urbanMSP

Mark Andrew is the regressive candidate who will return us to the fiscal excesses of the 1990s. He's absolutely beholden to the Fire Fighters Union, police union and construction trades. Hodges is willing to stand up and tell the truth regarding these anti progressive groups. Minneapolis didn't need and doesn't currently need the Fire Department staffing the union president is constantly beating his chest about. Hodges is willing to tell him Minneapolis residents are getting good service. Andrew has no backbone and will bend his message to whatever his audience wants to hear. He's the Minneapolis Mitt.

He's the Minneapolis Mitt.

Well, he does have great hair.

Doesn't have Rybak's dreamy blue eyes, though.

Nobody can match that.

Here is a must-read article for anyone interested in the financing for this campaign.

Big contributors have much at stake in Minneapolis mayoral race
- A look at donations in the mayoral race offers hints of future alliances. -
http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 47651.html

In direct contributions, Andrew received at least $5,600 from employees and lobbyists for Xcel Energy.

The company has major interests at City Hall next year, when its multimillion-dollar utility franchise agreement to provide electricity to the city is set to expire.

Lobbyists with North State Advisors, a firm owned by former Mayor Al Hofstede, gave $600 to Andrew. The company represents Covanta Energy, which operates the Hennepin County trash incinerator that is at the center of a controversy between the city and county to possibly increase its burning capacity from 80 to 100 percent. North State Advisors also lobbies on behalf of Aspen Waste, which unsuccessfully bid on the garbage contract.

Developers with city business have also opened their checkbooks.

Close to $20,000 in campaign cash flooded in from developers proposing a $48.5 million apartment complex in Cedar-Riverside, negotiating with the city on a project for several hundred artist housing units in the old Pillsbury A-Mill building, building the Vikings stadium, and proposing a five-story building outside the North Loop requiring city approvals.

Those donors are also working with City Hall on a development for Penn and Broadway avenues and a project featuring office, commercial and restaurant spaces in Uptown, as well as seeking approvals for a redevelopment of commercial office space in northeast Minneapolis.

I completely understand that this is quite ordinary for American campaign finance. Yet, someone has to say it -- this smacks of corruption. Businesses with interests before the city should not be allowed to write checks to those running to make those decisions. In fact, I'd like to see contributions limited to those who live in the city and set at a nominal amount, the IRS considers a nominal gift to be $25 or less.

Developer Kelly Doran gave a total of $1,500 to Hodges, Samuels and Andrew. He is pitching a controversial residential-retail project in Dinkytown and said he is not seeking any favors. “It’s actually kind of offensive to think you give somebody a few hundred dollars and somehow they’re going to vote for you,” he said.

Usually, when campaign finance is called corruption, the argument I hear from the defenders of the status quo goes something like this -- The contributors are not giving money to politicians to influence them (that would be an illegal bribe), they're giving money to those whose politics align with their interest. It's gives the whole hot mess a plausible deniability to hide behind, because it really comes down to the semantics around correlation vs. causation. "I didn't give them money so they'll support me, I gave them money because they support me."

But doesn't it look like giving money to all of the likely winners neutralizes this distinction and is just meant to garner favor?

Shhheeeeeeeeeeeeettt, our politicians look as corrupt as the fictional Senator Clay Davis.

Anyone else irrationally afraid of a Dan Cohen win? He would be a big step backwards.

I'm no Mark Andrew fan, but am inclined to rank him 3rd just because there isn't anyone better.

I'm more comfortable with Mark Andrew as mayor than Samuels, Cherryhomes, Woodruff, Fine, or Cohen.

I'm going Hodges and Samuels with my first two. I first voted in 2000 and have yet to cast a ballot for a Republican. Might break that streak and go Winton especially after he's eased on his early anti bike infrastructure stance.

At this point, I don't see Rybak making an endorsement, but I wonder if he'll make an anti-endorsement against Andrew. He hasn't come out and said it, but if you've been paying any attention, it's very clear he really really doesn't want Andrew to win.

I'm no Mark Andrew fan, but am inclined to rank him 3rd just because there isn't anyone better.

