Last Tuesday, Jan. 20, I attended the Minnesota Democratic Debate for Congressional District 2 (Carleton’s district). I got to hear from, meet and interview all three candidates. This is going to be an important primary for Democrats. It goes without saying that the 2026 midterms are a must-win. And, in the past, this has been one of the closest Congressional seats in the country.
At the risk of hurting my odds of getting an internship in the next four years, I’d like to give my assessment of each candidate: the good, the bad and everything in between.
Matt Klein, a Mayo Clinic doctor and State Senator, wants to be known as the “moderate” pick. He talked at length about how he would treat a job in the House as any other job that he’s ever held. When I asked him what sets him apart from the other candidates, he pointed to his experience as a medical doctor and as someone who is “highly electable.” That’s fine, but he spent more time talking about how he is the easiest to get to Congress than what he would do there.
His website lists his economic policy as “bringing back economic stability.” He talked about public healthcare, but seemed hesitant to voice support for Medicare for All (a policy 65% of Americans, including almost 80% of Democrats, support). He is also the only Democrat in the race who takes corporate PAC money. He bragged that he voted with Republicans more than anyone else running (maybe not something to be bragging about right now – read the room, Matt). If you couldn’t tell, he’s not my pick.
The second candidate, Matt Little, could not be more different than Matt Klein, as far as Democrats go. He is a lawyer, mayor and state legislator who was not afraid to bring up the voting records and donor records of the other candidates. He promised to “be a fighter” and not cave to Republicans. When I asked him what sets him apart, he said that he feels like he has the clearest policy proposals out of the three candidates (which, just going by websites, is true. Kaela Berg hasn’t yet listed policy online, although she mentioned at the debate that the website was still under construction). Policy-wise, he’s probably the candidate I align closest to.
But, in talking to people afterwards, I noticed a sort of consensus: he was doing too much. He had anecdotes, but they didn’t come across super well. He also strongly attacked the other candidates, and at times misrepresented facts and made misleading statements. I firmly believe that he has the clearest and best policy proposals out of the candidates. He doesn’t need to change the facts to get people to agree with him. I’m sure he will evolve as a candidate in the time until the election, but Democrats cannot afford to succumb to infighting at a time like this.
Kaela Berg, the third candidate, seemed to emphasize the importance of party coherence throughout the debate. She called out Matt Little’s attacks on her in a way that seemed to catch him off guard while promoting unity. She has been an airline stewardess, a labor leader and a state legislator who has found success in her broad appeal in popular issues such as labor and reproductive rights. She called attention to the fact that she has personal experience with skipping medication and living paycheck to paycheck.
My biggest issue with her performance was that she seemed, like Matt Klein, to focus more on who she is than what she plans to do. She leaned heavily on her background, but I would have liked to hear more specific opinions and courses of action. Still, given her background as a labor leader, her endorsements, voting record and decision not to take corporate PAC money, she seems like a progressive option with broad appeal.
Obviously, I would encourage anyone reading to do research: look at websites, learn about the candidates and policies and make a decision. Kaela Berg, however, would be my candidate of choice at this point in the race, and who I will support when I caucus on Feb. 3.
We live in a time where we cannot continue to send corporate candidates to elected office. Aside from the Trump threat, people are hurting. The way Democrats succeed in the next election is by running affirmative campaigns that focus on everyday Americans.
People are tired. They are tired from working long hours just to scrape by. They are tired of an illness left untreated because the doctor’s office costs more than a month’s rent. They are tired because ICE continues to shoot people in the streets of Minneapolis. They are tired of seeing Democrats back down when they have an advantage. They are tired of a government that works against them, not for them.
The last thing we can afford to do, as Democrats, is nominate someone who just wants to bring the country back to the status quo. One of the unique opportunities in post-Trump America is that we can use the momentum and backlash against Trump and his corporate buddies to create a better and fairer America.
But we have to win first. Whoever you decide to support in the primary election, it is crucial not just to vote, but also to encourage friends who may not to do the same. The consequences are just too dire.