“The Republican Party has shifted,” [said Pawlenty]. “It is the era of Trump, and I’m just not a Trump-like politician.”...Pawlenty got 43.9% of the vote.
Pawlenty’s defeat came after he and his allies outspent Johnson by a margin of roughly 3 to 1, according to a Democratic consultant tracking the spending. When Trump recently visited Duluth for a political rally, Pawlenty decided not to attend....
August 15, 2018
"Minnesota Republicans decisively rejected the comeback bid of former governor Tim Pawlenty... who proved unable to overcome his 2016 description of Donald Trump as 'unhinged and unfit'..."
Writes Michael Scherer in WaPo. And if you click on the link you might be momentarily befuddled because the article, which begins with that sentence and names only Tim Pawlenty in the headline, is illustrated with a photograph that's decidedly not Tim Pawlenty. It's Christine Hallquist, a transgender who just won the Democratic nomination for governor of Vermont.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
I live in Minnesota. Jeff Johnson was the GOP nominee in 2014, so he's hardly a newcomer. Pawlenty had a lot of money behind him, but little rationale behind his campaign. In important respects, the dynamic was the same as what happened to Tommy Thompson when he lost to Tammy Baldwin in 2012; the brand name is rarely enough and the politician with the name still has to make the sale. The business about Trump was a factor, but Pawlenty's evident disdain in dealing with the state party (he blew off the nominating process and the convention) was far more important. Johnson has been campaigning hard all year. The party activists were out in force and they voted for Johnson. Other than an ad attacking Johnson, Pawlenty was barely visible.
The turnout in Minn suggests trouble unless the GOP voters were all at the lake.
I am confused at the confusion. With incumbency, name recognition and a three to one spending advantage, why is anyone surprised or is it even noteworthy that the incumbent got 43%?
One assumes he is moderately competent, so a vote for him is not outrageous.
We aren't Democrats, Ms. Althouse.
But the...assumption that being anti-Trump is pro immigration, anti growth and for more passive aggressive fetal posturing ala George Will is not entirely unwarranted. There are many 'new' Republicans in the house...and they are there because Trump brought them.
This is a vital message to other Republicans: we are increasing as Democrats are shrinking, but to get those voters, you actually have to deliver on the issues and messaging which brought them.
"I am confused at the confusion. With incumbency, name recognition and a three to one spending advantage, why is anyone surprised or is it even noteworthy that the incumbent got 43%?"
The incumbent is not Pawlenty.
Ah. Apologies. Read it too fast. This changes everything
That...is a lot of money. So perhaps there is a strong anti-Trump wing in the Republican Party. This is a worry and a discussion we SHOULD be having WITHIN the party.
A few more questions
Who sent this money? Republicans or Dems?
What was the total voter count? If Michael K is to be believed, a small PASSIONATE group of anti Trump voters may give a misleading impression on that front.
Is this anti-Trump or Pro Pawlenty?
But at the end of the day, my main point remains: Going anti-Trump had a large price because the man and the message are (worryingly) intertwined.
what Tim Pawlenty was unable to overcome is the fact that he is a Nancy-boy.
Johnson 167,922 52.6%
Pawlenty 140,120 43.9%
It was pro-Trump.
Ellison took his AG primary with 50% of the vote.
So the woman abuser won his primary. Why should we listen to anything a Democrat says.
Do you think Trump created 27,000 new passionate Republicans.
At the very least
“Either get with the program or get out!”
Now there’s a winning long term strategy.
The print version of this story doesn't have Pawlenty at all. I think it must be difficult to keep up with changing online versions. (The online version as I write has Pawlenty in the first sentence, as well as the headline.) But I do wish WaPo would improve their writing. I had to read the sentence three times, and even now, I am only reasonably certain that I understand it: "He will face Bryan Steil, a Ryan-endorsed lawyer, who is running against a self-described “pro-white” nationalist candidate, Paul Nehlen, who was banned from Twitter after sending a racist message targeting American actress Meghan Markle before her marriage to Britain’s Prince Harry. "
Less than 6% of the population voted.
“Either get with the program or get out!”
Now there’s a winning long term strategy.
It is the Democrat core strategy.
But we don't throw people out of the party, ala the Dems re Bernie.
We just don't vote for folks who won't give VOTERS what they expressly want.
I make another mistake. The vast majority of the population wants stricter border control. Dems refuse to give it to them.
So I guess IGNORING what voters want is the strategy of Dems and Pawlenty.
How is that working out for them?
So perhaps there is a strong anti-Trump wing in the Republican Party.
You are just coming to this epiphany?
Do you know, before Chris Wallace demanded a Republican accept the results of an election during a debate; the GPO demanded Trump sign an agreement he would accept the results of the primary? Maybe it is something that happens all the time out of sight, but I never recall hearing of such an agreement to be signed. And when it became clear that Trump had a demanding lead, Cruz was second with Jeb! out and Rubio dropping out; the GOP fundraisers put all their backing behind Cruz, err wait no, they backed last place John "hadn't won a delegate yet" Kasich. This is all before the National Review had a post election meltdown.
The interesting thing to me are people wondering if Trump has coattails. I think the answer is he obviously does. People don't recognize them, because you have members of the GOP cutting themselves off from those coattails. The ones that show support for Trump have done well in elections.
