Maybe they’ll give him Hillary’s empty seat.

DarthBrooks on December 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM

As a Minnesotan (at least, I now live in Minnesota), I have absolutely no objection to saying farewell to Franken.

’m amazed it was even that close.

Wait, no, I’m not amazed after the results of the POTUS results.

PBoilermaker on December 2, 2008 at 11:10 AM

Don’t be amazed. Have you ever been to a big city in MN?
Those people are out of touch with reality.
Most city dwellers I have met are sadly out of touch-hence the POTUS results.
They get what they deserve. We get what we don’t deserve.

Franken’s behind by 340 and almost guaranteed to lose the recount. He’s going to be behind by enough that even his demands that dubious absentee votes be counted won’t save him. A reader explains why the secretary of state’s site……

Maybe they’ll give him Hillary’s empty seat.

DarthBrooks on December 2, 2008 at 11:59 AM

Now THAT would be funny!!!

Hey, he is really from NY after all.

Wonder if he needs any help packing his S#&t when he moves back.

Not that I’d give him any.

Unless help would include something involving drop-kicking his coin purse over his head.

Expect Republicans to use even an attempt to reverse the election through Senate fiat as a major theme not just in Minnesota but across the country in 2010.

This would mean the Republicans would be running against the Tyrantocrats. It would be like Sir Wallace against Longshanks.

It’s showing Franken ahead of Coleman (perhaps an error)

Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Norm Coleman 1103291
Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Al Franken 1107528

Recounted Data Totals Percent
RECOUNT Number of Ballots for Coleman (as recounted) 1100922 41.37
RECOUNT Number of Ballots for Franken (as recounted) 1105030 41.52
RECOUNT Number of All Other Ballots (as recounted) 449235 16.88

RECOUNT COLEMAN and Other Ballots Challenged By FRANKEN 2876 0.11
RECOUNT FRANKEN and Other Ballots Challenged By COLEMAN 3067 0.12

Yes, it is best for him to concede while he still has his dignity.

Tommy_G on December 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM

You forgot the /sarc in that one……..

Gee… If you want to just hand the 2010 election to the Rs, then please go ahead.

Illinidiva on December 2, 2008 at 12:28 PM

Don’t downplay the ability of the MSM to lull the electorate to sleep. The House stole a similar election in California back in the late 80′s early 90′s. There was no backlash, because nobody knew it happened. Outside the affected district there was no coverage. Even in the district, the man who stole the election won re-election handily, just two years later.

If Reid gives the seat to Franken, I doubt more than 10% of the public would even be aware that it happened.

Coleman has challenged somewhat more ballots than Franken (Coleman 3,070 challenges, Franken 2,882). Since challenged ballots are not counted for either candidate, this caused both candidates to “lose” votes relative to the original count. If none of the challenges are upheld, and all the Franken-challenged ballots go to Coleman, and the Coleman-challenged votes go to Franken, Coleman picks up 2,882 -2,373 = 509 votes relative to the original count, Franken picks up 3,070 – 2,498 = 572 votes relative to the original count. This nets Franken 572 – 509 = 63 votes, not enough to overturn Coleman’s original 215-vote lead.

The question becomes, how many of Franken’s challenges are frivolous? If Franken made a large number of frivolous challenges, Coleman would have to make a roughly equal number of frivolous challenges just to stay even, because otherwise Franken’s challenges subtracted from Coleman’s total would make it APPEAR that Franken was winning the recount by 2,000-plus votes, and if the Canvassing Board overturned most of the challenges and gave Coleman the victory, it would APPEAR as if the Canvassing Board “fixed” the election for Coleman. For liberals, perception “is” reality, and giving the “perception” that Franken “won” is more important than his actually having the votes to win.

As things are, Coleman is winning the recount of unchallenged ballots by 215 – 63 = 152 votes as of now, and the recount with challenged ballots excluded (but not yet judged) by 340 votes. The only way Franken can win is if the supposedly impartial Canvassing Board finds a higher fraction of Coleman challenges to be frivolous than Franken challenges.

It’s possible that the Coleman campaign is aware of frivolous challenges by the Franken campaign, and is determined to make an equal number of challenges to avoid the APPEARANCE that the recount is swinging the election to Franken before the challenges are resolved.

Wow– Reid better be careful with insulting his constituents. He ought to look at what happened to Murtha after he called the people of PA racist rednecks!

Don’t underestimate the underhandedness of Harry Reid and the Dems’ ruthless hunger for their 60 seats.

chunderroad on December 2, 2008 at 11:09 AM

at which time I will cease to pay income taxes.

Minnesota Recount: Franken retreats on challenges

Yes, it is best for him to concede while he still has his dignity.

Tommy_G on December 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Awesome…the ultimate sarc…

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states: “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members…”

Doesn’t the Seventeenth Amendment say that Senators from each state are elected by the people thereof? In the event of a recount, the official “judge” representing the people of Minnesota is the Minnesota Canvassing Board. Let THEM judge the contested ballots, add them to the uncontested ballots, and whoever has more votes is Senator from Minnesota for the next six years.

If the United States Senate had the right to overturn Senatorial election results, once a party got a majority in the Senate, they could simply “select” successors without bothering with elections, and establish a 100-seat monopoly on the Senate within six years, and no Cabinet picks or Supreme Court justices appointed by Presidents of the opposite party could ever be confirmed. The fact that this hasn’t happened since the 17th Amendment was passed (with several changes of majority party) shows that this is clearly unconstitutional.