FYI - Straw Polls
Posted by Andy on February 24th, 2006
MN Law on Caucuses - Straw Polls
Subd. 2a. Preference ballot. Prior to the opening of nominations for the election of permanent offices and delegates, a ballot must be distributed to permit caucus participants to indicate their preference for the offices of president of the United States or governor. The results of preference voting must be reported to the secretary of state immediately upon conclusion of the voting, in the manner provided by the secretary of state. The secretary of state shall provide the appropriate forms to the party for reporting the results.
Governor & President only!
Sphere: Related Content
February 24th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Good note, Andy amid angst from certain corners over the lack of a U.S. Senate straw poll. And let’s not forget the DFL didn’t even hold a straw poll for governor in 2002.
February 24th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Those are the state required ones. From my conversations with the GOP the party can require one as well.
February 24th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
You know the Party could also educate people on this:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/202A/16.html
Tony you have no openly vowed to work against or refuse to vote for the 2 top GOP candidates now. That could be something your fellow caucus attendees take issue with, and they could have you removed from delegate consideration and/or disallowed to vote that night.
And I can tell you from someone who is openly Pro-Kennedy, the state party is staying out of it. At every single state party function, both Kennedy & Shudlick are given time if one is. Carey has been overly careful in this matter, when the DFL is rapidly siding behind Klobuchar more every day.
This wait until the primary/endorsement before we get 100% officially behind Kennedy is actually hurting us. Kennedy is attacked everyday by the left in MN (and sadly by you too) and the state Party cannot defend him without someone, somewhere hyperventilating about it. And fund raising, come on, that is the most important part of it. It is suicide to expect to raise 12 plus million dollars in 2 months.
Have you met Shudlick yet? Makes Kennedy’s early days look down right shakespearic. And this new guy, read his issues page. RINO doesn’t begin to describe him.
That sound very conservative to you? You complain that Kennedy isn’t right enough for you? You think a guy who is openly against everything you stand for is worth costing us momentum in an election?
Tony, this is one of those times that you should think about what is best for defeating the Democrats, not making your point that you are right. I ask you to please tone it down. When the DFL wonks quote you, and you take pride in it, that makes me question exactly what you are trying to accomplish. Sure I’ve been known to get off the reservation from time to time, but I never really meant serious harm. I am a bit afraid that you’d be willing to accept losses in November, just to prove your point.
February 24th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Andy,
The State Party may be “trying” to keep out of it, but what is rediculous is that the RPM is openly recuiting candidates for Gov. Pawlenty, Sec. of State Kiffmeyer, and Aud. Pat Anderson. Go to the RPM website “Get Involved” part of the web page, put you zip code in, and then the page turns into a recruitment page. Granted, they are incumbent Republicans, but incumbency does not provide for automatic party support and “endorsement” before the State Convention. A good example is the endorsement battle in 2000 between incumbent Gary Laigdig, and Michele Bachman. I know for a fact, that a number of people have complained, and the State Party has turned a deaf ear to the problem. It does appear that “Kingmaking” is alive and well in the Republican Party of Minnesota. We traded “King Ron I” for “King Ron II”.
February 24th, 2006 at 11:33 pm
In what way is the DFL “rapidly siding behind Klobuchar more every day?” What single piece of evidence do you have that the DFL has in any way shown favorites?
I won’t even get too upset about your continued abuse of the English language. I’m just not sure how one “sides” “behind” someone.
Perhaps the national Democratic Party has played some favorites but what has the DFL done? God forbid Tony asks for some fairness in your party. I guess that’s just your pathetic partisan hackery shining through.
February 25th, 2006 at 9:58 am
http://www.amyklobuchar.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={AE8D6E41-E44E-40ED-A75E-82238E8E0F76}
February 27th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Right is right no matter what. Kingmaking is NOT right for a group that wants to support the delegates. I have met Harold. No, I would not support his campaign…but I support him being given equal access.
The fact that the DFL is quoting me should send up flags. When they can use my words (in context, please) because I am yelling about something within the party that is wrong, I welcome them quoting me.
What does Kennedy have to lose by actually acknowledging the existance of Shudlick and Uldrich? Nothing. What does Kennedy have to lose by standing aside while he is coronated in sure but subtle ways? A lot. I talked to quite a few people at yesterday’s remote broadcast that said they are very disgusted by this whole ordeal to the point of giving token support to Shudlick.
Put if fairly to the delegates. Be a party about Right vs Wrong, which includes equal access.
I want the party to be about doing what is right. Pawlenty went back on his campaign platform. I cannot support that. Kiffmeyer is doing a disservice to the state in her office (but she is one hell of a partisan!). Kennedy is being coronated and standing by in tacit approval. These are wrong.
If the my precinct wants to deny me being a delegate, then so be it. I will accept that my precinct is about winning and not about Good. But from what many of the delegates in my area have said before they do not approve of this behavior from the party.
Tone down? Not until the GOP stands for what is right.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
First- Part of being a delegate is to support the candidates and the Party if you can’t do that, you will end up hurting the party. I know you think that causing election losses will correct what you see as problems, but while we are taking care of your list of complaints, our opposition, the DFL, will be racking up the taxes, education spending, and more boondoggle light rail lines, oh, and making your beefs with Pawlenty and Kiffmeyer look miniscule.
Second- Should the GOP and the leading candidates just cease all operations in trying to defeat the DFL and its candidates until you approve? Should those who are running wait until everyone else catches up? Should Kennedy not only work for his own election, but go out of the way to make sure any one else who wants the chance, has equal time and opportunity? Are you saying that Kennedy should dump some cash into Shudlick’s camp, or at the least include his information in his mailings?
I’m sorry that Tony and Ollie disagree with me on how the party is working, but I for one do not want to see the DFL take charge of this State or the US Senate. You have got to pick the best candidate as early as possible and support the heck out of them. Kennedy was talked about as running for the Senate seat the day we were putting away the 04 lawn signs. He was first in line, so should he be punished?
I guess we’ll never see eye to eye hear. I want results, you want the process.
And Ollie, I’ve heard a different version of whatever you’re implying with Bachmann’s endorsement. Care to explain? I understood that Bachmann was endorsed that day by the delegates. Are you saying that was not the case? Or were certain people just not happy with her getting the endorsement?
Basically what I have to say is, yes we could go through a nice and slow process here, and the state party could waste time, energy, and funds working to support all 3 or 10 people who ‘want’ to run for office. Or they could support incumbants and stay out of it until someone is picked. I suppose you’re going to bring up the endorsements from Coleman, Eibensteiner, and Pawlenty, so I guess you will also support disallowing any official or future counterpart from endorsing anyone? (Only you should be able to speak, not them?)
I think you are more interested in building the perfect mouse trap rather than one that actually gets results.
February 27th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
‘The State Party may be “trying” to keep out of it, but what is rediculous is that the RPM is openly recuiting candidates for Gov. Pawlenty, Sec. of State Kiffmeyer, and Aud. Pat Anderson.’
The party is recruiting ‘volunteers’ for the incumbent state-wide office-holders. And why shouldn’t they? I guess I’ll wait until someone gives some compelling reason why a party shouldn’t support incumbent candidates. I don’t think that the party’s support should only last until election day. It seems to be reasonable and not unconstitutional to support them until they are no longer endorsed. Once another candidate is endorsed, then the party should support the new endorsed candidate. I thought that after the Laigdig-Bachman issue the party resolved that issue that they would always support the endorsed candidate over the incumbent candidate. That seems to show respect to the delegate process, and is acceptable to me.
Brent
March 12th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Hi Andy, this is Tony’s wife….I occassionally read your blog, as well as other MOBsters. Wow. To threaten to kick out a delegate because he insists on the GOP following the rules of the caucus is pretty serious. When you said “That could be something your fellow caucus attendees take issue with, and they could have you removed from delegate consideration and/or disallowed to vote that night,” I assure that caucus night was quite the opposite. Our caucus was insisting that Tony run for office because he had the balls to bring up an issue like this. Right is right….you may want to take a few days and think about your point. To shut out another candidate from the political process is unconstitutional. We’ve had a few Star Tribune reporters calling, and Tony hasn’t said anything…but after reading your post, the next one that calls and I happen to answer is going to get an earful about Kennedy supporters and the 6th district GOP’s unfair takeover of my right to have a choice in candidates.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
1st it is with in the state law that a person can be challenged as a delegate. I brought it up, because Tony is very hostile politically towards Republican candidates. I am not in your caucus nor did I attempt to contact any one in your caucus. In fact there are requirements to being a delegate.
2nd Do I as a Kennedy supporter not have the right support him? If not, then how can you have the right to oppose him?
