[raw]
[/raw]
Rep. Ilhan Omar’s victory over primary challenger Antone Melton-Meaux might have felt familiar to anyone paying close attention to the history of elections in Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.
Melton-Meaux, who ran more as a personality than policy foil to Omar, banked a considerable amount of campaign cash and won high-profile DFLers support. He waged a serious lawn sign and mailer campaign, and some speculated there could be an upset in the district.
In the end, the race wasn’t that close. Omar won 58 percent of the district’s vote, compared to Melton-Meaux’s 39 percent.
Looking closely at the returns, it’s clear how that happened: while Melton-Meaux won considerable support in parts of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs, it wasn’t enough to overcome Omar’s edge in the bulk of Minneapolis, the increasingly progressive voting bloc that dominates the district.
Her win, thanks to Minneapolis, echoes the primary win of her predecessor and now Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in 2006. Over time, activists have built a turnout machine that’s energized immigrant communities and the working class. These voters, sometimes seen as unlikely to go to the polls, have helped elect a succession of progressive officials across levels of government.
Ellison wins the Fifth
Ellison held the Fifth District seat for more than a decade before Omar won it. His decision to run in 2006 when Martin Sabo retired put him in what was effectively a three-way race. He was a two-term state representative who had the DFL endorsement and campaigned on turning out a large cross section of what were then termed unlikely voters, including “peace activists, gay and lesbian voters and minorities, especially Somalis,” the Star Tribune reported at the time. He ran against former Sabo staffer and DFL chair Mike Erlandson and state Sen. Ember Reichgott Junge, who campaigned on health care.
When Keith Ellison took the stage to accept the DFL endorsement in 2006, activists say you could feel the winds changing. With a unanimous endorsement on the third ballot, Ellison made his pitch. “We have to unify. We have to come together from the suburb and the city,” he told the crowd. “We have to come together.”
Ultimately, Ellison won the primary with 41 percent of the vote, compared to Erlandson’s 31 percent and Reichgott Junge’s 21 percent. Despite losing CD5 suburbs, Ellison racked up a wide margin in Minneapolis, where most of the district’s votes are located.
[raw]
[/raw]
For Old Guard DFLers, Ellison’s 10-point victory in the primary was unexpected. Ellison’s predecessor, Martin Sabo, endorsed Erlandson. The Star Tribune’s Editorial Board endorsed Erlandson, too.
In Congress, Ellison was one of the most progressive members in the country. He was the Chairman of the House Progressive Caucus, then just a nascent political force. He was an early supporter of Medicare for All, a constant critic of the Iraq War and early endorser of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ political campaign in 2016.
Omar runs for office
Just over a decade later, Ellison retired from Congress to run for Minnesota attorney general. His departure resulted in another three-way DFL primary race between first-term state Rep. Ilhan Omar, who won the DFL endorsement in a hastily arranged convention after Ellison’s surprise retirement, former House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, popular among more moderate voters, and state Sen. Patricia Torres Ray.
The conventional wisdom held that a candidate needed to win moderate votes in South Minneapolis and the suburbs to win the seat, said Joelle Stangler, who’s worked for several candidates and groups in the Twin Cities including Take Action Minnesota, State Rep. Raymond Dehn’s Mayoral Campaign, and Omar’s 2020 campaign.
“When I came into this work, everyone said that you need wealthy white homeowners to win any race,” Stangler said. She said that in Omar’s first race, people said there wasn’t a path forward because she wanted to win by turning out new immigrant communities and young people.
Many political observers expected it to be a tight race between Omar and Anderson Kelliher, with Torres Ray potentially attracting a significant number of votes.
In the end, it wasn’t that close: Omar captured 48 percent to Anderson Kelliher’s 30 percent and Torres Ray’s 13 percent. Though she ran in a district slightly changed from Ellison’s time due to redistricting, like Ellison, Omar’s decisive win in Minneapolis propelled her to victory.
In her first term in Congress, Omar’s tenure mirrored Ellison’s. She joined the Progressive Caucus, taking on a leadership role as whip; and she too has been an unabashed supporter of Sanders, endorsing him in 2020, as well as leading efforts to promote the Green New Deal, a progressive energy policy agenda; and Medicare-for-All.
She also quickly became one of the body’s most visible members; she was part of the “Squad,” a group of first-term women of color challenging the status quo in Congress. This brought her praise from progressives, but she was also singled out by the right with xenophobic and Islamophobic comments (including by President Donald Trump). Her high profile also earned her increased scrutiny when it came to missteps, like when she invoked anti-semitic tropes in comments on Twitter.
Melton-Meaux launched a primary challenge against her; presenting himself as a candidate who could “bring us together, not tear us apart,” as one mailer put it. He received an endorsement from two former Minnesota DFL Chairs (Brian Melendez and Erlandson) and raised a considerable amount of cash.
Of Omar’s second race, Stangler said there was again pressure to focus on more moderate parts of the city.
“When she ran a second time, people didn’t say there was no path, but there was a similar assertion that, ‘Oh, well you really need to make sure you’re spending all of your time in Southwest Minneapolis and in Wards 11, 12, and 13,’ to combat what, will inevitably be, a lack of support from the suburbs.”
But many voters in the district weren’t interested in what they perceived to be a more centrist candidate. For Renae Steiner, 54, her impression that Melton-Meaux was the more moderate candidate convinced her to vote for Omar. Steiner, an attorney in Linden Hills, isn’t interested in more centrist congressional leadership.
“There aren’t, in my estimation, that many really progressive Democrat districts,” said Steiner. “So if we don’t elect progressives, where are they going to come from?”
Turnout in last week’s primary was massive. Across the Fifth Congressional District nearly 178,000 people cast votes, compared to 135,000 in 2018, a year when there was a contested gubernatorial primary on the ballot, too. While Omar amassed more than 65,000 votes in 2018, she won with more than 103,000 this time around.
[raw]
[/raw]
More progressive challengers
Tuesday’s primary results shouldn’t come as a surprise, said Erlandson the former Sabo staffer who ran against Ellison in the DFL primary in 2006 and endorsed Melton-Meaux this time around. He said the district has become more progressive since his run in 2006.
“I think there is an expansion of the bloc of primary voters,” he said; more people seem to be highly engaged in politics.
“The primary voter tends to be the most liberal or progressive voter,” he said. “They tend to be voters that miss very few elections. The city tends to have more of those than the suburbs.”
Not only did Ilhan Omar win reelection in the primary through the strength of Minneapolis’ progressive bloc, but two long-term Minneapolis state legislators who were generally thought of as progressive stalwarts — Sen. Jeff Hayden and Rep. Ray Dehn, were knocked out by political newcomers, Omar Fateh and Esther Agbaje.
It’s not the first time in recent years Minneapolis voters have sought to replace a longstanding elected official with someone new: In 2017 City Council president Barb Johnson lost to Phillipe Cunningham. In 2018, longtime Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin was defeated by political newcomer Angela Conley.
Asma Nizami, a former field organizer for Sen. Al Franken in the Twin Cities, says politicians like Ellison and Omar represent views that are widely held by people of color in the Twin Cities. And she criticized white voters and the Star Tribune’s Editorial Board (which has never endorsed Omar or Ellison in a contentious race) who see Ellison and Omar as too radical.
“They want to turn on KARE-11 and hear about the weather. And they want to hear these happy stories about great white people donating food,” Nizami, who currently works as the Advocacy Director for Muslim women at Reviving Sisterhood, said. “They don’t want to hear about how terrible our city is to Black and Brown people.”
In a press call after her win, Omar said the shift to a new slate of candidates that happened in Tuesday’s primary makes complete sense. “I first went and challenged the 44-year incumbent — that was unheard of here in Minneapolis,” Omar said, referring to her defeat of longtime Rep. Phyllis Kahn. “And because of that, we have seen so many people take that leap and unseat so many people, and it’s not surprising that that progressive movement that we have built continues.”
Fateh’s campaign manager, Dawson Kimyon, characterized progressive wins on Tuesday not just as a reflection of the voters of Minneapolis, but also the moment they’re in.
“Coronavirus and the uprising surrounding the murder of George Floyd have definitely made people a lot more outraged at the system as it currently is,” Kimyon said. “I think that makes people more progressive and it also makes progressive people more willing to exercise their right to vote.”
[raw]
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-CD5-2006-city’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: true }, xAxis: { categories: [‘Minneapolis’, ‘St. Louis Park’, ‘Golden Valley’, ‘Richfield’, ‘Fridley’, ‘Columbia Heights’, ‘Crystal’, ‘New Hope’, ‘Robbinsdale’, ‘St. Anthony’, ‘Hopkins’, ‘Spring Lake Park’, ‘Hilltop’] }, yAxis: { title: { text: ‘Votes’ } }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + this.series.name + ‘ got ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) + ‘ votes.’ + ”; } }, series: [{ name: ‘Keith Ellison’, data: [24393,1179,753,626,422,319,278,225,277,221,224,82,4]
}, { name: ‘Mike Erlandson’, data: [13190,1902,1201,1460,1067,942,399,351,358,448,325,197,17]
}, { name: ‘Ember Reichgott Junge’, data: [7173,1457,1311,560,511,362,922,922,597,208,243,169,19] }] }));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-CD5city’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, { legend: { enabled: true }, xAxis: { categories: [‘Minneapolis’, ‘St. Louis Park’, ‘Golden Valley’, ‘Richfield’, ‘Edina’, ‘Fridley’, ‘Columbia Heights’, ‘Crystal’, ‘Hopkins’, ‘Robbinsdale’,’New Hope’,’Brooklyn Center’,’St. Anthony’,’Spring Lake Park’,’Hilltop’,’Fort Snelling’] }, yAxis: { title: { text: ‘Votes’ } }, tooltip: { formatter: function(){ return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + this.series.name + ‘ got ‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) + ‘ votes.’ + ”; } }, series: [{ name: ‘Ilhan Omar’, data: [75549,6263,2808,3473,1362,1876,2132,1823,1784,1842,1533,1641,1060,353,22,14] }, { name: ‘Antone Melton-Meaux’, data: [39599,6862,4112,3093,2761,1921,1311,1534,1523,1344,1610,1211,1129,478,24,12] }] })); [/raw]
I’m very concerned about attitudes like Nizami. I don’t think they are appropriate for a journalistic effort like MNPost. Would you accept her comments from your readers? I believe you would not. In fact I would predict that you will end up censoring responses to her unfortunate deplorable comments.
If that is what she said, why is it inappropriate to quote her accurately?
Pardon me for saying this, but it sounds like you’re exhibiting the same inclinations you don’t want discussed.
“Melton-Meaux launched a primary challenge against her; presenting himself as a candidate who could “bring us together, not tear us apart,” as one mailer put it.”
Curiously Melton-Meaux’s mailers were consistently divisive, antagonistic & only loosely related to the facts. I saw a lot of effort put into criticizing Omar and almost none on solving problems relevant to the 5th. His expensive, incessant, glossy ad campaign was a significant motivator in getting me to the polls to vote against him.
I found nothing wrong with the mailers that his campaign put out. I believe you are referring to mailers that a third party put out in an effort to have him elected. They were not of the spirit of either his mailers or his website. They were not of the spirit found in his interviews.
No, the mailers I received from Antone and hist campaign were just as attack based. They had a nice photo of a smiling Antone on the front, family guy, uniter, blah blah; and on the back or inside page it was all attack on Omar for missing votes, or not being focused on her district, and promoting herself, yada yada. Antone dug up everything from her divorces to her finances, all while refusing to explain where HIS money was coming from and how he was spending it. Whatever, it’s done, it didn’t work. In fact I think that negative tone beneath all of Antone’s campaign may have actually backfired on him.
My guess is a stronger candidate might have helped. And Antone’s campaign was passive. The whole thing was a shot across Ilhan’s bow I think. If she doesn’t do better, the opposition might be stronger next time.
My guess is that she has that seat as long as she wants it and future attempts to unseat her will become more openly racist and bigoted.
I guess one would have to question the use of the word passive. If by passive you mean attacking and never presenting any kind of vision I would agree. Although I really don’t see how constant, at points daily, mailings, blanketed TV and online ads could be called passive. In fact I thought his attacks on Omar were very aggressive. Its one of the reasons I went out and voted for her.
Well you are pardoned and not sure what you mean but I wouldn’t be inclined to make fun of people because they watch Kare 11 or because they are interested in stories about people donating to food banks.
If your idea of the “news” is happy stories about people being filmed dropping off canned goods, are you really getting a true picture of America?
R B ‘s point is well taken Andrew. No slander in Nizami’s comments and non-biased compared to some of the stuff coming from the Trump people.
Good point Hiram. Omar completed her first term during which they have a lot to learn. But, she is a progressive and we need people to stretch the line like she does…..tone it down ? Probably a little.
Conservatives hate Omar for a wide variety of reasons – too progressive, too young, a sharp tongued woman, Black, an immigrant and Muslim. The also suggest moral grounds, but anyone who supports Trump should not bring up morality.
White conservatives believe people like her do not deserve a voice in politics. Their preferred type of woman is entirely different. Also a woman like that is not attracted to rich old white guys with power. That is Trump’s definition of his kind of woman. Someone who would sleep with him.
Conservatives contributed heavily to the other candidate as he was male, more moderate and an arbitrator – by definition trying to find safe common ground rather than challenging great injustices.
I think a lot if people supported her because she had becomeTrump’s target. They were not going to let her lose because of out of state big donors, who try to buy elections. Her opponent was fine, but this was a message to Trump and his supporters that bold leaders who take on special interests need to get re-elected.
Antone launched anything but a passive campaign, his mailings, FB ads, TV and Radio were all attack ads. Every mailing I got and I got them every day, and sometimes two a day, was exactly half nothingburger and half attack.
I was disappointed to see campaign so transparently targeted at white moderate comfort zones attract so much support. Those comfort zones and the multiple crises they ignored literally set our streets on fire. The idea that anyone in congress is going to negotiate or mediate with Fascists or brings us together with them is not only daft, but morally repugnant.
Anyone who writes about Omar’s alleged used of antisemitic “tropes” needs to qualify that statement as an accusation, it’s not established fact of history. There were those who accused her of using tropes, and those who saw her making honest comments about Israeli policy and political influence. In the end, the accusations did not, and probably will not derail her presence in the US House… THAT is a fact. I would say the majority of people in her district didn’t see her comments as tropes, but rather a comment of truth to power. It would be nice if future Minnpost writers recognize the accusation, rather than classify it as a given fact.
Very good, Paul, every word of your comment.
I was very much concerned about the primary because it was apparent how painstakingly the Melton-Meaux candidacy was formulated precisely for the liberal comfort zone. I was pleasantly surprised to see my fellow 5th district voters reject it somewhat decisively.
Yes, but will she be held accountable for her unethical behavior with her new husband’s business?
If she would offer some contrition and pledge to not do it again, it would be a big step forward.
The “Squad” has an important and controversial message to bring forward. That requires a squeaky clean background so that the message does not get rolled up into unrelated ethical lapses by Omar.
That she refuses to pledge not to do it again reflects the fact that she believes she can get away with it as long as she chooses. This will end badly: See Vin Weber, Jim Wright, Dave Durenberger. All their careers ended in resignation and disgrace because of the allure of some easy money on the side enabled by their office.
Sadly, this is why Republicans are running far better in Minnesota than they should. In an election where we might have an anti Trump landslide across the nation, Minnesota might very well go Republican for the first time since 1972.
Which would very likely keep Gazelka in the majority.
I expect that Democrats will not capture the MN Senate until they make a coordinated and organized effort to do so. It’s almost as if the MNDFL doesn’t want to win those seats or at the very least doesn’t care as long as they have executive branch and the House. If they were to get organized around a popular message focused on resolving crisis instead of simply replacing Republicans on a seat by seat basis I think they take the Senate and hold onto the House, but they just don’t seem to be able to organize that.
The drift into the “red” in MN wasn’t promoted by progressives. It was HRC who drove so many voters into the arms of Trump and the Republicans. It’s not a coincidence that MN was a “blue” state until 2016- and Omar wasn’t a feature of the 2016 campaign.
Democrats spent decades leaving multiple crises on the table out of fear of alienating Republican voters and triggering “blowback” by “over-reaching”. THAT complacency, entitlement, and privilege alienated voters and created the openings for Republicans to exploit.
And then there’s the Democratic habit of putting lame candidates on the ballots, that helps Republicans win elections quite nicely.
Agreed. The Democratic party has spent years compromising, being moderate, apologizing for its beliefs, offering boring candidates and half-measures that comfort the comfortable rather than inspiring anybody. Then the party is surprised when young people don’t turn out to vote. The left needs to stop apologizing and stop kowtowing to moderates.
I wanted to add, also, that suburban demographics are changing—boomers are aging out, Millennials are having kids and buying bigger houses. I don’t think we should assume that suburbanites are moderates anymore.
“I wanted to add, also, that suburban demographics are changing—…”
Indeed, in fact Omar only really lost 4 of the 15 suburbs according to the data here.
“…activists have built a turnout machine that’s energized immigrant communities and the working class. ”
Or in layman’s terms, Ordinary people.
I wonder if we can move on now? I get it, Omar drives controversy, but in the end, the primary was never in doubt, and this seat is as safe as any in the US. Mn has other congressional seats, and an entire legislature up for grabs in about 10 weeks, maybe a few folks could be spared from the daily Omar beat to take a stab at those? Would certainly be a better look than a poorly timed in-depth on a repulsive imaginary candidate that currently graces the top spot.
Matt, your suggested course of action would have been nice, but I fear too many establishments Democrats were devoted to unseating Omar instead of electing fellow Democrats. It’s probably too late at this point for Democrats to organize a clear and popular message that would bring voters out to replace Republican Senators in MN.
I think as long as a sufficient number of MNDFLers remain committed to preserving or restoring their privileges and power within the Party rather than unseating Republicans; they won’t be able to organize an effective assault on Republicans in the MN Senate.
I think you overestimate the amount of attention most rank and file Democrats give to Minneapolis. There are plenty of capable candidates for office on both the House and Senate side, unless you’re trying to suggest Minnpost has become a propaganda arm of whatever you’d like to label the “Establishment”, I don’t think the lack of coverage denotes anything other than a degradation of the formerly well established journalistic integrity of this outlet. In short, the reporting around here, or rather the choice of what gets reported, has undergone a somewhat noticeable shift within the timeframe of the last couple months. I’m curious as to the motivations, and the implications of this shift.
My comments regarding “establishment” democrats simply refer to the “moderate” dead-enders who spend as much or more time and effort trying to crush liberal tendencies and candidates as they do Republicans. A lot of those folks are rank-n-file and they were behind the Antone attack. Democrats may have good candidates but they lack an organized political message and agenda that people can hold onto. “Vote blue” simply doesn’t appeal to anyone who’s not a Democrat, and most people are NOT Democrats. But that all gets back to the dependence on personality politics rather than movement building.
I’m intrigued by you reference to the shift in Minnpost coverage? Could you describe what you’ve seen?
Its not what I’ve seen, but rather haven’t. Outside the generic “who’s running for what” list, there has been scant coverage of ANY race beyond the 5th Congressional in weeks. Not US Senate, not any other CD, nothing. If I were using Minnpost as a primary newsgathering tool, (which let’s be honest, given the state of the local news, and the paywalls status of both local papers, isn’t a stretch) what exactly would I know about the state of the elections beyond Minneapolis? There used to be robust election coverage, of many races, state and nationwide, all election season. At present, we get a weekly round-up, and whatever current event Mr. Black decides to opine on. I get that reporting during a pandemic is challenging, but that should not be an excuse for the dearth of coverage.
As to your other point, this election is ALL about personality politics, by necessity. What else can a candidate be judged on when they have little access to the general public (speaking more on state level elections here), no parades, no glad handing at the county fair, no debates, televised or otherwise (and many without access to the outlets that would in the age of cordcutting), print media by and large dead outside the major, paywalled outlets. If we can’t run candidates that are charismatic enough to draw interest in the limited moments they have to draw attention, they have already lost. Hell, I expect that things like door knocking won’t even be taking place this year. A candidate can have the most wonderful policy positions imaginable, it won’t make a difference if no one is interested in hearing them. “Vote Blue” might seem trite, but in an environment in which anything more long form has no chance to be seen, much less digested, it’s the most concise and direct approach to getting the votes needed to survive until such time as the sorts of deep policy debates you desire can happen.
“this election is ALL about personality politics, by necessity. ”
See this is the myth that been strengthening Republicans ever since the “New Democrats” took control of the Democratic Party. Omar’s strength has little if anything to with her personality, that’s why these attacks on her marriage scenario and what-not fall so flat. Personality politics is based on the notion that people just want to be associated with a “winner” and don’t care what kinds of policies or results they get after the election (The idea that simply watching Hillary be Hillary in the White House was a sufficient motivation for voters). This was never actually true, it was just a misperception fueled by occasional victories.
People DO care about what happens after elections, they WANT effective government that works for people, solves problems, and resolves crisis. This is why Sanders could come out of nowhere and mount such a strong effort, it had NOTHING to do with his personality. Voters don’t just want their side to win, they want to plug into something that actually looks like progress and is bigger than themselves.
You will find that voters supporting the progressives discussed in this article could tell you little or nothing about these candidates personalities or biography’s, but they all share a common outlook and agenda. Circling back to Hiram’s comments the reason Democrats have been losing downstream races in the States and having so much difficulty outside the Twin Cities is precisely because they have no common organized agenda or party. It’s just a bunch people running by themselves under a Party banner that has no identity or agenda beyond winning elections. By contrast Republican candidates plug into a Party with a clear identity and agenda, and THAT gives them a clear advantage.
My votes for Omar or any other candidate have nothing to do with their personalities, I never even consider whether or not I actually “like” a candidate. My votes have always been based on an agenda of breaking (primarily white) patriarchal control of politics and government, and promoting liberal candidates with liberal agendas who talk about the issues I think are the most important. This is what I look for in a candidate because it’s what I think is best for my community and nation. I think sitting on manageable crisis for decades while trading places in office is recipe for disaster and an immoral abdication of civic responsibility.
Yes, but you KNOW Omar’s positions because they’ve been discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere. Can you say the same about some random challenger to a state house seat in “pick a district” MN. The point of what I was saying, is that in THIS election, hindered by a pandemic that will not be going away, expecting folks to “go to the website” and deep dive on policy is a fools’ errand. The only strategic course is to ask them to support the slate and use Trump’s deep unpopularity to drive turnout.
To say personality makes no difference is the same refusal to engage in strategic politicking that KEEPS progressive candidates from office. We’ve had this debate before, greater society does not consist of the dogged policy wonks you wish it did, nor do most give any thought to “breaking (primarily white) patriarchal control of politics and government, and promoting liberal candidates with liberal agendas who talk about the issues I think are the most important.” They’re thinking about how their individual totem of representative democracy might impact their individual life. Reaching those folks, while still working towards goals like yours, requires some measure of political skill, which it’s quite clear Omar possesses. THAT is personality politics exemplified. If policy were the only measure, why isn’t Phyliss Kahn still representing her district and why is not Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer up for re-election vs. Jason Lewis? (No offense intended to either, if you’re reading, but the results are what they are). Why isn’t Bernie President? Why don’t progressives win every election in which they contend? You can claim that the “the Establishment” is holding them down, but if they haven’t even the ability to prevail over less antagonistic “allies”, how can they be expected to take on the “enemy”.
