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

[Aizen]

In Minnesota it is good who has triumphed over evil.

[minionofmidas]

So much for my (our) theory that the Franken campaign's counts of what the recount looked like without frivolous challenges included a lot of wishful thinking.

[Lunar]

So much for my (our) theory that the Franken campaign's counts of what the recount looked like without frivolous challenges included a lot of wishful thinking.

I never quite bought into that.  It was suspect to the question that some people recorded the on-sight election judge's original opinion on the matter incorrectly, but how many would intentionally do that to the campaign?  And I wasn't quite of the belief that the Franken campaign would skew the numbers 20 points in favor of itself on this sort of number since they were long intentionally vague whenever things didn't necessarily favor of them "under 100" instead of specific numbers and so on.

But yeah.  This race is donzo + a dozen lawsuits that won't go nowhere + some absentees that Coleman will hedge on but will add to Franken's total

[justfollowingtheelections]

A video of the committee that is examining the rejected ballots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTg55m5YIwc

These guys are morons!

And this is the guy who wrote Lizard People on his ballot:


http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2008/12/lizard_people_v_1.php

[Lunar]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ahaahahah

[justfollowingtheelections]

He talks about it here:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/23/so_why_would_someone_for_the_lizard_people/

[emailking]

if the Illuminati were real, they would have ensured that this ballot was counted for Franken.

[Eraserhead]

A video of the committee that is examining the rejected ballots:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTg55m5YIwc

These guys are morons!

And this is the guy who wrote Lizard People on his ballot:


http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2008/12/lizard_people_v_1.php

A hippie. What a shocker.

[Lunar]

Wow, the first mainstream outlet (that I've noticed) has proclaimed Franken the likely winner.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/28/franken-should-be-seated_n_153796.html

Way to be on the breaking edge of the wave HuffingtonPost!

However, there is this historical peach for those of us who prefer the Louisiana way of things:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ronnie]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

[Lunar]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

[Mr.Phips]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

They cant make every race that way.  There is a good chance that Democrats could lose a seat and then it wouldn't be 60. 

[Lunar]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

They cant make every race that way.  There is a good chance that Democrats could lose a seat and then it wouldn't be 60. 

Oh, they can make that argument in every race and they will.

[Mr.Phips]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

They cant make every race that way.  There is a good chance that Democrats could lose a seat and then it wouldn't be 60. 

Oh, they can make that argument in every race and they will.

Not against Democratic incumbents.  They can simply say "59 + 0 does not equal 60". 

[Lunar]

The Democrats have... one "vulnerable" seat in 2010 in Reid's seat?  I suppose the hopeful people might look at CO, IL, NY, HI, CT, and WI?  2010 is largely the year of Republican defense.

I mean, the ratio of Democratic seats to Republican seats in 2010 compared to other years (due to coincidence) is staggering, although slightly less so thanks to CO-DE-IL-NY which recently became open. 

[Ronnie]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

I understand, it's just that it's so difficult for me to understand why anyone would vote for such a clown to represent their state.  Obviously, I'm bitter, and deservedly so.

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats have... one "vulnerable" seat in 2010 in Reid's seat?  I suppose the hopeful people might look at CO, IL, NY, HI, CT, and WI?  2010 is largely the year of Republican defense.

I mean, the ratio of Democratic seats to Republican seats in 2010 compared to other years (due to coincidence) is staggering, although slightly less so thanks to CO-DE-IL-NY which recently became open. 

I agree here.  If Democrats have a bad year, they could still end up with no net loss in the Senate.  This is basically what happened in 1982.  Republicans actually picked up a seat that year because Democrats had so many seats to defend.  

[Lunar]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

I understand, it's just that it's so difficult for me to understand why anyone would vote for such a clown to represent their state.  Obviously, I'm bitter, and deservedly so.

Not the first time a clown has been elected.

Meh, at least this clown helps your broader cause in multiple ways

The Democrats have... one "vulnerable" seat in 2010 in Reid's seat?  I suppose the hopeful people might look at CO, IL, NY, HI, CT, and WI?  2010 is largely the year of Republican defense.

I mean, the ratio of Democratic seats to Republican seats in 2010 compared to other years (due to coincidence) is staggering, although slightly less so thanks to CO-DE-IL-NY which recently became open. 

I agree here.  If Democrats have a bad year, they could still end up with no net loss in the Senate.  This is basically what happened in 1982.  Republicans actually picked up a seat that year because Democrats had so many seats to defend.  

  Yeah, just mentioning that the "keep it below 60" argument should apply in the vast majority of competitive races in 2010.

If I had a Republican investor friend asking me for honest advice, I can't say I'd suggest investing it in any GOP challenger at this point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

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

Yeah, you're some Democrat.

[Lunar]

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

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Talking about preventing total Democratic dominance of the Senate should play really well in a midterm year.  Midterm voters aren't geniuses, but they're much smarter about politics than your average 2008 voter.

Talk about filibusters will be all over Fox News and the usual GOP outlets, so one would imagine that Republicans will understand the stakes.  Take a look at an internal poll sometime—these kinds of arguements work surprisingly well with politically interested Indy voters. 

[Lunar]

Talking about preventing total Democratic dominance of the Senate should play really well in a midterm year.  Midterm voters aren't geniuses, but they're much smarter about politics than your average 2008 voter.

Talk about filibusters will be all over Fox News and the usual GOP outlets, so one would imagine that Republicans will understand the stakes.  Take a look at an internal poll sometime—these kinds of arguements work surprisingly well with politically interested Indy voters. 

It's important to remember that these arguments, especially if they get boggled down in explanations of cloture votes, have limited effectiveness.  But they *do* reach a limited but undeniably[ish] significant amount of people who are undecided between the two candidates personally but do not like Nanci Pelosi or possibly Barack Obama (forget Reid, no one knows who he is).

For example, Sebelius, who would be far more effective of a senator than Franken, even if I can't name any policy disagreements between the two, will be quite hampered if she goes for Brownback's open seat.  I think she's a bit more favored than some other forumites here, but it'll be a steeper climb that it would otherwise have been if Franken had lost.


And, of course, like I've said a million times, the ideal scenario was for Coleman to "steal" the election, thus pissing off activists to work four times as hard in 2010.

[Meeker]

The "total control" argument could be very effective in 2010, but at the same time the GOP should be very careful. If they use the filibuster incessantly and block much of Obama's agenda, the opposite affect could occur - Democrats could effectively make a case that the Republicans are obstructing Obama's agenda and they only way to get over it is to throw even more out.

Both parties need to be careful not to overuse the power they've been given.

[Brittain33]

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

Does that really matter, though? Either the Democratic government will be popular, in which case this argument will go over like a lead balloon, or it will be unpopular, in which case they don't need this detailed an argument for voting out Democrats.

[Lunar]

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

Does that really matter, though? Either the Democratic government will be popular, in which case this argument will go over like a lead balloon, or it will be unpopular, in which case they don't need this detailed an argument for voting out Democrats.

Well, if Obama is unpopular in that state, then yes, it's a more explicit way to link the challenger to supporting Obama, no matter how conservative the Democrat's credentials may be.

Even if he is popular, they can still make the "blank check" argument and win SOME converts.  The [whorish] media is totally willing to argue it for the GOP too despite the fact that 60 seats means nothing.