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

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

You are a sick man. Go seek professional help.

[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.

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

And if Hillary hadn't run the worst democratic campaign since that of Walter Mondale, she would have won despite said external events.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

You are a sick man. Go seek professional help.

You're the one who supported a monster in the primary who lost to a reality TV star who was less popular than Barry Goldwater.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

And if Hillary hadn't run the worst democratic campaign since that of Walter Mondale, she would have won despite said external events.

That's the stupidest thing I've read. Her campaign was far from brilliant but it was no way worse than that of Kerry or Dukakis. This tendency to overpraise winning campaigns and belittle losing ones has reached its apex last year.

[Sumner 1868]

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.

And if Hillary hadn't run the worst democratic campaign since that of Walter Mondale, she would have won despite said external events.

That's the stupidest thing I've read. Her campaign was far from brilliant but it was no way worse than that of Kerry or Dukakis. This tendency to overpraise winning campaigns and belittle losing ones has reached its apex last year.

You may be right about Dukakis but there's no question it was worse than Kerry.

[heatcharger]

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.

Those horrible Southern Democrats cared too much about white identity politics to vote Republican. That’s why your boys Nixon and Reagan courted them so hard. These are your people now!

[Landslide Lyndon]

You may be right about Dukakis but there's no question it was worse than Kerry.

No, it wasn't. Just because it doesn't fit into your narrative of Clinton's demonization it doesn't mean that we have become all amnesiacs.

[Sumner 1868]

You may be right about Dukakis but there's no question it was worse than Kerry.

No, it wasn't. Just because it doesn't fit into your narrative of Clinton's demonization it doesn't mean that we have become all amnesiacs.

Fake news.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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.

Only a turbonerd like Kookie Krazeidiot would flip back 170 years into his history book while foaming at the mouth to find a random example to fit his narrative.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

Only a turbonerd like Kookie Krazeidiot would flip back 170 years into his history book while foaming at the mouth to find a random example to fit his narrative.

Be thankful he didn't mention Aaron Burr's duel with Alexander Hamilton.

[krazen1211]

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.

He would be a Democrat of course. Just as he was at the time. We have recent precedent for this as well. The losing party of the 2016 election attempted to steal the election via Hamilton elector machinations simply because they were unhappy that their candidate lost.

Republicans cannot do that because they lack the backing from the political media. Therefore, beating up election winners and attempted thievery of the elections can only be the trademark of one of the two parties.

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

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.

[Adam Griffin]

Wow, sorry to have offended so many people on a political forum by explaining how politics actually works!

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

Wow, sorry to have offended so many people on a political forum by explaining how politics actually works!

Offending Atlas is very easy and there's nothing wrong with doing it.

[Virginiá]

He would be a Democrat of course. Just as he was at the time. We have recent precedent for this as well. The losing party of the 2016 election attempted to steal the election via Hamilton elector machinations simply because they were unhappy that their candidate lost.

Republicans cannot do that because they lack the backing from the political media. Therefore, beating up election winners and attempted thievery of the elections can only be the trademark of one of the two parties.

What, you disapprove? Atlas's own gerrymandering cheerleader? If this was the other way around, you'd be the first guy pushing such a thing. You are part of the faction of the Republican Party that desires winning at any costs. Whatever it takes, and if you have to rig some maps, throw up a dozen different obstacles to voter registration, or collude with a foreign power, so be it.

[Adam Griffin]

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).

[krazen1211]

He would be a Democrat of course. Just as he was at the time. We have recent precedent for this as well. The losing party of the 2016 election attempted to steal the election via Hamilton elector machinations simply because they were unhappy that their candidate lost.

Republicans cannot do that because they lack the backing from the political media. Therefore, beating up election winners and attempted thievery of the elections can only be the trademark of one of the two parties.

What, you disapprove? Atlas's own gerrymandering cheerleader? If this was the other way around, you'd be the first guy pushing such a thing. You are part of the faction of the Republican Party that desires winning at any costs. Whatever it takes, and if you have to rig some maps, throw up a dozen different obstacles to voter registration, or collude with a foreign power, so be it.

Of course not. We have recent precedent for this as well. When Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, he lost with some shred of class and dignity. Unlike the next loser of the 2016 election.

[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.

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

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.

Unless they're sent to Prison, or the Senate agrees to expel them, Senators are entitled to remain in office no matter what. Period. And 2/3 of the democratic caucus screaming at him to resign is the modern equivalent of being forced 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.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Why is it so hard to not defend creepy men like Frankie Frank? Can't people just let creepers be replaced by non creeper jeepers?

[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.

[Beet]

Resigning was the right thing to do regardless of polls.