Dude, we’re commenting on thread about a story that describing a progressive surge. Democratic suppression of liberal and progressive candidates and policies is what has held them back, they’re ability to think strategically etc. is more than evident at this point. Omar’s problem isn’t her ability to think strategically, her problem is fellow Democrats that keep attacking her, same with Sanders and AOC.
I think the problem you’re describing may apply more to folks in the Green Party, but Sanders’s insight (and I’ll admit it surprised a lot of “progressives”) was to run as Democrat. Turns out the progressive status as a 3rd Party was a strategic blunder. Most progressives had long since concluded that the Democrats could not be transformed from the inside out, maybe Sanders, Omar, and AOC will prove that it can be transformed into a liberal party after all? We’ll see.
I think we’re not working with the same notion of “identity politics”. My experience is that I have thus far had zero luck trying to explain or discuss this with identity politics voters. There seems to be a neoliberal mentality behind some adherents of identity politics that keeps them seeing politics and elections as anything other exercises in branding or marketing… they can’t explore the possibility that when they lose elections it’s not because they failed to brand or market their candidate properly. They project that mentality onto every other voter so they assume that those voting for Omar or Sanders are voting for the same reasons they vote for Antone or HRC, we’re just choosing different candidates. I don’t know how penetrate that bubble. All I can say is that there IS a qualitative difference. Policy WAS the issue, that’s why Omar defeated Kahn. The only difference your recognizing is personality, but that’s obviously not the only difference, I don’t know how else to say it. If you don’t see a difference in priorities, agendas, and strategy between Omar and Kahn, I can’t help you.
As for progressive success, you’re only right about that until your wrong, they only lose until the win, and they’re starting to win. You don’t dislodge an entrenched and powerful Party regime in a couple years. The idea that these progressives are just running against other candidates is more than a little naive, they’re running against entrenched power structures that are actively resisting. Antone is perfect of that.
You’re right, we’re not seeing very much coverage beyond the Twin Cities, however I personally don’t get my candidate information from Minnpost, so my familiarity with Omar for instance isn’t a product that coverage. I for one would be happy to join you in a call for more and better coverage elsewhere. Tell you what: give FM 93.3 a listen. Until a couple months ago 93.3 was an alternative rock station but now it’s part of the Black Information Network, and it’s great.
I don’t either, but other sources are few and far between these days.
My final rebuttal (maybe), of COURSE politics is a marketing exercise, what do you think candidates are trying to do when they run for office, ride the wave of “justice” to some pre-determined and inescapable outcome? Politics is persuasion, selling oneself and one’s ideas to a skeptical constituency. I sometimes think that certain strains of progressives fall victim to the same “just world” fallacy that infects certain conservatives. “The arc of history bends toward justice” is a fine platitude, but there is no guiding hand leading us toward the light. To get oneself in position to enact the sort of change one would like to see requires convincing others to give you the opportunity. SOME of that involves policy positions, it’s true, but a whole other large chunk of it is political savvy and strategy. I would be willing to bet that Kahn could be positioned to the left of Omar on a number of topics (I don’t have automatic recall of the issues of that particular race), and identically on many others, but she simply could no longer connect to the changing demographics of her district, or convince enough of them that she would meet their needs As such, she lost to a candidate who even at that nascent stage of her political career, demonstrated a knack for it. I think you sell her a bit short in that regard. Politicians can win, occasionally, with only one or the other of the required qualities, but invariably will lose out in the end to those that excel at both. Progressives need to be steadfast in holding to their values it’s true, but they ALSO need to recognize that their truths are NOT self evident, no matter how strongly they might hold them, and that they must consider how they can get themselves in a position with the requisite power to enact them. They must become better politicians, not just living vessels for the policies themselves.
““The arc of history bends toward justice” is a fine platitude, but there is no guiding hand leading us toward the light.”
Matt, the problem is you don’t actually understand the nature of “progressivism”. This is a common problem among “moderates” and conservatives, specially those with neoliberal mentalities. Progressives aren’t the ones who assume that systems are self regulating and organizing according to some natural set of rules… that’s YOU guys.
Progressives are ACTIVISTS, when we talk about the arc of justice, we’re not talking about a presumed natural phenomena, we’re talking a reality that WE create. MKL wasn’t sitting in a Birmingham jail waiting for the arc of justice to just happen, you understand that right? Moderates are the ones who seem to expect progress will just happen, if we wait long enough. You can call MLK a purveyor of platitudes if you want, but what have YOU accomoplished in the last 50 years? Moderates took control of the bridge 50 years ago and we’ve been sliding backwards ever since. Progressives are the ones with agendas and strategies to achieve those agendas, “moderates” are the ones sitting around waiting for stuff happen on its own. MLK’s arc of justice is an arc that is forced into reality by human activism, it’s not expected to just manifest itself naturally.
By the way, your “moderate” mentality, isn’t moderate, it’s a classical conservative mentality, which is why you guys feel so much more uncomfortable with liberals and progressive than you do with moderate Republicans.
At any rate, we see this all time, you guys don’t understand progressive and liberals because you don’t talk to them, you never reach out in that direction, you only look toward Republicans and conservatives. Obama saw Sanders as as big if not a bigger threat than Trump a years ago… that’s not about a moderate desire for progress, that about a power struggle that’s trying to marginalize liberal agendas and limit progress. Yes, I know, guys like Obama think progress is unrealistic, but then they end up being the longest serving lame duck in US history before losing to Trump. Whatever.
“Matt, your suggested course of action would have been nice, but I fear too many establishments Democrats were devoted to unseating Omar instead of electing fellow Democrats. It’s probably too late at this point for Democrats to organize a clear and popular message that would bring voters out to replace Republican Senators in MN”
The “walk and chew gum at the same time” argument.
Were those anti-Omar folks so engaged that they forgot to vote for anyone else?
Opposing Omar as a reason for not going all in on A Jon Peter’s run against Gazelka in Mn Senate 09 seems a stretch. Still time to rally! He won the D primary 2759 to 0!
If one is going to compare Omar to Ellison, one should look at Ellison’s primary as an incumbent. In 2008, he won the primary with 85% of the vote. Omar by comparison won with 58% of the vote in her primary for a second term.
Omar’s win is a decisive win in this specific election, but it does not bode well for Omar to have to fight that hard as an incumbent and win with just 58%. What will her election look like two years from now if faced by a stronger candidate and if no longer a lightening rod for Trump and other national figures?
Ellison NEVER faced an attack like this from his ownn Party so your comparison is rather disingenuous. If Antone had won by 2 points you would celebrating him as the strongest possible candidate, but a 20 victory by Omar reveals her weakness? Please. If you’re going to compare every candidate to Ellison none of your candidates qualify as “strong” candidates. Show us all the other Democrats winning with 85% of the vote.
My concern is that what is happening in Minneapolis is hurting the DFL in the rest of the state. Jason Lewis is running a lot better in Minnesota that he should. So is Donald Trump. As long as he or she is a Democrat, it really couldn’t matter less who represents Minneapolis in Congress. What does matter is who our senators are and that we regain control of both houses of the legislature.
“My concern is that what is happening in Minneapolis is hurting the DFL in the rest of the state.”
Are you referring to the CD 5 primary or the unrest?
As very eloquently put in a post by some one a few months back, outstate Trumpers are often more worried about plastic bag bans and Somalian immigrants in Minneapolis than government actions determining markets for their primary crops. It is what it is, as the great man said.
Basically, the best hope is that a few very good, D candidates can win local Senate elections on local values and local performance by themselves and their opponents.
If Melton Meaux never raised his head and Omar ran essentially unopposed, the idea that we would be at a greater advantage in some Senate race in Kittson County is a stretch.
Yes we see this concern, the problem is Hiram you don’t realize that “centrist/moderates” have no one to blame but themselves for the Parties failures and weaknesses. For one thing, THEY’VE been controlling the Party for decades, and this trend has been underway for decades. Blaming someone else for the Party’s misfortunes is a little comical.
The idea that Democrats are just now beginning to lose elections because Democrats like Omar have won seats is simply daft. You’ve been losing for a long time, and the problem is even when you win, you lose because you leave every major issue your constituents are facing on the table indefinitely. Sure, you get stadiums built for New Jersey billionaires; but Republicans block and stall every other initiative because when you guys had a chance to settle these issues you took a pass so-as to not over-reach… and then you lost anyways. But hey, the Vikings got their new stadium and who knows, maybe sometime in the next decade they’ll figure out how to keep it from falling apart?
Progressive and liberals are the Democratic Party’s salvation. You guys are the ones leading the Party over a cliff, liberals the ones trying to drag you back from the abyss.
“THEY’VE been controlling the Party for decades, and this trend has been underway for decades.”
Of course, “THEY” is also known as the majority of voters. I am at a loss on the best way to achieve:
“Hey, majority of voters, you have once again got it plain wrong and we’re going to fix it right now by going with the choice of a minority of the voters because they are a lot smarter than you”
Might all be true as Paul claims, and I am all ears on the best way to get this done because winning the majority has not worked.
Edward, Your “majority” is selecting losers. Democrats have been losing elections, they’ve lost states, congress, and Democrats have lost 6 of the last ten presidential contests, they’ve held office for just 16 of the last 40 years in the White House. You lost to Donald Trump. You don’t need to let a minority select your candidates, you just need a new majority that can select better candidates.
I can agree with you on how a new majority may be a better majority.
I asked how do we get there?
Calling the present majority a bunch of ill informed losers is likely not an effective strategy no matter how much some may enjoy doing so.
The ACA and MFA is a great example opportunity. Biden right now is for lowering eligibility to 60 and adding a public option. Maybe 25% of the way to satisfying you. 25% Farther than telling evil moderates how backwards they are.
And not to forget, Medicare includes the ability for Seniors to go into the private insurance market and purchase “Advantage Plans” that allow for folks to choose a higher level of service to meet their needs/desires. Do you think these should be eliminated from Medicare as currently constructed? Carrying this forward into MFA could get unions that have traded wages for benefits for years to support MFA.
Edward, “How do we get there?” We ARE getting there, despite moderate resistance. How? We vote, it’s that simple. Omar won elections, she defeated Kahn and Antone… in an election, that’s how democracy works. Progressives and liberals will win nominations and elections, it’s big secret plan of any kind. Obviously you don’t like it, but that’s what’s happening.
As for MFA, I’m not arguing or describing it at this point, that’s a battle we’ll win later. All I can say today is that almost EVERYTHING you say about it is simply wrong. The problem with instinctively rejecting ideas and plans is you never achieve any real understanding or knowledge regarding the ideas and plans your rejecting. Instinct and impulse are not rational processes.
One of the reasons I’m not arguing with your guys about MFA right now is that all you do make up your own versions of MFA that have nothing to do with actual plan. The actual legislation is only 100 pages, but you can read much shorter summaries any time you want, something you obviously haven’t done. Yes, I know Kobuchar read one paragraph on a single page, I’m not sure why that accomplishment should impress anyone.
Suffice to say that MFA isn’t simply an expansion of the existing Medicare/Medicaid plans and all of their current deficiencies. The “advantage” plan you refer to for instance becomes unnecessary because all of that additional coverage becomes standard coverage with MFA. Donut holes, co-pays, deductibles, supplemental coverage, it all goes away. If you think being “forced” to live with affordable, universal, irrevocable health coverage for everything from hearing aids to brain surgery and nursing homes subjects you to incomprehensible oppression, then you probably think face masks are an attack on your constitutional rights. If you think the majority of American share your allergy to quality affordable health care, you’re in for a shock. The vast majority of your fellow American want it, and want it 20 years ago.
Jason Lewis is running better than he should because Tina Smith is not out there communicating. Instead, I get literally twice daily e-mails begging for money.
If Tina Smith really wants to hang on to that Senate seat, she needs to be making public statements about what is going on in Minnesota and in D.C. As anyone who reads history professor Heather Cox Richardson’s daily essays on events in Washington knows, there is an awful lot to comment on.
I understand that the pandemic makes personal appearances difficult, but as one of Minnesota’s two Senators, she needs to be writing op-eds for the Strib, Pioneer Press, and other papers; volunteering statements to TV and radio outlets, and otherwise articulating a vision of what a Democratic-controlled Senate could do. Unfortunately, her current approach comes off as “I’m being a good little girl, and people will appreciate that. And give me money, because that nasty Jason Lewis is gaining on me.”
Sure, she’ll win the votes of committed Democrats, but do independent voters even know who she is, especially if they live in a rural area where right-wing talk radio dominates the airwaves?
Hiram Foster has got it exactly right. Voters in Mpls are very self consumed (as we all tend to be) and don’t have a state-wide perspective. The people you elect have to play nice in a bigger sandbox than you play in. Progress is never made by revolutionaries and extremists; progress is made by moderates who listen to all voices and then jump on opportunities to advance public policy. Look at our history; T. Roosevelt not Bryant; F. Roosevelt not LaFollette, etc. Your positive voice is needed. What I am concerned about is the voices we are hearing from Mpls-many foolish statements from council members (calling the police is an act of entitlement), offensive statements on this post about moderates, Nizami’s racist remarks in the article, and yes, Ilhan’s comments including offensive comments about Israel using old anti-semetic tropes (Benjamin’s). I know it feels good to make these and other comments. I love your passion. But things like this are picked up and played by Republicans in swing districts in Minnesota and they scare low information voters and then we lose in those districts and we lose control of a chamber. You lose by giving into your justifiable anger, attacking other people and allowing the R’s to paint the DFL as made up of angry anarchists to which they add racial tropes. You make yourself feel better by voting for Ilhan and then lose control of the legislature. We moderates are not the enemy. You have to work with us because as a big tent party we win elections and then make more progress and most important we keep crap off the agenda. I tell the loud progressives who are disappointed in moderate candidates in swing districts that they really should think about the one thing that moderate will do for you as a progressive and that is vote for Melissa to be speaker. She then appoints committee chairs and bad crap never gets heard in committee and good things advance-maybe not as far as you’d like but a heck of a better deal than you get from the R’s. We need help from Mpls voters in rural and suburban swing districts: tone it down, keep it practical and don’t elect people who become a poster for the dark right.
“Progress is never made by revolutionaries and extremists; progress is made by moderates who listen to all voices and then jump on opportunities to advance public policy.”
That’s funny. I guess the war that established our democracy was just a little incremental spat amongst moderates. The civil rights movement was just KKK and Black moderates working things out. Thank God we took an incremental approach to rolling back the Nazis, can you imagine if we’d tried to defeat them in a matter of years?
The fact that it can take revolutionary ideas and agendas years or decades to succeed doesn’t prove that moderation is the only productive means of change. You have seen what MLK wrote about “moderates” while in the Birmingham jail right? Sometimes change happens quickly, sometimes it takes decades, but that in no way establishes the primacy of incrementalism.
Look, Clearly those invested in the status quo will always resist change but history can’t be bent to fit moderate comfort zones. History is filled with honest to God revolutions and the claim that those revolutions never changed anything or deliver progress is simply daft. Sure, moderates are more uncomfortable with demands that fall outside their narrow ranges of “acceptable” change; but the idea that moderate comfort zones dictate reality or possibility is simply entitlement pretending to be realism.
All anyone has to do in order to reveal the vacuity of these “moderate” claims is look at the agendas and policies they want to classify as “revolutionary”. Medicare For All is a “revolutionary” idea that demands moderate opposition? A government program that already exists, and a provider/payer system already in place all over the world, is too “revolutionary” to consider in the US? Living wages? Sufficient tax revenue? Sustainable energy and transportation regimes? Affordable colleges and universities? Yeah, our nation could never survive the strain of such revolutionary policies without collapsing into chaos.
