Percy_Peabody on December 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM

………need any help!

Sounds to me like you just brought another Al Franken into the world.

You simply can’t force someone to write something on their own blog. But even if you could, is the ‘him too’ defense all you’ve got to support Franken?

Another projection based on today’s numbers:

Currently Coleman is 316 votes ahead:

There are only 2 counties yet to count. Allocating the rest of the votes as the votes to date have gone gives Franken another 48 votes. Coleman leads by 236.

By my count, 316 – 48 = 268, not 236.

Here’s a range for the contested ballots. Method 1 is very good for Coleman. This apportions the contested ballots according to the vote totals in the county, less 20% for truly bad ballots. This gives Coleman 80 additional votes and he wins by 296 votes.

If the 80 additonal votes are correct, this would give Coleman a lead of 268 + 80 = 348. But Method 1 doesn’t seem accurate. An analysis of challenged ballots in 6 counties shows that Method 2 is probably more accurate.

Method 2 assumes that 20% of the ballots are truly bad, and the other 80% goes for the opponent of the person who challenges the ballot. This gives Franken an additional 125 votes since Coleman has the most challenges. In this case Coleman wins by 111 votes.

Coleman has made 156 more challenges than Franken, so this would give Franken a net of 0.80 x 156 = 125 votes. This would give Coleman a lead of 268 – 125 = 143 votes.

From the challenged ballots I’ve looked at, only about 5% to 10% of them are truly “bad”, where no vote can be allocated. I’m assuming that those showing Franken votes were challenged by Coleman, and those showing Coleman votes were challenged by Franken. In this case, Franken would pick up between 0.90 x 156 = 140 and 0.95 x 156 = 148 votes in the challenges, leaving a Coleman lead between 120 and 128 votes.

Of course, there are a few unknowns that could throw this estimation off. Are Franken challenges more likely to be frivolous than Coleman challenges? Are urban voters (who favor Franken) more likely to make challengeable mistakes on ballots than rural and suburban voters, who favor Coleman? Will the Canvassing Board give votes to a candidate receiving an X or check mark in his oval, when the voter made the same marks in other races? Will they give votes to a candidate getting a completely-filled oval when an opponent has a dot or partially-filled oval? Will they give a vote for a filled-in oval if there is another filled-in oval with an X over it, or will that be tossed out as an overvote?

A lot will depend on the criteria used by the Canvassing Board to evaluate the challenged ballots. There are a lot of them that any impartial observer would consider as valid votes for either candidate. Hopefully, they will develop fair criteria for judging these ballots, and apply them impartially to all challenged ballots, regardless of which candidate each ballot appears to favor.

Man alive, I haven’t even gotten to the Congressmen yet; I need to take a break for a minute.

Bishop on December 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM

Just because there are fools everywhere, it doesn’t excuse the ones in Minnesota.

Marc Elias, Team Franken’s attorney, says that the withdrawals won’t affect the outcome of the election. If that’s true, why did they issue those challenges in the first place?

The same reason ACORN exists: To whittle away at our faith in the very process.

Currently Coleman is 316 votes ahead:

There are only 2 counties yet to count. Allocating the rest of the votes as the votes to date have gone gives Franken another 48 votes. Coleman leads by 236.

Here’s a range for the contested ballots. Method 1 is very good for Coleman. This apportions the contested ballots according to the vote totals in the county, less 20% for truly bad ballots. This gives Coleman 80 additional votes and he wins by 296 votes.

Method 2 assumes that 20% of the ballots are truly bad, and the other 80% goes for the opponent of the person who challenges the ballot. This gives Franken an additional 125 votes since Coleman has the most challenges. In this case Coleman wins by 111 votes.

So, overall I’m giving a range of 111 to 296 for Coleman, depending on how the contested ballots come out.

YYZ on December 4, 2008 at 11:44 AM

A perfect excuse to “turn up” more votes then. And of course those newly discovered will be heavily in favor of one candidate only.

If that’s true, why did they issue those challenges in the first place?

Because they attempt to get through each ballot in about 5 seconds and there’s not a lot of time to make a judgement, so they err on the side of caution.

It’s disingenuous of you to pretend the Coleman doesn’t have frivolous challenges, considering there have been numerous challenges from him shown on the net to be frivolous (include many that were challenged because those who voted for Franken also voted for McCain).

How many other useless challenges from Team Franken remain in the 2000+ challenges still extant?

Probably less than Coleman, now that they’ve withdrawn 600.

The precinct recounted the ballots and discovered a discrepancy in the count, not ballots that never appeared to exist until weeks after the election. Recounts exist to correct those kinds of errors.

Are you implying that the ballots found in Maplewood should not be counted? They are legal ballots that were misplaced and not counted on election day. Should this kind of human error not be correct during a recount?

Tom_Shipley on December 4, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Uh, Tom, please be aware that what you’re saying is the Team Coleman is doing exactly what Team Franken is doing. To which I say “FINALLY!!!!!”. It’s about time the Repubs found a pair and decided to fight back.
Tom-sounds like you don’t like that.
Well, buck up buddy. I’m counting on this type of approach to be the “Hope and Change” of the Republican Party, to borrow a phrase with which you might be familiar.

The comedian counts on shills like Shipley to go around trolling boards demanding that Coleman give up his “frivolous” claims.

Right on cue, Shipley. You and your ilk are more transparent than you think.

You were silent on government snooping, so you must be in favor of it, or else you are dishonest.

Actually, using your logic, you should agree with me. Ed is silent about Coleman’s frivolous challenges, so he must be OK with them.

I’m pointing out that there’s something wrong here if he’s OK with Coleman’s frivolous challenges, but not with Franken’s.

Tom_Shipley on December 4, 2008 at 11:25 AM

I’m not the one who has a problem with Ed writing about what he wants to write about. Where has Ed said he’s ok with Norm’s frivolous challenges. If Ed’s silent about it it does not mean he agrees with it, don’t put words into his mouth.

Franken is the losing candidate, and but for his challenges Norm Coleman would already be declared the winner.

So it’s OK for the leading candidate to have frivolous challenges?

Tom_Shipley on December 4, 2008 at 11:20 AM

I doubt Norm would be making any challenges if he was declared the winner and Al conceded. The whole process is being driven by Franken, which is why there’s a focus on what Franken is doing.

According to the Franken people, There are fewer recounted votes in that precinct than there were voters on November 4.

So, they argue, the votes weren’t double counted, but a lot are missing.

Link to liberal, but not crazy, website (fivethirtyeight.com).

It’s also worth noting that some people speculate that the Coleman team spiked their challenges at one point in the recount to defer more of Franken’s votes until after the challenged ballots are looked at, thus raising Coleman’s lead in the “official” recount.

Now, that’s just speculation. And, in the end, it doesn’t really matter why they challenge specific ballots because in the end, they will be looked at and counted (or not) depending on the opinion of the election judges.

IMHO, it’s highly possible, even probable, that the Coleman team made just as many frivolous challenges as the Franken team. But Coleman is not only fighting Franken, but also the MEDIA. If Franken’s campaign challenged 3,000 perfectly valid Coleman votes because people wrote in their names for County Judge or dog-catcher, or slightly over-filled the Coleman oval, or voted for both Obama and Coleman, and the Coleman campaign didn’t respond tit-for-tat, what would the media be publishing for the last two weeks?

Minnesota Senate Recount: Franken Lead Rises to 2,800–Coleman Refuses to Concede

Then, if the review of the challenged ballots showed Coleman winning by between 100 and 200 votes, we would be treated to:

Canvassing Board Throws Election to Coleman–Was there Foul Play?

Perception IS reality when it comes to politics, where most voters are unaware of the facts. So the Coleman campaign HAD to make challenges on the same criteria that the Franken campaign did, so that there was no PERCEPTION that the recount was favoring Franken, unless VALID VOTES (not frivolous challenges) were found for Franken.

Let’s face it, this election is very nearly tied, and human nature being what it is, Coleman voters and Franken voters are equally likely to mis-mark their ballots, change their minds, or mess around by writing in the Lizard People or the Beatles. Hopefully, the intent of these voters will be fairly and accurately discerned by a hopefully impartial Canvassing Board.

But when the opponent (Franken) plays dirty, a candidate must meet him head-to-head in the arena, and not try to be too clean. Look what happened to Bob Dole and John McCain.