Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Should Norm Coleman Concede?

Former Sen. Norm Coleman must decide whether a continued legal battle is in his best political interest. (AP Photo/Pool, Jean Pieri)

In the two days since a three judge state panel handed Norm Coleman a major setback in his election contest against entertainer Al Franken (D) the former Minnesota senator has made clear that he has no plans to declare defeat anytime soon.

"Well, clearly it wasn't over," Coleman said during a radio interview yesterday, adding: "Every vote has to now be counted, and as I repeat again and again, counted with a uniform standard."

Coleman's lead lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, has dismissed the court's ruling on Tuesday as an "April Fool's day" decision. The ruling "gives us no choice but to appeal that order to Minnesota Supreme Court," added Ginsberg.

It's clear that from a legal perspective Coleman has a right to continue the appeals process. Ginsberg argued throughout the seven-week election contest that the rules for inclusion of wrongly rejected absentee ballots were maddeningly inconsistent and made it impossible to know who really won the race on Nov. 4.

But, what makes sense legally and what makes sense politically are two very different things.

At 59, Coleman still could have a bright future in Minnesota politics. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) remains undecided about whether to seek a third term in 2010; if he doesn't run for reelection, Coleman would be an obvious candidate for the GOP. And, if Coleman wants to stay out of politics for a few years, he could run against either Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D) in 2012 or even against Franken in 2014.

The longer Coleman pushes out the legal fight over the 2008 election, the more he risks alienating Minnesota voters who have already begun to care less about the last race and are ready to move on with their lives.

All the way back in December, Survey USA conducted a poll in which 40 percent of the sample said that the candidate on the losing end of the recount (it hadn't been concluded at that point) should file a legal challenge to the results while 55 percent said the losing candidate should not challenge the results in court.

In mid-January, Research 2000 did a poll for the liberal Daily Kos Web site that showed that 34 percent of Minnesotans supported Coleman going forward with a legal challenge to the results while 47 percent opposed such a move. (Yes, we know that the poll was conducted for a liberal blog but Research 2000 is generally regarded as a reputable firm in the polling community.)

"There's definitely risk," said one senior Republican operative of Coleman's strategy. "Time is definitely a problem."

One need only look to Florida for a cautionary tale in pushing a race too far/long. In 2006, Democrat Christine Jennings came up just a few hundreds votes short against Rep. Vern Buchanan (R) in the 13th district. Democrats quickly noted that there were 18,000 so-called "undervotes" (where a vote was cast for other offices but not the congressional race) and Jennings exhausted her legal options in a back and forth that spanned well into 2007.

By the time she prepared to run again in 2008, voters seemed to be over Jennings -- having been exposed to her on and off for the last several years. Despite President Obama's strong showing in Florida, Buchanan crushed Jennings by 18 points.

Does Coleman risk that same fate if he continues the legal battle for months more? Maybe.

His allies argue that the people pushing hardest for Coleman to continue fighting or to get out today are the respective bases of the two parties who won't change their opinions regardless of how long the legal proceedings drag out.

And, in terms of a future race, Coleman will need those loyal activists in his corner if he ultimately comes up short. "Franken and Coleman have already upset everyone they're going to, and quitting early would disappoint donors and supporters invested in him," said one Republican strategist who has followed the Minnesota race closely.

True enough. But, the longer this race drags out, the more potential to alienate the vast middle of Minnesota politics -- those voters unaffiliated with either party who have elected among the most conservative Senators (Rod Grams), among the most liberal senators (Paul Wellstone) and certainly the strangest governor (Jesse Ventura).

Coleman's decision to fight on is a calculated gamble. The pot? His political future.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 2, 2009; 4:30 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: What Does NY-20 Mean?
Next: White House Cheat Sheet: Obama vs. Congress


You do realize by your logic there are 58% of the voters who don't want to see Franken represent the State.