The idea that the “moderate” perspective is the only perspective that matters is simply an expression of privilege and entitlement that requires every other perspective to submit their priorities for approval. History does not recognize that presumed authority.
Could it be that you’re BOTH right? In that the “revolutions” that lead to lasting change are those that rather than violently upending the status quo rapidly, instead advance their grand changes at a slower pace, gradually bringing the less revolution inclined around to the position, strengthening it in the process? It could be argued that both of your examples, particularly the Civil Rights movement, follow this model.
Matt, I think your just re-conceptualizing revolutionary change as form of incremental change.
Some change happens incrementally, other change and progress not so much. I’m not denying the existence or the historical experience of incremental change but it’s fatuous to deny the existence of revolutionary change. I’m not here to teach people history, anyone can find their own examples of each kind of change or progress. I would agree that sometime incremental change is appropriate, but to impose incremental changes to crisis is irrational and immoral.
Ultimately the problem with “moderates” who are more comfortable with incremental change is that they see themselves as being in the middle or center of something, but they’re not actually located in the center of anything, they’re just protecting their own status. The idea that you should seek accommodation with Fascists for instance because that’s how moderates work things out with adversaries is simply daft on the face of it. The idea that we should meet Trump half-way somewhere is likewise a suicidal tendency.
When you look at these self described incremental/moderates you can’t find them in the middle of any coherent political/social spectrum because they’ve been drifting to the “right” for so long that they instinctively reject even modest liberal suggestions. Just look at these guys, do you really think they reach out to progressives just a enthusiastically as they reach out to Republicans? Do you think Antone was an attempt to reach some kind of accommodation with progressive voters?
The problem with incremental moderates is that they end up rather like the frog that’s dropped into the pot of water while it’s still cold. They don’t realize that no matter how slowly the temp is increased… eventually you boil.
No, not really, I’m all for the big ideas, the structural reorganization, just not the idea that the only way it can be accomplished is by ramming it down the throats of those not inclined (within reason of course). All that breeds is resentment and retrenchment, and a fervor to reverse course at the first available opportunity. Beyond that, it ignores the idea that power built is far more potent than that which is temporarily seized in the passion of a momentary watershed. Building progessivism one “safe district” at a time, slowly creating a base of power from which to expand, rather than shooting for the top, hoping that coattails will propel a few others is a good example of such an approach. Thankfully, it seems that others have agreed.
Matt, the only ones in this country trying ram anything down anyone’s throat are Republican Fascists; everyone else is just trying to get nominated and elected. Anyone who thinks merely seeing a progressive candidate on their primary ballot makes them victims of extremism is simply revealing their sense of privilege.
Seriously, you understand you’re not dealing with Maoist’s militants here right? No one is going to take hostages at the convention. All progressives and liberals are doing is competing for votes. Sometimes you guys look like you’re just of afraid of democracy as Republicans. The entire progressive/liberal project for decades has been about strengthening our democratic institutions, expand the franchise, and mobilizing popular support. If you think Medicare For All is a form oppression you have more in common with Trump than FDR.
No, Medicare for All is a perfect example of the problem with your strategy. The “progressive” marketing for its implementation is to make it a moral issue, health care as a human right, and excoriate those opposed (we’re talking non-Republicans here) as heartless and mentally deficient for possibly taking pause when considering the issue. It the next stroke in the. tries to knock down exceptionalism by comparing the US to the world. In its final thrust, it delves into economics, only by reminding that Insurance CEO’s are evil, and we need to knock them down a peg. Even the name, when most folks think of Medicare they think of the infirmity of old age, and how they seek to avoid conflating themselves with that image.
Name it the “Medical and Economic Freedom Act”. Emphasize the difference between the tax needed to fund it, vs the premiums paid today, both by individuals and business, talk up the freedom to pursue entrepreneurship it will allow, take the conservative argument out at the knees. Leave them to try to use shame and moral dilemma as their talking point.
It is ramming, when you’re the one needing accommodation. No one would have an issue with progressives doing as they like WHEN they win elections, whining from the losing side isn’t obstruction. What is at issue is attempting to extort concessions, upon threat of mutually assured destruction by conservatives, when those victories haven’t yet occured.
Matt, when MFA becomes law in the United States it will happen by legislation, not by decree issued by some socialist dictator. If you’re saying that being expected to live with a law you don’t like makes you a victim of oppression or that losing a political battle is the equivalent of Armageddon you’re just sounding more and more like a Republican.
Are you telling us the only problem you have with MFA is the name, if we call it: “Medical and Economic Freedom Act” your all in? We can work that out. You do realize that the majority of American’s already want MFA right? It’s not a tough sell to anyone who knows what it is and how it works. But if you’ve got some ideas lets hear em, but don’t expect us step back and put this on track for 2050, we can do this 6-8 years at most.
I’m not arguing with anyone about MFA these days I’m just saying these complaints about “extremism” are fatuous. If you want to reach out work with liberals progressive no one is stopping you. If you’d rather engage in a death match, you can do that as well. Just know that we’re serious about this, we’ll work with you but we’re not going to seek your permission or consent. We’re not the ones looking for a death match anyways, Omar did NOT take Kahn’s seat the way Antone tried to take, WE’RE not launching attack after attack like that. We can work with true moderates, but if you attack, if you want a fight… you’ll get a fight.
I’m curious, was I a Republican fascist BEFORE, or after I pulled the lever for Bernie, twice? Despite all the love for MFA, it’s still not made it across the finish line, why is that? Perhaps if one pauses lashing out at perceived enemies long enough to employ some introspection, one might discover that its more than one entities approach that leads to the current divide, and that perhaps if the results one wishes to see haven’t occurred, it just MIGHT be that a change of strategy is in order. At some point you’ll need to come to terms with the fact you’ll need more than progressive support to advance the agenda items you seek, I’ve always found honey a far more useful attractant than vinegar.
Two votes for Sanders doesn’t make you a progressive. Regardless who you vote for, your comments don’t reflect a liberal or progressive attitude or mentality. I personally don’t think you’re a Fascist, and I don’t think I’ve called you one. I would say, based on your comments, that you’re neoliberal Eisenhower Republican who votes for Democrats. But whatever, what I think isn’t important, it’s not my job to classify you, and I’m certainly in no position to compile a psychological profile.
You’re primary complaint about progressives at the end of the day seems to be that they’re willing to pursue their agenda without your approval or consent. Don’t expect that to change, and don’t expect any apologies. Of course a “moderate” agenda doesn’t require liberal or progressive approval or consent does it? Whatever, our votes will work this out.
Regarding MFA, if you think “marketing” is the only reason MFA hasn’t made it across the “finish” line you just don’t understand the scenario. If you want help get it there great, but don’t pretend it would be law today if you’d been in charge of the campaign. We have to contend with major structural resistance, we already have public opinion. Frankly the fact that it went from ZERO support within the Party to something several candidates endorsed in just three years is more progress than we’ve made in 30 years. We always want to do better but if you thought it was going to become law next year in any event you’re the most optimistic MFA supporter I know.
Could progressive campaigns be better? Sure. But existing power structures are a REAL thing. It could be that the recent surge in support for liberal issues and agendas has as much to do with the collapse of “centrism” as it does any kind of new and improved progressive campaign. DLC Democrats had lock on the Party for almost 40 years.
Paul, a couple comments:
First, you seem to be identifying moderates as the resistance to progress. They are not; the resistance comes from reactionaries and conservatives and yes, right leaning moderates. Left leaning moderates identify with the goals and priorities you identify such as medicare for all, living wages, sustainable energy, etc. The moderates are the ones that get those goals accomplished. You might not like incrementalism and that is very understandable but who are you going to join forces with to accomplish your goals? Remember in the sixties we got medicare, medicaid, voting rights etc. from moderate Lyndon Johnson but the loud voices and nation-wide bombing from the far left scared the country and then we got Nixon and finally Reagan. Those two administrations were a long, heavy price to pay so far leftists could “express themselves”.
Second, I disagree with your interpretation of history. In our revolution it was not the Samuel Adams who secured the goals but moderates like John Adams (as David Brooks points out). So yes, in the end after the rebellion we had a moderate constitution featuring a central government rather than a less federalized system that had proved chaotic and ineffective under the Articles of Confederation. War was a heavy price to pay for that and it was conservative English reaction that forced moderates to join the firebrands in the rebellion. Moderates got the job done and in the end the nation has made progress. No doubt there has been much pain and suffering with this incrementalist approach. But what’s the alternative? I hope we’re not talking about armed rebellion now; remember it is the conservatives who are armed not the left.
Third, MLK was a Black moderate; he was characterized in his time as a revolutionary by the far right. But he battled constantly with the extreme left. His moderate way was ultimately successful although unfinished. You are right he also had to battle the moderates; he got them to join him, most notably the mainline churches who brought their (at that time) considerable membership into the battle. The result was Lyndon Johnson’s successful Great Society.
Finally, It’s not that the moderate perspective is the only perspective; it’s what works. Look indeed at history. Our moderate constitution of 1787 was based on the Presbyterian governance model of 1536 which arose out of the religious (which at that time was also civil) rebellion of that time . The Presbyterians have been using it successfully to “reform and always reforming” for five hundred years. The US is onto a younger but still oldest in the world ‘reform and always reforming” system of governance that you are part of and have an important voice in. The far leftist successes were the “reign of terror” and Lenin. Neither succeeded nor lasted. Our US constitutional system is governance by the moderates and it has been too slow to adapt but it is adapting and progressing. There is really no alternative outside armed conflict.
My original point was that folks who are thoroughly progressive living in a political unit (MPLS) where this perspective thrives should realize that those who are slightly less progressive are not the enemy but rather are valued allies who can help you achieve your goals. Help those of us in less progressive locales succeed by toning down the rhetoric and quit scaring people who might otherwise be sympathetic. The Mpls City Council and Ilhan could well be the reason that the MN legislature does not become all DFL. That’s a heavy price to pay for schemes that won’t and rhetoric that is essentially self gratifying but otherwise useless. It’s interesting to note that not one of the “defund the police” council people or any of them ever introduced a plan to reform the police. I’m hoping that if we have a blue wave that the noise from Mpls will not matter but it might.
Andrew, The problem is more often than not “moderates” classify anything outside their status quo as extremism. Like I said, the idea that Sanders’s or Omar, or AOC, are some kind of “extremists” pursuing “radical” agendas is actually comical. Only a conservative mentality could reach that conclusion, be they Democrats or not. The mentality your describing isn’t a “moderate” mentality, it’s a classical conservative mentality.
Listen, if you want to join progressives and liberals and work towards a more equitable and fair society you are welcome do to so any time you want. But if you want to tell people in crises who are suffering that you’re not ready for “radical” solutions just yet, you may not find such a warm welcome. Moderate support and cooperation would be a welcome change, but don’t expect anyone to seek moderate consent or approval, that is simply not required nor requested.
Yes, everything has a history associated with it, that doesn’t mean that Presbyterians wanted to write a Declaration of Independence in 1536 but decided to wait because it was too radical at the time. You’re connecting historical dots creatively, anyone can play that game because no one exists out of time. I would warn you however to be cautious about that particular historical rabbit hole because any serious study of Colonial America reveals a vicious history of religious and racial persecution and conflict. Connecting THAT to the DOI instead of Enlightenment influences becomes rather untenable after a while. In many way the DOI arose despite colonial influences rather descended from them.
Just a final comment for our self professed “moderates” on the line: You claim to be the ones who stand in the middle and reach out to the extremes, but the fact is that your reach only goes in one direction- to the right. Is Antone YOUR idea of a guy seeking the middle ground between Omar and Trump? No, he’s attacking and marginalizing Omar while seeking a middle ground between himself and Trump, that’s how the Democratic Party transformed itself into a moderate Republican Party, that’s how a Heritage Foundation health care proposal ends looking like a “liberal” plan to Democrats.
Look, if you guys want to join the liberal/progressive project to create a more equitable and just America you’re welcome to do that any time. No one is asking you to man any barricades, or face down any Nazis, or even donate money. All ANYONE is asking you to do is vote for a candidate that supports Medicare For All. If you think THAT is asking you to surrender to the forces of chaos and socialism, if you think THAT is a leap into the abyss, then you are not “moderates”, you’re certainly not liberals, and your not even being reasonable. And if you don’t want to cast that vote, then don’t. But you don’t get to oppose progress at every turn and claim to be the only possible agents of progress the world has ever known, that’s not going to work.
OK, I’ll just circle back to one other observation I’ve made in past- One problem with “moderates” and “centrists” is that they rail against “extremes” without realizing that they themselves can be just as extremist. “Moderation” can be it’s own form of extremism. Matt complains for instance about progressives that want to ram their policies down people throats, but it never occurs to him that moderates are the ones ramming “moderation” down people throats when THEY win elections. In fact, on an average day if you look at the attacks that guys like Antone launch against Omar you can see that these “moderates” are trying much harder to ram their “moderation” down voters throats then any progressive. Any progressive will work with moderates who want move the ball forward, but did it look moderates were reaching out to work with Omar? Who’s the real extremist here?
It is all too convenient to allocate Omar’s problems to her being too progressive for “moderates” to deal with.
Keith Ellison is hardly a moderate, hesitant to offer an opinion and generated a whole lot less heat than Omar.
Omar has only herself to blame for the vast majority of her troubles: ill conceived comments that she subsequently apologized for like the “all about the Benjamin’s” comment. Her thoughts along these lines could still be expressed with out inflammatory, Trumpian like language.
And the ethical lapses that her followers refuse to fault her for will continue until she has solid feedback from her most loyal followers that this is bad and cut it out, or she crosses the legal ethical line and is run out of office like Vin Weber, Dave Durenberger and Jim Wright.
She is not some precious jewel of progressive policy: there are plenty of strong progressives in MN CD 5 that could advance the cause without Omar’s baggage.
I would disagree in that none of those “other strong progressives” are stepping up to the plate. Omar is a talented politician, like Ellison before her. (To say he has generated less heat is curiously revisionist memory) That she doesn’t meet the impossible standards of perfection that some might prefer is irrelevant, she’s winning by large margins, and like I mentioned to Paul earlier, has earned the right to make her way as she sees fit. Seems to be working so far.
“To say he has generated less heat is curiously revisionist memory”
Ellison was runner up for heading the DNC and was subsequently Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee is my reference for “less heat” . Anyone to the left of Tom Emmer will create right wing heat, but that was not my point. Ellison was progressive and able to navigate through the evil moderates.
“That she doesn’t meet the impossible standards of perfection that some might prefer is irrelevant”
Finding fault with doubling household income by sliding campaign dollars to her husband’s business where she is 90% of all his business may seem “impossible standards of perfection” to you and our right wing friends would say the same for Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Rick Gates and Steve Bannon. Nice company to keep.
Wake up and smell the coffee: it stinks and your refusal to hold her accountable does a disservice to her and her constituents.
Ellison was progressive and able to navigate through the evil moderates.
Thus far, so has Omar, unless you consider double digit victories as somehow not impressive enough. I get it, you don’t like Omar, as is your right, but don’t try to invent a reality that doesn’t exist.
Omar is a strong progressive candidate and house member. Obviously some people don’t like her, but clearly the majority of her constituents don’t subscribe to Edwards critique. I haven’t had a problem with anything she’s said or done, and I think it’s pretty obvious that her detractors are manufacturing outrage and controversies returning the same “issues” again and again.
