Norm Coleman: Maybe We Need A Do-Over Election
The talk from the Coleman campaign about how the Minnesota election results are unreliable, and that a do-over election could be an option, has now gone beyond just Norm Coleman's lawyers -- it's now coming from the mouth of Norm himself.
Coleman did an interview with Sirius conservative talk-radio host Andrew Wilkow, and discussed the campaign's argument that the court's current strict standards for allowing in previously-rejected ballots must by extension render illegal a whole lot of ballots accepted and counted on Election Night, when local election officials used lax standards:
"What does the court do?" Norm asked rhetorically. "Yeah, you know some folks are now talking about simply saying run it again, just run it again."
"Have another statewide election?" Wilkow asked.
Coleman responded: "You know the St. Paul Pioneer Press is...one of the second largest papers in the state, last week [they] said we're never going to figure this out, just run it again. So you start hearing that. Ultimately the court has to make a determination, can they confirm, can they certify who got the most legally cast votes?"
Coleman also said that he truly believes that he is the one who got the most legally cast votes, but on the other hand, this whole situation shows serious concerns about the process.
"I got to believe next time this happens folks are going to say ... if you have something within a couple of say percentage - this is by the way was thousandths of a percent - but if you have something within a couple of hundred votes out of three million cast, probably the best thing to do next time is run it again in three weeks and put all this other stuff aside."
(By the way, Norm only mentioned one particular Democratic county where lax standards were used. However, his own legal team has demonstrated during this trial that leniency occurred in deep-red counties, too. He also declared with confidence that he was ahead on Election Night -- but his legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg declared yesterday evening that the Election Night totals themselves are tainted and unreliable.)
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Franken and Co need to get out and squash this idea before it starts taking root.
February 26, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no legal basis for it so it's not gonna happen anyway.
February 26, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's happened before (New Hampshire Senate race 1974). If the R's filibuster Franken's seating, what then? I'm not convinced they can pull it off, but it's certainly a possibility you can't dismiss so easily.
February 26, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
About filibustering the seating of a Senator. I'm wondering about that (but too lazy and don't have time right now to look it up): Does there actually have to be an affirmative vote deciding to seat each newly elected Senator? Or is it assumed that a Senator with state credentials will be seated -- the default, as it were -- and a challenge is required to prevent him/her from being seated? If the former, then I can see how they could filibuster, but if the latter, the shoe is on the other foot and the Democrats could prevent the challenge from being heard, i.e., filibuster it, unless the GOP got 19 Democrats to go along.
February 26, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
mans_best_friend just cited the Durkin-Wyman case. No excuse for laziness. In that case, the Senate itself passed the buck back to the state. And milquetoast Harry Reid won't even make the Thugs filibuster; he'll just capitulate at the mere threat of a filibuster. As is finally being pointed out by others here, it IS UP TO THE SENATE to judge elections and returns of its members. My own biases give me a hunch--admittedly no evidence for it other than my unreliable political antennae--that plenty of the Senate Dems don't want Mr. Franken in their midst. Although Al is ready to play by their rules, the other members of the club don't trust him to refrain from speaking the plain truth too often for their comfort.
At this point, Norm could petition the Senate to dispose of this by ordering a new election. Actually the Senate can only declare the old election null. Then confusion would set in. Under the 17th amendment, probably Thug Gov. Pawlenty could then re-appoint Norm or another Thug of his choice, and the legislature would have to decide if a special election would be restricted to the last two top finishers or open to all. In which case either Barkley or Ventura could also run again, and maybe win.
February 26, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I read Senate Rule II, if the Republicans want to filibuster Al Franken's seating then they will have to hold an actual filibuster and all work in the Senate will grind to a complete halt while they do it.
Senate Rule II expressly states that the presentation of credentials "shall always be in order" and that "all questions and motions arising or made upon the presentation of such credentials shall be proceeded with until disposed of."
Am I wrong? Doesn't that mean that Al Franken's presentation of credentials automatically goes on the schedule of Senate business and that the Senate cannot table the question. They have to consider it and proceed on it until resolved.
I don't think Harry Reid has the option of allowing the Republicans their weaksauce non-filibuster filibuster if Al Franken chooses to present his credentials.
February 26, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. See link I attached to one of your posts below. The rules changed in 1917.
