Al Franken Leads in Minn After Recount

Now that there has been a full recount,will Coleman do the right thing and concede like he wanted Franken to do the day after the election? Oh,and that explosion you're hearing? It's BillO Reilly's head

Franken’s Lead Widens in Senate Recount
By Kate Phillips

Late last night, Democrat Al Franken appeared to widen his lead in the Minnesota Senate race to about 225 votes as the state’s Canvassing Board finished counting absentee ballots that had earlier been rejected.

The tally is still considered unofficial, however. The Canvassing Board resumes its meetings on Monday, and may validate the new totals including those absentee ballots later this week.

But the Minnesota Supreme Court is weighing a challenge on the recount by incumbent Senator Norm Coleman, the Republican whose first term expired yesterday. Yet the likelihood that the state court would overturn a decision by the state board remains slim.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/frankens-lead-widens-in-senate-recount/

So what exactly do you like about Franken? How do you think he will benefit the Democratic party? Or would you like to simply like to see him win the seat because he's a (D)? He's wayyyy too left IMO.

Ohhmama wrote:

So what exactly do you like about Franken? How do you think he will benefit the Democratic party? Or would you like to simply like to see him win the seat because he's a (D)? He's wayyyy too left IMO.

IMO Franken is in the same boat as Caroline Kennedy, who BTW has been known as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for many years now but has since dropped the Schlossberg for the sake of the Senate seat. Neither one are qualified for the seat and are running on name recognition only.

If Franken has the most votes in the end then he should get the seat. That's the way our system works.

For the record, I voted Democrat this past election.

Ohhmama wrote:

So what exactly do you like about Franken? How do you think he will benefit the Democratic party? Or would you like to simply like to see him win the seat because he's a (D)? He's wayyyy too left IMO.

His stands on the issues are basically the same as mine. He's strong on education,opposed the 700 Billion bailout because it only helped Wall St,favors Universal health insurance,and wants to investigate misappropriations in Iraq.

His election was second on my wish list,Obama's election was first. Last but not least....It's going to drive BillO absolutely nuts

party42 wrote:

IMO Franken is in the same boat as Caroline Kennedy, who BTW has been known as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for many years now but has since dropped the Schlossberg for the sake of the Senate seat. Neither one are qualified for the seat and are running on name recognition only.

If Franken has the most votes in the end then he should get the seat. That's the way our system works.

For the record, I voted Democrat this past election.

Party,Comparing him to C Kennedy is wrong. He's been elected by the voters

Artie60438 wrote:

party42 wrote:

IMO Franken is in the same boat as Caroline Kennedy, who BTW has been known as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg for many years now but has since dropped the Schlossberg for the sake of the Senate seat. Neither one are qualified for the seat and are running on name recognition only.

If Franken has the most votes in the end then he should get the seat. That's the way our system works.

For the record, I voted Democrat this past election.

Party,Comparing him to C Kennedy is wrong. He's been elected by the voters

I understand that Artie but IMO neither are qualified, elected or otherwise.

I always admired Caroline Kennedy (she's the same age as I am), and wondered why in all these years gone by she never got involved in politics.


As much as I admire the "Chamelot" - I do not think she is qualified to fill Hillary's seat. In this case, I think she's just done raising her kids, and using the name to do something with her time. I strongly believe others are much more qualified, having served time and are being side-swept because she's now a "Kennedy".

She can volunteer in other capacities, not needing the money, to promote and influence as if she was seated as Hillary was. She didn't work her way there; so, in my opinion, she is using her family name to keep the legacy going.

She turned me off using, "You know" about how many times in one response while being interviewed, ya know?

Then that shot with Al Sharpton having lunch turned me off. Some things are no longer "Camelot".

party42 wrote:

I understand that Artie but IMO neither are qualified, elected or otherwise.

What makes one qualified or not? If you look at the resume of Obama, what makes you think he was qualified? What makes any politician qualified?

It's hard to take Al Franken serious about anything. He is a comedian who was on SNL for several years as a regular.

As for C. Kennedy, Urright said it best in the post above.

Obama had been working towards leading most of his adult life. Can't say the same for Franken or Kennedy.

Face wrote:

party42 wrote:

I understand that Artie but IMO neither are qualified, elected or otherwise.

What makes one qualified or not? If you look at the resume of Obama, what makes you think he was qualified? What makes any politician qualified?

