[Mpls] Median Age at the Convention?

[David Brauer]

Russell writes:

> Any evidence of increased participation by young people at this
convention?  The number
> of young volunteers in the waning days of the 2004 presidential race (only
7 months ago)
> would lead me to believe you'd see some shift at the convention IF the DFL
was truly
> engaging young newcomers.

Depends on what you mean by young, and my answer is purely anecdotal, but
I'd say yes to the question above. Two reasons:

1. There were flat-out more people there - so there was more probably more
of every group.

2. I was definitely watching out for the geezer factor, and while the bulk
of the party seemed 35-to-60, I was impressed with the number of young
delegates. (Especially so many who were wearing fire fighter shirts!)

> And if there was a perceptible shift to a younger crowd, I have to wonder
about the DFL's
> wisdom in having a marathon session devoid of discernible issues floor
managed to a
> inconclusive result.

If you weren't at the convention, how confident are you that there were no
discernable issues? <grin>

I believe those who argue the convention was devoid of issues are kidding
themselves. Peter's campaign made it clear that there aren't enough cops,
firefighters and money for NRP - and folks, public safety and neighborhood
involvement are two of the big things a city does. RT contests those claims,
arguing Peter can't pay for them. Fiscal responsibility and setting
responsible priorities are also major municipal issues.

While the two candidates/campaigns can argue about who's right, I personally
think they would govern the city in vastly different ways if one or the
other is elected.

I know, I know - they both support the stadium. But just as stadium boosters
oversell the ballpark's economic merits, opponents shouldn't overinflate the
issue's importance in the municipal firmament. (I call the syndrome
"Stadiumus Giganticus," where the stadium issue overwhelms far more
significant and interesting municipal issues.)

It's true there's no difference between Peter and RT on the ballpark - and
that's fertile territory for a non-DFL candidate, as it should be. However,
agreement on the stadium issue (and the I-35W Access Project) does not wipe
away Peter's and RT''s significant disagreements. 

As to the inconclusive result: I think this is also a misread. A
non-endorsement is not the same as a non-verdict - it's a collective
decision that no candidate is so dominant as to deserve the party's
resources in a primary.

Russell also mentions the "marathon floor session." I, too would've liked
things to go faster and more efficiently, and work to make it better must
continue.

But let's keep some perspective: the DFL was plagued with that rarest of
political problems: too much participation. It had 1,963 delegates, two
serious mayoral candidates and three others who contested the race. Party
delegates endorsed up and down the ballot.

Meanwhile, the Greens (according to Craig Cox and the Minneapolis Observer)
had about 40 delegates and - as far as I know - one mayoral candidate. Now,
I've voted for Green candidates and probably will again, but you tell me
which meeting an outsider would think better reflects democracy?

> Would a young first-timer ever come back?

Excellent question for a young, first-timer - neither of which I am.

David Brauer
Kingfield