|
|
| Re: Minnesota (400018) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Minnesota |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 5 13:26:02 2009, in response to Minnesota, posted by Charles G on Mon Jan 5 12:59:38 2009. The MN count strikes me as exceedingly carefully done. What's not clear to me is who decided not to count the 700 (give or take) ballots that the Coleman camp now wants counted, and why are they different from other ballots that were counted.I see no problem with Coleman suing to get those ballots counted (since right now no one knows how they'll lean). It's even quite likely that a decision on the validity of those ballots will be made in a non-political fashion. Certainly the state AG has no role in that decision. So I think we're near the end, and it's an end that any reasonable person can support. If the court decides to count those remaining ballots, and if they swing the election to Coleman, then Coleman is in. If the court decides the ballots should not be counted, or if they are counted and don't swing the election, then Franken is in. It would be dumb of the Senate to try to seat Franken before that final court challenge is settled. Of course, any state can decide to require a runoff if no one gets a najority. But you can still have the same kind of close race in the runoff. |
|
|
|