Rout and Route: What Happens to Minnesota Democrats on and After Election day 2022

There is the real possibility that Minnesota politics could be a rout this November.  It would be a rout of

the DFL and a major victory for the Republican party, potentially putting the latter in charge for the first time since 1984-1986 when it was the last time the GOP controlled the state legislature and the governorship.  It might also represent the culmination of the Trump and Republican Party effort that first started in 2016 to flip the Midwest.  Of all that happens, what is the route for the Democrats after election day?

The National Scene
Six months ago it would have been an easy prediction to argue this election cycle nationally and statewide was favorable to Republicans.   Generally the president’s party does badly in midterm elections, losing an average of 26 House seats. Six months ago Biden had approval ratings of about 40%, Voters disapproved of the president’s handling of the economy despite the fact that there was record low unemployment and the strongest labor-wage  market in years. For voters the economy was inflation at the gas pump and grocery store.  Voters were also concerned about crime.

Nationally Democrats had either no narrative or a bad narrative when it came to the economy or crime.  But then the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and abortion saved the Democrats, temporarily.  For several months abortion was the major Democrat talking point nationally and in Minnesota, and it appeared to save them as it motivated many groups, including college educated suburban women.

Until a month ago or even less it looked like abortion would save Democrats. But national polls suggest that abortion has run its course.  The economy or inflation and crime are the top two issues by far, with abortion third or even lower.  This is even true among suburban women.  Polls now suggest that US Senate races where the Democrats were once favored, such as in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, are tightening and it is possible Republicans could prevail.

Minnesota
Minnesota is an American political microcosm.  MPR and Survey USA (KSTP) polls point to an electorate worried about inflation or the economy and crime.  This includes suburban voters.  Polls suggest a close race for governor’s race, Attorney General, Auditor, and even Secretary of State.  Depending on voter mobilization and how the few undecided voters break, these races could go DFL or GOP.  Many think the GOP will win at least the AG and State Auditor.   The DFL holds a narrow majority in the Minnesota House and the Republicans a small but solid majority in the Senate.  The only real tight Congressional race is in the Second District where DFL incumbent Angie Craig holds (according to internal polls) about a one-point lead over GOP Tyler Kistner.  

While I see no chance for the DFL to flip the Senate I am also doubtful that it will hold the House. It is thus entirely possible for the DFL to get swept out of the four statewide offices and lose the second Congressional District.

Were the above to happen, what went right for the Republicans or wrong for the Democrats?

Messaging and Strategy
One answer is that the results in Minnesota are determined by national trends.  An unpopular president, inflation, and crime are macro forces beyond the control of anyone in Minnesota. Republicans rode the wave and Democrats got buried in it.  But such an explanation ignores too much.

Nationally Democrats had no message or narrative on inflation or crime.  Granted there is little a president can do to address inflation, but the talking points were awful or next to none.  The same is true with crime. Biden and the Democrats could have stolen a page from Bill Clinton  and proposed money to hire 100,000 police but they did not.  Instead, they became painted yet again as soft on crime.
The same problem exists in Minnesota. Walz and the Democrats relied too much on abortion to save them.   They were tagged two years ago as soft on crime with the riots after George Floyd’s death.  They were tagged with the defund the police movement and failed to articulate a narrative of public safety.  In terms of the economy there may be little they can do at the state level to address inflation. But the fact that they failed to craft a narrative is a problem.

Moreover, the strategy was bad.  Walz sat on his lead and cash advantage and avoided debating.  It cost him dearly. Recent KSTP polls point to a weakening of his support in his former First Congressional District.

Effectively, Walz and the Democrats have written off all but the Metro region.  In 2018 Walz won 20 of Minnesota’s counties. In 2016 Clinton won 9 counties, in 2020 Biden won 13 counties and Tina Smith 15 counties.  The base of the DFL is narrow and counts on high mobilization in a few Metro area counties.

I spend a lot of time traveling the state to lecture and give talks.  It is clear the Metro DFL agenda on crime, the environment, and social issues don’t play there.  The Metro area DFL, party activists here, or the convention attendees and activists are out of touch with the rest of the state, and perhaps with many leaning DFL in Greater Minnesota and even in the suburbs.  As noted above, polls suggest erosion of support for the Democrats in most locations across the state, including in the metro suburbs and among college-educated women.

Summary: Rout and Route?
To state clearly–The DFL and Walz may have a message out of touch with most Minnesotans who are nowhere near as progressive as the Metro area or core Twin Cities activists. This in turn  renders their strategy to win difficult because it is one narrowly confined or defined to a narrow base.  Moreover the messaging or narrative fails to understand the depth of concern regarding crime and  the economy and its focuses too much upon an agenda that appeals to the progressive wing of the party.  Couple that with a campaign strategy that aims to mobilize only in a few counties, that fails to counter the GOP narrative, that focuses too much on abortion this year, and which, in the case of Walz, sat on a lead, one then gets the makings for a rout.

If that rout occurs, the question on the day after the election will be to ask what route should the DFL have taken to avoid the rout, and what direction should it take going forward?

The Immigration Reform Trap (Or how the GOP took the bait)

So Obama finally showed some backbone and did what he should have done before the election–he acted on immigration.  Had he done this before the election as he said he would (if Republicans did not act) then maybe more Hispanics would have voted for Democrats and the November results would have been different.  Now we see Republicans engaged in a faux act of anger, declaring that they will get even.  The Republicans should be grateful that Obama acted–it takes immigration off the table without Congress having to act, or not act, and therefore it removes a thorny problem for the GOP.  But foolishly and predictably the Republicans have protested, only guaranteeing that they will continue to guarantee that Latinos vote for Democrats, perhaps for the next generation.
    Republican anger belies they fact they if they do not like what Obama did they can always pass legislation on their own regarding immigration.  It’s called legislating.  Instead they plan retaliation, again a predictable and foolhardy  response that will only ensure that Democrats will be able to make the case against the GOP Congress in the 2016 elections.  Their reaction also provides justification for why they do not want to act responsibly-- they can claim that they will not compromise with the president on anything because he acted when they refused to. Kind of like taking the bat and ball and going home if you do not like how others are playing the game.  I think one calls this childish.
    But there is something more curious here–why the refusal to change immigration laws? Why the fear of illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens? In general, especially in tough economic times, the argument is that immigration and immigrants take jobs away from Americans and serve as a drain on the economy. Illegal immigrants or undocumented aliens are often singled out as competing against American citizens for jobs or that they cost taxpayers money. There is a belief that the benefits of citizenship, the free schools, and other programs found in the United States operate like a lure to attract illegal immigrants to the United States.  Allowing them to work in the United States, get a driver’s license, the availability of schooling, health care, and citizenship for children, or even lax enforcement of immigration laws, sends a signal to them that they are welcome. Thus, undocumented aliens flock to the United States and something needs to be done to stem this invasion.
    What is the reality?  Are immigrants a net drain on the economy; specifically, are they a bigger drain on taxes and public services than they are overall contributors to the economy? Second, immigrants are depicted as taking jobs away from Americans. What do we know about both of these claims?
    First, while acknowledging that immigrants may in some local settings or jurisdictions place some short-term significant burdens upon public services, overall they are net contributors to the economy. Several studies substantiate this point. The 2005 Economic Report of the President (produced under a Republican president) provided a detailed analysis of the impact of immigration upon the United States economy. The report noted that they as a group had up to a $10 billion net positive impact upon the economy. The report noted, for example, that while immigrants may be more likely than native born Americans to be on public assistance, the “net present value of immigrants’ estimated future tax payments exceeded the cost of services they were expected to us by $80,000 for the average immigrant and his or her descendants.”  However, with changes in public assistance laws, that figure had been upped to $88,000. While better educated immigrants (high school degree or better) definitely reflect this contribution, even among those not as well educated, the gains from them and their descendants’ productivity nearly, if not totally, offset the costs they impose upon public services that accrue to state and local governments. Finally, the president’s report also provided other documentation regarding the impact of immigrants upon the economy. For example, it noted that immigrants paid Social Security taxes on income of $463 billion dollars. Moreover, because illegal immigrants cannot collect Social Security, it is likely that immigrants overall pay more into this government program than they receive from it.
    In addition to the President’s 2005 report, other studies have noted the net economic benefit of immigrants to the United States. A 1997 National Academy of Sciences study found several net benefits associated with immigration, including a $10 billion net positive impact on the economy. Brad Edmondson’s “Life Without Immigrants” found that: “Illegal aliens in prison cost about $471 million per year, and they consume about $445 million more in Medicaid funds. But these costs are offset by about $1.9 billion in taxes paid by illegals and billions more in consumer spending.” Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences, President’s Report, and the Edmondson study, all indicated that younger workers provided for important sources of productivity that also served the economy well. Overall, these and other studies clearly contested the myths that immigrants were a drain on the economy.
    In general, broader studies on immigration in the United States also confirm that there is a net benefit of immigrants to the economy. They generally pay more in taxes than they consume in public services. They have provided critical payments to Social Security to help maintain its solvency. Heidi Shierholz  in Immigration and Wages: Methodological Advancements Confirm Modest Gains for Workers found that even native US citizens have seen modest gains in terms of wages as a result of immigration. More importantly, California, Florida, New York, and Texas, the states with the highest immigration, seem to have particularly benefitted from it. Others reach similar conclusions about the impact on workers while noting that the granting of amnesty to illegal immigrants has benefitted the economy and increased tax revenues to the United States.
    The second criticism leveled against immigrants is that they take jobs away from American workers or they negatively impact wages. Again, several studies refuted that. For example, the National Academy of Sciences study found the wage impact to be negligible, while the President’s Report found little impact on wages of Americans. The report also noted and dismissed the argument that immigrants displaced American citizens in the labor market. Instead, they often filled labor gaps abandoned by others, such as farming and agriculture, and they definitely constituted a new source of productive labor particularly at a time when the size of the labor pool from other workers had disappeared.
    In addition to the above a Pew Hispanic Center  study reached similar conclusions. It compared the economic growth in selected states with high versus low immigration and found no differences in economic growth or in its impact on the labor markets. It also found that there was in fact in 12 states a positive correlation between the growth of immigrant and native-born workers. By that, there was no evidence that in states where more immigrants entered the labor market it depressed the entry of others into work. Finally, even among immigrants who were young and lacking in education, there was no indication that they directly competed against and hurt native-born workers with similar background.
    In sum, the evidence that immigrants are financial drains on the economy and that they take jobs away or hurt the wages of native-born workers is simply false.  Attacking immigrants and blaming them for society’s problems goes a long way back in American history.  Republican refusal to act on immigration may in part be based on the xenophobic  attitudes of its base, but the political calculus in taking such a position is bad politics.  Obama set a trap for Republicans  with his action and the GOP has taken the bait.

The End of Bipartisanship (and why that may be good)

    Legislative partisanship is gone and that may be good.  It was probably overrated.
    The holy grail of politics for many is bipartisanship. Good public policy is only possible if the two parties compromise, work together, and enact laws with the aim of furthering the public good.  Such a belief suggests truth lies in the middle and that compromise is the essence of good government.  But that is not always so.
    Some lament that the 2013 Minnesota legislative session was anything but bipartisan.  Significant evidence supports this.  Consider legislation creating the health care exchanges for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare); 99% of DFLers voted for it, 98.8% of Republicans voted against it.  Similar partisan divides existed with legalization of same-sex marriage with 95.5% of Democrats voting yes, 94.4% of Republicans voting no.  Or the House and Senate tax bills with 92% DFL yes and 98.8% GOP no.  Finally, 92% of DFLers voted for the  legislation authorizing day-care workers to unionize, no Republicans supported it.  For these four bills,  94.6% of votes cast by Democrats were yes, while 98% of the GOP votes cast were  no.  Had there been floor votes on minimum wage and the anti-bullying legislation one probably would have found similar percentages. 
    Are Democrats guilty of single-party rule?  Perhaps, but  Republicans are not innocent.  Look back to the 2011-12 legislative session at two of the biggest bills–the votes authorizing the constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage and requiring photo ID when voting.  For the marriage amendment, 96.2% of Republicans votes yes, 96.5% of Democrats voted no.  With the elections amendment, 99% of Republicans voted yes, 100% of Democrats voted no.  Overall, 97.7% of DFL votes cast on these amendments were no, while for Republicans 98.3% were yes.  When the GOP were in the majority, the two parties were polarized.  Straight-party line votes are becoming more the norm of Minnesota politics, paralleling a similar trend in Congress over the last 30 years.  Why?  There are four major reasons.
    First, the end of the Cold War meant that the forces to drive compromise at the congressional level ended.  The battle against communism forged a foreign policy consensus and compromise that translated often into agreement on domestic policy, even at the state level.  Second, political scientists talk of the declining marginals–the disappearance of competitive swing districts that could shift control from one party to another.  This is due to gerrymandering but more importantly to a geographic sorting of where we live.  We hear of blue and red states but increasingly households and neighborhoods are politically sorting themselves out.  In Congress there may be less than 50 swing seats,  in the 2014 Minnesota House of Representative races, maybe 15 seats are competitive.  The rest are solidly partisan, creating little incentive to compromise,
    Third, American political party composition has changed.  Historically American parties were less ideological than at present.  One could point to both major parties having a mixture of conservatives, moderates, and liberals.  Such coalitions made bipartisanship possible.  But American political parties are more ideological now–with clear divides on social and  and economic issues.
    Fourth, the transformation into ideological parties is fueled by increasingly  large differences over the simple question “Why government?”  Republicans and Democrats have developed rival views on the role of government in the economy, the value of taxes and public spending, and on a range of social issues about reproductive rights and same-sex marriage.  When there is a basic disagreement over “Why government?” it is hard to compromise.  At the end of the day, there is no compromise on the right of same-sex couples to marry–you support it or not.
    These four trends have also driven politics in Minnesota to make it less bipartisan.  But additionally, Minnesota politics further polarized after the Wellstone plane crash in 2002.  His death and the events in the last few days before the 2002 Senate race–including the memorial service–exacerbated the forces already at play in Minnesota to reinforce the polarization.
    This is where we are now.  The structural forces that once drove bipartisanship are gone and the new reality is one of partisan rule in Minnesota and across many states that are legislating depending on which party is in power.  Just compare Minnesota to Wisconsin. 
    Should we worry about this?  Not necessarily.  Agreement for agreement sake is not good if it passes bad policy.   Sequestration was the product of compromise.  Minnesota Democrats and Republicans  agreed on a new campaign finance law this session that increases contribution and spending limits, weakens disclosure, and enhances the ability of lobbyists to leverage political influence.  Both were bad laws, the product of bipartisanship.
    Regardless of the desirability of bipartisanship, it is over.  Voters need to accommodate to a world of partisan rule or bipartisan gridlock.  They have to decide whose politics they like better and vote for it–giving them what appears to be real policy choices and options at elections.

Obama’s Christmas Present

Christmas came early for Barack Obama as Republican prospects to pick up the presidency took a major hit this week. A series of events again demonstrated that Obama cannot win but the Republicans certainly can also lose the presidency.

Miscalculating the Payroll Tax
The most glaring event of the week was the misplaying of the House GOP vote on the extension of the payroll tax. In principle they may have been correct that a one year deal is preferable to a two month extension but they needed to act but did not. Perhaps they thought Obama would again capitulate like he did in August with the debt deal but the politics was very different then as opposed to now. In August failure to reach agreement meant a government shutdown, making Obama look hapless. This time no deal meant tax increases on the middle class and that would have stuck to the Republicans. Moreover, even the Senate Republicans–including Mitch McConnell and John McCain–pressured the House to assent to the deal. The House GOP here simply overplayed their hand and lost.

Obama the Economist Populist
Contributing to the miscalculation is the traction Obama has received in running as an economic populist. He has given two major speeches in the last few months describing himself as a man for the people. The first was his $450 billion jobs speech a few months ago and the other was his recent Osawatomie, Kansas speech. In both he talked of the need to help the middle class. Both were fine speeches, but talk is cheap.

Obama rightly so should be criticized as the Democrat who abandoned the middle class and the poor. He continued the Bush policy of bailing out the banks and he has put more emphasis on stabilizing the financial sector than he did in helping home owners and the working class. While his original stimulus bill did help, I argued after the 2010 elections that his failure has been to appear to side more with the banks than the people. Given how much he took from Wall Street in 2008 to finance his campaign, no surprise here.

But Obama has been lucky. Occupy Wall Street and the “We are the other 99%” campaign have helped him. Both shifted focus to the Republicans in Congress and running for president that there is a clear class divide in America. Previous blogs of mine have attested to this fact and the growing economic divide in America over the last 30 years. Congressional refusal to raise taxes, a Republican presidential debate revealing no candidate willing to raise one dollar in taxes for every ten dollars in spending cuts, and the failure of Congress to enact Obama paltry $450 billion jobs bill all make it clear that they do not care about the American people (had they enacted the bill they could have disarmed the president and still pointed to how they supported the president on all his major economic programs but they still failed).

The point is that Obama can look like an economic populist because of the failures of Congress and the GOP to offer a credible alternative and to play politics in a way that makes them look like they care for anyone besides the top 1%. Obama is winning because of the implosion of the Republicans.

The Dismal Presidential Choices
Obama is also benefitting from a Republican presidential field that is not a varsity or junior varsity but the freshman team. It is a team running increasingly further and further to the right. A team that is further to the right than the Reagan Party–it is the Palin Party still as I wrote about several times t his year. It is a party that has flirted with several conservatives–Bachmann, Perry Cain, Gingrich, and now maybe Paul as the preferred choice over the more moderate but lackluster and passionless Romney. They seem out of touch with America in their talk of tax cuts, privatization, and return to the gold standard.

Now with little more than a week before Iowa, the race is definitely up in the air. Recent polls confirm what I asserted in an interview last week that Paul, Gingrich, and Romney will be the order in Iowa come January 3. But even if Paul does not win, his ascendency is a problem for the Republicans. If he does well in Iowa is libertarianism will play even better in New Hampshire and Romney needs to worry about a relative poor showing there on his part. This year with the Republican primaries and caucuses allocating delegates not by winner-take-all but proportionally, unless there is a quick kill by one candidate in January, look to a long primary and a potential brokered convention.

So What Does All this Mean for Obama?
Obama is now in much better shape in the polls for reelection than he was a few weeks ago. Polls have his approval rating up to 49% and it now exceeds is disapproval rating. He has a 7 point lead over Romney and much larger leads over the other Republican candidates. Congress’s approval is under 10% and public approval of the Tea Party has weakened. There are small signs of economic improvement but certainly no indication of real growth or significant decreases in unemployment in 2012. The economic news and prospects should doom him and the Electoral College road to reelection is complicated, but Obama now has a clear lead in Florida.

But compared to the Republicans running for president and those in Congress, he looks good. Obama can run for reelection on a slogan of “No matter how bad I am look at the alternative.”

Merry Christmas President Obama! Your present came wrapped with Republicans in a box they are building themselves in.

Nails in the GOP Coffin: Thoughts on the Iowa Straw Poll Results

Bachmann wins, Pawlenty is out. What do learn from the Iowa straw poll? Whatever political moderation existed in the Republican Party, it rapidly disappearing as the GOP is being remade in the image of Palin and Bachmann.

Bachmann

The headline clearly is that Bachmann received nearly 29% of the vote. No surprise there. Bachmann has narrative that clearly appeals to a demographic of social conservatives and Tea Party members. For months I argued that mobilizing this vocal and active segment of the part would make Bachmann a major force in Iowa. With a divided field she had captured a large bloc of voters and she used this appeal along with her Iowa connection and strategy to do well in that state. Her challenges of course will now be to move beyond Iowa, reach out to others beyond her base in the party across the country. Moreover, as the field of GOP contenders winnows (Pawlenty exists) and expands, will she pick up supporters or lose them? Bachmann is definitely the headline of the party but challenges persist.

The GOP

Look beyond Bachmann. She received 28.6% of the vote, Paul 27.7%–together they accounted for 56% of the straw poll. These are two candidates who represent perhaps the most extreme agendas among the GOP field. Add to them Santorum who polled at 9.8% and one finds that nearly two-thirds of the straw poll went to what would appear to be non-mainstream candidates. Pawlenty, perhaps the most mainstream and establishment candidate who participated in the field, polled barely 14%. This is a party that has moved dramatically to the right of the one that picked Romney as the Iowa straw poll winner and McCain as their nominee in 08. The GOP had redefined itself. It is–as I have argued for months–no longer the party of Ronald Reagan. Sarah Palin successfully remade the party into one captured more firmly by the Tea party and owing much of its ideological allegiance to a blend of Barry Goldwater, Pat Robertson, and Ayn Rand. Paul and Bachmann represent different wings of this new party, but Bachmann is better poised to run within this new party because her rhetoric and narrative are less pedantic and more appealing that Paul’s cerebral musings about the gold standard.

Romney

Romney is in trouble. In theory the frontrunner, but he is the frontrunner in a GOP party that no longer exists. He is part of the old Reagan Republican Party (along with Pawlenty) now fading. As the Party has shifted look to see it be more difficult for him to maintain his lead. Bachmann represents the new center of the new Republican Party. She and Paul may not be the fringe, Romney and Pawlenty are.

Pawlenty

No surprise he is dropping out. He never had a chance. He never had a narrative and he was a Reagan Republican running in a Palin Party. He tried to fake being more conservative than he was, coming off as inauthentic and phony. He made Iowa make or break and he broke. Bachmann helped seal the deal and yet again unended her Minnesota rival. But Pawlenty was doomed even without her–he just lacked appeal as a candidate and he never created a rationale for he presidency. It also does not help to have a non-existent legacy as governor besides bankrupting it.

Perry

Perry changes the equation for Bachmann. They will fight out for many of the same supporters and the challenge will be to see what happens. Perry is Bachmann but with executive experience. But Perry’s support demonstrates again how far to the right the GOP has moved.

But what does it all mean?

Commentators state the challenge is for Bachmann to capture swing or centrist voters within the party. She may not need to do this. First, her bloc approach may be enough to help her for a long time. Second, the moderate GOP voters may be leaving, going the route of while males who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1970s and 80s. If the Reagan Revolution redefined the GOP and Democratic Party membership, then the Palin-Bachmann redefinition will do the same. Some will leave the Party, perhaps leaving it a much more conservative one that even before. Within a party of vanishing moderates, Bachmann can win.

Bachmann, Palin, Overdrive

Bachmann and Palin. The very prospects of both entering the presidential race have created a frenzy. Both are media magnets and savvy in the art of attracting attention. But how do we assess them as presidential candidates within the GOP field and, if either to emerge as a nominee, as a potential candidate against Obama?

I discussed this issue on Fox 9 News recently . Look at the video in addition to my analysis below.

Outsiders within the GOP

The simple way to describe Bachmann and Palin is that both are outsiders within the Republican Party who draw their strengths from very similar sources. Both candidates have clear messages about taxes, limited government, and social conservatism that appeal to the Tea party wing of the GOP. Thus both have something that Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and perhaps even Mitt Romney lack—a clearly identified voice or political narrative that definitely appeals to an energetic base of the Republican Party. This linkage of a voice to a constituency is critical because it means that both of these candidates have a capacity to mobilize an identifiable portion of the party. When it comes to Iowa for example, a state all about caucuses and grassroots organizing, the ability to appeal to a specific and highly energetic constituency is very important, especially for Bachmann.

Comparing Bachmann to Palin

Bachmann and Palin share other affinities. Both are terrific at fund-raising. Palin is a major draw on the speaking circuit and since leaving the vice-presidential race she has branded herself and daughter Bristol into a Paris Hilton like commodities that has made her millions. Palin is an industry and can raise money, perhaps even for a presidency. Not as well known as Palin, Bachmann has proven to be a powerful fundraiser–garnering $20 million plus for her Congressional campaign last year and reportedly with more than $2.5 million already for her potential presidential bid. Moreover, each has a propensity to say the outrageous–Bachmann in declaring the constitutional framers as having freed the slaves, Palin in her take no prisoners campaign rhetoric. Both have been recurrently featured on Fox and MSNBC, pandered before conservative and liberal audiences as Nielsen ratings enhancers.

There is no question though that Palin is the better know of the two candidates. Right now she is near the top of the GOP polls and her bus tour is gathering a lot of attention. Were Palin to run she would start off strong, even if she were to skip Iowa.

Bachmann’s is truly an Iowa strategy. From Waterloo, she hopes to mobilize her roots and appeal to a Tea party constituency (and discontent with other GOP candidates). It is not inconceivable that she could get 20% of the caucus attendees, thereby pushing her to the front of presidential contenders. This is possible but for Palin.

Palin and Bachmann draw strength from the same part of the party. Should both enter they potentially split their support and the Tea Party wing. This sets up some interesting dynamics. First, if both run, does their conservatism force the rest of the GOP further to the right or do they concede it to them and battle for whatever one calls the more moderate wing of the party? Even if only one of the two runs, the same question can be asked. But if both run the potential of a split complicates strategies for all of the field in terms of appeal to their base, ignore, move to the right or more centrist.

Their Negatives

But as much as there are strengths are parallels to Palin and Bachmann, both face liabilities. Both are outsiders in the party. Palin likes her rogue persona and Bachmann has constantly upstaged the GOP in terms of stealing the light from Paul Ryan and the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech. Then there is their political rhetoric–nothing moderate here for either. How they can broaden their appeal beyond the Tea Party within the GOP is a mystery, let along to the swing voters in a general election will be difficult.

Palin has two additional problems. She is well known (a plus) but also has astronomical negatives. Carrying over from the 2008 VP bid, over 60% view her as unqualified to be president. She did herself no favors in her self-absorbed response to the representative Giffords shooting. Second, she has little in terms of a presidential infrastructure that can help her in Iowa or other early states and having alienated many in the GOP establishment, she is damaged goods in many ways.

Bachmann too has alienated the GOP establishment but she is not as well known nationally and therefore does not appear to have the same negatives as Palin. People have not made up their mind about her since she is not as well known. Unlike Palin, Bachmann has a chance to define and make her image and create a narrative. Palin is already done. She has no real potential for growth and makeover–perhaps by choice. Her brand and persona are fixed. Finally, Bachmann is working Iowa and seeking to build an infrastructure, Palin really is not.

Final Thoughts

Overall, assessing the two, while Palin is better known Bachmann has more room to grow as a potential GOP presidential candidate. But of course, both many stand in each other’s way, competing for money, voters, and a slice of media coverage. Because of their similarity, don’t look for the Tea Party dream ticket of the two running together. This is a ticket that would appeal to 25% of the general election electorate–giving Obama a major victory.

No doubt we have not heard the last of Bachmann and Palin. “You ain’t seen nothing yet” as BTO once sung.

Altered States: GOP Denial and the War Against Reality

Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt

Ever wonder what state politicians live in, especially Republicans these days? From the looks of it, it is the state of denial and it is a state where the poor, elderly, students, immigrants, working class, and the future do not live or matter.

Look at the budget process at both the federal and Minnesota state level and it is clear that many in the GOP are engaged in a war against the poor, elderly, students, immigrants, and working class. In Minnesota, the GOP proposed budget cuts that slash higher end spending, they are cutting money for health care for the poor, K-12 is taking hits, and local governments and their services are being targeted. At the federal level the cuts are also hurting the same constituencies, and in Michigan the governor supports legislation cutting back on unemployment benefits by six weeks. Talk about kicking people when they are down!

None of the above even includes the war on public sector unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states, efforts to pass election voter ID laws to address nonexistent fraud, and of course restrictive abortion laws in Arizona, North Dakota, and perhaps Minnesota. Nor does it include the war against the EPA and it ignores global warming. Moreover, the cuts to education and infrastructure investment seem to ignore the need to invest in the future. Actually, except for wanting to protect a few fetuses, there is no regard for the future. Even with the fetuses, once born they are on their own and too ignored and condemned to attend poorly funded schools and drive on bad bridges and roads, unless they happen to be lucky and be born privileged.

It is clear who the constituency of the GOP is. They represent a state of America populated by corporations, the rich, male, and those who hate government. They do not seem to believe that when things get rough we have an obligation to help one another or that perhaps those better off and capable of sheltering the burdens or costs should do that to help out the less fortunate. It is an antisocial philosophy, reflecting the individualism of the marketplace or the community of civil society. It is Ayn Rand’s vision.

They believe that the free market is wonderful and that it can solve all our problems, while ignoring the recent economic crash of 2008, its lasting legacies, and the role government played in forking out taxpayer money to bail them out. They ideologically believe that cutting government, taxes, and regulation will spur on the economy, yet this philosophy is no more than supply-side economics rehashed yet again for the Nth time.

And where is this ideology taking us? At the federal level we have no budget and we flirt again with a government shutdown. In Minnesota, the GOP keep passing cuts and it is clear Dayton will veto them, making a special session if not a July shutdown possible. It is a philosophy of ideological purity, bent on the belief that compromise is bad and that anything short of a 100% win is a loss and a sacrifice of principle. Better to bring down the government than compromise. Better to hurt the least advantaged than make the more affluent help out. Better to assume the market will work at its optimum in theory than think about how it works in practice and in comparison to government in reality.

Academics are often accused of living in an ivory tower. Yet the tower or state that the Republicans are living in seems so much more detached from reality than any university classroom. It is a state of denial–denying the real world implications of their choices and how by simply serving their constituents greedy interests they are hurting society in general and sacrificing the future to the present. This is an unsustainable philosophy yet somehow it persists, partly because the Democrats are too weak, ineffective, or bought off by the same interests to challenge them, the public often too apathetic or ignorant to care or know, or the media often unable or willing to report the story about this reality.


A Note on the Economy

The stock market slowly climbs and corporate profits have rebounded, yet for most Americans there is little real sign of improving economic conditions. Housing prices continued to slide for the sixth month in a row, and there is little indication that banks wish to lend money and individuals want to buy homes for fear that their investment is not worth it. Millions of houses are poised to enter foreclosure and there is no sight that the real estate market is rebounding. But of course the good news is that the federal government made $24 billion on its loans via TARP to prop up banks and other financial institutions.

Additionally, consumer confidence again slipped last month and while payroll has increased, there is still no sign that businesses are ready to pump money into hiring. Instead, as the Financial Times reports, mergers and acquisitions are dramatically up.

It is now clear what businesses are doing with their money. They are returning to profitability, borrowing at low cost, and using the cash to buy out competitors, such as what AT&T is doing with T-Mobile. They are not investing in jobs or the economy. Welcome to the status quo!

Dodd-Frank, the federal law to restructure the financial markets, was supposed to address some of these problems. Yet it is clear that after the 2008 meltdown and crash little has changed. Banks helped destroy the economy, got bailed out, are again making tons of money and have bonuses to pay their executives, yet they refuse to loan money. Additionally, businesses are not hiring. It seems that the banks, corporations, and the rich are doing well, and the rest of us are being ignored. They got a free lunch in terms of bailouts from the taxpayers and the rest of us continue to pay for their mistakes.

Yes GOP policies are to blame for much of this, but the Democrats seem no better here. They hardly fight and Obama’s surrender on extending the Bush era tax cuts, while perhaps politically savvy, was and remains bad policy that hurts the poor and middle class. Last December Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan agreed the tax cuts were bad policy. Buchanan stated the cuts would exacerbate the deficit and Jackson asserted that tax cuts for the rich then would mean service cuts for the poor this year. Both were correct. The economy is marginally better now than in December, and it is clear we have failed to make changes to address the basic problems that 2008 revealed. We seem to have moved onto the future, assuming all is fine, in the state of denial we live in.

Hardball and Overreach: Gutless Democrats and Overextended Republicans

Hardball
Why are Democrats so awful playing hardball and the Republicans so good?

Think about events in the last couple of weeks. The fiscal forecast for Minnesota drops the state budget deficit from $6.2 billion to $5 billion and what happens? Dayton drops his call for a one time special tax on millionaires and the GOP thumbs its nose at the rest of Dayton’s tax proposals.

In Congress, the Democrats are ready to fold on budget cuts.

In Wisconsin the GOP votes to gut the collective bargain rights of unions and Democrats look powerless.

On top of all this where is Obama? He seems ready to offer compromise on health care, he seems unwilling to fight for union rights, he does not draw a line in the sand over the budget. Instead, he seems almost irrelevant to the events going on around the country. On top of which, he seems paralyzed by what to do in Libya.

Yet again I see a pattern. Republicans attack, make demands, and Democrats sit back and take it. There is a partisan fight in American but only one party is fighting. Why is that?

Maybe there is a secret strategy that the Democrats have? Perhaps the strategy is that if they act reasonable and offer to compromise it will force the GOP to do the same? Or perhaps the idea is that if you look reasonable then it will win over swing voters who will think the GOP are inflexible ideologues? Perhaps, just perhaps, this the strategy of the Democrats.

But we see how well it works for them. This strategy worked terrifically for Obama in 2009 and 2010, did it not? It led to the GOP fighting the Democrats on everything, making them look ineffective, and eventually it led to the rout of 2010. Additionally, the strategy of compromise has cost the Democrats dearly. Extension of the Bush tax cuts is one example, production of a mediocre health care bill and a less than half a loaf financial stimulus and regulation bills are also examples. Additionally, by not fighting and trying to look responsible the Democrats have also upset its base and the many voters who elected them because of what they promised and then they failed to deliver.

But Democratic compromise encourages GOP resistance. For Dayton, who wants to balance the budget without any more cuts and with tax increases, his decisions to give up on some taxes simply encourages Republicans to dig in their heels. For weeks people have wondered when will the GOP release their budget? The answer is they do not want to release one. They do not want to be the ones to cut education and throw granny out of the nursing home. Instead, by forcing Dayton to compromise more and more they hope eventually to get him to propose the cuts they do not want propose. Shift the blame to the DFL for all the ugly cuts that will have to be made. This is the GOP strategy. Fight, don’t compromise, make the Democrats back down, and they will eventually do the dirty work. The same is happening in Congress, the GOP are threatening a government shutdown, leading Democrats to panic and compromise.

Perhaps part of why the Democrats are so bad at playing hardball is that they think they are responsible for the government. They have come to believe they are the party of the government and that their job is to protect it and the vulnerable. Good aims, but such a strategy is forcing them into a defensive posture where they keeping giving up ground one step at a time. It is a strategy of retreat, fearful of losing but nonetheless they are still losing.

