The main question for the national Democratic party this morning may be what to take for all those post-victory hangovers, but at some point the chieftains of the Democratic congressional apparatus will get around to examining those few places where the party failed to make the most of a decisive Barack Obama win. And when they do, Minnesota — where Obama turned in the strongest Democratic presidential performance since 1976 — is likely to be at the top of the list.
Pending the resolution of the recount-bound US Senate race, which Norn Coleman leads by a scant 700 votes over Al Franken out of nearly 2.86 million votes cast for those two and Dean Barkley, Minnesota stands to present a very curious profile: a blue state by a margin of 10 points in the presidential race — in 2004, John Kerry took the state by three points — that has failed to turn any of the three congressional seats that were very much in play: Coleman’s, Michele Bachmann’s 6th district House spot, and the open 3rd district seat previously held by Republican Jim Ramstad.
Though the Minnesota Senate race has yet to be decided, it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama’s 10-point win at the top of the ticket will prove to be all tophat and no tails. This is remarkable, especially when you consider the degree of Obama’s dominance here. This year marks just the fifth time since WWII that a Democratic presidential candidate has amassed 54 percent-plus of the Minnesota vote. (The others: Harry Truman’s 57 percent in 1948, plus three races [thanks, Ron...] with a favorite-son dimension: Jimmy Carter’s 55 percent in 1976 with Fritz Mondale as VP, Lyndon Johnson’s 64 percent in 1964 with Hubert Humphrey as the number two, and Humphrey’s own 54 percent showing in 1968.)
Obama beat by three points the percentage of the Minnesota presidential vote won by John Kerry in 2004 (54-51). And while Minnesota is not a red-to-blue state, that uptick is comparable to the one Obama ‘08 enjoyed over Kerry ‘04 in some states that did go red to blue, most notably Ohio (51-49/+2) and Florida (51-47/+4). Both those states saw two Democratic challengers beat Republican House incumbents (though, in Florida, the Democrats gave back one of those two with the defeat of scandal-plagued Rep. Tim Mahoney).
That’s not entirely a fair comparison, since Ohio and Florida both have much larger congressional delegations than Minnesota. But in view of the fact that the congressional leadership of both parties believed that the Minnesota US Senate seat and two House districts were in play, it’s almost shocking that Democrats may come away with no net gains to show for Obama’s decisive win here.
Where will the fingers point? Here’s a morning-after thumbnail of autopsies to come.
The urban/rural culture gap. Bachmann’s suburban and rural district is not just the most conservative in the state; it’s one of the most conservative in the Midwest. And despite circumstantial signs that the west-metro 3rd congressional district was not terribly conservative (the demographics, the long tenure of moderate Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad), that may have to be rethought. This strikes me as weak, though: Minnesota is not exactly the only state where gerrymandering is practiced, and it didn’t result in net-gain shutouts in other previously purplish states.
Weak Democratic candidates. Of the two Democratic House candidates who lost and the Senate candidate whose race stands in limbo this morning, only Ashwin Madia won much praise for his public profile and his campaign. Al Franken, who was aided mightily in winning the nomination by his mad skills as a fundraiser in the 2006 cycle, had low approval ratings and high negatives to a degree rarely seen among challengers in any federal race. El Tinklenberg’s campaign ran well enough by all appearances, except for the El Tinklenberg part. The softspoken and terminally unprepossessing Tinklenberg was never able to seize control of the dialogue, even when Bachmann made herself an object of broad popular scorn less than three weeks before the election. His lighter-than-air presence made the race entirely a referendum on Bachmann, which it did not have to be.
The he-said/she-said media. A huge factor in a tight Minnesota US Senate race. More about this later, but for now, let’s just note the outline of events in the final week-plus of the contest:
In a lawsuit filed by a Texas Republican business executive, Norm Coleman is implicated in receiving improper payments from a friend and patron through third-party arrangements.
Coleman responds by blaming it all on his opponent and his opponent’s political allies, a charge vigorously denied by the plaintiff in the lawsuit and by Coleman’s opponent.
A second lawsuit containing the same allegations against Coleman is filed.
And the media, led by the Star Tribune — which, despite its awful economic straits, remains the most-read and most influential news outlet in the state — by and large present the whole matter as an orgy of empty mudslinging that reflects discredit on both sides. A couple of days before the election, the brewing Coleman scandal disappears almost entirely from the news, apart from coverage of the closing Senate debate where it was brought up.














13 Comments »
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
The presence of strong third party candidates explains most of the recent Republican success in Minnesota. Coleman got 42% of the vote. A large majority voted against him. Bachman got only 47% of the vote in a very conservative district. Remember that Pawlenty never got over 50% of the vote in his victories.
If we continue to have strong third party candidates, we should consider a runoff election system to ensure that we are represented by people who were elected by a majority of Minnesotans.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
I strongly agree with Mark!
But I also think that Mike Ciresi could have beaten Coleman on a night like this.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
I agree, Mark. But be cautions of your “blame” of IP candidates for Dem electoral failures.
Instant Runoff voting is in both the Repub and DFL party platforms (so I’m told); they are the parties in power, and they can put up or shut up and pass instant runoff voting any time.
The IP uses it in all it’s party voting.
Dean Barkley would probably be senator-elect today under instant run off voting.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
I think the lesson is going negative in a three way race is dangerous.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
Responding to the post, one thing that struck me as a little odd is how the Obama campaign was almost compartmentally sealed from other campaigns and these in turn sealed from one another. In other words, these were races run by individuals under a party banner rather than party run campaigns. I get the impression that the Republicans are still much more together than the DFL in synchronizing the campaigns of individual candidates for a unified party message. That can be a good thing. or a bad thing when the party loses its way and you have a lot of people in lock step marching us off the edge of a cliff like lemmings.
But people who are critical of the two parties should keep in mind that Democrats are much less unified than the Republicans and probably represent more of a collection of truly independent thinking candidates than unified for some goal.
I don’t hold out a lot of hope for a recount to change Coleman’s apparent victory. I agree with the above comments that what we have is probably the result of negative campaigns and three way candidates. Al Franken, whom I supported because he was my party’s endorsed candidate, promised a campaign which would get into Coleman’s ties with Bush. Jack Nelson Pallmeyer gave the party a real choice on this but the majority went for Franken anyway. I liked Jack Nelson Pallmeyer, think he would have been a much better candidate and could have beaten Coleman as well without the negativity. But I was outvoted. Will the party faithful learn from this? Probably not.
Pingback posted November 5, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
[...] Franken, but it seems the same could be asked of Walz and with greater cause. Over at MnIndy, Steve Perry blames everyone but Walz. Meanwhile Bob Collins takes note of the votes Obama got that Franken [...]
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
I have to disagree with some thigns said by other commenters. The campaigns coordinated very well I thought, better than ever, including even 2006. I 2004 the campaigns kept calling the same voters 10 times at least, but it was pretty coordinated and tightly organized this time.
In regard to IRV, when it passed in Minneapolis, it was endorsed by all parties except the Republicans. Maybe it’s just partisan advantage, since strong third party candidates kept splitting DFL-leaning votes, but motives aside, the DFL is mostly behind it, and the Republicans opposed.
I also have to point out the Minnesota was nearly unique in having a strong third party in the congressional races. There were individual races elsewhere in which that was the case, but nothing like here. I have little doubt that without the IP, the DFL would have won the senate race by enough to avoid a recount, and Tinklenberg would have won. Madia would have been much closer. I can’t believe the IP wants to be just spoilers who help Republicans, so somehow we have to figure out something.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Hubert Humphrey was a favorite son, I guess Walter Mondale running as Jimmy Carters VP is in a different category.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Tinklenberg was not helped by an IP candidate who, despite his own party’s endorsement of the DFLer, ran and took 10 percent of the vote. Where that vote would have gone remains a question but Tinklenberg’s chances for electoral victory would have been improved had the IPer, in defiance of his own party’s endorsement, not stayed in the race. Democratic candidates in other states did not have to contend with third party candidates; some feel third parties are good for democracy, but the only impact they’ve had in Minnesota is to destroy the chances of DFL candidates.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 3:39 pm
Ron, you’re right. It’s not the first time I’ve forgotten about Fritz Mondale. Thanks for the reminder; I’ve amended accordingly.
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
I believe the case needs to be made to the MNIP that they shd become a network of autonomous local third parties, not unlike Progressive Dane, that focus on incorporating PR initially into the state house of reps and then competes in those races where they can win seats and vote quasi-strategically in all other elections.
It’s not necessary to switch to IRV. We need to find a way for third parties to play a constructive role in our two-party dominated political system.
For more details, check out my blog “A New Kind of Third Party”.
dlw
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
I too was rather shocked not to see more (any!) coverage of Coleman’s bona fide lawsuit in the Star Tribune during the last few days of the campaign.
Instead, articles like “Heated exchange at debate” or “Negative campaign continues” or whatever. Frankly, MPR does the same sort of false equivocation dance with their coverage.
Did the media (and some DFLers [ahem *betty*]) take such a dislike to Franken because he’s never donned the garb of false objectivity?
Comment posted November 5, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
You can’t assume that the 3rd party candidates took votes exclusively from the Democrats. For example, in the 3rd, I think David Dillon pulled some of the pro-small-business vote away from Paulsen.
And remember, Paul Wellstone never scored 50% either.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment