Analyst: Senate may decide Minn. election

[kpete]

Source: United Press International

Analyst: Senate may decide Minn. election
Published: Nov. 29, 2008 at 2:45 PM

ST. PAUL, Minn., Nov. 29 (UPI) -- A statement by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., makes it more likely the Senate could intervene in a Minnesota election, an analyst says.

The Minnesota U.S. Senate contest between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken is undergoing a recount, with the candidates separated by less than 300 votes out of 2.9 million cast. But a controversial decision by the state's Elections Canvassing Board could end up throwing the election into the lap of the Senate itself, a scholar told Minnesota Public Radio.

"Ultimately, the Senate has complete authority to determine who was elected," Washington University political scientist Steven Smith told the broadcaster, citing the canvassing board's decision this week to disallow disputed absentee ballots that Franken had urged be counted.

The board's move was "a cause for great concern," Reid said this week, and those comments may indicate his willingness to start a Senate investigation of the Minnesota recount, Smith said. And if so, it's possible that Franken's argument regarding rejected absentee ballots could be reconsidered by U.S. senators.




Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/29/Analyst_Senate_may_decide_Minn_election/UPI-14251227987905/

[Doctor Cynic]

1. Why not just allow a runoff vote between Coleman and Franken?

Seems the most dirt-free and simple way to mee.

[dflprincess]

2. A runoff would be the best thing

and certainly quicker and probably cheaper (if this thing goes to the courts) but state law doesn't make any provision for a runoff.

[Pab Sungenis]

4. No need for a state law.

The Senate can just declare the seat vacant. Pawlenty appoints a placeholder and there is a special election called just as if a sitting Senator had died or resigned.

[hlthe2b]

7. This seems like it might be the best thing to happen...

[LiberalFighter]

54. The only way the Senate creates a vacancy is when they remove a Senator

[scarletwoman]

55. That would work for me. It would certainly be preferable to having the Senate simply choosing

who fills the seat. I think that would be a horrible outcome.

The problem is, when I listen to the local news talking to various "experts" about all the possible ways this election could be resolved, I don't recall anyone ever bringing up the option of calling for a new election altogether.

The latest scenario I've heard is that Pawlenty can appoint a placeholder if the recount is still unresolved by Jan. 6 -- the date that new Senators are supposed to be sworn in -- but all that happens afterward is that the election results continue to be examined. Nothing about calling for a new election.

I hope that no matter what happens, this mess will work to push our state legislature to enact IRV, so we never have to go this kind of crap again.

sw

[dubeskin]

6. But wouldn't the chances of Franken winning be greater if

the Senate "monitors" it? It seems, at least to me, that way.

[hlthe2b]

8. Yes.. but there will be long term fall-out if there is a perception

that the Democratic-controlled Senate "gives" him the election and if the result is razer slim, that might be the perception of "rational" independents as well as more cynical REPUGS... Hypocrisy yes, given the Supreme Court's intervention for Bush* but still a consideration...

[JDPriestly]

13. There will be a long-term fall-out if the Senate does not decide

since the reason for the dispute is the arbitrary decision not to count certain votes. The Senate has the right to decide.

It's not like 2000 when the Supreme Court took the decision upon itself. The Senate is the appropriate place for this to be decided. A run-off would be more expensive than allowing the Senate to decide.

The Senate is given the power to decide when the race is razor-thin. That's the way it is. Obama took Minnesota 54% to 44%.

And the race between Coleman and Franken cannot be called because the outcome depends on decisions about how to count the votes. It is not a question of how many votes were cast for each candidate, but how the votes are to be counted.

[hlthe2b]

14. I am not arguing they have the right to do so and responsbility

I'm simply agreeing that the Senate's response might follow that laid out by the post above #4.

[JDPriestly]

20. As I posted in response to another response to the OP,

the Constitution provides that the Senate decides this sort of thing. Article I. Read it. I posted it here.

[hlthe2b]

26. And I am NOT arguing (the point) that the constitution

provides that the Senate decides this sort of thing! You are not the only educated person on this board. Geebus... :crazy:

[JDPriestly]

117. Look, the Senate will not be deciding which candidate won.

The Senate will act as the judge of the election and decide how the votes are to be counted, whether the votes that Franken wants counted will be counted. If Franken wins because of the decision the Senate makes, that is simply the enforcement of the will of the voters. The Senate will not decide whether they want Franken or Coleman but whether they believe that certain votes should or should not be counted. This is not a personality matter. It is not even a political matter. I know I sound absurdly legalistic, but I believe that is what the Constitution provides. It would be derelict of the Senate to allow the State of Minnesota to refuse to count certain votes without making an independent and final determination in the Senate. And then the chips fall where they may, whether for Franken or for Coleman.

