Only 28 percent of Minnesotans think Coleman's current appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court is appropriate. Sixty four percent think he should give up now. Seventy three percent feel that he should not go beyond the State Supreme Court if he loses there. The will of the people has been heard in both the voting booth and the polls.
This will not affect former Senator Norm Coleman's strategies, because the will of the people is of no concern to him. Coleman will continue with the State Supreme Court appeal, and when he loses there (and he will) he will continue on to the US supreme court. Coleman's strategy is to delay the seating of Franken for as long as possible. Why? Because Coleman is under various Federal and Senate investigations and owes a huge pile of money for the legal costs of this recount. He needs the Republican party to help pay off some of these debts (to the extent that they can ... they may not be able to help much give their overall loss of support) and to yield their political clout to blunt the effects of some of these investigations (which of course, they can't really do but Norm has never been the sharpest knife in the drawer and probably does not know this).
It is now time for Republicans whose careers are not over to stop openly releasing statements supporting Coleman. Personally, I don't care whether they do this or not. What I'm saying is that you will stop seeing the support Pawlenty and others have been mouthing over the last few months. Furthermore, this latest poll is likely to prompt Pawlenty to issue an election certificate once appeals have been exhausted at the state level, possibly in July.
The state Supreme Court proceedings being in June.
Public fatigue with the Senate contest, now nearing the end of its sixth month, reverberates through the poll's findings.Although 57 percent of Republican poll respondents approve of Coleman's appeal to the state Supreme Court, the same portion of Republicans want him to quit should he lose there.
Half of all Democrats polled also think Franken should concede if Coleman wins before the state high court, while only 38 percent prefer that the DFLer take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Independents would be more patient with a Franken appeal than one by Coleman, but a majority of that group think that either should call a halt once the Minnesota court rules.
- Log in to post comments
I wonder how this is going to play our for Pawlenty in the governor's race next year. He should probably make sure MN has two senators by the time 2010 campaign ads start running.
28%... now why does that number sound familiar?
Along the lines of the Law of Diminishing Returns, Coleman is fighting an uphill battle yet I have a concern that the MN-Supreme Court will take their role as âwriting historyâ and not deciding who won.
First, Coleman must pay some of Frankenâs fees for the court challenge that he just lost, so every dollar that he gets, a portion will end up funding Franken. (There was some talk that Franken may ask that Coleman put money in escrow to fund for the potential loss at the MN-SC, but that story has gone quiet.) On top of all of Colemanâs legal problems, he has lived beyond his means (remodeling and mortgaging his home so that his loans are now more than the accessed property valuation) -- he even has student loans for his kids. Considering the significant reduction on the Favorability poll question, his political future in Minnesota is dead. His future lies on K Street ⦠just as Frankenâs July television commercial complained of the revolving door from the Senate to paid lobbyist, Coleman will cash in.
Second, the case really has two key questions that the MN-SC could address (others will be easily dismissed.)
The first one is the missing 132 ballots from Minneapolis. The Election Contest Court sidestepped the issue in their ruling. It needs to be addressed. From a materiality aspect, Franken would have still won without these ballots. However, by allowing the Election night preliminary count to be used sets a dangerous precedent --- one that is in opposition to Schwab âv- Sparks. This is important since there is now a case in Kentucky where a judge and election workers are accused of scheme in which altered the voterâs ballots were used. If it becomes an accepted practice that the election night count is used when ballots are missing, it only encourages the destruction of fraudulent ballots. Can you imagine if this would have happened in Carver County which produced Colemanâs largest margin ⦠the Dems would be claiming foul.
The missing ballot question aside, the concern is that the MN-SC knows that their ruling on the Equal Protection question may be cited in other state cases. How they consider the Bush-v-Gore will be important. IMO, since MN considers absentee voting a privilege and those voters who may have had their ballots rejected could vote on Election Day, this eliminates this argument BUT I am not one of the justices. And thatâs the real concern, it falls down not to who are the judges ⦠and considering the inclination toward the Republican Party for some of these judges may make our votes irrelevant.