I agree that it is hard to see a pattern, or that anything that looks like a pattern is just one of those pseudopatterns that pertain only until they are broken, because they were never really there. Not finding a pattern, though, is a significant finding.
I also agree that it may simply be the case that Govs are different. For one, there are bigger stakes. Think about it. If an elected official is more powerful if they are more rare (i.e., the President — only one, vs. a member of the US house) then Governors are a bigger deal then Senators by double. That’s got to draw money, attention, power brokers, etc.
The stakes are high enough for governor that this silly little system of endorsements and primaries isn’t important.
Meanwhile, the endorsement system seems to work quite well at the state House and Senate level, and for CDs most of the time, and other offices.
This is one reason I get annoyed at people who want to throw the whole endorsement system out, adducing only the evidence that it seems to go south in the governor’s race so often.
Anyway, excellent post, looking forward to the solution that we can adopt!
My suggestions to consider:
– shorten the time between endorsement and primary, then don’t get all worried about the primary. If the time is short, the endorsement will mean more.
– examine and evaluate the ways the endorsement benefits a candidate and see if that needs to be updated or adjusted.
– update the endorsement process. Delegates should be required to represent a candidate, and the first vote should require that representation (i.e., be automatic) for governor, like a national presidential convention. That would solve a number of problems including unfaithful delegates. Of which there are potentially many, since there is no check against that at this time.
What about the judges? All those judges. I think there are 200 judges on my ballot.
Louisiana will have a runoff for Senate, apparently.
OH, I might as well make my prediction public at this point:
Whatever has been said about Democratic losses in this election, the outcome will not be as bad as suggested by the usual mainstream sources. Not saying how much not as bad. Just not as bad.
So far I’m seeing very few pickups, mostly holds, in the US House.
It has become very clear that when THEY complain about a particular thing the Democrats are doing, THEY are doing that thing.
So, look for voter shenanigans. Maybe something with absentee ballots. It is happening now.
What an expensive impulse buy. But yeah, that fits.
First, I didn’t know about that movie, I have to watch it.
A few other comments:
“I spent a lot of time on the ground game part of the campaign, dragging out every vote I could find, trying to win this tight race, so imagine my disappointment at this 60 point blowout. I earned a Franken-close result, darn it! “
I’m glad for the outcome, but I also had this fantasy of Entenza winning, and then Rebecca taking the Auditor’s slot on a free grass roots write in campaign that you and I would be in charge of but actually have to spend fairly little time on. And in that fantasy, Rebecca wins by one vote. Recount becomes national, even international news, etc. etc.
“The one serious challenge, as previously noted, had a result likely to make future potential challengers rethink the notion they might be the next Mark Dayton”
I think it is very important to differentiate, as you do. I’ll ad: Nothing wrong with running in the Primary after not getting the endorsement. But, it is a bit of an odd move to run in the Primary without being involved in the endorsement process at all.
The mortal sin for Entenza, though, was running against a well established well liked very re-electable incumbent who took over for a GOP incumbent who probably wasn’t doing a good job, etc. etc. Despite the politics we all engage in the DFL should be, likes to think of itself as, and much more frequently than the GOP succeeds at being the party that pays attention to governance and leadership. Between violating that ethic and the dirty campaign, Entenza recieved only a few votes more than random (had his name been second rather than first on the ballot he may have gotten quite a few fewer).
“ Actually, there’s only one chair, and the rest will be left standing, no matter how well the players were picked. “
Except in Rank-Choice Musical Chairs. It’s complicated.
“I think I talked myself out of my concern about Simon’s name recognition. Still, some attention to this race on our part would be wise.”
I think it is a real problem and needs to be addressed. Especially in the general. Both names start with S and both individuals are linked to Voter/Voting related issues. Maybe a jingle would be helpful.
Simon’s right on.
Severson’s not the one
The caucus system, which I parodied here (including reference to it being highly esoteric to those not steeped in, and committed to it) is actually from Native American tradition. I have no doubt that in its original form it made a lot more sense. I can’t help you with your concern over the use of commonly used traditional terms identified or imagined by you! But good on you for being sensitive to language.
We do use the caucus system to ultimately send candidates to the general election, via the primary, though there is more than one way to get there.
“9:41 – Matt Entenza has conceded the auditor’s race. I’m quite interested, though, to see whether that 70% spread continues to hold. If so, it will be, among a lot of other things, an indicator that the “sulfide mining uber alles!” crowd doesn’t have anything like the political heft that they (and corporate media) claim that they have.”
I don’ think so. Entenza committed within-party political masochism at every turn. He could not have done anything but to get trounced. The real question is, who are those 10-20% that voted for him? A little high for ballot errors, but still….
Here, I fixed that for you:
MN-05 Ellison (D) – 100%
MN-02 Kline (R) – 0%
MN-03 Paulsen (R) – 0%
MN-04 McCollum (D) – 100%
MN-06 GOP candidate – 0%
MN-08 Nolan (D) – 100%
MN-01 Walz (D) – 100%
MN-07 Peterson (D) – 100%
That was not a clear cut case, though. There was a handful of factors that could easily be argued as relevant to that election that were not related to climate change, and the vote was razor thin close. Had the race been a landslide and climate change had clearly been the top issue, it would be impressive. As it turned out, claiming climate change as a major factor in that race simply makes climate change look like a weak issue.
However I do agree with you that a Republican running on reality AND winning the election, which probably means winning the primary first unless there is some special case, would be a much bigger impact. So far Republicans running on reality tend to get weeded out early.
Unfortunately, what might be needed is an Arnold Vinick moment, such as a massive swarm of tornados sweeping through a major denialist district/state after said denialist does some major denying, ten days before election day.
I think we should all follow the lead of Representative Erik Paulsen. He appears to be a member of MoveOn.org (he was sent a copy of Betty Folliard’s petition to recruit Sharon). He signed the petition supporting Sharon, and even left a nice comment. So there you go!
Victor, thanks. I think you comment just needed to be approved for some reason, which I did. Cheers.
MplsDave: Thanks for the correction on the caucuses. Certainly, I meant the convention. I tend to think of the whole process as the “Caucusing Process” but that’s probably wrong.
The mayoral race is officially non-partisan. Candidates can list a party with their name but this does not imply endorsement, and they can be on the ballot without that term. This is true in Minnesota with municipal elections generally.
Regarding point 4, I did not say that I was comfortable with any of these candidates. This list is the sum of a set of lists given to me by numerous individuals who said THEY would be comfortable.
The point of this list is not to endorse anyone. This is the list that I would use if I was voting in Minneapolis as a starting point to research whom I would vote for. I would have no intention of researching over 30 people. So, by asking several people who are more in the know than I am what their short list would be, I feel comfortable having a short list that would be my starting point.
I appreciate your comments about Wagner … comments about any of these candidates would be helpful for anyone looking at this list. However, it would also be nice to include a link to the evidence you are adducing for Wagner’s aquatic habits, etc. Also, why is emerging from a lake inherently a bad thing? I would think going the other way, sinking into the lake, would be inherently bad! Also, depends on the underwear.
Also, proposed additions to the list would b helpful as well.
Well, the difference is that if George Bush goes to some place outside of the land he once represented (the US) he stands to get arrested, while Michele Bachmann has no threat of … hey wait a minute ….
This is unbelievable. Even when they are not in the majority they manage to yank the DFLers around like they had rings in their noses. And I don’t mean the good kind.
That is actually how environmental impact statements are generally done. We rely on the regulatory agencies and the public review process to keep it honest. This is actually a good system when it is not contaminated by an 8 year long period of Republican executive activity to ruin the regulatory agency part of it.