of businesses either using or threatening their marketing brand when entering partisan politics.

First, there are important political differences between what Target and Keillor did. Target is a corporation that was otherwise barred from make independent political expenditures prior to the Citizens United Decision. Garrison Keillor is an individual who always had a right to make political statements and engage in partisan politics. However, after distinguishing Target from Keillor as that of corporation to individual, the parallels outweigh the differences.

Target’s basic mistake was that contributions to Minnesota Forward on behalf of conservative and anti-gay/lesbian rights Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer threatened a marketing brand and image that the company had sought to nurture for years. I wrote about this issue in an earlier blog and will not dwell on this here. But in entering partisan politics it damaged its image as the progressive socially responsible business it had sought to cultivate.

Second, in entering partisan politics it realized that any business–especially a retail one–that does this faces the wrath of perhaps half of its customers. I always thought the natural deterrent to corporate political activity was fear of alienating customers. What we learned from target is how partisan activity fuses with marketing and brand imaging. Engage in partisan activity and you threaten your marketing image. Keillor’s invocation of Lake Wobegon to attack Michelle Bachmann and endorse Tarryl Clark did the same thing.

Lake Wobegon has become Keillor’s and perhaps Minnesota Public Radio’s brand. The career and corporate existence of the two respectively have been built around Prairie Home Companion. For three decades. They have sold tons of books, built a catalog sales, and spun a business around tales from Lake Wobegon. Keillor had his own political views which were clearly Democratic Party leaning, but he kept them separate from his Lake Wobegon brand...until now.

Invoking Lake Wobegon in a partisan race poses the same threats to Keillor and MPR as did Target’s political expenditures. There will be many outraged by Keillor’s use of this brand and soon there will be calls to boycott him, his show, and perhaps MPR. Yes, many other writers and stars from Hollywood have gotten involved in partisan politics but most are smart enough not to invoke their core brand when doing it. Or it they do engage in partisan politics they understand how it affects their brand and they move ahead and act. Think of a Richard Gere as an example.

But Keillor’s endorsement does threaten his core brand. Moreover, it is not clear it will help Clark for two reasons. First, instead of Bachmann becoming the topic for debate it will be Keillor and there may be a backlash against Clark. This is what happened with Target when it and not Emmer became the focus of debate and the expenditure backlashed against him. See the same here in terms of how it leads to even more money from the GOP for Bachmann.

Second, for years Republicans have successfully run a cultural war against Democrats by arguing that decadent Hollywood was supporting their opponents. Republicans can now do this with Keillor. It will be Bachmann versus Keillor, MPR, and the entertainment industry. Bachmann most over this, it fits perfectly into her script.

Last thought: In a race where millions have already been spent and Clark is far behind, this endorsement may be a desperate distraction. Millions more of Democrat dollars will be drawn into this race and out of ones that need the money and the real issues will not be debated but get lost the controversy over the endorsement.

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.

Dayton’s Demise? Thoughts on the Latest MN Gubernatorial Poll

The latest Fox 9 Rasmussen poll suggests mixed news for all three of the major gubernatorial candidates. However, for Mark Dayton it represents confirmation of a central fact: Whatever lead he had coming out of the primary or advantage he had over Emmer this summer has shrunk or disappeared, depending on how you slice the numbers, and he faces important challenges as he moves toward November 2.

First the numbers. The new poll puts Emmer ahead of Dayton 42% to 41%, with Horner back at 9%, with a margin or error of 4.5% Compared to the recent KSTP and MPR polls, it confirms a tight race that is effectively a statistical deadheat. The poll also represents a gain in numbers for the two main candidates, but a significant drop for Horner compared to other polls.

However, those numbers include “leaners” or those leaning toward a particular candidate. If leaners are excluded, it is 35% 34%, 18% respectively for Emmer, Dayton, and Horner. This is similar to recent polls. The importance of looking at percentages with and without leaners tell us something about Horner’s recent surge. As I have argued, Horner has some momentum and people are giving him a second look but they are not ready to commit and thus the learners seem to fall for Dayton and Emmer when push comes to shove. An earlier Rasmussen poll suggested voters less likely to support a third party candidate this year compared to the past.

