Skip to Content

To Minnesota candidates: Don’t forget who holds the balance of power in November

Gene Lahammer

They are decidedly disinterested when party activists convene for their bruising endorsement battles. And they are largely nonparticipants when those endorsement struggles spill over into later primary showdowns. But they hold the balance of power when general election voters make final judgments on statewide candidates for public office.

“They” are the suburban moms, who include soccer moms, hockey moms and working moms who congregate at any sports-related activity that attracts their sons and daughters.  Some are older and include some grandmas. They are generally well educated and well informed, and they vote in November. While their biggest clusters are found in the Twin Cities suburbs, they are also found in sizable numbers in central cities and the Rochester area, most college cities, many county seats and perhaps in fewer isolated hamlets.

Issues are important to them

Issues matter much more to them than party labels. They are more interested in what candidates stand for than what they are against. Angry white males need not apply for their vote.  Single-issue candidates do not impress them. They are turned off by anti-education rhetoric and by negative or indifferent attitudes toward the environment. But they also appreciate fiscal discipline. However, they are suspicious of the “No Tax Increase For Any Reason” crowd — until they have carefully examined the alternatives. While this may sound like a bundle of incongruities, there is considerable room for savvy candidates.

“They” are the largest bloc of swing voters in Minnesota. Put another way, they are classic ticket-splitters in a state that has carved out a curious reputation by being the only state to vote Democratic in the last nine presidential elections. But until Mark Dayton’s narrow victory in the last election, DFLers had not elected a governor in 24 years. And Republicans won five straight U.S. Senate elections in the late '70s and '80s.  Historians and others with long memories will recall that Minnesota is a state where a Republican won 18 straight presidential elections from statehood until FDR broke that streak in 1932.

Influence is heightened now

The importance of suburban moms is on the rise. Their influence is heightened as Republicans and Democrats lurch to the extremes of the Right and Left. Although it may sound like “they” have a left-of-center orientation, it would be unsound advice for DFLers to take this group for granted.

While it may be tempting to dismiss this as the musings of an aging chronicler, it is also possible that candidates who ignore this important faction may wake up on Nov. 6 and wonder, “What Happened?”

I reach these conclusions not through googling or the use of other electronic gizmos, nor through the use of focus groups or public polling, but through nearly six decades of experience and observation regarding our fascinating political system.

Gene Lahammer covered public affairs during much of his 34-year career with the Associated Press. Since retirement in 1994, he has served as an auxiliary member of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, has been an election consultant to the AP, and has been an occasional magazine contributor.  

Comments (11)

......and no yard signs?

Carpooling patriots in Adidas are on the loose in our fringe communities defining November elections?

Blessed Mary mother of whom...next we'll learn 'she' too was a soccer mom?

Not to the far right...not of the far left...just driving boldly down the middle of the road on a suburban cul-de-sac"?

"They"

are also the reason the founding fathers saw fit to deny them the right to vote because their priority is not freedom but security and 60% of them consistently vote for the man (they don't trust female candidates) who promises to take care of them.

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis....It

Dennis, Dennis, Dennis....

It blows my mind to hear you say this.

A form of government that only accepts votes from people who are exactly like you and think like you is certainly not democracy.

Go start your own kingdom somewhere. Populate it with cranky old white men who carry guns, smoke and drink, follow no gubmint' rules, pays no taxes, eat what they want, don't want no socialized medicine, and consistently vote for old white men who play to their paranoia, fear and greed every election.

We'll see how grand that country becomes and long that little country lasts.

What are you talking about?

"A form of government that only accepts votes from people who are exactly like you and think like you is certainly not democracy."

I never said I wouldn't allow beta males to vote, young *or* old.

No, what are you babbling

No, what are you babbling about? Beta males? Fish in little round bowls all by themselves?

Hogwash

Even if we were to accept your ridiculous premise that women don't vote for freedom or are somehow incapable of taking care of themselves so they look for someone to take care of them, we live in a country where the ability to form a rational opinion isn't a requirement for voting. As much of a bummer as that is, it allows lots of people I don't agree with to go to the polls (we shall not name names).

I didn't say *all* women

I said that only 60% fear and resent their own freedom.

40% are strong, independent, self-reliant women. Unfortunately, they're in the minority. That's why Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are such super stars with conservative men because they're the exception to the rule. I guess we know where you stand.

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin

Are poor examples of "strong, independent, self reliant women." One would have trouble finding her way out of a wet paper bag, and one readily admits to relying on the direction of her husband to figure out how she should think. In both cases, their success is more based on their grating personalities and their winning smiles, not their appropriateness as role models.

And where I stand is exactly where I want to stand. If I wanted to market myself as a half-wit harpy with the ability to look great in a skirt, I could. I could probably even sell books and fund failed presidential bids (in order to sell books). The problem is, I'd have a hard time with the acting.

It's more than that, Rachel

What Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann have in common is that they're uninformed and look good in a short skirt--an irresistible combination to the he-man crowd.

The he-men project this attitude onto women, when they say things like, "We'll get Dan Quayle to run for vice-president. Women will vote for him because he looks like Robert Redford."

I lived in Oregon from 1984 to 2003. After John Kitzhaber won the governership of Oregon for the first time in the 1990s, I overheard some businessman types saying, "The only reason Kitzhaber won is that he's handsome and all the women voted for him."

I'll admit, Kitzhaber is handsome, but his opponents were a visibly stupid former Congressman the first time and a knee-jerk anti-tax activist and Puritan busybody (embodied in one person) the second time.

Only one party has lurched

"Their influence is heightened as Republicans and Democrats lurch to the extremes of the Right and Left."

Um, no.

As any disinterested* observer could tell you, only Republicans have lurched toward their extreme right wing.

The left has held steady, or (on a few issues) become more centrist.

* By the way, this word means unbiased or impartial, and Gene misuses it in his first sentence when he ought to have used uninterested.

I agree with Tim Walker

It seems almost obligatory for journalists to state that both parties have gone off to their wildest extremes. Perhaps they have unconsciously absorbed the constant right-wing propaganda that claims that Obama is a "socialist" or a "Marxist" or that the Democratic Party is "too far left."

Looked at objectively on the basis of their actual proposed legislation, it is clear that the Republicans have gone far right, so that they are veering toward libertarianism on economic issues (the exceptions being corporate welfare and war) and Puritanism on behavioral issues. Meanwhile, the establishment Democrats, with a few marginalized exceptions, are somewhere in Nixon territory these days. For all the right-wing cries about "government health care" under Obama, the actual Affordable Care Act is based almost entirely on a concept that Republicans were proposing in the 1980s, namely, compulsory purchasing of private insurance.

I only wish that the Democrats were as far left as the Republicans and mainstream commentators claim they are. Those of us who would like to see a more Scandinavian-style system here are mighty frustrated, since no one in Washington represents us. (Before the right-wingers jump in chanting "Greece! Spain! Italy!" I'd like to point out that the Scandinavian countries are prospering, the only exception being Iceland, which fell for the lie that opening one's country to the financial wheeler dealers is the fast track to prosperity. See also Ireland, Britain, and Latvia, three other former "shining examples" of financial deregulation.)