According to the latest statistics compiled by the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Norm Coleman's campaign has thus far challenged 240 ballots in Minnesota's recount process, whereas the Franken campaign has challenged 172 ballots, a 68-ballot gap. If the rate of challenges holds steady as the rest of the state's ballots are re-counted, that would mean the Coleman campaign would send about 1,050 ballots to the state's canvassing board as compared with roughly 750 from Franken.
'Challenged' ballots can fall into a number of different categories. One common category is when a vote that had previously been determined to be legal is disputed by one of the campaigns. In such cases, the vote is deducted from the opposing candidate's total. All challenged ballots will then be reviewed by the state's five-person canvassing board in December.
Minnesota Public Radio has examples of many challenged ballots. As you can see, the reason for the challenges run the gamut from the obvious to the frivolous. In some cases, ballots may also be challenged by both campaigns.
Local news accounts contain numerous examples of precinct-level elections officials attempting to dismiss frivolous challenges before they are forwarded to the canvassing board, although it is less than clear what legal standing they have to do so. In practice, the prevailing standard seems to be 'Minnesota nice', with most disputes being resolved amicably and by consensus.
Nevertheless, given the ever-increasing gap in the number of challenges, one wonders whether the Coleman campaign has instructed its precinct-level representatives to challenge ballots aggressively, even if such challenges are almost certain to be rejected by the canvassing board. Their incentive to do so might be as follows: whichever candidate leads at the end of the first phase of the recount process -- before the canvassing board reviews any challenged ballots -- will be able to claim some sort of moral highground. By being able to deduct ballots from their opponent's total essentially at will, the campaigns increase the likelihood that they will in fact lead at the end of the first-phase count with each additional ballot that they challenge.
The incentives may be particularly powerful for the Coleman campaign, because Minnesota has a Democratic Secretary of State (although the five-person canvassing board he appointed appears to be divided roughly evenly across the political spectrum). If Coleman leads at the end of both the initial count (as he did) and the first phase of the recount process, but falls behind Franken after the canvassing board completes his review of the challenged ballots, he will probably attempt to complain later that Democratically-appointed canvassing board had "overturned the will of the people". This might give him greater leverage to demand a second recount or even a re-vote in the event that he falls behind. It might also plausibly affect the mindset of the canvassing board when reviewing the challenged ballots.
To make clear, this behavior is perfectly above-board and 100 percent within Coleman's rights. It is also 100 percent smart. But the Franken campaign should make sure it understands the incentives here, and perhaps do away with some of that Minnesota nice.
11.20.2008
Minnesota: Is Franken Being Too Nice?
@ 5:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
194 comments
first
Can we make the assumption that approximately half the challenged ballots get passed?
As I expected, you were already on top of this issue by the time I raised it in the last thread (unless you write faster than I think). Bravo.
Actually, the media isn't even covering this. I dare you to find anything about it on cnn etc.
They only waste their time on frivolous stories of cats stuck in trees and pie eating contests. Nothing for the political junkies!
I posted this at the end of the last thread, and I am NOT wasting it.
Mule Rider, I can give you an example of a conservative that wants unregulated markets if you are still interested. Only thing is, he's British.
I don't have a link to hand to the document I'm about to quote from because I downloaded it in the summer of 2007 but I think it is still available somewhere. It's called "Freeing Britain to Compete:
Equipping the UK for Globalisation
Submission to the Shadow Cabinet" and results from a commission set up by the Conservative party, the official opposition in the UK. It contains such gems as
"Mortgage Regulation. We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage
finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk."
and (my all time favourite)
"Government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money, bakers would put nails in our bread, drinks manufacturers would water the beer, pie makers might poison us, and builders would construct houses that fell down when the wind blew. This shows ignorance of how a competitive market works."
This from a document from mainstream Conservative politicians.
Hope the liberals on this site don't do themselves an injury laughing.
now on topic
can someone please explain the Daily Kos thing about Coleman's lead being 14,000+. I tried reading it and was no wiser when I got to the end. I may be numerically challenged, but not *that* numerically challenged.
Nate is 100% right that the Coleman campaign has seen this recount as a political event since election night. He hasn't stopped campaigningm even though the die is cast and no matter how many times he proclaims victory, eventually we will find out who actually won.
Both campaigns are positioning for what appears to be an inevitable election challenge in court. At this point, Coleman's claim appears to be mostly based on innuendo and the weight of public opinion, which won't go very far in Ramsey County District Court, however. He's going to have to come with some real evidence of real wrongdoing to contest the certified results, or he loses no matter the pallor of illegitimacy he wishes to cast (which he has been cloaked in since 2002).
I've spent the last two days at a recount location and I can definitely confirm an uptick in the "frivolous" challenges coming from the Coleman folks.
We initially took this as a good sign (i.e. we're gonna make up a TON of votes later on) but now I'm rethinking that position.
can someone please explain the Daily Kos thing about Coleman's lead being 14,000+.
If you're just looking at the recounted ballots in absolute terms, rather than on a precinct-by-precinct net change basis, you're going to get deceptive results until all the precincts have been recounted.
I think there may be a more likely explanation. If Franken's voters tended to screw up their ballots at a greater rate than Coleman voters (as you have already posited), then you would expect more Coleman challenges.
The answer to your initial question is "Yes." It does not may to be too nice in this type of situation. The GOP played hardball in 2000 in Florida and sought to do exactly what you said, "stay in front of all preliminary counts" and try to make overturning those counts extremely difficult in the public mind.
Mrs. B:
It's actually pretty simple: the author was saying that since the recount thusfar has occurred in Coleman-leaning areas (based on prerecount numbers), his actually lead is around 14000 votes, since the nonrecounted votes should not be considered yet. Basically, he is just arguing that reporting Coleman's lead as 160 or so is inaccurate because that's based on a mix of recounted and originally counted numbers. It was kind of inane.
OT: Zogby has refused to do another poll by Ziegler of McCain voters. Do NOT mess with Nate Silver!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15829.html
Can we stop with the "first" crap. Scott here said he was first and then didn't bother to say anything else relating to the post. We know you're first when your reply just so happens to be THE FIRST ONE. There's no need to state the obvious. Why not say something intelligent with it. It would be more rewarding to have your intelligent, well thought out reply be the first thing people read as opposed to a 3rd grade need for attention.
I think when all is said and done, Coleman will have challenged twice as many ballots as Franken and then use that to say he was robbed because his case for challenged ballots was thrown out twice as often as Franken's. Just a hunch.
jdizzle: Why not say something intelligent with it. It would be more rewarding to have your intelligent, well thought out reply be the first thing people read as opposed to a 3rd grade need for attention.
Why not just ignore it then and don't give it any attention? Think about it, it's not going to change and not something worth working yourself up about.
"will probably attempt to complain later that Democratically-appointed canvassing board had "overturned the will of the people". This might give him greater leverage to demand a second recount or even a re-vote in the event that he falls behind. It might also plausibly affect the mindset of the canvassing board when reviewing the challenged ballots."
I imagine Coleman is thinking all kinds of things right now. He's a total scumbag who will stop at nothing to try and squeeze out a victory.
But, what chance does he have? What possible legal grounds exist for "insisting upon a second recount or a re-vote?"
The Minnesota board is proceeding exactly according to law and Coleman can go screw himself if he thinks he's getting a "second recount" or worse still a "re-vote."
If he's behind at the end of the recount, he can take his case to the Federal Courts, which will kick it straight back to Minnesota state law. Unless the S.Ct. wants to reach down and do another Bush v. Gore travesty he isn't going to get anywhere. And I seriously doubt Coleman has the political pull with the bastard partisan justices that Bush had. It's not a Presidential election, what excuse would they use this time.
And in calling the Renquist court "bastard Justices" I'm speaking as a 20 year practicing lawyer with an American Jurisprudence award in Constitutional law. They flat ignored the Constitution, but I can't believe they'd do it again for Coleman.
Coleman can scream all he wants to and he's still going to lose. Minnesota has one of the fairest voting procedures and recount procedures in the country. I'm just glad the recount didn't happen here in Colorado where our voting procedures are hopelessly fouled up and the partisan Republican Secretary of State just got elected to Tom Tancredo's old seat.
The "court of public opinion" doesn't matter a damn in this case. I don't think the election judges are going to be favoring one candidate over another because Coleman is launching a media campaign.
Perhaps he'll get some of those Hitler Youth from the Bush 2000 campaign who rioted and shut down the Florida recount.
I doubt that would work a second time though.
Nigel, I agree it's not worth working oneself up over, but I was (at least somewhat) hopeful that this was a panel for intelligent discussion. Or at the very least somewhere we could rip on Mule Rider and PeteKent.
Surely an apparant "moral highground" doesn't count for anything: at the end of the day, the courts (maybe the Senate), will decide, it's what they think that counts, and they'll decide according to Minnesota law, not on whether it favours a particular candidate? Just a thought
Also, Mrs B, that quote is by Tory MP John Redwood, what you guys call a rightwingnut. Problem is David Cameron - the Tory leader - is doing quite a good job covering people like Redwood up. As someone quite involved with Labour (not Labor!) here, it's something we're quite keen to expose!
We better hope for the sake of our economy that Franken and Martin lose.
If the stock market crashses just on the news that Dear Leader has been annointed, wait until Dear Leader gets a filibuster proof Senate. The market will tank even more than it did today.
The Obama Recession rolls on...
Yeah. That "look at me! I'm first" nonsense is getting pretty fucking old. But, until they come up with a way of keeping the window-lickers off the internet, I guess we'll just have to deal with the inevitable speed-bump of their attention-whoring stupidity.
See, Scott? We're paying attention to you. Now, kindly go French kiss a speeding freight train to keep from polluting the gene pool with your defects.
Yeah, that 'overturning the will of the people' 'partisan judgement' thing really stopped Bush from being President.. didn't it?
Let Coleman whine all he wants. the only thing that matters is the final actual total after the recount is done and all challenges are decided. If the Republicans want to cry about stolen votes, then it's all the more likely they fail to realize how dead their party is for 2010 and 2012.
wv: "craxin" Norm be craxin, Franken be chillaxin.
Mrs. B: Do NOT FEED THE TROLLS! It only encourages them! Mule-Humper is our worst example.
Every thread will be hijacked into an endless series of personal attacks. THEY LIKE TO DISRUPT. That's why they're here.
Right Wing Nutcase, I'm guessing you are the type that thought everything bad that happened in the Bush Adminstration was all the fault of Clinton's policies. I have a co-worker who was blaming the economy on Clinton, and is now blaming Obama, jumping straight over anything Bush ever did. Obama hasn't even been sworn in you idiot. My guess is you are just like my co-worker.
Minnesota Public Radio, not Minneapolis.
Minnesota Public Radio, like
Minnesota Twins, Orchestra, Opera, Vikings.
We love the whole state, here, not just minneapolis. (And MPR is headquartered in St. Paul anyway...)
re: another Mike "I think there may be a more likely explanation. If Franken's voters tended to screw up their ballots at a greater rate than Coleman voters (as you have already posited), then you would expect more Coleman challenges."
I think you're exactly right. Franken's lawyers are just as smart as Coleman's lawyers. I think they're both aggressively challenging everything they can. The difference is that Franken is gaining more in the "questionable" ballots because of the demographic he's getting votes in. Thus Coleman has more opportunities for frivolous challenges than Franken does. It won't matter in the end as long as the courts are fair.
I see the "First" posts as lighthearted, fun, and harmless. Some of y'all need to chill out and not get so worked up about nothing.
The Obama Recession. That's a good one, RWC. Just like blaming everything on Clinton.
Get's really old. What is the POINT of your doing that? Is blame a way of life with you people? For the sake of the country, why?
Jdizzle--
Anyone who knows even a little about the stock market understands that the market attempts to "price in" bad news. The market believed Obama’s election would be bad thus it went down. (I am not arguing that their belief is right or wrong just factual)
Further, Obama’s stated plans to increase taxes (particularly capital gains) made investors sell in order to take profits this year making the market take even more losses. Then people get edgy and want out, further losses.
All of this should be easy to understand from any unbiased observer.
From a Biased position I would ask, how proud are Obama’s supporters to see that his definition of change could actually be described as recycle the worst of the worst. He is picking old Clinton cronies and billionaires as appointees. Many of which have their greatest accomplishments defined as raising tens of millions for his campaign. Cronyism and political paybacks are not the change that was promised when he was running.
He will continue to move closer to Bush’s positions on security and Iran soon and you will all see that “change” becomes only defined as Obama changing his mind.
Do those who truly believed in him now feel violated or duped by his actions?
The feeling of embarrassment is a given.
In a year he will be lucky to find none but the most rabid who will admit voting for him.
In anticipation of the new administration, Beltway media insiders are busy laying the groundwork for how reporters and pundits will treat the new team on Pennsylvania Avenue.
"Once a president takes office ... an adversarial relationship usually flourishes, at least with beat reporters," wrote Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, discussing the press corps on Fox News, agreed: "They are inevitably going to turn on him, as all -- this happened to every administration. I don't see why we should be surprised. It is the natural turn of events."
The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town.
Except, of course, when the press does not.
In truth, the model being touted today by media insiders didn't apply to the previous two administrations. That model didn't apply to Bill Clinton in 1993 because the press wasn't simply skeptical about his administration, the press savaged it. And the model didn't apply to George W. Bush in 2001, because instead of turning combative toward him, the press rolled over for the Republican.
In terms of how the press has treated the last two new presidents, there's the Democratic model (i.e. overly hostile), and the Republican model (overly docile).
At the outset of the Bush presidency, when it became obvious that the press had adopted a softer standard for judging the new Republican president, author Jeffrey Toobin noted that "the high emotional temperature of the Clinton years left a lot of people, including journalists, kind of exhausted." He added, "I think it will probably take a while to sort of gin that back up again."
Over the course of eight years of covering Bush, I'm not sure the press ever recaptured the fever it displayed during the Clinton years. So it would be deeply suspicious if, in 2009, the press managed to turn up that emotional temperature just in time to cover another Democratic administration.
It would also be troubling for journalism if the press responded to conservative claims today that reporters had been too soft on the Democrat during the campaign by reacting the same way journalists did when those claims were lodged during the 1992 campaign: by trashing the victorious Democrat to prove the press corps wasn't "in the tank."
That's what helped fuel the stark double standard in terms of early coverage of the past two administrations.
One quick example: On January 31, 1993, 12 days after Clinton had been sworn into office, Sam Donaldson appeared on ABC and made this jarring announcement: "Last week, we could talk about, 'Is the honeymoon over?' This week, we can talk about, 'Is the presidency over?' " (At the time, Clinton's approval rating hovered around 65 percent.)
By contrast, on February 10, 2001, three weeks after Bush had been sworn into office, The New York Times' Frank Bruni penned a gentle, honeymoon-mode review about how authentic and at ease Bush seemed with his new role. "George W. Bush is establishing a no-fuss, no-sweat, 'look-Ma-no-hands' presidency, his exertions ever measured, his outlook always mirthful," wrote Bruni. "The gilded robes of the presidency have not obscured Mr. Bush's innate goofiness -- or, for that matter, his insistent folksiness."
Bruni's piece was a classic example of what in journalism is called a "beat-sweetener." It's where a reporter assigned to a new beat ingratiates himself with key sources by writing flattering profiles. There were precious few White House beat-sweeteners published in 1993.
"Perhaps never in our nation's history -- certainly not in its recent history -- has a President so early in his term been subjected to a greater barrage of negative media coverage than Bill Clinton," wrote the Los Angeles Times' late media critic David Shaw in 1993. (The headline to Shaw's piece: "Not Even Getting a 1st Chance; Early Coverage of the President Seemed More Like An Autopsy.")
"The level of hostility in the [White House] pressroom, I think, was extraordinary," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift told the Los Angeles Times in 1993. For example, days after the Waco siege between federal forces and Branch Davidians ended in a deadly fireball in April of that year, a USA Today poll showed 93 percent of Americans did not blame Clinton for the outcome. Clift said she thought to herself, "The other 7 percent are in the White House press room."
And Washington Post editorial page editor Meg Greenfield conceded she'd never seen any administration "pronounced dead" so quickly by the press.
The conventional wisdom today is that it was a cacophony of missteps made by the new Clinton-led Democratic team that generated the bad press in 1993. That reporters and pundits simply responded to the bungled attempt at transition. What's been erased from that equation, though, is the acknowledgement that with or without the miscues, the press had already adopted an entirely new, contentious, and often disrespectful way of treating an incoming president.
What's also glossed over is the fact that eight years later, the press then radically adjusted its standards -- again -- for the new Republican president.
For lots of people, recalling Clinton's chronic battles with the press likely conjures up impeachment flashbacks featuring a cavalcade of conservative pundits chattering incessantly about the rule of law. Or maybe the Clinton battles remind them of reading mind-numbing Whitewater updates, which, even after four years of hype, never seemed as dire or spectacular as the press made them out to be.
If the past is prologue, it's important to remember two things as the new Democratic administration prepares to take up residence. First, the press in 1992 was tagged as being overly affectionate toward Clinton in the general election. By early 1993, there had been a sea change in how journalists treated the Democrat. And second, Clinton's bad press started years before impeachment and months before any kind of official scandal machinery was put in place inside the U.S. Capitol. The hostile and at times overbearing press coverage started during the transition period and before Clinton even had time to do much of anything wrong.
"Judging by today's press conference, the traditional media honeymoon seems already on the wane," ABC News' Diane Sawyer announced on January 14, 1993, one week before Clinton was inaugurated.
Yes, there were several embarrassing tactical mistakes made early on by the inexperienced new administration that sparked bad press, including the withdrawal of Zoë Baird as Clinton's nominee to be attorney general because she had employed undocumented immigrants as her nanny and driver. And Clinton created controversy when he tried to keep his campaign promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military, an initiative the administration bungled, in part, by not doing enough preparation with allies on Capitol Hill or the Pentagon before the initiative was unveiled.
Looking back, though, the so-called scandals that the press claimed were derailing Clinton's entire presidency just days into his first term seem pretty tame. (The hullabaloo over Baird's domestic help seems positively quaint in retrospect.)
At the time though, it was pure doomsday, according to the press. Here was an utterly typical dispatch from Clinton's first weeks in office, courtesy of Time [emphasis added]:
No sooner had Clinton emerged from the embarrassing miscalculation about Zoe Baird than he found himself in an even stickier political quagmire. After promising in his Inaugural Address to end an era of "deadlock and drift," Clinton was suddenly at war with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as members of his own party in Congress. Worse yet, the spectacle of Clinton clinging so resolutely to his gay-rights pledge after breaking broader promises on taxes, the deficit and spending projects raised questions about his judgment.
Aside from the heavy-handed language, note how Time ridiculed Clinton for "clinging" to a long-forgotten campaign promise. The irony was that one of the key themes of the nasty coverage of Clinton's early presidency was that he was weak and excessively political (i.e. "Slick Willie"), that he gave in for political reasons, and that he refused to keep controversial campaign pledges. ("Clinton guaranteed himself a spate of bad press by backing off campaign promises," The Washington Post explained two weeks after his inauguration.)
But when Clinton stood up on the campaign pledge regarding gays in the military, journalists not only were not impressed, they mocked him. (Perhaps they had different ideas about which of Clinton's campaign pledges were important and which ones were not.)
"My colleagues and I, like journalistic Dr. Strangeloves, are ready to nuke Mr. Clinton at the slightest provocation," New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb conceded just one month after the Democrat became the 42nd president.
The press pile-on simply gained momentum through the weeks and months. In the spring, the Washington Post Style section featured the headlined, "Another Failed Presidency, Already? Sure, It's Early. But What's That Sound of No Hands Clapping?"
Around the same period, Time offered up this headline on its cover: "The Incredible Shrinking President." (Weeks earlier, the doomsday Time headline on newsstands around the country asked, "Anguish Over Bosnia: Will it be Clinton's Vietnam?")
By the following year, The New York Times Magazine casually announced, "In mainstream journalism ... President Clinton is routinely depicted in the most unflattering terms: a liar, a fraud, a chronically indecisive man who cannot be trusted to stand for anything -- or with anyone."
Today, the evidence suggests the over-the-top press coverage of early 1993 sprang from a conscious decision the press made to lock and load on the Democratic White House -- just as it appeared the press chose to pull back when Bush's first term played out in 2001, the way a blanket of calm suddenly descended over newsrooms that had spent the previous eight years in nonstop scandal-and-high-dudgeon mode. ("Good for Washington in giving a new president a break at the start," the hometown Washington Post cheered in the spring of 2001.)
The press not only treated Bush with loving hands, but also dialed back its White House coverage, which meant Bush did not have to battle the media's constant glare.
A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 41 percent fewer news stories were produced about Bush between January 21, 2001, and March 21, 2001, than there were produced about Clinton during the same two-month period eight years earlier. Newsweek, in particular, practically unplugged its Bush White House coverage, publishing 59 percent fewer stories about the new Bush vs. the new Clinton.
The news blackout came despite the fact that the newly elected President Bush came into office under the extraordinary circumstances of losing the popular vote and securing the office only after a divided Supreme Court ordered the vote-counting in Florida to cease.
And yes, Bush aides were quite content in 2001 with the reduced coverage of the new president. The White House's Mary Matalin told The Washington Post in April 2001 that Clinton talked too much --"[he] would just get out there and talk about anything, any time, any place" -- and that Bush would be more "efficient" in the way he made news.
What a coincidence. The White House wanted less coverage and scrutiny from the press in 2001 (when Bush often appeared unsure of himself in public settings), and the GOP White House got less coverage and scrutiny.
The double standard in how the press treated the incoming Democratic and Republican presidents remains glaringly obvious today. For instance, in 1993, journalists complained that the new Clinton communications team limited their access (by closing off portions of the White House to reporters), that aides didn't sufficiently schmooze reporters, and that the new president did not have enough formal press conferences. Also, they complained that the Clinton team was trying to "bypass" the mainstream media by embracing other outlets, like conducting waves of satellite-feed interviews with local television stations. That's why the Fourth Estate piled on the Democrats with hypercritical coverage. Because their feelings were hurt and their egos were bruised.
"They're dissing us," David Lauter, Los Angeles Times White House reporter, complained to author Tom Rosenstiel in April 1993.
"A press corps that has been avoided and ignored and treated in a way that is Nixonian is not going to cut [the president] any breaks," announced George Condon of the Copley News Service in 1993, while serving as president of the White House Correspondents Association. His point was that the Clintons had some of bad press coming to them.
Paul Richter, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, agreed. He said the treatment of the media by a president and his staff "really does affect the coverage."
Some journalists even admitted that that was the reason the press treated some relatively minor 1993 news stories, such as the firing of seven members of the White House travel office, with such ferocity. (A ferocity that, viewed from the distance of 15 years, seems absolutely perplexing.)
The travel office is a nonpartisan department within the White House staffed by aides who help make life easier for reporters traveling with the president by arranging meals and communications. Journalists get to know the office staffers and rely on them to help make life on the road less bumpy.
In May 1993, the White House fired all seven travel staffers for gross financial mismanagement and announced the FBI had been asked to investigate.
As Shaw at the Los Angeles Times noted, when hearing about the clumsy travel-office firings, the press corps erupted in outrage. "At one briefing, they asked 169 questions about the travel office firings. Neither Bosnia nor the President's deficit-reduction package, both major news stories at the time, received a fraction of that attention that day" [emphasis added].
In the days following the firings, the travel-office story (aka Travelgate) landed on Page One of The Washington Post six times, and four times on A1 of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. The press pitched the story as a blockbuster. In less than three weeks, the Post published nearly 20 news stories, editorials, and commentaries on the subject, even though its White House correspondents eventually conceded the firings were "relatively trivial."
Newsweek summed up the media phenomenon at play with its Travelgate headline: "Don't Mess With the Media: The White House Press Corps Gets Its Revenge."
Weeks later, when the media hyped the phony story that Clinton had held up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport while getting a $200 haircut as Air Force One idled on the tarmac, they enjoyed another round of payback. Suggesting the story revealed all sorts of deep character flaws embedded in Clinton (namely that he was a phony and a hypocrite), the press treated the haircut as an even bigger deal than Travelgate.
The so-called scandal was mentioned 50 times by The Washington Post alone, including nine times in front-page stories.
Six weeks later, though, when Newsday revealed that Federal Aviation Administration records showed no planes had been delayed while Clinton got a trim, virtually every news organization that initially hyped the story either downplayed (the Los Angeles Times) or completely ignored (The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC) the correction.
The Post was so unresponsive to the facts that the paper's ombudsman had to devote an entire column to the matter, slapping reporters' hands for doing the absolute minimum to clear up any confusion about nonexistent flight delays caused by Clinton.
And why the pile-on? Simple: The press was still angry with how their pals in the travel office had been treated. "There was a clear sense of retribution" in the media's haircut coverage, Newsweek's Mark Miller said at the time, because the media were "pissed off."
Indeed, the resentment was growing, "whether it was conscious or subconscious," said John King, then working as White House correspondent for The Associated Press. "[S]o when people had a legitimate reason to kick [Clinton] as a buffoon, they went overboard."
Try to recall, however, a single instance in early 2001 when the press went "overboard" and kicked Bush as a "buffoon" on the front pages for days on end regarding an essentially trivial process story. Cautious and respectful, the press did no such thing.
"The truth is, this new president [Bush] has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton," The Washington Post's John Harris wrote in May 2001.
Harris continued:
Try to recall this major news story during Clinton's first 100 days: Under pressure from Western senators, the president capitulated on a minor part of his 1993 budget deal, grazing fees on ranchers using federal lands. A barrage of coverage had an unmistakable subtext: Clinton was weak and excessively political and caved to special interests. Bush has made numerous similar concessions on items far more central to the agenda he campaigned on, such as deemphasizing vouchers in his education plan and conceding that his tax cut will be some $350 billion smaller than he proposed. For the most part these repositionings are being cast as shrewd rather than servile.
But if the press went easy on Bush in early 2001, if it looked the other way when he flip-flopped on campaign promises, that must have been thanks to the way the White House pampered reporters, right? Because journalists were quite open in 1993 about being offended by the White House's treatment and how being slighted, or "dissed," translated into tougher coverage. Recall that the press was angry about the way Democratic aides were uncommunicative and how few formal press conferences Clinton had held, and the way the Democrats were trying to go around the mainstream media.
In truth, of course, if the Clinton team was guilty of slighting the press in 1993, the Bush team absolutely humiliated it. The Bush White House openly advertised its disdain for the press (former chief of staff Andrew Card famously dismissed the press as just another D.C. special interest group desperately seeking access), aides quickly formed habits of not returning reporters' calls, and Bush immediately canceled formal press briefings with reporters. And even the informal ones he held were rare in the first term. In fact, Bush held just 17 press conferences compared with Clinton's 44. (Despite the media's early grumbling, Clinton actually set a new mark for the most press conferences by any first-term president in the modern era.)
Over time, it became clear to the entire country that the Bush White House did not respect the press, that it was dissing the press corps. The way the White House for years waved into press briefings a former $200-an-hour male escort with no journalism background and no serious press affiliation; the way the administration churned out misleading video news releases that crossed the legal line into "covert propaganda"; and the way the administration audaciously paid off pundits like Armstrong Williams to secretly hype White House initiatives.
The media, though, didn't punish the Republican president with bad press. Contrary to the edicts laid down in the 1990s, the early Bush coverage was not affected by how the president and his staff slighted and controlled the press. Instead, the press sheepishly fell in line, nervous about having its already limited access even further restricted.
The kowtowing was at times startling to watch. As Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Alterman noted in 2003's What Liberal Media?:
[T]he Bush team plays a kind of hardball that the Clintonians were never able to master. When Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth asked press spokesman Ari Fleischer about underage drinking by the president's daughters, Fleischer informed him, Don Corleone-style, that his question had been "noted in the building." The implication was clear to all: More such unfriendly questions and Roth could be cut off, unable to do his job, and useless to his employers. The outcries of solidarity from Roth's colleagues in the press corps in the face of this public threat would not have disturbed the sleep of a napping newborn.
There were other dynamics at play, as well. For instance, as the first Clinton term unfolded, there were open discussions among journalists about how they were anxious not to be tagged as being "in the tank" for Clinton. How they didn't want to be called out by The New Republic's running "Clinton Suck-Up Watch," which mocked journalists who the magazine saw as overly effusive in their praise of the new president. It was that professional anxiousness (i.e. that peer pressure) that led some to view the new Democratic administration through an unprecedented, hypercritical lens.
It was also a phenomenon fueled by right-wing critics such as Rush Limbaugh who accused the press of having a liberal bias. Naturally, one way for the media to disprove that theory was to be especially hard on the new Democratic administration.
"If you dared say anything complimentary [about Clinton] ... you were looked at like some sort of pathetic fool who was obviously in the tank," said Newsweek's Miller during Clinton's first year in office.
At the time, observers suggested that get-tough approach toward Clinton simply reflected journalism's DNA. Brit Hume, then a White House correspondent for ABC News, insisted, "We live in a time when the worst thing that can be said about a journalist in Washington is that he or she is not 'tough.' "
In 2001, however, very few journalists appeared concerned about being "in the tank" for Bush. In fact, the tank was quite crowded.
It turns out, that urge among Beltway journalists to bend over backward for incoming Republican administrations goes back many years. Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee explained the phenomenon to Mark Hertsgaard in his book about the press, On Bended Knee:
Stressing that it was "all totally subconscious," Bradlee explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that "here comes a really true conservative. ... And we are known -- though I don't think justifiably -- as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we've got to really behave ourselves here. We've got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride but they didn't use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon."
Just like with Reagan, the D.C. press corps went out of its way to behave itself with Bush, to be "fair" to the new conservative president.
Looking ahead, that desire among journalists to be tough on Democrats in 2009 for fear of being tagged liberal or "in the tank" could certainly come into play when Obama is inaugurated. Because just as the press was derided by Republicans for going too easy on the Democratic baby boomer candidate in 1992 ("Liberal-Media Lynch Mob" buttons and T-shirts were seen at the GOP convention that year), reporters and pundits have been under constant attack in 2008 for going too soft on the Democratic baby boomer candidate.
So, in order to "prove" their independence, will journalists unleash an assault on the new Democratic White House the way they did in 1993?
And will the press pick seemingly random beefs to make its case against the Democratic president, the way it lashed out at Clinton for being overly interested and engrossed in the issues? And the way it said his transition team was too deliberative and close-mouthed when selecting the most senior members of his new administration? Believe it or not, in 1993, those were deemed to be serious strikes against Clinton.
In terms of the latter, restless reporters resented how, during the transition period in late 1992, Democrats didn't dole out enough information about key appointments. "The transition ruined any good feeling that there might have been," Jeffrey Birnbaum, then a Wall Street Journal reporter, said in 1993. "The dark days of Little Rock after the election, I think, are what soured the press relations with the Clintons."
The National Journal concurred in a report that year:
The amity suffered, however, as the campaign continued -- as the crowd of reporters grew and Clinton's accessibility dwindled. It deteriorated more during the transition. Reporters ensconced in Little Rock, Ark., and in pursuit of a story each day focused on Clinton's leisurely pace in making appointments and on the campaign promises he'd forsaken. By Clinton's last press conference before moving north toward his new home, the tone of the questioning had grown nasty.
Note that when Clinton's team didn't leak enough transition-team information, the press got mad and said that's when the relationship began to sour. But eight years later, when the Bush team didn't leak transition-team information in late 2000, the press praised the new White House for its discipline and message control, an obvious double standard.
Meanwhile, one of the deepest ironies of examining the hostile/docile press models for the two previously inaugurated presidents is that one of the personal traits that the press relentlessly mocked in Clinton during his first months in office was his high intellectual metabolism, how he wanted to debate every subject and engage around the clock and hear all kinds of opinions about the day's most important topics. The press saw that as a very troubling sign because sometimes it forced Clinton to delay his final decisions.
"This has led to a perception of weakness and indecisiveness," NBC's Andrea Mitchell announced at the time. (Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity eight years later did not seem to worry the press.)
From the media's perspective, Clinton was too engaged in the pressing topics of the day.
Let's hope the press doesn't foolishly hold that against the next hands-on, issues-oriented president.
To expand upon something I said in a previous comment thread:
Having been involved in very tight recounts and challenges bbefore, it really behooves the Franken team to be aggressive, albeit reasonable in mounting challenges -- and not to cede too much ground to Coleman.
Each set of precinct captains for Franken should of course carefully assess the personalities and moods of the people who will rule on their challenges. It is helpful before lodging challenges to understand what will work for each situation... Some election officials are much more swayed by a take-charge, take-no-prisoners approach, while others are likely to be more sympathetic if you demonstrate that you are going to stand up for your candidate's rights, but not be unreasonably picky.
That said, in general I'd err on the side of being tough in researching where likely votes for and against are likely to fall (based on GOTV info, party affiliation, etc.) and acting aggressively where necessary. One should act with integrity in these situations, but have no excess illusions that by playing nice you're necessarily going to get credit for that.
Well, I am not a "lizard people overlord" and so cannot read minds, however, it might be that the Franken observers are allowing Coleman's people to lodge objections to truly screwed up ballots. Those that both parties would reject are added to the contested Coleman stack.
Does this help, or hurt Franken?
hey David, I'm British too, and yes it is John Redwood and yes he's a wingnut, but he still made it to cabinet minister. It wasn't him by himself though, he had a whole commission along with him.
Wingnut or not, Mule Rider was asking for an example of a single conservative who believed in complete deregulation. So I gave him Mr Redwood. Whom, BTW I have the great (mis)fortune to know personally. We don't get on - surprise - but are glacially polite to each other.
I'm sure that most site watchers have done so already, but if not you owe it to yourself to see the MPR site with the challenged ballot examples (and unscientific insta-poll about same). I'm going to give Public Radio the benefit of the doubt and say they sought a representative sample, in which case not only is Coleman challenging more, but doing so with less grounds. Yes, there are 2 asinine Franken challenges (one about a thumbprint and another with both circles filled in and a strikethrough on Al as somehow underlining) but Coleman's are all ridiculous whereas Al's folks have a few legit ones.