Or perhaps Democrats are so bad at playing hardball because they really do not believe in their principles in the same way the GOP does. For at least a generation Democrats have been corporate liberals, taking money and cues from the business community. Obama, as I argued in previous blogs, seems bent on proving that he is pro-business to the point that he sides with banks over homeowners and companies over workers. Democrats ape to be GOP-wannabes, and perhaps that is why they do not fight so hard–they really do not believe in what they say they believe.

Or perhaps, in the end, the answer is simple–Democrats have no guts! They have no guts to fight for what they believe in and are unwilling to risk anything to get what they want and what they promised voters. Yes, Democrats are gutless, but why they have not learned that they need to fight is beyond me.

Overreach

Did the GOP overreach in Wisconsin? Polls suggest yes, but will it cost them? There are recall petitions across the state but it is not clear to me that voters will really punish them. Similarly, in MN there is a plethora of antichoice bills being introduced. Will this hurt the GOP?

Think about twin imperative at play in MN. The GOP wants to stay a majority party beyond 2012. To do that it needs to temper the extremist tendencies in its party that want to adopt very conservative anti gay and antichoice legislation. Most of this legislation probably does not command a majority support among the state general population. However, this legislation is popular with its base. Unlike Obama who failed to understand how he needed to reward his base, the GOP understands that. That is why it pushes legislation like this along with voter fraud and other similar bills.

On one level it does not matter if the legislation passes but is vetoed. The GOP has delivered to its base and that makes the happy. Moreover, look to see many of these proposals come back as constitutional amendments next year as a way to invigorate the GOP during a 2012 election cycle that might be more favorable to Democrats. Thus the balance here is how to maintain majority status and not alienate swing voters but at the same time appease the base?

The Democratic strategy seems to be to let the GOP push this legislation, hoping it will show the DFL base and swing voters that the GOP are extremists. However, simply hoping the GOP will overreach is not a viable political strategy. It is a defensive one, placing your electoral success on the hoped failures of the other side. This strategy is no different from the failed one of 2010 where Democrats tried to win by labeling the Tea Party as nuts and crazy. That did not work then and there is no guarantee that perceptions of GOP overreach will work to the Democrats advantage in 2012. At best it might lead to GOPers thrown out but it gives Democrats no mandate.

Controlling Gas Prices and Other Economic Heresies

Economics the topic this week, tackling four issues that ought to be on everyone’s mind. It is a plea to political leaders to have the courage to speak the truth and for citizens to be willing to listen to it.

Gas Prices
$3.50 a gallon for gas! This is some jump in present gas prices based on speculation about the future of Libya and other Middle East oil producing countries. Increased gas costs can justifiably be based on objective factors such as decreased supply, increased demand, exploration and costs in a post-peak world. But surely there is no basis for jacking up the price at the pump premised upon subjective speculative factors? Or is there?

At the root of this debate is a clash between rival economic theories. Current economic orthodoxy is that gas stations, distributors, and oil companies are economically justified to raise prices on current gas and oil based upon speculation by traders about future gas and oil because it necessary for “cost recovery.” As the argument goes, if today the price of a barrel of oil goes up by 10% is it ok to raise the price at the gas pump or at the distribution point equally by 10% or more in order to recover future anticipated costs. This is an interesting theory but it fails to make sense.

Think about an alternative economic theory that is more realistic. Let us say that on February 27, 2011 gas is selling at the pump for $349.9 per gallon. Assume also that the price of crude oil on the commodities market goes up by 10% that day. Should dealers and distributors be permitted to raise gas prices by 10% or more on the gas they already own and have purchased? No. The gas they have in their possession was purchased in the past at a different price P1. The gas sold on February 27, 2011 (T1) should be based on price P1. It is P1–gas purchased in the past but now presently in the distributors’ or stations’ tanks–plus a reasonable profit that should determine the price of gas at T1. It should not matter what speculation is taking place on the commodity markets regarding future gas prices.

Another way of making this argument is to say that if crude oil gas prices are rising, they should not affect current gas prices. Sellers of gas can recover costs on the new price P2, at some future time T2. To allow for “cost recovery”–raising of gas prices on current gas already purchased based upon future speculation really amounts to what used to be called profiteering or price gouging. Moreover, to allow for speculation on future prices of gas to affect the price of current gas already purchased by stations or distributors only helps to encourage gas speculation and price volatility.

We saw a few years ago how crude oil speculation drove gas to $4 gallon plus. There was no decrease in production and proof that it was gouging was that the major oil companies had record profits. The same is already occurring again.

There ought to be a law that prevents the raising of gas or energy prices on current supplies based upon future speculation. Let new supplies, which reflect the new crude oil prices, reflect the new price. This is a better free market theory that does not encourage speculation.

Wisconsin Budget Crisis
Governor Walker contends he needs to strip collective bargaining rights from public employees in order to address the state’s structural deficit. He cites public employee health care and pension costs as the problem. There are several reasons his theory is wrong.

First, even if he is correct, the public employees’ unions have already indicated their willingness to negotiate on these points. That should settle the issue about the need to strip away rights.

Second, Walker is not correct in his linkage, at least to the extent that he asserts. Wisconsin’s deficit, much like many other states, is driven by several factors. 1. There is the recession driving down tax revenues at the same time demand for government services are increasing. 2. Overall health care costs are rising in America in the public and private sectors. Obama’s health care law was originally supposed to address this issue but there really is very little in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordability Act that does that. Thus, the health cost issue is a more pandemic issue not confined to public employees, unions, and Wisconsin. Blame a mediocre federal health care bill for that issue. 3. Many states have failed to raise taxes for years and in the case of Wisconsin, a tax cut was pushed through. Combine a tax cut with rising health care costs with a recession and a demand for government services and what do you get? You get a state deficit. These are not factors driven but public employees’ collective bargaining rights.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the pension and health care benefits were freely negotiated in the past. Cutting both only leaves these individuals and their families economically worse off in the future. They were promised these benefits as a result of a fair bargain. Stripping away collective bargaining rights is like taking your bat and ball home because you do not like the way the other side is playing the game.

Fixing Social Security
Obama’s budget is a failure and the GOP response is just as bad. Both sides fail to address the real needs to tackle Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the horrible tax structure we have. Throw Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party in with that too. All of them are dishonest about the budget.

Social Security is easy to fix with two changes. The first is gradually raise the eligibility age to 67 over the next five years to a decade. Second, Social Security taxes are currently capped at approximately $106,000. This means that if you make more than this amount any income above this is not taxed. A simple answer is lift the cap. Turn the current regressive Social Security tax from a regressive to a progressive one. Lifting the cap and raising the age easily solve the Social Security problem for the future.

Fixing Health Care to Cut Costs and Improve Public Health
The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordability Act was a positive social good but a missed opportunity. The good was in extending health insurance to 36 million or more Americans. The missed opportunity was its failure to go far enough to address public health care needs and reduce costs.

According to a CDC or NIH study (I cannot remember which), about ten percent of American’s society’s health is driven by lack of access to health care. Approximately 30% is due to genetic factors, 20% environmental, and another 40% percent by preventable life style choices. Genetic is self-explanatory. Environmental refers to pollution in the air and water and to public safety issues such as guns and crime. But the last category, life-style choices, refers to the fact we eat too much, drink too much, eat the wrong foods, and fail to exercise. All of us have seen the stories about chronic obesity in our society and it, along with American waistlines, are growing every day.

A broader health care plan in the United States need to address the life-style choices. However, as soon as this is talked about one sees annoying commercials sponsored by groups that represent unfoods on TV complaining that this is social engineering or an effort to tell Americans what to eat and drink. Is that not the kettle calling the pot black. This is exactly what they have been doing for years in their ads and now they object to some efforts to counteract their ads.

A good health care (and effectively a good economic) measure needs to address these personal choices.

Finally, there is also the problem of end of life care. We consume the majority of our health care expenditures in the last six months of our life. I am not raising the Sarah Palin ill-informed death panel issue, but clearly we need to address end of life health care. I do not know the solution but we need a more rational solution.

Pawlenty’s Problem: Why the Former Minnesota Governor’s Presidential Campaign is Faltering

Tim Pawlenty has made it clear he wants to be president. Unfortunately for him, despite repeated trips to Iowa, New Hampshire, and other early caucus-primary states, he remains low in the polls, often hovering below undecided or “don’t know” among the GOP polled about their 2012 presidential preferences. These continued low poll numbers and name recognition become evermore worrisome for Pawlenty with the Iowa caucuses merely one year from now.

But what explains his persistent low poll numbers? There are many reasons. The most recent being him becoming the "other Minnesotan” running for president, being eclipsed by Michelle Bachmann in terms of buzz and excitement.

Yet the core reason for Pawlenty’s lack of success is simple–he lacks a narrative.

