WSJ comments on Coleman- Franken

[bga1]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111967642552909.html

Things are looking pretty fishy.............

[Gopher4Life]

This appears to be a good article that makes Minnesota politics smell pretty fishy. Could some of you who are both politically astute and closer to the action please comment on this?

[Omega015]

I have just accepted the fact that the losing side is going to be unhappy and blame everyone and everything regardless of how this election turns out. The same charges would be coming from Franken if he were now 200 votes down. This was the most predictable chain of events ever.

[Gopher4Life]

>>The same charges would be coming from Franken if he were now 200 votes down.<<

Except that Franken had all the cards stacked in his favor once the recount began. Was there ever any real doubt that the committee would somehow make up the difference for Al...by hook or by crook?

[Omega015]

One could argue that the election officials were conspiring to give the election to Coleman by not counting ballots initially. It's all about how one chooses to look at it.

I choose to believe that a bunch of people who worked long hours on election night made a few mistakes... these things happen during every election but usually don't affect the outcome.

[bga1]

One could argue that the election officials were conspiring to give the election to Coleman by not counting ballots initially. It's all about how one chooses to look at it.

I choose to believe that a bunch of people who worked long hours on election night made a few mistakes... these things happen during every election but usually don't affect the outcome.

Everyone will choose to believe as they wish. At the end of the day there is a set of mathematical scenarios that defy all probability. The biggest of these is not even mentioned in the article: How did the tally go from 700+ to 200+ before the recount began. A professor from Cornell (if I recall correctly) did a comparison in the changes in the Obama count and the Franken count and the differences were staggering. He said that what happened was virtually statistically impossible.

At his point I'm not that concerned about Franken getting in- one more Dem is going to damage much and I think he hurts the Dems overall. Of greater concern is the likelihood that someone is cooking the books.

[StPaulHawkeye]

If the positions were reversed, the same things would be said, except by the other side.

[Gopher4Life]

Omega,

>>...more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote.<<

If this is true, Sec of State Ritchie should be impeached and a second election should be conducted.

StPaul,

>>If the positions were reversed, the same things would be said, except by the other side.<<

Not likely, given the evidence. ("...nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate.")

[Jike Spingleton]

Democrats aim low when stealing elections. A Senate seat? Who cares? Stealing the presidency, that takes skill....

[jamiche]

This appears to be a good article that makes Minnesota politics smell pretty fishy. Could some of you who are both politically astute and closer to the action please comment on this?

If it is an article then it has credibility because the WSJ, along with the NY Times, is one of the best papers in the country. If it is an opinion piece, and I think it is, then it has little validity because the WSJ editorial board stays in lockstep with right wing orthodoxy.

The worst part of the recount was when the state supreme court said that the candidates had to agree on which absentee ballots would be counted. Not a workable scenario.

In any case, most of the country would trade a different outcome in Florida in 2000 for this one.

[bga1]

If it is an article then it has credibility because the WSJ, along with the NY Times, is one of the best papers in the country. If it is an opinion piece, and I think it is, then it has little validity because the WSJ editorial board stays in lockstep with right wing orthodoxy.

The worst part of the recount was when the state supreme court said that the candidates had to agree on which absentee ballots would be counted. Not a workable scenario.

In any case, most of the country would trade a different outcome in Florida in 2000 for this one.

The NYT has been the most discredited newspaper in the country over the past several years. If they were forced to waste the same amount of paper on retractions as they have on false stories the newspaper the recycled paper market would be much better off. :)

In the Florida vote- Bush ended the election as the winner. Then he won the recounts, won in the courts and then he won in every recount performed by newspapers after the fact. Gore attempted every trick in the book to pull the same thing that has happened here. The only problem for Gore was that there was too much scrutiny.

I know this- if Franken wins- I won't spend the next 4 or 8 years hating him for it. Move on.

[UpnorthGo4]

The level of ignorance on internet message boards never surprises me. During the recount, 2.5 million votes were counted in public with attorneys from both sides looking at every goddamn ballot. Some of you guys are making accusations that not even Coleman's attorneys are making. Coleman's attorneys have long acknowledged that the election night results were not 100% accurate because they were based on telephone results with far flung precincts that are not large enough to even have voting machines. The telephone reporting on election night is done so voters don't have to wait 2 or 3 days to find out who won the election. This happens in every state wide election and there usually is never a problem because 99% of elections are not close enough to require a recount.

