Forty-seven percent (47%) of Minnesota voters now believe Democrat Al Franken has been elected to the U.S. Senate in a race so close that it’s been working its way through the state’s court system for the last four months.
Thirty-five percent (35%) believe incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman will be re-elected, and 18% are not sure in the latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Minnesota voters.
The statistic that will probably get more media attention, however, is this one:
Coleman, who now trails Franken, has proposed that the state vote again because of the closeness of the race, but Minnesota voters are almost evenly divided on his proposal. Forty-six percent (46%) think they should vote again, but 44% disagree. Ten percent (10%) are not sure which is best.
Rasmussen hasn’t released the crosstabs to the general public yet (only to premium members) so I don’t know how they phrased the question, but I’m willing to bet that support for a re-vote would drop precipitously if the cost of holding such an election was included in the question (particularly with our massive state deficit). I’d like to see some reporters ask the Coleman campaign if they really think Minnesota should really spend tens of millions on a new election when we’re going to have to cut billions from education and health care to balance the budget.
More important, however, is the fact that there is simply no legal basis for holding a re-vote in Minnesota. There is no precedent, no statutory language, nothing. Essentially, the Coleman campaign is asking the court to make election law from the bench, ironic given Coleman’s attitude towards “activist” judges.
Coleman’s (and most republicans) definition of Activist Judges: Those that don’t vote the way I want them to.
Oh, and their definition of earmark: Money for everyone’s pet projects, except mine.
Perhaps Coleman could pay for a redo with another refi.
If the so-called “earmarks” are less than 1% of the budget, why all the furor?
Bush GAVE money with no strings attached to the bank bailout.
“Earmarks” - someone needs to prove “frivolous” earmarks are contained & what percentage.
Rasmussen who showed Obama and McCain tied in MN?
Rasmussen who showed Coleman with a several point lead?
heh.
I know I don’t need to point out that there is no law in minnesota which allows for a revote. Nor is there any precedent for a revote in Minnesota case law nor in the eight circuit.
Minnesotans fail.
Let the chips fall as they may. I’m sure Really? and DtM will be more than happy to chip in their fair share of the millions a revote will cost.
If Norm Coleman wants his former Senate seat back bad enough to have a re-vote, HE CAN PAY FOR IT!!!
My solution would be a fair one, but is not called for in law so would probably never happen.
Let Franken take this seat. For two years.
Have another election in 2010, a full election with (very likely) new candidates from the other parties. This election was “won” by such a statistically insignificant figure that at worst we’ll send the wrong guy to Washington, and at best we have someone who Minnesotans preferred by a fraction of a hair. Hardly a mandate.
Give Franken his due - give him two years of setting policy. If he is that good, he’ll be a shoe-in in 2010. It will still keep our Senate elections staggered by two years.
And with it, create a permanent law stating that if a Senator is ever elected by a margin that is less than one tenth of one percent over the runner up, that seat will be held for two years.
I’m all for sending Franken to DC and getting this over with. I’m not all for making Minnesotans spend a full six years wondering if the system was accurate down to the thousdands-of-a-percent, which is what it would have to be to get this one right.
DTM — Just not sure a state can override the constitution in the way you describe. Isn’t it in the constitution that a senator shall serve a 6 year term?
How did you feel about Bush/Gore? Did you feel this way about that race?
“I’m sure Really? and DtM will be more than happy to chip in their fair share of the millions a revote will cost.”
Given that we’re the #5 taxed state per capita, I’m surprised there wouldn’t be money in the system to cover it. Where does all the money go?
I’m not averse to being the 5th highest tax state. But it sure doesn’t feel like we get the 5th highest level of benefits.
DTM says:Let Franken take this seat. For two years.
Hogwash. Franken won, and Norm can’t show an anomaly large enough to show he was the winner. Franken should take the seat and stay there, instead of making up new rules as we go along.
“How did you feel about Bush/Gore? Did you feel this way about that race?”
didn’t like it. In fact, I only voted for Bush once. I’ll let you guess which time. However, the fundamental issue is different. Bush’s margin in the electoral college, when it was all said and done, was a full percentage point, so it is hard to compare. His margin was about 100 times greater than the margin we’re talking about here, and we all agree that 2000 was close.
Yeah, yeah, I know Gore won the popular vote. I have a problem with the electoral college, too.
I just have problems with elections. Oh, for the days of 2006, when Klobuchar won with 60%. There is some good closure to hearing the “thud” of a good stomping, even if it is your candidate who loses.
“Hogwash. Franken won, and Norm can’t show an anomaly large enough to show he was the winner. Franken should take the seat and stay there, instead of making up new rules as we go along.”
But we don’t know that Franken won. We don’t know that Coleman won.
If this was a House election, no big deal. We’re already 1/2 way to the next campaign. But this is six long years of wondering if the person we sent to the Senate was any more valid of a winner than had we flipped a coin.
“But we don’t know that Franken won. We don’t know that Coleman won.”
How could anyone be surprised that both sides are dug in for the long haul with the fillibuster proof margin in the Senate hanging by a thread? A re-vote would decide it once and for all. Do you think either side of a losing verdict might appeal to a federal level? In hind sight, the decision to hold the recount all accross the state (a money saving move), using different criteria has put this in the mess it is. Neither side will believe justice has been served with the jugdes decision.
DantheMan
“But this is six long years of wondering if the person we sent to the Senate was any more valid of a winner than had we flipped a coin.”
Somehow, Republicans were able to see past this “wonder” when Bush won in 2000.
I just said that I didn’t like the way the 2000 fiasco ended.
DantheMan,
So what are you doing to try to change the Republican party? How many people within your party see things the way you do, Danthe”Man”.