« LORD FARIS SAYS FRANKEN DOES NOT HAVE MINNESOTA VALUES | Home | NY OBSERVER: “AL FRANKEN IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE OLLIE NORTH” »
MORE BAD NEWS FOR TEAM FRANKEN: MINNESOTA’S U.S. SENATE RACE DOESN’T MAKE POLITICO’S POTENTIAL GOP LOSS LIST
By Michael B. Brodkorb | July 30, 2008
In an article published last evening by the Politico about potenial GOP losses in the U.S. Senate, Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race between U.S. Senator Norm Coleman and Al Franken didn’t make the Politico’s top-ten list.
This is more bad news for Team Franken.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 30 Comments »
30 Responses to “MORE BAD NEWS FOR TEAM FRANKEN: MINNESOTA’S U.S. SENATE RACE DOESN’T MAKE POLITICO’S POTENTIAL GOP LOSS LIST”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:43 AM
… or a reflection of the fact that the GOP faces more than 10 losses in the Senate.
July 30th, 2008 at 9:59 AM
PD, fact? Not likely. Obama is going to pull down the rest of the Dems when he loses this year. You kids are in for one heck of a surprise!
July 30th, 2008 at 10:13 AM
You kids are in for one heck of a surprise!
Shhhhh….don’t ruin the surprise. Let the delusion continue.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Damn. Maybe Pete is right. Maybe this is the year the republicans win in a landslide. I mean, lets look what they have done.
Ramped spending up to $200 million a day in the middle east while roads, bridges and schools crumble over here. CHECK. Watched the economy go to hell while gas prices make everything more expensive for consumers. CHECK. Nominated history’s oldest candidate whose only consistency is that he lacks any. CHECK. President too focused on a failed war to do anything to protect the American public from the ravages of the sub-prime lending fiasco, CHECK. President leaving office has the lowest approval ratings of any president in history. CHECK.
Yeah, I can see why republicans are optimistic that America will give them four more years in the White House.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Leroy, The Democrats have been in charge for two years and what has happened? The price of gas has almost doubled. That hits home son. What is congress doing? Nancy Piglosi is preventing congress from dealing with the problem. People know that and it will come back to haunt you yahoo’s. Get ready Leroy boy, you are in for one big suprise dude!
July 30th, 2008 at 11:45 AM
“The Democrats have been in charge for two years and what has happened?”
What? How have they been in charge when the senate filibusters everything and the president vetos everything else?
“The price of gas has almost doubled. That hits home son. What is congress doing?”
How exactly have they caused the president’s saber rattling in the mid-east causing the price increase in oil? Here’s one thing they tried to do, cut off speculation. Oh wait, that was filibustered by the republicans (including Coleman).
July 30th, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Nancy Piglosi said she had a plan to deal with gas prices over two years ago. I guess the plan was to increase the price? I’m glad to see that you recognize that the democrat leadership is incompetent – unable to work across the isle to fix the high price of gas. We need to dump them so we can get legislation passed that will increase the supply of oil. That and only that will bring down the price of oil.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:03 PM
i hate to have to agree with the libs, but unfortunately i do think the gop will suffer at least a net loss of 5 senate seats. one of them is fine–i.e. maine.
several seem like the gop has a shot–i.e. south carolina (although i would guess obama will draw more blacks which will vote for dole’s opponent) and colorado.
i will make the assumption obama will become president and the best scenario i believe the gop can hope for is to have 45 senators which can block everything the dems do and wait until 2010 when it will be a gop year.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Yep. More supply will drop the price… IN TEN YEARS.
Pelosi tried to curb oil speculation, and passed a bill to do just that, only to have Norm stand with Senate republicans to block the vote. House and Senate democrats also offered to pull oil from the strategic reserve to lower prices. AGAIN, republicans blocked the effort.
She isn’t getting things done, but it is because people like Norm Coleman are standing in the way of lower gas prices.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:18 PM
why won’t pelosi allow a vote on off-shore drillng?
if she has the votes (and she should have because the house is controlled by dems) it will easily fail and the moratorium will continue.
i suggest the reason she will not hold a vote is she obviously does not believe in democracy.
and for this 10 year logic–why should we develop wind or solar or even nuclear power–that will more than 10 years to develop????
July 30th, 2008 at 12:26 PM
How have they been in charge when the senate filibusters everything and the president vetos everything else?
You’re smarter than this question. You know that Pelosi controls what comes to a vote. You know that Reid controls what comes to a vote. Both of these clowns have rolled out idiotic things like “let our oil go” instead of bringing offshore and ANWR drilling to a vote. The People want this, they’ve stonewalled it from a basic up or down vote. Shame on them for preventing the clear will of the people from happening.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Leroy, first you complain about speculation (the future price of oil…) then you complain that we start drilling it will impact the price of oil in the future. Excuse me but isn’t that what we want? Leroy, not all options will take 10 years. Some could be pumping oil sometime next year. As you folks like to say Leroy, you have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:16 PM
“You know that Pelosi controls what comes to a vote. You know that Reid controls what comes to a vote”
Yes, it passes the house, goes to the Senate, then debate can’t close because of a lack of 60 votes. That’s what a filibuster is. Reid can’t just say, “here we go, let’s have an up or down vote on this bill”
That’s exactly what happened to the speculation bill.
And, if that doesn’t happen? Veto by Bush.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:19 PM
she refuses to hold vote on offshore drilling; thus, i think we can assume she doesn’t believe in democracy. if she thought it was politically advantageous you know she would hold the vote and then run out to the microphones to condemn the senate and pres. bush for not acting on it.
on offshore drilling it is even more disingenuous: the ban will expire in october unless it is renewed by congress. rather than vote on the ban or just letting it expire, she is intending to put the ban on a stop-gap budget bill so it will get buried. hopefully bush will veto the damn bill and the ban will expire before the election.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Ansel, since when is wind energy going to take 10 years to develop? Have you been to Maple Grove lately? Huge windmill, right in downtown Maple Grove providing clean energy. We could move all energy for utility purposes too 100% clean energy within 10 years probably, not 10 years to figure out how to do it but 10 years to just do it. Probably less if we focus enough effort into it.
If it weren’t for environmental concerns, I’d almost just say, fine let the Republicans do whatever the hell they want with energy and then when we see that nothing has changed, we can say I told you so.
Do you guys really think oil companies are going to increase the supply enough to lower gas prices to a sane level? They can do it right now if they wanted to but alas, it isn’t as profitable and they dont care about our needs. God I love when the free market turns on us and screws us all over, shows exactly why Republican ideology is completely flawed.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Ansel-
In one breath, you brag about stopping the speculation and strategic reserve bills, and then you wonder why offshore drilling can’t get a vote.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:39 PM
andrew, you assume it is alternative energy or nothing. what i would say we should have a multiple approach: conservation, fossil fuel, nuclear, hydro and wind/solar.
just how long do you think it would take to construct enough windmills to supply 50% of the electrical energy in the usa? probably never. currently windpower provides 1% of electrical energy; us doe says it could provide 20% by 2030–let’s see unless you went to school in minneapolis–that would be approximately 1% increase per year. nuclear power would take approximately 8-10 years to go from drawing board to production.
what you naysayers on energy don’t seem to understand is that oil companies will just move overseas if you are going to keep penalizing them. obviously you are very young because you did not live thru the jimmy carter administration when the dems passed the windfall profits tax. what happened, oil prices increased, oil production went overseas and we got to experience gas lines to fill up our car. after reagan came in office and abolished the windfall profits tax and was oil-company friendly, we had 25+ years of relatively low oil prices. your opinion that oil companies would not lower the prices is just not borne out by history.
July 30th, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Whe you find a place where the wind blows 24X7X365 I will consider it. Until then we need multiple sources. Oil and nuke are two. Seems Republicans are willing to consider them all but Democrats will only have it their way – or no way at all. People are seeing this and WILL hold the Democrats responsible on Nov. 4th.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Pete-
The party that filibustered to allow the continuation of oil price speculation is not really on any high ground to say what the people will remember.
With economists saying that 60 percent of the recent price increases can be directly attributed to the trade of paper oil versus actual oil, and with the republicans standing strong to make sure that the practice continues, I can’t wait to see what the voters think of your party’s efforts.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Leroy, first you complain about speculation (the future price of oil…) then you complain that we start drilling it will impact the price of oil in the future. Excuse me but isn’t that what we want? Leroy, not all options will take 10 years. Some could be pumping oil sometime next year. As you folks like to say Leroy, you have a right to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Leroy, The Democrats have already shot themselves in the foot by not voting to allow more drilling. Thank you!
July 30th, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Three months ago it looked like a DEM landslide. It looked like Obama would win 40 states and the DEMS would hit the 60 mark in the US SEnate.
Now, that does not look to be the case. Obama has been exposed for the empty suit he is. He should be up by 20 points against McCain who really has no base to speak of.
Further, but for the DEMs own screw ups on gas prices and drilling they would be on their way to 60 seats. Now because the DEMS are beholden to the environmentalist wackos, the GOP has a real shot to at least only lose 2-3 seats in the Senate and McCain could win.
As a conservative, none of this is thrilling, but the fact is the country can’t afford Obama.
Granted, none of this is because the GOP has any real message, it is as incompetant as the Dems, but fortunately the Dems have turned a landslide into a real battle.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:46 PM
For all you folks who think windmills are the answer, ponder the following:
I’m a guy who lives down in Marshall in the heart of windmill country along the Buffalo Ridge. That’s nice, but even here the wind does not blow every day.
And to make a small point — you still need transmission lines to transmit the power the windmills produce. Guess who is opposing more transmission lines????????? The same folks who think we should never burn coal ever again! Can’t have it both ways. Go read the stories of environmental opposition to transmission lines in the SW part of the state. The electricity produced by windmills can’t get to the people by magic. A real eye opener is you can be objective.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:53 PM
mrmustang,
you have it exactly right. recently a massive windmill farm in texas was approved, but the transmission grid that would have supported the flow of power was challenged by than none other than the environmentalists.
more hypocrisy by the lefty libs.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:58 PM
hot off the press from cnn: 69% favor offshore drilling; 30% do not.
for readers that went to minneapolis schools, that is more than 2 to 1 in favor.
will it influence nancy pelosi and dusty reid? i doubt it–they care more about their personal interests than they do america.
July 30th, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I am surprised that no one on this site seems to understand politics at all.
If the minority stands in the way of every solutions the majority offers, why should the majority lift a finger to help the minority?
I would think “Independent” Norm Coleman would have jumped at the chance to leave George Bush’s lap, and support real change that would have immediate impact on gas prices, but he didn’t. He stayed firmly ensconced in his position as presidential lap dog.
Folks buying gas leading up to the election are certain to remember this fact.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Yeah well ansel, what percentage of Americans believe we should be out of Iraq, raise the minimum wage, have universal healthcare etc. Thank you sit down.
I remember back in 06 when gas prices started getting a bit ridiculous and everyone bitched and moaned and by the September rolled around, gas prices had dropped pretty significantly and nobody cared anymore. I’m not advocating us not discussing the issue or fixing it but alas, I really dont think it will be a major concern come election day. Oil companies certainly dont want it to be an issue. I also remember that within hours of the polls closing, gas prices went up like 20 cents or something like that. We are all just tools basically for big oil.
Yes, drill more oil and subject us to more rape by oil companies, please! Seriously, drilling for more oil is just simply not plausible. The oil companies have PLENTY of land to drill already and they dont care to use it, it isnt profitable and by giving them even more resources, that just means this big game of rape the consumer can last decades longer. God Republicans are just blind, as are apparently 69% of the American public. Granted, the Dems have done a horrible job of framing this issue so it isnt surprising 69% of the American public believe drilling for more is a good idea, they just haven’t been presented with the facts.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:20 PM
big oil, as you put it, has 33 million federal acres to drill on. as you acknowledge it is not profitable for them to drill on most of these acres. it would be the same as saying farmers could grow corn on the millions of federal acres in nevada, except of course there is no water. also, as i recall if oil companies do not drill within 10 years on federal leases they go back to the government and they can re-lease them so if there was oil there, the oil companies would be drilling for it.
i’m not sure i understand your analogy that 69% or more of the voters would not be in iraq; therefore because 69% of voters want to drill offshore is meaningless. the big difference is that pelosi and company have had numerous votes on funding iraqi operations and they always pass them; they could cut off funds if they wished–she has scheduled and taken votes which the majority of representatives have voted to support.
she refuses to have a vote on offshore drilling.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:42 PM
andrew, you’re starting to sound like mike malloy on air america. is andrew an alias for mike malloy?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Andrew said:
“I remember back in 06 when gas prices started getting a bit ridiculous”
You remember all the way back to “06″? How precious.
“Yes, drill more oil and subject us to more rape by oil companies, please! blah blah blah…”
Wow! I don’t think I have ever come across such blinding ignorance. You, sir, are a fool’s fool.