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

[Brittain33]

The Frankenfolks are claiming that they have Coleman's lead under 100. See TPM.

[Brittain33]

Ok, this is worse than the thumbprint thing.  The Coleman campaign is challenging ballots simply because they are clear McCain/Franken votes and is challenging McCain ballots that simply left the senate race empty, arguing that it shows “intent.”
http://the-uptake.groups.theuptake.org/en/videogalleryView/id/1341/

Here's a fun game courtesy of the Coleman folks: Guess why Franken's people challenged the ballot!
BALLOT C
BALLOT D

Okay I give up, whats the argument?  Those are clear Coleman votes.  Looks like both sides are putting out really stupid challenges.

I'd guess that C has a line "pointing" to Barkley while D isn't a completely filled oval.

[Brittain33]

What was Nate Silver's prediction, again?

[Brittain33]

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

Does that really matter, though? Either the Democratic government will be popular, in which case this argument will go over like a lead balloon, or it will be unpopular, in which case they don't need this detailed an argument for voting out Democrats.

[Brittain33]

Talking Points Memo's response to the WSJ:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note that the WSJ goes on and on about how unpleasant it is to decide a victor with so many irregularities--which is true!--but the only solution they have is for Coleman to keep things up in court, piling muck upon muck and hoping he could come out the winner. This implicitly recognizes that Republicans signed off on all these decisions as well as Democrats. If they had the courage of their convictions, they'd argue to have the election vacated and the process changed for the future. Instead, they cherry-pick complaints and then commit themselves to the process provided it could yield a Coleman victory. Some principle.