The Hill: Jennings to take on Buchanan, again

[Adlai Stevenson]

By Jeremy Jacobs
July 19, 2007

Florida Democrat Christine Jennings, who lost to Rep. Vern Buchanan (R) by just 373 votes in November, launched her bid to unseat the first-term congressman Thursday.

“We have an obligation to future generations to leave our country in better shape than when we inherited it,” Jennings said at her announcement in Sarasota, Fla. “But we must lead by our actions and not our words to inspire young people to become engaged in the political process. Restoring confidence in elections is an important step, but only the first.”

Jennings and Buchanan first squared off last November, when they sought Florida’s 13th district seat that former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (R) vacated for her Senate run. After losing to Buchanan, Jennings challenged the results of the election, alleging that voting machines failed to appropriately count thousands of votes in Sarasota County, her stronghold. While an audit of the voting machines found nothing amiss, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into the election results is ongoing.

“When I first decided to run, it was because I thought I could make a difference,” Jennings, a former Republican, said. “And since November, I have done so.

“While we can be proud of how much we have accomplished together,” Jennings added, “we also know that there are many other issues that will determine the future of our country. And this campaign is all about the future.”

Jennings, a career banker, said that just as she has doggedly challenged the results of the 2006 election, she will fight for the interests of the district.

“For those of you who have watched me during the last eight months, and for those of you who have known me for years, you know that when I make a commitment, I keep it,” she said. “Let me close by making one more commitment to you — nobody in Congress will work harder to secure our future than I will.”

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/jennings-to-take-on-buchanan-again-2007-07-19.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh Lord...

[Sam Spade]

Best news Vern could've had (if she gets nomination).  People typically don't like a sore loser.

[TheresNoMoney]

Jennings got robbed in 2006.

We'll see what happens in 2008. Could go either way.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Jennings got robbed in 2006.

We'll see what happens in 2008. Could go either way.

Jennings will get slaughtered.  It's a Republican district, and she's done little since the election but alienate voters.

[Jaggerjack]

Oh, JC, can't we just get someone else to run?

[Mr.Phips]

Jennings got robbed in 2006.

We'll see what happens in 2008. Could go either way.

Jennings will get slaughtered.  It's a Republican district, and she's done little since the election but alienate voters.

Not that Republican.  Republicans think they can win back districts like KY-03, CT-02, CT-05, NH-02, IA-02, PA-07, and PA-08 that are as Democratic or even more so than FL-13 is Republican.

[Conan]

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Jennings got robbed in 2006.

We'll see what happens in 2008. Could go either way.

Jennings will get slaughtered.  It's a Republican district, and she's done little since the election but alienate voters.

Not that Republican.  Republicans think they can win back districts like KY-03, CT-02, CT-05, NH-02, IA-02, PA-07, and PA-08 that are as Democratic or even more so than FL-13 is Republican.

In this case, there's nothing to "win back."  This district has always been Republican in modern history.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

[Keystone Phil]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

[Mr.Phips]

Jennings got robbed in 2006.

We'll see what happens in 2008. Could go either way.

Jennings will get slaughtered.  It's a Republican district, and she's done little since the election but alienate voters.

Not that Republican.  Republicans think they can win back districts like KY-03, CT-02, CT-05, NH-02, IA-02, PA-07, and PA-08 that are as Democratic or even more so than FL-13 is Republican.

In this case, there's nothing to "win back."  This district has always been Republican in modern history.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

I didn't say Democrats were trying to "win back" the district.  Im saying that Republicans think they can win districts that are very similar to FL-13 but in the other partisan direction.

[Adlai Stevenson]

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

I agree.  She probably did win but I think she would have stood a better chance if she had just admitted the election was over - the way she dragged it out won't help her.  I think she'll still make it close, say 52%-47%, but its a Republican district (56%-43% for Bush in 2004).  The Democrats won it in 2006, but hard luck. 

[Conan]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

All indications said if the 18000 votes were counted she would have won. Do you understand? Anyway, not everything I say is what I mean at the time. It would have been better for me to say probably or most likely.

[Keystone Phil]

Anyway, not everything I say is what I mean at the time.

Wow. I like that one.

[Speed of Sound]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

Wait wait wait....HE'S a partisan election predictor, Mr. Santorum will still win even though hes 15 points down in October?

[Conan]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

Wait wait wait....HE'S a partisan election predictor, Mr. Santorum will still win even though hes 15 points down in October?

For the record... I predicted the 2006 Senate elections exactly. I also predicted the House elections within range. I think my record speaks for itself, as does his.

[Keystone Phil]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

Wait wait wait....HE'S a partisan election predictor, Mr. Santorum will still win even though hes 15 points down in October?

Compare that one prediction with my other ones, Speedy. Then look at his predictions/comments.

Conan is right - my record does speak for itself. I called ever Senate race correctly also with the exception of PA.

