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

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

Spoken like a true Roy Moore voter.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

Spoken like a true Roy Moore voter.

And Moore's voters were right (from their own perspective): enacting their ideological beliefs and shaping the trajectory of the country was objectively more important than even a relative handful of individual transgressions.

You may not like it, but ultimately, it's all a high-stakes game that is played, and Democrats in AL did a better job at shaming Republicans into not supporting him than vice-versa - largely because national & High Moral Dems™ didn't control the primary narrative, and allowed the secondary narrative (aka the sexual abuse allegations) to play in the background via local media while Jones focused his attacks on things nobody in AL could deny that Roy Moore did.

If the average Atlas Dem had been in charge of campaign messaging, it would have focused on nothing else and looked just like Clinton's campaign ("oh no, he's a bad person - don't vote for him!"), and Moore would likely be heading to the Senate.

Most voters just don't care about this stuff enough to change their voting behavior. Let the national party pressure a popular Minnesota Democrat, and Minnesota may just respond in a way that's far more detrimental than the actions of any one person. 

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Tartarus Sauce]

This actually seems to cut quite heavily against other polls taken on the matter.

Regardless, resigning is the right thing to do.

[krazen1211]

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.

[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.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

Doesn't stop him from running against Smith or whoever holds the seat in 2020.

[kyc0705]

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

[Cactus Jack]

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

Exactly this. And to Wulfric's suggestion that Franken might try to run again in 2020, bear in mind that Schumer would keelhaul him if he did.

[IceSpear]

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

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

Terrible post.

[BundouYMB]

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.

[mcmikk]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[BundouYMB]

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.

Thank you jfern for another stunning #hottake where you managed to completely miss the point. Given you're someone who thinks everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% of the time is pure evil, you practice a form of moral relativity that is equally damaging. Do you even recognize that there's a difference between Roy Moore and that figure of your wildest fantasy hate f**ks, Hillary Clinton?

[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?

[Cactus Jack]

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?

Do you really need to ask him that? He's a s**tty little Trumpist toady in disguise. Of course he's going to say she is, lmao.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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?

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

[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?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?

She's more evil than most. Most politicians don't launder money to the DNC and 33 state parties during a primary to circumvent campaign finance laws. Most politicians don't have their Foundation take millions from the Saudis before they approve $165 billion in arms deals.

[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.

[krazen1211]

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.