| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: Stealing Their Way to 60 Posted by: Boldwin - [4010491810] Tue, Nov 18, 2008, 12:57 I can't even look it's so predictible. Franken leaning county with unsecured ballots, 'just happens to find 100 votes, all for Franken'. What are the odds all 100 votes would be for Franken? From any county no matter how Franken leaning? So arrogant they don't even bother to make the fraud look plausible. | |||||||
| 83 | Pancho Villa ID: 51546319 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 13:13 |
Republicans like Tancredo, who are adamant in their wish to have all illegal Hispanics deported or jailed or both, has created a backlash among Hispanic Americans, as they perceive themselves being lumped into a larger bias. Even though the Tancredos of the world usually qualify their rantings with a statement like "I have no problem with the Hispanics who are here legally" he appears to forget or ignore that millions of Hispanics, especially in the Southwest, have roots in this country that precede statehood. They are just as American as the Irish, Italian, Polish, etc that landed at Ellis Island in the early decades of the 20th century. Yet many are finding that the anti-Hispanic hysteria promoted by Tancredo is generating a predjudice against Hispanics in general, and this has caused a huge exodus of Hispanic Americans from the Republican ranks. | ||||||
| 84 | boikin ID: 532592112 Mon, Jan 05, 2009, 13:28 | never mind i see it now. I am haveing trouble reading with this cold i keep miss reading things. | ||||||
| 85 | nerveclinic ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 02:52 |
WSJ has an article critisizing the handling of the recount in favor of Franken. I would be interested in hearing what the counter arguments are to the points they make. Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies. Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes. This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals. In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes. Meanwhile, a Ramsey County precinct ended up with 177 more ballots than there were recorded votes on Election Night. In that case, the board decided to go with the extra ballots, rather than the Election Night total, even though the county is now showing more ballots than voters in the precinct. This gave Mr. Franken a net gain of 37 votes, which means he's benefited both ways from the board's inconsistency. And then there are the absentee ballots. The Franken campaign initially howled that some absentee votes had been erroneously rejected by local officials. Counties were supposed to review their absentees and create a list of those they believed were mistakenly rejected. Many Franken-leaning counties did so, submitting 1,350 ballots to include in the results. But many Coleman-leaning counties have yet to complete a re-examination. Despite this lack of uniformity, and though the state Supreme Court has yet to rule on a Coleman request to standardize this absentee review, Mr. Ritchie's office nonetheless plowed through the incomplete pile of 1,350 absentees this weekend, padding Mr. Franken's edge by a further 176 votes. Both campaigns have also suggested that Mr. Ritchie's office made mistakes in tabulating votes that had been challenged by either of the campaigns. And the Canvassing Board appears to have applied inconsistent standards in how it decided some of these challenged votes -- in ways that, again on net, have favored Mr. Franken. The question is how the board can certify a fair and accurate election result given these multiple recount problems. Some of the points above are vague, they leave out the evidence of the charges, but if true it would seem there is cause for concern regarding the outcome. WSJ having a conservative bias adds a grain of salt to some of the vague charges. Comments from the Franken supporters? | ||||||
| 86 | Perm Dude ID: 5303668 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 09:43 |
FiveThirtyEight has covered the points quite well, I think, with point-by-point rebuttals. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with taking such a position [of calling the Board biased and inconsistent]. The Journal's editorial, however, has several basic facts wrong, makes several other assertions based on flimsy or nonexistent evidence, and generally has little understanding of the process that has taken place to date. The WSJ isn't at all interested in the truth on the point, implying that Coleman is only interested in "standardizing" or making some sort of fair overall process. But this is far from the truth. | ||||||
| 87 | nerveclinic ID: 26107108 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 10:28 |
Good find PD | ||||||
| 88 | walk ID: 181472714 Tue, Jan 06, 2009, 13:34 |
Yeah, I read that WSJ article and just by mere memory of what I had read elsewhere saw how uninformed and lacking in knowledge of the rules it was. For example, Coleman's team did not submit their list of absentee ballots to review in the alotted time. There was also plenty of "proof" to the missing vote charge in Hennepin county. There were five envelopes, markeed 1 of 5, 2 of 5, and so on. One of these envelopes was missing. Additionally, a tally of voter signatures also confirmed the discrepancy in missing votes. WSJ was biased and sloppy. Nate Silver and 538 does a good job of making it clear. | ||||||
| 89 | DWetzel ID: 278201415 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 12:55 | Coleman attorney: Ignore what we said earlier | ||||||
| 90 | Baldwin ID: 180202819 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:08 |
Once again, liberals think they can get away with merely providing a source that agrees with them, without weighing the actual merits of the arguments. Whenever they find a link, we are supposed to lay down and accept that the argument is over. Anytime Franken is allowed to walk away with more votes from a Franken heavy county, than there were ballots counted or persons registered to vote, the issue is not settled. Oh the Soros' fix may stay rigged, but it isn't right, just the same. But PD believes he's all about the truth when he swallows that down whole, and the WSJ are the sloppy ones. | ||||||
| 91 | Mith ID: 2894309 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:22 |
Once again, liberals think they can get away with merely providing a source that agrees with them without weighing the actual merits of the arguments. Whenever they find a link, we are supposed to lay down and accept that the argument is over. LOL!! Project much? That is without question the most hilariously hypocritical thing I've read this week. | ||||||
| 92 | Baldwin ID: 180202819 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 16:29 | And that post is your most hypocritical moment. That is in fact your achilles heel, in what would otherwise make a wonderful poster/blogger. | ||||||
| 93 | dwetzet on BB ID: 590182120 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:28 |
Silly me for linking the largest paper in Minnesota, which has been extensively covering the proceedings of this state election since November. I looked for an Ann Coulter piece but didn't find one, so I settled. Knew you would take the bait though, it was really too easy. Rather than look at the argument, knowing it is indefensible on its face, you try to deflect attention by blaming the messenger. Go on, tell me why Coleman's attorneys were arguing that recounts were a waste of time, then when they started to lose suddenly became converts to the "count every vote" camp. For bonus points, do so without using the words liberal, mainstream media, or Soros. For even more bonus points, do it in a way that isn't absurdly ignorant. | ||||||
| 94 | Baldwin ID: 180202819 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:35 | I have to sleep sometime. | ||||||
| 95 | Baldwin ID: 180202819 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:37 | Is there really no other conservative to hold down the fort? I've been at it for five hours and I didn't have even that luxury. | ||||||
| 96 | walk ID: 181472714 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:48 | It's true though...I've been following this election from the git go continuously, and the Star Tribune of Minneapolis has easily the best comprehensive and up-to-date and objective reporting. Even user comments have said as much. Baldwin, must you criticize EVERYTHING that does not support your preference? Pick and choose, bro. Sometimes you are correct! But when you take a shotgun approach, it undermines your own 1-man show. | ||||||
| 97 | Baldwin ID: 180202819 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 17:57 |
This what happens when you abuse every conservative right out the door, or insult their intelligence so badly they can't tolerate the place. Not everyone has both the loyalty to this site and the thickness of hide to tolerate the working conditions. | ||||||
| 98 | Pancho Villa ID: 51546319 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 18:17 |
I looked for an Ann Coulter piece but didn't find one, so I settled. That's because Ann is too busy self-aggrandizing, as well as lying in today's column. She begins: I notice that liberals have not challenged the overall thesis of my rocketing bestseller, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," which is that liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others. My rocketing bestseller? While it is #2 on the NY Times non-fiction list(that's Treason Times in Annspeak), it's hard to determine how many of those books were giveaways with a subscription to Townhall magazine. In hard sales terms, the book fell to #26 on Amazon.com after a high of #15 in its debut 2 weeks ago. I suppose it isn't lying to say it's rocketing, since it is, in the opposite direction. Most people consider rocketing to mean going up. | ||||||
| 99 | Tree ID: 1311551521 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 19:38 |
This what happens when you abuse every conservative right out the door, or insult their intelligence so badly they can't tolerate the place. Baldwin - you are the one that has driven the conservatives out the door. Madman, MBJ, Steve Houpt - they didn't leave because they were abused - they used to have some of the most impressive posts here. but when the guy yelling loudest sounds absolutely bat$hit crazy most of the time, the rest don't want to associate with him... granted, i shouldn't speak for them, but i doubt any of those guys were scared off by anyone here from the left side of the tent. you should listen to yourself. you sound crazy half the time, and you're far and away the most rude, arrogant prick to post on these boards, resorting to name calling far more often than anyone else. (yes i realize the irony of my statement) | ||||||
| 100 | Baldwin ID: 180202819 Thu, Jan 29, 2009, 22:46 | Go ahead and get even one of those guys to blame me for their leaving. | ||||||
| 101 | nerveclinic Leader ID: 05047110 Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 15:52 |
For bonus points, do so without using the words liberal, mainstream media, or Soros. Or Zietgeist, or meme, or NYT or... | ||||||
| 102 | Perm Dude ID: 55072921 Fri, Jan 30, 2009, 16:03 |
Re #98: rocketing bestseller I don't know if Ann Coulter realizes it, but that's a redundant statement. Books which are on the bestseller lists are there because of bursts (or a single burst) of concentrated sales numbers within the range in question. For example, if Borders places a single order for 500K Coulter books for their stores, that would reflect in a real uptick on the bestseller lists. But 750K in purchases over a period of, say, a six-month period won't be enough to get a book on the list, even though you've sold more actual books in the second example. The best seller lists also do not reflect net sales, but gross sales. If Borders ends up returning 100K books (or remaindering-in-place by getting publisher authorization to report them as returns but keeping the books and selling them for $4 each), none of that is reflective on the best seller lists. Net sales over time is a better reflection of a book's value, IMO. Often best sellers can do just that, through a paperback re-issue and so forth. But Coulter titles are just as often in the bargain bin as they are on the New Books table. Would love to see a Best Non-Selling Books, which would track the highest number of remaindered books being offered in a week. I suspect Coulter would be a "rocketing non-seller" as well. | ||||||
| 103 | Mith ID: 2894309 Tue, Apr 14, 2009, 10:37 | |||||||
| 104 | Mith ID: 2894309 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 15:30 | Tedisco pulling a 'Coleman' in NYS. | ||||||
| 105 | Perm Dude ID: 24321178 Fri, Apr 17, 2009, 15:36 |
Reminds me of a developer we had at a Planning Commission meeting here once. After being told he needed to submit missing paperwork before his land development application could be considered, he literally whined to us to "just sign the approval and I won't have to bother you again." It was about the only time I've ever seen the Chairman speechless. | ||||||
| 107 | Mith ID: 2894309 Tue, May 12, 2009, 09:32 |
Stealing their way to 41A new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll has found that 64 percent of those responding believe Coleman, the Republican, should accept the recount trial court's April 13 verdict that Democrat Franken won the race by 312 votes. | ||||||
| 108 | Boldwin ID: 26451820 Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:30 | Gore was justified in extending recount after recount when he had never been ahead, but Coleman is unjustified in pushing the issue when he had it won only to have it pulled away by Soros' and Chicago election style shennanigans. | ||||||
| 109 | Perm Dude ID: 26439108 Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:33 | Coleman lost the election. Deal with it. | ||||||
| 110 | Boldwin ID: 26451820 Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:39 | Soros had bought and rigged Minnesota long before the votes were cast. | ||||||
| 111 | Perm Dude ID: 26439108 Tue, May 12, 2009, 10:43 | Yeah--Bush's 22% disapproval ratings had nothing to do with it... | ||||||
| 112 | Frick ID: 4945458 Tue, May 12, 2009, 11:04 |
So basically the people of Minnesota are tired of hearing about it and tired of paying for more lawyers. I haven't been following the issue, how many recounts were done and how many court decisions have their been on all of the contested ballots? | ||||||
| 113 | Perm Dude ID: 354361211 Wed, May 13, 2009, 10:49 |
In today's Coleman news, he wants permission to use campaign funds to cover the cost of responding to a Talking Points Memo story about some money funnelling which appears to be illegal, if true. The problem? Team Coleman never actually responded to the story. | ||||||
| 114 | Mith ID: 2894309 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 14:38 |
| ||||||
| 115 | nerveclinic ID: 21503015 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:00 |
Gore was justified in extending recount after recount when he had never been ahead, but Coleman is unjustified in pushing the issue when he had it won only to have it pulled away by Soros' and Chicago election style shennanigans. Baldwin you are forgetting one fact. Gore won the election. Analyzing the data after the fact it's virtually certain. I laid out the stats here before and no one was able to counter the points. What don't you get? | ||||||
| 116 | boikin ID: 532592112 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:02 | Nerve I never saw the post where is it? | ||||||
| 117 | Mith ID: 2894309 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:04 | #108. | ||||||
| 118 | boikin ID: 532592112 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:08 | Sorry i was asking about nerves post on gore winning the election. | ||||||
| 119 | Mith ID: 2894309 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:13 | I don't know what Nerve's talking about. I'm pretty sure it was settled by several independant researchers that Bush legitimately won FL. Gore did win the national popular vote, but not the electoral college. | ||||||
| 120 | biliruben ID: 461142511 Tue, Jun 30, 2009, 16:23 |
News to me. I thought the governing council simply decreed it. I have never seen satisfactory evidence either way, and assumed I never would. | ||||||
| 121 | nerveclinic ID: 162013 Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 04:20 |
I don't have any idea where the thread is at this point. In a nut shell, of the ballots that were disallowed because they were not correctly, or fully punched, Gore had close to 40,000 of them and Bush about 17,000. Yes the ballots were disqualified because the voter had not correctly punched the card, but they were ballots never the less that a reasonable minded person would accept that the person clearly intended to vote for Gore, not Bush. The fact they look more closely look like a Gore vote was not a statement of opinion, it is a statement of fact. The problem is the ballots were disqualified so it didn't matter. So an open minded person could at least accept that while Gore did lose, because the ballots are disqualified, an impartial person could see that the voter clearly intended to vote for Gore and he should of been President, if Jeb Bushes voting machines worked properly. This would have given him a comfortable win in Fla. thus the election win. I voted for neither Bush nor Gore and I am not a Gore believer or fan but I know the truth when I see it. I have no idea where it would be now, it was in a thread long after the election had been decided and after a lot more information was released concerning the ballots. | ||||||
| 122 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 09:51 |
As I recall, the Miami Herald spent about 4 months looking over all the ballots and determined that Bush won, in the end, even allowing for disputed ballots. I might have a link somewhere. Coleman, of course, was never ahead in the counting. | ||||||
| 123 | Seattle Zen ID: 445123018 Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:22 | Gore won. Bili is right, there was so many disputed ballots and lawsuits in the wings that we could still be arguing who won. Every newspaper investigation made quite a few assumptions of their own, none of which were ironclad. In short, we will never know, meaning Gore won. | ||||||
| 124 | DWetzel at work ID: 49962710 Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:42 |
"In short, we will never know, meaning Gore won." Huh? | ||||||
| 125 | Seattle Zen ID: 445123018 Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:48 |
we will never know Official answer. Can't have an illegitimate president sitting in the White House. meaning Gore won Da Truth! | ||||||
| 126 | Boldwin ID: 25282121 Wed, Jul 01, 2009, 11:58 |
Coleman, of course, was never ahead in the counting. - PD It was only when Secretary of State Mark Ritchie [Soros funded, ACORN endorsed ally]) allowed the Canvassing board to add in previously rejected absentee ballots, that Al Franken took a lead. | ||||||
| 127 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 19:43 |
Completely mistated on my part, sorry. The race was so close that no winner could be declared on election day (Coleman was ahead before the recount with something like 700 votes). The automatic recount part, and every legal step after that, gave Franken more votes. And election night counting, by and large, included very few provisional or absentee ballots. Franken got more votes, and in the end they were counted. | ||||||
| 128 | Boldwin ID: 467910 Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 19:50 | I suppose to be fair and proportional to your outrageous treatment of me lately on other threads, I should now call you a liar for the next thirty posts but I just can't work up the same mendacity as you lefties. | ||||||
| 129 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 20:06 |
When you admit a mistake no one will call you a liar anymore on it. Do you need to twist even such a simple procedure? Tell a deliberate untruth and stick with it even when called out: Lying. Correct a mistake: Not lying. But you don't admit mistakes. Or won't. Hard to tell where your humble heart is supposed to fit it. If only you stuck with the New Testament when it comes to how you act toward others. | ||||||
| 130 | Boldwin ID: 467910 Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 20:08 | I did not lie, while you and your buddies slandered all day long. | ||||||
| 131 | DWetzel ID: 33337117 Fri, Jul 10, 2009, 23:22 |
"I suppose to be fair and proportional to your outrageous treatment of me lately on other threads, I should now call you a liar for the next thirty posts but I just can't work up the same mendacity as you lefties." Off the medications again? | ||||||
| 132 | Boldwin ID: 467910 Sat, Jul 11, 2009, 05:17 |
Break out the entire top ten cheesy liberal forum slanders while we are at it. Like you just discovered them. | ||||||
| 133 | Perm Dude ID: 154552311 Sun, Jul 12, 2009, 15:49 | Buriss not running for election--blames time-sucking fundraising. | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||