What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- novenator, on 11/09/2008, -18/+149In a real democracy, *every* vote should be counted. Learning from the shady tactics of rove and bush, coleman is following in the footsteps of his puppet masters, trying to suppress votes being counted. How typical of the republicans. Coleman even tried to declare victory already and continues to try to pressure Franken not to pursue a recount, even though it is Minnesota state law that it take place.
- jraymilton, on 11/09/2008, -26/+33You may want to think it's "typical of the Republicans," but AlGore did the exact same thing to military absentees in Florida, and he did it for the most UNdemocratic reason of all. He knew most of 'em weren't gonna vote for him. (And before I'm accused of being a partisan Republican by idiots who don't do much thinking, research what I've said on this site -- I'm a libertarian who just happens to call 'em like I see 'em, and that upsets a lot of Republicans when they're biased & sounding idiotic, too!)
- nosecohn, on 11/09/2008, -7/+22Al Gore went filed suit to get military absentee ballots excluded in Florida? That's news to me. Do you have a source?
- jraymilton, on 11/09/2008, -23/+15http://www.google.com/search?q=al+gore+military+ab ...
Google is your friend, and as the top story reveals,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI ...
Republicans had to sue because Democrat election officials were discarding the valid but non-postmarked ballots. Same hypocrites, exact same "don't count votes against ME!!" situation, easy-to-find sources. - jlearn48, on 11/09/2008, -8/+28You have to dig a bit to get to a story from a non-partisan news source:
from CNN archives http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/11/24/election.le ...
"Republicans are asking the court to count overseas military ballots even if they bear an illegible, late or U.S. postmark, or lack a handwritten date, and even if the county can't locate the request for the absentee ballot or the signatures on the application and actual ballot don't match exactly."
So it appears that the Republicans wanted one set of rules to apply to overseas military ballots and another set to apply to all other absentee ballots. Is this correct? So, a commanding officer could sign an absentee ballot for his troops and it would still have been allowable?
I don't know the full details about the Hennepin Co. ballots, but my belief is that an identical set of rules ought to apply to all absentee ballots regardless of their source. - jraymilton, on 11/09/2008, -17/+13Military voters are not in identical conditions to other overseas absentee voters, which makes it logical to apply different rules to them. Try getting shot at while you vote sometime.
And as the judge (who seemed truly nonpartisan, unlike what was known as the Clinton News Network -- especially back then) said, it was the election bureaucrats' job to count, not discard with a flimsy excuse, the valid military ballots they got, even if they were partisan Democrat election bureaucrats looking for an excuse to discard what were probably mostly-Republican votes.
And don't think I'm saying Republicans are incapable of election fraud. Far from it. Hell, I'm the original "Ron Paul's the only one with a chance against the Democrats" guy. The Republican party's neocon wing did it in the primaries to us, and they're doing it to the nation right now in Alaska to elect their big-spending felon, IMO. But I'm not gonna let hypocrites of either party get away with it in this case. - nosecohn, on 11/09/2008, -6/+24I don't see anything in the article you referenced to support your claim that "Democrat election officials" were the ones discarding the ballots. I also don't see anything to support your original contention that Al Gore filed suit in this matter. In fact, another article on the topic claims that the Bush campaign is the one that filed the suit and "The Gore campaign was not named in the lawsuit and did not send attorneys to the hearing."
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/10/2008, -11/+12"Coleman's campaign says the ballots were not counted on Election Day or were not kept in sealed boxes."
IOW, there's no guarantee that those ballots are authentic. Votes for Franken are magically appearing out of thin air. - SolarUpNote, on 11/10/2008, -4/+6Watch the HBO movie "Recount".
- jhchrist, on 11/10/2008, -5/+4@Charlotte
"Coleman's campaign says [...]"
I love your un-biased, non-partisan source for that point. - Charlotte_Web, on 11/10/2008, -3/+5@jhchrist:
Minneapolis elections director Cynthia Reichert told the Coleman campaign that the ballots had been "riding around in a car for several days" and were not kept in sealed ballot boxes, and that she intended to count them.
Is it so difficult to Google before spouting off on an ignorant rant? I guess that's asking too much.
- timidlikerivers, on 11/10/2008, -10/+24What this article doesn't tell you is that the ballots were left in someones car. Coleman is trying to keep them from being counted until their integrity can be confirmed. Don't label this as a "republican pig disenfranchising the common man" just yet.
- Kotelic, on 11/10/2008, -2/+15timidlikeriers has it exactly right. Sure, it would be nice if every vote were counted. However, you cannot count the votes whose legality is in question.
- MadOgre, on 11/10/2008, -8/+3Not unless they are votes for Democrats... then by all means count them... twice.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -7/+21You seem to ignore that these "votes" are absentee ballots that a Democratic election official "found" in a car after election day, claiming they had been hanging out there while the car was god knows where. It's a bit suspicious, and Coleman was probably in his rights to have a judge look at whether or not these "after the election" votes should be counted. Democrats are just as capable of and likely to cheat as Republicans, so oversight is just part of the process!
FYI, I did not vote for Coleman. I just think the recount needs to be conducted fairly! - SupaNeo, on 11/10/2008, -0/+12I am definitely for all votes being counted. As a military member from Minnesota, I was appalled at the last election. There was all the hype about "every vote counts" so I made sure that I voted. Unfortunately I was doing some temporary duty at the time in Texas so I sent in an absentee ballot. Later I learned that if there is say a 15,000 vote different between the two candidates, and they receive 5,000 absentee ballots, they won't even count them because it's not enough to change the vote. How am I supposed to feel that my vote counts if it is literally not being counted?!?
It is my right as an American to vote and to have my vote counted. If all the votes are counted right from the beginning, we wouldn't have so many issues. Count my vote, plain and simple.
If you know your history, Minnesota was actually the first state to allow absentee ballots during the civil war. It's been a very long time since then, and we still can't get it right. - gamingspartan, on 11/10/2008, -4/+3God bless the Huffington for bringing us all the facts as usual
- natxavier, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1This isn't a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Period.
- Rebulator, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Democratic Republic is more accurate than Constitutional Republic. The emphasis is on Republic though, otherwise every citizen would have a say in everything the country does instead of appointing a senator/representative to vote for them.
- moffie, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Constitutional you say?
