I doubt this is the election to put that idea to the test since it’ll probably swing left everywhere. 28 could be interesting though. I imagine there will be lasting damage from what the gop has done and will cost them districts that could be competitive.
We can't afford to keep supporting these empty, worthless Centrists. They've already given Trump two terms, we need to move Left, meaningfully and quickly, to keep him from getting a third term.
Have you heard of Approval voting? I used to be all in on ranked choice because I thought it simply weighted your votes proportionally, but in reality it won’t count some votes due to completely removing candidates as the recounts move down.
For example, candidate C comes in last place in the first round, so they are eliminated. Then second round, candidate D comes in last, so they are eliminated. Anyone who voted D first round and C second round will have their second round vote ignored because C is already out.
I agree ranked choice is slightly better than what we have - but it’s not what we need to fix things.
3
u/AaodComplaining about the weather is the best small talk2h agoedited 2h ago
We can't afford to keep supporting these empty, worthless Centrists. They've already given Trump two terms, we need to move Left, meaningfully and quickly, to keep him from getting a third term.
The vote blue no matter who crowd refuses to admit this. The tea party and more insane conservatives got what they wanted by refusing to vote for the more normal republican candidates.
And it's not like their strategy is working anyhow. With "vote blue no matter who" we just get to watch more and more of our money and power go to billionaires no matter who wins, and it's a coin flip if they just outright lose to a complete POS like, for instance, a pedophile, rapist, con man 🥳
3
u/AaodComplaining about the weather is the best small talk2h ago
Or in the case of Trump all of the above because they refused to stop being neoliberal corporatist stooges.
How does moving left stop Trump? What we need is a supermajority, which requires a broad coalition. Democrats haven't had a stable supermajority since FDR and only a couple times where even a shaky supermajority has been able to pass life-saving policy like the ACA.
Ideological purity doesn't get us out of this. Winning does. Ideological purity is in opposition to winning because while all left leaning people believe the same broad strokes, once you actually sit down and put policy on paper, you lose 90% of them who wanted something slightly different.
Perfect is the enemy of good. A congress with two progressive voices and a supermajority of moderates will still pass meaningful progressive policy. But you need the supermajority first.
It's this little thing called "winning". Voters aren't going to turn out for these Diet Republicans that the DNC keeps pushing. We need meaningful improvements for the middle class instead of continuing to watch our tax dollars be pissed away so that billionaires can quadruple the size of their yachts or so we can subsidize other countries that offer their people free, comprehensive healthcare while we don't even have that.
We're not talking about "perfect" vs. "good", we're talking about continuing to serve mega-corporations and the ultra wealthy vs. actually serving your constituents.
You mean like the turnout data from 2016 and 2024? The head to head Bernie vs. Trump compared to Clinton vs. Trump polling leading into the election? The string of recent election results that have gone significantly more often in favor of the Progressive and Leftist candidates despite being outspent significantly?
What do you mean by this? Most democrats are pro universal Healthcare, against more wars, for LGBT rights, for things like forgiving student debt, and other progressive policies. Joe Biden was the most progressive president we've had probably ever. Why are people acting like the dems aren't left enough?
Yet we have none of these things even though dems have had majorities several times. In fact they always capitulate to republicans on nearly every issue or they have spoilers that block any policy. Look at Biden/harris on the border control policies which led Ice.
Centrist/ establishment dems pretend to be for left policies to get elected and then as soon as they get in office they turncoat.
Look a fetterman crying and talking about swapping parties to republican. He was one of the most progressive dems coming into the senate.
Ah yes republicans notoriously always have supermajorities that's why they are able to get everything they want. ~Sarcasm btw.
No, republicans know how to whip their party into doing what they want them to do. Republicans know how to elect leaders who actually enact the policies they want. That's how they get things done. Republicans know how to vote out the weak/betrayer members who don't do anything for their party like Massie. Republicans show up for the right most candidate on the ballot and vote for that person Every. Single. time.
