Minnesota's 2010 Governer's Race and What I Learned

In 2010, in my home state of Minnesota, the DFL (the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, our state's version of the Democratic Party), nominated Margaret Anderson-Kelliher ("Margaret") at their state convention in May for governor. However, it is actually winning the primary in August that secures the nomination. Normally the state convention nominee goes relatively uncontested to the primary. In this case, however, former Minnesota senator Mark Dayton was running for governor and was bucking the party just a little bit in that he refused to concede the race to the convention nominee, vowing to carry on his candidacy to the August primary.

I was among a few holdout delegates at the state party convention who refused to vote Margaret even as the candidate field dwindled. For one, I found her thoroughly uninspiring. I joked that, based on her speeches, her platform was largely, "I grew up on a dairy farm." To be completely honest there were a few other reasons I did not support her which I do not recall, some things she had done in the state congress which did not sound appealing to me, or something. It was a crowded field, my choice for nominee was John Marty, the far-left standard-bearer who even Democrats don't get behind because he is "unelectable." My 2nd choice was Mark Dayton because he was unapologetically campaigning primarily on one idea: "Tax the rich!"

There was some worry that no one would get the nomination at the state convention. During that worry, a lot of delegates tried to rally me behind Margaret and I repeatedly heard two worries, "We can't leave the convention divided! We can't back Dayton because we can't be attacking each other for the next 2 months!" And "Dayton will lose! The tax the rich thing will ruin our chances with centrists and moderate Republicans!!"

At the time I had a co-worker and good friend who was a staunch Republican, "Charlie." He used to tease me about being a commie. He referred to Richard Nixon as "Richard the Great," and once cheered the idea (somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I don't know that he really believed it) that the 90s economic boom was the late result of Reagan's trickle-down economics. I was shocked to learn, weeks before the election, that he was going to vote for "Tax the rich!" Mark Dayton. Charlie's reasoning was that GOP nominee Tom Emmer seemed like an "I got mine, good luck getting yours" politician. Keep in mind, there was a prominent 3rd party centrist running that Charlie could've voted for, but he voted Dayton.

That experience is branded in my memory. To this day it makes me sick to hear Democrats talk about the need for unity during primaries and that we can't stand full-throatedly behind our principles and issues because we fear the Republican backlash. I can't tell you how afraid so many DFL delegates were of how Dayton's "Tax the Rich!!" message would play in the general. I recognize that this is anecdotal, this is Minnesota, not the whole USA. But it left me convinced that a full-throated populist message is the way to win for Democrats. I *am* re-evaluating and in a back-to-the-drawing-board mentality. But experiences like that have left me with a powerful bias that favors whatever I see as full-throated, genuine populism.