Start with two website links:
"Questionnaire" https://ourrevolutionmn.com/2018-progressive-candidate-report-card/
"Endorsements" https://ourrevolutionmn.com/endorsements/
In commentary below the lead titles shall be used in referring to one or the other of those links.
At the top. Governor. They produce a questionnaire, report results, then ignore much of that?
"Questionnaire" lists "Chris Wright - GRP" with a highest score; however such a "score" may have been calculated based on questions asked, the form used being online still in a *.docx MS Word format, not a *.pdf as would be more normal:
https://ourrevolutionmn.com/wp-content/uploads/Candidate-Questionnaire.docx
Whether you'd ask different question, it is their game, but how do: questions >> score is mystery to outsiders of the organization.
Chris Wright runs as "Grass Roots Party" candidate. That said, the balance of the post looks at DFL as one of two major parties, and with most GOP candidates ignoring Our Revolution Minnesota.
More a mystery to outsiders, the endorsement decision makers and their making a decision, "Endorsements" link stating:
The Candidate Questionnaire contains 17 questions and comment space. There is a pre-determined scoring process (0-100). Not every answer carries the same weight. Some answers have a positive value ranging from 1-10 points, others a negative value, and some answers are not scored at all (like the question on who the candidates endorsed in 2016). All questionnaires will be made public so our voting members can make informed decisions on who to endorse.
For statewide and federal offices, we will hold a ranked choice vote of our membership in early January.
End of transparency.
Aside from Wright's top score and looking only at DFL, "Questionnaire" scores, top of ticket are:
Top of ticket DFL "Endorsements" shows:
Has one gender "packed" the ORM ballot box? Rank Choice vote or not, one can speculate. And worry. Walz scored low on his questions grade, so discount his absence among three - not one but three - "endorsed" DFL'ers. Each a woman.
Where's Paul?
History as I understand it has had past strong DFL Feminine Caucus effort successfully aimed toward making a "gender balanced" party, expressly within party bylaws, where caucusing beyond the precinct representation is deliberately, as party policy, carefully gender neutral. Official positions within the party are subject to a conscious endeavour to be gender balanced.
All that is good and such bylaw attention should neither lessen nor change.
But, ORM is separate and apart from DFL, and it sure looks as if somebody's ranked choice deck got stacked. Badly so. Inexplicably so. To the detriment of one of several fine candidates.
Personal ranked choice here, currently, would be Liebling/Thissen, either as best, Otto, Murphy, with Walz an also-ran pre-general; but if in the general election Walz ends up the DFL's candidate, he would be far, far, far, far better than any GOP choice; and that's an unqualified endorsement: any DFL'er over any GOP choice, especially so should Pawlenty give up his big bank lobbying paycheck to muck up things in Minnesota.
Said another way, I have no trust nor faith in the ORM governor endorsement process, although their "Questionnaire" ranking seems generally sound.
MIA, in the ORM process, at this point, a CD2 and CD8 endorsement, with CD3 being a bit of a head-scratcher.
Per the "Questionnaire" Erdman was fairly well ahead of Craig in CD2, while in CD8 scores of Phifer and Nolan were a wash.
My district, CD6, there was only the one sacrificial lamb, given CD6's appalling past demographics; Michele Bachmann, etc. - and CD6 is the only congressional district where I can vote. If I could vote in CD2 it would be Erdman; in CD8 it would be Phifer; CD8 being closer in my mind.
Gut level here slightly favors Pelikan over Winkler; Hillstrom trailing; but either of the three would be a fine AG general election candidate. Pelikan seems more the outsider than either of the other two, and such a status could leaven an office that has not been too proactive over the years where AG budget under Republican Pawlenty-to-Daudt hands has been curtailed from Skip Humphrey days.
A big MIA in everything, Swanson, who's still astraddle her fence while declining any ORM participation. Swanson is a wild-card, and with precinct caucusing near, she looks as if eyeing a primary for one office or another. Which office she chooses being speculative beyond reasonableness at this point in time. Hamlet-like indecisiveness in a candidate can be viewed as a fault, or if a waiting-in-the-weeds stratagem is afoot, that would be unfortunate and of questionable merit.
Why I like Thissen about as well as Liebling will be posted separately and subsequently. Hint: Thissen has been vocal and active on Net Neutrality, but that is not alone as determinative of preferences. Liebling has not been a Net Neutrality strong activist, but she WAS with Bernie early along, not one of the host of lemmings reflexively over the Clinton cliff.
