Improvements to the MN State Fairgrounds

  The State Fairgrounds are huge, and sit vacant most of the year. Yes, there are events at particular spots such as car shows and exhibitions. These things would also be enhanced by a few improvements to the Fairgrounds. 

 The MN State Fair made $11.6M in profit last year (2022). That's over and above operating expenses. Total revenue was $67.3M in 2022. 

 Many of the buildings, such as the barns, were WPA structures built in the 1930's. Others are cinder-block structures with an eye towards functionality, rather than aesthetics. Efforts to retrofit these buildings with modern amenities have been sporadic. While some new bathrooms have been built, the facilities in these older buildings are reminiscent of the 1930s. While it may be "interesting" to see antique toilets and sinks, it's not as interesting to tolerate their quaint charms. And if anyone has seen the overnight facilities in the barns, it would take them back in time to 1930s military standards. 

 A decade ago, showers were added for the exhibitors who dwell there for several days. It's a modern facility, but a bit small for the need. Still, it could have been even more half-assed than it actually was, so I suppose one should be optimistic. 

 Things like plumbing, fixture, and electrical upgrades should be a "no-brainer" for a multi-million-dollar venue that plans to be around for decades longer. Things like portable, temporary sinks at the barn entrances to wash your hands should be made permanent. Spend the money to add new drains and water lines. There's 11 months out of the year in which those barns aren't being used. Plenty of time to dig up the floor and lay new drains, and hang new pipes. There's also time to wire new outlets and electrical drops. 

 But this is all simple stuff that any competent facility managers could see blindfolded. 

 So, here is my bold vision to take the Minnesota State Fairgrounds into the 21st century and leave the 1930s behind. 

 Wi-fi/Fiber

 There is scattered wi-fi around the Fair, but it's for private use only. Having wi-fi available in common areas outdoors, such as around the Food Building, Ag/Hort, Machinery Hill, and the campground is relatively simple to accomplish. Fiber could, in fact, be laid around the entire Fairgrounds. Vendors wouldn't need copper phone lines to handle card transactions. While upgrades to routers would be an ongoing cost, the expense of laying fiber and adding ethernet would be a one-time cost. Once that was accomplished, adding a wi-fi access point inside buildings would be cheap. Adding an outdoor public access point would also be cheap. 

 Cellular data from carriers is overwhelmed at the Fairgrounds. It's a huge concentration of people, most of which have cell-phones. Blinding speed is not required; the ability to check emails, social media, and minimal web browsing is all that is needed. This could even be monetized by adding alerts for special deals. Those requiring higher speeds to upload pictures could rely on their cell networks -- which would now have less traffic. 

 For example, a wi-fi access point on top of the 4H building would cover Machinery Hill and the campground. Another on the Ag/Hort building would cover a lot of the common areas. A third access point on the Grandstand or Hippodrome would cover the rest. That's not a big expense to provide a basic amenity.

 There's also a case to made for an intranet. Maybe you want to tell your aunt where you are, or a nifty product you just came across, or set up a meet. You don't need a global network for that; a Fairgrounds-wide intranet would do nicely. 

 Just as aside, I'll mention that the Gopher Radio Club operates a GMRS repeater just outside the Fairgrounds at the St. Paul campus. Anyone with a repeater-capable GMRS radio can use it to talk to their group. It runs on the 462.650/467.650 pair. 

 Charging stations 

  The Fair operates several info kiosks across the Fairgrounds. They all have electricity -- usually for fans and night-time lighting. Fair-goers could leave their phones to be charged at these spots, and be given a ticket to ensure that the charged phone is returned to the proper person. In other cases, outdoor wiring could be put in place in common areas to allow those who bring their own chargers to top off or use otherwise-exhausted phone batteries to make calls to check emails. These could be shaded kiosks (much like gazebos) that would even have USB-C chargers in place, with only the ends easily accessible to prevent theft. With most phones moving to USB-C (including iPhones), this could be relatively "future-proof". Only an adapter would be required for those using other phones, and that could be carried in a pocket (or sold nearby). It's only the particular connector that matters; everything is 5 VDC. 

 This would be a big step forward for those who spend all day at the Fair. It's not the 1930s (or 1980s) any more. 

 Solar power 

 There's huge potential to add solar power to the Fairgrounds. Few buildings are shaded by trees. The Grandstand, Hippodrome, and Ag/Hort buildings alone -- not to mention the barns and 4H building -- are ideal places to add solar panels. These would generate power year-round, assuming snow could be cleared in a timely manner. Either way, spring, summer, and fall the solar panels would be making money. 

 Air conditioning

 Yeah, this is the biggest expense. Much of it is a one-time cost, however. Making the entrances to air-conditioned buildings double-doors and retro-fitting ducts would be a big cost.

Blowing the whistle

 I won't get in to debunking Dinesh D'Souza's new 'documentary' called "2000 Mules". Many other people have done good work on that. The movie is very sparse on facts, merely parroting another organization's claims and presenting them as absolute proof. That organization is "True The Vote", and the narrator of D'Souza's film is the head of "True The Vote". It is, for all intents and purposes, merely a rant by a highly partisan group that presents no proof -- only claims that it has proof. 

 TTV has made wild claims before, similarly insisting they had proof and then walking it back. The "proof" in these previous claims were merely speculation by partisans, not eyewitness statements or insider "whistleblowers" -- though TTV strongly implied they were airtight evidence right up until the point the 'evidence' was examined. One person noticed election workers buying lunch at a food truck outside the facility used for the election count. The food truck staff could have been passing the election workers fake ballots, therefore one Trump supporter who witnessed this was absolutely convinced this was, in fact, happening. She even signed an affidavit to that effect, and TTV screeched that they had "irrefutable proof". The extent of TTV's 'investigation' was to coach the woman when she wrote her affidavit. No one in TTV asked, "Did you actually see any ballots change hands?". Of course, the subsequent official investigation asked those questions, and the result was that the woman saw someone buying lunch. 

 There were several other cases like this in the 2020 GA election. In every case, TTV crowed that the official investigation was proof these claims were meritorious -- until the investigation was completed. Once the investigation was done, and everyone saw that TTV had a different definition of 'evidence' than the rest of the world did, the official investigation that supposedly would vindicate their claims was denounced as a sham. Over and over again, these die-hard Trump supporters who had lied about what they actually saw were portrayed as brave "whistleblowers" by TTV. The word "whistleblower" usually refers to someone inside an organization who takes a risk in exposing secret activities or facts that they were privy to. 

 In contrast, none of the "whistleblowers" that TTV produced to prove its claim that "millions" of fraudulent ballots were cast in Georgia were "insiders". Many of these affidavits sounded like a drunken rant from a barstool -- little more than "We know the Dems are cheating. If you don't believe it, then you must be an idiot!". Simply because someone signs an affidavit that doesn't magically transform their speculative rant into airtight, concrete fact. TTV made no effort to sort through this supposed evidence, either. It was all considered credible by them, because it supported their pre-conceived notions.

 Yet, most of the case presented by "2000 Mules" rests on an unknown "whistleblower", and we just have to accept the word of "True The Vote" that this source is credible. This source claims that people were paid $10 per ballot, told to drop these fake ballots into drop boxes, and take a picture of each ballot to prove it was done. Not surprisingly, this "whistleblower" wishes to remain unknown. We are left to assume that, unlike so many previous claims, this time TTV vetted their source. No real mention is made of this mysterious source having any hard evidence, either. Once again, the source just knows something happened and that's good enough for TTV. 

 Beyond that, TTV claims to have geotag data from cell phones 'proving' that people came within 100 feet of a drop box several times. D'Souza doesn't actually present this evidence, however. He instead accepts it as ironclad proof, as he has previously accepted (or tacitly nodded to) claims by Giuliani and Powell, for example. 

 When called on this, D'Souza falls on back on "You don't believe in geotagging data!", when none of this supposed data has ever been presented to the public. D'Souza claims that TTV has made "reports" to the authorities, merely implying that these reports included the geotagging data from phones. One must also wonder if this "data", assuming it even exists, is verifiable. Did it actually come from cell phone carriers, or was it just fabricated by people who already 'knew' what "the truth" was? 

 This is a fatal flaw in most of the Right's narratives: they assume they have complete credibility. Certainly, their partisan base will believe virtually anything if it supports their viewpoint. 

 I can recall a local example from the 2012 election. The local Fox affiliate ran a story about proof of voter fraud the day after the election. Yes, a brave "whistleblower" had exposed the fraud: a black congregation had rented a school bus and driven two dozen or more people around the city to vote multiple times, and he had the proof! 

 Of course, this brave whistleblower was really just a die-hard Republican who had made up his mind in advance that this was happening, and speculated the rest. Aside from multiple pictures of a school bus parked outside of one polling place (gasp!), he had video of black people coming out the school bus! 

 The deeper the Fox affiliate dug into the story, the more it smelled funny. Rather than trying to conceal the facts, the pastor and congregants were quite open. They had, in fact, rented the bus for one hour. It carried some congregants (mostly elderly) to one single polling place and returned them to the church. They produced the rental document, which showed the driver's name. 

 Aha! The driver! The investigative team had them now! This was built up as some kind of major scoop, which would be 'exposed'.

 The driver was, of course, completely open about the entire affair. They had driven from the church to the polling place and back. It took a while to round everyone up after voting, he said, because the congregants wanted to "socialize". Voting records showed that everyone who had voted was registered to vote in that polling place. 

 Then, after three days of this, we found out about the "whistleblower". It was assumed he was a congregant, but he was actually a fat-ass white guy who went to a completely different church nowhere near the black church in question. He had edited out his remarks to the elderly black congregants as they got off the bus: remarks about "welfare checks" and "mug shots". His video had removed his 'interview" with the pastor, who had explained what they were doing and who provided his name (and the church's) to his inquisitor. The "whistleblower" had strongly implied that the black people had been evasive and (his term) "shifty", but even the driver said everyone was reasonably polite to "the jerk who was hassling them". 

 In spite of the (white) driver being presented as an unimpeachable witness early on, the "whistleblower" changed his tune and called him "sketchy" because he wouldn't say how much he was being paid. The black pastor asked the white woman reporter how much she was paid in a follow-up interview. Naturally, she fell back on the "I'm the one asking the questions", and refused to answer. The black pastor then asked if she felt she was "sketchy" for refusing to state her salary. The interviewer spun this as the pastor being "combative", implying that has was being less than honest to a poor defenseless white woman. Gosh, she barely escaped!

 At this point, it was obvious the Fox affiliate had been taken for a ride by a partisan jackass. Yet, they still demanded a "deeper investigation" by the police into this case. On what basis, you may ask:

• The "whistleblower" was a born-again Christian, implying this meant he wouldn't lie. His pastor defended his character, without discussing that his 'facts' had turned out to be complete speculation.
• Other churches, mosques, etc. had congregants from across the metro. It was apparently suspicious that this black congregation had two dozen people who went to the same polling place. The black pastor had already explained that these people were chosen for the bus ride precisely because they all went to the same polling place. But, yeah, that's suspicious.
• A retired bus driver said that a bus could take a group like that to three different polling places in an hour. Of course, there was no evidence at all that the driver did that, and the "whistleblower" admitted that he didn't actually follow the bus to any other polling places. He 'knew' that's what the plan was, though. 
• The Fox news team wouldn't have spent four days on this story if there wasn't some merit to it. There were vague allusions to "hidden facts" the team had turned up. Later, this turned out to be that the bus driver had told a reporter to "F off" and refused to answer questions regarding his religious beliefs, views on race, and education.

 Naturally, the completely neutral and objective "whistleblower" dismissed the Fox affiliate's investigation as a "total cover up" by "the liberal media" who ignored the 'evidence'. The "whistleblower" doubled down, and claimed that the bus driver was Jewish -- almost as if that was illegal -- and that he had made a big mistake in trusting him to tell the truth. 

 The point is this: by what stretch of the imagination could anyone credibly describe this hateful, partisan jackass (whose mind was made up before he had even thought about gathering 'evidence') -- as a "whistleblower"? 

 Again, there is no evidence -- not even a clear claim from D'Souza -- that TTV's "whistleblower" was part of the organization that paid people to put ballots into drop boxes. Instead, D'Souza dismisses any concerns about the identity of the "whistleblower". The person simply doesn't want to be involved in an official investigation, per D'Souza. They aren't asking for immunity or even providing solid evidence. This sounds a lot like D'Souza found someone willing to speculate about something other people were doing. In fact, if you read between the lines, it seems doubtful that D'Souza ever even met this "whistleblower". He seems to be relying entirely on TTV's assessment of the individual's credibility. 

 The ballots cast by drop boxes have been thoroughly examined. While it would be illegal for someone to drop off 10 ballots at 10 different drop boxes, there is no reason to believe that these ballots were fraudulent or cast by non-existent people. D'Souza doesn't even make that claim, specifically. As for the 'evidence' in the movie, D'Souza shows one person taking a picture of the drop box after he deposited the ballot. By the "whistleblower's" own standards, that would not be sufficient proof to earn the putative $10. Instead, D'Souza -- like an objective person would -- decides that the lack of surveillance cameras at other drop boxes proves that other people took pictures of themselves breaking the law. Like all conspiracy theories, the lack of evidence is the 'proof'. If D'Souza can show one person taking a picture of a drop box, that 'obviously" means that thousands did the same. This is much like the "whistleblower" in my local story using the picture of a school bus parked at one polling place to 'prove' that the bus visited multiple polling places. You just 'know' that's what they did. Now 'investigate' it. 

 Last, we are left to wonder how, if TTV has access to legitimate cell phone geotag data, they could not identify any of these individuals by anything other than their phone IDs. Are we left to assume that TTV found multiple "whistleblowers" at multiple cell phone companies to provide geotag data, yet these "whistleblowers" refused to make the final step to provide their names? 

 Imagine the police show up at your door and arrest you for armed robbery. At the indictment, the prosecutor says they have geotag data placing you at an ATM where someone was robbed. Of course, you aren't in any surveillance footage from the ATM -- which proves that you are really clever, rather than exonerating you. Can I see this geotag data that places you at the ATM at the specific time, the judge asks? Nah, just trust us. We're totally sure it's you. Some secret guy said so. Did the victim pick you out of a lineup? Nope, which proves that they are scared of you. But your employer says you were clocked in at work ten miles away at the time of the robbery. Well, of course they did. They are in on it. Some secret guy told us the whole story. Your boss gets a cut of your take. She denies it, of course, which just proves the whole thing is true because we already know that you're a criminal. And, Judge... we're pretty sure she's a lesbian. Maybe even Jewish. The secret guy has told us everything. You've got to indict, because otherwise you don't believe geotag data. 

 No judge would buy this.

 

It's a peacekeeping mission!

 So... after a solid month of combat, Russia still hasn't taken Kyiv. Even after Putin commanded back in early March that Kyiv be taken within 3 days, Russian troops have only entered the suburbs and been driven back when their supply lines were cut. Sure, Russia bombed and fired missiles at civilian targets within Kyiv. They shelled the suburbs of Kyiv relentlessly, causing the maximum damage to non-military targets. Russian battalions tried, but failed to encircle Kyiv and impose a Grozny-style siege on the capitol. They continue to pursue this strategy. 

 As unlikely as it probably sounds, Russia has now announced that the world misunderstood their advances. Day after day, Russia smiled as their paid trolls predicted an imminent collapse of Kyiv, and by extension, the entire Ukrainian military. Western media, of course, obliged Putin. Over and over again, the 'news' about the war was reduced to "explosions heard in Kyiv". Oh dear, people are trying to flee from the mighty Russian juggernaut! Week after week, the implied narrative was as inane as it was consistent: Kyiv is doomed, and we will bravely wring our hands as it is unfortunately crushed by the overwhelming might of the unstoppable Russian military. Again and again, we heard reports that Russia was "prioritizing" the occupation of Kyiv. There was, after all, a long convoy of vehicles north of the city, which 'proved' that doom was nigh. Never mind that these were almost entirely the equivalent of untrained National Guard troops tasked with the occupation of a city that would supposedly already be 'liberated' and 'pacified'. Never mind that this convoy was burning up scarce fuel simply to keep warm as they were stalled. Never mind that Ukrainian troops constantly used hit-and-run tactics to whittle away at this convoy's threat. Never mind that these troops were slowly figuring out that their pay was in worthless currency. 

 We were instructed to be frightened and to expect the worst. Many stuck to that script and wrung their hands endlessly and daily over the imminent collapse of Kyiv. And, as always,  that was conflated with the destruction of the Ukrainian military. 

 Remember when Hanoi was bombed into rubble every week and the Vietcong surrendered? Me neither. Remember when Soviet forces taking Kabul destroyed the Afghan resistance and ended all combat? Me neither. Remember when American troops took Baghdad and withdrew in victory? Me neither. 

 In modern warfare, a capital city isn't a huge prize. Sure, command and control over a regular military is often surrendered. But the regular military is just the first layer of opposition. In Ukraine, there are well-armed and well-organized Territorial forces that are perfectly capable of operating independently of a central command in Kyiv. Also, well-trained civilian militias exist that don't need commands from Kyiv as to whether they should attack a supply convoy or not. Or shoot collaborators. 

 Yet, all of this is for naught. Russia has now announced that everything previous was never designed to take Kyiv. You silly fools thought the Russian military was trying to destroy and occupy Kyiv. But that was never the goal. All of that hand-wringing and braying about the imminent fall of Kyiv was just stupid.  The Russian military never wanted that. 

 Instead, it was all about a peacekeeping mission in Donbas. 

That whole convoy, and the siege of Mariupol, was just a ploy to weaken the Ukrainian military so that it couldn't take action against Russian troops in Donbas. Hah-hah, you morons fell for it!

 Never mind that Donbas is still contested. Never mind that 10k Russian troops are encircled around Irpin. Never mind that Russian forces have relentlessly shelled Russian-speaking areas (including most civilian targets) of Donbas. Never mind that Russian armored battalions are still operating west of Kyiv, and only control the ground they are currently standing on. 

 Sadly, Russia will gladly throw all of those forces in the vicinity of Kyiv to the wolves. They were merely a distraction. Because they (now) only care about Donbas, in the east. Let the Ukrainian military waste precious time starving those Russian battalions into submission. Let them wipe out tank formation upon tank formation. Let them shell Russian positions and use drones at night to decimate their numbers. It's always been about Donbas, Putin now says. Where did you get the idea that it was about anything else? 

 Putin wants a 'victory' to brag about for the May 9 celebrations in Russia. But I expect a cruel April, as more and more military aid arrives from the West and Russian supply lines in the east come under attack. Russia still has to defend marginal gains in the south, while maintaining troops in other theaters like Syria and Georgia. The Russian naval forces in the Black Sea will be increasingly threatened. And even Russian-leaning civilians in Donbas will become disaffected by occupation measures. Once street fighting in Mariupol starts, the Russian artillery and air strikes won't be factor. They will be reluctant to bomb their own troops. 