During all recounts Minnesota state law requires that the Canvassing Board try to determine the INTENT of the voter. This is particulary important in Minnesota because our voting machines cannot read some of the ballots because of the way people fill them out. If you have monitored the StarTrib's our Pioneer Press' web sites you would understand that some voters do not complete their ballots in a straight forward way. They may not completely fill in the circle, or they may X a circle out out and vote for another candidate. In such cases the voting machine cannot read the vote. Studies have determined that on average 2 votes out of every 1,000 votes cannot be read by the machines. That amounted to about 6,000 uncounted votes during the Coleman-Franken election. Some of you may say to throw those ballots out, but Minnesota law does not allow that. The Canvassing Board is absolutely required to try to determine the intent of as many ballots as possible.

The other main problem during the recount was the issue of Absentee Ballots. Approximately 1600 of them were not counted on election night because they were considered to not be in compliance with Minnesota's requirements. During the recount, election officials from the 87 counties and attorneys from Coleman and Franken campaigns agreed that over 900 of those absentee ballots were WRONGFULLY REJECTED. Although we can assume this happens during every election, who disagrees that WRONGFULLY REJECTED ballots should be counted during recounts?

Coleman spend the entire time between election night and last Friday arguing that no absentee ballots WRONGFULLY REJECTED on election night should be counted. Many of these ballots were cast by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in GopherHole thinks that is a good thing? Now Coleman has changed his position 180 degrees and is arguing that the 600 or so absentee ballots that the 87 counties still think were RIGHTFULLY REJECTED should be counted. Can you say "grasping at straws"? The only other issues that Coleman has is the approximately 100 votes that he claims were double counted, and the 300 or so votes from Minneapolis that were counted by the voting machines on election night where they lost the supporting paper ballots.

So these are now the remaining issues: approximately 600 uncounted absentee ballots, 100 possible duplicate ballots, and 300 votes without supporting paper ballots. Otherwise, all 2.5 million ballots cast were recounted under the watchful eyes of Coleman's attorneys. This will ultimately play out in the courts, but when the result is announced the winner will be the LEGITIMATE U.S. Senator from Minnesota. In any of you think differently you also believe in UFO's, ghosts, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone shooter who killed JFK.

[Gopher4Life]

jamiche,

Facts are facts whether stated in an article or a column...or in the WSJ or your own favorite newspaper. Is this piece based on solid facts or not? That's the question. If based on facts, I don't think the conclusions are out of line. if based on conjecture, you are correct that the conclusions are debatable.

>>most of the country would trade a different outcome in Florida in 2000 for this one.<<

Maybe. Maybe not.

1. Florida 2000 has nothing at all to do with Minnesota 2008 except that it possibly prompted Franken to think about running for office.

2. The country could be even more screwed up today under Al Gore. In fact, that's fairly likely.

[Gopher4Life]

Upnorth,

>>but when the result is announced the winner will be the LEGITIMATE U.S. Senator from Minnesota.<<

Yes, that's what they'd have us believe.

>>The level of ignorance on internet message boards never surprises me.<<

And the naive trust of government scares me. We are a nation of citizens who have a government that should serve us, not a nation with a government that should be served by its citizens.

Is Ritchie a Democrat? Does he have a connection to Obama? Did he lead the canvassing board? Does he have a vested interest in electing Franken? Did nearly every decision the board made favor Franken? Is there reasonable room to second guess this turn of events?

[bga1]

The level of ignorance on internet message boards never surprises me. During the recount, 2.5 million votes were counted in public with attorneys from both sides looking at every goddamn ballot. Some of you guys are making accusations that not even Coleman's attorneys are making. Coleman's attorneys have long acknowledged that the election night results were not 100% accurate because they were based on telephone results with far flung precincts that are not large enough to even have voting machines. The telephone reporting on election night is done so voters don't have to wait 2 or 3 days to find out who won the election. This happens in every state wide election and there usually is never a problem because 99% of elections are not close enough to require a recount.