Personally, I get the concern that you need to work the ref as hard as the next guy, but in my experience (including both time as a lawyer and a referee) that's only necessary if the other side is making marginal but believable challenges. If (as Coleman appears to be) one side makes every absurd challenge, eventually it backfires because they lose all credibility.
If the MPR stuff gets more play (and it is out there on Yahoo!, I expect Countdown and or Rachel Maddow will take it up, too, plus the eventual Daily Show segment) Coleman may have to back the dogs down or people will stop listening to him. Then again, from what I gather he's not exactly a beloved public servant with a deep well of support - the idea of Senator Al Franken just pisses off a ton of people who might have voted for a more mainstream Dem and instead voted for the 3rd party candidate in protest of both guys. Not a knock on Al, but the Jesse Ventura scar tissue is still there in the land of 1000 lakes.
wv calermi - the awkward response of Cal fans every time we got bugged about our school after losing to Stanfurd in the Big Game last year.
Q: You went to Cal, right?
A: Cal, er, mi, I guess.
Q: You suck!
A: Cal, er, yeah, ok.
GO BEARS! GET THE AXE BACK!
Right Wing Butt-plunger, I know quite a bit about the stock market. Enough, in fact, to see right through your logic. The ecomony started tanking well before there was a sure winner in the election. You can't blame it on Obama.
So, using your thinking, the markets must also have seen Bill Clinton winning in 1992, and that's why it was the economy stupid, right? But then when the economy in fact exploded in the 90's, that was all leftovers from Bush Sr's policies, right?
Like I said, the biased observer will not admit that this is how it is working. But the unbiased observer knows it is true.
How does it feel to know, btw, that the Clintons are the ones pulling Obama's strings?
You must feel duped and ashamed, even if you won't admit it. So much for "change". Pathetic.
Andy may simply have a point. Possibly a lot of the Coleman challenges are because the voter made a very faint mark connecting the arrow between Franken's name.
According to the Minneapolis Star, that's been the nature of many of the undercounted ballots. It says the "the intent of the voter is clear."
It may be elderly people who are weak and don't vigorously mark their ballots, or it may be some other reason.
But, according to the Star, Franken is picking up a lot of votes that way. Coleman may be instructing his judges to aggressively challenge all such ballots.
If, however, the "intent of the voter is clear" in such cases, he's very unlikely to win in the end unless he can stack the deck at the state level for the review. But, that's going to be difficult if the judges interpret the ballots in anything like an non-partisan manner.
If it appears that the voter voted for that office they have to count the ballot.
P.S. One addition to my comment above:
One would like to think that ballot validity just gets evaluated in a neutral, non-partisan manner.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the psychology, intellectual ability/integrity and partisan leanings of elections officials almost always intrudes.
So if one candidate challenges 1,000 ballots, and 95% of those challenges are spurious, you'd like to think that 95% would get counted. But in my experience, you are going to get some election officials who, in the interest of not appearing "biased," will grant the spurious challenger a few more than they are entitled to. It wears on some of these folks to be siding over and over again with one team, even when the cause of those decisions is the simple fact that their adversary has mounted nonsense challenges.
So the 95% B.S. side may get 15% of their challenges upheld, which doesn't sound like a lot -- but can be the deciding factor in a very close race like this.
There is also a horse-trading mentality that sets in during a long recount... If both teams have roughly equivalent numbers of challenges, they both have the same number of chits to play. A bad actor can use the less-serious challenges as "gimmes" to the other side and thus appear more reasonable, even though that bad actor is not behaving in good faith.
In short, I'm suggesting that Coleman may in fact gain an edge by mounting more challenges than Franken, even if the excess challenges Coleman makes are mostly spurious.
Gary,
It is certainly possible. We don't know that a ballot Coleman challenged would necessarily have been a vote for Franken.. it could have been ruled a no-vote or an overvote. So, for each challenge by Coleman or Franken, the vote could have been originally rejected or included, and could have been recounted for the opponent, or no one. That's a lot of subgroups to keep track of, without much data to go on.
Although I am a member of the ruling lizard class, I'm in the pseudo-skin design area, and not privy to the election results in Minnesota.
i think the franken people need to be VERY aggressive.
contest every vote possible.
i remember all to well FL...
at this point it doesnt look well for franken. he does need to do more.
and looks do matter.
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS>
If the stock market crashses just on the news that Dear Leader has been annointed, wait until Dear Leader gets a filibuster proof Senate. The market will tank even more than it did today.
Your Fearless Leader George W. Bush, as of today, has presided over a 33% decline in the S&P over eight years. He will be the first president since Herbert Hoover to leave office with a stock market decline. You are attributing this economic catastrophe to a person who got elected President two WEEKS ago, as opposed to the President who's been in office for the last eight years or his party who controlled Congress for six of the last eight years.
Here's another possibility -- George Bush saddled this country with 5 trillion in debt while doing virtually nothing to create jobs or increase the standard of living, and it is now biting him and the Republican Party in the ass.
Luckily, just like Herbert Hoover and the Depression, the American people have once again come to their senses in the nick of time and kicked your power-hungry party out. And just like FDR and the Depression, the Democratic Party will once again be left to actually fix America.
Watching the daytime, right-wing big business biased cable channels today, and seeing the ups and downs, the clear analysis was that the last two days' plunge was caused by
1) new unemployment figures, which have nothing to do with Obama
and more than anything
2) the lack of any plan for the auto industry, which is being most prominently blocked by the Bush administration and conservatives in Congress
Are these the sole or only reason? Who knows. But no reputable figure is claiming this is an Obama market plunge.
Maybe it's John McCain's fault for playing nice with Obama.
At the MPR link, the Franken campaign challenged a ballot with a thumbprint on it because MN law says you can't leave an identifying mark on your ballot (such as a signature or SSN). That seems pretty aggressive to me. You shouldn't lose your vote because you accidentally left a smudge on the ballot that happens to identify you if someone decides to do a forensic analysis. Granted, that's one case and it's not the same person making all the challenges, so the Franken campaign could be more "nice" on average. But it does seem just as likely that the gap in the number of challenges reflects the oft-cited fact that Dem voters are more likely to make errors on their ballots than any sort of divergent approaches to making challenges. Is there any evidence Franken is being relatively "nice" other than the absolute number of ballots challenged by each side?
I would think that there may be a different effect - a lot of spurious challenges would a) piss off the officials and b) make them inclined to miss the challenges that aren't spurious.
Is isn't that just as likely as the officials caving in to challenges just because there are lots of them?
As long as each vote is looked at properly, there should not be a problem in getting a fair recount. Franken may lose, or he may squeak in. In my view, proving that a recount can be done fairly may in the long run be more important.
Right Wing Moron, I dare you to actually argue my point. You are as unbiased an observer as Fox News is fair and balanced. But then again, this is where you're getting your info, so it's no surprise. So this isn't the unbiased observer point of view, it't the fair and balanced point of view. I get it now. And I'm not sure why you think Clinton is pulling the strings. Obama is appointing Clinton's people at about the same rate Bush appointed his father's/Reagan's/Ford's/Nixon's people. Let's face it, the next republican will appoint a lot of Bush's people. But i'm just being an unbiased observer so what do I know?
Oh, and if the Clintons are pulling the strings, things will work out much better than they have been with Rove/Cheney pulling them. Think about that.
Like I said, the biased observer will not admit that this is how it is working. But the unbiased observer knows it is true.
lol... true, except that you are a biased observer. You are attempting to claim that a stock market decline that began last year is due to Obama's tax plans, who was an INCREDIBLE longshot at that time.
The stock market has fallen 50% from last November -- your idea that it's because of the planned 5% increase in capital gains taxes is fundamentally, factually incorrect.
Quite frankly, I'm kind of amazed that you don't know what caused it. It's the decline in the housing market and the consequent decline in the mortgage security market. I mean, seriously, if you had turned on a TV any time within the last two months, you would know that. The fact that you're sitting here trying to claim that this is all somehow Obama's fault simply proves the veracity of your quoted statement -- a biased observer such as yourself will never admit the plain facts.
Franken needs to Go Big, or go home!! Challenge everything and anything, make these people work!
You've got to *want* it to win it, Franken!
Northdriver. I'm suggesting, based on the Minneapolis Start reporting of today, that some at least of Coleman's challenges may well be based on taking a hard position about a lot of similar ballots: i.e. ballots that have faint but clear marks.
The election judges will review all these ballots but they will also have in mind a ruling about whether to count or discount such ballots. And then it'll be "here's another one."
Many such ballots will be disposed of by the stand they take on "voter intent." How clear must the ballot be? Minnesota law is very progressive in this regard and instructs the voting officials to make every effort to count each ballot.
For this reason, unless the mark appears rather random, I'd be surprised if it's excluded. Coleman is likely to lose this one.
And Franken may simply not have as many ballots he reasonably CAN challenge, if there are more uncounted Franken ballots than Coleman ones, which seems to be the case so far.
Some Republican leaning counties won't come in until December, but they are smaller ones with fewer voters and possibly fewer voting problems than the big urban areas which sometimes have out of date voting machines.
One would not expect many changes from the results in the smaller rural counties. The voting totals there are likely to be pretty accurate (at least if the sample survey they ran was any indication).
jdizzle said... "Can we stop with the "first" crap"
But it was GREAT NEWS!!!! FOR SCOTT!!!11!!
Well said Persuter, now let's get out there and count harder for Franken!!
And Bob X, I laughed my ass off when I read your reply! I concede that Scott was the quickest on the draw today!
People are missing the obvious - part of the goal of all this Clinton focus is that no one else in the process is getting much attention. And since the media like controversy, one or more of the other choices would, even if undeserved, be getting more now if Hillary weren't the center of things.
Same thing if she gets the position. She and Bill will suck up the controversy focus of the media, letting Obama and the rest of the team just get along with governing.
Pure genius, again.
The end result is that the GOP's best chance to regain the White House might be a (by then) out gay man, Charlie Crist, in 2016 or 20.
"i remember all to well FL..."
Minnesota isn't Florida. We have a Secretary of State with half a brain. We have clear voting standards. We also have voting machines that work most of the time. Please don't compare us to florida - please.
(also - regarding the "first" crap - it was old in 1999 - most websites automatically get rid of them - they add nothing to the discussion)
yoshi-
i am truly sorry
i should have known what an insult it would be to compare anyplace to FL.!
again sorry i will choose my words more carefully in the future.
do you know if they are done counting for the day?
Its looking somewhat likely that Coleman may lose his seat, but I wouldn't bet on it. If Franken breaks even or barely loses votes when they post the results for the more Republican counties, then I will believe he has a chance.
Come see my new probably awful blog:
http://youngerpolitics.blogspot.com/
This is one of those things were there is a fine line between aggressive politics and outright violation of the electoral process.
I am always very disturbed by any strategizing as to approaches to take in challenging ballots in a recount. If the intent of the process is to ascertain the number of votes intended to be cast for each candidate by all the eligible voters, then any "strategy" that aims at manipulating that ascertainment to favor a particular outcome is unacceptable.
Once again, all the libs can do is blame Bush but they have no positive plan of their own aside from worshipping Dear Leader and raising taxes. Any fair person can see they're empty suits.
Maybe Coleman ends up looking like the jerk for challenging so much and with little reason.
Framken can make hay when the ballots are reviewed and Coleman and Co. look like idiots.
No use chanllenging when there is no challenge - unless one is a dick.
Is the final say of the panel really final?
@Cugel
Amen to calling the nutwing Rhenquist for what he was. A pathetic excuse for both a human being and a judge.
I, too, have a Bancroft Whitney ConLaw Book Award and I bet mine's older (copyright 1964; given to me in 1968).
Worse, I even have a case before SCOTUS where the newly appointed Wrenchburg (as Nixon called him), dissented in a clear-cut change of law makes the formerly guilty defendant innocent case (US v. Davis), where Rhenquist's agenda was made crystal clear -- if the government prosecutes the defendant must be guilty.
In later years Rhenquist hid his real feelings, planting nuggets in majority opinions (made narrower because he slithered on board and then wrote the opinion), which nuggets he later used to overturn Warren Court precedent.
As a judicial activist Rhenquist was one of the worst. As a dishonest "intellectual" he is matched only by Scalia. (Were Thomas not brain dead he would be in there, too.)
Bush v. Gore was one of the great travesties of US jurisprudence. Truly the 21st century Dred Scott case.
Bush v Gore actually happened in the 20th century (the 21st began on 1/1/2001.)
Otherwise I agree (it is Rehnquist though, not Rhenquist).
Meantime, Coleman has edged up to +176.
Prediction.
Franken will win by 2 votes.
Repubs go wild.
(maybe that can be a new video)
I love the trolls with their Obama recession BS. Truth be told this is just one long thead from trickle down and the Reagan recession! 28 years and growing.
By the way where are the fathers of trickle down anyway?? Jude Wanisky and Arthur Laffer...
Gone the way of Stalin and Lenin to the dust heap.
Thanks, sfergus. You are right on all counts. Cugel spelled it Renquist so I put the aitch back in but in the wrong place.
While Bush v. Gore was decided in 2000, its effect was first felt on January 20, 2001. A shameful day in US history when the losing candidate was allowed to become president. AND NO ONE LIFTED A FINGER!
Sorry Nate, but I have to disagree with you on this one. You're leaving out a very important piece of information: nearly half of the votes Coleman is challenging is in the highly Democratic Hennepin County area where Franken leads by, like, 100,000 votes. There is no comparable area like that for the Republicans. If you take Hennepin County out the difference is only 177-136 with Coleman challenging only 41 more votes than Franken. There aren't many votes for Franken to challenge in Hennepin County and it makes it seem much more lopsided.
Right Wing Artard
You just don't get it. Will you admit that Bush is at least partially responsible for the current economic crisis? I'm sure even your pals Rush and Hannity aren't blaming the entire mess on Obama. Come on now. You post like you're in the know, but you have no clue.
As of 4:00 PM the recount stands at Coleman +163, down from 178 when the recount started. And statewide it's at around 15%.
Today overall, Franken picked up 2 votes.
But, both candidates are actually LOSING votes (Coleman more than Franken) and Coleman is challenging more.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiU
Stepper: Your Am-Jur is older! You're more of a geezer than I am!
; ^ )
I don't get angry over many S.Ct. opinions, but one where the bastards actually state that it can't be used as precedent is just an outrage. If it's so blatantly in violation of former law that you can't even allow it to be cited and don't have the intellectual courage to stand your argument up to intellectual criticism, there's just no excuse!
The worst part is that Scalia is hugely contemptuous of what anybody thinks about his role in that travesty. It's a naked power grab with no honesty about it at all. Hitler's judges had more intellectual courage than our current S.Ct. (quite literally so in that they dared rule against the Nazi regime in some high-profile cases that caused Hitler to fly into a rage).
Given that very few ballots seem to be challenged, a simple explanation for the disparity might be that the Coleman people were given slightly different instructions (e.g., worded slightly differently) regarding when to challenge than the Franken people, and over a large number of ballots that small discrepancy looks larger than it is.
Franken could play Coleman's game by trying to match the Republican's number of reversible challenges; or he could simply refrain from challenging decent ballots and rely on the absurdity of an outcome that features a ton of Coleman challenges and only a few of Franken's. I disagree totally that a spurious challenge tactic will be more advantageous than a sane attitude toward the recount.
"
You just don't get it. Will you admit that Bush is at least partially responsible for the current economic crisis?"
The stock market was doing fine until 2006, when we elected Nancy and Harry with their Democrat Congress. We went from 4% unemployment to 6.1%, from the stock market around 11,000 to 7500.
And now they're running EVERYTHING! Brilliant huh?
Someone asked if it's safe to assume that about 50% of the challenges will stand. No, but we can make a good estimate of how many will. The preliminary audit, with a full hand recount by reasonable people and no partisan challenges, found a net vote increase of about 0, except in the old-machine precincts.Enough challenges will be rejected to bring the net vote change, outside those precincts, close to 0. We can subtract the old-machine data from the current recount stats to figure out what fraction of the challenges must be rejected to bring the vote totals back to the starting point.
My first glance at those numbers (I'll try to check this more carefully later) suggested that only about 25% of the challenges will stand. That fits ok with anecdotal descriptions, a completely independent line of evidence. What this argument doesn't give is how that 25% will distribute between Franken and Coleman challenges, but most rumors suggest that more of the latter are frivolous. So Franken may pick up MORE than 75% of Nate's estimated 300 vote difference in challenge numbers. That would indicate a likely Franken win, as Intrade expects. Coleman has set up perfect "we wuz robbed" talking points via frivolous challenges.
Fortunately the Senate ultimately decides who's seated. /mbw
There is no conceivable circumstance in which challenging a ballot that you yourself do not believe to be in doubt can ever be described as "above-board."
Nate, please consider employing a moderator to keep these people somewhere they're on topic.
I think the moral high ground is a good place to be. Regardless of the outcome of this election, Coleman is going to have aspirations of a future political career. Unlike Franken, he has no other skills. Minnesotans don't like jackasses and sore losers, and Coleman is sure to be one and a decent shot to be the other. (Lord knows he won't be a good loser.) The more ridiculous Normy is here, the more he's helping his permanent burial.
What is the real story about today.
I see articles talking about Franken narrowing the gap again, yet the Minnesota Star (which also has an article that says that) also includes latest updates showing Coleman up 183 today (which is up from yesterday).
So what is the real story about today's count? Did Franken make any headway or not?
Anyone know?
Back to the Senate race; earlier this afternoon, Coleman's lead had gone down to 151 votes; it's now up to 183, with 27% of the votes recounted.
The root of the trickle down problem (from Wikipedia, note the Cheney, Rumsfeld reference):
Laffer is best known for the Laffer curve, a curve illustrating tax elasticity which asserts that in certain situations, a decrease in tax rates could result in an increase in tax revenues. Although he does not claim to have invented this concept (Laffer, 2004), it was popularized with policy-makers following an afternoon meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in which he reportedly sketched the curve on a napkin [1] to illustrate his argument (Wanniski, 2005). The term "Laffer curve" was coined by Jude Wanniski (a writer for the Wall Street Journal), who was also present. The basic concept was not new: Laffer himself says he learned it from Ibn Khaldun and John Maynard Keynes.[1]
A simplified view of the theory is that tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%, and somewhere in between 0% and 100% is a tax rate which maximizes total revenue. Laffer's innovation was to conjecture that the tax rate that maximizes revenue was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized.
Problem is they set the rates too low to maximize revenue. And, as Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, stated in his book "The Triumph of Politics", the whole wacky plan ignored reality. Spending was not restrained and revenue was cut. Result: massive deficits.
Fun Fact: Did you know that the total debt for the first 204 years of the republic (with all the wars, depression etc) was just shy of 1 Tril. And after 8 years of Reaganomics it was almost tripple that! 204 years to a Tril and then only 8 to get to about 2.7 Tril.
Wow, and the Repubs still like that fiscal policy...as the comic says "you can't fix stupid."
Right Wing Idiot, there you go again. Why don't you head over to redstate.com and not come back. Hopefully Obama will cause you to lose your job so you can't afford the internet and leave us alone. You don't think republicans are in any way shape or form responsible for the economy? Are you freakin serious?
Is it safe to assume that each campaign's observers are keeping a private scorecard of the likely result of each challenge? (Without going as far as to make a photo of each such ballot?)
In which case, in those situations where Coleman's putative "non-niceness" is what keeps the gap from closing in the media's tally, Franken's campaign would have the recourse of calling a press conference to say, "By our estimation, we're ahead."
Since () such a claim by Franken would be in-principle verifiable and hence not dismissible lightly, and () there would be blowback on Coleman if it were right and there were a large challenge disparity, I believe that there is no thumb-on-the-scales here. Rather, I think it's an effect of:
() more "vulnerable" ballots being for Franken, as several commenters in these threads have said,
() perhaps a lower threshold of when to challenge that was selected beforehand without knowing what Franken's would be.
In any event, this too can be studied!---e.g. if Coleman's challenges go up in similar districts that started recounting later as this thing tightens, then that variation (with hundreds of data points) may be reliably ascribable to the tightening.
franken picked up 2 votes? i just dont see how franken can come back to win this thing.
"You don't think republicans are in any way shape or form responsible for the economy? Are you freakin serious?"
Sure, the RINOS are along with the Democrat Party who forced banks to make loans to "disadvantaged" people in the name of politically correct orthodoxy, even though they couldn't pay those loans back. And now we have the crisis we do.
And now the Democrat Party and RINOS want us to socialize the automobile industry and their Union cronies.
Soon, we're going to back to where we were under Jimmy Carter.
Maybe Obama and his Clintonian Cronies can tax us back into prosperity, right jizz?
Can anyone name one non-defense government program Dear Leader and the Democrat Congress will cut or elminate to save our hard earned tax dollars?
livemild, there are still about 60% of the votes still be be recounted in highly Democratic Hennepin County where Franken already leads by over 100,000 votes. This thing will close in a hurry once those votes start coming back in.
Looking at the Minneapolis Star county by county report I don't see any clear trend that Coleman counties are adding a few votes for him while Franken counties are adding votes for him. Indeed, I wonder if the trend might be contrariwise. I wonder if Nate has done, or can do an analysis of this.
Right Wing Dumbass, are you a sore loser? At least you can be thankful you still live in a center-right country. Oh wait.....
Do you make over $250,000? Or are you going to see your taxes go down? Bush may not have raised taxes, but borrowing money for wars and running up the largest deficits EVER don't seem like good economic polices to me. Show me a time in the history of the world where taxes were actually cut in a time of war. You gotta actually pay for this crap you know.
And now, Coleman's lead is down to 162, with 29%
Coleman has challenged 316 ballots, Franken 211.
Well, since my productivity will be taxed under a Democrat government anyway, I may as well quit my job and get government checks from Dear Leader.
Thanks for giving me your tax dollars, libs!
If Franken voters are more inclined to make mistakes when filling out the ballot I still woudn't expect more challenges from Coleman. Sure, Coleman would probably challenge more ballots counted by officials as votes for Franken than vice versa but on the other hand Franken would probably then be able to challenge more ballots counted by officials as undervotes or overvotes.
However, if this scenario is true Franken would make a large net gain at the end if most challenges were rejected.
Right Wing, dude, seriously please stop. You have your opinions and that's great, but this thread is a discussion about the Minnesota Senate recount. There are plenty of other threads here were you can go to town. Why fuck up this one? Some of us aren't here to be ideological, so you're not only pissing off the liberals, but you're pissing off those just interested in politics like me. Please use some common courtesy, find a more appropriate thread to talk about Obama and let us talk about Franken and Coleman here. Thank you.
What do you care about the war? Nancy and Harry already said they want to CUT military spending by 25%.
The Democrat Party is the party of weakness and surrender, and has been since Jimmy Carter. Clinton gutted or military which left us unprepared, and you you libs want to to it all over again. Unbelievable.
From the examples you linked to, it doesn't appear that Franken's people are being "too nice." I mean, they even challenged a ballot where a voter had clearly erased the mark next to Franken and marked Coleman. My guess is that there are just fewer marginally-questionable ballots for Coleman than for Franken.
@Cugel
I am a geezer but it's still an AmJur2d!
Alito is cautiously moving into Scalia territory and may come fully to embrace the monstrosity that is "originalism" (except when you don;'t like what the Founding Fathers would have done).
I am hoping that BHO appoints Cass Sunstein to the court. I know it's not BHO's style to jab, but I'd like to see the guy who called Scalia and Thomas "Radicals in Robes" sitting next to them with the same vote they have. He'd be a good replacement for Ginsburg, J.
jdrizzle: "Bob X, I laughed my ass off when I read your reply!"
Good. We have our traditions to uphold. They may be exceedingly annoying traditions, but they're outs.
donz: "And now, Coleman's lead is down to 162, with 29%
Coleman has challenged 316 ballots, Franken 211."
I rough-project then that Franken ends up down 60, before the challenged ballots are taken up, but up around 250 after the challenges are resolved (methodological assumption: Franken's challenges are a mix of rightful and dubious; the excess of Coleman's challenge numbers over Franken's are because his people are making more dubious, and quickly rejectable, challenges to precisely that extent).
I am still rooting, however, for an exact tie, and resolution by coin toss.
Right Wing Nutcase, why do you care about the military? If you're such a big supporter of the war, you should go die there. But Amateur Pol is right, let's get back on to the topic here. Sorry guys, I took this conservative steamy pile's bait, but let's get back to MN! Let's hope the recount goes the way of the WA '04 Gov. recount. After some voter fraud was uncovered, the true winner was victorious. Not saying there was necessarily any fraud in MN, but you never know!
@donz: That's significant because the "vote gap" jumped from 183 down to 162 at the same time as the "challenge gap" jumped up from about 90 to 105.
Perhaps we should be reporting the current standing as a range, i.e. 78--162. The truth is likely in-between, and closer to the smaller number.
Obama's 1st SC appointee could very well be a Latino; there has never been one on the court.
My further hope is that he appoints solid center-left justices with whom Anthony Kennedy will feel comfortable. He has been showing signs of shunning the radical 4 rightists and becoming the swing vote. If he gets at ease enough with Obama's choices, he might feel safe in retiring rather than risking later turning the court over to the extremists.
And last, all of Obama's choices should be 55 or younger so they have longetivity.
"Can anyone name one non-defense government program Dear Leader and the Democrat Congress will cut or elminate to save our hard earned tax dollars?
I like the “non-defense” clause, as if that isn’t important. Defense/War on Terror spending makes up nearly a quarter of our budget (and a third of our non-interest budget), so some smart reforms in that area would make a huge difference.
Republicans love to talk about spending cuts...until it comes to Defense.
I try not to feed the trolls. But watching Right Wing Conspiricist in this thread has me crumpled over in laughter. He/she/it seems to be desperately trying to convince himself. All I offer to him is: This is a reality based blog. We don't spend all our time here listening to Limbaugh and Hannity, nor do we worship von Sustren. Perhaps if you and your party did so a bit less your future electoral fortunes might look up. For now if you are representative of what the wing-nuts have "learned" from 2 devastating election cycles back to back I'm confident having a D next your name on the 2010 & 12 ballots will remain a large net plus.
@RWC: "the market attempts to 'price in' bad news."
You mean like Lehman Brothers failing? And Bear Stearns? And ML? And AIG? And FM/FM? Yup, all of that had nothing at all to do with the markets going down--it was all anticipation of Obama, even back in September when McCain had a lead in the polls. Yup.
All of this should be easy to understand from any unbiased observer. Yup.
I look forward to the astominshment the Democrat sheeple will have when they find out their plastic dashboard messiah isn't going to pay their mortgage! lol!
Right Wing Ding Dong, we're sheeple? Last time I checked you people proudly call yourselves "Ditto-heads". Next argument.
We don't do sheep (or sheeple) here RWC. That's more of a wingnut hobby. Do you believe RWC that dinosaurs and humans occupied the earth at the same time <10,000 years ago? Just curious?
"Sure, the RINOS are along with the Democrat Party who forced banks to make loans to "disadvantaged" people in the name of politically correct orthodoxy, even though they couldn't pay those loans back. And now we have the crisis we do."
Way to prove you are just a party hack. If you really believe this is what caused the meltdown, you are either misinformed or just stupid. I suggest you read into the mortgage after markets such as the CDS market. These markets are why the problem is so severe and why blaming it on the 'poor people' is wrong. These markets were completely unregulated thanks to the bill put through by Senator Graham.
This is why you see the bailout money not going towards to buying up bad loans anymore. Because simply buying up the bad loans doesn't solve the problem as there aren't enough out there to really fix the problem. The money is now going directly to the banks.
I know I am responding to an old post in this thread but it is absolutely hilarious that Mule Rider thinks there is a huge rush on to take profits in the stock market before capital gains laws change.
First, the law almost certainly won't change before 2010. Second, as you may be aware, most people are not sitting on tons of profits at this moment.
I had to count up eight posts to find one about the recount. Guys, come on here.
Coleman +158, 527 challenged ballots
I'm sorry Amateur Pol, we keep getting baited by these retards. Well, I guess RWC is the only one here today.
It's a shame Obama didn't do much campaigning (did he do any?) in MN. It may have been enough to get Franken a couple hundred votes.
Hennepin county still only has 30% of their vote recounted. For Franken to win he's going to have to improve his numbers here to offset any Coleman picks elsewhere. Since there are well over 500,000 ballots cast it's possible.
Interestingly enough, Franken's biggest improvement is in Dakota county (+32) which Coleman won pretty handily.
i am all for having an open conversation and i have deviated on more than one occasion but staying on topic here seems to be an impossibility
thanks amateur pol for info-it helps.
Lead down to 143, with 30% in.
Coleman challenges: 317, Franken, 246.
Looks like Franken is getting a bit more aggressive with the challenges.
livemild, you're welcome. =)
Does anyone know what the Star-Register's track record is with matching up to the SoS's nightly update? Their website says it's either the SoS's numbers or their own complied, so we're seeing the paper's best guestimate right now.
Isn't some of this just a matter of precincts reporting in for the day? The numbers have changed pretty dramatically in the last hour or so.
I just think it is hard to reach a conclusion that Franken is challenging more now than earlier in the day. I suspect it has more to do with the results over the course of the entire day just now showing up in the tallies.
At any rate, the trend is still in a good direction.
This may go down to the wire (even more so than it already has).
Joseph, the SoS's office is posting actual recounted ballots where the newspaper is trying to adjust the Election Day numbers based on the reported differences by comparison. That could be pretty hit or miss. The SoS's numbers are the only really valid numbers right now.
Staying on topic in a thread about a recount is self-denying to the point of absurdity.
A lot of people seem to be getting aerated about the fact that a lot of the announced appointees to the new administration served in the last Democrat administration.
In what way does this matter if they are going to be led by a different boss?
Were any of the people appointed this time people who screwed up last time round, or did they do their jobs as well as they could given the wishes of the then President? Haven't most of us had to change the way we work because a new boss has come in and shaken things up? It wasn't necessary to recruit an entire new department - the experienced people who know how to do things in general are usually able to adapt to a different lead.
If they serve at the pleasure of the President, they can argue their case but if the President wants something else, that's what the President gets unless they're incompetent and should be fired anyway.
What's wrong with his appointees so far?
The funny part about all of this is what happens now is just the opening act for December 3rd. That's when four counties -- Rock, Scott, Winona and Wright -- begin their recounts and they had about 150,000 votes cast between them and Coleman won three of four. This is far from over.
Right Wing Conspiricist said..." What do you care about the war? Nancy and Harry already said they want to CUT military spending by 25%.
The Democrat Party is the party of weakness and surrender, and has been since Jimmy Carter. Clinton gutted or military which left us unprepared, and you you libs want to to it all over again. Unbelievable."
RWC,
You have hit a new all-time low and are disgusting to the core. You are the definition of a complete neocon coward. Seriously. Tell what you wrote to my liberal nephew who fought in Iraq and lost his eye while you sat on your ass. You voted for an administration that resulted in the thousands of needless American deaths on 9/11 and in Iraq. While the man behind 9/11 roams free. Sarah Palin (stupidly) talked about "Real Americans". My nephew is one. You are not.
BTW, Shrub, Cheney, Chambliss, Rush, Gingrich, George Allen, Eric Cantor, etc. never fought in a war. Didn't even come close. Al Gore and John Kerry did. And Bill Clinton got the first WTC bomber. And he attempted to get Osama but was stopped by Trent Lott and the Republicans who refused to grant anti-terrorist funding, accusing Clinton of "wagging to dog" in light of Monica Lewinsky. Talk about putting your country last! Coupled with Condi Rice completely ignoring warnings about the possibility of terrorist using airplanes as weapons. Your party resulted in the loss of 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11. Congratulations. You must be so proud while sitting on your ass the entire time and spewing more hate.
What is so (comparatively) slow with Ramsey County (mostly City of St. Paul)? Recount there has been hung at 15% (precincts & votes) with only 1 recorded challenge (by Coleman). Even the open rural counties had far more challenges/vote.
Badgerhair, it's not self-denying to the point of absurdity, it's a matter of self control and being polite not trying to hijack a thread and turn it into something it's not. Most people click to read this thread because it's title is about the recount. They don't come here expecting to hear about Obama's cabinet. There are plenty of threads about that already and they don't seem to have any trouble finding traffic for comments.
Though I agree with 538 nearly all the time (and by the way, Congrats on the book deal, Nate, you deserve it), I have to point out a contrary position here.
I'm not sure that trying to be more aggressive in challenging ballots from the Franken camp would do much good. I'm thinking Coleman's people are told to challenge 3 ballots for every 2 the Franken people challenge. So, if the Franken people double the number they're challenging, so do the Coleman people.
The right wing here is already up in arms that this is being stolen by ACORN and Mickey Mouse, and the Democratic SOS who will stop at nothing to get to 60. Coleman has been playing the expectations game from day one, and it's working...amongst his supporters. But even our Republican Governor had to concede that our process is sound and we can trust the results.
The partisans are going to be pissed no matter what, but Mark Ritchie has set up a fair process with 2 republican judges an, IP judge, a non-partisan judge and himself on the canvasing board. If every party and independents who have the last say agree with the outcome, the partisans can bitch all they want, whichever side loses has lost, period.
Thanks Amateur Pol, that makes sense. I appreciate the paper trying to do that, but you're correct it could be rather meaningless since it assumes so much.
Didn't RWC commit to eating his hat on youtube if Obama won Virginia or North Carolina? Wasn't that him?
Amateur Pol,
All the time leading up to the election, the comments formed a continuous conversation, and they never stuck to the nominal thread title.
I doubt anyone really sits there trying to read all the threads and comment appropriately. We didn't do it before 11/4 and I don't quite see why we should change over now.
All that may be true (in Nate's post), but, 1) this is it in regards to the recount, unless, perhaps, Norm is willing to pony up the cash to do another but even that may be a non-starter... and thee is not going to be another vote, there are no provisions for it in MN law. This recount is, for all purposes the final arbitrator of the race.
And in a way contesting so many ballots may end up biting Norm in the ass in the end. If Franken is leading, or just barely behind once the main stage of the recount is done, then having a massive unbalances of contested ballots will surely lock in Norm's loss.
Yeah, he'll carp about it, and bitch and moan, but you know, 6 years is a long time to have to wait for another shot. Franken may be vulnerable in 6 year, but I'm guessing if Norm loses this one, he is done, it'll be a different challenger for Franken.
Also keep in mind, even if Norm pulls it off, he is going to end up going to congress to face corruption charges and could well get stripped of his seat anyways. In fact, Norm's best bet may be in losing the seat, then most of his legal problems will just melt away.
Ed M, I do believe you're correct.
I guess he'll have to eat two hats now.
Badgerhair, I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this because there is no point; however, I've been coming here probably longer than you have and while I'm aware that's how the threads have gone that was also when everything was interlocked. There is no interlocking Obama's cabinet with the MN Senate recount. I stand by my statement that I believe it's inconsiderate and rude. That's my opinion and you have yours, and this is the last of my non-recount comments.
New update just posted. Coleman's lead is down to 142 votes! At this rate, this is great news... for John McCain (sorry, couldn't resist).
We have to make some assumptions to really come up with an interpretation of the data.
Let's assume that:
1. 75% of all challenges are requests to throw out ballots previously counted for your opponent; 25% of all challenges are requests to have a previously uncounted ballot applied to your own vote count.
2. 75% of all challenges will be dismissed by the canvassing board; 25% of all challenges will be accepted.
Under these assumptions, I calculate that Franken has already gained 427 votes: 136 "actual" votes gained through the recount process, and a projected 291 more that he will gain after the canvassing board has made all of their evaluations.
Consider St Louis county alone... my assumptions would lead us to believe:
- Franken has already picked up 74 and Coleman 36 votes in the recount.
- Coleman has challenged 44 Franken ballots (75% of his 59 challenges) which is why Franken's change is shown as only +30.
- Franken has challenged 24 Coleman ballots (75% of his 32 challenges) which is why Coleman's change is shown as only +12
- Coleman has challenged 15 previously uncounted votes and Franken has challenged 8 previously uncounted votes
The canvassing board will accept 11 of Coleman's 44 challenges of Franken ballots, but reinstate the remaining 33 to Franken. Similarly, it will accept 6 of Franken's 24 challenges of Coleman ballots, but reinstate the remaining 18 to Coleman. It will accept 4 of Coleman's 15 challenges of previously uncounted ballots - assigning those votes to Coleman. Similarly, it will accept 2 of Franken's 8 challenges of previously uncounted ballots - assigning those votes to Franken.
On balance, Coleman gains 22 and Franken gains 110 votes in the St. Louis recount alone (eventually), for a net gain of 88 votes. This is much more than the gain of 18 votes implied by the silly way that the Star Tribune has chosen to display these data. (The Star Tribune totals seem to assume that no challenges of an opponents ballots will be dismissed by the canvassing board but that all challenges of previously uncounted ballots will be dismissed).
I will agree with many criticisms of my terribly over-simplified assumptions, but they are not terribly unreasonable. And I think they give a better feel for what is really going on than the Tribune site does.
Go Al!
Badgerhair said "...All the time leading up to the election, the comments formed a continuous conversation... We didn't do it before 11/4 and I don't quite see why we should change over now."
Because the level of traffic and the rate of new-thread creation has changed radically. Get with the new customs.
Jon, thanks for updating promptly. But the numbers challenged (now at 322 by Coleman, 250 by Franken) are also vital to include in these updates (Franken may be at -142 but could be, e.g. at -70, if all challenges are rejected).
"bunki": what the right-wingers bring to this site, something for us to debunki
The Official MN Secretary of State's recount results
RECOUNT Number of Ballots for Coleman (as recounted) 534475 43.28
RECOUNT Number of Ballots for Franken (as recounted) 494804 40.07
RECOUNT Number of All Other Ballots (as recounted) 204971 16.60
RECOUNT COLEMAN and Other Ballots Challenged By FRANKEN 374 0.03
RECOUNT FRANKEN and Other Ballots Challenged By COLEMAN 360 0.03
are they saying that franken has challenged more than coleman?
So how many is coleman up by on the MN SoS page? I can't find it.
livemild, that's what it seems which, if true, just goes to prove my point that the paper's numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.
im thinking coleman up by 130>?
anyone else have a better #
amateur pol
yeah im beginning to think the paper is a little screwy
livemild, I get the same thing. Coleman up by 130, Franken net gain of 86.
Sedi, McCain's margin of victory was larger than the 0.05% or less required for an automatic recount. Obama would have to pay for a recount.
I think I figured it out:
Coleman Nov 4 total - today' s recount total: 534687 - 534475 = coleman lost 212
Franken Nov 4 total - today' s recount total: 494930 - 494804 =
franken lost 126
So not counting flagged ballots franken has gained 86 I believed
These are the numbers, for comparison, that the MN SoS says they had on Nov. 4th. So far Franklin has lost 126 votes while Coleman has lost 212.
Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Norm Coleman 534687
Nov. 4 Ballots Cast for Al Franken 494930
Alex writes, "Coleman up by 130, Franken net gain of 86."
Which isn't all that far off from the StarTribune's numbers: Coleman now up by 136.
Maybe both campaigns are actually be just as aggressive at challenging, but the democrats have more questionable ballots.
We used that argument to predict that democrats would have more "ballots that were not counted but questionable", so why wouldn't the same thing apply to "ballots that were counted but are questionably"
Franken winning is looking like much more of a possibility now.
Come see my new probably awful blog:
http://youngerpolitics.blogspot.com/
donz, yes, but they also have Coleman challenging 72 more ballots than Frankin where the SoS has Franken challenging more.
hey if the SoS is right about challenges does that make this nate post MOOT? or even wrong?
livemild, yes it would seem to bring it into question. Like I said in my earlier post, over 100 of Coleman's challenges at the time were in one very Democratic county and that had to be taken into consideration because that could have skewed the numbers a bit.
I like the Strib as much as the next person, but I really think we should be going ONLY by the numbers the SOS gives out. I know that means waiting longer, but I trust the precinct breakdown from their Excel file much better.
At the current pace, it looks like Coleman will win. According to this site (http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html), Coleman's lead is 136 with 46% of the votes counted.
Coleman started the recount with a 215 vote lead, so Frankin made up 79 votes. Extrapolate that and Frankin gains 172 votes, 43 votes short. Of course, in the counties Frankin has gained the most votes, there's still a lot of outstanding ballots to be counted: St. Louis (36%), Ramsey (30%), Hennepen (42%), Dakota (27%).
This appears it's going to be very, very close. Probably less than 50 either way.
The Amateur Poll sez: "donz, yes, but they also have Coleman challenging 72 more ballots than Frankin where the SoS has Franken challenging more."
My head 'bout to 'splode. :)
i dont think it looks too great for franken either.
i am just hoping on the challenged votes and really it is awfully close-could still go either way. okay im contradicting myself
Taking a look at the Star-Tribune reporting method compared with the MN SoS website, it appears to me that both are ((as of 8.00pm CST) ea. day accurate). The S-T indicates they are comparing in near real-time from field reporters, only fully recounted precinct #'s with ea corresponding precinct's original count to determine a delta for that precinct and then summing for an ongoing diff count due to the recount proc. They also reconcile their counts with the SoS's numbers at 8.00pm ea day and in my quick look they are quite close at that time. Since the S-T site now has total precinct reporting at 55% compared to the SoS count as close to 8.00pm as poss. of just at 51%, the field counting and thus S-T reporting thereof continues(ued) after the SoS arbitrary daily reporting time. Even the reported Franken challenges have been reconciled as advertised so that Frankin challenges are just over 400 and slightly exceed the total Coleman challenges. Once again the Nate'ster seems to have his "inside-baseball" tactics well honed and are either in tune with or being noted by Franken's people.
Eye-balling it, there does appear to be a strong corralation between Election Day results and the number of votes gained in the recount. If those holds true, Frankin will probably gain votes at a quicker rate than he is now.
It would be nice if someone crunched the numbers to get an actual correlation rate and then applied that to the remaining outstanding votes. I imagine with almost 50% of the votes counted already, you could get pretty accurate estimates.
I think Frankin wins this by less than 25 votes.
@The Religious Left 5:01pm
I just wanted to acknowledge your post here. It was very long, and very good. Do you have a dkos account or an active blog? It seems a shame to have it drown as an OT comment on a 538 post; maybe you should put it up as a diary (so it can drown in the deluge of dkos diaries. XD Well, maybe it could get rescued....)
I think Nate missed the numbers because of the recent update. Franken actually challenged 414 as opposed to 409 by Coleman. The voting difference is down to 136 with 46% of votes being counted so far. With this rate, the race will come down to 30 or less ballots but so far with the rate that the loss/gain is being played, Coleman has the advantage point. And I hardly think Martin has any chance of winning the senate race in GA. I am constantly being bombarded by phone calls from Republican groups with some nasty, usual fear-mongering tactics attached.
I was an active Obama supporter. I despise what the Republicans have done over the last eight years. But I'm growing equally concerned about having the Dems in charge of the House and Senate and White House and also having filibuster-proof majorities.
So I'm not sure I even want Franken to win.
Also, the flip side of the "challenge lots of ballots" argument is that the more that are challenged, the more criticism candidates face for "trying to steal the election" or whatnot.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum
I was an active Obama supporter. I despise what the Republicans have done over the last eight years. But I'm growing equally concerned about having the Dems in charge of the House and Senate and White House and also having filibuster-proof majorities.
They'll get some good and important shit done at first (stimulus, energy, healthcare, progressive tax, etc.) and then probably overextend themselves in a few years and we'll be in need of some correction from the right.
I believe an honest projection of the eventual outcome at the point in the recount would have to have error bars in the vicinity of +/- 300 votes/candidate for a total Franken/Coleman swing of 600 total. This I take from the fact that none of us is privy to the actual ballot by ballot challenges which seem now certain to dwarf the post-recount vote diff. prior to final arbitration of the challenges. One can only make reasoned guesses. I do wish Nate and/or Sean would weigh in on this when/if they get the time. I realllllly would like to see a Franken/Martin cherry-on-the-top ending to this election sundae :)
KurtTappe--
Back in September when McCain had the lead the Dow was at 11,400, Obama took lead late in September and the market lost 3 THOUSAND points in two weeks.
Were other factors a part of this? Of course, but to deny that the market dislikes Obama’s stated goals is deliberate ignorance.
Now, since we know that most Obama voters do not have a clue and blindly believed his promises to fix all the problems in the world and make the pigmies taller, it will be interesting to see the results of reality converging with irrational beliefs.
I expect your dismissive attitude stems from the newfound understanding that you were sucked up in a mob like mentality. There is no need to be embarrassed or ashamed even somewhat intelligent people are taken in occasionally.
What do you have to say for yourself?
Coleman leads by 129 according to the SOS site.
Star Tribune says Coleman now only ahead by 136 votes but 46% of the vote has been counted. At this rate of gain for Franken, it's not enough to wipe out Coleman's lead. It's all going to come down to the contested votes and how they shake out - if Franken is to have a shot at pulling ahead.
A Public Service Announcement:
Remember folks DON'T feed the trolls.
Now back to our regularly scheduled blog comments. Thank you for your time.
DNFTT
Do not engage with people that spout talking points without facts.
Thanks for your cooperation!
Charles, if you support Obama's legislative agenda, then why the concern?
Also, the Star Tribune says Coleman has contested 409 while Franken has contested 414 - so I guess Franken is no longer Mr. Nice Guy -after all.
Back in September when McCain had the lead the Dow was at 11,400, Obama took lead late in September and the market lost 3 THOUSAND points in two weeks.
Were other factors a part of this? Of course, but to deny that the market dislikes Obama’s stated goals is deliberate ignorance.
Obama's proposed economic policies are roughly equal to Bill Clinton's actual economic policies in the 1990's. If the market is so scared of the mere prospect of Obama's policies coming into effect, they must have been extremely scared of Clinton's actual policies, right? Therefore, the market must have had significant losses when Bill Clinton was president, right?
"What do you have to say for yourself?"
I say you are regurgitating too much nonsense from Sean Hannity.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum
Zorro writes, "Coleman leads by 129 according to the SOS site."
Could you post the url? The Minnesota SOS site I'm looking at seems hopelessly outdated (yes, after refresh), with Coleman leading 534,475 to 494,804, a Franken deficit of 39,671.
With 42.33% ballots recounted.
Here's what I'm looking at:
http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/SenateRecount.asp
Thanks.
C.B.
I just saw that result & my initial thought was "The Franken team is listening" - but it may well have been they knew this & were just biding their time
46% counted Coleman up by 136
Contested votes about equal
Donz:
Subtract the recount numbers from the Nov 4 numbers to see the net losses for Coleman and Franken. This shows Franken has lost 86 less votes than Coleman (not counting disputed ballots) during the recount of the same ballots.
I'm checking the Star Tribune site
http://ww2.startribune.com/news/metro/elections/returns/2008/recount/msenco.html
"Charles, if you support Obama's legislative agenda, then why the concern?"
I support Obama's leadership qualitied compared to McCain's. And some of his legislative agenda.
But I think both Pelosi and Reid are hacks, and that it is never good to have one party in charge of everything over there.
--
Charles M. Kozierok
Publisher & Webmaster
CurEvents.com - A Global Current Events and News Discussion Forum
@LizandLou
For a quick minute, I thought your blogger name was a shout out to the Lizard People in the MPR ballot!
Power to the Lizard People.
Sorry for the confusion.
I am the Lizard King....I can do anything.
Judge Pelosi and Reid by the actions in the new Congress.
Pelosi today won a huge battle - far more important than getting Lieberman stripped of chairmanship. She managed to get Henry Waxman to replace the dinosaur John Dingall as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee. This is a huge deal, a great progressive change.
Eric -- thanks; this involves higher math... :)
But I think both Pelosi and Reid are hacks, and that it is never good to have one party in charge of everything over there.
"Never" is far too strong of a statement. Consider some of the great legislation passed in the 1930's and 1960's. How would Civil Rights have played out in the 1960's if it weren't for Democratic dominance?
Actually the 1960s civil rights legislation came about with a coalition of non-southern Democrats and Republicans. GOP Minority Leader Everett Dirksen played a strong role in getting the 1964 act through.
Medicare and other major progressive legislation came about though more because of Dem majorities.
Challenges are one thnig. Examples of challenges are another. I'd like to see some of the challenges to get a feel for who's doing what.
If it's tit for tat, and Franken is challenging perfectly good ballots because Coleman is doing so, too, that's one thing. (I disagree with Nate that it works the refs or the public, or that it has any impact.)
But if Coleman is reaching for straws and Franken is playing it straight, then that spells doom for Coleman.
So, if anyone involved in the startegery (or tactics) from Franken reads and posts here, please enlighten us.
wv - dendem
dendem voters sure don't know how to vote does they?
The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports a Coleman lead of 129 votes.
http://www.twincities.com/
The reports of leads aren't real helpful right now because of the large reservoir of challenged votes. Who's challenging what could be important.
When does counting end for the evening?
As much as I would LOVE Franken to win, I think he may lose worse than if he had just left it at 200 votes!
People get greedy. He may have had a shot next time.
The Coleman numbers I listed in my last comment were wrong - they should have said that Coleman will end up gaining 58 votes in Saint Louis County, compared to Franken's 110. And that Franken had gained 189 votes on Coleman so far (as of Thursday morning).
Sadly, after incorporating the Thursday night update, I now calculate that Franken has gained only 73 votes on Coleman. (Now that the number of challenges by each side is closer, the number I calculate is about the same as the silly counts posted in the Star Tribune.)
A loss by 200 or 200,000 is all the same.
I am a hack amateur compared to Nate, but I couldn't help but play around a bit with this evenings numbers from Minnesota.
There are 41 counties reporting their recount results complete. They represent about 17% of the total state vote (18.5% of Coleman's vote, 15.5% of Franken's).
Coleman won these counties by 8.8% but only gained 5 (count 'em, 5!) votes on the recount. Each candidate challenged roughly the same number of ballots (137 by Coleman, 127 by Franken).
Given the examples we've seen so far I think a lot of these challenges will be tossed, so the advantage here (ever so slightly) goes to Franken (having challenged fewer ballots.
It looks like for these 41 counties, the recount will be a near wash.
There are 25 counties where the recount hasn't yet begun. They represent another 15% of the total state vote (17% for Coleman, just under 13% for Franken).
Coleman won these counties by 14% so might be expected to do better than in the first group. Unfortunately for Coleman, having called it a wash, double nothing is still nothing. He may pick up a little ground here, but it's not much.
The remaining 21 counties are partially complete. 42% of the total vote in these counties has been completed, and Franken is up 84 votes. Again, the challenges are approximately equal (Coleman, 272; Franken, 287).
The bad news is that a straight extension of the trend for these 21 counties would like leave Franken short -- probably by less than 20 votes. The good news is found when you break down this group a little more.
7 of the 21 counties are reporting less than 10% complete. In fact, 6 report nothing counted and one reports 9%. These counties represent about 2.7% of the total for the state and broke 52% to 48% in favor of Coleman. Once again, I don't think we're going to see much change here.
9 of the 21 counties in the last group are, in aggregate, 62% complete with their reporting. They had originally broken Coleman's way by more than 12%. He has thus far picked up only 20 votes (which is comprised almost completely of the 19 extra challenges in has in this group). Once again, if most challenges are tossed it would seem that this group won't represent much of a gain for Coleman.
The last 5 counties are where the action is. In aggregate they are a little over a third counted (36.3%). They represent nearly half the votes in the state (45.5%) and Franken won this group by almost 13%.
So far he is up 106 votes, but also has 35 more challenges than Coleman. Applying the same logic as above, he's likely to end up with a net of about 75 votes.
Extend that 75 votes to the full count, and you're at about 206 votes. With the other counties likely to go slightly Coleman's way, that's not enough.
Further complicating things is the fact that reports I've read said most of the ballots from the less reliable scanners have already been tallied (and tended to break in Franken's direction).
I just don't see a total favoring Franken at the end of the recount. It's going to be close. But I don't think he will cross the line.
So that throws it to the more than 1500 (rough estimate) challenged ballots. If Franken's people have been conservative in their challenges and Coleman's have been less so, then Franken could win this thing at the end. Early on it seemed that was the case with Coleman having challenged more. At this point, though, Franken has caught up. Did they change their critera, or have more ballots met that criteria.
The only thing that's reasonably certain is that there will be way more challenged ballots than the difference between the two candidates when the count is completed.
And that's going to make for and interesting round 3 of the whole process.
Things have gotten increasingly fringe and vile on here since the election. It's semi creepy here now. I've been around here since near the beginning, and I've never seen so many creepy liberals unbalanced.
James, I'm watching you.
Right Wing Conspiricist: Back in September when McCain had the lead the Dow was at 11,400, Obama took lead late in September and the market lost 3 THOUSAND points in two weeks.
Were other factors a part of this? Of course, but to deny that the market dislikes Obama’s stated goals is deliberate ignorance.
There is no evidence that "the market dislikes" Obama's stated goals. In order to run a comparison, you'd have to see where the market would be at had McCain won the election. And you can't do that. Who knows, the situation might be even worse than it is now.
To say that the DOW average lost 3,000 points in two weeks and attribute it to cause and effect in the polls is to confuse it with basic history--even history of just two months ago. AIG didn't need rescuing because of Obama. Lehmann didn't go under because of Obama. The mortgage crisis wasn't because of Obama. These problems were a part of a bubble that was building up for a long time. And it was the economic crisis that helped Obama cruise to his election. The idea that Obama taking the lead in the polls for a few days had much to do with the worldwide economic collapse seems ludicrous to me.
The market is reacting to what appears to be a tremendous global slowdown. The market is reacting to what has been a somewhat tepid and scattershot attempt to manage it (mostly by the present administration). Now there is a perhaps unjustified but growing fear of deflation. To say that's because of a fear of Obama's policies is, shall we say, a bit of a reach. Again, you'd have to run a counterfactual experiment to have any evidence to prove your assertions, and you just can't do that. So I think you might try expressing your opinions as such, and not as fact.
Now, since we know that most Obama voters do not have a clue and blindly believed his promises to fix all the problems in the world and make the pigmies taller, it will be interesting to see the results of reality converging with irrational beliefs.
That doesn't describe the Obama supporters I know. And if there are some that fall in that category, I'm sure you could find McCain voters who are equally if not more misinformed and irrational. Again, if you're going to make factual assertions, it would be helpful to have the data to back them up.
By the way, the polling does show that Obama won more educated voters over McCain. Overwhelmingly.
Increased challenges by Franken campaign could be a studied counter-strategy to Coleman's challenges
As the recount continues, both sides have more information on what the other side is challenging. The more one side challenges for any reason, the more the other side probably can and should do a "me-too."
I don't know how the canvassing board works, but there is certainly reason to believe that challenges based on a specific reason should be resolved in the same way and at the same rate for both candidates. So if say the Coleman campaign challenges all faint lines, the Franken campaign should do the same thing.
It would help to know if the ballot challengers have to document the reason for each challenge, and to do so at the time of the challenge. It would also help to know if the canvassing board will serially evaluate each challenge, or whether the board will take a group of ballots that have been subject to similar challenges.
In doing a tit-for-tat or me-too strategy, I would also suspect both campaigns actually are not locked into a position. In fact, the positioning might be "We really think you should count all these faint marks (as an example) as they evidence the intent of the voter. But if you don't count them, you also have to not count y votes of the other guy."
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,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
^^ very nice
徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社,
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 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
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 飯局小姐,領檯人員,領台,傳播妹,或者想要到台北酒店、林森北路酒店,私人招待所,或者八大行業當酒店PT,酒店公關,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的禮服酒店,鋼琴酒吧當酒店領檯,酒店小姐,公關小姐??,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、學生兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想找打工、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店打工,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。
水水們妳有缺現金、有卡債、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學日本打工嗎?妳是工讀生找工作??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,兼職工作日領假日打工的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??整天還在煩腦如何賺錢有什麼賺錢方法,和賺錢最快方法!?,想要打工,日領工作,短期打工,兼差工作,打工兼差工作嗎!?,
請加入我們艾葳酒店經紀公司工作單純輕鬆”高時薪”又可日領徵想要當傳播妹,上班小姐,酒店兼差,酒店兼職,歡迎學生打工,!!!
加入我們實現夢想就從現在開始^__^
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment