[raw]
[/raw]
When election results for the attorney general’s race started rolling in last week, Sam Winter was stationed behind two large monitors in a busy room at a hotel in Minnetonka, watching closely how Republican candidate Jim Schultz was faring in each part of the state.
A model Winter built for Schultz’s campaign suggested the GOP might need 34% in the populous Hennepin County to win statewide. But Schultz was running behind that and eventually finished with 31.8%.
“That definitely was a red flag,” Winter said. “Had we hit that 34% and then all other counties were sort of constant, I think we would have made up that difference. It would have been right on a knife’s edge.”
That was the story of Schultz’s night, who lost by 0.84% to DFL incumbent Keith Ellison.
Schultz amassed what he said was the highest vote percentage for a Republican candidate for constitutional office in nearly 30 years, largely by running up huge margins in Greater Minnesota and performing better than Republican nominee for governor Scott Jensen in the Twin Cities suburbs. Jensen lost by 7.7 points statewide.
But it was only a moral victory for Schultz. Despite an anti-crime message focused on winning over more suburban voters, Schultz did not gain enough ground in the metro area, and really did not improve on Doug Wardlow’s metro results in his 2018 failed campaign for AG.
[raw]
[/raw]
The dream of a suburban revolt against Ellison from voters — like ones that favored Don Samuels in the close 5th Congressional District DFL primary against U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar earlier this year — failed to materialize.
As a result, Schultz couldn’t break a losing streak for GOP candidates in statewide races that dates back to 2006, or an even longer streak of Republicans not winning more than 50% of the total vote.
Where Schultz fell short
Winter said Schultz hit his marks or exceeded them in Greater Minnesota, where the Republican won by nearly 23 percentage points, compared to Wardlow’s 14.8 percentage-point margin in 2018. Wardlow lost to Ellison statewide that year by about 3.9 percentage points.
But Winter said the Schultz campaign was in trouble when Hennepin County results came in. Schultz ran ahead of Jensen there too, but he didn’t fare much better than Wardlow’s 31.3% in 2018. That wasn’t because of a larger pro-Ellison wave in Minneapolis. It was because Ellison beat Schultz by larger margins in the Hennepin County suburbs. Ellison beat Wardlow among non-Minneapolis voters in Hennepin County by 14.3 percentage points in 2018. And he beat Schultz by 19.8 percentage points in the region in 2022.
It’s difficult to perfectly compare Ellison’s 2018 victory to his win this year because of the lack of a third party candidate. In 2018, Legal Marijuana Now candidate Noah Johnson got a rather large 5.7% of the statewide vote. The absence of a marijuana party probably helped Ellison this year, since Johnson likely took votes away from the DFLer in the metro area.
Still, large suburban cities, key targets of Schultz’s anti-crime message, preferred Ellison even more in 2022 than they did in 2018, including in Minnetonka, where Schultz lives. In Plymouth, Ellison more than doubled his vote margin from 2018. Ellison outperformed his 2018 margins to varying degrees in St. Louis Park, Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Crystal and more. And he flipped Maple Grove, where Wardlow beat him by more than 700 votes in 2018.
Schultz did better in a few places, like Brooklyn Center.
[raw]
[/raw]
But the trend was not contained in Hennepin County. Ellison beat Wardlow by 4.6 percentage points in the seven-county metro area suburbs — not including Minneapolis or St. Paul. But the DFLer beat Schultz by 7.2 percentage points in that region of the state in 2022.
In other words, Republicans failed to flip enough voters in the Twin Cities metro, even with a candidate that was less scandal-prone and more moderate than Wardlow.
What caused Schultz to fall short
Amy Koch, a Republican political strategist and former Senate majority leader, said Schultz did play to the suburbs in a race that was all about the suburbs. And she felt his message was successful to some degree.
But she said Schultz faced headwinds. One was Jensen. She said when the top of the ticket candidate does well, it boosts down-ballot ones. But when one performs poorly, it’s a drag on others. “Jensen didn’t even need to win, he just couldn’t lose by that many points,” Koch said.
Another issue for Schultz and most Republicans is that they were outspent, Koch said.
But Koch said the GOP brand and abortion politics were a major problem for the GOP. Even as Schultz staked out a position on abortion access that was far less restrictive than most of his Republican peers — favoring a ban at 20 weeks that would allow most abortions — Koch said it was impossible for anyone to overcome a “very very damaged” brand with women. “It was just a disaster,” she said.
Some Republicans “came out really swinging” on the issue of abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, she said. “That was just very distasteful to women on both sides of the aisle,” Koch said. Even if people had concerns about crime or inflation, “there was a decision that this was the ultimate question and that Republicans were not fit as a party to be in charge.”
Samuels, a former Minneapolis City Council member who lost to Omar by 2.2 percentage points in August, endorsed Martha Holton Dimick in the county attorney’s race against the Ellison-backed Mary Moriarty. Samuels was also a staunch opponent of the failed public safety charter amendment that Ellison supported.
But Samuels said he voted for Ellison over Schultz and suspected most of his supporters did, too. Samuels said there was a lot of gratitude toward Ellison for securing a murder conviction of Derek Chauvin in the killing of George Floyd, which “transcended anything possible that Schultz could produce.”
“There was a lot of vulnerability. People felt that anything could happen in the city, we don’t know what’s going to happen,” Samuels said. “Keith stepped in there and provided great legal work and outcome.”
And he said it’s a challenge for any Republican to pull in people who have a “strong justice focus,” because of the baggage of the party as a whole. Some likely saw independent ads run by an outside political group against Ellison as extreme or racist, Samuels said. And he said it’s hard for a candidate running on a public safety message to speak with nuance and avoid accusations of racism, even if Samuels said he didn’t feel like Schultz himself was racist or ran a race-baiting campaign.
“At the end of the day, [Ellison] was a Northsider, he’s African American,” Samuels said. “I think that there’s more opportunity to talk to him, to argue with him, to persuade him, to work with him and ultimately … I think we share more constituents in our support. We can evolve together in a way that Schultz would be more of a one-off ally rather than a fellow team member.”
Eric Ostermeier, a research fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs, said the close AG race was more attributable to Ellison than Schultz. In 2018, Ellison underperformed Walz by about 7.5 points, which was the largest deficit in margin by a DFL candidate for attorney general compared to a governor candidate since the DFL party was formed in 1944, Ostermeier said. The 2022 margin was similar, only a hair smaller of an underperformance by Ellison compared to Walz last time around.
Ellison as a more liberal statewide candidate appears to have so far in his career a “built-in deficit against someone at least perceived as closer to the center of Minnesota politics like Walz is.” But Ostermeier said that also means issues like crime or the charter amendment vote “really didn’t have any noticeable effect in terms of how he performed versus Walz.”
The lack of a third-party candidate in the race likely helped Ellison. Ryan Wilson, the Republican candidate for auditor, got fewer votes overall than Schultz. But because of two marijuana party candidates on the ballot who perhaps siphoned votes away from DFLer Julie Blaha, Wilson got closer to ousting the incumbent.
No Republican has won more than 50% of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson was elected to a second term as governor in 1994. Carlson won 63.3% of the vote against John Marty, who remains a state Senator.
Since then, the GOP has had 46 chances in statewide elections for governor, AG, secretary of state and auditor to break the 50% mark, Ostermeier said. Republican Tim Pawlenty was elected governor twice with under 50% of the vote when he faced both DFL and Independent candidates.
“It is still surprising with this not being a deep, deep, deep blue state that we haven’t had a Republican candidate with enough appeal to overcome some of these built-in partisan leanings to the left,” Ostermeier said.
[raw]
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-aggeog’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, {
xAxis: { categories: [‘Greater Minnesota’, ‘Metro suburbs’, ‘Urban core’] },
yAxis: { title: { text: ‘Votes’ } },
tooltip: {
formatter: function(){
return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + this.series.name + ‘ got ‘ + ‘‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) + ‘‘ + ‘ votes’;
}
},
series: [{
name: ‘Jim Schultz’,
color: ‘#A1000F’,
data: [675378,513706,44476]
}, {
name: ‘Keith Ellison’,
color: ‘#0793AB’,
data: [422777,594019,237570]
}
]
}));
MP.highcharts.makeChart(‘.chart-agcityhen’, $.extend(true, {}, MP.highcharts.barOptions, {
xAxis: { categories: [‘Minneapolis’,’Bloomington’,’Plymouth’,’Maple Grove’,’Eden Prairie’,’Minnetonka’,’Edina’,’Brooklyn Park’,’St Louis Park’,’Richfield’,’Golden Valley’,’Champlin’,’Crystal’,’Brooklyn Center’,’New Hope’,’Hopkins’,’Robbinsdale’,’Rogers’,’Orono’,’Mound’,’Minnetrista’,’Shorewood’,’Dayton’,’Corcoran’,’Medina’] },
yAxis: { title: { text: ‘Votes’ } },
tooltip: {
formatter: function(){
return ‘ ‘ + this.x + ‘‘ + ‘: ‘ + this.series.name + ‘ got ‘ + ‘‘ + MP.formatters.number(this.y,0) + ‘‘ + ‘ votes’;
}
},
series: [{
name: ‘Jim Schultz’,
color: ‘#A1000F’,
data: [23453,16053,16225,16921,12909,11015,10822,9610,6209,4221,3387,5733,3297,2546,2809,2051,1752,4163,2791,2624,2880,2336,2447,2345,1986]
}, {
name: ‘Keith Ellison’,
color: ‘#0793AB’,
data: [152753,25521,22807,18195,17517,18876,17941,17176,18356,10611,9429,5616,6195,5812,5532,5170,4891,2474,2137,2199,1936,2391,1965,1348,1636]
}
]
})); [/raw]
There were several homes in Olmsted County that displayed signs for every DFL candidate except Keith. I wondered why that was. Did they not support him? Did support him, but were reluctant to show it? Or did Keith’s campaign not have lawn signs?
If the latter, it’s a smart move. The money spent on lawn signs is better spent on outreach, especially since lawn signs can be vandalized.
FTR, I saw few if any signs for Jim Schultz, whereas in 2016 Steele County was awash in Wardlow signs.
Does it matter at all that the notion that the attorney general can protect us from crime — or that the sitting attorney general is responsible for crime — is nonsense? And while it is true that Schulz didn’t make race an explicit issue, surely it lurked under everything. The visuals of his TV ads shouted, “Look how white and straight and suburban I am!” And “I, white guy, will protect you, while Keith Ellison (you know what he is) hates police and loves criminals.” Maybe Hennepin County voters are just smart enough to ignore all that, or see it for what it is.
Also Schulz looks like a 22 year old. He should have grown a beard.
I have to second Dan on this. Schultz struck me as some overly youthful looking kid.
Add to it Schultz’s lack of courtroom experience as Dennis pointed out and yes, unqualified or grossly underqualified is the correct term to apply.
Ellison has always seemed to conduct himself with more gravitas. Always.
To the conservatives out there: Are these your cream of the crop? If so, get used to losing.
Well from the eyebrows down maybe.
“No Republican has won more than 50% of the vote statewide since Arne Carlson was elected to a second term as governor in 1994.”
You’d think that with a record like that, they’d start nominating moderates one of these days. Instead they run whackadoodles statewide.
The activists within the MN GOP have been extremists and disliked moderates for 30+ years. Arne Carlson was the sitting Governor in 1994 and the MN GOP endorsed ultra-conservative Allen Quist instead! Arne won the primary 66-33 and won statewide by nearly the same margin. In his 1990 win, Carlson just barely crossed the 50% threshold, so he actually has the *two* most-recent examples of a Republican getting 50%+ statewide.
And the MN GOP reaction? Well, they’ve since kicked Arne out of the party.
Going back further, Dave Durenberger was over 50% in his 1998 race. He was too moderate for the modern MN GOP (and he didn’t want to be around them), so he’s also no longer a Republican.
What about 1986? There’s Arne Carlson again, over 50% in his race for State Auditor, but no one else. [Side note: Carlson and Durenberger were also the only Republicans over 50% in 1982 when Carlson defeated 38-year-old Paul Wellstone and Durenberger defeated 35-year-old Mark Dayton.]
You have to go all the way back to 1984 – nearly 40 years! – to find a Republican who got over 50% statewide that didn’t get kicked out of / left the party.
This isn’t a true both-sides-do-it situation. Yes, the endorsed candidate lost in the primary, but Walz and Dayton were arguably the more centrist candidates and their opponents are still considered strong member of the Democratic Party whereas the Republican Party of Minnesota distanced themselves from a pragmatic leader in Arne Carlson.
The non endorsement in the Star Tribune helped Ellison. It pointed out that he won every case that has been completed, Including Chauvin, and has been aggressive in protecting consumers from predatory businesses, what the job calls for. Competence.
Those who suggested reasons to vote for Schultz had little to work with, other than he was not Ellison. In 2018, every Republican candidate ran against Ellison – and got no traction. This time if they had presented themselves as problem solvers, maybe a different outcome. However given how Republicans have handled the pandemic, racial justice and abortion, I would call them problem creators.
“But Koch said the GOP brand and abortion politics were a major problem for the GOP. Even as Schultz staked out a position on abortion access that was far less restrictive than most of his Republican peers — favoring a ban at 20 weeks that would allow most abortions — Koch said it was impossible for anyone to overcome a “very very damaged” brand with women. “It was just a disaster,” she said.”
The problem here for Schultz wasn’t so much with a “damaged brand” as with voters were smart enough to recognize that Schultz was lying about his abortion stance. Actions speak louder than words and there was nothing in Schultz’s history that supported his claimed position.
Exactly. And it’s perfectly sensible to think that someone with such a personal opposition to abortion might not diligently work to ensure protection for abortion rights. Especially when no one knows exactly what kind of legal battles over abortion rights and access are going to emerge in the coming post-Roe era, with the various total bans that Medieval States are already enacting.
There was a golden age in Medieval times when the harvests were good.
There were no years in the Medieval Era that were golden for women.
Fertility rates were good and they were able to amply suckle their babies. That is what it was to be a woman. Would you prefer they be a head of a fortune 500 company?
Well, there weren’t any such companies then, but which range of life opportunities would you personally prefer? Are you seriously trying to argue that the gender mores and cultural status of the Medieval era were preferable to those of the 21st Century? And how do you think most women would answer that?
You were the one transplanting modern values onto the middle age. It was survival. The kids were running around catching disease. Perhaps a romp in the hay with an opportune partner who had sufficient body fat to ovulate was a good thing……. Why do you use slurs against your fellow citizens? It does not advance the debate.
Well, it doesn’t even sound like you think it a was a slur, dan! But I don’t know what to say if you think one can’t objectively evaluate the living standards of what we know of past ages. I’m not condemning the past for failing to live according to “modern” standards, and I certainly agree with you about what women in the 12th Century likely thought of their lot in life. Most of them probably thought it was “God’s Will” or some such.
But objectively speaking, those women were second class citizens and had the rights of chattel. They had no control over the decision of whether to be pregnant or not. Their male lords and masters had the control, and women were effectively baby machines. And I see some alarming parallels there with the “conservative” movement of the 21st Century.
So if the “slur” fits, I say it’s fair game. Your mileage may vary. Have a good day.
Use of slurs is not a good rhetorical device. The ancients would not be happy.
Well to your credit perhaps in the professional managerial worldview they are part of some doomsday cult. But hey the waters are rising above the mountains are they not. See the medieval 15 signs of the end times.
Yeah, not a big KE fan, but running for AG and never have been in a court room, that is beyond weak, that is unqualified.
Most republicans are men, who work in the private sector. Most democrats are women who work for government, the largest employer in this state. So when the majority of voters work for government, it’s a miracle any republican wins any election at all.
As Chief Marge of Fargo fame would say, “I’m not sure I agree 100% with your police work there, Dennis”….
The largest employer in some states is the University system. In Minnesota it is The Mayo Clinic. Our political journalists schooled in the academy don’t write about this enough. Class or who your employer is effects political choices. There is also resentment, another somewhat nebulous factor that it is not discussed. Best of luck with that!
Well then, perhaps you and Dennis can actually crunch some numbers and show us how “the majority of voters work for government”. And if you can’t do that, then why affirm such nonsense?
And allow me to add that Repubs are not legally required to be aggressively hostile to government and government employees in particular. That’s a free intellectual and ideological choice the wonderful “conservative” movement has made, and the Repub party has swallowed it hook, line and sinker. It thinks it some great political advantage to incite resentment against such workers.
It appears Dennis is bitter about the (perfectly logical) electoral consequences of hating on most aspects of government, most especially its workers. But when you make your bed, you have to lie in it…
Actually Dennis is correct on this one. The liberal economist Lester Thurow wrote many articles on this very same issue.
Wow, that’s quite a statement Dennis. But hey, since I know that you haven’t s shred of evidence to even begin to back it up, let me posit MY theory. Most conservatives, be they men or women, have failed spectacularly at most of whatever life goals they’ve set for themselves, and as such seek to punish everyone ELSE for THEIR self-loathing. Liberals in general are mainly content with their lot in life, and seek to share that contentment with others. When the reality of that truth seeps through the obfuscation conservatives attempt, to mask their fundamentally odious nature, liberals win.
This is for the author. What I don’t get about this election is that Walz Team handlers basically shunned free mass media (what we call news) in favor of paid advertising. This seems to be a violation of democratic norms where you have multiparty candidates. I am a solid mainstream democrat (75th level) and I am still bothered by this last election. probably always will.
In this election, and not just in Minnesota, candidates seemed to me to be more remote, more unavailable than in past years. Candidates avoided debate and other interactions with the media. Paid media seemed mostly negative, designed to tear the opponent down rather present a positive view of the favored candidate and what he stood for. Important issues were reduced to to labels and buzzwords. What bothered me particularly in this election season is that too many campaigns themselves seemed to be conducted by outsiders. It is as if the real campaigners were anonymous entities who didn’t trust local politicians with their money and support.
I don’t think the decision by many candidates not to interact with the media and the voters was itself a violation of democratic norms. It is a free country, and in free countries politicians can campaign as they like. But I also there was a failure by the media to cover the campaign as it actually was conducted. What is going on with all the ads? Who is making them and how are they made? More importantly, who is paying for them, and what are their agendas? Why don’t we know so little about the shadowy figures behind them?
One modest proposal I have is that media should treat outside ads the way they do with ads by politicians. They should insist that names be attached to ads. They should require that if the entities submit political advertising on media, they should be available for interviews and to disclose their funding. We should not allow them to communicate with us only through grainy videos, sinister voice overs, and eerie music.
Politicians know that mainstream news organizations are not interested in discussing policy or character or fitness for the job. They’re simply looking for a controversial quote they can use in a 10 second repeating loop and then have their talking heads discuss it for days ad nauseum. It’s “gotcha” journalism and it doesn’t benefit anyone but the advertising sales department.
When Republicans talked about crime without addressing police violence, people like me read that to mean that outstate Republicans would instruct urban and suburban cops to beat more people up and to throw more of us in jail. The common sense of it is impeccable. Fewer city residents at large means fewer crimes being committed.