I'm more comfortable with Mark Andrew as mayor than Samuels, Cherryhomes, Woodruff, Fine, or Cohen.

You are voting for Hodges and Andrew, but who is your second choice? Hodges and Andrew are my first two choices ( wavering a little more than previously and may vote for Hodges as 1st choice rather than Andrew). Undecided on my third candidate to vote for. Thanks

At this point, I don't see Rybak making an endorsement, but I wonder if he'll make an anti-endorsement against Andrew. He hasn't come out and said it, but if you've been paying any attention, it's very clear he really really doesn't want Andrew to win.

I think he's said all he's going to say. The stuff about the fire union's attack lit and "follow the money" is probably about as anti-Andrew as we're going to see. Rybak wants to be governor really, really bad in 2018...he's not going to burn bridges with the entire DFL establishment now.

1) Betsy Hodges

I wasn't impressed with her early on, but have since found her to be sincere and very capable of the job. I hope she wins.

2) Dan Cohen

Yep, that's right.The dfl is a little too comfortable in this one party town. I'm glad the republican's brand of crazy doesn't even compete in Minneapolis, but the dfl needs opposition to keep 'em honest. Dan Cohen is exactly the type of no-nonsense, commonsense elderly curmudgeon to call out the dfl establishment on their hypocrisy and hold some people accountable.

Things would be ok if Dan were to accidentally win..., I think. He is very old, but he's lucid and sensical. He'd probably get torn up by the media, a la Jesse Ventura, and leave office under a cloud of well-deserved disgrace -- but he would shake things up. Might be just what Minneapolis needs.

[BTW, I'm opposed to a dt casino, his main campaign plank, but that would have to pass the legislature. It's a fairly safe bet that this will not happen.]

3) Stephanie Woodruff

In the streets.mn/urbanmsp/etc mayoral debate, she came off pretty well. She seems to be a grounded person with a sense of what's right. She has at least some idea of what the job entails, and if she ended up winning, I bet she would seize the opportunity, surround herself with smart people, and work the job to the fullest. I'm guessing.

Really this is a vote against Andrew, Cherryhomes, Winton, and Samuels. The worst among those is Winton. He's selling the same transportation/development nonsense as the Cato Institute. Cam could do real damage to the city.

The worst among those is Winton. He's selling the same transportation/development nonsense as the Cato Institute. Cam could do real damage to the city.

The thing that scares/confuses me most about this race is that I keep seeing tweets and things saying that people's first choice is Hodges, and then their second is Winton. I can't understand that. "I really want the super progressive, pro-transit candidate to win, but if she can't, fuck it, lets go for the guy who will just fill potholes."

I do agree with you that Cohen wouldn't necessarily be that bad, since his worst ideas (DT casino; more, smaller buses) are things that the mayor can't really do on his own, and thus probably won't happen. Not voting for him though.

Really this is a vote against Andrew, Cherryhomes, Winton, and Samuels. The worst among those is Winton. He's selling the same transportation/development nonsense as the Cato Institute. Cam could do real damage to the city.

Yeah, that's how I'm viewing this too. Betsy is my first choice but I'm having a hard time picking a second and third. Woodruff seems ok but that strange Saran Wrap video is still stuck in my head...

I voted Hodges, then Samuels because nothing about him makes me angry, and then left third place out.

Viktor, nice sweeping comments. Some of us look at you as the crazy one.

Cohen is not as bad as Captain Jack, but not too far off. I think many of his ideas are not based on reality.

I can live with some of the candidates, but I think I would have voted in my last election of someone from the Pirate party wins a seat.

Thanks, homer. I guess we prefer different kinds of crazy.

I voted Hodges, then Samuels because nothing about him makes me angry, and then left third place out.

Samuels has been totally ineffective for his ward, so I won't vote for him. Several times he's gone against the wishes of neighborhoods in his ward to pander to the Rybak crowd. He also has a pretty big crush on Harvest Prep which is fine as far as that goes but it's not fine when he doesn't recognize the huge improvements made at MPS.

I voted:

1. Betsy Hodges

2. Don Samuels

3. Rob Ford