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

[Sam Spade]

Counties to Be Completed
Beltrami (1 precinct) - Star Tribune reports as 100%.  The one precinct SOS hasn't reported was 5-2 Franken in the original certification.
Hennepin (3 precincts) - Star Tribune reports as 100%.  Two of three precincts SOS hasn't reported had 0 votes in the original certification.  One precinct was 53-16 Franken (with 73 total votes) in the original certification.
Ramsey (1 precinct) - Star Tribune reports as 100%.  The one precinct SOS hasn't reported had 0 votes in the original certification.
Scott (18 precincts or 38% left)
Winona (7 precincts or 26% left)
Wright (24 precincts or 57% left)
Update (Using My Method) (does not include the 633 withdrawn Franken challenges)

SOS
Coleman: 1,177,465 (1,174,964)
Franken: 1,188,736 (1,186,134)

Coleman: +316 (+215)

Actual Changes (With Assumptions in Parentheses)
Coleman: +140 (+43)
Franken: +179 (+64)
Total Change: Franken +39 (Franken +21)

Challenge Gap (With Assumptions in Parentheses)
Coleman (CH by Franken): -2641 (-2544)
Franken (CH by Coleman): -2781 (-2666)
Total Gap: Franken +140 (Franken +122)

Non-Subtracted Challenges
Coleman: 540
Franken: 477

Actual Total (With Challenge Gap Included, Assumptions in Parentheses)
Coleman +176 (Coleman +194)

[Lunar]

Sam, does your method distinguish between different types of challenges (sorry if that has already been addressed)?

Like, the difference between challenging a ballot that was initially ruled invalid, ruled a no-vote, or ruled for the opposing candidate?  Like, I imagine that Coleman has challenged at least a few more McCain-I'llLeaveSenateBlank votes than the reverse for Franken.  Not a lot, but still, there are many kinds of challenges.

[Хahar 🤔]

What I've been expecting all along.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why are you happy about this? 

You left out the part right before: "If they are not recovered..."

[© tweed]

are Franken's challenges as retarded as are Coleman's?

[minionofmidas]

are Franken's challenges as retarded as are Coleman's?

Basically yes. The difference is only that they began making retarded challenges two days later, that they kept on lagging behind the Coleman campaign all throughout the count in raw number of retarded challenges, and that they've withdrawn a lot of them now.

[minionofmidas]

In other words, it's over.

Well, commenting on this and your previous post, the Franken rap is that the totals don't include challenged ballots, and the Coleman team made a lot more frivolous challenges than they did.

That's not just the Franken rap - that's just painfully obvious truth.

Doesn't mean the Franken camp's count of likely outcomes of challenges (the one where they claimed to be leading for the first time yesterday) doesn't include a dose of wishful thinking/partisan bias as well.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Like, I imagine that Coleman has challenged at least a few more McCain-I'llLeaveSenateBlank votes than the reverse for Franken.

Those are all just basically in one county, and it's small. It was probably just one individual idiot challenger.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

lol, so much for the people b!tching about how the election was going to be stolen by Franken.

Hey, it's not over yet!  There's still time to turn this loss into a win! 

[Sam Spade]

Sam, does your method distinguish between different types of challenges (sorry if that has already been addressed)?

It distinguishes as much as can be done with the information provided.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but only to the extent it relies on the assumptions I've making, which in truth is quite limited.

I don't think I was being clear earlier.

The MN SOS provides us with three things on every precinct in the state:
1) (first-count) Certified Numbers (Coleman/Franken)
2) (second count) Recount Numbers (Coleman/Franken/Other)
3) Challenges Made (Franken/Coleman)

Actual Changes are the easiest part to measure.  They are *definite* changes that have occurred with no questions.  You can spot them two ways:
1) Increases in a candidate's total in the precinct.
2) Decrease in a candidate's total in the precinct that exceed the number of total challenges in that same precinct.

The Challenge Gap functions by making two assumptions/presumptions based on MN SOS results.
1) We assume that each challenge in a precinct represents a subtracted ballot.
(e.g. Coleman challenges 1 vote.  1 vote removed from Franken.  The challenge is the vote removed)
(e.g. Coleman challenges 2 votes.  Franken challenges 4 votes.  4 votes removed from Coleman.  2 votes removed from Franken.  We assume that the six challenges are the votes removed)
2) We assume that each challenge in a precinct, unless otherwise noted, is one candidate's challenge of the other candidate's vote.
(e.g. Coleman challenges 1 vote.  1 vote removed from Franken.  We assume that Coleman's challenge is the Franken vote.)
(e.g. Coleman challenges 2 votes.  Franken challenges 4 votes.  4 votes removed from Coleman.  2 votes removed from Franken.  We assume that the 2 Coleman challenges are the 2 Franken votes AND that the 4 Franken challenges are the 4 Coleman votes)

I established these assumptions based on the fact that the above patterns appear in *direct* context with easily a majority of the challenged precincts.  Those that don't tend to fall under the non-subtracted category, as indicated below.  ST Ballot Challenge has pretty much confirmed my assumption.

And even if only 90% correct or so, I would presume that the challenges which do not fall under this method probably break somewhat evenly.

Non-Subtracted Challenges are challenges in a precinct that do not associate with a subtracted ballot.
(e.g. Coleman challenges 1 ballot.  No ballots are removed.  Coleman has a non-subtracted challenge)
(e.g. Coleman challenges 2 ballots.  Franken challenges 4 challenges.  3 votes removed from Coleman.  1 vote removed from Franken.  As above, we connect 4 of the challenges to the subtracted votes.  The remaining 2 challenges are considered non-subtracted.  We allocate 1 to Coleman and 1 to Franken)

To make greater assumptions about Non-Subtracted Challenges would require more information than is available.  They could be blank votes, overvotes or other candidate votes.  They could also be ballots added or subtracted from the original count.

Clear?

[Sam Spade]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35550034.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

Coleman withdraws 650 ballot challenges.

[Ronnie]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35550034.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

Coleman withdraws 650 ballot challenges.

...uh-oh

[minionofmidas]

http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/35550034.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU

Coleman withdraws 650 ballot challenges.

Good.

[Ronnie]

Coleman is in some deep crap, I just have a feeling.

[agcatter]

The Franken campaign says he is up 10 votes.

Uh, yeah.  Sure he is.

[Lunar]

Thanks Sam for that clarification.  I hope you took bathroom breaks

The Franken campaign says he is up 10 votes.

Uh, yeah.  Sure he is.

I mean, Al's probably down.

But why is the Coleman campaign so silent on Franken's numbers?  My understanding that it is supposedly a pretty objective measuring which simply records what the on-sight judge initially states on the ballot or something of that order.  The bias probably comes from...ah, what's the word, subconscious misreporting/interpretation at the local level.*  Is the Coleman campaign also not doing this? 


*There's at least a 50% chance they're skewing the numbers at the top too.  Shouldn't the Franken campaign release their entire excel spreadsheet to reporters if they want to spin the news?  I mean, I'm pretty sure they're looking at a simple excel spreadsheet.


Thus I'm uncertain.  I assume the truth is less favorable to Franken but close enough that Coleman doesn't want to disprove it and make himself look bad.

[agcatter]

Actually, Franken is up more than 10.  I believe the number is 27 and that number is solid.  Nate Silver said so.

[Lunar]

Actually, Franken is up more than 10.  I believe the number is 27 and that number is solid.  Nate Silver said so.

That's getting fairly annoying.  He's changed some time ago to show Coleman leading.  I've replied in bold letters telling you how that's not his prediction every time you do this (this is the third time), yet you persist.  It's fun to make fun of Silver Worshipers (I've done so), but acting like a wall is ineffective sir.  I'm not going to respond when you ignore this post and chime in a few pages later about the 27 number.

His model was solid but subject to criticism (like all models) and obviously subject to change.

Nate Silver, last week, provided eight different models on the election and in seven of them Coleman leads and in one of them Franken leads by 3 votes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This sarcastic line of attack against Silver is getting as annoying as is just as idiotic as all that "LOLZ KANSAS IS SAFE OBAMA!" crap from the usual cast of morons.

[Keystone Phil]

Actually, Franken is up more than 10.  I believe the number is 27 and that number is solid.  Nate Silver said so.

That's getting fairly annoying.  He's changed some time ago to show Coleman leading. 

Why would The Almighty have to change a prediction?

[Sam Spade]

There's no reason to dispute what the Franken people say if it isn't true.  Most of what's being said right now is only to keep the partisans going and the money flowing.

[Lunar]

There's no reason to dispute what the Franken people say if it isn't true.  Most of what's being said right now is only to keep the partisans going and the money flowing.

I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between.  Why wouldn't Coleman dispute it to hurt Franken's partisans and stop Franken's money from flowing though?  Coleman's campaign has been oddly silent on the matter.

And again, I question why the Franken campaign can't send out a 300kb spreadsheet with reported on-sight judges' opinions to media outlets instead of just broadcasting the results of said spreadsheet.  It would seem if the facts truly were on Al's side, he'd be pumping out the details instead of just offering vague, unjustified platitudes.

But on the other hand, again, Coleman's campaign has shown no hesitation to refute other claims made by the Franken campaign, why would they be so quiet on this one?

Actually, Franken is up more than 10.  I believe the number is 27 and that number is solid.  Nate Silver said so.

That's getting fairly annoying.  He's changed some time ago to show Coleman leading. 

Why would The Almighty have to change a prediction?

Because he's not as egotistical as his supporters (or you).  He just runs the numbers and provides a slanted interpretation of them, yet still provides the best numbers of any mainstream analyst.   He predicted the 2008 election perfectly and did better than any pollster a number of times during the primary.  This has given him (to his supporters) a bit of irrational legitimacy.  But his predictions shouldn't be discarded simply because a bunch of idiots worship him.  They should be taken apart and criticized and not shallowly mocked.  I mean, what if we all said Oh, because Samspade said it, it MUST be true! instead of actually looking at what he said?

A better question would be why he isn't highlighting his change of prediction to the Huffington Post or why he failed to ever weigh in on the Georgia primary race.  Well, we already know the answer to that, Nate is 100% Democrat and doesn't give bad news to Democrats unless it's buried.

That doesn't excuse the constant 538-bashing as a form of self gratification (what you're doing), mind you.  BRTD accurately compared this to the constant "Obama will win Kansas" sarcastic remarks that got quickly old.  Nate Silver is an extremely humble, nerdy guy.  People take his predictions too far, but I'd rather people take his predictions too far than anything else out there in the mainstream internet (because there isn't anything better).  I have many critiques of the guy, but hammering him for self-pleasure is just obnoxious, especially if you're A) Wrong B) Repeating yourself.  Might as well be intelligent in one's snide remarks, eh?

[Sam Spade]

The big news of the day is that the infamous precinct 1460 in Hennepin has been dropped from the recount results while the Franken people look for the "lost" ballots (undoubtedly in the same way OJ looked for the "real" killer).

That's pretty much all of the results change except for a ton of pointless challenges (more from Franken than from Coleman) in Wright County.  And we thought challenges without a hope were done with... 

Counties to Be Completed
Beltrami (1 precinct) - Star Tribune reports as 100%.  The one precinct SOS hasn't reported was 5-2 Franken in the original certification.
Hennepin (1 precinct) - Star Tribune reports as 100%.  This is precinct 1460, where the 133 lost ballots come from. (and where Franken lost 44 yesterday).
Scott (18 precincts or 38% left)
Wright (6 precincts or 8% left)
Update (Using My Method) (does not include the 633 withdrawn Franken challenges or 650 withdrawn Coleman challenges)

SOS
Coleman: 1,193,307 (1,195,885)
Franken: 1,197,965 (1,200,533)
Coleman: +205 (+215)

Actual Changes (With Assumptions in Parentheses)
Coleman: +171 (+75)
Franken: +257 (+140)
Total Change: Franken +86 (Franken +65)

Challenge Gap (With Assumptions in Parentheses)
Coleman (CH by Franken): -2749 (-2653)
Franken (CH by Coleman): -2825 (-2708)
Total Gap: Franken +76 (Franken +55)

Non-Subtracted Challenges
Coleman: 569
Franken: 477

Total (With Challenge Gap Included, Assumptions in Parentheses)
Coleman +129 (Coleman +150)

[Keystone Phil]

Because he's not as egotistical as his supporters (or you).

I'm egotistical? You really are too new here, pal. I'm anything but self centered and I don't see how my commentary here would prove otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The funny thing is that I'm not bashing the guy. I'm laughing off the ones that have crowned him King of Kings this year.

[Sam Spade]

Why wouldn't Coleman dispute it to hurt Franken's partisans and stop Franken's money from flowing though?

Do you seriously believe that Franken partisans would listen to anything Coleman's campaign might say on this subject?

If I know anything about politics, the truth of the matter lies here:  Coleman is ahead nearly all methods of counting, but if all the breaks fall Franken's way in terms of challenges (not to mention the lost ballots), they lead by 10.

[Lunar]

Why wouldn't Coleman dispute it to hurt Franken's partisans and stop Franken's money from flowing though?

Do you seriously believe that Franken partisans would listen to anything Coleman's campaign might say on this subject?

If I know anything about politics, the truth of the matter lies here:  Coleman is ahead nearly all methods of counting, but if all the breaks fall Franken's way in terms of challenges (not to mention the lost ballots), they lead by 10.

First of all, I am suspect of your claim that Franken donors either won't listen to the media or the media won't report Coleman's numbers alongside Franken's.  I mean, I can see articles in Politico and HuffPost and even TPM that readily report both sides' numbers in most circumstances but only report Franken's numbers on this item.   Maybe Kos will ignore Coleman's claims (doubtful), but most mainstream liberal news places will report both sides claims and then partisan spin on them.  Coleman, by not refuting their claims, is preventing any spin and is sort of quietly

Secondly, why wouldn't Coleman want to encourage his own supporters and donors?

Well, the answer to both is that the truth is depressing to both Coleman and Franken supporters.  Franken isn't ahead and Coleman isn't ahead by >100 votes.  Coleman prefers the official number that includes challenges and Franken prefers his biased number that includes biased assumptions.