American Hero Becomes Senator

[DirtyMartini]

Huh? I'm having trouble grasping the meaning of that question.

There were three candidates on the ballot.

@Boris -- I loathe Coleman. Despise him. I still think Franken has strong potential to be a complete embarassment. His role should have remained occaisionally amusing outraged screaming nerd-man.

[Boris Godunov]

DD: There's no evidence for that assertion as far as I've seen.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html

There are 25 precincts with more ballots than voters? I'm not sure this is actually true. There were certain precincts with more votes counted during the recount than there were on Election Night -- which is not surprising, considering that the whole purpose of a hand recount is to find votes that the machine scanners missed the first time around. I have not seen any evidence, on the other hand, that there are precincts with more votes than voters as recorded on sign-in sheets. And the Coleman campaign evidently hasn't either, or it presumably would have presented it to the Court, which rejected its petition for lack of evidence.

The WSJ editorial Nate is referencing was a hideous batch of errors and outright falsehoods. A good lesson in why newspaper editorials frequently suck, Imran.

[DirtyMartini]

Ah! I think I get it now:

"Is it true that 25 precincts have more ballots being counted for either Coleman or Franken than voters who signed in to vote?"

[Imran Siddiqui]

The endorsements came out before the major shoes started to drop in the investigation into Coleman and his wife. And given his current actions during the recount, I wouldn't be surprised if the Star Tribune was starting to regret its endorsement. As for why they endorsed who they endorsed, I'd guess the endorsement editorials would say so?

Both endorsed Coleman because he was independent, pragmatic Senator who could work across the aisle. The Star Tribune said it was hard to see Franken be a type of Senator that could do the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

Count until you win!

[Boris Godunov]

Count all the votes.

[OzzyKP]

What are these absentee votes that Coleman wants counted? Why aren't they being counted?

[Boris Godunov]

What are these absentee votes that Coleman wants counted? Why aren't they being counted?

Votes that were rejected by the local precincts for issues such as missing signatures, double votes, etc. The Minnesota Supreme Court already allowed the counting of 1300 rejected ballots, if the canvassing board and both campaigns agreed to count them (all but 400 were, with both sides being about equal in not agreeing on ballots). Now Coleman tried to sue to count an additional 650 ballots that have been rejected as improper twice. The Minnesota SC denied his request today, saying he can raise the issue should he sue over the election results later.

[Darius871]

the Senator who got publicly *****-slapped by Galloway in the televised committee hearings?

Curse you for getting my hopes up and wasting 33 minutes of my life. All I saw was one pre-drafted statement which may or may not be factually based, a second pre-drafted statement which may or may not be factually based, and then a short array of pre-drafted questions with redundant answers. From all the hype I was hoping for some utter speechlessness, stutters, temper tantrums, profanity, something...

Christ, Coleman even went out of his way to lawyerly say each exhibit referenced "purports" X or Y without alleging any factual certainties, probably because he knew the investigation was just for investigation's sake and not meant to accomplish anything aside from political theater, which he also noted outwardly (in so many words) with the little dance clarifying that it was "not a court of law." I was really hoping for a bonafide *****-slapping, not prosaic trench warfare...

who's facing an FBI investigation

So Bill Richardson is an embarassment too? All sorts of people have cause to be "investigated" for eyebrow-raising connections at one point or another that are never tried let alone convicted. Ironically kinda like, you know, Galloway.

[Darius871]

And then, imagine that by Coleman and then realize that both major Minnesota newspapers, including the more liberal leaning St. Paul Pioneer Press, endorsed Coleman for Senator.

Just to nitpick, the Star Tribune is the more left-wing of the two.

As for why they endorsed who they endorsed, I'd guess the endorsement editorials would say so?

I'd posted a copy of the Strib's previously when you called the election; Imran's recollection of the reason why is accurate:

Quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Minnesota
Franken (D) 39.5
Coleman (R-inc) 37.6
Barkley (I) 14.5

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Franken will win in MN. A late-breaking Coleman scandal has been in the news there over the weekend, and the latest poll had Franken pulling ahead a little. Also, he will probably pick up a good amount of Barkley voters. They are heavily anti-Coleman, and the closeness of the Senate race will prompt many to throw the lever for Franken instead.

And also, Obama will win the state handily, so he should have some coattails.

Don't get too cocky - Rasmussen's final poll ending 10/28 called Coleman +4 and SurveyUSA's ending 11/1 called Coleman +5; their methodology isn't systemically inaccurate given that both had him trailing by 4 or more until last week, and the sharp jump was attributable to Coleman's best debate showing last Thursday. RCP's weighted average also shows Coleman +2.8, pollster.com notwithstanding.

I also wouldn't overrate the nationwide coattail effect wrt the fairly unique degree of douchebaggery MN's dealing with; anecdotally at least, from people I've spoken with, I know I won't be the only person voting for Obama and against Franken on the same ticket. (there, I said it)

Let's also not forget that even the much more left-leaning of the state's two major newspapers - which also endorsed Gore, Kerry, and Obama - has nonetheless endorsed Coleman at the same time. That shocker alone should illustrate the "anyone but" attitude even Obamite Minnesotans have toward Franken, and toward the fact that Coleman has been a relative RINO capable of at least some bipartisan compromise.

Star Tribune endorses Barack Obama, Norm Coleman
Pioneer Press endorses Norm Coleman

"The Star Tribune endorsement of Norm Coleman is a little short of shocking," U of M Humphrey Institute Political Analyst Larry Jacobs said.

Jacobs says while the Pioneer Press has a history of backing Republican U.S. Senate candidates, the Star Tribune historically backs Democratic candidates.

...

"Independent judgment, exercised on behalf of the best interests of the country and state, is what we hope to see from our U.S. senators," [the endorsement] said. "With that hope in mind, this newspaper recommends the re-election of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman."

The paper called Franken a gifted communicator who helped revitalize the Democratic Party with his best-selling books skewering the Bush administration and the Republican right.

"[Franken]'s an effective critic. It isn't as easy to envision him as a constructive force for bipartisan legislation," the Star Tribune said.

"We endorse Coleman for a second term, and we want it understood that we are endorsing the 'work-across-the-aisle' candidate that he presented to voters," the editorial board said. "The country will need voices of moderation and unity, particularly as we extricate ourselves from Iraq, and we expect Coleman to deliver on this promise."

The paper said it wasn't "blind to Coleman s faults or to the talents of Franken and Barkley" but said it gave Coleman the edge because of his experience, record and stated commitment to bipartisanship.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showpost....&postcount=418

[chequita guevara]

Can Franken be more embarrassing than Fred Thompson? Well, probably. Neither party has a lock on stupidity.

[Lancer]

My panties aren't bunched over the rest of the election, this won't change anything. No, that's not it. The left definately doesn't represent my views, niether does the right, the crooks. I'm just along for the ride pretty much except for casting the occasional meaningless vote for whoever gives lip service to pro life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can Franken be more embarrassing than Fred Thompson? Well, probably. Neither party has a lock on stupidity.

At least Fred was as lazy a Senator as he was a campaigner. We'll see if Franken can keep his head down similarly.

Oh, and sorry Darius871, yeah, it was the Star Tribune.

[DaShi]

I just hope he doesn't end up being another Reagan.

[Boris Godunov]

Curse you for getting my hopes up and wasting 33 minutes of my life.

You'll interpret it as you will, I suppose. But the media coverage of it was pretty unanimous: they declared it a public humiliation of Coleman. Even the righty blogs were crying foul over it and accused Coleman of giving Galloway a very theatrical platform from which to grandstand and make Coleman look ineffectual.

So Bill Richardson is an embarassment too? All sorts of people have cause to be "investigated" for eyebrow-raising connections at one point or another that are never tried let alone convicted. Ironically kinda like, you know, Galloway.

Richardson hasn't lawyered up yet, AFAIK, and so far there's no information that directly ties any accusations to him. That's not the same for Coleman, as someone has *directly accused* him and his wife.

Let's look at Coleman's electoral history:

-Lost to a pro-wrestler
-Beat a dead guy
-Lost to a comedian

Yeah, he's a champ.