Talk Elections

since he was cheated out of his reelection to the senate, perhaps he should run for president?

he would be a good, non-southern, moderate voice for the gop.

lol

He can win Minnesota!

In before BRTD.

This thread has potential.

that would be a stretch, obviously.

but is it unrealistic to see him winning every mccain state + va + nc + oh + fl (lots of snowbirds there that would love his brooklyn accent) + ia?

Yes.

I actually was thinking about this, maybe if he runs for governor in '10

I've always liked Coleman and spoke of how I would like to see him on a national ticket someday. However, he doesn't have what it takes to get through a primary and I can't see him waging a General election campaign. I don't know that the whole Brooklyn Jew thing is all that appealing to many people.

I honestly don't know.  What makes him moderate?

Yeah, Coleman was completely cheated by those Republican-leaning committees and that Democratic Secretary of State that keeps rejecting Franken's requests

Yes...cheated, CHEATED I SAY! Pesky electorate preferring other candidates...

In all seriousness though, the only distinguishable thing about Norm Coleman is his abnormal facial structure. Senator was his political ceiling and the idea of him running a Presidential campaign is laughable for reasons outside of being a "moderate" in the GOP.

He's a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, interest group ratings generally rate him as one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, former Democrat (obviously)...

To answer your question, I'm not entirely sure... he seems to pretty much toe the Republican line in terms of rhetoric...

To his credit, he was a member of the "Gang of 20".

Norm Coleman is a moderate?

Norm Coleman is a right-wing rubber stamper.

Right...  because nothing says victory like nominating the guy who lost to a bodybuilder from the movie Predator and Stewart Smalley!

Walter, of course, doesn't believe any of what he said, he is merely attempting to start a fight (particularly with BRTD) and attract attention to himself. I really find it odd that I'm the only who seems to see him for the troll he is.

LOL. Thanks for a great post-work laugh.

This first sums up my thoughts:


Coleman is going to have a tough time saying "I lost to Al Franken so nominate me for President"


It would be more than a stretch to think someone who can't beat Al Franken can beat Obama.


Oh yes, that's exactly the main thing people vote on, accent, not issues or anything. ::)

For the rest, I don't see why he would play any better than a generic Republican, and for Iowa he'd do horribly. If we assume Iowa is like rural Minnesota, look at how Coleman ran out there. He ran further behind McCain than Franken did behind Obama in many places. Look at Aitkin and Pine counties. Both were very narrow for Obama with under 50% (Aitkin only by 6 votes.) but voted for Franken. The reason is obviously that Obama voters were more partisan and stuck with Franken while many McCain voters jumped to Barkley. Coleman has hardly any appeal to Iowa.


God yes, I would love for the GOP candidate in 2010 to be someone with net 20 disapprovals!

So...even if you did feel that Norm Coleman was cheated, is a guy who can only muster 42% of the voters of his home state to reelect him to the Senate (and has never even broken fifty percent in a statewide competition in his home state) a strong candidate for President?

i dont think losing an election automatically ends your presidential chances.

george bush (both of them) lost election(s).  bill clinton lost an election. richard nixon lost elections. lbj lost an election.  fdr lost elections.

come on republicans.  youd rather have the huckster, sarah palin or mitt romney than norm coleman or bob erlich?

True.  However, none of them lost an election to Al Franken.

And what did Bill Clinton lose?

1974 race for congress.  and 1980 reelection for governor.

Neither of which was against Al Franken.

     Mark Dayton might actually perform well.

Dayton at his worst was like -5, nothing compared to Coleman. He also would've won reelection had he ran in 2006, unlike Coleman. It's moot though, he's very unlikely to be the nominee.

As did Obama.  But all of them, except Nixon, won subsequent elections before becoming president.  And Nixon was kind of a special case, as he was already a major national figure by 1968.  Coleman certainly will not be going in to 2012.

     Also, it's Minnesota, so for a Democrat to get numbers like Coleman's, he would have to publically declare that he was Satan incarnated.

good timing considering the following post

Of course Walter trolls (See: Any post about Obama from January to roughly September 2008), but he has a tendency to be insanely delusional about this sort of thing and throw out people with no chance just for the sake of thinking "outside the box". Remember his Mark Warner as Obama's running mate fetish?

I'm not sure if he is that delusional, or if it's an attempt to be an "Open Minded Hero" in the tradition of constine's Moderate Heroism, but whatever the case he's probably sincere in some way. He should just look at his track record of predictions, especially his out on a limb ones.

mark warner would have made an excellent running mate.

How about Ken Blackwell, Walter?

He has potential, but we need someone with loads of cash. He could possibly be Mitt Romney's VP. They could pull in both Michigan and possibly Minnesota, and if Obama's approval ratings aren't that high, those 27ish(Electroral #'s will change) votes would make a huge difference.

You should know though, that with McCain, Michigan was supposed to be really competitive, until he withdrew cause he knew he had no chance. Sure, that might've hurt him even more, but then he put more ressources in Minnesota and... still lost by similar margins.

Norm Coleman will probably have switched parties a few times and both supported and opposed every major issue that comes along... all subject to whatever way the political wind is blowing, of course.

But then I think Walter likes Coleman just because the Democrats from Minnesota on this forum hate him so much.

Yeah, I mean Obama could've won Virginia with him. Oh wait...

That's not the point though, the point isn't if you think he would've been good, it's that you kept insisting he'd drop out of the Senate race and be chosen despite the hordes of evidence to the contrary and basically said Obama would lose if he picked anyone else.


Right because Coleman is so insanely popular here he got 42% of the vote and lost to Al Franken. And Romney is clearly so insanely popular in Michigan because his father was Governor 40 years ago and maybe 10% of the state can remember, and because he got about 7% of the votes cast overall in the state in a primary with a good chunk of that coming from malicious crossover Democrats.

You got a lot to learn kid.

NORM COLEMAN/KEN BLACKWELL 2012

DOWN WITH THE SILLY POPULISTS

As much as I like you, I'm becoming convinced that you enjoy taking contrarian positions just for the sake of being contrarian sometimes....that you get some degree of pleasure out of being in the minority in your views or some such.

How exactly was he "cheated"?

The GOP could do worse, and probably will.

i agree.

He'll have been out of the spotlight for too long.