Showing posts with label Al Franken. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Al Franken. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
The Minnesota Two-Step
Let's start with some stuff that is important to understand, although not enough people do:
U.S. senators are elected to six–year terms, and the terms are arranged so that one–third of the Senate is on the ballot in any given election. In 2018 the electoral map has few Republicans facing the voters as the senators who are up for re–election won their current terms in 2012, the year Barack Obama was re–elected. That was a pretty good year for Democrats.
If those senators were re–elected in 2012, their previous election would have been in 2006, which was a big year for Democrats. That was the year they seized control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in more than a decade.
The Democrat senators who are on the ballot in 2018 had favorable winds at their backs the last two times their seats were on the ballot. Their party gained two Senate seats and eight House seats in 2012 — five Senate seats and 34 House seats in 2006.
The political terrain wasn't as favorable for Republicans in those years as it was in others, and fewer were successful. As a result, fewer Republicans hold the Class 1 seats that will be on the 2018 ballot.
Senate terms are also staggered so that no state must elect both its senators in the same election year — unless there is a midterm vacancy that needs to be filled.
Sen. Al Franken's stated intention to resign in January puts Minnesota in that comparatively rare category in 2018.
Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota's senior senator, is seeking a third six–year term in her Class 1 seat. Franken's seat is a Class 2 seat that would be slated to face the voters again in 2020, but because he is leaving the Senate, his appointed successor will be on the ballot in the next election. The voters will decide who will represent them until 2020 — at which time the winner of the 2018 race will have to decide whether to seek a full term.
Such two–fer Senate elections are rare — some states have never had one — but this will be the second time for Minnesota. The first time was 40 years ago — in 1978. Then, as now, both seats were held by Democrats.
Does that 40–year–old election have any relevance to 2018?
One of the seats had belonged to Sen. Walter Mondale, who was elected vice president in 1976. Minnesota Gov. Wendell Anderson resigned so his lieutenant governor could become governor and appoint Anderson to fill the Senate vacancy for the last two years of the term.
The other seat had belonged to former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who was elected to the Senate after leaving the vice presidency and then re–elected in 1976; then he died of cancer in January 1978. His widow was appointed to the seat until an election could be held later that year. The winner would hold the seat until 1982. Muriel Humphrey chose not to run, and Minnesota Democrats selected a rich trucking firm owner to be their standard bearer.
Minnesota has a reputation as a deep blue state in 2017, and it was quite blue in the '70s, too, although it did vote for Richard Nixon in 1972 and had voted for other Republicans for president in the first half of the 20th century; still it hadn't elected a Republican to the Senate since 1952.
Republicans used that to their advantage. They made the point that Minnesota's leading statewide offices were held by people who had not been elected to them — and the seats would all be on the ballot in 1978. That was the voters' big chance, the Republicans said, gleefully asserting that Minnesota's Democrats would face "something scary" in 1978 — "an election."
That wasn't entirely fair. Democrats had been elected to all those offices the last time they were on the ballot, and Democrats were appointed to fill the vacancies. It wasn't as if someone was circumventing the political will of the voters.
(The party affiliation may have been the same, but the philosophy wasn't always. That trucking firm owner who was nominated when Mrs. Humphrey decided not to run was more conservative than most Democrats were then or are now.)
In 1976 Minnesota gave the Carter–Mondale ticket nearly 55% of the vote. The voters knew that, if the ticket won the election, someone would replace Mondale in the Senate. They voted for the Democratic ticket, anyway. When Humphrey was re–elected that same year, it was no secret that he was sick; nearly three–fourths of Minnesotans voted for him, anyway.
What hurt the Democrats in 1978, though, was Anderson's blatant move to gain Mondale's seat. I suppose it hinted of entitlement to many, and the voters clearly didn't like that. Only 42% of them supported Anderson in November.
Muriel Humphrey, by her own admission, was no politician. She was a politician's wife, and she played that role graciously for decades, then dutifully kept the seat warm until the election. Would the magic of the Humphrey name have carried the day and kept the Senate seat in the Democrats' hands if she had not decided to step down?
We'll never know, but that businessman who won the party's nomination when Mrs. Humphrey declined to run only got 36% of the vote in November.
When the Senate convened in January 1979 Minnesota was represented by two Republican senators for the first time since the Truman administration.
Republicans completed the sweep by winning the governor's office as well, and the 1978 election came to be known as the "Minnesota Massacre."
Now, to an extent, voters throw tantrums in these special elections and vote contrary to their usual patterns. Like a fever, though, it passes, and voters return to their roots by the time the next election is held. We saw this in the early part of this decade when Massachusetts elected a Republican to serve the remainder of Ted Kennedy's term, then chose a Democrat when the seat was on the ballot for a full six–year term.
I suspect we will see that same phenomenon — albeit in reverse — in Alabama in 2020, when Democrat Doug Jones must decide whether to seek a full six–year term.
The dynamics were different in Minnesota 40 years ago, though. The Republican who was elected to complete Humphrey's term, David Durenberger, went on to win two full terms and then retired after 16 years in the Senate. Rudy Boschwitz, the Republican who defeated Anderson, was re–elected once.
If Minnesota threw a tantrum in 1978, it had staying power. It remains to be seen whether the voters of Minnesota will throw a similar tantrum in 2018.
Political tantrums require catalysts, and those catalysts vary from state to state. The circumstances that led to Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy's seat in 2010 were different from the ones that propelled Doug Jones to victory in the race for Jeff Sessions' seat or led to the Minnesota Massacre.
At present there appear to be no storms on the horizon for Minnesota Democrats, but as I observed more than a year ago, in spite of voting Democratic in 10 consecutive presidential elections, deep–blue Minnesota wavered a few times and was a candidate for flipping to the other party in 2016.
It didn't, but it came close. A week after I posted that, Minnesota voted Democrat for the 11th straight time — but Hillary Clinton's share of Minnesota's vote was the smallest for a Democrat since her husband in 1992.
And Bill Clinton could point to the presence on the ballot of a credible third–party candidate who took nearly a quarter of Minnesota's vote.
Who knows which issues may emerge in 2018 to help or hurt Tina Smith, Franken's appointed successor? Smith, who was once regarded as a gubernatorial prospect, will become a senator as an indirect result of the emergence of sexual harassment as a political issue and a direct result of credible accusations that were leveled at her predecessor.
But what if not–so–credible accusations are made that cast a shadow over the issue? That could lead to voter backlash.
Are there any Tawana Brawleys lurking out there in Minnesota?
Labels:
2018,
Al Franken,
history,
midterms,
Minnesota,
Senate,
sexual harassment,
special election
Thursday, December 7, 2017
This Isn't a Party Problem; It Is a People Problem
It is a lesson we insist on learning over and over again.
These sexual harassment cases that have been flooding the airwaves in recent months are merely manifestations of the latest symptom of something that was stated clearly and eloquently many years ago:
And that is what these cases are really about, isn't it? Power. Who has it and uses it.
That is the thing all these cases have in common. People with power feel entitled to things, even if (or, perhaps, especially if) that sense of entitlement tramples on someone else's rights.
Today the subject is sexual harassment. That — or a variant on that subject — has been a recurring theme over the years, but in the past the subject has also been racism, religious intolerance and anything else that offends people.
Sometimes the offense du jour is silly, but other times it is not and should not be treated as if it is. This is one of those times — although I will admit that sometimes it threatens to veer off in that other direction. That is something that every American should hope we can avoid. If we do not, it will trivialize and demean a serious matter that has long deserved a serious public examination and discussion.
It is certainly not funny when reprehensible behavior forces someone to pay a heavy price — as it has with Sen. Al Franken, the former Saturday Night Live funnyman who resigned from the U.S. Senate today amid allegations of sexual harassment. It is a tragedy for Franken and his family.
But neither is it funny when a false accusation destroys someone's life. Thus we must exercise due diligence in such cases.
One thing we need to stop doing is treating matters like these as if they are party problems. They are not. Neither party has a monopoly on offensive behavior. And neither party is morally superior to the other.
If these recent revelations have proven nothing else, they have proven that there are offenders in both parties. Yet I have seen many examples of people who were clearly willing to overlook such offenses in those with whom they agreed on issues but all too ready to condemn those with whom they disagreed.
Even Franken indulged in some of that in his farewell speech to the Senate today.
"I, of all people, am aware that there is some irony," Franken said, "that I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office and a man who has preyed on underage girls is running for the Senate with the full support of his party."
Sexual harassment is wrong; those who are willing to overlook it in their friends but condemn it in their foes take their position entirely because of politics. It has zero to do with defending victimized women and men.
Labels:
Al Franken,
Congress,
corruption,
Democrats,
Republicans,
scandals,
Senate,
sexual harassment
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Franken Wins in Minnesota
It took eight months of tedious, meticulous counting and seemingly endless court challenges, but the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled, 5–0, in favor of Democrat Al Franken today in his Senate race against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.
To his credit, Coleman appears to have accepted the decision gracefully. He conceded defeat, saying he would "abide by the results."
So, with Franken's victory and Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party earlier this year, Barack Obama and the Democrats appear to have a filibuster–proof majority in the Senate for the next 18 months. Whether they will be able to maintain that kind of majority for the rest of Obama's four–year term in office will depend upon what happens between now and November 2010.
It seems appropriate, although not for the reasons he wrote about, that David Brooks' column in the New York Times today focused on the Democrats' experience with their efforts to reform health care during the Clinton presidency and how that experience shaped the Democrats of today.
Referring to the passage last week of the climate change bill in the House, Brooks says Obama "will do what it takes to pass a bill," and the Democrats in Congress developed "a ruthlessly pragmatic victory machine."
Brooks calls it "Vince Lombardi politics" — which, apparently, is a reference to Lombardi's philosophy that "winning is the only thing," but I hope the Democrats learned more than that from their decade of exile from congressional power.
The Democrats have learned how to win. Now, with Franken, the Democrats have enough votes to do what they want to do, so what is important, if they want this to be more than a temporary interruption, is to show America and the world why they must win.
Winning is the only real objective in sports. But in politics, winning is not the only thing. Sure, you have to win elections before you can do anything. But, even in a marathon of an election like the Minnesota Senate race, the election is only the beginning.
The Republicans had the discipline to win. But they overlooked the why part more and more, until winning alone became the only reason for their existence.
It reminds me of an interview Ted Kennedy gave after he had announced that he was challenging President Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. CBS' Roger Mudd asked Kennedy, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy gave a rambling response that never really answered the question.
Did that prevent Kennedy from winning the nomination? I don't know.
What I do know is that Obama and the Democrats must be able to explain to the voters, in simple and honest language, why health care reform and climate change and additional stimulus packages — and anything else the Democrats seek to achieve — are necessary.
Winning can't be about special interests and big contributors.
It has to be about the people.
To his credit, Coleman appears to have accepted the decision gracefully. He conceded defeat, saying he would "abide by the results."
So, with Franken's victory and Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican Party earlier this year, Barack Obama and the Democrats appear to have a filibuster–proof majority in the Senate for the next 18 months. Whether they will be able to maintain that kind of majority for the rest of Obama's four–year term in office will depend upon what happens between now and November 2010.
It seems appropriate, although not for the reasons he wrote about, that David Brooks' column in the New York Times today focused on the Democrats' experience with their efforts to reform health care during the Clinton presidency and how that experience shaped the Democrats of today.
Referring to the passage last week of the climate change bill in the House, Brooks says Obama "will do what it takes to pass a bill," and the Democrats in Congress developed "a ruthlessly pragmatic victory machine."
Brooks calls it "Vince Lombardi politics" — which, apparently, is a reference to Lombardi's philosophy that "winning is the only thing," but I hope the Democrats learned more than that from their decade of exile from congressional power.
The Democrats have learned how to win. Now, with Franken, the Democrats have enough votes to do what they want to do, so what is important, if they want this to be more than a temporary interruption, is to show America and the world why they must win.
Winning is the only real objective in sports. But in politics, winning is not the only thing. Sure, you have to win elections before you can do anything. But, even in a marathon of an election like the Minnesota Senate race, the election is only the beginning.
The Republicans had the discipline to win. But they overlooked the why part more and more, until winning alone became the only reason for their existence.
It reminds me of an interview Ted Kennedy gave after he had announced that he was challenging President Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination. CBS' Roger Mudd asked Kennedy, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy gave a rambling response that never really answered the question.
Did that prevent Kennedy from winning the nomination? I don't know.
What I do know is that Obama and the Democrats must be able to explain to the voters, in simple and honest language, why health care reform and climate change and additional stimulus packages — and anything else the Democrats seek to achieve — are necessary.
Winning can't be about special interests and big contributors.
It has to be about the people.
Labels:
Al Franken,
Democrats,
Minnesota,
Senate
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Burris Takes Senate Oath
Roland Burris was sworn in as Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate today.
Of course, the fact that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick has been seated does not mean the governor is out of the woods yet. The stage is still set for his Illinois Senate trial later this month.
I guess that leaves only the Minnesota Senate seat to be accounted for.
The latest I've heard on that is that the dispute will extend well into next month if Sen. Norm Coleman's proposal for his lawsuit to be conducted in stages is accepted.
Al Franken was supposed to submit his timeline today. As of this writing, I've seen no indication that he has done so.
Of course, the fact that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick has been seated does not mean the governor is out of the woods yet. The stage is still set for his Illinois Senate trial later this month.
I guess that leaves only the Minnesota Senate seat to be accounted for.
The latest I've heard on that is that the dispute will extend well into next month if Sen. Norm Coleman's proposal for his lawsuit to be conducted in stages is accepted.
Al Franken was supposed to submit his timeline today. As of this writing, I've seen no indication that he has done so.
Labels:
Al Franken,
Blagojevich,
Illinois,
Minnesota,
Norm Coleman,
Roland Burris,
Senate
Monday, January 5, 2009
Dangling Senate Seats
The new Congress begins its business tomorrow, but there won't be a full house in the Senate. There are still a few vacancies to fill.
- In Minnesota, the state Canvassing Board certified comedian Al Franken as the winner of the hotly contested Senate race against incumbent Norm Coleman.
But Coleman's attorneys pledged to challenge the certification in court.
"Minnesota law prohibits the state from issuing a certificate of election until such a court case is resolved," report Pat Doyle and Patricia Lopez of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "which ... leaves Minnesota with a single senator."
Even so, writes Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post, the window is closing on Coleman.
Several actors have been candidates for office in California, and some of them have gone on to win — including, notably, a future president.
But Minnesota, which elected a wrestler as its governor a decade ago and currently has a former football player serving as its chief justice, may be the champion (per capita) at electing the most nontraditional candidates to high-profile positions.
Franken's margin of victory was 225 votes. - Roland Burris, who has been chosen by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to replace Barack Obama, continues to run into problems. The governor's acting chief of staff took Burris' nomination certificate to the Senate today, but it was rejected by the secretary of the Senate.
Such a certificate is supposed to be signed by Illinois' governor and its secretary of state. But the Illinois secretary of state refused to sign it, apparently because he is among the growing number of Illinois politicians who contend that Blagojevich is unfit to serve.
It appears that Burris and the governor must hope that the Illinois Supreme Court will force the secretary of state to sign the document.
I've advocated giving Burris an opportunity to show what he can do, but things seem to be getting out of hand.
"I feel I am the solution to the problem for the people of Illinois," Burris says.
According to CBS News, "[T]he Lord put his hands on the governor and said, 'This is the person that has to go to Washington,' and that appointment is legal," Burris said to supporters at a Chicago church yesterday. "That is all there is."
Dear Diary ... - In New York, where Gov. David Paterson must nominate the successor for Hillary Clinton, Senate hopeful Caroline Kennedy seems to be criticized by everyone for her unfortunate, repeated use of the phrase "you know," which doesn't seem to strike many observers as dignified enough — or eloquent enough — for a Kennedy.
The latest to contribute his two cents' worth is Ben McGrath of the New Yorker. He offers something of a defense for Kennedy and some suggestions for turning the situation to her advantage.
You know?
Labels:
Al Franken,
Caroline Kennedy,
Illinois,
Minnesota,
New York,
Roland Burris,
Senate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

