Al Franken

[Iosif]

Who thought it was a good idea to nominate him?

[minionofmidas]

He was polling well as long as he had a Dem opponent... then he sunk.
Not sure what happened.

[Sam Spade]

He was polling well as long as he had a Dem opponent... then he sunk.
Not sure what happened.

The not paying taxes thing hurt and then the Playboy article hurt more.

The problem is, when you straddle the line between being taken seriously as a candidate and not being taken seriously, any inkling that you're just an idiot running hurts more than otherwise.

[minionofmidas]

He was polling well as long as he had a Dem opponent... then he sunk.
Not sure what happened.

The not paying taxes thing hurt and then the Playboy article hurt more.

Tell me more. I didn't really follow the campaign.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh yes. Much as minority candidates tend to be under tighter scrutiny. Etc.

[Sam Spade]

He was polling well as long as he had a Dem opponent... then he sunk.
Not sure what happened.

The not paying taxes thing hurt and then the Playboy article hurt more.

Tell me more. I didn't really follow the campaign.

There have been numerous articles on it - a Google search would be quite effective (honestly I don't have time to look up everything  )

[minionofmidas]

He was polling well as long as he had a Dem opponent... then he sunk.
Not sure what happened.

The not paying taxes thing hurt and then the Playboy article hurt more.

Tell me more. I didn't really follow the campaign.

There have been numerous articles on it - a Google search would be quite effective (honestly I don't have time to look up everything  )

Not a problem. I thought maybe you could just throw out the story in two or three sentences, saving me the bother of reading.

[Reluctant Republican]

Who thought it was a good idea to nominate him?

Your all going to think I’m nuts, or maybe just as fool, but I think the only way Coleman will not be reelected is if Ventura gets in. He’s polling at 24%, though only 27% want him to run, so it remains to be seen if he could expand his numbers much. But if he could, he might have a shot at winning. I think if Franken can’t catch on many of his supporters might jump to Jesse, and he might just be able to surprise on election night once again. I still rate Coleman the high favorite to be reelected, but I think Ventura has a better chance of knocking off Coleman then Franken. So there, you go, my lousy analysis of the race.

[Alcon]

Having an article published in the Economist about your campaign that repeatedly features the phrase "Pornbots" = electorally unfortunate

[WalterMitty]

Who thought it was a good idea to nominate him?

brtd.

[Lief 🗽]

Things might look bleak, and we may have ultimately thrown away a perfect opportunity at winning pack Paul Wellstone's seat, BUT, on the off chance that Franken does end up somehow winning, it'll probably annoy conservatives. And in the end, I think that taking a horrible gamble on nominating Franken is maybe worth it because of that.

[Conan]

He was the strongest of the candidates running. In the end, I think he will win.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Who thought it was a good idea to nominate him?

brtd.

Wow, you're stupid. No wonder you think North Dakota is full of dry counties. I supported Ciresi dumbass.

[MarkWarner08]

I'll reiterate here what I've said before. Al Franken cannot win this race. A majority of Minnesotans will not vote for a former SNL writer with no electoral experience. Besides a healthy Rolodex of Hollywood friends, Franken didn't have anything to offer as a candidate. The only way Franken can win is if Coleman loses.

Franken must run an aggressive campaign that makes the choice of Coleman so unpalatable to low information MN voters that Franken is the only option, albeit by default. Besides running a barage of negative ads blasting Coleman on Iraq and gas prices, Franken must establish a semblance of seriousness as a candidate. If he can handle himself with dignity and aplomb at the Senate debates (which is a huge if), he'll cross the basic gravitas threshold and can win this race.


I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

[Conan]

I'll reiterate here what I've said before. Al Franken cannot win this race. A majority of Minnesotans will not vote for a former SNL writer with no electoral experience. Besides a healthy Rolodex of Hollywood friends, Franken didn't have anything to offer as a candidate. The only way Franken can win is if Coleman loses.

Franken must run an aggressive campaign that makes the choice of Coleman so unpalatable to low information MN voters that Franken is the only option, albeit by default. Besides running a barage of negative ads blasting Coleman on Iraq and gas prices, Franken must establish a semblance of seriousness as a candidate. If he can handle himself with dignity and aplomb at the Senate debates (which is a huge if), he'll cross the basic gravitas threshold and can win this race.


