Al Franken has won

[DeanCollins]

The next play in Kilmer's playbook. Lie some more.

All of you, none of you, gee what's the difference?

And now, back to repeating my previous lie. The one I got called on and can't support.

Lmao, you're on a roll today. :laugh:

[karmacop]

Utter crap.

The "legitimate votes" are determined by Democratic Judges. It's not a coincidence that there were more votes found for Franken than found for Coleman.

If this was a fair process as you claim, why have they halted the challenges and left hundred of ballots out of the counts? Why DIDNT they do that before Franken took a lead?

If it was a fair process, ALL ballots would be counted and reviewed. But that's not what is happening. And that's WHY there will be a lawsuit. And it's also WHY the Dems in the Senate lead by Schumer want Franken seated as fast as possible. They know it's harder to overturn if he takes the seat.

So Coleman will now file his lawsuits to get more votes counted. Which he should do.

It's simply too arbitrary and sneaky to count some but not all. Especially when doing so changes the outcome from election night and the recount of that result.

If Franken wants all the ballots to count, why is he not saying that anymore? Hmmmmmm.

You're confusing the issues, whether purposefully or by accident is hard to tell.

The issue with the absentee ballots was that various counties across the state improperly rejected absentee ballots for various reasons. For example, some counties rejected absentee ballots because they didn't have the date written on it by the voter. There is no state law requiring a date for the ballot to be legit, even though there is a space for "date." So that ballot should have been counted.

There were a number of other similar, technical reasons why otherwise valid absentee ballots were not counted. Each county applied different reasons, and each county improperly disqualified a different amount.

Franken's position before the Supreme Court on this issue was that ALL of these ballots, from all counties, should be opened and counted. Coleman disagreed, and instead wanted only those ballots in GOP-leaning counties to be counted. He offered no reason or jusitification for this position, but it's clear that he knew he would lose unless he rigged the absentee count by counting only his cherry-picked ballots.

The Minnesota Supreme Court "punted," and basically said that the recount could only include those absentee ballots that both sides could agree upon. Coleman refused to agree to count all of these ballots. As a result, he's now going to have to file a lawsuit.

Once again, it is Coleman that has refused to count all of the ballots, not Franken.

If Coleman files a lawsuit to get his cherry-picked absentee ballots counted, then I'm sure even you, Kilmer, would agree that the disputed Franken absentee ballots should also be counted. If that happens, then most analyists agree that Franken's lead would actually increase.

Coleman's not interested in counting all absentee ballot votes, just all GOP-leaning absentee ballot votes.

And as far as your statement that "it's not a coincidence that there were more votes found for Franken than found for Coleman," I've not seen any basis on which to criticize the various canvassing board decisions. Each of the disputed ballots was scanned onto the board's web page for all to see, and each was reviewing by a non-partisan board with both side's lawyers present to determine "the intent of the voter," which is what Minnesota's elections law requires. Do you have anything other than sour grapes to support this statement? I don't think so.

[Kilmer17]

How can any analysis conclude that Frankens lead would increase if those ballots havent been examined?

As it stands now, there are hundred if not thousands of ballots that are not officially counted.

If Franken and the Dems were unable to accept the election night results because those results didnt include all of the absentee and challenged ballots, then they should hold that same stance today.

It's not sour grapes on my end. It means little in the grand scheme. It doesnt give the Dems 60 (which I actually hoped would happen) and it puts a face on the buffoonery of the Dem party.

Unless he turns out to be a completely different person than he has shown himself to be over the last 20 years, he'll be an easy pick up for the GOP in 2014 when Obamas name isnt on the top of the ticket.

The broader point is that this is yet ANOTHER example of Dems election shenanigans. Followed by snickers and cheers by their supporters here, not to mention the mainstream press.

[karmacop]

How can any analysis conclude that Frankens lead would increase if those ballots havent been examined?

As it stands now, there are hundred if not thousands of ballots that are not officially counted.

If Franken and the Dems were unable to accept the election night results because those results didnt include all of the absentee and challenged ballots, then they should hold that same stance today.

It's not sour grapes on my end. It means little in the grand scheme. It doesnt give the Dems 60 (which I actually hoped would happen) and it puts a face on the buffoonery of the Dem party.

Unless he turns out to be a completely different person than he has shown himself to be over the last 20 years, he'll be an easy pick up for the GOP in 2014 when Obamas name isnt on the top of the ticket.

The broader point is that this is yet ANOTHER example of Dems election shenanigans. Followed by snickers and cheers by their supporters here, not to mention the mainstream press.

To repeat: Franken hasn't changed his view that all the votes should be counted. But Coleman won't agree to count all the votes.

Instead he's insisting on counting around 650 GOP-leaning votes that were not even part of the roughly 1350 absentee ballots that the SoS identified as "improperly rejected." Instead, these new 650 votes are one that the counties and the SoS have determined were "properly rejected," for example, because they lacked a signature (which is a requirement under Minn. law).

It is ludicrous to suggest that any Dem candidate would voluntarily allow absentee ballots from GOP strongholds that were properly rejected to be counted. That's unilateral diarmament.

So to sum up:

1. Franken has always wanted all absentee ballots to be counted, but Coleman has refused.

2. Both sides agreed that certain absentee ballots were improperly rejected, and this increased Franken's lead.

3. Coleman continues to refuse to count ALL the "improperly rejected" absentee ballots that remain even though Franken is still willing to do so, and instead has cherry-picked GOP-leaning absentee ballots that were properly rejected instead.

4. Coleman (and Kilmer) shocked when Franken does not agree to count properly-rejected GOP votes without also considering a similar number of properly-rejected Dem votes.

If anyone is committing "election shenanigans" here, its Coleman and the GOP. Coleman will surely lose his court battle, because it's utterly meritless.

And you keep talking about "Democratic" courts in Minnesota. In fact, 4 of the 7 members of the Minnesota Supreme Court were appointed by GOP Gov. Pawlenty, and another one was appointed by Independent Gov. Ventura, leaving only two "Democratic" justices.

And I wouldn't be so sure about Franken losing in 2014. The third-party candidate on the ballot (Barkley) may have helped Coleman, and Minnesota is a very blue state now.

[Kilmer17]

More likely Barkley hurt Coleman. Those looking for "change" and all.

Im encouraged to here you say Franken still wants all ballots counted. I thought he was calling for it to be over.

Ive said from the get go here, let all the ballots be counted. If Franken has more, then he wins. But expecting anyone to accept the results now when their is still doubt is arrogant.

[karmacop]

I think the confusion here results from there being two "piles" of absentee votes:

1. The 1350 that the counties identified as "improperly rejected"

2. The new 650 that have been identified as "properly rejected" but which the Coleman campaign has identified and brought forward.

In pile 1, Franken has always said that they all should be counted. Coleman has never agreed to this. First he said only 170, then 700, and then finally 930 or so. These 930 are the ones that both Franken and Coleman agreed were "improperly rejected," and counting these 930 increased Franken's lead from 49 to 225. It stands to reason that if the remaining 420 ballots from this pile were also counted, Franken's lead would increase more. Coleman has continued to resist this.

In pile 2, the problem is that these ballot are cherry-picked from GOP-leaning districts. Obviously, if Coleman is right and some or all of these new ballots should have been placed in the "improperly rejected" pile instead of the "properly rejected" pile, then there will also be a few hundred of these same types of ballots in Dem-leaning districts that Coleman has not bothered to bring forward. If Coleman prevails in court on this point, Franken has his own batch of hundreds of Dem-leaning ballots that Coleman will be forced to admit must be counted as well.

The cental point for pile 2 is that Franken is not saying that he doesn't want all ballots counted by disagreeing with Coleman on these 650. First, he's saying that the counties were right that these ballots were "properly rejected." Second, he's saying that if these 650 ballots are counted, then others must be counted too out of fairness. Only those interested in spin could characterize this as Franken "not wanting all of the ballots counted."

In fact, the more egregious transgression here is Coleman's continued refusal to count the remaining 420 ballots that local officials have already identified as "improperly rejected."

The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision today summarizes all of this nicely:

The record before us with respect to petitioners' motion demonstrates that local election officials have acted diligently and in accordance with our orders, and together with the candidates have agreed upon more than 900 rejected absentee ballots, which have now been opened and counted by the Secretary of State's office.

The Coleman campaign contends that there are 654 ballots, in addition to those identified by local election officials, that should be examined, but the Franken campaign disagrees. The Franken campaign has itself identified additional ballots that it contends may have been rejected in error, but the Coleman campaign disagrees.

We take no position on the merits of either campaign's contentions. Because the parties and the respective counties have not agreed as to any of these additional ballots, the merits of this dispute (and any other disputes with respect to absentee ballots) are the proper subjects of an election contest under Minn. Stat. ch. 209.

http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/0/Public/Other/2008%20Elections/Order.1.5.09.pdf

In any event, it is highly unlikely that these 650 ballots will break so heavily in Coleman's favor to overcome the 225 vote lead, particularly because Franken can then come back with more votes of his own to cancel them out, let alone those extra 420 votes in pile 1.

[karmacop]

More likely Barkley hurt Coleman. Those looking for "change" and all.

Why would those interested in change have voted for Coleman if Barkley wasn't on the ballot? Coleman was the incumbent. Those "change" voters would have gone to Franken, right?

[Kilmer17]

Why would those interested in change have voted for Coleman if Barkley wasn't on the ballot? Coleman was the incumbent. Those "change" voters would have gone to Franken, right?

My point is that those voters wont be there for Franken in 6 years.

[Larry]

BTW, I'd like to thank the people (on both sides) whi are discussing the details of this matter, now.

I don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. (I'm learning from you folks.) But I wanted y'all to know you have an appreciative audience (of at least one). Please, continue.

[nonniey]

Well, I'm not sure the shenanigans used by the Franken camp were needed in this race as the absentee ballots were probably more that enough to give the election to Franken. However, one thing the recounts in Minnesota and Washington in 2004 (especially Washington) have convinced me of, is that Gore really would have won in 2000 if the Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in (no matter what that actual results were).

[Mordac]

Oh, boo-hoo. Isn't that jerk-wad gonna be in jail anyway? If Dem judges did throw this one to Franken they should get a freakin medal from the ppl of Minnesota. **** Coleman and his 40 million candle-power teeth. Here comes the Franken decade!

[Thiebear]

Well, I'm not sure the shenanigans used by the Franken camp were needed in this race as the absentee ballots were probably more that enough to give the election to Franken. However, one thing the recounts in Minnesota and Washington in 2004 (especially Washington) have convinced me of, is that Gore really would have won in 2000 if the Supreme Court hadn’t stepped in (no matter what that actual results were).

Thats rediculous: The NY Times and other newspapers came in to do their own count and stated Bush won.

[nonniey]

Thats rediculous: The NY Times and other newspapers came in to do their own count and stated Bush won.

Huh did you read the last line about no matter what the actual results were? The 2004 Washington State race is a perfect example. Gregoire didn't have most of the votes cast but managed to win anyway due to manufactured votes and selective counting (Kept recounting and adding mystery ballots until she finally came out on top). It looks like Franken benefited from double counts (although I don't think he needed them). Do you really think mystery Ballots and double counts wouldn't have occured in 2000 if given the chance?

[Kilmer17]

Oops. I guess all of that drivel about Franken wanting all ballots counted was total BS.

He's declared it over and his staff adn the Dems in the Senate are calling for Coleman to stop trying to get all of the ballots counted.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090106/D95HKOFO0.html

Marc Elias, Franken's lead recount attorney, referred to his client as "Senator-elect Franken."

"Former Senator Coleman has to make a decision," Elias said. "And it is a profound decision, one that he has to look into his heart to make: Whether or not he wants to be the roadblock to the state moving forward and play the role of a spoiler or sore loser or whether he wants to accept what was a very close election."

"The race in Minnesota is over," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. He called the Republican efforts to continue challenging Franken's election "only a little finger pointing."

[Larry]

Oops. I guess all of that drivel about Franken wanting all ballots counted was total BS.

He's declared it over and his staff adn the Dems in the Senate are calling for Coleman to stop trying to get all of the ballots counted.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090106/D95HKOFO0.html

Marc Elias, Franken's lead recount attorney, referred to his client as "Senator-elect Franken."

"Former Senator Coleman has to make a decision," Elias said. "And it is a profound decision, one that he has to look into his heart to make: Whether or not he wants to be the roadblock to the state moving forward and play the role of a spoiler or sore loser or whether he wants to accept what was a very close election."

"The race in Minnesota is over," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. He called the Republican efforts to continue challenging Franken's election "only a little finger pointing."

Wow. You're right.

It's just terrible when a politician who's been certified as the winner of an election, refers to the opponent who's going to court to overthrow the results as a sore loser, and names like that. Childish. Confrontational. Hyper-partisan.

[karmacop]

Oops. I guess all of that drivel about Franken wanting all ballots counted was total BS.

He's declared it over and his staff adn the Dems in the Senate are calling for Coleman to stop trying to get all of the ballots counted.

All the votes HAVE been counted, and the result certified. There's no more counting to be done.

If there are votes uncounted, it's those 420 or so that Coleman doesn't want counted because they would actually increase Franken's lead.

As I said above, the only ballots that Coleman wants counted are 650 asbentee ballots that the local election officials have TWICE determined (once during the election and again following the Minn. Supreme Court's mid-Dec. decision) were PROPERLY REJECTED.

Once again - Franken has wanted all the improperly rejected absentee votes counted, and Coleman has resisted. Franken has been certified the winner DESPITE Coleman's refusal to count the votes.

Let me get this straight - you're calling out Franken for acknowledging that he has been declared the winner based on a comprehensive recount of all the ballots that Coleman would allow to be counted?

[Larry]

All the votes HAVE been counted, and the result certified. There's no more counting to be done.

If there are votes uncounted, it's those 420 or so that Coleman doesn't want counted because they would actually increase Franken's lead.

As I said above, the only ballots that Coleman wants counted are 650 asbentee ballots that the local election officials have TWICE determined (once during the election and again following the Minn. Supreme Court's mid-Dec. decision) were PROPERLY REJECTED.

Once again - Franken has wanted all the improperly rejected absentee votes counted, and Coleman has resisted. Franken has been certified the winner DESPITE Coleman's refusal to count the votes.

Let me get this straight - you're calling out Franken for acknowledging that he has been declared the winner based on a comprehensive recount of all the ballots that Coleman would allow to be counted?

Um, allow me to point out that your assertion that all votes have been counted disagrees with information from other posters, and your own third paragraph.

[karmacop]

Um, allow me to point out that your assertion that all votes have been counted disagrees with information from other posters, and your own third paragraph.

I thought it was clear, but all VALID votes have been counted.

The only votes not counted are absentee ballots that local election officials have twice determined shouldn't have been counted because they were defective for some reason (i.e., no signature, received after election day, etc.).

Coleman apparently disagrees and thinks some of these votes should have been counted. He may sue to try to get them counted.

But according to the state of Minnesota, all valid votes have now been counted, and it's up to Coleman to show that they're wrong.

[Kilmer17]

I thought it was clear, but all VALID votes have been counted.

The only votes not counted are absentee ballots that local election officials have twice determined shouldn't have been counted because they were defective for some reason (i.e., no signature, received after election day, etc.).

Coleman apparently disagrees and thinks some of these votes should have been counted. He may sue to try to get them counted.

But according to the state of Minnesota, all valid votes have now been counted, and it's up to Coleman to show that they're wrong.

Good. So we all agree that the issue is not settled if Coleman files a suit. So the talk from the Franken camp and the Dems in the Senate is premature and arrogant.

[EersSkins05]

Good. So we all agree that the issue is not settled if Coleman files a suit. So the talk from the Franken camp and the Dems in the Senate is premature and arrogant.

Wrong. The issue is settled unless a judge issues an injunction as a result of a potential Coleman lawsuit.

[Kilmer17]

Wrong. The issue is settled unless a judge issues an injunction as a result of a potential Coleman lawsuit.

Does he have to issue an injunction? Or just agree to hear the case?

[karmacop]

Does he have to issue an injunction? Or just agree to hear the case?

Until a court rules otherwise, Al Franken is the Senator-Elect. The state of Minnesota has officially certified the results, which allows Franken to make this claim. It is neither arrogant nor premature for him to do so.

Coleman has seven days to challenge this certification in court. His lawsuit would first be brought before a three-judge election panel, and he would have the burden of proving that the election was certified incorrectly. To do so, he will have the bring forward evidence that ballots were improperly counted or excluded, and that the totals would change by more than 225 in his direction.

So Franken is the Senator now, and there is nothing wrong with Congress provisionally seating a member as such pending an election challenge by the loser (i.e., Coleman). It has been done before, such as with Republican Representative Vern Buchanan in 2007 and Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu in 1997.

[EersSkins05]

Until a court rules otherwise, Al Franken is the Senator-Elect. The state of Minnesota has officially certified the results, which allows Franken to make this claim. It is neither arrogant nor premature for him to do so.

Coleman has seven days to challenge this certification in court. His lawsuit would first be brought before a three-judge election panel, and he would have the burden of proving that the election was certified incorrectly. To do so, he will have the bring forward evidence that ballots were improperly counted or excluded, and that the totals would change by more than 225 in his direction.

So Franken is the Senator now, and there is nothing wrong with Congress provisionally seating a member as such pending an election challenge by the loser (i.e., Coleman). It has been done before, such as with Republican Representative Vern Buchanan in 2007 and Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu in 1997.

^^^^

This guy has proven in this thread to consistently know his **** better than anyone else.

[DeaconBlue]

So heres the new formulae: All elections shall be recounted til your candidate is certified(no matter how many "recounts" it takes ,wink wink.)Then once you get your desired result declare any further recounts unfair. This is so transparent it's laughable.

[karmacop]

So heres the new formulae: All elections shall be recounted til your candidate is certified(no matter how many "recounts" it takes ,wink wink.)Then once you get your desired result declare any further recounts unfair. This is so transparent it's laughable.

There's only been one recount, and there could only ever be one recount, no matter what state undertakes it.

Both sides had their lawyer present during the recount, which was done by a bipartisan panel of five members. There have been no allegations that the recount officials were biased or on the take.

If the recount was rigged, the aggrieved party should be able to prove it in court, which is what Coleman will attempt to do now. If he can do so, more power to him. From what I've read, his chances are very small because the recount was run very professionally and above board.

This is all very democratic and appropriate.