4 Comments Add your own

• 1. Chase  |  March 13th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

  Ben, well, it looks like Fallon already has enough of his “crazies” going to the state convention to make a pretty big splash, but I don’t think Fallon’s crazies will support Fallon at the convention if no one gets a majority in the primary. They especially won’t if it’s clear at that point that Fallon doesn’t stand a chance against Nussle (and right now, the Rasmussen poll doesn’t give Culver or Blouin many more points than Fallon head-to-head against Nussle, so that’s questionable).

  And anyways, at least at the Powesheik County convention, there was no conspiracy to get Fallon delegates. It just so happened that more people there wanted Fallon than any of the other guys. And giving him delegates has an impact on the outcome of the primaries (it influences public perception, etc.), so that’s the more immediate way that it helps him.

• 2. Chase  |  March 13th, 2006 at 8:13 pm

  Ben,

  I just don’t believe Fallon’s people are actually planning to use that loophole. I think they want to win the majority (or at least a plurality) during the primary; and, if they don’t, they’ll support the winner. I’ve dealt with these people now. They’re not as organized as you think.

  That’s all I mean. Fallon is in the race to raise issues, and he knows he’s an underdog. He won’t try to hijack the election just to get his name in the paper a few more times. Or at least most people who meet him don’t think so.

• 3. Hannah  |  March 13th, 2006 at 10:22 pm

  2 things first: Fallon’s also the only one that’s been gaining ground in the polls. After meeting him, he didn’t seem at all like the type to “steal” an election. (I know, he endorsed Nader blah blah.)

  I’m not even sure how winning the convention would constitute a stolen election. In order for the convention to decide, he would’ve had to have taken a pretty significant chunk of votes in the primary. (Who else would?) As Chase pointed out the other night, Fallon wins votes pretty indiscriminately from both the Blouin and Culver camps, so an indecisive primary would probably look pretty close to a 33-33-33 division.

  I agree that it’s a flawed system. (And how is winning a plurality democratic, anyway? Much less in a low turnout election…) I also think it’s silly to think a candidate with ideals has to be crucified for it. It’s pretty daring for him to make a bid without PAC money, and saying that he should follow every principle to the extreme is like saying Eevil Knievel shouldn’t have insurance because it’d take away from his dangerous image.

  This may or may not have made sense, but it did help me procrastinate some.

• 4. Drew Miller  |  March 14th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

  Fallon certainly did consider a convention strategy, but it’s not his only plan. I think preparing for an eventuality is prudent, not anti-democratic. If the IDP really thought allowing a convention nominee was a bad idea, they could write into the constitution that the highest plurality nominee be selected. Of course that’s what got us McGovern in ‘72, as I understand it.

  I agree that Fallon’s holier than thou attitude is grating at times, though. I have no doubt that it’s at least part of why he hasn’t accomplished much as a representative.

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed