MN Sen Recount (UPDATE: Stuart Smalley certified winner, lawsuit forthcoming)

[Mr.Phips]

Franken's up by 570 votes?
http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenci.html

That has got to be some kind of error. 

[Mr.Phips]

Oops, now Coleman is up by 196 votes. 

[Mr.Phips]

Today's recount results:

Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Norm Coleman   195708
Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Al Franken   180950
 
Recounted Data   Totals   Percent
RECOUNT Number of Ballots for Coleman (as recounted)   195638   43.25
RECOUNT Number of Ballots for Franken (as recounted)   180923   39.99
RECOUNT Number of All Other Ballots (as recounted)   75585   16.71
RECOUNT COLEMAN and Other Ballots Challenged By FRANKEN   106   0.02
RECOUNT FRANKEN and Other Ballots Challenged By COLEMAN   115   0.03

Percentage of Ballots Recounted = 15.49 %

Recount (so far)
Coleman: - 70
Franken: - 27

Net Result: Coleman - 43 votes

http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp

This gives Coleman a lead of 181. 

[Mr.Phips]

Coleman +143 according to StarTrib, 30% recounted, but only 8% in Minneapolis.

it's becoming more difficult to continue to expect the worst.

What is the worst?

[Mr.Phips]

Coleman owes Obama big time here.  If Obama had come in and campaigned for Franken on the Monday before the election, Coleman would have been toast. 

[Mr.Phips]

Some challenges are ones with no senate vote (thus no vote was removed) too, on the basis of inconsistency.

I dont see how any of those types of challengers could be upheld. 

[Mr.Phips]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

They cant make every race that way.  There is a good chance that Democrats could lose a seat and then it wouldn't be 60. 

[Mr.Phips]

Stop depressing me, Lunar.

As a Democrat, I didn't want him to win either.  But you were the one calling the race for Franken on this thread long before the facts came in.  Might as well get used to it.

Having 59 seats is bad for Dems for another reason - every single race in 2010 will become a referendum on 60.

They cant make every race that way.  There is a good chance that Democrats could lose a seat and then it wouldn't be 60. 

Oh, they can make that argument in every race and they will.

Not against Democratic incumbents.  They can simply say "59 + 0 does not equal 60". 

[Mr.Phips]

The Democrats have... one "vulnerable" seat in 2010 in Reid's seat?  I suppose the hopeful people might look at CO, IL, NY, HI, CT, and WI?  2010 is largely the year of Republican defense.

I mean, the ratio of Democratic seats to Republican seats in 2010 compared to other years (due to coincidence) is staggering, although slightly less so thanks to CO-DE-IL-NY which recently became open. 

I agree here.  If Democrats have a bad year, they could still end up with no net loss in the Senate.  This is basically what happened in 1982.  Republicans actually picked up a seat that year because Democrats had so many seats to defend.  

[Mr.Phips]

Talking about preventing total Democratic dominance of the Senate should play really well in a midterm year.  Midterm voters aren't geniuses, but they're much smarter about politics than your average 2008 voter.

Talk about filibusters will be all over Fox News and the usual GOP outlets, so one would imagine that Republicans will understand the stakes.  Take a look at an internal poll sometime—these kinds of arguements work surprisingly well with politically interested Indy voters. 

This didnt work for Democrats in 2002.