This is such heart warming news: it is time for change, inclusion and smarts.
I have cautious mixed feelings regarding this transistion.
This country functions best when there is a cohesive agreement
between ideologies.
Not individuals with their own ax to grind.
We shall see how this plays out.
F3
" ... Tim Walz, the southwestern Minnesota lawmaker who prevailed in the hard-fought Democratic primary after disavowing his past ties to the National Rifle Association to accommodate his party’s shift left."
It is not "left" to want common sense gun laws. The increasingly extremist NRA represents no one but the gun manufacturers now. They don't represent the views of the majority of gun owners (most of whom support moderate policies such as background checks and requiring gun owners to secure their guns). And the NRA certainly doesn't represent the views of the vast majority of the American people. But they do own many politicians who have bailed on representing their constituents to the tune of 30,000 Americans dead from guns every year. That's not left or right. That's radical.
When journalists report that moderate positions are "left" -- that asylum seekers are "illegal" or that our safety net systems into which working Americans pay with their own wages are "entitlements" -- they are not doing their jobs.
3
And this time, let's pay some attention to those perpetual spoilers, the Green Party candidates. I wonder how many votes these people would get if we knew BEFORE the election that they believe they're descended for space aliens or (even worse) are on the Republican Party's payroll?
All politics is local. And that is the way it is.
One thing that this article ignores about Tim Pawlenty is That after eight years of mismanagement and disastrous decisions he left Minnesota broken and bleeding. No Minnesotan is eager to give him another shot at us
The candidate was "careful to heap praise on Mr. Trump while harnessing the support of the state party leaders." This is a sad state of affairs: is this public service, or private enterprise? Do the voters of 2018 agree that there is supposed to be a difference?
My feeling is that Tim Pawlenty’s loss had less to do with his association/ disassociation with Trump, than with the long memory of Minnesotans of his previous disasterous terms as governor. The very effective series of ads run by the MN. Educators Assoc. were able to remind parents of the damage inflicted on our education system by Tim and the other Republicans over those terms in the Governor’s Office. Certainly not saddened to see him gone again.
3
Pawlenty didn't lose because he was an outspoken Trump critic. He walked back most of that talk. He lost because we knew what kind of governor he'd be, since he managed in two terms to preside over a fake balanced budget (achieved by "borrowing" money from schools) and the 35W bridge collapse (and then vetoed a tax increase to pay for infrastructure).
1
Governor Pawlenty's defeat brings into focus the big fix the Republicans are in, what I'd call the math of President Trump. "Only" 35% to 40% of Americans support President Trump—except they're all Republicans, and when you run in a Republican primary that's 70% to 80% of the people who will be voting. So when a Governor Pawlenty dares to speak the truth about President Trump he's doomed. And this means Republicans are unable to advance a candidate with any kind of integrity into a general election.
But now the good news. This means these Republican candidates have to explain their allegiance to Trump to the 50% of the people voting who abhor him plus the 10% who lean Republican and may have even have voted for Trump in 2016. But those in this 10% are at best lukewarm supporters of Trump and after two years of suffering under this guy are likely to be turned off by a candidate who sells himself on how loyal he or she is to President Trump. So being loyal to Trump may help a Republican advance to the general election—but you may be in big trouble once you get there, and your Democratic opponent will have a field day with this issue.
Except the Democrats must be wise enough not to repeat the mistakes of 2016. They must make a strong appeal on economic issues to the members of the disaffected middle class, which is who most of that 10% are. But if the Democrats can do that any Republican candidate should be in huge trouble this fall.
2
Identity politics. Their foremost qualification and the first thing reported about them is the category, or group, to which they have been assigned. Are they even qualified? Maybe their victories are just a win for tokenism.
9
Wow, shaking things up and heading down the drain.
Now all the Democrats need is a Transgender, Muslim Democratic Socialist to run for President in 2020! I wonder who they could get. To heck with our pocketbooks, security and logic. Let's just go for the endgame of identity politics.
5
I too am from MN. Just wanted to say that we are not sure
the Pawlenty loss had anything to do with his comments on Trump. Feel Mr. Pawlenty lost the vote on his own. We had more than enough of him when he was governor of this state. "We had plenty of Pawlenty!" Not going there again!!!
3
when you print “But they are sure to dog his general election bid at a moment when more women are speaking out against sexual misconduct” some readers may assume that Congressman Ellison was accused of sexual misconduct, he was not. Her allegations were almost entirely of vague “narcissist abuse.” Aside from that, great assessment of Minnesota’s politics.
2
It's always fascinating how the left obsesses about identity. A transgender woman (sic); a Muslim woman; and African American woman...
Why omit the descriptives for Tom Evers? Probably because leftist "diversity" obsessives only have certain, arbitrarily defined groups. Hence, you identity people by race -- if they're Black, or, sometimes, Asian -- by religion -- if they're not Christian or Jewish -- and by sexuality -- if they're "out" and not straight. And a plain, vanilla, "white" male doesn't excite pathological nose counters.
And it's tragically funny how many once marginally sensible Dems do their damndest to prove that they've utterly taken leave of any semblance of sanity. Call it the Gillibrand effect, which can be explained as either "I once had to lie about being an anti-freedom socialist to get elected" or "I am not really an anti-freedom socialist, but have to lie to get elected in an increasingly nutty party".
And it will be really interesting how the "believe her" crowd reacts to Mr. Ellison's late breaking. Planet Hollywood-type problem.
Incidentally, didn't VT already explore the "Medicare for All" silliness, only to run of screaming into the night at the cost? Will the left NEVER learn?
8
Great news; if you kiss the backside of a demagog, racist, liar then you might get elected. Shame on all those Trump supporters without a backbone to support the Constitution.
They are going to lose my vote. Going refugee and trans isn't getting closer to my heart.
7
What is it that republicans see in Trump? They are willing to give up a governorship because someone only supports Trump half way? That’s as stupid as Democrats voting for Bernie. This further demonstrates that republicans are in the toilet. Please flush. Now if only the Bernie cult can be debriefed on their return to earth.
Here you go again, NYT. Helping Republican rally their racist, sexist, xenophobic culture warriors off the couch and to the polls. Guess what? Those Democratic winners won because they had a message that most of their constituents wanted to hear and believed in. They spoke to the needs of ordinary people and also their values of equal opportunity, work, fairness, individual rights, and Christian compassion for the sick, the needy, the child, the widow and the stranger. They didn't win because they wore a headscarf, had brown skin or had a sex change operation. You won't tell us what those winning candidates stood for, in policy terms or in values. You only tell us and show us how they look and how they worship God. Shame on you, NYT. Americans and our democracy deserve better.
9
To echo a few other Minnesota residents, Trump had no real
influence on the Republican primary here. Minnesota Republicans rejected Pawlenty because of his arrogance and sense of entitlement. It has nothing to do with Trump at all but it's the civility ethos here that people responded too. What Pawlenty did was underhanded, arrogant and disrespectful to the process, values that Minnesota still embraces. To be clear I am a DFL voter, but even I felt badly for Jeff Johnson when T-Paw swooped down after being out of the state for 8 years and thought it was a slam dunk. Minnesotans do not like that behavior and voted accordingly. Now Pawlenty needs to go away and never come back!
2
@Laura Miller
I too am a DFL voter, but you are 100% spot on. TeePaw left the state in a fiscal hole that he pretended didn't exist by playing magic with the numbers through 'borrowing' from school district funds that his successor (Mark Dayton) eventually paid off for him even though he claimed to be a fiscal conservative.
Emphasizing identity politics in your reporting will energize Trump's base like nobody's business.
DEMOCRATS won these elections. We want candidates who stand up for the American people and the humanely applied rule of law.