The Minnesota electorate is polarized, and that may not work well to Horner. It may also be the afterglow of the Arnie Carlson and Star Tribune “non-endorsement” endorsement may have faded. Bottom line: Horner has a window but the leaner totals suggest that it is closing quickly.
Digging deeper, more interesting statistics are present. Buried in the poll is a bit of news for Dayton, among those certain to vote, including and excluding leaners, he enjoys a a 47% to 44% lead.

But there are also some other concerns. Eighty-percent of GOPers support Emmer, 73% of DFLers support Dayton. The GOP base is more solid for Emmer than Dayton, again suggesting that Horner is not making as much of an inroad into the moderate GOP as he needs. In fact, both including with and without learners, Horner is stealing more from Dayton than Emmer.
Further, there is a gender gap here. Emmer gets 43% if the male vote to 31% of the female vote. Dayton captures 31% male and 36% female. The gender gap is 12% among males favoring Emmer, 5% among women, favoring Dayton. Not a big lead for women. More bad news for Dayton: 57% of males said they are likely to vote, only 47% of females. Males are also angrier. Emmer has done a better job motivating the angry (white) male voter to show up and support him compared to Dayton. He needs women to support him but they are not as motivated to support him.

Where Dayton does have a silver lining is among moderates. Only 15% of moderates support Emmer, whereas 43% go for Dayton. Include leaners, Dayton has a 51% to 21% lead.
The battle to win Minnesota is among the swing voters, mostly including female voters, especially in the suburbs. Dayton needs them to show up and vote for him. He does not have a big lead among them and they may not show up on November 2. He needs also to shore up his base and get them out to vote along with the moderates.

What is Dayton’s current problem? In part he is a victim of a year where the GOP are motivated and the Democrats are not. Obama and the economy are souring life for Democrats including Dayton. But Dayton has been tagged as a classic tax and spend liberal and he has not messaged well in the last few weeks. He seems to be suffering from John Kerry disease. By that in 2004 Kerry seemed to retire or not campaign well after winning the primaries and then after the convention. This is when he was swiftboated.

Dayton’s seems unfocused and off message now. He needs to go on the offensive and motivate the soccer moms and the base. Attack Emmer as a threat to K-12 and Horner as wanting to tax kids clothing. Both messages resonate with soccer moms. But also, Dayton needs to message to them and spend a lot more time in the suburbs campaigning.

What if they threw an economic recovery but nobody came?

What if they threw an economic recovery but nobody came? This is exactly the news coming out this week when the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) declared that the recession ended in July 2009. For most Americans, they were shocked to hear this news especially with near 10% unemployment and 16% underemployment. This declaration by the official gurus of the economy speak to two issues–one economic in terms of how we evaluate economies–and one political–how the declaration hurts Democrats and Obama.

First the economic problem. The declaration of the beginning and ending of recessions is looked at mainly by shrinkage or growth in the GDP. If the economy contracts two or more quarters then a recession is declared. Similarly, when GDP growth reemerges, then it has ended. Sounds simple? Yes and no.

The problem with this measurement is that it fails to look at the distributional issues in the economy–the winners and losers–and how the changes in the GDP are affecting specific people. In English, it fails to look at unemployment, declines in wages, purchasing power, and other similar factors in real fashion. In theory, NBER is supposed to consider unemployment as a factor, but in practice it is given short shrift. What all this means is that once the economy seems to be growing, regardless of who is winning, gaining, or losing, we have ended the recession.

This is a very trickle down theory of economics. It ignores the real world impact of a recession, such as the one we have now. It goes against what most people would say is the mark of an end of recession which is increased hiring, decreased unemployment, more sales, and increased consumer confidence.