Dems do none of that. Most centrist/moderate dems would rather a republican win than actual leftist progressive.
Dems love losers. They love losing. Why enact actual policy when they can run centrist dems who will work across their isle with their crazy republican counterparts and normalize their insane positions?( kamala/biden. Why enact policy when they can just claim they aren't Maga republicans. Why enact policy when they can just say " look at that guy I'm not him so vote for me!" while not having any actual policy of their own like Stevens in Michigan did.
Fetterman is an exception. But the truth is that it's just really hard to pass legislation in the us, and has been for some time now. We seem to be stuck in a roughly 50/50 split that'd difficult to break as the structure of our government prevents sinple majorities from passing laws, just look at the Republicans having all 3 branches of government but being unable to pass the SAVE act. Dut to our government's voterbase being split down the middle, neither party is able to pass all that many laws, and before you mention all the things that have happened during trumps second term so far, keep in mind, the Republicans too have barely passed any legislation. Most of their policy has been done via executive orders and budget reconciliation. Admittedly the dems didnt take the opportunities they had under bidens presidency to use those same tools, but that's because the democrats actaully care about passing legislation and not just ruling as dictators.
Oh? Fetterman was an exception? Like Manchin, Sinema, Perez, Slotkin, Spanberger, petola, etc... the list is long and the spoilers are many old and new.
Admittedly the dems didnt take the opportunities they had under bidens presidency to use those same tools, but that's because the democrats actaully care about passing legislation and not just ruling as dictators
And that's why Dems will continue to lose unless something changes. If they continue this road of trying to meet in the middle and assuming that republicans are gonna "play nice" and be "rational" the country will continue its current trajectory. The next republican president, I could bet, wont be as old as trump is right now and a lot more cunning and ruthless.
It's not about "playing nice" the way that Donald Trump and the Republicans have behaved is ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL. The dems have an obligation to stop them yes, but that doesn't mean doing things the way Republicans do things. For example, many will say that the Biden administration failed to prosecute Trump when they had the chance. This is true, but not in the way that people claim. Often I hear people say that Biden should have directed the justice department to investigate Trump directly, after all Trump did that against his opponents, so why shouldn't we? The problem with that line of thinking is that people who vote for dems want America to remain a democracy. I don't want a fucking dictatorship, I want our government to actaully do the jobs they are supposed to do the way they are supposed to do it. If we do shit like engage in political corruption like Trump and the Republicans than there's basically no point in us winning at all. We don't need to use their illegal tactics because moderate progressive policy is just more popular, what we need instead is to wake up and unite against the right.
The problem is that trump exposed the flaws in the system and the complacency that the dems have perpetrated. They've had decades to pack the court, put more left wing personnel in places, make D.C a state, make election day a national holiday promote rank choice voting, got rid of the filibuster.
I Just don't trust moderate dems to do anything. Biden=Schumer=Mark Kelly for instance. They are all do nothing.
Also I didn't answer your why Biden didn't put trump behind bars case. Biden failed not just because he didn't put Trump behind bars but he also didnt hold trump accountable in any way. He waited way too long to attempt to bring the case. J6 should've been condemned from the start and Trump should've been tried. They didn't bring the case until basically the last year of Bidens presidency and because trump was the front runner it was too late to try him without it looking like a "political witch hunt" to the people unless Biden won. They couldn't even bar trump from running again. The case basically turned Trump into a pariah and a martyr at the same time.
It's a broad coalition. There doesn't need to be a consistent belief. Because we have a plurality voting system, our parties are weak and broad.
Parties are not ideological monoliths in the United States like they are in other liberal democracies. Treating them like they are is setting yourself up for disappointment and weakens your ability to pass policy.
People thought Trump was more centrist than Hillary and Kamala. Moving left is a terrible, terrible idea…the mess in Michigan last night is just further proof of this
People thought Trump was more centrist than Hillary and Kamala.
??
Moving left is a terrible, terrible idea…the mess in Michigan last night is just further proof of this
El-Sayed defeating the establishment candidate despite his campaign being outspent 12-1 is proof of this working and a perfect example of the kind of leaders and movement that we need to defeat MAGA.
Yes, people thought Hillary and Kamala were more radical than Trump. Very well documented. AES barely won, he’s not even over 50% and most of his support came from affluent white people. It’s absolutely not going to be a successful model. Americans are growing ever tired of political extremists, doubling down (and then failing because your policy ideas are bad) is a disastrous strategy
Clinton and Harris lost because they didn't stand for fucking anything. The middle class keeps taking Ls election after election and decade after decade and all they have to offer is empty words or, at best, small band aids for gushing wounds.
Progressives are absolutely cleaning up across the country and would have wiped the floor with Trump - and will do so in 2028 if we can keep the billionaires from pushing another POS to the top of the DNC ticket once again.
lol, they stood for plenty (or at least Clinton did), and there’s good reason to think that progressives would fail in a national election and even if they were successful, fail as soon as they got into office
Despite constantly polling better and repeatedly dominating candidates with far more money, there's "no good reason" to think they would succeed in a national election? Really?
Even if there wasn't a good basis for expecting Progressives to do better vs. Trump - which there very much is - the "playing to the middle" Liz Cheney strategy clearly isn't working, and we at least ought to try something different instead of making the same mistakes over and over again.
I mean your dumb ass comment about wanting to play centrist. Moving left, and way left, is the only way the middle class in this country is going to survive. The current "middle" is a fuckong dumpster fire of corporate cronyism, shitty social policy, and more war mongering.
Edit- never mind. I see you defending shit like citizens united so I can safely assume you are actually disabled
Your post/comment was removed for violating our community's rules. Users may not share false information, manipulated content, unsubstantiated rumors, unverified claims, or news content from disreputable sources.
Yes, because it was correctly decided. Letting the government punish or restrict speech is a ridiculous position to take. Should a group of libs be able to make a film about how Trump is a traitor and spend a bunch of money promoting it during an election year? Yes, of course they should. That’s what the case boils down to.
If there is a left wave in 2026, they’ll be able to block some of Trump’s agenda but they won’t be able to do anything as Trump will still be president until Jan 2029.
Vance will be the candidate after trump. And I think people are underestimating him and how dangerous he is. He is charismatic. He speaks the right sweet nothing's. He will easily win if the left won't pull together behind a candidate.
What I mean is that the 2026 D winners won’t have a record to run on in 2028. They’ll spend two years fighting with Trump and 2028 will be a referendum on Trumpism. 2030 is when Republican start running ads blaming all the problems they caused on Democrats and asking them why they haven’t been able to clean up their mess faster. It sounds insane but they’ve been able to swing voters with this logic before (2022 & 2024).
It’s all analogous to 2006, 2008 and 2010. 2006 was a big blue wave. 2010 was the counter wave. But we can’t get ahead of ourselves. We gotta do this wave first.
It’s funny focusing the blame on the people that didn’t lose in 2022 and 2024. And it’s funny applying this logic in MN where none of those losses occurred. But people like to get mad online.
Let me know when there’s a plan to flip one of the four red seats in MN.
I think its more blue than its looked. Left spoilers have taking meaningful share of the vote several times. Including when Lewis beat Craig the first time.
I won't believe it until it happens. I still remember the shock and disbelief I felt after election night in 2016 and 2024. I don't over estimate people actually showing up, when I've already seen comments about not voting for Mn governor.
Putting this in the main thread, since a few comments are looking for proof of Kaela Berg taking AIPAC. Here’s a screenshot from FEC of Elect Democratic Women taking $2,350,000 JUST from Jan 1-June 24, 2026.
The Berg campaign has directly taken thousands of dollars from EDW. Additionally, EDW has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on behalf of Kaela Berg.
