According to figures compiled by the Star Tribune, Norm Coleman now holds a lead of 120 votes over Al Franken. Coleman's lead before the recount began had been 215 votes.
A majority of the state's ballots -- some 64 percent -- have now been re-counted. The counties re-counted to date have been slightly redder than the state as a whole, favoring Coleman by an aggregate of about 1.6 points in the initial count. The difference has diminished, however, as more re-counted ballots roll in from Franken-friendly areas like Minneapolis.
Meanwhile, the number of ballot challenges -- cases in which one or both candidates appeal an initial ruling my local elections judges -- has increased significantly. Among ballots added to the Secretary of State's totals since last evening, the Franken campaign has challenged 7.5 out of every 10,000 ballots, and the Coleman campaign 7.2 out of every 10,000. These figures are more than double the number of challenges on the first two days of the recount process.
On balance, Franken's pace has slowed somewhat, while his rate of challenges has begun to match or slightly exceed that of the Coleman campaign. As such, Coleman should probably regarded as the slight favorite to retain his seat.
However, the uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding challenged ballots is very large, and tends to swamp everything else in the system. The fraction of challenged ballots can vary radically from county to county. We do not know whether one or another campaign is systematically making more frivolous challenges. In addition, we do not know what fraction of the challenges concern ballots that were initially ruled as legal (which the campaigns are now hoping to have discarded), versus ballots that initially were deemed to be overvotes or undervotes (which the campaigns are hoping to have counted). The first type of challenge will result in a temporary deduction to the opposing candidate's total until the challenge is resolved, whereas the second type will have no immediate impact on the state's reported totals.
Earlier today, the Franken campaign told the Huffington Post that it was within 100 votes based on a different standard of accounting for unresolved challenges. We have also heard, anecdotally, that Franken's ballot judges have tended to be more experienced and better trained than Coleman's ballot judges, perhaps suggesting that they will win a higher share of their challenges.
11.21.2008
Coleman's Lead Down to 120 as Challenges Skyrocket
@ 9:29 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
106 comments
Dang!
Hi, Nate.
Would you be willing to give a ball-park estimate of what you think the final tally will be?
Cugel has been suggesting that very few of the challenges to the ballots will be upheld, based upon the word of a MN election official. Given the anecdotal evidence of these ballots so far, this seems plausible. I haven't been following as closely as some others here, but this looks like a race where Coleman is a bit better than a slight favorite, no?
TICK....TICK....TICK....TICK....TICK...
TICK....TICK....TICK....TICK....
In the previous thread, someone claimed that the elections official believed he would win "100%" of the challenges (i.e. all the challenges by the campaigns will be denied).
Looking at the Minnesota Public Radio website, with examples, that can't possibly be correct. In two cases they had to *blur out* signatures to "protect voter privacy."
Identifying marks are an absolute no-no, so I can't imagine that a case where a signature is *identifiable on a website* wouldn't be found to be an identifying mark.
I hope it gets decided by one vote, so the idiot who didn't think it matters gets to kick himself in the ass for the next 6 years.
The game here for Coleman would be to run up frivilous challenges, taking away votes from Franken, until people perceive him to have the advantage (That might be why he claimed victory when he really had no cause to yet). Then muddy the challenge process as much as possible and cast doubt on its veracity.
Coleman may actually have won this race, but based on some of his challenges (e.g. If you voted for McCain, you REALLY meant to vote for me too), this campaign has no shame.
So, I would hesitate suggesting anyone is any sort of a favourite here.
Bush won the recount in Florida (via a jurisdictionally illegimate Supreme Court decision...), probably because everyone thought he had first won on election night, so they were more willing to swallow it.
I'll be honest, I'd rather see Barkley or Franken win, but "rules is rules". If Coleman really got enough votes on Nov. 4 he should get the seat.
Still, I do wish Norm would stop claiming victory until there is real evidence to that effect.
@grinder:
"I hope it gets decided by one vote, so the idiot who didn't think it matters gets to kick himself in the ass for the next 6 years."
You're right, I live in MN, and I am happy as hell I actually took time to vote (I always vote in the presidential cycle, though). If Franken wins by one vote, you can bet I will be crowing about the fact *I* voted in Al Franken into the Senate. Yes, ME!!!
I can't wait for it to get over with though. Fortunately it's not at all turning out to be like the fiasco that was Florida in 2000. It's all very civil and low-key.
Dammit, 538.com, why can't I quit you!?
vw: nulti... I'm very efficient at nulti-tasking... I can do many tasks that involve doing no work all at once.
I wonder what went on in Meeker county? A small county, with under 10,000 votes cast. Franken challenged 51, compare with Coleman's 7. Not surprisingly, Coleman's vote dropped by 48 while Franken's dropped by only 5. If that's simply a pile of frivolous Franken challenges, those Coleman votes get reinstated.
I'm curious to see what these numbers look like once everything hat been counted from two big blue counties, Dakota and Ramsay. If they keep trending the way they have been, they'll give Franken another 70 or 80 votes. Enough to get him close but not quite there.
I agree with everything EG posted except I would spell "frivolous" correctly and I would delete the word "jurisdictionally."
Other than that ----> werd.
Coleman appears to have. But of course Nate's sources keep whispering otherwise. Disappointing.
The Attorney General and the Unitary Executive
I've been thinking about this dailykos report of what appear to be obviously frivolous challenges by Coleman where they are claiming a vote for McCain / Palin "must" have intended a vote for Coleman though 1) the bubble is clearly for Franken on the Senate race (with no other disqualifying factor) or 2) there is clearly NO vote for Senate.
It just seems to stupid to comprehend until you consider the following. Perhaps they are doing so to make a point on other challenged ballots where the mark for Franken is anywhere but the bubble or both Coleman and Franken have marks but the Coleman vote has been "x'd out" in some fashion (including maybe something as obvious as writing - NO - next to the Coleman mark).
In that context, challenging "obvious" ballots might in their minds give them some justification for arguing that you can't surmise voting intent by what they voted anywhere else on the ballot. And, as a continuation of that line of thinking, compare a truly crystal clear vote to one with any question at all.
That might not work in a challenge count but it might in a court.
That's the only real justification I can surmise if the DailyKos is really accurate in what they were showing in their video clip report.
Just one question -- why the @#$% didn't we use this methodical, civilized process in Florida in 2000?
since you asked Bram (no relation to Stoker i presume?)
we were BUSHWACKED is the most obvious answer or maybe the Floridians were downing too much swamp gass and fell into idiocy
btw counting continues tomorrow in MN
no rest for the weary or is it wicked?
So... the number of challenged ballots will be anywhere between 25 and 50 times the final lead after the main recount ends. Hmm. Anyone smell lawsuits -- lots and lots of lawsuits?
Say there are 2,500 challenged ballots and 90% of them are resolved quickly, without rancor. That still leaves 250 ballots -- still many more than the lead will be -- to be fought over tooth and nail, one by one, in and out of the courts.
It's going to be a long one, folks.
Just one question -- why the @#$% didn't we use this methodical, civilized process in Florida in 2000?
Because the Secretary of State, who was in charge of the recount, was also Bush's Florida campaign chairwoman.
Well, Nate, we might not know, but here is what this Latte Liberal knows:
1) I've been a Franken observer for the recount in a suburban Twin City county since the recount began Wednesday,
2) The difference, according to the numbers of MN Sec. of State is 115, not 120 as Star Tribune posts - that is the more official unofficial count, for my money :),
3) The challenges that I have personally witnessed and/or launched have shown me that
a) at least in our county, the Coleman campaign has been challenging much more frivolously
b) (x'ed or checked ovals - I saw 4 of those at my table by my counterpart,
c) x'ed ovals then filled in with the x legs sticking out partially challenged by Coleman observer at a neighboring table (2 instances)
whereas our challenges have been
d) my personal four today - 2 with overvotes and 2 with identifying marks (inked fingerprint on one, thick line on another) and
e) ballot marked with "found on the floor of voting booth" written across it, ovals filled with different colored inks - objected to by my colleague
f) white out over a Coleman vote on an absentee ballot that was still called for Coleman
While some of ours might not stand up in the end and be overruled by the Canvassing Board,
nothing, I repeat nothing that we have filed comes even close to the silliness of the objections
of the other camp as described above. And nothing like what dailykos shows in their clip.
At the same time, there are REAL Franken votes that have not been picked up by the machine that I have personally seen
and "saved". For instance, there was one ballot today where the voter opted to draw his/her own ovals to the right of the
candidate's name for every candidate, and then proceed to fill them in, rather than taking perhaps an more obvious though less
challenging and more conventional path. The machine did not not pick up the vote. The vote was called by the judge for Al.
It was not initially challenged: the Coleman observer was asleep. Ultimately it was, but the voter intent is very clear.
Net gain +1. I can personally attest to a swing of +10 that I witnessed and/or contributed to that
will not be evident until the Canvassing Board meets.
The Coleman tactics are very clear: FL all over again. They want to claim they were ahead on the
election night, won the election, were ahead after the recount, won the recount and will not let the
biased judges take it away from them through legal backdoor shenanigans. Coleman people are
protesting most obvious Franken votes on most idiotic grounds just to have that claim.
But, alas, not this time. They are messing with the wrong guy.
Al wrote the book on Lies and Liars who tell them.
Not this time, Norm.
~Latte
Two quick comments:
(1) There's no reason to believe that Coleman is personally responsible for any specific frivolous challenges. It may be an overenthusiastic underling who is taking any excuse. And if equally frivolous Franken challenges come to light, we can't blame Franken either. Perhaps there is a mechanism for bringing these people to heel, and perhaps even withdrawing these challenges.
(2) We didn't use this method in Florida because they used punch cards. Imagine a vote where the hole is slightly out of place, or one chad is still hanging partly in place while another is pushed through.
I don't see how this has anything to do with FL 2000.
1) Coleman was never declared the winner
2) MN has a much better system to deal with this than FL did
3) The state GOP leadership (i.e. Gov Pawlenty) seems to be reasonable
4) The SoS is a Dem
5) This is for a Senate seat, not the presidency, and even at that, it doesn't affect who controls that body
6) The final court of appeal would be the US Senate, not the Supreme Court
At the end of the day, theatrics meants for the cheap seats will have no impact.
It has a lot to do with Florida 2000, sfergus483. IMHO.
The tactics are the same.
The battle for the public opinion has been the same
The grand standing by the Coleman himself ("Al should reject the recount and concede to save the taxpayers money" and "it is time to start healing".)
Though the resolution of the situation will be different this time, the tactics are quite familiar to many of us.
~Latte
sorry, should read "by the ColeMAN..."
What I mean is that the playing field and situation are different, not that Coleman's people might not be trying to replicate it.
We don't disagree - my point is the differences mean they are fighting the previous war.
I think the saving grace will be the rumor that Franken's recount lawyers are more 'experienced', whatever that may mean. If this boils down to Franken getting 10% more of the challenged ballots than Coleman, he will get a comfy 200+ bonus.
Just be glad there are no pregnant chads.
Latte's report should give Frankenites succor. It does sound as if the Coleman challenges are frivolous and more to "work the score" (if not the refs) than to prevail at the next level of appeal. If so, it is going to be a razor thin margin, probably less than a dozen votes one way or the other -- and it's impossible to call right now.
But we can keep our phalanges interdigitated (fingers crossed).
By the way, on one of the sites this morning I read the Minnesota voter intent statute. And many of the examples given clearly covered some of the situations where Coleman challenged -- and were contrary to his position. My favorite were the 10 votes some Coleman stooge challenged because the voters marked their ballots both for McCain and Franken. (Of course, if they made a "mistake," couldn't it have been to vote for the wrong candidate at the top of the ticket?)
I just thought of a question.
Does anybody know what role Dean Barkley is playing on this? For example, if Coleman's people challenged a ballot that was ambiguous between Barkley and Franken, would Barkley's people have any sway? Would Barkley's people generally back Franken in these disputes?
It looks like it will be very close, inside 100 votes but I don't see Franken winning unless something big breaks in his favor.
MNLatte,
Thanks very much for your updates. Another MN here(St Paul). Can you tell me how all the challenged ballots will be determined? Are they set aside until after the recount is complete, and then fought over one by one to determine the winner?
My estimate is that at the end of the recount Coleman will continue to lead, but by 50 votes or less.
Franken may find it difficult to win during canvas of the 2000 - 2500 challenged votes, if he trails by 50 votes at the end of the recount.
But if most of the challenged votes are overvotes or undervotes and he trails by less than 25 voters, I suspect he should be favored to win.
The above opinion is derived solely from posterior orfice extraction.
weinerdog,
There have been a few changes in the procedure. Pioneer Press (afair, though it might have been Strib) reported that over the weekend there was to be an attorney summit for both teams to weed through the challenged ballots to remove some of the most frivolous. Apparently they have already gone through that procedure in Ramsey after Wed and Thur, but today, according to the paper report, all that was out the window, as the challenges have mounted and the "strike zone has been increased" acc. to Ramsey election official whose name and title escapes me (but read Strib online, they have it).
So, as it stands now, everything challenged will be "punted" to the Canvassing Board, who will have a prelim 2 hour meeting Tuesday to figure out their procedural stuff.
Then the real fun begins.
My guess is, something will be done before the Board meets. I anticipate the lawyers will address at least half of the challenges. But there are the issues of missing duplicates, missing originals for duplicates, and the like that cannot be resolved without the Board ruling, imho. The Coleman team is not going to drop its challenges there, imho.
There are also issues of "missing" ballots. Two precincts in the otherwise perfectly anally retentive Woodbury are missing a grand total of 27 ballots for 19 for one and 8 for the other. How is that even possible? They checked and rechecked the machines and the storage boxes, etc. but nada. Afaik, the Coleman team was going to challenge and had lawyers on its way at the end of the day to interrogate the officials about the 19 (they were down 1 in that instance, so suddenly "every vote counts" mantra surface for the other side. lmao).
FWIW.
~Latte
MNLatteLiberal,
Thank you for the excellent first-hand report. Your description certainly changes my view of the race. If Coleman's challenges are more frivolous and less likely to be upheld, then we really have no idea who is going to win this race. I mean, we haven't really known ever, but I feel like we have even less of an idea if it's plausible that Franken will win a higher percentage of challenged ballots than Coleman.
There is nothing better than the observations and experiences of someone who has actually participated in the process. Thanks again!
Looking at what was shown on MPR, it looked like about 33% of the challenges were valid.
With all due respect to the former chief election official in Ramsey County, not every county has the same quality of team counting the ballots. There were some clear mistakes made by the counting teams (including the Bachmen ballot in Ramsey County and the ballots with signatures on them).
In addition, I sort of expect elections officials to praise the quality of the counting teams and will wait until the canvass takes place to see how many challenges are upheld.
Dean Barkley doesn't have a role in the recount. (That would take money he doesn't have, anyway.) If there is a disputed ballot between, say, Barkley and Coleman then it's up to the Coleman and Franken teams to decide whether to challenge the ballot or not.
LatteLib: You're a god! Thank you from the rest of the country for what you're doing, and also your reportage. I especially like this line:
They are messing with the wrong guy. Al wrote the book on Lies and Liars who tell them. Not this time, Norm.
I hope Lying Liar Norman gets to observe Al's senate tenure from the inside of a jail cell.
Would like people's take on the following argument.
Based on SoS website: With 61% counted, Franken has gained 100 votes. Extrapolating (and not quickly finding a calculator), this means a total gain of 163 votes, leaving him behind by about 52. Then we look at the challenged ballots.
Let's assume the precinct counters are unbiased; that is, either their preliminary decisions are almost always correct, or when incorrect, they go as often one way as the other.
Let's assume the partisan observers will catch every potential error that the counters make - if it's legitimately ambiguous, then it will be challenged (by one side or the other). Then one can argue that the number of legitimate challenges from each side will be equal.
We KNOW how many total challenges have been made up to now: 778 by Coleman, 747 by Franken. Since this represents the number of legitimate plus frivolous challenges, it follows that Coleman has made about 31 more frivolous challenges than Franken. Extrapolating, there will be a total of 51 more frivolous Coleman frivolous challenges than Franken.
If EVERY ONE of these frivolous challenges represents a vote that will go to Franken when the counting is done, then that's another 50 votes for Franken, we now estimate essentially a tie. But more likely, some fraction of these frivolous challenges represent Coleman trying to get undeserved votes for Coleman, which will represent no change. Hence the 52 deficit will probably NOT be made up, and it looks like perhaps a 20 vote win by Coleman.
Of course, there's statistical noise, which makes the outcome highly uncertain, but it seems Coleman has the clear advantage.
Reposting my recent comment with updated data:
My latest simple projection now has Coleman winning by 51.
This assumes that:
- 75% of all challenges are against ballots counted for your opponent (requesting that they be thrown out), while 25% are against ballots that were not previously counted (requesting that they be counted for you).
- 90% of all challenges, of either kind and by either side, will be denied.
- Candidates will continue to gain votes in counties where the recount is partially completed at the same rate they have previously been gaining votes in that county
- Candidates will gain votes in counties where the recount has not started at the same rate that they have previously been gaining votes statewide
Note: Changing these assumptions can be done easily. (Differentiating among counties can also be done, although less easily)
Note: Holding constant all other assumptions:
- Coleman wins regardless of what proportion of all challenges are of one type or the other.
- Coleman wins regardless of what percentage of all challenges are upheld - again assuming that all challenges - by both candidates and of both types - are upheld at the same rate.
- Coleman wins by 75 if there is no net gain for either candidate in any counties where the recount has not yet begun.
- Coleman wins by 174 if there is no net gain for either candidate in any county from this point on
- My prediction assumes a net gain of 151 and 123 votes by Franken in St. Louis and Ramsey counties, and a net loss of 84 votes by Franken in Hennepin County - based on the results that have come out of those counties so far.
I hope my assumptions are way off!
One other comment on my prediction...
If Coleman challenges are thrown out at even a very slightly higher rate than Franken challenges (95% vs 90% or 90% vs 85% as two examples), my prediction would flip to a Frankin win.
I think there should be a new state law imediately enacted in the event of an exact tie upon recount. In that case, any candidate receiving more than 10% of the total vote count is immediately disqualified. There is then a single-elimination ultimate fighting tourney among the write-in candidates to fill the vacant seat. C'mon...Bachmen v. Lizard people in a fight to the death would fill the Target Center, wouldn't it? (see http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/ for ballot details)
WV: anico- Victory cry of Lizard man as he kneels over the rapidly melting corpse of the wicked witch of MN-2.
ecarlson said...
We KNOW how many total challenges have been made up to now: 778 by Coleman, 747 by Franken. Since this represents the number of legitimate plus frivolous challenges, it follows that Coleman has made about 31 more frivolous challenges than Franken.
You seem to be making the unjustified assumption that both candidates have made exactly the same number of legitimate challenges. On what do you base this assumption?
The best predictor for this Senate race is a coin flip. Heads Coleman wins; tails Franken wins. Yes but maybe they should decide in court on the ground rules for the coin toss first. Then there will be a challenge in Court as to the intent of the coin. Then it will be in the US Supreme Court where they will just hand Coleman his seat, which he deserves more, since he is not a Socialist.
Iowa electronic markets, which is the oldest of the online political markets, is pessimistic about Franken's chances. Very different from intrade. IEM does have some credibility--they never showed McCain ahead in early September while he had his Palin bounce. They were biased a little against Obama towards the end of the race, showing him with just a 4 point lead on the voter share market. My 'gut' tells me from the data so far that Franken will not quite gain a lead when the recount is done.
In GA, the early turnout is steadily rising, 13K on Mon, 20K on Tues, 30K on Wed and 38K on Thurs. African-American turnout has risen somewhat, from 22% the first day to 25% Thursday. That's still well below the AA turnout in the 35-37% range during presidential early voting. Polls show some softening of white support for Chambliss, but not enough for Martin to overcome a 10 point drop in AA turnout.
Still 58 Democratic senators will be a damn good result. I'm pleased!
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!! FOR THE LIZARD PEOPLE!!111!!
Bram Reichbaum said... "Just one question -- why the @#$% didn't we use this methodical, civilized process in Florida in 2000?"
Gore filed recount challenges only in the counties dominated by the punch-card machines, where the problems were a lot trickier. Most of Florida DID use optical-scan, where determining voter intent is usually easier, as we see here-- but, once the Florida Supremes decreed a statewide recount, Scalia forbade the optical-scan counties from recounting, on grounds that this would show that Bush lost and therefore would make it look bad to award the election to Bush anyway (honest to God, that's basically what Scalia said).
My prediction from a couple days ago, which I will stick with: Franken at -60 before the challenges are resolved, +250 after.
"ovelitt": I also predict this will be ovelittigated.
"I think the saving grace will be the rumor that Franken's recount lawyers are more 'experienced', whatever that may mean. If this boils down to Franken getting 10% more of the challenged ballots than Coleman, he will get a comfy 200+ bonus."
Yah man, that's how elections should be decided. Who has better lawyers. What a great day for democracy. I'm glad you approve.
LDW -
Assume the candidates end with approximately equal numbers of challenges and a total number of challenges around 2500. Franken could quite easily make up that difference...all he would have to do is win 4% more of his challenges than Coleman. Say, Coleman wins 12% and Franken 16%. This is quite easy to imagine, especially in light of Latte's observations above.
WV: haile - G-d, in Jamaica.
I'd wager that the Franken camp sources who believe that the real difference was now in double digits are correct. That would be based on Franken challenges being somewhat less frivilous than Coleman's. Those sources have copies of the challenges and would be able to discern their credibility. This observation would be consistent with the quality of the Coleman challenges we have seen to date which appear to have no merit. Of course the Franken camp sources may be blinded by ideology also, but there are usually realists around on both sides in any election.
TheNoseKnows - the argument is not that the relative quality of the two camps' lawyers will affect the ultimate outcome when the canvassing board meets, merely that it is likely exaggerate the appearance of a Coleman advantage going into the canvassing board meeting if Colemant has less competent lawyers who are making a higher percentage of unjustified and frivolous challenges which won't hold up under inspection. The argument is not that Franken will win because of better lawyers, but that Franken's initial vote totals in the recount will be depressed due to Coleman's lawyers' incompetence.
I hope Franken gets elected. Then Oby can pick him for his 'Team of Arseclowns': I suggest Secretary Of Commerdy.
ColinCB's - I second your observations, and your caveat that Franken's people may be somewhat blinded by ideology. Like you I would like to think that realists on both sides would prevail. But after watching the Hillary camp in the primary clinging to non-existant fantasies of victory until the day of her concession, my belief in the capacity of people for self-delusion is strong.
TheNoseKnows
Yah man, that's how elections should be decided. Who has better lawyers. What a great day for democracy. I'm glad you approve.
Hey, that's how Bush "won."
wv: "doomin" --- the Rethugs are facing doomin gloom.
Excuse me if this sentiment has been out there before now. What I see here are two sides of a win-win scenario. A Franken victory would certainly be an important win for Truth, Justice and the American Way, but just imagine the book Al would write were he to lose!
Excuse me if this sentiment has been out there before now. What I see here are two sides of a win-win scenario. A Franken victory would certainly be an important win for Truth, Justice and the American Way, but just imagine the book Al would write were he to lose!
You're an idiot. Franken's victory is essential to a filibuster-proof supermajority, and Coleman is a super-obstructive force in the Senate.
after watching the Hillary camp in the primary clinging to non-existant fantasies of victory until the day of her concession, my belief in the capacity of people for self-delusion is strong.
The cases are nothing like each other. Clinton's loss was virtually guaranteed, and there was a high cost -- both monetarily and to Obama's campaign and the unity of the party -- in continuing.
WV,
You could well be right.
I had purposely discounted any meaningful quanty of challenged votes that were truly frivolous votes, as well as any votes that had intially been deemed legal.
And I may have been too conservative on assuming approx. a 2% delta favoring Franken over Coleman on challenged overvotes and undervotes.
I hope that is indeed the case.
But frankly, we are all in a significant guessing game on what happens with challenged votes.
And that is why I said my estimate is based solely on posterior orfice extraction.
Here's another nice pile of Republican doodyflop from Ohio: dire deeds and fell doings!
"This year Ohio's Secretary of State is Democrat Jennifer Brunner. It would appear [Dem. Rep. candidate Mary Jo] Kilroy has won again.
"But the Republicans are on their usual anti-voter attack. With the help of Matt Damshroeder, Deputy Director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, the GOP has used a range of insider information to challenge about a thousand provisional ballots cast in heavily Democratic areas of the district. In particular they argue that a minor voter omission on the ballots should disqualify them. If they win that case, Stivers might well take the seat.
"Brunner has gone to federal court asking that all the votes be counted. A decision from Judge Algernon Marbley was expected on Thursday/"
"Damshroeder's role reflects a classic Democratic indifference to election protection. Damshroeder is a past chair of the Franklin County GOP. He also served as the county chair for the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign.
"Prior to that election, while acting as Director of the Franklin County BOE, Damshroeder accepted a $10,000 check from a Diebold representative in his office at the BOE. The board was deciding at the time whether or not to buy Diebold machines.
