First absentees counted in Alaska: Joe Miller gains 900 votes

posted at 7:23 pm on November 9, 2010 by Allahpundit

A spark of hope, but not much more than a spark right now, alas:

The Division of Elections has put out a big statewide update, which includes the districts reported already as well as new ones (will take a little time to figure out just which ones.)

The bottom line in the update is that the state is now reporting that it’s counted over 8,000 absentee and early votes today.

The write-ins lead Joe Miller by 12,525 votes. That represents a 914 vote gain for Miller in today’s count of absentee and early votes. The write-in lead was 13,439 the start of the day.

According to Miller in the clip below, there are roughly 37,000 absentees outstanding. If he continues to gain at this pace, he’ll end up somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 votes down at the end of the absentee counting, which means he’ll have to make up the difference in write-ins — either via write-in votes for him or by disqualifying ambiguous ballots that would otherwise go to Murkowski. He says in the clip that the disqualification rate in 1998, the last time someone in Alaska mounted a write-in bid, was eight percent. If that held true for Murkowski’s pool, it would knock 6,500 or so votes off her lead, which … still leaves him a few thousand votes short. And that’s assuming, of course, that Murky’s high-profile voter education campaign on how to properly write in a candidate’s name did nothing to improve the error rate from 1998.

Realistically, I think, he’s got to gain at a greater rate among the rest of the absentees. And he might: His strongholds are Fairbanks and the Mat-Su Valley, and it’s unclear from the ADN report quoted above whether they’ve been counted yet. (They hadn’t as of a few hours ago.) Also, Conservatives4Palin notes that he’s doing about eight percent better among absentees than he did on election day whereas the write-ins are doing about eight percent worse. That makes sense: Miller faded near the end of the campaign, so ballots mailed earlier on should break more heavily for him than ballots cast on election day. Fingers crossed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I hope Murkowski wins. McConnell needs her in the Senate. /

portlandon on November 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM

I despise daddy’s little princess. I really do.

amerpundit on November 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM

The People are watching Alaska.

Egfrow on November 9, 2010 at 7:27 PM

I don’t think he’s gonna pull this out. Alaskans deserve the pathetic sore loser they apparently voted in.

changer1701 on November 9, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Murky times in AK.

profitsbeard on November 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM

I need to hear from Upinak. She needs to throw some cold water on this…

Lanceman on November 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM

The Great Alaskan Spelling Contest continues….

How soon before we hear “spell….Lisa Murkowski” in the National Spelling Bee?

Hang in there Joe!

ted c on November 9, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Pelosi staying, and the possibility of daddys princess coming back are just to unbearable to think about. THUD

capejasmine on November 9, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Crossed fingers!

madmonkphotog on November 9, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I know that I should be looking at this as a win/win but it sets such a bad precedent that I will have a hard time cheering for Sen. Murkowski.

Cindy Munford on November 9, 2010 at 7:30 PM

I think Alaska is getting the candidate they deserve if they actually voted for the little princess. Seriously, should we just write off the entire west coast? The only thing good from there is Sarah!

Cookies Mom on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Can someone answer me this: How does she have such a seemingly large lead when she was defeated in the primary?

In other words – voters said “no thank you” at the first chance they got but in the second look, they voted for her.

What gives?

RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Praying for Joe

Kini on November 9, 2010 at 7:34 PM

Was wondering exactly the same thing RedNewEnglander.

WitchDoctor on November 9, 2010 at 7:35 PM

Seeing as how people were provided a list with Murky’s name on it I would assume that any misspellings will not count, right?

cadams on November 9, 2010 at 7:35 PM

RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Democrats would rather hand the win to Murky and leave their candidate out in the cold than give Palin a win.

Dead Hand Control on November 9, 2010 at 7:36 PM

I don’t respect those who voted for Murkowski anymore than I respect Obama voters. She should have slunk off into the shadows.