Politicians' race, sexual identity and faith are secondary to their effectiveness. If a politician can propose and pass legislation that benefits our nation as a whole, he or she gets my vote. Race, religion and sexual preference are immaterial.
Playing identity politics is how Democrats lose elections.
7
Pawlenty lost because he was a miserable failure the first time around as governor. Why would we want THAT again? He left the state with a huge deficit, the infrastructure was crap (remember that bridge that fell down?) and he tried to decimate education. Go away Pawlenty and never return.
5
I am having difficulty accessing comments for the past several weeks. Please address this problem. Thank you.
2
YES! It is terrific. The Dems have lots of women, people of color, people with all kinds of backgrounds running for election. Its appearance is one of diversity. Too bad the Conservative Republicans look at that image as the end of the America that they want. The pictures of Muslims, transgenders, etc., is exactly the image that a Trump and his disciples want projected. Let us rejoice in these Summer victories, because November '18 and '20 will provide us with the sobering angst that we have screwed it up again.
2
Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote. Vote.
Don't get me wrong - nobody should be shut out because of their identity. However the left focusing so much on identity is getting tiresome. I would be upset if someone was run out of a race because they were Muslim or transgender. However belonging to this or that identity group does not make one more qualified and the identity group of the person is irrelevant. Keep focusing on it and its another boost for Trump to win re-election.
16
The fact that Bernie Sanders turns down the party nomination to look independent but then seeks it for President is, in a word hypocritical. He and his supporters might want to think about why that put off potential voters in the 2016 primaries, and get off their high horses about his defeat.
6
What a joke, and absolute parody of himself Sanders has become.....it's actually pretty funny.
Unless you're taking him seriously.
4
They look like qualified candidates that won. However, I guess if you're sensitive to the first black/gay/transgender identity politics liberals love, this matters more.
5
Not all liberals love identity politics. Emphasizing identity over competence is red meat to Trump's PR machine. It also suggests who people are matters more than their professional abilities.
4
Just FYI — another reason for TPaw's defeat here in Minnesota was the fact that when finished with us the last time, he left us with a $6 billion dollar deficit. If he had won the primary, I would guess there would be signs that read: Tim Pawlenty: Make Minnesota BROKE again.
3
I wonder if anti-Trump Republicans stayed home from the primaries because they are going to vote Democratic or Independent or Libertarian in the general election. This would have left the fervent Trumpians to get their candidates through the primary gate.
Us Dems biggest problem is we elect primary candidates based on identity. Most Americans (at least the 63% that don’t approve of Trump) are respectful of everyone and believe in basic freedoms and liberties. However, in the general election, people vote with their pocketbooks and this is why we lose. We respect each other’s religions, gender, burkas, bathrooms of choice, etc.. But when the rubber hits the road we vote for our own best interests: food on the table, money in the bank. (Of which the republicans are not very deft at doing, but they use the economy/jobs message and that’s what voters listen to). Us Dems have lost sight of this basic human instinct, instead relying on lots of dog whistles of our own. Bill Clinton said it best, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Here’s hoping for a blue wave come November. I’m not keeping my hopes too high.
4
It seems that Sanders is the new Nader.
5
What a snarky description of Bernie Sanders. Another one could have read: Mr. Sanders declines to associate with the party that snubbed him in the 2016 election, as demonstrated by the emails written by DNC officials outlining how they planned to kill his run in favor of Hillary Clinton.
5
A couple of thoughts about the "report" on the Minnesota Democrats that won the primaries. First, Tim Walz's (now former) district is not "southwestern Minnesota". The first district runs along the southern border from South Dakota to Wisconsin. And Walz is from Mankato, smack dab in south central Minnesota. Second, Ilhan Omar won the fifth district (Keith Ellison's old district) and it doesn't "lean" Democratic. It is a full fledged tilt, even more then the Tower of Pisa. It encompasses Minneapolis and some parts of first ring suburbs and hasn't voted Republican in more than forty years. The primary election is, in essence, the final election. If a Republican won, it would be a greater upset than Don the Con as president.
2
The rural voters in Kansas have not been Dems for a long time and have become increasingly right wing. Some Dems hope that Kobach's extremism will lead to Dem victory, but the right wing here has only gone moderate on education funding and that still might not hold, especially against a Dem without much name recognition. What is worse, there is an independent in the governor race that will likely takes votes from the Dem.
During the Vietnam war, there were people with signs saying "My country, right or wrong." With today's Republicans you can substitute Trump for Vietnam and once again, right or wrong makes no difference.
1
Claims that folks vote for Trump-supporter candidates due to being anti-establishment is truly disturbing. I guess character and morals is no longer a priority for them.
2
@dt: Yes, Democrats, liberals and progressives have taught us well. The Kennedys, the Clintons, Cuomo, Silver, Reid, Pelosi, Spitzer, Menendez, etc. All paragons of virtue, reelected over and over by their Democrat constituents.
2
"Democrats delivered groundbreaking primary victories for a transgender woman in Vermont, a Muslim woman in Minnesota and an African-American woman in Connecticut"... but not a word is written about what these candidates stand for! I care a lot more about candidates' positions than how they look or what religion they belong to. Can we please stop with the ethnic scorekeeping? What am I supposed to conclude when I read that the woman from Minnesota is Muslim? Does it make her more progressive, and sympathetic to the plights of minorities? Or does it mean that like most Muslims she's quite traditional, believing homosexuality is a sin punishable by death, women should obey their husbands and western decadence is evil? Labelling her as simply a Muslim is as useful as saying Obama and Trump have much in common because they're both Christian. I care much more about what she plans to do in office than which holy book she reads, and so should everyone else. When you buy a car, you want to know what's under the hood, not just what color the thing is. This obsession with classifying people by race, gender and religion, and leaving it at that, as though it's all we need to know, is not only highly distasteful, but also a recipe for misunderstanding and ultimately bad governance.
17
@Samuel Russell, I've no idea what the religions are of those who represent me locally or state. It's about what their platforms are. But here it is ALL about identity politics. Any thoughts on apostasy? FGM? Gays? Israel?
2
Various "identities" have nothing to do with how well someone is going to represent all the members of their constituency.
When will people learn this? The Dems seem to see it as an end in itself.
10
There is a common thread between the newcomers elected and/or nominated by Democrats, and those politicians running under the banner of Trump who are also doing well, and yet the MSM is missing it: people are fed up with the status quo. Those voicing their support for Trump by proxy via support for candidates who back him are not simply un-educated, bigoted, xenophobes, much as anti-Trumpists would label them. Sure, there are a vocal minority who fit those characteristics, but most who support the Trump Movement aren't so much for Trump, as they are against the Establishment. Likewise, those who are flocking to the polls to support the new faces in the Democratic Party are sending the message that the "same ol', same ol'" isn't going to be tolerated any longer.
But because of the fear and hatred on each side - against "ignorant Trump supporters" and "loony libruls" - I doubt those hurling those pejoratives will see the similarities they share. And they sure won't see through their blind spots if the MSM continues to polarize everyone using outdated classifications. Instead of fighting among ourselves, why don't we get together and fight those who keep dividing and conquering us? In a democracy the People's Voice should be heard, but it has been co-opted by the powerful minority of the 1% and those who do their bidding. These elections are showing however that despite their surface differences, the People are asserting their power, and that's a good thing.
2
When Obama was elected the American people were credited world wide with a huge racial breakthrough. But the fact of the matter is that Obama pretty much downplayed his racial identity and the election was a lot more about hope and change than an electorat that had made a huge step forward. Minorities who win over the bulk of the public are not trend setters unless their public support reflects a new attitude toward others who belong to the same minority. Blacks advance through civil rights activism. The same with gays and transgenders. Indivdual charisma and likability accomplishes little. If there are 50 blacks in the House and 75 women, it’s only of passing interest unless something gets done.