Most of us do not think a recession has ended when corporate profits are up due to cost cutting that includes laying off people. It does not include a world where home sales and equity continue to shrink, mortgage delinquencies continue to rise, and credit is hard to get and therefore new investment is marginal. Looking only to gains on Wall Street and corporate profits essentially says middle and working class America does not count. Someday you will gain but not today. This is trickle down economics at its worst and it only creates a sense of skepticism towards economics and government.

This is bad news for Obama too. For a president criticized (rightly or wrongly) as being out of touch with the economy and average America, to declare the recession over is another slap in the face of many. Moreover the message of his town hall meeting–my policies are working, give them time–again suggests a trickle down theory at its worst. “Be patient, the benefits of my helping the banks and Wall Street will eventually reach you.” Or “Stay the course.” This is the Democratic message. Not a good one.

Obama and the Democrats need a different message. I remain convinced that Obama needs to fire his entire economic team. He needs to do that and announce new policies and a direction. Tell the American public that you too are unhappy with the direction of the economy and want a new direction. Announce new policies and force votes before election day. Make it clear by word and deed that you again want change. In effect, show anger with your economic policies and move in a new direction. Change and anger. That is how Obama got elected and that is what he again needs to run on.

Millions Wasted: The Clark/Bachmann Race is Over

So the latest survey is in: Bachmann maintains a nine point lead over Clark in MN’s sixth district race. With only 47 days to go, a KSTP Channel 5 poll puts Bachmann at 49%, Clark at 40%, the third party candidate Anderson at 6%, and undecideds at 5%.

The poll reports that the lead is unchanged from the previous survey. Since then hundreds of ads and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars have poured into the race. Yet nothing has changed. If anything, the poll suggests opinions and voting preferences are fixed and with 5% undecided, there is little in terms of swing votes to move.

The race is over. About a week ago I blogged about how Democrats are wasting money on this race and need to stop pouring money into it and shift it to the Third Congressional District (Jim Meffert) or other races across the country. This poll reinforces my point.

This is a GOP year in a GOP district. Bachmann will not be beat this year. The DCCC should exit gracefully from the race, donors should go elsewhere, and the Democrats should think about what they can win and hold in remaining weeks.

Tea Party Candidates and Conventional Wisdom: Why the Democrats Got it Wrong

So Democrats are rejoicing and Republicans fretting the victory of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware.

Conventional wisdom is that the GOP worry that her victory as an extreme candidate makes it harder for the party to pick up enough seats to take back the Senate. Conventional wisdom is that the GOP is cannibalizing its moderates and pushing the party to the fringe right.

Conventional wisdom that Democrats can win since voters will repel from these extremist candidates. Conventional wisdom may be wrong.

There are two clear truths in politics–-angry people vote and messaging is important. The Democrats seem to have forgotten this and are banking on voters turning out against the Tea Party candidates. They should wish for a pony too.

First, think about the fact Rod Stewart was correct-–it is about passion and the same is true in politics. Passion or anger are the genesis for the political motivation to participate. Rarely do contented, alienated, or disaffected vote. In 2006 and 2008 the Democrats had the anger and passion and they voted. This year they do not and they may stay home.

Second, the Tea Party people have the passion and anger and they are participating. They will be there on November 2, in the same way they have been there during the primaries.

Third, in off year elections we can anticipate a national voter turnout of about 40%. In areas even less. If 90% of life is showing up, and if politics is also about mobilizing a base, the Tea Party candidates have an advantage. A small group of highly motivated (angry) voters showing up in a election with low turnout means they will have a big impact on races. Even if they are only 10% of the total turnout, that is enough to change outcomes when only 40% of electorate votes.

Third, Democrats are counting on moderate and swing voters being shocked by the extremism of the Tea Party candidates and not voting for them. Here the Democrats are presupposing these voters realize the Tea Party candidates are extreme. The Democrats need to message on this and have thus far failed to do so.

Fourth, even if they message, Democrats need an alternative. Voters, including the swings, are upset with the status quo. They want an alternative? What is the Democratic narrative? “The other side is nuts, stay with us.” Some message.

In 1980 voters had initial and significant hesitation with Reagan. Carter and the Democrats tried to cast him as a extremist nut. It failed. Angry voters upset with the status quo opted to take a chance and go with Reagan, preferring change over status quo.