[7,052,770]

It's not partisan to say that Jennings was the winner, since all indicators suggest she would have if the 18,000 had been counted.

It is pretty partisan to say that she definitely would have or that she's a sore loser (the green avatar fools no one, Sam).

I don't get why Republicans think that people who legitimately won elections and have been declared otherwise should just roll over and accept a wronged defeat...if you won, fight for it!

[Mr.Phips]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

Wait wait wait....HE'S a partisan election predictor, Mr. Santorum will still win even though hes 15 points down in October?

Compare that one prediction with my other ones, Speedy. Then look at his predictions/comments.

Conan is right - my record does speak for itself. I called ever Senate race correctly also with the exception of PA.

You called New Jersey for Kean.

[Keystone Phil]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

Wait wait wait....HE'S a partisan election predictor, Mr. Santorum will still win even though hes 15 points down in October?

Compare that one prediction with my other ones, Speedy. Then look at his predictions/comments.

Conan is right - my record does speak for itself. I called ever Senate race correctly also with the exception of PA.

You called New Jersey for Kean.

Absolutely not true. Check my final prediction.

[Sam Spade]

It's not partisan to say that Jennings was the winner, since all indicators suggest she would have if the 18,000 had been counted.

If they even voted in the race.  Where's the conclusive proof for your statement.

For example, I (or you) could say that those 20,000 "Buchanan" voters in West Palm Beach really meant to vote for Gore.  But where's the evidence that would meet any sort of burden in showing that was their intent was to vote for Gore.  Their statements after the fact when they knew the race was extremely close.  The fact that Buchanan support was fairly strong in that district. 

This is all circumstantial evidence and certainly not enough to meet the burden of proof to show otherwise.  How do we know that they didn't actually for Gore, regardless of their memory/recollection (which can certainly is faulty)?  How do we know they didn't change their mind after voting.

Your gut may say one thing, but the provable facts often state otherwise.  If we were to decide elections based on suspicions and not on the recorded votes and election law, this country would certainly not last for long.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Whenever someone is challenging an election 8 months after an election, insisting the voters who we are unsure actually voted did vote and won her the election (and no conclusive proof has been presented for any court of law saying this, otherwise a judge might listen), she appears to an ordinary person to be a sore loser.  That's a simple fact, not opinion.  Bringing me into this is irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats would do the exact same thing if the roles were reversed.  Don't kid yourself.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

All indications said if the 18000 votes were counted she would have won. Do you understand? Anyway, not everything I say is what I mean at the time. It would have been better for me to say probably or most likely.

Not to touch on points Sam already brought up, but the crux of Jennings' arguement is that it's statistically impossible for Buchanan to have won, so the machines must have been faulty, or the ballot design tricked people, or something.

It can't necessarily be argued that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, more people voted for Jennings (cause, you know, the numbers say otherwise).  It similarly can't be argued, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that more people intended to vote for Jennings, because if they were so set on voting for her, they'd have looked for her name on the ballot.

What I do believe is that this particular district had bad ballot design.  Had the ballot been designed better, I have little doubt that Jennings would have picked up the few votes she needed to flip this one from R to D.

But you just can't overturn an election on that.  It's a lot of hypothetical arguments that can't be proved.  Under the set of rules that both candidates agreed to (as evidenced, at least, by their silence), Buchanan won.  Narrowly.

Poor ballot design is not a good enough reason to go through the spectacle of a re-vote.

There's not real solution here to make everyone happy, but in the future, campaigns should be more vigilant about things like poor ballot design so they can raise concerns before their candidate loses by a couple votes, rather than after.

Jennings doesn't seem to be able to accept that it's possible to lose an election by a couple votes, and wants to drag this out.  It's a shame, because it does nothing more than ruin herself for a future run.

Can you imagine how unpopular John Kerry would be had he dragged the election of 2004 out until July of 2005 after the rest of the nation had moved on a few days later?

Now, I understand that not everyone will agree with me (specifically the Democrats), and I don't necessarily expect them to.  But to think this matter is so black and white, where Jennings definitely got more votes and Buchanan definitely stole this race, I mean...come on.  That's ridiculous.

[SomeLawStudent]

.

It's a terrible position to be in. She obviously won, but now she just looks like a schmuck. She won't win in 2008 probably.

Obviously?

You haven't noticed that he's pretty partisan yet?

Wait wait wait....HE'S a partisan election predictor, Mr. Santorum will still win even though hes 15 points down in October?

Compare that one prediction with my other ones, Speedy. Then look at his predictions/comments.

Conan is right - my record does speak for itself. I called ever Senate race correctly also with the exception of PA.

How could one call every race correctly, except for PA, which was tremendously lopsided?

[Keystone Phil]

How could one call every race correctly, except for PA, which was tremendously lopsided?

Very, very long story (you have to know about my loyalties to Santorum, Santorum as a comeback candidate in the past, etc.)