- wakananda, on 11/10/2008, -2/+1It's an empire, parasitizing the husk of a republic. We have an imperial "unitary executive," which Obama is very ready to make us of, and Obama's beloved Patriot Act pushes human rights back through the Constitution and all the way back to pre-Magna Carta status. You and I have no right not to be abducted by the Execute branch without a trace and tortured -- without any recourse or oversight. The Republicrat duopoly and the Corporate Media collude to supress minority-party candidates and their views. The "Bush Doctrine" (to be fair, Hitler thought of it first) of invading other countries on mere suspicion of any possible threat, is still firmly in place. We are more like our creditor, China, than China is. The US has been twisted into a mockery of what it once stood for, and Obama shows no sign of changing this at all.
Al Franken, on the other hand, would fix it all in a hurry. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and gosh darn it - people like him. - moffie, on 11/12/2008, -0/+1@ wakananda
You have some points, but perhaps a little too emotional and making some claims of which you must know better. For example, Hitler wasn't the first (nor the last) to invade countries without proper threat from them. Empires have been around for a long, long time even before the 20th century.
Furthermore, why should Obama be the sole proprietor of the "patriot" act? And, as ***** as it may be, how should it turn the human-rights situation (in the USA I presume) back into the "pre-Magna Carta status" (of which place? England I presume?)?
I agree, the bipartisan system here leaves much to be desired, but please read history and understand both why, as well as why not.
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2That would be all well and good but you overlook the fact that the votes were NOT counted on election day (they came in after polls were closed) and that they were NOT sealed.
Also, keep in mind that no one knows (supposedly) who those votes are for. Coleman was concerned that they may have been tampered with. Why wasn't Franken concerned about that? Probably because they were doctored in his favor.
Also keep in mind that there have been some other issues showing something fishy going on with the Frankensteins here: Excatly 100 votes were "found" up on the Iron Range. The excuse being that the person that counted them "accidentally forgot to add a '1'" in front of the vote count. If that isn't bad enough, those votes show they weren't even cast on election day. This, the democrats claim, is due to an "incorrect date setting" on the ballot machine.
Seems fishy to me.
Hell, Franken only moved to Minnesota because he thought he had a chance to win with his liberal agenda.
He can go back to New York now. And hopefully they will send him the bill for the recount and all the ***** he is pulling that is costing us taxpayers. The tax money he is causing to be spent only shows how he would be as a politician - spend crazy liberal. - jraymilton, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1The officials discarding the military ballots unfairly were all Democrats, even if it doesn't say-so in the article. To the rest of the objections I say, "so what?"
- jraymilton, on 11/09/2008, -26/+33You may want to think it's "typical of the Republicans," but AlGore did the exact same thing to military absentees in Florida, and he did it for the most UNdemocratic reason of all. He knew most of 'em weren't gonna vote for him. (And before I'm accused of being a partisan Republican by idiots who don't do much thinking, research what I've said on this site -- I'm a libertarian who just happens to call 'em like I see 'em, and that upsets a lot of Republicans when they're biased & sounding idiotic, too!)
- smacksaw, on 11/09/2008, -27/+49They need to have a run-off. When you have suspicious votes - and I don't care who they are for - you can't count them, yet you cannot deny people their vote.
This is partisanship at it's finest. If Franken were ahead and Coleman had a bunch of "found" ballots that were not properly handled and whose integrity is in question, HP and Democrats would not even dare mention it. Yet because it swings this way, the Republicans are going to raise holy hell over this.
In Florida, it was a scam in 2000. We can't know for sure who won. But it went the GOP's way. And then a few years later, a Democrat in my state recounted the ballots until she won. And she is now our governor. Again. And she sucks the way Bush sucks.
So what is the lesson here? People who benefit from shady vote recounts usually suck. To make sure you get the person who contains less suck, there needs to be a re-vote and have it done right.
Finally, having lived in Canada, they have Elections Canada which I like a lot. One federal gov't branch that handles all voting. It is smooth as can be in Canada. I cannot believe in the USA we actually elect partisan Republicans and Democrats to oversee our elections. We buy that crap? Seriously, with a straight face we can say there's nothing suspicious about that? In Canada all voting runs the same, runs smoothly. People need picture IDs to vote. It's a far better system. There's no hanging chads, butterfly ballots - none of that. Just uniformity and the best possible chance at accuracy.- jlearn48, on 11/09/2008, -4/+19Smacksaw:
"And then a few years later, a Democrat in my state recounted the ballots until she won. And she is now our governor. Again. And she sucks the way Bush sucks."
Apparently you are discussing the re-elected governor of Washington, Gregoire. All of the recounts in the first Rossi/Gregoire election were legal and upheld in court following an appeal by the GOP. And I think the judge who upheld the recount process was a Republican, right? I am pretty sure that you are aware of these facts, but in case other Diggers want to learn more here is a good place to start: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/227307_judgeru ...- quarkie, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9The election recount in florida was stopped by the supreme court.
Just saying..... - Mike32, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1I live in WA too and she didn't recount until she won as stated by jlearn48, there was nothing suspicious or illegal about it. Gregoire may not be all that great, but I really don't want Dino Rossi coming in and ruining things especially our minimum wage. Luckily she beat him out strongly this time.
- Rebulator, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2@Mike32
I guess you got fooled by Gregoire's misinformation on the minimum wage issue. Rossi wanted to create a graduated minimum wage for workers under 18 who lived at home, without expenses. As they progressed and succeeded in the work place, their wage would increase, while adults earning minimum wage would be unaffected.
I didn't like it, because I felt that it favored young workers over adult workers, but it doesn't change the fact that Gregoire distorted that proposal in her ads.
As for the election recounts, the first was not only legal but it was mandated by state law. Rossi won both the initial count, AND the first recount. Only after the State Democratic Committee footed the bill for another recount (still legal), did Gregoire win the tally. For the record, all 3 vote tallies were still within the margin of error, and you might as well have just flipped a coin in practicality. - jlearn48, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Oh, and Mike32, those funny little marks (they look like this: ") are called quotes. You see I included part of what Smacksaw had posted earlier in quotes. I never stated that Gov. Gregoire kept recounting until she won. If you would have read the rest of my post, you might have understood that.
- quarkie, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9The election recount in florida was stopped by the supreme court.
