MN Sen Recount (UPDATE: Stuart Smalley certified winner, lawsuit forthcoming)

[emailking]

Wow, attack the savior and you get six responses in five minutes.

Nate Silver is a hack.  2008 was a Democrat year.  The next time that there's a level playing field, Silver will be off so much that people will wonder why we ever listened to him.  His predictions may be 'accurate' but his analysis is always terrible, filled with liberal cheerleading.  If you can't see that, then you're stupid.  Next.

That may all be true, but none of it obviates the fact that you mocked him by falsely claimed he made a prediction that was actually never made.

[emailking]

All of that "analysis" written by Sean, their on the ground reporter, not Nate.

[emailking]

Better question: why won't you just admit you effed up by making a claim (a few in fact) that panned out to be false? Could it be because you are stubborn and cannot stand to be perceived as having lost face?

[emailking]

Not sure if someone has posted this yet:

The Board of Canvassers expect to have a winner certified next week after the MN Supreme Court ruled that the rejected absentees must be counted by this Friday.

The incoming Congress is sworn in on the 6th right? That gives them all of Monday to deal with the challenges from the absentee counting and then to certify the results. Sounds doable.

[emailking]

Not only are the dates not required to match in order for the vote to be counted, the signatures aren't required to be dated in order for the vote to count.

Coleman is scum.

That's true. But suppose under the witness signature, the witness wrote "I didn't acutally witness this. I was just given the ballot and asked to sign." Should that ballot be counted because there is no requirement that the handwritten witness statement confirm that s/he actually witnessed the ballot signing...or even a requirement for a handwritten witness statement?

[emailking]

If Franken has been certified, I'm guessing this won't be successful...

[emailking]

The real question is whether the 40 votes exist or not.  As pointed out in The Hill piece, Franken will not get a certificate of election if Coleman challenges the election in court.

So all one has to do to prevent certification is to challenge in court?

Here is the law: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=204C.40&year=2008

Dumb.

[emailking]

The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board is not a happy camper. I would think that the Court will insist on consistent standards and counting all absentee ballots "wrongly" rejected, not just ones in counties (mostly Franken dominated ones), that chose to count them.

The decision from the Court was that the two campaigns would have to agree on which of the wrongly rejected absentee ballots to count, and only those would be counted. It's not a matter of which counties decided to count them.

[emailking]

That WSJ article is pretty pathetic (and I subscribe to the WSJ).  My post a couple posts above explains both sides of what Franken will mean for national politics.

I agree with you it could have downsides. O'Reilly has been out a few weeks. I recall the day after the election he said it appeared Coleman had defeated Franken's challenge, but qualified there would be a recount. I'm planning to watch tonight. I assume he's decided to either ignore this altogether (as with  Olbermann) or attack full force, which will be entertaining.

[emailking]

I must say he was surprisingly calm, give than he decided to address it. This man absolutely loathes Franken. It goes back like 5-6 years.

Well, MN is on his "corruption watch" now. lol