Races for Minnesota state legislative seats are certainly being overshadowed by the race for governor and the national races for control of both houses of Congress. But every seat is up this year, and one publication that tries to track such races state by state believes that control of both chambers in Minnesota is, as the saying goes, in play.
Governing magazine covers state and local politics and governments. Its website now has a piece rating the races for control of every state legislative body in the nation.
Governing says the DFL is at least slightly favored to retain control of both houses of the Minnesota Legislature. But while Governing says the DFL is "likely" to retain control of the Minnesota Senate, the race for control of the House only "leans" toward the DFL.
Here's what Governing says about Minnesota:
"The Democrats are still favored to hold both chambers in Minnesota, but amid much angst over the state's fiscal situation, a shift of control -- especially in the House -- isn't out of the question. A determining factor could be how much blame voters place on the Democrats as opposed to outgoing Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty."
It would be pretty amazing, and further testimony to the deep problems Democrats are having at all levels of politics, if they lost control of either body in Minnesota, considering that they start out with massive majorities in both houses.
Heading into the 2010 election, DFLers control the state Senate by a (veto-proof) 46-21 majority. In the House, the DFL majority is not veto proof but still a whopping 87-47 majority. So the Repubs would need a net 21 pickups out of 134 races to gain control. And Governing says that's not far-fetched.
In general, a rating of "likely" Dem means a strong probability that the DFL retains control of the Senate, but that such an outcome is not assured. That's the rating the magazine assigns to the Minnesota Senate. A rating of "leans Dem" means that if you had to put an even-money bet down, bet that the Dems will end up in control. But the odds against the Repubs taking over are not that long.
Governing rates 12 of the 99 state legislative chambers as "toss-ups," meaning neither party is favored. Both houses in Wisconsin get the toss-up rating.
By the way, in case you never tumbled to this odd aspect of state Senate election in Minnesota, Senate terms are four years except when they are two years, and this is one of the two-year-term cycles.
Here is how the FAQ page of the Legislature describes it:
"Senators are elected for a four-year term and representatives are elected for a two-year term. However, in election years ending in 0, such as 2000 or 1990, Senators serve for a two-year term in order to provide for the redistricting process done in conjunction with the United States census."
I believe this is unusual.
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
35 comments
-
32 comments
-
23 comments
-
21 comments
-
20 comments
Comments (25)
Depends on the national situation, and does not look favorable for the dems. But its a long, long time till November.
I don't expect a repub takeover of either state house, which makes the gubernatorial election critical if we are to avoid state-induced increase in poverty.
But, like many others I believe, kinda like it when parties split control of governmental power sources one way or another.
If the DFL boldly declares their “tax and spend” agenda, they will loose.
If the press allows them to use the code words “revenue enhancements” and cover-up their tax and spend agenda, they may win.
Either way, we will be bombarded with the usual DFL talking points concerning “education, health care, and the environment.” A DFL win will ensure that the power of the education monopoly and the public employee unions will continue to grow.
I am not sure how the national situation will affect MN. If the Obama economy continues to falter with unchecked massive deficit spending and the promise of ever increasing taxes, this democratic failure on the national sense could have negative results for the local DFL as they mimic Obama’s failed message.
"like many others I believe, kinda like it when parties split control of governmental power sources one way or another."
Divided gov't works well when both/all sides are honest brokers & willing to work together. Sadly when one or more sides think there's partisan advantage to be won, the people's business gets left undone.
"If the DFL boldly declares their “tax and spend” agenda, they will lose."
Not necessarily. Minnesotans are not inherently averse to tax increases, even those that aren't particularly good policy such as the legacy amendment. Democrats in the house increased their majority after passage of the transportation tax increase, an issue that went absolutely nowhere for Republicans when they tried to exploit it two years ago.
As always, to have success Democrats will have to convince voters or at least enough of them, that they will be good stewards of the funds entrusted to them. If they do that on the legislative level, where they have been successful in recent years, and on the gubernatorial level where they haven't, they will do all right. The fact that the Republicans have nominated a candidate who seems to have no idea how either the public or private sectors work, is no disadvantage to the DFL.
Brian, if the Democrat party takes as big a fall as predicted, I don't think it would be saying too much to suggest that the people are saying they'd prefer government stay out of their business, their bank accounts and their lines of credit.
Thomas, approval numbers don't prove much about "what the public thinks." It's employment numbers that are determinative, which makes it extra depressing Obama listened to his political guys -- not economic advisors -- in deciding how big the stimulus should've been.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/06/22/david_brooks_obam...
