Local Politics
Apr. 1st, 2006 11:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
naomikritzerToday was the local DFL (Democrat-Farm-Labor = what Minnesotans call Democrats) endorsing convention for my state legislators. Our State Senator, Wes Skoglund, decided to retire this year, so there was already quite a lot of interest when the caucuses were held. Shortly after that, our congressman, Martin Sabo, announced his retirement. The U.S. Senate seat is also open, though Amy Klobochar largely has that one sewn up.
Anyway, this was clearly going to be an interesting day, in a thoroughly wonkish sort of way.
(Cut for the people who really could not care less about Minneapolis politics. Or, for a much shorter version, you can read Ed's take on it.)
Candidates are not required to abide by the party's endorsement, but almost all promised that they would. (There was one who said, "No, I'm going to be knocking on your doors till September," but he was one of the very small, doesn't-really-have-a-shot-at-this-anyway candidates. All the others promised to abide.) This is a very, very, very Democratic district. In the last election, I think the Democrat took about 70% of the vote, and the next runner up may have been the Green, with the Republican coming in third. So odds were pretty good that we were going to be effectively selecting our next State Senator today.
The last time there was an opening like this was in 2000. That year, there were a lot of candidates coming in, but three very strong loyalties. The big controversy of the day was the Hiawatha Avenue re-route. (Which, despite massive protests, went ahead, and was either done or inevitable at that point, I can't remember.) John Kolstad ran as an anti-re-route candidate, and a very vocal, passionate group supported him, though not enough to win endorsement. There were seven candidates in all to start with, I think, but the two front-runners (and I think everyone knew this going in) were Julie Sabo and Lisa Vecoli. (Julie Sabo is Martin Sabo's daughter, if you're wondering about the similar names.) Both women had very strong, very loyal, very stubborn supporters and both sides wanted to block the other from getting endorsed more than they wanted to see an endorsement. Lisa Vecoli wound up with a slight majority, but you need 60% to get endorsed, and Julie's supporters wouldn't budge. So there was ballot after ballot after grueling, miserable ballot (we didn't get out of there until, oh, 10 p.m. or so) and we wound up not endorsing. Everyone had pledged to respect endorsement, and the lack of an endorsement freed them to go ahead and run, but then no one ran against Julie because of her name recognition. (Which I thought was kind of wussy -- yes, it would have been a boost, but not an insurmountable obstacle -- but I supported Julie so I was willing to shrug and say, "okay.")
This year, tension was much lower. There was a pair of women whom Ed and I only ever see at political events even though they only live one block away who were really strong Vecoli backers in 2000 (nonetheless, we hung out all convention, chatting amicably and complaining about how late it was getting) who shrugged at the beginning of the convention and said that they were leaning towards Alex Eaton but had a couple of others in mind that would also be fine.
When I went to the caucus, I knew who some of the candidates were but had no idea who I wanted to support. Post-caucus, of course, they all called me up (or had volunteers call me up) to chat and encourage me to support them. There were six serious contenders: Alex Eaton, Matt Gladue, Earl Netwal, Patricia Torres Rey, Tina Sanz, and Scott Benson. (There were also two others who didn't mount much of a campaign.) All eight candidates held nearly identical views on pretty much any issue you could present to them. (In 2000, Lisa Vecoli was a stadium backer and Julie wasn't, which was part of why I supported Julie.) (And you know, this year I don't know if anyone was pro-stadium. I doubt it. It's really not a winning issue in Minneapolis. I might know if we'd had the question-and-answer session before the balloting, but that got voted down to move things along. Which was kind of disappointing to me. I didn't make it to any candidate forums, and so hadn't had the opportunity to compare answers to various questions.)
Probably the most memorable contact before the convention was with Patricia Torres Rey, who door-knocked us while Ed and I were getting ready for a party. I told her that she was welcome to come in and chat while we worked, so that's what she did. She was really nice, though she lacked the (very useful, in politics) skill of making her point really concisely and wrapping it up. English is not her native language (she's an immigrant) and I suspect that she has a tendency to repeat herself because when you speak with an accent, a fair number of people really don't understand you the first time.
In the last week, I decided that the candidates I favored most strongly were Patricia Torres Rey, Matt Gladue, and Scott Benson.
What made me decide to support Patricia on at least the first ballot was the e-mail I got on Wednesday saying that her campaign had arranged for on-site day care for delegates who needed it. (Not just delegates who were there to support her -- anyone.) There is a TON of lip service paid in the DFL to increasing the participation of "women and other traditionally under-represented groups" but it's rare to find someone who actually takes action to address the barriers to participation -- like the need for childcare when you're a parent with young kids. I took Molly and Kiera with me to the caucus, and that worked fine, but the Senate District Convention is a zoo (a very crowded, hot, boring zoo) and not an easy place to wrangle two small children. Having on-site day care provided was convenient, but more importantly, it showed that (as another Patricia supporter put it) she GETS it.
I was not expecting Patricia to last all that long, but she was the top candidate after the first ballot. (At the end of the first ballot, Tina Sanz and Earl Netwal were dropped, along with the two whose names I can't remember.) She was the top candidate after the second ballot (after which Alex Eaton was dropped, because after the second ballot and all subsequent ballots, the lowest vote-getter is dropped, until there are only two left, at which point it can continue until someone reaches the 60% threshold or the convention votes not to endorse or everyone gets fed up and goes home). She was the top candidate after the third ballot (after which Scott Benson was dropped). And after the fourth ballot, Matt Gladue conceded before results were announced (presumably they were given to the candidates privately) and requested that the convention unanimously endorse Patricia. Which we did. (She then stammered through an acceptance speech she had been too superstitious to prepare. And hugged everyone in sight, including Matt Gladue.)
It was really amicable, and for all the minor mishaps (the heat, the lack of a Q&A session, the fact that the convention co-chairs kept forgetting the existence of the precincts in the balcony...) not a bad illustration of how this process is supposed to work.
As for how Patricia won -- it wasn't just parents of young kids, apparently, who took note of the offer of day care. And everyone sitting near me had also been door-knocked by her; I think she may have door-knocked every delegate (or close). One of the advantages of the endorsement system (and I say this as someone who dislikes this system, because of the time commitment it requires from me) is that it allows candidates with a high degree of commitment to do things like call or visit every single delegate to talk with them personally, thus getting their message out without spending a ton of money. Even mass mailings are to a much more limited distribution list, and thus a lot cheaper than the kind of mailings you'll have to send out to run in a primary.
We then moved on to walking subcaucuses. I'm not sure I can explain these to those who've never experienced them for themselves, but here goes:
This was the endorsing convention for State Senate District 62. One of the orders of business was electing delegates to the State Convention (which will endorse DFL candidates for Governor, U.S. Senate, and all the various state offices -- Secretary of State, AG, Auditor, etc.) These same delegates also get to be delegates to the District 5 convention, where they'll endorse a replacement for Martin Sabo.
There were several hundred people at the Senate District convention. We got to send 28 delegates and 28 alternates to the state convention. If you go to your caucus, you are almost guaranteed a slot as a delegate at your local district convention, but getting to go to the State Convention is a much bigger deal, and lots more people would like to go than can. The idea of walking subcaucuses is to allow people to elect delegates who will support the candidates that they support.
Here's how it works: first, delegates are invited to nominate subcaucuses. People step up to the microphone and say things like, "I'm Ramona Quimby from ward 12 precinct 2, and I would like to nominate the Becky Lourey for Governor subcaucus." Or, "I'm Beatrice Quimby from 12-2, and I would like to nominate the Becky Lourey for Governor, Amy Klobochar for Senate, Keith Ellison for Congress subcaucus." Or, "I'm Roberta Quimby from 12-2, and I would like to nominate the Uncommitted for Education Issues and Smaller Class Sizes subcaucus." Or (this year) "I'm Henry Huggins from 12-4, and I'd like to nominate the Becky Lourey for Governor, Reproductive Rights, Smaller Class Sizes, Environmental Issues, We Love Kittens and Puppies subcaucus."
(The "uncommitted for some specific issue" subcaucuses are, well, uncommitted. If someone has been sent by a subcaucus for a particular person, that individual is committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot; after that, they can use their own judgement. The uncommitted delegates can vote for whomever they want right from the start. )
Some of the convention volunteers then assign meeting spots to all the subcaucuses. (There were an INSANE number of subcaucuses this time, in part because of the range of candidate combinations -- Lourey/Ellison, Hatch/Schiff, etc. -- but also because of the "Lourey, we like kittens!" "Lourey, we like puppes!" "Lourey, we like penguins!" phenomenon which was apparently based on some tactical issue that was unclear to me.)
There's then a period of much milling around and trying to find your particular subcaucus. Hopefully someone is holding up a sign; that's always helpful. (I, er, nominated a subcaucus because no one was nominating the subcaucus I wanted to be in, and then failed to go hold up a sign because I was collecting my kids from childcare. Oops.)
