Two point conversation...

Sorry... couldn't pass up the football pun.

First point: Congratulations goes out to the World Champion New Orleans Saints! I think that was one of the most exciting Superbowls I have seen in a long time, and I'm glad as hell that the Saints get to carry that trophy back into the city that has waited so long for it. I know everyone here at the Bund was watching (as best they could) the game, and my only comment on the event is that I think the better team won... not because of mistakes made or opportunities missed by the Colts, but because the Saints were playing to win while the Colts were trying not to lose.

My second point: El Casa Grande, a follower of our blog, made a comment about my last post that I wanted to comment on further, and I have chosen to bring the comment out of the hidden nether-world of our blog and put it front-and-center for comment and review by all. Shamelessly hoping for more participation from the "peanut gallery" has nothing to do with this decision, I assure you.

El Casa Grande writes: "When Jesse Ventura won the governor's race here in 1998, he was expected to take votes from the Republican candidate, Norm Coleman. Instead, the Iron Range, which usually votes largely for the Democrats because of the large unionized work force, voted heavily for Jesse, thus leaving Coleman pretty close to pre-election projections. However, Ventura, projected third, won the race with Skip Humphrey finishing third."

I agree 100% that a third party campaign can have an impact, and even win, an executive race in the modern era, as both Ventura's '98 campaign and Perot's '92 campaign show very clearly. However, Minnesota has an almost unique dynamic in that the Minnesota voting block has a built-in third party in the Democratic Farm-Labor Party (the famous DFL Party). Let's compare the '92 presidential election with the '98 governor's race, and see what happens.

In '92, we saw the Reform Party take 24.1% of the popular vote, and nearly 43% of the "conservative" vote, away from Bush Sr. Had everyone who voted for Perot voted instead for Bush Sr., the GOP would have carried MN in '92 by more than 20 points (my source is HERE). There is no guaranty that the Perot supporters would have automatically supported Bush, but as I said in my last post, I feel Perot was a "progressive" more than he was a "conservative" as it is defined today by the likes of Ryan, et al. It is my opinion that Clinton WAS NOT the first choice of typical "DFLers" in MN because he wasn't socially conservative enough for their tastes, and that many of them were drawn to Perot because of it. Yes, the DFL officially endorsed Clinton, but I still think that Perot did as well as he did because Clinton wasn't selling himself to the typical mid-western sensibility at all. He was an elitist... and mid-westerners don't like elitists.

Ventura's win in '98 stems from the same dissatisfaction with the DNC that I think many middle-aged and older DFLers have. It's not the ONLY reason, mind you... I think Coleman has run two of the worst campaigns in history, one in '98 for governor and one in '08 for Senator... but it is a big factor. Minnesotans are not socialists and commies... they are rural, small-town farmers and factory workers and YES union members who know all-too-well what extra deductions from their paychecks mean to their bottom line. Minnesota, like other traditionally "blue" mid-western States like WI, IL, SD and MI, may currently hold a very "progressive" mind-set, but they are NOT as far left as CA or NY or MA when it comes to political views and party support. The State is TOO rural for that kind of "Left Coast" mentality to take over... for now, anyway.

My point is simply that I think that there is a deep-rooted sense of separation between the "average Joe" and the DNC, and the Dems are doing NOTHING to address this kind of separation that could very easily remove them from their majority status within the next 4 to 6 years.

Everything I said about the Tea Party can ALSO be said about the DFL... they are not a party of iconic, wildly-popular party leadership and ultra-recognizable candidates. They are a party (right now, anyway) of issues and concerns that they take to the DNC and determine to be "addressed" in the general platform of the Party Convention, or they can field their own candidate. In fact, the DFL has even had a Vice President in the famous "Hube" Humphries who won alongside LBJ in '65 to '69.

So, to your point, El Casa... yes, the Reform Party's record in MN is a good example of third party success because of the Ventura win in '98. I simply think it is a BETTER example of issue-driven party efforts in the example given by the DFL's efforts since 1945.