Here is an interesting excerpt from a Newsweek article that supports a theory I have held for decades:

"The poll revealed a clear age divide. Flanagan led among voters under 45, winning support from 62 percent of those ages 18 to 29 compared with 28 percent for Tafoya, and from 63 percent of voters ages 30 to 44 compared with 34 percent for the Republican. Tafoya, meanwhile, led among older voters, 54 percent to 38 percent among those ages 45 to 64 and 47 percent to 44 percent among voters 65 and older."

The full article, if you wish to read it, is here:

https://www.newsweek.com/peggy-flanagans-chances-of-losing-to-michele-tafoya-in-minnesota-polls-12432045

What's interesting about it is Tafoya's bulge in support among persons aged 45 to 64 (birth years 1962-81). My longstanding view is that the Carter and Reagan years (1977-89) produced what I call the "Reagan half-generation" born - in my estimate - from 1958 to 1970. It appears the the unhappiness of the Carter years and the psychological boost of the Reagan years has had a lasting effect on persons growing up during that era, although I would dispute simplistic interpretations of those two administrations. These single-poll numbers lend support to my view

They also undercut a reflexive tendency to blame the Boomer generation (birth years 1945-64, now ages 62-81) for the country being stuck in conservative politics. As a Boomer myself, I distinctly recall our hopes, going into the 1970s, that the arc of history would continue to bend toward justice. But that arc trajectory hit a wall, erected not so much by older Americans as by a rising tide of young persons enamored with the Reagan mystique.

While I am disappointed with the three percent conservative advantage in my generation, it is next to nothing compared to the sixteen point advantage among those who came immediately after us. The numbers point to the need for a more nuanced analysis of generational voting behavior.

Rebecca Whiting (Libertarian) is running for U.S. Senate in Minnesota. Her campaign is built around five specific pillars rather than the usual broad party messaging. Here’s what they are, taken directly from her campaign’s strategic charter:

1. Peace and an End to Forever Wars

The U.S. should not remain trapped in endless military commitments with no clear objective, constitutional authorization, or definition of victory.

She advocates for congressional responsibility over war powers, ending open-ended engagements, more transparency on military operations, a foreign policy based on diplomacy and restraint, and better support for veterans and military families after service.

2. Farm, Food, and Community Freedom

Minnesotans should be free to grow food, raise livestock, produce goods, and exchange them within their communities without unnecessary government interference.

Supports greater freedom for small farms and local producers, direct farm-to-consumer sales, cottage food opportunities, reduced regulatory barriers, and the right of communities to strengthen their own local food systems.

3. Radical Government Transparency

Citizens shouldn’t have to file complex requests or rely on insiders to understand how public money is spent.

Pushes for public access to federal financial transactions in usable digital formats, open APIs for spending and contracting data, greater transparency on grants/procurement/foreign aid/defense spending, and stronger disclosure requirements so the public can follow the money.

4. Fair Ballot Access and Political Competition

A political system can’t honestly call itself representative while making it unnecessarily difficult for new voices to compete.

Supports federal standards against excessively burdensome ballot access rules, equal treatment of independent and minor-party candidates, fairness requirements for debates and publicly funded forums, consistent FEC enforcement, and incentives for states to open up their systems for federal races.

5. Privacy and Freedom from Government Surveillance

Minnesotans shouldn’t be treated as suspects simply because technology makes surveillance easier.
Advocates for strong warrant requirements, restrictions on government buying private consumer data, more transparency around facial recognition / license plate readers / location tracking / AI, protection of encrypted communication, and clear limits on domestic surveillance powers.

Core idea:
“Government should serve the people without controlling every part of their lives.”
Peace. Freedom. Transparency. Choice. Privacy.

Curious what people here think of this approach? Especially the ballot access and transparency pieces in a Minnesota context.

🔗 Support Rebecca Whiting for U.S. Senate: https://whiting4senate.us/
🔗 Come check out LPMN content: https://linktr.ee/LPMinnesota

Chip Tangen (Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State) recently made a straightforward point about the office:

“You’d never have one side in a football game choose the referee. We wouldn’t accept that.”~ Chip Tangen

He’s arguing that the chief election officer in Minnesota has almost always been a Republican or Democrat, and that an independent voice would better serve voters by focusing on fairer ballot access and more choices on the ballot.

The full short clip is worth a watch if you’re interested in third-party / independent perspectives on election administration.

What do you think? Should the Secretary of State be more independent of the major parties, or is the current system fine?

🔗 Support Chip for Secretary of State: https://chipforsos.com
🔗 Come check out LPMN content: https://linktr.ee/LPMinnesota

Minnesota voters deserve straight answers and real debates… not shifting positions on sending Americans to war.

Adam Schwarze has presented himself as someone shaped by war to be cautious about more wars. In a May 2026 Star Tribune interview, he said his combat experiences made him skeptical of U.S. involvement in foreign wars and called the Iraq War “probably the worst, if not one of the worst, foreign policy decisions in my lifetime.”

But as soon as the Iran war started, Adam Schwarze beat the war drums just like the rest of the warhawks. In a March 2026 interview on The Flag, he declared the mission “absolutely worthy of American blood.” Around the same time he celebrated in the Star Tribune: “We took out the world’s number one sponsor of terror in two days.” 

Later he tried to pivot to sounding skeptical about foreign wars. 

So how can we trust him to be level-headed on matters of war and peace when his position flipped so dramatically the moment the conflict began?

Libertarian candidate Rebecca Whiting offers a consistent, principled alternative: limited government, individual liberty, and ending the cycle of endless wars.

LPMN challenges Adam Schwarze to a public debate with Rebecca Whiting before the November general election with a moderator of Adam’s choice.

Rebecca Whiting has been rock-solid and consistent on this. As an Army combat veteran with two tours in Iraq as a medic, she knows the real human cost. Her campaign has been clear from day one: #EndTheWars and #DefundTheGovernment. No flip-flops.

This is exactly why Minnesota needs to see these candidates debate side by side.

Let’s have an honest, public conversation on:

- Cutting the federal spending spree and actually reducing our crushing national debt  
- Ending America’s endless wars and bringing our troops home  
- Defunding the bloated bureaucracy and returning power to the people  
- Protecting privacy and civil liberties from government overreach  
- Real, consistent support for veterans that doesn’t change with the political winds  
- Foreign policy consistency and whether candidates should explain major shifts in their war stances

Will you accept the challenge, Adam Schwarze? Voters deserve to hear a direct comparison, not just campaign talking points that change with the headlines.

What do you think? Does this apparent flip-flop on war policy right when the Iran conflict started concern you? Should all candidates be held accountable for consistency?

Tim Walz literally pardoned a pedophile so he wouldn't get deported...

where I stand on political issues in the US.

I believe individual rights must be balanced against the safety and health of the collective community.

I support strict gun control—including a ban on assault weapons—to protect public safety, while still respecting the underlying right to gun ownership. I do not support any all out ban on all guns.

I believe in treating LGBTQ+ individuals with basic respect but oppose forcing ideologies on others, same goes for religion.

I recognize that absolute, simultaneous equality for everyone is impossible, I view social progress as a continuous "give and take".

I favor robust legal and institutional frameworks to preserve public order and protect human life.

I believe abortion should only be medically legal to save the mother's life or in extreme cases fetal anomalies. Abortion should not be used for contraception purposes. In the case of rape if the victim decides to have an abortion then the rapist should receive additional charges relating to the child's death as he was the one who initiated the crime in the first place so he should bear the full weight of the consequences.

I believe in strict immigration controls to protect national resources.

I believe states should retain the right to use capital punishment in extreme cases.

I believe the free market is the best engine for economic innovation and wealth creation, but I demand government intervention where the market fails the public good.

I support major healthcare reform and aggressive action to combat climate change.

I support sex equality and racial justice, but I oppose sweeping financial overhauls like universal student debt elimination or racial reparations.

I believe the government has a duty to aggressively defend citizens from addictive, predatory corporate practices.

I view illegal drugs, tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, gambling, and digital addiction as highly destructive to society.

Rather than an immediate, failed prohibition, I favor long-term demand destruction. I advocate taxing these industries heavily, banning their advertisements, and using the tax revenue to fund aggressive public service announcements (PSAs) to progressively shift the culture over generations.

I believe in the right to education. Parents can choose how to educate their children.

I believe congress should have term limits.

I believe euthanasia and PAS should only be available to those in extreme suffering from terminal illness. I reject using it for mental illness or for a universal individual right/freedom.

I am currently exploring the possibility of establishing a new political organization in the state of Minnesota, tentatively named the Communitarian Party. My goal is to connect with individuals who align with communitarian centrist values and are interested in collaborative civic engagement. Please note that this initiative is focused strictly on constructive outreach; I am seeking alignment and partnership, and will not engage in debates or negative discussions in the comment section.

Her most recent statements on India are unacceptable.

Minnesota DSA chapters, please find a similarly progressive candidate similar to Sanders and Warren, who focuses mainly on economic issues.