She’s a strong and courageous representative and I’ve never even for a second regretted or my votes for her.
“Are you referring to the CD 5 primary or the unrest?”
Both. Biden and Trump are running roughly even, and Tina Smith is not doing at all well. Both of those races matter in ways that the fifth congresssional district do not. I certainly fear for what is happening in state senate races and even in the state house.
Well there you have it, Hiram and I share the exact same concerns.
The difference is Hiram seems to want to blame Omar for Biden and Smith’s weakness whereas progressives/liberals like myself simply point to parsimony; if you hear hooves on the street think horse not zebra. If your candidates are weak… it’s because your candidates are weak and running weak campaigns, not because progressives are launching a diabolical attack of extremism on your heretofore record of unbeatable candidates. Democrats have been losing with weak candidates for decades, they just didn’t lose to a actual Fascist until 2016.
As Ms. Sandness points out, Biden and Smith have been AWOL in MN, if your trying explain their lack luster polling results that’s a good place to start. Sander’s dropped out months ago to give Biden a head start and he dived into his basement until a few day ago. What do you expect? Biden spent weeks of not months trying to make a decision that should take a couple days at most. Whatever, we’re stuck these guys. All I can say if they think they win without campaigning in MN they’re making the same mistake HRC made, only they might actually lose this time.
Democrats are once again organizing around a campaign that is simply focused on replacing Trump, it’s another vote against not vote for campaign. All we can do is hope for the best and hope that Trump keeps dissembling enough to lose.
I don’t want to blame anyone. I want to win majorities of both houses of the Minnesota legislature. I want Minnesota to have two Democratic US senators.
It’s pretty clear to me that Democrats are struggling in Minnesota because of the riots. They weren’t the fault of either Smith or Omar, but as President Trump might say, they are what they are. I actually blame Trump and Trumpism for that but that hardly matters at this point.
I agree with Paul, that Democrats don’t win races simply by being negative. To be successful, our campaigning must have a positive component. But this year, the political tides are running strongly against that. The bad news has been overwhelming and for many of us the race this year is all about the pain and how we make it stop.
“It’s pretty clear to me that Democrats are struggling in Minnesota because of the riots. They weren’t the fault of either Smith or Omar, but as President Trump might say, they are what they are. I actually blame Trump and Trumpism for that but that hardly matters at this point.”
Democrats have been struggling for decades, this election cycle isn’t different because of the riots. Neither Trump or anyone else on any ticket in this election cycle is responsible for the riots. Those riots are the product of policy, brutality, discrimination, and inequities that both parties have been ignoring and/or promoting for decades. We watched LA cops beat on Rodney King for 15 minutes how long ago now? Any analysis that fails to recognize that fact is facile.
Omar is an example of a politician that recognizes the systemic origins of multiple crisis and is promoting policies and proposals to attack them effectively. This election isn’t about riots it’s about decades of status quo policies that ignored too many voters and too many crisis for too long. How is that not clear?
I’m not trying to insult anyone but Hiram’s instinct to blame (and he IS blaming) Omar or the riots is an example of the myopia that’s been crippling Democrats for so long. Progressive have been trying to warn everyone about the militarization of law enforcement for decades. We saw our first big local example during Operation Cold Snap back the late 90’s (The removal of activists blocking the HWY 55 reroute). We saw it again in big way at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, and that’s not to mention the countless constant ongoing instances people of color live with every day. We can tick off the list: Health care, poverty wages, sexism, homelessness, affordable housing, infrastructure, global warming, etc. etc. These all ongoing crisis for decades and all we get from Republicans is denial, and Democrats just keep saying: “yeah yeah yeah we’ll get to when we get to it.” Meanwhile everything gets worse.
Hiram’s complaint that merely recognizing these crisis puts us on pessimistic campaign trajectory resembles a Republican brand of patriotism (Why do you hate America?). This brings us back to the progressive/liberal project as a transformational movement and politics. We’ve had two conservative Party’s for decades, it’s time for a liberal Party to emerge. Clearly Eisenhower Democrats just don’t get it at this point. If you compare Ilhan and Antone’s primary campaigns and see Omar’s as the NEGATIVE of the two… you either weren’t paying attention or you’re vision is severely obscured for some reason.
I would also not that few things in politics were as depressing as Omar’s primary campaign. It was all about how sad and broken we all are. Ilhan had such high hopes for America when she came here and it’s sad that America has turned out to be such disappointment for her.
Let me offer the perspective of an outstate Progressive.
Marty Sabo could have been elected in almost any congressional district in MN. Omar couldn’t get elected dog catcher outside Minneapolis.
Doesn’t that say something about the ability to take a very safe Blue congressional district and use it to build long term influence in the Congress like Sabo did? Even if Omar serves 20 years in Congress she will never have any influence there. She is correctly seen as a huge liability to the more than 30 new Dems elected in 2018 who actually turned Red districts Blue. Her election is built on the fact that the Somali population in Minnesota is concentrated in Minneapolis, nothing more.
Think of how much better of the Democratic Party in Minnesota and the 5th District would be if Margaret Anderson Kelliher, a very skilled politician, had been elected instead of Omar. She would have been a committee chair in 10 years.
But of course if you are part of the Bernie World you don’t have to deal with reality, with the real world, you can just be for the Revolution. If you have a minority population based in your district you can have an inflated sense of your own importance and hold a press conference in the middle of a busy Washington, DC intersection.
It is not clear to me what Twin Cities Progresssives are up to in supporting Omar.
It works both ways. Martin Sabo represents the past of Minnesota politics. Nowadays we have not only Ilhan Omar but Michelle Bachmann and Jason Lewis, neither of whom could get elected in any area that was not saturated with right-wing radio and pseudo-Christian megachurches.
Well, numerically yes, the majority of votes came out of city that has the largest population, but Omar’s votes increased from 68k to 108k, and she won almost all of the suburbs as well. She got almost 80k in MPLS alone, but I don’t see any demographic breakdown by ethnicity. We can assume that Somalis voted for her, but what percentage of the total MPLS vote that is isn’t clear.
“Her election is built on the fact that the Somali population in Minnesota is concentrated in Minneapolis, nothing more.”
Which tells me that race is a big – if not determining – factor behind your conclusion that she could not get elected in any district outside of the Fifth.
No doubt Minneapolis progressives have their reasons for supporting Omar. The problem is that she is a drag on the ticket elsewhere. I will vote for her but when asked I don’t have a coherent explanation of why someone who doesn’t know that unmarried people can’t file joint federal income returns should be in Congress other than she does the only important thing back bench Congress people do, vote for a Democrat for speaker.
We do live in a divided state. We have cities and we have Republicans who run fiercely and often successfully against cities. O mar doesn’t help with that but the problem existed before she came into prominence. The riots this summer were a major disaster for Democrats in Minnesota. They are why a US senate seat is in jeopardy, and why Donald Trump is running even in a state that has not gone Republican in presidential elections since the Nixon administration. It is a problem.
Omar isn’t a “drag” on the ticket elsewhere. We get it Hiram, you don’t like Omar even IF you’ll vote for her. And you’ll vote for her, but you won’t stop attacking her. Clearly whatever happened with her marriages and taxes three years ago isn’t a factor in voter’s minds… but you can’t help but try to revive it as some kind of wedge issue. Whatever.
Democrats have been struggling to control the State Legislature for Decades now. You guys lost the State Senate, and you lost to Trump long before Omar came along. If Democrats wan’t to win elsewhere on the ticket they need to find good candidates and run good campaigns. Democrats who are struggling against Republicans this year aren’t struggling because of Omar, Democrats lost the State Senate when? they’re struggling because they’re either weak candidates, or they can’t assemble compelling campaigns.
Melton-Meux – the man – was a strong candidate for that district, but he was backed by corporate and zionist interests. Congratulation to the voters of MN 5 for rejecting his negative campaign .