[goclark]

37. If the rethugs had more power without a doubt

they would decide everythere they could to win the seat.

I love being a Democrat because we never want to use the power that we have, we always want to not cheat and follow the path that bends toward justice.

The problem is that's how we got 8 years of Bush.

Just saying

[JDPriestly]

116. The Senate has the authority under the Constitution to judge the election

Article I, section 5, clause 1. They have the authority to decide how the votes are counted in their role as judge of the election of their member. I'm not sure whether they have the authority to void the election and call for a new vote or even for a run-off. My view is that they have the authority to judge how the votes are to be counted and whether the prospective member will be qualified.

[jwirr]

47. It would be the constitutional way to decide it. Do you know if the

setting senate or the incoming senate does the deciding? That would be the kicker.

[JDPriestly]

114. I believe it will be the incoming Senate.

That is because it is a matter of seating the members. I could be wrong, but that is what I think.

[zanne]

32. They wanted it "quicker and cheaper" in 2000....

We all know what happened. I say they should count every single ballot by hand; no excuses. People made an effort to go to the polls and vote. Their votes should all be counted. I'm sure the state of Minnesota can hire enough people to hand-count votes if it really wants to.
Having Harry Reid decide this would set an awful precedent. What we do now, the Republicans could do later and we would have no reason to complain about it.

[Mister Ed]

61. They actually are counting all the ballots by hand

Minnesota ballots are mostly optical-scan. Voters fill in ovals next to the names of their chosen candidates, and a scanning machine reads and tabulates the ballots.

In the recount, each of those ballots is being optically scanned by human eyes, and sorted by hand. Our state law requires that the voter's intent be considered; if a voter put a checkmark next to a candidate's name instead of filling in the oval, the electronic scanners would miss it. But in the recount, the humans would count that vote for the candidate with the checkmark by his name.

The main point of contention right now is whether to count a few thousand absentee ballots that were rejected for no apparent reason at the time of the election. The Coleman campaign maintains that this is a re-count and not a re-vote, and that ballots not counted on election day should remain uncounted. The Franken campaign would like those mistakenly-rejected absentee ballots counted. The state canvassing board has ruled that it does not have the authority to settle that question, so the question will likely go to the courts or, as the OP outlines, to the US Senate.

[zanne]

66. I see. I guess some intervention is needed, then. nt

[defendandprotect]

79. ..."a few thousand absentee ballots rejected for no apparent reason" -----

The main point of contention right now is whether to count a few thousand absentee ballots that were The main point of contention right now is whether to count a few thousand absentee ballots that were rejected for no apparent reason at the time of the election. The Coleman campaign maintains that this is a re-count and not a re-vote, and that ballots not counted on election day should remain uncounted. The Franken campaign would like those mistakenly-rejected absentee ballots counted. The state canvassing board has ruled that it does not have the authority to settle that question, so the question will likely go to the courts or, as the OP outlines, to the US Senate.

[mountainvue]

87. Could the Senate order those absentee ballots

to be counted? This seems like the fairest possible outcome.

[defendandprotect]

93. Evidently they gave no "reasons" for rejecting them ---

I wonder if thet rejected any of Coleman's --???

I'll go with Senate decision on this one --

[Mister Ed]

107. Apparently, the senate, or a court, could order those ballots to be counted

An article in my Sunday Minneapolis Star Tribune this morning said that there are four legally-valid reasons for absentee ballots to be rejected (for example, if the signature on the inner and outer envelopes don't look as though they match). However, there were a few thousand absentee ballots that were rejected without appearing to fit any of those four criteria, or really having anything amiss at all. There is no way of knowing whether those ballots favor Coleman or Franken, because they haven't been opened or counted. The Franken campaign is arguing that they ought to be opened, counted, and included in the recount totals.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/

[wordpix]

115. count the absentee ballots---geesh! I voted absentee & would be pissed if I lived in MN

You make a special effort when you vote absentee b/c you know you can't vote in your voting precinct on the day of the election. So you plan ahead, fill in the form, walk, drive or mail it in by the due date. You're doing due diligence, and then they don't count your ballot? :grr:

I would be PISSED if I voted absentee in MN.

[dflprincess]

3. self delete - dupe

[JDPriestly]

12. Because a run-off is not appropriate under these circumstances.

The law provides that the Senate decides.

[MNBrewer]

29. which law? which section of Article 1?

[Gman]

74. Are you referring to Article I of the US Constitution?

if so, it does not apply. Bush v. Gore not withstanding for all the obvious reasons, a state decides what it's election procedures will be.

[JDPriestly]

111. Please explain why it does not apply?

Article I, Section 5 applies to the Coleman/Franken race for the Senate. That Section of the Constitution did not apply to the election of Bush because ARticle II and the Twelfth Amendment applied.

[Gman]

124. The question above is regarding a runoff

Art 1, Sec 5 is why this could ultimately end up being decided by the Senate in it's capacity of election "judge". The state of MN, and any other state, solely decide prior to the election, that a runoff does not or does not apply in this situation. If a state wanted to draw lots to decide this situation that would also be the state's right. Art 1, Sec 5 does not prohibit MN or any other state from providing for a runoff in a Senate race. Best example, as I'm sure you are aware is the Martin/Chambliss runoff in GA.

But then I think you know this already. My original comment was to what appeared to be a question challenging whether or not the constitution mandates a runoff in this situation or if it goes automatically to the Senate.

[JDPriestly]

113. Article I, section 5, Clause 1

which states:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members . . . .

The race between Coleman and Franken may depend on the rendering of a judgment as to whether to count certain votes. Since the contested seat is in the Senate, the Senate decides how to count those votes. The Senate may decide as it wishes. The Senate will be involved because the issue is not a choice as to which candidate won, but as to how the votes are to be counted, how the election should be decided in that technical sense.

It is the Senate's job to make the final decision about that. Minnesota has the last word in voting, but the Senate has the last word in deciding controversies about how the votes are to be counted because the Senate is the judge of the elections of its own members.

[Pab Sungenis]

44. And the last time this happened

they decided to just declare it vacant, and let the appropriate State's laws apply.

If they do that again, then there is no winner. Pawlenty puts his placeholder in, and there is a special election.

[ksimons]

75. flip a coin!!!

Coleman couldn't win an honest coin-flip!

[cyclezealot]

76. a way around that.. ?.

Have the Senate in effect , null and void the election by calling the seat vacant. Should we suspect foul play in the commissions refusal to review the 3000 ballots.. Pawlenty would then call a new election( depending upon Mn law.) ?... The question to ponder. Freeper's reaction should the Senate decide the election.. They are all Ann Coulter clones.. McConnell would all but stop senate business... The Dem strategy.. In by elections, Democrats don't turn out... ?

[dflprincess]

106. If a vacancy were declared, Pawlenty would appoint someone to fill the seat

until the 2010 election at which time someone would be elected to fill out the remainder of the term that begins in January 2006. No doubt, that place holder would be Coleman or, given Pawlenty's politics, someone even worse.

[cyclezealot]

109. That's Mn election law...?

?.... Some states require earlier elections....?

[dflprincess]

112. It's the way it's done here - (as well as in other states)

An empty senate seat is held by a place holder until the next general election.

[cyclezealot]

122. I thought so..

in regards to Mn... Some states do differ. Example, Arizona... Az law does not even allow a temporary appointment... Some states make their own rules about Senate vacancies... Az says no temporary appointment.. A special election is set.. So says, Ask The Editor..

f a vacancy occurs due to death, resignation, or expulsion the amendment allows the state legislature to empower the governor to appoint a replacement. That replacement would hold the seat until the end of the senator's current term or until a special election could be held.

The only exception is Arizona. The Grand Canyon State requires a special election for all vacancies and does not allow any temporary replacements.

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/filling-vacant-senate-seats.html

[cyclezealot]

123. Question..

WOnder if there has ever been a legal precedent. An election declared flawed and a court order require another vote.?>.

[grytpype]

5. Holy shiet this is huge! Eom

Anyone want to call Reid a pantywaist now?

The frigging Senate is intervening in the recount!

[w4rma]

9. What Reid is saying shouldn't really be that big a deal, but after 2000 it sure seems like it is. nt

[jrockford]

10. It's not *huge* - wth??? They haven't intervened YET...jeez. nt

[JDPriestly]

15. They are not "intervening." They are fulfilling their duty.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution gives the Senate the authority to determine how the votes are to be counted. It states

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,. . . .

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec4

So, the Senate is acting correctly in judging the returns of the election.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. Precisely. It's time bona fide DUers learned to avoid inappropriately

ambiguous terminology. In this instance, the term, "intervene" could have come straight out of the Republican playbook - simply because, post 2000, it has now become a "loaded" term in the context of an election in the US.

[pocoloco]

16. Talk is fucking cheap...

especially from Reid.

[bertman]

11. Harry Reid? Did you say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid? About to do something that

would take balls? I'm not holding my breath.

[judasdisney]

25. No, Reid is about to do something that will create a backlash & a legal mess.

Rest assured, Reid is a GOP mole, as evidenced by his refusal to fight Republicans and his fiercest energy saved for suppressing motions by Democrats like Dodd & Kucinich.

Rest assured, Reid will do whatever it takes to promote fascism.

[jwirr]

49. Following the Constitution is never fascism and the people of MN

are intelligent enough to know when something is settled through Constitutional means. If there is a backlash it will come from the rw idiots.

[valerief]

78. Right. He's a Rethug Mormon in Dem clothing. nt

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

40. Oh!!!

Are you holding your balls then?

[bertman]

121. LOL!! Nah, I'm just waiting to see what transpires with Harry at the helm.

[tinrobot]

17. Sounds like a Supreme Court case in the making.

You know where that would lead.

[NewJeffCT]

23. I was thinking that myself

sounds like lawsuits galore, and it ending up in the RW SCotUS

[George II]

59. Probably not - the Constitution allows the Senate to seat candidates if the election was questionabl

[tinrobot]

90. Define questionable

I think that's where the Supreme Court may come into play.

[CitizenPatriot]

18. Oh man

I am already hearing the GOP fear mongering ads here about Obama taking over to give all illegals drivers licenses and jobs and steal from whitey to make sure the "others" get theirs. "the Obama agenda" "he can take over" etc all due to the run off here in GA. this plays along with Chambliss's message about the GOP turnig out "our voters" to counteract the "african american vote" who "won't come out for a senate run off". yeah, stay classy, GOP!

If the senate decides the MN race, oh boy....

It's the law, so what can you do? They suppressed all of these votes and people are pissed. The people want their vote to be counted. That shouldn't be threatening.

And yet, it is. Why is that?

[onehandle]

19. Give it to Al. We hold the cards. They dance for us.

It's our country now, RoveCo.

[machI]

21. Absolutely.

I would not state it as: "give it to Al" though. The matter will be ended by the Senate by deciding the people of Minnesota elected Al Franken as their junior Senator.

The Republicans have had their chance running the Government. They held the Executive Branch for eight years. They held the House of Representatives for 14 years. They held both the Congress and the White House for six years. The Republicans proved themselves to be less than adequate at running the Government, they need to step aside.

The Republicans need to be shown who rules the Government now. We need to be forceful and clear about this from the very start, and not give them the opportunity to get into pissing contests about 'equally sharing power' or 'being involved in the decision making process'. The Republicans lost. The Democrats should establish their rule over the country right up front, and send a message to the Republicans by ending the Senate race in Minnesota in our favor.

[DissedByBush]

94. I dislike your terminology

"The Democrats should establish their rule over the country right up front"

I dislike the concept of a party "ruling the country." We are not supposed to have rulers. We are supposed to have representatives, servants of our interests.

[machI]

102. Any other way of saying it seemed kind of awkward

How about:
establish our administration over the country ?

I am open to suggestions on how to say it better.

[DissedByBush]

125. Has the majority in Congress? n/t

[zanne]

33. No. That's the way the Republicans did it in 2000.

We're not Republicans.

[Dinger]

53. I Like The way You Think onehandle

:) :patriot:

[Dreamer Tatum]

83. So 2000 was OK with you, if only the R and D were reversed?

Got it. And wow. Just wow.

[KamaAina]

85. BIG difference. Reid wants to *count all the votes*. SCOTUS et al. wanted to *stop the recount*.

Apples and oranges.

[snowbear]

22. So..... Can you clarify how this would work?

I've read... "Ultimately, the Senate has complete authority to determine who was elected"

and then also read.. "The Senate can just declare the seat vacant. Pawlenty appoints a placeholder....."



Does this mean Pawlenty will more than likely wind up making the appointment of Coleman until they hold a new election?