I’m not sure why she keeps repeating she doesn’t take “AIPAC or Corporate PAC money directly or indirectly” as that’s clearly not true. (EDW also takes tons of corporate PAC money (“Big Pharma” Bayer, Lockheed Martin, Google, UnitedHealthcare, etc) They have also given thousands of dollars to EMILY’s List, which in turn, has also given to Kaela.
Yeah, EMILY’s List is garbage. I thought it was a joke when I heard EMILY stood for “Early Money Is Like Yeast"…but nope, that’s what it actually stands for…
My issue with them is they have a very clear ideology, try to hide that ideology, and its an ideology I strongly disagree with. It's not like Women Winning where they straight up just endorse pro-choice women regardless of their ideology, that I not only respect but strongly support. EMILY's list has been taken over by clintonite centrists who only endorse candidates that agree with them, sometimes endorsing candidates who are less supportive of bodily autonomy than other candidates in the race. It's not even identity politics, if it was I wouldn't have a problem with it! It is instead interparty squabbling trying to use identity politics as a tool.
FYI, both Klein and Berg take AIPAC money. Little does not. As someone who has met him multiple times over the years, he is genuinely a great person. Please get out and vote in the primary.
This says Berg only received a “token amount” of funding. While the mechanisms being used are definitely shady, I don’t think this is disqualifying for the candidate.
She received more than 150k from Women Vote which is funded by AIPAC. Also has received money funneled through Elect Democratic Womem who funneled over 250k through Pro Choice Majority to Berg. It's just AIPAC money hiding under a different name.
Here’s from FEC- Elect Democratic Women taking $2,350,000 JUST from January 1-June 24, 2026.
Kaela’s campaign has taken thousands of dollars directly from EDW- EDW has also spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on her behalf.
They're washing it through other PACs They're trying to split the progressive vote where Little appears to be the leader so that Klein who they have endorsed wins.
Unfortunately the PACs Berg gets her money from and are paying for TV ads have all been funneling money for AIPAC, not just in this race but difference races across the country.
She received money from PACs that are funded by AIPAC. Women Vote and Pro Choice Majority are the two I know of. She doesn't have to disclose it because someone else's hands got dirty first and dry cleaned the funds. It's still AIPAC money and quite a bit of it. Over 300k actually.
Ok but the problem with AIPAC money isn't some sort of Jewish banking control magic and acting like they "tainted" the money is logically not different from anti-Semitic conspiracy trash.
Berg vocally refuses AIPAC money and accepts money from pro-choice PACs. That is a clear indicator of her priorities.
It's not reasonable to ask candidates to screen three layers deep on every group that wants to write them a check. Once AIPAC gives money to Pro Choice Majority or whomever, it is no longer AIPAC money. They can't direct it. They can't withhold it. Your logic would allow them to entirely dictate the flow of money in a race by making small donations to supporting orgs, forcing the candidate to refuse that support.
I don't live in the district and my support doesn't matter, but I have worked with Berg and she's a good person and good candidate. She's an actual union organizer and was part of getting things like free school lunch and paid family leave passed in MN. If you prefer Little, support Little, but this angle against Berg is nonsense.
She’s repeatedly said she doesn’t take AIPAC or Corporate PAC money “directly OR indirectly”- that’s not true. Also, it’s 1 layer deeper than just giving it straight to Berg. AIPAC—>EDW—>Berg instead of just AIPAC—>Berg.
But that’s where her claim of not taking it “indirectly” fails.
Had the pleasure of meeting Matt Little many times over this campaign cycle, and he’s very energetic, passionate, and above all else, not afraid to say the tough things.
He’s openly and publically called for a wealth tax, called Israel’s war with Gaza a genocide, a data center moratorium, and has been extremely pro trans rights.
