Filling the glass: an organizer’s take on Tuesday in Minnesota

by Javier Morillo-Alicea

I've read Eric Pusey's and Tommy Johnson's posts at the Minnesota Progressive Project, and Jeff Rosenberg over at MNPublius. I am just a little stunned about the choices some progressives are making about what we should be focusing on right now. The defeatism of these conversations feeds Republican triumphalism. In Minnesota, it is not based on local reality.

We did not get shellacked in Minnesota.

Let's be very specific. Yes, we lost the legislature (more on that later) and yes, that is painful. But can we look for a second at what else happened on Tuesday?

We won the governorship for the first time in 24 years, people. Yes, we're in a recount. But we are not starting 700 votes behind. We are starting 9,000 votes AHEAD. Republicans know they have an uphill climb.

Moreover, we retained the other constitutional offices. Our talented Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, won resoundingly even as, in this Republican base turnout year, the GOP mantra of "he stole the election for Franken" could not motivate their base because most Minnesotans saw the recount as fair and accurate.

Like Mark Ritchie, Lori Swanson would not have won a second term as Attorney General so resoundingly without independents and Republicans voting for her. Rebecca Otto had the toughest fight against a woman who had the job before her and whose last name is Anderson. Tim Walz won and the coordinated campaign’s efforts with his campaign in the first district helped deliver the numbers we needed to win the governorship. Unlike other states, in Minnesota we did not get shellacked. At worst it was a draw.

Take a second to revel in the fact that we did not get creamed. Then can we analyze what we lost up against what we won and see if that gives us any insight into improving things?

So, what were the big losses? First, of course, is the legislature and, second, Congressman Oberstar’s seat. Let’s start with the legislature.

When people write things like “the DFL needs to learn from Mark Dayton,” my question is, who are you talking about? Who specifically needs to learn a lesson? Because a lot goes on down on Plato Boulevard, a lot of it having nothing or little to do with the party chair.

The Senate caucus and the House caucus each maintain independent political operations that have a seat at the coordinated campaign, but each caucus makes decisions for itself about candidate recruitment, targeting, etc. They select their own mail houses and develop their own independent expenditure ads and mail.
Moreover, when materials go out with the DFL disclaimer on it about a House or Senate race, you can bet that is not something the party Chair or his staff have developed on their own.

However, although I think it’s simplistic to say “The DFL” lost the legislature, I also do not believe that the Senate or House caucus political operations are to blame for the campaigns they ran. When something this large happens, which I know took both caucuses by surprise, there is something deeper afoot.
For what it’s worth, I don’t see how to read Tuesday’s losses as anything other than a massive repudiation of the legislature and legislators (including Tom Emmer, by the way). When masses of people went into the voting booth and filled three or four circles in the spaces for constitutional officers but then went further down the ballot in the other direction, we need to focus on that.

Some have suggested to me that where retail politics mattered, the Republicans won and where party branding mattered they lost. I’m not sure I agree. I have not heard reports that the caucuses didn’t work hard enough. They certainly had a cash advantage – four to one in the Senate and I believe two to one for the House.

This is tough to say, and some people may get angry to hear it, but I think we lost the legislature on Tuesday because after four years with solid DFL majorities, there weren’t a whole lot of accomplishments they could run on. Yes, they successfully fought against some of Pawlenty’s more draconian initiatives, but where did we actually move the ball forward in a way that spoke to our values?

We passed Pawlenty’s budgets year after year but never seemed to be able to figure out a way to out-maneuver him politically. For the last four to six years that Pawlenty approached the legislative session like a political campaign, while our well-meaning legislators approached it as policymakers. They crafted sometimes beautiful policy that they knew was going to be vetoed, but they neglected to create the kind of political pressure necessary to corner him into signing the bills. Yes, some truly gifted legislators crashed on Tuesday. The blunt truth, however, is that leaders must be able to articulate their wins to their constituents and, as a collective body, the two majorities did not have enough accomplishments to run on.

Finally, let’s be honest -- last year’s session seemed more dominated by the politics of the gubernatorial endorsement process than it was the politics of out-gunning our absentee governor.

The 8th Congressional District loss was just as frustrating. The Congressman’s campaign let the Cravaack narrative, originally crafted out of an extremely dubious internal poll, spin out of control. In the end, excitement about Cravaack brought out every single Republican in the southern part of the district.

