Minnesota will get at least one new member in the U.S. House in November’s election. The 2nd Congressional District seat is open after Angie Craig waged an unsuccessful Senate run.
The mostly suburban district that stretches south into farm country is up for grabs. Former state Senator Matt Little is the Democratic nominee and will face Republican state senator Eric Pratt.
Little joined MPR News host Nina Moini and politics editor Brian Bakst to talk about his campaign.
You've been out of office for nearly six years. Why is now the right time to to jump back in?
When we announced 15, 16 months ago, it was really about my daughter. I just felt like everything's falling apart, and this is her country, and this is her future. So I couldn't sit on the sidelines, because when my daughter asks me down the line, what did I do? I need to have a good answer.
You ran on a progressive-style agenda: Medicare for all, holding ICE accountable and calling for an end to U.S. military aid in Israel. How do you expect that agenda to sell in a purple district in a general election?
I think the best proof we have a winning message for the general actually comes from Eric Pratt. Two weeks ago, he released a poll, and he did the heads-up match up against all the primary candidates, and we were the one that beat him by the most. We were ahead by five points, and that's before getting our message out there for the general. So I think we're in a really good position.
I think people are looking for policies that provide healthcare from the day you're born till the day you pass, and that's Medicare for all. People are getting gouged out there, $2000, $3,000 a month, and then a deductible — and that's if the insurance company approves their care. Enough is enough.
You said you'd push for what you're calling an anti-ICE bill of rights. How did ICE activity in the state impact your decision to run?
I announced this run before ICE invaded our state, so it became an issue as we were here. As some folks are familiar, my wife is an immigrant, came here on political asylum when she was a kid and we met in law school. And she had to carry her passport, even though she's a citizen and an attorney.
What they did to the state is awful, and a big part of the anti-ICE bill of rights is making sure murderers go to jail. They murdered two of our citizens here, and they've killed other people across the country. They need to be held accountable; otherwise, future presidents just use this as a personal police force to do their bidding and their political will. That's what Trump is doing right now.
How do you want the federal government to handle the issue of data centers?
We've been pushing for a moratorium. Policies and regulations and actual studies and factual information, we need to gather all that up before we start plopping these things everywhere.
This is a democracy, and people have a right to know what's going in their city or town or township, and that's one of my biggest issues: these non-disclosure agreements. They get these projects all the way to the end, and then, surprise, we're gonna pass this at a meeting. The public has a right to know, and that's a big part of why I'm pushing a moratorium.
The only way I'd stop pushing a moratorium is all these companies nationwide are willing to stop using NDAs, and we get federal legislation passed in that vein. Otherwise, I think this is destroying our democracy.
Do you think data centers are more of a federal issue than than a state or local zoning matter?
It’s a local, state and federal issue, but I view the federal government's role as always providing a minimum standard of rights.
I think, at this point, it's hard to have piecemeal regulations when we have all these NDAs. These companies are surprising communities that don't have enough time to get the information or fight back. So, just trying to protect people in the short term by using a moratorium until we can get these regulations updated.
Where should the federal government draw money from to pay for expanded healthcare, childcare and other things you want to see?
I think number one, we stop getting into completely unnecessary foreign wars. Number two, we stop sending military aid to countries that are killing innocent children. Number three would be to undo the tax cuts to the top earners in this country, the millionaires and billionaires, that Trump has passed.
President Trump will still have two more years if you get to Congress. Do you expect he would be amenable to any of those things?
Probably not, but I think that's one of the problems that we have in our politics. A lot of politicians just look short term. They're just looking at their next reelection and spending all their time raising money. I think Democrats have to grow a spine, but we also have to have a long-term plan, and it's got to be a three-year plan.
We need to bring legislation he's surely going to vote against, his party is going to vote against. We can show the American people that this party and this president don't really care about them on issues of affordability and healthcare and childcare and higher education. And then when we take back the U.S. Senate and the White House, that's when we can get some real structural, generational change done.
How prominent of a role do you expect feelings toward President Trump to play in this race, whether people like him or loathe him?
I think even absent him, there's just a real anger out there. No matter what side of the aisle you're on, you got folks that are real angry about fraud, as they should be.
You got folks really angry about what's happening abroad, as they should be. You got folks angry about gas, grocery prices, as they should be. You got people angry about housing, and how people can't even buy a home until the average age of first-time homeowners is 40 years old. They should be angry about that. And I do believe a lot of that comes from the top.
Subscribe to the Minnesota Now podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