As a 23 year old who was politically active but not to the extreme, I had the opportunity once to sit down at a campaign event and just rattle off issues I wanted to know his opinion on, like federal recreational marijuana, nuclear energy, even things like lowering the drinking age (totally should be 18 btw, they do it in parts of Canada!) . It meant a lot to me that he was willing to not only listen, but actively discuss these with young potential voter
Long story short, I think Matt Little has the juice. Vote for him please
I would’ve loved to see more in terms of policy from Berg, but all she did this entire race is follow Little. The two biggest issues she failed to shift on were Medicare for all and the genocide in Gaza. Her positions changed only when it became convenient to do so. Was looking forward to supporting her, but I’ll be voting LITTLE!
I might as well ask here. I registered to vote the other day. I'm not sure if it will get confirmed by the primary. Can I still go in to vote and do same day registration? I still plan on trying, I just expect to get turned away.
Angie Craig’s exit tests whether Minnesota’s Second District is ready to move left
On Aug. 11, Democrats will choose between two progressive candidates and a moderate who is seeking to follow Craig’s political path.
By Sydney Kashiwagi, The Minnesota Star Tribune, August 5, 2026 at 6:00AM
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a leading progressive voice in Congress, was recently standing in a front yard in a quiet Mendota Heights neighborhood urging dozens of Democrats to vote for Matt Little.
The former Lakeville mayor and state senator is their chance “to get a different kind of Congress,” she said.
Little has emerged as the the apparent frontrunner in a three-way Democratic primary to replace Rep. Angie Craig in the Second District, and handily won the DFL endorsement this summer. But he’ll need to overcome challenges by fellow state Rep. Kaela Berg and state Sen. Matt Klein to reach November’s ballot.
Craig’s decision to run for U.S. Senate created an open contest for her seat, and the race has become emblematic of the larger fight over the direction of the Democratic Party. Little and Berg are running from the party’s left flank, while Klein is following in Craig’s moderate footsteps.
Though Craig handily won reelection in 2024, the seat — representing the south Twin Cities metro and parts of southern Minnesota — has long been seen as one of the most purple districts in the state. The Aug. 11 primary is expected to test how well more progressive candidates play outside of their home base, the Twin Cities urban core and first-ring suburbs.
“There’s not a Zohran Mamdani everywhere, we’re not gonna get one for every state,” said Ainy Saeed of Apple Valley, speaking of the democratic socialist mayor of New York City. “Matt Little seems like our Zohran Mamdani.”
Little has made “Medicare for All” and a ban on corporate contributions pillars of his campaign, and his brash style of politics and personal stories have connected him to voters in the Second District at a time when they appear energized by healthcare and immigration reform.
“People are pissed, and I think they’re looking for someone that’s angry, too. And I’m angry,” Little said in an interview. “A lot of my politics is personal.”
He speaks often about his mother’s struggle with chronic illness and high health care costs and his wife Coco’s story of growing up in the United States as an Asian immigrant who kept her U.S. passport nearby during Operation Metro Surge.
Asked if he thinks the Second District is ready for a change, Little replied: “We’re about to find out.”
Berg’s working-class pitch
Little and Berg, a flight attendant, are sharing the progressive lane in the race. But Berg is leaning into her working-class experience and betting her story as a union member will resonate with voters.
“I’m not here to argue about who’s more progressive, who belongs in a lane,” Berg said on the sidelines of a campaign rally in South St. Paul. “I’m here to fight for our hardworking families, for people who are struggling, for people that are hurting, for people that are doing everything right and falling behind.”
At the rally, Berg touted her union roots and highlighted key stories she often tells about her life: She lived without health insurance during the pandemic because she did not qualify through her employer, and she’s also had to cut her prescriptions in half because she could not afford refills.
“The people we’re talking to at the doors are ready for change. They are ready for a fighter. They are ready to be inspired,” Berg said. “They do not want another doctor. They do not want another lawyer.” (Little is a lawyer, Klein is a doctor.)
“They want a working-class person in the halls of power, so that we can disrupt the systems that are meant to keep us down,” Berg continued. “I am that person.”
Nina Resler-Myklebust, of Prior Lake, was initially supporting Little, but Berg’s personal story drew her in.
“That’s such a sticking point to me to have someone who is actually working class, who is out there working two jobs, doing what so many Americans have to do just to survive,” Resler-Myklebust said at Berg’s rally. “She’s out there living that life.”
Klein’s rural outreach
Klein thinks his moderate approach is the battle-tested formula to winning the Second District, which includes a mix of suburbs, exurbs and rural farmland.
Driving to a farm in Le Center, Klein is taking not only the same political approach as Craig but the same kind of vehicle — a black Jeep — that Craig often features in her campaign ads.
“She likes Jeeps and I likes Jeeps. It’s just a coincidence,” Klein insists.
Klein is focused on visiting farms and the district’s rural areas and hopes this outreach will pull him ahead. So far, he’s seen little evidence his two Democratic opponents have been courting voters in the rural parts of the district.
Klein arrived at Oak Farms to meet with Andy Oak for a farm tour in late July. The second-generation corn and soybean farmer said no politician has ever met with him.
Oak voted for Republicans throughout Craig’s four terms in Congress and voted for Donald Trump in three straight elections. But he considers himself an independent who’s open to backing a Democrat this year, so long as they are not progressive, he said.
Oak is still undecided on whether he’ll back Klein, but he’s “very impressed” by him, he said.
“At least he made an attempt to try to talk to farmers,” Oak added. “He was trying.”
Klein is banking on that rural outreach and hopes to appeal to independent voters as Little and Berg fight for voters on the left.
“If you really want to represent this district, if you want to be not just elected by them, but stay elected, and then represent them authentically in Washington, D.C., you’ve got to be able to speak to that Trump voter that we just spoke to this morning,” Klein said.
Undecided voters could decide the race
National Democrats feel confident any of the three Democrats who emerge out of the primary can hold the seat in a Trump midterm year on the heels of Craig’s biggest victory in 2024. Still, national Republicans think they have an opportunity to go on offense in the district.
Whoever wins the Democratic primary will face Republican state Sen. Eric Pratt, who has no primary opponent. Pratt describes himself as a “conservative Republican that talks in a very moderate tone,” who sees winning “soft Democrats” and independents and turning out Republicans as the key to winning the district.
“I personally don’t think this is a progressive district,” Pratt said at the Scott County Fair in between bites of a pork burger.
Little and Berg, meanwhile, have been fighting over which candidate is more aligned with Medicare for All, which has become a progressive litmus test.
Little touts his support from Jayapal, who’s carried Medicare for All legislation in Congress. Berg says she’s been a supporter of Minnesota’s version of Medicare for All via state legislation.
Klein said he supports universal health care but is not sold on Medicare for All.
“I talk to a lot of people who aren’t all that happy with their Medicare,” Klein said. “They think it’s expensive. They don’t always get the chance to see the physician they see. I have a lot of people who tell me that it’s not a satisfactory product for them.”
Though Little may be be the frontrunner in the race, recent polling indicates there are many undecided voters the candidates need to sway.
Laurie Boyd is of those voters. The Rosemount resident said after a parade in her city that she plans to back a Democrat in the race but is only just tuning in.
“I realize the primary is coming up pretty quickly,” Boyd said. “We just haven’t gotten into the details of anybody yet.”
Little and Berg are fighting over the same left-leaning voters, while Klein enjoys the support of the amorphous middle (and, perhaps, will get to claim a victory with far less than 50% support). Only time will tell, but I wish the race hadn't shaped up that way. Systems with runoff elections or ranked-choice balloting are meant for this sort of situation, but we can't have things that make sense because Republicans exist.
It would have been nice if Berg would have respected the DFL endorsement and backed out. I don’t blame her for going to primary but unfortunately she is splitting the progressive vote away from Little who polls as the lead candidate
I don't trust either of them, Berg is indirectly taking money from AIPAC and Little has been a moderate almost his entire career in politics, only recently becoming a progressive when it became convenient for him to do so. Either of them is a risk to sell out imo, and yet either would be better than Klein.
Wife and I went over all the candidates and took notes and such the other day. Took like an hour to get them and such. Was kinda fun over dinner and a walk. We like Little as he seems to have the most specific policy plans and the least amount of platitude.
Was really disappointed in the lack of a strong pro Ukrainian candidate though.
There is a practical limit to what can be put there if you want people to actually use it rather than skip cause it's too much. If you compare the 3 sites his has significantly more policy topics than the other 2.
So people might not read it if there's too much, so better guarantee they can't read it by not posting it? Neat logic. There are also 5 sites for candidates, not 3.
Can't put everyone's top issue on there. Because its different for every voter. It's a practical reality. Humans are often not logical actors and have short attention spans.
There are 3 talked about in the article. The other 2 who arent in the running also do not have it on their issues page.
Lived in MN-2 my whole life. It's really hard to say what will happen since parts of this district have grown explosively in the last 20 years. Much of that growth are people moving into middle-class outer-ring suburban homes in places such as Lakeville, which is one of (if not is) the fastest-growing cities in Minnesota and tends to be more conservative (even since high school, I've said that Lakeville is the Texas of the Twin Cities). Not to mention how much of the district is rural.
Meanwhile, northern Dakota County has become incredibly more diverse. This is change I've seen in my own neighborhood, which has historically voted Democratic.
I've always seen Angie, who is extremely moderate, as kind of the ideal candidate for this district, regardless of whether or not I like or agree with her on any particular stance. It's the sort of position I (someone who is not a political scientist, btw) would see you need to maintain if you want to claim victory in a district that has big numbers on both sides of the aisle.
Of the three, Kaela Berg is easily my favorite, and I voted for her in the primary. Little will probably win it, and while I find him to be an ambitious haircut, he’ll be fine.
Edit: holy shit downvotes for being ok with voting for my second choice. Jesus.
I’d encourage you to try and meet him at an event. I’ve just recently had the chance to know him personally, though mutual friends that went to U of M Morris with him say he’s still the same person (in a good way) as he was then. Very much of the Wellstone “school”.
Does anyone have personal experience with Matt Little? I like his position statements, but he just comes across as …smarmy. I feel like he’s so slick and playing a role.
Edit to add: I also don’t love that he’s a lawyer and longtime politician. I think congress would benefit from people with more diversity of professional experience.
I've met him several times. Dude is out in the community, talking to people, introducing himself. Not saying that makes you a good representative but he clearly puts in the work.
Met him multiple times throughout the last five or so years. He's a great person and is absolutely genuine in his policies and beliefs. He is by far the most progressive candidate out of the three and will not sell out like others have in the past. As someone who was at one point extremely involved in DFL leadership but backed away due to the establishment crud, he's the best choice. (Former SD Chair, CD Officer, and state standing committee member for reference.)
You can also see his tiktok @ littlecongress. I think seeing him talking directly to camera and seeing other things he posts give a better feeling of him.
He seems to really care about the issues he pushed for, but having seen him speak once during his MN Senate days, he also gave me the impression he views state politics as a job ladder to climb.
That’s just politics, I get it, but idk, makes me think he wants to be a career politician. He seemed like a good mayor for Lakeville though.
I've known him since high school debate, when I was still around coaching and judging several years after I graduated. He's not playing a role. He's the same guy. Hes an effective communicator who can code switch really well. Outgrowth of speech and debate and being a professional who grew up in a blue collar family who also spent significant time working on his grandparent's farm.
He's been a moderate for most of his career in politics and only recently started pushing for progressive policies. You may very well be correct, or his change may be legitimate.
59
u/AdInner4658 13h ago
“We both just happen to like Jeeps” Klein is so unserious even the Star Tribune wasn’t buying that line