But if you look at the range numbers in, for example, Tommy Rukavina’s legislative district, Oberstar didn’t hold on to enough of his base. There was some dropoff from Tommy’s numbers to Dayton’s, but even more to Oberstar. Rukavina got 11,798 votes in his district while Oberstar only got 9,372. Over 2400 more votes! There were enough ticket-splittersin Oberstar’s base to put Cravaack over the top in the overall numbers.

I think allowing the Cravaack David vs. Goliath narrative get out of hand brought out more Republicans in the district than might have otherwise voted while keeping Dayton in recount territory.

From where I sit, I just don’t see how the current leadership of the DFL is singularly responsible for these losses. When everyone throws around the term “the DFL” in such a non-specific manner--while viewing the entire apparatus of the party--including legislative caucuses and the congressional campaigns--as a monolith, the analysis resembles more a flood of angry tears in beer, rather than a blueprint for electing state legislative majorities for the second two years of Governor Dayton’s term.

As for the next DFL chair? It’s been so long since we’ve had a governor that people seem to have forgotten a simple fact – the person whose opinion matters most about what we should have in a state party is the titular head of the party, Governor Dayton.

I must be charitable to many of the bloggers: they have never seen a sitting DFL governor in their lifetimes. Certainly not since they reached the age of reason. Their failure to grasp this fact is fully a failing of party activists to communicate this fact to a new and energetic generation.

I am always one for self-reflection, especially after a loss. But what I don’t get about the whole “clean up Plato” stuff going around is how misdirected some of the anger is but also how unproductive it is. Look how many comments have gone into the blogposts about “the DFL” and the next Chair.

Then think about how many bloggers are currently pushing the significant story that today we learned that there are only 3,000 rejected absentee ballots. I see Joe Bodell covered that story, but mostly people are tweeting and commenting on “cleaning Plato”. We still have a governor to swear in, people. Focus!

My rap with organizers is always the same. The job of the organizer is to be an optimist; if you are not an optimist this is not the job for you. If you cannot paint a brighter future, how can you expect anyone to follow your lead?

So here’s my brighter future: Everyone is up for reelection in two years, the entire House and the entire Senate. We can approach these legislative sessions the way they did and, if we play the politics intelligently, we can show Minnesota voters that the new legislature’s values are not their values.

And, now, finally, the other side is going to see what it’s like to have a governor with conviction--and a veto pen.

Javier Morillo-Alicea is president of SEIU Local 26 and a progressive political commentator. This commentary will be crossposted in a diary on Minnesota Progressive Project.

Comments

[Kjellbs]

Well said.

[Robert]

The fact remains that the failure of the Dems to mobilize their base lies with their lack of spine and willingness to take a stand on the issues that got them elected in 2008, an anti-corporate, anti-war campaign. Instead of moving to the right, they should have used their majority to make real progressive changes. Now we all will suffer the consequences of their cowardly political manuevering.

The silver lining is not looking forward to the next elections and trying to get moderate, corporate controlled democrats into power, its the wake up call to progressives that we need to organize and build power outside of the two party corporatocracy that will sell us out at the drop of a hat.

[Brad Griffith]

I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but the Minnesota Senate caucus nor the Minnesota House caucus do not recruit or choose the candidates for local Senate and House units (districts). Nominations for elective office are put forth by the directors of the local party units and citizens of the party unit and voted upon (endorsed) during the Senate District Convention.

As to the need to clean house on Plato Boulevard, I agree that a purge is an extreme reaction, however a thorough and honest evaluation as why the Democratic Farmer Labor Party lost the election. After that review, a substantive plan of action needs to occur.

Losing both the Minnesota House and Senate is not a glass is half full event.

[Jeff Rosenberg]

My biggest problem with the DFL -- the legislative caucuses as well as the central committee -- has been our inability to craft our own narrative and communicate with voters. This isn't just about the state chair; it seems like a cultural problem that pervades the whole party.

Javier, you say that the DFL may have lost the legislature because we had few accomplishments and were consistently out-maneuvered by Pawlenty. While I agree, I think that is a function of our failure to communicate. We couldn't out-maneuver Pawlenty because we never convinced Minnesotans that we were in the right, so we were afraid to push our own agenda too hard.