3rd it is not in the rules to require a straw pole for Senate in caucuses!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is an option, not a requirement!!!!!!!! So by not doing one, they did not (NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!) actually break a rule or avoid the process. Tony needs to get it straight on this one. As much as you may dislike it, there was in fact no wrong doing. If you insist on placing blame for one not being done, blame the people actually responsible, BPOUs, CDs, and the state Party. Kennedy was in fact a bystander in this entire part of Tony’s argument and was not responsible for there not being a straw poll.
4th right is right? OK, you guys don’t like Kennedy, and in fact hate how his supporters are supporting him, but how is that breaking some rule? I like the guy, and I want him to get the endorsement and win. How is that taking your right away?
5th How has Shudlick been shut out from the official (this is the key, official process (as it is spelled out by the MNGOP Constitution). Debates, and private events do not count, since the GOP has no control over them. This again, Tony refused to allow me to explain today, because, again, the facts are on my side here. Shudlick, and any other candidate who is legally qualified for the office should and WILL get a chance to speak and run for the endorsement in June. It is up to the candidates to gather their supporters for that day. Just like the 6thCD candidates are running all over trying to win over everyone they can, that is their responsibility. The 6th CD in that case, is just there to make sure the endorsement is fair and equal. It is up to Shudlick to get the supporters, not Kennedy to make sure he doesn’t get their support first. I still can’t see how the process has been broken, since it really hasn’t started yet.
6th you still have a choice for your candidate. In June, at the state convention, you can vote for who ever you want, if you are a delegate. That is the process. PERIOD! The candidate is officially picked then, but they do have the right to work in the mean time, in case they do get the nod, so they could then hit the ground running against the DFL.
Tony refused to acknowledge it, but the show, the chamber debate, and all the fundraisers, are not part of the process.
At all of the official MNGOP events that I have been to, and I have been to a lot of them, if Kennedy was allowed to campaign, so was Shudlick. If Shudlick was not allowed to campaign, neither was Kennedy. Get the facts straight, the process has not been broken in this matter. Tony refused to let me make that point today, and I think it is because the facts are on my side.
I am sorry you think I am taking away your right to chose, but the more attacks I have gotten from people on your side, the more I think that they want to take away my right to support who I want. Check Tony’s post called silencing, in that, someone says that I should be thrown out of the MOB and possibly the GOP for saying what I do. Is that not silencing? I am sorry we disagree on this one, but I still don’t see how the process has been broken and I have somehow taken away your right. Plus what does the 6th District have to do with it?
March 12th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
And another thing, so everyone can rest their curious minds. I did not ban Shudlck from my BPOU. We would have gladly displayed info for him on the table right next to all the other candidates. We did not allow any of our officers to campaign on Kennedy’s behalf. We would have gladly allowed Shudlick or one of his volunteers to address the precincts. That is how we observed the rules as we understand them. Sorry to burst everyone’s bubbles, but we would have gladly allowed Shudlick time right along with anyone else.
We were fair, as we should be. I just want to make this clear, since it seems that the impression that I am stifling people’s rights to hear from candidates.
Oh, and if you still think I am guilty of wrong doing as part of my official BPOU duties, I point out the 6th CD forum I hosted. Kennedy spoke only as a incumbent Congressman of the seat being fought for. When it came to campaigning for the Senate, both Shudlick and Kennedy had the exact same access to the attendees. So please stop saying I am trying to take away people’s rights to choose.
I think Shudlick should be allowed to appear at the state convention, and that there should be a vote for the endorsement. And oh gee, guess what, there will be.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I do see your side. But, I still think that the GOP is actively changing the “process” (OK, not “rule”) for this “one time” thing to “create the impression that Kennedy is unopposed” reeks of something that is amiss. Wrong and illegal are two different things. I see your side in that it is not illegal, but sorry, I think that this whole thing is amoral.
The GOP chair said something similiar in agreement to what you are saying…that “anyone opposed to Kennedy is not a loyal GOPer. ” Sorry, that’s wrong, any way you cut it. I have a lot of contacts, etc. through my job that Tony was not privy to….and have formed this opinion independently according to what they’ve said to me personally. Something is fishy here.
Oh…speaking of fish. Bait. Hook. It worked. Man….by the “and another thing” part of your post, I was laughing. I love getting MOBsters worked up on their blogs. But, usually I use a psedonym. I think I’ll go work up the Crossword Bebop guy now. Tee hee.
See ya at trivia.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Did you or did you not tell Kennedy to avoid speaking as a Senate candidate at your forum because you did not want Shudlick to speak? (Unless you lied to me when you said that you did so.) That is slimey…legal, but slimey.
Did the GOP hold a straw poll? No. Were they required? No. Would it have been RIGHT to have done so? Yes.
You can play the legal vs right game. I don’t care. I’m not charging anyone did anything illegal. I am saying that the game plan is to prevent any opposition within GOP from being known.
Just so we are clear on what happened on the show. I asked very specific questions which were getting spin for answers. I don’t allow that. I had you on for one reason: to demonstrate that the Kennedy supporters are in fact doing what is necessary to win. Instead of letting the principles win they (and you included) are putting party over principles. I was not waiting for the “L-word”…I figure you already learned that mistake and were not willing to continue the “Legitimate Candidate” road any longer.
The real icing on the cake was when another caller was queued up ready to prove even further that the Kennedy campaign is about party-over-principle.
And the idea that this is all about our not allowing Kennedy to dictate our debate let us be clear that only an imbicile can think that. The ONLY reason this has come up is because you made the false claim that Kennedy was innocent of trying to shut out Shudlick. I gave you a first hand account of how Kennedy is actually an active participant. I know that he is afraid to answer anything that will show him to not be the more conservative candidate and that is why he will not come on. I actually am hoping for a no-show. I have so much more fun making fun of the candidates that skip out. As it is I am considering changing the date of the in-studio debate so the DFL and GOP are on different days. This will truly test Kennedy’s sense of right-vs-wrong. I have decided what I will do in Kennedy’s stead…and how we will explain his absence to the St Cloud listeners.
Here is the bottom line as of right now: Kennedy is an active participant in skipping the Kennedy-Shudlick-Uldrich race. This is not illegal…it is wrong. If this is not corrected quickly I will follow the advice of many…and take this issue to a larger forum. Principles can win. Lack of principles as a priority will make winning very difficult.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
“And another thing….”
The more I think about it, the more I realize how big of an issue this really is. I’m surprised that more of the media hasn’t taken hold of this yet.
Minnesota needs to implement better ballot access laws. It just downed on me…..it is not just the THIRD-PARTY candidates that are having a hard time getting on the ballot, but the law doesn’t account for others who might be not allowed to complete WITHIN a party. Do you know that the US ballot access laws are stricter than any other country in the world (including Russia)?
Thanks for pointing out the MN law on caucuses and straw polls. I’m going to have to start getting people to write in to their congressmen / legislators on the issue of “fair access.” I anticiapate this will be a touchy issue, because as incumbants, congressmen / legislators won’t want to increase ballot access. It hurts their ability to be re-elected for a variety of reasons that are too long to get into here in the comment section of a blog posting.
It is for reasons like this that we need free speech in this country among the media (although I usually detest the media) - they are the only ones who keep our lawmakers in check on important decisions like this. This is a hotter issue than I first thought. I think we’ve stumbled upon something here that could be as well-known of an issue as “term limits” if enough people get on the bandwagon about it.
March 14th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
To sum it up, thanks for pointing out to me that “empire building” isn’t just about “term limits” like most people think. It is a deeply engrained part of the process, affecting us at even the straw poll level.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Fact: That was a 6th Congressional District Forum, not a US Senate Forum. We (SD51) didn’t let anyone Campaign for other offices from the podium EXCEPT for the four 6th CD GOP Candidates that we were hosting the event for.
We didn’t want to open the event up for anyone and every one running for ANY office. It was a 6th CD GOP event. And because of that, there were 8 or more rounds of questions on a variety of issues. Regarding, once again, the 6th CD. Period!
Glad you have decided to turn this into a personal attack on me. Intellectual bullying is great for free and open debate.
March 15th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Great site!
__________________________________________________________
Bit Design is a Belgrade, Yugoslavia web design agency. Bit Design provides cost-effective corporate branding and Internet solutions for start-up and established businesses.
http://www.bitdesign.co.yu
March 15th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Mother Superior: “Sister Maria, if you were walking through town at night, and were accosted by a man with bad intentions, what would you do?”
“I would lift my habit, Mother Superior.”
Mother Superior (shocked): “And what would you do next?”
Sister Maria: “I would tell him to drop his trousers.”
Mother Superior (even more shocked): “And what then?”
Sister Maria: “I would run away. I can run much faster with my habit up than he can with his trousers down.”
April 5th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Hello, I’m Betsy, your blog was full of useful info, Thanks