Murkowski Leads By Over 10,000 Votes

[NYcarbineer]

I cannot help the fact that you are severely retarded, carbuncle.

If we discount the bullshit "Moocowsky" alleged "votes," and ascertain, in that way, the true vote difference, it will likely be around 2,000 (probably fewer). I listened to Miller, himself, and he has a record for being far more honest than the scumbag dishonest news media who trip over themselves to root for ANYBODY who isn't "Tea Party" endorsed.

Furthermore, carbuncle, you moron, you are unable to grasp the significance of HOW the votes were allegedly "counted." Or maybe you can and you are just too deeply dishonest to admit that it matters.

In the end, it is perhaps the odds-on bet that Murkowsi will "take" the win.

But it is not such a completely foregone conclusion as to make the careful scrutiny a pointless endeavor. Despite your highly partisan wishes, the rigorous challenge is a good idea; a very very good idea.

And if, by some stroke of luck, Murkowski ends up losing, well that would be even better!

It is an irrefutable fact that Murkowski leads by about 10,000 votes. The votes were counted FOR HER. That any of them have been challenged does not change the FACT that currently those are her votes.

In the event that some of the challenges are upheld, AT THAT POINT IN TIME she will no longer lead by 10,000 votes; she will lead by less than 10,000 votes.

But since we are not AT THAT POINT IN TIME yet, it is irrefutably factual to say that she leads by 10,000 votes.

Not fraudulent. Even a comically deranged confused fat balding old closet queen like you should be able to grasp that.

Stop projecting, sissy.

You are wrong, carbuncle. It is certainly "refutable" if the Election Law says you cannot count illegible votes or votes where the write-in candidate's name is spelled incorrectly.

Anyway, your fear of being found out as the gayest of the gay uber-libs here at USMB notwithstanding, asswipe, the FACT is that if the illegible "votes" get dumped and the ones where "Moocowsky's" nominal voters get their improper votes tossed out, the 10K vote difference will pretty much get wiped out.

And THEN, you queer-bait drama queen (emphasis on queen), if the remaining votes get properly counted,* it is still within the realm of possibility that Mookcowsky can get defeated.

Get one of your intelligent friends (i.e., ask a conservative) to assist you on this one. Obviously, carbuncle, this all flies over your pinhead, ya poor retarded liberoidal douche bag.

______________
* they may not have been in the first instance, and there is a remaining question as to whether (or not) the absentee ballots and the military ballots got sent out in time or if there was some disenfranchisement going on.

You said it was fraudulent to say she was leading by 10,000 votes. She IS leading by 10,000 votes. The OP's article made it clear that some of those votes, THAT ARE CURRENTLY COUNTED AS MURKOWSKI VOTES, are being challenged.

Simple question. Who is committing the fraud?

Simple analogy. If someone gets convicted of a crime, and it is reported that the person was found guilty,

is that fraudulent reporting? The conviction could get reversed on appeal, right? So according to your logic, saying that a person has been convicted of a crime is a FRAUDULENT statement until all possible appeals have been exhausted and there is no way the conviction could be thrown out.

 

[rightwinger]

Once again highlighting the power of Palin in her own state

 

[del]

"Miller, meanwhile, had several missteps after the primary. Court documents were released showing that he had been suspended as a government employee for using work computers for partisan political work and lying about it. In other miscues, his security detail handcuffed a journalist asking questions at a town hall meeting, and it was revealed his family received many government handouts that he railed against as a tea party candidate."

gotta love it when a hypocrite gets it in the neck.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

 

[Liability]

It is an irrefutable fact that Murkowski leads by about 10,000 votes. The votes were counted FOR HER. That any of them have been challenged does not change the FACT that currently those are her votes.

In the event that some of the challenges are upheld, AT THAT POINT IN TIME she will no longer lead by 10,000 votes; she will lead by less than 10,000 votes.

But since we are not AT THAT POINT IN TIME yet, it is irrefutably factual to say that she leads by 10,000 votes.

Not fraudulent. Even a comically deranged confused fat balding old closet queen like you should be able to grasp that.