So the Democrats should not count on being saved by the Tea Party take over. Democrats still need a message–-an alternative and they are running out of time. They have a McCain problem. In 2008 McCain had to run against the status quo and for change when the GOP had controlled the White House for the last eight years and Congress for six of the last eight. Now the Democrats are being forced to run against themselves.

What are they doing is dumb. Beyond hoping for a GOP meltdown, they are making a classic mistake they always make–-run to the right and ape the GOP. That will not work. Who do you vote for if you want change? The GOP or a party acting like the GOP? The real alternative for the Dems is a progressive one–-run against Wall Street, the banks, and big business. But given how much money they have taken from them, don’t look for that to occur.

9/11 and Hate American Style: Have we no sense of decency?

If July 4 is the American holiday of freedom and independence, 9/11 is rapidly becoming the calendar date for hate and bigotry in the United States.

As we remember 9/11, numerous events are converging in this country. There are the demands by Tea Party activists, members of the Republican Party, and assorted so- called Christians and nativists to prevent Muslims from building a community near Ground Zero. Claims are it is too close. Is too close four blocks, one mile, one state, or not in the United States?

From the sounds of the lunatic minister in Gainsville, Florida, who wanted to declare 9/11 national burn a Koran day, building anywhere in the Christian, God-loving red, white and blue America seems to close.

Then there are those who opposed immigrants and support the punitive Arizona law. There are those who oppose gay marriage. There are those who rallied with Glen Beck asking that we remain a Christian nation and those–including Beck–who question Obama’s faith and patriotism and implicitly his race, and then there are all of those who think the war on terrorism is the 21st Century version of the Crusades.

Hate seems to be everywhere and it is embarrassing. I thought this country was better than that. I thought the Statue of Liberty represented better. As someone who takes pride in a family that came through Ellis Island, I thought it represented better than that. I thought our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence stood for something better than that.

Unfortunately, the ugly side of American politics is out again. The side that burned witches at Salem, enslaved the blacks, beat gays at Stonewall, fried the Rosenbergs, and blacklisted many fine Americans during the 50s; all that is back. 9/11 now seems to be the symbol and date for hatred and bigotry in America.

I feel sorry for Obama, he is doing the right thing denouncing those who wish to persecute Islams. But he seems to be alone. Other major Democrats seem silent, perhaps fearing for their jobs in November. Republicans such as Palin, Bachmann, and others in the leadership are not speaking out, instead ranging from silently to overtly egging on this bigotry.

Moreover, the more Obama denounces the bigots, the more he enrages them, convincing them that he is one of them, whomever it is. America seems to be turning into what we despise. We say we fight for freedom against oppression but now we seem as guilty as those whom we oppose. Where is our moral leadership, our sense of decency?

Charles “Chuck” Colson of Watergate fame, now a Christian leader, got it right in an ad in the NY Times the other day: “Burning the Koran does not elevate the Bible.” How is hate and persecution consistent with any Christianity except for that practiced by the Grand Inquisitor and the Spanish Inquisition? To be Christian, as far as I know means more than that.

Raised Catholic during Vatican II the message I learned was one directly from Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. It was a Christianity of equality and forgiveness, of social justice, and compassion. Where is that spirit now among those who claim to be Christian? The Jesus I learned about would have said that a Christian nation is one that welcomes all, respects all, and treats us all according to the Golden Rule.

Blaming it all on Islam reminds of another movement. They blamed it all on the Jews. Now I know some will say I am being alarmist or doing an injustice to the Holocaust and what Jews faced under Hitler. Ok, without making that parallel, the recent events remind me of a great Monty Python routine where John Cleese portrays a Hitler-like figure who blames all social problems on the bicycle riders! Sound foolish? Of course it does and so do those who are turning 9/11 into a national day of hate.

The McCarthy era ended when Joseph Welch said to the senator: “Have you no sense of decency?” I ask the same and hope that as a nation we have the decency to turn on the bigots.