VoteForAmerica.net Syndication

John Thune's (R-SD) Math

12/23/2009 4:51:44 PM CT

The Senate voted by 60 - 39 to limit debate on the health care bill, setting up a vote for final passage tomorrow at 7am ET. Debate continues on the bill this evening. Source: C-SPAN.org

As part of this continuing debate, the minority (the Republican caucus) was allotted one hour for remarks. As part of these remarks, Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked that the bloc be divided evenly among several members of the Republican caucus. John Thune (R-SD) received the third segment which can be viewed in its entirety below.

Sen. Thune directed much of his ten minute address to the issue of the deficit. He began by presenting convoluted percentages of non-defense budget spending over the preceding several years. He was attempting to illustrate that the Democrats contributed more to the deficit and that our current deficit is not attributable to President George W. Bush or the Republican party. He then lifted a blank presentation board and a marker. Next, he began to write numbers, in billions of dollars, relating to the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of the Healthcare bill's cost. The first number represented the CBO's estimated surplus ($132 B), over a ten year period, resulting from the implementation of the Senate's Healthcare bill. The next few lines depict Sen. Thune's interpreted inaccuracies of the CBO's estimate. Sen. Thune then adds the 132 billion to his list of erroneous estimates and makes an arithmetic error:

   132 - 200 - 72 - 47 = -177

His numbers don't add up to -177; the correct computation yields -187. We have a US Senator attempting to illustrate why the CBO is wrong and he can't add four numbers of three digits or less together. Simply stunning. But perhaps what's even more stunning is that nobody caught this error; either in the planning stages or during the remaining remarks.

House Passes Healthcare

11/7/2009 10:38:55 PM CT

The US House or Representatives officially passed H.R. 3962, The Affordable Health for America Act, at 11:15 PM ET upon the confirmation of the tally by House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D); although the qualifying number of votes were cast 8 minutes earlier: The final vote was 220 Ayes to 215 Nays: The lone Republican voting for the measure was Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana's Second District. The House adjourned until Monday at 6 PM, after a fourteen and a half hour session. There will probably be several press conferences from each party at some point; you can watch live on CSPAN.org or check your local TV Listing for the channel number in your area. Update [12:25 AM, CT 9/8/2009]: Immediately following the passage of the bill, and before the Democratic press conference, CSPAN fielded callers from around the country. Below is one of these such exchanges:

@6:08 Announcer: Lets hear what you have to say about the debate today. This is Pam in San Diego, California against the bill; go ahead. Pam: Yeah. My name is Pam, and I am very much against any bill, on any kind of insurance, because insurance is not an airbag to protect you. Insurance does not buy healthcare; there is something, just, infinitely wrong with the idea that doctors are actually taking care of people. [emphasis added] Source: CSPAN.org Video Library

The bolded text above is probably the most vile and incompetent critique of healthcare reform possible. Insurance does buy healthcare, in fact it's the purpose of having insurance; you spend money, i.e. you buy insurance, and in turn, you receive healthcare. Insurance is the exchange of money for access to healthcare within a distributed stress system. The general concept of insurance places roughly equal burden upon all participants in exchange for assistance when a statistical anomaly occurs, such as cancer. Insurance buys access to, in this example, healthcare for cancer; this healthcare is probably not affordable, without insurance, for the average American [pg. 5]. Secondly, the purpose of doctors is to take care of people; which I thought was a common sense notion, but apparently I was wrong. The Hippocratic Oath, the corner stone of ethical medicine, seems to hint at a doctor's need to care for their patients:

... I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. ... Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves. ... Source: PBS NOVA

The statements by Pam above, are without a doubt, the most ignorant things I have ever heard relating to the healthcare debate.

Final Projections (2009)

11/3/2009 3:59:49 PM CT

There were no new polls released today, so I'm calling the polling projections final. The first graph for each state uses our traditional methodology, while the second graph incorporates every poll, regardless of partisan affiliation: Remember, the point of our projections is not to predict the winner, but rather to access the accuracy of public polling. That being said, the hope is that our projections are accurate under the assumption that the polls were accurate. You can follow the returns live at each states' respective Secretaty of State website; I've included links below: Virginia
New Jersey (this link is sketchy, but I'm assuming they'll update the page.)
California CD-10 (not updated yet)
New York CD-23 (not updated yet)
Minnesota: St. Paul Mayor | Minneapolis Mayor I'll also be recording the historical real-time result; I'll try and post a graph every hour or so depicting the vote totals as a function of time.

Poll Update (11/2)

11/2/2009 8:48:41 PM CT

There were twenty-seven new polls since last week's update:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Monmouth University, Gannett	11/1/2009	43	41	16
2009 New Jersey Governor	SurveyUSA	11/1/2009	42	45	13
2009 New Jersey Governor	Quinnipiac University	11/1/2009	40	42	18
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	11/1/2009	41	36	23
2009 New Jersey Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/1/2009	41	47	12
2009 New Jersey Governor	Monmouth University, Gannett	10/30/2009	42	43	15
2009 New Jersey Governor	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	10/30/2009	43	41	16
2009 New Jersey Governor	Neighborhood Research (R)	10/29/2009	35	42	23
2009 New Jersey Governor	Stockton College, Zogby	10/29/2009	40	39	21
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2009	43	46	11
2009 New Jersey Governor	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/28/2009	41	42	17
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	10/28/2009	43	38	19
2009 New Jersey Governor	SurveyUSA	10/28/2009	43	43	14
2009 New Jersey Governor	Fairleigh Dickinson, PublicMind	10/28/2009	39	41	20
2009 New Jersey Governor	Quinnipiac University	10/26/2009	43	38	19
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2009	43	46	11
2009 New Jersey Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/26/2009	38	42	20
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	11/1/2009	40	58	2
2009 Virginia Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/1/2009	42	56	2
2009 Virginia Governor	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	10/30/2009	40	53	7
2009 Virginia Governor	Richmond Times, Mason Dixon	10/29/2009	41	53	6
2009 Virginia Governor	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/28/2009	44	54	2
2009 Virginia Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/27/2009	41	54	5
2009 Virginia Governor	Roanoke College	10/27/2009	39	55	6
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	10/26/2009	41	58	1
2009 Virginia Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/26/2009	40	55	5
2009 Virginia Governor	Virginia Commonwealth University	10/25/2009	36	54	10

I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time discussing the gubernatorial elections, because I plan to do that tomorrow, but I will leave you with a few thoughts to ponder and the latest polling projections: I'll first address the obvious; New Jersey is very close and Virginia isn't. McDonnell (R) could win by 20% while Corzine (D) or Christie (R) could win by 20 votes. There is no automatic recount in New Jersey, but any candidate can request a recount within 15 days of the election. Secondly, Sarah Palin has injected herself into the New Jersey fray with a statement on facebook:

Despite what candidate Chris Daggett is claiming, I have never contacted him or his campaign. I have never asked him to drop out of the NJ Governor's race. Now, if a politician is going to play loose with facts like this, the electorate needs to know it. So, to the good people of New Jersey, please know that Daggett's claims are false. I?ve never even suggested he should drop out of the race. But, come to think of it? - Sarah Palin Source: Sarah Palin on Facebook.com

Nobody inclined to vote for Daggett (I) gives two shits what Palin thinks, about anything. In fact her innuendo, for Dagget to drop out, would definitely not help Christie. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey asked which second candidate Daggett voter's preferred; Corzine led by 10%, 39 to 29. Another recent poll by Public Policy Polling (D) made the same determination. Daggett is helping Christie at this point, but Palin is too stupid to realize this. Obama also campaigned for Corzine over the weekend. The cover of today's New York Times prominently displayed Obama and Corzine in a traditional rally pose. This is definitely positive exposure for Corzine and could translate into votes, although New Jersey does not have same day registration. And finally, the campaign fundraising reports from New Jersey I promised last week:

                 Corzine (D)     Christie (R)     Daggett (I)
Receipts      $ 24,057,600.20  $ 11,720,288.00  $ 1,312,632.00
Expenditures  $ 23,645,190.76  $  8,804,745.66  $ 1,161,907.13
Cash on Hand  $    412,409.44  $  2,915,542.34  $   150,724.87

Submission Date: 10/23/2009

Source: New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission Corzine clearly won the fundrace, but will it translate to a victory tomorrow evening? I'm waiting until tomorrow to post the final projections as there are likely polls in the field today that will be released tomorrow. I'll have updated graphs, as well as my final thoughts before the polls close tomorrow at 8 PM ET in New Jersey and 7 PM ET in Virginia. There are also a number of other elections tomorrow with intriguing ramifications. There are two elections to fill US House vacancies, CA-10 and NY-23. NY-23 is a Republican district with ~~three~~ two major candidates after the moderate Republican withdrew and endorsed the Democratic candidate to spite the National Republican Party. CA-10 is a solidly Democratic district with a PVI of D+11; this distinct will be won by Democrat Lt Gov. John Garamendi. A number of other states also have referendums and propositions on the ballot. More tomorrow.

Poll Update (10/26)

10/26/2009 10:20:11 PM CT

Nine new polls as the elections loom a week away:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Suffolk University	10/25/2009	42	33	25
2009 New Jersey Governor	SurveyUSA	10/21/2009	39	41	20
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	10/21/2009	42	39	19
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rutgers University	10/20/2009	39	36	25
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/19/2009	39	41	20
2009 Virginia Governor	Washington Post	10/25/2009	44	55	1
2009 Virginia Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/19/2009	40	52	8
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	10/19/2009	40	59	1
2009 Virginia Governor	Christopher Newport University, Virginian-Pilot	10/13/2009	31	45	24

I know I mentioned this last week, but the New Jersey graph looks almost identical to the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election and the addition of a Daggett (I) trendline to the New Jersey Graph below solidifies my point: Christie's (R) decline seems to be linearly associated with Daggett's surge while Corzine's (D) support has remained consistent. The most recent sample points do however illustrate a departure from this correlation; Dagget's and Christie's numbers have declined in the last week while Corzine's have increased. Christie's earlier support seems to have migrated to Daggett, and now that Corzine is back in the race, some Daggett voters are shifting to their second choice, Corzine. In the next week I expect a minor Christie resurgence, and a solidification of Daggett's support around the 15% threshold. I expect both major party candidates to head into next Tuesday's election hovering around the 40% mark. Virginia is another story, Deeds (D) has all but lost: Deeds was dominated in the money race, and had perception issues during the debates; the last of which occurred on Tuesday, October 20th:

Deeds and McDonnell were generally polite, although they interrupted each other several times in a series of feisty exchanges made possible by an open-ended format. When the moderator asked Deeds which taxes he would support increasing, McDonnell tried to jump in: "I can answer that!" "No, you can't!" Deeds responded, glaring at McDonnell before saying that he would consider raising any tax tied to transportation funding. Still, the lively 60-minute debate appeared to do little to change the dynamics of a race in which Deeds trails McDonnell in public opinion polls, fundraising and advertising. The questions covered mostly familiar ground, and there seemed to be no game-changing moments. Source: Washington Post

The last pre-election fundraising reports were due on Wednesday; the highlights are below:

                 Deeds (D)       McDonnell (R)
Receipts      $ 16,264,941.15   $ 21,466,447.67
Expenditures  $ 15,327,168.54   $ 19,633,513.91
Cash on Hand  $    937,772.61   $  1,832,933.76

Filing Period: 10/01/2009 - 10/21/2009

Source: Virginia State Board of Elections Deeds was basically defeated in every aspect of the campaign, and his polling numbers reflect these various deficiencies. Our mathematical projection gives Deeds less than a 1% chance of victory, and from a purely logical standpoint, this seems realistic. Deeds has lost, unless something absurd happens. New Jersey also conducted their final debate last week on Thursday, October 22nd:

The third and final debate in the tightening New Jersey governor's race turned into something of a free-for-all on Thursday night as Gov. Jon S. Corzine tried to portray the state's battered economy as poised for a slingshotlike recovery, while his Republican rival, Christopher J. Christie, depicted him as lamentably out of touch. But the two were constantly harassed by a pesky Christopher J. Daggett, the independent candidate, who pointed to a new poll that showed him within striking distance, and who taunted Mr. Corzine and Mr. Christie over property taxes, corruption and the environment. The hourlong debate, broadcast on the jazz station WBGO in Newark, broke little new ground, but allowed the three men to deliver their closing arguments. Source: New York Times

The latest fundraising filings from New Jersey have not yet been posted, although the 11 day deadline has passed. Hopefully the data will be available next week. In the meantime you can read through last period's reports at the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission. Corzine bankrolled his own campaign, while Christie and Daggett relied upon matching public funds. As a result Corzine had the capability to out raise his opponents, which he has done up to this point and I see no reason why this trend when end with the release of the new data. More in a week for our probably last polling update. I'll also, hopefully, have a few other surprises.

Poll Update (10/19)

10/14/2009 2:03:16 AM CT

A number of polls out of New Jersey, and a single from Virgina:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	SurveyUSA	10/14/2009	39	40	21
2009 New Jersey Governor	New York Times	10/14/2009	40	37	23
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/14/2009	41	45	14
2009 New Jersey Governor	Quinnipiac University	10/12/2009	40	41	19
2009 New Jersey Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/12/2009	39	40	21
2009 Virginia Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/12/2009	43	50	7

Based upon the frequency of new surveys, most pollsters seem to have given up on the Virginia Gubernatorial election. Deeds (D) has led in just two polls since January, and currently trails by about seven points. Corzine, on the other hand, has done a much more effect job of closing his summer gap. Both states had debates in the last week, but they're unlikely to make or break November's voting. I'll start with the Virginia debate which took place last Monday evening. The debate appears to have been fairly boring, with little fanfare. Bloomberg provided a pretty good round up, from which I've excerpted below:

During the debate, McDonnell (R) sought to tie Deeds (D) to the push by the Obama administration to reduce emissions blamed for global warming through a limited number of permits that companies could trade and sell. McDonnell said the plan would raise utility costs by $1,700 per family, a claim that the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org has said is "not true." Deeds said McDonnell "wants this campaign to be decided on issues he's going to lie about." Source: Bloomberg

The issue of taxes seemed to have been largely ignored as was McDonnell's old graduate thesis. The focus of the debate was the state's economy; Deeds stated that Clinton and Obama better served the state's economy while McDonnell stated that the Bush's had done a better job. It's interesting that McDonnell explicitly stated that he support Bush era policies even though the state in which he is seeking has office voted against Bush's party for the first time in 44 years. The New Jersey candidates participated in a recorded debate last Friday, which was later broadcast on Saturday. The New York Times published an excellent synopsis of the debate:

Gov. Jon S. Corzine (D) chastised his two rivals (Christopher J. Christie, the Republican, and Christopher J. Daggett, the independent) for "trying to pretend that the recession is only in New Jersey," and warned that Mr. Christie would offer tax cuts to wealthy individuals and big businesses at the expense of middle-class families. Mr. Daggett criticized the governor's policies on taxes and spending and ridiculed Mr. Christie for proposing a variety of tax cuts without explaining what budget cuts he would use to pay for them. ... Mr. Christie, who focused most of his critique on Mr. Corzine, was not about to be upstaged by Mr. Daggett, who put in a strong performance in the first debate and has seen his poll numbers rise while Mr. Christie has seen his drop. Source: NY Times

Corzine appears to be aptly positioned to take the lead heading into the final weeks as Dagget continues to poll strongly. It's neck and neck, but Christie is trending in the wrong direction. The New Jersey race strongly mirrors Minnesota's 2008 Senate contest based upon the trend lines and the emergence of a legitimate third party candidate. There is tentatively one more Virginia debate, and the potential for two more New Jersey debates; the next of which will be on Thursday. More in a week.

Poll Update (10/12)

10/12/2009 6:37:54 PM CT

Numerous polls from this week, and a few last releases from last:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Neighborhood Research (R)	10/8/2009	35	36	29
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	10/7/2009	41	38	21
2009 New Jersey Governor	SurveyUSA	10/7/2009	40	43	17
2009 New Jersey Governor	NJ Assoc of State Colleges & Univ.	10/5/2009	38	43	19
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	10/5/2009	44	47	9
2009 New Jersey Governor	Fairleigh Dickinson	10/5/2009	38	37	25
2009 New Jersey Governor	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/30/2009	42	46	12
2009 Virginia Governor	Richmond Times, Mason Dixon	10/8/2009	40	48	12
2009 Virginia Governor	Washington Post	10/7/2009	44	53	3
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	10/4/2009	43	54	3

Nothing fundamentally changed; Corzine (D) still modestly trails while, Deeds (D) remains further behind: I first want to talk about the upcoming debate in Virginia. The debate started at 8 PM ET today, and is sponsored by the League of Women Voters and AARP. If you live in the Virginia viewing area, the debate should be broadcast on the NBC affiliate. This is a big stage for Deeds; he needs to directly address the issue of taxing as it relates to his transportation plan. He stumbled last debate and it appears to have hurt him in the polls. He must clarify his position if he still hopes to emerge victorious in just three short weeks. Moving North up the Atlantic Coast, the Lieutenant Gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey debated last Thursday. NJ.com has a brisk recap if you're interested. The discussion was apparently very heated and at times focused on Christie's (R) heavy set physique. I don't think this debate matters in any way shape or form. It's an off year election where most of the voting population probably hasn't tuned into the top of the ticket debates, to think that the Lieutenant Governor's debate affects public opinion is probably a step too far. Then on Saturday, the New Jersey Star-Ledger endorsed their candidate:

The Star-Ledger today endorses independent candidate Chris Daggett and recommends his election as the next governor of New Jersey. The newspaper's decision is less a rejection of Gov. Jon Corzine and Republican Chris Christie than a repudiation of the parties they represent, both of which have forfeited any claim to the trust and confidence of the people of New Jersey. They share responsibility for the state's current plight. Source: Star-Ledger Editorial Board at NJ.com

This is excellent news for Corzine, perhaps better than had he himself been endorsed. Dagget (I) appears to be drawing a fair amount of support away from Christie, while Corzine's baseline has remained steady. Dagget's (I) support seems to have consolidated after his esteemed debate performance on the first of the month. The next NJ debate takes place this Friday, October 16th. The three leading candidates will again take the stage, but this time at William Patterson University. The debate will be broadcast on TV and online through the NJ Network (PBS). I'll try and update the graphs to reflect Dagget's numbers but I'm not making any promises. More in a week.

Poll Update (10/5)

10/5/2009 11:36:00 PM CT

The latest round of Virginia polling accounts for September 18th's gubernatorial debate, while New Jersey's candidates hosted their first debate last Thursday:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Monmouth University, Gannett	9/29/2009	40	43	17
2009 New Jersey Governor	Quinnipiac University	9/28/2009	39	43	18
2009 Virginia Governor	Rasmussen Reports	9/29/2009	42	51	7
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	9/29/2009	41	55	4
2009 Virginia Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/28/2009	43	48	9

The current NJ projection will likely change when the public reaction from the first debate is factored into the polling; but for now Christie (R) still leads: I haven't watched the entire NJ debate, but a complete video is available [NJ Network] as well as a summary from the Washington Post. From what I have watched, the following exchange, as summarized by the Washington Post, reflects the dynamics of each candidate and the three main choices New Jerseyans will have come November 3rd:

If the race turned only on Corzine's record, he would probably lose. But Christie has vulnerabilities as well. He is a former U.S. attorney who made his reputation prosecuting politicians of both parties, and he has used those skills to prosecute the case against the incumbent. But he has yet to offer a credible plan to solve the budget woes. The next governor will face a budget deficit estimated at $8 billion. Christie has pledged he will not raise taxes, but cannot say how he would balance the budget without new revenue. He has identified possible areas, to cut but they fall short of what is necessary to get the job done. Corzine and independent candidate Chris Daggett scoffed at Christie's remedies. "Mr. Christie has no plan," Corzine said. "It's a fantasy." Daggett, who would cut some taxes but also significantly expand the state sales tax, chimed in: "It's easy to criticize when you have no plan of your own. . . . The tooth fairy is not going to come to solve this problem." Source: Washington Post

The New Jersey election seems to have been reduced to the following question: Would you rather stay on the current path, or try something completely new and unquantifiable? In the 2008 presidential election, New Jerseyans choose the later, by electing Obama, but will they remain loyal to the incumbent Democrat? This week we've seen a big change in Virginia polling. Last week the race was within two points, now there's a thirteen point spread: The National Review Online seems to attribute this sudden rise by McDonnell (R), and subsequent decline by Deeds (D) to a post-debate press conference. During the debate Deeds stated that he would "not raise taxes" to pay for his transportation plan, but afterward he appeared to flounder on the issue as evidenced in the following video: Creigh Deeds simply needed to take a position on whether to raise taxes to pay for his transportation plan, and he imploded. I don't think either position would have necessarily hurt him politically, but choosing and then changing his position definitely wasn't a good idea. The next debate is October 12th, and he better be prepared to clarify his position, by simply choosing a position, or he will lose this election. More in a week.

Poll Update (9/28)

9/28/2009 7:54:06 PM CT

The polling from New Jersey coalesced during the past week, while Virginia's numbers still seem to be transitioning:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	9/23/2009	39	40	21
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2009	41	48	11
2009 New Jersey Governor	Strategic Vision (R)	9/20/2009	38	46	16
2009 Virginia Governor	InsiderAdvantage	9/23/2009	44	48	8

Corzine (D) still trails by about seven points, but the last time the trend lines were parallel he was down by ten; Corzine has consolidated a net gain of three points in the last month. He will need to increase this rate of change within the next thirty-six days to win, but the race is clearly beginning to shift toward the Democrat in typical New Jersey fashion: The single new poll from Virginia simply serves to confirm the trend of the previous week. Deeds (D) is down by about two with a month left and anything could happen; but for the moment, McDonnell (R) has the advantage: This week I want to focus on the debate schedule for each gubernatorial election; I'll begin with Virginia. The Deeds and McDonnell campaigns have been pushing for various changes to the debate schedule, but for the moment there looks to be four debates scheduled. Two have already happened, but more on that later. Here's the current schedule:

Date                  Location           Recap
July 27th          VA Bar Assoc        WA-Times
September 12th*   Radio One Forum
September 17th      Fairfax COC     Times-Dispatch
October 12th         LWV/AARP
October ??             WSLS

[*] Appears to have been canceled.
Source: Bob McDonnell Press Release

Both Virginia campaigns are still debating about the debates, so things may change going forward, but for now this is the schedule. Now onto New Jersey and their more organized debate schedule. There are two debates sanctioned by the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission and potentially two more commissioned by the New Jersey Media markets:

Date             Sponsor        Location
October 1st      NJ ELNC      NJ Network TV
October 16th     NJ ELNC      Will Pat. Univ
October 22nd     WBGO FM          Radio
October ???*     ABC Affil      TV 7-8 PM

[*] Negotiations ongoing, Corzine (D) has
    not committed.
Source: NJ.com

Independent candidate Chris Dagget will also participate in all debates held within New Jersey. There will also be a debate between the Lieutenant Governor candidates on October 8th sponsored by the Leadership New Jersey Consortium. If you live in either New Jersey or Virginia I would highly encourage you to participate in the electoral process by watching or listening to the debates. More in a week.

Poll Update (9/21)

9/21/2009 6:49:40 PM CT

The tide has definitely shifted in the Commonwealth of Virginia with four new polls, as New Jersey's data remained fairly stagnant over the last week:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Neighborhood Research (R)	9/17/2009	33	37	30
2009 New Jersey Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/14/2009	35	44	21
2009 Virginia Governor	Washington Post	9/17/2009	47	51	2
2009 Virginia Governor	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/16/2009	43	50	7
2009 Virginia Governor	Rasmussen Reports	9/16/2009	46	48	6
2009 Virginia Governor	Clarus Research Group	9/14/2009	37	42	21

I really have nothing to say about New Jersey; Corzine (D) continues to trail having only lead in one partisan poll since February. Corzine has clearly solidified his base around 40, but Christie (R) has lost ground in the last month, likely due to the US Attorney's loan scandal. We really need more data to determine whether Christie's downside will continue. Virginia's 2009 Gubernatorial election just got interesting. Three non-partisan pollsters showed the race within five points at some point during the last week. The election is basically neck and neck according to our projection: The reason for McDonnell's (R) decline can almost certainly be traced to his 1989 thesis in which he stated that working women were "detrimental" to the family. Deeds' (D) effort to highlight this apparent weak point clearly paid dividends in the polls. I took a look at the two polls that provided publicly available cross tabs, Rasmussen Reports and the Washington Post in an attempt to glean more information about Deeds' surge. The basic post-thesis hypothesis is that Deeds' performance should have increased in the female voting bloc; unfortunately neither poll provided any gender specific information, at any level. More in a week.

Poll Update (9/14)

9/14/2009 10:48:59 PM CT

Three new polls from New Jersey, none from Virginia:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Monmouth University, Gannett	9/10/2009	39	47	14
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	9/9/2009	38	41	21
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	9/9/2009	38	46	16

Our projection didn't really change based upon these newest polls, but you can clearly see the race beginning to tighten: I don't have too much to say about this batch of polls as a whole, they all seem to acknowledge the current trends, but the Monmouth poll does contain some interesting auxiliary information. Monmouth University and Gannett conducted a data rich poll and actually divided their results based upon their assessment of a person's likelihood of voting on November 3rd. They released a likely voter sample and a registered voter sample; the results for each segment is below:

             Corzine (D)  Christie (R)  Dagget (I)
Registered     41%          40%           6%
Likely         39%          47%           5%

Corzine actually wins among registered voters, but gets drilled when voting likelihood is factored. The Monmouth report, linked above, addressed this issue:

Murray [of Monmouth] described the findings this way: "We know that voters who are less likely to go to the polls tend to be somewhat more Democratic in their leanings. However, we rarely see more than a few points difference in the ballot test results for all registered voters compared with just likely voters. The fact that such a notable discrepancy has shown up in two consecutive polls indicates that there is a decided lack of enthusiasm for the incumbent among the Garden State electorate. While we acknowledge that most of these 'unlikely' voters will never cast a ballot in this race, if the Corzine team can bump up turnout on Election Day by just a few percentage points, their chances of victory greatly increase." "At this point, the likely voter result is our best estimate of where the dynamics of this race stand at this time. We provide the registered voter results in the interest of furthering our understanding of the entire New Jersey electorate's concerns and motivations. The bottom line is that turnout always matters. It just may matter more in this election than usual." Source: Monmounth University/Gannet Sept 10th Poll of NJ [PDF]

The report did not specify the criteria used for determining whether a voter was likely to vote; this appears to have been determined by Braun Research, the telephone data collection agency used in the survey. This information is typically proprietary, but there are some generally accepted methods of determining voting likelihood. There are two main ways to determine the past voting record of an individual; you can either directly ask them, or you can make inferences based upon publicly available voter registration databases. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that states maintain an Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) and New Jersey is no exception; the list is public data, but is typically restricted to political uses. As a result, polling firms could request and then use this data to determine the recent voting pattern of an individual. If they voted in the last election, they may be flagged as a likely voter; other criteria is probably used, but this should give you a general idea as to how the separate samples are determined. The question of turnout still however remains and until the votes are counted, we will never definitively know who will vote and who won't. More in a week.

Sen. Grassley on Healthcare

9/8/2009 11:56:06 PM CT

Senator Charles Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, was nice enough to sit down with C-SPAN's Washington Journal show yesterday morning [9/8/09]. Sen. Grassley answered phone calls and questions pertaining to the health care debate. The full length video is presented below, and I would encourage you to watch it in its entirety. I have however excerpted crucial exchanges which I believe to be representative of Sen. Grassley's position as the main antagonist to health care reform. There are five main points that I would like to highlight from the roughly thirty three minute video. Each point is bolded within the excerpt; I'll respond to these bolded portions following each excerpt. You can also listen to the excerpt by advancing the slider bar in the video above to the corresponding time listed at the beginning of each excerpt. The first excerpt is below:

[TIME: 00:21:24] HOST: Let's go to Jonathan on the Republican's line, and he's calling from Wilmington, North Carolina. Go ahead Jonathan. CALLER: Thank you and good morning, and thank God for C-SPAN. Senator Grassley, the first question I would like to ask you is how long you have been a member of Congress? GRASSLEY (R, IA): This is my fifth term.... CALLER: This is your fifth term; so we're going on 30 years. Is that correct? GRASSLEY: This is my fifth term....Yes. CALLER: And six year terms, thats coming up on 30 years. When was the last time you had to decide whether you were going to buy food or health care for your children? Your salary in the Senate is about eight times what the average American makes. And to be honest, you live in a bubble and do not realize what the average American goes through. GRASSLEY: You asked me when the last time was. It would be from 1961 to 1971 when I was a member of the International Association of Machinists. I was an assembly line worker making furnace registers at Waterloo Register Company, Cedar Falls Iowa; and I spent ten years putting screw holes in furnace registers. During that period of time I had to worry about whether I was going to buy food or other things. And that was two jobs I had at that particular time. HOST: And did you struggle with health care at that time, with insurance? GRASSLEY: Well, I suppose I was like 20 year old people and early 30 year old people right now. I was never going to get sick, I never had any need for [health care]. So I think that I was probably, during that period of time, even though my company had a plan for us to join, I think I was seven or eight years of the ten years I spent there before I signed up for the health insurance plan.¹ If you're working where they have health insurance and you're 20 to 30 years old and you think you're never going to get sick, maybe that's true, but if you have a chance to have health insurance, you outta take it.² About four to five million people, of the 50 million people that don't have health insurance, are people that fall into that category of 20 to 30 years old. Source: CSPAN: Senator Grassley on Congressional Agenda

1. I would argue that Sen. Grassley's health care situation in the 1960s and '70s is financially incomparable. He stated that he earned $15,000 at some juncture between 1961-1971 later in the segment, so I'll use that amount for comparison purposes and assume that it was 1971. Several different metrics reveal that $15,000 in 1971 is worth about 60k in 2003 terms. Health care in 1971 cost $342 per capita and increased to $5,711 in 2003 according to the non profit Kaiser Family Foundation; a respected authority on health care research. Using the aforementioned data for 1971 and 2003 respectively we can show that the cost of health care as a percentage of Sen. Grassley's income quadrupled between 1971 and 2003. If 2009 data were available, the difference would likely be larger. It is, using 2003 dollars, currently four times more difficult to afford insurance than it was in 1971, using Sen. Grassley's situation. To illustrate this point graphically, I've plotted national health care expenditures as a function of national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over time. You'll notice that the GDP cost of health care has roughly doubled in the past 40 years: Source: US Department of Health and Human Services [*.zip 4KB] No matter what metric is used, health care is more expensive today than in years past. The increase in health care costs have outpaced the increase in wages during the same time period, thus leaving segments of the population with no alternative. Health care has simply become too expensive for some Americans and I think the general public has acknowledged this issue; Grassley appears to be an exception. 2. This is by far Sen. Grassley's most interesting statement of the entire interview/show. He presents a redundant set of logical tests governing the process of acquiring health care. He concludes that if somebody has access to health care, they should get health care. His initial logic can further be reduced to: if you have the capacity to afford health care, you will have health care; if you can't afford health care, you don't have health care. I know the situation is more complex than a binary choice scenario, but the fact that Sen. Grassley used if to proceed his statement highlights the need for reform. The ability to obtain health care within one's means should be a fundamental right, there should be no if. An individual's desire for health care treatment should not depend upon their, or anybody else's, financial situation. The right to affordable health care supports our declared right to life. The second excerpt follows and piggy-backs upon the first:

[TIME: 00:30:10] HOST: Let's go to Dee on the Democrats line calling from New Jersey. Go ahead Dee. CALLER Good morning. GRASSLEY: Good morning. CALLER: I just have a couple of things and a couple of questions. One is, a minute ago you said that it was 1971 the last time you had to worry about providing food for your family and for paying for health care. GRASSLEY: Yeah, let me explain why that was that way. Because prior to that time I was making about 15,000 dollars and then being elected to Congress and then making 42,000 at the time; that doubled my income.³ CALLER: Well sir, since that time, health insurance premiums have gone up about 400% for one thing, and the manufacturing base has been decimated since that time. There are fewer manufacturing - I mean the world has changed since then. So, that time, while relevant to you, is not relevant to most Americans who are struggling with those choices today. Secondly, you continue, and I've seen this in your town hall meetings, you continue to castigate Canada and other countries with single payer health care; well Canada is number six in life expectancy in the world. Japan where I lived for seven years, has single payer health care and is number two in the world. Singapore is number three and they have a system where they have private insurance competing with a public option and it has driven down costs in both directions. GRASSLEY: Well go to England, where people don't live as long as they do in the United States if they have cancer or go to Canada where you gotta wait three months to have an MRI. So if you have a headache, do you want to wait three months to find out if you have a brain tumor. Or why do so many people come across the lines to have MRIs when they can afford to get it right now. Why do you have to wait in line for a long time to have hip and knee replacement compared to what you have in the United States.⁴ Government run plan has x number of dollars they're going to spend on health care and when those x number of dollars don't go far enough then they erase you. So when you have a political decision and you only have one choice, the government's choice, and what we're trying to do here for the 50 million people that don't have health insurance is to give them choice by putting them into private insurance plans and that's why we don't want a public option. Because every expert on the subject says says that tens of millions of people, the lowest figure I've seen is 83 million, the highest figure I've seen is 120, are going to be pushed out of their health care plan into a government run plan. And when you do that, you soon have, everybody else's premiums go up, and pretty soon other people opt out and then pretty soon you have what the Congresswoman from Illinois said to a group that she was talking to who wanted a Canadian style single payer. We have to have a public option first because the American people won't go from what they have now to what they have in Canada so we have to have this interim stop over. But you know what their goal is? Their goal is to have the government run everything. And I don't think the government does a very good job of running the postal service for instance. So should they be running health care?⁵ Source: CSPAN: Senator Grassley on Congressional Agenda

3. Sen. Grassley has already falsely compared his plight to that of others, now he's providing his excuse; money. Sen. Grassley fails to comprehend the intricacies of his own health care situation. He has been a member of Congress since 1974, at which point he qualified for the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) of 1959; the plan does not provide government run healthcare it simply provides "the widest selection of [private] health plans in the country." Sen. Grassley hasn't had to worry about health care, in the same since as most American's, for the last 35 years because of this program. It also doesn't hurt to make more than 95% of the general population. Either one of these circumstances explains Sen. Grassley's inability to relate to the imperativeness of health care reform. 4. I think the caller makes a good point, although his factual assertions are slightly off base; for example Japan is third in average life expectancy, not second. The caller's main point was that these other countries with nationalized health care actually produce a higher standard of living, at least in terms of life expectancy, than does the US. Sen. Grassley was very dismissive of this argument and eagerly presented counter examples to the caller's claims. Sen. Grassley instantly focused on areas where these systems are inferior to the USA, rather than focusing on their advantages. I don't want you to tell me what doesn't work, or won't work, I want you to support what does work or could work. Japan, Singapore and Canada are obviously doing something right, as designated by their average life expectancies, it is your job as a Senator to determine what it is in order to better our country. 5. Grassley apparently doesn't know shit about the post office. If the health care plan passes and is as successful as the post office, 82% of American's will support its implementation.

Poll Update (9/8)

9/8/2009 1:27:57 PM CT

Today, the day after labor day, symbolically marks the start of the general election campaigns for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The urgency of each campaign will intensify as the voting population more strenuously begins to weigh their options. In the last week, five new polls have entered into the public domain, each of which seems to confirm the previous weeks' trend:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Quinnipiac University	8/30/2009	37	47	16
2009 New Jersey Governor	Fairleigh Dickinson	8/30/2009	42	47	11
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	9/3/2009	42	54	4
2009 Virginia Governor	Rasmussen Reports	9/1/2009	42	51	7
2009 Virginia Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	8/31/2009	42	49	9

Corzine (D, NJ) seems to have gained a few points in the last week, likely owing to Christie's (R, NJ) US Attorney General debacle. The New York Times presented an article on August 18th, detailing Christie's involvement in an unreported loan to a US Attorney. The Philadelphia Inquirer succinctly stated Christie's involvement:

This week, after a report on NJN public television, Christie acknowledged that he had failed to properly disclose lending a subordinate in the U.S. Attorney's Office $46,000. He admitted not paying taxes on the interest he received, and said he would correct his tax returns and financial-disclosure filings. Christie's replacement in the office, Ralph Marra, is under investigation, according to the Associated Press, to determine whether he made inappropriate public comments in support of Christie's campaign. And this month, it was disclosed that Christie had spoken to Karl Rove, a top strategist under President George W. Bush, about a possible run for governor. Democrats immediately accused Christie of violating the Hatch Act, which bars federal employees, including U.S. attorneys, from engaging in political activities. Source: Philidelphia Inquirer

Chrisitie's involvement in these incidents has now been know for over 20 days, but he still maintains a significant lead in the polls. New Jerseyans tend to shift toward the Democratic candidate as the election approaches, so this race may still tighten; but for the moment Christie appears to have dodged a crucial issue. On another New Jersey front, Independent candidate Chris Daggett released his first TV ad on Monday highlighting his ability to solve problems. When Daggett is included in the poll, the spread between Corzine and Christie is significantly less. While the Republican in New Jersey recently faced scrutiny, the storm seems to have passed; Bob McDonnell's (R, VA) is likely just beginning. On August 31, The Washington Post rehashed McDonnell's 1989 thesis as a graduate student at Regent University:

At age 34, two years before his first election and two decades before he would run for governor of Virginia, Robert F. McDonnell submitted a master's thesis to the evangelical school he was attending in Virginia Beach in which he described working women and feminists as "detrimental" to the family. He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples. Soucre: The Washington Post

McDonnell's thesis obviously takes a position against working women, which will likely hurt him among, well, working women. The ramifications of McDonnell's thesis have not yet been acknowledged in the form of a public poll. A poll detailing the aftermath of the Post's reporting has simply not been commissioned. Although the SurveyUSA poll was taken during Sept 1-3, I don't think the story had become widely understood during this time period. McDonnell continues to hold a substantial lead, and his Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds will no doubt focus on the thesis. McDonnell has since released a TV ad in response to the thesis issue; the ad basically contains political unicorns and rainbows. If McDonnell can get past his thesis, much like Chrisite overcame his unreported loan, the election is still easily within his grasp. Obama will speak to Congress tomorrow at 8 PM ET on the subject of Health Care Reform; I would encourage everybody to watch his speech. More in a week.

Poll Update (8/31)

8/31/2009 10:56:34 PM CT

Two new polls from New Jersey, but nothing from Virginia:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	8/26/2009	41	43	16
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	8/25/2009	42	50	8

There seems to be divergence amongst pollsters regarding the closeness of this race. Two partisan polls, the one from last week and the DemocracyCorps (D) poll from this week show the race essentially deadlocked. There has yet to be a poll from a pollster we consider to be non-partisan, that shows Corzine (D) within stricking distance as the two partisan polls suggest. Until the mainstream polls began to reflect a closer race, our projection will continue to favor Christie (R): Public Policy Polling (D) has their monthly Virginia poll in the works, so hopefully we'll have more Virginia data next week.

Poll Update (8/24)

8/24/2009 8:48:21 PM CT

Corzine (D) has apparently retaken the lead in the only new poll released in the last week; the poll is of questionable origins however:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Neighborhood Research (R)	8/21/2009	37	35	28

I found the associated polling report at PolitickerNJ.com along with the relevant description excerpted below. I've admitted the likely voter result into our database, as outlined within our methodology.

Republican Christopher Christie leads Gov. Jon Corzine 39%-36% among definite voters, according to a poll conducted by Neighborhood Research, a survey firm run by conservative strategist Rick Shaftan. Independent Christopher Daggett is at 6%. ... Among likely voters, Corzine leads Christie 37%-35%, with 6% for Daggett. [Emphasis added] "If Corzine gets his liberal/urban/Democratic base together he's going to open up a significant lead, forcing Christie to work the right," Shaftan wrote in his analysis. The poll was conducted between August 12-21 with a sample size of 319 and a margin of error of +/- 5.49%. The party breakout among respondents was 43% Democrat, 34% Republican, 23% unaffiliated. Source: PolitickerNJ.com

There are some concerns about the sample size and the error that raise questions about the accuracy of this poll. For example, I highly doubt Christie has an approval rating of 20 favorable and 27 unfavorable; a very high rejection rate of over 50%. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll of New Jersey gave Christie a favorability of 42 and an unfavorable result of 26; a more reasonable rejection ratio of about 30%. The results of this Neighborhood Research (R) poll may in fact be accurate, but the noted anomalies are too numerous to warrant serious consideration. Our projection remains unchanged due to the partisan affiliation of this newly inducted poll: If this poll were to be included into our projection, both candidates would converge around 38% with a very slight advantage to Christie. Virginia remained unchanged, polling wise. More in a week.

Senator Klobuchar's Tele-Townhall

8/23/2009 7:17:22 PM CT

Minnesota Senator, Amy Klobuchar (D) was supposed to have a tele-townhall today, at 7 PM according to her website:

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar will be hosting a live statewide tele-town hall meeting to discuss making health care more affordable and answer questions from her constituents. Joining her will be Dr. Denis Cortese, CEO of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester and Mary Wakefield, the highest ranking nurse in the federal government. The tele-town hall will be held on Sunday, August 23, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Central Time. If you have registered and have not recieved [sic] a call by 7:10 pm or have questions, please call our office at 1-888-224-9043. Source: Senator Amy Klobuchar's Townhall Registration Website

I signed up on Wednesday and waited for my automated call about 20 minutes ago. The phone rang at exactly 7 pm, but instead of hearing the townhall, I heard another recorded message:

Hi I'm senator Amy Klobachar, Tonight at 7:00 I hosted a live statewide health care townhall to discuss ways to make the American health care system more affordable and more stable. I was pleased to be joined by Dr. Corteez, head of Mayo Clinic and Mary Wake Field the highest ranking nurse in the federal government. I'm so sorry I missed you but I'd like to invite you to listen to the audio recording of our townhall meeting. It's going to be posted on my website at Klobacher.senate.gov. You can also click on the 10 ways to talk to me about health care link on our website and that ways you can find out about up coming events like when I'll be at the State Fair and share your thoughts on this issue with me if you haven't already. I really appreciate you being a part of our discussion on health care. Thank you. [Call ended.] Source: VoteForAmerica.net [MP3]

Why was I unable to join the tele-townhall? I then called the office number as provided on her townhall registration in an attempt to remedy the error, but I heard another automated message:

Automated Voice: The mailbox belonging to... Amy Klobuchar: Senator Amy Klobuchar's Office... Automated Voice: Is full. To disconnect press 1, to enter another number press 2. Source: VoteForAmerica.net [MP3]

Why can Senator's voice mail-boxes fill up? Despite my inability to participate in the tele-townhall, TheUpTake.org is streaming the townhall live, right now.

Poll Update (8/17)

8/17/2009 11:44:26 PM CT

After three rough weeks of polling for Jon Corzine (D), the tide may be shifting if this week's polls are to be trusted. Creigh Deeds (D) of Virginia however, still appears to be stuck in the sand:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Democracy Corps (D)	8/12/2009	35	40	25
2009 New Jersey Governor	Quinnipiac University	8/9/2009	40	46	14
2009 Virginia Governor	Washington Post	8/14/2009	39	54	7
2009 Virginia Governor	Rasmussen Reports	8/10/2009	41	49	10

Chris Daggett, the Independent candidate in the New Jersey election, broke into the double digits for the first time in Democracy Corps' (D) latest poll. If Daggett can pull down 10% of the electorate, as James McCarville's Democracy Corps (D) poll indicates, Corzine may have a fighting chance. The New Jersey election is beginning to resemble the Minnesota Senate Election of 2008 where Dean Barkley, an Independence Party Candidate (not the same as Daggett) altered the electoral landscape by capturing the disillusioned major party voters. If Daggett's support holds in the coming weeks, the election comes down to base turn-out, and in New Jersey, that favors the Democrat. This of course is a big if because it's just one poll and a series of extrapolations; but at this juncture, it may be Corzine's best opportunity at re-election. The landscape in Virginia continued to grow darker for Democrat Creigh Deeds as two new polls confirmed his diminishing numbers. He's been down by at least eight for the past month, with no indication of a reversal. Deeds needs something good to happen before the close of September. Both Democrats are down in the polls, but where do they stand in the money game? Answer; in about the same position. I'll start by providing the latest fundraising numbers out of New Jersey as reported on Jun 22, 2009:

                 Corzine (D)      Christie (R)
Receipts      $ 4,539,006.04   $  5,363,054.33
Expenditures  $ 4,539,006.04   $  5,170,238.97
Cash on Hand  $         0.00   $    192,815.36

Source: New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission The figures above contain data from the close of the primary period. The leading candidates each filed their report electronically, but Corzine used an R1 form and Christie a G1; the reason for this difference is unclear, but they both contain the same information. Daggett has yet to file a finance report, as he was not involved in a primary election; a result of his Independent platform. The next report will be due on Oct 5, 2009 from all general election candidates in New Jersey. Each major party candidate raised and spent about the same amount leaving little to no cash on hand. And although Christie holds a slight monetary edge, I do not believe this significantly contributed to his nine point lead. Other factors are at play, but I'm sure the money will help as Christie tries to maintain his lead. Corzine has also been known to spend his own money, so if the race gets truly close, money may buy the deciding votes. I should also state that I am by no means an expert on campaign finance law within New Jersey, Virginia or any other state for that matter. With that being said lets move onto Virginia's fundrace as of Jun 30, 2009:

                  Deeds (D)      McDonnell (R)
Receipts      $ 6,207,533.60   $ 10,673,988.44
Expenditures  $ 3,486,182.65   $  5,753,365.35
Cash on Hand  $ 2,721,350.95   $  4,920,623.09

Source: Virginia State Board of Elections Deeds was out raised and out spent during the primary period but the raw data may misrepresent the fundraising dynamics of this gubernatorial election. The nearly 2:1 discrepancy can be explained by the presence of a rigorous Democratic Primary where the donors were split into three campaigns; as opposed to McDonnell's (R) coronation as the only interested candidate. The combined candidacies of the Democratic primary actually out raised McDonnell during this time period. The monetary advantage for McDonnell in the past couple of months likely played a major role in his recent surge. McDonnell was simply able to focus more time and money on the general election at an earlier point in time. The direct result of this conclusion translates into his comfortable lead in the polls. If Deeds and the DNC, along with Tim Kaine, can get the Democratic fundraising machine on track, the race will likely tighten, but Virginians may have already made up their mind. More in a week.

Poll Update (8/10)

8/10/2009 8:36:50 PM CT

Six new polls in the last week, and they each reaffirm the trend we started to see in our last report. The Democrats in each gubernatorial race face an uphill climb:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	8/5/2009	40	48	12
2009 New Jersey Governor	Rasmussen Reports	8/4/2009	37	50	13
2009 New Jersey Governor	Monmouth University, Gannett	8/2/2009	36	50	14
2009 New Jersey Governor	Global Strategy Group (D)	7/30/2009	35	42	23
2009 Virginia Governor	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	8/5/2009	43	51	6
2009 Virginia Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	8/3/2009	37	51	12

Virginia remains unchanged from a week ago due to the partisan affiliation of the two pollsters listed above, but our New Jersey model has since given Corzine (D) a 0% chance of reelection: The inclusion of this week's polls seemed to clarify the direction of each gubernatorial race. Corzine has all but lost, and Deeds (D) trails by a significant but non-critical margin. All four candidates know where they currently stand, two hope to maintain the status quo and two hope to change it. Because of this dynamic, the strategy becomes more important than the candidate. Let's take a quick look at each candidate's campaign manager: Maggie Moran, Corzine (D): This will be Maggie Moran's first foray into campaign management at any level, although she does have fairly extensive experience within the politicking world. She was a senior advisor during Corzine's first successful run at governor as a well as the NJ State Director for US Senator Franken Lautenberg (D) for several years. She clearly has political know how, but is it enough to erase the current deficit? Probably not. Bill Stepien, Christie (R): Bill Stepien has managed several successful state level campaigns for Republican candidates in New Jersey. He also managed Bob Frank's (R) failed bid for the US Senate in 2000 against Corzine. He was also the National Field Director for John McCain's and Rudy Giuliani's 2008 Presidential bids. Stepien clearly has the experience and the lead this time around. I would expect the Christie campaign to soften the dialogue in an attempt to prevent something stupid. Although the McCain and Giuliani campaigns melted down, Stepien wasn't responsible for the campaign's message, this time around he is. Can he avoid doing something catastrophically stupid? Probably. Joe Abbey, Deeds (D) Joe Abbey is another Democratic rookie, but he has considerably more experience than Moran. Abbey was the Deputy Campaign Manager for Mark Warner's (D) successful 2008 US Senate Election, a candidate who realistically didn't need a campaign manager. He has also ran a number of state level elections with varying degrees of success. If Abbey can run a successful issues based campaign and really promote voter turnout, Deeds should win. Whether this can actually be done remains the question. Phil Cox, McDonnell (R) There is relatively little information about Phil Cox, but a google search reveals possible connections with disgraced and now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. These ties came up in the 2005 Virginia General Assembly Election in which Deeds lost to McDonnell by 350 votes; Cox was McDonnell's campaign manager in that race as well. Unless some new information emerges, this pseudo-scandal is unlikely to affect the Governor's race. More in a week. I'm tentatively planning to look at the money race.

Poll Update (8/3)

8/3/2009 7:18:06 PM CT

Just two new polls in the last week, one from each gubernatorial election, and each shows the Democratic candidate a significant distance behind:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
2009 New Jersey Governor	Public Policy Polling (D)	7/27/2009	36	50	14
2009 Virginia Governor	SurveyUSA	7/28/2009	40	55	5

Last week I said Corzine (D) had run out of life lines, and that really hasn't changed; but now he is in better shape than his fellow Democrat in Virginia, Creigh Deeds. They each trail by more than 8 points according to our most up-to-date polling models: Deeds' deficit is almost entirely based upon the most recent poll at this point, in part due to our methodology and in part due to the spread of the most recent survey. Both of these factors may be artificially inflating McDonnell's lead. The SurveyUSA poll is in all likelihood an outlier, but our model doesn't know the difference; the most recent poll receives the most weight. The SurveyUSA poll may also be at fault; the sample appears to skew toward people who voted for McCain by about 9 points, but Obama won Virginia by 6 points last November. This demographic discrepancy would explain the sudden drop in support for the Democrat, or it could indicate that many Obama voters don't care to participate in the off year election as SurveyUSA screens for likely voters. Corzine is screwed, he's lost the Democratic establishment in New Jersey:

WNBC-TV's Brian Thompson reported last night that South Jersey Democratic Leader George Norcross wants Corzine to drop his re-election bid so that the party can replace him on the ballot. Some Democrats are worried that Republicans might win their first statewide election in a dozen years. One Corzine advisor acknowledged that he has heard talk among Democrats about the governor changing his mind about re-election, but says that Corzine is not considering a withdrawal. Source: WNBC-TV via PolitickerNJ.com

There are several possible replacements in the hangar and some pollster appears to be conducting a what if replacement poll for Corzine. More in a week.

Poll Update (7/27): Governor Preview

7/27/2009 7:58:10 PM CT

The odd year election cycle of 2009 is fast approaching with two gubernatorial races entering the national scene. New Jersey and Virginia will steal the '09 spotlight, but several large cities will conduct mayoral elections and at least one House Seat will be up for grabs. The depth of public polling is however limited to the two Gubernatorial elections for the moment, and I don't suspect this will change. I've compiled gubernatorial election polling released so far in 2009 and applied our projection methodology. The resulting conclusions, along with each poll, is depicted in the graphs below. The graphs are dynamically updated upon the inclusion of a new poll, and embeddable. The complete list of polling data is available on our Polls and Graphs page with the gubernatorial elections prefixed with "2009" on the Race drop down list. HTML Code:


<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor#Results"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor" alt="VoteForAmerica.net 2009 New Jersey Gubernatorial Election" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:


[url=http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor#Results][img]http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 New Jersey&Election=Governor[/img][/url]

HTML Code:


<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor#Results"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor" alt="VoteForAmerica.net 2009 Virginia Gubernatorial Election" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:


[url=http://voteforamerica.net/polls.aspx?Race=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor#Results][img]http://voteforamerica.net/chart.aspx?State=2009 Virginia&Election=Governor[/img][/url]

I've got two quick pieces of analysis, one for each state and I'll preface my comments by stating that I know very little about each state and next to nothing about the candidates. I can however provide demographic and historical perspectives. Let's begin with New Jersey; Democratic Incumbent Jon Corzine currently trails by about 8 percent. A back-analysis of our 2008 Senate projections reveals that just two candidates overcame an 8 percent deficit in mid-July and they were both the challenger rather than the incumbent; Hagan (D) in North Carolina and Merkley (D) in Oregon. A Corzine victory would not be unprecedented, but given the political environment of an odd year election, where nobody cares, it seems unlikely. Our model currently gives Corzine just a 1.05% chance of victory. Virginia features a much more competitive, incumbent-less field in a state trending heavily blue. The Republican Candidate, Bob McDonnell currently has the upper hand as Creigh Deeds' primary bounce seems to be subsiding; but with that being said, neither candidate has obtained inevitability. The biggest wild card in this election will be the contribution of the Democratic National Committee which is currently chaired by the present Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine. If Deeds and Kaine can effectively leverage the Democratic base in Virginia, they should easily win. McDonnell's strategy is simple, stay ahead and hope election fatigue sets in, thus diminishing Democratic turnout. In either case, the victor of the next month will likely be the victor at the end of three months. I'll post a polling update every Monday from now until November 3rd with the latest polls and analysis pertaining to the two gubernatorial elections of 2009. If another race produces fluid polling data, I'll incorporate that data as well, but I just don't see it happening.

Franken Wins, Coleman Concedes

6/30/2009 2:03:16 PM CT

The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the ECC's ruling, which declared Franken the winner, late Tuesday morning. The 32 page order, issued unanimously by the five presiding justices, marked the end of Minnesota's 2008 Senatorial Election. An excerpted summary of the order is presented below followed by Norm Coleman's concession speech:

Filed: June 30, 2009 ... SYLLABUS 1. Appellants [Coleman] did not establish that, by requiring proof that statutory absentee voting standards were satisfied before counting a rejected absentee ballot, the trial court's decision constituted a post-election change in standards that violates substantive due process. 2. Appellants did not prove that either the trial court or local election officials violated the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. 3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded additional evidence. 4. Inspection of ballots under Minn. Stat. § 209.06 (2008) is available only on a showing that the requesting party cannot properly be prepared for trial without an inspection. Because appellants made no such showing here, the trial court did not err in denying inspection. 5. The trial court did not err when it included in the final election tally the election day returns of a precinct in which some ballots were lost before the manual recount. Affirmed. OPINION PER CURIAM. [Unanimous 5-0 decision.] Appellants, incumbent Republican United States Senator Norm Coleman and Cullen Sheehan, filed a notice of election contest under Minn. Stat. § 209.021 (2008), challenging the State Canvassing Board's certification that Democratic-Farmer-Labor challenger Al Franken was entitled to receive a certificate of election as United States Senator following the November 4, 2008 general election. After a trial, the three-judge trial court we appointed to hear the election contest issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order for judgment, concluding that Franken received 312 more legally cast votes than Coleman and that Franken was entitled to a certificate of election for the office of United States Senator. The question presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in concluding that Al Franken received the most legally cast votes in the election for United States Senator. Because we conclude that appellants have not shown that the trial cour's findings of fact are clearly erroneous or that the court committed an error of law or abused its discretion, we affirm. ... I We turn first to the question of whether Coleman's right to substantive due process under the United States Constitution has been violated. Whether Coleman's right to substantive due process was violated is a question of law, which we review de novo. State v. Netland, 762 N.W.2d 202, 207 (Minn. 2009). ... We conclude that our existing case law requires strict compliance by voters with the requirements for absentee voting. Thus, we reject Coleman's argument that only substantial compliance by voters is required. Having rejected this argument, we also conclude that the trial court's February 13 order requiring strict compliance with the statutory requirements for absentee voting was not a deviation from our well-established precedent. ... II We next examine Coleman's argument that the constitutional guarantee of equal protection was violated in this case.12 Coleman's equal protection argument is two-fold. First, he argues that the differing application and implementation by election officials of the statutory requirements for absentee voting violated equal protection. Essentially, Coleman contends that similarly situated absentee ballots were treated differently depending on the jurisdiction in which they were cast and that this disparate treatment violated equal protection. Second, Coleman contends that equal protection was violated when the trial court adhered to the statutory requirements for acceptance of absentee ballots, in contrast to the practices of local jurisdictions during the election. ... The trial court found that election judges applied the election laws in a consistent and uniform manner. The court found that election jurisdictions adopted policies they deemed necessary to ensure that absentee voting procedures would be available to their residents, in accordance with statutory requirements, given the resources available to them. The court also found that differences in available resources, personnel, procedures, and technology necessarily affected the procedures used by local election officials reviewing absentee ballots. But the court found that Coleman did not prove that these differences were calculated to discriminate among absentee voters. Our review of the record convinces us that the trial court's findings are supported by the evidence and are not clearly erroneous. As a result, we conclude that Coleman did not prove his equal protection claim. ... The trial court concluded that Bush is distinguishable in several important respects and, as a result, does not support Coleman's equal protection claim. We agree. In Bush, the Supreme Court specifically noted that it was not addressing the question of "whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections." 531 U.S. at 109. Variations in local practices for implementing absentee voting procedures are, at least in part, the question at issue here. As previously noted, the trial court here found that the disparities in application of the statutory standards on which Coleman relies are the product of local jurisdictions" use of different methods to ensure compliance with the same statutory standards; that jurisdictions adopted policies they deemed necessary to ensure that absentee voting procedures would be available to their residents, in accordance with statutory requirements, given the resources available to them; and that differences in available resources, personnel, procedures, and technology necessarily affected the procedures used by local election officials in reviewing absentee ballots. As we noted previously, Coleman has not demonstrated that these findings are clearly erroneous. ... III Coleman next contends that the trial court improperly excluded (1) evidence of absentee ballots accepted on election day and in the manual recount that would not satisfy the standards established by the trial court, and (2) evidence of disparities among jurisdictions in their application of the statutory standards governing absentee ballots. We review the trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Peterson v. BASF Corp., 711 N.W.2d 470, 482-83 (Minn. 2006). ... In enacting section 204C.13, subd. 6, particularly in light of our interpretation of the same language in Bell, the legislature made a policy decision to limit challenges to an absentee ballot, once it is separated from its return envelope and deposited in the ballot box, to challenges based on the face of the ballot. We conclude that the trial court ruled correctly that Minnesota law provides no remedy for wrongly accepted absentee ballot return envelopes once those envelopes have been opened and the ballots inside deposited in the ballot box. Accordingly, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. ... As we have explained, in order to prevail on his equal protection claim, Coleman was required to prove intentional or purposeful discrimination on the part of either local election officials or the trial court. But Coleman does not contend that the additional evidence he sought to introduce would have proven intentional or purposeful discrimination on the part of any election officials or the trial court. We therefore conclude that in excluding this evidence, the court did not abuse its discretion. IV Coleman also claims that the trial court erred in denying his petition for inspection of ballots for certain precincts in which he alleges that double-counting of ballots occurred. The trial court concluded that Coleman had not met his burden to show that an inspection was needed to prepare for trial, noting Coleman's concession at the hearing on the petition that he would be able to prove his case without an inspection, by calling election judges as witnesses and by subpoenaing voter rolls and ballots. The court also concluded that inspections under Minn. Stat. § 209.06 (2008) are limited to the ballots themselves and do not include voter rolls or other election materials sought by Coleman. Finally, the court noted that the parties had already reviewed the ballots during the manual recount. ... Coleman conceded at the hearing on the petition for inspection, and does not dispute here, that he could prove his claim of double-counting by subpoenaing the ballots and election materials and by subpoenaing witnesses to testify. This concession negates any claim that he made the required showing of necessity and any contention that he was prevented from proving his case by denial of the inspection. Coleman called no witnesses with direct knowledge of the handling of duplicate ballots in the relevant precincts, but he did introduce at trial voter rosters, envelopes from accepted absentee ballots, copies of ballots challenged during the manual recount, and machine tapes from the identified precincts in which he alleges double-counting of absentee ballots occurred. On appeal, Coleman has identified nothing additional that an inspection of ballots under section 209.06 would have produced.21 We therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for inspection. V Finally, Coleman contends that the trial court erred when it ruled that missing ballots from Minneapolis Ward 3, Precinct 1, were properly included in the State Canvassing Board's January 5, 2009 certification of legally cast votes. During the manual recount, election officials could locate only four of the five envelopes of ballots from Minneapolis Ward 3, Precinct 1. Voting machine tapes showed a total of 2,028 ballots cast and counted in the precinct on election day, but only 1,896 ballots from the precinct were available for the recount, a difference of 132 ballots. The State Canvassing Board determined that an envelope of ballots had been lost and, rather than certify only 1,896 votes in the recount, accepted the election day returns for that precinct. ... Coleman articulates no compelling reason why that same principle should not apply here. The ballots are missing, but Coleman introduced no evidence of foul play or misconduct, and the election day precinct returns are available to give effect to those votes. We hold that the trial court did not err in ruling that the election day precinct returns for Minneapolis Ward 3, Precinct 1, were properly included in the tally of legally cast votes. VI For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota. Affirmed. Source: Supreme Court Order via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

There are several interesting statements by the MN Supreme Court Justices, most notably the second excerpted paragraph under section III, but any relevance was minimized following Norm Coleman's fifteen minute address to the people of Minnesota: Within his concession speech, Norm Coleman congratulated "Senator Franken," thanked his supporters and addressed his political future with the following statement: "soon, I presume sometime, we'll get through July fourth, sometime next week. We'll talk a little about what my future is." Coleman also suggested that Governor Tim Pawlenty would sign the Election Certificate because "for all Minnesotans, this is a time to look forward." Al Franken is scheduled to address the media at 4:15 CT live on CSPAN. Update [4:24 PM CT]: "I'm not going to Washington to be the 60th Democratic Senator, I'm going to Washington to be the 2nd Senator from the State of Minnesota." Update [4:26 PM CT]: "I can't tell you when I'll be seated, but I think it'll be early next week." Update [4:27 PM CT]: "He [Coleman] couldn't be more gracious." Update [4:28 PM CT]: Al will be a member of the following committees, "Health Education Labor and Pensions which I'm very happy about. I'll be on Judiciary, I'll be Indian Affairs which I asked for and Aging; which I think dovetails nicely with Health Education Labor and Pensions." Update [4:29 PM CT]: "I will be entering with a great deal of humility." Update [4:30 PM CT]: "I hope we do get President Obama's agenda through." Update [4:32 PM CT]: "This [process] has been as thorough and as transparent and painstaking as possible." Update [4:33 PM CT]: "I'm going to be working for every Minnesotan and I'm going to be thinking about that everyday when I wake up." Update [4:33 PM CT]: "I probably won't be in Washington until early next week." Update [4:35 PM CT]: Franken's complete speech is available below: Franken will become the 100th United States Senator "early next week." The legal process is over, Minnesota has its second Senator.

A GOP Operative's Request

6/29/2009 1:52:24 PM CT

The Minnesota Supreme Court is still deliberating on Norm Coleman's latest appeal in the drawn out Senate Election of 2008; but at this point their ruling merely appears to be a legal formality. Even Minnesota's Republican Governor, Tim Pawlenty, has indicated his intent to adhere to the MNSC's ruling by signing the Election Certificate should Al Franken be declared the victor. With a ruling likely to come this week or next, Al Franken seems poised to become the legal victor, and there isn't anything anybody can do about it. Michael Brodkorb of MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com does however seem intent on altering the public's perception. On June 8th, just five days before his election as the new Deputy Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party, he filed public data practice requests with seven of Minnesota's counties seeking photocopies of rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Brodkorb filed his two page request with the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Olmsted, Sherburne and Washington, and the cities of Edina, Minnetonka, Orono and Plymouth. The following excerpt contains the request sent to Anoka County:

Michael Brobkorb
[Poorly Redacted Address] June 8, 2008 Rachel Smith
Anoka County
325 E Main St W130
Anoka, MN 55303-2465
Re: Data Practices Request This correspondence is a request for access to public information and data relating to the 2008 general election for United States Senator in your county under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act ("MGDPA"), Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Minnesota Statutes § 15.17 requires all government entities to make and maintain all records relative to their official activities. Minnesota Statutes § 13.03, subdivision 1 requires all government entities to keep records that contain government data in a way (or ways) that makes the data easily accessible for convenient use. The undersigned requests copies of that portion of the front side of all ballots relative to the 2008 United States Senate general election contained within rejected absentee ballot envelopes in your possession that were not submitted late and were not submitted by persons who otherwise voted in the 2008 general election (either in person or by replacement absentee ballot). This request does not seek to have the undersigned open or unseal any absentee ballot envelopes; to the extent any such envelopes have not yet been opened, the undersigned requests that an election judge do so. This request also does not seek access to any data regarding any individuals, including voter registration applications, voter registration lists or any other information related thereto and subject to restricted access under Minnesota Statutes § 201.091. Finally, this request does not seek copies of the absentee ballot envelopes themselves or any accompanying materials, such as absentee ballot applications. In short, this request in no way seeks to ascertain which person(s) voted for which candidate(s). The request can be easily complied with while protecting the secrecy of the ballots. This information/data is clearly public information under the MGDPA. As you know, Minn. Stat. § 13.03, subdivision 1 provides that all government data collected, created, received or maintained is public information unless classified by statute, federal law or temporary classification as confidential, private, nonpublic or protected nonpublic data. No such classification exists for the information requested. No Minnesota statute provides that the ballots contained within uncounted rejected absentee ballot envelopes is nonpublic or private information if opened by an election judge; although Minnesota law requires you to securely maintain all election materials, no Minnesota statute exists which denies the public the right to inspect and/or receive copies of the ballots contained within rejected absentee ballot envelopes. As the agency with jurisdiction over all ballots and election materials within your county, it is your duty to comply with data practices requests under the MGDPA and the undersigned is not aware of any statutory or other authority which prohibits you from opening the rejected absentee ballot envelopes while maintaining the secrecy of each person's intended vote for the purposes of complying with this request. There is simply no risk whatsoever that the secrecy of any ballot(s) will be compromised. Again, this request seeks only a photocopy of the section of ballots relative to the 2008 general election for United States Senator contained within certain rejected absentee ballot envelopes in your possession or under your control and in no way seeks to ascertain which person(s) voted for which candidate(s). ... Thank you. Sincerely, Michael B. Brodkorb [emphasis added] Source: Data Practices Request to Anoka County via Minnesota Democrats Exposed [PDF]

There are several catastrophic assumptions and falsehoods located within Brodkorb's meager request. I've bolded the fallacious and contradictory portions from his request above and will now address each item below. Let's begin by addressing the issue raised within the first bolded portion; the need for an election judge to open the requested ballots. This triggers two questions, the first of which I will now address. It is necessary for an election judge to open the currently sealed and rejected absentee ballots because of MN § 13.37:

13.37 GENERAL NONPUBLIC DATA. Subd. 2. Classification. The following government data is classified as nonpublic data with regard to data not on individuals, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 9, and as private data with regard to data on individuals, pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12: Security information; trade secret information; sealed absentee ballots prior to opening by an election judge; sealed bids, including the number of bids received, prior to the opening of the bids; parking space leasing data; and labor relations information, provided that specific labor relations information which relates to a specific labor organization is classified as protected nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 13. [emphasis added] Source: 13.37, 2008 Minnesota Statutes via Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes 13.02 COLLECTION, SECURITY, AND DISSEMINATION OF RECORDS; DEFINITIONS. Subd. 9. Nonpublic data. "Nonpublic data" means data not on individuals that is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not accessible to the public; and (b) accessible to the subject, if any, of the data. ... Subd. 12. Private data on individuals. "Private data on individuals" means data which is made by statute or federal law applicable to the data: (a) not public; and (b) accessible to the individual subject of that data. Source: 13.02, 2008 Minnesota Statutes via Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes

Minnesota § 13.37 essentially states that unopened absentee ballots are private data and are therefore inaccessible to the general public. The subject of this request, rejected absentee ballots, are currently unopened and therefore qualify for protection under § 13.37. Brodkorb may think he is circumventing § 13.37 by explicitly asking the election judges to open his requested ballots, but data practice requests do not fall within the duties of elections judges with regard to opening absentee ballots. In fact the only mechanism by which absentee ballots can be opened by an election judge falls within the jurisdiction of § 203B.12:

203B.12 ELECTION JUDGES TO RECEIVE AND COUNT BALLOTS. Subd. 4. Placement in container; opening and counting of ballots. The ballot envelopes from return envelopes marked "Accepted" shall be placed by the election judges in a separate absentee ballot container. The container and each ballot envelope may be opened only after the last regular mail delivery by the United States postal service on election day. The ballots shall then be initialed by the election judges in the same manner as ballots delivered by them to voters in person and shall be deposited in the appropriate ballot box. [emphasis added] Source: 203B.12, 2008 Minnesota Statutes via Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes

The rejected absentee ballots requested by Brodkorb are not marked with "Accepted" by definition because they were "Rejected" under § 203B.12 subd 2. As a result of their current "Rejected" status, the absentee ballots in question would never qualify for the "separate absentee ballot container" and could therefore never be opened by an election judge. At this point, the first half of Brodkorb's argument is clear; he wants election officials to open his requested rejected ballots. Brodkorb then justifies this request by stating, in the second bolded portion, that the ballots then become public data if they are opened by election officials. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense; he is attempting to justify one action with another. The rejected ballots are private data, so to make them public, an election judge needs to open them; but an election judge cannot open them because they are rejected. Brodkorb's entire argument is circular and without merit. After seventeen days, Brodkorb posted a follow-up to his data practice requests:

I have received responses to all of my requests for public data and every county and city has denied my request. I'm reviewing my options and I'll have updates on this subject in the next 24 hours on Minnesota Democrats Exposed. Source: Update: MDE Exclusive: Data Practices Request Filed Today Requesting Copies of Certain Rejected Absentee Ballots via Minnesota Democrats Exposed

Brodkorb's request appears to have been flatly denied by each jurisdiction. He does however have at least one other option. Brodkorb could bring forth an action to compel discovery of these rejected ballots in accordance with MN § 13.03 subd. 6. I don't know how this would work, or if rejected absentee ballots even qualify for discoverability. It will be interesting to see if Brodkorb continues to pursue these data practice requests when he becomes the new Deputy Chair of the Minnesota Republican Party this Wednesday.

Realtime Results From Iran and USA

6/24/2009 9:15:38 AM CT

On June 12th, 85 percent of eligible Iranian voters cast a presidential ballot; on June 13th, many of these same citizens took to the streets to protest the apparent reelection of Ahmadinejad. The final vote tally, as reported by Juan Cole, a prominent Middle East expert and History Professor at the University of Michigan, is below:

So here is what Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said Saturday about the outcome of the Iranian presidential elections: "Of 39,165,191 votes counted (85 percent), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election with 24,527,516 (62.63 percent)." He announced that Mir-Hossein Mousavi came in second with 13,216,411 votes (33.75 percent). Mohsen Rezaei got 678,240 votes (1.73 percent) Mehdi Karroubi with 333,635 votes (0.85 percent). He put the void ballots at 409,389 (1.04 percent). Source: Stealing the Iranian Election via JuanCole.com

Despite the veil of electoral authenticity, rather large anomalies have been identified. Juan Cole quickly provided circumstantial evidence while the academic folks took a little more time completing their peer-reviewed papers. A consensus has emerged, even the Iranian State TV has acknowledged discrepancies in the election. The purpose of this article is to invalidate the preliminary claims of election fraud in Iran. The first attempt came in the form of a graph popularized by The Atlantic columnist Andrew Sullivan. A composite of the original graphs is presented below; the multiple colors depict different perspectives on the same data set: Andrew Sullivan posted multiple versions of this graph to his blog on June 13th. From the various versions it became clear that the data source was consistent, but the application varied. Iran's Entekhab News and web based TehranBureau.com both used the election results provided by JameJamOnline.ir to create their graphs; which were later referenced by Sullivan. The percent of the vote reported at each given coordinate is calculated with respect to the final two-way vote total; the reporting percent is overlaid near its associated coordinate. It is also important to note that there are two data sets. One is blue and has six dots while the other is red and has seven dots; the other red dots are exactly hidden behind the six blue points. I will now provide four additional facts which have not be explicitly stated; these facts are either crucial to the creation or subsequent interpretation of the original graphs: 1. Ahmadinejad's vote total is represented by the X-axis and Mousavi's vote total by the Y-axis. 2. Entekhab News plotted [PNG] seven data points while TehranBureau's graph [PNG] excluded the first data point, while using the other six. 3. The regression technique is a linear least-squares approximation that is not forced through the origin. Ideally, the linear equations should pass through the origin; because at some point in time, before any votes have been counted, both candidates have zero votes. 4. The original source JameJamOnline.ir is written in Farsi, a language I cannot read; because of this, the coordinates for the data points were not explicitly available. TehranBureau provided [PNG] coordinates for the six data points they used, but the first point used by Entekhab News is still unavailable. It was however possible to use the least-squares equation depicted on their graph and the other six points to determine a very reliable estimate[*] for the first by reversing the regression. The coordinates used on the above graph are presented below:

    Report %   Ahmadinejad      Mousavi       Two Way
     12.98*      3,469,534     1,429,332      4,898,867
     26.45       7,027,919     2,955,131      9,983,050
     39.37      10,230,478     4,628,912     14,859,390
     54.55      14,011,664     6,575,844     20,587,508
     62.10      15,913,256     7,526,117     23,439,373
     66.50      16,974,382     8,124,690     25,099,072
     72.15      18,302,924     8,929,232     27,232,156

     Final      24,527,516    13,216,411     37,743,927

By applying the data within fact #4, it becomes clear that the graph only encompasses about 45% or 60% of the total vote for the six and seven point graphs respectively. The entire analysis takes place within this region; the respective linear correlations are only valid within these ranges. Sullivan initially referenced the Entekhab News version but it was not and still is not useful due to the language barrier; Sullivan would later reference the English analysis by TehranBureau.com. Judging from their about page, TehranBureau.com shares strong ties with the Columbia Journalism School and features a slew of qualified contributors. Muhammad Sahimi, a chemical engineer and TehranBureau contributor, provided the following analysis on the six point graph:

The vertical axis (y) shows Mr. Mousavi's votes, and the horizontal (x) the President's [Ahmadinejad]. R^2 shows the correlation coefficient: the closer it is to 1.0, the more perfect is the fit, and it is 0.9995, as close to 1.0 as possible for any type of data. Statistically and mathematically, it is impossible to maintain such perfect linear relations between the votes of any two candidates in any election - and at all stages of vote counting. This is particularly true about Iran, a large country with a variety of ethnic groups who usually vote for a candidate who is ethnically one of their own. Source: Faulty Election Data via TehranBureau.com

[The referenced article has since been removed from TehranBureau.com] Muhammad Sahimi's assertion is not well received and lacks any proper causation; especially given the 45% window of relevance. In fact his "impossible" claim appears to be baseless when compared to relevant data from the 2008 Presidential Election in the USA. I intend to reproduce the high R^2 value using real-time data I collected on November 4th, 2008. The reported vote totals from each state were queued for download about 400 times an hour from MSNBC.com; data was collected in a circular queue as fast as possible. This does not mean that I have a complete set of data; networking and storage issues created significant discontinuities within the data, especially as the night progressed. MSNBC was used as the source because it was the only website that presented the election results as pure HTML; CNN, CBS, et al. used an asynchronous reporting scheme that prohibited the automated retrieval of their reported election results. Using some of this data, primarily from the East Coast, I will prove that a linear trend with a very high R^2 is the expected outcome of such a graph. Let's first begin by analyzing Kentucky, one of the first states to begin reporting results. The state of Kentucky lies across the Eastern and Central time zones; about half the state's polls closed at 6 ET and the other half at 7 ET. The graph below illustrates the number of votes received by each presidential candidate with respect to the time at which they were recorded; I began collecting data from all states at around 6:40 CT. The graph below depicts each US candidate's vote total as a function of time and looks decisively non-linear, as many would expect: The graph above simply intends to illustrate the discontinuities and imperfections of our data set in a more logical format. The graph above is not supposed to resemble the Iran graph; the version intended for comparison, using Kentucky data, is presented below: From simple inspection, the Kentucky graph appears to be reasonably linear, clearly depicting a strong similarity to the Iran graph of internet lore. Although the R^2 is slightly lower than its TehranBureau counterpart, an R^2 value of .9995 still remains plausible. I would argue that Kentucky represents an acceptable microcosm of "ethnic groups," but other factors may be at play. Kentucky may be the norm or it may be the exception, the only way to find out is by analyzing more data. I conducted the same analysis using Virginia's data; first the votes vs. time graph from Virginia for a glimpse at our data set: The Virginia data is clearly smoother than its Kentucky equivalent, but the curves resemble the same general form. I looked at a number of other states and the same general shape held across geographic and demographic borders. We'll now explore the relation between each candidate's vote totals in Virginia: The Virginia graph seems to support the linear trend we saw in the Kentucky graph, but again the R^2 value is slightly lower than our target. This discrepancy can likely be attributed to the large number of points plotted, around 1,500, in the preceding graphs. If we were to strictly adhere to our four previously stated facts, specifically by using just six or seven points, we could probably achieve higher R^2 values. Let's go ahead and do that now. The observations I made earlier will now play an important role in definitively disproving the "impossibility." Let's first begin by establishing the various threshold reporting levels for Kentucky and Virginia with respect to the original:

                         KENTUCKY

  Report %    Time CT   McCain       Obama      Two Way
   16.76       18:40    173,406     126,564      299,970
   26.49       19:12    268,616     205,480      474,096
   36.00       19:32    371,124     273,229      644,353
   53.03       20:02    532,940     416,231      949,171
   62.09       20:17    621,411     489,848    1,111,259
   64.64       20:24    642,008     514,837    1,156,845
   80.57       20:27    818,572     623,366    1,441,938

   Final              1,043,264     746,510    1,789,774


                         VIRGINIA    
               
  Report %    Time CT   McCain       Obama      Two Way
   13.38       19:02     278,094     214,706     492,800
   26.53       19:32     547,199     430,212     977,411
   40.32       19:52     780,552     705,180   1,485,732
   56.49       20:17   1,049,451   1,031,789   2,081,240
   63.84       20:42   1,179,737   1,172,437   2,352,174
   67.88       20:52   1,251,123   1,250,040   2,501,163
   72.36       21:07   1,328,103   1,338,087   2,666,190
                    
   Final               1,726,053   1,958,370   3,684,423

Some rough extrapolations must be done to satisfy these thresholds; there are several ways to do this, but the two-way vote total was chosen as the measuring stick. When the distribution of the data resulted in two points equally spaced from the intended threshold, the larger percentage was used. This is not a perfect scenario, but it should still serve to facilitate an unbiased result. If you don't like my methodology you can download the data in CSV format at the end of this article and make your own rules. The composite six and seven point graphs for Kentucky, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania are presented below with strict adherence to the original's methodology: The Kentucky data set is by far the most variable of the four states depicted and the threshold percentages also have the largest error relative to their corresponding target. Unfortunately, Kentucky is unable to provide definitive evidence, in terms of the R^2 value, to entirely vacate the "impossible" claim. Virginia is our next stop: The R^2 value associated with the six point regression, .9996, is higher than the R^2 value of .9995 associated with the TehranBureau graph. The seven point R^2 value is however lower than the Entekhab News value of .9986. This unarguably debunks Muhammad Sahimi's assertion of statistical and mathematical impossibility. Such an outcome is very possible, perhaps even probable. Virginia is also geographically representative of the urban/rural population demographics in Iran. Virginia has an urban population of 72.9% according to the 2000 Census while Iran's urban population is 68% according to their 2006 Census. Dissimilarities do however remain, including the margin of victory and the total number of votes cast; and while this may not be an ideal comparison, the aspect of impossibility has been erased. Onto Michigan: The Michigan graph overcomes our seven point target with an R^2 of .9991, but it fails to match the six point result put forth by TehranBureau. The urban population of Michigan, at 75.5%, is also fairly close to Iran's. We have yet another example proving the possibility of such a correlation. Pennsylvania continues the trend: Pennsylvania's R^2 values match the TehranBureau mark and fall just short of the .9986 value needed to equal the seven point correlation coefficient presented by Entekhab News. Pennsylvania is however more urban than Iran by about 10.0%; but given that this is now the third state with an R^2 in excess of, or equal to, the value claimed by an Iranian source, the presence of a linear correlation is irrelevant to the possibility of election fraud. Having dispelled the individual R^2 values for both the six and seven point data sets, I never ran into a state that met or exceeded both R^2 values. This lack of repeatability may be significant, but based upon the preceding work, its likely just a case of random coincidence and inconsistent data. The bottom line is this, a linear relationship between two candidates' vote totals is the expected correlation. The direct result of this research does not however prove or disprove election fraud, it simply invalidates the linear correlation metric as a means of identifying fraud. And finally, the real time data as promised: Kentucky: [CSV, 49KB]
Virginia: [CSV, 60KB]
Michigan: [CSV, 56KB]
Pennsylvania: [CSV, 62KB] If you do anything useful or interesting with this data, please let me know.

Disbursements for Franken

6/11/2009 11:09:16 PM CT

While the MN Supreme Court deliberates on Norm Coleman's latest appeal, the Election Contest Court addressed and resolved the issue of disbursements; the monetary reimbursement of court associated fees. The legal process began shortly after the ECC declared Franken the victor with the first disbursement filing arriving on April 28th from the Franken campaign; just 15 days after the court's final judgment. The Franken document totaled 394 pages with 384 pages of exhibits. The first ten pages contained the body of the filing while the remaining 384 pages, of exhibits, were found within a gray three ring binder. The digitization of the exhibit portion was just completed this morning by the Ramsey County Court Administration Office. Prior to purchasing the first ten pages, and then later receiving the exhibits from a Ramsey County Court Administrator, no portion of this document could be publicly accessed without making a physical trip to the Ramsey County Court House. The entire document has been converted to PDF for public consumption below with the highlights excerpted:

David L. Lillehaug, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is one of the attorneys for Contestee Al Franken ("Contestee") in the above entitled action and certifies that he has investigated the costs and disbursements claimed herein, and that the following is a true statement of the taxable costs and disbursements incurred by Contestee; and that each and every item thereof has actually and necessarily been paid or incurred in this action. Documents supporting each of Contestees' costs and disbursements are attached.
Statutory Costs                           $205.50 
   (Minn. Stat. § 549.02, subd. 1)	
Court Filing Fees                       $1,130.00 
   (Minn. Stat. § 357.021) (Tab A)	
Deposition Transcripts of Testifying    $7,315.30 
   Witnesses (Minn. Stat. § 357.31)	
   (Tab B)	
Written Deposition Transcripts            $812.50 
   Entered Into Evidence 	
   (Minn. Stat § 357.31) (Tab C)	
Deposition Transcripts Entered          $3,200.70 
   Into Evidence	
   (Minn. Stat. § 357.31) (Tab D)	
Trial Transcripts                      $35,382.55 
   (Abraham v, County of Hennepin, 	
   622 N.W.2d 121, 129)	
   (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (Tab E)	
Trial Exhibits                         $26,576.38 
   (Minn. Stat. §§ 357.31	
   and 357.315) (Tab F)	
Data Practice Requests/Subpoenas       $59,078.89 
   (Minn. Slat. § 357.31) (Tab G)	
Trial Technology & Equipment            $6,031.23 
   (Minn. Stat. § 549.04) (Tab H)	
Photocopying & Service of Trial Motions $2,152.51 
   (Minn. Stat. § 549.04) (Tab I)	
Trial Subpoenas & Witness Fees (Tab J) $19,625.07

Total Costs and Disbursements         $161,510.63 
Dated: April 28, 2009 Source: Contestee's Bill of Costs and Disbursements via VoteForAmerica.net [PDF] [Exhibits: 394 Pages, 12.7 MB, PDF]

The list above contains the itemized cost for each subheading for which the Franken campaign is seeking reimbursements from the losing party; in this case, the Coleman campaign. It's also pertinent to note that the Franken campaign did not provide a rational for why any item should be reimbursed; they were simply presenting the ECC with a probable list of expenditures which they believe qualify for reimbursement. On another note, the projector used during the ECC trial was actually provided by the Franken campaign. The State of Minnesota does not provide a projector for use in their most prestigious court room; this is absolutely astonishing to me. I also found it humorous that the Franken campaign made a roughly $600 purchase of printing related goods from BestBuy (on page 329); BestBuy was the 14th largest corporate supporter to Norm Coleman according to OpenSecrets.org for the period from 2007-2008. The Coleman campaign then responded to Franken's list of applicable expenditures on May 8th by providing their rationale for why some of the listed items do not qualify for compensation. The introduction and conclusion of their opposition is excerpted below with the accompanying PDF as published on the MNCourts website on May 21st:

I. Introduction Contestants Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman (collectively, "Contestants"), by and through the undersigned counsel, hereby object to Contestee Al Franken's ("Contestee") Bill of Costs and Disbursements, notice of which Contestee served May 6, 2009. Contestee has not provided sufficient detail and/or documentation from which to determine the basis of many of the costs he identifies and the purpose for which they were incurred. Nor has he provided a sufficient explanation as to whether the costs claimed were necessary or reasonable, and it is his burden to do so. Accordingly, this Court should disallow the taxation of costs and disbursements to the Contestants to the extent Contestee has inadequately described his costs or it deems them unnecessary or unreasonable. ... III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Contestants respectfully request that this Court disallow Contestee's costs and disbursements to the extent he has improperly classified them as "costs," inadequately described them, or failed to justify them as necessary and reasonable. Dated: May 8, 2009 Source: Contestants Objections to Contestees Bill of Costs and Disbursements via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Unsurprisingly, the Coleman campaign essentially argued that the Franken campaign did not adequately provide needed detail. The brunt of their argument can be summarized with the following quote from the third page, "[t]he burden is on the prevailing party [Franken] to show that its claimed costs are necessary and reasonable." The Coleman campaign also took issue with the expedited status of the many transcripts and witness filing fees that the Franken campaign incurred. From a details point of view, the Coleman filing did not contain any attached exhibits or material evidence supporting any of their claims. The Franken campaign responded on May 13th in 9 pages by addressing each of their claims and Coleman's associated refutations. The Coleman campaign did not refute each item as the Franken campaign noted $5,392 worth of requested disbursements lacking objections. The introduction and conclusion of Franken's response is excerpted below as posted on the MNCourts site on May 21st:

Contestee Al Franken ("Contestee") respectfully submits that his costs should be awarded and in the full amount requested pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.04. Contestee has submitted a sworn affidavit and numerous invoices documenting costs and disbursements necessarily incurred, as required. Contestants have submitted no affidavit in response. Nor have they suggested that the total amount requested is unreasonable for a complex, seven-week, exhibit-intensive trial. Instead, they raise a series of ill-founded objections, all of which should be rejected. Contestee's costs were reasonably incurred, necessary to the defense of Contestants' lawsuit, and are fully recoverable under Rule 54. ... For all of these reasons, Contestee submits that the full amount itemized in the Bill of Costs and Disbursements should be taxed to Contestants. The costs were reasonably incurred, necessary for the presentation of relevant and admissible evidence at trial, and should be awarded to Contestee as the prevailing party in this action pursuant to Rule 54.04. Dated: May 13, 2009 Source: Contestees Response to Contestants Objections to Bill of Costs and Disbursements via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The ECC issued their ruling today by awarding the Franken campaign roughly two-thirds of their requested disbursements. The publicly available filing from the ECC is fairly terse and without details; the entire document is quoted below:

You are hereby notified that a judgment has been entered in the above entitled matter Pursuant to The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment, Judge Elizabeth A. Hayden, Judge Kurt J. Marben and Judge Denise D. Reilly dated April 13, 2009. Judgment Information Entered Date: April 14, 2009
Debtor(s): Cullen Sheehan; Norm Coleman.
Creditor(s): At Franken Monetary Award:
Monetary Amount: $94,783.15 A true and correct copy of this notice has been served by mail upon the parties. Please be advised that notices sent to attorneys are sent to the lead attorney only. ***Pursuant to MSA 548.09, Judgment shall be docketed upon the filing of an Affidavit of Identification of Judgment Debtor*** Note: Costs and interest will accrue on any money judgment amounts from the date of entry until the judgment is satisfied in full. Dated: June 10, 2009 Source: Notice of Entry of Judgment Taxation of Costs via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The ECC order appears to retroactively take effect on April 14th and requires the Coleman campaign to pay $94,783.15 in reimbursements to the Franken campaign. I am unsure as to when the "date of entry" officially begins; the interest rate on any delinquent payments is also not explicitly given. The ECC may have also provided additional documentation that has not yet been made available. A decision from the MN Supreme Court is still pending, but according to John Kostouros the Director of Communications for the Judicial Branch, their opinion "will be released during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday-Friday)." Until this unknown date occurs, political posturing will continue as several outside groups have filed additional lawsuits relating to the MN Senate Election. While the outcome rests solely in the hands of the MN Supreme Court, the battle for public opinion never ends. I'll try to detail these auxiliary lawsuits later next week, after completing the necessary research.

MNSC Oral Arguments

6/1/2009 4:13:16 PM CT

The Minnesota Supreme Court convened today at 9 AM CT for the oral arguments associated with Norm Coleman's election appeal. The proceedings lasted approximately 69 minutes; upon their conclusion, each candidate's representation addressed the media on the second floor of the Minnesota Judicial Building. The unabridged oral arguments follow as publicly provided by the Minnesota Judicial Branch and Twin Cities Public Television; low bandwidth audio from within the chamber is also available: Video: .WMV, 01:08:47, 78.1 MB [Mirror: TPT.org]
Audio: All files are .WAV, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 Coleman's lead attorney, Joseph Friedberg began the hearing with what was supposed to be a ten minute introduction. Ten minutes turned into thirty as the five judge panel peppered Coleman's representation with questions and critiques. Despite the barrage of questions, the most telling exchanged occurred in the opening moments of the hearing:

Justice Page: We have one case for argument this morning, in the matter of the contest of general election held on November 4, 2008 for the purpose of electing a United States Senator from the State of Minnesota. Mr. Friedberg I see you have reserved 10 minutes for rebuttal. Joseph Friedberg [Coleman]: With the court's permission your honor. Justice Page: You may proceed when you are ready. Mr. Friedberg: Morning and may it please this court; my name is Joe Friedberg, I represent [Norm Coleman]. Let me begin by saying that Minnesota is quite different from many states. We have problems within our institutions and when we do, we deal with them candidly and openly, we don't minimize them or sweep 'em under the rug to be discovered later by a federal court during 1983 litigation. That's why finding of fact 47 of the trial court is so surprising. Announcing that we are proud of rejecting only 0.5% of our total ballots cast in November is misleading at best. The only ballots that get rejected are absentee ballots; and our officials rejected 4% of them; 12,000 citizens who made good faith efforts to vote were disenfranchised for a variety--. Justice Page: Did these 12,000 citizens comply with the absentee ballot voter requirements. Mr. Friedberg: Many of them did substantially your honor, many of them did. Justice Page: Substantially? What does that mean? Source: Minnesota Judicial Branch [Mirror: TPT.org]

The remainder of Mr. Friedberg's opening address revolved around Justice Page's seemingly rhetorical, yet legally unanswered question quoted above. The arguments meandered from justice to justice as Friedberg attempted to answer each question. Justice Anderson, Dietzen, Gildea and Meyer each took issue with the Coleman campaign's lack of evidentiary support with regard to their inconsistent application of the strict vs. substantial compliance argument. Justice Meyer prominently entered the fray with this exchange toward the end of Mr. Friedberg's initial rebuttal:

Justice Meyer: Where is evidence from the overwhelming majority of the counties and cities? Mr. Friedberg: Every auditor we called, as I recall, made exceptions [to the admittance of absentee ballots]. Now I think we only called 26 or 27--. Justice Meyer: And we have 87 counties, we are reviewing the work of a panel of three trial court judges here and they took evidence. Where is the evidence? Even as you called, as you said, you didn't even call witnesses from a majority of Minnesota's counties. You are asking us to presume, based on the testimony from a sampling of counties that that practice is applied to a majority of the counties. Source: Minnesota Judicial Branch [Mirror: TPT.org]

Friedberg responded by hesitantly referencing the assumed equality of populations within Bush vs. Gore to compare the "relaxed standard in Brower County with the unrelaxed standard in Palm Beach." Friedberg would then go on to state that "we have made our case" when "Plymouth kicks out 75 for signature mismatches and 31 counties in the state kick out none." I think Friedberg has a valid point from a mathematical standpoint if true; the Plymouth scenario presents a significant outlier and the aforementioned sampling of "26 or 27" counties represent a statistically sound sampling of all 87 counties. An inconsistent application of absentee ballot compliance in "26 or 27" counties would indicate to me, although devoid of legal rigor, that a problem existed, regardless of the remaining 50 or so counties. Whether the Coleman campaign adequately provided evidence to support this claim is vague at best. Mr. Friedberg's time expired and Marc Elias, Franken's lead attorney, stepped up to the podium whereupon stating his name received his first question from Justice Page:

Justice Page: Council, before you get to that finding of fact, let me ask you a question. Hopefully council for the other side will be able to respond to this on the rebuttal. To the extent that the United States Senate will make the ultimate decision here, and the extent that they don't have to follow what we do. How do we issue an opinion, without it being an advisory opinion? In essence, do we have authority to do anything here? Marc Elias [Franken]: Your Honor, this question was raised with the district court as to whether the court had jurisdiction. The court found, and we believe appropriately so, that the court had jurisdiction to determine who received the most lawful votes, even though the Senate has within its jurisdiction to decide who is seated. Source: Minnesota Judicial Branch [Mirror: TPT.org]

Elias would then go onto quote a South Dakota case involving Tom Daschle from his days as a Congressman. The referenced case was eventually linked to a Supreme Court decision stating that so long as the state process does not impede the US Senate, the state court is not "deprived of jurisdiction." The MNSC clearly has the power to declare a winner under Minnesota Statute, but the US Senate is under no obligation to act in accordance with any decision. The issuance of an election certificate for the sole purpose of full representation is irrelevant to the Supreme Court's present responsibility; an election certificate will apparently only be issued upon the thorough completion of the appeals process. The sole duty of the MN Supreme Court is to determine the candidate who received the largest number of legally cast votes, not to ensure federal representation or for any other purpose. Elias would then go on to perform a small bit of math in the hopes of illustrating the futility of the Appellants' case:

Mr. Elias: From the March 31st order of the trial court, in which [the Coleman campaign] held that of all the rejected absentee ballots, the parties proved registration for approximately 650; 650 of all of the ballots presented to the court. That's voter registration, that's not all of the other requirements that appellants now have complaints about. But this is the most fundamental requirement, that the voter be registered. Of those 650, 351 were opened and counted. So the universe of ballots, properly plead and about which this trial took place, stands at 299. Now, obviously the margin separating the two candidates is 312. As a result, even if everyone of the three-hundred or so ballots, for which voter registration was proven, doesn't mean the witness was registered, doesn't mean that the certificate was completed, it doesn't mean that they only cast one ballot, but that they were at least registered. Even if all three-hundred of those were for the appellant, and even if all three-hundred met all other requirements, it would still be impossible for the appellants to make up the difference. Source: Minnesota Judicial Branch [Mirror: TPT.org]

The remainder of Elias' time was spent discussing the finer points of due process and equal protection. Elias contended that the discrepancies between each county served to "grease the joints" of election reporting. He later defended any breach of due process or equal protection on the grounds that the inconsistencies were not intentional or systematic and could therefore not be classified as in bad faith or fraudulent as required within Bush vs. Gore. Elias concluded his presentation by stating that election officials used "the different tools, available to them in the different jurisdictions" to "administer a fair election" within the confines of the law. Mr. Friedberg then returned to the podium for the final fifteen minute stint and made three main assertions before the court adjourned. He first presented the varying processes by which each county voided an invalid ballot, thus potentially creating cases where the voter was registered, but their vote was not counted due to a failure to comply with another statutory requirement. Friedberg then reasoned that these registered voters should have their vote counted based upon the application of substantial compliance. Justice Page then questioned the lack of evidence presented by the Coleman campaign specifically relating to these uniquely registered and rejected voters. Friedberg countered by stating that the ECC would not accept the evidence despite his effort, to the point of "test[ing] the trial court's patience." Justice Anderson then explicitly asked Friedberg if their were any instances of fraud. Friedberg responded by simply stating "absolutely not" and added that there was no fraud of any kind; election, voter or otherwise. During Elias' statement, Justice Deitzen began to muddle through the messy statute associated with the challenging of ballots; Deitzen would later finished his line of questioning with Friedberg at the helm. Although the statute is not definitive, the application, as implement by the Attorney General during the recount, precluded either campaign from challenging the inclusion of any absentee ballot. This meant that once an absentee ballot was included by an election official for any reason, it would be opened and counted. This practice differed from the in-person portion of the recount in which the campaigns were allowed to challenge the election officials' ruling. Upon conclusion of the hearing, Norm Coleman and Joseph Friedberg jointly addressed the media: Video: .WMV, 09:37, 158MB The general gist of Coleman's address was that there are voters who have not had their vote counted, and are therefore disenfranchised; until they are enfranchised the campaign will continue to represent the interests of these 4,400 voters. This statement seems to align with Friedberg's opening remarks. Mr. Friedberg cited Minnesota's Judicial history of addressing all problems before they reach the federal level. Drawing from this prior statement it seems logical to conclude that if the MNSC does not address all of the problems, the Coleman campaign will seek federal relief. Marc Elias then addressed the media after the Coleman procession exited the foyer: Video: .WMV, 04:19, 71.1MB Marc Elias' brief address was followed up by a few soft questions from the media. Elias basically reiterated that he was confident of a Franken victory, but that he had no specific timeline in mind for a Supreme Court decision. If I had to guess at a timeline I would say by July 4th, but I really have no idea; the whole ordeal could drag out even further depending on what the MNSC concludes. Coleman's best case scenario is for the ECC to resume the trial with different rules and Franken's best case scenario is an outright win. Its also possible for this to end up in federal court as discussed above. I doubt very much will happen within the next two weeks. I also stopped by the Ramsey County Court House to obtain some other court documents that I'll hopefully be able to post sooner rather than later.

Appellant, Respondent & Reply Briefs

5/27/2009 10:59:18 PM CT

The Coleman campaign filled their brief with the Minnesota Supreme Court on April 30th, the last possible day for submission. An overview of the 62 page document is excerpted below:

ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL 1) Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding (a) the disparate application by election officials of the statutory standard governing absentee ballots and (b) the presence of illegal votes in the certified vote totals?
Trial Court's Ruling: Such evidence was irrelevant to whether the ballots before it were legally cast.
Apposite Authorities: Minn. Stat. § 209.12; U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 2) Whether the trial court violated the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process when it declared Respondent received the highest number of "legally cast votes" where the record demonstrated the number of "illegally cast" ballots, under the court's own definition, that were counted on election day and during the recount greatly exceeded the margin between the candidates?
Trial Court's Ruling: Already-counted absentee ballots, even if illegal under the court's own definition, were properly included in the tally because Minnesota law does not provide any remedy for retracting such ballots from vote totals and the Fourteenth Amendment does not require that similar ballots in the same election be treated the same.
Apposite Authorities: Minn. Stat. § 209.12; Hanson v. Emanuel, 297 N.W. 749 (Minn. 1941); Berg v. Veit, 162 N.W. 522 (Minn. 1917); Roe v. State of Alabama, 43 F.3d 574, 581 (lith Cir. 1995); Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065, 1078 (lst Cir. 1978); U.S. Const. amend. XIV. 3) Whether the trial court violated the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process when it imposed a strict compliance standard for rejected absentee ballots rather than a substantial compliance standard like that actually applied by election officials (and in accord with this Court's longstanding policy favoring enfranchisement)?
Trial Court's Ruling: Rejected absentee ballots that do not strictly comply with the statutory requirements may not be included as "legally cast" ballots regardless of whether election officials also followed a strict compliance standard.
Apposite Authorities: Fitzgerald v. Morlock, 120 N.W.2d 339, 345-47 (Minn. 1963); Andersen v. Rolvaag, 119 N.W.2d 1,10 (Minn. 1962); In re Contest of School District Election, 431 N.W.2d 911,915 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988); Minn. Stat. § 203B.12; Erlandson v. Kiffmeyer, 659 N.W.2d 724, 729 (Minn. 2003); Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000); U.S. Const. amend XIV. 4) Whether the trial court erred in declining to order inspections of precincts in which double-counting may have occurred during the recount?
Trial Court's Ruling: Inspections were not required and unnecessary.
Apposite Authorities: Minn. Stat. § 209.06. 5) Whether the trial court erred in ruling missing ballots from a Minneapolis precinct were properly included in the final recount tally?
Trial Court's Ruling: The court gave deference to the canvassing board's determination that election night totals from that precinct be included in the tally.
Apposite Authorities: Newton v. Newell, 6 N.W. 346 (Minn. 1880). Dated: April 30, 2009 Source: Appellant's Brief [PDF]

Coleman's initial brief "contains 13,751 words" across five sections and focuses on the five points outlined above; the document was also written in "13-point Times New Roman format," as detailed within the Certificate of Compliance at the end of the brief. I'll now provide a brief analysis of each of the five main points: 1. The basis of this argument is that if different ballots were subjective to different standards, all ballots were treated differently. Coleman argues that had the court allowed additional evidence, a more accurate definition of a legally cast vote would have been ascertained. The Coleman campaign did not however provide any specific evidence, in this brief, to illustrate that the correlation between inconsistent standards caused any discrepancy in the final vote count. The ECC excluded this evidence because the Coleman campaign did not show that specific ballots were miscounted. 2. The "Coleman [campaign] ultimately compiled that evidence in written offers of...more than 425 illegally cast absentee ballots counted on election day. See, e.g., A.570-591; A.709-919." This number of 425 is larger than the current margin of 312, but election history and apportionment would indicate that a much larger number of illegally cast and counted votes would be required to alter the outcome; especially given the apparent randomness of the illegally counted ballots proposed by Coleman. 3. Each and every ballot that was counted by an election official, using any standard, could have been presented to the ECC for review by the Coleman campaign. The very purpose of the ECC is to act as the final arbiter for any contention raised by any participating party; their jurisdiction implies the existence of a uniform standard. If a ballot is presented to the ECC it receives uniform treatment under the strict compliance standard; if a given ballot is not alleged to contain errors, it is assumed to have been properly counted by the local election official under the strict compliance standard as dictated under MN Law. If a uniform standard was not applied by the local election officials, it was the responsibility of the Coleman campaign to flag the error for correction by the ECC; a mechanism which satisfies equal protection. 4. The Coleman campaign never presented any compelling evidence to suggest that double counting occurred. They presented a fairly limited number of precincts exhibiting overcounts (more votes than voters) and attempted to imply that double counting only occurred to the detriment of candidate Coleman; they did not however provide any concrete reasoning to support this claim either through evidence or witness testimony. Their double counting argument might have been more effective had they addressed all [PDF] overcounted precincts. Lets also not forget that the MNSC previously issued a non-binding order, before the ECC, addressing the flimsiness of the double counting evidence presented by the Coleman campaign. 5. The MN State Canvassing Board determined that the Election Night totals from Minneapolis W3-P1 should be used due to missing ballots and the ECC later adopted the Canvassing Board's stance. Without very compelling new evidence, which so far hasn't been presented, the MNSC is not going to overturn the opinion of these two election governing bodies. The Franken campaign's response on May 11th mirrored the organization of the Coleman's effort and also came on the last day of the designated timeline. The Franken response contains a direct rebuttal of the five previous points, as excerpted below:

RESTATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 1) Whether the trial court acted within its discretion when it excluded cumulative and irrelevant evidence that would not have affected the outcome of the trial.
Trial Court's Ruling: On multiple grounds, the evidence was properly excluded.
Authorities: State v. AmoJ, 6.58 N.W.2d 201,203 (Minn. 2003); Minn. R. Civ. P. 61. 2) Whether the trial court acted within its discretion when it prohibited Appellants from presenting evidence that had never been disclosed in discovery, where the effect was to preclude a claim that was procedurally barred, factually unsupported, and without legal merit.
Trial Court's Ruling: Appellants not only failed to meet their burden of proving that certain accepted absentee ballots affected the outcome of the election; they also waived these claims by failing to comply with discovery obligations.
Authorities: Minn. Twim P'sbip v. Hatch, .592 N.W.2d 847, 850 (Minn. 1999); Hahn v. Graham, 225 N.W.2d 385,386 (Minn. 1975). 3) Whether the trial court was correct to judge the acceptability of absentee ballots under Minnesota statutes and case law, rather than under an invented standard that finds no support in the statutes, the Constitution, or the facts, where the party advocating the alternative, invented standard inadequately raised the claim and presented insufficient proof in support.
Ruling: Appellants' claims fail on multiple grounds, and, in any event, Minnesota law governs the treatment of absentee ballots.
Authorities: Cranford v. Marion County Election Bd., 128 S. Ct. 1610 (2008); Bell v. Gannaway, 227 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1975); Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.02 et seq. 4) Whether the trial court acted within its discretion when it determined that Appellants had failed to show a need for certain pretrial inspections.
Trial Court's Ruling: On multiple grounds, Appellants failed to meet their burden.
Authorities: Minn. Stat. § 209.06. 5) Whether the trial court properly refused to overturn the certification by the State Canvassing Board, where the latter had determined, after a hearing and on advice of the Attorney General, that the Election Day returns were the best evidence of the votes in a certain Minneapolis precinct.
Ruling: The Board acted correctly and Appellants presented insufficient evidence to overturn its certification.
Authorities: Moon v. Harris, 142 N.W. 12 (Minn. 1913). Dated: May 11, 2009 Source: Respondent's Brief [PDF]

The Franken campaign basically took Coleman's argument and added a "no" or a "not" to the beginning and provided the typical supporting legal references. This is by no means unexpected, but it highlights the futility of Coleman's appeal. The Coleman campaign's best case scenario has shifted away from that of winning to that of not-losing; an invalidation seems to be their best case scenario. The Franken campaign is simply attempting to eliminate that possibility. On an interesting side note, the Franken response "contain[ed] 13,998 words" about 200 more than Coleman's first brief, but the Franken campaign chose to use the "Garamond font," instead of Times New Roman as the Coleman campaign used. The Coleman campaign responded with their reply brief on May 15th, again the last day of the deadline:

CONCLUSION In order to satisfy Minn. Stat. § 209.12 and the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process, the Court should vacate the order for judgment and reverse and remand with instructions to count the remaining absentee ballots cast by eligible voters who substantially complied with the directives of Minn. Stat. § 203B.12. Dated: May 15, 2009 Source: Appellant's Reply Brief [PDF]

Parsing through all the legal pretense reveals the core of Coleman's strategy; to count sum "4,400" absentee ballots that have yet to be counted. Whether Coleman can legally justify the counting is a different matter; he seems to be using the one wrong needs another wrong to make a right approach. Illegal ballots were probably counted, and the only way to counteract the problem is by counting more illegally counted ballots. My pragmatic solution is take the 4,400 absentee ballots and separate them into piles of lawlessness; then you count the most legal pile, then the next most legal and so on and so forth until it matters, or perhaps it won't. The counting process would have to be done blindly so that only the MNSC would know the result of each pile. If the entire batch of 4,400 is iterated through, degree by degree, and Franken still leads, the legality is moot; grant Coleman's central request and then declare Franken the winner. If the counting of these 4,400 alters the outcome, then the lawyers can fight about whatever their side needs to fight about, but at least we know the legal battle has a purpose. Coleman is currently down by 312 votes, and I highly doubt he could overcome this deficit within the 4,400 currently rejected and likely illegally cast ballots his campaign seeks to enfranchise. The Coleman campaign's requested remedy may not even matter at this point, but its their best shot and both campaigns know it.

MN Court Adopts Timeline

4/28/2009 3:27:14 AM CT

Last Friday the MN Supreme Court released their schedule for the MN Senate appeals process; the entire order is excerpted below:

ORDER On Monday, April 20, 2009, appellants Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered by the three-judge panellin Ramsey County District Court in the above-referenced election contest On Tuesday, April 21, 2009, respondent AI Franken filed and served a motion for expedited briefing and proposed a particular briefing schedule; appellants filed a written response and proposed briefing schedule on Wednesday, April 22. The time for appeal by other parties expired on Thursday, April 23, 2009, and no other appeals have been filed. In accordance with Minn. Stat §§ 209.09, subd. 2, 209.10, subd. 4, and 209.12 (2008), the appeal shall proceed on an expedited basis. Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Ramsey County District Court shall certify and file the record on appeal with the Clerk of Appellate Courts as expeditiously as possible, but in no event later than 15 days after the service of the notice of appeal on April 20, 2009. 2. Appellants shall serve and file their brief not later than Thursday, April 30, 2009; respondent shall serve and file his brief not later than Monday, May 11, 2009. Appellants may serve and file a reply brief not later than Friday, May 15, 2009. Briefs and appendices shall comply with the requirements of Minn. R. Civ. App, P. 128.02-.04, 130, 131.03, and 132.01. Briefs must be received by the Clerk of Appellate Courts by the deadlines noted to be timely filed. 3. Service by mail is permissible if a complete copy of the material is also transmitted to opposing counsel bye-mail or facsimile by the deadlines imposed herein. Each party shall notify the Clerk of Appellate Courts and opposing counsel of an e-mail address or facsimile number to which documents may be transmitted. 4. The court will hear argument on this matter commencing at 9:00 a.m., Monday, June 1,2009, in Courtroom 300, Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard, Saint Paul. Argument will proceed in accordance with the applicable provisions of Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 134. 5. Respondent's motion for expedited briefing is otherwise denied. Dated: April 24, 2009 Source: Order of Scheduling via MNCourts.gov

The MNSC essentially adopted the Coleman campaign's requested timeline for briefing submissions while delaying the oral arguments for roughly two weeks beyond the final submission deadline. The first document is due this Thursday from the Coleman campaign with the Franken response due two weeks hence on the 11th of May. At that point the Coleman campaign will have 4 days to submit a final reply brief before the proceedings adjourn until June 1st; the day allocated for oral arguments.