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 7:36 PM

Seeing as how people were provided a list with Murky’s name on it I would assume that any misspellings will not count, right?

cadams on November 9, 2010 at 7:35 PM

No…”Joe Miller” means “Lisa Murkowski” in alaska. Just like “Sharron Angle” meant “Harry Reid” in Nevada.

those guys up therre just need to get it right….

ted c on November 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM

I think Alaska is getting the candidate they deserve if they actually voted for the little princess. Seriously, should we just write off the entire west coast? The only thing good from there is Sarah!

Cookies Mom on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

I’m with you, entirely!

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Never forget, the GOP Apparatchiks propelled Murkowski to victory. Had she not kept her Energy Committee seniority or not been able to convincingly claim to Alaska voters that the GOP Establishment wanted her to win, Lisa Murkowski would have gotten clobbered. The most any of the GOP Senate leadership did for Miller was the “I support the party nominee” non-endorsement they would have given even if it had been a child molester who had successfully primaried Murkowski. The icing on the cake was their decision to attack McAdams instead of Murkowski which played right into Lisa’s campaign strategy of picking up Democratic votes. This loss lays at the feet of McConnell, Hatch, Thune, KBH, and Cornyn all of whom came to Murk’s aid. Shame on them and shame on us if we forget about this betrayal of the will of the GOP voters.

Raisedbywolves on November 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Is it just me, or does “Write-In” actually imply “Lisa Murkowski”? Because, merely “Write-In” only indicates that whomever cast that ballot did not select any of the balloted candidates and one cannot assume that just because one is a write in vote, that it is a vote for Lisa Murkowski.

ted c on November 9, 2010 at 7:39 PM

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

rickyricardo on November 9, 2010 at 7:42 PM

From Washington Times editorial on Senate GOP Conference letting Murkowski retain Energy Committee seniority

“However, if the Senate GOP caucus decision on Wednesday hurts Mr. Miller in anyway, names will be taken and voters in the conservative base of the Republican Party will remember.”

http://bit.ly/aLOaEQ

WILL WE REMEMBER??? If we don’t, it will happen again and again and again.

Raisedbywolves on November 9, 2010 at 7:47 PM

Alaskan voters have lost all credibility if Murkowski ends up winning this.

Crux Australis on November 9, 2010 at 7:49 PM

And he might: His strongholds are Fairbanks and the Mat-Su Valley, and it’s unclear from the ADN report quoted above whether they’ve been counted yet.

No they have not been counted. But here is something not everyone knows. He didn’t carry Fairbanks for those who went to the polls on election day.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:51 PM

Alaskan voters have lost all credibility if Murkowski ends up winning this.

Crux Australis on November 9, 2010 at 7:49 PM

Really?

I really don’t think Alaska cares what the outside thinks anymore, or ever.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Lisa Murkowski brings home the bacon. She brings home the cold hard cash that greases the wheels of commerce in Alaska.

Its the hard facts.

Alaska voting for Murlaska is just like Pennsylvania always sending Murtha back every election.

portlandon on November 9, 2010 at 7:54 PM

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM

I am so happy to see you back!..Are you going to hang around for the QOTD..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 7:54 PM

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:51 PM

did you vote for him, if you don’t mind me asking?

ted c on November 9, 2010 at 7:54 PM

Have they counted the military yet? I would think they would go with Joe not the old hag lasi!
L

letget on November 9, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Really?

I really don’t think Alaska cares what the outside thinks anymore, or ever.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

They might if the pork spigot suddenly turned off, and the feds still controlled all that land in the ANWR.

clement on November 9, 2010 at 7:58 PM

I really don’t think Alaska cares what the outside thinks anymore, or ever.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Well! I never!

Lanceman on November 9, 2010 at 7:58 PM

he’ll end up somewhere between 9,000 and 10,000 votes down at the end of the absentee counting

Actually no, he’ll end up between 8k and 9k…

But I think it’s naive to think that the disqualification rate will be as high when there is a high profile writein bid… but I’d love to be proven wrong…

ninjapirate on November 9, 2010 at 7:59 PM

Is it just me, or does “Write-In” actually imply “Lisa Murkowski”? Because, merely “Write-In” only indicates that whomever cast that ballot did not select any of the balloted candidates and one cannot assume that just because one is a write in vote, that it is a vote for Lisa Murkowski.

ted c on November 9, 2010 at 7:39 PM

I looked at write-in rates in 2006 and 2008 Alaska elections for Senate and House, and they ran between 0.10% and 0.36%. That tells me that the write-ins correctly done for other-than-Lisa will probably be similar this year.