Good point. I think if you're familiar with the issues and can effectively represent you constituents you're qualified.

party42 wrote:

It's hard to take Al Franken serious about anything. He is a comedian who was on SNL for several years as a regular.

As for C. Kennedy, Urright said it best in the post above.

Obama had been working towards leading most of his adult life. Can't say the same for Franken or Kennedy.

Besides SNL where he was also a head writer for years,Franken has been a political commentator,best selling author,and has written screen plays. In 2003,he served as a Fellow with Harvard's Kennedy School of Government at the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

He has a long history of being involved with politics.

Looks like I was wrong, he is good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him. He is the new Senator.

party42 wrote:

Looks like I was wrong, he is good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him. He is the new Senator.

Now lets see if Norm Coleman follows his own advice and concedes. In any event,I predict there are going to be some must-see SNL skits.

Artie60438 wrote:

party42 wrote:

Looks like I was wrong, he is good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him. He is the new Senator.

Now lets see if Norm Coleman follows his own advice and concedes. In any event,I predict there are going to be some must-see SNL skits.

If I were Norm Coleman, I would fight this election very hard!!!! I am a democrat, but I think he got screwed.

Face wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

party42 wrote:

Looks like I was wrong, he is good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him. He is the new Senator.

Now lets see if Norm Coleman follows his own advice and concedes. In any event,I predict there are going to be some must-see SNL skits.

If I were Norm Coleman, I would fight this election very hard!!!! I am a democrat, but I think he got screwed.

Why do you say that, face?

From what I've read, he simply lost the recount. If you have any info that indicates anything different, please post it when you have a moment.

Thanks!

Scorpion wrote:

Why do you say that, face?

From what I've read, he simply lost the recount. If you have any info that indicates anything different, please post it when you have a moment.

Thanks!

Funny you ask Scorpion. My nephew graduated with a poly sci degree this past spring, and was actually summoned by the DNC to help with the recount. He worked on a congressional campaign thru November. He was telling me about voter intent. While I knew it already, I simply can't understand how a partisian person can be impartial when it comes to voter intent. IMO if the ballot isn't clear, throw it out. Secondly, why were 650 or so absentee ballots thrown out? The canvessing committe is not an equal or unbiased committe, there are more democrats than republicans. On any contested ballot, in my opinion, there should be an equal amount from both sides that vote. Too many discrepancies (sp) on the entire count on the contested and absentee ballots. I don't think the recount was fair. How can you count so many ballots that "just showed up" a month later because a judge forgot (s)he had them? Those should have been thrown out. Anyone could have tampered or stuffed the box. If he got elected fairly ok, but I really don't think he did. I say the state needs to have another senate race asap, as I don't think a fair result can happen now no matter what.

Scorpion wrote:

Face wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

party42 wrote:

Looks like I was wrong, he is good enough, smart enough and doggone it people liked him. He is the new Senator.

Now lets see if Norm Coleman follows his own advice and concedes. In any event,I predict there are going to be some must-see SNL skits.

If I were Norm Coleman, I would fight this election very hard!!!! I am a democrat, but I think he got screwed.

Why do you say that, face?

From what I've read, he simply lost the recount. If you have any info that indicates anything different, please post it when you have a moment.

Thanks!

Because there seems to have been double votes counted thats why

When anyone claims to 2000 votes may have been counted twice, something needs to be investigated, and the state simply ignored that complaint totally

I realize most who support Franken would discount this but there reports from Fox that there were precincts with more vote totals than voters registered in those precincts. Regardless of whom those precincts fell to this should be just cause for an investigation.

mike3775 wrote:

Because there seems to have been double votes counted thats why

When anyone claims to 2000 votes may have been counted twice, something needs to be investigated, and the state simply ignored that complaint totally

Yeah well the last time I heard about "duplicate ballots" it was fewer than 200, not 2000. And it's a stretch to say that the "issue was ignored," since it was decided by the Supreme Court of Minnesota.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36692169.html?page=2&c=y

Quote :

The Coleman campaign will know how critical the contested 130 to 150 votes are when the state Canvassing Board counts the absentee ballots that were mistakenly rejected during the election.

The Coleman argument

The Coleman camp's claim that some votes were counted twice involves damaged ballots that couldn't be fed into voting machines on Election Night.

In those instances, election officials are supposed to make duplicates that can be machine-counted, then match the copies with the originals. But during the Senate recount, originals were sometimes found without matching duplicates.

Coleman attorney Roger Magnuson told the Supreme Court this week that those discrepancies indicate that some ballots probably were counted twice -- first when duplicates went into machines on Election Night, and again when the originals were tallied during the recount.

"This particular issue may decide the entire election," Magnuson told the court Tuesday. He asked the court to block the state Canvassing Board from finalizing the results of the recount and to order local election officials to reconcile the number of voters with the number of ballots cast and eliminate any twice-counted ballots.

But during arguments, several justices raised questions about the conclusion that double counting occurred and raised the possibility that election officials may have simply neglected to make duplicates or failed to enter them into machines.

"Can't we assume that the election judge simply forgot to create a duplicate ballot?" asked Justice Helen Meyer.

http://m.kare11.com/news.jsp?key=98049&rc=lo

Quote :

Coleman's lawyers argued Tuesday that 130-150 votes were "double counted" during the statewide manual recount, and they said counties should be asked to re-examine their numbers to find discrepancies.

The court rejected the request in a unanimous decision.

Coleman's lead recount attorney Fritz Knaak said he was "deeply disappointed."

tater wrote:

I realize most who support Franken would discount this but there reports from Fox that there were precincts with more vote totals than voters registered in those precincts. Regardless of whom those precincts fell to this should be just cause for an investigation.

I wouldn't discount any such evidence. I just haven't seen any.

i haven't seen any actual evidence either, my comment was generally concerningdemocrats who think fox is a shill for republicans not any one democrat in particular here or elswhere.

Face wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Why do you say that, face?

From what I've read, he simply lost the recount. If you have any info that indicates anything different, please post it when you have a moment.

Thanks!

Funny you ask Scorpion. My nephew graduated with a poly sci degree this past spring, and was actually summoned by the DNC to help with the recount. He worked on a congressional campaign thru November. He was telling me about voter intent. While I knew it already, I simply can't understand how a partisian person can be impartial when it comes to voter intent. IMO if the ballot isn't clear, throw it out.

It depends on what the criteria is for determining "intent." I mean, if a voter uses a check mark, instead of an "X" to indicate his choice, then I don't think it's at all fair to "throw out" that voter's ballot.

Face wrote:

Secondly, why were 650 or so absentee ballots thrown out? The canvessing committe is not an equal or unbiased committe, there are more democrats than republicans. On any contested ballot, in my opinion, there should be an equal amount from both sides that vote.

I couldn't agree more, but I thought that it was standard to have an equal number of representatives from each party on canvassing boards, at least at the county level. I know that the State Board is 4 judges and the Secretary of State... is that what you're talking about?

Face wrote:

How can you count so many ballots that "just showed up" a month later because a judge forgot (s)he had them? Those should have been thrown out. Anyone could have tampered or stuffed the box.

If it's true that the "chain of custody" of those ballots can't be assured, then I agree.

Face wrote:

If he got elected fairly ok, but I really don't think he did. I say the state needs to have another senate race asap, as I don't think a fair result can happen now no matter what.

I seriously doubt if there will be another race, but it's possible that there may be another recount if the courts determine it to be necessary.

tater wrote:

i haven't seen any actual evidence either, my comment was generally concerning democrats who think fox is a shill for republicans not any one democrat in particular here or elswhere.

What I meant by evidence is that I haven't seen any stories about it. Do you happen to have a link?

There is something fishy going on in Minnesota right now

I could careless who wins, I think Franken could be a good senator, but right now, it seems that courts have rushed through to get this done prior to tomorrow's swearing in, and to me that is wrong

What they need to do is get all the ballots that are "suspicious" and have a long hard look at them, and then re-do the recount, just to be fair


I am saying this because come Jan 20th, there will not be 100 Senators seated anyways(Biden, Illinois, Minnesota), so what is the rush to get Minnesota's in?

Scorpion wrote:

tater wrote:

i haven't seen any actual evidence either, my comment was generally concerning democrats who think fox is a shill for republicans not any one democrat in particular here or elswhere.

What I meant by evidence is that I haven't seen any stories about it. Do you happen to have a link?

Honestly had the TV on while doing something else and had heard it , not sure if it was a "news story" or commentary from a show.