Thursday, July 31, 2014

MN GOP Governor Candidates

I know almost nothing about the candidates, and I have little interest until there is only 1.  However I am interested to hear your thoughts.

MinnPost Style Wars
WIKI MN Gov Race
Politics in MN
Huff Post GOP Candidates
MinnPost Strengths and Weaknesses
MPR GOP Contenders

Of course they will likely have a hard time beating a sitting DFL Governor in Minnesota, but where there is life there is hope.  It will be interesting to see what the deciding issues will be.  The other question will be is there a third party candidate who takes enough votes to sway the decision?

Thoughts?

20 comments:

jerrye92002 said...

I notice that all of the articles posted seem to be "old" at least in political terms. Elections turn on a daily basis, often as a result of last-minute "dirty tricks" by somebody. I hope that doesn't happen here, but it has before.

On the Republican side, the State GOP is making a great effort to maintain the "value of the endorsement" supporting Jeff Johnson. Whether that translates into a primary win, and whether that translates again into enough money to counter the vast propaganda war that ABM will rage on behalf of Dayton, remains to be seen.

Sean said...

Considering that DFL candidates have won just 1 of the last 6 governors elections, and the last sitting DFL governor to run lost (Perpich in 1990), I fail to see why beating Mark Dayton should be considered such an uphill battle.

The IP candidate in this race looks to be by far the weakest candidate they have had in this race. I question whether she (or any of the statewide IP candidates) will get 5%, which will start the clock ticking on the IP's viability as a major party.

Laurie said...

I was thinking of voting in the GOP primary if I decided I liked one candidate better than the others. Maybe I should vote for the one I think Dayton would have the easiest time beating, although that would feel a little unethical to me.

2014 Minnesota Governor Race - Real Clear Politics

John said...

I put this in on the MinnPost Style post.

"I think they should focus on the big "government spending" increase he signed off on.
MN Spending History

They have already started Ads regarding the Senate office building expenditure.

Maybe his signing the marriage equality and anti-bullying bills when almost half the state was against at least the first issue.

His push to unionize day care providers and build the new stadium.

And their was that HUGE bonding bill that we will paying off for a long time.

Yes. I think they have enough to energize their base and sway some moderates. Though I agree it will be an uphill battle."

To which Paul replied.
"I agree. Please God, let them focus on their small guvmint solutions to everything."

Somehow I am not surprised...

John said...

It is interesting how divided the 2 philosophies are. Those being the:

Government should save us all
vs
Government should stay out of our way

Comic 1
Comic 2
Comic 3
Comic 4
Comic 5
Comic 6
Comic 7
Comic 8

Sean said...

The spending increases under Dayton aren't historically large. (Please remember that FY2010-11 spending was artificially lowered by over $4B due to federal stimulus dollars and the school shift.)

The bonding bill wasn't historically large, either. In fact, the general fund amount was right at the 10-year average.

But reciting talking points is fun!

Sean said...

I take the last part about the bonding back. It was slightly larger than normal.

Laurie said...

maybe those liberal democrats do not have out of control spending at all, as the price of government continues to fall:

Minnesota's Price of Government - mn budget project

Price of Government Declines Under the Dayton Budget - MN 20/20

based on my moderate mother (who always votes for the dems) the one GOP talking pt that she agrees with is the new (luxury) senate bldg is wasteful spending.

I think the best dem talking pt is paying back the schools and increasing education funding while only raising taxes on the wealthy.

It is interesting how little interest there is in discussing which GOP candidate is better than another, compared to going right back to the DFL/GOP argument.

jerrye92002 said...


Laurie said, "I think the best dem talking pt is paying back the schools and increasing education funding while only raising taxes on the wealthy."

What voters quickly forget is that a) Dayton insisted on a LARGER school shift than the Republicans wanted, and b) he VETOED a Republican bill to repay that shift two years ago!

Can you really get credit for causing a problem, preventing its solution, and then claiming to solve it after you gain the political advantage?

John said...

Sean,
I don't think you can play both sides of the Democrats funded a lot of things that Republicans would not have, while saying the DFL didn't spend significantly more. They seem kind of at odds to me.

Laurie,
Sorry. I know absolutely nothing about any of the GOP candidates yet... I don't vote in primaries so I have no interest in learning about those who will not be on the ballot.

Besides according to MinnPost it sounds like they are all pretty much aligned on the issues. So what do you want to discuss? Hair styles?

John said...

I am thinking the only reason the cost of government isn't going up faster is because the economy is recovering and the stock market is at record highs. And if the DFL stays in charge I am most certain that the spending will be well above the shown forecast or Dayton's proposed budget.

And if my historical ~8 yr cycle comes true, we will be looking at an economic downturn sometime in 2016 or 2017. (hopefully smaller than 2009) That would hit the cost of government in 2016 with a double whammy. That is the problem with forward looking graphs, they are almost never accurate.

On the upside from the view of Liberals, the cost of government may reach 17% again.

Laurie said...

If I was you I would vote for whomever I thought had the best chance of beating Dayton. Other things to consider are their priorities and ability to get things done.

I would be curious to see what the dems do with total control for another 2 years. I just don't see any tax raises in the future. If we end up with budget surpluses again, I guess their are worthwhile things to spend it on, maybe they could shock everyone and give a rebate to tax payers.

John said...

My guess is that they will raise spending to match revenues. Maybe through compensation and benefits raises for the public/union employees, and additional programs for the typical DFL voter.

I mean that is what they did this year when we had some extra funds.

Then when a recession hits they will complain that we need to "raise taxes" rather than "make disastrous cuts in spending".

Sean said...

"I don't think you can play both sides of the Democrats funded a lot of things that Republicans would not have, while saying the DFL didn't spend significantly more. They seem kind of at odds to me."

I didn't say that.

jerrye92002 said...

That's why the best hope this state has is election of a Republican-- any Republican-- as Governor, and a takeover of the MN House. Having two out of three can accomplish good things-- like balancing the budget without raising taxes and creating a surplus, like the GOP did two years ago.

My guess is that, if the DFL keeps control, they will raise spending BEYOND revenues, like they've done every other year they've been in power. I've done the math, and in the years the DFL has been in control of the Legislature, which is most of the last 50, spending has increased about 8% per year, and that's above inflation and population growth. Has your salary kept pace? Are we the citizens 10 times as well off as we were 50 years ago?

John said...

Sean,
I apologize, I combined Laurie's and your comments in one response.

"maybe those liberal democrats do not have out of control spending at all, as the price of government continues to fall." Laurie

"I think the best dem talking pt is paying back the schools and increasing education funding while only raising taxes on the wealthy." Laurie

"The spending increases under Dayton aren't historically large. (Please remember that FY2010-11 spending was artificially lowered by over $4B due to federal stimulus dollars and the school shift.)" Sean

I will try harder to not mis-attribute statements to you. Thanks for calling me on it.

Laurie said...

"Democrats funded a lot of things that Republicans would not have"

I think you should attribute that idea to your stereotypical democrat that lives in your imagination.

I believe the only spending increase I mention was an increase to the schools and possibly finding other worthwhile projects if we run another surplus.

There are probably a few other spending increases that can be attributed to the dems, but my point is/was that the spending increase have been small.

John said...

I seem to remember the DFL spending on quite a few things the GOP did not want to open the check book for:
- Property tax relief
- Local aid for cities
- Full day kindergarten
- Raises for care givers
- etc

I would say raising the budget from $35 million to $39 million over 2 years is pretty significant. (see link above)

By my math that is 5.7% /yr, well above inflation.

Laurie said...

I'll agree that the dems spend moderately more when they are in charge. We will find out in Nov if a majority of voters think it is too much.

You really should pay more attention to the gov's primary, as the winner will be the one who has to persuade the voters that the dems are big spenders and this will likely influence house races as well.

I might vote for Zellers. To me he is the face of the gov shutdown and reminding people of the result of divided govt might help the dfl

jerrye92002 said...

"I might vote for Zellers. To me he is the face of the gov shutdown..."

It's amazing how much the truth can be clouded by Alida Messinger's money. As I remember it, the shutdown was very unpopular and the Governor finally called it off after getting just one concession from the Republicans, which was INCREASING the amount of the school shift, taking money away from the schools.

I think I should also point out that it isn't so much "the spending, stupid" as it is the stupid spending. For example, increasing K-12 funding while lowering the requirements doesn't make a lot of sense, especially when we already know that the more money spent on "improving student achievement," the worse student achievement gets. Local aid for cities is another way of rewarding irresponsibility and political corruption.