"Damshroeder asked that the check be made out to the Franklin County Republican Party. When the incident surfaced in the media, he apologized for the "impropriety." But the GOP kept the check. And Damshroeder was "punished" with one month's paid leave, even though Democrats could have had him removed."
There's lots more, here's the link
from an old favorite, Truthout:
http://www.truthout.org/112108VA
conarfe: con artist barks
WV,
You could well be right.
I had purposely discounted any meaningful quanty of challenged votes that were truly frivolous, as well as any that had intially been deemed legal.
And I may have been too conservative on assuming approx. a 2% delta favoring Franken over Coleman on challenged overvotes and undervotes.
I hope that is indeed the case.
But frankly, we are all in a significant guessing game on what happens with challenged votes.
And that is why I said my estimate is based solely on posterior orfice extraction.
LDW said "...I had purposely discounted any meaningful quanty of challenged votes that were truly frivolous votes...And I may have been too conservative on assuming approx. a 2% delta favoring Franken...And that is why I said my estimate is based solely on posterior orfice extraction."
So is my estimate, so is everybody's-- but I do think the percentage of Franken-delta among the challenged votes will be well into double digits (WAG based on what we've seen of the quality of Coleman challenges), thus Franken will be still down before the challenges are resolved, but up by hundreds afterward.
(But I'm still rooting for the exact tie, and the coin-flip.)
Back to the general election for a moment: I didn't seem to see Nate acknowledge that the Princeton Election Consortium site got the electoral vote closer than FiveThirtyEight. Nate could/should comment on the strengths and weaknesses of his modeling approach in light of the overall outcome, and indicate why (if he still does) he thinks it has any greater value than PEC's pure poll aggregation method.
(I know one advantage here is Nate's methods have generated much more commentary, and traffic, than PEC. But I assume Nate has a scientific bent that is at least equal to his e-commerce motivation.)
Why do you keep mentioning the difference in what ways people voted in areas have been counted? The correlation coefficient between ratio of coleman to fraken votes and the net outcome for frakin is <0.01, and <0.05 when you consider absolute difference of votes (since if there was a trend, it would be proportional to size as well as ratio, so absolute difference is more accurate).
Or simpler, just graph it. There isnt any real trend, so I don't think it matters.
I think the race is completely unpredictable right to the end as:
1) The trend, before crazy challenges started going up (i.e. challenges likely to fail) had Franken trending to a tie
2) Because of 1) it could really come down to a few challenges at the states board level.
3) Some counties don't START the recount until Dec. 1. It will be mid-December on this one.
observer-
PEC, fivethirtyeight, electoral-vote.com, and RCP were all so close to the electoral outcome that noone was really statistically "closer" to the final outcome.
I also hate Sam Wang's approach on PEC to other sites as he really does seem to have an axe to grind - it smacks too much of the biased "peer review" system Sam lives in. As long as you have a good argument stick to it, even if you only hold the position because you hate the other authors politics of the paper you are "peer reviewing."
How about some polls!
Chambliss 50, MArtin 46 - Rasmussen
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ga_senate_runoff_rasmussen1118.php
Chambliss 49, MArtin 46 (R2000)
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/ga_chamblis_49_martin_46_daily.php
And a nice chart, without
much data.
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gasen_runoff_chart_up.php
It is a sad day for lolcats when a lighthearted joke from eric is insulted one comment later by jqb. You are supposed to be on the same side. jqb, remember, ceiling cat knows your real name.
Do no US States use instant runoff voting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting
With it, both Minnesota and Georgia would be done deals by now.
Response to Richard:
You asked on what assumption I based my claim that legitimate challenges are coming from each side. I thought I clarified that in my post, but maybe I didn't.
The assumption is that the current counters of ballots are "unbiased" and that each side will challenge any legitimately ambiguous classifications.
The former assumption means that if the state board is going to classify a certain number of ballots a certain way, the local counters would classify the same number that way. This could happen either because the local counters are always correct (which has been discussed here), or that if they make mistakes, they make them as often favoring one candidate as they other.
The latter assumption means that if the local counter makes a classification error, i.e., he puts one in the "neutral" pile that really should go to Coleman, or vice versa, one of the two partisan observers will challenge it. The definition of which pile it SHOULD go to is defined as which pile the state board would ultimately put it in.
With these two assumptions, you can show that the number of legitimately challenged ballots will be equal (ignoring statistical fluctuations, which might make a difference here). If we call all other challenges "frivolous" then it follows that Coleman has made about 31 more frivolous challenges than Franken.
Again, as much as I love Al Franken and think he would be INFINITELY better and as much as I cannot for the life of me understand why ANYONE on planet earth would vote Republican even for dog catcher it seems like it's Coleman's in the first place. Unless Franken knows something we don't I say enough already...it's super close but I think Coleman has it by a hair and let's end this nuttiness and admit we cannot always be 100% certain about anything.
Franken in all these days has never led so why should we think all of a sudden he will win. Concede, Al, I think it's over.
If I am not mistaken, before 4th November Nate gave Franken a 52% chance of winning. At the moment that still looks like a good call to me. Franken is catching up in terms of ballots actually counted. If it is true that Coleman's people are issuing more frivolous challenges than Frankens, then it is likely that more Franken ballots will be counted back in once the challenges are considered than Coleman ones. Although a number of posters seems to have done a lot of maths on this, as far as I can tell all their figures are built on their own suppositions about how many legitimate challenges there are from each side, not on actual evidence. The only evidence we have is from those posters who have been working at the count for Franken, and what they say tends to support the idea that there are more frivolous Coleman challenges than Franken challenges - although we do have to factor in possible personal bias (sorry guys, I don't doubt you really!).
So all in all - Nate has been right about most things - including Alaska - and 52% is looking reasonable to me right now.
S A T U R D A Y
194 Things Barack Intends To Do As President
http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/11/194-things-barack-intends-to-do-as.html
UPDATES: Jimmy Carter refused entry by Zimbabwe + Why it makes sense for Barack to move slowly on gays in military. + In KY a man complies with his own execution.
194 Things Barack Intends To Do As President is derived verbatim from Obama position papers. When an objective might be achieved by Executive (EA) or Administrative Action (AA)I have added these codes and bolded the entry. Coded entries may or may not require new legislation. They could be taken in the near term.
I am sure this is subject to change. Still, these intentions have remained consistent through the campaign. They are neither left nor center nor right. They are sensible. They are achievable. All that is required is a smart executive, a stellar team and robust grass roots support for change.
YESTERDAY
Bush Funny Business and Media Idiocy
http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/11/bush-funny-business-and-media-idiocy.html
To receive this daily one-page "magazine" the next morning in your inbox, with all updates, go here http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com and subscribe.
Huffington Post Page -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-c-rose
@ecarlson
As usual your analysis makes a lot of sense, but it needs two tweaks.
1. The extrapolation should not include the 30 or so margin F picked up on the old machines in St. Louis Co., an easily identifiable special case. That means Coleman's pre-review edge will be a little larger (about 25) than you estimate.
2. You assume not only that the judges are unbiased (reasonable) but also that the ratio of Type I (please don't count that vote) to Type II (please count this vote)challenges is the same for F and C.
Given that there's a consistent history of D's messing up ballots more, I would expect C to have more Type I challenges and F to have a few more Type II. In other words, there are more D ballots in the fuzzy judgment range, on either side of the 'clear intent' line.
That gives a little edge to F, but there's no good way for us to quantify it.
Overall, I think the odds slightly favor C, but (Natalie) it's not even remotely close to the point where F should concede, especially since the courts may allow some of those hundreds of absentee ballots to count.
@Natalie Rosen: What in the world were you thinking? MN is a model for the rest of the country about how this should work. It's good to see it play out, just nerve-wracking.
/mbw
In my last comment, that's 25 or so extra for C on top of ecarlson's prediction.
@syr93: Yes. IEM is more serious and stable than Intrade. However, unless I'm missing something, their MN Sen market closed on Nov. 8! I wouldn't worry too much about what it said then.
/mbw
"You're an idiot. Franken's victory is essential to a filibuster-proof supermajority"
That's not really true.
Filibusters are "navigated" on a case by case basis. There are plenty of moderate and even left-leaning Republicans in the Senate -- and also some right-leaning Democrats. It's not like they reach 60 and it's "heaven on earth" or they don't reach 60 and they're "screwed".
And really -- be careful what you wish for. I am not too thrilled at the idea of one party being able to railroad through whatever they wish without opposition, no matter how much the Republicans have sucked over the last couple of decades.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum - News, Politics, Science and more... join us!
