urbanMSP

How is it a small tent when just two years ago DFLers were winning statewide offices? It's only small when we look at election results by acreage rather than by voter.

House and Senate districts are determined by population, not by acre.

Yeah, that's what my point was. It's not a "small tent."

Article is more evidence that the only organizating principle behind the GOP is rectifing precieved slights against white people. Wether it is the official name of a fish, a border wall or affirmative action, all the GOP does is stoke hate against non white people. Good thing white boomers are dying at a good clip now.

Now if the Dems just candidates beyond healthcare executives...

I can't think of many arguments less convincing than "The other guy would have won a statewide election if you discount a third of the state's population." I mean, if you ignored Anoka and Carver Counties, the DFL would have control of the Senate. Different inputs give different outputs.

It's not the total number of DFL voters that are the issue. It's the geographic distribution, at least when it comes to the House and Senate.

For the House and Senate, it is. For the Governor... total votes are all that matters. It's irrelevant if they come disproportionately from a small, densely populated area or if they come evenly from throughout the state.

Of course. But the Governor can only do so much without the support of the Legislature. That's why it matters.

The GOP hasn't earned more than 50% in a statewide election since 1994. Meaning by the time the election rolls around next year it'll have been 24 years since they were able to garner a majority of Minnesotans to vote for them. The DFL did it in 4 out of 5 statewide elections in 2014 (they won the other one as well, but with only 48%).

James Oberstar won his seat 18 straight times, never by less than a 29% spread, until he didn't. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

The DFL has won statewide races recently by gaining in the suburbs, just as they were losing in rural districts. But if they put an Our Revolution candidate up for governor, how well is that going to play in Plymouth?

Well Plymouth is in Hennepin County, which doesn't really count as part of Minnesota according to the initial article you posted. So I suppose it doesn't matter.

Sigh.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% going to caucus and/or primary for Walz or someone like him over whoever OurRevolution puts up. I'm just not convinced of the specific viewpoint that article is espousing.

There isn't a district in the US where the 5% approach a plurality. Plenty of people in Plymouth recognize the dangers of extreme wealth concentration. A Our Revolution candidate would do better than some generic democrat that doesn't really stand for anything.

That is ultimately where I stand. Nominating a milquetoast candidate because of the fear that anyone who stands for something specific might turn off some portion of the populace seems like a terrible plan to me.

How did Dayton campaign when he ran? He governed very progressively (relative to the time period he governed in) (despite being rich), though governing != campaigning.

I want a greater mn progressive for the general election, though the only (?) candidate thus far that might fit that bill is Tina Liebling.

Four 'Our Revolution' type policies rejected by the mainstream Dems in '16 (single payer, free college tuition, $15 min wage, legalized cannabis) are now being adopted by mainstream dems. This stuff is popular folks. If you want people in rural Minnesota who never vote, to come and vote for you, give them stuff like this.

That is ultimately where I stand. Nominating a milquetoast candidate because of the fear that anyone who stands for something specific might turn off some portion of the populace seems like a terrible plan to me.

This is why we're going to lose. How does "not a full Bernie-style OurRevolution candidate" equal "doesn't stand for something specific"?

What does a "not a full Bernie-style OurRevolution candidate" stand for? Terri Bonoff's campaign slogan was literally "Uniting the Middle".

What a fiery message!

Dems have this problem nationwide. They try to turn almost every congressional race into a referendum on proper decorum. They are the junior party of capital and will always lose until they bring to light the actual conflict in society. Which is how the rich are taking advantage of poor people. Candidates that have the courage to forgo wealthy donors will awarded with election victories.

If the last presidential election should have taught us anything it is that people have lost faith in the political "center", meaning the bland corporate careerists in both parties who ran the country into the ground. After they gave us the disasters of Iraq and the Financial Crisis there is no going back to that world. Trump's support plus Sanders' support is about 70% percent of the electorate. It is obvious that the country and state is sick of the old establishment, at this point the only question is what we replace it with. I don't know how you can look at this situation and think that a centrist is the answer to the DFL's problems. The "center" is nearly empty now, the only people occupying it are older comfortable suburbanites from the professional classes and there aren't enough of them to win an election. Everybody else has seen their standard of living fall and is now looking for other options.