[Mpls] A War of Attrition -- unhealthy for all

[Joseph Barisonzi]

The spin that "Each of the first five ballots showed McLaughlin with more
votes. The first vote showed less than one percent difference. At each
additional ballot McLaughlin gained votes" is not an accurate statement. The
only ballot that Peter received more votes was the second ballot.  From the
third ballot through the fifth ballot Peter lost votes. His percentage of
the total votes cast increased because his campaign lost less votes then the
Rybak campaign did. The truth was that the total number of votes was
decreasing and both campaigns were losing the presence of supporters to the
realities of life beyond the convention walls.

The convention was not a situation where either candidate mobilized
delegates to reach the supermajority needed for endorsement. There were no
significant groups of delegates that were swayed by floor arguments. There
were no shifting coalitions that resulted in a natural consensus of the body
being reached. The endorsement for mayor after the second ballot became a
"War of Attrition"

The supporters for each candidate had dug in their heels as was hoping
through a war of attrition to either (a) force an endorsement or (b)
maintain a block. Peter's campaign came to the convention hoping to maintain
a block and left trying to force an endorsement. RT's campaign came to the
convention hoping to force an endorsement and left trying to maintain a
block. Both campaigns achieved some objectives and lost others. 

A "war of attrition" -- whose people can stay the longest, have the least
outside commitments, have the best childcare, have the health to sit in a
convention for 10 hours, jobs that let them stay -- does not seem to me to
be a healthy foundation for an effective endorsement.

As a DFL delegate I was committed to an endorsement consistent with the
rules, values and principles of the DFL. In my eyes an endorsement is a
reflection of a 60% mandate. This is when a candidate has earned the support
of a super majority of the delegates. It was clear to me that neither of the
two major candidates running for the endorsement of the mayor had achieved
this standard.

I know my experience is not as deep and involved as others, but in my last
decade with the DFL I have experienced endorsements that we pushed through
by parliamentary procedure or through "wars of attrition" which have
resulted in a divided party and weakened candidates that leave the DFL party
vulnerable. Forcing a conclusion to Saturday's "War of Attrition" would not
have unified the party behind one candidate.

As a delegate I therefore do not believe that endorsement for the sake of
endorsement is healthy, wise or consistent with our principles. That is why
after the first ballot I consistently voted for no endorsement. I am glad
that was the result. I believe it was an accurate reflection of the will of
the delegates. 

I also believe it is an accurate reflection of the mood of DFLers in the
city -- who are divided in their loyalty and support for an energetic
progressive mayor who has made significant mistakes and a seasoned political
veteran who has yet to articulate how he would be a step forward rather then
a step backward. I believe a "no endorsement" appropriately sets the stage
for a primary battle where both campaigns will have an opportunity to better
reach out and articulate their message, more people will have an opportunity
to hear the candidates and hold them accountable for their past actions. 

In then end I believe this will make Minneapolis, the DFL, and the eventual
mayor stronger and more effective. And for all of its messiness -- therein
lies the wisdom of the collective process. 

 
Joseph Barisonzi
Joe at CommunityLeader.com
612-518-5536