 The simple reality is that Donbas and Luhansk aren't particularly attractive prizes. Russian troops will be needed to occupy it for years. Harsh measures will be employed. Russian-backed mercenaries will continue to wreak havoc. Nothing will be "peaceful". Arms and special forces will continue to pour into Ukraine. 

 Remember, Russia went in to this disaster with Donbas and Luhansk under nominal control of pro-Russian separatist forces. They would have basically gained nothing.

The financial war

 

 As the invasion of Ukraine started, there were a large number of pundits and experts who smugly noted that Russia had been hoarding a huge stockpile of money, and could do just fine with sanctions in place. 

 Just as we see with some military 'analysts', none of these people are overtly "pro-Russian". Many of them 'support' Ukraine. Instead, the tone is one of smug resignation, paraphrased as "Russia is very powerful, very wealthy, and very smart. Ukraine will put up a good fight, and the West will attempt to hurt Russia economically. But Russia will prevail. So sad".

 But that huge stockpile of assets just got a lot smaller. And, knowing the level of corruption in Russia, sensible people can wonder how large it really was to begin with. We've already seen that military intelligence was deathly afraid to tell Putin anything he didn't want to hear. Could it be that Siluanov (Finance Minister) also fudged some numbers? How much of this is simply accounting gimmickry? We don't really know, but it should soon become clear in the months ahead. 

 As far as Siluanov's plan to make debt payments in rubles, this is indirect proof that the 'very wealthy' Russia doesn't have the money it claims to possess. Any loan agreement of this type specifies that payment is to be made in the lender's own currency (or possibly U.S. dollars). Even 'friendly' countries are likely to balk at this suggestion. It is, quite simply, a lever to control these countries: remain "friendly" or suffer the financial consequences. Of course, within a month or two, being "friendly" will entail these countries accepting payment in rubles anyway. 

 Russia can, of course, print up all the million-ruble notes it needs to make these debt payments. That means hyper-inflation. But that was always inevitable. Realistically, that $300B of frozen assets will just be sold off to pay the debt. 

 That leaves Russia with a hypothetical $340B to keep its economy afloat. As the nominally pro-Russian pundits note, Russia has a big military. It's losing tanks and other equipment daily. It's firing rockets, missiles, and artillery shells that will need to be replaced. It's burning up and transporting vast amounts of fuel. Russia is paying, feeding, and sheltering large numbers of troops -- both domestic conscripts and foreign mercenaries. Estimates at the start of the invasion were that it cost Russia $250M a day to field its force. 

 If Russia is so rich and so powerful, why is it draining its allies in Belarus, Chechnya, and Syria? Because it can 'pay' these countries with its worthless currency. 

 

 Hmm. Russia is selling off its gold. I'll wager they aren't taking rubles for it, though. Weird thing to do when you allegedly have a huge stockpile of assets that allows you to cruise to victory and thumb your nose at sanctions. 

 

 Why aren't people jumping at the chance to buy this gold at fire sale prices? 

 

 Okay. All you need to do is drive an armored car full of hard currency across the Russian border, which will result in corrupt officials seizing it. Seriously, even if you did make it Moscow with your cash intact, who thinks that the Russian Central Bank won't just confiscate your hard currency anyway? What have they got to lose? You'd sit in prison for months and probably be held hostage for more hard currency. Maybe that's why nobody is stepping up to buy this gold. 

 The sad reality is that border guards, and their corrupt commanders, who haven't been paid for weeks in anything resembling real money, would undoubtedly see your armored car as their payday. A bullet would be unceremoniously put in your skull, and everyone would deny you were ever there. Countries that are 'very wealthy' don't do things like this. Countries that are desperate for money do, though. 

 Gee, this is a strange thing for a country that has a huge stockpile of money to do. Also strange for a country that has rule of law. Anyone that has stashed away some hard currency will see it confiscated. Why, if they are sitting on $340B in assets? Because they aren't sitting on those assets, that's why. 

 Of course, these are one-time actions designed to work only in the short-term. The very short-term, in fact. Once these ploys are used, they become useless. It also is indirect proof that Russia is seeing diminishing returns from putting the screws to their allies. Also, China must not be as financially supportive as we have been led to believe.

 

ALLIANCES: 

 We all know that China and Russia have formed an alliance. China wants Russian military power and diplomatic support for its invasion of Taiwan. But we've already seen that Russian military power has been greatly exaggerated, and that it will take a long time for Russia to replenish its stocks. They have a serious problem buying raw materials, and their munitions industry is almost completely geared toward producing guns and ammo for guns. China needs whatever black-market chips and raw materials it can scrounge for its own needs. A whole lot of the titanium that Russia produces will go to China -- presumably at a big discount.

 The Russian Navy is still a valuable asset. Its primary strength is in its submarine fleet, however. They can defend the Russian coastline adequately, but things like naval aviation have been allowed to deteriorate relative to the other services. And Russia has a lot of coastline to defend in both the Baltic and Black Sea. 

 Russia has long been the primary weapons supplier for the Indian military, but that looks likely to fade. Any arms sales to India will just mean less for their own forces. As a "friendly" country, Russia will continue to demand more and more from India, while offering less and less. While Pakistan is the primary adversary, China is increasingly becoming a problem in the north. The two countries nearly went to war several years ago, and China has been steadily building roads and railways almost up to the border of Nepal, Bhutan, and Assam. Nepal is already tacitly controlled by China. Bhutan has no military to speak of. China officially claims the whole of Arunachal Pradesh as part of "South Tibet", and further has claims around Kashmir. 

 Obviously, Russia is in no position to oppose China on these claims. China is in the position to bribe Pakistan with weapons and use it as a proxy to tie up Indian forces while easily moving into "South Tibet". Nepal would be eagerly gobbled up, with Maoist partisans welcoming their new overlords. Modi, the "Trump of India", would naturally cave to China if Russia tells him to. 

 It's possible that this could replace China's obsession with Taiwan in the short-term. India's position of setting itself up as a country "friendly" to Russia will win it no support in the West. Russia will essentially eat up Indian financial assets while hanging India out to dry. And this will not go unnoticed by other countries "friendly" to Russia. 