Then they tell you how many people you need in your subcaucus to be "viable" -- that is, to send a delegate to the state convention. If you lack viability, then it's time to either recruit new members, split up and join other subcaucuses, or combine with other subcaucuses. They try to assign the obvious probably-gonna-combine caucuses to be right next to each other. So for instance, my guess (they were on another floor) is that the Uncommitted for Peace and the Uncommitted for Peace NOW and the Uncommitted for Peace FIRST subcaucuses were all put right next to each other and combined into one big friendly Uncommitted for Peace First, Now, and Always subcaucus.
(Right now, I bet you're thinking about that Monty Python bit with the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. I tell you, if those guys needed to combine in order to send a delegate to their State Convention, they'd bite the bullet and do it.)
So there's another period of milling around and recombining, and then they tell you how many delegates (and alternates) each remaining subcaucus gets. And then your subcaucus of choice gets to vote on who to send to the State Convention. Ed ran for a delegate spot, but as nearly always happens, the slots went to people who've been involved in the campaign and/or deep in party politics.
Anyway, with fifty-eight (fifty-eight!) separate subcaucuses to start out with, it was incredibly congested and chaotic. We had the kids in tow at that point. (Molly contentedly read Junie B. Jones. Kiera nursed and fell asleep, despite the chaos.) I went to the Lourey/Ellison subcaucus; Ed went to one of the Lourey subcaucuses. I really like Becky Lourey, a lot. Ellison, I know less about, but he's a good speaker and is supported by some people I really respect. My second choice would be Gail Dorfman. There are a number of people running for Sabo's seat that I actively oppose, unfortunately, and some of them seem to have a lot of support -- I really don't like Gary Schiff, for instance, and I am not a huge fan of Mike Erlandson, either.
Despite the chaos, we were done by about six. Much earlier than in 2000. (Admittedly, that started later. Still, this was just a much less gruelling experience generally than that was.)
Anyway, this was clearly going to be an interesting day, in a thoroughly wonkish sort of way.
(Cut for the people who really could not care less about Minneapolis politics. Or, for a much shorter version, you can read Ed's take on it.)
Candidates are not required to abide by the party's endorsement, but almost all promised that they would. (There was one who said, "No, I'm going to be knocking on your doors till September," but he was one of the very small, doesn't-really-have-a-shot-at-this-anyway candidates. All the others promised to abide.) This is a very, very, very Democratic district. In the last election, I think the Democrat took about 70% of the vote, and the next runner up may have been the Green, with the Republican coming in third. So odds were pretty good that we were going to be effectively selecting our next State Senator today.
The last time there was an opening like this was in 2000. That year, there were a lot of candidates coming in, but three very strong loyalties. The big controversy of the day was the Hiawatha Avenue re-route. (Which, despite massive protests, went ahead, and was either done or inevitable at that point, I can't remember.) John Kolstad ran as an anti-re-route candidate, and a very vocal, passionate group supported him, though not enough to win endorsement. There were seven candidates in all to start with, I think, but the two front-runners (and I think everyone knew this going in) were Julie Sabo and Lisa Vecoli. (Julie Sabo is Martin Sabo's daughter, if you're wondering about the similar names.) Both women had very strong, very loyal, very stubborn supporters and both sides wanted to block the other from getting endorsed more than they wanted to see an endorsement. Lisa Vecoli wound up with a slight majority, but you need 60% to get endorsed, and Julie's supporters wouldn't budge. So there was ballot after ballot after grueling, miserable ballot (we didn't get out of there until, oh, 10 p.m. or so) and we wound up not endorsing. Everyone had pledged to respect endorsement, and the lack of an endorsement freed them to go ahead and run, but then no one ran against Julie because of her name recognition. (Which I thought was kind of wussy -- yes, it would have been a boost, but not an insurmountable obstacle -- but I supported Julie so I was willing to shrug and say, "okay.")
This year, tension was much lower. There was a pair of women whom Ed and I only ever see at political events even though they only live one block away who were really strong Vecoli backers in 2000 (nonetheless, we hung out all convention, chatting amicably and complaining about how late it was getting) who shrugged at the beginning of the convention and said that they were leaning towards Alex Eaton but had a couple of others in mind that would also be fine.