I have written often about the importance of a narrative in politics. Political narratives are stories you tell about yourself that define who you are, what your vision of the world is, and what you hope to accomplish if elected to office. The narrative is what defines you as unique. Narratives are selling points for candidates similar to story lines for products being sold (sales pitches) or the arguments made when doing fund raising. This is why I argue that candidates are like selling beer. Budweiser tells a good story about its product, why you should drink it, and what kind of person you are if you consume its product.

Political narratives are powerful rhetorical devices. They move voters and set candidates apart from others. In 2008 Obama had a narrative about change, a story about himself as the embodiment of the American dream. In 1980 Reagan told a story about personal initiative, self-reliance, and government, and in 1960 JFK told of a country facing new challenges in a cold war and Sputnik era. All successful candidates have narratives.

Pawlenty’s problem all along has been the missing narrative. The best way to describe this comes from a recent chart that the New York Times constructed (February 4, 2011) that graphically depicted the major GOP contenders along two dimensions–moderate/conservative and inside/outsider. According to the graph, Pawlenty is dead in the center. He is neither insider nor outsider, moderate nor liberal.

For Pawlenty this placement might suggest perfect placement. He is dead center. This may be true, but I think another interpretation is possible. Pawlenty is not the first choice of anyone, he is the second or third (or fourth or lower) choice for most. He is the default candidate behind everyone else. He is not preferred by anyone as their first choice, and he is stuck behind the other first choices of Romney, Huckabee, Palin, and yes, even Bachmann. As Leo Durocher once said: “Coming in second is like kissing your sister.” There is no thrill or excitement here, and that is Pawlenty’s problem.

Pawlenty is a derivative candidate. He has yet to carve out a narrative that distinguishes himself from the other more famous candidates running. He is thus far a boring, bland, GOP governor from somewhere in the upper Midwest; a candidate who never won a majority of the votes as governor.

Pawlenty has tried several narratives for the last couple of years but none seem to work. He is against taxes but so are other candidates. He opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, but so do others. He in so many ways has run for president on the narrative “Me too” when referring to his positions that ape his more famous competitors. Pawlenty has simply failed to carve out a distinct set of political views that distinguish him from the pack.

On top of that, Pawlenty cannot fill in his narrative with his record in office. Maybe he can say no tax increases for eight years, but he left the state with a fiscal mess that is not good. He cannot point to a major turnaround in schools, and he has no other real accomplishments he can point to. A bridge collapsed under his watch and he lost the unallotment case. There is also no evidence of coattails with his victories and instead, he may owe his election to Paul Wellstone’s plane crash in 2002 and the huge turnout for Michelle Bachmann in 2006 that gave him the winning edges.

The personal story of Pawlenty is not really compelling. Yes blue collar roots to governor. At one time he tried the “I am the Sam’s Club Republican.” That did not work either. It is also not working on the book tour. A tour, by the way, following in the path of all other candidates who sort of write a book and go on tour. Again, his tour is derivative of Palin’s right down to the cover design. Finally, few can say that Pawlenty is a compelling or electric speaker compared to a Palin or Bachmann.

Overall, Pawlenty’s problem is the missing narrative. He has tried several and they are not compelling. He has very little time to find one and I doubt it will happen. Iowa is one year away. He needs a good story now and he cannot find one. Without it, he will remain in the center of the GOP chart, no one’s first choice.

Obama, Bachmann, and the End of the GOP

Is the Republican party ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Several events this week suggest that may be the case.

Obama and the State of the Union
The State of the Union speech is a misnomer. One would think a state of the union speech really to be one that discusses, well, the state of the union. Instead, the speeches have become a state of the presidency with Obama this week continuing the fine tradition of using the speech to discuss his presidency and what he wants to do. In this case, the speech was effectively the launching of his 2012 presidential campaign as he tried out his new narrative.

Think about how far Obama has moved since Election Day last year. The GOP were giddy with their victories, viewing them as a referendum on Obama. His approvals were in the mid 40s, the Dems lost the swings in the elections, and it looked for certain that 2011 would begin the end for Obama. But Obama responded. He struck a tax deal with the GOP and they then gave in on everything else. He gave a great Tucson speech, he changed his economic team, brought in more pro Wall Street toadies, and now suddenly he is over 50% in approval ratings again. The state of the presidency speech that he gave the other day was part of the rehabilitation and relaunching of his presidency and so far he is doing well in preparing for 2012.

The speech was flat. He trotted out no new ideas. I described it as JFK meets Ronald Reagan. It was Sputnik meets morning in America. (Although I wonder how many of his supporters know what Sputnik was or what the Sputnik moment metaphor or analogy meant). Obama told a good story about the future and he crafted a nice narrative that hit all the themes he resonated in 2008. He said nothing new but did it in a language that seemed to appeal to many.

Never mind that Obama did not address two critical issues–the continued depressed housing market and foreclosures, and the continued high unemployment rate. Both were ignored. Moreover, what also eluded him was the economic consequence of his tax deal with the GOP–a hemorrhaging budget deficit that will grow to $2 trillion in a few years.

A Divided GOP?
But Obama was lucky. The GOP have so far played it badly in taking over the House. They have voted to repeal the health care reform and they make noise about the deficit, but they have no constructive ideas about how to replace the former and deal with the latter. They remain stuck as the party of "no." It remains a narrative of opposition, but not one of construction. The narrative of change they used in 2010 to gain power has not become a narrative of governance.

Additionally, Obama’s real luck is that the GOP is divided. Wisconsin Representative Ryan gave the official response–it was even more flat than Obama’s. But no one is talking about Ryan–it was Bachmann’s response that captured all the headlines. Yes others will discuss her challenges when it comes to facts about American history or her Tammy Faye Baker makeup, but the real issue is how yet again she upstaged her own party to trumpet herself. If I were the GOP I would be so angry with her, yet they are also dependent on her and her Tea Party followers for support. It is a dysfunctional relationship ready to get worse. How?


Bachmann’s Third Party Bid for President?


If Bachmann runs for president, think about two possibilities. One is she runs as a GOP and does well in garnering support in Iowa. In an early caucus state with a crowded field, victory goes to those who can best organize and bring people out on caucus night. Clinton learned that the hard way in '08 as Obama the community organizer did well. It does not take more than 25% or so to win Iowa. Tea Party activists will come out in 2012 for her and Bachmann could do well.

But what if Bachmann decides to bolt the GOP and run as a third party Tea party candidate? This is not a nutty idea. Given her relationship with the party, her “in it for herself approach,” and the ideological gulf, it could happen. If it does, the GOP is split and Obama is definitely the winner. Remember 1912? Forget Palin as going rogue, it is Bachmann.

But does Bachmann really plan to run for president? One thought is that this is a way to raise a profile and prepare to challenge Franken 2014. Another thought is a run for president, even if it fails, raises her value as a commentator on Fox or more likely CNN. Why CNN? They need her more than Fox to capture conservatives to watch.

Overall, a Bachmann campaign will overshadow the GOP, reinforce Obama’s centrist image, and insure he wins again.

A Pawlenty Deathwatch


AP reports Pawlenty’s PAC is almost broke. This means either he is winding it down as he prepares to create a presidential exploratory committee (as Pawlenty might spin it) or that his lack of money demonstrates a lack of support for him as the “other Minnesota Republican running for president.” Pawlenty will not be part of that crowded Iowa GOP field, at least not at the top of the crowd.

UPDATE
Minnesota's 2012 Presidential Hopefuls in the Spotlight
Click here to see the KARE11 Sunrise segment about Pawlenty and Bachmann's presidential pursuits.

Don't bet on it: The Foolish MN DFL Strategy for 2012

One of my favorite political cartoons shows a pollster calling a woman, asking: “If the race were held today...” Before he can finish the sentence she replies: “I would be very grateful.”

The sentiment of this woman captures how many of us feel about politics and campaigns. We just cannot wait for them to end. Unfortunately, with the endless campaign cycle it seems elections never end. No sooner had the 2010 elections ended the 2012 election cycle began. Michele Bachmann, even before being sworn in for new term in Congress a couple of weeks ago, already floated a presidential bid. Rumors persist who will run for president, polls are being done on the Minnesota Senate race, and other calculations are being undertaken regarding what will happen in 2012. For Democrats, especially in Minnesota, the hope is that 2012 will be a kinder year for them than 2010 when they lost control of the state legislature for the first time in a couple of generations. All this may be barking at the moon.

I say this because the other day I was talking to one of my friends who lives in Minneapolis. He recounted a conversation with two DFL legislators there recently. When they were asked what it was like to be in the minority, they both responded that they will be back in power as the majority after the 2012 elections. By that, they are counting on the coattails of Obama and Klobuchar and overreach by the GOP to turn a miserable 2010 Republican year into a good 2012 Democrat year. Don’t bet on it.

