2014 Election

[David Greene]

I don't think we have a thread yet to discuss the 2014 election as a whole. Let's use this to track and discuss results as well as general discussion on the election.

I haven't voted yet but I plan to vote Andy Dawkins for Attorney General to help the Green Party get to 5% and major party status. A number of friends are doing the same. I think it will be very good to have a force pushing the DFL to the left.

[LakeCharles]

I'll be voting Andy Dawkins as well, but mainly just because I really agree with him on the issues! I hadn't even thought about the 5% thing as well.

[mattaudio]

I'd rather have more parties for the sake of more parties, rather than using more parties merely as a mean to move our existing parties. It goes both ways ... imagine if the tea party was a separate party rather than coopted by the Republicans (which sure backfired on them). Of course, their coalitions may swing right, just as greens may swing a DFL-lead coalition to the left. But at least a coalition is more fluid and responsive than a party.

I'll be disappointed if this is the year where the IP loses major party status, but I can't really feel bad when the candidates were so awful. If Kevin Terrell won the primary rather than Steve Carlson, that would have been the obvious way for the IP to maintain 5% and major party status. Regardless of if the IP sticks around, hopefully the Greens can join them this year. I'd love to see 4 "major" parties for the next election cycle.

[David Greene]

Yeah, I also agree with Dawkins but the 5% thing is what pushed me his way. I agree with you Matt that more parties and coalitions is better but unfortunately, the rules are set up to favor a two-party system. Unlike the IP I feel that the Greens are more invested in changing the system, so having their candidates in debates can help shift the conversation around election law.

Ideally I would love to see European-style coalition politics here but we're a long way away from that. A major Green Party could help start the process to get there.

The IP has made itself completely irrelevant. I didn't get any sense that voting for their candidates would be any different than voting for a moderate Republican. The IP is what the IR used to be and there's a reason I never voted IR.

[MNdible]

Until we have IRV at the state level, I'm not convinced having third (or fourth) parties will really do any good. I used to vote fairly regularly for strong IP candidates (easy to do when the DFL kept putting up terrible candidates), but in retrospect, I'm not sure it really made any difference.

I was kind of creeped out to realize that I had voted a straight party ticket this year. Oh well.

[David Greene]

The Greens will push for IRV at the state level. That absolutely needs to happen. It will be a long road though.

[FISHMANPET]

I would love to vote on issues first and not go straight party DFL for fear of spoiling the election, so I support IRV of some kind of not first past the goal system for all elections. I don't think we have a chance of having any other viable parties beyond Republican or DFL.

We've been unlucky in our country's history that we've often had rather large decisions that were pretty either-or, leading to a system that support only two sides of a coin. I also think party identities are too entrenched for one of the parties to fade into obscurity and a new one take its place. I thought with the Tea Party takeover of the Republican party there was a chance that they would fade into obscurity and something more reasonable take their place, but they've held onto power enough that they're not irrelevant yet.

[twincitizen]

The IP revealed itself to have largely been a "non-party" party, in that their past success was largely driven by a combination of personalities/wealth (see: Ventura, Horner, etc.) and weak DFL candidates. The IP effectively handed Tim Pawlenty two gubernatorial victories in 2002 and 2006, especially the latter.

Where the Green Party differs from the IP is that they actually have a party platform with specific policies. "Fiscally moderate/conservative and socially liberal" isn't a party platform.

That said, I don't think Andy Dawkins will reach 5%, even though he was the Green Party's best shot. He will probably get more votes than the IP or Libertarian candidates though.

Also, what MNdible said. Without Ranked-Choice Voting at the state level, third parties do nothing but hand elections to the GOP.

[MNdible]

The IP revealed itself to have largely been a "non-party" party, in that their past success was largely driven by a combination of personalities/wealth (see: Ventura, Horner, etc.) and weak DFL candidates. The IP effectively handed Tim Pawlenty two gubernatorial victories in 2002 and 2006, especially the latter.

The last really good candidate the DFL put up for governor was Wendy Anderson. And Hatch is totally to blame for losing in 2006.

"Fiscally moderate/conservative and socially liberal" isn't a party platform.

It's not a platform, but it's a concept that could regularly win elections if it weren't fighting upstream against the entrenched two party system.

[mattaudio]

While Peter Hutchinson and Tim Penny may have resulted in Pawlenty's plurality, there are plenty of conservatives who believe that Tom Horner was the reason we have a Governor Dayton. I don't think a third party, especially the IP with its "non-party" ideology, necessarily hurts the DFL or GOP unequally.

