Minnesota Secretary of State: Franken Pseudo-Declaration of Victory 'Premature'

==I know damn well Palin couldn't have fixed anything.==

The vice prez is in no position to "fix" anything anyway.

==I know damn well Palin couldn't have fixed anything.==

However, Palin, who has public experience, could've fixed more than Caroline Kennedy who has no public experience.

Typically lacking in insight. I suppose the deepest question is why have we Americans become so dumb? It certainly isn't the case that the politicians have become so smart, and even less the case that these Franken and Coleman could possibly be so nearly equivalent. The electoral technicians have obviously become *MUCH* too adept in "guiding" their respective candidates into indistinguishable positions and nipping at each other's heels.

No, I don't know if Obama can really fix the system. He might have 'mastered' it this time around, but it is the system that elected him, after all. Will he really have the will and brains to fix it? However, I know damn well Palin couldn't have fixed anything.

==Minnesota election law requires that the "intent" of the voter be considered...==

That's impossible, from an objective standpoint. The only intent that matters is what the legal ballot says. If it is not marked properly, according to instructions everybody gets beforehand, it is not a ballot. If it is not a ballot, it is not a vote. That's the voter's fault, not the system. Officials should not be in the osition of going beyond the voter's "voice" on the ballot itself, when cast legally.

Now, how do you, or anybody else, know that the voter intended to vote for one candidate, or another? Maybe he wanted just to go through the motions without committing to a candidate so he could have an excuse to say that he voted. Then, the canvassing board would be applying an intent to the ballot that isn't there. Then what?

==Mr. Incredible,
Minnesota election law requires that the "intent" of the voter be considered...==

"Considered," not determined.

== when reviewing machine-rejected ballots.==

The machine knows only "legal." THAT should be the standard.

== Unless there are identifying marks, the judges must attempt to interpret the voter intent...==

How does one do that objectively?

As a fierce independent you people make me laugh. Neither side talks about what is good for America. Both sides are partisan hacks, you disgust me. The democrats were weak not to end the war in Iraq and, well Bush he did it to everyone in the good 'ol USA. Lighten up folks. Let's try to concentrate on the ball for once and do what's good for the USA. Let's give the State on Minn. the benefit of the doubt and going by their rules let this play out. You can say the same about the state of Ill. Let it be and let's work to fix America. We cannot be the saviors of the world anymore. Let's take care of home first! America the beautiful, remember those words folks?

OH , COME ON NNNN !@ DOES ANYONE ANYWHERE , DOUBT FRANKEN WILL WIN???

I THOUGHT EVERYBODY KNEW THAT'S WHAT CHEATING MEANS !!!!!

The only thing here Ritchie is "offended" by is that Franken's comments, especially the "we" in "we're on track to win," imply his alliance with Franken in stealing the rightful election victory from Senator Norm Coleman. Ritchie wants to maintain the image of propriety, knowing full well in his own heart, of his own commitment to ensuring Franken succeeds in stealing the election. This is right out of ACORN's playbook, and Ritchie is one of their greatest supporters.

"Franken already has a credibility problem concerning his ability to serve as a legit politician." --Matt

I didn't even think he was credible to serve as a comedian.

Mr. Incredible,

Minnesota election law requires that the "intent" of the voter be considered when reviewing machine-rejected ballots. Unless there are identifying marks, the judges must attempt to interpret the voter intent on the ballot AS PER THE LAW.

We know that the Franken[stein] Peanut Gallery is choking on the challenges to their assertion that Tapper "embellishes" in his story, that Tapper says Franken[stein] declared victory.

There are only sixteen [16] lines in the Tapper story above.

Somebody tell us in which line Tapper "embellishes" and says that the Franken[stein] monster declared victory.

Lydia, we're still waiting for you to tell us what Tapper "embellished."

==What is the big problem? ==

The big problem is that it is taking some time for the Franken[stein] campaign to come up with more illegal ballots and forcing officials to interpret the Will of voters who can't read. And we thought the stupid ones were limited to Florida.

==There is a legal recount going on.==

Yeah, double-counting, interpreting the Will of voters who can't read instructions and who cast illegal ballots, counting other illegal ballots, etc. That takes time, for sure.

== It's taking a lot of time, but the process is being closely monitored.==

Monitored for every possible thing, legal, or not, that can be interpreted in Franken[stein]'s favor.

==At least its not like the Republicans in Florida the previous presidential election using scheming lawyers and undemocratic tactics to stop the counting of legitimate ballots.==

Republicans didn't take the vote in Florida to court. Gore did. SCOTUS, then, ultimately, had to get involved cuz the issue involved federal, election law. So, had Gore not gone to court, there woulda been no issue to keep you embittered for eight years.

==Jake, is this that slow a news day that you have to resort to embellishment?==

What's the "embellishment"?

What is the big problem? There is a legal recount going on. It's taking a lot of time, but the process is being closely monitored.

At least its not like the Republicans in Florida the previous presidential election using scheming lawyers and undemocratic tactics to stop the counting of legitimate ballots.

Jake, is this that slow a news day that you have to resort to embellishment? I like you a lot better when you are more professional and read less like a tabloid writer.

Several posters see something that isn't there.

They say that Tapper reported a declaration by Franken[stein] of victory.

I'd like to know where Tapper says this cuz I don't see it. I don't see it cuz it ain't there.

ABC gets the facts wrong again. Franken did not make a "declaration of victory". Time to pull your heads out and learn to properly interpret what Franken actually said.
Posted by: Robert | Dec 31, 2008 2:25:54 PM
-----------------------------------
Where does the Tapper say that Franken[stein] declared victory?