What the hell is wrong with Norm Coleman. Why won't he lose? This guy lost an election. Judges told him he lost, and he still won't go away. I think JC himself needs to stricken him dead, just to get the point across. I thought this guy is supposed to be an intelligent mayor/senator/politician. He seems like an ignorant clown/little baby. I haven't followed this any closer that I follow the Lynx, but at least when the Lynx lose, they accept it. I don't get what his deal is. What does he think is going to happen. The citizens and the judges might change their minds? YOU LOST ASSHOLE . . GO HOME!
The other thing I've noticed is that the government seems to be functioning fine without either one of them, so are they really needed?
11 comments:
Did he lose though? Does the fact that only 15% of the military voters that voted absentee had their votes count bother you? Did you know that military voters overseas got their ballots from Mark Richie 10 days before the election? The normal standard is 60 days because it can take three weeks for the votes to arrive.
If they count every single vote and apply the same standards to every single ballot and Norm ends up behind I will join your call. Until then, let's make sure our elections have a tiny bit of integrity. This one has shown none.
Those are great points that I was not aware of. And I agree that it should be done right. With that being said, why wasn't it done right the first time. Like I said I haven't followed closely at all. But I do think that it's absurd that we still do not have a resolution. It has been close to 4 months. It seems like a pretty simple process.
Doesn't this make us quesiton the integrity of all the elections?
[BOX]
How many votes is that though, really. I can't imagine that there are that many that it would sway the election that much. Let's say there is, I have no clue, but 10,000. I can't imagine that the votes from the military would be much different than the regular civilian voting, as far as who votes for who. Or maybe I'm just dead wrong. I would also assume that a lot of people in the military vote just because they get a ballot mailed to them. In all reality some of them could care less. I'm sure the voter turn out is much better in the military because a lot of times they are directly affected by decisions congress makes but a lot of the kids in the military probably have no clue, nor care. It may sound like a stereotype but some people go into the military because they have nothing else. They do it to feel wanted. These are the people I think that do vote because they get a ballot mailed to them but if not for that they probably wouldn't cast a vote anyway. So all in all I think military votes are a little skewed. But it I will agree that the votes should count and the ballots should have been there long before they were.
The total uncounted military votes is in the neighborhood of 17,000. Most polling I have found suggest that the military votes about 65% for the republican candidate. Even if it was 53% of the 17,000 uncounted votes Norm would win.
I think it is a bit crazy to state that many military folks only vote because they are mailed a ballot. They have to apply for an absentee ballot just like anyone else that wants one does. These people obviously want to vote.
This election is beyond fucked. I think the only resolution that is honest is to have a runoff with only Norm and Al.
Obviously you are a republican, that much is obvious. I do agree with you if your facts are actually correct though. But my only question is, are you some sort of lobbyist or political analyst?
I'm not a republican. I am a person with eyes and ears and brain that can analyze the stats I consume. I'm neither a lobbyist nor political analyst, just someone interested in politics. I was actually incorrect in stating that 17,000 military voters had their votes thrown out. I apologize. It was actually closer to 19,000. I was also incorrect in my initial report of how long they had their ballots. I'm not exactly sure how long they took to arrive to the soldiers that requested them, but they were mailed 30 days prior to the election. Mail generally takes 24-36 to arrive in this situation. The return trip probably takes as long.
Click on this link to read the report for yourself: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/378ltyrg.asp?pg=1
Click on this link to read the report for yourself: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/378ltyrg.asp?pg=1Anonymous, you may not be a Republican, but you clearly get your news from Republican sources. The Weekly Standard is one of the most conservative sites/papers out there. I don't know if you can consider anything published there "news" (or at least not unbiased news).
I don't really care either way with the election. I more agree with Tim that it is ridiculous that it has taken this long and there is STILL no resolution.
And what's with everyone using "Anonymous?" Grow a pair and say who you are. Is everyone too ashamed to stand behind their opinions?
"kuhn" or whoever you are, I gather my news from all walks if ideological life. Hopefully you do as well. I agree that the Weekly Standard is a pretty conservative publication, but did you expect to see something like this in the city pages? Hell no. I notice you don't dispute any of the facts in the article, only the website it is published on. I would be more than happy to read anything you can provide that disproves any of those stats. I've done a ton of looking and can't find a thing.
Love,
Anonymous
Anonymous should get a job.
All right; I’ll take the bait.
First, let me focus on the Weekly Standard article;
1) This is an editorial article by M. Eric Eversole. This is not a news story. Mr. Eversole makes no attempt to cite sources for where he found all of his information. How are we to know that any of his numbers and/or stats are correct? But let’s assume all the numbers are 100% factual.
2) Mr. Eversole writes, “… of the nearly 22,000 overseas military members and dependents eligible to vote in Minnesota, only 3,362 were able to cast a vote that counted. In addition, local election officials rejected at least 302 ballots…” He then goes on to state that the majority were rejected due to being received after the deadline. You then state that 19,000 military votes were uncounted. Where did you get this number from? How are we to assume that 1) EVERY person in the military voted and 2) 19,000 of the ballots (out of 22,000) were lost? This is obviously a ridiculous false claim. Clearly the majority of the eligible military chose not to vote. As for the rejected ballots, even if all 302 were for Coleman (obviously highly unlikely) he still would be losing.
Now, for another article (also from a *conservative* publication);
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/07/franken-widens-lead-rejected-minnesota-senate-ballots-included/
As it turns out, the Minnesota Supreme Court actually ruled to open 351 ballots (more than the number of rejected military ballots) that were previously rejected. Coleman tried to challenge 1,360 ballots but “the judges admitted far fewer, saying they had CAREFULLY REVIEWED EACH BALLOT to make sure voters had complied with state and federal law.” (my emphasis) Again, at this point, Franken is up by 312 votes.
While you make outlandish voter fraud accusations, I contend the Supreme Court has been very (almost too much) deliberate. Make a decision already!
Looking forward to your anonymous response,
Kuhn
Post a Comment