When I went to the caucus, I knew who some of the candidates were but had no idea who I wanted to support. Post-caucus, of course, they all called me up (or had volunteers call me up) to chat and encourage me to support them. There were six serious contenders: Alex Eaton, Matt Gladue, Earl Netwal, Patricia Torres Rey, Tina Sanz, and Scott Benson. (There were also two others who didn't mount much of a campaign.) All eight candidates held nearly identical views on pretty much any issue you could present to them. (In 2000, Lisa Vecoli was a stadium backer and Julie wasn't, which was part of why I supported Julie.) (And you know, this year I don't know if anyone was pro-stadium. I doubt it. It's really not a winning issue in Minneapolis. I might know if we'd had the question-and-answer session before the balloting, but that got voted down to move things along. Which was kind of disappointing to me. I didn't make it to any candidate forums, and so hadn't had the opportunity to compare answers to various questions.)
Probably the most memorable contact before the convention was with Patricia Torres Rey, who door-knocked us while Ed and I were getting ready for a party. I told her that she was welcome to come in and chat while we worked, so that's what she did. She was really nice, though she lacked the (very useful, in politics) skill of making her point really concisely and wrapping it up. English is not her native language (she's an immigrant) and I suspect that she has a tendency to repeat herself because when you speak with an accent, a fair number of people really don't understand you the first time.
In the last week, I decided that the candidates I favored most strongly were Patricia Torres Rey, Matt Gladue, and Scott Benson.
What made me decide to support Patricia on at least the first ballot was the e-mail I got on Wednesday saying that her campaign had arranged for on-site day care for delegates who needed it. (Not just delegates who were there to support her -- anyone.) There is a TON of lip service paid in the DFL to increasing the participation of "women and other traditionally under-represented groups" but it's rare to find someone who actually takes action to address the barriers to participation -- like the need for childcare when you're a parent with young kids. I took Molly and Kiera with me to the caucus, and that worked fine, but the Senate District Convention is a zoo (a very crowded, hot, boring zoo) and not an easy place to wrangle two small children. Having on-site day care provided was convenient, but more importantly, it showed that (as another Patricia supporter put it) she GETS it.
I was not expecting Patricia to last all that long, but she was the top candidate after the first ballot. (At the end of the first ballot, Tina Sanz and Earl Netwal were dropped, along with the two whose names I can't remember.) She was the top candidate after the second ballot (after which Alex Eaton was dropped, because after the second ballot and all subsequent ballots, the lowest vote-getter is dropped, until there are only two left, at which point it can continue until someone reaches the 60% threshold or the convention votes not to endorse or everyone gets fed up and goes home). She was the top candidate after the third ballot (after which Scott Benson was dropped). And after the fourth ballot, Matt Gladue conceded before results were announced (presumably they were given to the candidates privately) and requested that the convention unanimously endorse Patricia. Which we did. (She then stammered through an acceptance speech she had been too superstitious to prepare. And hugged everyone in sight, including Matt Gladue.)
It was really amicable, and for all the minor mishaps (the heat, the lack of a Q&A session, the fact that the convention co-chairs kept forgetting the existence of the precincts in the balcony...) not a bad illustration of how this process is supposed to work.
As for how Patricia won -- it wasn't just parents of young kids, apparently, who took note of the offer of day care. And everyone sitting near me had also been door-knocked by her; I think she may have door-knocked every delegate (or close). One of the advantages of the endorsement system (and I say this as someone who dislikes this system, because of the time commitment it requires from me) is that it allows candidates with a high degree of commitment to do things like call or visit every single delegate to talk with them personally, thus getting their message out without spending a ton of money. Even mass mailings are to a much more limited distribution list, and thus a lot cheaper than the kind of mailings you'll have to send out to run in a primary.
We then moved on to walking subcaucuses. I'm not sure I can explain these to those who've never experienced them for themselves, but here goes:
This was the endorsing convention for State Senate District 62. One of the orders of business was electing delegates to the State Convention (which will endorse DFL candidates for Governor, U.S. Senate, and all the various state offices -- Secretary of State, AG, Auditor, etc.) These same delegates also get to be delegates to the District 5 convention, where they'll endorse a replacement for Martin Sabo.
There were several hundred people at the Senate District convention. We got to send 28 delegates and 28 alternates to the state convention. If you go to your caucus, you are almost guaranteed a slot as a delegate at your local district convention, but getting to go to the State Convention is a much bigger deal, and lots more people would like to go than can. The idea of walking subcaucuses is to allow people to elect delegates who will support the candidates that they support.
Here's how it works: first, delegates are invited to nominate subcaucuses. People step up to the microphone and say things like, "I'm Ramona Quimby from ward 12 precinct 2, and I would like to nominate the Becky Lourey for Governor subcaucus." Or, "I'm Beatrice Quimby from 12-2, and I would like to nominate the Becky Lourey for Governor, Amy Klobochar for Senate, Keith Ellison for Congress subcaucus." Or, "I'm Roberta Quimby from 12-2, and I would like to nominate the Uncommitted for Education Issues and Smaller Class Sizes subcaucus." Or (this year) "I'm Henry Huggins from 12-4, and I'd like to nominate the Becky Lourey for Governor, Reproductive Rights, Smaller Class Sizes, Environmental Issues, We Love Kittens and Puppies subcaucus."
(The "uncommitted for some specific issue" subcaucuses are, well, uncommitted. If someone has been sent by a subcaucus for a particular person, that individual is committed to vote for their candidate on the first ballot; after that, they can use their own judgement. The uncommitted delegates can vote for whomever they want right from the start. )
Some of the convention volunteers then assign meeting spots to all the subcaucuses. (There were an INSANE number of subcaucuses this time, in part because of the range of candidate combinations -- Lourey/Ellison, Hatch/Schiff, etc. -- but also because of the "Lourey, we like kittens!" "Lourey, we like puppes!" "Lourey, we like penguins!" phenomenon which was apparently based on some tactical issue that was unclear to me.)
There's then a period of much milling around and trying to find your particular subcaucus. Hopefully someone is holding up a sign; that's always helpful. (I, er, nominated a subcaucus because no one was nominating the subcaucus I wanted to be in, and then failed to go hold up a sign because I was collecting my kids from childcare. Oops.)
Then they tell you how many people you need in your subcaucus to be "viable" -- that is, to send a delegate to the state convention. If you lack viability, then it's time to either recruit new members, split up and join other subcaucuses, or combine with other subcaucuses. They try to assign the obvious probably-gonna-combine caucuses to be right next to each other. So for instance, my guess (they were on another floor) is that the Uncommitted for Peace and the Uncommitted for Peace NOW and the Uncommitted for Peace FIRST subcaucuses were all put right next to each other and combined into one big friendly Uncommitted for Peace First, Now, and Always subcaucus.
(Right now, I bet you're thinking about that Monty Python bit with the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front. I tell you, if those guys needed to combine in order to send a delegate to their State Convention, they'd bite the bullet and do it.)
So there's another period of milling around and recombining, and then they tell you how many delegates (and alternates) each remaining subcaucus gets. And then your subcaucus of choice gets to vote on who to send to the State Convention. Ed ran for a delegate spot, but as nearly always happens, the slots went to people who've been involved in the campaign and/or deep in party politics.
Anyway, with fifty-eight (fifty-eight!) separate subcaucuses to start out with, it was incredibly congested and chaotic. We had the kids in tow at that point. (Molly contentedly read Junie B. Jones. Kiera nursed and fell asleep, despite the chaos.) I went to the Lourey/Ellison subcaucus; Ed went to one of the Lourey subcaucuses. I really like Becky Lourey, a lot. Ellison, I know less about, but he's a good speaker and is supported by some people I really respect. My second choice would be Gail Dorfman. There are a number of people running for Sabo's seat that I actively oppose, unfortunately, and some of them seem to have a lot of support -- I really don't like Gary Schiff, for instance, and I am not a huge fan of Mike Erlandson, either.
Despite the chaos, we were done by about six. Much earlier than in 2000. (Admittedly, that started later. Still, this was just a much less gruelling experience generally than that was.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-02 08:38 pm (UTC)I would love to see Becky Lourey as governor, but I am not sure she can be elected. There is this dilemma between, do I want this person as my governor, and will enough other people will willing to vote for her/him to actually get this person as governor. I really, really, really want to see the end of the era of Pawlenty.
no subject
Date: 2006-04-03 02:39 am (UTC)Also, I think Minnesotans respond really well to authenticity -- I think that's why Wellstone was elected, even though he was to the left of a lot of people who voted for him. (I also think that's why Ventura was elected: he'd say any damn thing that popped into his head.) Becky Lourey has genuine integrity and I think she is, authentically, who she is. I'm not going to second-guess my instincts about this; if I'm wrong, at least I screwed up in supporting someone who I genuinely like and admire, rather than in supporting someone I thought was "electable."
Kelley perhaps?
Date: 2006-04-03 01:37 pm (UTC)