« SUTTON ON FRANKEN: “THIS GUY’S GOT A BIGGER ASTERISK NEXT TO HIS NAME THAN BARRY BONDS” | Home | INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON UNITY, FRANKEN PARTICIPATES IN PARTISAN HATE RALLY »
MUST READ FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “THE ‘ABSENTEE SENATOR’ FRANKEN WINS BY CHANGING THE RULES”
By Ryan Flynn | July 1, 2009
The Minnesota Supreme Court yesterday declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of last year's disputed Senate race, and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman's gracious concession at least spares the state any further legal combat. The unfortunate lesson is that you don't need to win the vote on Election Day as long as your lawyers are creative enough to have enough new or disqualified ballots counted after the fact.
Mr. Franken trailed Mr. Coleman by 725 votes after the initial count on election night, and 215 after the first canvass. The Democrat's strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total. The Franken legal team swarmed the recount, aggressively demanding that votes that had been disqualified be added to his count, while others be denied for Mr. Coleman.
But the team's real goldmine were absentee ballots, thousands of which the Franken team claimed had been mistakenly rejected. While Mr. Coleman's lawyers demanded a uniform standard for how counties should re-evaluate these rejected ballots, the Franken team ginned up an additional 1,350 absentees from Franken-leaning counties. By the time this treasure hunt ended, Mr. Franken was 312 votes up, and Mr. Coleman was left to file legal briefs.
Click here to read the entire editorial.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 41 Comments »
41 Responses to “MUST READ FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “THE ‘ABSENTEE SENATOR’ FRANKEN WINS BY CHANGING THE RULES””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:46 PM
It’s pretty evident that the editors of the Wall Street Journal don’t know much about elections or Minnesota.
“The Democrat’s strategy from the start was to manipulate the recount in a way that would discover votes that could add to his total.”
Well yeah. I don’t think the Democrats were looking for votes to add to Norm’s total. But the Journal is right about the absentee ballots. Conventional wisdom always held that absentee ballots skewed Republican. That may still be the case, but what we learned from the recount was that problematic absentee ballots tend to skew Democrat, no matter where they come from, incidentally.
One lesson for future reference, all sides should learn is that what matters, always, is the counting of votes on the ground. I think the Journal’s suggested order of events, that while Franken was aggressively working on the recount, the Coleman team was pontificating about noble ideal of uniform counting of votes was a bit off. Those arguments, as I recall them came later. But if that was the Coleman strategy, the subsequent course of events proved that to be the wrong strategy. The key to winning elections is to have more counted votes than the other guy.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Franken gets too much credit for the 1,350 ginned up absentee ballots. He couldn’t have done it with out the help of ACORN-endorsed Ritchie.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Hiram, The point was that Franken’s army of lawyers chose heavily democratic counties to challenge disqualified ballots. Absentee or not, these would skew towards Franken.
“Conventional wisdom always held that absentee ballots skewed Republican.” I agree, but conventional wisdom also suggests that problematic ballots will skew toward Democrats.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 AM
Unfortunately for you asshats, the Wall Street Journal doesn’t determine disputed elections in Minnesota, the Supreme Court does. Suck on it, baby!
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:28 AM
So apparently the Wall Street Jounral knows more about these legal matters than the state canvassing board, the trial courts, the appeals courts, and the Supreme Court, where all levels UNANIMOUSLY sided with Franken. Lets say that again, UNANIMOUSLY at all levels. And hmmm, the Supreme Court also had the majority of their justices picked by Republicans. Same for the canvassing board too. How can any of you right wing lunatics argue with that? To repeat what was chanted by the GOP in 2000, “we won, you lost, get over it!!!!”
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 AM
How did we let such a person (I’ll avoid epithets, there are too many of them) like Murdoch gain control of so many of the media outlets in our country? It used to be that the bias of a publisher was subtle, hidden, and often counterbalanced by at least a nod to the right of the opposition to have it’s case stated. No more. The din of lies and distortions from the right, and from Murdoch’s publications and media outlets is constant, overwhelming, and is deafening. Yet he enjoys commercial success.
The whole situation is frightening. Good sense is not prevailing.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:50 AM
There was never anything subtle about the politics of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. And that was always provided a sharp contrast with the Journal’s news coverage which while obviously written from a business perspective, is generally very balanced. I don’t think Murdoch has had much of an effect on the politics of either the editorial or news pages, but the newspaper does seem to me less business oriented, and more oriented toward general news coverage.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:12 AM
I believe I, personally, have had far too much impact on this website.
And so, with a new Senator in place, and this site taking it’s final grasps of breath, I will bid you all adieu.
To my republican advesaries, I would like to thank you for the battles, some of which were interesting and civil.
To my democratic friends, with the new regime in place at MDE, now seems like a perfect time for us to pull back and let MDE return to it’s roots as an echo chamber for republican circle jerking. While Michael had a modicum of smarts, I have seen little from Ryan Flynn that suggests this site will survive six months without our help. I encourage you all to let this happen naturally.
So that’s it. Leroy Jenkins OUT!
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:14 AM
None of these election boards or courts UNANIMOUSLY or otherwise said that there were no improperly counted Franken votes. They just said there was nothing they could legally do about it. I live in Hennepin county and voted for Coleman. I was disenfranchised by an improperly allowed absentee ballot. I will not get over it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 AM
I think that’s what we have to remember, that the courts, etc., said there were no rules violated in the recount process. They did NOT say that the result was correct, accurate, or without fraud. When there are more votes counted than there were voters who cast ballots, you have either fraud or error. You do not have a true result. When you do not have a consistent standard for evaluating questionable ballots, you allow the possibility of fraud or error. When you have an election result decided by 0.01% of the vote and the “margin of error” is as large as this, the reasonable thing to do is start over, which the court was not allowed (and probably not inclined) to do.
You lefties can say anything you want, but until there is proof to the contrary, Mr. Franken will be The Clown Who Stole Minnesota.” At least he’ll be leaving here soon.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 AM
“When there are more votes counted than there were voters who cast ballots, you have either fraud or error.”
There is always error in any election.
“When you do not have a consistent standard for evaluating questionable ballots, you allow the possibility of fraud or error.”
Sure, but if you did have a consistent standard for evaluating questionable ballots, there is still a possibility of fraud or error.
“When you have an election result decided by 0.01% of the vote and the “margin of error†is as large as this, the reasonable thing to do is start over, which the court was not allowed (and probably not inclined) to do.”
I am absolutely opposed to do-overs for close elections. Some of my reasons are purely partisan. Republicans do better in special elections. I prefer the results we get in general elections when more people vote.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Minnesota does a better job than many states in providing standards for election officials. But inevitably, the application of standards we lead to inconsistent results. That’s just in the nature of things. Reasonable people just differ on stuff. In retrospect, some will argue that our standards are too vague, and should be more detailed. But let’s keep in mind the downside of establishing more detailed standards. Basically, the more rules there are, the more arguments you can make about rules. And as a practical matter, at the end of long election days, the more rules you have the more likely the citizen election judges are more likely to ignore them. And who is going to establish such detailed rules? Election laws are notoriously hard to change because such changes have to be made by elected officials who have to be persuaded to change a system that has benefited them.
The simple fact is that elections are messy because people are messy. There are changes you can make, but when you get down to it, what you will tend to find is that such changes have the effect of either ignoring, or rearranging the mess. Let’s just count the votes as best we can and then move on with our lives.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I can see why people like Leroy Jenkins are bugging out. I’d be a little embarassed to be a Democrat today when the June jobs report just came out and showed that the economy lost another half million jobs last month.
Yes, MinnyDem, your guy is now the Senator. But it’s becoming clear that you’re party’s agenda is failing and it’s causing serious pain to millions of families.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 AM
yeah.. if we could only go back to the conservative Republican policies that screwed everything up in the first place!
Chris.. how does it feel to be a cheerleader for bad economic news? Don’t you feel a little unpatriotic?
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Unemployment rate December 2005 = 4.90%
Unemployment rate June 2009 – 9.5%
What has changed? The Democrats took over Congress January 2006 and the White House January 2009.
Vote Republican in 2010 for the good of the country.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Franken is Senator now. That is a fact and facts are stubborn things as I run into them countlessly every day. I will say this though…Al Franken was at the right place at the right time under the right circumstances to win a United States Senate seat that would have normally been a laughable pursuit. He lost basically because counties with high Republican majorities followed the four standard rules for accepting and rejecting absentee ballots. Hennepin County and Ramsey and others did not especially Hennepin. The courts found no remedy for this situation without opening a can of worms. Indeed the tribunal court when it established their own standards (Friday the 13th of all days) were found to be inconsistent. It was really weird as a normal man trying to understand what was being said in the media. The media kept spewing that these standards for absentees were clear cut: four clear objective standards established by the state. Well then why was it so difficult to apply these standards? The absentee ballots were available for this scrutiny. I guess I can understand the reason why the judges didn’t go further was because to dishonor formally counted votes would look bad. Well, I have this recommendation for the tribunal, since it was the tribunal’s main responsibility. They should all have written opinions that reflected the reasons in not fairly applying the clear cut standards. They should have said something like this (I use plain speech): This is truly a horrible day when law and Justice do to political barriers and technical difficulties (and swarming lawyers ready to throe in lawsuits at the drop of a hat) has to ration its reach. The state was not prepared for Obama mania and handled it the best we could (all the excess absentees). Overall MN did a good job. The problem we have is due to competence not power lusting avariciousness (It would’ve have occurred to them on election night that accepting illegitimate absentee ballots would help their candidates…only later would it dawn. This is speculation of course the liberals may have been brighter than this on election night…but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Conservative counties for the most part upheld the 4 standards for rejecting and accepting the absentee ballots. Liberal counties as Hennepin Minneapolis precincts (Dinky Town was a problem) could not seem to follow the clear cut 4 criterial standards for absentee ballot. Again this was not done on purpose it was due to two main issues. One was the sheer enormity of Obama mania absentee ballots that swarmed these liberal precincts and number two was the fact that liberals by their nature view freedom as freedom from all rules and regulations that don’t feel “fair” or “right” in the heated moment real time and situation. I would say this to you square cut mind your P’s and Q’s Republicans…Quit being so rules minded…rules are made to be broken we as judges know this better than anyone. You conservatives must apply the reasonable person standard…I mean why not fudge on the rules…no one else gives a dam*! Republicans need more bad boys and bad girls to match the average liberal avengers. That is all, good day.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:48 PM
“yeah.. if we could only go back to the conservative Republican policies that screwed everything up in the first place!”
Which conservative policy — I mean it, name ONE — screwed anything up?
The entirety of the economic calamity — from Wall Street Bailouts to the housing bubble — are entirely the result of liberal policies… all of it.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Liberal danbrome says, “Chris.. how does it feel to be a cheerleader for bad economic news? Don’t you feel a little unpatriotic?”
Liberal danbrome, Obama spoke about this exact “news” earlier today.
Liberal danbrome: Thinks Obama is unpatriotic.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 PM
“I never lie; unless it’s absolutely necessary” ~Senator Scumbag (Scrub, MN)
Congratulations to Senator Scumbag and his mangy pack of mongrel supporters.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:23 PM
“This is truly a horrible day when law and Justice do to political barriers and technical difficulties (and swarming lawyers ready to throe in lawsuits at the drop of a hat) has to ration its reach.”
It’s the job of courts to decide issues of law, not to provide us all with their insights and meditations on the state of our body politic, or to lard their opinions with over the top adjectives.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:52 PM
I have to agree with Chestnut. Please name one conservative policy that screwed things up. Just one.
Will danbrome respond? I’ve noticed he usually attacks then runs away to another topic so I have my doubts. He claims to be a moderate but he acts like a liberal, whats up with that?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 PM
What do you know… give me a break. I was being sill of course no one (especially judges) will admit their limitations due to socio-related externalities. If you don’t believe that popular sentiment (mob rule)externalities heavily weigh the court and all other institutions’ decisions you are in never-ever-land. Speaking of Never-Ever-Land, that is where the Dem’s next candidate for governor will be from. Andy Dawkin’s anybody?
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Invading a Sovereign Nation to the tune of a trillion dollars.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy during 7 years of the war of choice. The concept of a balanced budget was flushed, and the immoral party carried on.
A total DENIAL that our health care system will bankrupt this country unless we fix it.
Of course, you GOP apologists will laugh and insult me for this post for one simple reason. You have no clue about what you have done.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:18 PM
chile..
President Obama cited the report because that is his job, to communicate with the American people.
As you well know, he does not relish in the disappointing labor figures the way Chris clearly does.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 PM
What the hell have I ever done here to suggest I am a liberal? Seriously.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Oh that’s right, anybody to the left of Dick Cheney is a liberal.
Nevermind!
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Liberal danbrome: pro-tax, pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-Obama, pro-Franken, pro-Madia, & anti-America.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 PM
I assume the first is the war in Iraq. That war was authorized by the UN and based on the violation of UN resolutions by Iraq. It was also based on commonly held beliefs by a number of countries that Iraq had and would use AGAIN chemical weapons.
Income tax cuts for the wealthy? I received a tax cut and I sure as hell ain’t wealthy. Besides, you can’t give income tax cuts to the poor because they don’t pay income taxes.
Denial of the problems with our health care system? Just because Republicans don’t agree with you liberal solution does not mean they are in denial. Maybe if the Democrats were willing to work on the issue in a bipartisan way we could get somewhere.
Of course, you DFL apologists will laugh and insult me for this post for one simple reason. You have no clue about what the truth actually is.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 PM
brone,
You are such a frigging moron, it isn’t even funny. Where did you ever suggest that you were a liberal??? Come on! Ever read what you post, idiot? Like post #23 where you said the Iraq war was illegal and cost over $1 trillion. Both notions are far-left propaganda from the Daily Kooks and Move On morons. Or your bitching about so-called tax cuts for the rich. Or like how you said that our health care system is going to bankrupt the country.
You are so stupid, brone. It’s your president that’s bankrupting the country. Ever look at his budget and how we have a bigger deficit now than the first seven years of the Bush administration combined? We have the best health care system in the world and people like you and Obama want to dismantle and ration it.
You’re a waste of time. Go find something else to do, pipsqueak.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:48 PM
chris..
everything in post #29 is patently false, especially where you say I called the war illegal.
Check it again Einstein.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 PM
p.s.
if you truly believe that babble, I feel sorry for you… seriously.
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:51 PM
“We have the best health care system in the world”
Who, for you?
July 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 PM
chris..
hey dummy, it’s not the best health care if you don’t have access to it or simply can’t afford it. That’s the part we need to all work together to fix.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:35 PM
brone,
Dealing with you is like dealing with a gnat. We already have the best health care system in the world, bar none. And we have that health care right in Minnesota where thousands of people from around the world come to get treatments for their afflictions.
You’re right, there are too many people who are uninsured or are struggling to pay for their health care premiums. The answer to that isn’t to tax health care benefits so employers drop coverage. And it’s not to throw out our entire system to “save” the few. If we wanted to make health care mor affordable, there are several solutions: make 100% of insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs tax deductible. We can also encourage employers to provide health savings accounts for employees. You can control costs far more if patients (ie. consumers) know what a procedure costs than if they’re only paying the deductible or co-payments.
Some say there are 40 million people in our country without health insurance. But out of that number, how many are illegal immigrants and how many are young people who don’t consume health care services at the same rate of older Americans?
Further, if you think nationalized health care is some panacea (as you’ve indicated you do), let’s look to our neighbors to the north and their “free” health care. Canada has a 16% higher death rate than the U.S. In Canada, the mortality rate for colon cancer is 42% where in the U.S., it’s 31%. There is currently an eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients. And the best chemo medicines are not available. In Canada, you cannot even privately pay for your own medical services, which explains why Canadians are brought across the border to states like Minnesota for health care.
Cutting costs and increasing patients leads to health care rationing, which even Obama admits.
Finally, don’t try to B.S. me, pipsqueak. You most certainly said the Iraq war was illegal in post 23 when you said that we invaded a Sovereign Nation. I guess you think life would be better if Saddam was still in power and acquiring nuclear weapons along with Iran and North Korea. It will be interesting to see if we celebrate our Independence Day with rockets from North Korea streaking our way — and no response from Obama.
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:25 AM
“Some say there are 40 million people in our country without health insurance. But out of that number, how many are illegal immigrants and how many are young people who don’t consume health care services at the same rate of older Americans?”
The figure generally cited is 47 million people. And the fact that young people opt out of insurance, betting in effect that if they do get sick, the state will support them, is one of the fundamental things that’s wrong with our current health care system.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Danbourne:
Silly question, but you do understand if you’re ill you can be bought into an emergency room and get treated? So yes it’s accessible to every single person.
One reason why ER’s are crowded and cost so much is that a lot people use the ER for their primary health care and than don’t pay the bill. Thus when people go in for legitmate purposes their insurance or they themselves have to pay for those people also.
Instead of trying to reform the whole system maybe Congress and you liberals can work out a solution to this part of the problem first. One hospital I think did a study and about 100 patients created the bulk of their ER costs because of their frequent visits for routine things. Keep in mind with national health care this will still be a problme so it needs to be worked out
now!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
July 4th, 2009 at 5:33 PM
“One reason why ER’s are crowded and cost so much is that a lot people use the ER for their primary health care and than don’t pay the bill.”
Of course they do. That’s one reason why health care costs are so high for the rest of us.
“One hospital I think did a study and about 100 patients created the bulk of their ER costs because of their frequent visits for routine things.”
Sure, and it’s an expensive way to have routine things done.
“Keep in mind with national health care this will still be a problem so it needs to be worked out
now!”
I would hope that people who are insured wouldn’t feel the need to go to emergency rooms for routine medical care.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Hiram, the point that Walter made is that everyone does have access to medical care. The red herring that liberals continue to point to is the idea that people are told to go away and die.
Insured people go to the emergency room everyday because they don’t want to wait for an appointment with their clinic. Can you imagine what the wait for an appointment with a PCP would be under Obama-Care?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:43 PM
chris..
Do you think American has the right to invade a sovereign nation?
July 6th, 2009 at 11:45 PM
“everyone does have access to medical care”
I guess that says it all. No wonder we can’t solve this problem, with mindless conclusions like that.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:22 AM
Liberal danbrome aks: “Do you think American has the right to invade a sovereign nation?”
Yes Liberal danbrome American (sic) has the right to invade a sovereign nation. Germany was a sovereign nation in WWII when we invaded it. Did you know that then?
This right is one we reserve when a country threatens our national security. We usually don’t invade such nations, we just bomb the shit out of them.
As far as North Korea, expect Obama to continue to sit idly by claiming the North Koreans began developing their missile program years ago – so it’s not his problem.