Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

MN-Senate: Coleman Contests!

Sen. Norm Coleman filed a formal election contest this afternoon, a move that ensures several more months of drama in the race between the incumbent Republican and entertainer Al Franken.

"As of today, not every valid vote has been counted and some have been counted twice," said Coleman. "Until these issues are settled, any attempt to seat someone who is not properly certified ignores the law, violates Senate precedent and usurps the will of the people of Minnesota."

The move comes less than 24 hours after Franken declared victory in the race after the state canvassing board certified that he had won the contest by 225 votes.

The Coleman legal team had long maintained that a series of irregularities -- particularly in regards the rejection or inclusion of questioned absentee ballots -- rendered the manual recount of nearly 3 million votes meaningless.

The election contest will be adjudicated by a three-judge panel who will be chosen by Minnesota State Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson, himself an appointee of Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

In his statement, Coleman specifically addressed efforts by some -- Senate Democrats -- to declare the race over and seat Franken, insisting that "something greater than expediency is at stake here".

The practical effect of Coleman's formal election contest is that the can is kicked further down the road with neither Coleman nor Franken certified as the winner for at least another month and almost certainly longer than that.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 6, 2009; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Burris Backs Reid Into a Corner
Next: Indecision Roils RNC Race

Comments

The Secretary of State, who is a Democrat, cannot pick and choose which ballots to count. In fact, he should have not been allowed to review any of the contested ballots as the state Supreme Court has not yet ruled on those. Those votes Ritchie (not Ritter) gave to Franken are most of the difference between the two candidates.

I remember when Democratic Party workers in Milwaukee slashed all the tires of the vans at the Republican headquarters that were going to be used to transport voters to the polls. One of them was the son of the Democratic Congresswoman from Milwaukee. Was there outrage from Democrats? Not a peep. In fact all the same justifications you've seen in these posts popped up. It was wrong. There was no justification for it. And until Democrats and Republicans decry the moral decay in both their parties we will continue to head in a downward spiral.

Histronics bsimon1? Is that was you call outrage at the fixing of a U.S. Senate election? I feel like Henry David Thoreau when he was asked by a friend what he was doing in jail for protesting. He replied, why am I in jail, why aren't you in here with me? Some of us will continue to rail against this type of election behavior. And if our voices are few, then they must be loud.

Posted by: CaptainQ | January 12, 2009 12:12 PM | Report abuse

sorry -- that last post of mine, somehow, landed on the wrong Fix column: that was supposed to go the "Palin: crazy or crazy like a fox" article.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Here's what I envision:

1st, we see "Senator" Palin

Then, we see a slow, steady and deliberate march to the Center.

3rd, she makes a run at the White House.

Will she get elected? It depends... on what happens during Obama's watch.

Look, in the 1950's or 1960's, no one would have thought it possible for Ronald Reagan to become President. Palin is gorgeous and she has a devoted far-right-lunatic following. If she picks up some foreign policy experience (in the Senate) and APPEARS to become more moderate she will be DANGEROUS.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 9, 2009 2:17 PM | Report abuse

It's OVER !
Franken won, fair & square.
The terminally narcissistic, opportunistic, & unprincipled crybaby Norm Coleman is characteristically doing everyone else a disservice by adopting the time-honored GOP approach to governance: "My way or the highway."
Norm & the right-wing nuts need to grow up.

Posted by: DoctorB | January 8, 2009 4:55 PM | Report abuse

CaptainQ- That is not what happened. The court ordered all counties tally their absentee votes and report them to the Canvassing board by 6 Jan. Ritter doesn't factor into that equation other than being a member of the canvassing board. Coleman opposed counting the ballots at all, and is now fighting for more ballots to be added to the list.

THE IMPORTANT PART: These 650 ballots aren't from counties that didn't submit ballots as part of the earlier 1346 that went into the recount as you imply- these are ballots Coleman says that the counties imporperly rejected in their review (in other words, they already were looked at and the canvassing board rejected them. If these 650 Coleman ballots were to be reviewed AGAIN, that would open up a new fight for Franken to add more ballots favorable to him to get now a third look. It's not gonna happen.

There is no moral or ethical case he is making here, he is merely working to deprive the people of Minnesota of a Senator, it's him or nobody.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 8, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

CaptainsQ, I'll accept your latest comment as admission that you do not, in fact, have evidence of 25 precincts in which there were more votes cast than voters registered.

If such evidence exists, I certainly agree: it should be investigated & surely will be as part of the legal contest of the election recently begun by the Coleman campaign. Thus far, no evidence of such wrong doing has yet been presented, at least as far as I've seen. So save the histrionics.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 8, 2009 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately none of you know me and know that many times I've voted for a Democrat for national office. I would be decrying these election shenanigans just as much if they were favoring Coleman. It can't be allowed to happen in America. We're can't sink to the depths of third world election fixing. America is better than that. But then again, judging from the responses to my posts, maybe we're not.

One more time. Franken complained that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. The Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, but Democrat Secretary of State Mark Ritchie went through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees from Democratic-leaning counties and padded Franken’s lead by a further 176 votes. He did not request disputed absentee ballots from Republican-leaning counties.

It should never be legal for a Democrat who is the Secretary of State to add 176 votes to a U.S. Senate candidate's total while intentionally ignoring the same type of absentee votes from Republican-leaning counties. It's election fixing. It seems that as long as your boy wins no one cares. I am very uncomfortable with the future of an America where Democrats, and Republicans, find this behavior acceptable.

Posted by: CaptainQ | January 8, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

CaptainsQ, I can't find your quote in the Strib article to which you link. I do find this:

"For instance, the campaign has claimed that as many as 150 votes were counted twice in 25 DFL-leaning precincts."

I don't find what you wrote:
"25 Minnesota precincts have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote."

There are many claims of this problem - and if it exists, it is certainly a problem. What I don't see is any evidence supporting the claim. If you do have evidence, I'd love to see it.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 8, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Nate Silver at 538 has a good write-up eviscerating the nonsense WSJ opinion piece:

"There are 25 precincts with more ballots than voters? I'm not sure this is actually true. There were certain precincts with more votes counted during the recount than there were on Election Night -- which is not surprising, considering that the whole purpose of a hand recount is to find votes that the machine scanners missed the first time around. I have not seen any evidence, on the other hand, that there are precincts with more votes than voters as recorded on sign-in sheets. And the Coleman campaign evidently hasn't either, or it presumably would have presented it to the Court, which rejected its petition for lack of evidence.

Also, note the weasel-wordy phrase "by some estimates", which translates as "by the Coleman campaign's estimate". There is no intrinsic reason why Franken ballots are more likely to be duplicated than Coleman ballots, especially when one significant source of duplicate ballots is military absentees, a group that presumably favors the Republicans. Coleman, indeed, only became interested in the issue of duplicates once he fell behind in the recount and needed some way to extend his clock. Before then, his lead attorney had sent an e-mail to Franken which said that challenges on the issue of duplicate ballots were "groundless and frivolous"."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 7, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

"How about the liberal Minneapolis Tribune for a source?"

That's not what your source says.

- the 133 votes aren't just because the totla was 133 votes short, they had designated boxes that were accounted for, one box with 133 votes in it disappeared (IE, they were labeled A, B, C, etc., and box C was missing, records showed it had 133 votes and what the totals were there).

- More than "recorded votes" on election night, NOT recorded voters. Undervotes, provisional ballots, etc., got added into the electin night totals.

- Even if all your theories all true (all of which have already been heard and rejected unanimously by bipartisan panels, btw), Coleman still falls short. there's no reason to think duplicate counting yields Franken 100 votes, but even so he's still 125 short. Throw out the 133 votes that netted Franken 37 votes, he's still down 88. Allow them to count the 600 votes he cherry picked, he needs to win more than 60% of them, quite a stretch even in Coleman's most favorable demographics. Not gonna happen.

Interesting thing, I run a google search for '25 precincts minnesota ballots' and I get lots of blog postings that look suspiciously like CaptainQ and the one WSJ opinion piece that has been trashed by the Ventura-appointed judge on the panel for its factual inaccuracies, but absolutely nothing else. I wonder why that is?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 7, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

How about the liberal Minneapolis Tribune for a source? Here you go: http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/37072564.html?elr=KArks:DCiUBcy7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

Let's recap what has happened:
Mr. Franken’s campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had “lost” 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. The Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount netting Mr. Franken 46 votes.

A Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct netting Franken 37 votes.

Franken complained that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. The Minnesota Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, but Democrat Secretary of State Mark Ritchie went through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees from Democratic-leaning counties and padded Franken’s lead by a further 176 votes. He did not request disputed absentee ballots from Republican-leaning counties.

25 Minnesota precincts have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as “duplicate” and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. Double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

Posted by: CaptainQ | January 7, 2009 5:43 PM | Report abuse

CaptainQ writes
"25 precincts in Minnesota now have more votes than voters. It can't mathematically happen."

Cite your source. Surely the Sec O' State's office has the data available online. Which 25 precincts have overvotes?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2009 5:21 PM | Report abuse

Quit misleading readers! Every voter who comes in to vote is checked off a list of registered voters. The number of voters is an unchanging number regardless of whether or not the vote is accepted. The number of accepted votes can change, but the number of people who voted cannot. These are the precinct totals of voters participating. This total is not the number used to tabulate ballots. It reflects the exact number of voters who cast votes.

They vote. That vote is accepted or rejected by the system being used. The number of votes can never exceed the number of voters checked off as having entered an election site and voting.

Provisional and rejected ballots/votes are included in the number of voters checked off. Those voters had to check in before they could vote and their vote was rejected or held for review. They are recorded as voting.

So in elections the total number of accepted votes will be less than the number of votes cast because of invalidated ballots. But the number of people who voted is constant and can't be changed. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of voting procedures knows the number of votes cannot exceed the number of voters recorded as voting.

25 precincts in Minnesota now have more votes than voters. It can't mathematically happen.

Posted by: CaptainQ | January 7, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

"Those accusing Coleman of being a "sore loser" miss that point. He is doing exactly what he should in pursuit of possible votes, and doing what the law allows."

I'd agree with that had he not made the calculated decision early on to cal lon Franken not to concede saying he would in a similar circumstance. That's where Coleman lost his credibility and now can be labeled a sore loser.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 7, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

What better for a joke of a state, but to be led by a comedian. May Franken rule forever.

Posted by: saneperson | January 7, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

As bsimon pointed out, the winner will not be approved by the majority of Minnesotans bcause neither of the contestants topped 42% of the vote.

As Optimyst pointed out, this has been a demonstrably clean election.

As I pointed out, there is no way to produce mathematical certainty in this or any close election.

It is perfectly normal and expected for the apparent runner-up to challenge in court.

Posts like "CaptainQ"'s miss the point of the canvass. The recount added votes to the original total because disputed votes were not counted and were treated as provisional until the recount. This is normal. Those accusing Coleman of being a "sore loser" miss that point. He is doing exactly what he should in pursuit of possible votes, and doing what the law allows.

The comparison to Gore's concession is inappropriate because a presidential race is run on a constitutional timetable, and had the Supremes not stopped the clock it would have stopped on its own in a matter of days and the R House of Reps would have elected GWB. The D Senate would probably have elected Gore VP, but that is beside the point here. The point here is timing.
There is no time limit imposed on a senatorial election challenge, thus no pressure on the challenger to concede.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

CaptainQ writes
"There are now 25 Minnesota precincts with more votes than people who voted."

Please cite your sources.

What you've quoted is a common misconception. Thus far there has not been evidence presented of there being more votes in the recount than voters on election day. What there HAS been is more votes in the recount than votes on election day. What happens is the optical scanners sometimes miss a ballot. In a hand recount those ballots are added to the vote totals, so the recount totals end up being higher than election night totals. As a result of such changes (and in determining voter intent of ballots the machines might have recorded as overvotes), both candidates have higher vote totals in the canvassing board's certified results than they had in the provisional counts on election night.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2009 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Humorous postings to say the least. There are now 25 Minnesota precincts with more votes than people who voted. Just where did all those "extra" votes come from anyway? It's not mathematically possible, but it is possible in Minnesota. Must be Minne-math. Hey, Minnesota voted in Ventura, why not Franken the pervert?

Posted by: CaptainQ | January 7, 2009 1:25 PM | Report abuse

No matter the final outcome, there is no comparison between this and the Florida debacle of 2000, an election so distorted and mishandled that we'll never know the true outcome. The voter turnout in Minnesota was the highest in the nation at 78%. The Minnesota law allows for voter intent to be discerned. The disputed ballots were resolved in a transparent, televised process, with each vote usually determined unanimously by a bipartisan board with attorneys for both candidates vigorously representing their clients every step of the way. And there is very little evidence of public officials at any level trying to subvert a process that has been thorough and logical. There is absolutely nothing for Minnesotans to be ashamed of in this process. Close elections are always this complex. As a CPA who has closely watched the drama unfold, I'm very comfortable with the accuracy of the process. Only a little more patience is required. This will go down as a textbook case of excellence in the administration of close elections.

Posted by: optimyst | January 7, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Corey_NY writes
"Funny how 2 months and now being behind can change his tune so much."

Funny, but not surprising. The man used to be a flaming liberal after all. Changing his position is not a new behavior for Norm.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Worth mention what Norm Coleman said publicly on Election Night about how Al Franken need to concede the election for the good of Minnesotans. Funny how 2 months and now being behind can change his tune so much.

Posted by: Corey_NY | January 7, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Superpower writes
"Dear MN., Al Franken was going to be your Senator whether you liked it or not. Would you like some hope with that change?"

According to the vote tally, the majority will not like it. Of course, the majority also will not like a Coleman victory. Each candidate won about 42% of the vote, meaning they each lost ~ 58% of the vote. As mark_in_austin wrote, due to the human participation (both voters & counters) in the election process, the results we have are about as close as we're going to get - and could just as easily have gone the other way. What this should mean for Minnesotans is that we should perhaps consider run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of support - the GA Senate race this year was concluded without the drama we face in MN.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2009 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Coleman needs to concead period!!!!!
Remember when the Republicans stole the 2000 ,Foxnews, or the election from Gore. melection Gore vs Bush Gore did concead when he lost. I don't see Rush, Hannity, O'Reily, or Morning Joe talking when Republicans were stealing the election back then.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | January 7, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

I have written this post before. I am a lawyer who has twice participated in recounts. When a race at any level is so close that a recount is mandated, there is no precision of countings that will allow for us to ever know who actually won more votes.

If the votes are recounted a dozen times, there will be a dozen different results. The normal process is a canvass, an administrative recount, a certification, and then a certification-and-vote challenge in court. The end of the process will be the end of the process, more because it must end then because it ensures the correct result.

Fewer than 300 votes out of a couple of million is well within the margin of error. The ultimate result is likely to favor Franken according to the statisticians, but that is by no means assured.

Contrary to the WSJ editorial assertions, there is absolutely no evidence of vote manipulation in MN. Instead there was a race that will be declared, eventually, where no one can actually know that the result accurately reflects the vote.

But that is a result of human error in the process, and not the result of human wrongdoing.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 7, 2009 9:20 AM | Report abuse

By now we should all know. This is what republicans do when they lose a very close election. They go to Court and eventually they go to the US Supreme Court where, regardless of the facts in the case, they will prevail 5-4. The Bush appointees voting with the majority. If this happens, and it may, I hope someone (who can) impeaches all five of them.

Posted by: Opa2 | January 7, 2009 1:19 AM | Report abuse

Crooked Norm will fight and fight and fight. That's what Rethuglicans do to get their way. They want to delay the seating of another Democrat forever, if possible.


Remember, these are the same Republicans who rant and rave about frivolous lawsuits - unless they are their own frivolous lawsuits.


The thing is, Coleman doesn't stand a chance of winning the election, whatever the outcome of his legal battle. The only reason he's pressing his case is to curry favor with DC Republicans who want to do anything possible to obstruct the Democratic agenda in the Senate.

Posted by: DrainYou | January 6, 2009 11:20 PM | Report abuse

k-o-z is right. If it is obvious enough for Senator Schumer, the rest of us should just go along. After all, he skipped his senior year in high school to enter Harvard early. Took the Advanced Placement Chemistry course, aced it, said that chemistry is interesting but he wanted to be a politician. This is one bright guy.

Posted by: dotellen | January 6, 2009 11:03 PM | Report abuse

There should just be a run-off election.

Nobody will trust the judicial review and nobody in their right mind should trust the current recount.

Posted by: StarsAndStripesForever | January 6, 2009 10:45 PM | Report abuse

Following the election, Coleman not only urged Franken to save Minnesota the money of a recount, as people have mentioned, but also said *he* would back off; that Franken should do it the "Minnesota way" by not using the courts; and that if the count turned in favor of Franken, he (Coleman) would NOT resort to the courts. This is all on the record (http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=528816&catid=2). Coleman's doing precisely the opposite of what he urged Franken to do, and precisely the opposite of what he assured the press *he* would do in this circumstance. It's no surprise that he's proven himself an absolutely shameless hypocrite ... it seems to go with his ideology.

Posted by: williamboling | January 6, 2009 10:36 PM | Report abuse

Judge Cleary (Ventura Appointee + Canvassing Board Member) responds to slanderous WSJ Opinion piece (quoted on these boards by conservatives several times):

Dear Sirs:

As a subscriber of your newspaper for almost three decades, I don't expect to always agree with your editorial viewpoint. Yet I am nevertheless very disappointed when I read an editorial long on partisan tone and short on accurate reporting.

As a member of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, appointed pursuant to statute, I have attended all nine Board open meetings held the past seven weeks. I am knowledgeable about the proceedings as well as Minnesota's election laws. Our members (two Supreme Court Justices, two District Court Judges, and Secretary of State Ritchie) came from all political backgrounds, openly expressed our opinions at the meetings, and can hardly be accurately described as "meek", unless you mean "meek" by New York in-your-face standards. Your groundless attack on Secretary Ritchie reflects poorly on the author; Ritchie worked assiduously at avoiding partisanship in these proceedings.

As to the Board as a whole, all of our major votes were unanimous. We consistently followed the law in limiting our involvement to a non-adjudicative role, declining both candidates' attempts to expand our mandate. Further, we painstakingly reviewed each challenged ballot, some more than once, to confirm that we were ruling in a consistent manner.

One can only assume, based on the tone of the editorial, the numerous inaccuracies, and the over-the-top slam at Al Franken ("tainted and undeserving?") that had Norm Coleman come out on top in this recount, the members of the Board would have been praised as "strong-willed, intelligent, and perceptive."

We won't hold our breath waiting for that editorial to appear.

Edward J. Cleary
Assistant Chief Judge
Second Judicial District
Minnesota State Canvassing Board

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2009/01/06/5639/recount_judge_blasts_wall_street_journal

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 6, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Buh-bye to another repuke. Won't be long until the rest of the breed will be hunted like dogs and put out of our misery.

Posted by: branfo4 | January 6, 2009 9:36 PM | Report abuse

Awfully funny,He told Al Franken to save the taxpayers money by refusing a recount. The hypocritical GOP rises again. These guys can't stand the fact that they will lose power and have to head back to mthe dreaded private sector. Norm,the American people spoke,your GOP BS is over and done with. Get lost,go home and get a real job,then you can see how terrible you are "represented" by these frauds in Washington .

Posted by: walkman1956 | January 6, 2009 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"Who is supposed to believe that a recount will give a different number the second time around unless you add in votes of people too stupid to follow instructions..."

Anyone remotely knowledgeable about the counting process?

Posted by: SeanC1 | January 6, 2009 9:10 PM | Report abuse

This is outrageous that Franken dragged his feet long enough that enough "missing" votes were "found." Who is supposed to believe that a recount will give a different number the second time around unless you add in votes of people too stupid to follow instructions...just like in Florida in 2000

Posted by: SavedGirl | January 6, 2009 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Norm, you lost! NOW, as a FORMER member of the Senate, you can put the Mrs back on the front page of the W/Post and back in that slinky outfit next to the bed again. However, to allow this sort of provocative behavior to occur while you were seated in office and representing Minnesota was uncalled for--Or maybe you just enjoy this sort of simulating attention for your wife while attempting to represent Minnesota with those new found conservative values.

Prior to accepting the nomination for elected office, Al Franken may have written things some thought were offending; however, would not (and will not) have embarrassed Minnesotan's, as a serving elected official, like the provocative front page "seeking acting" image you allowed while serving as a U.S. Senator!

And Norm you had the adacity to ask Al to save Minnesota money, spare the recount, and concede the morning after the election. Now that the shoe is on the other foot (with a certified recount completed), Norm wants Minnesota to spend additional time and money to save his job--why! Norm's embarrassing behavior and lack of concern for Minnesota brought him to this end! Good bye and good riddance.

Governor Pawlenty (R-MN) has been pretty quite and because Norm is his bud will not as much as take two minutes to publicly acknowledge the hard work many honest Dem & Rep Minnesotan's did to ensure a fair and transparent recount--a real lack of leadership! Minnesota, BY MINNESOTA LAW, did the recount right...and the right lost!

Posted by: jpm001 | January 6, 2009 8:59 PM | Report abuse

So much for Coleman's posturing two months ago that he would concede if he were in Franken's position.

It's his right, that said, though he's just delaying the inevitable at this point.

"Given that neither candidate got a majority of the votes, is there any good reason not to hold a run-off election between just Coleman and Franken? Does Minnesota election law allow for this possibility?"

The only state that requires a majority of the vote is Georgia; all the others are just winner-take-all.

"Dear MN., Al Franken was going to be your Senator whether you liked it or not."

Given that more people voted for Franken than for Coleman, it would seem they do.

Posted by: SeanC1 | January 6, 2009 8:57 PM | Report abuse

&*&*&*&*

In 2000 the SOTUS
stopped counting votes in
FLA. The only way this
turns around is if Coleman
gets his wish not to count all
the votes.

The republicans don't believe
in democracy enhanced by
elections. It's just not
their way. ALL republican
challenges to elections are
based on having as few
votes counted as possible.

&*&*&*&*&*

Posted by: printthis | January 6, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

AirAmerica was supposed to have gone out of business a very long time ago. That's according to all the Neocon-Fascist talking parrot heads.

Well, those GOP stenographers were wrong, again, because now, AirAmerica has their very own U.S. Senator!

Posted by: kevinschmidt | January 6, 2009 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Cryos: "You liberals need to put down the crack pipe and choose a strategy" is not going to get Coleman re-elected.
Throw around all the insults you want, but nothing will cover up the fact that Coleman has been a disgrace for the most part, and the blame rests solely on his shoulders -- not the "liberals."
If Coleman wants to continue challenging the results, fine. It's a free country -- so long as HE or his misguided supporters pay the legal fees, I could care less.
In fact, Cryos, maybe your cheap shot better applies to YOU.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | January 6, 2009 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Face it: Coleman lost. Not by much -- but he lost.
I'm no big fan of Franken, but given how disliked and unpopular Coleman is, is anyone *really* surprised?
Here's a tip to the Minn. GOP: Next time, pick a better, less idealogical candidate for Senate. Coleman has been nothing but a bomb-throwing and rubber stamp for the failed presidency of George W. Bush.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | January 6, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Republicans getting a taste of there own evil ways, I love it.
You think there crying now, wait until the next election in two years, it will be another great day for the Democrats.

Posted by: shipfreakbo214 | January 6, 2009 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Norm, you lost! NOW, you can put the Mrs back on the front page of the W/Post and back in that sexy slinky outfit next to the bed--it's very becoming for a FORMER U.S. Senator. However, to allow this sort of provocative behavor to occur while seated in office and representing Minnesota was uncalled for--Or maybe you just enjoy this sort of simulating attention for your wife while attempting to represent Minnesota with those new found conservative values.

Prior to accepting the nomination for elected office, Al Franken may have written things some thought were offending; however, would not (and will not) have embarrassed Minnesotan's, as a serving elected official, like the provocative front page "seeking acting" image you allowed while serving as a U.S. Senator!

And Norm had the adacity to ask Al to save Minnesota money, spare the recount, and concede the morning after the election. Now that the shoe is on the other foot (with a certified recount completed), Norm wants Minnesota to spend additional time and money to save his job--why! Norm's embarrassing behavior and lack of concern for Minnesota brought him to this end! Good bye and good riddance.

Governor Pawlenty (R-MN) has been pretty quite and because Norm is his bud will not as much as two minutes time to publicly acknowledge the hard work many honest Dem & Rep Minnesotan's did to ensure a fair and transparent recount--a real lack of leadership!! Minnesota, BY MINNESOTA LAW, did the recount right and the right lost!

Posted by: jpm001 | January 6, 2009 8:30 PM | Report abuse

@wmkos: "Funny how things seem so different when the shoe is on the other foot."

No kidding... just wait until they realize the implications of their Unitary Executive fetish. If Obama so much as tries to refuel the limo without Congress' explicit consent it will be an outrage, an unprecedented subversion of democracy, etc.

Posted by: BigTunaTim | January 6, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

Dear MN., Al Franken was going to be your Senator whether you liked it or not. Would you like some hope with that change?

Posted by: Superpower | January 6, 2009 7:44 PM | Report abuse

>> A republican challenges an election on the same grounds and it is "a sore loser."

Uh...you were around in 2000 right? Did you forget the bumper stickers? You can dish it out but not take it????

Posted by: mikem1 | January 6, 2009 7:17 PM | Report abuse

You guys want a little cheese with that whine?

With a vote that close, there's virtually no way both sides are going to be satisfied with the result.

Posted by: mikem1 | January 6, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

It's kind of funny. A democrat challenges an election and it is to "count all the votes" or "protect disenfranchised voters."

A republican challenges an election on the same grounds and it is "a sore loser."

You liberals need to put down the crack pipe and choose a strategy.

Posted by: Cryos | January 6, 2009 7:08 PM | Report abuse

At least Al Gore knew when it was better to accept defeat gracefully for the good of the country. Norm initially didn't want any of the rejected absentee ballots counted, because he was ahead. Now that he's lost, he wants more of those ballots counted than the court allowed? That's blatant hypocrisy. Not surprised the Republiturds are supporting it.

Posted by: luridone | January 6, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

es37thandORulesForeve.

The recount has actually been very civil and organized. I don;t know why epople say otherwise. It has followed a very exact process as defined by law.

The only slight difference from procedures that were discussed atthe very beginning is the issue of absentee ballots.

The court decided that "improperly-rejected" ballots be included. I don't see how anybody could have objected to that.

The only sloppilness is that the candidates have sometimes been on different sides of the same issue.

First Clomena didn't want the absentee ballots - now he wants even more.

I think it is actually quite impressive that the vote change has been so small - and extremely spread-out accros the state.

Posted by: tim23 | January 6, 2009 6:58 PM | Report abuse

"Given that neither candidate got a majority of the votes, is there any good reason not to hold a run-off election between just Coleman and Franken? Does Minnesota election law allow for this possibility?"

No, Minnesota law does not allow for a run-off election.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | January 6, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

es37thandORulesForeve.

The recount has actually been very civil and organized. I don;t know why epople say otherwise. It has followed a very exact process as defined by law.

The only slight difference from procedures that were discussed atthe very beginning is the issue of absentee ballots.

The court decided that "improperly-rejected" ballots be included. I don't see how anybody could have objected to that.

The only sloppilness is that the candidates have sometimes been on different sides of the same issue.

First Coleman didn't want the absentee ballots - now he wants even more.

I think it is actually quite impressive that the vote change has been so small - and extremely spread-out accros the state.

Posted by: tim23 | January 6, 2009 6:57 PM | Report abuse

It just goes to show that if a republican can't win by at least 1000 votes, the democrats will just keep counting and keep counting until they 'find' enough votes. All of this rampant voter registration fraud isn't being done for nothing.

Posted by: AkCoyote | January 6, 2009 6:55 PM | Report abuse

An interesting test of the ethics of Judge Magnuson - who will appoint the folks that review the Coleman appeal. Will he try to hold up the certification so as to deny the Democrats a vote for a few months - denying Minn its right to 2 Senate votes so as to advance his conservative social agenda if only for a few months?

In 1994, he wrote a friend of the court brief for an anti-abortion group that argued the state should not have to pay for abortion services. The court, citing a right to privacy, rejected Magnuson's argument and ruled in the case that state funding should pay for low income women to have abortions. It will be interesting to see if there are any ethics left in the Party of Torture.

Posted by: papau | January 6, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

"One has to be concerned about how messy this recount is."

What do you mean by messy? The recount was transparent and scrupulous, and it showed that Coleman lost. Republicans are just crybabies who can't lose fair and square without playing the victim. It's pathetic.

Posted by: PutDownTheKoolaid | January 6, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

Given that neither candidate got a majority of the votes, is there any good reason not to hold a run-off election between just Coleman and Franken? Does Minnesota election law allow for this possibility?

Posted by: mwk5v | January 6, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Norm Coleman is a sore loser and his attempt to drag this out in court will deny the state of MN the representation of its second senator during a time when several monumental votes will be taking place. If he truly loved the state of MN he would accept the results of the recount and allow Senator Franken the opportunity to take his lawfully won seat in Congress. Take it like a man, Norm!

Posted by: misschris49 | January 6, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Norm Coleman = Sore Loserman. Funny how things seem so different when the shoe is on the other foot.

Posted by: wmkos | January 6, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Is cheating becoming acceptable? Are the democrats now justifying it in their own minds by citing the Florida recount ???

One has to be concerned about how messy this recount is.


Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 6, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Get some sleep, zouk.

Posted by: mattintx | January 6, 2009 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Well if it's its obvious enough for chuck Schumer, the rest of you should just go along.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | January 6, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company