An In-Party Recount?

[vakkotaur]

The Minnesota primaries were yesterday. The Republicans had one gubernatorial candidate, the Independence party had one or maybe two, and the DFL (MN Democrats) had a bunch. The endorsed candidate was beat out by the moneyed candidate (who it was found had friends & family donating to "grassroots" organizations through a couple levels of indirection... *sniff*sniff* Ah, astroturf).

Amusingly, this situation even has the Star Tribune resorting to reporting facts, and with headlines that look like they came from elsewhere: Dayton wins; unity rally postponed.

I don't know if there will be a recount or not. I really hope so. I'd love to see the DFL pulling their dirty tricks on themselves for a change. Maybe each faction can yell their favorite line, "Count all the votes!" while whispering the next words, "until my candidate is ahead." Perhaps they can find boxes of ballots in the odd car trunk. It would be funny to see the DFL try to steal an election from itself for a change.

But, somehow, I expect some back room deals (maybe Dayton can just pay off Kelliher?) will mean that the DFL can go on about its usual business of slinging mud at folks who, unlike the DFL, have at least some grasp of basic economics.

---

ADDENDUM: Kelliher has conceded.

Comments

[thecanuckguy.livejournal.com]

As someone who regularly watches MN TV, I'd have to say a) it was *very* confusing watching the ads, knowing you're essentially a two-party country but seeing ads for (and against) way more than two people, and b) do you guys actually *like* attack ads (for the purposes of this question, I'm not taking into account the party), because you see so darn many of them! When they try to have them north of the border, there's a huge outcry, and they get withdrawn immediately. I know, regardless of party, I probably wouldn't vote for someone who authorizes attack ads, which probably means I'd never vote in the US.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

One of the many benefits of not having any TV signal is the near complete lack of exposure to political ads. I hear bits on teh radio, but since that's either XM or NPR, it's discussion about the ads. Oh, I see signs on lawns.

I think the 'attack' comes from all the whitewashing of things that is attempted. I would agree, bringing up some guys inebriation from 20 years ago, for example is silly and ought to be derided. But bringing up his voting record, whether or not he likes it, is quite valid. And there is the idea of free speech meaning free speech - so long as it isn't incitement. Sure there might be "bad" speech but the way to deal with it is more speech, not suppression.

And there is the idea of trying to isolate one from his own attacks. Dayton's indirect funding of the group(s) attacking Emmer is an example of that. That way he tried to eat the cake and still have it. And if one only read the Star Tribune and didn't watch a Mankato TV station, one might never know that was going on. That one TV station, and a few bloggers, did the real investigation (maybe others did too) and published the story. So it's not about liking the 'attack' but it is about liking their effectiveness. So mud gets slung, but they try to keep their fingerprints off of it.

Also, I must bring party back into this. There would be much critical more coverage of a conservative or Republican (not the same thing) doing that than of a liberal, pardon, "progressive" or DFLer (pretty much the same thing) doing it, due to the leanings of the big media in this state.

[thecanuckguy.livejournal.com]

But the main thing I don't like about attack ads is that it's the easy way out. Sure, candidate Y may run an ad saying that candidate X voted to raise income tax for Warnertaurs by 50%, making you less inclined to vote for him, but it doesn't tell you anything about candidate Y and why you should vote for him! Is he running attack ads because he doesn't have anything to say about himself to get you to vote for him? Maybe candidate Y also voted in favour of the Warnertaur bill, but just saying candidate X did puts you against X and makes you forget Y.

I much prefer ads that tell a person *why* they should vote for you, rather than why they should not vote for the other guy. True, maybe attack ads do work better in the US where there's only the choice between X and Y (realistically, I have friends that are heavily involved in third parties, but I'm being realistic) rather than in Canada where running an ad against X still doesn't rule out Y, Z, A, or B. Reason #2339 why the virtual two-party system you have in the US is silly.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

If you promise your voters you will do X if elected, you'll be held accountable for lying in the other guy's attack ads if you don't do X.

If you accuse your opponent of doing Y, there are no obligations upon you. You can even do Y yourself after you're elected; as long as you didn't promise not to do Y yourself, you didn't lie.

Attack ads are a way to be dishonest without being held accountable for lying, that's why they're so popular.

[vakkotaur.livejournal.com]

If it's JUST an 'attack' (and I get tired of the term being misapplied to ads that legitimately bring up points of record - that's not an attack, it's informational) I agree. But often what are mistakenly called attack ads are legitimate comparisons. Those DO say to vote for one candidate and not for another.

The odd and curious situation is the primary, as you saw, where the candidates of one party fight amongst themselves... but then have turn right around and try (or pretend) to unify.