During all recounts Minnesota state law requires that the Canvassing Board try to determine the INTENT of the voter. This is particulary important in Minnesota because our voting machines cannot read some of the ballots because of the way people fill them out. If you have monitored the StarTrib's our Pioneer Press' web sites you would understand that some voters do not complete their ballots in a straight forward way. They may not completely fill in the circle, or they may X a circle out out and vote for another candidate. In such cases the voting machine cannot read the vote. Studies have determined that on average 2 votes out of every 1,000 votes cannot be read by the machines. That amounted to about 6,000 uncounted votes during the Coleman-Franken election. Some of you may say to throw those ballots out, but Minnesota law does not allow that. The Canvassing Board is absolutely required to try to determine the intent of as many ballots as possible.

The other main problem during the recount was the issue of Absentee Ballots. Approximately 1600 of them were not counted on election night because they were considered to not be in compliance with Minnesota's requirements. During the recount, election officials from the 87 counties and attorneys from Coleman and Franken campaigns acreed that over 900 of those absentee ballots were WRONGFULLY REJECTED. Although we can assume this happens during every election, who disagrees that WRONGFULLY REJECTED ballots should be counted during recounts?

Coleman spend the entire time between election night and last Friday arguing that no absentee ballots WRONGFULLY REJECTED on election night should be counted. Many of these ballots were cast by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in GI thinks that is a good thing? Now Coleman has changed his position 180 degrees and is arguing that the 600 or so absentee ballots that the 87 counties still think were RIGHTFULLY REJECTED should be counted. Can you say "grasping at straws"? The only other issues that Coleman has is the approximately 100 votes that he claims were double counted, and the 300 or so votes from Minneapolis that were counted by the voting machines on election night where they have lost the supporting paper ballots.

So these are now the remaining issues: approximately 600 uncounted absentee ballots, 100 possible duplicate ballots, and 300 votes without supporting paper ballots. Otherwise, all 2.5 million ballots cast were recounted under the watchful eyes of Coleman's attorneys. This will ultimately play out in the courts, but when the result is announced the winner will be the LEGITIMATE U.S. Senator from Minnesota. In any of you think differently you also believe in UFO's, ghosts, and that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone shooter who killed JFK.


Your ending sentence is perfect for you. Disallow the legitimacy of anyone that would disagree with you. You should really go into marketing Global Warming with Al Gore.

[Moonlight]

Thanks for taking the time to write it. Its impressive that just the last sentence was objectionable! I know someone involved in the recount, and I too find it hard to believe the Coleman attorneys would be lax in objecting.
And it certainly looks like an opinion piece to me

If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.
Another one!? Why should things change now?
I personally don't like either of these candidates, but am tired of soulless Norm who was greatly assisted by his probably now regretted switch to the Republican party and the tragic death of his opponent just before the election. The political winds of expediency may be dying out for Mr. Coleman.

[maroonfive]

He lost and he is unable to accept it. He wanted Al to not contest the initial results so what gives now? What is a senator to do now that he is lost. Will be move? I am not sure he as any place to go. He has a sham of marriage that is in name only.


Go Gophers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[playhosea!]

Anyone interested in examining some of the factual assertions in the WSJ editorial could benefit from reading this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html#comments

[rrjackIII]

Anyone interested in examining some of the factual assertions in the WSJ editorial could benefit from reading this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html#comments


and if you want to watch the actual recount in action you can go to uptake.org

http://theuptake.org/

I think there were 2 Republican Judges on the recount panel and they voted unanimously to certify Franken.

Sounds like Coleman wants to put Minnesotans through more court cases and continue this in court. Didn't he want Franken to give up on Nov 5 but state law requires a recount and the board has now certified Al. His attorney bills must be mounting - as he has other matters to deal with.

I used to listen to Al on Air America and he was pretty close to Paul Welstone and he made it clear a long time ago that it was his main goal to get the seat back that was Welstone's.

[jamiche]

The NYT has been the most discredited newspaper in the country over the past several years. If they were forced to waste the same amount of paper on retractions as they have on false stories the newspaper the recycled paper market would be much better off. :)

In the Florida vote- Bush ended the election as the winner. Then he won the recounts, won in the courts and then he won in every recount performed by newspapers after the fact. Gore attempted every trick in the book to pull the same thing that has happened here. The only problem for Gore was that there was too much scrutiny.

I know this- if Franken wins- I won't spend the next 4 or 8 years hating him for it. Move on.

You won't spend the next 4 or 8 years hating him for it. I believe that is a narrowly truthful statement because you will spend the six years of his senatorial term expressing "concern" as only you can.

[jamiche]

The NYT has been the most discredited newspaper in the country over the past several years. If they were forced to waste the same amount of paper on retractions as they have on false stories the newspaper the recycled paper market would be much better off. :)

In the Florida vote- Bush ended the election as the winner. Then he won the recounts, won in the courts and then he won in every recount performed by newspapers after the fact. Gore attempted every trick in the book to pull the same thing that has happened here. The only problem for Gore was that there was too much scrutiny.

I know this- if Franken wins- I won't spend the next 4 or 8 years hating him for it. Move on.


Thanks for taking the time to write it. Its impressive that just the last sentence was objectionable! I know someone involved in the recount, and I too find it hard to believe the Coleman attorneys would be lax in objecting.
And it certainly looks like an opinion piece to me

Another one!? Why should things change now?
I personally don't like either of these candidates, but am tired of soulless Norm who was greatly assisted by his probably now regretted switch to the Republican party and the tragic death of his opponent just before the election. The political winds of expediency may be dying out for Mr. Coleman.

I don't like either of them as well, Moonlight. Franken was hurt by Barkley, but it was pretty hard to come damn close to losing to a republican in Minnesota this year. I have my doubts about Al but I sure won't miss Norm.

BTW, maybe it is just as well that Al wins because it appears that Norm is on his way to being indicted for some mysterious transfers of funds.

[bga1]

Anyone interested in examining some of the factual assertions in the WSJ editorial could benefit from reading this: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/did-wall-street-jorunal-fire-their-fact.html#comments

One note of caution: the fivethirtyeight site is a lefty site. They have a rooting interest as does the writer of the WSJ article. I originally linked the WSJ article and it is an opinion piece-no doubt. The point is simply that this deal is very fishy. Period.

[bga1]

You won't spend the next 4 or 8 years hating him for it. I believe that is a narrowly truthful statement because you will spend the six years of his senatorial term expressing "concern" as only you can.

I seriously doubt that he will do anything consequential enough to cause much concern. He may make some humorous statements however.

[Gopher4Life]

>>The point is simply that this deal is very fishy. Period.<<

Also that this particular result was expected from the minute the recount began.

I don't really have a horse in this race and I have no good reason for liking either of these candidates, but the recount has been bungled and the result is tainted.

A second vote would be an expensive but fair remedy, IMO.

[tikited]

Your ending sentence is perfect for you. Disallow the legitimacy of anyone that would disagree with you. You should really go into marketing Global Warming with Al Gore.

Why should he alter his tune when he is 100% right. Oh, Oswald was the only shooter--no doubt about it...

[Jike Spingleton]

Coleman urged Franken to waive his right to a recount, saying that the prospect of changing the result was remote and that a recount would be costly to taxpayers (about $86,000).

"I just think the need for the healing process is so important. ... hopefully, you don't have TV ads during an election recount," Coleman said.

Do as I say, not as I do. Thanks, Norm.

[GopherRock]

You can stick a fork in Coleman.

Franken and Co. have been saying that they will emerge victorius by 40-50 votes ever since this recount started. It was only after the improperly rejected ballots (that no one was counting on) were added into the mix that Franken opened a 225-vote lead.

As for Coleman, his camp hasn't kept to one story long enough to get a cup of coffee.

The bigger concerns for Coleman are A) can his analyzers come up with, sight unseen, a batch of improperly rejected absentee ballots that will clear him 226 votes against the field, and B) will anyone listen to include them? Given the polling trends of those who voted absentee (i.e. heavily Democrat in all quarters), I wouldn't hold my breath on Coleman winning in court.

If I'm Al Franken, I'm flying to Washington right now to be on Capitol Hill at the opening of business tomorrow with final results in hand.

[StPaulHawkeye]

So, G4L, you are saying that if the positions were reversed, Franken and Co. would NOT be filing a lawsuit and that the Franken supporters would NOT be questioning the integrity of the process and "expressing concern" over the handling of the recount?

[nasa35]

Here we go....DEMS...stealing elections are okay for us dems.......but republicans getting elected is wrong regardless if its the will of the people.

You're all outing yourselfs. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there is fraud being perpetrated and you're okay with it. If we cannot be honest and ethical with the election process then we are screwed. What is criminal on the dems part ius this is typical behavior...the fraud is so widespread.....you guys get by with it by accusing republicans of doing it...WHEN THEY DON'T and you guys know it.

[Jike Spingleton]

Here we go....DEMS...stealing elections are okay for us dems.......but republicans getting elected is wrong regardless if its the will of the people.

That's the beauty of the 2008 elections. A Republican getting elected was so rare, we didn't need to steal anything.

AND NOW A BUNCH OF TYPING IN ALL CAPS!!!

[Gopher4Life]

StPaul,

I'm saying that the Franken camp would've tried every trick in the book because it "knew" it had won and because it knew it controlled the political process of recounting votes. The Coleman camp, seeing the writing on the wall, may not have bothered with a recount because it knew the Dems controlled the canvassing board.

All politics is dirty, my friend. So are most politicians.

[jamiche]

>>The point is simply that this deal is very fishy. Period.<<

Also that this particular result was expected from the minute the recount began.

I don't really have a horse in this race and I have no good reason for liking either of these candidates, but the recount has been bungled and the result is tainted.

A second vote would be an expensive but fair remedy, IMO.

The pattern I've noticed is that you start out by stating that you have no real preference but you tend to only criticize one candidate.

[Schnoodler]

The pattern I've noticed is that you start out by stating that you have no real preference but you tend to only criticize one candidate.

You've noticed that too? I thought it was just me.:rolleyes:

[jamiche]

One note of caution: the fivethirtyeight site is a lefty site. They have a rooting interest as does the writer of the WSJ article. I originally linked the WSJ article and it is an opinion piece-no doubt. The point is simply that this deal is very fishy. Period.

So let me try to understand, beej. 538 is discredited because it is a lefty site with an obvious bias (though their statistical analysis of the races this year as well as the MN recount was amazingly accurate). The op/ed piece from the WSJ, which even you acknowledge is biased, has pronounced the recount fishy so, therefore, it is fishy. The two republican judges on the canvassing board might not be happy with your (unbiased) assessment.

[tikited]

1. You're all outing yourselfs. It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that there is fraud being perpetrated and you're okay with it. 2. What is criminal on the dems part ius this is typical behavior...the fraud is so widespread.....3. you guys get by with it by accusing republicans of doing it...WHEN THEY DON'T and you guys know it.

1. What exactly is the fraud you write about? 2. Just how typical is it? 3. How do I know it?

[UpnorthGo4]

One of the State Canvassing Board's members , Ramsey County Judge Edward Cleary, has decided to fight back against the Wall Street Journal. Below is the text of a letter he sent Tuesday to the WSJ's editors. It will be a very sad commentary if reasonable and intelligent voters in Minnesota cannot set aside partisan politics to allow the administrative and legal processes for resolving close elections play out in the normal course of events without the losing side impugning the integrity and reputations of the members of the Canvassing Board and judicial system. If people continue to make reckless charges about the validity of elections without real supporting evidence, they leave the door open for the same thing to happen in future elections whoever the candidate might be. If that starts to be a regular part of elections in the U.S., when and how will it all end? I am not going to spend a lot of time worrying about it, but maybe future generations might have to.


Dear Sirs:

As a subscriber of your newspaper for almost three decades, I don't expect to always agree with your editorial viewpoint. Yet I am nevertheless very disappointed when I read an editorial long on partisan tone and short on accurate reporting.

As a member of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board, appointed pursuant to statute, I have attended all nine Board open meetings held the past seven weeks. I am knowledgeable about the proceedings as well as Minnesota's election laws. Our members (two Supreme Court Justices, two District Court Judges, and Secretary of State Ritchie) came from all political backgrounds, openly expressed our opinions at the meetings, and can hardly be accurately described as "meek", unless you mean "meek" by New York in-your-face standards. Your groundless attack on Secretary Ritchie reflects poorly on the author; Ritchie worked assiduously at avoiding partisanship in these proceedings.

As to the Board as a whole, all of our major votes were unanimous. We consistently followed the law in limiting our involvement to a non-adjudicative role, declining both candidates' attempts to expand our mandate. Further, we painstakingly reviewed each challenged ballot, some more than once, to confirm that we were ruling in a consistent manner.

One can only assume, based on the tone of the editorial, the numerous inaccuracies, and the over-the-top slam at Al Franken ("tainted and undeserving?") that had Norm Coleman come out on top in this recount, the members of the Board would have been praised as "strong-willed, intelligent, and perceptive."

We won't hold our breath waiting for that editorial to appear.

Edward J. Cleary
Assistant Chief Judge
Second Judicial District
Minnesota State Canvassing Board

[playhosea!]

Here is a brief background on Judge Cleary and the other members of the Canvassing Board aside from the Secretary of State. I realize that a lot of people just want to scream "partisan fraud" but this was by no means a liberal group. I would guess that out of the 5 members of the panel, 2 voted for Franken, 2 for Coleman, and 1 for Barkley. Yet somehow Cleary reports that they voted unanimously on all major decisions and Mark Ritchie estimated that they voted unanimously on 95% of individual challenged ballots. It's almost like... they weren't being driven by partisan ideology.

Minnesota Chief Justice Eric Magnusuon, an appointee and former law partner of Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Minnesota Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson, an appointee of Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin, first elected in a non-partisan election in 1986, Gearin has been re-elected three times; she was promoted to Chief Judge in 2008 after serving as Associate Chief Judge for four years.

Judge Edward J. Cleary, a Ramsey County judge appointed by Independence Party Gov. Jesse Ventura in 2002.

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

He is basically #2 to Gearin in Ramsey County

Also, here is the background of the 5 State Supreme Court Justices that voted on substantive matters

Alan Page - elected in 1992, was Assistant AG under Skip Humphrey.

Paul H. Anderson - appointed in 1994 by Arne Carlson

Helen M. Meyer - appointed in 2002 by Jesse Ventura

Lorie Skjerven Gildea - appointed in 2006 by Tim Pawlenty

Christopher J. Dietzen - appointed in 2008 by Tim Pawlenty

An addendum on G Barry Anderson - he was originally appointed to Court of Appeals by Arne Carlson before Pawlenty appointed him to the Supreme Court.

[Gopher4Life]

jamiche,

>>The pattern I've noticed is that you start out by stating that you have no real preference but you tend to only criticize one candidate.<<

No, I have a preference. Coleman is a bit of a jerk, but he has some conservative principles. Franken is a leftist and a bad joke.

[jamiche]

jamiche,

>>The pattern I've noticed is that you start out by stating that you have no real preference but you tend to only criticize one candidate.<<

No, I have a preference. Coleman is a bit of a jerk, but he has some conservative principles. Franken is a leftist and a bad joke.

So the name of the horse that you don't have in this race is "Norman".

[Moonlight]

Perhaps the suspicion of fraud belongs more accurately in the initial count which was much less supervised. This could suggest a pattern of manipulation of the vote.
My horse in this race was Jack Nelson Pallmeyer so I'm not excited about either result. But just because the results are surprising doesn't mean foul has to be called. It appears there has been plenty of Republican oversight in the process.

[bga1]

So let me try to understand, beej. 538 is discredited because it is a lefty site with an obvious bias (though their statistical analysis of the races this year as well as the MN recount was amazingly accurate). The op/ed piece from the WSJ, which even you acknowledge is biased, has pronounced the recount fishy so, therefore, it is fishy. The two republican judges on the canvassing board might not be happy with your (unbiased) assessment.


The poster who called up the 538 site said that the 538 site gives an analysis that you could judge the WSJ article by. I was simply pointing out that the 538 is not an unbiased arrangement of facts any more than the WSJ article. I didn't discredit the 538 article- only wished to put it in the proper light. I never said that the WSJ article was the bottom line either - only that it raises a very reasonable doubt aobut what is happening here.

[Gopher4Life]

>>So the name of the horse that you don't have in this race is "Norman".<<

I'm not a citizen of Minnesota. The result of this race doesn't directly affect me. This doesn't mean I want the left to gain an even greater majority over the right.