"But we don't throw people out of the party, ala the Dems re Bernie."
Well, Bernie barged into the party when it suited him, and left again soon afterward. Dem regulars should have been pissed, and the exposed DNC machinations for Hill, at the heart of the "Russian interference" narrative, are understandable. But Bernie was a sign of the Dems' socialist turn. The question is how fast they can transform the party, and how long "moderate" resistance from the likes of Althouse, looking for the "best person" not too obviously tied to crazy schemes, can restrain them.
And it's true the GOP doesn't throw people out and prefers a big tent, but some GOPers now throw themselves out, preferring their own classy self-regard over pursuing most of an actual Republican agenda as long as it involves the rude liar Trump and his rude, deplorable voters. Turnout is key, and a portion of the nice GOP suburban base will stay home, enough to turn Dem enthusiasm into a blue wave where it matters.
“In Minnesota, total primary turnout at more than 875,000 surpassed a 20-year high, with Democrat votes outnumbering Republican ballots by more than 250,000, according to unofficial state figures.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/midterms-2018-election-democrat-republican-voters-turnout-donald-trump-congress-a8492486.html
“In Minnesota, total primary turnout at more than 875,000 surpassed a 20-year high, with Democrat votes outnumbering Republican ballots by more than 250,000, according to unofficial state figures.”
Three factors explain the discrepancy in voting:
1) Yes, there are more Democrats than Republicans in Minnesota, although that gap is narrowing. No point in pretending otherwise. Parts of Minneapolis and St. Paul are 80-90% DFL, but the rest of the state is turning deep red. It’s almost like Seattle vs. the rest of Washington state.
2) Much of the primary turnout was in the indigo blue CD5 (Minneapolis proper and the first ring western suburbs), where the DFL primary was the de facto general election. You can attribute almost half of the 250,000 discrepancy to CD5.
3) Most of the contested primaries were on the DFL side. The Walz/Murphy/Swanson primary for governor was tightly contested. I am also certain a fair number of Republicans voted in the DFL primary to try to pick their opponent, although it would be well-nigh impossible to figure out how many people did that.
The most interesting thing about Minnesota will be what happens after 2020, because Minnesota is likely to lose a congressional seat after the next census. That's when the fun really begins around here.
Pawlenty has been a bank lobbyist in DC the last 6 years. Typical Republican like Kasich and Jeb. They are in government and then influence peddle in the private sector for millions because they don’t have any actual skills. Then they run for office again because they want to be president. They are clueless. No one wants Jeb, Kasich, and Pawlenty. They all ran for president and were trounced.
If Pawlenty had opened a bar and been a small business owner he would have had a much better chance. People are tired of watching these assholes get rich off government service/connections. It’s good that Trump helped kill off that part of the GOP. They are an embarrassment to Americans.
Glenn’s revolving surtax is a good idea.
When you get official figures, give me a call. Otherwise it is fake news.
Note: Dems tend to turn out more in these off elections because a) they are urbanized, so are a 5 minute walk from their voting booth, not a 6 mile drive, and b) they are...less employed. Or they are employed state workers who are almost MANDATED to go vote for their Liberal of choice.
I could be blowing smoke as much as Inga, but we'll see in November. My money is (NOW) on Trump having a few coattails.
But I don't expect any urbanized area to change hands. That Democratic Machine creates the votes and frankly, if the people are stupid enough to continue to vote for the same people who are making their cities bad, they deserve what they get.
If Pawlenty outspent Johnson, the Trump candidate, 3 to 1 and lost, then it is fucking obvious that Bob Mueller needs to look into this primary and indict some Russians ASAP.
Feingold got a bit further than Pawlenty I guess, but it seems (I hope) that the American Public in the Midwest at least is fed up with Careerist Politicians (he writes, with a withering look in Fred Risser's general direction).
Elected office should never become a sinecure.
It’s Trump’s party now.
The poor uniparty has the sads today. Republicans won’t elect their cuck democrats and the 30+ red states are tired of their little violent black shirts crapping on the highways.
I was going to add my two cents, and then realized that Achilles said it pretty well.
I agree with Mr. D. I was a delegate to the 2018 MNGOP state convention where we endorsed Jeff Johnson and there was a lot of resentment among part activists that Pawlenty didn’t even attend the convention to speak even if he wasn’t going to try for the endorsement and just go straight to the primary. There was also a feeling among many that when he left office the State party was in debt (some of which was related to his campaign) and he could have done more to help fundraise to retire the debt and put the party on a sounder financial footing and support our other candidates. We also have a new party chair who is very well loved by activists and she lead a full court press for supporting all of the endorsed Republican candidates in the primary. I still ended up voting for Pawlenty yesterday (I supported Johnson in 2014 and think he’s a fine candidate as well but I thought Pawlenty would probably be better able to win in the general election) but the perception that he was snubbing the people whose party he wanted to lead probably hurt him more in the primary than last minutes attacks on him for not supporting Trump.
You mean that this Pawlenty guy is a real person? I thought that he was one of those card-board cut-outs you find at the movies or book-store.
won the Democratic nomination for governor of Vermont.
Aw, you mean the kid didn't win? That sucks.
Post a Comment