Your ignorance is astonishing!

Nothing like bashing homosexuals to add legitimacy to Michael’s blog.

danbrome: Liberace Gay.

And he doesn’t even know how to spell rimming.

Incredible!

You’re telling me that any given vote from an Obama supporter has a 20% chance of also voting for Norm Coleman. Ok fair enough. Then by that logic any given Obama vote has an (80-Barkley)% of going for Franken.

If machine errors do not favor one candidate or another the distribution of undervotes will be directly proportional to the complete populations’ vote.

The distribution of undervotes occurs in population centers where Obama received a larger percentage than did Coleman. Thus for any given Obama vote that registered, by a machine, an undervote for the Senate, Franken has the aforementioned (80-Barkley)% of winning that vote. Unless Barkley won the Obama vote by more than 60% in these precincts with rich residual votes, Franken has a greater likelihood of receiving any given, randomly occurring undervote on a ballot that was cast for Obama.

In response to the “Educate yourself, shit for brains.” I have educated myself. I read two papers, totaling 40 pages from two of the best academic institutions on the planet. What have you done to educate yourself?

Educate yourself, shit for brains.

Bullshit. Coleman drew about 20 percent support from Democrats. There’s no math that justifies your silly as shit assumption.

Who knows. There’s a pretty good chance they did not vote for Franken, because Franken trailed Obama by 15 percentage points.

Your assumption that an Obama vote is even a likely Franken vote is so flawed as to be fucking stupid.

I want you to find me a direct quote or reference in which the Franken campaign overtly says that any person who voted for Obama and undervoted the Senate should automatically be marked in Frankens’ column.

The arguement is that there WILL be undervotes, machines make mistakes. There are more residual votes from precincts that heavily voted for Obama. Go look at the SOS website if you don’t believe me, open up excel and make a table.

If there are more undervotes from voters who voted for Obama, who do you think they likely voted for in the Senate, if they voted at all. If they didn’t vote, they didn’t vote. But if they did, and the machine didn’t count it for whatever reason, that vote is likely either for Franken or Barkley.

Given that there are residual votes from people who voted for Obama, the logical conclusion implies that after the machine counts are rechecked, Franken will likely gain votes from the inclusion of these residual votes.

Dartmouth College and MIT did research on this issue. I suggest you educate yourself.

Google:
“site:dartmouth.edu residual votes pdf”
“site:mit.edu minnesota senate”

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2008/11/plymouth17-thumb-350×164.jpg

Apparently, that vote doesn’t demonstrate clear intent to vote for Coleman.

Meanwhile, the dishonest sacks of shit at the Franken campaign tried to argue that an undervote with a vote for Obama was a vote for Franken.

Franken is a dishonest sack of shit that should be forcibly removed from the State of Minnesota, permanently.

Coleman gains -43 votes based on recount results of 15.49% of ballots.

4-Nov Recount Change
Norm 195708 195638 -70
Al 180950 180923 -27

Franken Net Gain: 43

I’d also like to point out that Franken gained these 43 votes from a demographic bloc that was overly supportive of Coleman, relative to the total state result.