2
I hope it was this story that was written around the theme of identity politics, and that the individual campaigns were not run with that theme. No one should run for office with the platform header of “first trans woman” - “intelligent approach to budgeting,” “infrastructure repairs” are appropriate platform headers. Having run for office as a gay man, I can speak to this with first hand experience, it’s irrelevant, governance is what people care about. My closest friend is a gay man who has served in elected office, identity politics is not anything anyone cares about when casting a vote or when governing.
71
@ScottC you will never stop the Times from focusing on nonsense identity politics like that
1
Beautifully said. Thank you.
1
@ScottC Christine did not run on her personal life. She ran on her experience and vision. Rest assured.
Most commenters ignore the role of Independents in making their comments. In the US, they number 42% of total voters, larger than any other major party. This can change all calculations on these elections. Chickens shouldn't be counted before they hatch.
3
@John S
Then I would ask yourself this question. Why would ANY Independent with a semblance of a brain vote for a President and a Republican Party that along with the madness that is continually going on in the WH, whose only goal is to line the pockets of their rich friends at the expense of everyone else are doing it while purposely attempting to tear the country apart?
7
@Deus You forgot, "refill the Swamp with new creatures." They're doing that, too.
I hope every Democrat asks the citizens of his/her district “how are your tax cuts coming and who’s going to pay for the rocketing deficit”?
6
@Vito
Not a great strategy. People LOVE tax cuts, to a ridiculously irrational degree. Nobody cares about deficits. Every time Demorcrats run on a higher taxes / lower deficit platform the lose to a Republican who wants to put more money in your pocket today, which will be paid for later by someone else and/or greater efficiency and/or who cares just cut my taxes!!
2
This is fantastic. I am so happy we are becoming more diverse and accepting despite the unfortunate actions of our national leadership. I know we need to hear this. We should celebrate progressive victories.
But, a post-racist, post-sexist world would require that we no longer notice this sort of thing and that we can celebrate the person, the ideas and political acumen of anyone who wins an election.
Despite the best intentions, I wish certain media would begin to tone it down a bit, so we can get to the better place. We talk about race and gender too much. We ignore ideas and platforms. In this way, we are lost. Even when our president calls a woman a "dog", the fight is about racism. Most of us know that word refers to a woman's looks. There is no reason to keep going there. We lose the simple ability to label the man as a bore who is incapable of doing his job in the fog of a racial argument. The celebration of race, sexuality and gender on the progressive side also has a cost in our understanding of politics. We should not ignore this even though when we are thrilled that we are moving forward.
9
I don't care if Sanders "manipulates" the Democratic Party. The DNC leadership does plenty of its own manipulation. Sanders will win and be a force for change, as he has been for a while. If he works side-by-side with progressive Democrats, even better. All of the petty bickering in the DNC has to stop. We are fighting for the survival of our country and unity is more important thrn ever.
Remember, there are trolls out there working against the United States. Their job is to sow division. If you read comments designed to create division among Democrats, don't assume they are written by actual Democrats. Nobody's identity is one hundred percent verified here, or anywhere else on the Internet. If your hackles are raised by a particularly offensive comment, remind yourself that it could be written by a troll - Russian, Republican, or just plain mischief-maker - and respond accordingly.
8
Fantastic victory for dems Ilham Omar is elected and she is a woman. MN shows the tide is turning.
But please Ms Omar do not wear your headscarf. That is a religious decision and expression, this is a secular country. As a feminist woman the head scarf represents backward values of male dominated societies in other parts of the world. You are representing all of your constituants who are diverse in MN.
12
@Mother
Ultimately, it is her thoughts and ideas that ultimately should win out, NOT whether or not she wears a headscarf. Evangelicals don't wear such apparel, yet, their exclusion, intolerance and archaic thinking are the issues and much more dangerous and divisive.
4
Please use this as a learning moment. Feminism should not cloud its views or lead to inaccurate interpretations of the hijab. Look it up, even in Islamic sites. It is not a symbol of oppression, if anything quite the contrary. Women feel liberated by not being judged by their physical appearance. They also understand the danger that unhinged men pose when their hormones kick in. Anyone come to mind?
2
@Daniel B
instead of “unhinged men” getting their problem under control, you want to make it a womens’ problem. A woman who by her attire shows that she accepts her 2nd class status is not liberated.
MN Republicans had no good choice in the gubernatorial primary. Johnson is a Trump acolyte who doesn't really represent MN Republicans. However, it's a mistake to attribute his win to his being further right than Pawlenty. Pawlenty left the state in fiscal shambles after his two terms as governor, a fact no one has forgotten. Further, he waltzed in with pots of money and chose to undermine the endorsed candidate, intending to use the governor's house merely to further his presidential ambitions. His complacence in pulling the rug out from under Johnson turned people off, and they made themselves clear on Tuesday. Some centrists might well vote for Democratic candidate Tim Walz in November.
4
It's about time everyone gets a chance to lie cheat and steal regardless of race and gender bravo America - as long as we keep pitting one against another it really does not matter who holds office
4
Give people credit for dumping Pawlenty, not Trump. Pawlenty is worn out and could not offer anything new to Minnesotans. Criticing Trump was a gimmick that didnt work.
3
This is no longer between Democrats and Republicans. Partisan politics have shifted to a cult of personality.
The new parties of our country are Pro-Trump or Anti-Trump.
2
Just curious. Kansas supported Trump. About 671, 000 came out to vote in 2016. In this primary, only 311, 000 came out to vote for all the candidates in the Republican primary? It seems a lot of treasure and time were spent and voters stayed home.
@Annie Actually, they probably were on vacation as most families are in these last weeks of August before school starts or even getting recent high school graduate children set up at college.
1
It's called an absentee ballot.
People who care cast one.
Republicans tie themselves to the Trump bandwagon at their own peril.This has been a terrible summer for Trump with his associates facing court cases and his tweets becoming more unhinged and self incriminating.By November the candidates may have to fake amnesia that they ever mentioned Toxic Trump.
7
Until we demand candidates refuse corporate money, Americans will not be represented.
4
I would caution people putting too make stake in Trump affecting the outcome of the MN GOP Primary (MN was one of the few states who didn't hand Trump a nomination in 2016). Pawlenty can muse all he wants about how it's Trump's fault he didn't win, but I would place more blame on his own record in the state.
19
Indeed...For the People!
The Republican party is Donald Trump now. Racist, bigoted, vile and vulgar. I guess that appeals to some Americans but not me.
17
Let's face it folks, a vast number of Americans, don't care that a low life sleaze bag is President of the United States! As long as they are satisfied, that there is enough money in their pockets! This is becoming more obvious in the primaries!
10
@Counter Measures
The problem is, Trump IS taking the money out of their pockets, yet, he has convinced them that is OK!
6
@Counter Measures
Those Americans have a right to vote for Trump without you claiming they are voting for a low life sleaze bag.
I usually do not vote but if I did I would not vote for a candidate you supported.
Don't count on a Blue wave November. Liberals don't vote especially the much needed 18-26 YO's - they don't even know the name of their Congressional Representative.
Put it this way..
Nationally 60% Hate Trump - 40% Love Trump
If only 30% [out of 60%] vote in November and all 40% vote for Trump racists cohorts... I don't see much of a Blue Wave.
Even though Trump [low educated] voters would be better off under the DNC tent -- They will not share space with diversity.
The evil wall of white pride separates, divides and conquers - and it will be this way a very long time.
1
@Aaron...Aaron, please feel free to libsplain to me - a low educated, racist, sexist blah blah - Trump voter, barricaded behind the evil wall of my white pride, how I would be better off under the DNC tent. Libsplain how your brand of racism, sexism, snobbish elitism, condescension and other less than deplorable character traits would make be better off. Thanks, and have a wonderful day.
1
From the Women's March to #MeToo women have continued to to push back against the virulent misogyny of Donald Trump by running for elective office and winning primary after primary. The coming blue wave this November may be the ultimate repudiation of the disgraceful and repugnant sexism in the White House and the complicit Republican Party. The demographic diversity of these Democratic women represents the nation and bodes well for improved health care especially women's reproductive rights, better access to affordable education, better paying jobs, real immigration reform, and protecting the environment for our children and grandchildren. Diversity has always been America's strength and is what has always made us a great nation.
6
@Paul Wortman...Paul, by virulent misogyny, are referring to the attacks on women who work in the Trump administration, female Fox journalists, the 52% of white women who voted against Clinton, or any other woman who dares to challenge the alt-left demagoguism? Or, are only "your" women subject to misogyny?
Pawlenty's a good man. It's a crying shame that "heaping praise" on Trump is a way to win elections.
8
@Jim If Pawlenty is a good man, he would not have been heaping praise on Donald Trump. You can't have it both ways.
4
While I'm happy to see the diversity of Democratic candidates, I continue to be appalled by Sanders' behavior both in Vermont and throughout our country. Just like Trump for the Republicans, Sanders seeks to mold the Democratic party in his image. We're far more diverse as a group than just those on the far left (though we're happy to include them as the political situation demands) and we need the help of independent moderate voters to battle the horror that now confronts us in Donald Trump.
28
@Wilton Traveler
Sanders is just being Sanders.
He is doing just what he has done before.
The problem isn't him.
The problem is his followers.
The people who follow him don't really care about him.
These are the people who supported Occupy Wall Street.
Except for being against the one percent they have no idea what government is all about.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/the-movement-has-found-i...
I do not blame Sanders for being Sanders.
I do not blame him for what other people are doing as those people are not being lead by him he just got lucky and is the only established politician who these people support.
If it wasn't him it would be someone else.
It only looks like the position these people have are being accepted by others.
This is because they all come out and vote in a election where most people stay home.
That's why many of their candidates won
In the actual election their numbers will not increase but
the rest of the population who did not support OWS will come out and vote in greater numbers.
Do not be surprised when many of the candidates the OWS people support will lose.
So in principle I agree with you.
I just don't blame Sanders.
I blame OWS.
Lots of good news for the return, possible, of a good government for we, the people. New faces and ideas and all good fodder for the country and notes on other candidates like Bernie, who uses the Democratic Party for his platform, then kicks the Dems aside. His record ain't so good, ok so he gives good speech, but as one writer/reader stated, he was also responsible for Hillary's loss, in addition to the Russians/Putin. Let's get going, and not exorcise Pelosi et al before we have a real blue wave and see changes in the House, and states. Come together. Goodbye, Bernie. Basta.
6
@katalina
I disagree completely that Hillary's loss was due to Bernie. He ran as he had a right to, on a platform that is Progressive Democratic. Party politics as usual and extreme partisanship is bad for our country. The DNC anointed Hillary, it was her turn, therefore no one had a right to run against her? There are many factors in Hillary's loss, many of which are not her fault. But a competitive primary was not one. God forbid she decides to run again. Talk about a gift to Trump. Liberals can come together with Bernie in the mix. The status quo is a turnoff, particularly for young people.
4
@katalina
Clinton and Trump had the WORST Presidential candidate approval ratings in history and Clinton STILL couldn't beat the candidate with the worst of all! Over the last ten years the democratic party has lost almost 1000 seats at the state and federal level, yet, the democratic party failed to read the tea leaves by annointing the poster child for establishment candidates.
Sorry katalina,
Hillary and the DNC did it to themselves, Bernie was the LEAST of their problems.
2
Good for you, Mr. Pawlenty. I don't share your politics, but at least you called it as it is, as opposed to the crowd of sycophants we must endure now.
9
what we can hope happens is that in all the races where a Trump Stooge has the R nomination, the surge of D women (that the press is touting) shows up to vote in November. What I suspect however is the D's will do what D's do, and opt to Lose the Races that their preferred candidate is not the D nominee.
1
Why do these results fail to inspire me?
I am deeply concerned about the fate of our country. The top priority needs to be a Democratic majority in the House, so that the authoritarian has a check and oversight.
The generic polling (which reflect which Party a voter prefers) shows the race is tightening, with an aggregated margin of just a 6 point advantage for the Democrats (538.com).
This Times article, with its focus on gender, ethnic, and sexual preference “diversity” seems to miss the point. When has “diversity” in and of itself translated to electoral victory?
12
@Space needle, It's ALL about identity politics in this paper.
1
Rather than giving us almost any substantive information about the platforms of the candidates who won these primaries, this article devotes a paragraph to slamming Sanders for "[seeking] the party’s nomination in order to block any rival from winning it, but then turning it down to protect the image of independence that he cherishes." This is bizarrely barbed ("image of independence he cherishes?") and absolutely ridiculous, given that Sanders won his primary with 94.4% of the vote in a heavily Democratic state, facts which the article also omits. The truth is that he's one of the most popular politicians in the country and no one else has a chance at his seat. But just keep on slamming Bernie, alienating his supporters, ignoring the issues voters care about, and propping up the bland centrism of the DNC. It worked so well for all of us in 2016!
10
I am from MN. Here's my takeaway as someone who lives in Greater MN:
Tim Waltz, who I and my husband voted for, stands for something all Dems should emphasize: the common good. We are all susceptible to the disasters life can throw at us.
The Dems, in rural MN, want someone who is not an enemy of businesses: after all a lot of Dems are business owners and resent being thrown under the bus with unscrupulous business owners. We want someone, like Amy Klobuchar, who actively seeks "the common good" and is liked by members of BOTH parties AND is liked
by Republican business owners.
Please do not give our state someone who has passed a "purity" test like Erin Murphy who is a progressive. The fact the her running mate was also from the Twin Cities does not help. We felt that, again, greater MN Dems were left out. We want someone who understands the issues in our area, not just the Twin Cities, or our bigger cities. At the same time, please emphasize our commonalities in ideas; again that we traditionally stand for the common good.
We Dems , for the most part, want change, but thoughtful change. Think through what is proposed, its positives and negatives, its consequences, both good and bad. What do the ideas cost? Most importantly, how do we propose to pay for such proposals? Taxes matter; is it a thoughtful use of taxes? Is the burden evenly distributed?
These are just a few things I have thought of this morning. There are many more implications of this vote.
117
@LuAnn You talk as if both parties aren’t owned by the same multi-national corporations. Lockheed Martin, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft Corp, and many others are the biggest donors, and they support BOTH. We don’t need incrementalism to save this country, we need legitimate candidates that refuse corporate bribes (campaign donations), otherwise we have zero voice in our own destiny. PS We are currently living in an oligarchy, and this is not debatable.
3
@TRS-80
Thank you for your reply. But it also shows how much you don't understand rural MN.
We are not for incrementalism. I never said that. We want thoughtful change.We want all angles considered with all legislation. Thoughtful change in rural areas means being considerate all parties. We can disagree strongly with our opponents, and we do. But we want our similarities, not our differences, to be the focus.
Unfortunately,the Republicans are using the Trump playbook: divide and conquer. Remember, Michelle Obama's comment:When they go low, we go high.That does not mean we grovel; it means we hold our ground if its the high ground. And it almost always is the high ground.
You live in the same city my daughter and son-in-law do, so I understand where you're coming from. But if you live in rural MN, we don't play mean, we fight for what we believe in, we hold the higher ground. It's called being assertive, not aggressive. And eventually, if we follow this playbook, things get better.
@LuAnn
A few other thoughts.