I'm inclined to say it would be a deeper point if Democrats and Republicans disagreed about the unemployment rate. The economy is grand compared to two years ago and abysmal compared to twelve years ago. It doesn't seem particularly a new low in rationalism if partisans choose their series endpoints to confirm bias.
Richard--
The economy is 'grand' compared to two years ago only if you have a job.
The employment figures (as opposed to Unemployment numbers, which are based on those actively seeking jobs) are if anything worse, and this may be a systemic problem, as I've argued before.
Locally, the DFL remains in charge by comfortable margins as most of the angst is directed towards Washington. Nationally, Republican gains will likely fall short of majorities but will at least require that support for legislation be from both parties as opposed to the one-party rule we enjoy at the present time.
Paul, What we have had for the past thirty years is a low wage, high consumption economy. To bridge that contradiction we borrowed. We now know that kind of system will not endure. The question that we should be asking ourselves is what kind of system do we want to replace it with.
Swift writes
"I don't think it would be saying too much to suggest that the people are saying they'd prefer government stay out of their business, their bank accounts and their lines of credit."
Perhaps you will be surprised. People tend to think poorly of government until they need it. They ask "who are all these layabouts collecting unemployment" until they lose their own job. They ask "why do we have these pesky water quality rules" until synthetic carcinogenic chemicals show up in their tap water. They ask "why do I have to pay these gas taxes" until bridges fall down and roads fall into disrepair.
Yes, government can seem like an overbearing pain in the backside, until you start to think about what you get for your dollars. All things considered, its actually a pretty good buy. I think anyone that considers the alternative - a de facto anarchy of no government as proposed by the something-for-nothing gang that calls themselves the TEA party 'patriots' and other cute names - will realize that as distasteful as taxes and government can be, they're better than nothing.
Tom--
Republican gains won't make much difference, since we now have an effective Senate requirement of 60% to pass legislation.
Where in the Constitution is the filibuster?
I've been running a robust doorknocking campaign for my race in South Minneapolis for House. We've been meeting lot of independents who are fed up with DFL tax and spend programs.
Brian, your use of hyperbole discredits your argument.
I haven't met one, single, solitary conservative that is advocating a tax free existence. And I know a lot of conservatives.
Pay for roads? You bet.
Pay for fire and police services? Yup.
Pay for effective public education? Bring it on.
Pay for clean, safe drinking water and sewage treatment? Oh yeah, count "us" in.
But pay for three multi-million dollar Human Rights bureaucracies (State, Ramsey County and the city of St. Paul) within a six block radius? Not so much.
A “bicycle advisory board” staffed by six city employees? I don’t think so.
Sod roofs for city buildings? You've got to be kidding.
The “something for nothing” crowd I hear are those that speak about “free health care”, and “free public education”, and a “safety net” that has enabled three generations of Americans to institute publicly financed, substance living as a family tradition.
The Tea Party is a group of people that are simply sick and tired of arguing common sense with insensible nanny staters. We’re sick and tired of being used as money trees for asinine, wasteful government spending, and we’re not going to take it anymore.
Brian:
I'm more in agreement with Thomas, and would add this as well:
Just because people WANT a service does not mean they are willing to accept that it would be done inefficiently and inadequately and at unreasonable cost.
I may WANT adequate transportation, but that does NOT mean that I will shell out the bucks for a Maserati, or that I will pay exorbitant dealer service prices.
I may WANT the potholes filled, and still be outraged at staff three hour lunches while the potholes remain unfilled, and even more outraged when those involved pay little or no price for what they did.
As a consumer, I make daily choices not only about what I need to buy, but also about how to get the best VALUE for my purchase. I have many choices in all areas except government, where I am stuck with slow, inadequate and inefficient goods and services at high cost.
Example? Call city hall get get an answer to a question. What are the odds you will be sent to a voice-mail, where you are expected to sit by the phone for the rest of the day for the call-back.
Example? Want to add an outlet in your home? That will be $80.00 for "inspection" where you will have to take a half day off work to be there for the inspector who will likely arrive late. S/he MAY have some good advice for you, but very likely knows less about good installation than you do, because s/he is an affirmative action hiree who simply passed a code test.
Example? Go the the Hennepin County local office to get a copy of a birth or death certificate. Plan to wait in line for at least a half hour.
And on and on. At least at the city level they are often friendly, as opposed to contacts above that level.
"your use of hyperbole discredits your argument."
Ditto, Mr Swift.
John, I think you ignore my conclusion, where I said "as distasteful as taxes and government can be, they're better than nothing."
You'll get no argument from me about the annoyance of dealing with inspectors or long lines at service desks. What I'm asking is what is the alternative? For instance, yes, waiting around for an inspector is seemingly a waste, just like waiting for the cable guy or the phone guy or the washing machine repairman (all private sector workers, by the way). But for waiting for the electrical inspector we get a reasonable level of confidence that when we buy a home, it is up to code. There is a reasonable expectation that the plumbing is going to hold water and that the wiring is not going to cause a house fire. That assurance affects your personal economy in the form of lower insurance rates, because the insurers likewise have some reasonable confidence that most people are following the electrical codes & submitting to the annoyance of inspections.
Do government bureaucracies stink? Sure. What's your alternative?
Brian,
I can think of several alternatives:
>Get rid of incompetent managers at the county offices and hire ones who will not allow staff to stand around in the back chatting when a dozen people stand in line. The manager at Cub can do it -- so can they. Oh, I forgot -- the Cub manager is not civil service or a member of AFSCME.
>That city employee has a cell phone. Teach him how to, and instruct him to call-forward when he is at the break room, the coffee bar or the water cooler. I have tried calling hourly in some cases and found "no-one home" ALL DAY. At non-gevernmental entities if I need to get something done I can ask for the supervisor or go to someone else. Just try it with government.
>I just had a bad experience with a snotty clerk who would not listen at Half Price Books. I'll go to Barnes & Noble Bargain Books next time. With government, it took three years to get rid of an incompetent inspector. That COULD be corrected if anyone in government really cared about the citizen.
>That inspector who is going to be late and knows it COULD be instructed to call if he'll be late. The plumber does, and he gives me an arrival time closer than "between 8:00 and noon." Again, this COULD be corrected if anyone in government really cared, or had the management skills to design a better scheduling regimen.
Companies that persist in providing substandard service pay the price at the till. Perhaps it should be the same for government agencies.
And Brian,
I will not accept that my alternatives are the same old same old bureaucratic "nothing can be done" or NOTHING.
I want what Emmer wants (I think): I want to rethink government from the bottom up.
I want to see government employees held to the same tough standards that companies who want to survive use all the time.
I want to see managers rewarded for getting the job done well and more efficiently, not for shirking their duties and pleading they need more staff to do their jobs.
I want to see department heads who spend their time thinking every day about how to do more with less, and rewarded when they are successful.
I want to see politicians who make decisions on the basis of what is truly best for me, and not for what will get them votes from their buddies.
The people in Russia, like peoples everywhere, were long-suffering and patient but eventually decided enough was enough and the Communist party lost out.
The people of the 13 colonies put up with a lot from King George and Parliament, but eventually decided enough was enough and "tossed the blackguards out."
We have structures in our country which make it possible to do the same without bloodshed, if we get to the point of saying "enough is enough." And I hope we are getting there.
"Companies that persist in providing substandard service pay the price at the till. Perhaps it should be the same for government agencies."
It is: you can always vote with your feet. Don't like MN's excessive regulation? I hear Idaho's a pretty libertarian state.
John, I think most of your points align with my point in post #3, above, from yesterday.
Regarding the rest, I happened to reread the Declaration of Independence over the holiday weekend. The grievances of the colonists were far, far more serious than the perceived slights felt by the self-proclaimed tea party 'patriots'.
Lastly, I think the communist party, in the form of Mikhail Gorbachev, did a lot more to take down communism than did the Russian people.
And the current free-for-all capitalism in Russia has many Russians rethinking the virtues of Communism.
Brian:
I love it! Any who disagree should move to Idaho.
I prefer the alternative: YOU move to Idaho and try to make it into Minnesota, while we fix the problems that have been created here come November. Move now! Don't wait to influence the election here. I like THAT scenario a WHOLE lot more.
Paul, do you mean to suggest the Russian people want to return to the totalitarian government they suffered under for half a century and more? Or that we should consider it here?
John, you misread. Idaho was merely an example, not a directive. More to the point: you said you want competition; I said there is competition & cited an example. Perhaps it is only amusing to me that this is turning on its head a common conservative claim that people will relocate for what are often minor annoyances - like high tax rates for example - ignoring the myriad other variables in the equation.
I will accept your response as agreement that perhaps it's more complicated than that.
I like what's happening in New Jersey a LOT!
It's not so complicated if you really WANT to make changes.