Murkowski Leads By Over 10,000 Votes

[rightwinger]

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.

Alaskans should have taken a clue from Sarah Palin..


They should have written L I S A - M U R K O W S K I on their palms

 

[del]

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.

Alaskans should have taken a clue from Sarah Palin..


They should have written L I S A M U R K O W S K I on their palms

apparently, sarah doesn't have much pull in alaska...

 

[Ravi]

Hey, isn't Palin being sexist by supporting Miller over a woman?

 

[Liability]

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.

No. It's about your claim that Miller is "toast."

While that might end up being true, it certainly isn't true yet -- and most assuredly it's not true based on the ridiculously irrelevant fact you rely on, that the campaign will have to shell out another $15,000.00 either. Oh nozies. Not THAT!

(By the way, I didn't contribute to Miller's campaign at all. Hell, I live in NY State. I don't even HAVE a Senator. NY does. Some dope named Gillibrand and a fuck-tard named Upchucky Schmucky Shumer.)

 

[rightwinger]

Hey, isn't Palin being sexist by supporting Miller over a woman?

I don't know...

He looks like a Mama Grizzlie to me

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again highlighting the power of Palin in her own state

She was useless in the Senate races.

 

[del]

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.

No. It's about your claim that Miller is "toast."

While that might end up being true, it certainly isn't true yet -- and most assuredly it's not true based on the ridiculously irrelevant fact you rely on, that the campaign will have to shell out another $15,000.00 either. Oh nozies. Not THAT!

(By the way, I didn't contribute to Miller's campaign at all. Hell, I live in NY State. I don't even HAVE a Senator. NY does. Some dope named Gillibrand and a fuck-tard named Upchucky Schmucky Shumer.)

no, i rely on simple math. he's losing by 10k votes now. if he gets all the challenged ballots thrown out, he loses by 2200+. if he pays for a recount, he isn't going to pick that many votes up, imo. he's already whining about voter fraud, but offering zero proof. he should go back to collecting the fed subsidies he wanted to outlaw.

i only recently got a US senator myself; i know how you feel.

 

[Liability]

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

No. It's about your claim that Miller is "toast."

While that might end up being true, it certainly isn't true yet -- and most assuredly it's not true based on the ridiculously irrelevant fact you rely on, that the campaign will have to shell out another $15,000.00 either. Oh nozies. Not THAT!

(By the way, I didn't contribute to Miller's campaign at all. Hell, I live in NY State. I don't even HAVE a Senator. NY does. Some dope named Gillibrand and a fuck-tard named Upchucky Schmucky Shumer.)

no, i rely on simple math. he's losing by 10k votes now. if he gets all the challenged ballots thrown out, he loses by 2200+. if he pays for a recount, he isn't going to pick that many votes up, imo. he's already whining about voter fraud, but offering zero proof. he should go back to collecting the fed subsidies he wanted to outlaw.

i only recently got a US senator myself; i know how you feel.

That's not math. It's pure speculation on your part. Recounts can have strange results. Comparing hand-counted votes to machine-tabulated votes might prove very illuminating. Again, I'd guess that the odds are against Miller. But still --

if you take the 10K+ figure down to a more manageable 2k+ figure before you even start a recount, given those odd factors, the truth is, none of us know how it will turn out.

 

[del]

No. It's about your claim that Miller is "toast."

While that might end up being true, it certainly isn't true yet -- and most assuredly it's not true based on the ridiculously irrelevant fact you rely on, that the campaign will have to shell out another $15,000.00 either. Oh nozies. Not THAT!

(By the way, I didn't contribute to Miller's campaign at all. Hell, I live in NY State. I don't even HAVE a Senator. NY does. Some dope named Gillibrand and a fuck-tard named Upchucky Schmucky Shumer.)

no, i rely on simple math. he's losing by 10k votes now. if he gets all the challenged ballots thrown out, he loses by 2200+. if he pays for a recount, he isn't going to pick that many votes up, imo. he's already whining about voter fraud, but offering zero proof. he should go back to collecting the fed subsidies he wanted to outlaw.

i only recently got a US senator myself; i know how you feel.

That's not math. It's pure speculation on your part. Recounts can have strange results. Comparing hand-counted votes to machine-tabulated votes might prove very illuminating. Again, I'd guess that the odds are against Miller. But still --

if you take the 10K+ figure down to a more manageable 2k+ figure before you even start a recount, given those odd factors, the truth is, none of us know how it will turn out.

except that there'll be no hand recount according to the alaska elections commissioner. he isn't going to find 2200+ votes out of what, 250K that were cast. that's almost 10%.

it's all over but the snivelling by miller

 

[Ozmar]

It seems like "business as usual" that Miller is even making this challenge. I though the Tea Party was try to do away with "business as usual."

 

[del]

It seems like "business as usual" that Miller is even making this challenge. I though the Tea Party was try to do away with "business as usual."

and miller wanted to do away with farm subsidies

 

[Liability]

no, i rely on simple math. he's losing by 10k votes now. if he gets all the challenged ballots thrown out, he loses by 2200+. if he pays for a recount, he isn't going to pick that many votes up, imo. he's already whining about voter fraud, but offering zero proof. he should go back to collecting the fed subsidies he wanted to outlaw.

i only recently got a US senator myself; i know how you feel.

That's not math. It's pure speculation on your part. Recounts can have strange results. Comparing hand-counted votes to machine-tabulated votes might prove very illuminating. Again, I'd guess that the odds are against Miller. But still --

if you take the 10K+ figure down to a more manageable 2k+ figure before you even start a recount, given those odd factors, the truth is, none of us know how it will turn out.

except that there'll be no hand recount according to the alaska elections commissioner. he isn't going to find 2200+ votes out of what, 250K that were cast. that's almost 10%.

it's all over but the snivelling by miller

If there's a recount, the election Commissioner may not be quite so free to decide that there will not be a hand recount. You cannot count write-in votes except by hand.

And, by the way, when Miller defeated Murkowski in the primaries, her effort to retain her job by going to the write-in method would be deemed "snivelling" too?

As I say, it seems likely enough to me that in the end, Miller is going to lose. But, even so, I have no problem at all with him demanding that (unlike the Dem efforts in Florida in 2000) the State follows it own laws.

And, your odds-on bet notwithstanding, if and when a full recount is completed, especially if absentee voters (including military) get the privilege of having their votes counted, the outcome is still not exactly certain. You can claim it is, but you still don't know.

In fact, if you're so sure, there can be no harm in going through the process.

 

[rightwinger]

Miller lost.....all is right with the world

 

[Liability]

Miller lost.....all is right with the world

Well, if he pulls off the upset of the year by winning the recount, things will be terrific!

The odds of that? Not very encouraging. Alas.

 

[asterism]

Miller lost.....all is right with the world

Funny that a Progressive Democrat says that when a Republican wins.

I won't agree that "all is right with the world" or anything close to it, but my second choice in a three-way race won. My first choice in a two-party race won. I am pleased.

 

[Ozmar]

That's not math. It's pure speculation on your part. Recounts can have strange results. Comparing hand-counted votes to machine-tabulated votes might prove very illuminating. Again, I'd guess that the odds are against Miller. But still --

if you take the 10K+ figure down to a more manageable 2k+ figure before you even start a recount, given those odd factors, the truth is, none of us know how it will turn out.

except that there'll be no hand recount according to the alaska elections commissioner. he isn't going to find 2200+ votes out of what, 250K that were cast. that's almost 10%.

it's all over but the snivelling by miller

If there's a recount, the election Commissioner may not be quite so free to decide that there will not be a hand recount. You cannot count write-in votes except by hand.

And, by the way, when Miller defeated Murkowski in the primaries, her effort to retain her job by going to the write-in method would be deemed "snivelling" too?

As I say, it seems likely enough to me that in the end, Miller is going to lose. But, even so, I have no problem at all with him demanding that (unlike the Dem efforts in Florida in 2000) the State follows it own laws.

And, your odds-on bet notwithstanding, if and when a full recount is completed, especially if absentee voters (including military) get the privilege of having their votes counted, the outcome is still not exactly certain. You can claim it is, but you still don't know.

In fact, if you're so sure, there can be no harm in going through the process.

Maybe it would be considered snivelling. It's interesting that she lost the primary, yey won the write in. What happened to all of those people who abandoned her in the primary? Did they decide to write in for Murkowski, or were they overwhelmed by write ins from people who did not vote in the primary?

 

[Liability]

except that there'll be no hand recount according to the alaska elections commissioner. he isn't going to find 2200+ votes out of what, 250K that were cast. that's almost 10%.

it's all over but the snivelling by miller

If there's a recount, the election Commissioner may not be quite so free to decide that there will not be a hand recount. You cannot count write-in votes except by hand.

And, by the way, when Miller defeated Murkowski in the primaries, her effort to retain her job by going to the write-in method would be deemed "snivelling" too?

As I say, it seems likely enough to me that in the end, Miller is going to lose. But, even so, I have no problem at all with him demanding that (unlike the Dem efforts in Florida in 2000) the State follows it own laws.

And, your odds-on bet notwithstanding, if and when a full recount is completed, especially if absentee voters (including military) get the privilege of having their votes counted, the outcome is still not exactly certain. You can claim it is, but you still don't know.

In fact, if you're so sure, there can be no harm in going through the process.

Maybe it would be considered snivelling. It's interesting that she lost the primary, yey won the write in. What happened to all of those people who abandoned her in the primary? Did they decide to write in for Murkowski, or were they overwhelmed by write ins from people who did not vote in the primary?

I presume (but don't know it for a fact) that the Dems couldn't vote in the GOP primary. But the Dems knew their lad wasn't going to be able to win the election. So, in the general elections, Dems could cross-over Party lines and vote for the "other" Republican, the one who hates Sarah Palin so much she said publicly that she'd vote for President Obama over Palin. {Yes. Mookaka actually SAID that!}

Voting for the "other" Republican would also constitute a vote against the GOP primary victor, the one who came WITH the endorsement of the Tea Party movement.

But, even so, Alaska law (at least to the extent the law was actually WRITTEN by the State Legislature), AS enacted, requires -- on its face -- that the write-in votes spell the NAME of the candidate AS that candidate spells his/her name on their own petitions.

So until Courts decide to ignore the law AS WRITTEN and instead get all touchy-feely about divining voter "intent," a vote for Lesa Murkoki is NOT actually a vote for Lisa Murkowski.

If enough of those kind of alleged "votes" get tossed out -- as they should where the words of a statute are given their actual meaning -- then Murkowski's alleged "lead" in this race is slim enough that a recount could matter. At least, that is, it could matter in theory. It might all end up as just a lot of wasted noise, ultimately. I mean, ultimately, the odds are still in favor of Murkowski getting re-elected. Alas.

 

[Ravi]

, the one who hates Sarah Palin so much she said publicly that she'd vote for President Obama over Palin. {Yes. Mookaka actually SAID that!}

So she isn't a stupid partisan hack and would vote for the lesser of two evils.

People do that every day...as this particular race shows.

 

[Ozmar]

So if someone votes for someone other than Sarah Palin, it's out of blind hatred? Stop playing the race card!

 

[Liability]

, the one who hates Sarah Palin so much she said publicly that she'd vote for President Obama over Palin. {Yes. Mookaka actually SAID that!}

So she isn't a stupid partisan hack and would vote for the lesser of two evils.

People do that every day...as this particular race shows.

She is a faux Republican. She is, at best, a RINO. She is symptomatic of what's wrong with the Republican Party.

And President Obama is the worse of two evils. He is an unmitigated disaster. Sarah Palin, on her worst day, could not be half as much of a fuck up as President Obama IS.