SPONSORED BY:
APPLES AND ORANGES

Then? Slow Down. Now? Hurry Up!

History repeats itself, but not without a few wrinkles. We make the comparisons, then pick them apart.

By Jesse Ellison | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 20, 2009
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

The Comparison
Reacting to GOP Sen. Norm Coleman's dwindling hopes in the Minnesota Senate race against Al Franken, Texas Sen. John Cornyn groused about the "blatant hypocrisy" of Democrats who insisted on exhausting all legal options in the 2000 presidential race's Florida recount—but are now pushing for a swift end to the Minnesota mess. Fair point?

Why It Works
Shades of 2000: the AP and Fox News called the race for Coleman on election night; hours later, they uncalled it. Razor-thin margins and ballot-counting disputes: out of nearly 3 million votes, Franken is now up 312; Bush took Florida by just 537. And Coleman's recount lawyer is Ben Ginsberg—the same attorney who argued for Bush in 2000.

Why It Doesn't
The size of the prize: big difference. Bush v. Gore was settled in about a month; the Senate battle has dragged on for more than five, with no end in sight. While the presidency was never vacant (Clinton was still in office), Minnesota has had just one senator since November. Also, don't expect the Supreme Court to step in this time.

© 2009

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: polprof @ 04/16/2009 10:14:38 AM

    This article is incorrect when it says "Minnesota has had just one senator since November." Coleman's term did not end until the end of the year. The seat has "only" been vacant since January. That's bad enough -- no need to make it worse.

  • Posted By: MacAdvisor @ 04/14/2009 3:22:05 PM

    The "Why It Doesn't" section misses the most obvious and direct reason the comparison doesn't work. Bush was the projected winner in 2000. Gore MIGHT have been able to take Florida in a true recount (several newspapers have done the recount and the answer depends on what one counts), but there wasn't any point at which he was the declared winner. In Franken v. Coleman, however, Coleman was the declared winner, then Franken was. Who was the winner changed. If Franken had conceded on Election night, the recount might have been different (as there wouldn't be so many people watching every move). Coleman was once the winner and has a reasonable, if unlikely, belief he could be the real winner again. Another significant difference is the election board and secretary of state in Florida in 2000 was blatantly and openly political and partisan, whereas the Minnesota election process was run by adults who, whatever their party, attempt to do their best to find the answer. Minnesota should be very proud of how the election people behaved.

  • Posted By: PowernotesTonto @ 04/13/2009 7:38:22 PM

    Democrats weren't just as stubborn in the Bush-Gore issue in Florida? The only reason that this issue has dragged on so long is because it is simply not as important to the general public and the federal government as the presidential election--understandably. In addition, the last time I checked, America is a democratic republic, founded on the principle of changing what people find incorrect in this system. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams did not remotely agree on how government should be run in their active years, and fought fiercely for what they believed. This right, to challenge and fight for change, is fundamental to the system of the United States government. I do not condone the actions and beliefs of Republicans or Democrats, but the right to be one or the other is one that is fundamental to the American system.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

View All Comments »

Newsweek on Digg

Powered by Digg