Comments on: Biggest underachiever on congressional Democrats’ big night? Probably Minnesota

By: Blogger

Blogger — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 03:30:47 +0000

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.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:13:39 +0000

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?

By: dlw

dlw — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:45:25 +0000

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

By: Steve Perry

Steve Perry — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:39:57 +0000

Ron, you’re right. It’s not the first time I’ve forgotten about Fritz Mondale. Thanks for the reminder; I’ve amended accordingly.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:39:05 +0000

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.

By: Ron Staaland

Ron Staaland — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:35:10 +0000

Hubert Humphrey was a favorite son, I guess Walter Mondale running as Jimmy Carters VP is in a different category.

By: Eric Ferguson

Eric Ferguson — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:04:46 +0000

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.

By: Have I mentioned Nasser Kazeminy lately? « The Mississippifarian

Have I mentioned Nasser Kazeminy lately? « The Mississippifarian — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:04:12 +0000

[...] 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 [...]

By: jonerik

jonerik — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:38:41 +0000

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.

By: lazercat

lazercat — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:10:25 +0000

I think the lesson is going negative in a three way race is dangerous.