"When you factor in that Al Franken got 42% of the vote for 2008 Senate race, and Mr. Barkley got 15%, that's at total of 57% of the voters who wanted Norm Colman to return to the rock he crawled out from under. Posted by: geopoet | April 2, 2009 6:27"

Posted by: taxedNfrustrated | April 4, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Norm needs to go, he knows he's lost and he's losing any support he might still have in MN. However, his MO has always been do what's best for himself. When he was in college he led protests because it gave him notoriety; when he decided to run for mayor of St. Paul, he was a democrat because it's a heavily DFL town. When he decided to run for governor the DFL primary was already loaded down with candidates and he probably wouldn't make it through that stage so he conveniently became a republican (this was during the Bill/Monica time and the outlook for the republicans was much rosier than for the dems.). He lost to Jesse the idiot and had planned to run for gov again but Karl Rove told him to go for the senate and Pawlenty (who was going to run for the senate) to run for gov.

Norm is not a man of solid principal whatsoever and we in Minnesota see it. You only need to read the letters to the editors of the Mpls/St. Paul newspapers and you will know it.

Posted by: migs2010 | April 4, 2009 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Who in the world wants a politician like coleman who can't admit he has lost, even more that, he's wrong to continue this quest for power that he wants so bad. He is disgusting.

Posted by: carolyncobb3150 | April 4, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Well this is what happns when you elect Obama, if the pres is for it the states start falling in line. But I like Obama Dont know how the GOP keeps attaking him. I seen an online game thats coming out called Obama12, End of days. heres a link
Youtube is abuzz with it.

Posted by: pastor123 | April 4, 2009 4:10 AM | Report abuse

yes he should concede, I had no idea he was contesting the election because he was so against Gore contesting the election that was stolen from him or maybe he just knew if it had been investigated as his is now being we would never had bush for those long depressing country busting years.

Posted by: 1listener | April 3, 2009 5:37 PM | Report abuse

taxedNfrustrated opines:

"How about a supplemental/follow-up article titled 'Should Al Franken concede?' to show some completeness of thought on this issue as well as some balance?"

Oh, really!? Franken has won on several levels of recount and appeal. Why should he "concede"? What should he concede? That Coleman's "win at any cost" maneuver is not working? IMO, Coleman knows he has shot himself in the foot with this one, and hasn't the smarts or the decency to quit while he's behind to save his career.

Being a New Yorker, I know of Coleman "from the old country." Back in the day, he was a poseur, an opportunist and a phoney. He hasn't changed much, has he?

Norman ... pick up your marbles and go home!

Posted by: wide-eyed1 | April 3, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"Of course he should concede. If every contested race was dragged out like this, Congress would spend all its time in court. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money."

I'll bet you said this to Egore in 2000.

Posted by: leapin | April 3, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Pawlenty is young, if he wants to be President he will run for reelection and count on the Democrats fielding another left-winger. Running for a senate seat after losing one? The Minnesota mentality won't look kindly on that. Coleman is done politically. His future depends on dragging out his loss as long as possible. Then scoring a lobbying/lawyer/foundation job with a Republican aligned firm as payback for his dragging the recount out.

Posted by: caribis | April 3, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

GOD YES!!!!!!!!!!!! PLASE NORM DO THE RIGHT THING!!!!!!!!!!!THIS HAS GONE ON TOO LONG PLEASE CONCEAD!YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES .....................................................................

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | April 3, 2009 2:08 PM | Report abuse

How about a supplemental/follow-up article titled "Should Al Franken concede?" to show some completeness of thought on this issue as well as some balance?

Posted by: taxedNfrustrated | April 3, 2009 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The partisanship on both sides of the comments to this post pretty much answers your question.

Here in Minnesota, I don't think most average people are paying attention to the daily ins and outs of this election litigation. But the strong partisans are hyped up about it. So, for Coleman I think the potential risk of alienating moderates who are not paying attention anyhow is low, and the upside among party base is huge.

One more factor you omitted: the national party wants Coleman to continue as long as possible and avoid a 59th Dem seat.

The real question is whether he keeps going after an adverse state Supreme Court ruling. Then his case depends entirely on constitutional arguments that are even more tenuous.

Posted by: billmcg1 | April 3, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: ztcb41 | April 3, 2009 1:03 PM | Report abuse

The end result will be random; clearly the race is within the physical margin of error of counting votes. If the candidates were gentlemen, they would have settled this weeks ago with the flip of a coin. Minnesotans in the aggregate obviously see little to choose between them. Interestingly, Coleman would give the state more influence even though he is a Republican. As a centrist, he would be a part of the group who will determine the fate of legislation in the Senate. If Coleman wins, he will probably vote with Snowe, Collins and Specter. He was a centrist already, and after this election I can't see him risking a move to the Right. The GOP doesn't want him seated, either - just a nice, empty seat for six years.

Posted by: bampbs | April 3, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Norm Coleman and the Republican Party are sore losers.

Posted by: BettyW1 | April 3, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"If you rightfully won and were subsequently cheated by acorn and bozo would you quit?"

If "acorn" refers to James A. Baker III and "bozo" refers to John "I'm here to stop the count" Bolton, then I suppose the answer is yes.

Posted by: mattintx | April 3, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Coleman (a stove guy?) just does not get it. What Republicans are supposed to do is RETIRE or emigrate. If he won't, then add Minnesota to Ohio and Florida, states that just can't conduct a popular election. That hole in the Senate is the fault of one egomaniac. He's holding the federal government at bay. Remember: under the Constitution (I wonder if Coleman has heard of that?) the Senate approves treaties. A pretty important function. And suppose one comes by, and a vote cannot be complete. Not only is the GOP the do-nothing, sock-it-to-99%-of-us party, it's the party of take-us-back-to-the-middle-ages. Sort of like the Taliban.

Posted by: MouthSore | April 3, 2009 11:45 AM | Report abuse

seemstome asks
"What do you call al's beer mug?"


Posted by: bsimon1 | April 3, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

For the record, Jesse Ventura ran for governor against two other candidates, not one. Evidently Minnesota does not have a runoff requirement, because even though Ventura won only 40% of the total votes, he became governor. So three out of every five Minnesota voters voted against him. No wonder he didn't run for re-election.

Posted by: angelas1 | April 3, 2009 9:35 AM | Report abuse

If you believe Coleman has (or ever had) a case, take a few minutes and read the decision of the election contest judges. You'll see that his "case" was so ridiculous as to be insulting. It's obvious that he and his team knew they'd lost from the beginning and the entire process is about getting public sympathy.

Posted by: mdharnois1 | April 3, 2009 9:34 AM | Report abuse

No do not give up the fight. We must support a system that 1. counts all the votes at the same time useing the same count process. Every vote whether cast in early ballot; absentee ballot or in mass on election day should be counted no matter the statistics or cost. 2. No party should be responsible for the count. Only citizens who under penalty of law shall execute the election proceedures. 3. Only citizens properly identified shall vote.

Then you have a sucessful election. This is how they pick the Oscar winner.

Posted by: MBulloch | April 3, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

No do not give up the fight. We must support a system that 1. counts all the votes at the same time useing the same count process. Every vote whether cast in early ballot; absentee ballot or in mass on election day should be counted no matter the statistics or cost. 2. No party should be responsible for the count. Only citizens who under penalty of law shall execute the election proceedures. 3. Only citizens properly identified shall vote.

Then you have a sucessful election. This is how they pick the Oscar winner.

Posted by: MBulloch | April 3, 2009 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Well..only if the Octumom concedes to birth control.

Posted by: newbeeboy | April 3, 2009 7:34 AM | Report abuse

This whole thing makes Minnesota look like fools. Coleman should fold up his tent and let the voters have a representative. Pawlenty should do the honorable thing and issue the certificate so Franken can be seated. If Coleman takes his crazieness any farther his good name and his chances of EVER continuing with a career in politics here in Minnesota are FINISHED for good.

Posted by: DrainYou | April 3, 2009 3:32 AM | Report abuse

Coleman is probably finished no matter what. He never represented us in MN very well and was known as the MN Senator representing the Bush white house. They're gone and so is he...perhaps a talking head job on Fox.........

Posted by: SteveBurns1947 | April 3, 2009 2:59 AM | Report abuse

The only certain "should" I see here is that Minnesota should institute run-off voting, especially since it seems to consistently field viable third-party tickets.

Posted by: nodebris | April 3, 2009 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Once more for the West Coast:


Posted by: scrivener50 | April 2, 2009 11:51 PM | Report abuse

When oh when is this comedy coming to an end? Everybody by now knows that Coleman more than likely knows that he has lost. Those last 400 or so votes are not going to change things enough to make a difference. The telling comment came from Coleman's attorney. " This leaves us no choice but to appeal to the Minnesota supreme Court." So now we will not count those last 400 votes until the Supreme court rules. Than of course follows the inevitable appeal to the USA Supreme Court. The game is NOT to overturn the inevitable, although with the USA Supreme Court you never know how many other 5-4 decisions they may come up with effecting politics. The game is to keep Franken from being seated and keep the democrats from having that 59th seat.

Posted by: Opa2 | April 2, 2009 11:45 PM | Report abuse

This is simply about holding up Franken's seat. Coleman knows he has lost.

Every Senate seat is important when Republicans are in "just say no" mode.

Posted by: mypitts2 | April 2, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Between Coleman fighting until the last contributor dollar, and Alaskan GOPPers demanding that Senator Begich resign because Bush's DOJ screwed up Steven's case, votes be damned, its becoming clear that, not only do Republicans want America to fail, they basically hate democracy. I'm guessing it would be impolite to point out that New York Norm didn't think a real Minnesotan would run and cry to the judges. At least that was his thinking when Normy was a few votes ahead. Is that what Republicans call a flip-flop?

Posted by: northguy3 | April 2, 2009 11:29 PM | Report abuse

coleman is a loser figuratively and literally... he should fold his tent and crawl back under that rock.. his political future is a joke..he is under investigation and if Pawlenty wants to ever run for anything ever again he better certify franken ASAP.. i am an independent in MINN who thinks that we are getting a raw deal franken won it is his seat for the next 4 years.. tell cornyn that it was OK to stop the vote counting in fla when it was in the gop interest but to drag this on for what.. NOrm go play golf or become a hatchet guy for Michael Steele.. these are your only good choices..

Posted by: whatbull | April 2, 2009 11:22 PM | Report abuse

If you rightfully won and were subsequently cheated by acorn and bozo would you quit?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | April 2, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

Chris has a good point. It's tough to lose, but at some point you have to say enough is enough, and give it up. The people of MN have to be wondering what he is thinking, anyway. It looks like Coleman is not concerned for the people of MN - he is thinking only of his political career, and he is getting bad advice from his cohorts in Washington.

Rather save some of that money for his other legal problems, which will be coming up whether he wins or not. The irony is if he does pull it out, the law will be waiting, and then another few months or a year before MN gets their second senator. Bad for him however you look at it - Is it too late to take the high road? He should bow out as gracefully as he can and salvage a political future, or at least a sympathetic jury of his peers.

Posted by: jbleenyc | April 2, 2009 11:10 PM | Report abuse

How many idiots does it take to seat a senator?

Posted by: seemstome | April 2, 2009 11:09 PM | Report abuse

What do you call al's beer mug?

Posted by: seemstome | April 2, 2009 11:06 PM | Report abuse

I think Coleman should retire a former Senator and let us never speak of this idiot in perpetual motion. He is and was clearly part of the whole Bush fiasco. With the Independent included Coleman lost by 15%.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | April 2, 2009 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Hanging on with bloody nails .... Coleman isn't even a native of Minnesota. He's from Queens or the Bronx. he went to Minnesota to make his political fortune the way gold miners used to go to Ca.

Why doesn't the press demand an end to this selfish stonewalling and insist he concede to Al Franken!

What a greedy, grasping, selfish individual!

Do the right thing and concede, Coleman! Warmonger and neo-con!

Posted by: strohblumen | April 2, 2009 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The real issue here is that the people of Minnesota deserve to have two senators on duty. Coleman is blocking that representation. If he had a case he would have made it be now. A majority of the vote is all that is required for election. Franken won! Get on with it. The people of Minnesota should file suit against Coleman for denying them the representation they are entitled to under the law.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | April 2, 2009 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Seems like Coleman is playing like Aesop's dog in the manger. Those who get burned are the people of Minnesota.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | April 2, 2009 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Well, since even had he gotten all 1300 votes counted he would have needed 57% of those votes to win, a percentage that is just way beyond anything he could reasonably expect, he should admit the obvious and drop, but he has decided to go the bitter ender route to the last ditch.

This being Minnesota, some reasonable right-centrist ought to stand up and resurrect the American reform party, playing on the disgust with the Republican party that Coleman seems to be stoking. Maybe that will be the beginning of a national groundswell of disgusted voters building a new second major party, and the retreat of the party of Birchers and their even more conservative brethren to deserved obscurity.

(Republicans will never actually die out, they will just ossify and desiccate until the rattle and flake off into the margins.)

Posted by: ceflynline | April 2, 2009 8:56 PM | Report abuse

An earlier Supreme Court wisely forswore its opportunity to enter this sort of partisan "thicket." If ready memory serves, it was Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter who issued this warning.

We have more recently seen, with the velveteen coup which handed George W. Bush the presidency, that when courts take on political questions determinative of who shall represent the people, these courts cheapen themselves -- let alone foist poor choices upon the public.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | April 2, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't disagree with Chris' main premise or even his comparison to the Buchanan-Jennings '06 and '08 elections. However, the sad and ironic part of the Buchanan/Jennings '06 election is that Jennings was almost certainly robbed of that election because of the undervote problem in Sarasota County. Several reputable and impartial statistical analyses done post-election supported the conclusion that if not for the glitches in counting the congressional race votes vs. the votes in other races in Sarasota County, Jennings would have prevailed. In Minnesota, Coleman has been given every opportunity in an overly transparent process, and still has the lesser number of votes. Big difference right there in the fairness quotient.

However, that does not change the premise of Chris' post, which is hang around contesting the election too long, and you alienate a whole s***load of voters, which could come back to bite you the next time around. Point taken.

Posted by: EntertainmentBookGoneSouth | April 2, 2009 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Should he concede?


Will he concede?

Probably not, given that he's a Republicant.

Posted by: WillSeattle | April 2, 2009 8:15 PM | Report abuse

Again, there is a looming cloud on Coleman's horizon- the disclosure through civil lawsuits of businessman and Coleman backer Kazimeny ordering $75,000 to be paid to Coleman through an insurance firm at which Coleman's wife worked. This is being investigated by the FBI and there certainly appears to be something there. That will sink him no matter what happens in the recount and string of appeals. Coleman has been accused of goods from Kazimney in the past, and his past financial disclosures should also be investigated for potential false statements.

Posted by: shogun_5 | April 2, 2009 7:54 PM | Report abuse

They should count the votes the court ordered to be counted. Then whomever is in the lead should be declare the winner and sworn in. The candidate who comes up short in the vote count should concede. Let's get a winner and move on.

Posted by: esdean | April 2, 2009 7:48 PM | Report abuse

I do not believe they have counted the votes the court ordered counted. If I am correct, it would be nonsense to have gone through this process, had a trial, and not count the votes.

I do think it would be wise and gracious and reflect some sense of civic duty if the person who loses the post trial count does not appeal - or if, procedurally, there will be no final count if an appeal is filed, then both parties should accept the trial court judgment and count the votes.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | April 2, 2009 7:36 PM | Report abuse

You've forgotten a few things.
First, Coleman is operating under a corruption cloud (accepting gifts from donors--suits!!). So even though it may not be front page news it is there.
Coleman is prolonging this at the behest of John Cornyn. I don't think he is really getting that much financial support from within Minnesota.
Coleman is finished politically either way. He knows it. Surprised you forgot.

Posted by: ddzeke | April 2, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Of course he should resign, but he won't.

The hypocrisy, both Coleman's and the Republican Party's, is staggering. When Coleman was leading, soon after the election and before all the recounting started, he called on Franken to concede and not fight for a recount. But once the tables turned, he has refused to do what he wanted Franken to do. And then, of course, eight years ago, the Republicans were all about disenfranchising voters whose ballots might have been wrongly left uncounted, but now they want to carry this charade of insisting that all discounted votes be reconsidered to court after court. I feel sorry for Minnesota -- at this time in our country, with the budget issues and all the other work that must be done to get us back on a solid track, they are missing a Senator. The Republicans are a disgrace.

Posted by: sally1860 | April 2, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

No let's see how long this joke can play, maybe Franken could write an SNL skit.

Posted by: whocares666 | April 2, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Coleman won't concede until the last horn blows. He'll probably try to carry this thing all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--and who knows, he might be able to get friends like Scalia, Alito, and Thomas to sit on the case for a while, with a great show of judicial dog.

He's hanging on simply because the Republicans are determined to deprive the Democrats of one vote in the Senate for as long as possible. All this being funded and strategized by the GOP high command.

It's all a cynical game. Let's hope that the Minnesota voters get thoroughly sick of this stuff and make sure that Coleman never gets elected dogcatcher.

Posted by: jm917 | April 2, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

When you factor in that Al Franken got 42% of the vote for 2008 Senate race, and Mr. Barkley got 15%, that's at total of 57% of the voters who wanted Norm Colman to return to the rock he crawled out from under. Do I think he should concede the race. As a Minnesota resident, I say emphatically: You Bet! Are you crazy or something?

Posted by: geopoet | April 2, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse


Minnesota DOESN'T have electronic voting.

Posted by: edwinhj | April 2, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Of course, he should concede, but the GOP is determined to self-destruct so it is unlikely that he will.

Posted by: xclntcat | April 2, 2009 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | April 2, 2009 6:17 PM | Report abuse

What a surprise - all these Dimocrat posters helpfully advising Coleman to concede and to go far, far away.

What? And send Frankenstein to the Senate? OMG!!! What a joke on the USA. Of course, with other Dimocraps like Reid in there, it may be getting harder to tell the jokers apart.

Posted by: segeny | April 2, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: DrainYou | April 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Some are arguing that if the former Senator hopes to win elected office in MN again, he should continue the legal battle. I don't think that is good advice, but I already don't think former Sen Coleman has a hope of winning another statewide election in MN anyway. At this point, he knows his best options for a political future like in being a team player for the party. The people of MN are an ancillary consideration, at best. On election night, he wanted his opponent to concede based on the provisional count that showed Coleman ahead. Now, after the official count shows Coleman behind, and the first trial likely boosting Franken's lead, Sen Coleman suddenly thinks the loser should not concede, but should drag the taxpayers through months of court costs and being underrepresented in the Senate?

If he had class, former Senator Coleman would concede. Because his primary concern is the future of Norm Coleman, it appears he will not.

Posted by: bsimon1 | April 2, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

(to correct corrupted link):


Posted by: scrivener50 | April 2, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

No, Coleman should take it to court, and also campaign for a state law change that would require a re-do for any election in which the margin of victory is one percent or less.

Senatorial elections shouldn't be decided by only a handful of votes in a system that's got lots of flaws (electronic voting, for starters).



Posted by: scrivener50 | April 2, 2009 5:04 PM | Report abuse

the problem i have with this story is that this can go on and on and on. When will the press start calling for a stop for this nonsense?

when will the media start calling Coleman for what he is? a SORE LOOSER?

Posted by: gmail | April 2, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I think its a poor gamble. There's almost no chance that he will be the victor in the contest and he will look TERRIBLE if he allows this to continue over years.

Honestly, I don't think he has any intention of running for political office in the future. That is why he is doing this.

Posted by: DDAWD | April 2, 2009 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Of course he should concede. If every contested race was dragged out like this, Congress would spend all its time in court. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money.

Posted by: drindl | April 2, 2009 4:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company