urbanMSP

So if you hadn't found it yet (I didn't until just now) here's a link to Ward maps:
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/elections/ ... ction-maps

I guess I'm no longer in Cam Gordon's ward, not sure how I feel about that, now I have to make an actual decision.

I thought we were supposed to vote out the people who voted for the stadium deal? That's going to be pretty tough in Wards 1 and 11 where Reich and Quincy are running unopposed. What's the deal with that? Is there no one in those Wards that thinks themselves qualified to run for office? That's pretty sad.

I thought we were supposed to vote out the people who voted for the stadium deal?

Well, who is "we"? Is "we" a rather specific subset of politically/current events interested people who find sport stadia subsidies a silly boondoggle which will ultimately destroy a municipal balance sheet, and simply ladle cash into the pockets of the ultra-rich?

Then yes young man, you are supposed to.

That's going to be pretty tough in Wards 1 and 11 where Reich and Quincy are running unopposed. What's the deal with that?

There are several thoughtful people involved with local politics who have said that every Minneapolis council member that runs gets reelected. They get a term to learn, we judge them on a term, and they stay or go. Often times this comes with light or no opposition in the first re-elect. My personal knowledge of this is pretty apocryphal. But even as an unreliable narrator it does seem to ring true.

Similarly there are several local movers and shakers who swore that no one would lose an election over voting for the Vikes stadium. These people were tied into labor. There might be a post like four posts ago about how people who never thought that the union was fond of them have instead found out that they are thuper good friends with what are relatively large, well funded, well organized labor groups.

Funny how that works.

Quincy has done a lot of work on the airport, and that's very important to his ward. Reich hasn't been particularly out on anything, playing everything close to his vest in the first term. He won that way, and it seems to reflect the 'Northeast Mafia' types who he runs with.

Caucus results?

There's no such thing as "results" from a local caucus. Delegates got elected, probably a lot of precincts had more delegate spots than they had delegates, we'll see what happens in the next month for Council and in June for mayor.

I will be a delegate to the Ward 10 and Citywide conventions.

Ward 10, precincts 7, 8, & 9 met at Whittier Elementary. For the Ward convention, two of the precincts had the exact amount of interested delegates (in person and absentee letter) as delegate seats available. I think that means it was a pretty remarkable turnout. Precincts 8 & 9 were able to whittle down the number of interested parties for the City convention, so no subcaucusing was necessary. Basically we took a 15-min break for muslim prayer at 8pm and a bunch of people left, so it was pretty easy to secure a delegate spot to the City convention.

As far as perceived support (by # of stickers, t-shirts, etc), I would say that all 3 challengers were well represented. No Tuthill propaganda was present, besides her mailers (of which I received none, the other 3 all sent me stuff) Tuthill's speech was basically "It's a tough job, and I'm already here, so you should re-elect me" If there was only one challenger, I think this endorsement would be a slam dunk. The anti-incumbent sentiment is strong. It's almost too bad, in a way, that 3 challengers are going to split the "anybody-but-Meg" sentiment and result in no endorsement. No endorsement means that Meg has a huge advantage in November, being the incumbent and all.

When I've been to precinct caucuses in the past, it was usually pretty clear how many of the delegates supported particular candidates, and then the campaigns actually created extremely close estimates of their organization's delegates to the city conventions. Maybe it's different for citywide elections.

Turnout was "high": http://www.journalmpls.com/news/2013-ci ... t-caucuses

I put that in quotes because it's still an absurdly low # of people going to the Citywide convention compared to the total voting eligible population.

Which is why I believe that the DFL shouldn't be making endorsements when there is more than one viable candidate that supports the party platform. If candidates pass that basic test, make no endorsement and let the general electorate decide.

I completely agree with that sentiment.

But rather than telling the DFL what to do with their convoluted party processes (and trusting them to do it), wouldn't it be more effective to change the City charter so that candidates cannot list ANY party identification/endorsements on the ballot?

This is a non-partisan race. The ballot should reflect that and show candidate's NAMES ONLY. Currently they are allowed to put up to 3 words in parentheses next to their name or something silly like that. If 250 people want to get together for a DFL circle-jerk in April, that's their prerogative. But keep it off my "non-partisan" ballot. (Note: I am attending said circular jerk on Saturday)

Judicial races are non-partisan, and list no party identification on the ballot. Do you think that's the model we want for our city council?

I don't mind having party identifications with municipal races, I just don't like a small group deciding that only one candidate is worthy of being on the ballot (especially when all of them are supportive of the party platform). I could see a scenario where the DFL would vote on whether each candidate meets a baseline standard, but doesn't decide which candidate is "the chosen one".

I can't see the DFL doing that at all. I assume that this small group likes having a disproportionate impact. "The world is run by those who show up" and all that.

I don't disagree with your idea, I just don't see the DFL party heads undoing years of tradition. I think it would be easier / more practical to just completely remove party identification from the ballot. If you want to send out mailers that say "DFL" or "Green" or "The Rent Is Too Damn High", more power to ya.

I keep hearing murmurings about the anti-incumbent sentiment we've seen at a few conventions is due to the Vikings Stadium vote. Honestly, that's overblown. It seems that other factors have been the biggest driver of change.

Tuthill lost primarily due to her gruff demeanor, anti-patio efforts, and energized young people in greater Uptown area (who actually got organized and attended their convention). Lilligren (voted against the stadium) lost due to massive demographic changes in his ward. And Hofstede is completely out of touch, and again, her district has tons of younger people who rallied around her challenger. Maybe Colvin Roy got some push back on the stadium vote; I'm not familiar with her ward.

Yeah I would agree, and I hope that we don't end up with a misconception that Hofstede and Tuthill lost the endorsement over their stadium vote. I think Colvin Roy's inability to get the endorsement may have been related to that, though, unless there's something I'm unaware of. And by the way, having gone to a convention and a caucus and some other stuff so far this political season, I've noticed that almost no one has a clue what's actually in the stadium legislation as it pertains to the city's obligation.

As an under 30 renter in uptown who has numerous friends that caucused against Tuthill for a couple different candidates, I can say, in my experience, the stadium vote has absolutely nothing to do with peoples' desire to get her out

I think Colvin Roy got lazy, and then got unlucky when the weather turned to the one nice day on Ward Convention day. She hadn't been wrangling up the delegates as energetically as the new guy (we got calls from everyone else for mayor, it seems).

Though I would prefer to have seen fewer endorsements to take advantages of the enhanced democracy of IRV, I'm happy to see that Linea Palmisano got the endorsement in Ward 13. Looks like Matt Perry, though not exactly the dude, might abide?

Could Nick give all Big Lebowski references the v*****t treatment?

That reference really tied the forum together man.