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

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This thread is starting to get as nasty as the Minnesota Senate race itself...

[Keystone Phil]

He's reading the three elections as:

-PA-13 2004
-Santorum 2006
-McCain in Pennsylvania 2008

Basically the three notorious ones that he blew big time.

He said "nailing" three elections, dope. Why would I think that that would mean getting them wrong?

It was, as any dullard could see (and, yes, you can take that as a personal attack; I'm sick of your victimization and have no problem with attacking you on it), a generalized statement.

LOL!

I love this one because it talks about me playing the victim and I didn't even have to report this post! Hahaha!

No, it isn't clearly a generalized statement. He was throwing subtle jabs at me earlier and so it's not ridiculous to think that his random number of elections that he was talking about was also about me.

He's reading the three elections as:

-PA-13 2004
-Santorum 2006
-McCain in Pennsylvania 2008

Basically the three notorious ones that he blew big time.

the problem is, Phil didn't blow PA 2008, he never claimed McCain would win, even if he probably hoped and prayed for it.

He did roughly up until September and kept arguing that the polls were all wrong because of the power of the Almighty Bradley Effect or something. He then admitted Obama would win Pennsylvania but still kept arguing that it would be a lot closer than the polls showed and that he would do worse than Kerry in Philadelphia because of his anecdotal evidence. All of it of course ended up being garbage.

many people thought PA would be closer than the polls, myself included.

So you're yet another believe in that Almighty All Powerful Bradley Effect?

Or people can think that poll leads are overblown. Plenty of others agreed that PA would be closer, assclown.

[Franzl]

He's reading the three elections as:

-PA-13 2004
-Santorum 2006
-McCain in Pennsylvania 2008

Basically the three notorious ones that he blew big time.

the problem is, Phil didn't blow PA 2008, he never claimed McCain would win, even if he probably hoped and prayed for it.

He did roughly up until September and kept arguing that the polls were all wrong because of the power of the Almighty Bradley Effect or something. He then admitted Obama would win Pennsylvania but still kept arguing that it would be a lot closer than the polls showed and that he would do worse than Kerry in Philadelphia because of his anecdotal evidence. All of it of course ended up being garbage.

many people thought PA would be closer than the polls, myself included.

So you're yet another believe in that Almighty All Powerful Bradley Effect?

not necessarily, although I thought PA would be more prone to it than many other states. That combined with McCain's constant campaigning....made me think Obama might do worse than people thought. You don't necessarily have to believe in the Bradley Effect to worry about it.

But if a state was going to underpoll McCain, I was pretty sure PA would be a likely one.

[Keystone Phil]

Virginia easily has a better chance of flipping than PA does

You are such a hack. It makes me ill.

*throws fuel on fire and runs*

I love it when you say that you don't have anything against me.

[Verily]

He's reading the three elections as:

-PA-13 2004
-Santorum 2006
-McCain in Pennsylvania 2008

Basically the three notorious ones that he blew big time.

the problem is, Phil didn't blow PA 2008, he never claimed McCain would win, even if he probably hoped and prayed for it.

He did roughly up until September and kept arguing that the polls were all wrong because of the power of the Almighty Bradley Effect or something. He then admitted Obama would win Pennsylvania but still kept arguing that it would be a lot closer than the polls showed and that he would do worse than Kerry in Philadelphia because of his anecdotal evidence. All of it of course ended up being garbage.

many people thought PA would be closer than the polls, myself included.

So you're yet another believe in that Almighty All Powerful Bradley Effect?

BRTD, go away.

Anyway, Phil did not, as I recall, predict Pennsylvania to be anything but substantially Obama at the end. He didn't do so earlier, but, if we're going to sing the praises of dynamic models, we have to at least allow him to change his predictions. BRTD I suspect is conflating blue PA avatars a bit in his rush.

[Iosif]

I think people should stop being mean to Phil.

[Holmes]

Oh my god who cares, I keep expecting recount news with all these new posts and all I'm getting is stupid bitching about an analyst.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

He's reading the three elections as:

-PA-13 2004
-Santorum 2006
-McCain in Pennsylvania 2008

Basically the three notorious ones that he blew big time.

the problem is, Phil didn't blow PA 2008, he never claimed McCain would win, even if he probably hoped and prayed for it.

He did roughly up until September and kept arguing that the polls were all wrong because of the power of the Almighty Bradley Effect or something. He then admitted Obama would win Pennsylvania but still kept arguing that it would be a lot closer than the polls showed and that he would do worse than Kerry in Philadelphia because of his anecdotal evidence. All of it of course ended up being garbage.

many people thought PA would be closer than the polls, myself included.

So you're yet another believe in that Almighty All Powerful Bradley Effect?

BRTD, go away.

Anyway, Phil did not, as I recall, predict Pennsylvania to be anything but substantially Obama at the end. He didn't do so earlier, but, if we're going to sing the praises of dynamic models, we have to at least allow him to change his predictions. BRTD I suspect is conflating blue PA avatars a bit in his rush.

