Franken to be Declared Winner
Wow. He stole an election as we all looked on.
A state election board on Monday will announce Democrat Al Franken has defeated Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race, state officials told CNN Sunday.
The canvassing board on Monday will say a recount determined Franken won by 225 votes, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie told CNN.
However, Coleman’s campaign, which contends the recount should have included about 650 absentee ballots it says were improperly rejected in the initial count, has indicated it will challenge the certification.
Coleman campaign manager Cullen Sheehan said his team believes the recount process was broken and that “the numbers being reported will not be accurate or valid.”
“The effort by the Franken campaign, supported by the secretary of state, to exclude improperly rejected absentee ballots is indefensible and disenfranchises hundreds of Minnesota voters,” Sheehan said.
“Stealing an election” is a pretty serious charge there, Owen. How do you mean, exactly? Are you aware of any problems with counting the votes? Any of the ballots challenged by Coleman that you would have rulled the other way? Do you think the absentee ballots rejected in error should have been not counted for some reason (Franken still wins by 40 without them)? What exactly is your problem with the process by which all of the votes were counted? Or is it just the result you don’t like?
Posted by Mike Plaisted on January 05, 2009 at 0836 hrs
I agree with half of Owen’s statement. I don’t think it was stolen, per se. I believe Team Franken out hustled Team Colemann, hence “while we looked on.” I would agree while someobody looked on I am not so sure about “we.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0934 hrs
That’s a ridiculous charge Owen. This recount has been as transparent as can be, with challenged ballots even being shown online by the MN newspapers.
Coleman has cherry picked 650 ballots from Republican leaning districts that he claims were improperly left out of the count. Yet even with those and discounting the 133 lost ballots, the most optimistic predictions have Coleman coming up short.
Both campaigns were involved in setting up the ground rules for the recount. Both campaigns had the same opportunities to challenge ballots, with Coleman challenging a substantially greater number even before Franken withdrew the majoritiy of his challenges.
This was a model of the right way to do a recount, painstaking as it was, it learned the lessons from Florida in 2000 and removed all but the faintest of doubt about its accuracy.
Its dissapointing that you would characterize the process in this manner.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0946 hrs
Mike ... you can start here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0951 hrs
Its dissapointing that you would characterize the process in this manner.
And it would have been more disappointing if you had characterized it any differently Watson.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0956 hrs
And here is great discussion with actual ballot examples of the inconsistent rules applied to ‘divining voter intent’ which has favored Franken.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470892,00.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 0959 hrs
To quote from the article TD posted:
He’s getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.
Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as “duplicate” and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.
Whether the election has been stolen will depend on if these actions were deliberate or simply sloppy.
Posted by hsgbdmama on January 05, 2009 at 1002 hrs
To Bad the Fox News Article has been shown to be a fraud!
The Actual Ballots are on the web.
yes they had to make a call on such ballots, but they did so in the same manner regardless of who it benefited.
you dopes do realize they had 2 minn supreme court justices working on the panel.
reminder that the minn supreme court has 7 justices,
4 been appointed by REPUBLICAN IDOL Tim Pawlenty.
Tell me again why they’d let franken steal a donut much less an election. Owen you really got look into this stuff rather than just trust the right wing nutbags.
just like i don’t expect all lefty blogs to buy into the 911 was an inside jon BS just cause they are lefty’s!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1032 hrs
Kinda odd that more votes were cast than people who actually voted (from what I read). Can you explain?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1038 hrs
Stolen my butt. And man am I glad Franken won. I enjoyed a couple of his books and his victory is the absolute cherry on top of the 2008 election for me.
Posted by scott on January 05, 2009 at 1054 hrs
That figures Scott…more unbridled liberalism, more unbridled taxation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1055 hrs
And communism. Don’t forget communism.
Posted by scott on January 05, 2009 at 1058 hrs
To Bad the Fox News Article has been shown to be a fraud!
By Whom?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1111 hrs
The head vote-counter position in a given state is that state’s most important race.
I am disappointed that Democrats realize this but Republican Party officials can’t be bothered to care.
Stalin got his position by making himself the secret ballot vote counter in the CP’s central committee ... Lenin had no clue what was going on.
Posted by Kristopher on January 05, 2009 at 1126 hrs
I think we all already know how to stop the spread of communism.
Posted by Emily on January 05, 2009 at 1235 hrs
Not sure where you read that more ballots were counted than voters registered, but I bet Coleman would love to hear that. He didn’t even make that claim in his court filing over the duplicate ballot issue. Also how duplicate ballots were handle was agreed upon prior to the recount, and those ballots had to be agreed upon during the recount. This is an issue drumed up after the fact that is part of the bunch of straws Coleman is grasping.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1257 hrs
Didn’t think he was Scott, but if you say so….......