Maybe I'm just up too late and that's why it's fuzzy?

~~~~

[creeksneakers2]

24. That would be an abuse of power

The public would be furious. It would also set a dangerous precedent that the GOP would abuse to no end if they get back in power.

[MNBrewer]

30. actually, only half the public would be furious

half will be furious either way. this election needs to be determined by counting MINNESOTAN'S votes. all validly cast votes. I voted for Franken, but would hate for him to come to office under questionable terms.

[Dinger]

28. Wow, they're Trying To Steal It

Not again. Please Reid, show some balls this time!

[chelsea0011]

31. Oh, I hope so. Let the Senate pick Franken and watch the Republicans

complain how the election was stolen. It will be great theater.

[cascadiance]

105. Rethuglicans should be reminded that they *INSTALLED* Brian Bilbray before certification completed..

... in the runoff election to replace Duke Cunningham. The House "swore him in" before the vote counting was completed and certified, and before a pending lawsuit demanding a recount could be followed through on.

So if Rethugs complain about the Senate deciding to give it to Al AFTER a recount has been conducted, they should be reminded that they set a worse precedent in deciding an election BEFORE all of the election counting was completed and certified. And even a lawsuit challenging their acts was thrown out, since the judge ruled once the House declared the winner, San Diego had no more jurisdictional claim over the results then, no matter how incomplete they were...

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/top_stories/7_05_458_29_06.txt

[janedum]

34. Why did Franken lose this?

Is it because he ran a poor campaign? Did the people of MN perceive him to be more a comedian than a politician?
Did he appear to lack conviction or commitment.
I think these issues need to be examined.
It makes no sense whatsoever that a Dem would lose this race unless ...
something was wrong with the candidate or the campaign.

[trumad]

35. Actaully he lost it because Minnesotians are idiots.

[scarletwoman]

57. Kiss my Minnesotan ass. Franken lost because he was a crappy candidate & because of the 3rd party

candidate on the ballot.

I voted for Franken because I'm a party loyalist, but I always thought it was a huge mistake for the DFL to run him. He only won 65% of the Democratic votes in the state primary -- which means that 35% of Dem voters were already looking for someone else to vote for.

Some of them no doubt sucked it up and voted for Franken in the general election, but a good many of them obviously moved over to Barkley.

In my own tiny rural precinct there were 107 votes for Obama, but only 85 votes for Franken. Coleman picked up 2 more votes than McCain, but the rest of those Obama voters broke for Barkley.

It was the same story in all the other small precincts in my area whose totals I looked at. The vote totals for Franken were ALWAYS less than the vote totals for Obama -- generally by between 10% to 20%. Coleman picked up a very few of those Obama votes, most of them went to Barkley.

As far as I'm concerned, the only "idiots" in all this were the DFL party delegates who gave the endorsement to Franken in the first place.

sw

[Hansel]

80. Whatever.

He lost because Coleman and the RNC ran some pretty vicious ads that were full of lies and that people believed.

Like the one about him losing his temper and having some kind of problem controlling his emotions. Franken later ran a counter ad that showed the clip in context and it was found that he was telling a story about Paul Wellstone at his son's track meet and he was imitating Wellstone yelling at his son to push harder in the race he was running.

And the one about him not paying his taxes which turned out to be pretty much a BS. The right wing in MN ran the most disgusting a bullsh*t campaign I have never seen the likes of in MN. And they will continue to do so and win until we do something to force Republicans to get at least 50% which they could never do if the elections laws were set up properly. Republican know that they never have to convince a majority of Minnesotans. Just turn off enough to split the votes between the progressive Dem and progressive Independent candidate. And it works every time.

Also, the circular firing squad played a part as well with Democrats never knowing when to shut the hell up. Betty McCollum and company using his writings in an effort to paint him as some kind of a misogynist was a gamble that paid off well--for Coleman. It was a BS move meant to get the candidate they wanted in place.

Oh, and even though he wasn't the greatest candidate, the rest pretty much ranked right up there with Tinklenberg as far as inspiring excitement.

I agree with one point. The 3rd party run was a problem. Thus the need for instant runoff in MN. I'm not a huge fan of Franken either, but I'm going to put the blame where it belongs--MN legislature not forcing a candidate to get 50% of the vote and not making a bigger effort to accommodate 3rd party runs.

[scarletwoman]

100. I'm glad we're in agreement about the 3rd party problem.

As for the Republican slime machine -- for me the thing is, Franken was incredibly vulnerable on a number of issues. So even though the repugs took stuff out of context and exagerrated and distorted the hell out of other things, they had a lot of raw material to work with.

Franken did, in fact, not pay taxes in 17 states -- yes he paid the taxes owed, just not in the correct state. And yes he made up for his mistakes, but why wouldn't that give you pause before choosing him to run in such a crucial election when you know that repugs are out there sharpening their knives and fangs?

Franken had to spend almost all his time fighting back against attacks, and barely managed to get any kind of message out.

Maybe the alternatives to Franken weren't "exciting", but Nelson-Palmeyer had a genuinely progressive message with none of Franken's baggage. It's quite possible he could have made a credible showing had the DFL party machine gotten behind him.

Oh well, all water under the bridge now. This just plain really sucks all the way around. The only bright spot I can see is that this is the best opportunity we've ever had for pushing the MN legislature to enact new election laws that will put an end to winning by a plurality instead of a majority. I'm going to make it my personal lobbying campaign for the new year.

Peace,
sw

[trumad]

81. Nope--- you're fellow Minnesotians are idiots.

Hey--I'm a Floridian and I live in a state full of them.

[Dreamer Tatum]

84. Just a wee bit of irony in your post nt

[scarletwoman]

97. Those who make pronouncements from on high need not concern themselves with such petty things

as knowing the difference between "your" and "you're", and using the correct one in a sentence.

[trumad]

98. indeed

[Stardust]

99. Just curious...what do you think Al is a "crappy candidate?"

[scarletwoman]

104. I knew from the start that he'd have big trouble appealing to rural voters. Plus all his baggage

from his career as a comedian/satirist -- the Republican party was literally salivating over what a target-rich candidate Franken would be. Add to that his very real financial missteps -- even though these were mercilessly exagerrated and distorted by the repugs, having a candidate with such vulnerabilities in the first place just seemed stupid to me.

Here's the way I saw the Franken candidacy from the beginning, living in a rural area where cows outnumber the voters:

(1) The carpetbagger thing. Yes, he grew up in St. Louis Park -- but he left that behind for the bright lights of New York many decades ago. Then he shows back up a few years ago and announces he wants to run for the Senate from Minnesota. I always felt like, 'Excuse me? Did Minnesota ask you to run for our Senate seat?'

(2) The carpetbagger thing, part II. So, having decided he wants to be a Senator from Minnesota, he proceeds to travel around collecting big bucks from his show business friends. Great, just what we need to impress staid rural Minnesota voters -- a guy flush with "Hollywood Liberal" cash. If they've heard of him at all -- since he didn't come up through the home-grown Minnesota political "farm team" -- all they know is that he's some kind of New York comedian.

(3) The baggage in that carpetbag. He did indeed make some major financial missteps. His excuse that he did what his accountant advised him to do didn't exactly inspire confidence in his ability to hire people with a clue. Like, how long has he been in show biz and he still didn't know how to pay his income tax correctly?

(4) More baggage. He didn't realize that some of the crude shit he wrote in his past career wouldn't get dug up and come back to bite him? More major cluelessness. Yeah, it was unfair and mean -- but when you have a long former career of doing and saying whatever you please, you should realize that it's not going to just disappear when you decide to change your career to politics. It was definitely a gamble that he could overcome that -- a gamble that I thought the DFL was nuts to make in such a crucial election.

(5) His initial tv ad campaign was totally lame. Coleman was running circles around him in both humorous content and production values in HIS tv ads. So here's this Hollywood-funded show biz guy and former comedian and he couldn't get a decent ad made? It was awful. Just dull, cliche-filled vagaries about "I want to work for YOU!" When you're a former entertainer and your opponent is running more entertaining ads than you, there's something seriously wrong. I think Franken had a crappy campaign team -- apparently he's no better at hiring campaign consultants than he is at hiring tax accountants.

I think Franken's a nice guy and all, and a decent liberal, but he came into the game with some serious strikes against him to begin with, and was too easily out-maneuvered.

Hope that answers your question.

sw

[Stardust]

118. Thanks.

[scarletwoman]

120. You're welcome. Thank you for reading it. (nt)

[antimatter98]

86. Minnesota gave us Bachmann and Coleman. What insanity. n/t

[scarletwoman]

96. We also gave you Paul Wellstone, and good solid (if dull) liberal Democrats like Hubert Humphrey &

Walter Mondale. Not to mention Eugene McCarthy, who was the first to campaign against the Vietnam war (Bobby Kennedy jumped in much later).

Bachmann can be laid at the feet of her particularly conservative district -- although there again there was a 3rd party spoiler candidate, who pulled just enough anti-Bachmann votes to prevent a Tinklenberg victory. Yet ANOTHER reason we badly need IRV in Minnesota.

As for Coleman's first election, the right wing slime machine went into hyperdrive over the Wellstone memorial, just one week before election day while the DFL was scrambling like mad to overcome the shock of losing so many good people in the October 25 plane crash. They kicked us while we were down with a vengeance, it was the most vicious, hateful political experience I've ever been through.

As for this year, bear in mind that Coleman didn't come close to winning a majority -- only 42% of voters chose him. Our biggest problem is having a 3rd party that never wins a plurality, but just enough to prevent either major party from getting a majority.

Our biggest priority needs to be to get our legislature to pass some sort of run-off voting law that mandates a majority vote for elected office. We would have never been stuck with Tim Pawlenty for Governor for two terms had such a law been in place.

Yes, Minnesota has its share of yahoos, but show me a state that doesn't.

sw

[machI]

42. The fight is still on, Al Franken can still be the winner in this

What is important is that we not knuckle under to the Republicans.

It ain't over; We can still win this one.

[tomp]

43. or there is a vote count problem. nt

[mountainvue]

88. We don't know if he lost yet. All of the votes have not been

counted. There are some three thousand absentee ballots in question.

[GinaMaria]

89. Did Fraken 'lose this'? if all the votes have not been counted

it seems premature to declare a winner. If the votes are not counted, we can declare that the people of Minnesota are the losers, and so far that is what has happened. Count the damn votes. How is it that people are not fed up with strategies that exclude votes? Enough is enough. Our democracy is diluted enough without this BS.

[Jersey Ginny]

110. Uh, he didn't lose.

It's still being decided, to my understanding.

[ncteechur]

36. Let's not forget the words of John McCain....

"Elections have consequences." (I believe it was him.)

If the Senate selects Franken, well tough shit. Elections have consequences.

[padia]

70. I don't know if McCain said it first

but Boxer did say it a couple of years ago as the chair of her committee, when I believe Inhoff was getting out of line with Gore

[Joanne98]

38. Good. Just do it.

[Myrina]

39. If "the Senate has complete authority to determine who was elected"

... then why the hell didn't Senate Dems try to intervene when the GOP Diebolded the 2003 election after Paul Wellstone's passing and gave us Coleman in the first place?

[tinrobot]

50. Because this only works when nobody can filibuster.

If we take Georgia next week, then the Democrats can run this through without it being filibustered.

[Phred42]

41. LIke the Runnoff idea above. The Senate Dems are cowards.

If this ends up in the Senate the Dems will give it to Coleman simply to prevent Republicans from calling them names.

[totodeinhere]

45. If the Dem majority in the Senate gives the seat to Franken you can kiss...

any thoughts of cooperation with the GOP goodbye. Obama's dream of bipartisan cooperation in Washington would be dead. So I think there might be a good chance that Obama will advise Reid to leave this alone and let the powers that be in Minnesota decide this one way or the other. One more Senate seat may not be worth it when the Dems will already have 58 or 59 seats anyway.

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

48. The Senate has has the power to order a new election

They did it in 1975 in NH when the 1974 election between Democrat John Durkin and Rep. Louis Wyman was as befuddling as this one. And the Democratic majority then was far greater. That seems like a reasonable scenario now.

[LynneSin]

63. I have to totally agree - fairest and safest thing to do is a runoff

Eliminate the 3rd party candidate and allow the top 2 vote getters to run in a runoff. See how things turn out that way. That's how they do it in Louisana. Everyone can run for office in LA but if no one gets 50% of the vote then a runoff is required for the top 2 candidates.

[Wizard777]

73. If Franken would give us 60 seats. We don't need their cooperation.

We can drag them kicking and screaming like a kid that just got told to put the candy back because they've already spent all their allowance. We would be bullet proof in the House and Senate.

[totodeinhere]

108. But that's not how Obama has promised to govern.

He said he wants a bipartisan approach and he means it.

[Wizard777]

126. How far is he willing to go? Complette surrender of all power?

Also keep in mind that Congress is a seperate and equal branch. So it's up to Congress and he really has no say in how the bill get passed.

[glitch]

103. Ha! The last time I had any thoughts of cooperation from the GOP was 1979. nt.

[fed_up_mother]

46. Seems like it would be the state senate.

I realize that the article says the Senate is the final arbiter of its membership, but it still seems like a local government body of the actual state involved would make that determination.

[jwirr]

51. As a Minnesota Democrat I want Harry Reid to use the law to get

all the votes counted.

[ryanmuegge]

52. Harry Reid and Pelosi will select a fellow Republuican in Norm Coleman, of course.

[nolabels]

56. Harry Reid and Pelosi are democratic senators

:sarcasm:

[davidinalameda]

91. this has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen on here

did you leave a bridge unattended somewhere?

[Zambero]

58. R-U-N-O-F-F

Georgia is proceeding in this manner, with a much larger general election vote margin between the top 2 candidates. I'm hoping that Senate Democrats aren't put in this position, especially with the magic number 60 within reach. If the recount is inconclusive, let Franken be in a position to beat Coleman fair and square in a one-on-one rematch. Obama could also help big time in MN with a few appearances. A very dark cloud would hover over any appointment that is swayed by partisan considerations, and I hope the GOP isn't handed an issue on a silver platter that becomes their own "Florida 2000" rallying cry.

[scarletwoman]

119. Unfortunately, current MN election law has no provision for a runoff.

That would definitely be my preference, too. But we'd have to change the law first, and I doubt it could be applied retroactively to this election.

[FirstLight]

60. Okay, I keep hearing "all the votes counted"...weren't they?

If the recount comes down to a margin of less than .001% of the electorate, and a runoff is too expensive to do, then why can't the senate follow procedure and call it?
will the senate be looking at the ballots in question?

It just seems like this isn't rocket science...
take the votes in question only, have the senate look at them,
add the difference between the rest of the votes, and see who won...

As much as I would LIKE to see the Dem just "given" the race, because of the stolen elections we have been subjected to, it isn't prudent to just call it without at least "trying" to look at the evidence.

[LynneSin]

62. If Reid picks Franken it could cause serious backlash. It should be a run-off

Don't get me wrong, I want Al Franken as the senator and I truly believe that if he could do this without any impact that Reid would pick Al Franken too.

But honestly, I can see alot of backlash that could piss people off and turn the tide back towards the republicans. It's usually stupid shit like this that turns our country from one party to the next.

I would hope that Reid takes the safest route and requests a revote. There was a 3rd party candidate that clearly had impact on the race in Minnesota (someone with over 100k vote may have clearly pulled some votes from one of the candidates). The run off would be with the top 2 vote getters meaning only Franken and Coleman would be in this race and a much clearer decision is made.

I'd rather have 58 votes that we can build on in 2010 than 59 senators that might get a hit in 2010 because of voter backlash.

[ooglymoogly]

65. Backlashes tend to have no teeth when

the actors are following the letter of the law.

[LynneSin]

68. Yeah, no one was really upset that the Supreme Court picked Bush

:grr:

[ooglymoogly]

72. No they stepped out of what is commonly held as constitutional law for political reasons.

They had no right as a co equal branch of government interfering in the vote of the people and selecting a president against the vote of the people. If they had let the legal vote of the people be counted there would have been no Bush presidency. IMO Gore should have called their bluff and not capitulated and should have caused a constitutional crises by telling the Supreems they had no right or business interfering in the vote of the people and should have demanded the vote be counted. The backlash of the voters against the supreems is well placed.

This however is a horse of an entirely different color. The law here is clearly spelled out.

[ooglymoogly]

64. My 2 cents

It seems to me the senate aught to give them a choice.
Either count all votes including absentee or risk a forced new election monitored by the senate or outright appointment. After all its the law and dems should not shrink from it with their all to familiar hand wringing and pearl clutching. Just do what the law demands and it will be forgotten in two months when new issues demand attention. There are earth shattering decisions to made in the near future by this congress and until this country is back on its feet dems like the pugs should take no prisoners trying to be goody two shoes. That is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

[Charlie Brown]

67. I don't like this at all

The people of Minnesota should decide who will be their next Senator, not politicians in Washington.

I have to ask how everyone here would react if a Republican-led Senate took it upon themselves to resolve a state-race to its own satisfaction.

[happygoluckytoyou]

69. RECOUNT? just decide which ballots count... AND COUNT THEM...

if the GOP was "doing this" we'd call it stacking the deck...

DETERMINE who was elected is different than "putting in a guy with less votes."

DEFINE WHAT COUNTS... COUNT IT... MOVE ON ! ! !

[hughee99]

71. Regardless of what the Senate has the authority to do...

the Senate has the OBLIGATION to follow the will of the Minnesota voters. If they cannot determine this (and judging by the closeness of the election, they can't), they should find funds to aid MN in a runoff.

I really want Franken to win, but not at the expense of our credibility. I don't want to see the bumper sticker

COUNT EVERY VOTE*
*(if it helps our candidate)

in 2010.

[defendandprotect]

77. Fairly aggressive for Reid...! What was Franken's "argument" re rejected ballots-?

The board's move was "a cause for great concern," Reid said this week, and those comments may indicate his willingness to start a Senate investigation of the Minnesota recount, Smith said. And if so, it's possible that Franken's argument regarding rejected absentee ballots could be reconsidered by U.S. senators.

[ShadowLiberal]

82. Umm... didn't the board simply rule they had no jurisdiction, and that they agreed with Franken?

I definitely recall reading that at least two members of the 5 member board thought that Franken's case stood a good chance of winning in court.

It seems like overreacting to me to claim the board saying "we don't have the jurisdiction" would be the last straw that could make the senate decide this, especially with Franken almost certainly sueing in the correct place now to get those ballots counted.

[davidinalameda]

92. let the court decide

and move on

and how about some sort of program or whatever about how to properly fill out ballots?

if people followed directions, none of this would have happened!

[RCinBrooklyn]

95. Let's see... So, Coleman has all Republicans AND Lieberman.

[Warren Stupidity]

101. I believe it would be the next senate.

Not this one that would make this decision, if it came to that, which I think is unlikely. However if I am wrong then indeed I think we could count on that fucking arrogant asshole lieberman to vote for Coleman.

[noonwitch]

127. If the Senate decides for Franken, many would see it as an illegitimate result

I'd rather the recount decide it. But I like the run-off idea.