Minnesota's Senate Race Turns Ugly

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN)

The Michigan primary continues to be in the news, and gaining headlines, particularly with Abdul El-Sayed's campaign against Haley Stevens hitting the biggest roadblock of the cycle with a late endorsement from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, the popular governor of the state who has near universal approval ratings from Democrats.  In a race with a high number of undecideds (many of whom have said in polls that Whitmer's endorsement would sway their decision), it is entirely possible that Stevens has gained the lead here.  If she wins, it'll be a damned impressive move, and prove Whitmer's power headed into 2028 where she's likely to be on many VP shortlists.  If she loses, well, Whitmer has said she's done with politics-this would help make that a reality.  Either way, it was news El-Sayed didn't want.

But arguably Michigan isn't even the nastiest primary in the country.  In a year where the Democratic Primaries have been brutal (look at Texas, where Jasmine Crockett has issued a statement endorsing James Talarico, but has repeatedly brought up that she thought her loss was "racist" which has made it harder for Talarico to make gains with Black voters, who make up 12% of the electorate and will need to pretty much universally back Talarico in record numbers for him to pull off the upset), this weekend an attack from the Peggy Flanagan campaign in Minnesota might be the harshest attack I've seen this cycle, one that at once feels shocking and also shocking in that she's using it at all.

The attack came up during an event at a Flanagan campaign rally, where State Sen. John Hoffman (D-MN) was speaking.  Hoffman, for those who don't remember, was attacked & nearly killed by a political assassin last year, the same man who shot and killed Melissa & Mark Hortman.  Hoffman said during his speech that Craig, when she had called to check in on our family "she asked that I endorse her campaign" and later in the same speech said that a "dear friend" whom he chose not to name asked on Craig's behalf for an endorsement while Hoffman was still in the ICU and again when he was recovering at home.

Craig immediately refuted the claims, sharing her personal text messages with Hoffman that showed a text on June 14th, 2025 saying she and her wife were praying for Hoffman and his wife, and then no text between until August 5th of this year, when she said "I would love to talk with you about the open Senate race when you're up for it."  It's worth noting that by August 5th of last year, Hoffman had started to make public endorsements again (he had endorsed Matt Klein for the MN-2 race just a few weeks prior), indicating he was up for such conversations.

This is a really tricky moment for Craig's campaign; it's not yet clear if the story has legs, but it seems inevitable that if Flanagan's camp brought this forward, they want it to be part of their closing argument of the campaign, so it'll be picked up by major news outlets across the state.  Hoffman is viewed by many as a hero for surviving the assassination attempt, and refuting him (basically calling him a liar) comes with a lot of inherent risks.  If she did do this, it's political suicide-she'll have called a hero of the Democratic Party a liar when he was telling the truth, and she will essentially be ending not just her campaign but her political career.  It's been said repeatedly, but many assume that the second place finisher in the Craig/Flanagan primary will be appointed by a Gov. Klobuchar to fill her seat.  I've been skeptical of this logic (Klobuchar won't want to pick a known loser), but now Klobuchar won't touch that with a ten-foot pole.  Craig basically has one shot at winning, and she just got a potentially fatal blow from the Flanagan campaign, even with the evidence that she's provided that, at the very least, she didn't text Hoffman about this until after he was clearly up for endorsements.

But this also is a really bold thing for Flanagan to do, and not without inherent risk.  Unless they have definitive proof that Hoffman did this, she jeopardizes making Craig supporters super angry, potentially enough to not support her in the general.  Hoffman didn't do this without her permission...only a moron would think he did this without checking with her first.  So she chose to have him say this, which makes me think three things: 1) either she had absolute proof, and she knew there was no risk because she's luring Craig into a trap (in which case she's brilliant, and hats off to her campaign), 2) she didn't see a downside because Craig is now damned if she does and damned if she doesn't in calling what Hoffman said was false or 3) she is not thinking clearly about what the damage of this could be if she cannot definitively prove that Craig tried to get Hoffman's endorsement while he was in the hospital.

That's because in an extraordinarily nasty campaign (turn on a TV in Minnesota-you will see nothing but attack ads against these two women), Flanagan just made it so that Craig voters won't trust her, and people don't like to vote for people they don't trust.  Craig provided some (though not definitive) proof that she didn't talk to Hoffman.  It's worth noting, of course, that due to the vagueness of Hoffman's accusation it's next to impossible for Craig to totally rebuff her claim because he said it was a friend of hers, who could of course be anyone (essentially turning this into a "whom do you trust more" exercise).  Flanagan could provide the name of the "dear friend" and have him share his side of the story, but so far Hoffman has not outed said friend.  If she/he chose not to say this man's name, this reads as shady, potentially even lying to try and hurt Craig's campaign, which is at once both fascinating & really risky.