I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

Please, your argument would would mean many Senators, Governors, and Congresspeople would have never been elected.  Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Franken. What he does have is knowledge of the issues and firm positions.

[MarkWarner08]

I'll reiterate here what I've said before. Al Franken cannot win this race. A majority of Minnesotans will not vote for a former SNL writer with no electoral experience. Besides a healthy Rolodex of Hollywood friends, Franken didn't have anything to offer as a candidate. The only way Franken can win is if Coleman loses.

Franken must run an aggressive campaign that makes the choice of Coleman so unpalatable to low information MN voters that Franken is the only option, albeit by default. Besides running a barage of negative ads blasting Coleman on Iraq and gas prices, Franken must establish a semblance of seriousness as a candidate. If he can handle himself with dignity and aplomb at the Senate debates (which is a huge if), he'll cross the basic gravitas threshold and can win this race.


I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

Please, your argument would would mean many Senators, Governors, and Congresspeople would have never been elected.  Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about with regards to Franken. What he does have is knowledge of the issues and firm positions.

So your argument is that experience isn't a critical factor for a Senate candidate. If that were true, it's safe to say that recent history would support that assertion.  Unfortunately, it doesn't. How many of the 2006 Democratic freshman Senators had no experience in  prior elective office? The answer: one. The one exception was Jim Webb, who served in Ronald Reagan's cabinet. Meanwhile, Al Franken wrote jokes about pornography for Playboy. A look at the other Democratic candidates who unseated GOP incumbents shows a wealth of experience in elected office. Sheldon Whitehouse was Rhode Island's AG, Sherrod Brown was a seven-term Congressman, Jon Tester was the State Senate Majority Leader, Claire McCaskill was Missouri's State Auditor, and Bob Casey held a dizzying number of statewide office. All five were familiar to voters. Only Webb, who was obviously aided by George Allen's Macaca meltdown, overcame a paucity of electoral experience.

Comparing Senate candidate to Governors and Congresspeople is absurd. It's much more likely for a less experienced Congressional candidate to win because he or she isn't held to the same gravitas test that's applied to Senators.  Additionally, scale prevents self-funders, who use their cash to distract voters from their paper weight resumes. A big-spender like Vern Buchanan can buy enough airtime to win a crowded GOP House primary, and then he can flood the airwaves until election day. If he'd tried that tactic in an FL Senate race, he would've been broke by April.

Occasionally an insurgent candidate like Paul Wellstone in 1990 will break the mold. However, even in wave years, which usually lead to inexperienced challengers win in far greater than average numbers, most Senate winners have some tangible record of public service accomplishments.

Most self-funders running for the Senate lose, and the ones that win frequently have public service experience (e.g., Corker in '06).  Franken is essentially running as the rich NYC guy trying to buy a Senate seat, except he won't spend his millions. If it weren't for this political climate and the DSCC's warchest, Franken would be a joke candidate.

[Хahar 🤔]

Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[MarkWarner08]

Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That race is the political definition of the word "aberration." How often is an incumbent Governor recalled and replaced by an action star/political novice? I don't think that can be used as a prime example of anything other than the nuttiness of CA politics.

[bgwah]

How often to political radio show hosts actually win? Seriously? Both cases I can think of here in Washington have lost, though one would've lost no matter what I suppose

[minionofmidas]

Arnold Schwarzenegger?

That race is the political definition of the word "aberration." How often is an incumbent Governor recalled and replaced by an action star/political novice? I don't think that can be used as a prime example of anything other than the nuttiness of CA politics.

Also, had this been a straight one-round contest, Schwarzenegger might not have won - the media focussed on the fact that Schwarzenegger received slightly more votes than there were no votes to the recall, but of course many people voted no/Schwarzenegger. One would assume that Schwarzenegger was their second preference after Davis (but ahead of Bustamante, McClintock, Camejo etc). Of course, some McClintock voters would have tactically voted Schwarzenegger under fairer rules, so *maybe* Schwarzenegger would have won nonetheless.

I'll reiterate here what I've said before. Al Franken cannot win this race. A majority of Minnesotans will not vote for a former SNL writer with no electoral experience. Besides a healthy Rolodex of Hollywood friends, Franken didn't have anything to offer as a candidate. The only way Franken can win is if Coleman loses.

Franken must run an aggressive campaign that makes the choice of Coleman so unpalatable to low information MN voters that Franken is the only option, albeit by default. Besides running a barage of negative ads blasting Coleman on Iraq and gas prices, Franken must establish a semblance of seriousness as a candidate. If he can handle himself with dignity and aplomb at the Senate debates (which is a huge if), he'll cross the basic gravitas threshold and can win this race.

In other words, neither candidate can win on his own record. Whoever this election is mostly about, loses.
And it looks like that will be Franken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

How often to political radio show hosts actually win? Seriously? Both cases I can think of here in Washington have lost, though one would've lost no matter what I suppose

Such a scenario all but dooms a candidacy to failure regardless of whether the medium is television, radio, or the written word.  If not immediately, then at the first neutral cycle.

[Sam Spade]

How often to political radio show hosts actually win? Seriously? Both cases I can think of here in Washington have lost, though one would've lost no matter what I suppose

Dan Patrick, Texas State Senate (which is basically like a CD).  He was a local conservative talk-radio host and actually owned the conservative talk station for a while.  Though his SD is ultra-safe Republican anyway (like 70-30 GOP) - the key was getting past the primary (in which he got 69%).

[MarkWarner08]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

[Sam Spade]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

[MarkWarner08]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

For now, our rankings are quite similar.  I hope that's a good thing

Perhaps my lack of emotional distance from the Oregon contest is inflating my view of its competitiveness.  Of the two long-shot races, I agree that Roberts is more likely to lose than Chambliss. In the Roberts' race, the Democrats have a relatively well-funded candidate with a statewide network of supporters. The Chambliss race features a fragmented group of candidates, none of whom has the ability to self-fund against Chambliss, who is methodically adding to his burgeoning warchest.

[Sam Spade]

I now rank this race as the eighth most likely GOP seat to flip -- behind VA, NM, NH, CO, AK, OR, and MS -- which is a far cry from the post-2002 prognostications that deemed this race the top Democratic take-over opportunity of the '08 cycle.

I don't share your relative optimism on Oregon, but otherwise this looks right. Also, noted that you apparently don't think much of Allen either.

That would be a fair inference. After the aforementioned eight, I rank Maine, North Carolina, and Kentucky as the top remaining Democratic pick-up opportunities. Kansas and Georgia are sleeper races. If Obama actually beats McCain by ten points (which I think is exceptionally unlikely), those two states will be competitive in the general, and that might be the boost needed to nudge the Senate races into the competitive category.

So, in other words, your rankings look exactly like mine, with Oregon and Mississippi flipped (and I expect that long-term you're more likely to be right).  I really argued with myself about putting MN in Likely R for many of the reasons mentioned above, but I'm choosing to play it conservative for now there.

I should add that if your theorized event occurs, it may be enough to do something about Roberts, but I really doubt it about Chambliss. (jmo - I have my reasons here)

For now, our rankings are quite similar.  I hope that's a good thing

Perhaps my lack of emotional distance from the Oregon contest is inflating my view of its competitiveness.  Of the two long-shot races, I agree that Roberts is more likely to lose than Chambliss. In the Roberts' race, the Democrats have a relatively well-funded candidate with a statewide network of supporters. The Chambliss race features a fragmented group of candidates, none of whom has the ability to self-fund against Chambliss, who is methodically adding to his burgeoning warchest.

Taking Rasmussen at face value, just call me leery of MS, where Wicker's only getting 76% of Republicans and is still tied.  That smells like a name recognition issue, which usually gets corrected as time goes on.

Therefore, I suspect OR rates higher long-term, but I know that Smith is very clever in appealing to the middle for elections, so maybe I'm wrong here.

The race that confuses me is Alaska.  I can see a lot happening here.  And I suspect I'm not the only one.