Were this year's failures entirely the DFL's fault? No, the nationwide Republican wave played a big role. But we've been having these communication problems for years, and it's time to do something about it so we can turn things around in 2012.

[GiGi]

I disagree with Brad..I know of many instances where the Speaker has gone to cities to recruit a candidate.
The problem Democrats seem to have is getting out their message.
Republicans have Fox News and most of the talk shows spewing lies and hatred..what do The Democrats have, a couple stations no one watches or listens too.
Minnesota did very well..Remember there have been times in the past where we lost everything accept maybe Attorney General's office.
This isn't the time to whine, this is the time to get behind those candidates having recounts..we aren't dead yet.

[Liz]

I thought that this was a very thorough and uplifting assessment of our election and the days to come for our state. Yet, what I think a lot of people have seen as a failure of this election, is that nobody saw this coming. We were so focused on getting a DFL governor and concerned that we'd have another four years of Pawlenty-style conservatism, we'd didn't stop to think of what was going on around the state in local races. Perhaps we couldn't have been prepared for an upset like this, after years of DFL domination in the legistlature, or couldn't have expected the kind of Republican, tea-party turn-out. But why not? We spend thousands of hours phonecalling, and door-knocking across the state and it's kind of shocking we didn't get a whiff of anger or reactionism. Organizers are also supposed to know their numbers, and it appears that not only did the DFL not know, they have no system in place to know. WTF?

[Phoenix Woman]

Minnesota's not the only state to see its legislature flip to the Republicans. As I have been telling people, the economy is what's on people's minds -- and polling for nearly a year has shown that the economy, and the time wasted on a health care bill written by a WellPoint VP, had people thinking negatively about Democrats at all levels -- state, local and national: http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/11/03/the-scale-of-the-gop-wave-was-evident-for-almost-a-year/

Because President Obama didn't push for a stimulus package big enough to do the job -- which he could have done the way he did the health care bill, via reconciliation -- he set the stage for this result.

[LaRue]

I think people in the DFL were reluctant to face up to the extreme level of anger that motivated voters in this election. This anger resonated with the passive-aggressive Minnesota culture (often referred to as "Minnesota Nice"). This whole situation was not helped by the close resemblance of the last legislative session to a grade-school playground with no responsible adult in sight.

Americans are circling the wagons and forgetting that if we do not hang together, we will most assuredly be hanged together--by people whose main motivator is greed.

[Phoenix Woman]

By the way, there are several races besides the Dayton one being recounted. At least three House seats allegedly won by the Republicans have winning margins of well under a hundred votes.

As Rob at the Cucking Stool points out (http://thecuckingstool.blogspot.com/2010/11/republican-control-of-minnesota.html), if 700 votes had gone differently (http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/11/number-of-votes-by-which-dfl-lost-house-majority-357/), Dems would still have the House if not the Senate.

[Sarah Barton]

DFL Loses the House and Senate Because of Stupid Moves (0.00 / 0)
This post reflects the huge disconnect between St Paul/Plato and the Suburban Districts that brought them back into the majority. Here is how the DFL lost the elections in the Suburbs:
1) The DFL operates as if everyone is in a safe district in Minneapolis or St Paul. When they forced a vote to appease special interest groups for a tax hike, they handed the gavel over to the republicans. They knew this vote was headed for a veto, but they forced it anyway - bad politics. Making Tarryl Clark vote for a tax increase sealed her fate. This was inexcusable.

2) Polling confirmed that voters did not want to hear about and did not believe anything regarding "accomplishments". By the way, how do you expect the legislature to "force the governor into a corner" without enough votes for an override? Accomplishments had no bearing on the election.

3) The DFL did next to nothing to protect their endorsed governor candidate. While suburban districts could have supported Margaret, they polled negative on Dayton. We need a better nomination process and we need to support our endorsed candidates.

4) The DFL tried to sell the ticket from the bottom up instead of Top down. Voters were not excited about Dayton, so they used the more popular local candidates to try to prop him up. You need some one at the top of the ticket that energizes the voters, not one that makes them stay home. In the end our side was not excited and stayed home, while the other side was very energized and turned out the vote.

5) The DFL did polling early that did not indicate trends that developed during the races. Candidates that polled positive early on, where hit with a barrage of negative attacks designed to keep our voters at home and their voters energized. As a result, the DFL poured money into campaigns that lost by large margins, while ignoring those campaigns that could have been saved.

We need new leadership in St Paul with a clear coordinated message and better organizing. It is well past time for Menedez to go and get someone who can think and act strategically.

[Minnesota Central]

May I offer my impressions as an outsider (meaning that I am unaffiliated with any political party) ?

First, take note of the Politics in Minnesota story that listed five House races that a swing of less than 700 votes would have resulted in the DFL holding the majority.
Those races might be symptomatic of what happened … it wasn’t that the MN-GOP performed so well, but instead that the DFL just did not get the voters to participate.
Look at HD-1-B, where Representative Lieder received 8,191 votes in 2006 (the last gubernatorial election year) versus her Republican opponent’s 6,139. In 2010, the Republican won getting 6,528 … so an increase of 389 votes … rather insignificant … but Rep. Leider only received 6,397 meaning that she lost 1,794 votes versus 2006 … the result was that the overall participation was down … meaning Apathy Won !
A similar pattern in HD-42-A where Representative Rudd’s 2006 vote tally of 9,963 shrunk to 8,582 in 2010 while the Republican candidate’s tallies went up from 8,131 to 8,689 …. Essentially, the overall participation was down but the MN-GOP slight increases in voter support were enough to change some districts.
Add to that the number of Independent Party candidates and at least one true independent, John Grimm in SD-25 who got 4,516 votes or 13%, the need to get your base out is critical.

Second, IMO, the DFL ignored too many districts … as they had trouble getting candidates. This may have been the first time that the MN-GOP fielded challengers in every district. In my Senate District, the DFL did not field a candidate … that obviously did not help the House candidate … but that’s another problem … from when the yard signs started to appear, I never once saw one campaign sign for her … nor did I receive any mailer or campaign literature on her candidacy …. Why should I vote for her, when I don’t know even know her name until I saw it on the ballot (and BTW, she did not get my vote, it went to the Independence Party candidate who I was contacted to support.)
Another district is HD-21-B where after a Republican retirement in 2008, there was an open seat … the District went for McCain (54%-42%) but the Republican Paul Torkelson won the House seat by a scant 525 votes … this year, Torkelson did not have a challenger.
How can the DFL expect to win when it does not even offer candidates ?

Third, the House Republican Caucus spent it’s monies wisely … it dumped $20,760 to $32,800 into 22 races … it won 21 … plus count the monies funded through outside groups like TakebackMinnesota, Coalition of Minnesota Businesses (for example spending $31,000 to help Republican challenger Dan Fabian defeat Dave Olin in HD-01-A, or the $14,900 expended against Marsha Swails in (HD-56-B) producing a win for Andrea Kieffer.) Plus the Voices of Conservative Women which did two mailings in HD-38-A resulting in the defeat of Sandy Masin and victory for Diane Anderson.

The question that the DFL leadership should ask itself is : What did you see coming ?
Obviously, David Bly in HD-25-B and Representative Brown in HD-27-A had razor thin margins in the past, so this year being extremely competitive should not be a surprise … but everyone should be asking : What happened in Jim Oberstar’s District ?

Statewide, it’s great that over two million people voted, but over a million did not … APATHY won again ... and the DFL took a harder hit than the MN-GOP.

[Sally Jo Sorensen]

Here are the comments that Tom "Two Putt" Johnson hoped to leave on this post--which he included in his first email contact with me-- but which I never found in moderation. I assume their absence was a computer glitch, and I asked him to repost them, but Mr. Johnson has taken a much more intentional reading of their absence.

As I have not received permission to use his commenter information (spoofing is to be discouraged, even with the best of intentions), I am posting them under my name. Here are his remarks:

"...defeatism..."
'scuse me?

Anybody that knows me, knows the LAST thing I am is a defeatist.

The problem we have here is twofold:

1) Bad messaging, and
2) An ineffective messaging infrastructure.

And both problems need to be fixed.

TPT

Editor's note: not exactly gasoline on the flames of the discussion. Nor were these comments unable online, since Mr. Johnson posted them on the Morillo-Alicea diary at the Minnesota Progressive Project:

http://mnprogressiveproject.com/showComment.do;jsessionid=FC7AB04F39B637E18EB4199A38D5B865?commentId=14639

I sincerely hope that Mr. Johnson finds it in himself to forgive Typepad.