Saturday morning with a pot of coffee, lots of data (but not enough), a spread sheet, and holes in that data that allow for the the application of art, hope or scientific imagination.
Using either Star Tribune Friday evening (Coleman lead 120, 64% votes recounted, Franken gain of 95 votes) or MN Secretary of State Friday night (Coleman lead of 115, 61% votes recounted, Franken gain 100 votes ) then assuming the same percentages hold going forward of votes gained/total % of vote recounted to date, then Franken will trail the in the final recount on the order of 50-70 votes. (This would be just slightly less if making an adjustment (2%?) for the slight red lean of the current votes recounted).
So how to make up 50-70 votes from the Challenged Votes?
For my modeling I put the challenged ballots into three buckets: 1. Discarded or other votes (Barkley, write-in, etc.). 2. Challenged votes that go to Franken. 3. Challenged votes that go to Coleman.
Having only the limited data availale from MN.NPR, I can then make stuff up or just play with the math.
(The issue is not how many are decided quickly, but how many go into each of these buckets.)
Assuming that Franken observers aren't challenging votes that would be positive to Franken, and likewise for Coleman observers then any difference between the candidates in the challenged votes is based on how many are in bucket 1.) Discarded and second is there a spread between Franken "wins" or Coleman "wins" in the remaining challenged votes (it seems each will challenge almost the same number).
Straight lining the total number of challenged votes for each based on # of challenges/# of recounted votes suggests 1,214 challenges by Coleman and 1264 challenges by Franken, then
33% discarded, no difference in success rate between Franken and Coleman, no change, Coleman likely wins.
33% discarded, 2% difference in Franken success rate over Coleman. Franken picks up 28 challenged vote, Coleman likely wins.
33% discarded, 5% spread. Franken picks up 53 Votes. Coleman maybe wins.
33% discarded, 10% spread. Franken picks up 94 votes. Franken likely wins.
The fewer votes discarded, the smaller the spread has to be to provide Franken with enough of a pick up. For example: 20% discarded, and a 5% spread yields 66 votes to Franken. Whereas with 50% discarded, then Franken would need a 10% spread to pick up 68 votes.
With no real data on the types of challenges other than NPR scans, posts above, and the maybe Franken observers are more experienced, then we can make it up, but I think Mr. Franken has a tough road to hoe. I am assuming that at least 50% of challenged votes will be discarded, and therefore Franken needs at least a 10% spread, which seems too generous.
We will have a better idea when the recount is finished, and the first results from the challenged ballots are released. Or better yet, when it is all done. But till then, model away.
ecarlson:
Then the unjustified assumption that I think you're making is that Coleman voters and Franken voters are equally likely to have "legitimately ambiguous" ballots.
JQB said...
The cases are nothing like each other. Clinton's loss was virtually guaranteed, and there was a high cost -- both monetarily and to Obama's campaign and the unity of the party -- in continuing.
Precisely my point: if Clinton's people could delude themselves in such clear circumstances, how much more easy would it be for Franken's people to delude themselves about which way the wind is blowing in a legitimately close race with so much of the race depending on subjective judgments?
I think some of you people are "extrapolating" on the basis of nothing much at all!
NO DATA!
Take a look at Hennepin county for instance. Minneapolis-St. Paul and the heart of Franken territory, so you would think the undercount would favor him, but no!
To present, with 64% of the votes counted, Franken has LOST 169 votes to 153 for Coleman. (Franken won the county by almost 100,000 votes). So, Franken lost ground by 16 votes so far!
CONCLUSION: We really can't say who's going to win this and all extrapolations are vain. It may even be that Franken picks up more ground in Coleman counties than in Franken counties like Hennepin.
This might be counter-intuitive, but:
1. Coleman had more votes in those counties so he has more to lose.
2. All of the net changes have not ADDED votes for either candidate, but have SUBTRACTED votes from their total.
3. All of Franken's gaining ground is simply that he's lost fewer votes than Coleman.
Overall we can't tell who's favored by which counties have completed their votes.
Second, we can't tell how many challenges are from the campaigns protesting "lost votes" for their guy -- challenging election officials decision to NOT count a ballot for their guy, versus how many are challenging the judges counting a vote for the other guy ("don't count" challenges).
And THAT will be the determining factor!
If Joe Mankey, the former elections supervisor who is now completing the recount in Ramsay county is correct, VERY few challenges will ultimately be upheld. Certainly less than 10% of the total challenges.
Currently, challenges stand over 1600. If 90% are rejected that leaves 160 challenges upheld. Mankey insists that in his entire career at the Secretary of State's Office he only saw TWO challenges upheld, but lets' assume this election is different and 5% get upheld.
That would mean 80 or 100 votes MIGHT switch one way or another. Most likely not.
We don't know if his experience will be an accurate reflection of THIS election, but he seems adamant that he will win every challenge (of which there are now 62 by Franken and 53 by Coleman for a total of 115 in his county alone).
Step 1: But, if Mankey is right and the elections judges win the vast majority of the challenges then the outcome will simply depend on which side made more attempts to invalidate the other guy's ballots. Since almost all these attempts will fail, the side that made more of them will lose ground when those votes are counted.
Step 2: The "lost vote" challenges seem to be the largest number according to Mankey, but he could be only talking about the challenges in his county, and not the state as a whole.
Of course these "lost vote" challenges won't change the totals because they're not being counted now, and won't be counted after the canvass judges uphold the local elections officials.
So the outcome will turn on two factors:
1. Whether Franken can close to within perhaps 50 or 60 votes BEFORE the canvass board meets. Coleman was up by 167 at one point yesterday and lost 47 to lead by 120 now. If he continues to lose ground he could be down to around 50 or so by teh time the recount is done.
2. Then it will just depend on which guy made more futile challenges to the other guy's votes. If Coleman really IS making more frivolous challenges to Franken votes, then he'll wind up losing. If not, he wins.
And screaming about it in the media or complaining about it in court is unlikely to change anything in the end.
The one exception to this is that the court might order the State to count some absentee ballots that were improperly not counted before.
Elections officials have refused to make rulings on whether such ballots were improperly excluded. Franken has cherry-picked a few of these: a guy whose absentee ballot was not counted because elections officials thought his girlfriend, who vouched for him, was NOT a registered voter, even though she was.
Another woman's vote wasn't counted because she didn't sign it. IF she swears out an affidavit that the ballot was hers, then they might count it. Etc.
Of course, this says nothing about who such people are voting for. It might be Coleman for all we know.
The cases are nothing like each other. Clinton's loss was virtually guaranteed, and there was a high cost -- both monetarily and to Obama's campaign and the unity of the party -- in continuing.
A high cost in Clinton continuing? Yes, Obama spent more money campaigning in the primary, but basically he continued to expand his donor list which served him immensely well in the general election. As for the unity of the party--that seems to have held up remarkably well both in the general election campaign and since. In addition, by campaigning longer, Obama got his message out to more states, some of which he ended up winning which he might not have otherwise (e.g., North Carolina, Indiana.
In retrospect, I see no negative side to Clinton having continued her campaign (other than her own campaign debt), and a lot of upsides.
Charles M. Kozierok said...
"There are plenty of moderate and even left-leaning Republicans in the Senate. . . ."
WTF? "Left-leaning" Republicans eh?
I think you just misspoke and I give you freedom to admit that comment was wildly exaggerated and withdraw the remark!
If you said "some Republicans are slightly less rabidly right-wing than others" and "might occasionally vote for some fairly uncontroversial Democratic legislation" that would be accurate.
But, as Mitch McConnell correctly says "we're not going to roll over."
Republicans refuse to believe that Obama has a mandate to change anything. They're going to resist and insist that Obama come to them. They believe the crap that "America is a center-right nation" and won't give up that idea unless they suffer EVEN MORE ELECTORAL DEFEATS.
It took the Democrats from 1972 to 1988 to admit they needed to run more "moderate" candidates instead of 1960s style liberals, a period of 26 years!
By the time Nixon and Nixon, and Reagan and Reagan had won elections, they were willing to admit, "maybe we should run a moderate yuppie technocrat like Gary Hart." And after Hart exploded in a blizzard of shame after appearing on the cover of the Enquirer with eyes the color of little red marbles and Donna Rice on his lap, they turned to Dukakis, an equally colorless guy whose main claim to fame was "the Massachusetts Miracle" --- fixing the Mass. state budget.
(Take me now Jesus! I can't stand any more excitement than that!)
So, Republicans have a LONG way to go before they finally wise up and start to realize "Gee! WE've lost 3 elections in a row by huge margins. Maybe we should try and move to the middle and abandon all this right-wing garbage."
Probably the true believers won't even accept it then but some moderate Republicans will.
This is all according to David Brooks in the New York Times. He predicts "Republicans will have to lose a few more elections." Right-wingers have anathmatized Brooks as a "traitor" but he might eventually be proven right.
There are no left-leaning Republicans in the Senate.
"If you said "some Republicans are slightly less rabidly right-wing than others" and "might occasionally vote for some fairly uncontroversial Democratic legislation" that would be accurate."
Fine, consider it that way if you wish. It depends on your perspective -- to the right-leaning Republicans, those are left-leaning Republicans. To someone on the left, they may be as you described.
"So, Republicans have a LONG way to go before they finally wise up and start to realize "Gee! WE've lost 3 elections in a row by huge margins. Maybe we should try and move to the middle and abandon all this right-wing garbage.""
Agreed. But most of them don't get it, they think they lost because McCain was too moderate.
"This is all according to David Brooks in the New York Times. He predicts "Republicans will have to lose a few more elections." Right-wingers have anathmatized Brooks as a "traitor" but he might eventually be proven right."
Brooks has become the new whipping boy of the far-right crowd. Even Limbaugh mentions him regularly in the context you mention. Eventually he'll be borne out as correct, I believe.
Sullivan says much the same thing, that it will take years before they hit bottom and reverse course.
BTW Cugel I just want to say that I enjoy your posts a great deal and hope you'll consider joining my forum if you have any interest. :)
(Sorry for the shameless plug, there are just so many smart people here. :) )
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum - News, Politics, Science and more... join us!
"There are no left-leaning Republicans in the Senate."
Context, my friend.
Look here.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum - News, Politics, Science and more... join us!
Collins and Snow are both awfully moderate, probably farther left than the American mainstream. Specter and Luger are boh much more moderate than the average Republican Senator. Even Coleman and McCain would probably break ranks more often than average.
They're all at least as far left as some Democratic caucus members in the chamber...Lincoln and Pryor, Ben Nelson, Lieberman...
I think I'd almost not get to 60 and rely on those more moderate repubs to help invoke cloture. Then, we can still railroad an agenda through, but we're also being "bipartisan" about it. Double score!
Charles Kozierok,
You are spot on!
I still remember the good old days when good conservatism stood for freedom, respect, and equal opportunity for all individuals; belief in the separation of church and state; not permitting the political imposition of any single group's religious beliefs on the rest of the nation; belief in fiscal responsibility; being respectful, fair-minded, and not so hawkish in our dealings with other nations; viewing a strong military as a deterrent that could minimize the occurrence of wars (instead of a means to enhance the opportunity for war); viewing war as an absolute last resort; and believing that individual intelligence was a reasonably good trait (and not an "elitist" fault).
The Republican Party has mistakenly allowed fringe elements to dominate its voter base - and as a result the nation is more polarized than I have ever known.
And now I fear that the damaged brand of the Republican Party will encourage the Democratic Party to move too far to the left.
Most of us folks in the independent conservative "center" believe that there is actually a delicate balance that should be maintained in the nation between "socialism" (a seemingly dreaded word) and "individualism".
Humans are social creatures who all depend to some extent on each other to have a prosperous life. After all, we buy and sell labor and material goods to each other with "paper" money (the largest social contract that exists).
And we usually agree that "social" taxation of individuals is acceptable if it permits everyone the benefits of "free" public schools, social security, and Medicare.
Further, many of us like the idea that there are government agencies that attempt to look after our welfare by ensuring the food supply, medicine, the environment, and even toys that are relatively safe. And I personally like the idea that a few government safety "rules" are being imposed as a nuclear reactor is chugging along trying to input a little electricity into the grid that ultimately makes its way into my home.
And most of us also like the idea that restaurants are occasionally inspected by the local Health Department -and that government licenses are required to drive a car and even to sell the service of cutting our hair.
In fact, the truly only "non-socialist" individuals that I know are all Polar bears up around the Arctic Circle.
So socialism is a fact of our species - and the preferred delicate balance between socialism and individualism varies between individuals as a matter of cultural preference and age (we are all usually a little more informed, experienced, and hopefully wiser as we age).
But what many of us do not like is when government begins to interfere in our personal freedoms in areas where we do not impact the rights and freedoms of other humans.
Such as when we wish privacy in our telephone, postal, or Internet communications. Or whom we may or may not marry. Or when we must reproduce offspring.
Since the politically-active Religious Right attempts to push government to impose laws that forces everyone to practice the social values that they most cherish, I have never understood why its members are called "social conservatives".
They are actually following a path of increased government socialism. And since "liberalism" is usually equated with increased government socialism, I believe the politically-active religious right folks are probably better described as "social liberals - with strong socialistic government tendencies".
I believe the Religious Right is an offense to the definition of the term "conservatism".
Coleman will probably get a very small win now. Probably very small double digits or perhaps single.
Come see my new probably awful blog:
http://youngerpolitics.blogspot.com/
Does anybody else think Barkley spoiled it for Franken? He seems more left of center...
I think the sad thing will be if the vote totals after the recount are below the machine count, and the recount is nothing but a way to remove votes and disenfranchise Americans. Of course, the republican mantra is to prevent people from voting.
Change my mind by showing that the final vote totals will be above the machine count.
Some of the challenges I have seen are flat out vote stealing. If a voter picked McCain and then Franken, Coleman is calling that a NO-VOTE for Franken. Or better yet a vote for Coleman. Bull shit.
The "stray marks" thing is also bull shit. These marks are called signatures and disqualify the whole ballot. Bull shit. Any scribble can be called a signature. The ballot needs to say that scribbles disqualify votes else it is a hidden trick to disenfranchise the voter. But that is the republican way after all. The pens may be out of ink or dried up or whatever. What a joke of a law.
God help MN if they believe that the Coleman Campaign divines voter intent. What a crock of shit. God help MN with the signature disqualification law. Brilliant legislation MN. Very smart.
I will be shocked if the election recount comes down to who threw more of the other guys votes out and disenfranchised more machine votes. That is the opposite of any idea I had of democracy, but alas I think I must be a socialist or something.
So, Coleman wouldn't be the type of GOP to support Obama's governing initiatives? Is that the conclusion for wanting Franken to win?
It would be an interesting winning streak - for the Dems - if they got MN and (by some miracle) GA.
Looking at this drawn out contest how could anyone support a direct popular vote across the country? What a nightmare that would be.
I can see a popular vote happening if:
a) Voting is uniformly unambiguous. Either it counts, or it doesn't.
b) No recounts fighting over voter intent.
c) Voter fraud, glitches, and the like are nearly impossible.
The ballot process looks like a hot mess.
wv: unpuf - I'll leave that one alone.
I have been watching the Star Tribunes recount tallies (http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html and I am very sad to see the only definitively meaningful class of recount changes vanish on Friday. The +numbers in either candidates Chg column most likely reflect unintentional undervotes for which the voter's intent was identified upon hand recount (according to Nate's posts these are likely vulnerable voters). On Wednesday and Thursday were a few counties that had double digit +numbers (mostly for Franken). Today not a single county has double digit +numbers, and many counties now have double digit - numbers (probably mostly due to frivolous/strategic ballots challenges). One county has triple digit -numbers for both candidates.
Too sad. To my eye this represents a case of power forces (lawyers and political strategists) working to disenfranchise US citizens.
Those +number in the Chg columns were good- they represented valid votes that were going to go uncounted and there in MN, the land of the free, fair, and nice, the mistakes were going to be corrected.
Alas no go- the lawyers step up to bat encouraged by a number savvy blogger we all respect), and lo and behold the vulnerable voters get disenfranchised.
Nate- I wish they had stayed in Minnesota Nice Mode rather than move into a Cold War Ballot Challenge Arms Race! Once the arms race got into full swing those +numbers disappeared. I hope the canvassing board can recover them and re-enfranchise those citizens.
I hope, despite the length of this post, that anyone not aware of its contents will read it so they know what is going on. (Thanks Charles Rose for the lead in.)
"What distinguishes this Administration in its final days—as in its earlier ones—is the purity of its cynicism. White House officials haven’t even bothered to argue that these new rules are in the public interest. Such a claim would, in any event, be impossible to defend, as just about every midnight regulation being proposed is, evidently, a gift to a favored industry."
