Giving Norm Coleman a break
Nate writes that, “in his career running for statewide office, Coleman has lost to a professional wrestler, beaten a dead guy, and then tied a comedian.”
That’s funny, but is it really fair? Coleman did OK running as a Republican in a (slightly) Democratic state. In 2008 he did about 5% better than John McCain. Not a performance to be proud of, but not so horrible as all that, right?
Comments
Stuart Smalley may offer Coleman a 12-step program, the first step being acceptance that he lost the election to demonstrate that he is good enough and, shucks, people will like him. The 12th step might be a gig on SNL - or at least “A Prarie Home Companion.”
Posted by: Shag from Brookline | January 7, 2009 08:06 AM
But, inn’t Nate’s point that outside of 2002, when Republicans were winning everything, Coleman really isn’t a guy who can seal the deal. An apt comparison is Susan Collins (R-Maine) who won 61% of the vote, outperforming McCain by about 20%.
Posted by: King Politics | January 7, 2009 11:10 AM
What King Politics said, plus: is it really appropriate to compare two-party margins in this case? In the Obama-McCain race there was no meaningful third party run, but in the MN senate race Dean Barkley got around 16% of the vote. Which means Coleman, as an incumbent Senator, only got about 42% in a state where McCain received 44%. That doesn’t look so good.
Posted by: Rich C | January 7, 2009 03:32 PM
Don’t forget, Coleman was once a Democrat, who became Republican 2 years after it was obvious the GOP was in the driver’s seat.
I fully expect Norm Coleman to be a Democrat shortly.
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | January 7, 2009 03:38 PM