But yes, we need IRV statewide.

[twincitizen]

Getting away from MN for a second, and assuming the GOP takes the US Senate, I've felt for a while that the most important races in this election are the Governor seats in swing states like WI, MI, & FL. I'm really hoping Mary Burke, Charlie Crist, and (whoever it is) in MI pull through and put the 2010 Tea Party takeover to an end. Corbett's a goner in PA. With federal politics in complete gridlock for at least the next two years (likely longer...I don't think Dems can take back the House until after 2020 redistricting), I really hope these 3 swing states can elect Democratic governors that will do their people some good.

EDIT: 538 has WI & MI staying red, FL going blue, though MI & FL are way too close to call. Walker looks likely to hold on in WI: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/fina ... zen-races/

[Nick]

Can we talk about how hilar Lori Swanson's campaign ad is? The accent is out of control. Something from a Coen brothers movie.

[seanrichardryan]

OH. ANd TAFFY. Right?

[web]

walker is whats wrong lately

[mullen]

what's interesting is how minnesota is such an anomaly this election cycle.

less people and vote repubs get elected. i expect the map to turn back more blue come 2016.

not a surprise repubs took mn state house. i wonder how dead transit issues will be for two years.

all that money, awful advertising and stuart mills lost. there is a god.

[twincitizen]

How the hell did Illinois & Maryland elect Republican governors?? Those were the biggest surprises to me. With WI, MI, & FL, those guys had the advantage of incumbency. Massachussets got dealt a really awful Democratic nominee and shouldn't be considered part of the national trend (look how they voted for Senate, huge Dem advantage) But Illinois & Maryland?? What the hell, man.

While I care about the US Senate a little less, the losses in CO, IA, & NC really stink. Democrats were certain to retake the Senate in 2016, but now it's less likely (the map is still very favorable for Dems, as the "2010 wave" terms end in many blue states).

As for the Independence Party...they did this to themselves. Hannah Nicollet, a not-so-secret gun-toting Libertarian Party member (capital L), was a terrible nominee for them. She picked up less than 3%. Bob Helland came incredibly close to 5% in the SoS race, finishing with 4.91%. It seems he only did that due to lack of Green/Grassroots/Legalize candidates in that race. SoS actually had much less third party vote than the AG race, which did have all of the aforementioned candidates. Together, the IP/Greens/Weeds pulled around 7% in the AG race. A better gov candidate easily could have grabbed 5%. Bye bye major party status.

So 2016... Scott Walker vs. Hillary Clinton? Is she really the best we've got??

[twincitizen]

Also, this is interesting:

MINIMUM WAGE

Voters in four states approved increases in the state minimum wage. In Arkansas, it will rise from $6.25 an hour to $8.50 by 2017, in Nebraska from $7.25 to $9 and in South Dakota from $7.25 to $8.50. In Alaska, it will increase $2 an hour to $9.75 in 2016.

Voters in CO & ND defeated "personhood" measures.

So voters hate republican policies, but vote for their candidates anyways? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

Here's a story about the various legalization measures (passed in DC, OR, & AK) and a look at 2016 (CA baby, maybe AZ too): http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/he ... 90901.html The min. wage stuff is on page 2.

More on marijuana in OR & AK: http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/11/05 ... da-says-no

[mullen]

hillary clinton currently out polls every possible repub candidate by a wide measure. she is the best dems have for 2016.
eargerly awaiting the clown show that will be the 2016 repub presidential primaries.

[mplsjaromir]

Hillary Clinton v. Jeb Bush in 2016, you can bank on it.

[twincitizen]

They actually have better/stronger candidates than in 2012, in Walker and Christie. They have their warts (obviously), but at least they have a pulse and personality, unlike Romney or the other 2012 losers. The scary thing is that at least two of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul will be involved, pulling the conversation far to the right, just as the TP did with Romney two years ago. Though that actually seemed to benefit Democrats, having the eventual Repub nominee pulled too far from center.

I'm sorry, I don't want Hillary. I don't care that polls well today against a generic or is most likely to win...I want someone with new ideas, someone that won't be in their mid-70s in 2020 when standing for reelection. That said, nominating a white woman is a slam dunk for the Democrats... even though Elizabeth Warren is probably too liberal for the country as a whole, I still think she'd win due to demographics of the electorate in 2016.

EDIT: Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 would mean a lot of people just stay home...because, gross. Nobody wants royal families in America.