___________UPDATE__________
While above commentary characterizes the Grass Roots Party as marginal, their core issue resonates, and Chris Wright is sound on issues; but the party has not generated any more voter recognition than the libertarians, per this Oct. 2014 MPR news item, and per subsequent 2014 voting results. That is unfortunate because having a two-party stranglehold has hurt progressives with Clintonian triangulation and such moving the party to the right year after year with a progressive vote taken for granted.
An independent update thought; this link. Ranked choice voting in that item getting a drubbing without detail, but the idea has always seemed suspect to me.
Mention of Liebling in that post and comment seemed favorable, but the "Questionnaire" itself was called into question.
All told, ORM did as it did, and how the author was able to download a single candidate's responses was not clearly stated, nor was a link given. You discredit your conclusions without linking to evidence you relied upon, if online. I'd like to see the Liebling and Thissen responses, given how each scored highly on the "Questionnaire" itself, however scores were calculated, and given my intuitive liking of both individuals from all I know, have seen, and have read.
That said, and in view of the Grass Roots Party core issue, Strib has reported last September an item worth reading in full, beyond this short excerpt of opening paragraphs:
A sleeper issue has emerged among DFL candidates in the 2018 governor’s race: Marijuana.
St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, state Reps. Erin Murphy, Tina Liebling and Paul Thissen, and U.S. Rep. Tim Walz all support legalizing marijuana for recreational and not just medical use. Among the major DFL candidates, only State Auditor Rebecca Otto declined to do so.
“When you confront the reality of the cost of criminalization vs. the benefits of legalization, I think the benefits outweigh the costs,” said Coleman, whose campaign approached the Star Tribune to discuss the issue.
The candidates’ sudden embrace of marijuana legalization underscores how quickly the issue is moving and illustrates the rapid changes underway in the DFL Party.
That issue has the DFL and GOP starkly opposed on decriminalization and treating cannabis under regulation similar to tabacco and alcohol, each of which is a more dangerous health risk. My key takeaway: Becky Otto is on the wrong side compared to others, and drops in my ranked choice outlook of the candidates for Governor.
Chris Coleman appears to still be seeking DFL endorsement for Governor, but appears to have declined participating in the ORM "Questionnaire" process. As with Walz, he does not greatly ring my bell, others appearing better including Otto despite declining to endorse decriminalization, yet if Coleman ends up endorsed the blessing of being better than any GOP hopeful is as apparent as with Walz.
Unsure of whether precinct caucus ranked choice or other voting on the Governorship question will apply, I remain on a Liebling - Thissen straddle. BOTTOM LINE: The DFL has a good range of office seekers, where Walz, being from a rural Congressional District, has been reported as ahead by a single-source polling report. Early polling being what it is, marginally trustworthy, is more questionable if only one poll is reported and if one declines to spend much time looking into actual question wording to see if a push-poll might be judged to have been used.
End of post. Really. No further updating, here. Enjoy your precinct caucus. [Well, not entirely: adding this Ballotpedia link for a final crescendo.]
_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
Having found two other online ORM pages of great relevance, this update, the pages being here and here. It seems the "Board" whoever they are, via an ad hoc nightmare, voted with "a majority of the Board" going with three women, with a resolution text:
After much consideration, a majority of The Board of Directors supported this motion for Our Revolution Minnesota Endorsement for Governor:
“Whereas, Our Revolution Minnesota sent a questionnaire to all candidates for Governor and the membership has voted their preference, and
Whereas, the membership was evenly divided between several candidates, and
Whereas, Minnesota has had 40 males serve as Governor, and
Whereas, three women candidates for Governor have shown through their careers and Our Revolution Minnesota survey to be progressive candidates,
Be it resolved, that Our Revolution Minnesota endorses Tina Liebling, Erin Murphy, and Rebecca Otto for Governor of Minnesota and urge our membership with DFL leanings to caucus for one of our endorsed candidates and work in cooperation with all three of the endorsed campaigns to assure that the state DFL convention ends with the endorsement of one of these three women.”
[bolding emphasis added] They had their dumb voting process [however they toted "rank choice"] and when more Erin Murphy elimination votes went for Otto than Liebling, the troika thing was cooked up and done. Those board members really horsed things up for those three women and the hope here is it does not end up hurting Liebling. A great disservice was done to the Our Revolution effort, nationwide, by local amateurs.