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -1/+11Apparently, a run-off isn't the authorized by state law. Each state has provisions for close elections. In GA they provide for a run-off. In MN they process is an automatic recount. They couldn't just chose to have a run-off if they wanted to.
- Chestnutridge, on 11/09/2008, -2/+8Georgia is having a run-off because no candidate recieved 50% of the vote due to a third party candidate. It is a totally different situation.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4Chestnutridge-- The same thing applies to the Minnesota race--No candidate received 50% of the vote due to a third party candidate. But regardless, there is no run-off because it's not authorized by state law. You can't change the rules after the fact!
- balloonenstein, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4Dean Barkley was our third candidate. Neither Coleman nor Franken received over 50% of the votes because Barkley took a sizable percentage.
- macweirdo42, on 11/10/2008, -2/+4From what I understand, though, if there were a run-off, Franken would win by a large margin because apparently the third-party candidate took more votes away from Franken than Coleman.
- jonnyboy88, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2"From what I understand, though, if there were a run-off, Franken would win by a large margin because apparently the third-party candidate took more votes away from Franken than Coleman."
You can't look at the election after the fact and say that. With people knowing it would be a run off election, I bet a lot more people would have voted for Dean Barkley, as the concern that they're "throwing their vote away" would not be there.
- applepro, on 11/09/2008, -6/+13Republicans have a history of voter suppression. In the last few Presidential elections and as recently as in Florida where they purposefully tried to suppress the hours and scheduling to reduce turnout. I agree with a run-off but please, don't make it sound like this a huge partisan bias of some sort.
Also, Coleman has shown himself to be sketchy suggesting very odd measures against Franken in the last week concerning the votes. - Dawnrazor, on 11/09/2008, -2/+20The race was so close a recount was mandated by state law, Franken didn't ask for it. It would have been the same if Franken had been leading by the same slim margin, partisanship had nothing to do with it.
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1It's not a matter of a recount though. The real issue is that Franken suddenly has all of these votes popping up out of thin air. As an example, the 100 Iron Range votes that showed a date other than election day. The Democrats claimed it was due to an "incorrect date setting" on the machine.
Now they want to count these votes that weren't turned in on election day and then suddenly "appeared" in someones car days later.
Fishy to say the least.
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1It's not a matter of a recount though. The real issue is that Franken suddenly has all of these votes popping up out of thin air. As an example, the 100 Iron Range votes that showed a date other than election day. The Democrats claimed it was due to an "incorrect date setting" on the machine.
- akchrs, on 11/10/2008, -12/+4Comparing the USA to Canada?? You swear your allegiance to a Queen!! Soon prince harry or whoever that is will be your leader.
- Farik, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7You're a ***** idiot.
- limerope, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6I've never sworn allegiance to anybody. Not the Queen. Not my Prime Minister. No one.
Get an education. - emotecontrol, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2Only Americans are insecure and flaky enough that they feel the need to swear allegiance to things daily. Everyone else doesn't see the need to constantly remind themselves not to undermine their own country.
Of course the American pledge of allegiance is full of lulz. First, you pledge allegiance to a flag. An inanimate sheet of polyester. That is your primary responsibility. You are on flag's team. Flag is master. Give me flag, or give me death.
Then, oh yeah, almost forgot, the country. Right. We pledge allegiance to the country too (but flag comes first!).
- Laiden, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4Dugg for Elections Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Canada - theviceroy, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Not all states allow for a run off...
- askantik, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1All people are partisan, so good luck finding a non-partisan person to oversee your election.
- Mike32, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1i wasn't fooled... I said he was going to ruin minimum wage. It is fine how it is, I don't want it changed. thanks.
- CrackWilding, on 11/11/2008, -0/+0You know, this actually *is* the process. It's not like Al Franken didn't like the outcome and just started recounting the ballots himself. This is the way it works. If you don't like it, tough cookies. All processes are subject to possible fraud, but merely because a process operates in favor of one person or another hardly means that fraud is inherent.
- jlearn48, on 11/09/2008, -4/+19Smacksaw:
- Echota, on 01/05/2009, -5/+76Count EVERY Vote!!
- jcounterman, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7Count EVERY legitimate and verifyable vote!
- sockpuppets, on 11/10/2008, -1/+7Count Dracula!
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1Don't count Dracula. The way he sucks the lifeblood out of those around him (spread the wealth) only proves he's a Marxist...err....Democrat.
His vote would clearly go to Franken(stein).
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1Don't count Dracula. The way he sucks the lifeblood out of those around him (spread the wealth) only proves he's a Marxist...err....Democrat.
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Where are all of these new votes coming from? For the most part they are coming from one county? This all sounds extremely fishy and fraudulent? Franken is disproportionally getting more new votes than the rest of the counties in the state? These damn liberals need to be locked up. Every time they 'count' the votes he gets a few more, and these 'recounts' never seem to help Coleman. I have an idea, let's 'recount' the presidential votes and see if McCain gets more and more votes.
- KenLark, on 11/09/2008, -18/+97Would so love to see Franken in the Senate!
- Dawnrazor, on 11/09/2008, -5/+22It would great to see somebody being intentionally funny for a change
- theloofa, on 11/09/2008, -2/+16Yeah, but that's a terrible reason to vote for someone
(that said, I still voted for him) - itsbob, on 11/10/2008, -0/+12Or better yet, someone who is intelligent and funny.
- macweirdo42, on 11/10/2008, -0/+15Wait, you mean Ted Stevens isn't intentionally funny?
- sleazycheese, on 11/10/2008, -6/+1@theloofa
Why did you write "that said?" I know you said it. I just read it. Why not "still" or "anyways?" - theloofa, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3@sleazycheese
"That said," (or alternatively "having said that") is a concessive clause. It "serves to concede a certain part of an argument before proceeding to question the validity of the point in a given discussion." In this case, I questioned said validity before conceding that I felt he was a better candidate.
http://esl.about.com/od/grammarintermediate/a/subc ... - ElAmo, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3you are the grammar king. nice job.
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Except he is neither.
- theloofa, on 11/09/2008, -2/+16Yeah, but that's a terrible reason to vote for someone
- aks123, on 11/10/2008, -3/+10Franken should be in the senate because he's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.
- buckbova1, on 11/10/2008, -10/+5Franken is a deuche. He tried to buy a senate seat and failed.
- GiggleStick, on 11/10/2008, -2/+4I think you figured out what that word was in that Manfred Mann song, "Blinded by the Light".
- Dawnrazor, on 11/09/2008, -5/+22It would great to see somebody being intentionally funny for a change
- brainboy77, on 11/09/2008, -40/+19huffpo = buried
- JenniferInMO, on 11/09/2008, -4/+16It is an opinion piece based on another article. You bury opinions?
- supferrets, on 11/10/2008, -5/+12Comment whining about HuffPo = buried.
- supferrets, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7bogels' comment ironically getting buried while mine gets dugg = lawl
- enantiodromia, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1are you too stupid to not realize its a HuffPo piece before you click it, or too pathetic to keep yourself from spending the time it takes to click the link, come to the comments section, write you stupid little blurb, and hit the Save Reply button?
- ahjkl67435, on 11/09/2008, -13/+28hopefully, another step closer to a fillibuster proof majority for the dems
- Bloodwine, on 11/10/2008, -7/+27you really want a filibuster-proof party in government? Democrat or Republican, that would be downright scary.
- EatSleepJeep, on 11/10/2008, -3/+10According to the republicans denying a measure an "up or down vote" is a subversion of democracy. How soon we forget the judge votes...
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -2/+7Downright scary indeed. The problem is one party or the other--it's just having one group of people with absolute power in control. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...
- sleazycheese, on 11/10/2008, -2/+5@EatSleepJeep
What are you referring to? Democrats started the precedent of filibustering judicial nominees. - cramtod, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4The Republicans predated that by not letting some of Clinton's nominees get out of committee to a floor vote. The Republicans didn't even have the balls to filibuster, just a quiet death in committee. Cowards...
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Are we really going to debate whether one set of politicians is ***** than another? They ALL suck in large groups. It's like Jocks. I know athletes (from teams I was on) who were nice. In groups they suddenly turned into giant dicks. Politicians are the same.
It's like you're debating whether dirty socks or soiled underwear taste worse. Only somehow more pointless. - novenator, on 11/11/2008, -0/+3I think the unprecedented economic abyss we are on the edge of needs unprecedented power, at least temporarily. I already see the republicans throwing out roadblocks to the mandate of change that the country elected.
- Bloodwine, on 11/10/2008, -7/+27you really want a filibuster-proof party in government? Democrat or Republican, that would be downright scary.
- moolaismyfriend, on 11/09/2008, -19/+34Why do republicans wish to disenfranchise the will of the people?
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -9/+9The will of the people, based upon the vote counts, currently seems to be that Coleman be senator. And Coleman is just asking a judge to make sure it's sound that some ballots "found" after the election "in the backseat of some Democrat's car" are valid before they be counted and possibly CHANGE the outcome of a fair election...
- cramtod, on 11/10/2008, -3/+8Coleman is so interested in the will of the people he asked Franken to concede even though state law requires a manual recount due to the close result of the election. If he wants the founds ballots thrown out, maybe he should hire competent staff who can bring the case to a judge who has proper jurisdiction.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 11/10/2008, -5/+2Because that is what their party is all about. Or did you miss the "old white men who own everything" aspect of your slavish existence?
- StandupShowcase, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5it's because the will of the people doesn't serve their corporate masters
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -9/+9The will of the people, based upon the vote counts, currently seems to be that Coleman be senator. And Coleman is just asking a judge to make sure it's sound that some ballots "found" after the election "in the backseat of some Democrat's car" are valid before they be counted and possibly CHANGE the outcome of a fair election...
- whatthefu, on 11/09/2008, -33/+18Norm Coleman is a good senator. Every vote should be counted of course, but there is no need to badmouth him and suck Al Franken's dick while we wait for the results.
- heystoopid, on 11/09/2008, -7/+15Most curious , which rock have you been hiding under since 2002 or chose to ignore the investigation into a variety of questionable monetary kickbacks that Norm and a few fellow republican senators have enjoyed under the Bushwhacker 2 family corruption regime of the past eight years.
Perhaps you missed George Galloway totally reaming Norm's rectum in 2006 on youtube over his failed libel and slander from behind the cover of a Senate stage managed propaganda hearing ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3VHAco8y18
Perhaps you also glossed over his $600 a month rental agreement on a million dollar home in Washington DC ,
yes who indeed does Norm work for ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bDi3jVCX1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4RfT7J0_5Y&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhnvcuOOXyM&NR=1
Oops , what were saying about oil slick Norm again ? - JigoroKano, on 11/09/2008, -7/+16Norm Coleman is a horrible senator, one of the worst. He's a pro-war, pro-bailout neocon.
- JigoroKano, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Your ***** Republican arguments don't work against non-Democrats. They just expose how pathetic you and your party are.
I didn't vote for _anybody_ who went along with the bailout or the war this election.
But if I am going to vote for somebody, I'd like them to get at least one of those things right.
Not a complete failure like Norm Coleman. - 5urr3al5am, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1The Obameissha is planning the next bail-out as we speak. Get you're head out of your arse.
- JigoroKano, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Your ***** Republican arguments don't work against non-Democrats. They just expose how pathetic you and your party are.
- supferrets, on 11/10/2008, -5/+14Norm Coleman is a ***** terrible Senator. He was only elected because the Democratic candidate, Paul Wellstone, died in a plane crash a few years ago before the election. Paul and Al were good friends, too, so I bet Al really wants to win this.
- sleazycheese, on 11/10/2008, -8/+2IIRC, he won because Wellstone's son turn the funeral into a political rally.
Also, he ran against Walter Mondale--the only man to lose every state in the United States. - supferrets, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6Al debunks that "political rally" myth in his book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." He was there, ffs.
I know it's ***** personally, too, because I WATCHED the funeral service. I'd bet anything you didn't.
- sleazycheese, on 11/10/2008, -8/+2IIRC, he won because Wellstone's son turn the funeral into a political rally.
- heystoopid, on 11/09/2008, -7/+15Most curious , which rock have you been hiding under since 2002 or chose to ignore the investigation into a variety of questionable monetary kickbacks that Norm and a few fellow republican senators have enjoyed under the Bushwhacker 2 family corruption regime of the past eight years.
- Raisedshoulder, on 11/09/2008, -17/+74I just want to see Franken being a smart ass to everyone in the senate.
- ObamaWins08, on 11/10/2008, -8/+8Yeah, because that's the change we voted for.
Don't make the American Government more of a farce than it already is.- lordbeaker, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Actually being a Smart Ass is perfectly acceptable if it is calling out someone's B.S. to get at the truth of the matter. So more to him if that is the case.
- CaptDD, on 11/10/2008, -3/+5Franken will be smart, but NOT an ass; big difference...
- 5urr3al5am, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2Have you EVER listened to the f-ing guy? he's the biggest deuce out there. When he doesn't agree with someone in a conversation, he resorts to name calling and third grade antics to side step the conversation. What complete moron.
- ObamaWins08, on 11/10/2008, -8/+8Yeah, because that's the change we voted for.
- VsAcesoVer, on 11/09/2008, -19/+12In a surprise move, Ron Paul appeared the winner
- IvanRott, on 11/10/2008, -7/+13Smalley for Senate!!!!
- Charlotte_Web, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3No.
- imightbewrong, on 11/10/2008, -36/+41Do we really need Al Franken in the Senate?????
- snotrokit, on 11/10/2008, -20/+33yes. yes we do.
- cramtod, on 11/10/2008, -5/+7We need Franken more than we need Coleman. Hell, we need a coin more than we need Coleman. At least it would be right about half the time.
- paigeinphilly, on 11/10/2008, -11/+22Do we really need you commenting on digg?
umm..probably not. - NachoBusiness, on 11/10/2008, -3/+30Do we really need five question marks after a single sentence?????
- macweirdo42, on 11/10/2008, -5/+14Your user name speaks volumes.
Actually, okay, I admit, we don't NEED him, but it'd sure be great.- samsonthesaxman, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2username = radiohead = good
- samsonthesaxman, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2username = radiohead = good
- osukelm, on 11/10/2008, -2/+9He is crazy, but then again, isnt everyone in Washington? I wouldn't mind seeing how it would play out.
- helenkupo, on 11/10/2008, -2/+10Do we really need Norm Colman?
- snotrokit, on 11/10/2008, -20/+33yes. yes we do.
- gfryesc, on 11/10/2008, -23/+12I love the democratic strategy: every lost election is fraud and must be re-counted how ever many times [in democratic counties] as it takes to deliver a democratic victory. And then everything will be right with the world.
Jerks.
- samcrut, on 11/10/2008, -4/+25Hey *****. The vote tally was almost even. The LAW says they have to do a recount. Typical republican strategy. Throw the law books out the window when they get inconvenient.
- macweirdo42, on 11/10/2008, -0/+9Seriously - goddamn dumb ***** coming in here to shoot their mouths off when they don't even know Minnesota law. It's not simply that Franken's making a big stink about losing - a recount is required by law.
- oep4, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1typical partisanship
- cdahlkvist, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1I was all about digging you up until you claimed it was a "typical Republican strategy".
Coleman wanted these votes verified as accurate only because they sat in a Democrat's car for 2 days and then suddenly showed up. They were not handed in on time and they were not sealed. Who is to say they are legit votes?
Hell, they may be votes for Coleman for all we know. The point is that they are potentially illegal/manipulated votes.
How is this typical of Republicans? Is it typical of Democrats to "find" 100 more votes for Franken that were placed on a date other than the election? That's what happened (according to them). They found 100 votes that showed an incorrect date. They claimed that "the date setting" on the ballot counter was incorrect. Seems the Democrats keep finding more and more "overlooked votes".
I guess that is typical of Democrats then, huh? We can't count and we can't keep track of important things like ballots.
Imagine what they will do with your taxes. - novenator, on 11/11/2008, -1/+2the 100 votes was a simple tally error. Someone put in 24 instead of 124 votes in favor of Franken from a precinct. The datestamp was off on all of the ballots from there, and Colemans lawyers accept they are legit. This is nothing more than fodder for right wingnuts who care less about truth than wearing their tinfoil hats
- cdahlkvist, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1Wingnuts wearing tinfoil hats.
At least us so called wingnuts know the difference between 24 and 124.
Had those votes been in favor of Coleman I am sure the left would be screaming foul and bloody murder.
- ahjkl67435, on 11/10/2008, -2/+11Not all the votes were counted.
Ass hole.- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -7/+2What do you mean "not all the votes were counted"? So there were 30 ballots "found" in the back of a car, left there by some incompetent Democratic election official.
A recount is still appropriate, of course, but it's a REcount, not a count of new votes.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -7/+2What do you mean "not all the votes were counted"? So there were 30 ballots "found" in the back of a car, left there by some incompetent Democratic election official.
- ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -1/+5You're a serious idiot. Not all of the votes have been counted yet. Not only that, there are major discrepancies and errors against Franken's favor. A full and fair count is the epitome of democracy. Or maybe you don't give a hell because you're completely biased for Coleman?
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1"Not all of the votes have been counted yet."
That's false. All but the 30-40 absentee ballots "found" in a Democratic election official's car have been counted. That's not enough to change the election.
There have been a few discrepencies in the unofficial count that have been corrected--transcription and adding errors. These honest mistakes have generally been in Franken's favor, but still give Coleman the lead. There has been NO evidence of any sort of human/machine/ballot error that would favor Franken in the recount.
State law calls for a recount because this election is basically in the margin of error. Those who are complaining about the recount really need to deal with the fact that it is an important part of democracy in these close elections. But those who think the recount is going to change the count are probably going to be grossly disappointed and should start to get used to reality now. - ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3"There has been NO evidence of any sort of human/machine/ballot error that would favor Franken in the recount."
Your statement is 100% false.
http://minnesotaindependent.com/16989/ap-undervote ...
Furthermore, aside from potentially thousands of votes not being read by scanners in D areas, that there should be so many "honest mistakes" that were disproportionately against Franken to begin is a cause for concern.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -3/+1"Not all of the votes have been counted yet."
- omegared, on 11/10/2008, -0/+4here in Canada we do recounts if it is close. What is wrong with doing a recount? It ensures that the right person is elected and that every fault is counted properly.
- enantiodromia, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2following those pesky laws really is annoying. it's better just to decide your party is above the law and do what ever you want.
- samcrut, on 11/10/2008, -4/+25Hey *****. The vote tally was almost even. The LAW says they have to do a recount. Typical republican strategy. Throw the law books out the window when they get inconvenient.
- scot333, on 11/10/2008, -32/+7***** FRANKEN!
- patpl22391, on 11/10/2008, -33/+22Regardless of the story, Al Franken is a small, rude little man. He represents partisanship at its worst. Not a classy bone in his body.
- Stevanoski, on 11/10/2008, -6/+9Well said. I have seen videos of him physically attacking any who disagree with him. He will be a valued addition to the Senate.
- Dawnrazor, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6Have a link to those videos?
- kayala, on 11/10/2008, -2/+5Stevanoski's pro at talking out of his ass; I wouldn't expect him to back up a word he said.
- patpl22391, on 11/10/2008, -4/+3@kayala, dawnrazor
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/al_franken_attack ...
- Scycon, on 11/10/2008, -8/+5Getting downvoted for truth, such a shame. It's amazing how these blind democratic followers act like any dem victory is a good victory. All of the GOP is conspiring against the US public!
I'm disappointed I registered to vote in Indiana rather than voting absentee in MN. - Gwyddyon, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1You're absolutely right. Of course, the same goes for Coleman. That's largely why so many people went with Barkley - supposedly exit polling shows that half of his 15% said they wouldn't have voted at all if the choice was Franken or Coleman. Pompous asshats, both of them.
- Stevanoski, on 11/10/2008, -6/+9Well said. I have seen videos of him physically attacking any who disagree with him. He will be a valued addition to the Senate.
- trevor98, on 11/10/2008, -18/+1Is Jesse "The Body" Ventura still the governor there? Al Franken will be just as irrelevant.
- snotrokit, on 11/10/2008, -0/+10actually Ventura was FAR from irrelevant during his governorship, and prior to that, as mayor of Bloomington. He did quite a bit while in office. Today, not so much.
- clat98, on 11/10/2008, -2/+3Yes we do. Imagine how funny that would be.
- unitedkronos, on 11/10/2008, -1/+19I never quite understood why some politicians try to invalidate absentee votes, just because they were either at work, on holiday, in hospital or fighting in Iraq means that their vote shouldn't count? Sheesh, go back to voting with pen, paper, voice and brail, very little can ***** up with that.
- ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -3/+6Also, a lot of people have disabilities while being 100% mentally capable of voting, which is the case with a lot of absentee voters.
Their votes are as equal as all other voters in the state. To think otherwise not only makes no sense, but the thought that someone would want to not count them is downright treasonous. It shows a person's true despicable, opportunistic nature: careless about democracy if it means losing.
Minnesota is truly lucky if Franken wins. After fairly counting all votes, I think he will.- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -4/+7Dude, the issue isn't with counting absentee votes in general. It's with letting a partisan election official turn in some ballots after the election. Don't you agree that we need to make sure everything is above board so we can have a full and fair recount? Don't you think that involves some judicial supervision? Sure that election official (who I believe is a Democrat) screwed up and left the ballots sitting unsecured in his car for weeks. That's not the fault of the voters. But it does raise questions, doesn't it? How would you feel if Coleman showed up with dozens of "extra" ballots that he just had "sitting around at home by accident" and wanted them added to the count?
I don't know how you think recounting votes will change the election. It needs to be done, but my guess is that we got the count right the first time. Maybe the voters made the wrong choice, but that is democracy in action.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -4/+7Dude, the issue isn't with counting absentee votes in general. It's with letting a partisan election official turn in some ballots after the election. Don't you agree that we need to make sure everything is above board so we can have a full and fair recount? Don't you think that involves some judicial supervision? Sure that election official (who I believe is a Democrat) screwed up and left the ballots sitting unsecured in his car for weeks. That's not the fault of the voters. But it does raise questions, doesn't it? How would you feel if Coleman showed up with dozens of "extra" ballots that he just had "sitting around at home by accident" and wanted them added to the count?
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -4/+8Well, the situation here is that these absentee ballots were found a week after the election in the backseat of some Democratic official's car... and he claimed they had been there for awhile. I don't think Coleman has a problem with absentee ballots being counted--indeed, they probably favor him--but he wanted a judge to consider whether ballots "found" only after the election and having been an insecure environment subject to tampering should be allowed to change the ballots actually cast by election day.
But I think your point is well taken. It is certainly not these voters' fault that the election official "lost" their ballots until after the election! Luckily it is only 30 or so folks.- pintomp3, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2do you have a source for "some Democratic official's car"? all i can find are sources saying "an election official’s car".
http://www.pubrecord.org/politics/478-franken-gain ...
perhaps you are putting your own spin on it.
- pintomp3, on 11/10/2008, -1/+2do you have a source for "some Democratic official's car"? all i can find are sources saying "an election official’s car".
- ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -3/+6Also, a lot of people have disabilities while being 100% mentally capable of voting, which is the case with a lot of absentee voters.
- Wryly, on 11/10/2008, -7/+1Juicy.
- asgardshill, on 11/10/2008, -13/+2The nutjob contingent in Minnesota are going to need prybars and cutting torches to break their clingy grip on their guns and religion when Senator Franken is sworn in.
Like McDonald's, I'm lovin' it.- odigity, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6Please stop with the "guns and religion" bit.
-- your friendly neighborhood pro-gun rights atheist
- odigity, on 11/10/2008, -2/+6Please stop with the "guns and religion" bit.
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/10/2008, -10/+1wtf is this Florida
- briansfca, on 11/10/2008, -9/+11He just needs to look in the mirror and say, I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gonnit, people like me!
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I WOULD have voted for him if he would have used that at least once. It would have cinched it.
- alais, on 11/10/2008, -11/+10The ruling may favor Franken but the vote count thus far doesn't .
- THESUPERDEVIL, on 11/10/2008, -10/+2In local news, a Buddy Cianci High School student was caught with a lot of cocaine in his locker. He was sentenced to 100 hours of community service, and is a very bad boy. And now we go to Ollie Williams for the punishment forecast, Ollie.
- odigity, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2IT'S GONNA PAIN!
- heartsblood, on 11/10/2008, -8/+3Say what you want about electronic voting but they do reduce the human error factor when it's time to count.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -6/+4Say what you will about gunshots to the head, but they do reduce the odds of dying from cancer!
- darlingt, on 11/10/2008, -5/+1***** you, two of my friends died from cancer.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -6/+4Say what you will about gunshots to the head, but they do reduce the odds of dying from cancer!
- MikeFallopian, on 11/10/2008, -21/+18Franken and Coleman both suck. Each one represents the worst, most arrogantly partisan wing of his respective party.
- jonnyboy88, on 11/10/2008, -4/+3That's why I voted for Dean Barkley.
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Me too! Go fellow Minnesotan.
- jonnyboy88, on 11/10/2008, -4/+3That's why I voted for Dean Barkley.
- drex8, on 11/10/2008, -5/+17I still can't understand how Michelle Bachmann got re-elected. After all that garbage she spewed out. And now she's singing a totally different tune.
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I think it's because she's VERY accessible to her electorate. I'm in her district and when I have disagreed with her or agreed with her and written to her, she has sent a concise and short email back. Once she sent a handwritten letter.
It "could" have been a form email, but it was pretty specific and included bits of my text interspersed in the email so I doubt it.
It's nice to have that kind of service. (even if I don't usually agree with her).
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2I think it's because she's VERY accessible to her electorate. I'm in her district and when I have disagreed with her or agreed with her and written to her, she has sent a concise and short email back. Once she sent a handwritten letter.
- ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -11/+22I can only hope that Franken wins. I've been watching this race closely. From all reports, it looks like Franken will be the clear winner once all votes are *actually counted.* Of course, Coleman had to be an ***** and say Franken should concede without a recount, because he knows he's in deep ***** if all the votes are counted fairly.
Franken has a huge heart, is extremely bright, and wants to clean up Minnesota from Coleman's dirty ways. He'd bring a couple jokes to the Congress to boot, which would make C-SPAN more fun. There are few people left who are as all-around capable and committed as Franken.
Minnesota is lucky (if he wins).- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -5/+3All the votes--except maybe the 30-odd ballots "found" in a DFL election official's car, have been counted. What do you mean when the votes are "actually counted"?
You're out of touch with reality if you think that there will be a clear winner in this race. Regardless of whether the official count has Coleman a few hundred ahead or Franken a few votes ahead, there will be no "clear winner" and no one with a majority of the votes.- ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8What do I mean by *actually counted*? Notice I used asterisks to emphasize, not quotes. What I mean is /actually/ counted.
Perhaps, you're unaware of the thousands of scanners which registered a presidential vote but not a person's senatorial vote. That's a serious problem. An actual count by hand will help bring some fairness into this equation, because on many of the ballots it's quite easy to decipher which candidate is marked with ink (unlike the idiocy of "hanging chads" in Florida, 2000).
http://minnesotaindependent.com/16989/ap-undervote ... - quarkie, on 11/10/2008, -4/+5It is possible that these people didn't actually vote for a senator, and if so how would it be fair to judge their intent?
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1the only fair way to judge the intent where nothing is marked is as a vote for no-confidence to any of the candidates. A lot of people don't care about any race but the president's (that's why there is lower turn-out in a midterm election). If they didn't fill it out and voted for McCain, that doesn't mean you should infer that coleman and bachmann deserve the vote. I know I sure as hell didn't vote along party lines.
- ADVIZR, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8What do I mean by *actually counted*? Notice I used asterisks to emphasize, not quotes. What I mean is /actually/ counted.
- jonnyboy88, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Here's another scenario: people registered to vote just for Obama, and didn't bother to place a vote for senator because they either didn't care, or know enough about the race. Also, just because most "undervoted" ballots were for Obama, that doesn't necessarily tip it to Franken. People are capable of splitting the ticket, like when Arne Carlson and Paul Wellstone were elected in the same year.
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -5/+3All the votes--except maybe the 30-odd ballots "found" in a DFL election official's car, have been counted. What do you mean when the votes are "actually counted"?
- Ramenboy005, on 11/10/2008, -12/+0http://tinyurl.com/6dzomx
- dyreschlock, on 11/10/2008, -10/+16Go Franken! ^_^
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -3/+3Once the election is over, I think it shouldn't be "Go Franken"--or Coleman or Barkley for that matter. It should be "Go Democracy!" That is, count the votes properply as they have already been cast. If Franken doesn't have enough votes, then I don't want the process compromised to put him in office anyway. Once the votes are cast, I want the winner to win--even though it looks like it won't be the guy I voted for.
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Stop being reasonable! You're posting on digg for gosh sakes! Now you'll have to watch out for trolls and partisans on both sides...
Thank you though. I do like other residents of my state who know how to be civil about politics (and on the internet no less...)
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Stop being reasonable! You're posting on digg for gosh sakes! Now you'll have to watch out for trolls and partisans on both sides...
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -3/+3Once the election is over, I think it shouldn't be "Go Franken"--or Coleman or Barkley for that matter. It should be "Go Democracy!" That is, count the votes properply as they have already been cast. If Franken doesn't have enough votes, then I don't want the process compromised to put him in office anyway. Once the votes are cast, I want the winner to win--even though it looks like it won't be the guy I voted for.
- TheWriteGuy, on 11/10/2008, -6/+11"Count, baby, count!"
- mcosmi, on 11/10/2008, -19/+3I cant wait till that smug liberal little *****-sucking, ***** head loses and can't smirk his way out of the fact that: He's a loser, and people just DON't LIKE HIM" (not even his dem. cronies.)
- amoirae, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8It must suck for you that your anti-Franken fantasy isn't reality.
- gwinerreniwg, on 11/10/2008, -2/+8It appears that at least 49% of Minnesota voters disagree with that.
- YZBot, on 11/10/2008, -0/+549% ???
The race was 42-42-15. - SupaNeo, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3@YZBot
You're correct. We had a third party candidate running here in Minnesota which didn't take part in the smear campaign that Coleman and Franked did. I almost voted for him just because of that.
- YZBot, on 11/10/2008, -0/+549% ???
- macweirdo42, on 11/10/2008, -1/+4*sniff* I like him.
- mooseontheloose, on 11/10/2008, -31/+11***** THE RIAA
RON PAUL 2012 - jba68, on 11/10/2008, -22/+8Al Franken, = Fail
- YZBot, on 11/10/2008, -6/+10How does one just 'find' hundreds of votes, and that they all seem to favor Franken. What the hell is going on out there? That's what I want to know.
- geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Pretty easy seeing as counting votes is a human enterprise and there are hundreds of people involved in the clerical duties. People make mistakes.
For instance in one county the person counting entered in 24 instead of 124 for a tally that favored Franken. Usually these small slips aren't statistically significant when you consider two million votes. This is why MN law says there has to be a recount if the difference is a low enough percentage.
Why do recounts tend to favor democrats? I don't know. One explanation is that the poorer counties get crappier voting machines and poor people tend to vote democrat for some reason.- YZBot, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1The majority of the 500 votes Franken has gained came from just 3 precincts of over 4000. Those are huge discrepancies considering the small precincts they came from.
- geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Pretty easy seeing as counting votes is a human enterprise and there are hundreds of people involved in the clerical duties. People make mistakes.
- scot333, on 11/10/2008, -12/+2How does it favor franken if he's 200 votes behind?
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -1/+6Well, the votes have been counted and Franken lost. So ANY ruling/decision/discovery that could possibly change the outcome of the election would favor Franken. 30 new votes added to the pot after the election could be important if Franken can "find" some votes elsewhere.
- Fun4Two, on 11/10/2008, -8/+3"I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and dog-gonnit, people like me!" references are going to flood the interweb
- Jareth86, on 11/10/2008, -10/+3I'd love if he won, but does anyone else think its ironic that this is happening to Franken. He called the idea of a deliberate republican theft of the election in 2000/2004 a "conspiracy theory" and "ridiculous". I wonder if he still feels that way?
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -4/+5The idea of a deliberate republic theft of the election in 2000/2004 is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I don't see how a remarkably close senate election in 2008 really changes that, and I'm sure Franken still stands by his comments.
- Jareth86, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Because almost every single "voter error" and "discrepancy" has benefited Colman?
But hell, who knows, maybe its not deliberate. Maybe the machines just like republicans? - geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1Yes Katherine Harris was a myth and had no effect on the Florida election in 2000. She turned out to be as sane as they come, and honest as can be.
- novenator, on 11/11/2008, -0/+1/s ?
- Jareth86, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Because almost every single "voter error" and "discrepancy" has benefited Colman?
- BrandonEagan, on 11/10/2008, -4/+5The idea of a deliberate republic theft of the election in 2000/2004 is a ridiculous conspiracy theory. I don't see how a remarkably close senate election in 2008 really changes that, and I'm sure Franken still stands by his comments.
- mrshare, on 11/10/2008, -11/+22There is something fishy going on when 80% of "newly discovered" votes are tilting toward Franken. I call BS.
- bitORlogic, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3True, but fishy in which way? Maybe someone on the Republican side wanted to swing the election so they tried to "disappear" a box of ballets from a heavily Democratic area. Or, someone on the Democratic side wanted to swing the election so they "discovered" a convenient box of heavily Democratic votes. Or, it really was just simple human error of the sort that usually doesn't get noticed because the vote counts are rarely so close.
- bryanmiller, on 11/10/2008, -0/+280% tilt towards Franken because its from a heavily democratic county. I'm sure there will be votes that were missed in heavily republican counties once the recount happens.
- fuckyoo, on 11/10/2008, -20/+7Al Franken is no Jessie Ventura but I guess Minnesota deserves both these tards for voting for them...
- nextekcarl, on 11/10/2008, -4/+7I thought Jessie Ventura was a joke, too. Until I heard him speak the first time. It turns out I agreed with him on many issues. Who would've thunk it?
- geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3First people whine about lawyers and career politicians then they whine when somebody nonstandard runs.
I guess it takes a tard to call a tard. - heystoopid, on 11/10/2008, -0/+1So please tell us all , just why you can't handle the truth ?
- bwarne, on 11/10/2008, -5/+26I'm from Hennepin County and I went to a lot of effort acquire my absentee ballot and have it witnessed by another Minnesota voter. Win or lose, please realize that Coleman tried to block my right to vote as a desperate move to keep the majority count.
- jonnyboy88, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3Questioning the verifiability of ballots that were left in a car for a few days is not the same as telling someone they can't vote.
- metaliq, on 11/10/2008, -2/+2I'm from Wright county and I voted.
But Bachmann still won.
I tried my best guys... Truly, I did.
C'mon Franken. I know you're a douche, but Coleman is a bigger one.
- mikeyellenlee, on 11/10/2008, -13/+3I really truly hate that fat *****, al franken. Burn in hell, if there's room.
- Gephoria, on 11/10/2008, -2/+10i voted franken ftw!
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Of course you voted for Franklin "for the win" what the hell? do you think you vote for him to lose?
- kanawa, on 11/11/2008, -0/+0i think he means 'f-ck the world'
- zarisback, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2me too!
- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Of course you voted for Franklin "for the win" what the hell? do you think you vote for him to lose?
- naberator, on 11/10/2008, -10/+7Screw both of them, go Dean Barkley
- geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -1/+1Psst. Elections over. Unless the recount finds a few million votes for DB.
- PeanutCheeseBar, on 11/10/2008, -12/+5Democrat or Republican, no one party should have a majority in all branches of government; that having been said, if Franken couldn't keep Air America from going under (as one of their "star attractions"), then there's no way he should be allowed to have a hand in how the affairs of Minnesota are conducted. Electing him is about as idiotic as the Fed hiring an executive from Bear Stearns despite their failure.
- geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3If apples can't be yellow bananas then there is no way they should be allowed to be in the same hand as concord grapes.
Sadly, mine still made more logical sense.
- geodebug, on 11/10/2008, -1/+3If apples can't be yellow bananas then there is no way they should be allowed to be in the same hand as concord grapes.
- sleazycheese, on 11/10/2008, -9/+1BrandonEagan wins these threads. +1 for rationale.
- Velly, on 11/10/2008, -6/+1I cannot believe this
ONE person. ONE vote. No exceptions.- MadOgre, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Except if they are dead.... yet some areas have shown higher voter turn out than there are registered voters.
Hmmm...- lucasRay, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2Actually Minnesota is one of the few states where you can Register to vote at the Polls if you have a driver's license or a witness who will vouch for you.
- Rebulator, on 11/10/2008, -0/+2When I registered to vote, they didn't even ask to see ID. Just asked for a phone number and address. Now THAT is scary. How did they know I wasn't just visiting an uncle or something, from another state? I now see why some counties can get away with voter fraud: The states make it so easy to do.
- MadOgre, on 11/10/2008, -0/+3Except if they are dead.... yet some areas have shown higher voter turn out than there are registered voters.
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is