Congressional Elections Results Thread

[Balta1701]

Coleman campaign blocks acceptance of the absentee ballot of one of Minnesota's election judges.

[Balta1701]

The MN courts previously ruled on some 1200 improperly rejected absentee ballots, saying that they would be accepted and counted if both the Coleman and Franken campaigns agreed. Surprisingly, yesterday the Coleman campaign agreed to count some 900+ of those ballots, and this increased Franken's lead to 225 votes. The elections commission is expected to certify Franken as the winner on Monday.

 

Coleman's campaign has basically 1 legal challenge remaining, asking a court to count some 600 absentee ballots from coleman-friendly districts that were judged to be properly rejected. They continue to complain about double-counted votes, but the courts have rejected those complaints. The Republicans in the Senate have threatened to filibuster any attempt to seat Senator Franken, regardless of the actions of the elections commission tomorrow. Interestingly, they're basing the legality of that filibuster on the same tactics that Reid wants to use to deny seating Burris from IL.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Franken Wins... for now

The state Canvassing Board was poised to certify the results of the recount in Minnesota's grueling Senate election in Al Franken's favor _ but that doesn't mean the race is definitely over.

 

The board was to meet Monday and was expected to declare which candidate received the most overall votes from nearly 3 million ballots cast. The latest numbers showed Franken, a Democrat, with a 225-vote lead over Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, who led Franken on election night.

 

But after the announcement, there will be a seven-day waiting period before an election certificate is completed. If any lawsuits are filed during that waiting period, certification is conditional until the issue is settled in court.

[lostfan]

The MN courts previously ruled on some 1200 improperly rejected absentee ballots, saying that they would be accepted and counted if both the Coleman and Franken campaigns agreed. Surprisingly, yesterday the Coleman campaign agreed to count some 900+ of those ballots, and this increased Franken's lead to 225 votes. The elections commission is expected to certify Franken as the winner on Monday.

 

Coleman's campaign has basically 1 legal challenge remaining, asking a court to count some 600 absentee ballots from coleman-friendly districts that were judged to be properly rejected. They continue to complain about double-counted votes, but the courts have rejected those complaints. The Republicans in the Senate have threatened to filibuster any attempt to seat Senator Franken, regardless of the actions of the elections commission tomorrow. Interestingly, they're basing the legality of that filibuster on the same tactics that Reid wants to use to deny seating Burris from IL.

Yeah, that's just... no. Regardless of whether what Reid does is legit, these are totally different circumstances , if a guy actually wins an election I don't see how you can refuse to allow it just because you don't like who won. At least in the case of Burris, you have him being appointed by a governor who is accused of taking bribes for that appointment rather than Burris winning an election. Night and day.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, that's just... no. Regardless of whether what Reid does is legit, these are totally different circumstances , if a guy actually wins an election I don't see how you can refuse to allow it just because you don't like who won. At least in the case of Burris, you have him being appointed by a governor who is accused of taking bribes for that appointment rather than Burris winning an election. Night and day.

 

You are right in the part that they are totally different circumstances...

 

Legally, the Dems have less reason to not seat Burris, than the Repubs do Franken. There is no clear legal reason why Roland Burris should not be seated. Now if the Dems in Illinois had manned up and done something quickly, they could have taken Blago's ability to appoint someone by either impeaching him or calling a special election. They did not do so.

 

On the other side, there is a clear legal statute that saids if there are lawsuits, the election is not certified, which we all know the MN GOP will be in the courts right away to file those challenges.

[lostfan]

You are right in the part that they are totally different circumstances...

 

Legally, the Dems have less reason to not seat Burris, than the Repubs do Franken. There is no clear legal reason why Roland Burris should not be seated. Now if the Dems in Illinois had manned up and done something quickly, they could have taken Blago's ability to appoint someone by either impeaching him or calling a special election. They did not do so.

 

On the other side, there is a clear legal statute that saids if there are lawsuits, the election is not certified, which we all know the MN GOP will be in the courts right away to file those challenges.

Correct, and for all the (justified) b****ing about the way things should be done, honestly I can't think of any reason why it would go differently, barring a quick change to the IL constitution which is unlikely. IL law (and I would assume most states) never accounted for the fact that one of its Senators would be elected President, and that one of its governors would try and sell the seat.

[Balta1701]

Coleman's legal challenge regarding the 600 or so properly rejected absentee ballots was rejected this morning. As of now, every legal claim from the Coleman camp has fallen. All that remains is the general challenge to the election, which relies on repeating arguments that have already been thrown out by courts.

 

Of course, I think now is the time to appropriately bring up former Senator Coleman's statement in November about why it was so important that this not drag on endlessly...

"I just think the need for the healing process is so important. ... hopefully, you don't have TV ads during an election recount," Coleman said.

[mr_genius]

Coleman's legal challenge regarding the 600 or so properly rejected absentee ballots was rejected this morning. As of now, every legal claim from the Coleman camp has fallen. All that remains is the general challenge to the election, which relies on repeating arguments that have already been thrown out by courts.

 

Of course, I think now is the time to appropriately bring up former Senator Coleman's statement in November about why it was so important that this not drag on endlessly...

 

Coleman found 800 improperly rejected ballots today. They are projeted to put him past the 250 improperly rejected ballots cast for Franken on Burger King napkins that put Franken ahead.

[BigSqwert]

Coleman found 800 improperly rejected ballots today.

 

What does that even mean? Was he literally sifting through boxes of ballots and found a stash that was improperly rejected?

[mr_genius]

What does that even mean? Was he literally sifting through boxes of ballots and found a stash that was improperly rejected?

 

while sifting through the same BK trash bin that Franken found his votes a few weeks earlier, Coleman claims to have found a secret stash of ballots cast for him.

[bmags]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did...their-fact.html

[mr_genius]

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

 

 

[bmags]

they've been reporting falsities. Continue using them.

[Balta1701]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

So let me just get this straight.

 

Bmags posts a 538.com piece that absolutely thrashes a piece from the Wall Street Journal.

 

Your response to that is to post the Wall Street Journal piece that 538 thrashed.

 

Um, yeah. I think that's all I need to say.

[mr_genius]

So let me just get this straight.

 

Bmags posts a 538.com piece that absolutely thrashes a piece from the Wall Street Journal.

 

Your response to that is to post the Wall Street Journal piece that 538 thrashed.

 

Um, yeah. I think that's all I need to say.

 

I posted the reputable source

 

here, this one is for you

 

http://911sharethetruth.com/

 

 

[mr_genius]

they've been reporting falsities. Continue using them.

 

your truthiness is awesome

 

and honestly i'm fine with Al Franken in the senate. i think he fits the Democrat mold perfectly.

Edited January 6, 2009 by mr_genius

[bmags]

You've said that you like 538.com, that's why I used it. It's certainly less biased and more thought out than the editorial section of the wall street journal.

[BigSqwert]

i think he fits the Democrat mold perfectly.

What mold is that? The one where 80% of Americans approve of the Democratic president-elect so far?

[mr_genius]

You've said that you like 538.com, that's why I used it. It's certainly less biased and more thought out than the editorial section of the wall street journal.

 

I do like the use of applied statistics and web site design.

 

I also like advanced artificial intelligence algorithms written by collegues of mine, but that doesn't mean they are a go to source for everything.

Edited January 6, 2009 by mr_genius

[bmags]

I do like the use of applied statistics and web site design.

 

I also like an advanced artificial intelligence algorithms written by collegues of mine, but that doesn't mean they are a go to source for everything.

 

WSJ factless editorials, on the other hand...gold

[mr_genius]

What mold is that? The one where 80% of Americans approve of the Democratic president-elect so far?

 

GW had like 90% approval rating at one point, so your point is moot.

 

Not the Obama mold though, actually. I'm not putting the president in the same category as Reid, Blago, and Pelosi.

[mr_genius]

WSJ factless editorials, on the other hand...gold

 

lol

 

just stick with the NY Times, MSNBC, DNC emails. you'll be much happier.

[Balta1701]

Anyone ever keep a link open for 4 days because they were waiting to post it on a vanished message board? Thank Goodness for tabbed browsing.

 

Anywho, one of the Minnesota Elections commissioners, a Ventura appointee, responded to that WSJ hit piece on them a few days back.

Dear Sirs:

 

As a subscriber of your newspaper for almost three decades, I don't expect to always agree with your editorial viewpoint. Yet I am nevertheless very disappointed when I read an editorial long on partisan tone and short on accurate reporting.

 

As a member of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, appointed pursuant to statute, I have attended all nine Board open meetings held the past seven weeks. I am knowledgeable about the proceedings as well as Minnesota's election laws. Our members (two Supreme Court Justices, two District Court Judges, and Secretary of State Ritchie) came from all political backgrounds, openly expressed our opinions at the meetings, and can hardly be accurately described as "meek", unless you mean "meek" by New York in-your-face standards. Your groundless attack on Secretary Ritchie reflects poorly on the author; Ritchie worked assiduously at avoiding partisanship in these proceedings.

 

As to the Board as a whole, all of our major votes were unanimous. We consistently followed the law in limiting our involvement to a non-adjudicative role, declining both candidates' attempts to expand our mandate. Further, we painstakingly reviewed each challenged ballot, some more than once, to confirm that we were ruling in a consistent manner.

 

One can only assume, based on the tone of the editorial, the numerous inaccuracies, and the over-the-top slam at Al Franken ("tainted and undeserving?") that had Norm Coleman come out on top in this recount, the members of the Board would have been praised as "strong-willed, intelligent, and perceptive."

 

We won't hold our breath waiting for that editorial to appear.

 

Edward J. Cleary

Assistant Chief Judge

Second Judicial District

Minnesota State Canvassing Board

[mr_genius]

Anyone ever keep a link open for 4 days because they were waiting to post it on a vanished message board? Thank Goodness for tabbed browsing.

 

Anywho, one of the Minnesota Elections commissioners, a Ventura appointee, responded to that WSJ hit piece on them a few days back.

 

Imagine that, some gets a critical article written about them and they complain. Keep up the good work WSJ.

[NorthSideSox72]

lol

 

just stick with the NY Times, MSNBC, DNC emails. you'll be much happier.

WSJ is a quality paper, better than most. Solid journalism most of the time.

 

But the article you posted was not journalism, it was an OPINION article, which could have appeared anywhere.