 Diplomatically, it's hard to see Russia as an asset on that front. Yes, Russia has a seat on the Security Council -- but so does China. Russia also has a depopulation problem. It has fewer young men to call up year after year. And they're in the process of squandering those numbers in Ukraine. They are also draining their allies of money and manpower, and cutting deals with Gulf monarchs that will be expensive over the long-term. Increasingly, Russia's role will be in sitting out conflicts -- while demanding a heavy price for their inaction. They need to conquer Ukraine to make this strategy credible. "Do you want us to make your country the next Ukraine?" will ring hollow if Ukraine prevails.

 There are also territorial conflicts between Russia and China in the East, and Russia will have to concede a lot to their Chinese 'ally'. Russia will have a dwindling number of proxies to use as time goes on, while China will have an increasing number of financially-dependent countries to drain for its purposes. And the ability to hire trained mercenaries that are already familiar with Russian tactics, capabilities, language, and weapons systems. 

 Regardless of how the invasion of Ukraine goes, Russia will find itself as a vassal state to China within five years. They have a huge area to defend, with many porous borders. Any perceived Russian weakness will induce challenges in Georgia, Tajikistan, and even Iran. Any conflict with NATO will only accelerate those challenges. 

 The wars of the future will not be fought over Russian territory, but over Russian economic might. Russia has already shown itself to be ill-equipped for such economic warfare. It seems far more likely that Russia will end up selling off its gas and oil at bargain prices -- just to gain precious hard currency needed to finance its crumbling military. Will the "friendly" Gulf states like that? Probably not.

 Last, but not least, our steadfast 'ally' Israel has chosen a path of neutrality in this conflict. This is an 'ally' that we give about $0.5M each day. They sat out Desert Shield. They sat out the invasion of Iraq. They shrugged for decades when asked to help out in Afghanistan. Now, Israel is concerned about 'provoking' Russia. This might cause problems on their borders. Unlike, I guess, Poland or Latvia or Lithuania. So, they launder Russian money instead. Sure, they could take out Russian positions in Syria. And, yes, that would weaken Russia's stature. But they can make a lot of money trading rubles for hard currency and supplying Russia with critical materials. So, gosh, this ally will have to sit this conflict out, too. 

Obviously...

 I will just point out a few obvious things about the invasion of Ukraine here. 

 Putin originally claimed that this was a "peacekeeping" mission in Luhansk and Donetsk, after declaring what are basically cities to be independent countries. Oddly, it's questionable if Russian forces are really even in control of those two areas at the moment. 

 Of course, it's also worth noting that a week before Putin made his "peacekeeping" claim, he stated that Russia would not invade Ukraine.

 Instead, Russian troops have leveled large areas of these newly-recognized 'independent countries' and killed a lot of civilians as part of their "peacekeeping" efforts. A shortage of food and fuel has also meant that these "peacekeeping troops" are looting and stealing supplies from civilians. 

 Everyone knew Putin's excuse for the invasion was a complete lie. As soon as the "peacekeeping mission" began, Russia began attacking from the north and south -- far from Donetsk and Luhansk. 

 As I've said previously, this was planned as three-day affair and supplied as such. Obviously, it stalled badly. Of course, Russian media is just today stating that Ukraine is "peaceful", with no fighting going on. This is so blatantly false that no one trusts Russian reports. Ukraine has totally won the information war, almost by default. Western media has relied completely on Ukrainian reports, but that hasn't stopped them from their typical "both-sides" habit. 

 Rather than state the obvious -- that Russia badly miscalculated and has already suffered more casualties than the U.S. did in Afghanistan -- the narrative is one of constant hand-wringing over the imminent demise of Kyiv, with the implied corollary that the fighting will stop if Kyiv is taken. 

 Of course, Putin decreed that Kyiv must be taken by Monday, regardless of the human cost. It's now Tuesday, and that hasn't happened. Instead, artillery is shelling Kyiv indiscriminately from a safe distance, while a massive convoy to the north is mysteriously stalled. This WW2 notion that taking a capital city signifies victory is patently absurd. Did the Afghan war end when alliance troops took Kabul? The idea that "command and control" can only operate out of a capital has been proven wrong in multiple conflicts. The U.S. bombed Hanoi into rubble several times. How did that work out? 

 But, yeah... if Kiev falls, it's all over, we're told. 

 Here's the obvious thing: Russian troops haven't entered the damn city yet. You really don't want to indiscriminately shell a city where your own troops are present. Tanks aren't particularly useful in situations like this, other than to provide mobile cover for troops. Ukrainian troops aren't drones fighting for a faceless dictator. They're fighting against an invader, and one that speaks their own language. This particular invader also uses unencrypted comms, and gives their troops expired rations. This particular invader pays those troops with currency that is now basically worthless. 

 Meanwhile, the narrative from the media is that shelling Kyiv means the end of Ukrainian independence. Ukraine fought bravely, we are told, but the Russian military is just too strong. Sure, they're bad and cruel and evil. But they're shelling Kyiv! 

 Combined with this defeatist mindset is the promise of aid that never really comes. In a few weeks, Javelins, drones, NLAWs, and non-lethal aid will arrive. Countries have made public promises of aid, but there's just so much red tape and logistical problems before it can arrive. You understand, right? If only Ukraine can hold out for another month (or two), then a fraction of what they need will arrive. 

 We should also be prepared for some unraveling of sanctions before long. Already, countries like Mexico have stated that they won't even participate in sanctions. Money laundering will soon become a big part of Mexico's economy, flooding Russia with precious hard currency from fake real estate developments and oil industry 'investments' that will simply end up in corrupt pockets on both sides. Soon, Europeans will see that they're missing out. And the rush will be on to avoid being the last to benefit by dropping sanctions. 

 There's a relatively brief moment here for the West to step up with real, material aid. Let's do that.

Pro-Russian propaganda in Ukraine

   I've been on Twitter a lot this weekend watching the Ukraine invasion. There are a number of pro-Russian accounts tweeting either blatant chest-thumping propaganda about the powerful Russian military, or dishonest hand-wringing about Ukraine is doomed and should just surrender. Most of these propaganda tweets fall into some neat categories, which makes them suspect almost immediately. Let's look at them: 

• The Russian military is very strong! It's a big military, no doubt. But it also has a lot of territory to defend, and it's created a lot of hostile enemies all around it. It also has serious industrial capacity and supply chain issues that make it very difficult to replace tanks, helicopters, and high-tech weapons it loses. Its munitions plants can crank out guns and ammo for those guns. Beyond that, it will take a long time for Russia to replace the weaponry it's lost. Corruption, too, is rife within the military. Parts have been sold off on the black market, and nobody knows how much of the armor and artillery Russia claims to have on paper actually is in working order. In other cases, the military has billed for weapons that never existed, with the manufacturer splitting the cost with the military. Last, estimates are that this invasion is costing $250M a day. That's a lot of money for a country that isn't operating on the basis of a default currency (like the U.S.), as well as a country facing crippling sanctions. 
• Russia won in Grozny! Yeah, after more than three months. And Grozny was tiny compared to Kiev. Also, Grozny was the only military garrison in the country. The Ukrainian situation seems vastly different. The entire Ukrainian resistance doesn't collapse if Kiev is taken. The military command is very de-centralized. This is also why the constant hand-wringing whining that Kiev is under attack (!) is pointless. A "decapitation" strategy won't work in this case. Also, it's very possible for Ukraine to keep being supplied from the west by NATO allies -- not to mention well-developed networks of humanitarian aid that Chechnya lacked. Even if Kiev is levelled, street fighting could easily last for weeks and be very expensive for the Russian military. Last, Russia 'defeated' the Grozny resistance by tricking (lying to) Chechens into walking out of Grozny for a surrender. Instead, they were mercilessly wiped out by Russian troops and mines before they could surrender.  It's doubtful this trick would work twice.
• Russia is just sending their untrained troops in first to soften up Ukraine. This is ridiculous. Everything about the logistics shows that Russia planned a campaign that would be wrapped up in about three days. You don't send in untrained troops for a "blitzkrieg" campaign. It's obvious that their supply lines were set up for a short three-day effort, and a "decapitation" that would leave any resistance crumbling. Instead, Russia has lost a lot of tanks, armored vehicles, and helicopters that they would need for a sustained campaign. Paratroops are not "untrained", and they've lost a lot of them. Highly-experienced units like the Chechen Kadyrov forces were sent in and wiped out by Ukraine. Likewise, Russian engineering units to replace bridges (not "untrained") were wiped out by air. It is true that a lot of untrained Russian conscripts have been captured or killed. But they're being allowed to call home and are being treated humanely, so this is just a big morale failure for the Russian military. If anything, it's the Russian military that's being "softened up", and the Ukrainian troops are quickly learning from the few casualties they've suffered.
• Just wait for the thermobarics! These are thermobaric shells that produce fire and consume oxygen around the target. These don't work well in open areas, as oxygen just floods in from the surrounding air. They're designed to defeat underground bunkers. Russia has a very limited supply of these shells, and no way to replace them when they're used. They're also vulnerable to anti-tank weapons, and need a steady supply of fuel to move the mobile platforms carrying the shells. This is the same problem they face with tanks and other armored vehicles: They can get in relatively far, but they can't be re-fuelled. It's child's play to blow up tankers carrying diesel along highways. The "thermobarics" narrative is mostly used by hand-wringers who pretend to be concerned about the potential devastation of such weapons, but who really are cheering for their use.
• People are fleeing Kiev! Of course, civilians are fleeing the city! They have a relatively safe evacuation route, a friendly Polish government to welcome them, and trains to move them efficiently. The whole idea of the invasion is that civilians would be trapped in Kiev by the "blitzkrieg", and that the city would be surrendered to avoid loss of life. Instead, Kiev is being methodically ceded to the invasion, forcing Russia to expend scarce missiles and troops on an empty city, with the inevitable Russian casualties of urban combat. 

 The bottom line is that Russia needed this to be a rapid invasion that replaced the Ukrainian government with a puppet leadership. Kiev is not the prize Russia believes it to be. Military aid from NATO, while slow, will reach Ukrainian troops within a week. Humanitarian aid will flood the country. Russian money will be in short supply, and their troops will go hungry and unpaid. Russian supply lines will become increasingly tenuous. Russia doesn't have weeks, much less months like the Grozny siege required. The longer this goes on, the more anti-tank weapons and surface-to-air missiles will end up in Ukrainian hands. And also, the more international volunteers will pour in -- well-equipped, highly-motivated, and well-trained by other militaries -- to dislodge Russians from their positions with RPGs and air support. 

 Russia assumed that Ukraine would fold quickly. That hasn't happened. If NATO aid had already arrived, Russian troops would be routed. 

 It should be very easy for the U.S. to openly provide non-lethal aid like food (MRE's), body armor, night-vision goggles, communication equipment, armored personnel carriers, field medical kits, solar panels with batteries, detailed maps, satellite comms, water purification supplies, and even things like handcuffs and leg irons for captured prisoners. This is easy stuff. Even Republicans would vote for it. If it's delivered in a timely manner, and distributed efficiently, it would turn the tide against Russian forces. 

 It's hard to imagine NATO intelligence services, and even non-aligned countries like Finland, passing up the chance to provide covert aid to Ukrainian forces. Russian leadership is always susceptible to bribes. Air-drops of ammo are always possible, and easy to accomplish. 

 The Russian army would bear the most significant cost of such a long-term war, followed by the air force. 

 The Russian military can't bear the financial costs of even a month-long conflict. That would be $7.5B they don't have. There isn't any pot of gold waiting for Russia if they take Ukraine. It's a largely agricultural country that would require extensive rebuilding after a war. There is no best-case scenario that works out in Russia's favor over the long-term. Its military would end up substantially weakened, its economy in a shambles, probably in huge debt to its main rival China. And China would likely demand naval support for their war on Taiwan.  

 Nothing good will come of this for Russia. Ukraine is not Chechnya. The leftist supporters of Russia will end up looking like fools, as will the Right throughout Europe and America. 

New polling in MN Governor race

  SurveyUSA -- which has a history of underestimating Democratic candidates in MN -- has released a new statewide poll. 

The results aren't very good for MNGOP. The party favorite is Gazelka, and he trails Walz by 5 points. It's also interesting that 41% have no opinion of him, so his 37% statewide share is mostly just people who will vote for any Republican against Walz. None of MNGOP's candidates have a "favorable" rating of 20% or more, while Walz is above water by 8 points (45/37). 

 Polling only slightly better than Gazelka is Jensen. Jensen is a physician who has spread a lot of misinformation about COVID, and has supported anti-vax and anti-mandate positions emphatically.

Jensen on Wikipedia

 Jensen is the originator of the lie that hospitals get more money if they diagnose a patient with COVID. While he claims to support vaccines in general, he stipulates that the COVID vaccine is "not a vaccine". He further promises to "ban'" non-existent workplace vaccine mandates. 

 Jensen still trails Walz by 3 points, and 41% have no opinion of him. He has only 18% of voters with a favorable opinion of him, in spite of his national profile. 

 This is the lunacy of MNGOP. Minnesota is heading into an election this year with no current lockdowns, no vaccine mandates, no statewide mask mandates, declining cases, and a 78% vaccination rate. And the vast majority of those now dying in this pandemic are now MNGOP's voters. Yet, their plan is to run on the pandemic. 

 MNGOP has been highly consistent with their proposed one-step plan to address the pandemic: do nothing. 

 They have put forward no solutions, no concrete steps, no alternatives. They bitterly attacked the lockdown, opposing it in the Legislature. While they once argued for a lockdown for only a few (urban) counties, they simultaneously argued against the lockdown in the metro, as well. They seem to think that people don't move between counties. Even when the lockdowns existed, MNGOP cheered businesses that ignored the measure. They cheered people ignoring mask mandates, even mandates imposed by a particular business. They made heroes out of people being kicked out of stores for refusing to wear a mask. Their candidates held indoor, mask-free campaign events during the lockdown. 

 Even when the pandemic moved into their rural voting base, their entire plan was "ignore it". Over and over, the public was treated to glib philosophical takes like "Everybody dies" by Republicans. 

 But, by the time the election rolls around, most restrictions will have faded. "Long COVID" will plague their base, along with huge medical bills that wipe out generational wealth. Unvaccinated Republican voters will continue to get sick and even die, but the numbers will be small (and local) enough that they won't justify statewide or even county-wide action. Mask mandates will probably be curtailed. 

 Basically, MNGOP will be running against the idea of doing anything for the next pandemic. The State will be following their plan of doing nothing. How does this play into the hands of a candidate like Jensen who promises to do nothing to address any pandemic?

 MNGOP's strength is the same as it was in 2020: a rabid pro-Trump base. They will fail to gain any support from opposition to measures taken to address the pandemic, because the pandemic will already be fading by November.

 Jensen's lead among Independent voters is a marginal four points. His lead among rural voters is only ten points -- not enough to offset the population advantage of the metro area. Judging by past statewide elections, MNGOP needs more than 70% of the rural vote to come close in a statewide race. Jensen offers only 49%, with 11% undecided. In southern MN, the supposed "MNGOP stronghold", Walz leads by four points against MNGOP's strongest candidate: Jensen. 

 It's also interesting that Gazelka, who is actually an experienced Republican politician, gets only 43% of the statewide rural vote against a man MNGOP has devoted every resource into demonizing for years. MNGOP's base has transformed from a Republican base into a Trump base. There are no more policy positions to be found. How long can MNGOP get by with nothing more than "trolling the libs" to maintain that base?

MN State Fair "Health Guidance"

  I was not amused to see the State Fair list "Stay home if you're not feeling well" as part of their "health guidance". This is the public health equivalent of "thoughts and prayers" -- completely worthless advice. 

 People who are contagious with COVID-19 usually have sniffles or an infrequent cough. NOBODY would consider these symptoms as "not feeling well". Imagine you saw someone in public blowing their nose into a tissue. If you walked up to them and asked, "Are you not feeling well?", what do you think they would say? 

 I'd guess "Oh, it's nothing", "It's just allergies", or "I'm just a little stuffed up" would be popular responses. The point is that none of these responses indicate the person considers themselves to be "unwell". Yet, this is the exact symptom that someone contagious with COVID-19 would have.

IF SOMEONE WHO IS CONTAGIOUS WITH COVID-19 DOESN'T CONSIDER THEMSELVES TO BE "NOT WELL", THEN TELLING PEOPLE TO "STAY HOME IF YOU DON'T FEEL WELL" WON'T AFFECT THEIR DECISION TO COME TO THE FAIR.

 This is almost exactly the same as telling someone who is drunk "Don't drive if you think you're impaired". NOBODY who is drunk considers themselves to be "impaired" -- and if they do, they are absolutely convinced that they "can handle it". Nobody who has "the sniffles" considers themselves to be sick, either.

 Of course, it's even dumber than it seems. Most people would consider themselves to "not feel well" if they suffered from a hangover, had stiff joints or muscles, had a toothache, had indigestion or constipation, etc. 

 So the brilliant "health guidance", were it not ignored, would have someone suffering from a hangover say, "I'd better stay home. I don't want to give anyone COVID". Not sure how that advances any public health goal. But someone who just has "the sniffles" is sure that it'll clear up right away, so they don't think that they are "not well" and they won't stay home -- even though they are likely spreading the virus! 

 I suppose if someone were wheezing, coughing, and having trouble breathing, they might think they didn't "feel well". But they probably wouldn't be planning on a visit to the State Fair, either. If someone with COVID-19 is sick enough to consider themselves to be "not well", it's already too late. 

Hmm. This "health guidance" now breaks down to "If you're too sick to walk around for hours in the heat, you should stay home". How many people who are that sick were ever really planning on staggering around the Fairgrounds, gasping for breath, coughing constantly, sinuses clogged up -- sounds like a lot of fun, eh?

Gee, the geniuses at the State Fair have basically offered a "health guidance" that says, "If you're too sick to enjoy being at the Fair, you shouldn't come to the Fair". 

 Yep. That will make a lot of difference. 

But these same people expect the public will take heed of the State Fair's "urging" them to wear a mask. Because the Fair has so much credibility on public health issues.

Nimble employers win

  Minnesota has a very tight labour market. It's reported that there are two job openings for every person looking for work. Unemployment in the metro is just over 2%.
 
Many employers haven't figured this out yet, though. They still believe that it's 2008, and long lines of desperate applicants will form when they announce an opening. Especially in the case of skilled workers, they are finding that they have only a handful of candidates to pick from -- at best. This is after months of searching, bringing in recruiters, placing online listings, calling around to their 'network', and offering 'referral bonuses'. Often the people that do apply want a wage that is out of their range. Hardly anyone is accepting 'trial for hire' (i.e. temporary) arrangements. If they did, you'd have to wonder why. Everyone willing to work is already working. And everyone that's working is looking for a better position.
 
In short, every employer is trying to hire workers from someone else. A lot of employers have figured this out by now, but their actual hiring practises don't reflect this. The hiring process moves at a glacial speed, and these slow employers often lose out on qualified candidates simply because other employers are more 'nimble'.
 
I start at a new job in a few days. The hiring process was relatively fast: three weeks. It could have done in half that time, however. My current (soon to be former) employer took over six weeks to hire me. The only reason I stuck it out was because they were located very close to my home. Another former employer took an ungodly nine weeks to actually make an offer.
 
What are the common delays?

• Waiting for 'better' (i.e. cheaper) applicants. While they wait, the qualified applicant gets hired by someone familiar with the state of the local labour market. The slow employer usually ends up paying more or ending up with someone far less qualified. This also includes the ever-popular "internal posting policy", which means somebody might want to move into the job for less money...so we have to let them have first crack at the position, right? 
• Multiple interviews. You might interview with a manager and a supervisor. Then, the employer decides that 'Steve' needs to talk to you, because he has a tangential role in your job. Now you have to wait for Steve's calendar to be clear, and the first two will want to sit in on the interview...so three people now need to be available on the same day and time. Then there's the HR interview, which can never be done on the same day. Every scheduling conflict moves the date back an entire week, for some unknown reason. And every interview requires the applicant to take time off his current job. Meanwhile, someone else has hired them.
• HR reps are sloooow. By the time you get to the HR rep, weeks have been used up -- if not an entire month. But the biggest delay is yet to come. HR reps seem to always be on vacation, out of the office, in meetings, or at seminars. And they always want a three hour window in their schedule to handle a 30 minute interview. Pretty much all of it could be done over the phone. The benefits sheet could be emailed, but they really want to read it out loud to you in your presence. Then they need to schedule the drug screen and background check. This process might take 15 minutes, but they somehow need to wait for the stars to align just right or wait until they have a couple of hours free. This whole process can easily take three weeks. 
• Wanting to see if the replacement solution "works out". In virtually every case, the previous employee has left before the employer really even starts "looking". Someone has been assigned the previous employee's workload. They are the next person who will be leaving, usually. Maybe they can handle two jobs. Who knows? There might be a nickel raise in it for them, after all. Or there might not. Let's give them time to settle in to their 60-hour week, with unrealistic expectations and constant failure to live up to those expectations. They're a "team player", right? We told them it would only be for two weeks, and it's been two months. Let's wait another month before we even begin the months-long hiring process. We'll tell them we're "looking" hard. Really hard.
• "Corporate approval". This is the best delay. The employer is taking resumes, has listed the job as open, even talked to promising candidates. But the department or manager now needs "approval from corporate" to actually hire a person. Golly gee, it's out of their hands. Word  could come down any day now. The qualified candidate just got hired by someone else, though. 

 
All of these delays are premised on a delusional notion that people really, really want to work for their company, and will put up with anything to get a shot. I mean, we have benefits (everybody does). We pay a competitive wage (everybody does). We have a "great team" (everybody does). There's opportunities for advancement (meaning more work for the same money). Everybody has those, too.
 
These slow employers also compound the damage of their hiring practises. Candidates who give up on the glacial pace are frequently black-balled from future consideration. This causes negative word-of-mouth to spread about the practises of the slow-hiring company. This means even fewer applicants for positions going forward. Often, the lesson learned by their glacially slow hiring is that the employer wasn't careful enough. They should have been even slower, in order to determine if the applicants are really and truly serious about working for them.
 
What ends up happening to these slow companies is pretty simple. They hire a less-experienced person for a low wage and tell that person copious lies. Big raises are a certainty...if they "work out", for example. This person leaves after a short while, because they now have the requisite experience to get a much higher wage from another company eager to hire them away. The replacement person has left...which means more "opportunities" for the new hire (sure)...so they are even worse off than before.

Meanwhile, the nimble company has hired all of the best people around, leaving the slow company with inferior candidates and even poorer options. If the nimble company has any future openings, word-of-mouth will go a long way to ensuring that they have the best selection. The slow company will literally have their people hired out from under them before they even have a glimpse of a clue.
 
As I said, it shouldn't take more than two weeks too hire a qualified person.

2018 midterm MN polling roundup

Fivethirtyeight.com has predictions for the midterms up.
 
MN-1: R+3.2  Hagedorn 51.6, Feehan 48.4

MN-2: D+2  Craig 52, Lewis 48

MN-3: D+4.8  Phillips 53.4, Paulsen 48.6

MN-4: D+37.7  McCollum 67, Ryan 29.3

MN-5: D+60.8  Omar 80.4, Zielinski 19.6

MN-6: R+26.8  Emmer 63.4, Todd 36.6

MN-7: D+10.2  Peterson 55.1, Hughes 44.9

MN-8: R+1.2  Stauber 48.6, Radinovich 47.4

________________________________________________
 
September polling:
 
MN-2 (9/23) SurveyUSA   Craig 48, Lewis 45
MN-2 (9/29) PPP               Craig 48, Lewis 45
MN-3 (9/18) PPP               Phillips 52, Paulsen 39
MN-3 (9/9) Sienna              Phillips 50, Paulsen 40
MN-8 (9/9) Sienna              Radinovich 42, Stauber 43
Gov (9/8) Survey USA        Walz 47, Johnson 40
Gov (9/12) Mason-Dixon    Walz 45, Johnson 36
Sen (9/12) Mason-Dixon     Smith 44, Housely 37
Sen (9/12) Mason-Dixon     Klobuchar 60, Newberger 30
 
While we might lose MN-1 and MN-8, I think we will win MN-2 and definitely MN-3.
Getting rid of Paulsen will be huge. It will be a big blow to the MNGOP.
A defeat for Lewis would also be deeply symbolic, as he's tied himself strongly to Trump.
In 2014, MN-2 went for the Republicans by 17.17 points. In 2016, it went for Lewis by 1.79 points. He didn't even win a majority (46.95) in a strong year for the MNGOP. The trend doesn't look good for Republicans in this District.
 
Of course, we will also lock in Klobuchar for six years. And Smith will get two years, running as an incumbent in a presidential year election. We will hold on to the Governorship.
The MNGOP is loudly bragging about their chances to take the AG against Ellison, but I'm sceptical.
Stauber is a weak candidate in the 8th, and 2020 will not be kind to Trump-supporting candidates in MN.
  
Going deeper, this is Jeff Johnson's last shot, and he looks destined to defeat. His career for state-wide office is over. Housely will go down, putting an end to one of the few fairly prominent female MNGOP politicians. It remains to be seen what will become of a defeated Lewis; the MNGOP may have future plans for him elsewhere. Like Paulsen, he will probably pop up in a Senate or Governor's race.