February 26, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how that link has anything to do with this point. All that link says is that Senators aren't actually required to talk while filibustering. Please explain your meaning. Thanks.
By the way, while reading more about the Durkin-Wyman contest, I noticed that the Senate referred that matter to the Senate Rules committee. That indicates that I am wrong that all Senate business would grind to a halt. I'm curious, however, how the Senate reconciled that practice with the language of Rule II.
February 26, 2009 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I interpreted your "actual filibuster" comment to mean that they had to stand and talk and read from the phone book or something. That's what I was responding to.
Everybody keeps bagging on reid. His hands were tied before because he had a non-majority majority. They really should read the article and the procedures. He did the best that he could and he did a pretty good job with the hand that he was dealt.
February 26, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You should read the article about filibuster on Huffington Post. Put up a couple of days ago. The consensus of experts on Senate procedures is that all that is required is for all Republican senators except one to leave the chamber. Every time the motion is made for a vote, the single senator rises from his desk and requests a quorum count. There not being a quorum, no vote. This is how the last actual filibuster was implemented, in 1988. An attempt by the Majority Leader to forcibly obtain a quorum failed.
There's more detail in the article.
Thanks.
mp
February 26, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
as I noted in a reply to Michael A.--that Huff Post article has a comment from a reader who quotes directly from Senate rules about quorum calls, and the commenter makes a case to the effect that the quorum call device CANNOT be used ad infinitum---there is a distant but definite limit to its employment. Rules can often be interpreted to get what one needs done. There is lots of Congressional precedent for it!
February 26, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate the reference to the HuffingtonPost article, which I did read. I don't see how that changes the effect of the "shall always be in order" and "shall be proceeded with until disposed of" in Senate Rule II though.
February 26, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, I don't think your political antennae is functioning. The Democrats would prefer a whole new election over seating Franken because he's too independent? They would rather risk a Democratic vote? Sorry -- I can't buy that argument.
This has been Coleman's plan all along -- to re-do the election. He was never going to win this case -- he just wanted to delegitimate the results of the election.
I'm so glad the Repubs are fine with cutting umemployment benefits but have no problem paying for new elections.
February 26, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admit it's my own paranoia. BUT already there are a gang of five (or six?) so-called BlueDog Dems who are obstructing the foreclosure relief bill. What are they up to? You think THEY would welcome Al Franken, a political heir to Paul Wellstone but with a bigger (read "celebrity") silhouette? I doubt it.
February 26, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe Steve was referring to Minnesota Election Law...and he's right. There's nothing in Minnesota Election Law that allows for a run-off election. Once Norm's run out the clock on his court case he can appeal it to the MNSC, that's it. There isn't going to be any run-off election here in MN.
February 26, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, you're too quick for me! ;)
February 26, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, why would Minnesota courts give a rat's about New Hampshire election law?
February 26, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not going to be a problem. If they held the election again, Franken would win by an even more solid margin. Coleman is toast.
February 26, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is behind and losing in court. What else would he say? Of course it isn't his money paying for the court challenge or for a new election. His lawyers will keep this going as long as possible. Not only for the Republican Senators, depriving Minnesotans of two Senators, but imagine the billing hours!
February 26, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does it deprive the Minnesotans of two senators? Amy Klobuchar is OK, no? They are only being deprived of one, which is bad enough.
February 26, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think nellieh meant "of having two Senators" -- as in, depriving them of the second one.
February 26, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the initial count was close and state law mandated a recount, Coleman was urging Franken to decline the recount and he cited his "concerns" over the cost of a recount. Now he wants another statewide election and suddenly he's not so fiscally responsible. Here's my theory: I would bet that Coleman wants exactly as many recounts and new elections as it takes for him to "win" and, coinicdentally I'm sure - that number will turn out to be EXACTLY the right number of attempts that it takes to make the election "fair".
February 26, 2009 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And it is this hypocrisy that Franken should be running to the media with every chance he gets. A recount would be run by the same officials who ran this one, under the same rules. Or does Coleman think the re-vote should wait until new election rules are written up and passed? And there would be a whole host of legal challenges and litigation if there is another re-vote. Coleman knows this, and knows it can't happen, but he just wants to make Franken's win seem weak and illegitimate in the eyes of the voters.
The funniest damn thing would be if the courts ruled in favor of Coleman to give him a slight lead - how fast would his tune change, before of course ruling on some of Franken's questioned ballots that would give Al the lead back.
February 26, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
how fast would his tune change, before of course ruling on some of Franken's questioned ballots that would give Al the lead back
I'm guessing it would be timed in the milliseconds....
February 26, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nanoseconds, Margaret, nanoseconds...
February 26, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it would be counter-productive for Franken to be running to the media every chance he gets.
His strategy has been to sit back and let the process work. He’s said very little, and has been very restrained in what he has said. He has looked like a Senator, while Coleman has looked liked a sore loser.
His legal team has been much more effective than Coleman’s. Chances are, he will be seated. Should the unlikely happen and a new election be ordered by the Senate, Franken’s demeanor the past few months should make him the overwhelming favorite to win.
February 26, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I was a kid playing infinite sandlot baseball games, sometimes my brother didn't like the outcome of a play and would say do over.
If he got mad and quit leaving us odd players we might relent, but then we figured out that we could play an odd man game and when he quit we said fine go.....
Do overs are for loser....Norm.....how many chances do you want?
February 26, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
As many as it takes for him to come out on top.
February 26, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What would you think of a kid who complained about a stolen base in the 2nd inning, saying "We have 7 on a side; I'd NEVER steal a base in that situation" but when he was down a run in the 6th inning, stole a base himself and told everyone that it was the RIGHT and JUST thing to do?
That's our dorky a**hole Norm.
February 26, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think it might be good for him to give up everything else and base his actions solely on a legal attempt at having a "do-over" election.
The case will be short, sweet and he'll loose.
Game Over - Franken in!
February 26, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Franken definitely needs to get out the spin team. I've been following the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune and their idea of "fair" seems to be to give equal weight to the judges and to Coleman's talking machine in the hallways. They also leave out particularly pertinent points. Franken's people need to be heard because the local newpaper is doing a piss-poor job.
You know all the talk of filibuster in the Senate, and people snidely suggesting making them start reading out of the phone book? Well, yesterday's testimony from the Minneapolis election head was close to that. Coleman's lawyer had the woman looking up ballots in dozens of 3-inch binders, counting them out, verifying names, blah, blah, blah, blah. Talk about pointless and tedious!
February 26, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Franken was on radio, right? I sure hope he is applying some sophisticated understanding of what and when he needs to communicate. Could it be that shutting up is best, let Norm make an ass of himself? I don't feel qualified to offer an opinion either way.
February 26, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing "snide" about requiring filibustering senators to read from a "phone book." Traditionally, that is the effort that is required for a filibuster. Its only a recent Harry Reid innovation that lets Republicans get away with constantly filibustering without actually having to filibuster.
February 26, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a fallacy. There doesn't need to be any reading of phone books or anything like that.
February 26, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right. I was a bit hasty in my comment above. Senators can't actually be required to talk. They can, however, be required to remain on the floor and conduct an actual filibuster. Even if the Senators aren't reading, that is dramatically different from the weak practice that Harry Reid allows today.
February 26, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, completely wrong. Check out this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html
Very informative. You can't make them talk all night. Since the rule changes in 1917, talking all night or reading a book has been done merely for theatrics.
February 26, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I checked that link and it seems persuasive until you read the comments and someone named "DirkSinger" quotes from the Senate rules and points out that there cannot be an infinite number of quorum calls (the parliamentary device actually used to obstruct, rather than "non-stop speaking.")
There could be a LOT of quorum calls--the commenter suggests 82, I think--but not an indefinite reiteration of them. So if the Dem leadership would recognized that the nation is IN A CRISIS and that Thug obstruction must be overcome, and can only be overcome by GETTING TOUGH, then this whole "60 vote" bugaboo would evaporate.
Right now, it LOOKS TO THE PUBLIC that the Dems are wimps. No way they will ever get to 60 votes with that image! And when Burris' seat goes to the Thugs, and Robert Byrd's seat goes to the Thugs, then the Dems will be handcuffed even worse. Reid must get out of the way. Isn't there ONE Senate Democrat who can talk clearly and persuasively so that the public catches on---even despite the fascistic news monopolies?
February 26, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tedious? Absolutely. Pointless? Absolutely not. Judging by the conflicting, amateurish, and illogical arguments presented by Coleman's team, the ONLY point of his case (and appeals) is (and will continue to be) to just keep talking. I don't know what Coleman is actually thinking, but the puppetmasters have not shown any indication that they think they can actually win on the merits. For that matter, I don't think they expect Coleman to be able to win a re-vote. They don't care. So long as he's still standing, the Democrats have one less vote in the Senate. If lack of preparation of the witnesses and the presentation in chief means things move slower, then Coleman's team is succeeding. This is all Kabuki theatre.
The judges are showing an excess amount of patience and restraint, but continue to rule against Coleman on substantive matters. As their patience is strained, they will start making decisions a bit quicker. Slower than we may want, but the decision will be made.
February 26, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does he honestly think he would win?
From where I sit (not in Minnesota), it seems he's got two things going against him in a mulligan election:
1. He is perceived as being a sore loser.
2. Given the choice, why would a state want to be represented by Senator in the minority party?
February 26, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
HAS IT OCCURRED TO any of the coleman BRAINS that if they call for a DO-EVER because the election is called into question ... NOBODY elected by the people of Minnesota -- IN ANY CAPACITY (including President, House of Rep and ALL THE VARIOUS and sundry LOCAL races) WOULD ALSO have to be INVALIDATED.
COLEMAN'S camp is morphing into SHEER INSANITY and the RNC and Coleman should be forced to PAY FOR every penny it has cost Minnesota taxpayers. It would be FUNNY if not for the FACT that the RNC is just USING MINNESOTA to keep the Senate "light" a democratic seat.
SURELY legal minds in seats of authority COULD ACT to stop this farce. AND THE US SENATE should SEAT FRANKEN as soon as THIS COURT rules. (And NOT wait for further RNC delaying tactics).
OTHER THAN THE RNC, whose INTERESTS are being served?
February 26, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
From his perspective he's completely correct.
You lose an election? Don't seat the damn opponent, for heaven's sake, just have another election! Repeat until seated.
February 26, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
could you imagine a bigger dildo than Norm Coleman????
February 26, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Norm is so fake he can't even be a real d**k, only a fake one.
February 26, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Two words: Dick Cheney.
February 26, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...probably the best thing to do next time is run it again in three weeks and put all this other stuff aside."
Put all this other stuff aside. Translated into Republican language that means:
"After I get my way let's make sure nobody else gets to drag elections out like I just did by bringing hopeless cases to court instead of conceding that you have lost. "
February 26, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like what the SCOTUS did in 2000 when they appointed W- changed the rule for him for that one time.
February 26, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
IOKIYAR
Republicans don't have to follow the rules of the rest of us. They are special, and besides, it's everyone else's fault.
February 26, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would never happen, but if it did, Norm would lose badly. People don't vote for losers, and definitely don't vote for sore losers.
February 26, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can the St. Paul Pioneer Press be "one of the second largest newspapers in the state."
Can't there only be one? Maybe Coleman wants to be one of the second senators from Minnesota?
February 26, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it is - once you get outstate, there's not much else.
And it's a rag. Always was, and it was always in Norman's pocket. When Quimby was mayor they were so far in his corner that if he said water flowed uphill, Ron Clark (the editor at the time) would have sworn on a stack of bibles he'd personally seen it happen.
February 26, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Ron Clark is dead and can't defend himself, but he was a good man and merely in the position of so many editors, namely, that he had to do what the owners wanted. And the Ridders wanted Norm Coleman, the willing tool for all corporate interests. Furthermore, the Star Tribune (the biggest, but bankrupt) newspaper in Minnesota, also endorsed Norm, which hasn't kept the wingnuts from ceasing with their rabid denunciation of it as "Pravda" and "Red Star.' There is exactly 1 radio station in the state which has liberal programming, and it has a weak signal which won't even cover the Twin Cities.
Franken won't get a break in the media here, no matter what. He has attempted a "message pushback" but with no discernible effect. People are tired of this circus and generally are blaming both protagonists. It's not clear if Franken's advisers and strategists realize that, or know how to react if they do realize it. Barkley might well win a new election, if one is held.
February 26, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing franklin should be pushing is -
it doesn't matter if you win by one vote or a million votes.. the guy that has the most vote in an election wins -- THE END
February 26, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. How about having one in, oh, let's say 2014? Maybe on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November?
February 26, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, pay attention, Norm. I don't want to have to repeat this fifty more times. You just made the argument that this election was so close that the results that are announced on election night should not be considered the final tally. Right? That much we can agree upon.
Then why in the hell would you publicly tell Al Franken that he should forgo the automatic and mandatory recount on the basis of the unofficial count that was given on election night? The difference then was also "thousandths of a percent." Could it be that you were being disingenuous in your public statements?
That's the problem, Norm. It's been the problem with you all along. It's why people call you slimy. Truth is a relative thing to you. 'Truth' means whatever is to your greatest personal advantage at that particular moment in time.
We're going to be so happy to see you go. But, as long as you're still around, pretending that there is any way you can get back in that Senate seat, I'm happy to see the GOP spend lots of money on you, your supporters hoping against hope only to see their hopes dashed in front of their faces, and you left twisting in the wind when someone finally pulls the plug on this abuse of our state judicial system.
February 26, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Norm actually makes half a bit of sense here. Since election results sometimes fall within the margin of error, it would be reasonable to have a law which states that in the event of a recount which left the vote within a certain spread, a revote would happen. Basically, it's a runoff, but it's not triggered by neither candidate getting a majority but by neither having a large enough margin of victory.
HOWEVER, Coleman being an idiot and a liar, he seems to think this will just plain "happen", due to the goodwill of the candidates or electorate or something. Norm -- it takes a LAW. Set about changing Minnesota election law if you want, but don't just muse aloud about the way things should be done. Whining to the media won't change things and you know it.
February 26, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Norm here. Let's have a do-over. He is welcome to run in the next primary (2012?) and if he's the Republican nominee, he can have his do-over then. In the meantime, Franken can be the "acting" (that is to say, actual) senator from Minnesota.
Everybody happy with this plan?
February 26, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, 2014
February 26, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far as I can tell after these long months, there are no leaders in Minnesota who can convince (or demand) Sen. Coleman call it quits, as in "Be a man (you doufus)!"
I cannot believe Minnesota is so devoid of individuals more powerful than Coleman that this farce can't be stopped today. Someone, or many, are making a lot of money on the side to stay out of the way.
Let's see a list of names and then do some investigation. Perhaps Minnesota ranks with Illinois on the Stink-O-Meter.
February 26, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hard as it may be to believe, other than Tim Pawlenty there ISN'T anybody in Minnesota with the stature to tell Norm to take a hike. As I have noted before, that although Norm does not look at his best right now, he is in fact an extremely gifted politician--the most facile politician in this state since the elder Hubert Humphrey. He has ALL the business interests behind him--which includes some monster multinationals, especially in agribusiness (HHH was in cahoots with ADM, etc., also.) Norm has been energetic and ambitious and is smart enough to know how power works. He is also tenacious--as this contest shows!
Obviously, no DFL-er can tell Norm to knock it off. ONLY Governor Pawlenty has the standing to say so . . . but why should he?
Blocking the DFL, and especially Al Franken, only reinforces Tim P's standing with HIS base, the state Thug party. And it does so AT NORM's EXPENSE! Tim and Norm have long been rivals. Now Norm looks whiny and combative and desperate, while Tim BY DOING NOTHING lets the charade continue. Tim's stature relative to Norm has to increase . . . but if Tim told Norm, "give it up, it's all over", then Tim would be regarded as a Republican traitor and renegade.
If the DFL candidate were anyone other than Al Franken, some of the second-string Thugs would be in favor of shouldering Norm aside to make room for their own ambition. But as I have contended, NO ONE other than Al Franken could have come close to beating Norm---look at Susan Collins winning in Maine even while Obama romped in that state.
February 26, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Franken had little to do with the closeness of the election; in fact, I think he was a fairly weak candidate and I honestly believe the DFL could have done better. It was solely the fact it was a three-person election that made it close. In fact, having talked to my family members who live in the state, I suspect that had Barkley not been on the ballot, Coleman would have won—despite Obama's large margin in the state.
February 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I ask you, with WHOM would the DFL have done better? Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer . . . would have been so far behind in name recognition and money that he couldn't catch up. Ciresi? I found him less than compelling as a candidate; Coleman would have chewed him up. Steve Kelley? Maybe, but he wasn't running . . . and his track record isn't too good. Mark Dayton? Been there. Anyone else? All I can think of is Alan Page . . . and he wasn't running either.
Franken is no politician. But he is damn smart, and he built an organization that kept getting better, and he raised a lot of money, which was essential against Norm.
February 26, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken should go for it. Is there any reason to expect that Franken wouldn't win?
Show Minnesotans he has confidence in the electorate.
February 26, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is not at all clear that Al Franken would win a special election. Special election turnout usually only attracts about half the voters. With a huge effort and the Obama coat-tails, Minnesota turnout was 78% in 2008. AL needed 80% for a clear-cut win; he fell just short (although still a miraculous performance!)
Minnesota media have spun this recount and court contest as a dual-blunder, "both are to blame" story. There are NO Democratic-favoring media outlets in the state; except for one radio station with a signal so weak it can't even cover the Twin Cities. EVERYTHING else tends to sympathize with the Thugs or at least repeat their talking points without challenge. And all the corporate media know that Al would champion the Employee Free Choice Act if/when he gets to the Senate!
Norm and his allies flung so much dreck at Al in the campaign---easily the most vicious in Minnesota since 1918---that Al's image, not all that clear with average citizens to start with, became indelibly smeared in many people's minds. They think Al is nasty---and this is the state of "nice."
What would be the rules for a special election? Would the third major party be allowed to participate? Under Minnesota law, probably. So Dean Barkley might do much better than the 16% he got in November. He might win. Or Norm might win, especially if Pawlenty re-appoints Norm as an interim Senator pending the special election. While I have a lot of confidence in Al, I am not so confident that the get-out-the-vote structure is there to win. MAYBE if President Obama came here and campaigned for Al---but I do not see that happening. Especially since Norm will be sending back-channel signals: "I used to be a Democrat and will happily play along if you just let me back in the Senate."
February 26, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Along with the fact that a 'do over election', as with a runoff election, brings different people to the voting place than the original race, you also have to consider if the 'do over' will have all the candidates rerunning, or just the top two battling ones. The outcome could be vastly different due to the fact that there might not be 3rd or 4th candidates skewing the results by pulling votes from one or the other of the 2 leaders. Just look at the recent GA senatorial race for an example. As far as Coleman is concerned, he has nothing to lose by rolling this die. If things stay as they are, he's a loser. If the re run the race, at the worst the status quo is maintained, but OTOH.....
February 26, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wrote a letter to the editor of The Trib asking:
Dear Editor:
I live on the East Coast and am a Democrat. That puts me in Franken’s camp, though I don’t follow the politics of your state. I have watched Senator Coleman on the national stage and found him smarmy and unimpressive. Because the Republican Party is pouring money into this legal battle, I write to ask a few questions.
What in the world is taking so long?
Where are the leaders who should tell Sen. Coleman to be a man rather than a shill?
I believe in and respect the Rule of Law, but understand a “Kafka Trap”. Is Minnesota making a mockery of your own electoral and judicial systems?
Minnesota faces the same recession as my state. What is the cost of this delay?
February 26, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me there ought to be an outcry related to how incompetent Coleman's legal team has been. The issues with evidence tampering and witness tampering should be such that the judge shows him and his team the door. It appears based on the willingness of the court to let this extend eternally, that they have no interest in seating Franken anytime soon, but it seems pretty clear Franken will come out on top. The last gasp for Coleman is for him to get another election, but I believe there has been a lot of independents going Blue. There are even Republican disaffections, so Coleman would lose by an even larger margin. As above noted, why would someone vote for their representative to be in the minority where they have no influence or power?
February 26, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a novel idea! If you do not like an outcome of a vote, simply run it again.
I would almost like to see this as it will furhter humiliate Chicklets. I think he knows this and this is all a ploy for further delays.
He is toast and in more ways than one.
1) His cowardess and lack of integrtiy have been on display for all to see particularly in Minn. On this alone, many will flip that were on the fence and underestimated the low character of this half-man.
2) When Minnesota come to find how Chicklets picked up some spare change while obstructing the outcome of this election - Lobbying for a far right zionist organization that are also global warming denyer. This would shed major votes.
3) More will be revealed about his campaign finance funneling through his wifes company. There is still an ongoing FBI investigation on this matter as far as I know.
4) Senator Franken in the same period has demonstrated that Minnesota made the correct decison the first time while Chicklets has well, been Chicklets.
5) More and more people will see what a shill Chicklets really was during is time in the Senate. If anyone has missed him getting his ass handed to him while shilling for Bush's Illegal war in Iraq, this is not to be missed. It is one of the finest moments in the Senate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyyGoPerzWc
February 26, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a re-election Franken would trounce Coleman and it would feel so good on so many levels.
But, there is the cost and, more importantly, principle. Minnesotans have to figure this out, not us. Their laws will change because of this SNAFU and the current quandry in is their own hands. I just hope they don't replace Florida in electoral mockery.
February 26, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Repubs want to filibuster, why not just use the threat they used when they had the power? The "nuclear option". Petition the chair for a point of order and have the chair rule the filibuster out of order.
You want to hear whining? That'd do it.
February 26, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the ear of anyone talking about another election are the Coleman camp whispering. I really feel he scores GOP future points based on how long he can drag out the inevitable and the more material, however specious, he gives those actually in office to use against Al once he is seated. The GOP is desperate for a target. Coleman's become pathetic.
February 26, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Six years ago, when Paul Wellstone died three weeks before the election, that's when we needed a do over. Now that little Norman is having difficulties is not the time. But, if we did have a do over, just Norman and Al, I think Al would win hands down. Folks around here are not too happy with Norman's antics.
February 26, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
A hypothetical scenario: if Roland Burris went ape-shit, so to speak, and starting shrieking and jumping up and down, and ripped off Nancy Pelosi's face, would the Senate eject him? I can't think of anything less that would make them get rid of that disgraceful clown, can you?
February 26, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a rather bad taste analogy.
February 26, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
speaking of bad taste...
did you know spermicide is NOT tasteless?
February 26, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't happen to write for the New York Post? That would explain the asshole-style analogies.
February 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, troll, you've posted this hypothetical off-topic comment on, what, six threads today? And then insulted everyone?
February 26, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
When does this end??
Not being from Minnesota, are there any signs of a popular backlash against Coleman's ugly attempts to litigate the election over again?? I wonder what the voters think.
February 26, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The election contest still gets regular coverage in the newspaper but as a topic of general discussion it has largely dropped off the radar. It barely merits a mention in tv or radio news. I think if you asked an above-average Minnesota about the Senate election they could tell you that Franken won the recount and now they don’t know wtf is going on.
Regardless of the merits of Norm’s case, he’s going through a process clearly provided for by state law. It seems like people are content to trust the process and let it play out. Most people aren’t paying close enough attention to know how remote Coleman’s chances of success are. Maybe if they did there would be more insistence to draw the case to a close.
Presuming that Coleman appeals his loss before the election contest court to the MNSC, his appeal might draw some calls to throw in the towel. The thing that might get the natives really agitated is if Norm follows his near-certain denial at the MNSC with a suit in a federal venue.
Even if Coleman signals intent to continue in federal court, after the MNSC rules there will be a lot of pressure for Ritchie and Pawlenty to certify the election. It will be interesting to see what Pawlenty does. He has a track record of taking orders from the national party like a good soldier, so I suspect if the RNC wants the show to go on, Pawlenty will do as he’s told.
February 26, 2009 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wonder when voters will say "enough". Sure, you CAN litigate the hell out of this, but people generally don't because it shows they are a soreloser and desperate. Even Nixon conceded a close election and moved on.
February 26, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do over????
Can we have a do over of the 2000 Presidential election please????
Time for Norm Coleman to be 1/10th the man that is Al Gore and just give it up!
February 26, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
February 26, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normie will get his do-over -- in six years.
February 26, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse my ignorance, but can someone explain to me why the election court up there in Minnesota can't just say that they are done "hearing objections and they have examined all the evidence, the trial is over and Franken won the election?"
February 26, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Norm reminds me of one of those Japanese soldiers who were stranded on remote islands in the Pacific, and kept fighting the war long after it was over.
February 26, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I live in the Twin Cities. The recount has been getting more reporting on MNPR. I've been following on STribe as well--online. It must be Minnesotans are extremely patient about the process. So has the Recount Court. They are giving Coleman a lot of leeway to hang himself and he's doing it with the help of some incompetent lawyers. In the end, neither MNSC nor USSC will touch this case. The process will have played itself out and a winner will be certified: Al Franken. Period.
As for a do-over? Please, don't mention it. It just isn't in the Constitution. Minnesota Nice would quickly turn into Minnesota Ugly.
February 26, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a GREAT idea. It is an admission by Coleman that this election is
over. Mr Franken should make a statement something along the
lines of... "... At last Mr Coleman and I do agree on something.
This long, drawn out election is finally over. And, I do look
forward to running against him again. We do however differ on the
timing of the next contest. If Mr Coleman wishes to call it a
'do-over', that is fine with me. I however will be referring to it as
my re-election campaign... IN SIX YEARS!
February 26, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I would like to know is what is the sentiment in Minn.? Can some locals fill us in.
February 26, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Depends who you talk to. I stand on street corners (typically in strong DFL areas) and hold a sign for Al's side; the reaction varies. Too many people say: "I voted for him too but I just wish they would get this over with."
Among apolitical types, there is a recurrent theme sounding like "a plague on both their houses." And I get nasty heckling from the occasional Norm supporter---usually young white men in large vehicles. Fits the stereotype.
Political scientists were quoted in the UofMinn student paper last week as saying the protracted dispute is hurting the image of both Coleman and Franken. They may have had some surveys to back that up or they may have been talking through their . . . hats.
February 26, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enough is enough. Senate needs to seat Franken already. Republicans are just obstructing at this point. If I were a Minnesotan I would be very pissed at this point. The Party of NO.
February 26, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric, did you ever think this assignment would become a career? I hope at the very least you get a book deal out of it. I deeply appreciate all the effort you put into reporting this important story, so I will be making a donation to TPM...just as soon as I no longer need to donate to Franken. (I've given him more since Nov. 4 than I gave before. That just ain't right.)
February 26, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Norm...
You can have a "do-over election" .... IN SIX YEARS!!!!
February 26, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
To borrow and change slightly a plea from a different time: Mr. Coleman, at long last, have you no patriotism?
It seems to me that in their zeal to win at any cost, what Coleman and his GOP enablers are doing is going to have the effect of eroding the confidence of citizens in the integrity of our elections.
Regardless of the outcome, his take no prisoners, scorched earth tactics will leave us all worse off. Whether it is deliberate, or merely an 'unintended' consequence, former Senator Coleman's (R-MN) choice to behave in this fashion -- and the fat cat Repubs who are bankrolling his efforts -- is fouling the nest that is one of the foundational pillars of our Democratic Republic: public confidence in our elections. He is damaging the commons no less than if he were pis***g in the well from which we all drink.
That is despicable, one might even say, un-American. It is yet another case of goppioni (GOP partisan interest over national interest.)
With any luck, Coleman will not only lose, he will have to pay Senator Elect Franken's court costs. (Will his Repub enablers still love him then?)
February 26, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really can't wrap my head around the logic that dictates that a revote is a fair outcome of a tie election. A revote inevitably favors one candidate over the other if the first election was within the margin of error. The fairest outcome, if you believe the statistics (that, if the election were held again under the same conditions, the result would be unpredictable), is that Franken and Coleman go halfies with the seat. Imagine the hijinx that'd ensue!
Barring that, a coin flip or equivalent is the fairest option. A recount is essentially a coin flip in this instance, and it has the added bonus of giving an air of legitimacy to the process. So long as the relevant vote counters are unbiased, it's the way to go.
February 27, 2009 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Coleman so terrified of losing his job?
Fred Hiatt has a job waiting for him at the Washington Post as a columnist, where he'll find himself at home with Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, George Will and Bill Kristol. And all he has to do is ask and Sen John Cronyn of Texas will jump at the chance of setting up Coleman as Exxon's spokesmen for Global Warming.
February 27, 2009 2:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reid needs to seat Franken now. That will make Coleman look smaller and take the steam out of his little tugboat.
The Dems need to remember this: What Would Jim Baker Do?
I think he'd twist Reids arm until he seated Franken, then go on TV and wonder out loud when Coleman will be indicted for corruption, how he will defend the civil lawsuits related to his corruption, why his "wife" lives in California...And repeat daily until Coleman waved a white flag.
February 27, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
It’s sort of ironic that Coleman is fighting to retain a seat just to be indicted.
It’s quite likely that the issue of the $75,000 from Kazmeni might go away if he is no longer the Senator. It can’t go away if he gets the seat.
So even if Coleman gets seated he will be tied up otherwise in court for some time.
February 27, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no provision in MN law for a "revote".
February 27, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink