PPP poll: Franken still popular, voters say he shouldn't have resigned

[IceSpear]

He should stay. I'm a firm believer of elected officials standing for their entire terms and not bending to public pressure to resign over something that comes out after the fact; an election is a mandate. Obviously the people of Minnesota will continue to re-elect him for as long as they want (and they seem to want him), but an open seat presents unique possibilities - even in a mid-term.

If the broader trends that showed up in 2016 in MN - and the ones we've been discussing for years wrt the Upper Midwest in general - even somewhat play out or intensify next year, Minnesota could fall in an open race and Democrats would have nobody to blame but themselves.

I'm sorry, but the ideological fate and political trajectory of the country is a hell of a lot more important than an instance or two of groping or whatever. People need to get it together.

If Dems lost in Minnesota of all places, they'd have a lot to more to worry about than that seat. Like the fact that the GOP probably now has a supermajority in the Senate and Dems got few if any House gains.

[IceSpear]

If Dems lost in Minnesota of all places, they'd have a lot to more to worry about than that seat. Like the fact that the GOP probably now has a supermajority in the Senate and Dems got few if any House gains.

Well, there are examples of states bucking their usual trends all over the place during midterms (some very good examples in 2006). A very good national climate does not guarantee a very good climate in every state. My home state's a pretty good example of that; relative to the previous midterm, it has went in the opposite direction of the national climate in the past three midterms.

Minnesota is a state where we saw the bottom fall out with a lot of their traditional Democratic coalition in 2016. Couple that with the ouster of a popular Democrat being replaced mid-term by a (very relative) nobody and then throw into the mix somebody like Pawlenty (who isn't a Tea Party darling and has enough moderate street-cred and/or a track record of winning in MN) and you could be in some serious trouble even if the national climate is spectacular.

If the national climate is spectacular, then Dems aren't losing Minnesota short of Tina Smith being a pedophile. Pawlenty is overrated. He's never even won a majority of the vote and flamed out epically in his presidential run before a single vote was cast despite everyone and their mother screaming from the rooftops that he was "such a strong candidate."

Your scenario is more of a danger in a roughly even environment. And still in that case, Dems will have far bigger worries if that's the best they can muster. They'd be so marginalized and irrelevant for (at least) 2 years that Al Franken's Senate seat wouldn't be worth a bucket of warm spit.

[IceSpear]

It's OK for Democrats. He will run again and win again in 2020. The left will pretend to care 20 years after the fact.

Last time I checked he's still resigning on January 2nd regardless of what some random poll says. But nice try.

[IceSpear]

Sometimes Often the right thing to do is not the most popular thing to do.

[IceSpear]

If Dems lost in Minnesota of all places, they'd have a lot to more to worry about than that seat. Like the fact that the GOP probably now has a supermajority in the Senate and Dems got few if any House gains.

Well, there are examples of states bucking their usual trends all over the place during midterms (some very good examples in 2006). A very good national climate does not guarantee a very good climate in every state. My home state's a pretty good example of that; relative to the previous midterm, it has went in the opposite direction of the national climate in the past three midterms.

Minnesota is a state where we saw the bottom fall out with a lot of their traditional Democratic coalition in 2016. Couple that with the ouster of a popular Democrat being replaced mid-term by a (very relative) nobody and then throw into the mix somebody like Pawlenty (who isn't a Tea Party darling and has enough moderate street-cred and/or a track record of winning in MN) and you could be in some serious trouble even if the national climate is spectacular.

This post made me feel physically ill. If people tolerate evil people being in office, then the future of the country will be shaped by evil people, and the scope of the damage will be immense even if they campaign on their support or opposition of some hot button issue you care about. You can't let someone who's obviously morally degenerate have massive amounts of power just because they put out campaign literature supporting one or two things you like.

If? Of course people tolerate evil people being in office. Most politicians are evil.

Then why do you hate Hillary so much? Is she really any more "evil" than any other politician?

[IceSpear]

Hillary's refusal to accept that she is 100% responsible for her loss is evidence enough that she is evil.

Yeah, and if a meteor obliterated the entire West Coast a day before the election, she still would've been 100% responsible for her loss, right?

[IceSpear]

Hillary's refusal to accept that she is 100% responsible for her loss is evidence enough that she is evil.

Yeah, and if a meteor obliterated the entire West Coast a day before the election, she still would've been 100% responsible for her loss, right?

Well, no. But no Meteor attack occurred.

The point was that tons of external events influence elections that often have little to nothing to do with the particular candidates involved.

[IceSpear]

It's OK for Democrats. He will run again and win again in 2020. The left will pretend to care 20 years after the fact.

Last time I checked he's still resigning on January 2nd regardless of what some random poll says. But nice try.

We have precedent for this. Democrat Preston Brooks resigned his House seat after beating Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a cane. Brooks resigned. Democrat voters simply elected Brooks again.

Oh, thanks for the history lesson. What party do you think Rep. Brooks would be in if he was still alive today? Hmm, well he was a fierce advocate of "states' rights." Which party matches that? Oh, he was a representative from South Carolina. Well, there's currently 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat, and the Democrat is black and represents a black district while Brooks was a slavery advocate, so I think that one speaks for itself. He was extremely popular in the South but reviled in the North, this one's a head scratcher. White men in South Carolina usually vote roughly 80-20 Republican...hmm...all signs are pointing in one direction here! Kind of like how Roy Moore was a Democrat in the 80s but now is your beloved pedophile hero, lol.

[IceSpear]

Franken's decision is his own, but when I vote for someone, I view it as voting for them to serve a full term regardless of anything they may do in Office or may have done beforehand. Their past actions (as known at the time), and the risk of them "acting up" was already factored into my vote or endorsement at the time I voted or endorsed. For that reason, if I was in Office, I would not resign unless I was formally convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison time.

And this is exactly how the system is designed to function. A huge part of the problem with American politics these days is that everybody feels entitled to force every representative to do exactly what they want. We don't elect people to bend to our every whim: we elect people to represent us, and pick from the candidates the person we believe is best suited to do so. Elections have consequences.

Franken as a Senator is accountable to the people of Minnesota and them alone: not the country, not Democrats at-large and certainly not angsty upper-class Atlas posters who want to put their high morals on display for everybody. If they as a whole are fine with him representing them, then literally nothing else matters (but if they had soured on him mid-term, even they would have no right to demand his removal before the end of his term).

This is a ludicrous mindset. So a Senator is entitled to serve out their 6 year term regardless of anything they do? It doesn't take a wild imagination to see how this could get extremely problematic.

People have the right to demand whatever they want. That includes regular citizens as well as Senators. Franken chose to heed the demands. Nobody forced him to resign at gunpoint.

[IceSpear]

And 2/3 of the democratic caucus screaming at him to resign is the modern equivalent of being forced at gunpoint.

Even by your standards this is a bizarre statement, lol. All Franken had to do was say "screw you all, I'm staying." There would be nothing anyone could do about it, barring an ethics investigation and possible expulsion vote. If you did that at gunpoint, you get shot and die. In fact Larry Craig had it even worse, with basically the entire Senate calling on him to resign. He gave them all the finger and stayed anyway.

[IceSpear]

This is a ludicrous mindset. So a Senator is entitled to serve out their 6 year term regardless of anything they do? It doesn't take a wild imagination to see how this could get extremely problematic.

Short of the constitutional process for removal in Article II relating to crimes committed and subsequent conviction, absolutely. What's so hard to understand about that?

People have the right to demand whatever they want. That includes regular citizens as well as Senators. Franken chose to heed the demands. Nobody forced him to resign at gunpoint.

Of course they do. The problem, however, comes from said people actually believing that their demands are absolute and/or morally non-negotiable. This is an entitlement mindset that's eroding the political process more than many people realize.

I certainly have a right to (and very well may!) demand that a Republican elected official resign for something I find objectionable. However, do I believe I am entitled to see that happen? No!

I know I have no morally-superior right to make that demand - and therefore am not going to become morally outraged like so many others when they refuse to do so - but very well may do it solely out of political expedience to erode that candidate's chances at re-election. And that is the difference.

I think people are going to be more forceful with their demands if they actually have a chance of happening. Most Democrats (short of the Santander types) would think Trump should resign if you asked them, but few are going to become passionate or "entitled" about it simply because they know it would never happen in a million years. Similarly, if Franken decided to ride out the storm, I doubt you'd find much passion or "entitlement" about it in a year, barring continued flare ups with new accusers. People would make their opinions/demands known and then move on to a new shiny object. Incidentally, this is probably why Trump has survived things that would destroy any other politician. Deny, lie, ignore, stonewall works a lot better than explain, rationalize, apologize. Just look at all Trump's scandals vs. emails for proof of that. One was given non stop coverage for years because Hillary continued to try to satisfy those who would never be satisfied (the media in particular), while Trump gave those who would never be satisfied the finger instead. And because of that, the subject was always changed much quicker from whatever his scandal of the week was.