Totally possible. From a partisan POV, it would have been way better to have an untainted incumbent in that seat, especially considering that a lot of dems otherwise approved of Franken’s job performance.
Only the first time. In his second bid, he won decisively.
There are 34 seats in the Senate up for re-election in 2018, 25 of them are held by Democrats. Now there will be 35 with 26 held by Democrats.
Democrats are not in full agreement on how Franken was handled. In fact, as a wedge issue, it may only be a wedge issue among Democrats.
Clinton did not perform well in Minnesota relative to Obama. This doesn’t seem like a brilliant move and I really don’t believe this sexual harassment issue nor the line Democrats are drawing on the topic is something influential with Trump voters who might be rethinking their decision or Democrats who sat out last election.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but – when the time comes to draw a line – consequences cannot be the primary motivating factor or else there isn’t a line drawn at all. Either I stand with Franken or I don’t, and given the evidence and statements against him I can’t bring myself to do so. When it comes to the composition of the senate next year, so be it.
Well, in Franken’s case there became so many allegations that maybe it was time for him to go. So the Democrats haven’t yet drawn the line too firmly yet. The real test will come when someone has one accuser and the politician insists he’s innocent. While it’s true that the vast majority of accusations are legit, that might change if it becomes too easy to get rid of politicians you don’t like. If there’s an incentive to fake this, it will be faked, and an incentive is quickly being established.
The big problem strategy-wise is that Democrats think that getting rid of Franken and Conyers puts major pressure on Republicans. It doesn’t. Not even a little bit. If Republican voters are okay with sexual harassment, or inclined to disbelieve accusers, then Republican politicians will pay little price.
The real test for the Democrats will come when the accusations are strong, but there is a Republican governor who will be charged replace the Senator. Call me cynical, but I don’t think the leadership forced him out on principle. I’m sure some of the rank and file Senators were standing on principle, but the leadership didn’t want Franken and that photograph to be the face of the Democratic party in the midterm elections next year. And since they know they get another Democrat to replace Franken, it’s no real loss.
Now the GOP will likely have Moore as the face of their party, but the Democrats will be clean. It was a smart political move for the Democrats, but I still think it was a political move. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It is politics, after all.
True, but Republicans can argue that there’s a difference between someone elected and then allegations come out forcing them to resign, and allegations that come out during an election and the people elect that person anyway. It’s a valid argument, IMO. Trump was elected with people knowing what he was and Moore’s nature is also known to voters. Minnesota voters didn’t know about Al Franken until a few weeks ago.
Minnesota presented the Republicans with some possibilities, but a year into Trump’s presidency, I think the odds of an ‘R’ pick up in Minnesota are increasingly long. Not necessarily with respect to Minnesota, but in the parts of the country that Trump flipped from Blue to Red, the tax bill in its current form is setting up to be an epic disaster for Republicans in these areas. It’s more of a question of how organized the Democratic party can become and how well they capitalize.
The tax bill is a nothingburger. Most people will see their taxes go down a little. The only people who are getting screwed in large numbers are in states that won’t go red under any circumstances, such as New York, MAssachusetts, California, and Illinois. Upper middle class, affluent voters in high tax states.
Hey, I resemble that last comment! 
Thing is, there is no tax reform that doesn’t screw these voters, because these voters have more carveouts than any other large class of voters.
That may turn out to be true, but I’m not entirely convinced. The tax plan remains exceedingly unpopular and lends itself readily to populist rhetoric about being a handout to the wealthy. Most working class folks will see such minimal benefit that I doubt it’ll be easy to lull them in that regard.
I’m not saying it’s going to be a huge disaster for the republicans, but it’s to the democrats’ minor advantage.
It’s something that’s already built into the GOP brand. They cut taxes on the rich every time they have power. So yes, it will hurt them, but not in any new way. It just further solidifies them as a party of the rich who don’t care about the deficit.
Let’s edit out the parts specific to the tax bill and Minnesota…
Feels like 2016 all over again. A party this inept should not be putting seats up for a contest until it gets a better strategy than “we’re not Trump”. This party still is offering absolutely nothing to the people that went from Obama to Trump or went from Obama to ‘stay home’. Instead, it’s Senators are positioning themselves for a 2020 Presidency which will mean jack shit if the rest of government is still run by Republicans.
I agree with John Mace’s analysis, but I wouldn’t label it smart at all.
No, that is false. Only the rich will see a tax decrease. Some few outside those states will see a short term tax decrease. Do note those 4 states have a pretty good % of the uSA population.
In any case, the tax cut to the rich is borrowed money. When it comes time to repay, everyones taxes will increase massively.
For the next ten years, most of us get a tax cut. After that, we still get a tax cut because Democrats won’t let the middle class tax cuts sunset.
Wow! I’m impressed! I don’t know what Dem Party positions will be in ten months from now, you got it sussed at a range of ten years!
Middle class taxes are a third rail now. That’s not likely to change in ten years. That’s precisely why Republicans structured the tax bill as they did. This time the tax cuts for the rich are permanent, and the ones for the middle class sunset. The idea is that when Democrats are in power ten years from now, which is likely, they are faced with either middle class taxes going up or keeping all the tax cuts. Republicans are counting on Democrats not wanting to lose the next election.
But by all means, if Democrats really love losing, letting those tax cuts for the middle class sunset is a fantastic idea. I wish they’d thought of it in 2012. President Romney!
I don’t agree with that.
Besides for the fact that you can tax middle class by drawing the line between “rich” and “middle class” lower, the way you hit the middle class hard is by directly taxing other Big and Powerful entities, which then pass the taxes through to the middle class. (Most of the taxes in the ACA were of this nature.)
Can you clarify? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are saying that no one in CA or NY, for example, will see a tax cut except for the rich in those states. For example, a guy in CA making $45k/year who does not itemize. He’s not going to see a tax decrease?