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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Current net change

Barkley +15
Coleman +25
Franken +16

They're sure doing a good job of stealing this election for Franken in the recount right now.

Current margin: 215 votes

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Current net change

Barkley +15
Coleman +25
Franken +16

They're sure doing a good job of stealing this election for Franken in the recount right now.

Current margin: 215 votes

its early...the recount is going to take the better part of 2 weeks.

I know that it's not over. My post was just sarcastically refuting the Republican meme that recounting = stealing election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Coleman up to 180 vote lead.  YEAH BABY!

Umm... you realize Coleman just challenged  a large amount of ballots in Ramsey and Hennepin Counties, right?? Of course Coleman's margins will go up. Those Franken ballots just went up to the "undecided" column, so to speak, to wait for the canvassing board to rule on them. The Coleman ballot challenges in these counties were likely frivilous, but it doesn't matter... if Coleman can end the recount close to 100 votes up before the canvassing board gets together and rules on the challenged ballots, he can claim victory and assert that if Franken wins due to the challenged ballots that the partisan SOS stole the election away from him.

I really hate Republicans.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Coleman really wishes he could steal this one like Bush stole 2000, but it looks like Franken will not only win but also officially win.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either. 

Yeah, you're some Democrat.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either. 

Yeah, you're some Democrat.

Ah, I'm a pit more forward looking than some other Democrats.

I think it's better for our party to be at 58 than 59 senators, and I think Franken is unappealing to a lot of people we're trying to reach out to.

Maybe I'm a bit of a pragmatist, but worthy of snarky comments?  Fssssh

Coleman is trying to have legitimate votes not count. Any real Democrat has had enough of election stealing Republicans. There's nothing pragmatic about supporting Senators. And why the hell should the Republicans get 42 seats? So that they can force the country to be hard right instead of center right? Let's face it, a lot of those 56 or 57 "Democrats" are basically Republicans, anyways. We don't need 42 Republicans when we have Ben Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor or other horrible people in our party. BTW, Sanders and Lieberman are not Democrats, although the former is better than any Democrat.

Meanwhile, you pretend to be concerned that Caroline Kennedy might not support the Democratic nominee for NYC Mayor in 2009. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I guess we disagree.  Like I've said, I've read his books and I  think I understand a bit of how he thinks.

But he's an unappealing figurehead of Democrats and someone prone to general embarrassment or outbursts or other silliness that could catch onto news cycles.

But whatevsky, we'll probably disagree on his effectiveness towards accomplishing a national Democratic agenda, but could we at leasts agree that if Coleman appeared to have "stolen" this election - it would have helped Democrat activism for 2010 and onwards?

Oh yeah, the Democrats did awesome in 2002 after everyone knew Bush stole the 2000 election. Anyways, obviously you personally dislike Franken, but that's probably because he's not right-wing enough for a right-winger like you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's because the employment system is so messed up that it requires a high school education to get a decent(ish) job.

HS graduates can get decent jobs?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Coleman is such a freaking hypocrite. He called upon Franken to concede, but now that Franken appears to have won the thing, he's going to prolong this as long as possible. He is the same horrible person who spun Wellstone's funeral as a campaign event. Hopefully Coleman moves on from the US Senate to prison soon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Will Cornyn or someone plan to draw a distinction between the seating of Franken compared to Burris in the Senate? Both will arrive with official credentials from their state and both with a legal cloud surrounding the credentials for that seat. It's true that one is an election and one is an appointment, but is that enough to draw the distinction?

While it is a coincidence that there are these two cases at the same time, they actually are fairly different. Only extreme Republican hacks would think that there was something wrong in provisionally seating the man who got the most votes in the Minnesota election. The Illinois situation has more complicated legal and ethical issues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh well, at least there's less than 24 hours remaining with Norm Coleman as my Senator, even if Franken won't take over immediately.

Coleman became a former Senator at noon eastern time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Will Cornyn or someone plan to draw a distinction between the seating of Franken compared to Burris in the Senate? Both will arrive with official credentials from their state and both with a legal cloud surrounding the credentials for that seat. It's true that one is an election and one is an appointment, but is that enough to draw the distinction?

While it is a coincidence that there are these two cases at the same time, they actually are fairly different. Only extreme Republican hacks would think that there was something wrong in provisionally seating the man who got the most votes in the Minnesota election. The Illinois situation has more complicated legal and ethical issues.

I agree that there are substantially different ethics between the IL Gov and the MN Canvassing Board, but that is exactly what the Powell case says is irrelevant to Senate seating. If Coleman files a court challenge, both Franken and Burris will have equally deficient certification credentials to present to the Senate.

The Senate should provisionally seat the obvious winner while the frivolous challenges are being dealt with. Coleman wanted to steal the election like Bush did in 2000, but he lost fair and square.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

MASS - sorry to be blunt, do you even know what you're talking about when you say the Republicans will gain "a lot" of Senate seats in 2010?

nope just makeing it up as I go along. 

Try looking at the map. It's these plus DE and the other NY seat. There's no way that it'd be that great for the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

I'd say these Democratic seats *might* be vulnerable: CO, IN,  IL, NV. IN is safe with Bayh. IL is probably safe with a non Blago tainted candidate. I'd be happy to see a Republican win in NV.

In any case, there are a lot more potentially vulnerable Republicans.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And how is Burris' appointment any less obvious?

Are you arguing that Burris should be Senator?

MASS - sorry to be blunt, do you even know what you're talking about when you say the Republicans will gain "a lot" of Senate seats in 2010?

nope just makeing it up as I go along. 

Try looking at the map. It's these plus DE and the other NY seat. There's no way that it'd be that great for the Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2004

I'd say these Democratic seats *might* be vulnerable: CO, IN,  IL, NV. IN is safe with Bayh. IL is probably safe with a non Blago tainted candidate. I'd be happy to see a Republican win in NV.

In any case, there are a lot more potentially vulnerable Republicans.

yeah I see what your saying but its hard for me to imagine that the democrats would win three conggressional  elections in a row, I could be wrong but doesn't that buck historic trends?
this is all from Dave site going back to 1990. 
 
in 2008 the DEMS gained 8 seats counting franken
2006 the DEMS gained 6 seats
in 2002 the GOP gained 2 seats
in 2000 the dems gained 4 seats
1998 there was 0 net gain for ether party
1996 the GOP gained 2 seats
in 1994 the GOP gained 7 seats
in 1992 there was no net gain for either party
in 1990 the DEM's gained one seat. 

Well, worst case the Democrats only lose a couple of Senate seats. I don't think it would be that unusual for them to gain in 2010. Remember, this isn't the House, which does tend follow the rule that the President's party tends to lose, just not in 1998, 2002, a couple of other random elections, or for the Democratic-Republican party.

Anyways, the Democrats did have a net gain of Senate seats in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, and 1990, although the Republicans had no net change in 1982. Before that, the Republicans gained in 1976, 1978, and 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._Senate_elections

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm interested to see what Franken can pull off as a U.S. Senator. The likely answer to my question is "not much" but we'll see. It'll be pretty entertaining whether he's successful or not.

That "not much" probably will be because Reid & Durbin & Kerry won't take Franken seriously unless he's the defining vote for something (unlikely).

I'll be interested to see if Reid will be forced to promise Arkansas a lot of pork in exchange for Lincoln's vote on the Union bill

The dumbsh**ts of Arkansas get enough pork already.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From a Research 2000 poll of MN for DailyKos:

A strong plurality want Franken seated and think that Coleman's lawsuit is garbage. Coleman has terrible approval ratings, while Franken has a net positive. Only 17% say that the recount was unfair to Coleman.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/10/133747/921/913/682505