This is a naive strategy. It is effectively one that says when the voters regain their sanity they will again vote for Democrats. This is a purely defensive and passive strategy. It depends on the steps and missteps of others in order to get elected. This is the fundamental problem with the Democrats for the last 40 years. In 1972 McGovern’s slogan was “Come home America.” Notice how well it worked. In 1984 Mondale’s was “America needs a change.” It did not work. The failure of both candidates was in part the inability of Democrats to offer a compelling narrative to counteract that of the Republicans. Democrats cannot always count on disgust with the GOP and missteps by the latter to get elected. They need to offer a narrative, to provide a set of policies that serve as an alternative. They need to stand for something.

Additionally, Democrats need to fight back if they want to win. The Republicans know how to do that. The Democrats don’t. After 2008 the GOP developed a plan, a message, recruited well, and they took advantage of the Democrats screwing up or failing to define themselves and the GOP. Right now I see little sign that the state DFL is doing any of that.

Maybe the GOP will falter nationally and statewide. Maybe they will overreach. Maybe Obama and Klobuchar will do well and get reelected. But do you want to trust your fate in variables beyond your control? That is what the state DFL and the legislators seem to banking on as a strategy.

Yes, the opposition making mistakes creates an opportunity. But you need to do more than that to win and then to govern effectively. Begin now defining the narrative and themes for what the party stands for. Do focus groups, recruit candidates, and develop a game plan now regarding how you plan to take back the legislature and govern.

There is no guarantee of Obama and Klobuchar wins and coattails. Don’t bet on it for an electoral plan for 2012.

Missed Opportunities

**UPDATE**
If you missed the political panel on Almanac Friday (12/17/10) you can watch the segment here. The panel is at about the show's halfway mark and the debate was kind of ugly!


In politics, as is true with most things in life, timing is everything. Opportunities come when windows open, but those windows do not remain that way forever. The DFL, Dayton, and Obama are the thought of opportunities in today’s blog.

Minnesota Democrats, Mark Dayton, and the Independence Party
Face it–the Minnesota Independence Party is a permanent minor party. After a highwater mark in 1998 when Jesse Ventura received 37% of the vote and won the governorship, the party has fallen into a permanent minor status. In 2006, Tim Penny received 16.2% of the vote for governor, in 2008 Peter Hutchinson received 6.4%, and in 2010 Tom Horner received 11.9%. In 2008, Dean Barkley received 15.2% as a Senate candidate. The party is more than a blip but it does not seem to have enough strength to be a serious challenger for statewide office in Minnesota. My guess, as I stated throughout the 2010 campaign, was that the Independence Party commands about 10% of the voting population. Its members seem to be composed of former moderate Democrats and Republicans, as well as others who politics do not line up with the two party profile.

At the same time the IP is about 10% of the voters, neither the DFL nor the GOP seem able to command a majority of the population. If the governor’s race is considered, there has not been a governor who received more than 50% of the vote since 1994. The 2008 Senate race shows the same, although the 2006 race did produce a majority with Klobuchar. The point here though is that the fate of the GOP, DFL, and IP are connected–all three are fighting for majority status and none can achieve it alone.

In a parliamentary system the permanent minority status of parties forces coalition governments to form and rule. Ventura sort of did that in 1998 when he picked his commissioners from across all party stripes. There is a similar opportunity here now for the DFL and Mark Dayton.

The DFL and Mark Dayton need to raid the IP. There is an opportunity here for the DFL and Dayton to reach out to the IP and bring them into their party. The GOP could do this too but seem to have abandoned this approach recently when it shunned its moderates who supported Horner. These Arnie Carlson and David Durenburger types have no place to go except a permanent minority status within a 10% IP. The DFL and Dayton should reach out to them? What should they do?

* Dayton should appoint Tom Horner and other prominent IP members to serve in his administration
* DFLers should allow IP members to caucus with their party

In addition, now is the time to reconsider fusion. Fusion was a big issue about 15 years ago. It would allow cross party endorsements on the ballot. Thus, as is the case in NY, a candidate for the Democrats could appear on ballot also as the endorsed candidate for the Liberal Party. Here, fusion would allow a candidate to appear as the DFL and IP endorsed candidates. Fusion, which is not legal at present in Minnesota, potentially would allow for a building of political coalitions to form a majority party and the strengthening of a third party. IP voters who otherwise would not vote DFL would vote for the person as an IP candidate. Something that ranked choice voting will eventually allow for the same creation of new majorities, but I am not sure that alone with will do that even though I support RCV as a voting option.

Whatever the practical option is, the simple statement here is that there is an opportunity for the DFL and Dayton here–raid the Independence Party, bring their voters over, and use the chance to create a new majority.

Thoughts on Dayton
A few quick thoughts on the Dayton transition. He has appointed good people so far, most notably Peter Watson as his counsel. The rest of his staff is good, but missing so far from the early appointments is a budget director. With a $6.2 billion deficit and the demands to have a budget in early January, one would think one of the first appointments would have been a budget director. Moreover, none of the early appointments are budget people. He need to act quickly. The best names out there? Matt Smith who was budget director under Ventura and Senator Dick Cohen who has done the budget for the Senate for years.

Lacking a budget person already has hurt Dayton. His meeting with the GOP legislative leadership was interesting and a nice gesture, but they are driving the budget agenda right now because Dayton does not have a budget person in place.

Additionally, Dayton keeps announcing how he is reaching out to the GOP and he seems to be modifying his positions. So far I have yet to detected the same with the MN GOP vis-a-vis Dayton and their views.


Thoughts on Obama
Dayton’s compromise segues to Obama and his signing of the extension of the Bush era tax cuts. He justified the move as a necessary compromise, as a way to get middle class tax cuts, to get unemployment tax cuts, and to stimulate the economy. (See the above video link to TPT's Almanac to see me arguing with Larry Jacobs on some of the following points)

Bad economics. There is some stimulus here but not much. In many ways the tax cuts only continue the status quo and too much of the cuts go to the rich who will not use it to stimulate the economy unless you believe in supply-side economics. Second, despite Larry’s assertion that mainstream economists say it will raise the GDP by 1.5%, that bump is at best short term and wears off by 2012 ( also cannot find economists who are saying what Larry is asserting). Third, the cuts add $900 to the deficit, only delaying the inevitable problems of deficits and eventually spending cuts which will probably hurt the poor and middle class first. Overall, whatever short term economic benefit there is, the benefits are outweighed by the economic problems they create.

Bad politics. This is a naked grab by Obama to get middle class and swing voter support. I doubt it does that. Two years from now they will not remember this. Second, the tax cuts are extended only for two more years and in the middle of the next presidential campaign they will be debated again. Obama will again be unable to oppose their extension and again they will pass. Democrats who oppose them will be unable to do so because opposing tax cuts is never easy.

Obama basically sacrificed his political base and the economy for his political fortunes and I am not sure how much benefit he reaps from it.

Dayton and GOP-led Legislature should act on what works, not ideology and wishful thinking

My latest blog is an piece published in Minnpost. It can be found here.

Dayton and GOP-led Legislature should act on what works, not ideology and wishful thinking
By David Schultz | Friday, Dec. 10, 2010

My Upcoming Video Chat- Online 'Seats' Available!

Keep Monday night open! I am going to offer an hour-long interactive video/audio chat with the public regarding the 2010 elections and offer predictions for how politics are likely to play out nationally and in Minnesota. The online event will take place Monday, November 15, 2010 from 7-8 p.m.(CST).

I'll be utilizing the latest technology, Elluminate Live!, a web conferencing program and virtual environment to provide a fluid, powerful video chat experience with up to 100 chat participants. I'll respond to questions and comments from those participants while leading a discussion about the 2010 election results locally and nationally. I also plan to address what Minnesota is likely to experience once a new governor is named and how it may differ depending on which candidate claims the spot and when they do so.

I'd love for anyone interested to 'attend' this online event. To join the session, please click here within 30 minutes of the session start time.

To view the hardware and software pre-requisites for Elluminate Live! click here.

Explaining the Election 2010 Part II: How and Why Dayton (Apparently) Won

Unless the recount reverses it, Mark Dayton is Minnesota’s next governor and the first DFLer to win since Perpich in 1986. Contrary to assertions by GOP State Party Chair Tony Sutton that something smells fishy when Republicans win control of the legislature and the Oberstar seat but lose the governor’s race, neither fraud nor shenanigans need be invoked to explain the outcome. Instead, the simple answer lies in the fact that Tom Emmer and the GOP ran a horrible campaign and it was only the backlash against Obama and the Democrats that made it as close as it was.

No Fraud, No Foul
At the most simple level, by the logic of Sutton’s statement the GOP should have won the offices of Secretary of State, Auditor, and Attorney General, but they did not. Additionally, Sutton apparently ignores the phenomena of ticket splitting–voting one way at the legislative and another at the constitutional office level. Finally, by his logic, one could argue that Pawlenty should not have been elected, at least in 2006, because of the overwhelming vote for DFLers that year.