It's fascinating because, from my vantage point-Flanagan is winning.  She's led in most polls, has the DFL endorsement, and a number of high-profile Minnesota Democrats (like Tina Smith, Al Franken, & Keith Ellison) have backed her campaign.  Additionally, candidates that look like her (save for El-Sayed) have done well across the country-the Bernie wing of the party is having a banner year in primaries, and she's backed by Bernie Sanders.  One of the cardinal rules of political campaigns is you don't attack your opponent when you're winning-you basically try to take a knee until the election, and suffocate them with silence.  This is the opposite of that: it means that Craig is on the defense, sure, but it also gives her an opening to put a scandal right back in Flanagan's court if the public thinks Flanagan's camp made this up to hurt Craig.  Which makes me wonder-in a contest that has been severely under-polled, is it possible that Flanagan's internals show her losing (or tied for a win), and she felt the need to throw this out because she isn't actually winning?  That's the only logical reason to have done this (honestly even if it's true I wouldn't have advised doing it if I was on Flanagan's team and saw her up by a solid margin because it adds an unknown element that you can't control)...so either her campaign is run by fools or this is a tighter race than I'd assumed.

Lt Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D-MN)

It's risky, though, because Flanagan isn't just attacking Craig.  In an era where people seem to have parasocial connections to politicians, she has just thrown the gauntlet against Craig's supporters, many of whom are moderate.  We've seen that in Texas, where Crockett supporters are making it very difficult for Talarico to coalesce all factions in his race.  We're certainly about to see that in Michigan regardless of who wins.  Craig might pull a Crockett and endorse Flanagan by press release after this, but it's hard to see her doing the work to help Flanagan befriend her supporters after this.  In an election where Flanagan has struggled to fundraise, and has run pretty far left, she just made it much harder to win back the middle.

The assumption that no Democrat can lose Minnesota in 2026 is sound.  The last time an incumbent president's party flipped a seat they lost in the last election for the Senate was in, well, Minnesota in 2002.  It's very rare (and anyone who knows their Minnesota history knows just how odd that race was...Indiana/North Carolina in 1998 might be more traditional examples).  But Flanagan, should she win the primary (and I continue to think she will) is in a uniquely challenging position-she has run pretty far to the left of the state in her primary, she has now alienated her primary opponent (and potentially her moderate supporters), she has been linked to a number of scandals in the Walz administration that were enough for Walz to not run for reelection, and Walz's approval ratings are really poor (also it's worth noting he still has not endorsed her, which will 100% change if she's the nominee, but likely means he won't go to the mat for her).  Throw in that Michele Tafoya is an experienced reporter (i.e. she's better on the stump than any Minnesota Republican running for the Senate since Norm Coleman), and you have a situation where Flanagan might be looking at a single-digit finish.  Klobuchar will help, but honestly...Klobuchar voters are used to splitting tickets (she was able to win a number of Trump voters in past at-bats)...assuming she can ride Amy's coattails isn't as easy as it sounds.  For the record, I think Flanagan is the favorite even in this circumstance (i.e. even if people think she lied about Craig), but I would say she's more vulnerable than, say, Chris Pappas.

I'll also close with this because this is my home state and I do have a personal take on this.  I find what Craig is being accused of disturbing.  John Hoffman is my state senator, he lives in my town-the house where his assassin attacked him is literally down the street from me and I drive by it nearly every day; waking up to that news felt personal to me, and scary as I had friends & family calling to ask about it.  That Craig would be so cold as to try and get a political endorsement from him in that circumstance is disturbing.  But I also am disturbed that the Flanagan campaign has brought this forward, and I expect proof, particularly given Craig's text messages indicate that at the very least she didn't text him about this.  I expect Flanagan, who chose to make this public, to out the "dear friend" as to stay anonymous would be tantamount to baselessly attacking Craig without giving her an opportunity to defend herself, and would be exceptionally cruel (and in my opinion, prove that Flanagan's team at the very least exaggerated this claim).  Let's not forget-Flanagan did not need to make this public, it's not like this was a rumor floating around that needed to be addressed before today.  If Flanagan chooses to remain silent about this, I'll be honest-I will assume that this was an exaggeration, or at the very least they don't have any evidence the "dear friend" was working in conjunction with the Craig campaign.  And if she does stay silent about it before the primary, I think she made an enormous error because Craig supporters will rightfully be furious.  I know I won't volunteer for the campaign, put her sign in my yard, or donate if she doesn't prove that what Hoffman said is true...and while I'd be hard-pressed not to vote DFL, this would be the most apathetic I've ever been to vote for a Democrat in a general election.  And if you're losing me, you're losing a lot of moderates who have no problem voting for someone else.