"by the time that was finished, a good deal of the damage might already have been done. Once a power plant has been rebuilt, it can’t readily be unrebuilt."
"Now, of course, Bush has entered into his own midnight period, and it promises to be a dark time indeed. Among the many new regulations—or, rather, deregulations—the Administration has proposed are rules that would: make it harder for the government to limit workers’ exposure to toxins, eliminate environmental review from decisions affecting fisheries, and ease restrictions on companies that blow up mountains to get at the coal underneath them. Other midnight regulations in the works include rules to allow “factory farms” to ignore the Clean Water Act, rules making it tougher for employees to take family or medical leave, and rules that would effectively gut the Endangered Species Act. Most regulations are subject to public input; such is the sense of urgency that the Administration has brought to the task of despoliation that the Interior Department completed its “review” of two hundred thousand public comments on the endangered-species rules in just four days ... “So little time, so much damage” is how the Times recently put it."
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/11/24/081124taco_talk_kolbert
This is not news to Congress nor to the incoming administration, so what can be done is being done. But I believe it is important to be informed as to this, which comes as close to pure evil as much else that is going on in the world today (Zimbabwe, in case you need an example).
For future action (the above are too late), here's a good resource:
http://www.propublica.org/topic/regulators/
back to topic,
Cugel is wonderful, also Charles Kozierok. And I've become very fond of David Brooks in the last few years. In the early days of the emerging awfulness in Iraq, he said Bush was "AWOL". However, it would be a mistake to assume he's not a solid Republicans, he subtly pushes from time to time.
Stephen Rose, not Charles. My bad. By way of apology, here's a repeat of his link:
http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/11/bush-funny-business-and-media-idiocy.html
To "af" here and others with Spreadsheets and Silver Tongues: Can we get more from the STrib page Nate linked by breaking down the data in individual counties, before extrapolating and projecting as some have done above?
The idea is to subtract off challenges in individual counties that correlate with reductions in votes for the other side. You figure () those were machine-readable votes that were probably valid, and hence () they will probably get reinstated. Then fit the remaining challenges to Nate's model of %-recoverable error rate and Dem/Rep-lean. Hopefully the data will be "lumpy" enough for some patterns to emerge.
For example, the lines for the similar-sized Beltrami and Benton counties are
County-- %prec %vote Colem Chg Frank Chg Net C-ch F-ch
Beltrami 100 100 9,452 -2 10,032 +2 4 4 3
Benton-- 100 100 8,444 -25 6,462 -24 1 25 31
Why so many more challenges in Benton? Maybe one rogue box of smudging pens? Anyway, what you infer in Beltrami is that 2 of Franken's 3 challenges correspond to the -2 for Coleman, while Franken gained +2 despite 4 challenges from Coleman. Thus anyway you slice it, there were some undervotes that came out for Franken. In Benton, 24 of Coleman's 25 challenges only reduce Franken, leaving 1 over, while Franken has 6 left over after 25 reduce Coleman. Thus you infer that Franken's 6 are appeals of ballots ruled "no-vote", again indicating somethign about the underlying error rate, if not recoverable. (One would also need to fit to the county's reported undervotes, which info is not in the table.)
There is also weirdness in Washington County, which is only 96%/94% done, where Coleman is -46 despite only 37 challenges from Franken, and Franken is -53 despite only 43 challenges from Coleman.
The biggest "lump" so far is (naturally) in St. Louis County, where Coleman has issued 109 challenges to put Franken only -13, and Franken has 58 challenges to put Coleman only -8. Of course we know from the precincts with older "Eagle"-machines that there are real votes there. If we know those precincts' gains exactly then we can take them out and fit the rest to Nate's model. In Ramsey we can make a similar inference that Franken is picking up votes that haven't been made official yet. Meanwhile, in Hennepin County things seem to be all over the map...
The other tally...
Since The Popular Vote post on 11/5, somewhere over 7 million votes have been added to the totals in the Presidential race. Approximately 60% of them have been votes for Obama. Obama's margin of victory is now over 6.9% total and 7% two-party.
It appears that a little less than 200,000 ballots remain to be processed in California (a quarter of that number in Los Angeles County.) The biggest remaining question mark, as it always is late in the certification period, is New York where Obama has over 60% of the reported vote and the 2008 total is 368,503 votes lower than the final 2004 total. It's not unreasonable to think that there may still be 750,000+ votes to be reported in New York so it's all but certain that Obama's margin of victory will exceed 9 million votes and 7% total and, given that it's likely there are a significant number of Illinois and Ohio votes yet to be reported, that the number of certified votes will surpass 130 million when all is said and done.
As a Minnesotan, the irony of the Coleman campaign is extreme. On Nov. 5, Coleman made a public statement that criticised Franken for "insisting" on a recount (though it's mandated by law), and expressing full confidence in the state's election system.
Now, however, the Coleman partisans have gone over the edge by essentially taking the position that nothing in the system can be trusted and that the recount is not only justified, but crucial.
And it matters little what Coleman feels about all of this. He is allowing these jackasses to be his voice. Sadly, what is most likely to stand out in this whole mess after it shakes out is the Coleman droids claiming that it is impossible someone could vote for McCain and Franken.
As for the "scribbles", where I voted the pens were terrible. I was completely aware of the need to avoid "spoiling" the ballot and I asked for a piece of paper to scribble on to get the ink flowing. This was denied, and one of the election workers picked up my pen and scribbled on my ballot until the ink was coming out. When I objected, I was assured that it didn't matter at all and that my ballot wasn't "spoiled". The election worker, in fact, chuckled as if the entire notion were silly.
Well, Charles, I think you're right about this:
"Brooks has become the new whipping boy of the far-right crowd. Even Limbaugh mentions him regularly in the context you mention. Eventually he'll be borne out as correct, I believe."
Democrats spent the entire 1970s and early 80's trying to figure out how to rebuild the New Deal coalition and have a second Johnson administration, without the war of course.
They failed to see that there had been severe DEMOGRAPHIC changes to America since 1968 that made that impossible!
Working class Whites resentful over the civil rights movement, opposed to integration, fearful of crime and social unrest, defining patriotism in terms of subservience to authority and generally DISLIKING the "weirdness" and what they saw as the reckless individuality of the "hippie movement" turned to the Republicans as the party of "God", "law & order" "patriotism" and "country."
The South especially has FLAT REFUSED to endorse ANY Northern Democrat since 1968.
The only way Democrats could win was by running a Southern evangelical like Jimmy Carter, or moderate Southern Governor like Bill Clinton.
And both of them won only because of scandal and economic recession.
That's what makes Obama's victory in states like North Carolina, Virginia and Florida so breath-taking. It's literally a whole new world when a Black Northern liberal from Chicago can win Florida and North Carolina.
And just like the switch of the "solid-South" to the Republican party starting in 1968, and culminating in the Reagan coalition, it's ALL about demographics.
Back in 2001 Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for Progress and the New Century Foundation wrote a masterful book entitled "The Emerging Democratic Majority" predicting just the same demographic shifts that Obama rode to victory this year. It came out just in time for him to be humiliated by the Republican triumph in the 2002 elections, but he's been proven right.
The White vote was 83% in 1996 and was 74% this November, a decline of 9% in 12 years as America slowly but inexorably becomes a majority-minority country.
For the last decade, non-whites have given Democratic Presidential candidates about 70% support or better. Obama won the non-white vote vote by 80%-20%! He won AA's (13%) by 94-3 of course, but he also won Hispanics (9%) by 67%-31%, Asians (2%) by 62%-35% and Other non-whites by (2%) 66%-31%.
To give you an idea how significant this is, George Bush won Whites by 17% in 2004, but only narrowly won the popular vote by 2.4%
Obama LOST the White vote by 12%, but won the popular vote total by 12%!
Even if he had done just as poorly as Kerry among Whites instead of 5% better, he would STILL have won the popular vote by nearly as much as Bush did in 2004 (2.0% versus 2.4%)!
Now, there is just absolutely NO future for the Republican party UNLESS they can start to win over Hispanics, Blacks, Asians and other non-whites who are GROWING as a percentage of the electorate in every single election cycle!
And they can't begin to compete with stale worked over "Southern Strategy" social and economic conservatism. Taken as a whole, Non-White voters are much more economically liberal than Whites, much LESS likely to favor tax cuts for the wealthy, government de-regulation, fiscal austerity, trade liberalism, and other nostrums of the right-wing.
Most are not opposed to government funded health care and retirement benefits and support increased taxes on the rich to pay for them. In short, the entire litany of "tax and spend liberalism" that McCain and the Republicans viciously attacked during this election campaign.
These views also mirror those of younger (under 29) voters as well.
Nor are non-whites in generally particularly socially conservative. They may oppose abortion, but are less likely to make that their main concern. They may oppose gay marriage, but not more so than society at large and in general are less prejudiced against gays the younger they are, just like White voters.
In short, they are just NOT at all aligned with conservative Republican values.
Republicans don't even have the language to approach these voters and are in fact doing everything in their power to alienate and drive them in ever increasing numbers to the Democratic party.
For example, Latinos 18-29 voted 76%-19% for Obama, even more than 18-29 Whites (54-44%). Nor are older Latinos (30-44) markedly more conservative, voting for Obama 63%-36%!
In short, as these voters grow older they will be a DEMOCRATIC cohort moving through the age brackets and supplying an increasing nucleus of a permanent governing Democratic majority, replacing the right-wing Reagan coalition with a progressively liberal-moderate axis for the foreseeable future.
Of course, all this does NOT mean that no Republican can win the White House in the future any more than the Reagan coalition prevented Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton from winning.
But, it does mean that any Republican will have to appeal MUCH more to the center than John McCain did.
The days of Karl Rove style elections where Republicans ran Swift-Boat campaigns designed to appeal to their base, polarize the electorate and win a 50% +1 election are over.
Erratum: Should read: "Obama lost the White vote by 12% but won the popular vote by a 7% margin!"
CNN Exit Polling: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1
The republican party will be in civil war until 2016 and probably lose in a Johnson type landslide in 2012 maybe winning those 10 red states that will never vote democratic but getting less than 100 ev, maybe only 60-70 if Texas falls.
The GOP seems to think the country is more conservative than it really is and until they realize that the have to move to the middle they will not win the presidency very often for the foreseeable future.
Until they can attract Hispanics and at least double digit AA votes they will be in a sorry state.
jqb, I'm not quite sure why my comment on the light side of things makes me an idiot. (And face it, Al WOULD have the opp to write a tremendous book considering the drama of this election, although my preference is that he will be too busy in the Senate.)
Serious discussion is wonderful, and is the main reason I come here. But if we decide that all persons who try to exhibit a sense of humor be excluded ... well, I can name one fantastic senate candidate who would be summarily expelled from our considerations.
Comment to Richard,
Though I disagree with some of your arguments, I think in essence you've spotted the same flaw I recognize.
Let's make things simple. Suppose at the end of the day, each candidate has made 1000 challenges, and all of them are spurious. Do we conclude that no one will gain anything?
It depends. Suppose all the challenges are cases where the vote should go to Franken (challenged by Coleman) or where the vote shouldn't go to anyone (challenged by Franken). Then none of the Franken challenges are upheld, so those have no effect. Neither are any of the Coleman challenges, but that ends up as 1000 votes for Franken.
So there's a flaw in my argument. I STILL think it looks bad for Franken, but I admit it ain't over.
Franken seems to be going through a rough patch. Per Strib, he's now down 147 votes with with 65% recounted, and 861 Coleman challenges versus 871 Franken challenges. Franken has fallen a little on intrade today as well. He's now at about 46.
I've long thought that the last "aligning/realigning" election (if such exist) was in 1932, but I find myself coming around to the generational argument of late. My latest thinking is that the aligning election was 1800 (where the informal agreement under which the Constitution was ratified lost) and that realignment has since taken place in proximity to the elections of 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968 and, yes, 2008.
I've long argued that either the communications/transportation revolution or the proxmity of Watergate to Vietnam resulted in no real realignment during my lifetime (1958 on.) I'm now inclined to think that the realignment did occur and that it was almost exclusively due to a foreign policy shift in the Democratic Party and an economic shift in the Republican Party post-1964. Both were present in the election of 1968. I've been of the opinion for decades that the last time the Republicans nominated an economic conservative for President was 1964 and that the last time they seriously considered do so was 1976. As to when the Democrats last nominated or even seriously considered nominating a hawk...
Erratum: Should read: "Obama lost the White vote by 12% but won the popular vote by a 7% margin!"
CNN Exit Polling: http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p1
-------------------------------
the white vote will get smaller and smaller for future elections. By 2016 the white vote will just be over 65%. If you can get 55-45 white votes and win the minority population, who by mid-century will be the majority the repubs might as well write their obit. They will never win a national election.
Natatlie, there's no reason for Franken to concede until the recount is complete. I agree that it looks unlikely that he'll overtake Coleman, but it's also likely to be pretty damn close. It's worth a shot.
It would be damn sweet to have Senator Franken working with President Obama in 2009.
For all you people who are having fun extrapolating and predicting (and I'm having fun reading what you write):
Don't assume that all the challenges that Franken makes are to votes for Coleman, and vice versa. Besides votes for minor or write-in candidates, there are, as other posters mentioned, undervotes and overvotes.
But a candidate could very well challenge a vote for himself, too -- or let pass a challenge on a vote for the opponent -- if the problem with the ballot were one that had turned up on lots of other ballots that mostly favored him. E.g.: on 10 ballots, the voters had circled the name Franken in addition to filling in the oval. The Coleman challenger challenges all of them. When another one turns up, this time with Coleman's name circled, the Coleman challenger may choose to challenge it, too, to bolster the case for the other 10 being discarded.
And of course, it's different people in each county. Even with directives from the campaigns, there will be inconsistencies.
But do keep the predictions and ideas coming! I love them!
Doesn't look like Al had a good day today. Total votes lost on the recount are 669 for Coleman, 621 for Franken, a net gain of 48 for Franken since the original totals. Also, the challenged ballots are almost dead even. Coleman leads in the recount by a greater margin than the election, so there are still heavy Franken areas that aren't complete yet, but seems like a setback today, from my uninformed eyes.
The numbers that matter the most
...now are the underlying reasons for the ballot challenges. What also matters is any history and precedent by the canvassing board in how specific reasons underlying those challenges have been decided.
a post from anybody who has knowledge of that stuff would be a welcome addition.
My projection is depressingly consistent as new data come in -- I now have Coleman winning by 50.
This assumes that:
- 75% of all challenges are against ballots counted for the other guy (requesting that they be thrown out); 25% are against ballots that were not previously counted (requesting that they be counted for you).
- 90% of all challenges, of either kind and by either side, will be denied.
- Candidates will continue to gain votes, in counties where the recount is partially completed, at the same rate they have previously been gaining votes in that county.
- Candidates will gain votes, in counties where the recount has not started, at the same rate that they have previously been gaining votes statewide.
I can change these assumptions easily if so desired.
Note: Holding constant all other assumptions:
- Coleman wins regardless of what % of challenges are of one type or the other.
However, if 75% of Franken's challenges are against votes for Coleman and 77% or more of Coleman's challenges are against votes for Franken (as opposed to against uncounted ballots), Franken wins.
- Coleman wins regardless of what percentage of all challenges are dismissed. However, if 90% of Franken's challenges are thrown out and 94% or more of Coleman's challenges are thrown out, Franken wins.
- My prediction assumes a net gain of 84 and 110 votes by Franken in St. Louis and Ramsey counties, and a net loss of 40 votes by Franken in Hennepin County - based on the results that have come out of those counties so far.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型論壇,整型論壇,珠海,雷射溶脂,婚紗,網頁設計,水噹噹論壇,台中隆鼻,果凍隆乳,改運整型,自體脂肪移植,新娘造型,婚禮顧問,下川島,常平,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼, 婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,白蟻,白蟻,除蟲,老鼠,減肥,減肥,在家工作,在家工作,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿劈腿喜帖囍帖卡片外遇外遇 外遇 外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇 外遇剖析 外遇調查 外遇案例 外遇諮詢 偷情 第三者外遇話題 外遇發洩 感情挽回 徵信社 外遇心態 外遇 通姦 通姦罪 外遇徵信社徵信社外遇 外遇 抓姦徵信協會徵信公司 包二奶 徵信社 徵信 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信社 徵信 徵信 婚姻 婚前徵信 前科 個人資料 外遇 第三者 徵信社 偵探社 抓姦 偵探社 偵探社婚 偵探社 偵探社偵探家事服務家事服務家電維修家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務家事服務持久持久持久持久持久持久持久離婚網頁設計徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社外遇離婚協議書劈腿持久持久持久持久持久劈腿剖析徵信徵信社外遇外遇外遇外遇徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信徵信社徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社徵信社
Post a Comment