I admitted Phil did switch to predicting an Obama victory, but even then he continued to argue about all those hordes of Democrats in his neighborhood who said they wouldn't vote for him and how he would underperform in Philly as a result. And while he did drop the idiotic Bradley Effect worship unlike his fellow Republican from Philly, he was a big advocate of it earlier (even saying that I was as "horse's ass" if I rejected the idea of any Bradley Effect in PA.) Really though it's moot since no one was attacking him on it, he just jumped to conclusions seeing the "three elections" remark read as a sarcastic attack.

[Keystone Phil]

Really though it's moot since no one was attacking him on it, he just jumped to conclusions seeing the "three elections" remark read as a sarcastic attack.

And you're even more of a dope for thinking that someone would think "nailing" three elections meant incorrectly predicting the outcome.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Really though it's moot since no one was attacking him on it, he just jumped to conclusions seeing the "three elections" remark read as a sarcastic attack.

And you're even more of a dope for thinking that someone would think "nailing" three elections meant incorrectly predicting the outcome.

I assumed you were reading it as a sarcastic attack. If that wasn't the case then explain why you found it so offensive.

On a side note I'll admit my sarcastic Bradley Effect comments here were a little out of line as the only person on the forum who still views it that way hasn't posted in this thread.

[Alcon]

Really though it's moot since no one was attacking him on it, he just jumped to conclusions seeing the "three elections" remark read as a sarcastic attack.

And you're even more of a dope for thinking that someone would think "nailing" three elections meant incorrectly predicting the outcome.

if you didn't think it was sardonic, how could you have possibly taken it as an insult...?

You think I was saying that predicting three elections right makes someone dumber than someone who has predicted no elections correctly?  or what?

[Sam Spade]

folks, this is just a mild message, but keep things civil, and somewhat on topic or the recent posts will get broken off from the thread and closed.  consider this a friendly warning from your moderator.

[Keystone Phil]

if you didn't think it was sardonic, how could you have possibly taken it as an insult...?

You then said that getting them correct didn't take much intelligence.

I try to have a discussion about an overrated analyst and it gets turned into the usual "Phil is an idiot who can't predict for his life" discussion. Then I get a lecture from the spineless sell out about chilling out. This was, of course, after he posted, "Throws fuel on the fire and runs." Nice.

Believe me, folks, I'm not playing the victim especially with some of you people. Not worth my time. However, don't sit there and expect me to take the constant shit thrown my way without a response.

[Lunar]

I'm a spineless sell-out!

But yeah, let's talk about the ballots.

[Keystone Phil]

spineless sell-out? 

Did I say that? Silly me. I don't know who I could have been talking about. My sincerest apologies.




Chill with the paranoia, my friend!

[Alcon]

if you didn't think it was sardonic, how could you have possibly taken it as an insult...?

You then said that getting them correct didn't take much intelligence.

I said it's not difficult.  That's like taking "it's not hard to jump rope" as "if you jump rope you're stupid."

So now that we've resolved that, BALLOTS

[Sam Spade]

In order to make my numbers super-extremely-close-worth-betting-on-perhaps, I'm going to go through every ballot tomorrow and let you know what I see...

[Psychic Octopus]

looks like Al Franken is going to the US SENATE.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Coleman really wishes he could steal this one like Bush stole 2000, but it looks like Franken will not only win but also officially win.

[Lief 🗽]

Franken campaign declares victory by 35-50 votes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.senateguru.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=475

[Lunar]

I was about to post that.

42 42 42!

I will be a God among Gods if that turns out to be the victory margin.

[Torie]

I was about to post that.

42 42 42!

I will be a God among Gods if that turns out to be the victory margin.

Well didn't Franken pick up around 42 votes from those ballots they can't find?  That issue is going to court. Maybe it will be a tie if Coleman wins that dispute.

Ya, I know. Franken might well earn some more votes from those pesky absentees, unless of course Franken has factored that in, but I tend to doubt that since I am not sure anyone knows the vote patterns of absentees "wrongly" rejected. Moreover, the court said the parties needed to agree on what ballots were wrongly rejected, which suggests maybe more court action when they can't agree.

And so it goes.

Actually, it is 46 votes net loss to Franken, so Coleman might have the edge.

[Ronnie]

Does Coleman have a chance or not?  I'm so confused. 

[Marokai Backbeat]

Not much of one. Torie is basically just saying Coleman has a chance if he pulls out every dirty trick in his bag.

[Torie]

Does Coleman have a chance or not?  I'm so confused. 

Coleman might be in the hunt if he wins the missing ballots contretemps. Other than that, he appears dead, unless he gets lucky on the rejected absentee ballot thingie, which is unlikely, and the absentee ballots may well sink him anyway, even if he gets that 46 votes removed from Franken. And then there is chat about military ballots being in the mix somehow with the absentees, which should be pro Coleman. But that might just be internet spam.