Although some voters might have intentionally bypassed the race, others might have mismarked their ballot, or optical scanning machines might have misread them.

Or, they knew that Franken is a far-left loon and couldn’t bring themselves to check the spot next to his name.

Tinian on November 13, 2008 at 3:41 PM

It’s amazing how HotAir can produce such a steady stream of idiots.

Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM

That’s quite a point-by-point rebuttal. Truly impressive.

Let me translate your reply into Lolcat:

Oweez! Muh butzhole rly hurtz wen Iz talks to Tinian. Srsly!

For those three counties mentioned above, if there were 10,540 undervotes in counties where Obama got 63% of the vote, that would be 6,640 votes for Obama and 3,900 votes for McCain. If 77% of the Obama voters voted for Franken, that’s a pickup of 5,113 votes for Franken, and if 95% of the McCain voters voted for Coleman, that would give Coleman 3,705 votes, for a net gain of 1,408 votes for Franken.

If we have 6,100 votes in McCain-favored counties, meaning at least 3,050 votes for McCain, we would get at LEAST 3,050 x 0.95 = 2,898 votes for Coleman, and at MOST 3,050 x 0.77 = 2,349 votes for Franken, or a net gain of 549 votes for Coleman. Assuming all the “undervoters” voted the way counted voters did, this would be a net gain AT MOST of 1,408 – 549 = 859 votes for Franken, since I assumed a 50-50 split in the McCain-favored counties.

But this assumes that all of the “undervotes” were people who actually marked their ballots. Hand counts of Broward County in 2000 in Florida showed that only about 6% of “undervotes” rejected by the machine showed any indication of a vote for President–the others simply didn’t vote! If only 6% of the “undervotes” were actually marked, Franken would pick up a maximum of 859 x 0.06 = 52 votes, not enough to swing the election.

This is why Republican surveillance of the recount process is critical, so that Democrats can’t “vote” for Franken AFTER the election by tampering with ballots that the real voters left blank for the Senate race.

So, you see, by this a$$wipes statistical expertise, 18,000 undervotes in the Obama polling places where Obama won 63% of the vote, will get Frankenstein 18,000 of the undervotes.

Who said this? I don’t think anyone concluded that Franken will get 18,000 of the votes. If anyone said this, they would be wrong, but I don’t think anyone did.

I believe people have said that he’s likely to get more than 50% of any incorrectly uncounted votes.

Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 4:44 PM

As I’ve said before, this thing is a waste of HA space and it’s taking me too long to sift through the good stuff. Can we all agree to ignore the ignorant?

ABOUT 25,000 BALLOTS STATEWIDE CARRIED VOTES FOR PRESIDENT BUT NOT FOR THE SENATE RACE. ALTHOUGH SOME VOTERS MIGHT HAVE INTENTIONALLY BYPASSED THE RACE, OTHERS MIGHT HAVE MISMARKED THEIR BALLOT, OR OPTICAL SCANNING MACHINES MIGHT HAVE MISREAD THEM.

THREE COUNTIES — HENNEPIN, RAMSEY AND ST. LOUIS, WHICH CONTAIN THE POPULATION CENTERS OF MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL AND DULUTH — ACCOUNT FOR 10,540 VOTES IN THE DROPOFF BETWEEN THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND THE SENATE RACE. EACH SAW OBAMA WIN WITH 63 PERCENT OR MORE OF THE VOTE.

THE BALLOTS THAT SHOWED A PRESIDENTIAL VOTE BUT NO SENATE VOTE ARE CALLED THE “UNDERVOTE.” STATEWIDE, MORE THAN 18,000 OF THOSE BALLOTS CAME FROM COUNTIES WON BY OBAMA. ABOUT 6,100 WERE IN COUNTIES WON BY REPUBLICAN JOHN MCCAIN.

So, you see, by this a$$wipes statistical expertise, 18,000 undervotes in the Obama polling places where Obama won 63% of the vote, will get Frankenstein 18,000 of the undervotes. He can’t understand how you can come to the conclusion that if this ACTUALLY happens, we would say that is a statistical improbability. Why? Because that’s statistical accuracy in the mind of a Liberal. Everyone in a Liberal area will vote for a Liberal even when they only vote 63% for Obama overall because Liberals are all sheeple and have no mind of their own. They drink from the Kool Aid. I could extrapolate a whole lot more from this quoted information but why bother?

See, this game is boring and such a fraking waste of time. Why? Again, because this lemming is mathematically and statistically challenged like all Liberals on top of the fact that they KNOW their side are filled with a bunch of morons who can’t work a simple balloting machine.

1) Dem ballots have a disportionate number of undervotes compared to Republican ballots?
2) Dem ballots seem to end up in the car trunks of poll workers more often than Republican ballots?
3) Dem voters have a harder time filling in the ballots correctly compared to Republican voters and thus have to have their votes “interpreted”?
4) Dem votes are always misreported on election night and then corrected upwards if the race is a close one?
5) Dems precincts always seem to come in later than Republican precincts, especially when the race is a close one?

Why do I think that there is a single answer to each of these questions?

Thank you. It’s not very hard to understand.

There will be a hand recount. In hand recounts, it’s possible that markings not picked up by the machine will be clear enough to be counted for either Franken or Colemen. The fact that 18,000 of the 25,000 undervotes are from areas Obama won seems to favor Franken (especially since only a couple hundred votes separate the candidate).

This is a very unfortunate reality and as someone stated before, I can totally envision someone marking undervotes in the idiot’s favor. After all, if they can produce a 1000 votes from a warehouse in King County, Washington to get Gregori elected or “find” 30-some absentee ballots in the trunk of a car, what’s to say the DFL’ers won’t just mark a few hundred ballots with no markings. I’ve resigned myself to this “assclown,” as one of our service members so appropriately called him, increasing the Dem’s majority, although I’ve contributed to Sen. Coleman’s recount fund.

Thank you for your service, hawkdriver.

Mr. D on November 13, 2008 at 3:56 PM

It’s an honor to do it for real Americans.

Tom_Shipley on November 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM

The liberal splainer’s back.