The disqualification rate is not entirely an error rate, some of those will be spoiled on purpose, like when someone writes in ‘none of the above’ or ‘Howard Stern’.

slickwillie2001 on November 9, 2010 at 8:00 PM

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 7:54 PM

I will if Allah doesn’t wait around all night. I have to be up bright and early.

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM

What are the odds that there are more votes than registered voters in Alaska?

ctmom on November 9, 2010 at 8:02 PM

Ballots to nowhere.

pedestrian on November 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM

POETIC JUSTICE:

Lisa wins and the GOP senate refuses earmarks…..

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM

I will if Allah doesn’t wait around all night. I have to be up bright and early.

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Good Deal!..:)

Dire Straits on November 9, 2010 at 8:10 PM

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 8:09 PM

Not if McConnell can help it!

Wait a minute didn’t McConnell support Murkys keeping her seniority?

D.C. Insider elites, Progressive Repubs vs. We The People!

This loss lays at the feet of McConnell, Hatch, Thune, KBH, and Cornyn all of whom came to Murk’s aid. Shame on them and shame on us if we forget about this betrayal of the will of the GOP voters.

Raisedbywolves on November 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM

Good luck Joe, I would really love to see her face when the moment she found she lost!

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 8:16 PM

Really?

I really don’t think Alaska cares what the outside thinks anymore, or ever.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

but you sure love your pork out there, feeding off of everyone else with your paws constantly out looking for more.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 8:17 PM

Wait a minute didn’t McConnell support Murkys keeping her seniority?

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM

One of his pets!

He lost a few others though, why he was against Rand Paul also.

bluemarlin on November 9, 2010 at 8:19 PM

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM

yeap us vs them….too bad the GOP elite are the them this time around…:)

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Not as OT as it would seem:
Michele Bachman on OReilly…someone has given her media coaching (IMO). I’ve always loved her, but she used to come off as very shrill. This time, poised, reasoned, focused, sotto voce and AWESOME!
And (I’m slightly tearful), totally toned down Miny-souda accent. (Meaning, is she becoming phoney?) Gosh, such a mixed message. Still she remains strong to her principles!
Am I bi-polar if I still have a girl crush on her???

Chewy the Lab on November 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Have they actually dtermined how many write-ins were for Murkowsky yet? Have they started?

Mr_Magoo on November 9, 2010 at 8:27 PM

GI Joe is on the write-in ballots as well. Let’s hope he wins.

dthorny on November 9, 2010 at 8:32 PM

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:14 PM

yeap us vs them….too bad the GOP elite are the them this time around…:)

unseen on November 9, 2010 at 8:21 PM

Not Bad at all. This is a fight that must be embraced and won if we are to reclaim our country and its ideals of freedom and liberty unencumbered by big government!

the RINO’s, the Progressive and limp wristed Repubs opened the door just far enough to let the full blown Communist/Marxists in and they must be driven from the halls of power in order to effect real reform.

Sick em Sarah!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:32 PM

Gosh, such a mixed message. Still she remains strong to her principles!
Am I bi-polar if I still have a girl crush on her???

Chewy the Lab on November 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM

Did you catch the false premise the bogus question OReally tried to bully her into three times. Is your number one priority to work with or defeat OBlahBlah?

Michelle,
“My number one priority is to do the best job I can for the American people!”

OReally, “oh common thats’ not what I asked Blablablabla.”
Oh and I won’t pick on you I know your sick tonight I(and not up to taking on me the genius tonight)

I wish someone would tell OReaklly to Ef himself, I can’t stand that pompous gasbag. he creeps me out always havin on the good lookin women and tryin to play Mr. Superior.
In high school we had a term for jerks like him and suffice it to say they hung out around the (girls) bicycles!

Now hes’ on the full body scan thing with the good lookin girls. I can imagine that creep hangin out behind the curtain peepin at women and little boys and even guys the creeper and don’t worry ya old fool no-one wants to pat your old tired ass down. Jerkoff!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:42 PM

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Wow…what was that?

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 8:47 PM

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 8:47 PM

Sorry,
I just can’t stand OReally hes’ a condescending jerk who likes to play tough guy and wee wees all over himself when faced with a good interview. Hes’ all about tryin to score an ObalhaBlah interview then kisses OblahBlah butt when he gets one!

What really pissed me off on OReally was when he was whining about no-one told him, the smart guy, about the market crash!

He’s so smart he should have figured it out and a lot of folks with a lot less than him were hurt by it, some of us weren’t!
Bret Baier is a much better interviewer and host!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:54 PM

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 8:54 PM

But…but…he’s just looking out of the folks!

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 9:02 PM

For the…

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 9:03 PM

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Hes’ lookin out for himself!

Sorry for the rant he pisses me off I can’t stand the guy!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM

I don’t think he’s gonna pull this out. Alaskans deserve the pathetic sore loser they apparently voted in.

changer1701 on November 9, 2010 at 7:28 PM

Maybe we shoulda pulled out before Alaska was born.

SirGawain on November 9, 2010 at 9:12 PM

Go Joe! Take out that corrupt, self-entitled cow!

American Elephant on November 9, 2010 at 9:12 PM

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 9:11 PM

There’s no doubt he is an egotistical fool. We are on the same page there.

TXMomof3 on November 9, 2010 at 9:15 PM

Can someone answer me this: How does she have such a seemingly large lead when she was defeated in the primary?

RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Not all the write-ins are for Princess Lisa.

In addition, election officials will find that some people could not spell her name correctly.

slp on November 9, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Not all the write-ins are for Princess Lisa.

In addition, election officials will find that some people could not spell her name correctly.

slp on November 9, 2010 at 9:21 PM

It’s not clear that the AK laws require her last name to be written correctly in order for a write-in vote to count.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 9:31 PM

I really don’t think Alaska cares what the outside thinks anymore, or ever.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Never did, never will.

but you sure love your pork out there, feeding off of everyone else with your paws constantly out looking for more.

Daemonocracy on November 9, 2010 at 8:17 PM

And you are from somewhere that never got any earmarks, even for all your military bases, cold war defenses, or infrastructure, right?

Oh, and your state is locked up with over 50% of the land held by the feds, right? Right?

Remove head from butt before being so nasty, please.

tcn on November 9, 2010 at 9:39 PM

Update, 5:17 p.m.:

The Division of Elections has posted a new update in the ballot count.

It lists over 22,000 absentee and early votes counted today.

The current total has write-ins leading Joe Miller by 11,557 votes.

That means Miller has picked up 1,882 votes in today’s count.

The Division of Elections now says it’s counting 28,927 ballots today and the full results will be available later tonight.

That’s the vast majority of absentee ballots the state has received, so there won’t be many of them left to count next week.

–His rate of gain has slowed.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Regarding the write-in ballots:

I agree that assuming the 1998 write-in disqualification rate of 8% will apply in 2010 is probably a mistake. Because this write-in campaign was more highly publicized, that changes the dynamic, and the error rate was probably less.

On the other hand, consider this: As far as I know, there was only 1 write-in candidate in 1994. This year there were more than 150. That also changes the dynamic.

Each of those write-in candidates probably got his or her own vote. And probably a few more from immediate family. And perhaps a few more from work or neighbors. Some may have received dozens more by telling friends at the local pub, bowling league, church group or quilting club, or by calling in to a radio station. (If I had qualified as a certified write-in candidate for the ballot in a Senate election, I know I would certainly tell scores of people.) It’s impossible to know what the average number of votes will be for each of these write-ins, but it is not unreasonable to assume 10, 20 or even 30. That would translate into 1,500, 3,000 or even 4,500 of the write-in votes being for someone other than Murkowski.

These votes for other write-in candidates might be “jokes,” but they may surprise the Princess and the pundits.

SwampYankee on November 9, 2010 at 9:54 PM

FYI:
The law (In Alaska) says “A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.” There are other requirements, but this one is the most important.

Additionally, the law appears to leave no room for discretion, “The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.” I assume the law was written this way to make it difficult for write in efforts to succeed in order to discourage sore loser candidacies.

H/T Clubforgrowth

Nelsa on November 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

I despise daddy’s little princess. I really do.

amerpundit on November 9, 2010 at 7:26 PM

Me, too. She has about the same level of talent and qualification to serve in the U.S. Senate as Babskank Boxer.

Jaibones on November 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Why do I suspect there is going to be a big fight over the OTHER write in candidate whose name can also be abreviated ‘Lisa M’?

Freddy on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

Freddy on November 9, 2010 at 10:19 PM

I was hoping for “Lisa Jo Miller”. Or Liza Minnelli! :)

Nelsa on November 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Never forget, the GOP Apparatchiks propelled Murkowski to victory. Had she not kept her Energy Committee seniority or not been able to convincingly claim to Alaska voters that the GOP Establishment wanted her to win, Lisa Murkowski would have gotten clobbered.
Raisedbywolves on November 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM

Right. Never forget.

rrpjr on November 9, 2010 at 10:25 PM

If Murky wins, I commend Alaskans as the “Best in Odd Name -Spelling” constituents in America.

If Murky loses, I declare Alaskans as “Odd Name – Spelling Illiterate”.

MURKY, YOUR VOTER SPELLING-NAME EDUCATION WILL DECIDE THE FATE OF YOUR PEOPLE! BWAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, MURKY AND YOUR ALASKAN SUPPORTERS, WHAT’S THE HONOR IN THIS? NONE. IT’S ALL ABOUT, EH, EARMARKS/PORKS, RIGHT?

TheAlamos on November 9, 2010 at 10:35 PM

Really?

I really don’t think Alaska cares what the outside thinks anymore, or ever.

upinak on November 9, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Considering that this election seems to be mostly about keeping all the federal money flowing into Alaska, I’d disagree with that assessment.

Asher on November 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Can someone answer me this: How does she have such a seemingly large l Head when she was defeated in the primary?

RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

Fixed Dat!

dhunter on November 9, 2010 at 10:37 PM

Not all the write-ins are for Princess Lisa.

In addition, election officials will find that some people could not spell her name correctly.

slp on November 9, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Intent of the voter, don’t you know. They were counting dimpled chads back in 2000 for Al Gore…it’s a lot easier to claim a write in vote for “Windy Lupika” is really a vote for Princess.

Speaking of her majesty, did you see her cameo in a recent music video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGbucSjSLDw

I believe she’s the one with the fire extinguisher.

Asher on November 9, 2010 at 10:40 PM

The law (In Alaska) says “A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate .” There are other requirements, but this one is the most important.and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided

Additionally, the law appears to leave no room for discretion, “The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.” I assume the law was written this way to make it difficult for write in efforts to succeed in order to discourage sore loser candidacies.

H/T Clubforgrowth

Nelsa on November 9, 2010 at 10:12 PM

“and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided”–That doesn’t seem to require that the last name of the candidate written on the write-in ballot be identical to the name written on the write-in declaration of candidacy.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Ditzy drama queen murkowski still believes in the fairy tale “divine right of kings”, i.e., with her bloodline, she’s ENTITLED to her office! That’s the stupid frickin’ “ruling class” mentality that got the country into the mess it’s in in the first place, since these “public servants” (money-grubbing, power-hungry weasels on the public dole) are so detached from the moon-faced, unwashed masses they purport to represent.

A POX UPON HER and HER HOUSE!

bannedbyhuffpo on November 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 10:42 PM

You are right! I totally screwed up that cut and paste:
Here is how the article actually read:

The law says “A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.” There are other requirements, but this one is the most important.

Additionally, the law appears to leave no room for discretion, “The rules set out in this section are mandatory and there are no exceptions to them. A ballot may not be counted unless marked in compliance with these rules.” I assume the law was written this way to make it difficult for write in efforts to succeed in order to discourage sore loser candidacies.

Nelsa on November 9, 2010 at 11:03 PM

The law says “A vote for a write-in candidate, other than a write-in vote for governor and lieutenant governor, shall be counted if the oval is filled in for that candidate and if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided

Thanks, Nelsa. I still don’t think the law requires that, in a case where only the last name is written on a write-in ballot, that the last name as written must be identical to the one written in the declaration of candidacy. It’s a closer question in the situation where a write-in ballot contains the first and last name; if the law said that the name as written on the write-in ballot must be identical to that as it appears on the declaration of candidacy, then there wouldn’t be any question.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Go Joe!

Show the balls Coleman didn’t in Minny!

Challenge every damn vote.

Go for the jugular.

Murcowski is as arrogant as Franken.

Stomp her.

Bruno Strozek on November 9, 2010 at 11:27 PM

Has anyone seen any sort of breakdown of what comprises the ‘write ins’? Far as I know they could be 90% ‘Mickey Mouse’.

rayra on November 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM

Shick or Gillette would have made the difference.

DDT on November 10, 2010 at 4:40 AM

You know, if you can’t just spell the name from the list that is AVAILABLE to you when you vote then the question of ‘intent’ becomes one of your ability to actually just spell. And if you screw it up you can ask for a new ballot and get the one you were filling in destroyed because of your lack of ability to read and write.

So why would ‘intent’ matter at all when you can get a new ballot and do it right? The last name, as it appears on the declaration is available. The list of all write-in names is available. New ballots are available if you screw it up. So what is up with ‘intent’ instead of just doing your duty as a citizen to get the name, as it is spelled right before your very eyes, RIGHT? If you don’t care enough to follow the law and actually bother to fill in the name, as required, then you are not taking proper care of your civil right and exercising it in accordance with he laws set up by your fellow citizens through your representative government. That is the clear intent of the law: for you to dot the i’s and cross the t’s to show that you understand the law and follow through with it. If your ‘intent’ is to write a name in, you only need to get the last name RIGHT to demonstrate your ‘intent’ to follow the law. Is that so very, very, very hard to do with the name sitting right in front of your face?

ajacksonian on November 10, 2010 at 7:07 AM

Miller needs a miracle but i will cross my fingers and toes and pray for one. It drives me absolutely batty that people complain about elitist, condescending, typical politicians and then elect one over a good conservative in a conservative state.

alecj on November 10, 2010 at 8:29 AM

Has anyone seen any sort of breakdown of what comprises the ‘write ins’? Far as I know they could be 90% ‘Mickey Mouse’.

rayra on November 10, 2010 at 12:41 AM

It is my understanding that no one has even looked at them. My “Hope” is that many of them say Joe Miller. They would be invalid votes for him, but they would reduce her numbers. Basically a 1/2 vote for him.

barnone on November 10, 2010 at 8:39 AM

Can someone answer me this: How does she have such a seemingly large lead when she was defeated in the primary?

In other words – voters said “no thank you” at the first chance they got but in the second look, they voted for her.

What gives?

RedNewEnglander on November 9, 2010 at 7:31 PM

As I recall reading, the primary had less than 30% turnout, and Miller received something like 21% – can’t remember what Lisa got. So, her supporters encouraged to run a write-in campaign because the voters “didn’t REALLY choose Miller.” You think the Lisa supporters just assumed her primary win was already in the bag? Oh, the other excuse was that she refused to be critical enough of Joe during the primary season. Well, that decision has been made before by other candidates. Remember McCain in 2008?

LindaDinNev on November 10, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Has anyone seen any sort of breakdown of what comprises the ‘write ins’? Far as I know they could be 90% ‘Mickey Mouse’.

Given that in non-Presidential election years there are usually only a few hundred write-in votes for Senator in Alaska, it’s hard to imagine more than a few hundred being for someone other than Murkowski.

AngusMc on November 10, 2010 at 12:53 PM