Senate & House Elections

[Michael]

For all you political junkies out there, here's Congressional Quarterly's (CQ) guide to all the key races.

Want to know who’s running for major political office in the Nov. 4 election? CQ Politics has compiled comprehensive lists of the major-party candidates for the 481 races for U.S. House, U.S. Senate and governor that will be on next month’s ballots.

The candidate lists, which are available at Greg’s List, also include links to the campaign Web sites of every Democratic and Republican candidate for the Senate and for governor — and for dozens of House candidates that CQ Politics considers to be in highly or mildly competitive races.

The House list includes a brief description of the geography of each congressional district. It also indicates that 55 of the 434 members of the House — there is one vacancy — will be running without major-party opposition in the Nov. 4 election. The partisan distribution of the unopposed House members is 41 Democrats and 14 Republicans — more evidence that the Democrats are very much on offense in the House election.

There are 35 races for the U.S. Senate on the Nov. 4 ballot; the Republicans are the defending party in 23 races, including five in which the incumbent is retiring, and the Democrats in just 12. One senator is running unopposed — Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor .

There also are 11 races for governor on the Nov. 4 ballot. Democrats are favored to win a Republican-held governorship in Missouri, while Republicans are waging competitive takeover attempts of Democratic-held governorships in North Carolina and Washington state.

CQ's Guide to All of the Races (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002973589)

Anyone keeping a close eye on any particular contest? Some of the Senate races look very interesting to watch - Alaska, Kentucky, North Carolina, Minnesota, Mississippi and Oregon are the ones I'm watching. :)

[partofme]

Of course I'm watching the Kentucky senate race especially. I don't like either candidate to tell you the truth. If people think McCain's ads are nasty they should see the ones McConnell and Lunsford are running. Lynsford tried running for governor last year but didn't get past the primaries.

[Donkey]

The only one I'm watching really is the 14th Ohio house race. My little brother works (and by works I mean they are actually paying him, he's not an unpaid intern anymore, the bastard) for the Democratic candidate Bill O'Neill who is challenging Steve Latourette, whom I hate.

[Americano]

For all you political junkies out there, here's Congressional Quarterly's (CQ) guide to all the key races.



CQ's Guide to All of the Races (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002973589)

Anyone keeping a close eye on any particular contest? Some of the Senate races look very interesting to watch - Alaska, Kentucky, North Carolina, Minnesota, Mississippi and Oregon are the ones I'm watching. :)

As I've already voted I'm at a point of attempting to ignore the entire thing until the votes are counted.

[partofme]

I just saw a article on the front page of The New York Time's website that was much more in depth about our senate race here in Kentucky than anything I have read in local papers. The sad thing is that it still didn't tell me much I didn't already know so I guess I have kept up with it better than I thought. It doesn't mention that recent polls suggest McConnell and Lunsford are in a virtual tie but I still think Mitch will end up winning. Their television ads are almost even but I have been getting negative mail advertisements against Lunsford almost every day and while they are so nasty I think it will turn some people off to McConnell that sort of thing does work here very well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23mcconnell.html?hp

[Michael]

I just saw a article on the front page of The New York Time's website that was much more in depth about our senate race here in Kentucky than anything I have read in local papers. The sad thing is that it still didn't tell me much I didn't already know so I guess I have kept up with it better than I thought. It doesn't mention that recent polls suggest McConnell and Lunsford are in a virtual tie but I still think Mitch will end up winning. Their television ads are almost even but I have been getting negative mail advertisements against Lunsford almost every day and while they are so nasty I think it will turn some people off to McConnell that sort of thing does work here very well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/us/politics/23mcconnell.html?hp
Yes, this race looks 'tied' at the moment. But that means McConnell's trend line is totally downward since his support has been falling steadily for the last year while Lunsford's trend line is upwards.

If I had to put a bet, I'd put it on Lunsford pulling off an upset victory here (probably winning by less than 1000 votes).

Republicans losing this Senate seat (and their Senate Leader) would be a much bigger and more serious loss than than losing the WH (which has been long predicted and expected).

[partofme]

Yes, this race looks 'tied' at the moment. But that means McConnell's trend line is totally downward since his support has been falling steadily for the last year while Lunsford's trend line is upwards.

If I had to put a bet, I'd put it on Lunsford pulling off an upset victory here (probably winning by less than 1000 votes).

Republicans losing this Senate seat (and their Senate Leader) would be a much bigger and more serious loss than than losing the WH (which has been long predicted and expected).

Wow!!! NPR did a story about it on Morning Edition today. Anyway, one line or argument McConnell is starting to make is pointing out money he brought into the state for local projects. While most people are against this sort of spending in general they are all for it when it's their own state. One thing that I think that will hurt McConnell is he has the most negative ads of all including one that claims a medical clinic Lunsford is on the board of killed a patient because they are cutting cost. Lunsford is doing a good job of pointing out that it's a charge that isn't backed up at all and really calling him on desperate attacks. It will be close for sure. I am glad to see some national attention which isn't common for Kentucky most of the time.

[Michael]

I've been following the political blog scene for years. For the most part, 'rightwing' political blogs are completely unreadable due to being mindlessly and fanatically partisan. I'd also say that two-thirds of the 'leftwing' political blogs are also completely unreadable for the same reason.

However, I've always held that there are several 'leftwing' blogs (no more than a dozen in total) that despite being rather 'Democratic-leaning' also supply generally good quality political analysis. Unfortunately, this election seem to have sucked the brains out those few blogs that I do consider to be worthwhile reading.

A case in point. Several of the 'quality' leftwing blogs are now piling on Democratic Senators Clinton, Bayh and Boxer for not making substantial last minute donations to the DSC in order to fund a last minute ad-blitz in the most closely fought Senate races (Kentucky, Mississippi, Minnesota and Georgia). The argument goes that these Senators all have substantial warchests on hand, are not up for election and all three hold substantially 'safe' Senate seats and thus don't really need that money and that the money can be better spent trying to influence these borderline contests. One can only conclude that election fever has gotten to their heads.

First and foremost, I can well imagine that a wave of last-minute money coming California and NY State Senators into Kentucky can only annoy the residents of Kentucky who may resent big out of state money coming in to try to influence Kentucky's election. Same goes for the other States with hot Senate races. Such funding could easily backfire.

Secondly, what's in it for Senator's Clinton, Bayh and Boxer here? These Senators have NOTHING to gain from helping the Democratic party add a few extra Senate seats beyond the number needed to hold a simple majority. Additional Democratic Senators would weaken the overall influence in the Senate that Senators Clinton, Bayh and Boxer presently have. Why should anyone expect them to want to spend their contributors cash to make themselves personally less effective in the Senate?

If the Democrats have a 'filibuster-proof' majority in the Senate, the ability of any given Democratic Senator to make a principled stand against party policy pretty much goes out the window. A Senator is only influential when their votes are actually needed. If no one actually needs their individual vote, no one will care what that vote is. So why would Senators want to water down their own influence by spending their supporters money on an out-of state Senate race?

The irony here is that their golden boy (Obama) is the one with all the extra fundraising cash and he's pretty much the ONLY person who really does have a vested interest in gaining extra Senate seats. Why are they not demanding that Obama pony up?

[Michael]

Here's the hot list of potential Democratic Senate pickups...

Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

12 potential Democratic pickups. Quite unlikely for them to take all 12, but it is looking like they have a very good shot at 10 of them.

A year ago when I first looked at the Senate possibilities, I figured the Democrats were going to pickup at least 6-8 seats here. I'm increasing my prediction to 10.

[Americano]

Here's the hot list of potential Democratic Senate pickups...

Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia.

12 potential Democratic pickups. Quite unlikely for them to take all 12, but it is looking like they have a very good shot at 10 of them.

A year ago when I first looked at the Senate possibilities, I figured the Democrats were going to pickup at least 6-8 seats here. I'm increasing my prediction to 10.

I voted against Gordon Smith in Oregon and according to local news he's in for a very tight race. Palin's fundamentalist pitch definitely hurt Smith, a Mormon in a democrat state.

[neorealist]

I'm keeping my eye on IL 18th district Rep election...I have an acquaintance running. He's a good guy (a little dorky though) and if he wins (which is projected to by a 10% margin) he'll be one of the youngest congressmen ever...I'm pretty sure he's 27.

[Michael]

I'm keeping my eye on IL 18th district Rep election...I have an acquaintance running. He's a good guy (a little dorky though) and if he wins (which is projected to by a 10% margin) he'll be one of the youngest congressmen ever...I'm pretty sure he's 27.
Best of luck to your friend, but entering Congress at age 27 would only tie the record held by Adam Putnam who entered Congress in 2001.

Personally, I'd like to see a much higher minimum age setting. I like to have elected politicians that actually have some job/life experience before they become members of the legislature. I don't like politicians coming straight out of school and mommy's house into the Legislature.

[Americano]

Best of luck to your friend, but entering Congress at age 27 would only tie the record held by Adam Putnam who entered Congress in 2001.

Personally, I'd like to see a much higher minimum age setting. I like to have elected politicians that actually have some job/life experience before they become members of the legislature. I don't like politicians coming straight out of school and mommy's house into the Legislature.

I'm in agreement with that. It's the same reasoning used with significant trust funds; interest only until maturity allows beneficiaries to understand there are people out there who will steal the principle.

[neorealist]

Best of luck to your friend, but entering Congress at age 27 would only tie the record held by Adam Putnam who entered Congress in 2001.

Personally, I'd like to see a much higher minimum age setting. I like to have elected politicians that actually have some job/life experience before they become members of the legislature. I don't like politicians coming straight out of school and mommy's house into the Legislature.


For whats it worth, he was a legislator for IL ( just like Obama was before his run for the Senate) and was the president of the school district board at the age 21 (which I have no idea how that happened). He wasn't bank rolled by his parents and self financed his college education (which he completed in 3 years)

[partofme]

Best of luck to your friend, but entering Congress at age 27 would only tie the record held by Adam Putnam who entered Congress in 2001.

Personally, I'd like to see a much higher minimum age setting. I like to have elected politicians that actually have some job/life experience before they become members of the legislature. I don't like politicians coming straight out of school and mommy's house into the Legislature.

We have a candidate that is 23 running here. Normally I would hold that against him but he is a student at MSU and in general I think the city ignores the needs of the university on some levels and would like to see it get some representation rather than a board of locals only.

[Americano]

We have a candidate that is 23 running here. Normally I would hold that against him but he is a student at MSU and in general I think the city ignores the needs of the university on some levels and would like to see it get some representation rather than a board of locals only.

The problem I see with a university student representing city voters is city needs following way behind university needs. I'd also find it difficult to support anyone who has in all probability never held a career position, never paid property taxes or fought with the good old boys who in actuality run every form of government.

[partofme]

The problem I see with a university student representing city voters is city needs following way behind university needs. I'd also find it difficult to support anyone who has in all probability never held a career position, never paid property taxes or fought with the good old boys who in actuality run every form of government.

Keep in mind it is one guy out of ten.

[Michael]

Breaking: More Anti-McConnell Campaign Material

Source (http://pageonekentucky.com/2008/10/31/breaking-more-anti-mcconnell-campaign-material/)

This is interesting... Kentucky incumbent Senator (and Republican Senate minority leader) McConnell is getting "outed" in a bad way and very publically.

Personally, I've never had any problem with this at all and if I lived in Kentucky, I would gladly have donated to pay for this campaign attack.

Nothing sweeter than bringing down a hypocritical Republican closet-case poser.

And I just don't understand why some people have a problem with this 'forced' outing of public officials. The 'rules' on this are very clear. You can hide in the closet all you like and that's fine. But if you use a public platform to attack gay rights, it is open season on your closet. Very simple rule. Hiding in a closet while being a public official REQUIRES the gay community's help keep your secret because they will know. Once you attack the gay community, one's secret tends to get 'out'.

[partofme]

Source (http://pageonekentucky.com/2008/10/31/breaking-more-anti-mcconnell-campaign-material/)

This is interesting... Kentucky incumbent Senator (and Republican Senate minority leader) McConnell is getting "outed" in a bad way and very publically.

Personally, I've never had any problem with this at all and if I lived in Kentucky, I would gladly have donated to pay for this campaign attack.

Nothing sweeter than bringing down a hypocritical Republican closet-case poser.

And I just don't understand why some people have a problem with this 'forced' outing of public officials. The 'rules' on this are very clear. You can hide in the closet all you like and that's fine. But if you use a public platform to attack gay rights, it is open season on your closet. Very simple rule. Hiding in a closet while being a public official REQUIRES the gay community's help keep your secret because they will know. Once you attack the gay community, one's secret tends to get 'out'.

If this is true then I would not have a problem with it because of his anti-gay stances in the past but I'm not sure this is really credible.

[Michael]

If this is true then I would not have a problem with it because of his anti-gay stances in the past but I'm not sure this is really credible.

Here's the source of McConnell's outing.

Source (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-23-2008/0004910509&EDATE=THU+Oct+23+2008,+02:41+PM)

McConnell's name has been on the list of 'known' Republican closet cases for years.

I could post a dozen names from that list if I was so inclined (but I'm not). But that kind of info is readily available if you know where to look for it. ;)

Just like Foley - his 'secret' was kept for him for many years - until he 'crossed the line' and then 'presto' the secret gets revealed. If any public official is gay and in the closet, the gay community will know about it.

[partofme]

Here's the source of McConnell's outing.

Source (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/10-23-2008/0004910509&EDATE=THU+Oct+23+2008,+02:41+PM)

McConnell's name has been on the list of 'known' Republican closet cases for years.

I could post a dozen names from that list if I was so inclined (but I'm not). But that kind of info is readily available if you know where to look for it. ;)

Just like Foley - his 'secret' was kept for him for many years - until he 'crossed the line' and then 'presto' the secret gets revealed. If any public official is gay and in the closet, the gay community will know about it.

Well if it's true I would hold it against him then (for being hypocritical) although I was not planning on voting for him anyway. However, I think that many in Kentucky would hold it against him for different reasons.

[Michael]

Well if it's true I would hold it against him then (for being hypocritical) although I was not planning on voting for him anyway. However, I think that many in Kentucky would hold it against him for different reasons.
I'm okay with this because McConnell contributed to, enabled and has held a leadership position in the very movement that has worked so hard to make these kind of ugly personal smear attacks so effective.

It has a certain 'poetic justice' for McConnell to suffer for it.

The real question is, where do all these closet gay republicans come from? Seems odd.

[partofme]

I'm okay with this because McConnell contributed to, enabled and has held a leadership position in the very movement that has worked so hard to make these kind of ugly personal smear attacks so effective.

It has a certain 'poetic justice' for McConnell to suffer for it.

The real question is, where do all these closet gay republicans come from? Seems odd.

It does seem to happen more often in the G.O.P.

I wonder how much this ad has spread. I haven't seen it and I get mailers from both sides pretty much every week.

[Michael]

It does seem to happen more often in the G.O.P.

I wonder how much this ad has spread. I haven't seen it and I get mailers from both sides pretty much every week.
We will perhaps find out tomorrow night. ;)

This race was pretty much a statistical tie during the last week or so.

[partofme]

We will perhaps find out tomorrow night. ;)

This race was pretty much a statistical tie during the last week or so.

I've been getting robocalls also. Yesterday I got one from Bill Clinton and today I got one from Hillary. Neither mentioned Obama but we are not in a swing state so there was no need for them to.

[Americano]

Well if it's true I would hold it against him then (for being hypocritical) although I was not planning on voting for him anyway. However, I think that many in Kentucky would hold it against him for different reasons.

Craig's still in office and Idaho's about as homophobic as Utah.

[Americano]

I'm okay with this because McConnell contributed to, enabled and has held a leadership position in the very movement that has worked so hard to make these kind of ugly personal smear attacks so effective.

It has a certain 'poetic justice' for McConnell to suffer for it.

The real question is, where do all these closet gay republicans come from? Seems odd.

I didn't want to do it, but, from the closet?

[Greendruid]

The real question is, where do all these closet gay republicans come from? Seems odd.

I'm going to guess they all come from the same place that loose Catholic school girls come from - repressionland!

[Michael]

For the record, here are the four 'closet-gay' Republicans currently in the Senate: Coleman (R-Minn), McConnell (R-KY), Graham (R-SC), and Craig (R-ID).

I'm not aware of any D-closet Senators.

[Michael]

Well it looks like Smith (Senate-R-Oregon) has in fact been defeated! I had predicted this one as a very high probability Democratic-pickup so I was very surprised that that Smith had earlier been indicated to hold on. :banana:

The Senate races in Georgia and Minnesota are both 'virtual' ties. They are going to have a special 'run-off' election in Georgia for that - I've never seen one of those in the US. Just a full recount in Minnesota, though they are suggesting December before the results are finalized in Minnesota.

Fingers duly crossed for Al Franken in Minnesota. The Senate could use someone with a bit of personality - that place is filled with too many 'grey men'.

[The Sister]

I didn't want to do it, but, from the closet?
Somebody had to! :D

[Michael]

Obama has just dropped another bomb - he's recommended "forgiving" Lieberman.

I'm not the forgiving kind when it comes to politics. Obama is getting mighty close to my "I hate that bastard almost as much as I hate Lieberman" category.

I consider Lieberman to be the worst slimeball, two-faced, hatemongering, racist neocon in the Senate. His statements about Muslims ought to be sufficient to have him kicked out of the Senate.

Remember FISA. Obama has a really bad track record of kow-towing to the Washington media establishment. This appears to be his one true defining characteristic so far.

There is nothing but doom for Democrats who kow-tow to the Washington media insiders. They will stab him in the back soon enough. They are never grateful for anything you do for them. And Lieberman will bite the hand that feeds him - he's been doing it constantly now for years. He was defeated in a Democratic party primary for a reason. Letting him have an important Chairmanship involving national security is insane. He's just another neocon hatemonger.

By the look of things, Obama is courting a full-scale war with the netroots on this issue. To the netroots set, Lieberman runs #3 behind GW Bush and Dick Cheney for 'most hated'.

[Donkey]

Obama has just dropped another bomb - he's recommended "forgiving" Lieberman.

I'm not the forgiving kind when it comes to politics. Obama is getting mighty close to my "I hate that bastard almost as much as I hate Lieberman" category.

I consider Lieberman to be the worst slimeball, two-faced, hatemongering, racist neocon in the Senate. His statements about Muslims ought to be sufficient to have him kicked out of the Senate.

Remember FISA. Obama has a really bad track record of kow-towing to the Washington media establishment. This appears to be his one true defining characteristic so far.

There is nothing but doom for Democrats who kow-tow to the Washington media insiders. They will stab him in the back soon enough. They are never grateful for anything you do for them. And Lieberman will bite the hand that feeds him - he's been doing it constantly now for years. He was defeated in a Democratic party primary for a reason. Letting him have an important Chairmanship involving national security is insane. He's just another neocon hatemonger.

By the look of things, Obama is courting a full-scale war with the netroots on this issue. To the netroots set, Lieberman runs #3 behind GW Bush and Dick Cheney for 'most hated'.I am of the "show Lieberman the door" camp, for sure. There is no reason that the Democrats should keep him in any position of influence considering what he's done. Even beyond ideology, nobody likes a turncoat.

Plus I find the idea of a supermajority unappealing anyway.

[Michael]

It's Official: Full Dem Caucus Will Vote On Lieberman's Fate
By Greg Sargent - November 11, 2008, 2:44PM

The full Democratic caucus will vote on whether Joe Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee at its caucus meeting next week, a leadership aide confirms to us.

Source (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/its_official_full_dem_caucus_w.php)

Should be interesting. Lieberman isn't very popular with fellow Democratic Senators (Lieberman isn't very popular with anyone except Republicans).

Btw, if anyone is curious, the reason that Congress didn't have anything official to say about the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina is because Joe Lieberman (as Chair of the relevant committee) said he didn't want to play "gotcha" with the Republicans and thus killed all Senatorial attempts to investigate the Bush Administration's mishandling of Katrina and the preventable deaths of American citizens.

Joe always puts his own partisanship first. Joe Lieberman is a party of one (Joe Lieberman Party). Let him sit in Congress accordingly.

[partofme]

Source (http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/its_official_full_dem_caucus_w.php)

Should be interesting. Lieberman isn't very popular with fellow Democratic Senators (Lieberman isn't very popular with anyone except Republicans).

He would be a weird fit in the republican party though. Outside of foreign policy he seems way to far away from them to be excepted.

[Michael]

He would be a weird fit in the republican party though. Outside of foreign policy he seems way to far away from them to be excepted.
Joe was elected as an independent since he lost the Democratic primary.

He's not a member of any major party and that's Joe's problem, not mine.

I don't really care what label he wants to sit under. Fact is, he should NOT be Chairman of an important Senate Committee under a Democratic Party majority.

[Americano]

Joe was elected as an independent since he lost the Democratic primary.

He's not a member of any major party and that's Joe's problem, not mine.

I don't really care what label he wants to sit under. Fact is, he should NOT be Chairman of an important Senate Committee under a Democratic Party majority.

He is the Israeli Senator. Keep your potential enemies close. We know many Jews that switched to supporting the Republican party for current administration's support of Israel. Not a lot of votes but serious campaign money and deals.

[Michael]

New Hampshire Senate becomes first legislative body in the USA to have a female majority.

Another national historic first lies in the Senate that has 13 of 24 seats held by women.

Senate President Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord, said this was the first legislative body in the country to ever have a majority female membership.

"This is quite a milestone, and we thought it was possible leading up to Election Day," Larsen said.

Women for the past two years have made up 37 percent of the New Hampshire House.
Source (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081106/NEWS02/311069875/-1/news01)

[Michael]

And as the count in the Alaska Senate race still continues, looks like the tide has turned against convicted criminal Ted Stevens. Still way too close though - apparently just 3 votes separates the candidates.

[partofme]

Looks like Lieberman will be keeping his chairmanship.

[Michael]

Looks like Lieberman will be keeping his chairmanship.
No surprise there.

As some clever wit remarked a week ago, knowing the Democratic Senatorial caucus, we should consider ourselves lucky they didn't make him Majority Leader. These guys are masters at 'snatching defeat from the jaws of victory' - their serial capitulations to Bush's torture policies, warrentless wire-tapping, retroactive immunity and Iraq war funding and everything else speaks for itself.

There was NEVER any danger that the Democratic Senatorial caucus would stand up for principles. They never have before and are quite unlike to ever do anything so rash.

[Michael]

The bizarre habits of the Democratic Congress never ceases to amaze me.

1. Joe Lieberman, who addressed the Republican convention, officially endorsed McCain for President and publically accused Obama of being a wild-eyed socialist and a friend of the terrorists in the recent campaign - and who is not permitted to sit as a Democratic member (due to losing his party primary), is permitted to remain as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate - a very high prestige position under a Democratic party Majority.

2. John Dingell, who has been a dedicated and loyal member of the Democratic House caucus for 52 years and who dutifully worked to help the Democrats win Michigan for Obama, gets stripped of his Chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee because Waxman wanted to be Chair of that Committee (and Waxman is a very powerful and popular player in the House).

That's just plain wierd.

Or rather, it just shows that the House is a much more dynamic place. The Senate is a corrupt old boys club.

Btw, Waxman's victory over Dingell is a measure of Nancy Pelosi's power - she and Waxman are traditionally close Congressional allies.

[Michael]

Well, looks like I'll get one nice Christmas gift this year - looks like Franken is going to end up on top in Minnesota.

Its not so much that I like Franken (because I don't really), it is just that I loathe Coleman as being one of the worst kind of posers in the Senate already overflowing with corruption and incompetance.

[Michael]

Al Franken has been officially named as the winner of the Minnesota Senate race. There will be an official recount process, but Franken is the winner going in and that's unlikely to change.

It will be interesting to see Franken in the Senate. It is a good possibility this guy might end up being a really good Senator.

Either way, I'm just glad that Norm Coleman is out. He was one of the worst Republicans in the Senate.

[Donkey]

Al Franken has been officially named as the winner of the Minnesota Senate race. There will be an official recount process, but Franken is the winner going in and that's unlikely to change.

It will be interesting to see Franken in the Senate. It is a good possibility this guy might end up being a really good Senator.

Either way, I'm just glad that Norm Coleman is out. He was one of the worst Republicans in the Senate.

I'm not overly familiar with Coleman. What made him so bad (worse than usual, that is)?

[Michael]

I'm not overly familiar with Coleman. What made him so bad (worse than usual, that is)?
Closet-case homo with a long record of anti-gay rights voting (and obnoxious rhetoric on the issue).

McConnell of Kentucky is the other one in the exact same boat.

Anti-gay bigots I can tolerate. Gay anti-gay bigots I have no respect for and consider them to be monsters.

(btw, do you know how often Senator Barney Frank is ridiculed in the Senate by Republicans for being openly gay? By people like Coleman and McConnell? Fucking pathetic.)