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1343 hrs
Stalin got his position by making himself the secret ballot vote counter in the CP’s central committee ... Lenin had no clue what was going on.
Man, I love that kind of talk. You people are so out of it. Rolling you for the next eight years is going to be easy.
Hmmm…Still haven’t heard from Owen, who cast the smear in the first place….[crickets]...
Posted by Mike Plaisted on January 05, 2009 at 1425 hrs
You people are so out of it. Rolling you for the next eight years is going to be easy.
Seriously.
Posted by scott on January 05, 2009 at 1427 hrs
Yet another argument to repeal the 17th amendment more than anything else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1445 hrs
Plaisted,
Look at the inconsistent rulings. Look at the admissions of probable double counting. Look at the discrepancy between the machine count and the number of ballots actually cast and how the committee decided to rule differently and, remarkably, always in Franken’s favor. You can choose to be blind all you want, but there’s no point in arguing with someone who refuses to even see what’s in front of your face.
Posted by Owen on January 05, 2009 at 1452 hrs
Owen:
Perhaps the halo around “The Messiah” is blinding them all. Moses was supposed to hide in a crevice of the Sinai rocks because the light of the Lord would cause him to perish. Mayhaps it is the same philosophy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1459 hrs
Owen, this is worse than what happened in Florida eight years ago how? From what I can tell, the real shame here is that eight years later and Americans still can’t figure out how to cast ballots correctly, nor have we come up with a better way of idiotproofing our voting methods.
A pox on both parties for this mess.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1602 hrs
While I disagree with Franken’s politics and positions, I don’t necessarily think it’s the worst thing in the world that he’s going into the U.S. senate.
Franken may be many things: comedian, actor, author, asshole, prick, etc. But one thing he’s not is stupid. He has been a political junkie for years; written books, articles, been on top of the people and issues of the day - and very much in touch with mainstream culture. He’s no anointed dipshit like Caroline Kennedy.
As much as we all love to bash politicians, few of us would give up our comfy lives to go under the microscope the way one does to become a member of the U.S. Senate. I think Franken went for that senate seat for the right reasons: to walk the walk and influence policy in accordance with his own values and beliefs. And that is a lot more than can be said for many other politicians. I like seeing incumbents bumped by someone who has not spent their whole life as a power hungry pol.
We know Franken will be a lefty - but with this much of a Democratic majority in Congress, what differences does it make? I think that Franken will be an “honest” politician (as honest as we can expect these days). He’s never been afraid to stand up to people. Perhaps some of the business and lobbying interests in Washington that need to be told to go “shove it” will finally hear it out of the mouth of Franken.
Posted by David on January 05, 2009 at 1604 hrs
Robinson,
The Minnesota process was completely open and transparent. Everything your saying is from Coleman’s legal briefs and every one was knocked down, for good reasons (as false or inaccurate or legally silly) and in broad daylight. I’m guessing Coleman would just as soon let it go at this point, but the RNC will pick up the cost of litigation, not because they have any legitinate concern about the integrity of the result (hah), but to try to keep Franken off the Senate floor as long as possible.
Your problem is that, unlike in Florida 2000, you didn’t have a cheap political hack in the Secretary of State’s office to shut the recount down and let Bush sit on a (percentage-wise) smaller lead than Coleman had. A fair recount like what took place in MN would (probably) have had the same result in FL. Which ballots would you not have counted, Owen? Is the problem that I’m blind or that you are willing to swallow any snake-oil the GOP shoves down your throat?
Posted by Mike Plaisted on January 05, 2009 at 1629 hrs
Mike, Without the GOP snake-oil and talking points, Owen wouldn’t have anything to post and no idea what he actually believed in. Stolen? A month long, transparent recount occurs—with every development reported and detailed in the Minnesota (and to a lesser degree, national) press ad naseum—and at the end, because your candidate loses, you cry foul. Like all Republicans, it has to be difficult for you to get out of bed in the morning anymore. All you have left is whining and sour grapes and GOP talking points. If you had any intellectual honesty, though, you would actually acknowledge the detailed process that went into this recount. Funny, I seem to remember a month ago when Norm Coleman said that Franken should step aside to let the healing begin. Now that Franken has prevailed in the recount, I’m sure Coleman will follow that approach and let Franken be seated without frivolous legal challenges. Oh, I forgot, as a Republican, Coleman is, by definition, a hypocrite.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1718 hrs
My position on recounts is that the machine should have the final say, and while that would likely favor Coleman in this instance, I would feel the same way if the situation were reversed. Hand-counting ballots meant for a computer (or even those meant for hand-counting) is frought with peril, and is certainly less accurate than even an imperfect machine count.
The only reason we should ever use a hand recount is if the machinery appears compromised.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1724 hrs
Also, while I think that both parties have behaved rather poorly in this race, the insistence by the lefties in this thread that transparency here breeds fairness seems incorrect. Power seems to be much more important. Also, Owen aknowledged said transparency in his first line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1726 hrs
I especially enjoyed the comparison of Franken’s win to Stalin. It truly will be fun watching people like Owen and Kristopher descend into complete full-on madness. One thing you’re wrong about though Mike: at the rate they are going, they won’t last eight years. This much hackery and Obama hasn’t even been sworn in yet!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1728 hrs
FREE Online Movies, TV, Music, Good Games, Virtual Worlds, and FREE College Educations @ InternetSurfShack.com
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1817 hrs
I appreciate what Paul has said in #27. The problem comes from these simple facts:
1. Most all American adults are allowed to vote.
2. Many American adults can’t figure out how to fill out a ballot.Determining voter intent is inherently subjective. We’re also never going to go to a system of counting by which all ballots that the machine can’t read are summarily discarded.
The only real answer is doing a better job of idiotproofing the voting process. I would much prefer using computer balloting with unambiguous paper printouts than optical scan ballots, which clearly a number of Minnesotans can’t figure out how to complete successfully. If a computer only allows you to choose one candidate per office, prints only the names of the selected candidates, and allows you to review those choices before submitting your ballot, there’s not a whole lot of intent left to divine.
I believe in America. If we can put a man on the moon, we can idiotproof the voting booth.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1954 hrs
Here‘s a debunking of the WSJ editorial cited above—it’s full of half-truths, slanted assumptions, and outright lies (like the notion that Coleman counties never finished deciding which absentee ballots should have been counted).
If only the absentee ballots were counted—the ones that the Coleman camp signed off on as being legitimate votes that deserved to be counted—and none of the hand-recounting had happened, Franken would have won by 10 votes. Are you telling me that Coleman wouldn’t have demanded a hand recount of his own then?
Posted by folkbum on January 05, 2009 at 2012 hrs
The only real answer is doing a better job of idiotproofing the voting process.
We would have to go to literacy and civics testing for voting privileges.
Posted by David on January 05, 2009 at 2044 hrs
Well, regardless of what the partisans think on either side, this election is far from over. Ultimately, the courts will decide who won.
And RS, I’m not sure there is a way to 100% idiotproof an election.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2055 hrs
If we can put a man on the moon, we can idiotproof the voting booth.
HA!
3 words for ya….
Milwaukee Public Schools…..Idiot proof the voting booth…..right.
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on January 05, 2009 at 2055 hrs
I want to see the post that would have been written had the Republican and Democrat been switched.
I’m sure the phease, “...tried to steal the election, but failed…” would be found in some form or another.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2102 hrs
You’ll note that Scott and Mike went straight for the comment about Stalin and Lenin, and ignored the part about the head vote counter.
This is where we need to fix this crap, folks.
Get someone competent into that position.
Stop sending absentee ballots to folks that are not serving in the military or working overseas. Stop allowing illegals to vote. invalidate any ballot that is even slightly incorrect.
The vote is far more dangerous than any assault rifle ... if you can’t be bothered to show up at the polls and are too stupid to fill out the ballot correctly, you shouldn’t get a vote.
Posted by Kristopher on January 06, 2009 at 1147 hrs
Kristopher, I didn’t make any comments about the Stalin and Lenin thing, although I can now absolutely see why someone might think that.
The chief problem with electoral fraud (insofar as it exists in the first place) seems to be in the area of absentee balloting. All of the squawking about felons or non-citizens at polling places is grossly misplaced and, it must be said, highly self-serving.
But whatever the area of problems are, I’m still ten times more concerned about the influence of money and monied interests on the political process. Public financing of elections would do much more for us than the ability to take a 99.99% valid election process to 99.999% accurate one. I would much rather see free airtime for state-wide and nation-wide candidates than I would even the most exquisitely effective voter ID law.
Like everyone else here, what I want most is for the will of the voters be as tightly linked to their government as possible. It’s clear to me, however, that we’d get a much larger bang for our buck looking at some other areas.
Yay, Franken. Seriously. I think the recount was supposed to happen, it was supposed to happen in a certain way, it did happen that way, and we have a clear winner at the end of that process.
Posted by scott on January 06, 2009 at 1157 hrs
Any other candidate running against one of these guys would have walked away a clear winner.
Franken is a prick, and a lot of Dems know it and showed it by voting for Barkley.
Coleman drinks ethanol and worships at the global warming shrine, and a lot of conservatives got sick of holding their noses and voting for Republicans.
The recount has been a joke. X’s through filled in Coleman ovals, and it doesn’t count, but X through Franken and it does count.
It’s not surprising at all given that the MN SOS is a former Acorn guy.
The only hope left for Coleman is that the courts decide not to allow missing ballots to be counted, and they find out how many ballots and which ballots were counted twice.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1353 hrs
Don’t dismiss Franken as “a prick.” He’s a politically astute, highly intelligent and very well spoken. He represents a very solid example of what middle-American liberalism is. His history is a comedian and satire author doesn’t preclude him from running for office nor from performing well once voted in. Who wouldn’t want to see a Samuel Ciemens run for US senate in Mississippi? I think washington could use a good dose of Franken.
Posted by scott on January 06, 2009 at 1408 hrs
He’s a politically astute, highly intelligent and very well spoken
And in my humble opinion, I enjoy the satire but he was a lousy stand up comic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1416 hrs
He’s a politically astute, highly intelligent and very well spoken. He represents a very solid example of what middle-American liberalism is.
I agree. But he’s still a prick (see my post in #24).
Not that being a prick is a totally bad thing for a politician. It’s just a fact in this case.Posted by David on January 06, 2009 at 1418 hrs
Past GOP Guv for Minn Tells Norm It’s Over!
here’s The Money quote that should seperate The Nutbags from the rest of the sane folk!
“When you’ve had two Republican Supreme Court justices involved in the process, you can’t very well come back and say, gee, I think it’s been partisanly tinged,” said Carlson, referring to Chief Justice Eric Magnuson and Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson, who were appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, and also sat on the canvassing board.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1427 hrs
Because Arne Carlson mentions 2 of the 5 members of the Canvassing board it’s over and Norm doesn’t have a case?
Arne is commenting on the public’s opinion of the actions of the Canvassing Board, not the legal arguments. His entire rationale for telling Coleman to give it up is based on what public opinion is and will be.
Arne hasn’t gone very deep in the thinking department much in the last decade, and apparently won’t start anytime soon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1602 hrs
The scary thing here is that there were “missing ballots” showing up at a later time. Some misplaced in a city hall closet, others found in a drawer. Makes one wonder how many past close elections were declared the wrong way? And yes, its amazing with all the signs and direction that people still can’t mark a ballot the right way.
My suggestion, call it a tie and just let Gov. Pawlenty make an appointment with assistance from Blago on maximizing the sale price.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1931 hrs
I think Powerline does a great job of objectively going over the facts:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022489.php
money quote:In a fluid process like a recount, the proper approach is to assume that anything can happen and operate accordingly. Contingency planning is critical. Betting everything on an outcome you don’t control is simply foolish, not just in a recount, but in any endeavor. The Franken campaign outhustled and outsmarted the Coleman campaign. If I were advising Senator Coleman, I would tell him to shake up his team and send in a new quarterback to run the offense now that he has the ball in overtime, i.e., the election contest. I would tell him to send in Dorsey attorney Roger Magnuson from the bench onto the field to lead the team.
See my money quote in entry #2. of this thread. You heard it here first.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1746 hrs
Looks like Coleman had Felon voting for him.
funny how Owen missed that? I’m Shocked, simply Shocked!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 2210 hrs
What do you mean “outsmarted and outhustled”? How would the result have been any different with any “smarter” or “hustling” Coleman strategy? The facts and the ballots are what they are. Coleman lost because of the ballots cast, not because of any failure on their part. They were swinging around the “consistent statewide standard” language of Bush v. Gore as much as they could. Slightly more people just happened to vote for Franken. That the process determined and confirmed that is what’s supposed to happen.
Posted by Mike Plaisted on January 08, 2009 at 1104 hrs
Seriously, what does that mean, “outsmarted” and “outhustled”? I haven’t been following the thing that closely, but my understanding was that votes not counted the first time were re-evaluated, and were counted only based on the input from the election commission and both parties. That is to say, each party got a chance to object to certain votes being counted. Last I heard, Coleman had the most objections. I also heard (is this really true?) that questionable ballots were actually viewable online. If that’s really true, that’s some astonishing transparency! Unless I’m missing something important (which could be the case), I really don’t know what you guys are whining about.
Posted by scott on January 08, 2009 at 1108 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 88
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:08 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).