urbanMSP

Gov. Dayton announced a prostate cancer diagnosis today. I wish him the best of luck in fighting this.

There was already a theory he might step down before his term was up. I wonder if that becomes more likely now?

While it's been discussed/rumored (and shot down) since before his 2nd term even began, I don't believe Governor Dayton has any desire to step down. If he can physically and mentally do the work and finish out his term, he will, even if that means being out of the public eye for weeks at a time. However, if he feels his absence becoming a detriment to his/DFL goals during this session (especially in the face of a GOP legislature), I don't think he'll prolong resigning for too long.

Tina Smith becoming Governor (and assuming she runs in 2018) might scare a few yet-unannounced DFLers out of the 2018 race, but Erin Murphy, Chris Coleman, and Rebecca Otto are probably all in. We'll see what develops... In the meantime, I wish a speedy recovery to Governor Dayton. We need him strong more than ever right now to refute the pile of crazy bills coming his way over the next few months.

http://www.fox9.com/news/232388680-story (h/t @wedgelive):

Hennepin County sheriff Rich Stanek also spoke at the event, and gave a full-throated endorsement of President Trump’s agenda during his first days in office. Stanek pledged his support for the executive actions on the refugee ban, and the stripping of federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, such as Minneapolis and St. Paul.

"Remember the Arab Spring, well my friends, in the United States, we've begun the 'patriot spring,’" said Stanek to his audience. “We can celebrate a return to constitutional government and of course, the rule of law."

two thoughts:

1) Rich Stanek is running for governor in 2018, and with this kind of rhetoric he might have a leg up on Daudt;

2) a Stanek campaign with this kind of message will be much easier for the DFL to defeat.

For Rich Stanek fun, I can relay a story that appeared on my facebook newsfeed last week, shared by a statistician (with a PhD):

"I just experienced the most egregious display of sexism. I was on a panel at the Federal Reserve Bank talking about my work on predictive policing. Also on the panel was Richard Stanek, the sheriff of Hennepin County who is apparently about to run for governor. Throughout the panel, he refused to refer to me as anything but "Miss California", despite referring to the other panelist as "Professor". I was invited there to share my expertise on machine learning and biased data in the criminal justice system, and because he didn't have a substantive response to any of my criticisms of predictive policing, he tried to undermine my credibility by making it seem like I was a contestant in a beauty pageant."

I wonder if the Minneapolis Fed records their events...

I'm not positive which fed it was at, though certainly if Stanek was there the Minneapolis fed would make the most sense.

If they do, the date on the post online was Jan 25.

Jackie Cherryholmes wants you to want Rick Nolan for Governor.
http://www.startribune.com/draft-nolan- ... 413745943/

I could wind up eating crow later, but I'm just gonna say it: RT Rybak won't enter this race.

It was reported last week that Tim Walz is considering running. Which would be mostly bad because we'd probably lose his congressional seat to a Republican. I don't think we *need* a Tim Walz type candidate to ensure that the Governorship stays in DFL hands.

In the scope of everything going on, I really don't think that Minnesota has to go with a candidate perceived as more "rural friendly", compared to say, Erin Murphy (or other urban/suburban legislator/mayor). Minnesota tilts Democratic by anywhere from 1.5% (2016) to 5.5% (2014) and it's tough to imagine doing worse than the 2016 margin. Trump won't personally be on the ballot (meaning some of his most ardent supporters will stay home), while people against Trump will be more fired up to vote than they have been in recent midterms. The main reason Pawlenty became governor was due to strong performance of center-left IP candidates in 02 and 06. Nowadays, the IP is effectively dead, getting fewer votes (and running fewer candidates) than Libertarians in some races. A third party candidate taking >5% of the vote and upsetting MN's typical leftward slant is not likely to play out in 2018, so I think DFLers are safe to run their best possible candidate to be Governor for 8 years, rather than going with a "safe" choice like Walz to ensure as many rural votes as possible (while simultaneously losing your far left fringe in the process). I'd take Walz over Coleman on electability, but I'd go for Murphy (or another urban/suburban legislator) over Walz.

I know nothing of the current IP dynamics, but in this political climate a hypothetical IP candidate would seem to have potential for momentum. If the Republicans nominate a Trump Jr and the DFL nominates a Sanders Jr, a Tom Horner-like candidate would seem primed to pick up a lot of votes.

I could wind up eating crow later, but I'm just gonna say it: RT Rybak won't enter this race.

Hasn't he said as much several times?

It was reported last week that Tim Walz is considering running. Which would be mostly bad because we'd probably lose his congressional seat to a Republican. I don't think we *need* a Tim Walz type candidate to ensure that the Governorship stays in DFL hands.

If a DFL candidate wins, it will be on the stregnth of Metro turnout. If a "greater Minnesota" candidate can drive that turnout and do a littler better outside the metro, then great. But pursuing the outside the metro voters first is a losing recipe.

It's probably what the DFL will do.

I know nothing of the current IP dynamics, but in this political climate a hypothetical IP candidate would seem to have potential for momentum. If the Republicans nominate a Trump Jr and the DFL nominates a Sanders Jr, a Tom Horner-like candidate would seem primed to pick up a lot of votes.

I'm not even sure who Sanders Jr would be.

The mascot of the merger between Carls Jr and KFC. I have to imagine a Sanders Jr would win in a landslide, tho.

That's the big question over the next two years: Does the public want a more progressive Democratic party, or a more moderate party? And the scary part is, we won't really know until we know.

Haven't we tried the moderate approach? And it just failed big?

Bigly.

If you consider Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign moderate. Not everybody would.

Although moderate might not be the right word. I'm just saying that it's far from certain that Bernie would have beaten Trump, and right now it's a total guess as to how voters will react in 2018. A far left candidate attract some of the same forces that Trump harnessed last year, or two years of Trump could convince voters that a bridge-building candidate is better. So I'm just saying that depending on the circumstances and the candidates, the IP could actually be primed to do well in 2018.

It's problematic to extrapolate a national presidential election to state- and district-level politics.

Clinton's problem in a nutshell: voters who wanted a more moderate Democratic Party saw her as too liberal, and voters who wanted a more liberal Party saw her as too moderate. So, really we just tried both--and neither.

Rick Nolan had the right idea, paint your opponent as too friendly to the rich. The DFL can do this is in every race - they won't because the Kenwood set would have a coronary - but it would work.