No, Sutton’s comments don’t make sense. They instead prematurely raise the specter of fraud, seeking to insinuate that because (in his belief) Franken only beat Coleman due to fraud, the same must be true here. Of course Sutton forgets that Coleman was never able to prove widespread fraud in court and his attorney, when appearing before the Minnesota Supreme Court, admitted the same. As I have written elsewhere, the best studies and empirical evidence on voter fraud is that it is negligible at best. Fraud is the unlikely answer for why Dayton won.

Instead, Sutton’s comments remind me of the great line from Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much.” The real roots of Dayton’s victory lie in part in how bad Sutton, Emmer, and the GOP were in running the governor’s race.

Dayton’s Candidacy
Unfortunately we do not have exit polls to assess fully why people voted the way they did. We do have election returns revealing that Dayton won the metro area and St. Louis County as expected, and he also did well in other rural areas, at least compared to recent DFLers. But our information is limited. Thus, some conjecture is necessary.

Dayton’s apparent victory stemmed from several advantages he had. First, there was the overwhelming name recognition, especially among the elderly. As flawed as most pre-election polls were, this name recognition helped. Elderly vote, and that matters.

Second, Dayton was the only major party candidate with a lieutenant governor from greater Minnesota (here the Iron Range). This advantage was critical to Dayton’s DFL primary victory.
Third, Dayton had public sector union endorsements because of his stance against more budget cuts. While unions are experiencing declining political clout, one can presume AFSCME got out the vote to help Dayton and preserve their jobs.

Thus, think about it–Dayton reunited the old DFL coalition of urban liberals, unions, and the Iron Range. This is the classic recipe for DFL success in yesteryear. He was the first DFLer to bring this coalition together since Perpich. He did it with a reinventing of the old Perpich slogan of making Minnesota the “brainpower state.” This time Dayton stressed education in general, appealed to female voters, and forged a 2010 version of the 1986 message. How odd? An almost back to the future campaign tactic. Long term, such a coalition may not work, especially if your name is not Dayton, but this time it did.

But one should also not forget Dayton’s fortune helped. He outspent Emmer. He stayed on message talking about education and benefitted from a state less adverse to taxes than the nation as a whole.

Emmer’s Candidacy
Emmer ran a terrible campaign. It started with his convention speech when he declared he would run from the right and not the center. Generally you cannot win from the extreme when you only motivate your base and do not appeal to swing voters. The balance of power is capturing swings. Nationally, Democrats had the swings in 2006 and 2008, but lost them in 2010. Emmer never had them in 2010 since he disavowed them from the start.

Second, Emmer had a terrible summer. His missteps on taxes and tips cost him. He let the DFL paint him as a right-wing nut and he never overcame that image. In someways he was swiftboated by the DFL and like Kerry in 2004, he never overcame that image.

Third, Emmer had a McCain problem. In 2008 McCain knew “change” was the mantra of the year but how to run on change when you are of the same party of sitting president whom the public wants to change? Pawlenty was Emmer’s Bush. Minnesotans wanted change and the DFL tied Emmer to Pawlenty. Emmer talked of change but had the same problem when McCain talked of it.

Finally, the GOP and Emmer tried to use the national strategy at the state level. It worked with the legislative races, but not with the gubernatorial race so much. Sometimes cookie cutter strategies do not pan out.

The Horner Effect
How did Horner factor in? Whom did he hurt? I think he hurt Emmer more, but not for reasons most think.

I participated in a Republican Jewish forum about one week before the election. Sue Jeffers, Mitch Berg, and others were on the panel with me. When someone asked about whether they should worry about moderate GOPS such as Arnie Carlson, David Durenburger, and Al Quie endorsing Horner, Jeffers and others said let them go. They disparaged them as RINOs and were glad to see them go. Emmer and Sutton simply wrote off and ignored the old moderate Republicans, taking the Jim Demint tactic about ideological purity above coalition and victory.

The Horner press conference where many former GOP legislators endorsed him spoke also to that alienation they felt. Similarly, on November 5, I spoke to the Minneapolis Rotary club and lunched with one of my favorite former GOP state senators who expressed the same feeling–they were not wanted!

My point? Horner did not steal voters from Emmer. Emmer never went after them. Even if Emmer were not in the race I doubt Emmer would have gotten them. Either they would have stayed home or at best split with Dayton. But given Emmer’s lack of appeal to swings, Dayton’s victory might have been greater.

The Oberstar Effect
Oberstar lost because he ignored his district and took his victory for granted. It was like a page out of Edwin O’Connor’s "The Last Hurrah." One DFL precinct captain told me she never got a call from the Oberstar people. Additionally, the southern part of the 8th district is more conservative than the northern part and Oberstar was weak there, counting on the northern part to rescue him. It did not because he ignored it.

However, the Democrats on the Range are changing. They are perhaps becoming more of what used to be called Reagan Democrats. This is a concern for the DFL in the future.
Overall, had Oberstar run a better campaign and won Dayton might have done even better than he did.

Conclusion
A better than expected Dayton campaign, a horrible campaign from the right by Emmer, a national GOP anti-Obama surge, and a pathetic Oberstar campaign can account for much of the gubernatorial outcome. One need not invoke fraud or nefarious reasons to explain Dayton’s victory.

Last word
I predicted a 46% (Dayton), 43% (Emmer), and 12% (Horner) result. The final was tally as of today is 43.6%, 43.2%, and 11.9%. Judge for yourself how I did, especially compared to the pre-election polls!

Change

Oh yea,
Mm,
Still don’t know what I am waiting for,
and my time was running wild,
a million dead-end streets and
Every time I’d thought I got it made
it seemed the taste was not so sweet
–Changes, David Bowie

Change. Four years ago voters demanded it and they ousted the Republicans from Congress. Two years ago they demanded it and pushed Obama into office along with huge congressional majorities. Now change may do Democrats in, producing a GOP House and perhaps, but less likely, a Senate.

What is certain is that whatever voters do this fall, change will not be the result. If Democrats retain control of both houses of Congress it will be by the narrowest of margins, guaranteeing gridlock for two more years. The same is true whether the GOP takes both houses or the parties split. The voters will get more of the status quo. The desire for change will produce its opposite. How Orwellian.

But what is change and what do voters want? These two questions have always perplexed me. When I teach my undergraduate Intro to American Politics class I often begin the class with a discourse on change. I point out first that there is a perennial demand for change among the American electorate along with an equally perennial frustration that change did not occur. I then point out that a defining characteristic of American politics was how the constitutional framers designed a political system that was meant to frustrate and slow down political change.

Checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, bicameralism, and staggered elections were all designed to break up political power and slow down political change. As James Madison pointed out in Federalist 10, the main threat to popular government was the danger of majority faction–the tyranny of the majority for Alexis deTocqueville. The best thing about a popular government is rule by public opinion, the worst is the same. Madison and the framers sought a system to slow down political change to frustrate the ability of the majority to trample on the rights of the minority. For good or bad, change is meant to be slow or incremental. This is the reality of American politics by design. Americans who do not realize this are frustrated because of logic of our political process.

But institutional design has been compounded by other problems. For example, in the Senate the filibuster makes it impossible to get work done, allowing 41 senators who could represent less than 11% of the population to halt change. One of the biggest mistakes Democrats made in 2009 when they had 60 votes was not to abolish the filibuster rule. Instead, they let themselves be held hostage to Ben Nelson, Blanch Lincoln, and other Democrats who are barely in tune with their party. Thus, lack of party discipline also hampered the Democrats during the Obama years.

Additionally, Obama’s lack of leadership–a failure to take control of the agenda and cede it to Congress–was a major problem. Can anyone ever imagine a Lyndon Johnson letting a Ben Nelson toy with his party over whether to vote for health care reform? Conversely, what has really struck me about Obama is the timidity of change. He has done so little with so much promise. Yes a health care bill but mediocre. Yes financial reform, but mediocre. Yes a stimulus, but mediocre. He has delivered on major promises but the scale of change or reform was quite minor.

But finally, the problem of change resides with the voters. What do they really mean or want when they say change? Real change is what happened when in the early 1990s people walked out of their houses in Eastern Europe and brought down the Berlin Wall. Or in South Africa when they ended apartheid. I doubt that is what American voters want.

Change in the last few years might have been "out with George Bush." End the wars, end the squabble in Washington, or something else. I just do not know. Change seems more negative than positive–voters know they do not like the status quo but do not know what they want. They want something to change for the better but seem blind to what it is they want. Moreover, voters are not of one mind. For those who are angry and demand change this year, are they the same ones who wanted it two years ago? Maybe yes, but the American electorate is so fragmented that there is no real consensus on what change is supposed to be.

“Still don’t know what I am waiting for.”