Minnesota has the only 3 way race I see.

[techs]

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...nesota_senate-257.html

So Its the Republican Norm Coleman versus Democrat Al Franken and Independent Dean Barkely?
Even after reading his wiki page, I can't figure out who he is taking votes from.
Anyone following this race?

p.s. nice link on his webpage:
http://www.senatorbarkley.com/cartoon.htm

 

[Genx87]

I question the polling methods in some of these polls. One day barkley is getting 3%, the next double digits.

And we have a decent sized fringe of idiots who will vote for Dean because he was a Jesse Ventura appointee after Wellstone died in a plane crash in 02.

I'd say he is probably taking equally from both candidates.

 

[quest55720]

I think it is more of a case that people hate both coleman and franken. It would not suprise me to see Barkely get close to 25% of the vote. The franken vs coleman has just been right down nasty. Both have pushed it to the point where people are simply turned off by both.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

MN is interesting that way. I personally believe that Ventura would have won had he joined the race. I am a Democrat but have no inclination to support Franken. I find Norm Coleman personally kind of distasteful and sleazy, but there's no getting around the fact that he's been a fairly effective, centrist senator.

I agree with GenX that the methodology of those polls is highly questionable. I just don't believe Franken has the base of support the polls suggest - I don't know a single Democrat who supports him.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I'm voting for Barkley. Like quest55720 said, the attack ads going back and forth between Coleman and Franken are ridiculous. There's even a Franken ad mocking Coleman's ads, starting off with things like "Al Franken sunk the Titanic and he hates puppies!"

But yeah, I'm voting for Barkley for a few reasons:

1. He's not part of either party. This is a huge plus because I see most Democrats and Republicans as being resistant to change and unwilling to ever cut against their party.
2. Franken probably won't win anyway.
3. Even if Coleman wins, the Democrats (the party I usually identify myself with) will still have a significant majority of Senate seats.
4. Franken doesn't appeal to me because he seems unprofessional and a loose cannon. This has applied since before Coleman started running negative ads; I remember hearing about several instances where he went completely overboard. I think his satire is generally funny and biting, but when he defends his views he can get violent.
5. Coleman seems way too much like a slimy, corrupt Republican. Definitely not voting for him.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

3. Even if Coleman wins, the Democrats (the party I usually identify myself with) will still have a significant majority of Senate seats.





Huh? Each state has 2 Senators. Minnesota has Coleman and Klobuchar. What majority are you referring to?


You do realize this is for the U.S. Senate, not the State House, correct?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

3. Even if Coleman wins, the Democrats (the party I usually identify myself with) will still have a significant majority of Senate seats.





Huh? Each state has 2 Senators. Minnesota has Coleman and Klobuchar. What majority are you referring to?


You do realize this is for the U.S. Senate, not the State House, correct?

Sounds to me like you're the one who's confused. I think what AML meant is just what he said - that the Democrats will retain a solid command of the US Senate (not the majority of MN seats therein) even if Coleman is re-elected.

 

[Thegonagle]

Main thing I want is to defeat Coleman, who is a US senator today solely due to the untimely death of Paul Wellstone. To me, he's that slimy salesman type who I just can't trust--just the vibe I catch every time he opens his mouth. I felt that way when he ran for governor 10 years ago, and I feel that way today.

I've had a Franken bumper sticker on my car for awhile now (for several months before Barkley entered the race), but at the moment, I'm not sure whether I'll vote for Al or Dean.

 

[Lemon law]

Since I can't vote for Norm, or Al, or Dean, the future results are yet to be seen.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
Main thing I want is to defeat Coleman, who is a US senator today solely due to the untimely death of Paul Wellstone. To me, he's that slimy salesman type who I just can't trust--just the vibe I catch every time he opens his mouth. I felt that way when he ran for governor 10 years ago, and I feel that way today.

I've had a Franken bumper sticker on my car for awhile now (for several months before Barkley entered the race), but at the moment, I'm not sure whether I'll vote for Al or Dean.

Thats the problem. The votes for independents will split with Al and Dean and Coleman will win by default.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Thegonagle
Main thing I want is to defeat Coleman, who is a US senator today solely due to the untimely death of Paul Wellstone. To me, he's that slimy salesman type who I just can't trust--just the vibe I catch every time he opens his mouth. I felt that way when he ran for governor 10 years ago, and I feel that way today.

I've had a Franken bumper sticker on my car for awhile now (for several months before Barkley entered the race), but at the moment, I'm not sure whether I'll vote for Al or Dean.

I despise Coleman. That carpet-bagging piece of crap has no business representing me.

Why did the Democrats have to nominate Franken instead of someone who isn't a piece of shit?

Oh well, my vote goes to Barkley.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Thats the problem. The votes for independents will split with Al and Dean and Coleman will win by default.

And that is my dilemma, because we have a history of electing third parties and relative outsiders. (Wellstone, a college professor with no political experience, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Ryback, who ran as an independent against a Republican and the Democratic incumbent, Ventura a pro-wrestler and actor, etc.)

My vote for Skip Humphrey (D) in the 1998 gubernatorial race was more a vote against Coleman than for Humphrey, because I didn't think Ventura could actually win. But Ventura did win. It was a close one, and it's going to be close again. I want to vote for the guy who has the best chance of winning against Coleman.

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I despise Coleman. That carpet-bagging piece of crap has no business representing me.

Why did the Democrats have to nominate Franken instead of someone who isn't a piece of shit?

Oh well, my vote goes to Barkley.

Franken was an odd choice--he comes with a hell of a lot of baggage. At least he's actually from Minnesota though, unlike Coleman.

I think Barkley does have a good chance.

The only thing I know is who I WON'T be voting for.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

3. Even if Coleman wins, the Democrats (the party I usually identify myself with) will still have a significant majority of Senate seats.





Huh? Each state has 2 Senators. Minnesota has Coleman and Klobuchar. What majority are you referring to?


You do realize this is for the U.S. Senate, not the State House, correct?

Sounds to me like you're the one who's confused. I think what AML meant is just what he said - that the Democrats will retain a solid command of the US Senate (not the majority of MN seats therein) even if Coleman is re-elected.

Well dog-gone it, I guess I AM confused!


I never thought 49 seats in the U.S. Senate was considered "Solid Command".

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

3. Even if Coleman wins, the Democrats (the party I usually identify myself with) will still have a significant majority of Senate seats.

Huh? Each state has 2 Senators. Minnesota has Coleman and Klobuchar. What majority are you referring to?


You do realize this is for the U.S. Senate, not the State House, correct?

Sounds to me like you're the one who's confused. I think what AML meant is just what he said - that the Democrats will retain a solid command of the US Senate (not the majority of MN seats therein) even if Coleman is re-elected.

Well dog-gone it, I guess I AM confused!


I never thought 49 seats in the U.S. Senate was considered "Solid Command".

You are very confused about more than one thing:

1. You apparently have no idea how to quote (how did you mess up twice? I fixed it for you)
2. I wasn't referring to the CURRENT lame duck senate, where the Democrats barely have a majority (49 members plus 2 who caucus with them), but the one that we will have after the election. The Democrats are virtually guaranteed to have at least 54 seats, and they have a shot at 57-58 depending on how some of the closer races fall.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: Don Vito Corleone

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

3. Even if Coleman wins, the Democrats (the party I usually identify myself with) will still have a significant majority of Senate seats.

Huh? Each state has 2 Senators. Minnesota has Coleman and Klobuchar. What majority are you referring to?


You do realize this is for the U.S. Senate, not the State House, correct?

Sounds to me like you're the one who's confused. I think what AML meant is just what he said - that the Democrats will retain a solid command of the US Senate (not the majority of MN seats therein) even if Coleman is re-elected.

Well dog-gone it, I guess I AM confused!


I never thought 49 seats in the U.S. Senate was considered "Solid Command".

You are very confused about more than one thing:

1. You apparently have no idea how to quote (how did you mess up twice? I fixed it for you)
2. I wasn't referring to the CURRENT lame duck senate, where the Democrats barely have a majority (49 members plus 2 who caucus with them), but the one that we will have after the election. The Democrats are virtually guaranteed to have at least 54 seats, and they have a shot at 57-58 depending on how some of the closer races fall.

Well thank you for clarifying your position.

My second post was actually directed at Don Vito, who claimed that you meant the Dems will "RETAIN" a "Solid Command" of the U.S. Senate; which as you just stated was not what you meant.

Perhaps you should bark at him for putting words in your mouth, (rather than allowing you to explain your position) not at me for seeking clarification, for pete's sake.