I know progressives are for Medicare-for-all. But in rural parts of the state, like where my sister lives, the issues are access to a hospital. She is 40 miles from the closest hospital. The issue is whether there even IS a doctor she can see, because doctors don't want to practice in rural areas: too much in tuition to pay off to be able to afford to practice in a small town of 1000.
The issues for my sister includes roads, and their upkeep. She's angry that all the tax money to fix roads goes to the Twin Cities when the roads in her neck of the woods haven't been fixed in 14 years. She deals in potholes and broken asphalt, in access to a doctor, in keeping taxes low so she can keep more of her money. Yes, she wants better health care. But these are more of a priority than national insurance.
I have always said that if those who lived in a city would live in a rural area for 1 year, the opinions would change dramatically.
I am sensing a trend that may be a very bad omen for democrats. In off year election it has been established that the party out of power picks up seats in the Congress, for a variety of reasons, chief among these reasons is the feeling that the party out of power is more energized and motivated to turn out to the polls. But Trump may be changing all that, he is keeping his base energized, and the motivated base, this time, may be the party IN power. Trump is picking up the pace as the November elections get closer, and he is helped by a strong economy and the also the democrats ceaseless ability to fire up the republicans by constantly attacking the president, through their monopolization of the media, and also their leftist views which run contrary to the general view of most of America.
this story may not turn out the way democrats are thinking. There may be a very real November surprise this year.
14
@artfuldodger At the same time, the Dems are terrible at firing up the millions of Democrats who don't give a fig for race, religion or gender issues, and really care about good jobs at good pay, with single payer health care, and strong labor and environmental regulation.
3
Most of your headline and story could be a promo campaign for Hillary back in 2016 ie run on identity politics not as an American whose main focus should be on solving problems a majority of America is facing today.
Hillary helped give us the ego maniac demagogue Trump.
If you want to take back the Congress in 2018 and beat Trump in 2020, in crucial purple districts run moderate progressives that are in tune with what the country wants and not far out left social engineering identity obsessed candidates.
If you do this will be more likely ceding the Congress and presidency to the republicans in 2018 and 2020.
20
@Paul
Great Point! And let me help you out before all the angry liberals scream, "Then why did Hillary win then popular vote by 2.5 million?!?"
97% of the 2.5 million "popular" votes were cast out CA and NY .. two states! Essentially redundant votes due to the rules of the electoral college.
If liberals want to "change" things then they need to do a better job outside the coastal areas and start canvassing the rural areas.
Hillary did not do this- and that is why she lost.
6
It’s just frightening that the litmus test for so many Republican voters is fealty to Trump. What of all the voters choosing candidates opposing him - will they simply pull the R lever, in Nov, or will they give some thought to who is the better candidate for their livelihood, their family, their community, their country?
I see the tribalism in this country getting worse, not better, and it will continue to get worse until Trump is gone. Then, depending on who is the next Republican standard bearer, things might improve. Also depends on who the Dems continue to push forward. Radical, far left candidates and policies are not the answer. They will not balance the Republican lunacy - they will only further incense hate and opposition and further divide our country. We need moderate, centrist people to bring back common sense policies and approach to governing.
100
@HF
The Democrats have tried "moderate and centrist" for a while now, and they keep losing.
23
There is no far left.
8
@HF
A large number of Americans have very little in the bank
and worry about their jobs disappearing every day.
Unfortunately the Liberal Elites refuse to see and understand why that led them to vote for Trump.
When Obama sent out the notice that all public schools
must allow self-identified trans students to use whatever facilities they wanted - no matter the loss
of privacy for the vast majority of students - that was a
a sign to those who opposed such a directive that
Washington and the Elites just do not value them.
The Democrats need to reach out too all Americans
and stop forcing social change down our throats.
Let the people, who by the way come first in our
Government, decide when and how they will change.
I went to the polls in Wisconsin to vote for a woman, and I cried with pride when I saw the results, women are the big winners today, both Republican and Democrat. I was especially proud of Kelda Roys, the third place finisher for governor. I don’t know her at all, but I knew her message, the issues of her campaign. We heard her. Our message as women is that WE are here, it is worth running.
Let the world be put on notice. Women’s names all over the ballots in Wisconsin this November here, maybe not the governor this time, but for House, Senate and a number of other offices.
178
@lulugirl765- not news. today 20 percent of The House are women. 300 have served there over the years. Numbers have steadily risen each election.
1
@lulugirl765 - I share your encouragement to see more women reach up towards public leadership. But I also look forward to a time (likely long after I’m gone) when gender identity, racial identity, and sexual preference identity won’t be the main vote-drivers. Is the person qualified? Is the person stable and genuine? As long as identity plays a large part in American elections we’re susceptible to exactly the kind of tampering that Russia has apparently adopted as their post-cold war pasttime.
1
@Ken Nyt: You seriously think that those are "the main vote-drivers?" Like many, many others, I try to discern which candidates are qualified and whose positions I like. If I find that more than one fits the bill, I vote for the one who represents underrepresented groups. I know that there are many conservatives (and particularly many white male conservatives) who believe that Dems are all voting solely based on candidates' identities, but it's simply not so.
These are the sorts of results that make me frustrated when certain leftists heap criticism on the Democratic Party for somehow not doing or being enough for their particular tastes. Democrats have been delivering groundbreaking victories for social progress and common sense at least since FDR. The Democratic Party is, in fact, the party of social and cultural progress with a big tent, while the GOP, particularly recently, stands steadfastly and brazenly in the way and restricts power to mostly whites, males, and the moneyed. Without the Dems Obama would have had no viable path to the presidency and no woman would ever be president. Left wing activists should be devoting their efforts to defeating the GOP, not nitpicking at the Dems and thus assisting reactionaries like Trump to throw the country in reverse. Trump is not an anomaly. There are many millions who think the way he does, and the power of his movement needs to be stopped dead. So no, the third party candidate is not a responsible choice, nor is it reasonable to bash the Dems over matters of small differences.
294
@Joe
I agree Joe, the Democrats were really something under FDR, JFK and LBJ. But, since 1968 they have delivered nothing.
1
@Joe
Sanders behavior in competing in a D primary just to block having an opponent needs to be stopped. I don't understand why the state party allows it.
@Joe Small differences? Dems have been conceding 'small differences' since Reagan and it has completely destroyed the party. The reason the Dems are now doing well is because of the unabashed progressiveness and contempt for corporate interests that these candidates display. And it's why the NY Times still likes to describe Bryce as: "whose compelling back story as an ironworker has been muddled by revelations of arrests for drugs and alcohol and failing to pay child support."
Dems which support deregulating banks or augmenting miltary spending or privatizing anything are not Dems, and if you are forced to choose between a GOP, Dem, and third party candidate then vote for the one who's policies you support. Otherwise, you elect Dems who do things like vote to approve Cavanaugh.
Purity tests are important if we want candidates to follow through on promises and shame those who submit to the opposition.
1
Looking for a narrative from this election season so far?
Democrats are doing what they always do, which is presenting to voters an array of political voices from an increasingly diverse roster of candidates — young and old, white and minority, experienced and newby, idealistic and wizened.
Republicans have abandoned their roots, their ideology and their sense of responsible stewardship. They have fallen almost totally under the sway of the most corrupt, divisive and race-mongering “leader” in our history.
The midterm election will be a clash between advocates of change for the better, and advocates of chaos and plunder, often just for the sheer fun of seeing established guard rails of democracy disappear amid a hail of evil demagoguery.
Lots at stake, wouldn’t you say?
319
@PaulB67
Yes, yes, and yes!!
Not only is it imperative that blue-minded voters support democrats in their local and state races, it also imperative to convince your nutty uncle (cousin, co-worker, whomever....) NOT to support 3rd party candidates this year. Forget the Greens, and the others.
This is NOT the time to stubbornly show us how brilliantly independent you are, and waste your vote on a candidate who will never get elected, and will only dilute, and serve to thwart, a democratic blue wave in November.
Vote your heart in the primaries.
Vote for the democrat in November.
2
@PaulB67...Always? Instead of infinity, why not examine the heart and soul of the Democratic Party since the Civil War? Don't play the typical Democrat card of "yeah, but the Republicans have always been privileged white supremacists". Take a long, hard look at the history of the Democratic Party. There some really ugly cancers in that history. Yeah, but the Republicans.......Bull. Own your own history before you resort to demonization like a squid inking the waters to conceal itself.
Hats off to Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota who had the courage to speak up about the failings of the Republican Party and Trump. Although it may have cost him the Republican nomination he will be able to sleep at night knowing he has stood by his principles rather than the many others who say one thing privately and another publicly.
331
@Bryce
That’s not what cost Pawlenty. What cost Pawlenty was that Minnesotans already know what kind of governor Pawlenty would be, given that he held the office from 2002-2010.
He was a subpar governor who left a state known for its fiscal responsibility with a structural deficit of billions of dollars. His ineptitude led to cuts in education (something Minnesotans of all stripes value) and a backlog of broken infrastructure that we’re still trying to get caught up on.
Trump was a non factor by comparison. While he did come close to winning the state in 2016, that was more a function of Clinton being very unpopular here. Jeff Johnson isn’t important enough to be that hated, so he won. And he’ll lose in November when he faces a top notch candidate in Tim Walz.
31
@Bryce
Don't tip that hat too far. During his campaign this time he cozied up to Trump a bit to attract that far right voter. He apparently did not suck up enough, but he did suck up to the Trumpian base hate.
@Bryce I think that Pawlenty's loss was caused by his previous dismal performance as Governor.
His earlier anti-Trump statements had much less impact on his candidacy then the fact that Minnesotans had plenty of Pawlenty.
1
The disturbing running through this is Republican candidate's "tip-toeing" around any criticism of the president....or 'heaping praise' on him, to either gain favor - at best - or - at worst - just staying out of the cross-hairs.
When there can be no open discourse about policy, ethics or values, or criticism of the 'establishment' for fear of a tweet or 'banishment' from the tribe....we the people, and democracy loses.
20
I got pawlenty of nothing and Pawlenty has nothing for me or you.
10
Could the divide between the right and the left get any wider? It is becoming more obvious every day that the Republicans are "All In" on Trump no matter how bad the swamp stench gets. Meanwhile the Democrats are feeding the beast of racist xenophobia by nominating and electing the very people the right most fears and rejects. There seems to be a pervading belief among liberals that they hold a large advantage in being the majority in America. They may have the slight upper hand in numbers but only if every eligible voter actually casts a ballot. Other wise that margin is razor thin. The 42% who support Trump no matter what are not going away. One wonders how the U.S. survives such deep bitter divisions in the long run. It does present a rosy future either way.
2
@Greg Hodges
Only people who live in blue echo chambers believe that liberals are the majority in this country. This is a center-right country.
7
Why absolutely NOTHING in this article - or in any of the previous NYT post primary election summaries so far in 2018! - about the tepid (or worse) registered voter turnout rates?
A simple calculation, based on each state's registered voter numbers, would reveal the following approximations:
Wisconsin: 31%
Mineesota: 28%
Vermont: 22%
Connecticut: 18%
While there are a still a few high profile races to cover - the main emphasis in your reporting --all but certain victory is now assured in 90%+ of the congressional and state legislative races in these states for the candidat who's won the dominant party nomination.
I greatly respect the Times. But this is lazy reporting, with its focus on the political "horse race" at the expense of recognizing deeper underlying trends.
These turnout rates are all too typical. Is there really any kind of "wave" - blue, red or whatever - when only a handful of primaries so far have topped even one-third of registered voters?
And where that has happened, by the way, it's almost always been in states where all or most of those voting have NOT "gone to the polls." Instead they've been mailed their ballots. (More at www.voteathome.org)
16
@Phil Keisling Correct spelling of "Minnesota". The Star Tribune reported that the 93,000+ voters in Minneapolis was the greatest number of voters in a primary which included the office of governor. Two of the medium-size towns in the 8th district reported running out of ballots. I have not read the official turn-out statistics yet, but when it is available, I suspect the calculation for Minnesota will be greater than 28% as the state typically reports turn-out at either the highest rate or second or third in the country. Minnesota has same day voter registration and has fought back on voter ID laws. Until recently, absentee voting was discouraged and early voting was not allowed. Election days were a civic duty which could be experienced by all the voters on one day.
5
@Lynda
Minnesotans ("Don'tcha know!") are more civically responsible than other parts of the US.
But 28% is a dismal turnout considering the constant news about Trump and that life is hanging in the balance.
Europe regularly has over 40% turnout.
Turnout in primaries, let alone in off-year primaries, is always bad - with the exception of those where there's also a ballot question on a hot topic. (Down this way that would be Sunday liquor sales, for example.)
Pawlenty was the worse governor Minnesota ever had. He damaged education and everything else he could, following the Republican playbook. We finally got rid of him. Now, he has the audacity to take over again. I think not.
16
@bruce
"Why absolutely NOTHING in this article - about the tepid (or worse) registered voter turnout rates?"
Absolutely right. No turnout, no win. And they'll have to win by more than 10% to overcome the Republican's anti-democratic gerrymandering.
There is no indication of a Blue Wave - it's all talk and wishful thinking.
The Democrats have not changed - they still think Hillary won, or should have won. Their complacent alt-reality is as deep as the Trumpsters. They don't understand they're facing a well organized juggernaut engineered to win at all costs, with a meandering Democratic team riddled with losers.
The only fire is the non-traditional Progressives, but the sclerotic Democratic leaders are trying their best to stamp out that glimmer of hope.
Why is the low energy, 80 year-oldster leadership who gave us a Republican Congress, a Republican Supreme Court, a Republican President, and Republican State Houses still in place? (Answer - because they are entitled.)
This is unbelievable given the stakes. That Democrats are okay with all this losing proves that Democrats are corporate funded Republican-lites.
The new slogan, "For the People" is a joke coming from these corporate Democrats - everyone knows this is blatant pandering - the Democrats have doubled-down on pandering.
Trump was not enough of a reality check for the Democrats to make rational changes. So what will it take? Being marched into a "shower" like sheep?
One takeaway is that Bernie Sanders remains a cranky man who should retire. He is such a complete failure in every way. 2016 proved that. Go away dude, you're not needed.
13
@socal60 My sentiments exactly. What a coward he is, not to mention just as calculating as any other politician out there, while portraying an "above the fray" persona. His record of nothing accomplished should speak volumes, and the majority of candidates he backs loses. Alexandra, honey, distance yourself from him now.
1
Voters are too smart to fall for these Republicans who swear loyalty to Trump. Blue Wave a comin.
3
As a liberal, I have held the enlightenment belief in human rationality---given an education and the right data, men and women will make the right choices---Trump has destroyed this belief. I continually run into relatives---some very well educated---and friends---who have been successful in business and the professions---who offer up the most fantastical defenses of a man who is clearly morally and intellectually bankrupt. I get the anger and resentment of blue-collar worker in the midwest or South, but I do not understand how a college educated, church going CEO can say with a straight face that, yes Trump has some faults, but overall he is doing a great job. GREAT JOB??? Each day the evidence for a truly "unhinged" President mounts, and yet, amongst his followers his support grows. It appears nothing---from using the N word to indictments of his family members to sexual indiscretions to a gratuitous war---will make a difference.
57
@ACJ
I must guess that the defenders of Trump expect that something he will do will benefit them somehow, and they don't care about anything else he does.
3
@ACJ. When the economy goes south for his supporters in business they will abandon him and let their Congress person know it too. Until then, don’t hold your breath. Trump’s “uneducated” love his resentment filled diatribes, but your relatives and much of the business class love those tax cuts and the cuts in regulations etc. that frees them to do what capitalism without ethics has to do: efficiency at all costs to produce that profit. And they love and need that profit — the bigger, the better.
4
@ACJ - follow the money ! If one is part of the 1% and even of the top 15 - 20% of households when it comes to income the good times are rolling as long as you do not care about your fellow man. The community of mutual interest that emerged in our country after the depression, WW II and then the Kennedy and MLK murders is melting away. We are being manipulated by big money and their lackeys. People with problems have no power and people with power have no problems. BUT this was the case when Theodore Roosevelt, his cousin Franklin and LBJ arrived in the White House. There is hope and there are a lot of good folks out there. However the moneyed and educated classes are failing our country. So are most of our elected representatives. We can get it back on a 'big tent' effort but the price will be high and I hope those of us who care will be willing to make the effort and sacrifice required.
1
Rest assured the crooked republicans will alter voting results by any means possible. If they can hack the voting machines, they will not hesitate to do so. The law be damned.
I vote for paper ballots.
16
Of course the Republicans will steal the elections this fall. Putin and his pals will help and all of those people who can't see past the end of their noses will vote for Trump because he makes the trains run on time. Well, so did Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, et al. "The economy" is important, but it's not always the be-all-and-end-all. If it is, the Constitution, rule of law, human rights, and other values that Americans have always held dear will be history. In that scenario would the U.S. really be any different from China?
6
Lots of talk about TPaw's non-fealty to Putin's asset. That's pretty shallow Coastal Elite analysis.
The real reason that he lost is that he's now seen in MN for what he is: a carpetbagger.
33
"[Sanders] seeks the [Democratic Party's] nomination in order to block any rival from winning it, but then turns it down to protect the image of independence that he cherishes." Bernie Sanders continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth. He doesn't believe in his own ideas and values enough to run on them with his real party label but expects Dems to roll over and provide to him all the advantages (money, organizing, infrastructure) the major party label conveys. And now here he is again with a similar "screw you" act. This is why we can't take you seriously--you just want to win, values and honor be damned. No thanks.
24
Fascists win control in democracies when they can point to external or non-normative threats that the middle of the electorate become convinced are real. An appeal to “fairness” to the majority is also critical. Look at Hitler. Given the chaos in Germany during his rise, he emphasized fighting Communism and revenging the “stab in the back” by “non-German” elements of German society.
Today, fascist parties in Europe use the fear of Muslim refugees to scare the middle of the electorate who have been convinced they are losing their culture. The fascist parties are also anti-gay.
I believe that Trump won in 2016 because he was lucky (or shrewd enough) to be running when the US was susceptible to similar fears. We had been subjected to Muslim attacks since 9/11 and were being asked by the Obama administration to accept possibly large numbers of Syrian refugees, seen as potential terrorists within our borders. Gay marriage was still being absorbed and arguments were being made that men who so-proclaimed should be allowed in your daughters’ bathrooms. Lower middle class workers were being forced down.
The Democrats, and especially Hillary, spent almost all of their time focused on Racial and Gender issues, ignoring legitimate economic concerns. In short, scary events and the culmination of racial/social issues came to a head just in time to elect someone like Mr. Trump. Lucky guy. I don’t think it will happen again if the 2016 threats don’t come to seem real again.
7
You have to laugh at the way some of these GOP candidates tiptoe between support for trump and their desperate constituents, and all for what? The Dems appear more true to cause, more earnest, but will it be enough in November?
3
The biggest looser in the primary was the land by the Boundary Waters. Polymet's goal in mining copper is the winner as the democratic voters supported the employment of 200 people on the Iron Range at the risk of serious pollution. All Minnesota medical professionals have requested a health impact study before Polymet is allowed to go forward. Hopefully that message will get through once the election is over this fall. The iron range is legendary and not without good reason, but they see 200 jobs as something bigger than they really are.
14
@Laura S. I beieve ALL the Democrats are on board with mining. Really sad.
@Laura S.
Unfortunately, Rebecca Otto had the strongest stance on mining issues, but she dropped out after the convention. Those of us who are concerned about the BWCA will need to keep calling our legislators and holding them accountable. I'm comfortable with Walz overall, but that was one of my main concerns with him.
Regarding Tony Evers, it may be worth noting that in WI, the state superintendent of public schools is an elected office, so Evers has already won a statewide election.
15
Tim Pawlenty has a long history as an elected politician and is very well known by Minnesotans. His previous and current views of Trump probably had little to do with the fact that he lost in the primary.
27
@Debra I agree, we just didn't want to recycle Governors.
Most of these results sound very positive for Democratic Candidates.
After reading a column by Stolberg and Fandos regarding House and Senate Candidates keeping their stances on issues important to their local voters, it appears the The National Democratic Party has decided not to pursue a National agenda at this moment. I think this is a shrewd move.
Leave the DNC to come up with the National agenda as 2020 starts to role around.
Leave it to the State and Federal Candidates to fashion their messages to those voters that they are trying to woo. This seems to be working.
All politics are local after all.
82
@Jean
Precisely. A representative to the House should represent her district, not mine. It really matters in a House race that the candidate get out there, look people in the eye, and ask for their vote. You can't shake everybody's hand, but you can make enough personal contacts to show that you care and have people speak well of you to their neighbors. You can listen to what the people you represent are really talking about and are worried about.
It isn't at all scary to have candidates come from the left in azure-blue districts. But you need your Conor Lambs and Danny O'Connors to grow naturally out of their own districts. Democrats need to represent the true spectrum of political views that stand in opposition to authoritarianism, white nationalism, corruption and cronyism, and all the destructive impulses fueling the far-right's takeover of this country.
12
There can be no doubt that the GOP will turn to Voter Suppression as their only way to win.
This will NOT be a democratic election where every eligible voter's ballot will be counted and access to cast that vote will be blocked by any means, legal or not.
This is truly a watershed event.
24
Takeaway: The Republicans will steal this election, like in 200 and 2016, using every trick in the book of voter suppression. Don't get your hopes up for a democratic sweep just because we are an overwhelming majority. To the reds, this is not an election by the people, it is a bare knuckle game of cheat, lie and swindle to come out on top. Nothing short of a complete overhaul of our system will make any difference.
126
@Dave
You seem to ignore the role that Independents play in the elections. Ignoring this, making blank accusations of Republican theft, is a mistake.
@Dave -- Throw in some litigation with hopes that the newly minted hard right Republican Supreme Court will rubber stamp right wing and evangelical candidates.
@Dave Don't forget why it's not on Republicans' "to-do" list to have paper ballots. If voting machines can be hacked, do you think they may be tempted?
2
"Mr. Johnson will face Representative Tim Walz, the southwestern Minnesota lawmaker who prevailed in the hard-fought Democratic primary after disavowing his past ties to the National Rifle Association to accommodate his party’s shift left."
I'm 53 years old and democratic voters views of guns is the same now as it's always been. The NRA knows there isn't a change on this topic, this is why they always fail democratic members on guns. If there is a shift, it's with "swing voters" who too many democrats try to appeal too in getting elected. That's not a party shift, the party has always wanted gun control, or at least during my life. This is a national shift after too many people are buried while guns become more and more prevalent. Not everything has to be described in partisan divide, sometimes it's the policy itself that controls the topic not the party.
46
@melan1e Clear as a bell.
1
Highly suspect assessment of the Minnesota election. Trump was rarely mentioned in the Republican contest. On the other hand, Millionaire Pawlenty parachuted back into Republican politics with a poor record on debt and clearly expected the grassroots Republicans to follow him. There was little talk of Trump here and much conversation about Pawlenty’s opportunistic, monied return to the state.
39
So Bernie Sanders runs for a nomination he has no intention of accepting in order to prevent anyone else from winning it? He wants to preserve his image as an independent but wants to make sure he has a clear path to reelection. He manipulates the process when it serves him and complains about it when it doesn't.
118
I was also struck by this. Disappointing at the least.
If his constituents in Vermont support this, why does it bother you? The people of Vermont are free to vote for who they want, and so your problem seems to be more with them than with Bernie.
1
@Suzanne B.
Think it through: This isn’t about denying the Democrats representation - Sanders has voted with Democrats upwards of 95% of the time, and was not challenged in the primary. The point is to avoid splitting the vote in the general election, thus giving the GOP an opening to take the seat. The VT Democratic party is fine with this maneuver (once again, no one wanted to challenge him), so you should be, too.
11
@John Ramey and @tom. I supported and voted for HRC, and Sanders from my view in no way cost her the election. Comey and the demonizing of her over the emails by the Republicans was the principal cause.
Sanders is good for the Democrats, for he has the ability to energize the left wing of the party, and that's sorely needed to win in November. I don't think for a minute any Republican will vote Democrat this cycle, so we need every Democrat to vote.
And the only way to do that is get those youngsters (75 year old here) on the left wing to get out the vote. And they will. Whether, the candidate is in the middle, leans left, is left, or left of left, they'll help to energize the voters to get to the polls in November.
63
@cherrylog754
I am convinced that the 46% of registered voters who didn't vote in 2016 won the Presidency for Trump and the defeat of HRC. Also, Trump's dominance of the established news media (He got a lot of free press) was another big factor in winning the election.
11
@cherrylog754 I voted for Bernie in the primary (caucus) here in Idaho, and for Hillary in the general. I blame the antiquated Electoral College for her loss. How is it possible that even with nearly 3 million more votes than Trump, she still lost!
6
@cherrylog754 - Saunders is the wrong man for the job. He's all talk and no action because he doesn't know how to implement the talk. It's all just words, and that doesn't cut it. I'm tired of talk, I need to see the walk.
Dems need new, younger blood. We're done with the likes of Saunders and his ilk.
Primaries are not general elections. We'll see come November if the Democrats aka "New Socialist" emerging in the party win against the GOP. Sadly, even if they do, their place in the legislative process will be dictated by the old guard. Until Pelosi and her cronies are outed, it will still be business as usual for the Democrats, as new ideas and approaches are trampled to maintain the old order. The rot and ineffectiveness in the party resides squarely at the top.
16
@George
Americans are not socialists. In this regard, Democrats have more in common with Republicans than they are willing to admit. There is no "socialist wave" in America. That's an invention by the Times and her ideological sister, the Washington Post.
9
@Ed L.
I would add that socialism is hardly a "new idea." Cuba is still suffering from six decades of it.
I note that the combined votes for Democrats in both MN and WI exceeded those casts for Republicans...in MN by a big margin. Does this portend a likely Democratic victory in November?
77
@Tfarris11
Sadly, there is not necessarily a correlation: Many "red" states actually get a plurality of Democratic votes in midterm elections. Due to gerrymandered districts, however, (AKA Republi-cheating), these pluralities are often represented by a whoppingly imbalanced number of Republican officials.
It's mind-bogglingly unjust and undemocratic.
16
@Tfarris11. Not if gerrymandering and voter suppression do the job intended by the Republicans!
1
The way Bernie Sanders manipulates the Democratic Party to give himself a smooth path to office nullifies his claims about unfair treatment in 2016. In 2020, we need someone who can actually get stuff done, not just give speeches at rallies, the current incumbent's favorite activity.
110
@Alicia Lloyd Bernie isn't President dear nor does he have a leadership role in the Senate.
7
@Alicia Lloyd
I think the manipulation was the other way around. We need more Independent thinking in the DNC. The way they have done things for the past several years, Party above Country, just like their RNC counterparts, did not work.
Time to change that thinking.
4
@Alicia Lloyd
Better be sure to include the Vermont Democratic Party in your charges of manipulation, given their wholehearted support of Sanders.
3
I'm not sure I trust the results in Kansas. In 2016, Kris Kobach led the charge for the State rejecting 13,717 ballots and additional steps that kept many legitimate voters off the roles. In this recent election, his opponent, Mr. Colyer, had to speak out against Kobach's confusing (and possible) illegal instructions to county officials about how they were to assess and count ballots. I believe Colyer conceded too soon. I'm also not sure if Minnesotans should trust the Pawnlenty results that gave his opponent the lead.
38
@Ann
Why? I'm a MN democrat and my perspective is Pawlenty lost because people remember all the problems he left behind when he left office, cuts to education, budget problems, skyrocketing property taxes as a result of his "no new taxes" policy, crumbling infrastructure and inadequate funding to cities and small towns. He was unpopular at the end of his second term.
1
@Ann. Your lack of faith in the vote is exactly the result that is desired by Putin, who,can then point to the uS and argue that the two nations are “equivalent.”
Dems are playing high-stakes game for the general with socialist-leaning candidates. If moderate independent voters won't get on board, the nightmare continues. The downhill slide that former democracies like Poland have taken.
19
@Carolyn
Don't you think Moderates will look at the Trump Administration and the Republican Congress first and foremost and maybe think a few Progressives inn the Democratic Party will be more beneficial in the long run?
11
@Jean
No.
A good night for our Democracy. A few exceptions but a night that we can celebrate diversity. At least in the Democratic Party. The Republicans remain the white old men's club.
101
scary, though. I hope the left feels the enormous pressure they are under to get enough moderates to vote for them.
15
Diversity in government does not equate to better representation or success. Look at Camden, Detroit, Newark, Gary Indiana, etc.....
4
@George@George: Lack of diversity in government does not equate to better representation or success. Look at the states of Kansas and Wisconsin, etc.!
Non voters are in essence approving the bullying and hatefilled rhetoric of this administration and congress.
To live in this 242 yr old democracy and hear and read over and over that politicans either kiss trump's ring or risk losing the race is oligarchy in the making.
Apathy will put all current and future lives at risk. We have the ease of early voting methods in addition to same day voting so vote. It matters for that is what current republicans and this administration are seeking to take away from you and with the courts approval.
Vote for change for we are at the apex of deciding on lifting each other up or burning ourself down.
226
@karen We already have an oligarchy and have had one for years. We are headed for a dictatorship if those voting for "your favorite president" have their way.
3
@karen hear, hear! The more states that offer early voting, voting by mail, and weekend/off-hour voting, the easier it will be for people to add their voices to a real election.
1
This Election Day roundup illustrates the vitality of our nation's representative democracy. Those who deny it or seek to "transform" America or who dwell on conspiracies should take note: we are a free people with enduring political traditions.
22
@Claude "This Election Day roundup illustrates the vitality of our nation's representative democracy."
None of the people that demonstrate "the vitality of our representative democracy" is in office yet. And, yes, although I don't like to dwell in conspiracies, when they are there, right in front of my face, and undeniable, I'm not going to engage in "free people" happy talk. When candidates the Russians DIDN"T want are actually in office, then I'll join you in celebrating.
18
One thing useful to remember is that winning a party primary election usually has less future significance for the candidate than losing one.
5
How? Winning the primary advances you to the general election, losing the primary does not. How does that making winning a primary less significant than losing one?
18
@sdw
Twas still a famous victory laddie and you cannot take that way.
6
@Blackstone
Your focus is on the “positive” significance to a candidate who wins a primary. The winner does earn the right to compete in the general election, where she or he may or may not be successful.
Primary losers nearly always face either the end of their political careers or relegation to lower level offices. In last night’s primaries, the loss by Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota probably spelled the end for him.
1