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.

Justice Klobuchar and Unallotment

April 5, 2010

Amy Klobuchar for the Supreme Court

Easter Sunday morning news shows raised Senator Klobuchar as a potential replacement on the Supreme Court replace Justice John Paul Stevens when it retires this year or in the future. While there are some attractive features to her nomination, the odds are against it.

First the case for her. Klobuchar is a member of the Senate and the belief is that it would be hard for the Senate to refuse one of her own in a confirmation hearing. In addition, she is female and Obama might like the idea of placing another woman on the bench, especially with Ginsburg ailing and perhaps retiring in the future. Third, she is young and if confirmed she could be on the Court for years. As a former prosecutor she also looks good and might appease some of the law and order types. Finally, she really is a moderate and her nomination would not incite the ire of many conservatives worried that Obama was seeking to place another liberal on the bench.

However, while all of these factors make her attractive, there are reasons against her nomination. For one, the recent trends on the Supreme Court are to select from those with lower court experience. Candidates without judicial experience were more common a generation or so ago, less common today. Klobuchar does not have this experience and this suggests against it. Second, while the Democrats will rally around her no matter what, her nomination would not excite liberals and would probably not see her ideologically as replacing Stevens. Finally, for all the reasons that make her attractive it is not clear the Republicans will be happy with anyone Obama selects and therefore it may be overblown regarding how much her assets are really assets.

Reapportionment and Waiting for the Minnesota Supreme Court

On March 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding Governor Pawlenty’s use of unallotment last July, 2009 to address the budget shortfall. Many are guessing when the decision will be released and what it will be?

I attended the oral arguments. I thought the Court was split 3-3 with Chief Justice Magnuson being the deciding swing vote. He was appointed by the Governor and is a former law partner of his. This leads many to suggest that he will support the governor. I am not so persuaded.
If one can divine anything from oral arguments and questioning, it sounded like the CJ was skeptical of the governor. He asked to tough questions to all attorneys and the direction of the CJ suggested that he found it difficult to accept that delegation of power from the legislature to the governor to use unallotment had sufficient checks on his discretion.

Moreover, the CJ has had to fight the governor hard over cuts to the judiciary and in many ways his stepping down as CJ may have as much to do with exhaustion over this fight than anything else. But given these fights and his resignation, maybe the CJ is free now to defend the courts and issue a decision that will have ramifications for the judiciary. The gov cannot unallot the judicial branch but trimming unallotment may help the courts and public safety none the less.
I give it a 60/40 chance he votes against the governor.

I also think the decision will come this week or next. Any delay will be due to the divided court and the circulating of majority and dissenting opinions and the courting (pardon the pun) of the CJ.