Is McDaniel going to run as write-in candidate?

[NHLiberal]

In that case, I guess the courts could define the word democrat as 'anyone who voted for any democratic MS U.S. House or U.S. Senate candidate, or for Pres. Obama, in 2012.', and then throw out the votes of those people and recount the remaining ballots, or hold a second runoff closed off to anyone who fits the above definition of 'democrat', but neither of those scenarios seems very likely either.

The ballot is secret and not connected to a particular name. There's no way to ever know who did or didn't vote for Obama in 2012, and even if you took sworn statements somehow, there's no way to know whether to take votes away from McDaniel or from Cochran.

But, at least in most states, data is kept as to whether each voter took a republican or democratic ballot, which amounts to the same thing. Of course what the person you're responding to is suggesting would never happen, but it's worth knowing that ballots are recorded.

Huh? In the general election, there is one ballot.

[cinyc]

But, at least in most states, data is kept as to whether each voter took a republican or democratic ballot, which amounts to the same thing. Of course what the person you're responding to is suggesting would never happen, but it's worth knowing that ballots are recorded.

No it doesn't.  Voting in a primary is totally different than voting in a general election.  It's possible that someone voted in the 2008 Democratic primary for Hillary because they hated Obama and never voted for him or any other Democrat in the general election.  Is that person a "Democrat" or a "Republican"?  And then there's the problem that the 2012 Mississippi Democratic Primary was sparsely attended, with fewer than 100,000 votes cast.  Obama ran unopposed.  The only major race was the Senate primary. 

Plus, even if you consider voting in a primary as proxy for party registration, even in states with party registration, people can easily change parties over a 2-year period.  Thus, there's no way to legitimately say that someone who was a "Democrat" in 2012 shouldn't be considered a "Republican" in 2014.  People who voted in the 2014 Democratic primary were already barred from voting in the runoff.

[Orser67]

I get that states have a legitimate interest in setting a deadline for candidates to qualify for ballot access, but (Constitutionally) I don't think states should be able to ban write-in candidates (except perhaps in top-two states). Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with me in Burdick v. Takushi (1992), but a challenge to a law invalidating write-in votes could make for an interesting case, imo.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

McDaniel is currently saying 'maybe' as to whether he will actually challenge the vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/politics/primary-wrap/index.html?hpt=po_c1

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I doubt it, if he's smart enough to realize that it could split the GOP vote.  But at this point, I just think he's a sore loser.

[Badger]

He may fight it in court if he thinks he's got even a slim chance, but he won't go rogue. He knows he won't win that way and he'll only damage his future chances for higher office.

[Fuzzy Says: "Abolish NPR!"]

He refused to concede the race. Is he going to ask for a recount? Does he even have the money to pay for one?

Does FreedomWorks or TPE have the money to pay for one?  Remember, they're the ones financing his operations. 

They probably do, but a normal recount won't change a thing - a recount isn't going to overturn Cochran's victory margin (6,693 votes). What needs to happen for McDaniel to win is either

1)The courts throwing out the votes of all who aren't registered republicans and then recounting the remaining ballots, or

2)The courts demanding that a second runoff be held, which is closed off to anyone who wasn't a registered republican as of June 23, 2014. (the day before the runoff) (prohibiting last-minute registration changes between the 1st and 2nd runoffs)

Neither scenario seems very likely.

No, both of those scenarios are impossible because there is no partisan voter registration in Mississippi.

I don't know why you people have yet to understand this, in Mississippi there are are no such things as Republicans and Democrats.

And why would the outside groups be willing to support a legal challenge when they've already conceded?

You do, in a state with no party registration, sort of "become" a "Republican" or a "Democrat" by voting in that party's primary for that year.  If you vote in the 1st primary as a Democrat, you are supposed to be ineligible to vote in the GOP runoff for any office.  Cochran would have a problem if McDaniel could somehow show that many black voters who participated in the second primary voted in the Democratic primary in the first round.

In 1986, Democrat Charlie Graddick, Alabama's Atty. General, ran for Governor in an open race.  He defeated Lt. Gov. Bill Baxley, who was more or less a national Democrat in the runoff.  Graddick was a conservative Democrat who, like Fob James, had previously voted in a Republican primary, and became a Democrat in the days when Alabama was solidly Dixie Democrat at the state level, and he appealed to Republicans to vote for him in the runoff.  Enough did to give Graddick victory in the runoff by a narrow margin.  Baxley, however, went to Court and pointed out that many GOP 1st primary voters voted in the Democratic runoff.  The Court actually reversed the results of the runoff and gave Baxley the nomination.  (This wasn't a great move for Baxley; he got creamed by a Republican nobody, Guy Hunt, in the general election, and resentment over how he won the primary was a key reason.)

Is this the deal with Cochran?  No one has yet said that it was, but if enough black voters voted that were, technically, ineligible because of having voted in the primary, McDaniel may prevail in Court.  And he would, IMO, fare better in the general election than Bill Baxley did in Alabama, in part because McDaniel is, indeed, swimming with the tide in MS, whereas Baxley was bucking a GOP trend, even in a Democratic year in 1986.  McDaniel's a jerk, but he's ambitious, and in the end, he will not be a party bolter.