Stop projecting, sissy.

You are wrong, carbuncle. It is certainly "refutable" if the Election Law says you cannot count illegible votes or votes where the write-in candidate's name is spelled incorrectly.

Anyway, your fear of being found out as the gayest of the gay uber-libs here at USMB notwithstanding, asswipe, the FACT is that if the illegible "votes" get dumped and the ones where "Moocowsky's" nominal voters get their improper votes tossed out, the 10K vote difference will pretty much get wiped out.

And THEN, you queer-bait drama queen (emphasis on queen), if the remaining votes get properly counted,* it is still within the realm of possibility that Mookcowsky can get defeated.

Get one of your intelligent friends (i.e., ask a conservative) to assist you on this one. Obviously, carbuncle, this all flies over your pinhead, ya poor retarded liberoidal douche bag.

______________
* they may not have been in the first instance, and there is a remaining question as to whether (or not) the absentee ballots and the military ballots got sent out in time or if there was some disenfranchisement going on.

You said it was fraudulent to say she was leading by 10,000 votes.

Yes.

She IS leading by 10,000 votes.

Nope. That's ONLY if you officially "count" all the disputed write-in ballots. And that's silly, It may end up that way (since rationality by election officials is not always a given). But it's far from a certainty.

Since a write-in vote that kinda sorta looks like maybe the voter (illegibly) voted for Murkowski should probably NOT be counted (illegible write-in votes should not count) and since misspellings of her name should probably not count, either (even though, in the end, they very well might), the alleged 10K vote margin is presently meaningless. I realize that you, being the mindless-sheeple partisan hack you always are, are unwilling to accept that the challenge by Miller could be legitimate. That's ok. Your mere opinion is not really of any import.

 

[asterism]

you know, not every person on the right is evil.

murkowski happened to be a very good senator. she brought a ton of cash to her state. any intelligent person would have looked at that in casting their vote. as tip o'neill said, "all politics is local".

and now she isn't beholden to the repubs b/c they abandoned her for the teaparty loon.

should make for an interesting senate term.

What a sad, cynical, and incorrect view on politics.

Murkowski never was "beholden" to the Republicans, and she certainly isn't now. As for her hypocrisy on pork-barrel spending, well that's what the primary was all about. Win or lose, the Alaska GOP voters took a stance and said that it was time to move away from the model that the one who "brings home the bacon" ought to be in Washington. Obviously the general voting public disagreed, and that's why we have elections.

The interesting part is how she's going to react to the message she was clearly sent. She has maintained the whole time that she is a Republican.

How did the liberal running as a fiscal conservative Democrat fare? That's what the Progressives should acknowledge.

not really. and "alaska voters" did no such thing... because "alaska voters, voted Murkowski back in".... thus deciding the tea party loon backed by palin was unacceptable.

i'm not quite sure how that escapes your notice.

Read my comment again and you'll note how I referenced the opinion of "Alaska GOP voters" and then noted that "Obviously the general voting public disagreed."

You Progressives have rendered the "tea party loon" description useless for your purposes, but now it suits mine and the purposes of those like me; identify Progressive ideologues who don't have much substance but have a whole lot of ad hominem.

You should be smart enough to realize the impression you make when you lash out from this corner you've backed yourselves into. Clearly my guy lost, and I can accept that. Your guy got destroyed and was quickly rendered irrelevant. That you consider a Republican victory as a win for your side shows how effective the Tea Party actually was. It is certainly a surprising result in my opinion.

 

[asterism]

Once again highlighting the power of Palin in her own state

Please stay focused on Palin, please do. With any luck we'll both be hoping she doesn't run for President or win the Republican Primary. Thanks for your support.

 

[del]

Stop projecting, sissy.

You are wrong, carbuncle. It is certainly "refutable" if the Election Law says you cannot count illegible votes or votes where the write-in candidate's name is spelled incorrectly.

Anyway, your fear of being found out as the gayest of the gay uber-libs here at USMB notwithstanding, asswipe, the FACT is that if the illegible "votes" get dumped and the ones where "Moocowsky's" nominal voters get their improper votes tossed out, the 10K vote difference will pretty much get wiped out.

And THEN, you queer-bait drama queen (emphasis on queen), if the remaining votes get properly counted,* it is still within the realm of possibility that Mookcowsky can get defeated.

Get one of your intelligent friends (i.e., ask a conservative) to assist you on this one. Obviously, carbuncle, this all flies over your pinhead, ya poor retarded liberoidal douche bag.

______________
* they may not have been in the first instance, and there is a remaining question as to whether (or not) the absentee ballots and the military ballots got sent out in time or if there was some disenfranchisement going on.

You said it was fraudulent to say she was leading by 10,000 votes.

Yes.

She IS leading by 10,000 votes.

Nope. That's ONLY if you officially "count" all the disputed write-in ballots. And that's silly, It may end up that way (since rationality by election officials is not always a given). But it's far from a certainty.

Since a write-in vote that kinda sorta looks like maybe the voter (illegibly) voted for Murkowski should probably NOT be counted (illegible write-in votes should not count) and since misspellings of her name should probably not count, either (even though, in the end, they very well might), the alleged 10K vote margin is presently meaningless. I realize that you, being the mindless-sheeple partisan hack you always are, are unwilling to accept that the challenge by Miller could be legitimate. That's ok. Your mere opinion is not really of any import.

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

 

[Liability]

You said it was fraudulent to say she was leading by 10,000 votes.

Yes.

She IS leading by 10,000 votes.

Nope. That's ONLY if you officially "count" all the disputed write-in ballots. And that's silly, It may end up that way (since rationality by election officials is not always a given). But it's far from a certainty.

Since a write-in vote that kinda sorta looks like maybe the voter (illegibly) voted for Murkowski should probably NOT be counted (illegible write-in votes should not count) and since misspellings of her name should probably not count, either (even though, in the end, they very well might), the alleged 10K vote margin is presently meaningless. I realize that you, being the mindless-sheeple partisan hack you always are, are unwilling to accept that the challenge by Miller could be legitimate. That's ok. Your mere opinion is not really of any import.

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

 

[asterism]

You said it was fraudulent to say she was leading by 10,000 votes.

Yes.

She IS leading by 10,000 votes.

Nope. That's ONLY if you officially "count" all the disputed write-in ballots. And that's silly, It may end up that way (since rationality by election officials is not always a given). But it's far from a certainty.

Since a write-in vote that kinda sorta looks like maybe the voter (illegibly) voted for Murkowski should probably NOT be counted (illegible write-in votes should not count) and since misspellings of her name should probably not count, either (even though, in the end, they very well might), the alleged 10K vote margin is presently meaningless. I realize that you, being the mindless-sheeple partisan hack you always are, are unwilling to accept that the challenge by Miller could be legitimate. That's ok. Your mere opinion is not really of any import.

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

I think he is toast, but I'm not familiar enough with Alaska election law to say whether his challenges are valid or not. I used to think that selective recounts based on handpicked counties was an invalid model, but the Florida Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Then I thought that challenging a full statewide recount based on circumstances of what exactly is required to trigger one was invalid but I was wrong there also.

I can't remember specifically now, but there were something like 15 different recount scenarios that were later analyzed and Gore lost every single one of the ones he tried to get. The situation in Alaska may well be something like that.

But I generally think Miller needs to give it up. He had so much going for him and the write-in candidate still either won or came very very close and now it's just splitting hairs. That should really tell him something given the overwhelming advantage he had going into the general election. Sorta like Gore needing to win on VERY narrow definitions simply because he didn't win his home state.

 

[del]

Yes.



Nope. That's ONLY if you officially "count" all the disputed write-in ballots. And that's silly, It may end up that way (since rationality by election officials is not always a given). But it's far from a certainty.

Since a write-in vote that kinda sorta looks like maybe the voter (illegibly) voted for Murkowski should probably NOT be counted (illegible write-in votes should not count) and since misspellings of her name should probably not count, either (even though, in the end, they very well might), the alleged 10K vote margin is presently meaningless. I realize that you, being the mindless-sheeple partisan hack you always are, are unwilling to accept that the challenge by Miller could be legitimate. That's ok. Your mere opinion is not really of any import.

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

 

[asterism]

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think I'll be donating to a recount fund. It's a valid point though, should "Lisa Murkowski" be given a vote that was intended for "Murkoki Lesa?"

 

[rightwinger]

Once again highlighting the power of Palin in her own state

Please stay focused on Palin, please do. With any luck we'll both be hoping she doesn't run for President or win the Republican Primary. Thanks for your support.

I hope she does win the Republican Primary..

It will show the power of Palin on the national stage

 

[Liability]

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

And Dewey defeated Truman, too.

No. He has not yet lost. It is likely that he will ultimately have to toss in the towel, but if the illegible write-in votes are thrown out and the ones that do not conform to actual Alaska Election Law* get similarly tossed, then the election comes down to the recount. Murkowski's write-in votes had to be hand-counted (for obvious reasons). But Miller's were machine tabulated. The errors could be significant. PLUS, left hanging, is the question of whether the State sent out the damn absentee ballots on time (including those for the military).

Before it's all over, it could get truly interesting.

______________________
* not that it matters, but The New York Slimes did some actual reporting:

While state election official cite case law they say allows discretion in things like spelling, state law says write-in votes will be counted if the write-in oval is filled in and “if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or of the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.”

-- Miller and Murkowski Await the Results of the Write-In Votes in Alaska Senate Race - NYTimes.com By application of the ACTUAL law, "Lesa Murkoki" could be in trouble.

 

[del]

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

I know you didn't ask me, but I don't think I'll be donating to a recount fund. It's a valid point though, should "Lisa Murkowski" be given a vote that was intended for "Murkoki Lesa?"

i would be inclined to see that as intended for murkowski myself, given that there is no write in candidate named murkoki.

even so, that's irrelevant as murkowski still wins even if the challenged ballots are all thrown out.

 

[Ravi]

"Miller observers, seeking to hold the state to that standard, objected to thousands of ballots, including ones with a cursive letter or two, slight misspellings or mangled lettering. The campaign even challenged ballots that read "Lisa Murkowski Republican" or "Murkowski, Lisa."

he's toast.

Read more: Murkowski emerges as winner in Alaska Senate race: 2010 Alaska U.S. Senate election | adn.com

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

But wouldn't you say that Murkoki Lesa translates into Joe Miller?

 

[del]

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

And Dewey defeated Truman, too.

No. He has not yet lost. It is likely that he will ultimately have to toss in the towel, but if the illegible write-in votes are thrown out and the ones that do not conform to actual Alaska Election Law* get similarly tossed, then the election comes down to the recount. Murkowski's write-in votes had to be hand-counted (for obvious reasons). But Miller's were machine tabulated. The errors could be significant. PLUS, left hanging, is the question of whether the State sent out the damn absentee ballots on time (including those for the military).

Before it's all over, it could get truly interesting.

______________________
* not that it matters, but The New York Slimes did some actual reporting:

While state election official cite case law they say allows discretion in things like spelling, state law says write-in votes will be counted if the write-in oval is filled in and “if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or of the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.”

-- Miller and Murkowski Await the Results of the Write-In Votes in Alaska Senate Race - NYTimes.com By application of the ACTUAL law, "Lesa Murkoki" could be in trouble.

there will be no recount unless miller pays for it.

i'm aware of the peculiarities of the alaska law, but miller still will lose by more than .05% if all the challenged ballots are thrown out.

so are you gonna pony up, or what?

 

[del]

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

But wouldn't you say that Murkoki Lesa translates into Joe Miller?

unfortunately, the brain trust behind miller didn't register him as a write in candidate as required by alaskan law, so, no it doesn't......even if i squint my eyes like this...

 

[Liability]

Well, if we are JUST making idle predictions, I'd repeat my earlier prognostication: it is the odds-on bet that Miller ends up losing.

I say we give Alaska the Senator they VOTED for:

Whoever SHE might be.

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

But wouldn't you say that Murkoki Lesa translates into Joe Miller?

No. But it doesn't validly constitute a vote for Lisa Murkowski, either. And the point is not that Miller GETS the disputed votes. Obviously, he doesn't. The POINT is that, by LAW, Murkowski doesn't, either. Or, more accurately stated, if the LAW is adhered to as written, she shouldn't.

If the question is allowed to be asked differently, the result could be different. For example, if the Courts say "fuck what the law as written SAYS, WE hold that the VOTER INTENT is what matters!"

A dimple on a chad -- in that light -- arguably reflects voter intent. "Lesa Murkoki" also arguably reflects voter intent. What it doesn't reflect is that the words of a written statute have any actual meaning.

 

[Liability]

there's no prognostication involved. he's lost; if all his challenges are upheld, he's still lost. are you going to throw him a few bucks to help pay for a recount?

And Dewey defeated Truman, too.

No. He has not yet lost. It is likely that he will ultimately have to toss in the towel, but if the illegible write-in votes are thrown out and the ones that do not conform to actual Alaska Election Law* get similarly tossed, then the election comes down to the recount. Murkowski's write-in votes had to be hand-counted (for obvious reasons). But Miller's were machine tabulated. The errors could be significant. PLUS, left hanging, is the question of whether the State sent out the damn absentee ballots on time (including those for the military).

Before it's all over, it could get truly interesting.

______________________
* not that it matters, but The New York Slimes did some actual reporting:

While state election official cite case law they say allows discretion in things like spelling, state law says write-in votes will be counted if the write-in oval is filled in and “if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or of the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided.”

-- Miller and Murkowski Await the Results of the Write-In Votes in Alaska Senate Race - NYTimes.com By application of the ACTUAL law, "Lesa Murkoki" could be in trouble.

there will be no recount unless miller pays for it.

i'm aware of the peculiarities of the alaska law, but miller still will lose by more than .05% if all the challenged ballots are thrown out.

so are you gonna pony up, or what?

The "pony up" question is not all that good a question, Del.

Where the vote difference (i.e., if the write in votes do get tossed in large enough numbers) is .05 or more, then the State doesn't have to pay for the recount. The party requesting the recount has to do that "ponying up" thing. But ...

it's only $15,000.00. Lisa Murkowski Wins Alaska Senate Race, Joe Miller Defeated - ABC News

Even if I don't donate one thin dime, I suspect the Miller campaign can "afford" that extravagant expense.

 

[del]

And Dewey defeated Truman, too.

No. He has not yet lost. It is likely that he will ultimately have to toss in the towel, but if the illegible write-in votes are thrown out and the ones that do not conform to actual Alaska Election Law* get similarly tossed, then the election comes down to the recount. Murkowski's write-in votes had to be hand-counted (for obvious reasons). But Miller's were machine tabulated. The errors could be significant. PLUS, left hanging, is the question of whether the State sent out the damn absentee ballots on time (including those for the military).

Before it's all over, it could get truly interesting.

______________________
* not that it matters, but The New York Slimes did some actual reporting: -- Miller and Murkowski Await the Results of the Write-In Votes in Alaska Senate Race - NYTimes.com By application of the ACTUAL law, "Lesa Murkoki" could be in trouble.

there will be no recount unless miller pays for it.

i'm aware of the peculiarities of the alaska law, but miller still will lose by more than .05% if all the challenged ballots are thrown out.

so are you gonna pony up, or what?

The "pony up" question is not all that good a question, Del.

Where the vote difference (i.e., if the write in votes do get tossed in large enough numbers) is .05 or more, then the State doesn't have to pay for the recount. The party requesting the recount has to do that "ponying up" thing. But ...

it's only $15,000.00. Lisa Murkowski Wins Alaska Senate Race, Joe Miller Defeated - ABC News

Even if I don't donate one thin dime, I suspect the Miller campaign can "afford" that extravagant expense.

it's not about what it costs, it's about you putting your money where your mouth is.