Minnesota Senate recount trends towards Franken (D)

Inquitus

If this recount confirms what most experts are thinking and Franken overturns Coleman's small majority in the recount then the Democrats (including independents who caucas with them for the pedants out there) will be at 59 of the 60 needed for the so called "Super Majority". This will really influence to what degree Obama can enact his policies.

There is ofc the runoff in Georgia which, if Franken is confirmed the winner in Minnesota, will decide the ultimate destination of that 60th seat.

Inq

Manic Moran

That recount is a wonderful laugh, on both sides. There are now websites dedicated to it with photographs of challenged ballot sheets. "Who do -you- think they meant to vote for?"

NTM

Inquitus

Manic Moran wrote: »

That recount is a wonderful laugh, on both sides. There are now websites dedicated to it with photographs of challenged ballot sheets. "Who do -you- think they meant to vote for?"

NTM

Aye you can participate here

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2008/11/19_challenged_ballots/

and decide for yourself!

lostexpectation

lizard people lol

its taking so long

Manic Moran

lostexpectation wrote: »

lizard people lol

Some would argue that was a vote for the Republicans.

its taking so long

Tom McClintock and Charles Brown are still fighting it out for a House of Representatives seat out of California. Currently McClintock leads by 0.1% (395 votes) but not all the provisionals and mail-ins have been counted yet.

As a result, both candidates went to DC last week for the new-congresscritter-orientation.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

That recount is a wonderful laugh, on both sides. There are now websites dedicated to it with photographs of challenged ballot sheets. "Who do -you- think they meant to vote for?"

Reminds you of dimpled chads and butterfly ballots from 2000 presidential in Florida?

Eurosceptic2008

Even if Franken wins (he is favourite on intrade now), the Democrats will in reality only have 58 seats until the Blagojevich mess is sorted out. He currently has the power to name a successor to Obama in Illinois, but Senate Majority leader Harry Reid says the Senate won't seat a Senator appointed by the disgraced Governor. The Democratic-controlled state-legislature at first tended towards a by-election but now they are leaning towards impeachment followed by the Lieutenant-Governor Pat Quinn taking over and appointing someone instead. The relevance of 60 Senate seats is that in practice, you often need it to get anything passed because it is the number needed to pass a motion of "cloture" ending debate on a bill. 41 Senators can block the business of the Senate with a fillibuster (sortof like Parnell did in the House of Commons in the 19th century). It is now clear the Democrats won't have 60 seats, but they will be able to rely on the liberal wing (such as it exists) in the GOP (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and Arlen Specter) to support them on issues like abortion, which will be important when vacancies arise on the Supreme Court for Obama to fill with judicial appointees. The current pro-choice vote on the SC is 5-4, but the oldest(88) judge is a liberal (Stevens), as is the second oldest (Ginsburg, 75). In the meantime, he will have scores of federal justices to nominate and the Senate will have a veto on those too.

Pocono Joe

If Franken(stein) is in the lead at the current moment for the open Senate seat, expect to see the count quickly made official, and Franken declared the winner… that’s what the Dems do.

A good example (amongst several) is the 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington state. The Republican won the race on election night, but ballots in favor of the Democrat kept being "discovered" until the Democrat finally eked out a lead. At that point, the recount was immediately halted and the Democrat declared the winner. I believe you would have to go back to the late 1800’s to find an election that was “stolen” by the Republicans in this manner.

CtrlSource

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I believe you would have to go back to the late 1800’s to find an election that was “stolen” by the Republicans in this manner.

*cough* Katherine Harris *cough*

:rolleyes:

turgon

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I believe you would have to go back to the late 1800’s to find an election that was “stolen” by the Republicans in this manner.

In your unbiased opinion is it?

CtrlSource

In fairness to Joe, he's never pretended to be without bias

Running Bing

turgon wrote: »

In your unbiased opinion is it?

Yep, because he is the only person who offers a "biased" opinion on this forum:rolleyes: