Only two people in the last half century (52 years to be exact) have been endorsed by a Minnesota Republican state convention and were elected governor. Winning the hearts and votes of the 2,200 or so delegates demands loyalty to a very partisan agenda. After all, the delegates are the most intense Republicans, the ones who were willing to spend hours at a precinct caucus in February, move through the local and regional conventions and give up a spring weekend in May.
The same partisanship prevails at DFL conventions, but the endorsement is less definitive in that party. In fact, in three of the past four gubernatorial races in which there was no incumbent, the DFL’s endorsed candidate lost in a primary.
Not so on the GOP side. Only one person in the last half century has failed to be endorsed by Republican delegates, but went on to win the primary (Arne Carlson did it twice, in 1990 and 1994, and both times prevailed in November to be elected governor).
Republicans put great stock in endorsement. But winning the delegates’ nod takes a candidate with a hard-right platform. This year’s endorsed gubernatorial candidate, Scott Jensen, was widely regarded as a center-right legislator when he served in the state senate, favoring reasonable gun-safety laws, for example. Today? He apologized to the Second-Amendment-centric convention for walking on the political thin ice of gun laws. Unseemly under the best of circumstances, unconscionable on a weekend that witnessed another mass shooting that appears to have been inspired by racism.
Jensen seems not to have a firm grasp of the powers of a governor, promising to do things not within the powers of the office, and flirting with proposals popular with his base, but not very practical. For example, Jensen has suggested he would take a close look at dropping the state’s individual income tax. Never mind that the income tax generates more than half of the state’s revenue and would require deep cuts in basic government functions.
These proposals pale against Jensen’s bread-and-butter issue - anti-vaccine and anti-anything-Gov.-Tim-Walz-did-to-manage-the-pandemic. Certainly, Walz made mistakes (which are easier to see in hindsight). But at the end of the day, Minnesota fared far better in limiting the most serious health impacts of Covid and even the economic fallout than the kind of state Jensen envisions.
Walz is vulnerable this year, both as a result of some of his shortcomings and because 2022 looks to be a tough year for all Democrats. But Minnesota Republicans with their endorsement straitjacket have been known to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
In 2022, Jensen faces three challenges beyond a well-funded Tim Walz and a DFL Party that is a stronger organization than the GOP:
Can Jensen create an agenda that makes him more appealing to a majority of Minnesota voters?
Will voters trust him when he tacks closer to the mainstream?
The GOP history in Minnesota isn’t favorable to him achieving success at his task. That’s not to say Jensen can’t win, but it’s a narrow path to victory.
Oh, and that third challenge facing Jensen? How does the state attract and retain young people - our future families, employees and entrepreneurs ? In the last fiscal year, the state had a net population gain of 225, and the biggest fall-off was among college-aged people, a continuing trend. Jensen seems prepared to argue the case that this critical demographic is looking to live in a cold Florida. That might be the biggest reason why Gov. Walz, often in spite of himself, is favored to win in November.
A very fair assessment of Jensen's vulnerabilities coming off his endorsement. Over time other factors will emerge ;but let me mention a couple that come to mind. Jensen could have a primary challenge that could force resources away from addressing Walz. Governor Walz will not have that distraction. Of likely benefit to Jensen would be a third party candidate who, on balance, leans left on a number of issues. That candidate might not be particularly formidable but in a close race could be a significant factor. But, this speaks to a future discussion for another day.