BNB Note:

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting and ushering legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Minnesota State Senator Matt Klein (DFL-SD53). Klein is running in the DFL primary to represent Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District.

Our healthcare system is broken. Sure, it’s been broken for years. But the actions of Donald Trump and RFK Jr. have pushed us over the edge and have left Minnesotans at risk.

In less than two years they have inflicted enduring harm. They ended the tax subsidies that helped make health insurance plans affordable for thousands of Minnesotans, took away Medicaid for 140,000 Minnesotans, and drove rural hospitals into financial free fall, making it even harder for Minnesotans to find the care they need. They are spreading misinformation about vaccines, reducing access to common vaccines that keep us safe, and stopping important research that can help us stay healthy now and into the future.

That puts all of us at risk, particularly as measles cases continue to threaten our children. And they have decimated our international humanitarian work--allowing diseases like Ebola to spread more quickly and placing Americans at risk if these diseases reach our shores.

I’ve held the hand of Minnesotans as they decided between getting the care they needed or going back to work so they could pay their bills. And I’ve seen the impact when patients aren’t taking the medications they’re prescribed because they can’t afford them.

Luckily, unlike Donald Trump or RFK Jr. – I am a doctor. And, I have a prescription to fix our healthcare system.

First, we need to undo Trump and RFK Jr.’s actions. Bring back the ACA tax credits so working Minnesotans can afford insurance. Provide Medicaid to those in need which will help reduce healthcare costs across the board and help keep our rural hospitals open. Trust science again, starting with making vaccines available, bringing back education campaigns about vaccines, and funding research that will keep our communities healthy now and into the future.

Second, we need to finally stand up to drug and insurance companies to bring down costs and make sure Minnesotans have access to the medicine and treatments that they need. We have had some success in Minnesota where we fought insurance companies and were able to bring down drug costs for Minnesotans. In Congress, I will continue this fight to bring down the cost of prescriptions and healthcare and make sure that doctors and patients are making healthcare decisions, not politicians and insurance companies.

Third, we should move toward universal coverage so every Minnesotan can get care when they’re sick and preventive care to keep from getting sick in the first place. It’s good for our people, our society, and our economy. In Congress, I will work to restructure our healthcare system because anything less than an overhaul of the system won’t be enough.

Finally, we just need to make some obvious changes. The actions of ICE in Minnesota this year had a disastrous and potentially long-lasting impact on the health of our immigrant neighbors. We need to get ICE out of our neighborhoods, including our hospitals, so that everyone can safely access the care they need. And, we need to ban assault weapons – something I was proud to support this year in the State Senate. As a doctor at Hennepin Healthcare I saw what these weapons do to a body. It’s time we have a national ban.

Serving this community as a doctor for the last 35 years has been the honor of a lifetime. But with the actions of Donald Trump and RFK Jr., it’s no longer enough to serve patients, we need to fix the system.

In Congress, it will be my top priority to bring down healthcare costs, take on pharmaceutical and insurance companies, overhaul our healthcare system, ensure that ICE stays out of our neighborhoods, and finally pass a national ban on assault weapons.

This is just a start to making sure Minnesotans have what they need to enjoy living in the best state in our nation.

As the Iran War drags on and fallout from President Trump’s tariffs continues, Trump has handed Minnesota Democrats a political opening in rural Minnesota - but that does not mean rural voters will automatically take it.

Minnesota farmers are accustomed to risk.

They cannot control the weather. They cannot determine the price of corn in Chicago or the size of Brazil’s soybean crop. They cannot prevent disease outbreaks, equipment failures or droughts. However, the newest pressures bearing down on Minnesota agriculture are not uncontrollable acts of nature – they are the consequences of deliberate decisions made in Washington.

Trump’s tariffs have disrupted Minnesota agriculture’s most important export markets while the Iran War has simultaneously increased the price of fuel and fertilizer—the basic inputs farmers need to produce and transport a crop. The result is a punishing two-sided squeeze where farmers are receiving less dependable prices for what they sell AND paying more for what they need to buy.

For Minnesota Democrats, that reality presents both a responsibility and an opportunity: make clear that the party is prepared to deliver something farmers have not received from Washington—economic stability.

The Revenue Side of Farmers’ Equation

Minnesota agriculture revenue is particularly vulnerable to global disruption because it is one of the country’s leading agricultural-export states.

The Minnesota Department of Agriculture estimates that Minnesota exports approximately $9.2 billion in agricultural products each year, including soybeans, corn, feed and pork; with its largest markets being China, Mexico, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Soybeans are especially important. The Minnesota Soybean Growers Association estimates that soybean exports generate approximately $2 billion annually and that roughly one out of every four rows of Minnesota soybeans is sold to China. That relationship became a liability when China retaliated against Trump’s tariffs.

In response to Trump’s tariffs, China imposed new duties of 10% to 15% on several American agricultural products in 2025, including soybeans, corn, dairy and beef. For part of the year, China even stopped buying American soybeans altogether as negotiations deteriorated. The national consequences were severe. USDA reports that American agricultural exports to China declined 66% in 2025, falling to approximately $8.4 billion. China dropped from the country’s five largest agricultural export markets, driven in significant part by reciprocal tariffs and reduced soybean purchases.

Minnesota farmers felt that disruption immediately.

Soybeans and corn do not disappear when an export contract disappears. They sit in grain bins, require storage and put downward pressure on local prices as farmers compete for fewer buyers.

The Cost Side of Farmers’ Equation

The trade war, and its impact on farming revenue, would be damaging on its own but it arrived just as another crisis was increasing the cost of producing a crop - the Iran War.

The war with Iran disrupted energy and fertilizer flows through the Persian Gulf. Reuters estimated that the initial conflict cut access to approximately 17% of global natural-gas supply and more than 30% of global nitrogen-fertilizer supply. That matters because natural gas is a central input in nitrogen-fertilizer manufacturing.

The Strait of Hormuz is also a major transportation route for oil, liquefied natural gas and fertilizer. This spring, the price of Urea, one of the most widely used nitrogen-based fertilizers in the world, increased from approximately $455 per ton before the war to nearly $700 per ton—an increase of more than 50%. Moreover, national diesel prices rose from approximately $3.81 per gallon when the conflict began to roughly $5.35.

Minnesota farmers cannot simply decide not to purchase those products.

Corn requires nitrogen. Tractors require diesel. Grain must be dried, stored and transported. When input prices spike, farmers must either absorb the increase, reduce production or take on more operating debt.

The Democratic Alternative

Democrats must not lecture farmers that they were foolish to support Trump. They should tell farmers that Washington owes them more than another cycle of disruption and reimbursement.

That message can appeal beyond traditional Democratic voters. Many farmers are fiscally conservative precisely because they value independence. They would rather earn income through sales than rely upon a federal program devised after politicians damaged their market.

Farming is a business. Farmers need customers, predictable costs, functioning infrastructure and enough confidence to make multiyear investments. The Democratic argument should begin there.

Democrats should offer a trade and agriculture platform built around four commitments.

1. Markets over bailouts – Emergency assistance should remain available, but the primary objective must be preserving and expanding commercial demand.

2. Strategic and clear trade enforcement – Tariffs should target specific abuses, include measurable objectives and be coordinated with allies whenever possible. Farmers should know what success looks like and how long the policy is expected to last.

3. More customers/less dependence – USDA export-promotion programs should aggressively develop markets in Southeast Asia, Africa, Latin America and India so that American agriculture is not overly dependent on any single buyer.

4. Increase domestic demand – Permanent year-round E15, expanded biodiesel, domestic soybean crushing and biomanufacturing can create customers closer to the farm. This is not free-trade absolutism. It is recognition that access to markets is itself a form of agricultural security.

Farmers will listen when Democrats demonstrate that they understand commodity markets, input costs, export dependence, operating credit and the economics of an acre of corn. They will listen even more closely when Democrats offer solutions that increase their independence rather than deepen reliance on Washington.

Bottom Line

Trump’s tariffs and the Iran war have created real hardship in Minnesota farm country.

Democrats should hold him accountable. But they should not stop there.

The durable political opportunity is to offer a new rural bargain: dependable markets instead of tariff roulette, domestic demand instead of bailout dependence, competition instead of corporate concentration and resilience instead of exposure to the next global crisis.

Democrats must make the choice clear: Republicans are asking farmers to absorb the cost of chaos while Democrats have a plan to stabilize markets and lower input vulnerability so that farmers have a fair chance to make money from the crops they produce.

BNB Note:

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting and ushering legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Minnesota State Representative Kaela Berg (DFL-55B). Berg is running in the DFL primary to represent Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District.

Washington has left working people behind. Not just in policy, but in language, in candidates, in basic respect for the reality of working-class life. In 2024, we paid the price. Party leaders told voters the economy was fine — when we knew it wasn’t. They treated workers like we were too unsophisticated to understand our own circumstances.

The wealth gap between the top 1% and everyone else has widened for years. The ultra-wealthy keep getting richer while the rest of us grind through rising gas prices, medical bills, and grocery costs. Working people know things are bad. We’ve been sounding the alarm.

But change won’t happen if the politicians who are supposed to fight for us don’t know how bad it is themselves. Just 3% of Congress comes from the working class. Just 3% knows how to stretch a paycheck to the last dollar, cut a pill in half to make a prescription last, or do the math in your head at the grocery store because you can’t afford to be wrong.

How can we expect Congress to fix this economy if the people writing the laws have never lived it?

That’s why I’m running. I’ve been a union flight attendant for over twenty years. I’m a labor leader and a Minnesota state representative. And even as a legislator, I still live paycheck to paycheck.

That is one of my greatest strengths. When someone in my community tells me they’re struggling, I don’t have to imagine it. I live it too.

And I’ve delivered results. I authored and passed the ban on captive audience meetings, shutting down one of the oldest union-busting tactics on the books. My gun violence prevention law was the last one we passed in Minnesota — banning binary triggers and making straw purchases a felony. And after fighting for my own son in a broken education system, I put a mental health professional in every public school in the state.

That’s what happens when you send a working-class person, and a labor leader, into government. We don’t just talk about the issues our communities are begging us to fix — we deliver, because we’re building a future for our communities, our kids, and our families.

And there’s no better place to find working-class candidates than the labor movement. We are the backbone of some of the most organized, most politically active movements in this country. We’ve stood on picket lines. We’ve shut down airports and hospitals to demand what we’re owed. When an aircraft crashed and flipped upside down in Toronto in 2025, it was highly trained flight attendants who evacuated 80 people and got every single one of them out alive. We know how to move fast in a crisis — because our jobs require it every day.

There’s real precedent for candidates like me. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a bartender and waitress before she ran for Congress on a shoestring budget and beat a ten-term incumbent. She redrew the boundaries of what the Democratic Party was willing to fight for. Her pro-worker, anti-billionaire message filled arenas on the Fighting Oligarchy Tour with Bernie Sanders, reaching working people across ideological lines who are hungry for someone willing to tell the truth about power.

Mary Peltola won Alaska by speaking directly to working people who depend on the land and sea to survive. Now she’s running for Senate to keep fighting for her community, for the fisheries, and for the workers who keep them running.

AOC and Peltola prove that working-class candidates don’t just belong in these seats — we win in them, and we change what’s possible once we’re there. Not because we studied the working class from a distance, but because we live it — on the picket line, behind the beverage cart, on the fishing boat, and at the kitchen table doing the math on a bill that’s due before the paycheck comes in.

Minnesota’s Second District deserves a member of Congress who has had to fight for their livelihood, and who will bring that same fight to Washington. I’m someone who’s lived it, who’s organized alongside it, and who knows exactly what’s at stake if we get this wrong again.

Working people built this country. Now it’s time for us to lead in Congress.

Politics often rewards promises about what government will do next. But sometimes the better political argument is reminding voters what has quietly worked for generations.

This November, Minnesotans will vote on a constitutional amendment modernizing the state’s Permanent School Fund—a proposal that has largely flown under the political radar despite affecting every public school district in the state.

At first glance, the referendum appears highly technical. It asks voters whether Minnesota should modernize how earnings from the state’s $2.3 billion Permanent School Fund are distributed to public schools by adopting a contemporary “total return” investment model rather than relying primarily on interest and dividends.

But hidden beneath the constitutional language is one of Minnesota’s most remarkable—and least appreciated—stories.

For more than a century and a half, Minnesota has taken wealth generated from its forests, minerals and public lands, invested it instead of spending it, and used those investments to help educate generations of Minnesota children.

That isn’t just smart public finance. It’s Minnesota’s social compact in action.

And politically, it gives Democrats an opportunity to tell a story they too often leave untold: one where miners, loggers, educators, conservationists and parents are all part of the same success story.

Minnesota’s Original Investment in Its Future

When Minnesota first became a state in 1858, Congress granted the new state millions of acres of land to support public education. Rather than treating those lands as assets to be quickly sold off, Minnesota built something far more enduring.

School trust lands generated revenue through timber harvesting, iron ore mining, taconite production, mineral leases and other resource development. In turn, instead of immediately spending those proceeds, the state deposited them into a permanent trust whose principal could not be spent. The result was an education endowment that continues to grow more than 150 years later.

It is difficult to overstate how forward-thinking that decision was. Minnesota effectively decided that today’s natural resources should help educate tomorrow’s children.

Generation after generation has benefited from that decision.

The Industries That Built the Permanent School Fund

The Permanent School Fund did not materialize through financial engineering – it was built by Minnesota workers and industries. Historically, no industries have contributed more to the trust than Minnesota’s mining and forestry sectors; namely - iron ore, taconite, and timber, alongside other state-land leases.

Too often, these industries are discussed almost exclusively in terms of employment statistics, environmental permitting or regional politics. Rarely are they discussed in the terms of education policy but perhaps they should be.

Every mining royalty deposited into the trust, timber sale conducted on school trust lands, and lease signed on behalf of Minnesota students, became another investment in Minnesota classrooms. That reality deserves far greater recognition than it receives today.

And to be clear, recognizing and appreciating those contributions is not the same as arguing that every mining proposal should be immediately approved or that every environmental concern dismissed entirely. Minnesota can (and must) simultaneously maintain rigorous environmental standards while acknowledging that responsibly managed natural-resource industries have been extraordinary partners in financing public education.

Those ideas are not contradictory. In fact, the Permanent School Fund has demonstrated that they have worked together for generations.

Why a Constitutional Referendum is Needed

In today’s political environment, constitutional amendments often become ideological battlegrounds. This proposal is refreshingly different.

The amendment emerged from years of study by experts, legislators and investment professionals who concluded that the state’s investment framework should better reflect modern portfolio management. The legislation was led by State Senator Mary Kunesh (DFL-New Brighton) in the Senate and State Representative Spencer Igo (R-Wabana) in the House. Ultimately, the state legislature passed the constitutional referendum proposal and placed the question before voters with bipartisan support.

The constitutional amendment itself is less about changing the purpose of the fund than updating how it operates.

When Minnesota originally established the distribution formula, investment portfolios generated much of their returns through interest payments and stock dividends. But today’s markets work differently because a much larger share of long-term investment growth comes through appreciation in asset values rather than dividend income alone.

Under the current constitutional language, schools cannot fully benefit from that modern investment reality. As a result, the fund has grown dramatically while annual distributions have not always kept pace with its long-term performance. The proposed amendment would address that mismatch by allowing distributions based on a fixed percentage of the fund’s average market value—a model already used by many university endowments and large public trusts.

In short, the constitutional amendment doesn’t spend more of the trust – it spends the trust more strategically. The principal, as well as future generations of students, remain protected because schools simply receive a more stable and sustainable share of the investment returns that the fund is already generating.

Good public policy sometimes means creating something new. Other times, it means updating yesterday’s rules to reflect today’s realities. The Permanent School Fund constitutional amendment is a fantastic example of the latter.

The Political Opportunity Democrats Shouldn’t Waste

There is also a broader political lesson and opportunity for Democrats.

For years, Republicans have enjoyed a messaging advantage when conversations turn to mining, forestry and natural-resource development. Democrats have too frequently responded defensively—or avoided the conversation altogether.

Reforming the Permanent School Fund offers a different approach.Instead of framing natural-resource industries solely through the lens of permitting fights or environmental disputes, Democrats can tell a much richer story.

They can proudly say that Minnesota’s miners, loggers, heavy-equipment operators, engineers and countless other workers have helped finance public education for generations. They can argue that respecting and valuing those industries is entirely consistent with supporting both conservation and public education.

After all, the Permanent School Fund itself is built upon exactly that balance: responsibly managing public resources to preserve them and their value for future generations.

That message resonates far beyond northern Minnesota and the Iron Range - it speaks to organized Labor, educators, and suburban parents alike. It also speaks to rural communities that sometimes question whether state leaders and fellow Minnesotans truly appreciate the economic contributions they make to the rest of state

Perhaps most importantly, it points toward the future.

As Minnesota debates critical minerals needed for batteries, electric vehicles, housing materials, and advanced manufacturing, the state has an opportunity to write the next chapter of this story. Today’s responsible mineral and forestry development could become tomorrow’s classroom funding just as iron ore, taconite, and timber have done for previous generations.

That story is a far more compelling vision than simply arguing about individual projects one permit at a time.

Bottom Line

The Permanent School Fund reminds us that Minnesota has never had to choose between investing in education and valuing the industries that make those investments possible.

For more than 150 years, the state has transformed natural-resource wealth into lasting public opportunity—not by spending it all at once, but by managing natural assets wisely, investing the finances carefully, and sharing the returns across geography and generations.

This November’s constitutional amendment doesn’t change that mission – it modernizes it.

And in doing so, it gives Democrats an opportunity to reclaim a story that has always belonged to Minnesota: that miners and teachers, loggers and students, conservation and economic development are not opposing forces but rather partners in a uniquely Minnesotan social compact. A compact that has quietly helped educate millions of children and, if voters approve this amendment, will continue doing so for generations to come.

Democrats should proudly connect with that story and own that legacy this November.

BNB Note:

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting and ushering legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Minnesota AFL-CIO President Bernie Burnham.

Sometimes you don’t realize how special something is until you have the opportunity to see it through someone else’s eyes.

Earlier this month, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) brought its 30th Constitutional Convention to Minneapolis. Every five years, delegates from across the country gather to chart the future of America’s Labor Movement. This year, thousands of union members, leaders and activists came to Minnesota.

What they found here was something remarkable. The speeches and presentations surrounding the convention often focused on Minnesota’s response to Operation Metro Surge and the wave of federal immigration enforcement actions that traumatized families and communities across our state. Those stories mattered, and they deserved attention.

When immigrant workers and their families came under attack, Minnesota’s Labor Movement stood up. Union members joined faith leaders, community organizations and neighbors in defending our communities. We spoke out and took action because solidarity isn’t simply a word. It is our movement’s guiding principle. When we say an injury to one is an injury to all, we mean it.

However, our historic resistance to Metro Surge was part of something even larger and something we communicated to convention delegates. The reason Minnesota workers responded so quickly and effectively is because we have spent years building something stronger than a moment. We have spent years building relationships, coalitions, and a culture of solidarity that reaches across job, race, religious, and regional and backgrounds.

The delegates who came to Minneapolis did not just see resistance. They saw what we collectively built and continue to build. They saw a state where workers organized for years to win universal paid family and medical leave, earned sick and safe time, expanded union rights and protections, and some of the strongest labor laws in the nation. They saw unions organizing new workplaces and growing membership. They saw new construction projects across the state and apprenticeship programs preparing the next generation of skilled tradespeople. They saw public and private sector workers fighting together for stronger communities.

They saw a Labor Movement that understands economic, social and racial justice are inseparable. That’s why the AFL-CIO awarded Minnesota’s Labor Movement the George Meany-Lane Kirkland Human Rights Award during the convention. The award recognized our collective response to attacks on immigrant workers and our commitment to defending human dignity. While we are honored by the recognition, the truth is that Minnesota union members were simply living our values.

The convention also offered a reminder that Minnesota’s successes didn’t happen by accident. Every gain working Minnesotans won is because we organized, voted, negotiated, and stood together.

Just like our state was ready to resist when ICE came to town, we must prepare for the very real possibility the Trump administration will use the same tactics to disrupt our election this November. This administration didn’t care whether they detained US citizens in ICE raids, so there’s no reason to believe they won’t try to prevent us from exercising our fundamental right to vote. Whatever happens, know that Minnesota’s Labor Movement will be there every step of the way – standing in solidarity to protect our Democracy.

Across the country, workers are demanding a greater voice on the job and a fairer share of the wealth we create. Here in Minnesota, we have an opportunity to continue leading by example. That means organizing more workers into unions, electing leaders who stand with us, and continuing to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top.

For one week in June, all eyes were on Minnesota. What visitors saw was not perfection. They saw a state still grappling with challenges. But they also saw something many people thought had become a thing of the past: people choosing solidarity over fear, community over division and hope over cynicism. That is Minnesota’s Labor Movement at its best. I hope that is what America remembers.

The first televised debate between Angie Craig and Peggy Flanagan was ostensibly about who should represent Minnesota in the United States Senate. But in reality, it was about something much bigger.

For much of the evening, viewers were not simply watching two candidates debate policy. They were watching two competing visions for the future of the Democratic Party compete for primacy.

Should Democrats focus on persuasion and coalition-building? Or should they focus on energizing their base and drawing sharper ideological contrasts? Should the party prioritize electability and pragmatism? Or should it prioritize conviction and movement politics?

Neither Craig nor Flanagan would likely frame the choice in those exact terms. But those questions hovered over nearly every exchange.

The debate ultimately revealed a Democratic Party that is still wrestling with its identity in the Trump era.

The “Pragmatic/Electability” Case

Throughout the debate, Craig consistently returned to one central theme: Democrats need candidates who can win difficult elections. It is not a surprising argument coming from a congresswoman who has repeatedly won one of the most competitive districts in the country.

Craig’s political identity (and success) has been built around the idea that Democratic success depends on expanding the coalition rather than narrowing it. Her victories in suburban and swing territory have reinforced the belief that voters reward candidates who demonstrate independence and a willingness to occasionally break with their party.

That perspective was evident in her answers on immigration, governance, and accountability.

Even when discussing her controversial vote for the Laken Riley Act, Craig framed her position through the lens of governing rather than ideology. She acknowledged regret over the vote but emphasized that leaders must be willing to make difficult decisions and adjust when circumstances change.

For Craig supporters, that answer reflected maturity and humility. For critics, it reflected inconsistency and opportunism. Either way, it highlighted the governing philosophy she brought to the debate stage.

Craig’s argument is straightforward: Democrats cannot accomplish progressive goals if they lose elections. Winning difficult races matters. Building broader coalitions matters. Appealing to voters beyond the party’s most engaged activists matters.

The “Progressive/Energizing” Case

Flanagan presented a different vision.

Her campaign has been built around the idea that Democrats should not be afraid to stand firmly on their values and reject compromise, particularly when confronting Trump administration policies.

Throughout the debate, Flanagan repeatedly returned to Craig’s vote for the Laken Riley Act. For her campaign, the vote represents more than a policy disagreement. It symbolizes a broader concern that Democrats too often compromise on issues that are central to their values.

Flanagan argued that voters are looking for leaders willing to draw clear distinctions rather than split the difference.

That perspective has gained traction nationally as many Democrats question whether moderation and compromise remain effective political strategies in an increasingly polarized environment.

For Flanagan, enthusiasm matters. Grassroots energy matters. Mobilizing voters who feel passionately about issues like immigration, reproductive rights, labor rights, and social justice matters.

Her campaign reflects the belief that Democrats should inspire and energize voters rather than simply persuade them.

Why Both Arguments Have Merit

One of the most interesting aspects of the debate was that neither candidate’s core argument is obviously wrong. Recent election history provides evidence for both positions.

Progressive enthusiasm has played a major role in Democratic victories across the country. Grassroots organizing, issue advocacy, and movement politics have helped drive turnout and shape public opinion.

At the same time, Democrats have also succeeded by winning over moderates, independents, and suburban voters who may not align perfectly with the party’s activist wing.

The reality is that successful statewide Democratic candidates typically require both.

The challenge is determining which component deserves greater emphasis in a particular political moment. That is ultimately the question Minnesota Democrats must answer in this primary.

What Minnesota Democrats Must Decide

The Craig-Flanagan debate revealed that this race is not simply a contest between two accomplished public servants.

It has become a referendum on political strategy:

• Do voters want a candidate whose strongest credential is repeatedly winning competitive races?

• Or do they want a candidate whose strongest credential is energizing the Democratic coalition and articulating progressive values?

Those are not mutually exclusive qualities, but the debate highlighted where each candidate places their emphasis.

Craig believes Democrats win by persuading more people. Flanagan believes Democrats win by energizing more people.

The distinction may sound subtle, but it carries significant implications for how the party campaigns, governs, and prioritizes issues.

Bottom Line

The most important takeaway from the debate wasn’t who landed the strongest attack or delivered the sharpest soundbite. It was the reminder that Minnesota Democrats are participating in a conversation taking place throughout the country.

The debate exposed a party still searching for the right balance between pragmatism and principle, persuasion and mobilization, coalition-building and movement politics.

Craig and Flanagan offered different answers to that challenge.

Minnesota Democratic primary voters will have to decide which vision they believe is best suited for the road ahead.

But regardless of who wins, the underlying questions lingering throughout the debate are likely to remain central to Democratic politics long after the primary is over.

Big Picture

Housing has quietly become one of Minnesota’s most important affordability issues.

Whether it’s a young family trying to buy its first home in Spicer, a teacher searching for an apartment in the Twin Cities, or an employer struggling to recruit workers in Grand Rapids, the same challenge keeps surfacing: there simply aren’t enough homes.

Senator Amy Klobuchar’s newly released housing plan puts her squarely in the growing camp of policymakers who believe the answer starts with supply.

The proposal aims to help Minnesota build at least 100,000 additional homes through permitting reform, regulatory streamlining, incentives for local governments, tax credits, and new tools for rural communities. The full details of Klobuchar’s proposal can be found HERE.

Klobuchar’s approach represents a notable shift in housing politics. For years, Democrats often focused on affordability primarily through subsidies and assistance programs. Klobuchar’s plan instead begins with a supply-side argument more commonly associated with market-oriented housing advocates: build more homes, and prices become more affordable.

What’s In The Plan

The centerpieces of Klobuchar’s plan are straightforward.

Klobuchar proposes:

• Faster permitting timelines.

• Standardized housing applications.

• Reducing costly mandates and redundant requirements.

• Using surplus state-owned land for housing.

• Permanent housing tax credits.

• Incentives for cities that voluntarily increase housing production.

The message is clear: government should stop being part of the problem.

Builders across Minnesota routinely cite permitting delays, inconsistent local requirements, and regulatory complexity as major cost drivers. Every month a project sits waiting for approvals adds costs that eventually get passed on to renters and buyers.

Klobuchar’s housing policy proposal positions her as the candidate willing to challenge bureaucracy while still maintaining environmental and community safeguards.

The Greater Minnesota Focus

Far too often, housing policy has been discussed predominantly through an urban lens. But Minnesota’s housing shortage isn’t just a metro problem - it’s increasingly a barrier to economic growth in Greater Minnesota.

Klobuchar’s housing plan recognizes that reality by dedicating an entire section to rural housing development.

Klobuchar’s proposal includes:

• A Rural Housing Loan Fund.

• Incentives for housing investment in rural communities.

• Conversion of vacant commercial buildings into housing.

• Rehabilitation of abandoned properties.

• Support for redevelopment in small-town downtowns.

The political significance is difficult to miss.

While many statewide Democrats talk about helping rural communities, Klobuchar’s proposal actually attempts to directly address one of the most common complaints from rural business leaders: they cannot recruit workers because there is nowhere for those workers to live.

Klobuchar has long outperformed many Democrats in Greater Minnesota and a housing agenda aimed at helping small towns grow provides another opportunity to reinforce that advantage.

Comparing The GOP Approach

To be fair, many Minnesota Republicans have long argued that government regulations are a primary cause of housing costs. Notably, however, as of June 2026, Kendall Qualls’ website, Lisa Demuth’s website, and Mike Lindell’s website all failed to offer any detailed plans to address housing affordability.

Where Republicans often focus almost exclusively on reducing regulations, Klobuchar adopts a hybrid approach. She embraces permitting reform and streamlining—issues Republicans have championed—but pairs them with state investment, housing tax credits, and incentives for local governments.

That gives her an opportunity to occupy the political middle ground.

Conservatives may argue that her proposal still relies too heavily on government intervention. Progressives may argue it doesn’t go far enough on affordability protections.

But politically, the plan attempts to assemble a coalition of builders, local governments, labor unions, and affordability advocates. That is a formidable coalition to help Klobuchar not only secure victory in November but also usher these proposals through the legislature during legislative session.

The Unique Politics of Housing Policy

Housing increasingly cuts across traditional partisan lines.

Unlike some culture-war issues that energize only one side of the electorate, housing affordability consistently ranks as a concern across party and geographic lines. The housing shortage affects suburban families, urban renters, and rural employers alike.

That makes it fertile political territory.

For Klobuchar, the proposal reinforces one of her strongest political brands: pragmatic problem-solving. Rather than framing housing as an ideological fight, she frames it as a supply-and-demand challenge that requires government to work better.

Bottom Line

Minnesotans don’t care whether a housing solution is conservative, progressive, or somewhere in between. They care whether they can afford a place to live.

Klobuchar’s housing plan is built around that reality.

By combining permitting reform, incentives to build, and targeted affordability measures, Klobuchar is attempting to make housing policy less about politics and more about production.

**The full details of Senator Klobuchar’s housing policy proposal can be found HERE.**

Below, is a guest editorial from Justin Perpich. Perpich was the Chair of Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District from 2016-2018. He is a seasoned labor and political strategist - but its his Iron Range roots and understanding of the Range that make his perspective especially valuable as Democrats set out to win back the Range.

On April 27, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 140 into law, overturning Public Land Order 7917 and ending a 20-year withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres of federal land in northeastern Minnesota from mineral leasing and development. The debate over copper-nickel mining near the Boundary Waters is once again front and center in Minnesota politics.

Look, I understand why this issue is controversial.

The Boundary Waters is one of Minnesota’s greatest treasures. Tourism tied to our natural resources is a growing part of the economy. People come here to canoe, fish, mountain bike, hike, see Lake Superior, watch the ships come into Duluth, enjoy the fall colors, and spend money in our communities. Those jobs matter.

But if Democrats want to win back northern Minnesota, they need to understand something that many voters on the Iron Range have been saying for years.

For a lot of people, this debate isn’t about old mining versus new mining. It isn’t about taconite versus copper-nickel mining. To them, it’s simply mining.

And when people hear politicians talking about stopping mining, many hear someone talking about stopping the industry that put food on their family’s table for generations. That’s the reality whether Democrats like it or not.

Mining built much of northern Minnesota. Entire communities were founded around it. Thousands of union members still earn middle-class wages because of it. Even people who don’t work directly in mining often depend on mining jobs through suppliers, local businesses, restaurants, and other spin-off employment.

There is also a deep sense of solidarity on the Iron Range. People understand that when one job is under attack, every job is under attack. The same thing applies to mining. An attack on one mining job is often viewed as an attack on all mining jobs.

That doesn’t mean voters don’t care about the environment. They do.

Now, to be clear, this isn’t just about being pro-mining or anti-mining. It isn’t about saying one side of the debate is right and the other side is wrong. Reasonable people can disagree about copper-nickel mining near the Boundary Waters and still want what is best for Minnesota.

This is about understanding how voters see the issue.

For many people on the Iron Range, mining isn’t just another political debate. It’s their livelihood. It’s their mortgage payment. It’s how they put food on the table. When people believe their jobs are under attack, they are going to vote accordingly.

At the same time, there are countless other issues impacting not just northern Minnesota, but communities across the entire state. Families are worried about the cost of living. They’re worried about housing costs. They’re worried about the rising cost of health insurance. They’re worried about whether their public schools have enough funding. They’re worried about whether good-paying jobs will still be there five or ten years from now.

Mining will always be an issue that divides people. But focusing on the issues that are front and center in people’s daily lives is how the DFL starts winning back northern Minnesota and rural communities across the entire state.

People don’t need politicians to agree with them on every issue. They just want to know they’re being heard. But candidates who want to win in northern Minnesota need to meet people where they are instead of talking down to them. Workers don’t want to hear that they should simply be retrained. They don’t want to hear that they should move somewhere else. They don’t want to uproot their families and leave communities where their parents, grandparents, and children have lived. Especially right now.

Many workers are already worried about layoffs and economic uncertainty. Some mining operations have idled production. Others have reduced staffing. Families are watching costs rise while wondering whether they’ll be next.

If Democrats want to reconnect with the Obama-Trump voters they have lost across northern Minnesota, the answer isn’t complicated.

Talk about the economy. Talk about stagnant wages.Talk about rising health care costs. Talk about protecting Social Security and Medicare. Talk about protecting union jobs and creating new ones. Talk about gas prices and the cost of living. When gas is pushing $4 a gallon, that’s not an abstract policy debate to someone commuting to work every day. It’s money coming directly out of their pocket.

Talk about schools struggling with enrollment and funding challenges. Talk about communities that are debating four-day school weeks because they can’t make the numbers work. Talk about keeping rural hospitals open and making sure young families can afford to stay in the communities they grew up in.

Most importantly, show people that you understand their concerns before trying to convince them that they’re wrong. The Iron Range didn’t suddenly become conservative. Working-class voters didn’t wake up one morning and decide they hated Democrats. Many simply stopped believing Democrats were listening. The path back isn’t through lectures. It isn’t through telling people their concerns aren’t valid.

It’s through showing up, listening, and fighting for working families the way Democrats once did.

Northern Minnesota voters haven’t changed nearly as much as Democrats think. They still want good jobs. They still want strong unions. They still want safe communities with strong public schools. They still want economic opportunities for their kids. There is a path back for Democrats in northern Minnesota, but it starts with listening. The DFL doesn’t need to abandon its values to win back the Iron Range.

Listen and meet people where they are at and focus on the real issues impacting working families and the Iron Range can be won back.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but rather to provide readers with a direct insight into how decisions are made, institutions function, and power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from former DFL House Majority Leader Ryan Winkler. Winkler served as the DFL House Majority leader from 2019 to 2023 helping to usher through signature legislative accomplishments of the Democratic trifecta in power during that time.

The twelve hundred delegates gathered at the DFL state convention in Rochester this weekend were of a mind to burn it down. “It” included the Trump administration, of course, but special fury was aimed at the national Democratic establishment, DFL party leadership in Minnesota, and any DFL elected official who was not felt to be an effective battler against the Trump administration.

In fact, the single loudest applause line I heard all weekend was from Peggy Flanagan: “We have to be real about what got us here. We got here in part because too many Democrats have been weak.” The applause was loud, and so sustained, that Flanagan twice tried to move on in her speech and was overcome by the crowd’s passion.

The mood of the delegates was clear from opening gavel. One of the first motions brought from the floor on Friday aimed to seat a delegate from Minneapolis, Kaytie Kamphoff, who had been disciplined by the state party for threatening behavior aimed at other DFLers. Kamphoff is an aggressive leftist, and this was a test vote intended to show party leaders that the delegates were in charge. The DFL party leaders could not even state their case because of their confidentiality obligations to Kamphoff, and they were accorded no deference whatever on their process or findings. They were booed. The motion prevailed. Burn it down.

It was obvious from that moment that Amy Klobuchar was going to have a fight on her hands for the endorsement. Her challenger, Kobey Layne, deserves credit for her courage. Until four years ago, Layne was a legislative assistant for Republican state Senator Jim Abeler, and she subsequently became an active organizer in the trans community. Layne ran on her experience as a struggling young professional short on money, and she used her lack of work experience to boost her creditability with delegates. She channeled her vulnerability as an indictment of capitalism, the two-party system, and good deal more. A lot of delegates loved the message.

What message does it send, though, when the only person with the courage to challenge Senator Klobuchar had nothing to lose? I saw elected officials, elected party officers, and well-established activists pushing for Kobey, but they were hiding behind her, too. My guess is that they didn’t want to take the risk themselves. You burn it down. I’m right behind you.

When Kobey was nominated, Senator Klobuchar was put in the position of making a pitch to the delegates, bringing out the signs and swag, and debating Kobey in a twenty-minute question-and-answer period. To her credit, Klobuchar gave a strong speech and used the Q&A to hammer home her own message about delivering results, standing up for Minnesotans, and her lifelong commitment to Democratic values.

A lesser politician might have felt above going on the floor of the DFL state convention and fighting it out, but not Amy Klobuchar. In fact, this challenge from Kobey Layne, and all the leftists hiding behind her, brought out Amy’s best. She was fired up, throwing down, and taking no prisoners. She showed that a career in Washington and on the Presidential campaign trail had honed her political talents and placed her in a category of her own in Minnesota politics. They brought the torches, but they could not burn her down.

That’s why I am fired up about Amy Klobuchar running for Governor. She expects results, and she will do what it takes to get them. She brings a power to the office that we have probably never seen in Minnesota’s history. Her national profile is, in some ways, bigger than the job she is running for, but she fights for it all the same. We need that.

Fraud scandals involving public programs have damaged confidence in state government. Housing costs have risen sharply in many communities. Population growth has slowed. State assessments continue to show severe educational achievement gaps. Many Minnesotans still believe deeply in the values behind Minnesota’s economic and social model, but they are growing unsure if it can continue to deliver. We have been slowly burning some of Minnesota’s best traditions, and most people don’t like it very much.

The burn-it-down mindset of Democrats is understandable, and even somewhat desirable. We do need to remember how we got here. We need to address the systemic failure of our economy and our government to create opportunity for our people to live decent lives through their work and community involvement. We face a lot of corrupt and entrenched power that does not serve the people. That power needs to be broken, but we can only break it by building something better.

Amy Klobuchar was the only candidate for Governor in Minnesota in 2026 who could survive the burn-it-down mindset and keep her focus on addressing the problems facing our state. We need constructive leaders able to improve the lives of Minnesotans. Doing so requires experience, knowledge, long-term commitment and dedication to something more than just a partisan ideology. Not many DFL candidates have been rewarded in 2026 for bringing those qualities to their endorsing conventions.

Why were delegates frustrated with Amy Klobuchar? I think it was because they knew she was right, and it doesn’t always feel good to acknowledge the truth: it’s not good enough to just burn it down; we actually need elected officials who bring the ability and dedication to help us build a state worth keeping. We need activists, delegates and voters willing to think and build, not just vent.

We are fortunate that Amy Klobuchar had the determination to fight for something better in Rochester. That’s the quality Minnesota need in our next Governor.

When selecting a lieutenant governor, campaigns are often searching for balance.

Sometimes that means geographic balance. Sometimes ideological balance. Sometimes demographic balance. The best selections accomplish several goals at once.

That is what makes Amy Klobuchar’s decision to select former Fergus Falls Mayor Ben Schierer as her running mate especially intriguing and politically savvy.

Minnesota Democrats enter 2026 in a strong position, but they face a familiar challenge: maintaining enthusiasm in the Twin Cities while reconnecting with voters across Greater Minnesota. The DFL’s path to victory has always depended on holding together a coalition that stretches from Minneapolis neighborhoods to Iron Range towns to agricultural communities in western Minnesota.

Schierer arrives with credentials that speak to each of those constituencies.

He is a former Greater Minnesota mayor, a small business owner, and a leader in economic development. And importantly for a modern DFL ticket, he carries progressive credibility. Notably, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Attorney General Keith Ellison, two of the most prominent elected leaders of the DFL family’s progressive flank, had both endorsed Schierer in his bid to become state auditor before being selected as the lieutenant governor candidate. This suggests that Schierer is viewed as more than simply a geographic play.

The result is a lieutenant governor pick that appears designed to strengthen—not merely balance—the ticket.

A Nod to Greater Minnesota

For years, Minnesota political observers have debated how Democrats can rebuild support outside the Twin Cities metro. Schierer offers something many statewide candidates struggle to authentically project: lived experience.

As mayor of Fergus Falls, he governed a community facing many of the same challenges confronting towns across Greater Minnesota—housing shortages, workforce development concerns, economic transitions, and a downtown in disarray.

Unlike candidates whose political careers were built entirely in St. Paul or Washington, Schierer has spent years operating in an environment where partisan labels often matter less than practical results.

That matters.

Voters in Greater Minnesota frequently reward leaders who demonstrate competence, responsiveness, and a willingness to work across political divides. Local government often forces elected officials to solve problems rather than score ideological points.

Those experiences translate well to statewide office.

The Klobuchar campaign did not need another Twin Cities political insider. It needed someone who could walk into a coffee shop in Granite Falls, Hibbing, Crosby, or Marshall and speak the language of local government, economic development, and community building.

Schierer checks those boxes.

More Than Geography - Results Over Rhetoric

One risk of selecting a rural running mate is that the choice can feel purely symbolic. But Schierer’s selection appears different.

His background as a small business owner allows him to speak credibly about entrepreneurship, workforce challenges, and local economic growth. Those experiences complement Klobuchar’s long-standing emphasis on economic competitiveness and pragmatic governance.

Perhaps more importantly, Schierer represents a style of politics that many voters say they want more of: less ideological warfare and more problem-solving.

In an era where politics is increasingly nationalized, a local leader like Schierer, who has built a reputation on results rather than rhetoric, will be a valuable addition to the Klobuchar ticket.

Progressive Bona Fides

The most interesting aspect of the pick may be that Schierer’s appeal is not limited to moderates.

Throughout his public career, Schierer has embraced positions that align comfortably with the DFL’s progressive wing while still maintaining credibility in Greater Minnesota. That combination is increasingly rare.

His support from progressive leaders such as Keith Ellison and Ilhan Omar sends an important signal to activists who might otherwise view a Klobuchar-led ticket as primarily or overly “centrist.”

Rather than creating ideological tension, the selection appears to create ideological overlap - moderates can appreciate his local-government pragmatism while progressives can point to his policy positions and endorsements.

That’s a difficult needle to thread - but count me as unsurprised that Klobuchar, the most politically skilled Minnesota politician since Fritz Mondale, threaded that needle superbly.

Bottom Line

For years, Democrats have talked about building bigger coalitions. Ben Schierer gives Klobuchar something every statewide candidate wants: a running mate who broadens the coalition without creating new fractures.

The pick sends a clear message: the DFL does not have to choose between winning Greater Minnesota and keeping progressives engaged. It can, and must, try to do both.

A Greater Minnesota mayor with progressive credibility, local-government experience, and support from influential voices across the DFL spectrum is not just a safe choice. It’s the kind of choice made by campaigns thinking about governing as much as winning.

With the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party state convention set to take place in Rochester this weekend, one of the biggest unanswered questions in Minnesota politics is beginning to dominate insider chatter: who will Senator Amy Klobuchar choose as her lieutenant governor?

While Senator Klobuchar, the presumptive DFL gubernatorial nominee, already brings statewide name ID, fundraising strength, and a reputation for pragmatic governance, her lieutenant governor selection could offer the clearest indication yet of what kind of coalition she wants to build for both the election and a future administration.

In making her selection, Klobuchar will have to consider how to prioritize and balance:

• Geographic balance

• Generational contrast

• Government accountability credibility

• Greater Minnesota outreach

• Urban coalition turnout

• Executive/legislative experience

• Ideological reassurance to the party base

In many ways, the lieutenant governor pick may ultimately tell voters more about the future direction of the DFL than the top of the ticket itself. Below, we examine some of the top names being floated in DFL circles and the potential strengths they could add to the ticket.

Former Senate Majority Leader Melissa Franzen: The Institutional Insider Option

Melissa Franzen would immediately emerge as one of the most politically polished options available.

A former Minnesota Senate Democratic leader with strong suburban relationships and extensive legislative experience, Franzen would reinforce Klobuchar’s long-standing image as a pragmatic, center-left governing Democrat.

Franzen’s political strengths are clear:

• Strong appeal in suburban swing communities

• Deep legislative and policy expertise

• Proven coalition-building experience

• Familiarity with statewide DFL infrastructure

Franzen would likely reassure moderate voters, business-oriented Democrats, and institutional party leaders seeking stability and competence.

Former U.S. Attorney Andy Luger: The Government Accountability Counterpunch

Andy Luger may represent the clearest fraud oversight and government accountability-focused option available to Klobuchar.

The former U.S. Attorney would instantly strengthen the ticket’s profile on fraud oversight, government accountability, and prosecutorial credibility — issues Republicans are almost certain to heavily emphasize in 2026 as fallout from recent state fraud scandals continues to shape voter perceptions.

Importantly, Luger was not merely commenting on the Minnesota fraud scandals from afar — he was one of the central federal officials leading the prosecutions themselves. As U.S. Attorney, Luger’s office spearheaded the original Feeding Our Future prosecutions, announcing the first sweeping federal indictments in the COVID-era fraud scheme.

Politically, that matters. At a time when voters across the ideological spectrum remain frustrated by stories involving waste, fraud, abuse, and failures of government oversight, Luger could allow Democrats to argue they are taking accountability concerns seriously rather than dismissing them defensively.

Luger would fit naturally alongside Klobuchar’s own prosecutorial background and “results-oriented” political brand.

Former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson: The Gravitas Pick

Former Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson may be the most unconventional — and potentially intriguing — name under discussion.

At a moment when voters increasingly crave institutional competence and stability, Hudson could offer a uniquely nonpartisan governing image that aligns naturally with Klobuchar’s political style.

Hudson’s strengths as a lieutenant governor selection include:

• Her highly respected legal and judicial career

• A historic profile and symbolic significance

• A strong appeal to voters desperately craving institutional competence

• Her ability to reinforce a “steady hands” governing image

In short, Hudson could bring generational and demographic diversity to the ticket while helping reinforce a calm, competence-oriented governing narrative.

State Senator Grant Hauschild: The Greater Minnesota Reset

Grant Hauschild may be one of the most strategically interesting names on the board. The northeastern Minnesota senator represents a region Democrats have steadily lost ground in over the last decade: the Iron Range and broader Greater Minnesota. Though notably, it would also remove an incumbent from the Senate District 3 race, opening up what is likely Democrats’ most vulnerable Senate seat up for election this fall.

A Klobuchar-Hauschild ticket would send a direct signal that the DFL recognizes its rural erosion problem and intends to compete aggressively for working-class voters again.

The upsides of a Hauschild selection include:

• Strong geographic balance

• Younger generational profile

• Labor and mining-region credibility

• Ability to speak authentically to regional economic concerns

• Reinforcing affordability-focused messaging around jobs and infrastructure

Hauschild could help frame the DFL as a party reconnecting with working-class regional communities.

Minnesota Agriculture Commissioner Thom Petersen: The Farmer-Labor Throwback

Thom Petersen may not generate the loudest headlines, but he may fit the broadest strategic need. The agriculture commissioner brings exactly the kind of rural credibility Democrats nationally have struggled to maintain.

Petersen’s strengths include:

• Strong relationships across Greater Minnesota

• Agricultural and labor credibility

• A reputation for being pragmatic and non-ideological

• Extensive governing experience

• Reinforcing traditional Farmer-Labor political identity

Petersen could help reconnect the DFL to its historic Farmer-Labor roots while reinforcing kitchen-table economic messaging.

Brooklyn Park Mayor Hollies Winston: The Next Generation Coalition Builder

Brooklyn Park Mayor Hollies Winston may represent one of the clearest examples of where the Minnesota DFL coalition is heading politically, geographically, and demographically.

As mayor of one of the state’s largest and most diverse suburban communities, Winston embodies the changing suburban electorate that has become increasingly central to statewide Democratic victories. Strategically, Winston could help Klobuchar position the DFL as a party focused not simply on maintaining its current coalition, but expanding it into the next political generation.

Winston’s strengths include:

• Appeal in younger and increasingly diverse suburban communities

• Executive governing experience

• Strong coalition-building profile

• Generational contrast on the ticket

• Ability to connect with emerging suburban voting blocs

At a moment when suburban turnout and demographic change continue reshaping statewide elections, Winston could symbolize the forward-looking direction of the party.

Additional Options for Consideration

Beyond the individuals mentioned above, there are several other potential candidates Klobuchar may opt to tap for the lieutenant governor role including:

• Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey

• IRRRB Commissioner Ida Rukavina

• Bloomington Mayor Tim Busse

• Former St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter

• Former St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman

Bottom Line

The looming lieutenant governor decision is not simply about who best complements Klobuchar politically — it is also about who helps define the post-Walz identity of the Minnesota DFL.

Does the party double down on suburban pragmatism?
Does it attempt to rebuild its working-class rural roots?
Does it lean into generational change and demographic evolution?
Or does it focus squarely on restoring trust in government competence and accountability?

Each potential running mate represents a different answer to those questions.

And ultimately, whichever direction Klobuchar chooses may reveal just as much about the future of the Minnesota DFL as it does about the 2026 election itself.

BNB Note:

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from State Senator Grant Hauschild (SD03). Senator Hauschild currently represents the largest and most rural legislative district still held by a Democrat in Minnesota.

For years, Democrats have been asking the same question: how do we win back rural America?

As someone who represents the largest and most rural legislative district still held by a Democrat in Minnesota, I think the answer is actually pretty simple.

Show up. Deliver results. Respect people. Fight for the jobs that sustain communities. Stay out of the extremes and nonsense we see in our national politics. And stop talking like consultants instead of human beings.

I represent a district that stretches across the Iron Range, the North Shore, and working class in communities along the Canadian border. These are communities built around mining, manufacturing, forestry, shipping, construction, healthcare, and small businesses. People here care less about ideological fights online and more about whether their local hospital stays open, their property taxes keep rising, or their kids can find a job to stay in their town.

Too often, Democrats have become disconnected from those everyday concerns.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump and Republicans have mastered the art of making rural voters feel seen and respected, while often advancing policies that hurt the very communities they claim to champion.

The clearest example is Trump’s so called “Big Beautiful Bill.” Behind the branding is a direct attack on rural communities. Cuts and instability in federal healthcare funding threaten rural hospitals that are already hanging on by a thread. Rural ambulance services across the country are struggling to survive. Food shelf demand has skyrocketed while SNAP benefits are slashed. Small towns are being asked to do more with less while Washington walks away from its responsibilities.

And the same cuts to ‘fly-over’ communities like mine sent enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest in coastal cities across the country. This is not what Trump sold rural America.

In Minnesota, we decided we were not going to sit back and simply complain about it. We stepped up.

This year, over the past few years, we secured major rural hospital stabilization funding to help keep healthcare alive in Greater Minnesota. We expanded support for rural ambulance services facing severe crisis. After the federal government pulled Coast Guard resources off the North Shore, we worked to support a new regional water emergency response effort because rural public safety matters too.

That is what effective government looks like. Not performative outrage. Actual governing.

Democrats also need to understand something rural voters have been telling us for years: supporting labor means supporting the industries that provide labor jobs in the first place.

You cannot claim to stand with workers while being indifferent to whether their industries survive.

In Northern Minnesota, that means supporting mining, manufacturing, forestry and paper mills, energy, aviation, shipping, and emerging industries like helium development. These are not abstract economic sectors to us. These are paychecks, pensions, healthcare benefits, and family supporting jobs.

Working people want leaders who believe America should build things again.

That does not mean abandoning environmental protections. I believe strongly that Democrats should lead on conservation and responsible environmental stewardship. But voters know the difference between protecting the environment and endless bureaucratic paralysis.

I have worked on permitting reforms to cut red tape, modernize outdated systems, and make government work more efficiently without dismantling environmental standards. Most voters are practical people. They want projects reviewed responsibly, but they also want government to function.

That same principle applies politically.

Most Americans are not living on the far left or far right. They are somewhere in the middle, looking for leaders who will solve problems and make life more affordable.

Democrats should stop trying to win every online political argument and start focusing again on kitchen table issues: healthcare, housing, wages, infrastructure, energy costs, and whether communities have a future.

We also need to stop pretending to be something we are not. Rural voters can spot political authenticity from a mile away. If you don’t own a Carhartt, don’t put one on just to go meet with rural voters. If you support unions and mining at the same time, stand by it. If you believe government should work better and smarter, say it clearly.

People respect conviction, even when they disagree with you.

In Minnesota, we have shown this approach can work. We passed property tax relief for working families and seniors. We stabilized rural healthcare systems. We invested in infrastructure projects that matter to local communities. We strengthened labor protections and passed historic pension and benefits for those same workers.

And despite representing a district Donald Trump carried, I’m able to win because voters know exactly what I fight for.

The path back to winning rural America is not through pretending to be Republicans. It is through becoming better Democrats. Democrats who respect work, believe in building things, support labor and industry together, and focus on delivering results instead of chasing ideological purity tests.

That is how we rebuild trust. That is how we win again.

The Minnesota Legislature wrapped its 2026 session the way modern legislatures often do: a mix of policy victories, unfinished business, procedural chaos, and both parties claiming they fought hardest for working families. But beneath the political spin, one thing is clear: the legislative session offered Democrats a roadmap for how to campaign this fall.

For DFL candidates, the challenge is no longer simply opposing Donald Trump or warning about extremism. Voters—especially working-class and swing voters—want proof that elected officials are focused on the cost of living, health care access, housing costs, childcare, infrastructure, and whether rural communities are being left behind.

The good news for Democrats is that this session produced several accomplishments they can point to directly. The harder reality is that some of the most politically potent fights—particularly around rural hospitals and health care funding—ended unfinished.

Affordability as the Main Organizing Theme

The defining characteristic of this session was not ideological grandstanding. It was affordability politics.

From transportation investments to housing measures, infrastructure spending, utility relief efforts, workforce initiatives, and targeted tax provisions, lawmakers spent much of the session debating how government can reduce pressure on household budgets. That reflects a broader political reality facing both parties nationally: inflation may have cooled statistically, but voters still feel squeezed financially.

Gas costs more. Groceries cost more. Insurance costs more. Housing costs more. Childcare costs more. Health care costs more.

The elected officials and candidates that will perform the strongest at the ballot box this November will be those who understand and respond to the reality that voters are grading politicians less on ideological labels and more on whether they appear focused on practical cost-of-living concerns.

What Legislation Passed: Tangible Accomplishments for Democrats to Run On

DFL candidates heading into November can credibly argue they delivered meaningful investments aimed at easing economic pressure on working families.

Infrastructure and bonding investments

Legislators advanced major infrastructure and public works investments, including a $1.2 billion bonding bill, designed to modernize roads, bridges, water systems, and public facilities.

That matters politically for two reasons.

1. These projects create good-paying union construction jobs for working families across the state.

2. Infrastructure spending tends to have tangible visibility. Voters may not remember bill numbers, but they remember road projects, sewer upgrades, flood mitigation investments, and community facilities improvements in their towns.

Democrats should not underestimate the political value of physically visible governance.

Housing affordability measures

Housing support also remained central to legislative discussions.

While Minnesota’s housing challenges differ from coastal states, affordability pressures continue to hit both metro and greater Minnesota communities. Legislators advanced policies focused on expanding housing supply, supporting local development tools, and easing barriers to construction.

DFL candidates can frame these efforts not as abstract planning debates, but as direct responses to rising rent and mortgage costs facing younger families and first-time homebuyers.

Workforce and family-focused investments

Lawmakers also continued emphasizing workforce participation, childcare access, labor protections, and targeted economic support. These issues increasingly form the backbone of modern Democratic messaging in Minnesota: less culture war rhetoric, more “can your family afford life?”

That messaging framework is politically stronger for Democrats than purely nationalized anti-Trump messaging alone.

What didn’t Pass May Matter Just as Much

The biggest unfinished issue looming over the session may have been support for struggling rural hospitals and health systems. Hospitals across greater Minnesota continue to face severe financial strain driven by workforce shortages, reimbursement challenges, inflation, and declining margins.

While many rural providers argue they are operating in survival mode, lawmakers failed to fully deliver the scale of relief many hospitals sought - despite bipartisan recognition of the problem.

Republicans will argue the DFL failed rural Minnesota but Democrats must energetically pushback against this falsehood with their own compelling counterargument: it was the DFL that fought to protect rural health systems while Republicans resisted measures that would strengthen hospital financial systems and their revenue options needed to stabilize care delivery.

That distinction matters because rural hospital closures are not abstract policy fights. They affect ambulance response times, maternity care access, nursing home capacity, and whether small towns remain economically viable. In short, a hospital closure can devastate an entire regional economy.

The Political Lesson: Voters Reward Proximity to their Struggles

One of the clearest takeaways from this session is that Democrats perform best politically when they sound culturally grounded and economically focused.

Minnesota voters—particularly blue-collar workers and those living outside the urban core—do not necessarily expect the government to solve every problem overnight. But they do want elected officials who appear to understand their daily pressures.

Accordingly, DFL candidates this fall should emphasize:

• Lowering household costs

• Protecting local hospitals

• Expanding housing access

• Supporting infrastructure jobs

• Reducing childcare burdens

• Protecting rural communities from economic decline

Importantly, Democrats should also talk about fights they lost on gun safety measures, responding to Operation Metro Surge, and supporting rural hospital systems.

There is political value in demonstrating who candidates fought for even when legislation stalled. A candidate saying, “We fought to keep your hospital open, but Republicans blocked the funding package,” is often more compelling than reciting procedural accomplishments voters barely remember.

Republicans Still Have Openings

None of this means Democrats enter November without vulnerabilities.

Republicans will continue hammering concerns around fraud, taxes, government spending, public safety frustrations, and perceptions that Democrats remain too focused on metropolitan priorities. The rural hospital issue in particular could become politically dangerous if Democrats fail to communicate aggressively about the work they attempted to do.

The DFL’s challenge is making sure voters see a coherent affordability agenda rather than a collection of disconnected bills

Bottom Line

Minnesota’s legislative session ultimately reinforced a simple political truth: voters care less about ideological branding than whether politicians appear focused on making life more affordable and stable.

The session gave Democrats tangible accomplishments to campaign on. But it also reminded them that unfinished fights can carry just as much political weight as passed legislation.

Heading into November, the winning candidates likely will not be the ones shouting loudest about national politics. They will be the ones most effectively connecting legislative fights to kitchen-table realities.

Because in the end, voters may forget the procedural drama of session adjournment—but they remember who seemed to be fighting for them when costs kept rising.

BNB Note:

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Trina Swanson, the DFL-endorsed candidate running to represent Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

For the last eight months, I have spent more time listening to people across Minnesota’s Eighth Congressional District than talking at them. Too often in politics, candidates arrive with rehearsed speeches and shallow talking points, shake a few hands, and move on. I am running a different kind of campaign focused on understanding what people are worried about, what pressures they are under, and where they feel government has left them behind.

What I have heard has been remarkably consistent regardless of where people live or how they vote. The promise of a stable life is slipping out of reach. Groceries, healthcare, housing, childcare, energy, and education all cost more, and wages are not keeping up. Families are working harder while their standard of living declines. People are asking whether anyone in Washington understands what their lives are like right now.

I get it. I have no political connections, and I don’t come from money. I come from a family of union members. I was a member of the AFGE as a government employee. My father was a union carpenter and then worked at the paper mill. My mother was a member of the United Steelworkers for part of her career as a nurse of 42 years at Essentia-St. Mary’s. After suffering a stroke in 2018, she lost her job, and my parent’s health insurance, when she could not return to work quickly enough. My mom had planned to work until they both qualified for Medicare at 65. That plan collapsed overnight. Earlier this year, she needed open-heart surgery again, and one of the recommended drugs while she was awaiting surgery was $600 a month. These are not abstract statistics. This is my family, and probably many of yours too. Families are making daily decisions about whether they can replace a vehicle, save for retirement, help their children through school, or even afford gas and groceries. They want leaders who understand the realities of their lives and are willing to fight for policies that materially improve them.

In 2021, Congressional Democrats passed major investments in infrastructure and domestic manufacturing despite opposition from the vast majority of congressional Republicans, including Pete Stauber. These investments were meant to be a down

payment on reversing decades of industrial decline across the Midwest. Now some of that funding is reaching communities like ours. Federal funding is helping replace the aging Blatnik Bridge, a project the Twin Ports has needed for years. Pete Stauber voted against the funding, but he now campaigns as though he supported it.

Republicans like Stauber and Trump have tried to sell massive tariffs as a cure for American manufacturing, but the evidence tells a different story. After Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs, American manufacturing lost roughly 100,000 jobs, not to mention billions of dollars worth of lost markets for America’s farmers. American

workers don’t need the false protection of blanket tariffs, they need major investments in infrastructure and modern industry.

The Iron Range is home to some of the best iron ore in the world. Modern electric arc furnaces (EAFs) now make it most logical to manufacture steel close to where the ore is mined, because mass quantities of coal are no longer required. Yet the corporations funding Stauber’s campaign are investing billions of dollars in EAFs at mills in Arkansas instead of Minnesota to avoid union labor. Remember that next time you see Stauber taking credit for union jobs.

Republicans in Congress are still rescinding funding, delaying projects, and undermining long-term investments that communities across the Midwest were counting on while continuing to push tax policies tilted toward the wealthiest Americans and large corporations. Rural hospitals continue to struggle, infrastructure deteriorates, and Americans are paying the price.

Much of our political discourse has drifted toward spectacle instead of governance. Endless outrage cycles and media performances generate attention, but they do not lower grocery prices, reduce healthcare costs, expand childcare access, or help someone afford a first home. Voters across CD8 are exhausted by politics disconnected from practical problem-solving.

I spent my career in public service managing complex operations and solving problems requiring cooperation among people with different backgrounds. Public service is not about ideological purity tests or personal branding. It is about competence, accountability, and delivering results.

The people of CD8 are perceptive. They know when politicians are reciting talking points instead of speaking from knowledge. They can tell Stauber is just performing for the media when he goes to ribbon cuttings for infrastructure projects he voted against, instead of working for them. And they know their lives have become harder while too many leaders in Washington use the perks of office to insulate themselves from the consequences of the policies they support.

Instead of supporting cutting taxes for corporations and the richest Americans, I will fight for strong unions and apprenticeship programs. I will work to protect Social Security and Medicare, and support investments in infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, clean energy, and the industries that have sustained this district for generations. I will fight for universal healthcare, advocating to make healthcare affordable for all families while we undertake that fight. We can create good jobs in mining, manufacturing, and tourism, while protecting a Boundary Waters our kids and grandkids can still fish and canoe through.

I believe Washington can and must do better. I believe the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party must renew its relationship with farmers and labor across Minnesota, build an economy that rewards work, and send leaders to Washington who view public office as an act of service rather than a vehicle to push corporate profit and self-enrichment.

If you agree, please go to trinaforcongress.com and join my team.

BNB Note:

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Luke Gulbranson, a DFL candidate running to represent Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Growing up, life wasn’t easy. At times, we relied on government programs just to get by. Things changed when my dad finally landed a good-paying union job. That job gave us stability. It gave us dignity. It gave us a future.

That experience shaped how I see politics. It’s why I’m a DFLer today.

Democrats believe nobody should be left behind. They believe working families deserve a fair shot. I needed help as a kid, and my community had my back. That matters to me. It always will.

Hockey became my escape growing up. I was two years old when my mom first laced me up in a set of skates, and I’ve been on the ice ever since. Hockey taught me discipline, resilience, and teamwork. It taught me early on that nobody wins alone. You fight for the people beside you, and when somebody goes down, you get them back up.

I don’t see those values, or that fight, in Washington D.C. today

Too many people across Minnesota are working harder than ever and still falling behind. Families can’t afford child care, housing, and health care. Even groceries and gas. Rural hospitals are stretched thin. Young people are leaving small towns because they don’t see a future there. Meanwhile, the people at the very top keep getting richer, unaffected by the policies that hit places like Eveleth so hard.

We’ve spent billions on another war in the Middle East while politicians talk about further cuts to health care programs that families like mine depend on. Good union jobs continue disappearing overseas so big, multinational corporations can boost profits and reward shareholders. The 8th District, not that long ago, had a member of congress who got it. He’d say “the rich are getting richer; the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is getting squeezed.”

When Congressman Pete Stauber first ran for office, he promised to be “an independent voice for the 8th District” He said he’d protect the middle class, defend Social Security and Medicare, and stand up to his party if it meant standing by the people of his district. But those promises have not matched reality.

Costs keep rising for ordinary families while billionaires receive tax breaks they never needed in the first place. Pete supported that. He voted to cut over 800 billion dollars to Medicare, putting a squeeze on rural hospitals. He voted against the landmark, bipartisan infrastructure bill–and then took credit for the projects in his district! Politicians in Washington talk constantly about fighting for “real Americans,” yet too many of them seem far more interested in serving lobbyists, corporate donors, and the partisan machine than the people they were elected to represent.

I got sick of complaining. I needed to do something.

I believe nobody working a full-time job should struggle just to survive. If you work hard, you should be able to afford your bills, take care of your family, get decent health insurance, and retire with dignity. That should not be a radical idea in the richest country on earth.

I believe the wealthiest Americans should pay what they owe, not use an army of accountants, lawyers, and loopholes to pass the bill onto working families. I believe members of Congress shouldn’t go to Washington to get rich through their stock portfolios–and they shouldn’t enrich their friends through fraud and cronyism. I believe immigration enforcement should be built on accountability and humanity, not fear and intimidation. And I believe America needs to stop pouring endless resources into overseas conflicts while the communities in our district are desperate for investment.

Some people are going to say someone like me has no business running for Congress because I spent time on reality television.

Here’s my response: reality TV was a job. It paid the bills. Like the people I grew up with, I have to work to earn a living, and I’m not ashamed of it.

But there’s a difference between TV drama and the chaos we see in Congress every day. One is entertainment. The other affects whether families can afford groceries, whether seniors can access health care, and whether communities survive economically.

The drama in Washington has real consequences.

And from where I sit, neither Donald Trump nor Pete Stauber is doing much to make life easier for working people in northern Minnesota.

That’s why this campaign is about more than one candidate. It’s about whether Democrats like us are willing to fight for voters we’ve lost over the last decade, and reconnect with communities that increasingly feel abandoned by politics altogether.

Winning this congressional seat will require more than energizing the people who already agree with us. It means earning trust back from people who once supported Democrats because they believed Democrats fought for them. People like my friends, neighbors, and people I skate with at the local rink.

That’s also why I believe competitive primaries are healthy. Minnesota Democrats have seen strong leaders emerge from contested races in the past. Competition forces candidates to sharpen their ideas, organize at the grassroots level, and engage with the tens of thousands of Democratic primary voters instead of solely relying on a small group of the most dedicated insiders.

Democrats shouldn’t fear letting voters decide who is the strongest candidate.

The goal here should not be protecting political turf or advancing individual ambitions. The goal must be building the strongest possible coalition to defeat Pete Stauber and once again deliver real representation for Minnesotans in the 8th District

At the end of the day, this campaign is about restoring the basic idea that government should work for ordinary people again. Not corporations. Not billionaire donors. Not political insiders or extremists.

Working people.

That’s the team I’ve always been on.

At the end of April, the Minnesota’s Senate voted 56-10 to ban prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket — federally regulated platforms overwhelmingly used by the young, male, digitally-engaged voters Democrats bled in 2024 and will need heading into 2026 and 2028. The bill is on the verge of heading to Governor Walz’s desk — and Amy Klobuchar, running to replace him in an election year, may have to answer for it.

Prediction Markets and the Gen Z Political Challenge

• 93% of prediction market users are under 50, with the largest cohort aged 30–39; Gen Z and Millennials are aware of Kalshi and Polymarket at nearly 4x the rate of older Americans

• Core prediction market users have been profiled as “young, mostly male, and very online” — precisely the demographic that swung sharply toward Trump in 2024, with men under 50 backing Trump by larger margins than any previous election

• Over a third of voters already use prediction markets — checking forecasts or trading — and young people drove a 340% surge in new account registrations in the months around the 2024 election

• Republican leaders in the House tried to block the ban from reaching a floor vote — aligning the GOP with young, tech-forward voters

The Irony that Writes Itself

• DFL Sen. Matt Klein — a co-author of the ban and candidate for Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District — was caught betting on himself on Kalshi, fined $539.85, and suspended for five years, then voted to push the ban across the finish line days later

• The bill’s lead author, Sen. John Marty (DFL-Roseville), called Kalshi “illegal” — despite the platforms holding full federal regulatory approval from the CFTC

• Klein also authored Minnesota’s sports wagering bill in 2025 — with the explicit backing of all eleven tribal nations. He is simultaneously the author of the tribal-friendly sports betting deal and the co-author of the ban on the tribes’ main competition

Impact on Governor’s Race and Senator Klobuchar

• Senator Amy Klobuchar is running to be Minnesota’s next governor — she doesn’t get to sign or veto the bill, but she absolutely gets asked where she stands on it

• If she supports the ban, she’s defending a special interest giveaway that alienates the young voters her campaign needs most. If she opposes it, she’s breaking with her own party and tribal gaming voices.

• Her path to the governorship runs directly through the young, digitally-engaged voters who moved away from Democrats in 2024 — and the DFL may have just handed Republicans a “nanny state” attack line tailor-made for that audience

Bottom Line

In trying to regulate a niche but rapidly growing market, the DFL may be unintentionally sending a message to a key, already-drifting constituency—young, digitally engaged voters—that their interests and behaviors are out of step with the party’s governing instincts. The contradiction is stark: embracing sports betting while banning its closest digital cousin, all while dismissing federally regulated platforms as “illegal.”

For DFLers on the ballot this November, this isn’t just a policy debate—it’s a messaging liability. It may hand Republicans a clean resonant critique (“nanny state overreach”) while forcing Democrats into an awkward defensive posture with voters they can least afford to lose again. If 2024 exposed a generational and gender gap, this move risks widening it.

In short, the policy upside is marginal—but the political downside is asymmetric and immediate. The question isn’t whether this issue alone decides races—it won’t. The question is whether it becomes one more data point in a broader narrative that Democrats don’t “get” the next generation of voters.

Governor Tim Walz used his final State of the State to do more than recap seven years in office—he made a closing argument about what government should prioritize: lowering the cost of living for working families.

Delivered in a year marked by tragedy, economic anxiety, international conflict, and political volatility, the speech leaned heavily into “kitchen table” economics. Walz framed Minnesota’s progress not through abstract metrics, but through whether families can afford child care, housing, groceries, and health care.

The subtext was clear: in a political environment dominated by national noise, Democrats win when they stay grounded in everyday economic realities.

Wins for Working Families

Walz’s speech outlined a dense portfolio of affordability-focused policy wins:

• Child Tax Credit cutting child poverty by up to one-third

• Universal free school meals, saving families ~$1,000 per student annually

• Tax relief across budgets, including rebates up to $1,300

• Social Security tax exemptions for most seniors

• $1 billion housing investment to expand supply and affordability

• Medical debt reforms protecting credit and access to care

• Prescription drug cost reductions, including insulin

• Paid family and medical leave, with 54,000+ approvals already

• Worker protections (non-compete bans, safety regulations)

The through-line: these policies don’t just grow the economy—they reduce financial pressure on households.

Walz consistently framed these wins as “breathing room” for families, a phrase that should not be overlooked. It’s a messaging framework that translates policy into lived experience.

The Work that Remains

Walz also acknowledged that there was still more work to do to address the cost of living pressures facing working families, noting that “we’re not done. Not by a long shot.”

Walz pointed to several areas of unfinished business and proposed policy reforms including:

• Child care affordability - Proposed expansion of dependent care tax credits

• Statewide sales tax reduction - Walz said this would be the first such cut in Minnesota history and provide direct cost relief at checkout

• Housing gaps - Continued investment in supply and first-time buyers

• Public safety investments, including gun violence prevention

• Fraud prevention reforms to protect program integrity

But the most forward-looking—and politically important—section focused on artificial intelligence and labor disruption.

Walz warned against the impact of emerging artificial intelligence on workers and allowing Big Tech to dictate outcomes for working communities. His proposals:

• A social media tax on large tech firms

• A Governor’s Council on the AI economy

• Expanded workforce development for displaced workers

This is a notable shift: Democrats often discuss innovation in terms of growth. Walz reframed it in terms of worker protection and economic security - DFL candidates should do the same.

Takeaways for DFL candidates this November

Walz’s speech can serve as a campaign blueprint for DFL candidates on the ballot this November.

1. Lead with affordability, not ideology
   Voters are less interested in partisan framing and more focused on cost pressures. Candidates should anchor messaging in:

• Child care costs

• Housing affordability

• Health care and prescription prices

• Tax relief tied to working families

2. Get ahead of AI anxiety.

The next economic debate isn’t just inflation—it’s displacement. Candidates should be prepared to articulate a plan for worker protections, job retraining, and revenue from tech companies displacing workers in the emerging age of artificial intelligence.

3. Address fraud without undermining programs.

Walz aimed to present his administration as proactive in addressing the fraud scandals that have plagued Minnesota social service programs in recent years by highlighting enforcement actions and his anti-fraud package proposals. The question of fraud - how it happened and what is being done to make sure it doesn’t happen again - will inevitably (and rightfully) be at the top of many voters’ minds.

DFL candidates would be wise to mirror Walz’s latest efforts and messaging around fraud by acknowledging fraud concerns and proposing aggressive enforcement/oversight reforms while also defending the importance of these programs to working families.

The message is simple: Fraud is unacceptable - and when it occurs, it hurts the working families who need it most. The answer is in creating better oversight and enforcement, not eliminating these crucial programs that working families rely on.

Bottom Line

Walz’s final State of the State wasn’t nostalgic—it was directional.

His legacy is not just a list of policy wins, but a political and governing philosophy: Make life more affordable, measure success in household terms, and prepare workers—not just markets—for the future.

For DFL candidates, the takeaway is straightforward:

Stay focused on what voters feel every day—what they pay at the grocery store, in rent, in child care—and connect every policy back to that reality.

Because in 2026, the candidates who win won’t be the ones with the most ideological clarity—they’ll be the ones who most clearly answer a simple question: Are you making my life more affordable?

The fight over congressional and legislative maps has quietly become one of the most consequential political battles in the United States.

Following the last census, both parties have engaged in aggressive redistricting efforts—Republicans in states like Texas and Florida, Democrats in places like Illinois and New York—each seeking structural advantages that can last a decade.

The result: a political environment where control of the U.S. House of Representatives can hinge less on voter sentiment and more on how district lines are drawn.

The latest chapter isn’t just about maps—it’s about narrative. And Democrats have an opportunity to seize the high ground.

What is Gerrymandering — and Why it Matters

Gerrymandering refers to the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one party over another.

It works through two main tactics:

• Packing: concentrating opposition voters into a few districts

• Cracking: spreading them thinly across many districts

The outcome is predictable: fewer competitive elections, increased political polarization, and reduced accountability for elected officials. Most importantly, gerrymandering cuts directly against a core democratic principle: voters choose their representatives—representatives shouldn’t be choosing their voters.

The founding fathers anticipated the threat of this exact dynamic. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned that unchecked factions would inevitably manipulate systems of representation for their own gain and cautioned against systems that allow entrenched interests to distort representation.

How We Got Here - The Gerrymandering Battles

Gerrymandering is not new. The term dates back to 1812 under Elbridge Gerry.

But the modern gerrymandering escalation began post-2010, when advances in data analytics allowed mapmakers to predict voting behavior with near precision. Following the 2010 census, Republicans—through a coordinated effort known as REDMAP—captured state legislatures and used that control to draw highly favorable maps.

Democrats, caught flat-footed, spent much of the decade reacting.

For decades, the United States Supreme Court wrestled with whether partisan gerrymandering claims were within the authority of the courts under the Constitution. A turning point came in a 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, where the Court held that partisan gerrymandering presents a “political question” beyond the reach of federal courts.

In practical terms, that decision removed federal judges as referees in disputes over how aggressively states can draw maps for partisan gain.

In the run-up to the 2026 midterms, several states have recently redrawn congressional and legislative maps in ways that tilt the playing field toward one party. Notable examples include Republican-led efforts in North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, alongside Democratic-led mapmaking in California and Virginia (as of Tuesday’s vote).

Virginia Redistricting Referendum - Short Term Win for Democrats

In response to Republican-led redistricting efforts in the aforementioned states, Virginia voters, on Tuesday, approved a redistricting referendum that temporarily gives the Virginia General Assembly the power to redraw congressional maps. The referendum explicitly allows Virginia to redraw maps mid-decade if other states do the same, while requiring a return to a bipartisan commission in 2030. Democrats supported the referendum while Republicans opposed it.

In practical terms, the referendum’s passage enables a new congressional map for the 2026 elections, which is expected to significantly favor Democrats—potentially shifting multiple seats.

While the redistricting referendum is a clear short-term win for Democrats that should be applauded, it is also ultimately just a band-aid solution rather than a long-term fix. The underlying incentives that drive the gerrymandering arms race remain largely unchanged.

Absent broader structural reform—whether through independent commissions, federal standards, or judicial intervention—states will continue to respond to one another in kind. In that sense, Virginia’s move reflects the current equilibrium: compete now, reform later.

Democrats’ Long-Term Strategy: From Tactic to Identity

Virginia showed that Democrats can compete in the current system that is the gerrymandering arms race. The next step is deciding whether they can define it.

If Democrats want to turn a short-term tactical win into a durable political advantage, they should make redistricting reform—not just redistricting itself—a central pillar of their political identity and messaging.

There’s both a principled and strategic case for doing so.

1. It is the right thing to do for democracy. Gerrymandering cuts directly against the foundational idea that voters should choose their representatives—not the other way around. Leaning into reform allows Democrats to credibly argue they are not just playing the game better, but trying to fix it altogether. That argument carries weight in a moment when public trust in institutions remains fragile.

2. It offers a clear path to rebuilding trust with independent, moderate, and disengaged voters. Many of these voters view both parties as overly focused on power and process manipulation. By championing independent redistricting commissions, transparency standards, and national guardrails, Democrats can differentiate themselves as the party willing to limit its own advantages in service of a more credible system.

3. It reframes the political battlefield. Instead of reacting to Republican maps state by state, Democrats can shift the debate from who wins the map war to whether the map war should exist at all. That is a stronger and more sustainable argument—one that moves the conversation from tactics to legitimacy.

Virginia’s redistricting referendum was a gutsy, worthwhile tactic in the current environment of the gerrymandering arms race. But if Democrats stop there, they risk reinforcing the very system they criticize (not to mention losing credibility amongst voters). The opportunity now is to compete in the short term while campaigning to change the rules in the long term.

Bottom Line

Democrats should be applauded for fighting fire with fire in the short term gerrymandering battles of the day and winning in Virginia this week. But their gerrymandering fight and strategy must continue to evolve from here.

If Democrats want to win not just elections but credibility, they need to go further: make redistricting reform central to their brand.

Because in a system shaped by maps, the party that stands for fair ones will ultimately have the stronger hand.

As the smoke clears from 4/20, BNB thought it especially appropriate to break down the state of marijuana policy in the United States generally and Minnesota specifically.

Marijuana policy is one of the rare issues where public opinion is broadly aligned—but policy is not. Most Americans support legalization in some form. Yet federal law remains largely unresponsive and unchanged.

While Washington debates and drags its feet, states have already decided and are putting policy into practice - recreational marijuana is legal in 24 states (roughly half the country) and medical marijuana is legal in 40 states; only a shrinking minority of states still fully prohibit cannabis.

As a result, the current state of U.S. cannabis policy has created a split-screen reality with federal illegality and regulatory ambiguity on one side and state-level normalization and commercialization on the other.

This dual system has produced federal-state policy tensions and real-world consequences wherein:

• Banking systems remain constrained (for example, cannabis businesses cannot utilize credit card services for consumer purchases)

• Interstate commerce is prohibited

• Federal taxation rules punish legal businesses

The U.S. has effectively created a patchwork system of cannabis policy, with state laws diverging sharply even as federal law remains static. In short, where you live determines whether marijuana is legal, tolerated, or prohibited.

Where Federal Policy Stands

Federal marijuana policy in 2026 is defined by contradiction. On paper, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), meaning it is still treated alongside substances deemed to have no accepted medical use. In practice, a multibillion-dollar legal cannabis economy operates openly across most of the country.

That tension reached a new inflection point in December 2025 when an executive order directed federal agencies to move marijuana to a Schedule III drug under the CSA, a classification that would acknowledge medical use and ease some restrictions. But still to this day, that change has not yet been finalized, leaving the system in limbo.

With respect to federal marijuana policy, and rescheduling in particular, the key dynamic is best described as movement without resolution.

• The Department of Health and Human Services has already concluded cannabis has medical value

• The Department of Justice proposed rescheduling in 2024

• The White House has ordered agencies to complete the process

Yet the DEA’s rulemaking process—complete with hearings, public comment, and likely litigation—means no immediate change has occurred on the ground. Rescheduling could remove punitive tax rules under IRS Code 280E, improve profitability for legal operators, and expand research opportunities.

The cannabis industry is now a multibillion-dollar market, with projections continuing upward. Even if rescheduling occurs, it would NOT legalize marijuana federally, allow interstate commerce, nor resolve existing federal-state conflicts.

The federal cannabis legislation that appears to have the most political traction remains the SAFE Banking Act—a narrower reform aimed at allowing cannabis businesses access to traditional banking services.

The SAFE Banking Act would:

• Allow banks and credit unions to work with state-legal cannabis businesses without federal penalties

• Reduce reliance on cash-heavy operations

• Improve transparency and public safety

Notably, the SAFE Banking Act has repeatedly passed the House with bipartisan support but has stalled in the Senate over disagreements about whether to pair it with broader criminal justice reforms.

Still, among all pending cannabis legislation, this remains the closest thing to consensus in Congress—suggesting that if any reform crosses the finish line in the near term, it’s likely to be incremental rather than sweeping.

Minnesota Policy - From Legalization to Implementation

Minnesota’s cannabis policy story in 2026 is less about legalization—and more about implementation.

After years of operating one of the more restrictive medical marijuana programs in the country, Minnesota legalized recreational cannabis in 2023, bringing it in line with a growing number of Midwestern states. Minnesota policymakers have approached cannabis legalization with a clear emphasis on balance—expanding access while maintaining regulatory control.

Since the state legalized recreational marijuana, the rollout has been deliberate and, at times, slow-moving. Regulators are still issuing licenses, local governments are navigating zoning questions, and the legal marketplace is only beginning to take shape.

The slow-moving rollout has real implications:

• Consumers still face limited legal purchasing options

• Entrepreneurs face uncertainty navigating the licensing process

• The illicit market continues to operate alongside the legal framework

The result is a policy environment where legalization exists in statute, but the full economic and regulatory ecosystem is still coming online.

For its part, the Minnesota legislature, in addition to overseeing implementation of recreational marijuana, is also considering further legislation to require greater transparency around cannabis product remediation and safety disclosures, signaling a growing focus on consumer protection.

Bottom Line

Marijuana policy in the U.S. is no longer stuck, it’s just not aligned. The U.S. has already made the political decision to legalize marijuana—just not all in one place, and not all at once.

Washington continues to debate around the margins, with rescheduling and banking reform the most likely near-term wins. Meanwhile, states like Minnesota are discovering that legalization is only the starting point—the real challenge is implementation and the harder work of building a functioning market is still underway.

The throughline is consistent across both: incremental progress without systemic resolution. The result: a system where policy has moved faster than infrastructure.

Until federal law catches up to state realities—and states fully operationalize legalization—the cannabis market will continue to operate in the space between what’s legal, what’s practical, and what’s possible.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Karen Frankenstein - Executive Director of Democrats Abroad, the official Democratic Party arm for the millions of Americans living outside the United States.

Most Americans understand that voting is a core responsibility of citizenship. Fewer realize that millions of Americans exercise that right from outside the United States, and that their ability to do so depends on systems now under increasing attack.

9 million Americans live outside the United States, and 6.5 million are eligible to vote. 1.3 million of them - about the population of Hennepin County in Minnesota - requested a ballot in 2024. Not a big deal, one might say, but overseas voters are overwhelmingly left-leaning - and we vote in every state. We pay taxes, follow policy debates, and experience - often in real-time - the consequences of U.S. decisions on the world stage. We are passionate about democracy. Our connection to the United States is not diminished by distance - and neither is our right to vote.

A recent executive order targeting voters across the country directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile nationwide lists of voting-age citizens and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to individuals on newly created federal eligibility lists. It also raises the specter of criminal penalties for election officials and postal workers handling ballots deemed “ineligible.” These actions represent a dramatic federal intrusion into a Constitutionally defined process that falls under state jurisdiction.

Under the Constitution, states, not the federal government, administer elections. For Americans living abroad, that means voting in the last state where we resided and following that state’s rules, deadlines, and procedures. A one-size-fits-all federal system violates the U.S. Constitution while disenfranchising eligible voters.

Why is the administration targeting these votes? The answer is simple: overseas votes matter. In close elections, they can be decisive. In 2020, for example, overseas ballots in Georgia outnumbered the margin of victory. Efforts to restrict or control these votes are not about efficiency—they are about influence.

The risks extend beyond overseas citizens. Military families, seniors, voters with disabilities, and working Americans all rely on absentee and mail-in voting. Undermining these systems threatens participation for millions.

In response, overseas voters are organizing, educating, and mobilizing. Through trusted tools like VoteFromAbroad.org, we are ensuring that Americans abroad know how to request ballots, meet deadlines, and return their votes securely.

But we cannot do it alone. Americans at home play a crucial role. Remind friends, family members, and colleagues living overseas that they should request their ballots each year; send them to votefromabroad.org for help. Outreach like this can make a big difference.

Voting is one of the few rights that travels with us wherever we go. Protecting that right for every eligible voter is essential to the integrity of U.S. democracy.