They even lacked courage to post a roll call Board vote on that clearly gender-biased resolution. Who are these people, and where were they schooled in fairness and common sense?
You tell me this: Go to that voting spreadsheet and why not just take the first vote, with the four top counts well distanced from the remainder and endorse the three women and Walz? It appears the "majority of the Board" must have thought Walz not progressive nor female enough to do that; and that in the end, they did not want to endorse Becky Otto as winner, so they stepped back from a final vote they did not like to do killer mischief to the entire Our Revolution concept of being progressively fair.
Bernie would be ashamed of how that "majority of the Board" acted, and they discredited themselves as hoax Bernie people.
The shame of the thing is the three women endorsed are each good candidates, but the way gender bias and an unwillingness to go with Becky Otto was handled is scandalous. At least they published on the web what they had done, admitting fault, and removing all doubts. Give them that.
FURTHER: Still steaming mad. Below is a screencapture from the ORM voting tally spreadsheet:
 |
| click the image to enlarge, read and weep |
What a bunch.
_________FURTHER UPDATE [8:35 AM 1/28/2018]_________
Special place in hell, indeed.
If the aim of this other more recent female career politician's brief but impactful brain-fart was to feed Breitbart fresh meat, mission accomplished, and then some (click and view thumbnail)
With the Mercers having repossessed that Breitbart outlet things are less ham-handed there than while Bannon ran the circus, but lesser gruff does not change the heart of that site's messaging. Why feed a beast?
BOTTOM LINE: The Clintons still do not get it: The Bernie challenge was not about gender, nor charisma, but issues. Bernie was sincere and correct on issues. The general election defeat was not about gender. It was about mediocrity and mendacity vs. mediocrity and mendacity, and the most mediocre and mendacious of two trumped the other side's gender-bias gamesmanship. Disasters usually entail learning curves. Not always.
FURTHER: Making hay while the sun shines. Read it and weep. Weep for every progressive issue-oriented woman seeking office. Including Otto, Murphy and Liebling.
FOCUS ON ISSUES, EVERYBODY, PLEASE, AND MAY THE MOST PROGRESSIVE DFL CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR REGARDLESS OF GENDER WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION. A feeling here is a Becky Otto general election candidacy will be undermined by some within her own party on the Iron Range, or at the least given cold comfort there to where the GOP could win. If the DFL chooses Otto, great, it is worth the risk; bring it on. The risk with Liebling might be less but it might also be as great or greater. The three women ORM focused upon is not the issue here, it is the how and why of how ORM proceeded and whether there is a place for that to happen without attention, criticism, and disapproval.
WWBS? What Would Bernie Say? HWBF? How Would Bernie Feel?
____________FURTHER UPDATE___________
After looking it up to be certain, Janet Reno was the first woman to serve as Attorney General, and Madelaine Albright first woman Secretary of State. Great as gender breakthroughs, but my complaint against them is as with the Clintons - we had Republican-lite in those offices, Albright having her regime-change Balkan War, Reno having the Weaver murders and the Waco church burnout in her portfolio. Progressivism is the aim. Elizabeth Warren as an Attorney General and Tulsi Gabbard as a Secretary of State [perhaps better, Secretary of Defense] would light my fire. Each would be great if any such appointment were made in the future. If Tina Liebling were to run a primary against Betty McCollum and win it would reflect back to the Vento tenure and it would be refreshing to then currently have a true progressive in both the Fourth and Fifth Districts. A Congressional candidate need not reside in the district where running, so Murphy, Liebling, Otto - if not becoming the next Minnesota governor, consider giving that option a shot.
Gender is NOT the point.
For example, male gender: An abiding fear of corporatism dominating progressivism in the Dem Party future is held here, and is focused upon possible Biden or John Kerry [again] being trotted out and run for President, where each is too corporate to like very much. We should want Bernie over either. Warren over either. "On the issues" progressives. Not Rockefeller-Republican GOP-lite.
__________FURTHER UPDATE____________
An explanatory note at Mashable explains the Clinton statement was inspired by a consultancy name chosen for unclear reasons by someone seated next to Ms. Clinton mentioning the consultancy and asking for a shout-out. That shades the remark a bit but still it was unwise. I suppose I could found a consultancy and call it "Pyromaniacs for Jesus," but would anyone have the public-candidacy-honed judgment to give a shout-out? Hopefully, not.