Predicto Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I'm curious how the evil Dems managed to steal the election from a current Senator in a state with a GOP Governor. Because they are eeeevul! Actually, the state voting commission is bipartisan, and pretty evenly split. Fivethirtyeight.com predicted that Frankin would win (legitimately) as soon as the recount began because most of the ballots that had been uncounted in the initial tally were from areas expected to favor Franken. To put it in partisan terms Coleman was the one trying to steal the election, and he was doomed to fail as soon as more scruitiny was placed on the votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 I thought they had a bipartisan electoral board that unanimously endorsed the results. They have that too. I was just pointing out that the SC of Minnesota is conservative leaning as well. So, they have the governor and the SC (i.e. 2/3's of the state government) and the democrats are still controlling the situation. but yea, they also have the electoral board, which if you do the math is republican leaning also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metskins Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Just certify the friggin thing and lets move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 If there are counties that are showing 177 more votes than people that voted, Id say there is a problem. Franken may have won. But at this point, Coleman won on election day, he won the recount. And only once certain ballots (both absentee and contested) were either accepted or rejected did Franken take a lead and then all counting was halted. There are still irregularities and inconsistencies that need to be addressed and dealt with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 BTW, where are you getting the 2/3s of the State Supreme Court being GOP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 BTW, where are you getting the 2/3s of the State Supreme Court being GOP? 2/3's of the Government - that is, the executive branch and the judiciary branch. I could've been more clear. But that's what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 2/3's of the Government - that is, the executive branch and the judiciary branch.I could've been more clear. But that's what I meant. No, my bad. I just misread it. Pawlenty is staying the hell out of it all because he has higher aspirations and doesnt want the "Katherine Harris" treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 If there are counties that are showing 177 more votes than people that voted, Id say there is a problem.. If. Fivethirtyeight says the claim is simply false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 There isn't any surprise here. When left to their lorals, democrats have no ethics therefore breaking them is no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 There isn't any surprise here. When left to their lorals, democrats have no ethics therefore breaking them is no big deal. I can never tell when some posters are being ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Is a "loral" anything like a "mute" point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Is a "loral" anything like a "mute" point? I think the technical definition is: "I didn't read the thread." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Is a "loral" anything like a "mute" point? Are you suggesting that I spelled either of those wrong?? Or just being a smartalec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Every vote should count that wasn't "found" in a car trunk or the chain of evidence broken for a week.. It's funny how stories that were discredited in early November still have legs in 2009. I wonder if you guys actually look at what's going on instead of reading talking points. Coleman lost the election and will lose the lawsuits. Right now he's just delaying Franken being sworn in. Franken may have won. But at this point, Coleman won on election day, he won the recount. And only once certain ballots (both absentee and contested) were either accepted or rejected did Franken take a lead and then all counting was halted.There are still irregularities and inconsistencies that need to be addressed and dealt with. You act like absentee and contested ballots shouldn't be counted. It's not like Coleman was shut out of the process. I say lets count all the legal ballots and see who wins. You probably wouldn't like the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Are you suggesting that I spelled either of those wrong?? Or just being a smartalec Um, I'm not sure what a "loral" is (did you mean "laurel"?) and you definitely did misspell the word "moot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deejaydana Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Um, I'm not sure what a "loral" is (did you mean "laurel"?) and you definitely did misspell the word "moot." Actually moot or mute are both correct given that context. More to the point, Franken is a complete and utter joke. He's a failed comedian (but that's another point altogether) The article by WSJ just points out that the voting process itself, when you look at the Florida presidential election, is quite flawed. You have a system where the folks doing the recount process don't even have a clear directive as to what counts and what is discredited. I don't see how that falls along any party lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.