Coleman Presents Timeline

4/23/2009 2:46:42 AM CT

Yesterday the Franken Campaign presented their pre-litigation timeline, and today the Coleman campaign responded:

Appellants agree this is a time-sensitive case that should be resolved as expeditiously as possible, Appellants respectfully submit, however, that the parties, and the Court, must be given enough time to fully develop and consider the issues on appeal. Accordingly, Appellants respectfully request a slight modification to the briefing schedule proposed by Respondent as follows:
1. Opening brief of Appellants - April 30, 2009;
2. Opposition brief of Respondent - May 11, 2009; and
3. Reply brief - May 15, 2009. The Court may then schedule oral argument at a time convenient to it. Dated: April 22, 2009 Source: Appellants' Response to Respondent's Motion for Expedited Schedule via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The schedule above concludes on May 15th, a Friday, which seems to suggest that oral arguments would begin the following Monday, May 18th. The Coleman timeline is about two weeks longer than Franken's timeline; this discrepancy manifests itself at each stage of the pre-litigation process. It appears as though the Coleman campaign wants 3 more days to file their initial brief, above and beyond the schedule already outlined by the Franken campaign. It's also interesting to note that the Coleman schedule allows about ten days for the Franken response, while the Franken campaign only indicated that they would need five days. The Coleman campaign also increased their reply time by two days beyond Franken's proposition. It would make sense for the court to grant Coleman the additional time he is requesting for his own case, but to follow the schedule presented by Franken for deadlines that apply to Franken. It doesn't make sense to allocate ten days when they (Franken) said they could do it in five. I think the court will ultimately compromise between the two campaign's requests; thus resulting in an oral argument start date of May 11th. The Franken campaign also filed a motion with the MN Supreme Court today, although theirs was comparatively meaningless:

David L Lillehaug does hereby move the Court, pursuant to Minn. R Civ. App, P 127 and 143.05, subd. 1, for admission of Marc E. Elias and Kevin J. Hamilton as attorneys pro hac vice to appear before this honorable Court on behalf of Respondent Al Franken in the above-captioned matter, This motion is based upon all files, records and proceedings herein, as well as the attached Affidavits of Marc E. Elias and Kevin J. Hamilton. This motion is submitted on the papers, and oral argument is expressly waived. Dated: April 22, 2009 Source: Respondents's Motion to Admit Attorney's Pro Hac Vice via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Marc Elias and Kevin Hamilton both actively participated in the Election Contest Court; this is simply a procedural motion that will grant these two attorneys the privilege of practicing law before the Minnesota Supreme Court. Marc Elias is registered with the DC Bar, while Kevin Hamilton is registered with the Washington State Bar. The MN Supreme Court will probably present the official appeal timeline/schedule within the next few days at which point the litigation process begins, again, although slightly different in nature and much shorter. Update [3:47 AM CT 4/24/2009]: The Supreme Court has granted Franken's request for the admission of two lawyers pro hac vice. This order really isn't a suprise, but I guess it brings the resolution just a little closer:

ORDER Based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of David L Lillehaug to admit Marc E. Elias and Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie, LLP, pro hac vice in the above entitled matter be, and the same is, granted. Dated: April 23, 2009 Source: Order Granting Motion to Admit Attorneys Pro Hac Vice via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The bulk of the proceedings will occur out of court, through the exchange of filings, and will culminate with oral arguments presented by each campaign in public court. In previous MN Supreme Court cases relating to this election, the oral arguments have been scheduled for a single hour; the court may however allocate more time as they deem necessary. This is not a typical trial format, once the oral arguments conclude, the court will deliberate until a decision is reached. The schedule will effectively dictate the duration of the trial, unfortunately the court has not released their final timeline; but I'm sure its in the works.

Franken in a Hurry

4/22/2009 1:54:43 AM CT

The Coleman campaign filed their motion for appeal yesterday, and today the Franken campaign responded with the following requests:

Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman ("Appellants") have appealed the unanimous decision of the three-judge election contest court ("the District Court"), which, after a seven week trial, affirmed the unanimous Minnesota State Canvassing Board certification that Al Franken ("Respondent") received the highest number of votes in the 2008 general election for the office of United States Senator. Because of the overriding public interest in the expeditious handling and resolution of this historic matter, Respondent respectfully moves for an order that:
1. The record of the District Court proceedings be provided to the Court by the close of business tomorrow, Wednesday, April 22, 2008;
2. Briefing be expedited pursuant to the schedule below, so that the case will be ready for argument twelve calendar days following provision of the record, or Monday, May 4, 2008; and
3. A date for oral argument be set such that the case will be argued promptly after briefing is complete. This motion is made pursuant to Minn. Stat § 209.09, subds. 2 & 4, Minn. R. Civ App. P. 102 and 126, and the Court's inherent authority. GROUNDS FOR MOTION Under the United States Constitution, Minnesota is entitled to be represented by two United States Senators, Minnesota has been without its second Senator for more than 100 days, In a trial that lasted seven weeks, Appellants were given every opportunity to make their case to the District Court In its unanimous decision, the District Court declared that Respondent is entitled to the certificate of election. Now, because of the important public policy concern of ensuring that the interests of the citizens of Minnesota are properly represented in Congress, this appeal should be expedited. ... 1. Expedite the Preparation and Filing of the Record. ... 2. Expedite the Briefing Schedule. ... Accordingly, Respondent suggests the following briefing timeline:
A. Opening brief of Appellants - Monday, April 27, 2009, five calendar days after delivery of the record;
B, Opposition brief of Respondent - Saturday, May 2, 2009, five calendar days after service of the opening brief; and
C. Reply brief - Monday, May 4, 2009, two calendar days after service of the opposition brief. 3. Set an Expedited Date for Oral Argument. Respondent respectfully suggests that the Court schedule oral argument now for a date very shortly after the reply brief is submitted. More than five full months have elapsed since the November 4, 2008, general election. More than three months have elapsed since the State Canvassing Board declared the election result and the United States Senate convened to address the nation's urgent business. Yet, unlike every other state in the union, Minnesota stands alone with only a single United States Senator to represent its citizens and respond to their concerns. While Appellants had the right to challenge the State Canvassing Board's decision before three judges and now have the right to appeal the District Court's unanimous decision rejecting their claims, Respondent submits that the overriding public interest in resolving this dispute promptly requires that this appeal be expedited. Dated: April 21, 2009 Source: Respondent's Motion to Expedited Schedule via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Franken campaign is seeking to accelerate the litigation proceedings to the greatest extent possible; they cite several Minnesota Statues, which I detailed yesterday, that give precedent to this election contest appeal. It should also be noted that the MN Supreme Court arranges their own schedule in accordance with Rule 102 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Appellate Procedure. I am however sure, that the MN Supreme Court will address this appeal in the most efficient manner possible. The Franken campaign is pushing for a May 4th start date, and their request seems reasonable given the circumstances. If I had to bet, I would say that May 4th would be the absolute soonest the oral arguments could start, with May 11th, the following Monday, presenting as another realistic start date.

Coleman Files Appeal

4/20/2009 6:10:01 PM CT

The representation of Norm Coleman has filed paper work with the Minnesota Supreme Court appealing the decision of the Election Contest Court. The filings came in the form of three documents, each of which I will highlight below. The first document is the Notice of Appeal:

TO: Clerk of the Appellate Courts
Minnesota Judicial Center
25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-named Contestants appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 209.10 subd. 4, from the final judgment of the contest court entered on the date shown above, declaring Contestee the recipient of the highest number of legally cast votes in the General Election held November 4, 2008, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator for the State of Minnesota, as well as from all orders relating thereto as subsumed therein. Dated: April 20, 2009 ... Dear Clerk of Appellate Courts: Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are the following documents: 1. Original and 2 copies of the Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court; 2. Certified copy of the Contest Court's Judgment; 3 Original and 2 copies of the Appellants' Statement of the Case; 4. Affidavit of Service upon Ramsey County; and 5. Affidavit of Service upon opposing counsel. Also enclosed is our check in the amount of $500 to cover the filing fee. Source: Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The second document contains 10 items that more or less summarize the appeal. Some of these items are simply procedural while others contain useful information. Section 5 is by far the most relevant as it directly lists the claims that the Coleman campaign is actually appealing; I've excerpted all of section 5 and the headings of the other 9 sections below:

1. COURT OF CASE ORIGINATION AND NAME OF PRESIDING JUDGE 2. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 3. TYPE OF LITIGATION AND STATUTE AT ISSUE 4. DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS, DEFENSES, ISSUES LITIGATED AND RESULT BELOW 5. ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL
I. Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding (a) the disparate application by election officials of the statutory standard governing absentee ballots and (b) the presence of illegal votes in the certified totals from election night?
II. Whether the trial court violated the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process when it declared that Respondent received the highest number of "legally cast votes" where the record demonstrated that, by the trial court's rulings, the number of "illegally cast" ballots counted on election day and during the recount greatly exceeded the margin between the candidates and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were counted?
III. Whether the trial court violated the constitutional protections of equal protection and due process when it imposed a strict compliance standard for the rejected absentee ballots rather than applying a substantial compliance standard to reflect those actually applied by election officials (as well as this Court's longstanding policy favoring enfranchisement)?
IV. Whether the trial court erred in declining to order inspections of precincts in which double-counting was alleged to have occurred?
V. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that missing ballots from Minneapolis Precinct 3-1 were properly included in the tally officially cast votes? 6. RELATED APPEALS 7. CONTENTS OF RECORD 8. ORAL ARGUMENT 9. TYPE OF BRIEF 10. NAMES, ADDRESSES, ZIP CODES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT Dated: April 20, 2009 Source: Statement of the Case of Appellants via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The most interesting point of appeal comes from section 5.2 and seems to highlight Norm Coleman's attempt to invalidate the election, rather than prevail as the top vote-getter. This marks the first time, that I can recall, where the Coleman campaign has sought relief that would not result in him being declared the winner. The other four items in this section do however encompass the potential addition or subtraction of votes, that could result in Coleman taking the lead, albeit it unlikely. The final document is simply the judgment entered by the ECC last Monday that asserted Franken's victory by 312 votes. I assume, that when filing an appeal, you must file the judgment which you are actually appealing. Any future court filings will be filed on the MN Supreme Court litigation page; a change from the previous ECC litigation website. I have no idea when the actual litigation process will begin, although, according to MN § 209.10.4, "the appeal from an election contest relating to the office of state senator or representative takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court." MN § 209.10.4 further pertains "to a contest regarding a statewide office" as noted within MN § 209.09; this classification includes the US Senate Election. Although the appeal will have precedence, I would still expect the Franken campaign to push for an expedited schedule. Update [7:38 PM CT]: I found other relevant law (§ 209.09) that applied to § 209.10.4 and thus establishes the election contest appeal as paramount to MN Supreme Court's duties. I've updated the article to clarify and reflect these changes.

All Quiet on the MNSC Appeal Front

4/19/2009 4:31:53 PM CT

A relatively quiet week ensued, after the Election Contest Court's Monday ruling, but a few pertinent if seemingly unrelated events did transpire. I'll cover two events, as reported by the two major Minnesota papers, and present the time frame for Norm Coleman's potential appeal to the MN Supreme Court. Our first event features a meeting between Norm Coleman and the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Editorial Board. The meeting took place on April 16th, and a small portion of the video has been posted online at the Star Tribune website. The excerpt shows Norm Coleman visibly upset over the Star Tribune's conduct, with regard to the allegations of money laundering, in the days directly preceding the election. I covered the allegations back in November, if you're curious about the back story. It'll be interesting to see if the Star Tribune alters their reporting procedures in the coming weeks to make amends; even though they already tend to lean right. Our next story involves another act of vandalism levied against Norm Coleman's house; as reported by the Pioneer Press:

St. Paul police are investigating after eggs were thrown at former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's house in the Crocus Hill neighborhood. It happened about 9:20 p.m. Tuesday, according to a police report that recorded the incident as misdemeanor criminal damage to property. After eggs had hit the front door of Coleman's home in the 600 block of Osceola Avenue, a resident of the home saw a man who appeared to be in his 20s outside, said Peter Panos, police spokesman. The report didn't say who the resident was or whether Coleman was home, Panos said today. The resident then saw the man throw a few more eggs, Panos said. The number of eggs thrown wasn't in the report, he said. The egg thrower wasn't caught, Panos said. Coleman said Wednesday that a young man had bicycled past his home this week and thrown eggs at him. ... Republican Coleman has said he will appeal this week's court ruling that Democrat Al Franken won last year's U.S. Senate race. Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press

I don't know if this is particularly important, but it happened, so I'm reporting it. The last line of the excerpt does however provide a perfect segue. Norm Coleman, lost his election contest, and now he has the opportunity to appeal the ECC's ruling; which he has indicated he will do. Let's began by looking at the relevant law proscribing the time frame in which an appeal must occur:

Subd. 4.Appeal. The judge's decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court no later than ten days after its entry in the case of a general election contest or five days after its entry in the case of a primary contest. The record on appeal must be made, certified, and filed in the Supreme Court within 15 days after service of notice of appeal. The appellant shall file in the district court a bond of $500 for the payment of respondent's costs if appellant fails on appeal. The appeal from an election contest relating to the office of state senator or representative takes precedence over all other matters before the Supreme Court. A copy of the decision must be forwarded to the chief clerk of the house of representatives or the secretary of the senate, as appropriate. Source: § 209.10, 2008 Minnesota Statutes

We know that Coleman has "ten days" to appeal, but the above article makes no reference to calendar days, business days or whatever; so the question then becomes, when does the tenth day occur? Another Minnesota Statute seems to outline the proper interpretation:

6.01 Computation In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules, by the local rules of any district court, by order of court, or by any applicable statute, the day of the act, event, or default from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, or, when the act to be done is the filing of a paper in court, a day on which weather or other conditions have made the office of the court administrator inaccessible, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is not one of the aforementioned days. When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than seven days, intermediate Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation. As used in this rule and in Rule 77(c), "legal holiday" includes any holiday defined or designated by statute. Source: Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure

The ten day appeal period began on Tuesday, April 14th because the day of the ruling, Monday, "shall not be included." It's not clear whether the judgment was actually legally entered on Monday, as MN Rule 58.01 dictates that order "shall be entered forthwith by the court administrator", which may or may not be the date of filing. There may exist other legal contingencies that could extend the start date for the appeal window. If we assume that the judgment took effect on Monday April 13th, that makes the tenth day Thursday, April 23th as weekends and legal holidays are included because the prescribed time is more than seven days. Therefore, the Notice of Appeal must be filled on or before Thursday, April, 23; unless weather or other extenuating circumstances arise which facilitate the closure of the court offices. In this event, the Notice of Appeal must be filed on the next day the court office is open and this "next day" cannot be a weekend or a legal holiday. If the judgment was entered on Tuesday, Wednesday becomes the first day, and the final deadline then becomes Friday, April 24th; barring closure due to weather, etc. I doubt, the Coleman campaign is in a hurry to file their appeal, my guess is at least Wednesday. In the mean time, Franken will still not be seated in the US Senate without an Election Certificate which, according to MN § 204C.40, cannot be issued until after "a court of proper jurisdiction has finally determined the contest." In the case of an appeal, this would be the MN Supreme Court. If by next Thursday (or Friday), an appeal is not filed by the Coleman campaign, a Minnesota Election Certificate could be legally issued to Al Franken. Update [9:31 PM CT]: I clarified some of the appeal deadlines and accounted for other contingencies that could alter the window for appeal.

Franken Wins, Rules ECC

4/13/2009 7:01:09 PM CT

The 2008 Minnesota Senate Election officially has a winner, at least according to the Election Contest Tribunal. The three judge ECC issued a 68 page order late Monday declaring Franken the winner. The body of the order is excerpted below:

ORDER FOR JUDGMENT Based on the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 209.12, the Court DECIDES, DECLARES, AND ADJUDGES that Contestee Al Franken is the party to the contest who received the highest number of votes legally cast in the 2008 United States Senate general election and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Contestants' Notice of Contest is dismissed with prejudice; 2. Contestee's Counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice as moot; 3. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 209.07, subd. 3, costs of the contest must be paid by Contestants, and Contestee and the Court shall prove up the applicable costs by affidavit after all proceedings in this matter are concluded; and 4. For the reasons stated in the Court's Order of March 2, 2009, imposing a sanction on Contestants, Contestee is awarded his reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in connection with Contestants' failure to disclose, such costs and fees to be proved up by affidavit. 5. Any request for relief in these proceedings not specifically granted herein is denied. There being no just reason for delay, LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY Dated: April 13 2009 Source: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Before the above order, the ECC presented 157 individual findings of fact over 24 pages. Finding #120 addresses the missing ballots in Minneapolis W3-P1 and findings #137 and #138 detail the voters whose ballots were opened and counted on April 7th:

120. Given the evidence presented, the Court finds that 132 ballots from Minneapolis Precinct 3-1 were cast and properly counted on Election Day and were lost at some point after they were counted on Election Day but before the administrative recount. ... 137. The evidence was sufficient to prove that the absentee ballots of the persons identified in Attachment A were legally cast and wrongfully rejected. 138. The following additions shall be made to the vote totals certified by the Board on January 5, 2009: 111 additional votes for Coleman and 198 additional votes for Franken. Source: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Attachment A contains the names and counties of 351 voters, along with a reference to the exhibit or court document in which they were originally presented. A greater majority of the exhibit reference appear to begin with an "F," meaning that the Franken campaign originally presented that voter's absentee ballot. This is not however a scientific analysis, simply a brief observation. I'll digitize the document later and provide an exact count at a later date. Follwing the findings of fact, the court then presented two memorandums addressing specific, yet unresolved issues. The first memorandum is entitled "RULE 9/DOUBLE COUNTING MEMORANDUM" and can be characterized from the following excerpts on page 30 and 31 of the order, respectively:

Any argument that Contestants did not realize that Rule 9 might lead to possible "double counting" of ballots has been waived by their conduct and delay in raising this issue. This court emphasized in earlier orders that this is an expedited proceeding. Contestants' unreasonably delayed raising their claim and are now barred from asserting it. ... This Court received evidence that it is not uncommon for discrepancies to exist between the number of ballots cast in a precinct and the number of voters shown on Election Day rosters. These Election Day discrepancies can be caused by voters failing to sign rosters before voting and election judges failing to mark the acceptance of absentee ballots on the rosters. The Court cannot conclude that double counting occurred simply because the number of votes counted during the recount is greater than the number of voters on the rosters. Source: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Basically the court acknowledged that discrepancies between the number of physical voters and the number of physical votes existed, but the court was unmoved by the Contestant's [Coleman] attempts to prove that these discrepancies were caused by double counting. The next memorandum is entitled "EQUAL PROTECTION MEMORANDUM," and as you might guess, deals with Coleman's equal protection claim. The court first summarized Coleman's argument on page 33 and then states, on page 37, that the proper jurisdiction for this argument lies within the US Senate:

I. Introduction Contestants argue that similarly-situated absentee ballots were treated differently throughout Minnesota's counties and cities, and that this inconsistent treatment implicates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. The Court reviewed this argument respectfully in light of the mandates of the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution that all persons similarly-situated be treated alike under the law. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; MINN. CONST. Art. 1, § 2. ... Thus, to the extent Contestants' equal protection argument alleges "deliberate, serious, and material violation[s]" of Minnesota's election laws, this Court lacks jurisdiction to make findings or conclusions on these points and the matter is preserved for the United States Senate. See Minn. Stat. § 209.12 ("Evidence ... including ... the question of the right of any person to nomination or office on the ground of deliberate, serious, and material violation of the provisions of the Minnesota Election Law, must be taken and preserved by the judge trying the contest. .. ."); U.S. CONST. Art. 1, § 5, Cl. 1 ("Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members."); see also Odegard v. Olson, 119 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Minn. 1963). The Minnesota Supreme Court recently addressed this issue directly and ruled as follows:
When the election contest concerns a congressional office, the only question to be decided is which candidate received the highest number of votes legally cast at the election. Minn. Stat. § 209.12 (2008). Nevertheless, evidence on any other issues specified in the notice of election contest is to be preserved and forwarded to the presiding officer of the Senate or House of Representatives of the United States, as the case may be. Id. Coleman v. Ritchie, 762 N.W.2d 218, 226 (Minn. 2009). Source: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The equal protection memorandum continues until page 56 and addresses many of Coleman's additional claim's by essentially stating that the 2008 Minnesota Senate Election administration was conducted in accordance with the US Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. The ECC concluded their order by stating the following:

The citizens of Minnesota should be proud of their election system. Minnesota has one of the highest voter-participation rates in the country. The Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State and election officials throughout Minnesota's counties and cities are well-trained, fair, and conscientious and performed their duties admirably. Minnesota could not conduct elections without the hard work and diligence of its dedicated professionals and citizen volunteers, and the Court is proud of their service. Source: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment via MNCourts.gov[PDF]

All that remains is for Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) and SOS Mark Ritchie (D) to sign the Election Certificate as directed, although not legally obligated, by the above order. Coleman has 10 days to file an appeal to the MN Supreme Court, but the ECC states that the US Senate has the ultimate jurisdiction. Al Franken officially received more votes than any other candidate, but his path to the US Senate may still be lined with political obstacles. The Coleman campaign has already acknowledged their intent to appeal, and there are rumors that Tim Pawlenty may not sign the certificate until the appeals process has ended. In any case, Al Franken received the most votes, by 312, for US Senate in the State of Minnesota on November 4th, 2008. Update [3:08 AM CT]: I went ahead and parsed through Attachment A [CSV] and the results were mildly surprising:

Record          # Ballots
Coleman:          110
Franken:          193 (194)
Nauen:             36  (37)
Contestee's SJ:    10
Testimony:          1

Total:            351

The parentheses denote a voter who was listed within both a Franken Exhibit and a Nauen Summary Judgment order. More than half of the 351 absentee ballots contained within Attachment A originated from evidence presented by the Franken Campaign. It's interesting to note that the number of ballots accepted from each campaign almost identically replicates the final result of the 351 ballots; the final allocation was Coleman 111, Franken 198 and 42 to Other. The most interesting inclusion does however come from a Coleman presented witness. If you recall from the litigation proceedings, Robert Peter DeMuth filled out his voter registration form with the aid of a computer by digitally signing his absentee ballot request form. Mr. DeMuth's ballot was included in the ECC certified result as the ECC only required that the voter sign the physical envelope; which Mr. DeMuth apparently did.

The Counting Aftermath

4/10/2009 6:31:48 PM CT

On Tuesday, April 7th, the MN Senate Election Contest Court sat down at 9:30 AM CT with 387 absentee ballots and began the tedious process of opening, sorting and counting their contents. The counting process did not began for some time, but when it did, the court had identified 351 ballots which merited inclusion into the vote tally. The ECC court released the following order detailing the specific voters contained within the 351 identified ballots:

This matter comes before the Court after its review of certain original absentee ballot materials pursuant to this Court's Order for Delivery of Ballots to Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State for Review by the Court. After review, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The absentee ballots in the attached Exhibit A shall be opened and counted in accordance with Paragraph 4 of the Court's Order for Delivery of Ballots to Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State for Review by the Court. 2. Any other relief not fully set forth herein is expressly denied. Dated: April 7, 2009 [Exhibit A: List of 351 Voter's Names and County, CSV] Source: Order for Opening and Counting of Ballots via MNCourts.gov

Parsing through the list revealed that 41 of the 42 Nauen Petitioner's identified within the ECC's request were also listed within the ECC's order for opening and counting. Each of the 41 voter's is assumed to have voted for Franken because the Franken campaign was funding their intervention. This leaves 310 voters with unknown allegiances; 10 of the 12 voter's identified within Contestee's [Franken] Partial Summary Judgment are also listed within this 310 vote subset. I updated my extrapolation to account for the 41 Nauen Petitioner's and the remaining 310 voters; I assume that the Nauen voters will break for Franken in a 90-5-5 fashion and that the 10 Partial Summary Judgement voters have no inclination to vote for one candidate or another: Extrapolations: ECC Accepts 351 Additional Absentee Ballots [PDF, 141KB]

                      Identified       Extrapolation
                        Voters      Coleman      Franken
ECC Ordered Opened        310        130.66       129.33
    Coleman Regions       190         91.85        66.61
    Franken Regions       120         38.82        62.72

Nauen Petitioners          41          2.05        36.90
    Newly Orded             6           .30         5.40
    Previously Ordered     35          1.75        31.50

Extrapolation Total       351        132.71       166.23

Actual Result             351          111          198

The Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune have both reported that the final resolution of these 351 ballots resulted in Franken increasing his lead by 87 votes from 225, to 312. At this point it seems unlikely that further ballots will be opened and counted, but the possibility does remain. The ECC also has yet to address the 133 (or 134) lost ballots in Minneapolis W3-P1 and any remedy to the Coleman campaign's argument of double counted ballots. It seems unlikely that a ruling will be released today, as the ECC just released an order clarifying the resolution of the Nauen Petitioners:

This action came on for a court trial before the Honorable Elizabeth A. Hayden, the Honorable Kurt J. Marben, and the Honorable Denise D. Reilly, District Court Judges, beginning on January 26, 2009 and ending on March 13, 2009. Having considered the testimony and evidence adduced at trial, the exhibits admitted into evidence, the pleadings,' briefs and memoranda submitted by all the parties, and the arguments of counsel, the Court now makes the following: ORDER 1. Petitioners filed a Petition pursuant to Minnesota Statute section 204B.44 with the Minnesota Supreme Court on January 13, 2009. On January 16, 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued an order granting Norm Coleman's motion to intervene in Petitioners' proceeding and further directing the Petition to this Court for consideration and decision within the current election contest. 2. Pursuant to the Court's Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 10, 2009), Nunc Pro Tunc Order Correcting Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 10, 2009). Order on Intervenor's Rule 60.02 Motion 10 Vacate Judgment (Mar. 2, 2009), Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment (Mar. 11, 2009), and Order Granting Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Amending Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Dated March 11, 2009 (Mar. 31, 2009), the Court granted summary judgment with respect to the following Petitioners: 3. On March 31, 2009, the Court Issued an Order for Delivery of Ballots to.Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State for Review by the Court. The Petitioners listed above were identified in the Court's March 31, 2009 Order. [List of 36 Voter's Names and County, CSV] 4. On-April 7, 2009, the Court ordered the absentee ballot return envelopes of voters identified in an attached exhibit to be opened and counted by the Office of the Secretary of State in open court and the totals included in the results of the 2008 United States Senate election reported by the Minnesota Secretary of State. With one exception, the ballots of the individuals listed above were opened, sorted and counted by the Office of the Secretary of State in open court on April 7, 2009, pursuant to the Court's March 31, 2009 and April 7, 2009 Orders.¹ 5. With respect to the Petitioners not expressly identified herein, the Court has not been presented with sufficient individualized evidence in support of Petitioners' claims. The Petition with respect to those individuals is accordingly DISMISSED. 6. Any request for relief in these proceedings not specifically granted herein is denied. There being no just reason for delay. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Dated: April 10, 2009 ¹The absentee ballot return envelope of Roxanna Saad of Dakota County was not opened and counted on April 7, 2009, after the Court determined Ms. Saad failed to fully complete a voter registration application. Source: Order Regarding Resolution of Petitioner's Motion via MNCourts.gov

The above order details the 36 petitioner's listed within previous orders granting the opening and counting of their ballots, a number I arrived at on Monday. The final count, as noted above, included 35 of the 36 plus 6 other petitioners who had not previously been granted relief. This brings the grand total of relieved Nauen Petitioners to 41. I've updated my Nauen voter table to reflect the result of the counting procedure; the contents of this most recent order did not reveal any new information. It simply outlined the result of the Nauen Petitioner's and dismissed the remaining petitioner's request for relief: Extrapolation: Nauen Petitioners and ECC Ordered Opened & Counted Aftermath [PDF, 125KB] Despite the ECC's detailed and straightforward resolution of the Nauen Petioners, Rachel E. Stassen-Berger of the St. Paul Pioneer Press still managed to a provide inaccurate information:

The order the court did issue today dismissed the case of the voters who sued on their own but haven't had their ballots counted. Sixty-one voters sued early this year to have their absentee ballot votes counted. That suit, which was funded by Franken, was folded into Coleman's larger suit. Thirty-six of those voters had their ballots opened and counted on Tuesday, along with 315 other absentee ballots. The results on those ballots boosted Franken's lead to 312 votes. Today, the judges said that the case of the other 25 votes was dismissed. [emphasis added to depict inaccuracies] Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press

Rachel's entire article contained just 217 words, but three glaring inaccuracies: 1. There were 64 Nauen petitioners, not "sixty-one;" although three voters did eventually withdraw their claim.
Exhibit A: List of 64 Voters by Name and County, [CSV, 2KB]
Source: Petition by Certain MN Voters to Have Their Votes Counted via MNCourts.gov 2. Forty-one of the Nauen petitioners eventually had their vote counted; the "thirty-six" Rachel presents originates from today's order and tells me that she cannot read footnotes. Thirty-six voters were originally presented, but Roxanna Saad's ballot was never counted because it did not contain a completed voter registration form. 3. The "25" other votes should actually read 23, but its hard to get this number right, when the two previous numbers were completely wrong; 64-41=23. The ECC will probably present their ruling some time next week, at that point, the loser will have 10 days to present an appeal to the MN Supreme Court.

The Counting Begins

4/7/2009 4:14:51 AM CT

Before the court even begins counting tomorrow morning, thirteen ballots will be eliminated from their original request of 400. The Star Tribune is reporting, by way of the Deputy Secretary of State, that 13 of the 400 ballots have already been counted and were erroneously requested due to clerical errors. The relevant portion of the Star Tribune article is excerpted below:

Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann said Monday that 13 of the 400 ballots on the judges' list had already been counted, on Election Day or during the recount, putting the number of ballots that might be added at 387. Once opened, outside envelopes -- which contain voters' names -- will be separated from the security envelopes that contain the original ballots, said Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Poser will then sort the ballots into three piles -- Franken, Coleman and other. Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

This reduction of the potential pool of additional, countable absentee ballots will likely facilitate an MN Supreme Court appeal by Norm Coleman as the number of physical ballots quickly approaches his current deficit. Once the ballots are counted, hopefully by the end of tomorrow, the court still has other issues to confront before they present their ruling. Once the ECC determines the victor, the loser will have 10 days to appeal to the MN Supreme Court. In other related news, the Franken campaigns has asked the court to allow another attorney, Lisa Marshall Manheim from Seattle, WA to practice before the court:

Contestee Al Franken hereby moves for permission for Lisa Marshall Manheim, attorney with Perkins Coie LLP, to practice before this Court pro hac vice in this matter. This Motion is based upon Rule 5 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, the accompanying affidavit of Lisa Marshal Manheim, and the files and proceedings herein. Dated: April 6, 2009 Source: Contestees Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Lisa Marshall Manheim via MNCourts.gov

I really have no idea why the Franken campaign is seeking further representation but a quick Google search revealed a little background information about Mrs. Manheim. She apparently represented the Democratic candidate, Chris Gregoire, during the 2004 Washington Gubernatorial Recount; Gregoire eventually won. Perhaps the Franken campaign is already gearing up for the appeals process; although a separate request would have to be filled with the MN Supreme Court, the relevant court during a subsequent appeal. Other than those two bits of information, I have nothing else to report until the counting begins tomorrow at 9:30 AM CT. Check theuptake.org for a live stream tomorrow morning. Hopefully the court releases some hard numbers tomorrow, but if they don't I'm sure a few shoddy numbers will trickle in from the Minnesota Media; in any case I'll try to recap the count tomorrow night, assuming relevant data exists.

Clarifying the 400 Requested Ballots

4/6/2009 9:18:22 AM CT

I wrote an article last Thursday in which I attempted to quantify the Election Contest Court's Tuesday request for 400 currently rejected absentee ballots. While my previous analysis was not technically incorrect, it was however a misrepresentation of the current state of affairs; I entirely neglected to account for the Nauen group of petitioners. I'll first present the corrected extrapolation: Extrapolations: ECC Requests by City [Nauen] [PDF, 128KB]

                      Identified       Extrapolation
                        Voters      Coleman      Franken
ECC Request               358        150.24       149.86
    Coleman Regions       219        106.02        76.30
    Franken Regions       139         44.24        73.56

Nauen Petitioners          42          2.10        37.80
    Only Orig. 64           6           .30         5.40
    Ordered Counted        36          1.80        32.40

Total                     400        152.35       187.66

You'll notice that the new version greatly increases Franken's projected gain; up to about 35 from around 1.5 previously. This vast increase can be directly attributed to the assumption that any voter listed within the Nauen group is inherently more likely to vote for Franken as the Franken campaign is providing the financial support; Mr. Nauen also appears to be a Democrat based upon his contributions. The extrapolation uses a 90-5-5 split, in favor of Franken. Coleman needs to make up 225 votes, and the numbers simply do not add up; either in the extrapolation above or the trinomial distribution below: The very small number above, is the probability of Norm Coleman overcoming the Canvassing Board Certified 225 vote deficit within the 400 ballots requested by the ECC; the calculation uses the statewide result as certified by the MN State Canvassing Board on January 5th. The numbers of the current situation are hopefully well understood but let's take a look at the sequence of events relating to the Nauen Petitioners to better understand the current circumstances. The pertinent excerpts of the original Nauen petition, as presented on January 13th, is quoted below; this filling listed each of the 64 voters by name and county within Exhibit A:

CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray for an Order of the Court as follows: 1. Directing that Petitioners' absentee ballots shall be opened and counted, and the total be declared and certified, for such use as might be deemed appropriate by the United States Senate or the judges responsible for the election contest pending in the District Court for the County of Ramsey, No. 62-CV-09-56 or any other proper use under law, pursuant to procedures established by this Court. 2. Granting Petitioner's such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: January 13, 2008 ... Exhibit A [List of 64 Voters by Name and County, CSV] Source: Petition by Certain MN Voters to have their Votes Counted Pursuant to Mn.Stat.204B.44 via MNCourts.gov

Within the first filling, the 64 petitioners basically asked to have their votes counted. The ECC would eventually grant 23 of these individuals their request; a 24th also met the court's criteria barring the presence of a completed voter registration application. The February 10th order pertaining to these 23 (or 24) is presented below along with the digitized table containing their names and associated county:

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioners Dennis Peterson, et. al.'s (''Petitioners'') motion for summary judgment. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 2. The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law. [List of 24 Voters by Name and County, CSV] 3. The absentee ballot of Roxanna Saad of Dakota County shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to open the secrecy envelope to determine whether it contains a complete voter registration application. In the event that a complete voter registration application is found within the secrecy envelope, Ms. Saad's absentee ballot shall be opened and counted in accordance with section 2 of this Order. 4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein 5. Any requested relief not specifically granted herein is DENIED. Dated: February 10 2009 Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

I wrote a previous article addressing the above order that may provide additional insight. The Coleman campaign then moved to vacate the previous order by specifically addressing eight of the just mentioned voters. The ECC met Coleman about half way and vacated three of the previously granted 24 petitioners. This order was released on March 2nd, but was never posted to the Litigation Website, but The Ohio State University pulled through:

This matter comes before the Court on "Contestants' Notice of Motion and Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment." After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Intervenor's Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 2. That Portion of the Court's February 10th Order granting summary judgment to Petitioners Hannah Gorski, Donna Mortenson and Audrey Verlo is vacated. 3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein 4. Any other relief not fully set forth herein is expressly denied. Dated: 3/2/09 Source: Order on Intervenor's Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment via MoritzLaw.OSU.edu

The remaining forty or so voters still had the opportunity to provide additional evidence to support their original motion; nineteen voters then renewed their previous motion on February 20th. The court would release the following order with respect to this renewed:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on February 27, 2009, upon Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. The following absentee ballots shall he provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law. [List of 14 Voters by Name and County, CSV] 3. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. 4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Dated this 11th day of March 2009. Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

Fourteen of the nineteen petitioners were granted their requested relief as their ballots were ordered to be opened and counted, eventually. Three of the neglected five voters then tried again by further requesting that the ECC count their vote. This motion was filled on March 31st and is excerpted below:

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in full. 2. That portion of the Court's March 11th Order granting summary judgment to Petitioners Donald and Donelda Applebee is vacated. 3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein 4. Any other relief not fully set forth herein is expressly denied. Dated: March 31, 2009 ... II. Petitioners' Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted In their second renewed motion for summary judgment, Petitioners seek summary judgment on claims brought by four voters: Katie Kaszysnki, Roxanna Saad, Kourteney Dropps, and Tempest Moore. In addition to the evidence presented by Petitioners in support of their motion for summary judgment, the Court in the election contest received evidence as to each of these voters. As in prior orders, the Court looks at the individualized evidence in support of Petitioners' claims that their ballots were properly cast and rejected in error in the November 4, 2008 election. The Court examines each of the identified Petitioners in tum. Source: Order Granting Petitioners Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

The three petitioners who were the subject of the second renewed motion were granted their relief, but two other, already relieved voters were not so fortunate. These two voters will not have their ballot examined for potential inclusion; there was apparently a clerical error that lead to their inclusion in one of the previous orders. This brings the total number of relieved Nauen petitioners to 35 (or 36). I've provided a recap of the Nauen orders below that accompanies a much more detailed spreadsheet: Extrapolations: Nauen Petitioners and ECC Ordered Opened & Counted [PDF, 125KB]

Date         Type     Party          Result      Total Votes
Jan 21      Motion    Nauen      64 Petitioners       0
Feb 10       Order    Nauen       Count 23 (24)     23 (24)
Mar  2       Order   Coleman        Vacate 3        20 (21)
Mar 11       Order    Nauen         Count 14        34 (35)
Mar 31       Order    Nauen        Count 3 (4)      37 (38)
                                    Vacate 2        35 (36)

While the Nauen group accounts for the vast majority of previously relieved voters, their was one other group, brought forth by the Contestee, Al Franken. The following order by the ECC takes us back to February 23rd addresses twelve voters listed within Franken's original counterclaim:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on January 23, 2009, upon Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims and on Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims is GRANTED IN" PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law. [List of 12 Voters by Name and County, CSV] 3. Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims is DENIED. 4. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. 5. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Dated: February 23, 2009 Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Contestees Conditional Motions for Partial Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

These twelve voters votes will eventually be counted bringing the total number of previously relieved voters 47 (or 48):

Date         Type     Party          Result      Total Votes
Feb 23       Order   Franken        Count 12        47 (48)

Each of the 47 (or 48) are included within the list of 400 requested by the ECC on March 31st. The 400 are supposed to be provided to the court by Monday, April 6th at noon so the process of opening and counting each ballot can begin tomorrow (Tuesday) morning at 9:30 AM CT. At that point, the counting will begin with respect to Minnesota law; that is, because a ballot is instructed to be opened, it may not be counted. Overvoting and undervoting may have occurred, or the voter may have improperly marked their ballot; a multitude of issues could prevent a physical ballot from being counted above and beyond that which has already been determined by the ECC; simply that the absentee ballot was legally cast. The physical counting of these 400 ballots will take place in the same courtroom and may or may not be open to the public, due to privacy concerns; but in either case we should know the result Tuesday evening. If the process is public, theuptake.org will probably provide a live stream.

ECC Requests Delivery of 400 Ballots

4/2/2009 4:48:24 PM CT

After deliberating for about three weeks, the Election Contest Court broke their silence by releasing two orders, with more likely to follow. The first order governs the court's request for the delivery of exactly 400 absentee ballots, that have yet to be counted, to the Secretary of State's office for further review. The full text of the order is excerpted below; the memorandum follows within the provided PDF:

ORDER 1. The following materials shall be provided to the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State no later than 12:00 noon on April 6, 2009 for review by the Court:
a. The absentee ballot return envelopes for the individuals identified in Exhibit A;
b. The absentee ballot return envelopes, absentee ballot applications, and federal postcard applications for the individuals identified in Exhibit B; and
c. The original voter registration application and absentee ballot return envelope for the individual identified in Exhibit C. 2. Absentee ballots determined by the Court to be legally cast shall be opened and counted on April 7, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 300 of the Minnesota Judicial Center and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law. 3. A copy of this Order shall be furnished to each of the County Auditors, who shall be responsible for locating the ballots identified herein. All such ballots shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State pursuant to the directions in Exhibit D. 4. Legally cast absentee ballots shall be opened, sorted and counted by the Office of the Secretary of State in open court. Opening, sorting and counting shall proceed using the same methods as described in the Minnesota Supreme Court's Order of December 24, 2008. Upon opening, sorting and counting, the ballots shall be completely and finally separated from the envelopes in accordance with Minnesota's policy of ballot secrecy. The totals from the opening, sorting and counting shall be included in the results of the 2008 United States Senate election reported by the Minnesota Secretary of State. 5. The Court's Memorandum, attached herewith, is incorporated herein. 6. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. Source: Order for Delivery of Ballots to Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State for Review by the Court via MNCourts.gov

The three previously referenced exhibits contain the 400 voters whose ballots have been deemed worthy of future consideration for inclusion by the Election Contest Court. I have digitized the contents of these three exhibits below: Exhibit A: 393 Voters, [CSV, 14KB]
Exhibit B: 6 Voters, [CSV, 1KB]
Exhibit C: 1 Voter, [CSV, 1KB] Now, using the data provided above, an extrapolation can be preformed to determine the probable outcome of these 400 ballots. The most interesting case assumes complete inclusion, although other scenarios are provided: Extrapolations: ECC Requests by City [PDF, 127KB]

                      Identified       Extrapolation
                        Voters      Coleman      Franken
Total                     400        166.95       168.42
    Coleman Regions       242        116.60        84.95
    Franken Regions       158        50.35         83.47

If each and everyone of these 400 ballots is analyzed and eventually counted, Franken's lead will increase by about 1.47 votes based upon a linear extrapolation of the recounted vote totals within each voter's county/precinct/city; Franken already leads by 225 votes as certified by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board on January 5th. Despite the favorable extrapolation for the Franken campaign, it remains impossible to predict the outcome of these 400 ballots; but we do know the destiny of four ballots. The second order released by the ECC on Tuesday dealt with four petitioner's motion for summary judgment; the court's orders are presented below:

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioners' Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in full. 2. That portion of the Court's March 11th Order granting summary judgment to Petitioners Donald and Donelda Applebee is vacated. 3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein 4. Any other relief not fully set forth herein is expressly denied. Dated: March 31, 2009 Source: Order Granting Peitioners Second Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov

The court granted four voters their requested summary judgment meaning their votes will be opened and counted by the ECC. It should also be noted that the four petitioner's names can be found within one of the three aforementioned exhibits. The order also vacated or undid a previous order granting the inclusion of two other voters' ballots. At the end of the day, at least four more ballots will be opened and counted, with the possibility of 396 still in the balance. We may also learn more about the court's view on double counting in the interim as the requested absentee ballots trickle into the Secretary of State's Office before the April 7th deadline. If the counting of some or all of the 400 requests does not materially change the situation, the court will still address all other counting issues for the sake of thoroughness, in the event of an appeal to the MN Supreme Court by either campaign. Update [6:07 AM CT] I've recomputed the above extrapolation to reflect the Nauen petitioners; I'll have a more complete synopsis later today or tomorrow. The new data implies that Franken will increase his lead by about 35 votes. Updated Extrapolation: ECC Requests by City [Nauen] [PDF, 137KB] Update II [6:20 AM CT 4/5/09 ] I found a series of errors within the original extrapolations; I've since updated the entire article to reflect these corrections, including links to the updated PDFs. I'll hopefully have time tomorrow to get write the article I intended to write today regarding the universe of absentee ballots which are to be counted.

Squashing Fiscal Abuse

3/23/2009 9:04:52 AM CT

The continuing saga of AIG's taxpayer funded bonuses may be eclipsed by another company's incompetence; Merrill Lynch is ready and willing according to the New York Times:

Merrill Lynch's $3.6 billion bonus pool has been among the most controversial payouts on Wall Street. But most of those bonuses, which included some 700 awards of over $1 million, would not be affected by a new bonus tax being considered in Congress. The tax, which passed in the House on Thursday, would affect only bonuses paid during 2009. Typically, Merrill's bonuses are paid in January, along with the rest of Wall Street's. But the investment bank pushed $2.5 billion of the bonuses out the door in December in advance of its merger with Bank of America. Source: New York Times

Without making any judgment with regard to the ethical payout of these bonuses, the legal argument is clearly supportive of Merrill's intentions. The creation of new law will be required to prevent, or inhibit the payout of these contractually obligated bonuses; but the creation of these new laws could establish dangerous precedents. The new administration has clearly stated their intent to limit these bonus, and it may possible for the President to directly intervene without Congress' assistance. Based upon our Friday article, it is still possible for Obama to abuse his Executive power to detain any person who "substantially supported" terrorists; the term used by the Bush Administration was "Enemy Combatant." Using the evidence presented by Bush's Government in the Rapp Declaration it becomes clear that the term "Enemy Combatant" encompassed financial terrorism; this nomenclature would then translate to "substantially supported" financial terrorists under the Obama Administration's new characterization. Before we continue, it is important to understand what the term "terrorist" actually encompasses; as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary:

[a. F. terroriste, f. L. terror TERROR: see -IST.] 1. As a political term: a. Applied to the Jacobins and their agents and partisans in the French Revolution, esp. to those connected with the Revolutionary tribunals during the "Reign of Terror". b. Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation. In early use also applied spec. to members of one of the extreme revolutionary societies in Russia. The term now usually refers to a member of a clandestine or expatriate organization aiming to coerce an established government by acts of violence against it or its subjects. 2. Dyslogistically: One who entertains, professes, or tries to awaken or spread a feeling of terror or alarm; an alarmist, a scaremonger. 3. attrib. Hence terro'ristic, -'ristical adjs., characterized by or practising terrorism; also terro'ristically. Source: Oxford English Dictionary

Using the above bolded, definition one could argue that the large institutional banks coerced the Government into providing large payouts in an attempt to remedy the terror invoked as a result of selfish financial management. If the Obama Administration is serious about recouping the taxpayer funded bonuses, Obama, as President, could declare any recipient of these taxpayer funded bonuses an accomplice to financial terrorists. While I doubt my previous train of thought passes legal muster, a move of that magnitude may finally force TARP funded bonus recipients, and their respective companies, to realize that the entire financial scenario is "not a fucking game." If the individual agrees to return the bonus money, Obama could simply repeal or pardon his detention order.

Obama's Abusable Power

3/20/2009 4:58:25 PM CT

On September 11th, George Bush gained a lot of power, legal or otherwise, and whether you like it or not this power transferred to the new administration. Obama may be the most powerful president ever, but this new found power carries the requisite of responsibility. Given the current state of our nation, it may be possible, perhaps even responsible, for Obama to abuse his new found power for the greater good; but so far, his administration has remained effectively silent on the matter. This article will attempt to detail the legal processes associated with the creation and transition of this power; by understanding the circumstances, we can better understand the promise or peril of any Executive decision resulting from the use of these aforementioned powers. Our sleuthing follows the tail of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, an alleged (and in all likelihood) al Qaeda operative originally detained in 2001 as a material witness to the FBI's investigation of 9/11. Al-Marri was arrested in Peoria, Illinois and was eventually charged with credit card fraud; a trail date was then set for June of 2003. Evidence of these events can be found within a 2007 court judgment which we will be discussing later on; I've excerpted the relevant information below:

In February 2002, al-Marri was charged in the Southern District of New York with the possession of unauthorized or counterfeit credit-card numbers with the intent to defraud. A year later, in January 2003, he was charged in a second, six-count indictment, with two counts of making a false statement to the FBI, three counts of making a false statement on a bank application, and one count of using another person's identification for the purpose of influencing the action of a federally insured financial institution. Al-Marri pleaded not guilty to all of these charges. In May 2003, a federal district court in New York dismissed the charges against al-Marri for lack of venue. The Government then returned al-Marri to Peoria and he was reindicted in the Central District of Illinois on the same seven counts, to which he again pleaded not guilty. The district court set a July 21, 2003 trial date. On Friday, June 20, 2003, the court scheduled a hearing on pre-trial motions, including a motion to suppress evidence against al-Marri assertedly obtained by torture. On the following Monday, June 23, before that hearing could be held, the Government moved ex parte to dismiss the indictment based on an order signed that morning by the President. Source: Al-Marri v. Wright via USCourts.gov [PDF]

Before al-Marri could face his June 23rd trail, President Bush declared him an "Enemy Combatant" and initiated the process required to transfer him to the South Carolina equivalent of Guantanamo Bay. While imprisoned in South Carolina, the Federal District Court heeded the Government's request to dismiss all charges filed against al-Marri. Reading further in the aforementioned 2007 judgment reveals additional details of the just described sequence of events:

In the order, President George W. Bush stated that he "DETERMINE[D] for the United States of America that" al-Marri: (1) is an enemy combatant; (2) is closely associated with al Qaeda; (3) "engaged in conduct that constituted hostile and war-like acts, including conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism;" (4) "possesses intelligence . . . that . . . would aid U.S. efforts to prevent attacks by al Qaeda;" and (5) "represents a continuing, present, and grave danger to the national security of the United States." The President determined that al-Marri's detention by the military was "necessary to prevent him from aiding al Qaeda" and thus ordered the Attorney General to surrender al- Marri to the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense to "detain him as an enemy combatant." The federal district court in Illinois granted the Government's motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against al- Marri. In accordance with the President's order, al-Marri was then transferred to military custody and brought to the Naval Consolidated Brig in South Carolina. Source: Al-Marri v. Wright via USCourts.gov [PDF]

Al-Marri's counsel filed a petition, on his behalf, on July 8th, 2003 seeking a writ of habeas corpus in the Illinois jurisdiction of his original arrest; this petition was later dismissed citing a "lack of venue." Exactly one year later, his representation filed another similar petition in the South Carolina District Court, again requesting writ to habeas corpus. The Government responded on September 4th by citing the Declaration of Jeffrey N. Rapp, Director of the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism, as support for the President's order to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant. Mr. Rapp's declaration was 16 pages long and became known as the Rapp Declaration. The Rapp Declaration is presented below with a few pertinent excerpts highlighted with regard to a future article:

[The original contents of this document were classified, but the information has since been declassified as noted by the stricken text. Bold added for emphasis.] ~~SECRET//NOFORN~~ ~~Classified~~ Declaration of Mr. Jeffrey N. Rapp Director, Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism 1. (U) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Jeffrey N. Raw, hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, and under the penalty of perjury, the following is true and correct: Preamble 2 (U) I submit this Declaration for the Court's consideration in the matter of Al-Marri v. Hanft, Case Number 2:04-2257-26AJ, pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. 3. (U) Based on the information that I haw acquired in the course of my official duties, I am familiar with all the matters discussed in this Declaration. I am also familiar with the interviews of Ali Saleh Mohamed Kahlah Al-Marri (Al-Marri) conducted by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and by personnel of the Department of Defense (DoD) once the DoD took custody of Al-Marri on 23 lune 2003 after he was declared an enemy combatant by the President of the United States. ... Overview 8. (~~S//NF~~) Al-Marri, also known as Abdulkareemm A. Almuslam, is currently being detained in the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The President of the United States has determined that he is closely associated with al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization with which the United States is at war. All detailed below, Al-Marri is an al Qaeda"sleeper" agent sent to the United States for the purpose of engaging in and facilitating terrorist activities subsequent to September 11, 2001. Al-Marri currently possesses information of high intelligence value, including information about personnel activities of al Qaeda. Prior to arriving in the United States on September 10.2001, Al-Marri met personally with Usama Bin Laden (Bin Laden) and volunteered for a martyr mission or to do anything else that al Qaeda requested. Al-Marri was assisted in his al Qaeda assignment to the United States by at least two high-level al Qaeda members: September 11, 2001 mastermind Khalid Shaykh Muhammed (KSM); and al Qaeda financier and September 11, 2001moneyman Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi (Al-Hawsawi). Al Qaedasent Al-Marri to the United States to facilitate other aI Qaeda operatives in carrying out post-September 11, 2001 terror attack. Al Qaeda also asked Al-Marri to explore computer hacking methods and the U.S. financial system. In addition, Al-Marri was trained by al Qaeda in the use of poisons and had detailed information concerning poisonous chemicals stored on his laptop computer. Information about Al-Marri's relationship with and activities on behalf of al-Qaeda has been obtained from and corroborated by multiple intelligence sources. ... 27. (~~S//NF~~) In addition, Al-Marri's laptop computer contained numerous computer programs typically utilized by computer hackers; "proxy" computer software which can be utilized to hide a user's origin or identity when connected to the internet; and bookmarked lists of favorite websites apparently devoted to computer hacking. Al Qaeda had tasked Al-Marri with exploring the possibility of hacking into the main frame computers of banks inside the U.S. to wipe out balances and otherwise wreak havoc with banking records in order to damages the U.S. economy. Al-Marri had discussed with al Qaeda other hacking operations as well, including hacking into the computers of banks and credit card companies, obtaining credit card account numbers, and using the these numbers to book airline reservations on five or six flights. This in accord with the belief that fulling booking flight with false reservations would result in loses to the airlines industry. ... Conclusion 35. (U) In conclusion, investigation has determined that Al-Marri was an active al Qaeda operative at the time of his entry into the United States on September 10, 2001. Al-Marri was sent to the United States at the behest of al Qaeda. Upon his arrival in the United States. Al-Marri engaged in conduct in preparation for acts of international terrorism intended to cause injury or adverse effects on the United States. Al-Marri's status has been subject to a rigorous review process and it has been determined that Al-Marri represents a continuing grave danger to the national security of the United States. Al-Marri must be detained to prevent him. from aiding al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States, its forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens. Source: Rapp Declaration via WashingtonPost [PDF] (Mirror)

Al-Marri was then permitted to respond to the Government's evidence; he contended that he was not an enemy combatant and moved for summary judgment. The district court would eventually deny his motion, but the final say was delegated to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge eventually ruled that the Rapp Declaration provided sufficient grounds for classification as an enemy combatant; the magistrate judge directed al-Marri to file rebuttal evidence. In response to the magistrate judge, Al-Marri denied their assertion, but filed no rebuttal evidence citing the court's burden to provide evidence of his guilt; he argued that the Rapp Declaration did not suffice. In 2006, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of al-Marri's case and the district court adopted this suggestion; al-Marri then signaled his intent to appeal. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit presided over al-Marri's appeal and issued the following ruling on June 11th, 2007. The 4th Circuit unanimously reversed the district court's ruling with regard to al-Marri's habeas corpus argument. The court did not however reach a unanimous verdict with respect to the issue of Executive power; one of the three judges voted to uphold the district court's ruling. The full text of the majority ruling is presented below:

IV. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the district court dismissing al-Marri's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We remand the case to that court with instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Secretary of Defense to release al-Marri from military custody within a reasonable period of time to be set by the district court. The Government can transfer al-Marri to civilian authorities to face criminal charges, initiate deportation proceedings against him, hold him as a material witness in connection with grand jury proceedings, or detain him for a limited time pursuant to the Patriot Act. But military detention of al-Marri must cease. Source: Judgment Al-Marri v. Wright via USCourts.gov [PDF]

The 4th Circuit court then held an en banc rehearing on their previous ruling; the date of the hearing was October 31, 2007. On July 15th, 2008 they issued two 5-4 decisions; their first ruling stated that if the Government's allegations are in fact true, al-Marri could be held indefinitely within a military prison as an enemy combatant; the court also ruled that al-Marri was not provided his constitutionally defined due process of law to determine whether the aforementioned allegations were in fact true. The complete opinion of the en banc rehearing is quoted below:

ON REHEARING EN BANC ... OPINION PER CURIAM: Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his military detention as an enemy combatant. After the district court denied all relief, al-Marri noted this appeal. A divided panel of this court reversed the judgment of the district court and ordered that al-Marri's military detention cease. See Al-Marri v. Wright, 487 F.3d 160 (4th Cir. 2007). Subsequently, this court vacated that judgment and considered the case en banc. The parties present two principal issues for our consideration: (1) assuming the Government's allegations about al-Marri are true, whether Congress has empowered the President to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant; and (2) assuming Congress has empowered the President to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant provided the Government's allegations against him are true, whether al-Marri has been afforded sufficient process to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant.* Having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, the en banc court now holds: (1) by a 5 to 4 vote (Chief Judge Williams and Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Traxler, and Duncan voting in the affirmative; Judges Michael, Motz, King, and Gregory voting in the negative), that, if the Government's allegations about al-Marri are true, Congress has empowered the President to detain him as an enemy combatant; and (2) by a 5 to 4 vote (Judges Michael, Motz, Traxler, King, and Gregory voting in the affirmative; Chief Judge Williams and Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, and Duncan voting in the negative), that, assuming Congress has empowered the President to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant provided the Government's allegations against him are true, al-Marri has not been afforded sufficient process to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinions that follow. ---------------- *We deny the Government's motion to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction. The Government relied on section 7 of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, which amended the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-148, § 1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2680, 2741-42. After we heard en banc argument in this case, the Supreme Court declared section 7 of the MCA unconstitutional. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___, ___, slip op. at 64 (June 12, 2008). The Government now concedes that we have jurisdiction over al-Marri's habeas petition. Source: Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli via USCourts.gov [PDF]

In response to the 4th Circuit's en banc rehearing, al-Marri's representation filed a petition for certiorari on September 19th, 2008 with the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would accept the appeal on December 5th, 2008 pertaining to the following question:

08-368 AL-MARRI V. PUCCIARELLI DECISION BELOW:534 F.3d 213 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-7427 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: Does the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224, authorize and if so does the Constitution allow-the seizure and indefinite military detention of a person lawfully residing in the United States, without criminal charge or trial, based on government assertions that the detainee conspired with al Qaeda to engage in terrorist activities? CERT. GRANTED 12/5/2008 Source: 08-368 Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli Questions Presented via SupremeCourtUS.gov [PDF]

Between the time of the initial hearing and the Supreme Court's issuance of a ruling, a new Executive took office. Just two days into his presidency, Barack Obama issued a memorandum detailing his administration's intent to review the detention of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri. The review is to be completed on or before March 23, 2009. The Supreme Court then issued their ruling on March 6th:

FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 2009 CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION AL-MARRI, ALI V. SPAGONE, DANIEL 08-368 (08A755) The application of the Acting Solicitor General respecting the custody and transfer of petitioner, seeking to release petitioner from military custody and transfer him to the custody of the Attorney General, presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950). Source: Al-Marri v. Spagone Summary Certiorari Summary Disposition via SupremeCourtUS.gov [PDF]

A press release by the American Civil Liberties Union effectively describes the ramifications of the Supreme Court's decision:

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today vacated a lower court decision giving the president the extraordinary power to seize and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens or residents without charge or trial. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who, after being held for almost six years in military detention, was indicted last week in federal court and charged with two counts of material support for terrorism. In July 2008, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a fractured decision that the president had legal authority to imprison al-Marri indefinitely without charge. As one judge noted in dissent, however, to accept the government's claim of extraordinary detention power would have "disastrous consequences for the Constitution-and the country." The Supreme Court vacated that decision and dismissed the case as moot. The following can be attributed to Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project and lead counsel in al-Marri's case: "While we would have preferred a Supreme Court ruling that U.S. citizens and lawful residents detained in the U.S. cannot be held in military custody as 'enemy combatants' without charges or trial, the Supreme Court nonetheless took an important step today by vacating a lower court decision that had upheld the Bush administration's authority to designate al-Marri as an 'enemy combatant.' Congress never granted the president that authority and the Constitution does not permit it. We trust that the Obama administration will not repeat the abuses of the Bush administration having now chosen to prosecute Mr. al-Marri in federal court rather than defend the Bush administration's actions in this case." Source: Supreme Court Vacates Decision Giving President Indefinite Detention Power In Al-Marri Case via ACLU.org

Obama appears to be taking the necessary steps, at least in the eyes of public opinion, to limit his own power, but the legal door has yet to be closed. Noah Feldman of Harvard University wrote an interesting and very informed op-ed in Thursday's edition of the New York Times that discussed the entire al-Marri debacle as it relates to President Obama. Prof. Feldman places Obama within the precipice of the legal doorway, unable, or perhaps unwilling to make an immediate or definitive decision with regard to his Executive power. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and Obama's inherited power could help alleviate the current angst on Wall Street; we'll provide further analysis later in the week.

Colem4n g0t Haxz0red?

3/12/2009 1:41:44 PM CT

On Tuesday, March 10th, the website WikiLeaks.org published two files anonymously obtained in connection to the Coleman campaign's server crash on January 28th. (As an aside, WikiLeaks.org was also responsible for publishing the content of Sarah Palin's Yahoo.com email account; a University of Tennessee student was eventually charged.) To understand how this data became available, let's recall what I wrote on January 28th with regard to this topic:

Now to cover the issue of the "fake" controversy associated with Norm's website. Norm's website was not intentionally taken down by anybody within the campaign. The site is run from a remote location. I have logically concluded that his site crashed for one of two reasons, (i) either an extreme amount of traffic, or (ii) poor coding resulting in a memory leak. If the site was getting hit with a decent amount of traffic, which does appear to be the case, the number of database connections may have exceeded the allowable limit due to poor coding. When this happens there is essentially nothing that can be done from a remote location. The server is inaccessible because the processor is always trying to catch up with the current number of requests. In order to fix the problem, the admin would need access to the server, but they could not gain access because the server was constantly busy. Their solution was to redirect traffic to the IP address 1.1.1.1. They would have been wise to setup of an error page on another server and redirect to that, but I don't know the details. Whenever the IP address is changed, the new address must propagate back through the internet; this can take up to 72 hours. To compensate for this delay, they changed the TTL to 600 for the 1.1.1.1 IP address, which is a very small amount of time in this application. They wanted the dummy address to propagate to as many people as possible as fast as possible so that they could attempt to fix the original error. In changing the TTL they are able to gain access to the original server faster, without the new address propagating through the internet over the actual server address. In changing the address they made a calculated decision; one I would guess they currently regret. When their old server came back online, each and every file they had hosted was available for download. There were documents available that would not have justified any publicity stunt. My guess is that somebody outside of the campaign initially discovered the outage and began to push the "excessive traffic from voter database leads to crash" story. At this point the story was picked up by drudge.com and the Coleman was really left with really no choice but to propel the story. If they had actually acknowledged the problem, the news would have spread faster than they could have fixed; which happened anyway, but it took some time for people to figure out that files were available. I do not believe the initial crash was intentional, I believe it was a very poor implementation of technology that forced the Coleman campaign to run with the spin. Source: Litigation, Day 3 via VoteForAmerica.net

After Wednesday's litigation proceedings, Norm Coleman directly addressed the issues relating to the leaked information: The contents of Coleman's donor list and voluteer roster were released Tuesday night at about 9 PM by WikiLeaks.org after the affected individuals were notified, via email, of their inclusion within the leaked database. According to WikiLeaks.org, the uncompressed MySql database comprises 4,300 MBs across 36 individual tables; the compressed table was named "database.tar.gz" and was listed as 205 MBs in size. Two of the leaked tables contain illegal, personal information and a description of their contents is presented below, as quoted from WikiLeaks.org:

contribution Contains campaign contribution information. Unique ID number, first name, last name, city, state, zip, phone, e-mail, employer, title, type of credit card used, name on card, last four of credit card, CVV2 value of the card, donation amount, authorization code from credit card processor, AVS (address verification) match, and a timestamp. loadtime Stores significant information about web views, including user agents and IP addresses. ALSO CONTAINS ALL POST DATA -- THIS INCLUDES UNENCRYPTED CREDIT CARD INFORMATION. Source: WikiLeaks.org

The contribution table contains the "card security code" as defined below within Minnesota Stat. § 325E.64; possession of this data beyond the initial 48 hours of the electronic transaction is illegal:

325E.64 ACCESS DEVICES; BREACH OF SECURITY. Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the terms defined in this subdivision have the meanings given them. ... (d) "Card security code" means the three-digit or four-digit value printed on an access device or contained in the microprocessor chip or magnetic stripe of an access device which is used to validate access device information during the authorization process. ... Subd. 2. Security or identification information; retention prohibited. No person or entity conducting business in Minnesota that accepts an access device in connection with a transaction shall retain the card security code data, the PIN verification code number, or the full contents of any track of magnetic stripe data, subsequent to the authorization of the transaction or in the case of a PIN debit transaction, subsequent to 48 hours after authorization of the transaction. A person or entity is in violation of this section if its service provider retains such data subsequent to the authorization of the transaction or in the case of a PIN debit transaction, subsequent to 48 hours after authorization of the transaction. Source: 325E.64, 2008 Minnesota Statutes via Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes

The loadtime table also may contain illegal information in correlation with Minnesota Stat. § 325E.61:

325E.61 DATA WAREHOUSES; NOTICE REQUIRED FOR CERTAIN DISCLOSURES. Subdivision 1. Disclosure of personal information; notice required. (a) Any person or business that conducts business in this state, and that owns or licenses data that includes personal information, shall disclose any breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to any resident of this state whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as provided in paragraph (c), or with any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach, identify the individuals affected, and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. ... (e) For purposes of this section and section 13.055, subdivision 6, "personal information" means an individual's first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when the data element is not secured by encryption or another method of technology that makes electronic data unreadable or unusable, or was secured and the encryption key, password, or other means necessary for reading or using the data was also acquired: (1) Social Security number; (2) driver's license number or Minnesota identification card number; or (3) account number or credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual's financial account. Source: 25E.61, 2008 Minnesota Statutes via Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes

The singular presence of credit card numbers would not constitute "personal information," but in culmination with the contribution table, it would likely become possible for a diligent wrong-doer to associate a singular credit card number with the names listed in the contribution table. I cannot say this for certain as I have not seen the contents of the loadtime table, but it seems very likely, that with some basic data parsing skills, it would be possible to access the financial account of some if not all individuals listed within the contribution table. Norm Coleman's campaign appears to have unintentionally violated the law, based upon the information provided by WikiLeaks.org and the referenced legal statues.

Litigation, Day 33 Press Conferences

3/12/2009 1:39:23 PM CT

I've posted video of each campaign's press conference, which followed Wednesday's litigation activities. Marc Elias, of the Franken campaign went first: Ben Ginsberg, of the Coleman campaign, then stepped up to the plate: Norm Coleman then made a brief statement addressing his leaked donor database; Fritz Knaak then fielded questions from the media on the same subject: The three videos presented above are available for download: Marc Elias: WMV, 147 MB, 9:00
Ben Ginsberg: WMV, 142 MB, 8:39
Norm Coleman: WMV, 122 MB, 7:29 I'll update this post later with some pictures of the press conference area.

Secrecy Envelope Search Complete

3/9/2009 11:52:08 PM CT

On Thursday, February 26th, the Election Contest Tribunal commisioned a search for valid registration forms within 1526 currently rejected absentee ballots. The conclusion of this search was supposed to have occurred last Wednesday, March 4th, but for whatever reason the release of this information was delayed until today. The Minneapolis Star Tribune apparently obtained the search results late Monday afternoon as evidenced in one of their online articles:

Here is a county breakdown of 89 rejected-absentee ballot envelopes that were found to have properly completed registration cards. The letter in parentheses after the county name indicates which candidate carried that county (C - Coleman; F- Franken); it does not indicate for whom these ballots were cast. Anoka (C), 1; Clay (C), 4; Crow Wing (C), 1; Dakota (C), 15; Faribault (C), 1; Goodhue (C), 1; Hennepin (F), 15 (Brooklyn Center, 1; Corcoran, 1; Edina, 1; Maple Grove, 2; Minneapolis, 8; Plymouth, 2); Koochiching (F), 1; McLeod (C), 3; Morrison (C), 1; Mower (F), 3; Olmsted (C), 15; Polk (C), 1; Pope (C), 1; Ramsey (F), 6; Steele (C), 1; Swift (F), 1; Washington (C), 14; Winona (F), 2; Wright (C), 1. Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

The above quote is simply an excerpt contained within the current article, but the original posting featured only the above text, but with the "89" replaced with "88." The county list remained unchanged through this revision; in fact the current list still adds up to 88. TheUpTake.org was the first to report the "89" through an exchange between a Coleman attorney and a reporter during the afternoon press conference; the "89" reference occurs at about the 3:50 mark. While the TheUpTake.org provided the total count, they did not publish a county level listing. I have absolutely no idea why the Star Tribune amended their original figure, but I can, and will speculate. One of following scenarios must have occurred within Star Tribune's internal mechanisms 1. They obtained the original listing provided by the Secretary of State's office but failed to adequately report the information contained therein. They literally would have to provide a link to a PDF, which isn't that difficult. 2. Or they may have received the information from a secondary source, perhaps one of the campaigns. If we assume scenario (1) occurred, the the Star Tribune absolutely dropped the ball; but lets assume that the Star Tribune is capable of doing their job, which may not be a reasonable assumption, but stick with me. Onto scenario (2); if they did receive the list from some other source, why would they make the change to reflect "89" instead of their originally reported "88." It doesn't make any sense for them to change the count without changing the list. The only thing that changed was a Coleman attorney stating "89" in a press conference, after quoting a reporter's question. Ben Ginsberg, the Coleman attorney, would have had absolutely no way of knowing the exact number and likely just trusted the reporter in the moment. This then begs the question, why did the Star Tribune assign more weight to a Coleman Press Conference than they did their original source, whatever it was? I am personally assigning more weight to the presence of a table than I am to the proceedings of this particular press conference. Its also entirely possible that the Star Tribune simply couldn't reproduce a 25 line table from a PDF, and in catching their error, they simply adjusted the total to "89," and ignored the error contained within the table. In any case, the Star Tribune's data is the only data currently available, and as such I'm going to assume that their original report of "88" is correct because that is what their table reads. If something changes tomorrow, I'll update this article. I parsed the Star Tribune's table and created another table [PDF] complete with the final recounted votes from each county/municipality listed. I've also created a new map that depicts the origin of each successful registration search; the colorization and shading process is the same as yesterday with divisions of 5, and 10 votes: I've also extrapolated the likely outcome from each of these "88" votes below, assuming all "88" are eventually counted:

                       Identified        Extrapolation
                         Voters       Coleman      Franken
Total                      88          37.01        36.37
    Coleman Counties       66          30.57        24.11
    Franken Counties       22           6.45        12.25

Extrapolations: PDF, 138 KB Neither candidate is likely to gain any ground from these "88" ballots; in fact, if each of these ballots are included, Coleman is only expected to gain .65 votes. Moral of the story, Coleman will need more than these "88" votes to overcome the current 225 vote deficit; at least based upon the county/municipality trend. The Star Tribune article also went on to talk about the Nauen 30, a group of thirty petitioner seeking to intervene into the Election Contest through the Minnesota Supreme Court. This group originally introduced their petition to the Minnesota Supreme Court on February 23rd. The MNSC then issued a ruling Monday afternoon pertaining to these thirty voters; the entire order is quoted below:

Based on petitioners' notice of withdrawal of their petition and upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Harold Shad, et al., under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 be, and the same is, dismissed with prejudice. Dated: March 9, 2009 Source: Order to Dismiss Petition by Certain Minnesota Voters to Have Their Votes Counted Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 via MNCourts.gov

While these voters will not be allowed legal representation within the ECC proceedings, it is still possible for their votes to be counted by some other means. The result of this ruling was good news for Coleman as these 30 voters are widely assumed to have cast their ballots for Franken. At the end of the day, the Coleman and Franken campaigns likely looked in the mirror and thought it was a good day, and sadly, the Star Tribune probably did the same.

Rejected Absentee Map by County

3/9/2009 1:57:55 AM CT

With the Minnesota Senate Election Contest heading into it's seventh week, the issue of rejected absentee ballots will likely rise to the forefront of the discussion. While the counting of additional ballots is obviously big news, the number of previously rejected absentee ballots eligible for reconsideration is somewhat vague, although a definitive ceiling does exist. Using a number of court filings as a guide and our previous compilations, I've generated four maps that should hopefully aid in the understanding of the rejected absentee ballot universe. The court filing exhibits are generally provided at the county level, but occasionally precinct information is entered. In the case of Hennepin County, each municipality is responsible for the sorting and counting of absentee ballots, and despite this distinction within the filings, a municipality map is not available; to account for this degradation of data, Hennepin County is shaded black in the following maps. All of the data is scaled into the county level representation as our maps are only presentable at the county level. The map below provides a graphical visualization of the remaining absentee ballots that may merit inclusion into the ECC's final count. The maps may initially seem cryptic, but its all explained below. I've also posted html and BBcode for each image so you can help spread the word, and keep others in the know. Rejected Absentee Ballot Universe by County (490 x 610 Pixels):

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net"><img src="http://www.voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Minnesota_29" alt="VoteForAmerica.net Minnesota Senate Rejected Absentee Ballot Universe Map by County" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net] [img]http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Minnesota_29[/img] [/url] I'll now attempt to explain the peculiarities of each map and the associated colorization process. Rejected Absentees (0%, 10, 100)
Source: Absentee Ballot Universe [PDF] The upper left most map of Minnesota depicts the complete set of rejected absentee ballots, as presented by the Coleman and Franken campaigns. The total is arrived at by adding the entirety of Coleman's list with Franken's Y list; Franken's X List includes 781 voters already listed within Coleman's list and is therefore not included in the calculation. The shading of each county represents the number of ballots present within each county, the darker the shading the more voters. The lightest shading is 10 identified rejections or less, the middle shading is 10 to 100 ballots and the darkest shades represents a county with 100 ballots or more. The color of each county represents the final recount result as certified by the MN State Canvassing Board on January 5th. The color purple depicts a county in which the victor was decided by less than 3%. A red or blue county illustrates a county won by either Coleman or Franken respectively. If a county is shaded gray, there are no ballots presented from that county on any list. The color and shading degradations are identical for all four maps. Coleman Website (0%, 10, 100)
Source: Coleman's Rejected Absentee Ballot List v3 [PDF] This map depicts the county of origin for each voter listed at "County Every Valid Vote" portion of Norm Coleman's website. While Coleman's list totals 4,458 voters, it is unlikely that each listed voter will be enfranchised upon reconsideration. Coleman first published this list on or before February 7th but the ECC issued a major ruling on February 13th. This new ruling further restrcited the universe of re-considerable absentee ballots from a list of nineteen categories down to seven. Franken X+Y List (0%, 10, 100)
Source: Franken's List X [PDF] and Franken's List Y [PDF] Franken originally submitted 792 rejected voters, but he later ameneded his list after the ECC's February 13th ruling. Exhibit X featured 784 voters who were already entered into evidence, and Exhibit Y featured 804 voters who were exclusively identified by the Franken campaign. Based upon the timing of these two exhibits, its is likely that a vast majority of these 1,585 voters fall within one of the categories outlined by the ECC; but there are going to be exceptions. Registration Search (0%, 10, 100)
Source: Absentee Ballot Registration Search List [PDF] The last map reflects the listing of February 26th's order by the Election Contest Court which commissioned a search for registration forms contained within some 1,526 currently rejected absentee ballots. The result of this search was supposed to be completed by Wednesday, March 4th, but the results have yet to be made public. If an envelope is found to have a valid registration card, the entire absentee ballot was almost certainly legally cast and will likely be opened, that is assuming there are no other errors. In total, there are 5,262 rejected absentee ballots that have not currently been counted, but I expect some of these ballots to be opened and counted within the coming week. The result of the registration search will be the next major milestone in the litigation process and could come as early as Monday.

MNSC: Election Certificate Must Wait

3/6/2009 2:56:07 PM CT

The Minnesota Supreme Court finally ruled on the January 13th petition by Al Franken to force the Governor of Minnesota and the SOS to issue an election certificate based upon the recount result. The filing is 24 pages long and is text-searchable. I've just posted the body of the ruling along with the first and last paragraphs of the opinion:

Filed: March 6, 2009 SYLLABUS 1. Minnesota Statutes § 204C.40, subd. 2 (2008), which provides that a certificate of election cannot be issued until the state courts have finally decided an election contest pending under chapter 209, applies to an election for the United States Senate. 2. There is no federal statutory mandate that a state issue a certificate of election by the date designated by Congress for commencement of newly-elected Senators' terms, and because the Senate has authority under U.S. Const. art. I, 7sect; 5, to seat a Senator without a state-issued certificate of election, application of Minn. Stat. § 204C.40, subd. 2, to an election for the Senate does not usurp the Senate's authority and does not conflict with federal law. Petition denied. OPINION PER CURIAM. This matter is before our court on a petition of Al Franken brought under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2008). The petition seeks an order requiring respondents, Governor Timothy Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, to promptly prepare and countersign a certificate of election and deliver the certificate to the Secretary of the United States Senate, without awaiting the conclusion of an election contest pending in state district court under Minn. Stat. ch. 209 (2008). Because we conclude that neither state nor federal law requires issuance of a certificate of election before the election contest is completed, we deny the petition. ... We conclude that there is no federal statutory mandate that a state issue a certificate of election by the date designated by Congress for the commencement of newly-elected Senators' terms. And because the Senate has authority to seat a Senator without a state-issued certificate of election, application of the contest tolling provision in Minn. Stat. § 204C.40, subd. 2, to an election for the United States Senate does not usurp the Senate's power and does not conflict with federal law, either statutory or constitutional. Petition denied. Source: Supreme Court Order on Al Franken's Petition for Order to Issue Certificate of Election via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Franken will have to wait until after the election contest, assuming he does eventually win, to assume his seat in the US Senate. It's also interesting to note that Franken's seating is not contingent upon the certificate from the State of Minnesota. The US Constitution describes the grounds under which an individual shall be admitted to the Senate:

[Article 1] Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide. Source: US Constitution via Law.Cornell.edu

If the Senate wanted to seat Al Franken, they could. Harry Reid (D), the Senate Majority Leader, has clearly demonstrated that a certificate is essentially required to seat a Senator; both based upon the Roland Burris situation and Reid's own inability to follow through on numerous vows to seat Al Franken. Minnesota will be without a second US Senator, at least, until the Election Contest Court declares a victor.

More Probability and a Public Poll

3/6/2009 2:07:26 AM CT

In yesterday's article, I covered the probabilities associated with invalid votes and how their inclusion (or exclusion) could alter the outcome of the election. Today, I take it one step further by breaking down the math by district; either precinct, county or municipality depending upon the data set. I'll explain the math first, and then I'll present the results. Today's formula arises from the same paper I previously covered, but this formula is slightly more complex.

Analysis by subdistricts. If k_i votes are removed in the i^th district, an elaboration of the global analysis shows that the condition for a reversal is that an approximately standard normal variable z will exceed the constant. Source: Mathematical Probability in Election Challenges via JSTOR.org [PDF]

Using this information and what we already know from the previous article, we can determine the probability of a given number of errors, across a series of districts, affecting the outcome of the election: The above formula was then applied where, α is a vector representing the number of Franken votes in a given district; &beta a vector of Coleman votes in a given district and κ a vector containing the number of potentially invalid errors using yesterday's definition and assumption. The variables a and b contain the number of total votes received by each of the two leading candidates; 1,212,431 and 1,212,206 respectively. The probabilistic results are depicted below using data from six previously provided tables:

Rejected List               z       Pr(z)    Ballots   Proj
Anomalies by Precinct    .220910   41.258%    1,391   + 5 Col
Anomalies by County      .015925   49.364%    1,391   +31 Fra
Coleman List v3          .000854   49.659%    4,458   +45 Col
Franken X                .029226   48.834%      781   +15 Fra
Franken Y                .030776   48.772%      804   +63 Fra
Registration Error       .018800   49.250%    1,526   + 4 Fra
Statewide*              2.755361     .293%    6,653     N/A

Today's result varies significantly from yesterday's result[*], which depicted a probability of <1%. The bottom line is that if there are errors, and they can legally be corrected, Coleman could overcome the current deficit of 225 votes. Now onto the actual litigation proceedings; the MN Supreme Court released three documents today, and MinnPost obtained a fourth filed by the Election Contest Court. I've posted links to these documents below, but I have not had time to review them: 1. Motion of Norm Coleman to Intervene (3-5-09) via MNCourts.gov [PDF]
2. Affidavit of Charles N. Nauen (3-3-09) via MNCourts.gov [PDF]
3. Memorandum Regarding Timeliness of Petition (3-3-09) via MNCourts.gov [PDF]
4. Franken's Motion to Dismiss via MinnPost.com [PDF] Rasmussen Reports just released a new poll detailing the whole MN Senate Situation and the public's response, here are the highlights:

Forty-seven percent (47%) of Minnesota voters now believe Democrat Al Franken has been elected to the U.S. Senate in a race so close that it's been working its way through the state's court system for the last four months. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman will be re-elected, and 18% are not sure in the latest Rasmussen Reports survey of Minnesota voters. Coleman, who now trails Franken, has proposed that the state vote again because of the closeness of the race, but Minnesota voters are almost evenly divided on his proposal. Forty-six percent (46%) think they should vote again, but 44% disagree. Ten percent (10%) are not sure which is best. Not surprisingly, 71% of Republicans support a revote, while 69% of Democrats are opposed. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, a revote is favored by 12 points. Source: Rasmussen Reports

Based upon the results, it appears as though the partisan interviewee responded along partisan lines, while the self described independent voter took an independent position. If you look at the Nov 4th exit polls, it appears as though these self described independents tended to favor Coleman over Franken by about 20%. Having established this potential bias, I think its fair to say that these independent voters present the least biased opinion and they seem to support the notion that Franken won, but that another election would be favorable. In the end however it is not public opinion that will decided the victor, it is the opinion of the three judges presiding over the litigation process. Update [8:46 PM CT 3/6/2009]: I made the same mistake when computing the probabilities in this article, as I did in the original. The errors have since been corrected; the equation image and table have been updated to reflect these changes. The fundamental conclusion of the original result still holds as the changes actually improved the overturning probability. The probability that the invalid votes could overturn the current result answers the question of do these inaccuracies matter? The current answer is yes at around 50% for the six calculated lists; the nature of each list does not preclude complete conclusion, as such, these percentages represent the maximum overturning probability. With a 40% probability of affecting the final outcome, the identified inaccuracies, by both campaigns, deserve to be addressed within the litigation process; which is exactly why the trial has progressed into it's 30th day.

MN Senate: The Year 1973 Called

3/5/2009 2:57:08 AM CT

First off, there were no new court filings today and relatively little occurred during the actual trial. The Franken campaign called a number of voters to the stand and Mr. Mansky, the Ramsey County Elections Director, returned to testify about election judge training. Secondly, and most importantly, I discovered an academic paper written in the year 1973 by a Harvard professor and a Columbia University professor; I came across the document while searching for the court case Santucci v. Power [25 N.Y.2d 897, 252 N.E.2d 128, 304 N.Y.S.2d 593 (1969).]. Prof. Micheal O. Finkelstein and Prof. Herbert E. Robbins coauthored this paper entitled Mathematical Probability in Election Challenges; in spite of its age, the paper is surprisingly relevant to the Minnesota Election Contest at hand. The first paragraph begins with a carbon copy of Coleman's present position:

Defeated candidates in primary elections sometimes challenge the results in court and collect evidence of irregularities in support of their claims that the contests should be rerun. Frequently, this evidence consists solely of proof that certain numbers of persons voted who were not qualified, with no evidence of fraud and no indication as to how such persons voted. How large must this group be before a new election should be ordered? Source: Mathematical Probability in Election Challenges via JSTOR.org [PDF]

Let's take a quick look at the current group of potentially erroneous and yet to be counted ballots within the realm of the Minnesota Senate Litigation:

804^A + 4,458^B + 1,391^C = 6,653 A. Franken's Amended List: Within Franken's list of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots he presents 1,585 voters by name, but 781 are also found within Coleman's list. This leaves 804 new and unique voters presented by Franken. B. More Extrapolations and Interventions: The Coleman campaign listed 4,458 voters by name, on their website, whom they believe had their absentee ballots improperly rejected. This number is realistically far less based upon the court's constriction of eligible absentee ballots. C. Coleman Futile Election Contest: The 1,391 represents the number of votes above and beyond the number of voters recorded on Election Day within each precinct in Minnesota. While the Harvard paper focuses strictly on New York law, it does present some interesting precedents as well as an excellent theoretical explanation of the probability involved. I would highly recommend reading the entire paper as its only eight pages. The next four paragraphs cover the aforementioned precedents as excerpted below:

The New York Election Law provides that a new primary election may be ordered when the "irregularities .. . render impossible a determination as to who rightfully was ... elected." Consider a two-candidate contest in which the winner prevails by one hundred votes out of ten thousand. If there are 150 irregular voters, it is possible that more than 125 of them voted for the winner, so that their elimination would reverse the election. Does this possibility mean that the rightful winner cannot be determined within the meaning of the statute? The courts have answered this question with intuitive assessments of the probability that the result would be reversed if the challenged votes were removed. Thus, the Court of Appeals has articulated and applied the principle that the party attempting to impeach the results must show that the "irregularities are sufficiently large in number to establish the probability that the result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes? Two polar assessments of the relevant probabilities may be illustrated by comparing Ippolito v. Power: with De Martini v. Power" In Ippolito, the winner's plurality was 17 votes out of 2,827; there were 101 suspect or invalid votes. The court affirmed the lower court's ordering of a new election. Evidently relying on intuition, the court concluded that " it does not strain the probabilities to assume a likelihood that the questioned votes produced or could produce a change in the result." In De Martini, out of 5,250 votes, 136 were declared irregular and invalidated, no fraud being involved. The winner's plurality was 62 votes . The lower courts and Court of Appeals differed in their estimates of the relevant probability. The Supreme Court ordered a new election because "it is not beyond likelihood that the small difference of 62 votes could be altered in a new election?" The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed. In reversing, the Court of Appeals observed that the majority of the winner would not evaporate unless at least 99 votes-i.e., at least 72.8% of the irregularities-had been cast in her favor. The court found this unlikely: " It taxes credulity to assume that, in so close a contest, such an extreme percentage of invalid votes would be cast in one direction ." It concluded that "a valid determination is not rendered impossible ... by the remote possibility of a changed result . . . ." Subjective estimates of the relevant probabilities have thus varied . There is, however, no reason to leave matters on a purely subjective basis. Using an assumption about the character of invalid voting which will be defensible in many cases, the relevant probabilities can be readily computed. Source: Mathematical Probability in Election Challenges via JSTOR.org [PDF]

Let's assume for a moment, actually the rest of this article, that Minnesota has a provision similar to that of New York which provides for a new election in the event of prominent voting irregularities. The Coleman campaign referenced the ruling established in Santucci v. Power yesterday in which "there were 101 suspect or invalid votes," and this quantity, with respect to other factors, contributed to the Court's decision to affirm the order for a new election. The definition of "suspect" and "invalid" remains somewhat unclear in this context, so let's just assume that the sum of all votes, either properly cast and not counted or improperly cast and counted, constitute the aforementioned definition of "suspect or invalid votes." Please note that this is likely not a valid legal definition, but this assumption will eventually allow me to make a mathematical point. Let's proceed with the math: The variable d represents the margin by which the current leader, currently leads; s is the number of votes cast for the second place candidate and k is the number of invalid or suspect votes. A complete derivation of the above formula is available in the appendix of the paper. The output of this function produces the probability of overturning the election result given the inputs, d, s and k. Another formula is also presented in the appendix that allows for separate computations on the precinct level; I may get ambitious and produce additional calculations for the 1,391 potentially double counted ballots at a later date. For the purposes of this article, the formula above will be used. Let's do a sample calculation using the values defined within the image: You'll notice that Coleman has less than a 1% change of overturning the election outcome if the already generous allotment of the 6,653 invalid votes are actually deemed to be invalid/illegal/suspect/etc. While this number seems exorbitantly low, the New York case of Lowenstein v. Larkin [40 App. Div. 2d 604, 335 N.Y.S.2d 799 (2d Dep't 1972)] in 1972 contained a probability of overturning that was basically zero (8E-85). The court however, still ordered a new election, although its widely accepted that the judges within this case possessed no intuitive probability skills and as such, they totally blew the ruling. While we've just illustrated that the <1% overturning probability is not a death sentence, he would need a little help in the form of a judicial blunder in order to receive a new election under out assumption of 6,653 invalid votes. In order to obtain a legitimate overturning ratio, Coleman must increase the number of invalid votes, but that's easier said than done as the graph below illustrates; please note that the x-axis uses a logarithmic scale: Here's the big conclusion and it's littered with ifs: If Minnesota Statute provided for a new election in the face of voting irregularities, Coleman would have less than a 1% chance of overturning the current result. If Coleman could somehow double the number of invalid votes, his overturning percentage would only reach 5% which is still too low for an informed court capable of ordering a new election, to actually order a new election. Using the principles from the 1973 paper, I think its fair to conclude that Coleman needs a massive anomaly, of one form or another, to emerge from this election contest with the lead, which is improbable but not impossible. Update [5:08 PM CT 3/6/2009]: I used a mathematically incorrect equation to determine the probability of overturning. The resulting correction did not materially affect the conclusion of the article; the probability dropped from about .9% to about .3%. One could however argue, as a commenter did below, that the conclusion is not particularly beneficial because the applied principles do not reflect the actual situation given the varying demographics of an entire state. I've since written a follow-up in which I re-calculated the overturning probability using county and precinct level data from various lists provided through the litigation process.

Six New Court Filings, An Overview

3/3/2009 10:14:16 PM CT

Tuesday brought the release of six new court filings, all of which were originally filled on Monday; the day Coleman "provisionally" rested his case. In "provisionally" resting, Coleman sought to establish a degree of leniency that would allow for the presentation of additional evidence. The Election Contest Court issued this order, in its entirety:

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon Contestants' request to submit into evidence affidavits and declarations of individual voters as part of Contestants' offer of proof, The Court makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestants' request is DENIED. 2. The Court granted Contestants leave to delay the time to rest their case until March 4, 2009 at 12:00 p.m, That delay was granted for the purpose of allowing Contestants to serve subpoenas upon county and municipal election officials requesting certifications pursuant to Rule 803(10) of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence as described in the Court's Order of February 26,2009 in response to Contestants' motion in limine. The Court did not grant Contestants leave to submit affidavits or declarations of individual voters, The Court reaffirms its earlier finding that Contestants are afforded additional time only for the limited purpose of obtaining certifications in accordance with the Court's Order of February 26, 2009. Dated this 2nd day of March, 2009. Source: Order on Contestants Request to Submit Voter Affidavits via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

While the Coleman campaign was not granted permission to enter new evidence on any voter, they will be allowed to enter evidence pertaining to the yet to be searched absentee ballots; as was commissioned on February 26th by the ECC. While the Coleman campaign didn't get everything they wanted, they walked away with a partial victory. The Coleman campaign then moved to remedy the double counting issue; their memorandum follows:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT at a time set by the Court at its earliest convenience Contestants will seek a ruling on this motion to remedy the double counting of votes for the U.S. Senate seat on certain ballots that occurred during the recount. This Motion will be based on the accompanying memorandum and all the files, records and proceedings herein. Dated: March 2, 2009 Source: Notice of Motion and Motion for Order Declaring Recount Rule 9 Invalid as a Matter of Law via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Their motion is pretty vague, but a look into their accompanying memorandum reveals their intentions. I've excerpted some pertinent passages from the seven page memorandum below:

INTRODUCTION The Secretary of State's Office created Rule 9 as a means of ensuring that the parties would have access to the original ballot, rather than the duplicate, because the original ballot was the best evidence of the voter's intent during the recount.' Representatives of the Coleman for Senate campaign agreed to Rule 9 under the mistaken assumption that Minnesota precinct judges would precisely follow the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 206.86, subd. 5, as well as training received by such judges from the Minnesota Secretary of State Election Division, and properly label all originals and duplicates. Unfortunately, it is now clear that in several precincts throughout the state of Minnesota, including numerous precincts in Minneapolis, the election judges inadvertently failed to mark all of the duplicated ballots, thereby making it impossible to retrieve them and leading to the double-counting of ballots during the Canvassing Board's recount. ... ARGUMENT I. MINNESOTA LAW SETS FORTH SPECIFIC PROCEDURES FOR THE DUPLICATION OF DAMAGED BALLOTS. Minnesota law requires the accurate creation of duplicate ballots in circumstances in which the original ballot is unable to be read by the tabulation machines (such as tom and damaged ballots and UOCAVA/overseas ballots). Minnesota law also clearly requires that only the duplicate be counted, while preserving (but not counting) original ballots. Minn. Stat. § 206.86, entitled "Counting Electronic Voting System Results," provides the procedure for the election-night counting of votes where a precinct uses an electronic voting system. ... II. MINNESOTA LAW CREATES A PRESUMPTION THAT DUPLICATE BALLOTS WERE MADE AND COUNTED BY VOTING MACHINES ON ELECTION NIGHT. ... Additionally, the record in this matter contains the election day pre-registered voter sign-in rosters, same-day registration rosters and UOCAVA rosters, as well as machine tapes from election night, all of which evidence the number of persons actually voting on election night. See Exhibits C56-60, C86-90, C94-98, C102-105, C110-113, C117-120, C138-141, C146-149, C153-156 and C160-163. The record in this matter also evidences the number of ballots actually counted during the recount, which numbers were certified by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board. See Exhibit C603 (introduced during the testimony of Minnesota Elections Director Gary Poser). A comparison of these exhibits demonstrates that, in 10 Minneapolis precincts, the number of votes counted during the recount exceeded the number of persons actually casting ballots at those precincts on election night, as follows: [Note: The "VFA VOTERS PRESENT" column has been added, which uses data collated from the SOS website.]
                    VOTERS   RECOUNT  [VFA VOTERS]
PRECINCT            PRESENT  BALLOTS   [PRESENT]
Minneapolis W11-P8   2857     2873        2851
Minneapolis W12-P8   2923     2936        2922
Minneapolis W10-P2   2079     2087        2076
Minneapolis W11-P7   1996     2004        1995
Minneapolis W7-P7    1849     1865        1856
Minneapolis W9-P2    1712     1718        1712
Minneapolis W10-P4   1193     1197        1192
Minneapolis W2-P5    2102     2104        2100
Minneapolis W8-P10   2214     2217        2215
Minneapolis W13-P1   1916     1921        1921
Where there are more ballots counted in the recount than voters who cast ballots on election day, such excess ballots are illegal and, therefore, cannot be certified by this Court to constitute legally cast ballots. See Johnson v. Tanka, 154 N.W.2d 185, 187 (Minn. 1967) (noting that where there are more ballots than voters who voted on election day, the votes cast over the number of voters "cannot be said to be legal."). "The outcome of an election should rest upon ballots received according to law and should not be determined by illegal votes." Id. III. THE PROCESS UNDER RULE 9 FOR COUNTING ORIGINAL BALLOTS WHEN THE NUMBER OF ORIGINAL AND DUPLICATE BALLOTS DOES NOT MATCH DID NOT COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA LAW. ... When the campaigns agreed to Rule 9, they did so with the understanding that the original ballot would be the best evidence of intent of the voter under Minn. Stat. § 204C.22 and the presumption that local election officials had created duplicate ballots and properly marked all duplicate and original ballots, as required by Minnesota law. Neither their agreement nor Rule 9 can prevent this Court from applying Minnesota law in the face of clear evidence that Minnesota law was not uniformly followed in the correct marking of duplicate ballots. First and foremost, it should be noted that Rule 9, on its face, does not mandate that originals for which no marked duplicates were found during the recount should be counted and included in the recount totals, The language relates to "sorting" and not "counting." Thus, Rule 9 complements Minnesota law by enabling a comparison (via "sorting") of the marked original ballots (found in the folder containing originals from which duplicates were made) to the corresponding marked and numbered duplicates. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Contestants respectfully request that the Court issue an order (a) declaring Rule 9 as applied during the recount in precincts in which the number of originals exceeded the number of marked duplicates to be invalid as a matter of law and (b) directing that pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 206.86, subd. 5, all ballots in those precincts which were challenged for the lack of a corresponding duplicate shall not be counted in determining which party received the highest number of legally cast votes. For the Minneapolis precincts at issue this simply requires that the double-counted votes be subtracted from the vote total. For the remaining precincts at issue, an inspection should be ordered or the Court should revert to the election night vote totals. Dated: March 2, 2009 Source: Memorandum in Support of Motion for an Order Declaring Recount Rule 9 Invalid as a Matter of Law via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The basis of Coleman's argument seems to rest upon the improper application of Rule 9 [pg 7] as in pertains other Minnesota statues. In seeking this proof, they reference a number of presented Exhibits, Minnesota Statutes and a few other applicable court decisions. The Coleman campaign has requested that every voter-to-votes anomaly, involving unmarked duplicates, be invalidated; in making this request, they have placed the burden of proof upon the court and local election officials. Without presenting substantive evidence for each and every scenario, the Coleman campaign's request will likely fall on deaf ears. Using the voter-to-vote paradigm, there are 357 precincts in which there were more votes cast than eligible voters. If the Coleman campaign were serious about correcting the double counting errors, wouldn't it make sense to present evidence representing a more equitable set of precincts, rather than a select few from Hennepin County. It's also worth mentioning that the voter totals presented in the proceedings memorandum do not match those same totals provided by the Secretary of State's website. There are two possible explanation for this discrepancy, either (a) the data before December 9th (when I accessed the page) was different, or (b) the Coleman campaign failed to collate the proper data. You can make your own determination, you have all the information necessary. The next document is blatant but without a lot of context, go ahead and read the order first, then I'll fill in the blanks:

The above-captioned matter came before the Court, on February March 2, 2009, pursuant to Contestants' request to bring a motion to reconsider the Court's January 23, 2009 Order. Based upon the contents of the file, the Court makes the following: ORDER 1. Respondent's request to bring a motion to reconsider the Court's January 23, 2009, Order is DENIED. Dated: 3/2/09 Source: Order Respondents Request to Bring a Motion to Reconsider the Court 012309 Order is DENIED-Judges Hayden/Marben/Reilly via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The referenced order pertains to Coleman's request to have ballots and other election materials available to the court. I wrote a fairly lengthy analysis on Coleman's request and the aforementioned order that the above order references. Coleman requested, before the trial even started, that 586 votes be inspected for potential double counting errors. The ballots were not referenced by name, but the county was indicated. The Coleman campaign is essentially asking the court to reconsider his prior request, in which he asked for these 586 to be made available for further inspection by the court. In the end, the ECC stood by their previous decision. The next document deals with the sanctioned levee against Coleman's representation for the botched disclosure of evidence in relation to Pamela Howell's testimony. The motion was originally put forth by the Franken campaign and requested that Pamella Howell's testimony be re-stricken from the record. A few selected excepts from the latest order are presented below:

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon Contestee's Motion to Strike. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee's Motion to Strike is DENIED. 2. Contestants are hereby ORDERED to pay costs in the amount of $7,500 pursuant to Rule 37.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, payable to the Court within three (3) days of this Order. 3. The Court's Memorandum, filed herewith, is incorporated herein. 4. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. Dated this 2nd day of March, 2009. MEMORANDUM On February 25,2009, Contestants called Minneapolis election judge Pamela Howell to testify on Contestants' claim that certain ballots were counted twice during the recount due to such ballots not having been marked as "duplicates." (See Notice I2(a).) During cross-examination, Contestee elicited testimony from Howell that she had provided a document to Contestants' counsel that had not been disclosed to Contestee during discovery. Contestee moved to strike Howell's testimony. Ruling from the bench, the Court excused Howell and agreed that her testimony should be stricken. On February 26,2009, the Court reconsidered its ruling of February 25,2009, and vacated its order to strike Howell's testimony based on a finding that Contestants' failure to disclose Howell's statement was inadvertent and not in bad faith and that Contestee would not be substantially prejudiced by allowing Howell to testify, (Order February 26, 2009.) Howell was re-called to the witness stand on February 27,2009 and her testimony reinstated. On cross-examination, Howell began testifying about email communications between herself and Contestants' counsel. Howell's statement was specifically referenced in emails dated January 6,2009 and January 28,2009. Contestee renewed his motion to strike Howell's testimony and further moved to strike the underlying claim to which her testimony relates. ... In lieu of striking the witness's testimony or the underlying claim, the Court hereby imposes upon Contestants' counsel the obligation to pay the court costs incurred over the three trial days during which the Court addressed the issue of Howell's testimony. Contestants had an ongoing duty to abide by the discovery roles, as the Court has discussed both on the record and in its previous orders. (Order February 26,2009). Contestants' counsel were not "substantially justified" in withholding Howell's statement or the emails referencing the same and the award of expenses is not "unjust" under these circumstances. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 37.02. Due to the seriousness of the violation, the Court imposes costs associated with the delay caused by this non-disclosure, including the expenditures for personnel, lodging, mileage, parking, per diem meals, building security, space/rent, and other expenses, for a total fine of $7,500, payable to the Court.2 In the event this sanction fails to deter future conduct on the part of Contestants' counsel, the Court will not hesitate to impose harsher sanctions, up to and including dismissal. Source: Order on Contestees Motion to Strike via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Basically the Coleman campaign was fined $7,500 for their failure to disclose proper information and Franken's motion was denied. Ms. Howell's testimony will still factor into the ECC's decision. The next filing is actually a letter written to the Election Contest Tribunal by Coleman attorney James Langdon:

Re: In the Matter of the Contest of General Election held on November 4,2008, for the purpose of electing a United States Senator from the State of Minnesota Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman v. Al Franken Second Judicial District Case No. 62-CV-09-56 Dear Judges Hayden, Marben and Reilly: I write to bring several authorities from other jurisdictions regarding potential remedies in election contests to the Court's attention. As I noted in my February 27, 2009 letter, a substantial number of cases from other jurisdictions apply proportionate reduction, on a precinct by precinct basis, as a remedy when a party has proven the existence of illegal votes. The Court may wish to review, among other cases, Hammond v. Hickel, 588 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1978); Huggins v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 348 (1990); Singleterry v. Kelly, 242 Cal. App.2d 611 (1966); Hileman v, McGinness, 316 III. App.3d 868 (2000); and Briggs v. Ghrist, 28 S.D. 562 (1912), for discussion of that remedy and the impossibility of adequately determining for which party an illegal vote was cast. Other cases are discussed at 26 Am. Jur.2d Elections § 357. Some courts have held that when the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin between the candidates-and it cannot be determined for which candidate those illegal votes were cast-the most appropriate remedy is to set aside the election. In that regard, the Court may wish to review the following cases addressing situations in which the number of illegal votes is large and the margin of victory small: Marks v. Stinson, 19 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1994); Griffin v. Burns, 570 F.2d 1065 (1st Cir. 1978); Hardeman v, Thomas, 208 Cal.App.3d 153 (1989); Mead v. Sheffield, 601 S.E.2d 699 (Ga. 2004); Akizaki v. Fang, 461 P.2d 221 (Ha. 1969); Adkins v. Huckabay, 755 So.2d 206 (La. 2000); McCavitt v. Registrars of Voters of Brockton, 434 N.E.2d 620 (Mass. 1982); and Ippolito v. Power, 241 N.E.2d 232 (N.Y. 1968). Dated: March 2, 2009 Source: Letter to Judges from James Langdon dated 3/2/09 Regarding Potential Remedies via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Within the letter Mr. Langdon attempts to establish that the margin separating the candidates is significantly small enough to render the entire election invalid based upon the number of illegally counted ballots. I looked through a fair number of the referenced court decisions and it appears as though their is precedent for invaliding an election, although nothing on the same level as a US Senate election. The most interesting case I found was Santucci v. Power [25 N.Y.2d 897, 252 N.E.2d 128, 304 N.Y.S.2d 593 (1969).] in which a New York court affirmed an order directing a new election on the basis of 640 irregularities, with a margin of 95 votes. In researching these court document I stumbled upon a few mathematical models for measuring election closeness; I've got a write up planned, for later this week, to fully illustrate these models as they relate to the Minnesota Senate Contest.

Searching Absentees for Registration

3/1/2009 3:24:48 AM CT

The past week of litigation proceedings produced very little new information, but a few items of note did occur that I have not previously covered. To begin, an additional group of 30 voters has filled a petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court to order that their votes cast on November 4th be counted. The majority of these voters reside in Dakota, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, in about equal portions; this leaves six voters who reside in other counties. This group of 30 voters is represented by Charles Nauen, the same lawyer representing the other group of 61 petitioners. The second item of note involves the testimony of Pamella Howell, a Republican Election Judge from Minneapolis Ward 12, Precinct 8 within Hennepin County. Al Franken won the precinct in question by about 46%, netting 1,947 of the 2,936 votes cast. Ms. Howell was called to the stand by the Coleman campaign to discuss the 14 vote discrepancy between the total number of voters and the recorded number of votes. During her testimony, the judges struck Ms. Howell's testimony after it was discovered that the Coleman campaign had not shared pertinent information with the Franken campaign. The court later vacated their order, after the Coleman campaign requested a reconsideration. The liberal leaning Talking Point Memo declared that the original striking order "unambiguously damaged" Coleman's double counting argument; how they arrived at this assertion remains blatantly unclear. There are 1,391 votes meeting the Coleman campaign's definition of double counting, and just 14 fall within Ms. Howell's jurisdiction. The fact that a single election judge's testimony, covering about 1% of Coleman's claim, was ruled to have been semi-improperly conducted does not dissuade from the double counting issue in any way shape or form. There are still 356 other potentially anomalous precincts meriting consideration by the Coleman campaign. The Coleman campaign is playing the expectations game, and they may have just won round one based upon TPM's original assertion. If the striking of Ms. Howell's testimony was a big deal, then the vacation must therefore be an equally big deal. Because of the added drama surrounding Ms. Howell's testimony, the information she provide[s|d], will be subjected to a higher level of inspection. Unfortunately for TPM, their over exaggeration backfired, as Ms. Howell's story turns out to be true. Had TPM simply reported the news, instead of inferring their hopes/opinions, the talking point could have been different. It is said that realism has a strong liberal bias, so why embellish the story? Now onto the actual news; on Thursday, the Election Contest Court commissioned a search for registration cards within sealed absentee ballots. Their entire order is presented below:

In order to expedite proceedings in this action, county or local election officials ("officials"), who have custody of rejected absentee ballots submitted for the November 4,2008 general election are hereby directed to complete the following procedure no later than 4:00 p.m. Wednesday, March 4, 2009: 1. The officials shall segregate the rejected absentee ballots listed on the attached list. Once segregated, the officials shall open each ballot secrecy envelope containing the absentee ballot of each identified voter to determine whether the envelope contains a voter registration card or application ("registration''). In doing so, the officials, to the extent possible, shall refrain from looking at the ballot itself or observing any markings thereon and shall conduct the review so as to maintain the security of the ballots and to preserve ballot secrecy. 2. If no registration is found, the officials shall reseal the ballot envelope using tape or sticker over the opening and reinsert the ballot secrecy envelope back into the absentee ballot return envelope. 3. If a registration is found within the ballot secrecy envelope, the officials shall remove it, determine whether it is complete, make a copy of the registration, and return it to the ballot secrecy envelope, which shall be resealed. The ballot secrecy envelope shall then be placed back inside the absentee ballot return envelope. If the registration is deficient, the officials shall note on the outside of the absentee ballot return envelope the specific nature of the deficiency. The notations shall be dated and include the name of the officials making the notations which shall be made on the side of the envelope that does not include the voter's information. 4. The envelopes shall be sorted into three groups as follows:
a. Envelopes containing completed registrations.
b. Envelopes containing deficient registrations.
c. Envelopes containing no registrations. 5. For each of the groups, the officials shall prepare a separate list that includes the name of the county or municipality, the precinct and the name of the voter. The list of envelopes containing incomplete or deficient registrations shall specify the deficiency found with respect to each envelope. 6. The officials shall forward electronically the lists and the copy of each registration found in the envelopes in groups referenced in paragraphs 5 a, and b. of this order to Jim Gelbmann, Office of the Secretary of State at Jim.Gelbmann@state.mn.us. If a particular office of an official lacks the capability to forward the information electronically, the official shall contact Jim Gelbmann at the Office of the Secretary of State, (651) 201-1344, for alternative instructions concerning transmittal of the lists and copies to the Court. 8. All of the opened and resealed envelopes shall be securely maintained in their separate groups to facilitate transportation to a central location for review, if the Court should so order. 9. The Secretary of State 'shall immediately forward this Order electronically to affected county and local election officials. 10. Neither party shall have a representative present at the counties during this process. 11. The parties consent to this procedure by their signatures on this order. Dated: 2/26/09 Source: Order for Opening Secrecy Envelopes via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

I've parsed through the attached list of 1,526 unique voters, and produced the following documents to allow for a more efficient dissemination of the information contained therein:

Court Filing: PDF, 757 KB
Voter List: CSV, 42 KB
Ballots by County: CSV, 2 KB
Extrapolations: PDF, 144 KB I've further condensed the above information into the table below, using the assumption that each vote will eventually be counted:

                       Identified        Extrapolation
                         Voters       Coleman      Franken
Total                     1526         634.78      638.79
    Coleman Counties       896         428.86      311.98
    Franken Counties       630         205.93      326.82

While the list contains more ballots from counties/municipalities that Coleman won, Franken is still expected to gain about 4 more votes under the previous assumption. A completely accurate projection is however impossible, because, like everything else during the recount, the only way to know for certain is to count, or in this case sort. We should know more about this list on Wednesday, when the counties/municipalities are required to conclude their court ordered sorting.

Court Filling Dump III

3/1/2009 1:57:42 AM CT

I've excerpted what I believe to be representative portions of each court document released on Friday. I'll eventually return to this post and provide context for each filing.

INTRODUCTION Contestants do not support a remedy that would disenfranchise Minnesota voters whose ballots already have been counted. We would prefer to respond to Petitioners' renewed motion for summary judgment as we did the first such motion: let these ballots be counted so long as all similarly situated ballots are counted as well. The Court's rulings, however, dictate otherwise. Moreover, subsequent events have shown that Petitioners' declarations and affidavits are not always trustworthy; nor are the registration records used to support them. As a result, Contestants must oppose Petitioners' motion. Petitioners' motion should be denied on two grounds. First, as to several of the ballots, the proffered evidence either demonstrates that they cannot meet the Court's standard for a legally cast vote or the proffered evidence is incomplete. These voters have not met their burden ofproof. Second, as to the remainder of the ballots, the cloud cast by the subsequent revelation that Ms. Gorski's affidavit (which appears to have been obtained by the same persons who obtained these Petitioners' affidavits and declarations) was false, together with Contestee's stance on the necessity of having voters testify so as to be subject to cross-examination, augers in favor of leaving their claims to be resolved at trial. ARGUMENT Summary judgment is a blunt instrument. It should be used only when the moving party has satisfied the Court that there is no genuine issue of material fact and judgment should be granted in his or her favor. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; Anderson v. State Dep't ofNatural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181,186 (Minn. 2005). All facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. State Farm Fire & Casualty v. Aquila Inc., 718 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Minn. 2006). Here, that means the Court must cast a wary eye on self-serving declarations and must scrutinize the documentary evidence; if it is not clear that the statutory standard has been met, summary judgment should be denied. ... CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Contestants respectfully request this Court deny Petitioners' motion. Dated: February 26, 2009 Source: Contestants Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

On January 22, 2009, Norm Coleman, Intervenor-Respondent in the above-captioned Petition filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court, filed a response to Petitioners' motion for summary judgment stating that he agreed that Petitioners' absentee ballots should be counted. Contestants' Memorandum of Law in Response to Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment, January 22, 2009, at 1. Now, in an extraordinary reversal, Coleman asks this Court to vacate its February 10, 2009, Order granting summary judgment in favor of 24 petitioners. Coleman's motion is based upon a selective review of the evidence, a desperate attempt to find inconsistencies where none exist, and unfounded speculation. I. ARGUMENT A. Coleman is not Entitled to Relief from the February 10 Order as it Relates to the Eight Ballots Identified in Contestants' Memorandum of Law Coleman asserts that he is entitled to relief from this Court's February 10 Order because eight ballots which were ordered to be opened and counted allegedly "cannot be squared with the Court's subsequent ruling on February 13,2009...." Contestants' Memorandum at 3. In order to obtain relief from a judgment, a party must demonstrate: (l) a reasonable case on the merits; (2) reasonable excuse for failure to act; (3) the moving party acted with due diligence after notice of entry ofjudgment; and (4) no substantial prejudice will result to the opposing party if the motion is granted. Reid v. Strodtman, 631 N.W.2d 414, 419 (citing Finden v. Klass, 128 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Minn. 1964)). ... B. There is no Basis for Vacating the Entire February 10 Order. Notwithstanding his initial support of Petitioners' motion for summary judgment, Coleman asserts that he is entitled to relief from this Court's February 10 Order because he has changed his mind and now believes that "the ability to cross examine the affiants or absentee voters has become critical." This is not a sufficient basis for vacating ajudgment. ... II. CONCLUSION Coleman has failed to establish that he is entitled to relief from the Court's February 10 Order granting summary judgment in favor of 24 petitioners. Accordingly, Petitioners request this Court deny Coleman's Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate. Dated: February 26, 2009 Source: Petitioners Memorandum of Law Opposing Contestants Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

I. INTRODUCTION The Court has now heard oral argument from both parties on the pending motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to certain emailed "certifications" sought by Contestants. During the course of that argument, Contestants presented no new arguments or theories ofa dmissibility that would save the "certifications" at issue. Contestee respectfully submits that, on the record before the Court, the Court should grant the motion for the reasons set forth in the opening brief and at oral argument. As invited by the Court, Contestee Al Franken with this memorandum responds to the authorities relied on by Contestant during oral argument. II. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY At oral argument, Contestants expressly abandoned any reliance on Rule 803(6), the business records exception. They "primarily" rely upon Rule 803(8), and counsel also mentioned, as suggested by the Court, Rule 803(10).1 Neither of these rules provide a vehicle for the admission of the "certifications" in question, even assuming that Rule 902's self-authentication provisions applied. ... III. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Contestee respectfully submits its that the requested "certifications" be excluded in favor of actual testimony of persons with knowledge, copies of the original source materials, and other relevant evidence, all subject to cross examination on the public record before this Court, on the record, and before the public. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestees Reply in Support of his Motion in Limine to Exclude County Data Practices Act Certifications via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

INTRODUCTION Over the course ofthe last five weeks, this Court has heard testimony from a variety of state, county and municipal election officials from across the state, from the smallest of counties to the most senior election officials, pored over thousands of documents, and heard from citizens who have appeared pursuant to subpoenas, all in an effort to fulfill its statutory responsibilities to declare which candidate for the United States Senate received the "highest number of votes" in the November 4,2008, general election. Appearing before this Court has been., it is fair to say, an inconvenient, but critically important, duty ofthe election officials charged with the responsibility for conducting this election (just as conducting the recount itself was an inconvenient but critically important duty). Those officials, however, have appeared without complaint, often in inclement weather, from far flung locations, and awaited the call to provide testimony and evidence before this Court. In anticipation of the commencement of Contestee's case early next week, Contestee issued several subpoenas seeking testimony from election officials from several large counties, including Hennepin County, Ramsey County, and St. Louis County, and from the City of Duluth. In each instance, Contestee tendered to the witness the appropriate witness fee and mileage allowance required by statute. Jeffrey Cox, the City Clerk for the City of Duluth, objected to the subpoena seeking, in addition to the statutory witness fee and mileage, advance payment of an hourly charge of $60 per hour for his time, to be charged on a 24-hour a day basis, with a minimum $1,000 advance payment. When Contestee refused to make these additional payments, Cox filed the motion at bar seeking to quash the subpoena unless and until Contestee make advance payments in excess of $1,100. The motion is without foundation and Contestee respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion. Minnesota law does not require payment of additional sums, over and above the statutory fees, to a public election official who is required to provide testimony in a statutory election contest, much less hourly fees charged on a 24-hour basis. Appearing before this Court imposes no greater burden on Mr. Cox than the burden imposed on auditors from Crow Wing, Lyon, Becker, or Beltrami counties, all of whom appeared in this Court without complaint, as did the highest ranking election officials in the state. The motion, Contestee respectfully submits, should be denied. BACKGROUND After learning on Monday, February 23,2009, that Contestants were planning to rest their case as early as Wednesday, Contestee's counsel prepared trial subpoenas for election officials for the City of Duluth, St. Louis County, Hennepin County, and Ramsey County to ensure that witnesses would be available if Contestee's case began Thursday, February 26, 2009. ... DISCUSSION As a general rule, of course, every citizen owes a duty to appear to provide relevant testimony in court proceedings upon the issuance and service of an appropriate subpoena. The Legislature has fixed a statutory fee for witnesses, and a mileage rate for travel costs: Minn. Stat. § 357.22 provides that a witnesses required to provide testimony at a trial shall be paid a fee of $20 for each day and 28 cents per mile for travel to and from the court. These statutory fees were tendered to Mr. Cox when the subpoena was personally served upon him. ... In this case, Mr. Cox is a salaried employee who will not be out of pocket for any sums incurred in having to testify in this contest action. While a certain amount of inconvenience and disruption is involved, that is part of the cost of this type of proceeding, and is a cost that all of the other public officials who have testified in this case have borne, from far flung county officials to the highest ranking election officials. The burden on Mr. Cox is no more and no less. His motion to quash should be denied. Dated: February 26, 2009 Source: Contestees Memorandum in Response to City of Duluth Motion to Quash Subpoena via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Court Filling Dump II

2/27/2009 12:30:57 AM CT

I've excerpted what I believe to be representative portions of each court document released today, Thursday. I'll eventually return to this post and provide context for each filing.

I. INTRODUCTION Contestee Al Franken respectfully moves this Court for an order in limine excluding catchall "certifications" sought from dozens of counties in a last-minute effort to force overburdened counties across the state to undertake investigations, express opinions, and create documents which are then to be "certified" and admitted into evidence before this Court. With all due respect, all such "certifications" should be rejected by this Court. First, as many of the counties have themselves noted, nothing in the Minnesota Data Practices Act requires a governmental entity to undertake investigations, to express opinions or to create documents where none existed before. Second, even if Minnesota counties and cities could be forced through a simple Data Practices Act (or even a subpoena) to create such material, it is plainly inadmissible hearsay. Such documents fall neither within the exception created by Minnesota Evidence Rule 803(6) (business records) or 803(8) (public records and reports) because such "certifications" are neither created in the normal course of business, nor do they constitute a "public record or report" within the meaning of the rule. Third, and perhaps most importantly, allowing Contestants to introduce essential elements oftheir case through this device would utterly deprive Contestee of the opportunity to cross examine these witnesses on the foundation for their "certification" of these facts, opinions, and conclusory statements and would deprive this Court of an appropriate record to evaluate the proffered statements. The hearsay rule was designed precisely to avoid that result. For all three reasons, Contestee respectfully requests an order excluding all such "certifications" from evidence. ... III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY This evidence should be excluded for three reasons. First, nothing in the Minnesota Data Practices Act requires a governmental entity to undertake investigations, to express opinions or to create documents where none existed before. Second, even if Minnesota counties and cities could be forced to create such material, it is inadmissible hearsay for which no exception applies. Third, allowing Contestants to introduce essential elements of their case through this device would deprive Contestee of the opportunity to cross examine these witnesses on the foundation for their "certification" of these facts, opinions, and conclusions and would deprive this Court of an appropriate record upon which to evaluate these conclusory statements. ... IV. CONCLUSION For these reasons, Contestee respectfully submits that the requested "certifications" be excluded in favor of actual testimony of persons with knowledge, copies of the original source materials, and other relevant evidence, all subject to cross examination on the public record before this Court, on the record, and before the public. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestees Motion in Limine to Exclude County Data Practices Act Certifications via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon Contestee's Motion in Limine. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee's Motion in Limine is GRANTED. 2. The Court's Memorandum, filed herewith, is incorporated herein. 3. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. ... The information sought by Contestants does not fall within the enumerated hearsay exceptions provided by Rules 803 or 807 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence.5 The hearsay exception applies to existing public records. Here, Contestants are asking officials to create new documents in response to their request. County and municipal officials are under no obligation to create new documents that are not already in existence and kept in the regular conduct of governmental business. Under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence and the MGDPA, Contestants would have been entitled to request existing government records that the county is under a duty to create pursuant to Rule 803(8), or in the alternative, a certification that the record does not exist pursuant to Rule 803(10). To the extent either party's requests are outside of these parameters, the Court will sustain hearsay objections. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court grants Contestee's motion in limine. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is denied. Source: Order Granting Contestees Motion in Limine via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

INTRODUCTION This Court has repeatedly and unequivocally ruled that the scope of Contestants' challenge is limited to the approximately 4,800 ballots pleaded in their Notice of Contest. Notwithstanding these court rulings, and after nearly five weeks of trial, Contestants now, for the first time, make a sweeping, unprecedented request for this Court to reconsider "all absentee ballots previously counted in this election"-roughly 286,000 ballots-with the aim of uncounting some number of them. Contestants' Mem. of Law at 9. This extraordinary Motion is wholly without basis in law. Indeed, it is so outlandish that Contestants do not even ask for any specific relief, nor do they cite any rule of procedure in support of their filing. Because their Motion far exceeds the permissible scope of this Contest, because the legal claim that underlies it is substantively meritless, and because the Court lacks authority to provide Contestants the relief they are suggesting, it should be denied. ARGUMENT A. Contestants' Motion Must be Dismissed as Beyond the Scope of the Pleadings and Unsupported by Record Evidence ... B. Contestants' Argument that the Principles of Equal Protection Require Expanding the Scope of the Recount to All 280,000 Ballots is Without Merit. ... C. Contestants Do Not Ask for Any Relief That This Court Has Authority to Grant ... CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, this Court should deny Contestants' Motion for Ruling Applying February 13, 2009 Order to Previously Counted Absentee Ballots. Dated: February 24, 2009 Source: Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Contestants Motion for Ruling Applying Feb 13, 2009 Order to Previously Counted Absentee Ballots via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, Petitioners petition the Supreme Court of the State of Minnesota to order that their votes cast in the November 4, 2008 general election for United States Senator from Minnesota be counted, Petitioners state and allege as follows: JURISDICTION 1. This action is necessary to correct errors and omissions made by the Respondents related to the handling of legally cast absentee ballots in the November 4, 2008 election for United States Senator from Minnesota. Respondents are charged with duties concerning the election. This Court's order is necessary to ensure that all legally cast absentee ballots are counted. 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 2048.44. PARTIES 3. Petitioners are Minnesota residents qualified as eligible voters under Minnesota election law who cast absentee ballots in the November 4, 2008 general election for United States Senator from Minnesota. Petitioners' absentee ballots were wrongfully rejected and, therefore, not counted in the final election results. Petitioners are listed by County of Residence in Exhibit A hereto. 4. Mark Ritchie is the Minnesota Secretary of State and the chief election official in Minnesota. In his capacity as the Secretary of State, Mr. Ritchie is responsible for the administration of elections in the State of Minnesota, including the November 4, 2008 general election for United States Senator from Minnesota. Mr. Ritchie is included in this action as a necessary party. ... RESPONDENTS' ERRORS AND OMISSIONS 17. Respondents did not count Petitioners' legally cast absentee ballots in the November 4, 2008 general election for United States Senator from Minnesota, 1 Some of Petitioners' ballots were identified by the Counties as having been improperly rejected. Yet such ballots were not included in the administrative recount because they were objected to in the process established by the Minnesota Supreme Court's December 18, 2008 Order and implemented by the Secretary of State. CLAIM FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully pray for an Order of the Court as follows: 1. Directing that Petitioners' absentee ballots shall be opened and counted, and the total be declared and certified, for such use as might be deemed appropriate by the United States Senate or the judges responsible for the election contest pending in the District Court for the County of Ramsey, No. 62- CV -09-56 or any other proper use under law, pursuant to procedures established by this Court. 2, Granting Petitioner's such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: February 20, 2009 Source: Petition by Certain Minnesota Voters to Have Their Votes Counted Pursuant to Minn. Stat § 204B.44 via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Contestants believe that the requests sent to counties and municipalities were appropriate and the responses are admissible evidence, and we are content to rely on oral argument and the authorities provided to the Court at that time. We write merely to inform the Court that if it has any hesitancy regarding the appropriateness of the requests under the Data Practices Act or the admissibility of the certifications received in response thereto, Contestants will be happy to accommodate those concerns in a fashion designed to minimize the burden on local election officials. Our goal is to provide the evidence the Court requires in order to establish that the rejected absentee ballots at issue in this case are indeed legally cast votes that should be included in the Court's calculation, pursuant to Minn. Stat. ? 209.12, of which party received the highest number oflegally cast votes and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election. ... So long as Contestee would agree not to challenge foundation, which is obviously present, such an approach would provide the available evidence to the Court without having to burden local officials with having to come to S1. Paul to testify regarding matters about which there can be no reasonable dispute. Short of such an approach Contestants would have no choice but to call scores more officials to testify. For these reasons, as well as those asserted in oral argument, Contestants respectfully request that Contestee's motion be denied. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestants Opposition to Motion in Limine to Exclude Certifications via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Dear Judges Hayden, Marben and Reilly: We write pursuant to Gen. Rules of Practice 115.11 to request permission to file a motion asking the Court to reconsider its ruling yesterday striking the testimony ofPam Howell. The lack of bad faith or misconduct, the innocuous nature of the notes she had, the lack ofreal prejudice to Contestee, and the critical importance of her testimony to Contestants' case, together constitute compelling circumstances for the Court to reconsider its decision. The record does not reflect any evidence of bad faith or misconduct on the part of counsel. Indeed, there was no effort to hide anything and no bad faith whatsoever. The failure to produce the notes Ms. Howell provided to Mr. Haap oja was inadvertent. Neither party produced any documents at all to the other before trial. Discovery focused on responses to interrogatories; the document request which purportedly required the production of this document was an extremely broad catch-all. If the Court has any doubt about counsel's good faith, it should give us the opportunity to present evidence to satisfy any concerns. Moreover, the notes themselves are neither damaging nor inconsistent in any respect with Ms. Howell's testimony or with Contestants' disclosed theory ofthe case on this claim. The notes are simply Ms. Howell's effort to make notes to preserve her memory of the incident about which she testified. Not having the notes did not preclude Mr. Lillehaug from vigorously cross-examining Ms. Howell or otherwise unfairly prej udice Contestee. In any event, to the extent Mr. Lillehaug requires more time to review the notes and an additional opportunity to question Ms. Howell, there is no reason why she cannot be called to appear again at trial. Ms. Howell's testimony is relevant evidence that is critical to Contestants' claim regarding the double-counting of ballots in several precincts. As the Court heard, Ms. Howell testified that duplicate ballots were made and not marked as such. That fact indicates that counting the originals resulted in double-counting. The issue is a material one: all told, in the various precincts where this inadvertent mistake appears to have occurred, double-counting contributed approximately 100 additional votes to Contestee. In the circumstances, Contestants respectfully believe the sanction of excluding Ms. Howell's testimony is unwarranted and unprecedented. We are unaware of any circumstance in which a court has imposed such an extreme sanction in the absence of compelling evidence of misconduct or bad faith. See, e.g., Quinn v. Consol. Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 283 F.3d 572 (3d Cir.2002) ("the exclusion of critical evidence is an 'extreme' sanction, not normally to be imposed absent a showing of willful deception or 'flagrant disregard' of a court order by the proponent of the evidence"(citation omitted)) For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Court grant Contestants the opportunity to file a motion to reconsider its ruling on this critical issue. Dated: February 26, 2009 Source: Letter to Judges Requesting Permission to Request Permission to File a Motion to Reconsider Ruling Striking Testimony of Pam Howell via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Pursuant to an order issued from the bench during trial.on February 25, 2009, the Court enters the following: ORDER: 1. The Court's order of February 25, 2009 striking the testimony ofPamela Howell is vacated. 2. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. MEMORANDUM On January 9, prior to the beginning oftrial in this election contest, Contestee served both interrogatories and document requests upon Contestants requesting disclosure ofdocuments and information relating to Contestants' claims in this proceeding. Contestant provided responses to these discovery requests on January 19. On February 3, the Court, in response to complaints from Contestee regarding the sufficiency of Contestants' responses, reminded Contestants of their continuing obligations under the Rules of Civil Procedure to provide updated answers to interrogatories and supplement them as necessary. See Minn. R Civ.P. 26.05. That same day, the Court agreed to allow Contestee to serve supplemental discovery requests upon Contestants and Contestants agreed to provide responses by February 6. On February 9, Contestee again objected to Contestants' failure to provide complete responses to discovery requests. The Court again underscored to the parties the critical importance of ensuring that discovery responses were supplemented and accurate. On February 25, 2009, during the cross-examination of Pamela Howell by Contestee, Contestee's counsel discovered for the first time that Ms. Howell had provided a document to Contestants' counsel that had never been disclosed to Contestee in response to his discovery requests. Contestants' counsel acknowledged that Contestants had received the document prior to trial but had failed to disclose it to Contestee. After hearing argument from both parties, the Court ruled from the bench striking Ms. Howell's testimony. ... By failing to disclose the existence of a document provided to them by the witness, Contestants have failed to comply with orders from this Court directing parties to ensure that their discovery responses are complete, accurate, and up-to-date. The Court recognizes that striking testimony is a severe sanction but notes that this trial has been underway for five weeks and that the parties have been repeatedly instructed of the need to supplement discovery responses. The Court believes this sanction was within its discretion in light of Contestants' repeated failures to adhere to their discovery obligations under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Nonetheless, the Court recognizes that the judicial process is an attempt to seek the truth and that courts "should not unduly hamper that search by excluding relevant evidence where other means are available to protect a party from the effects ofan inadvertent failure to disclose." Comfeldt, 262 N.W.2d at 697, The Court has the discretion to exclude testimony, but "the exercise of that discretion should be tempered by an effort to seek a solution short of exclusion that will accommodate the competing interests inherent in the discovery rules and the adjudicative process itself," Id. The record reflects that Contestants' failure to disclose the document was inadvertent and not in bad faith. Contestee has now had an opportunity to review the document and prepare a proper cross-examination. Contestee will not be substantially prejudiced by permitting Ms. Howell to conclude her testimony. Accordingly, the Court now reconsiders its ruling of February 25 and vacates its order to strike Howell's testimony. Dated: February 26, 2009 Source: Court Order Striking Testimony of Pamela Howell is Vacated via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Contestants hereby move to withdraw the previously filed motion seeking the admission pro hac vice of Benjamin Ginsberg. Mr. Ginsberg will not participate in the trial and no longer seeks the Court's permission to do so. Contestants accordingly request that the Court enter an Order that the record reflect the formal withdrawal of the motion. Dated: February 26, 2009 Source: Motion to Withdraw Pro Hac Vice of Benjamin Ginsberg via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

NOTICE OF MOTION TO: AL FRANKEN AND HIS ATTORNEY RICHARD D. SNYDER, ESQ. 200 S. 6TH ST. SUITE 4000, MPLS. MN 55402. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The Motion of Jeffrey Cox and the city of Duluth, as more fully specified below, will be heard by the Court on February 27, 2009 at 1:00 p.m. before the presiding judge in the above referenced matter at the Minnesota Justice Center, 25 Rev.Dr, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, MN. 55155, Courtroom 300. MOTION Jeffrey Cox and the city of Duluth moves the court pursuant to Rule 45.03 (c). Minn.R.Civ.P. for an order quashing the subpoena served by Franken upon Jeffrey Cox or in the alternative, orderingFranken to reimburse Cox andthe Cityreasonable expenses in the amount of $1,151.50. The movants rely upon their Memorandum of Law and Affidavit of M. Alison Lutterman in support of their motion. Dated this 26th day of February, 2009 Source: Notice of Motion and Motion by Jeffrey Cox and City of Duluth to Quash Subpoena via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

INTRODUCTION Jeffrey Cox, City Clerk for the City of Duluth as been served with a subpoenaby Al Franken to testify in this matter. Mr. Cox has requested that Franken provide reasonable compensation to himas authorized by Rule 45.03(d), Minn.R.Civ.P. Because Franken has 110t agreed to provide reasonable compensation to Cox, he and his employer the city of Duluth assert this motion to quash pursuant to Rule 45.02(c), Minn.R.Civ.P. Because of the inadequate notice in advance ofthe requested time for testimony, it is impossible for Cox and the City to comply with the notice requirements ofRule 115.10, Gen.R.Prac. Therefore, they request that the Court, in the interests ofjustice, relax the notice requirements pursuant to Rule 115.07, Gen.R.Prac. ... CONCLUSION Municipalities all over the state are facing a budget crisis. The city of Duluth is not exception. The City runs a leanly staffed organization that is struggling to provide to its citizens the services they have a right to expect. It should not be asked to bear the expense of providing its employees for these proceedings because it has no interest in these proceedings and is not a. party. The subpoena should be quashed, or in the alternative, Franken should be ordered to pay in advance the estimated costs for Cox's appearance. Dated this 26th day of February, 2009 Source: Memorandum of Law by Cox and the City of Duluth Supporting their Motion to Quash the Subpoena of Jeffrey Cox via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Court Filling Dump

2/26/2009 7:26:55 AM CT

I've excerpted what I believe to be representative portions of each court document released today, Wednesday. I'll eventually return to this post and provide context for each filing.

TO: Contestee Al Franken, by and through his attorneys David L. Lillehaug, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at a time to be set by the Court, Contestants will move the Court pursuant to Rule 60.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for an order vacating its Order Granting Summary Judgment dated February 10, 2009. This motion is based upon all the files, records, evidence in the record, and proceedings in this case, as well as the Memorandum of Law, Affidavit of James K. Langdon, and Proposed Order served and filed herewith. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestants Notice of Motion and Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

INTRODUCTION The provisions of Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 allow relief from a final judgment. While rarely used, the law recognizes that under certain circumstances, it is appropriate to grant relief from an otherwise final judgment because the basis for that judgment no longer exists. This is one of those unique occasions. On February 10, 2009, this Court granted summary judgment to 23 of the 64 absentee voters represented by Mr. Nauen ("Nauen voters") and ordered the absentee ballots of those 23 voters opened and counted as legally cast votes. Contestants did not oppose the Nauen voters' motion for summary judgment, so long as the Contest Court treated all similarly situated ballots in the same manner. Three days later, on February 13, 2009, this Court ruled as a matter of law that ballots in ten different categories are not legally cast and could not be opened and counted. Memorandum Op. at 10. Seven of the 23 ballots on which the Court granted summary judgment on February 10, do not comply with the standard articulated by this Court on February 13, 2009. [Brief list detailing the seven voters by name along with reason for which their ballot was improperly counted.] January 21, 2009 Affidavit of Charles Nauen. In addition to these seven ballots, Contestants recently learned that the absentee ballot of Hannah Gorski, which the Court ordered opened and counted on February 10, 2009, did not meet all of the criteria set forth in the Court's February 13, 2009 Order and was based on incorrect information submitted in their original affidavits. Nauen Mem. of Law February 20, 2009 at 15-16. Ms. Gorski did not sign and complete her absentee ballot application; rather, her mother signed the application. These eight ballots which the Court ordered opened and counted cannot be squared with the Court's subsequent ruling on February 13, 2009 requiring strict compliance with the statutory mandates before absentee ballots will be opened and counted. It is no longer equitable to enforce a judgment because the basis for that judgment has disappeared. It is, however, still possible to correct this error and thus put all similarly situated absentee voters in the same position. Contestants request that this Court vacate its prior summary judgment ruling and consistently apply the standard set forth in its February 13, 2009 Order to the absentee ballots of the Nauen voters. ... CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Contestants respectfully request this Court vacate its February 10, 2009 Order in its entirety or, in the alternative, with respect to at least the eight voters discussed above. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestants Memorandum of Law in Support of Rule 60.02 Motion to Vacate Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

TO: Contestee Al Franken, by and through his attorneys David L. Lillehaug, Esq., Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN 55402. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at a time to be set by the Court, Contestants will move the Court for an order STRIKING Count IV of Contestee's Counterclaims. This motion is based upon all the files, records, evidence in the record, and proceedings in this case, as well as the Memorandum of Law and Proposed Order served and filed herewith. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestants Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

INTRODUCTION Contestee sought leave to amend his Counterclaims to modify his claims with respect to rejected absentee ballots. Contestants did not oppose that request but preserved their right to seek to add additional ballots in the same categories. When Contestee filed his Amended Answer and Counterclaims on February 21, 2009, however, he added an entirely new counterclaim and modified another-neither of which relate to rejected absentee ballots. These new claims are not within the scope of what he sought permission to do and come so late in the proceedings that Contestants would be unfairly and substantially prejudiced by permitting Contestee to pursue them. The Court accordingly should strike them. ARGUMENT Contestee's motion to amend sought leave only to interject additional rejected absentee ballots and to "clean up" his pending counterclaims regarding the ballots he had previously asked the Court to count. It did not seek leave to assert any other new claims. Nor did the Court grant such leave. The Amended Answer and Counterclaims goes well beyond modifying Contestee's claims regarding rejected absentee ballots. His Third Counterclaim, which relates to duplicate/original ballot issues, has been broadened to apparently include more than the precincts previously stated in that claim (when it was denominated the Fourth Counterclaim). His Fourth Counterclaim, which asserts a chain of custody claim to disenfranchise some 61 voters in Becker County, is entirely new. ... CONCLUSION Contestee has attempted to assert new claims beyond those he sought and was given permission to modify. The Court should strike these unauthorized new claims. Dated: February 25, 2009 Source: Contestants Motion to Strike Certain Amended Counterclaims via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Status Quo Remains

2/25/2009 1:34:34 AM CT

After a busy day yesterday, I have just two court fillings to work with today; I'll try and keep it brief, for your sake and mine. The first document details an order by the Election Contest Court in response to Coleman's Motion for a Temporary Injunction. Coleman was seeking to halt the redaction of identifying information contained on the 933 absentee ballots which were deemed to have been wrongfully rejected. I've excerpted the latest order in it's entirety. I've also selected a few passages from the attached memorandum to aid in the illustration of the ECC's reasoning with respect to the original stipulation:

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon Contestants' Motion for Temporary Injunction. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestants' Motion for Temporary Injunction is DENIED. 2. The Court's Memorandum, filed herewith, is incorporated herein. 3. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 24 day of February, 2009. MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Approximately 2.9 million Minnesota citizens cast a ballot on Election Day. Of these, roughly 286,000 voters cast absentee ballots. Election officials rejected roughly 12,000 absentee ballots, 5,600 of which are at issue in this election contest and remain unopened and uncounted. This represents far less than one percent of the total number of ballots cast by Minnesota citizens in the 2008 election. ... II. A Binding Stipulation and Court Order Govern the Legal Status of the 933 Ballots Opened and Counted on January 3, 2009 On February 3,2009, the parties entered into a stipulation in which they agreed that the 933 absentee ballots opened and counted on January 3, 2009 were "properly and lawfully opened and counted," and the results were "properly and lawfully included in the results of the 2008 United States Senate election as certified by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board." (Order Feb. 3, 2009.) Accordingly, Contestants "dismiss[ed] with prejudice all claims in the Notice of Contest relating to the 933 Ballots." (Id.) The parties further agreed that the Court should direct the Secretary of State to "take all necessary steps to remove and/or redact permanently the numbers affixed to the ballot envelopes on January 3, 2009." (Id. at 2.) The terms of the parties' agreement were acceptable to the Secretary of State. The parties' agreement was thereafter memorialized in the Court's Order issued February 3, 2009. The binding stipulation and Order of February 3, 2009 are dispositive of Contestants' motion. Both campaigns have been competently and ably represented by counsel throughout these proceedings. The stipulation was drafted by counsel and signed by sophisticated parties familiar with the subject matter. The Court presumes the parties were apprised of the risks and benefits associated with entering into this agreement. At the parties' behest, the Court adopted the parties' stipulation in its totality and incorporated those findings into the Court's Order of February 3, 2009. The parties' stipulation, and the Court's Order arising therefrom, is binding. The agreement was reached and submitted to the Court for its adoption after thoughtful negotiation by sophisticated and knowledgeable participants. The Court further analyzed Contestants' motion pursuant to the Dahlberg factors, discussed in greater detail below. In reviewing Contestants' motion in light of Dahlberg, the Court finds the public interest in ensuring the fundamental right to secrecy of a voter's ballot and the importance of upholding contract law weighs against granting Contestants' motion for injunctive relief. ... V. Conclusion For the aforementioned reasons, Contestants' motion for a temporary injunction is denied. Source: Order Denying Contestants' Motion for Temporary Injunction via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The above ruling is essentially irrelevant; the status quo remained entirely unchanged. The ECC simply stood behind their prior ruling; the 933 ballots were going to be redacted before, and they are still going to be redacted. Moving on. Our second filling is also an order by the ECC in response to a Coleman motion. At the very beginning of the litigation process, Coleman attempted to group, or form a class, of all voters whose absentee ballot was rejected. In forming a class, the Coleman campaign sought to include as many future votes as possible. In attempting to create this class, the Coleman campaign intertwined their argument with the Nauen 61. I've quoted the complete text of the order below, along with the issue's history as provided within the introduction of the attached memorandum:

This matter comes before the Court on Intervenor Norm Coleman's motion for certification of a class. The Court heard argument on this motion on February 12, 2009. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein makes the following: ORDER 1. Intervenor Coleman's motion for certification of a class is DENIED. 2. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. 3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. Dated: February 23, 2009 MEMORANDUM I. Introduction On January 13, 2009, certain individual Petitioners filed a petition pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 204B.44 with the Minnesota Supreme Court arguing that their ballots had not been counted in the 2008 general election due to official errors and omissions. Norm Coleman ("Coleman") moved to intervene in the Petitioners' proceeding before the Supreme Court. On January 16, 2009, the Supreme Court issued an order granting Coleman's motion for intervention and directing the Petition to this Court for consideration and decision within the current election contest. In that Order, the Supreme Court observed that, "[j]udicial efficiency and the interests of justice will better be served if the claims presented in this matter are addressed by the three judge district court panel in the election contest proceeding in Ramsey County District Court." (Order, January 16, 2009 at 1-2.) On January 23, 2009, Coleman moved this Court for certification of a class pursuant to Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Coleman seeks "certification of a class of thousands of voters who submitted absentee ballots in the November 4, 2008, general election...." (Intervenor's Mem. at 1). Petitioners filed an objection to this motion on February 9,2009. The Court held a hearing on this motion on February 12, 2009. At the hearing, Contestee Al Franken ("Contestee") moved the Court for limited intervention in Petitioners' § 204B.44 proceeding for purposes of objecting to the motion for class certification. Contestee joined in Petitioners' opposition to Coleman's motion. ... D. Adequacy of Representation is Not Satisfied Rule 23.01(d) requires that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Representational adequacy requires that the representative parties' interests must coincide with the interests of other class members and that the parties and their counsel will competently and vigorously prosecute the lawsuit. Aria, 367 N.W.2d at 513. Factors used to determine if the class representative and class counsel are adequate include: (1) whether the representatives' interests are sufficiently identical to those of absent class members so that the representatives will vigorously prosecute the suit on their behalf; (2) whether the attorneys are qualified, experienced, and capable of conducting the litigation; and (3) whether the representatives have any interests that conflict with the objective of the class they represent. Streich, 399 N.W.2d at 215. Given that Coleman has failed to propose a class representative or class counsel, there is no adequacy of representation in the proposed class. Under Rule 23 each of the four prerequisites of 23.01 must be established before a class may be certified. The Court finds that Coleman has failed to carry his burden of establishing that typicality, commonality or adequacy of representation exist in the potential class of voters. Coleman's motion for class certification is denied. Source: Order Denying Motion for Certification of a Class via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Election Contest Court basically determined that the entire subset of rejected absentee ballots is not homogeneous; they asserted that all rejected absentee ballots were not created equally. It is still possible, perhaps probable, for distinct classes to exist within the entire rejected absentee ballot subset, but the Coleman or Franken campaigns have yet to establish their existence. This order does nothing to diminish the future identification of these smaller, distinct classes as the ECC only stated that the entire subset is not a distinct class; they made no allusion to other, potential classes. The Coleman campaign has hinted at the possibility of concluding their side of the arguments before the weeks end, but with three days to go, its anybody's guess. The court resumes at 9 AM CT on Wednesday.

Franken's Amended List

2/23/2009 9:04:04 PM CT

On February 4th, the Franken campaign moved to amend their original counterclaim to Coleman's election contest notice. Then on February 6th, the Coleman campaign essentially consented to Franken's request. Finally on Saturday afternoon, the Franken campaign released their newly amended list to members of the Minnesota media as well as the Election Contest Court. The Franken release came in the form of a twenty-five page PDF; two exhibits, labeled X and Y accompanied the document. An overview of these exhibits is provided within the first counterclaim, as presented below in it's entirety:

... FIRST COUNTERCLAIM ERRONEOUSLY REJECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS 1. Franken has identified a number of absentee ballots that were rejected in error by election judges and local election officials, in the first instance, or by Coleman as part of the absentee ballot review process pursuant to order of the Minnesota Supreme Court. 2. In a complete about-face from his previous position, Coleman now alleges that approximately 4,800 absentee ballots were rejected in error. Of those, Franken agrees that the absentee ballots identified in attached Exhibit X should be opened and counted or, as to those rejected for lack of registration, the envelopes should be opened to determine if voter registration applications were submitted. 3. Franken further alleges that the absentee ballots identified in attached Exhibit Y, but not among those identified by Coleman, should be opened and counted or, as to those rejected for lack of registration, the envelopes should be opened to determine if voter registration applications were submitted. 4. A number of the absentee ballot envelopes and related materials identified in Exhibits X and Y are the subject of pending Minnesota Government Data Practices requests and trial subpoenas. Franken expects to refine these Exhibits as information is received and as evidence is adduced at trial. ... Source: Contestee's First Amended Answer and Counterclaims via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

I've parsed through each of these exhibits and compiled the following spreadsheets to allow for a more efficient dissemination of the information contained therein:

Exhibit X	Exhibit Y
Court Filing: PDF, 753 KB Voter List: CSV, 28 KB Ballots by County: CSV, 2 KB Extrapolations: PDF, 121 KB	Court Filing: PDF, 749 KB Voter List: CSV, 26 KB Ballots by County: CSV, 3 KB Extrapolations: PDF, 122 KB

I've further condensed the data provided above, into the table below:

                       Identified        Extrapolation
                         Voters       Coleman      Franken
Exhibit X                  781         319.06      334.10
    Coleman Counties       451         142.87      104.39
    Franken Counties       330         103.39      175.72

Exhibit Y                  804         305.53      368.88
    Coleman Counties       300         215.68      158.39
    Franken Counties       504         162.67      264.50

Total                     1585         624.59      702.98
    Coleman Counties       751         358.54      262.78
    Franken Counties       834         266.05      440.21

If each one of the 1,585 ballots listed within Franken's latest filing are opened and counted, Franken would gain about 78 votes. This extrapolation assumes a linear relation between the certified recount result on the county level and the inclusion of the listed absentee ballots. Absentee ballot counting in Hennepin County is delegated to each city, as such, our extrapolation uses the city totals from each applicable Hennepin County municipality as provided by the Franken campaign. ... There were a plethora of other court filings released today, but filed prior to today, in addition to the information presented above. We'll start with a rather ambitious request by the Coleman campaign:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT at a time set by the Court Contestants will move the Court to enter a ruling applying the standards of Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.12 and 203B.24, as the Court has announced those standards, to all absentee ballots cast in the election for U.S. Senate to determine whether those ballots are legally cast votes. The motion is based on the accompanying Memorandum, Affidavit of James K. Langdon, and all the files, records, evidence in the record and the proceedings herein. Dated: February 20, 2009 Source: Contestants' Notice of Motion and Motion via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign is essentially asking the Election Contest Court to reconsider every counted absentee ballot. This request has essentially no chance of being granted but it raises an interesting point none the less. The official recount guide states that the purpose of the recount "is not to determine if absentee ballots were properly accepted." It's certainly possible, even probable that some absentee ballots that were counted should not have been counted. The Coleman campaign does not however provide any empirical evidence. Without proof of wrongdoing, Coleman's assertion opposes Dep. Sec. Jim Gelbmann's testimony and the idea that "the decision of the local election officials should be assumed to be correct." The Coleman campaign also presented a nine page memorandum supporting their aforementioned motion. I've posted the conclusion below:

... CONCLUSION Contestants do not support a remedy that would disenfranchise Minnesota voters whose ballots already have been counted, but the Court's current rulings dictate that result. All similarly situated voters must be treated consistently-and fairly. Elementary fairness as well as equal protection of the laws demands no less. Moreover, the Court is statutorily precluded from including illegal votes in determining who won the election. Contestants accordingly respectfully request that the Court grant their Motion for Ruling Applying February 13,2009 Order regarding Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.12 and 203B.24 to all absentee ballots previously counted in this election. Dated: February 20, 2009 Source: Contestants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Ruling Applying February 13 2009 Order to Previously Counted Absentee Ballots via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Franken has either not filed a response, or the campaign's response is simply not yet listed on the litigation website. The group of 61 petitioners represented by Charles Nauen has filed additional evidence and presented a new motion for summary judgment requesting the inclusion of nineteen previously denied petitioners. The entire motion for summary judgment is displayed below:

PETITIONERS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that as soon the parties may be heard, Petitioners Dennis Peterson, et. al. ("Petitioners"), through their attorneys, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P,L.L.P., will renew, and hereby renew, their motion to this Court, the Honorable Elizabeth A. Hayden, the Honorable Kurt 1. Marben, and the Honorable Denise D. Reilly, presiding, at the Minnesota Judicial Center, 25 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, St. Paul, State of Minnesota, for the entry of an order granting summary judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners respectfully request this Court grant judgment as a matter of law in their favor as follows: 1. Directing that 19 Petitioners' absentee ballots shall be opened and counted immediately, and the total be declared and certified, for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court in the above-captioned matter, or any other proper use under law; and 2. Granting Petitioners such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: February 20, 2009 Source: Petitioners Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The group of petitioners represented by Mr. Nauen is widely considered to be very Franken friendly for two reasons. First, Mr. Nauen seems to support the Democratic agenda based upon his contributions and secondly, the majority of the 61 petitioners are found somewhere on Franken's wrongfully rejected list. It's very unlikely that Coleman will gain votes based upon the potential inclusion of these nineteen ballots. Our final court document was drafted by the Franken campaign last Wednesday, but was not filed until Friday. The first and last paragraphs of the memorandum are presented below:

A question has been raised regarding the form and specificity required for an offer of proof when the Court excludes evidence. Contestee Al Franken provides the following legal authority and argument to assist the Court. At the outset it should be noted that the purpose of an offer of proof is to create a record on which the trial court can make a ruling and to create and preserve a record upon which an appellate court may review lower court decisions. Thus, this Court certainly may and should allow Contestants to make an appropriate written or oral offer of proof for the purposes of creating a record for appellate court review, but it most assuredly has no duty whatsoever to allow, assist or facilitate the creation of a record to assist Contestants in a collateral attack on this Court, its decisions to date in this matter, or Minnesota's electoral system more generally. The suggestion that somehow different standards should be applied to an offer of proof on account of Contestants' apparent intention to file federal court litigation attacking this Court's decisions in this matter is seriously misplaced, misapprehends the purposes of an offer of proof and misstates applicable law. ... The Court properly may require that an offer of proof be in the form of an oral or written summary by the attorney, rather than the testimony sought to be adduced. To avoid further waste of this Court's time, delay in the conclusion of this process and the seating of Minnesota's second United States Senator, and further cumulative testimony apparently designed to undermine the legitimacy of this election and this Court's process, Contestee respectfully submits that Contestants should be directed to make a written offer of proof, in whatever level of specificity they would like, but no further testimony should be entertained with respect to Contestants' dismissed equal protection claims. Dated: February 18, 2009 Source: Memorandum of Law Regarding Form and Level of Specificity Required in an Offer of Proof via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

I'm not entirely sure of the exact intent of this filing, but it appears as though the Franken campaign is trying to limit the topics on which the Coleman campaign can call witnesses to the stand. The Franken campaign is requesting that the Coleman campaign be forced to present an offer of proof, (which upholds the presentation of evidence in the event of an appeal) instead of calling a witness to support any equal protection argument. That's it for now, but I suspect another round of documents will be published tomorrow as the litigation resumes at 9 AM CT. Update [2:33 AM CT]: Franken sent out another order to the Minnesota Media Monday afternoon which the litigation website eventually posted. The filiing is twenty-five page and is dated February 23rd:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on January 23, 2009, upon Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims and on Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 2. The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law. [Table identifying twelve individual voters and their associated county.] 3. Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims is DENIED. 4. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. 5. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. ... j. Conclusion For the aforementioned reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestee's Counterclaims and denies Contestee's Conditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain of Contestants' Claims." Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is denied. Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Contestee's Conditional Motions for Partial Summary Judgement via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Of the twelve voters identified in the preceding order, nine of the names can be found in Franken's Exhibit X, while just one is listed in Exhibit Y. The other two voters were mentioned as part of Franken's original counterclaim addressing 792 specific voters by name. It's impossible to know exactly which way these twelve ballots will fall. It seems slightly more likely that this set will favor Franken based upon his specific identification of these voters, although Coleman has also identified nine of these voters. In the end, we know that twelve more ballots will be opened and likely counted, so the speculation is irrelevant.

Norm's Channeling His Inner Coleman

2/20/2009 8:24:10 PM CT

The Coleman campaign presented the following notice late Friday afternoon informing the Election Contest Court of their forthcoming motion to prevent the redaction of 933 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT at a time set by the Court at its earliest convenience Contestants will seek a temporary restraining order pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02 enjoining the Secretary of State's Office from redacting the absentee ballot envelopes associated with the 933 ballots opened and counted on January 3, 2009. This Motion will be based on the accompanying memorandum and all the files, records and proceedings herein. Dated: February 20, 2009 Source: Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Injunction via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign is simply requesting that each of the 933 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots remain individually identifiable. Their request is in opposition to the February 3rd stipulation instructing the SOS's Office to assimilate these ballots into the larger subset of all accepted absentee ballots. The Coleman campaign is seeking to halt the processing of that order. A review of the original stipulation places the Coleman campaign in a somewhat hypocritical position, but the circumstances have changed. The Election Contest Court presented seven categories of absentee ballots which they deemed worthy of future consideration; he ECC also denied King Banaian's Testimony. In light of these prior events, this latest notice seems strategically plausible. Deputy Secretary of State, Jim Gelbmann (who testified for three days) stated on Friday that about half of the 933 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots had already been redacted in accordance with the stipulation. These redactions are unlikely to impede Coleman's intention. The Coleman campaign has signified that approximately 100 of the 933 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots were actually accepted in opposition to the newly established categories. I don't think the Coleman campaign solely intends to decrease their deficit as a result of this latest maneuver; they are trying to invalidate the process by which the entire set of once rejected absentee ballots were re-examined and eventually counted. If they are somehow able to prove that one of the 933 ballots was improperly included, they may very well be able to force the equal protection issue. They do not need the full set of 933 ballots to prove their assertion, if in fact their 100 vote statement is correct. I've prepared a few calculations to illustrate this point: The output of each function represents the probability of an erroneously counted ballot occurring within the currently un-redacted set with respect to the potential number of erroneously counted ballots. The base case contains 466 un-redacted ballots, with respect to Mr. Gelbmann's statement, and 100/933 based upon the Coleman campaign's statement. Using the above calculations and the just mentioned inputs, there is a 100% chance that an erroneously counted absentee ballot will be contained within the remaining set of un-redacted ballots. I also did some other calculations to illustrate other possibilities for comparison. A graph is also provided below which details all of the possible combinations of error rates and un-redacted ballots: The bottom line is this: if Coleman's request is granted and their error estimate is correct or even just partially correct, the already redacted ballots will play absolutely no role in their Equal Protection argument. If the examination occurs and no errors are found, there is a 69.7% chance that the singular error exists within the other half of already redacted ballots. If the motion is approved, this is a win-win for Coleman; he is either able to prove that inconsistencies occurred, or blame the lawful redaction for his troubles. It is in Coleman's absolute best interest to ensure that this motion is granted. A few excerpts of the Coleman's argument are presented below:

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 65.02, Contestants seek a temporary injunction preventing the Secretary of State's Office from redacting the envelopes associated with the 933 ballots counted on January 3, 2009. The Court should preserve the status quo until it determines the impact of its February 13, 2009 Order on absentee ballots already counted in the election, including those counted on January 3, 2009. ... ARGUMENT Contestants seek the requested relief to preserve the status quo until the Court determines the impact of its February 13, 2009 Order on absentee ballots already counted in the election. I. The Relationship Between The Parties Favors Issuance Of An Injunction The parties are involved in an election contest to determine which party received the highest number of legally cast votes and is therefore entitled to receive the certificate of election. Which votes are in fact legally cast is at the very heart of the matter-and of the Court's charge. Contestants believe the Court must apply its February 13, 2009 Order to absentee ballots previously counted, including those removed from the envelopes at issue here. II. Irreparable Harm Will Result If The Motion Is Not Granted The Court's February 3,2009 Order directs the Secretary of State's Office to redact the identifying numbers from the ballot envelopes so that a particular ballot can no longer be tied to the envelope it came in. Without that identifying information, the Court will be unable to determine which ballot was in fact an illegally cast vote and should not be included in the count of legally cast votes, thus removing an important remedy that would be available if the Court applies its February 13, 2009 Order to absentee ballots that have already been counted. III. Contestants Are Likely To Prevail On the Merits ... IV. Public Interest Demands That Consistent Standards Be Consistently Applied ... v. Administrative Burden On The Court Is Minimal ... CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Contestants respectfully request that this Court issue a temporary injunction directing the Secretary of State's Office not to redact any information from the envelopes associated with the 933 ballots opened and counted on January 3,2009 pending further order of this Court. Dated: February 20, 2009 Source: Memorandum in Support of Motion for Temporary Injunction via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Franken also responded to Coleman's requested injunction by refuting each of Coleman's arguments:

Contestee Al Franken opposes Contestants' Motion for Temporary Injunction, The motion flies in the face of a Stipulation and Order freely entered into by the parties and affirmed by the Court. The Stipulation and Order settled and resolved one of Contestants' claims and furthered the strong public policy of ballot secrecy. Contestants' effort to renege on the stipulation they freely entered and eviscerate the binding order of this Court warrants the imposition of sanctions. ... LEGAL ARGUMENT Contestants' motion should be denied. The factors of Dahlberg Bros. v. Ford Motor Co., 137 N.W.2d 314 (Minn. 1965) all require this result: 1. The relationship between the parties strongly cuts against an injunction. The relationship between the parties is governed by the Stipulation and Order of February 3, 2009. Contestants seek to breach the Stipulation, defy the Court Order entered on the stipulation, and make the Court a party to the breach. 2. Irreparable harm will result if the motion is granted. As the Supreme Court recognized in its Order of December 24, 2008, entered at the request of both Contestants and Contestee herein, ballot secrecy is a paramount public policy. Minnesota law mandates secret ballots. See Minn. Stat. § 206.80 ("An electronic voting system may not be employed unless it: (1) permits every voter to vote in secret ...."); see also Application of Andersen, 119 N.W.2d 1,8 (1962) ("Procedural statutes governing elections are intended to safeguard the right of the people to express their preference in a free election by secret ballot and to have the results of the election governed by the votes so cast."); Minn. Stat. § 202A.18 (requiring secret ballots even for caucuses and conventions). The 933 ballots should never have been numbered. On February 3, 2009, recognizing this public policy, Contestants and Contestee freely entered into a Stipulation that the numbers would be removed. 3. Contestants will not prevail on the merits. ... 4. The public interest requires that the February 3 Order be enforced. ... 5. The burden on the Court by this motion is not administrative, but goes directly to the heart of the integrity of the judicial process. ... CONCLUSION The motion should be denied. Contestee advised counsel for the Contestant that this motion is baseless and warrants the imposition of sanctions. Contestee requests that the Court establish a briefing and hearing schedule so that Contestee may bring on a motion under Minn. R. Civ. P. 11 and Minn. Stat. Section 549.211. Source: Contestee's Opposition to Motion for Temporary Injunction via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

After all of this, I find it unlikely that the Election Contest Court will override Coleman's once prejudiced dismissal of this very topic. Franken was also supposed to present his updated list of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots on Saturday; he did apparently do this, but a court filing is unavailable. The PioneerPress was apparently given access to the document containing 1,585 ballots, 781 of which the Coleman campaign has already identified, but they thought it was more important to talk about "snark" within the document than to actually present the document; nice work PioneerPress. (It's only a matter of time before they join the likes of their now bankrupt competitor, the StarTribune.) Of the 1,585 presented by Franken 804 were not already identified by Coleman; this number is actually slightly more than the 792 he had already presented. This could mean several things, but it is impossible to definitively conclude anything without actually looking at the list which, should at the vary latest be available on Monday when the ECC resumes.

Banaian's Testimony Denied

2/19/2009 2:19:38 AM CT

A number of court documents have been filed and then subsequently posted to the litigation page within the past two days; some are important, others not so much. I'll cover the documents chronologically from oldest to newest. The first document is probably the least important, but it's worth mentioning for the historical value. The Coleman campaign filed the first post-categorization motion essentially asking the Election Contest Court to reconsider their decision regarding categorization. An overview of Coleman's arguement is presented below; the document was drafted on February 16th and then filled with the court on February 17th:

Dear Judges Hayden, Reilly and Marben: We write pursuant to Minn.R. Gen. Prac. 115.11 to request the Court's permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's February 13, 2009 Order Following Hearing. We respectfully believe the Court has created a significant problem by adopting standards to be applied to the remaining unopened absentee ballots which are materially different than those which have been applied previously-by election officials, by recount personnel, by the Supreme Court and, indeed, by this Court itself--to absentee ballots already opened and counted. If the Court maintains the standards set forth in that ruling, it will serve only to further exacerbate inconsistencies and inequities in the process and the already-existing equal protection problem. Let us explain. ... On February 3,2009, when the parties stipulated and the Court signed an order that all of the 933 ballots opened on January 3, 2009 were "properly and lawfully opened and counted," even though it appears scores of them do not meet these standards. As a result, there are certainly hundreds, and likely thousands, of votes already counted that under the Court's February 13,2009 Order were not legally cast votes-meaning that the recount included a material number of illegally cast votes which should not have been included in the totals the Canvassing Board certified. In our motion to reconsider, we will provide specific and numerous example ballots to the Court so that it may under the statutory power granted it for this contest correct these inconsistencies. We believe the standard this Court applies to determine which of the remaining rejected absentee ballots is a legally cast vote must be consistent with the standards this Court has already applied to other ballots as well as the same standard applied to the thousands of absentee ballots already opened and counted by the counties. The earlier standards consistently applied include, as the testimony of county officials has made clear, that whether a voter had otherwise voted in the election was determined solely with reference to the roster in his or her precinct and that, among other things, many counties did not check the registration of the witness and some did not. Moreover, the Court should consistently apply the same methods used by the counties and municipalities on election day to determine whether an absentee ballot should be accepted. One thing is clear about American elections: all voters must be treated equally. To apply different standards to different absentee voters is prohibited by the Constitution. In light of these facts and circumstances, which the Court may not have had the opportunity to consider, Contestants respectfully seek permission to file a motion, with attached exhibits, seeking reconsideration of the Court's February 13, 2009 ruling. Source: Letter Requesting Permission to File a Motion for Reconsideration via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign presented a clever, yet reused argument suggesting that some ballots were actually improperly counted and should therefore be uncounted as to not disenfranchise those who voted properly. This course of reasoning presents another angle to the Equal Protection argument while attempting to directly reduce their vote deficit. Unfortunately for the Coleman campaign, the Election Contest Court denied the entirety of their request. The full text of the order is presented below:

The above-captioned matter came before the Court. on February 16, 2009. pursuant to Contestants' request to bring a motion to reconsider the Court's February 13, 2009, Order. Based upon the contents of the file, the Court makes the following: ORDER 1. Respondent's request to bring a motion to reconsider the Court's February 13, 2009 Order is DENIED. Dated: February 18, 2009 Source: Respondent's Request to Bring a Motion to Reconsider Order is Denied via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

I don't necessarily think Coleman's premise is wrong, as there probably were improperly accepted ballots, but he faces the burden of proving this assertion. It is just as difficult to check 3 million ballots for improper rejection as it is improper acceptance and I don't think the Election Contest Court was prepared to order a full scale examination into Coleman's premise without some empirical evidence. I think its also worth noting that the 933 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots have been assimilated into the larger subset of absentee ballots and are not individually identifiable; it would be impossible to reexamine only those 933 ballots. The next document was filed by Franken and focuses on their opposition to the Equal Protection argument presented by Coleman. The Franken campaign mainly asserts that the idea of Equal Protection applies to a lesser degree when absentee ballots are concerned; they cite a 2003 ruling that established absentee voting as a privilege and not a right in the state of Minnesota. The first and last paragraphs of the aforementioned memorandum are presented below:

Contestants continue to occupy this Court's time and to delay the seating of Minnesota's second senator with claims that already have been argued and rejected. Contestants' most recent attempt to advance their purported Equal Protection claim comes in the form of an offer of proof into evidence. Contestee respectfully request that this Court accept Contestants' offer of proof for purposes of preserving the record and confirm its prior rulings rejecting Contestants' Equal Protection claim as a matter of law, both on substantive and procedural grounds. ... On at least two, independent grounds, therefore, Contestants' Equal Protection claim fails as a matter of law. Additional independent reasons for its failure are set forth in Contestee's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Contestants' Motion for Summary Judgment, which Contestee incorporates herein. For the foregoing reasons, Contestee respectfully requests that the Court accept Contestants offer of proof for appellate purposes and confirm this Court's prior rulings that Contestants' Equal Protection claim is deficient as a matter of law, both on substantive and procedural grounds. Dated: February 18, 2009. Source: Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Offer of Proof via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

This next filing is more curious than important. Ben Ginsberg, an attorney for Coleman, has asked the Election Contest Court to afford him a temporary license to practice law in the state of Minnesota; Mr. Ginsberg is a member of the DC Bar, but he does not currently posses the credentials required to actively participate in the court room proceedings. Mr. Ginsberg has often been present within the court room, but he has never been the empowered representation. Mr. Ginsberg's request to the court is posted below:

Contestants Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman hereby move for permission for Benjamin L. Ginsberg, attorney with Patton Boggs LLP, to practice before this Court pro hac vice in this matter. This Motion is based upon Rule 5 of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts, the accompanying affidavit of Benjamin L. Ginsberg and the files and proceedings herein. February 18, 2008 Source: Contestants Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Benjamin L. Ginsberg via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

There is essentially no reason for this request to be denied; three attorneys representing Franken presented a similar scenario and the court granted them their request on January 12th. Assuming Mr. Ginsberg is granted his request, it remains to be see how he will contribute to the daily proceedings. The final filing, and the most important, deals with King Banaian's testimony. The court finally reached a decision:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on February 12, 2009 upon a Motion in Limine by Contestee to Exclude Testimony of King Banaian. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of King Banaian is GRANTED. 2. Any other relief not specifically provided herein is DENIED. 3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Dated: Feb 18, 2009 ... III. Analysis [from the attached memorandum] The only question that can be decided in an election contest is which party received the highest number of legally cast votes, and therefore is entitled to receive the certificate of election. Minn. Stat. § 209.12. The Court will be reviewing all ballots presented according to the uniform standard contained in Minnesota Statues Chapter 203B. It is irrelevant whether there were irregularities between the counties in applying Minnesota Statutes § 203B.12, subd. 2. prior to this election contest. The Court does not believe Banaian's testimony would assist in determining the issues properly before it. Source: Order on Contestee's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of King Banaian via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

I don't really know if this decision inherently alters Coleman's position, but we can at least definitely say that the King Banaian saga is over. The issue may resurface during the appeals process if Coleman is unable to overcome the current deficit. This order also marks the first occasion in the entire litigation in which a motion, by either candidate, has been granted outright. The next step for Coleman may be the Equal Protection argument, but remember, there are still other unresolved issues; the double counting issue still remains unresolved along with some other, more minor counting issues. The court has focused so much of their time on the absentee ballot situation that the double counting issue has been almost entirely ignored. The resolution of the absentee ballot problem may however lead to the resolution of the double counting issue. The Election Contest Court will resume tomorrow and King Banaian won't be in attendance.

The King Banaian Saga

2/16/2009 5:40:28 PM CT

If you've read my past several articles, the name King Banaian probably sounds vaguely familiar; if you haven't, prepare to be enlightened. I'll try and let the court documents do the talking, but I'll have to fill in some of the blanks. Before any analysis occurs, I better provide some background on Professor King Banaian. Prof. Banaian is an economics professor at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota. He is also a contributor to the very conservative SCSU Scholars and co-hosted a radio show with Michael Brodkorb of MinnesotaDemocratsExposed.com. King Banaian is not an unbiased observer, he is a Republican. The saga all began on January 20th, as described within King Banaian's deposition; the document is dated January 27th, but was filed with the court on January 29th:

EXAMINATION
BY MR. BURMAN: Q. Professor Banaian, my name is Dave Burman. I'm one of the lawyers for Al Franken, the contestee in the election contest that's going on. ... Q. You are a social scientist, aren't you? A. That's correct. ... Q. Who was it that gave you your assignment on the 20th, or whenever in advance of the 20th you got it? A. The attorneys from the Coleman campaign had contacted me, in particular, Mr. Trimble. Q. And when did Mr. Trimble first contact you? A. I would say noon on the 20th. ... Q. And it came with an e-mail from Mr. Trimble? A. Yes, that's correct. Source: Affidavit of Richard D Snyder Regarding Motion in Limine via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign sent Prof. Banaian a series of spreadsheets containing county level data pertaining to rejected absentee ballots on January 20th; he later stated that he verified some of the data using a spreadsheet posted on the Minnesota Secretary of State's website. The exact contents of the SOS provided spreadsheet remain unclear, but there does not appear to be a publicly available rejected absentee ballots table. I have however placed an inquiry with the Secretary of State's office regarding the context of Prof. Banaian's testimony. Despite Prof. Banaian's own classification as a social scientist, he also testified to his qualifications as a statistical analyst:

Q. Do you consider yourself an expert in statistical analysis? A. I consider myself a practitioner of statistical analysis. Expert, I believe -- I have difficulty with that word. Q. Why is that? A. I have - I have taken several courses in statistics. There are, obviously, people who have degrees in statistics, Ph.D.s even in statistics. It's fair to say that they will call themselves experts. I -- I call myself a long-time practitioner of -- of statistical analysis. I provide data analysis for the St. Cloud community, and I teach data analysis to my students. Q. As I understand it, as long as I picked the right test of those offered by Excel, even somebody as unschooled as myself could have, basically, replicated what you've done in Exhibit 2? A. If you picked the right test. Q. And the binomial approach is about the most basic of statistical tests, is it not? A. Am I being asked my opinion? Q. Yes. A. In my opinion, most people by default go to the normal distribution. The bell curve is the most well-known distribution in statistics. Source: Affidavit of Richard D Snyder Regarding Motion in Limine via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Prof. Banaian stated that he used a binomial distribution to determine potential anomalies in rejection rates; he also experimented with a Poisson distribution and a Chi-Square test. Prof. Banaian also asserted that each of these regression techniques "require homogeneity of variance;" he did not consider the "socioeconomic qualitative characteristics of people who fill out absentee ballots." In turn, his analysis is based entirely upon the deviations present within the given distribution.

Q. Then there's a column that says -- and I can't tell whether the heading reject too many is just for one column or two. Do you know offhand? A. It is for two. Q. So the yes, yes for Aitkin County means that Aitkin rejected too many compared to what you expected in a random distribution? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. And is the first column based on the 5 percent calculation and the second on the 1 percent? A. Yes, that's correct. Source: Affidavit of Richard D Snyder Regarding Motion in Limine via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Based upon my own calculations, Aitkin's rejection rate places 4th among the 132 regions responsible for collecting, categorizing and counting absentee ballots; Hennepin County passes this responsibility onto each municipality. My table uses rejected absentee ballot data provided by each campaign within a multitude of Court filings. The Coleman campaign has identified 4,458 absentee ballots and their associated voters by name, while Franken has listed 792. The exact data available to Prof. Banaian remains unknown; some of it was provided by the Coleman campaign, and some of it was obtained through the MN Secretary of State's website. The rejection pattern of Aitkin County seem to be irregular, but this irregularity may or may not be relevant. If you take any set of data and apply any distribution model, you will get outliers; the purpose of a distribution function is to identify a certain number of mathematically significant outliers, not logically significant. The existence of outliers, in and of itself, is completely meaningless without an analysis of their context. Prof. Banaian would later offer a potential explanation for the outliers he identified:

Q. So at least using this data there were between 15 and 23 counties where there seemed to be differences that couldn't be explained by random variation? A. That's correct. Q. But we don't know what caused those? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. Might be that they had a disproportionate number of people who were blind or didn't see very well and didn't sign in the right place? MR. RALPH: Objection, form.
BY MR. BURMAN: Q. That's a possible explanation for those counties? A. It's possible, yes. Q. And nothing that you've done tells us whether or not the excess rejections were contrary to law or incorrect in any way? A. No. Source: Affidavit of Richard D Snyder Regarding Motion in Limine via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Prof. Banaian essentially stated that he was unable to explain any correlation between the random variations he identified and any procedural or demographic information inherent to any of the counties he analyzed. It is very difficult to find context for comparison because applicable historic data is scarce. There is however some county level data available from the 2004 Washington State Gubernatorial statewide recount; King County, containing Seattle appears to have an improper re-rejection rate of about 66%, but King County is not representative of all counties in Washington, and certainly not Minnesota. The Franken campaign took issue with Prof. Banaian's analysis by filing a motion on January 29th to suppress any potential testimony:

MOTION In Contestants' opening statement, they announced that they would not be calling a social scientist to testify to alleged statistical differences between counties. Now they have changed their mind and wish to call Prof. King Banaian, an economics professor and political commentator. They were right before, and wrong now. Contestee moves to exclude the testimony of Prof. Banaian. ... Prof Banaian should be excluded for a number of reasons. First is timeliness. The proposed witness was first contacted by Contestants on January 20 (Banaian Dep. at 29, line 6) (attached to Snyder Affidavit). He did not reach "any type of conclusion" until January 22 (id. at 26, line 19), a day after the expert disclosure deadline imposed by the Court, and he was not made available for deposition until after trial had already started, despite his earlier availability. Jd. at 79, line 11, to 80, line 4. The court is within its discretion to exclude the witness for this reason alone. Banaian has not qualified himself as an expert on the issue he presents. He admits that he is not necessarily an "expert" in statistics, [The second excerpt contained within this article is then referenced as proof of the previous assertion.] ... Similarly, his opinions are not on a subject matter requiring expert testimony. He opines on the rejection rates of absentee ballots in 87 counties. The rejection rates are known facts, ascertainable by a simple calculation. Expert testimony is not required on that factual issue, and the only reason Contestants want to have Prof. Banaian testify is to suggest that there is something behind the variations even though he does not have the expertise and has not even attempted to do the analysis to suggest that. Source: Motion - Contestees Opposition to Contestants Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of King Banaian via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign then responded to Franken's above motion on February 10th, by addressing each point of opposition:

INTRODUCTION Contestants plan to call Professor King Banaian as an expert to testify that, based on the application of well-established statistical methods, many counties rejected more absentee ballots than expected from the statewide rate. This conclusion is not obvious on the face of the data, and expert testimony is appropriate to support it. Professor Banaian's proposed testimony will rule out, as a matter of statistical analysis, the possibility that the variation in rejection rates across counties was the result of pure chance. As such, his testimony will assist the Court as it considers the equal protection and fairness issue underlying its determination of which ballots are in fact legally cast votes. ... Contestee disparages Professor Banaian's selection of the binomial distribution and chi-square tests, Mot. at 4, but "both the chi-square and binomial tests of statistical significance are recognized by courts as being valid means of assessing the representativeness of a sample." Reynolds v. Giuliani, 118 F. Supp.2d 352,374 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing cases). The binomial and chi-square tests are routinely admitted in employment discrimination cases to show disparities in treatment of protected groups. See, e.g., id.; Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1463, 1466 (6th Cir. 1990); Coates v. Johnson & Johnson, 756 F.2d 524, 536 n.11 (7th Cir. 1985); Lilly v. Harris-Teeter Supermarket, 720 F.2d 326,336 n.18 (4th Cir. 1983). The binomial and chi-square tests would be helpful here for the same reasons they are helpful in employment discrimination cases:
When a plaintiff demonstrates a significant statistical disparity in the discharge rate, he or she has provided strong evidence that chance alone is not the cause of the discharge pattern. The statistics do not and cannot determine whether the more likely cause is the defendant's bias or a legitimate selection criterion. Barnes, 896 F.2d at 1468. Employment statistics may thus establish a prima facie case, subject to rebuttal or proof by additional evidence. Id. at 1466; Lilly, 720 F.2d at 336 n.20. Here, Professor Banaian's proposed testimony would rule out chance as a possible explanation of the different rejection rates and lay a foundation for the Court to consider inconsistent application of the statutory standard as the cause. ... Contestee argues that Professor Banaian should be disqualified for hesitating to proclaim himself an "expert in statistical analysis," Snyder Aff. at 37:2-3, but an expert's modesty is not a basis for excluding him. Although Professor Banaian does not have a degree in statistics, he testified that he has a Ph.D. in economics, teaches economics and data analysis to college students, frequently uses statistical analysis in his work, and considers himself a "long-time practitioner of statistical analysis." Id. at 37:4-17. Professor Banaian has been a professor of economics at St. Cloud State University for nearly 25 years, and he has numerous data-intensive publications. Affidavit of F. Matthew Ralph ("Ralph Aff.") Ex. 5. ... (quoting Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Ctr., 387 N.W.2d 401, 405 (Minn. 1986) ("The general rule in Minnesota is expert testimony should be suppressed for failure to make a timely disclosure of the expert's identity only where 'counsel's dereliction ... is inexcusable and results in disadvantage to his opponent."). Contestee suffered no prejudice whatsoever. Contestee does not claim that Professor Banaian's deposition testimony differed prejudicially from his disclosed opinion, because it did not. Compare Ralph Aff. Ex. 5, with Snyder Aff. at 12:20-13:5. Contestee complains that he was obliged to depose Professor Banaian after trial commenced, but he does not explain how the timing of the deposition harmed him, especially when it occurred several days before Professor Banaian's trial testimony. In sum, Contestants' disclosure of Professor Banaian was timely, and Contestee has suffered no prejudice whatsoever to justify exclusion of Professor Banaian's trial testimony. Source: Contestants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Professor King Banaian via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

It's interesting to note that absentee voting in Minnesota is considered a privilege and not a right. Franken then responded to Coleman's response on February 11th; the memorandum presents two main ideas. First, the Franken campaign asserts that rejection rates are irrelevant to the Election Contest Court's duty and secondly, they stated that the techniques used by Prof. Banaian are uneffective:

I. INTRODUCTION Contestee Al Franken respectfully submits that the Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of King Banaian ("Motion in Limine") should be granted. As his deposition transcript makes plain, Professor Banaian's proposed testimony is irrelevant to the only proper question before the Court: which candidate received the greatest number of votes that were "legally cast" in the 2008 U.S. Senate election. Evidence of alleged statistical differences in rejection rates between Minnesota counties is especially irrelevant in light of Professor Banaian's own admitted inability to offer any evidence, testimony or opinion on the underlying cause for the observed differences between the counties. As a result, this evidence is irrelevant under Minn. R. Evid 402 and 702. It would add nothing to this already over-burdened litigation except additional cost, delay, and confusion, and should also be excluded under Rule 403. ... For starters, the task before the Court is to determine which of the two candidates received the highest number of votes legally cast in this election. The relative rejection rates between counties sheds no light on this subject. A rejected absentee ballot either was, or was not, properly rejected and the fact that it was or was not rejected by a county with a higher or lower rate of rejection that its neighboring county (or even as compared to all of the other counties) hardly makes that rejection any more or less wrongful or the vote more or less "legally cast." Rejection rates by county are, in short, simply irrelevant to the task before this Court. Moreover, the use of relatively unsophisticated binomial distribution analysis and chi square tests are hardly the preferred means of statistical proof in discrimination cases. Instead, such rudimentary statistical tests are frequently rejected in favor of a regression analysis that can eliminate other causal explanations for observed differences - precisely the analysis that Professor Banaian admits that he cannot offer. Source: Contestee's Reply Memorandum in Support of His Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of King Banaian via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The King Banaian issue is next in the Election Contest Court's queue, but they may have already addressed it's resolution. We know the Election Contest Court canceled twelve of their nineteen categories last Friday, but they also asserted the accuracy of Minnesota's vote counting system; from the introduction of the memorandum attached to the Order Establishing Hearing on Motions:

The facts presented thus far do not show a wholesale disenfranchisement of absentee voters in the 2008 general election. Of the approximately 286,000 absentee ballots cast by voters, roughly 4,800 are at issue in this contest and remain unopened and uncounted. This is less than 2% of the absentee ballots cast in the general election. Further, the Court notes that, many of the voters whose absentee ballots remain unopened may have cast ballots that have already been counted either because they voted in person on Election Day or they submitted a subsequent absentee ballot that was opened and counted. These voters were not disenfranchised by the rejection of their absentee ballots. ... All rejected absentee ballots were reviewed both on Election Day and through the Supreme Court review process. The Court is confident that although it may discover certain additional ballots that were legally cast under relevant law, there is no systemic problem of disenfranchisement in the state's election system, including in its absentee-balloting procedures. Source: Order Following Hearing via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Based upon the above expression of the Election Contest County, it will be interesting to see if the Coleman campaign continues to push for the testimony of Professor King Banaian.

Absentee Ballot Universe Constricts

2/15/2009 8:20:56 PM CT

Last Tuesday, the Election Contest Court released an Order Establishing Hearing on Motions in the attempt of "streamlining" the absentee ballot review process. The ECC presented 19 categories of absentee ballots and directed the parties to submit a briefing with regard to these 19 categories. I've already covered each campaigns' submission, but now it's time to cover the court's order:

This matter came before the Court on arguments on February 12, 2009. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Court shall not order the opening and counting of ballots that fall into the following categories because such ballots are not legally cast under relevant law:
1. An absentee ballot submitted by a voter in an absentee ballot return envelope on which the voter's address is not the same as on the absentee ballot application. (Court's Order of February 10, 2009 at § A.2.)
2. An absentee ballot submitted by a voter in an absentee ballot return envelope in which the witness certification on the absentee ballot return envelope is signed by a person identified as a notary public but no notarial' seal or stamp is affixed to the absentee ballot return envelope. (Id. at § A.3.)
3. An absentee ballot submitted by a non-registered voter. (Id. at §§ A.4, A.10 & A.18.)
4. An absentee ballot submitted by a voter in an absentee ballot return envelope in which the voter failed to sign the absentee ballot return envelope. (Id. at § A.7.)
5. An absentee ballot submitted by a voter whose absentee ballot application does not contain the voter's signature. (Id. at § A.5.)
6. An absentee ballot submitted by a voter whose absentee ballot application was signed by another unless the absentee ballot application was assigned by another individual in accordance with Minnesota Statute § 645.44, subd, 14. (Id. at. § A.11.)
7. A UOCAVA ballot received by election officials after the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots. (Id. at § A.13.)
8. An absentee ballot dropped off in-person by the voter on Election Day. (Id. at § A.14.)
9. An absentee ballot dropped off by a proper agent on Election Day but after the statutory deadline for delivery. (Id. at § A.15.)
10. A ballot submitted by a voter who was not registered to vote within the precinct in which he or she resides. (Id. at § A.19.) 2. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. Dated: Feb 13, 2009 Source: Order Following Hearing via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The proceeding order, by the ECC, eliminated twelve of the nineteen previously outlined categories. The remaining six categories are presented below:

1. An absentee ballot returned by a non-registered voter in an absentee ballot return envelope on which no box in the proof of residence portion of the absentee ballot return envelope is checked by the witness. 6. A UOCAVA ballot submitted where there is no evidence that the voter submitted a Federal Post Card Application or absentee ballot application. 8. An absentee ballot cast by a voter whose absentee ballot application does not contain a signature. 9. An absentee ballot cast by a voter where there is no independent evidence that the voter completed an absentee ballot application. 12. An absentee ballot in an absentee ballot return envelope in which the witness certification is signed by a non-notary witness who failed to provide a street address. 16. An absentee ballot within a non-registered voter absentee ballot return envelope on which the voter failed to sign the certification's signature box but did sign the absentee ballot return envelope elsewhere. 17. An absentee ballot cast by a voter who was not registered to vote in the precinct encompassing the voter's address on the absentee ballot return envelope and absentee ballot application. Source: Order Establish Hearing on Motions via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The exact number of affected ballots is not immediately apparent, but this order will further restrict each candidate's absentee ballot universe. The order will likely affect Coleman more than Franken, based upon the discrepancy of reconsideration requests. Coleman has identified 4,458 absentee ballots and their associated voters by name, while Franken has listed 792.

Absentee Ballot Battle Rages

2/13/2009 12:25:19 AM CT

On Wednesday, the Election Contest Court asked each campaign to "streamline" the absentee ballot process by categorizing the currently rejected ballots into 19 separate divisions; I briefly covered this topic in a previous article. Then on Thursday, the ECC held a hearing, beginning at 1 PM CT, regarding each campaign's submission with regard to the ECC's aforementioned Order Establishing Hearing on Motions. The ECC has not yet responded to Thursday's proceedings. We'll start be focusing on Franken's submission, which was filed with the court on February 11th. The complete document totals 27 pages and references each of the 19 categories, as outlined by the Election Contest Court, within the Analysis section. I have excerpted the conclusion, in it's entirety below:

III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Contestee Franken respectfully requests the Court rule as a matter of law that certain ballots cannot be opened and, moreover, that in the absence of individualized evidence satisfying the statutory noncompliance bar, evidence is excluded if it relates only to ballots that cannot be counted (or in the case of missing registration, opened and checked). Dated: February 11, 2009. Source: Memorandum of Law in Support of Contestee Franken's Motion in Limine and Offer of Proof via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Having read the complete document, the conclusion essentially reflects the tone and reasoning presented within the body. The Franken campaign never explicitly asks for any of the ballots contained within the 19 categories to be counted. Instead, their submission is littered with legal references and past precedences. The Franken campaign would ideally prefer to exclude each vote, from each of the 19 categories but they've realized that this result is probably unlawful and politically unfeasible; instead they've accepted the mantra of ensuring that only valid votes are counted. The Coleman campaign has taken an entirely different approach in their submission filed on February 12th. I've posted the Coleman conclusion in it's entirety:

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and based on the evidence that has been and will be presented at trial, Contestants respectfully request that the Court order that previously rejected absentee ballots in all categories identified above (except Sections 3, 15 and 18) be opened and, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State that these voters are registered and did not already cast a ballot that was counted in the 2008 general election, counted. Dated: February 11, 2009 Source: Contestants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Acceptance by Category of Improperly Rejected Absentee Ballots via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign has essentially asked that 16 of the 19 categories be opened, verified and then subsequently counted. Their memorandum is also filed with legal references, but unlike the Franken submission, they state that each applicable category should be counted. Again, the conclusion of the Coleman memorandum is very representative of the document as a whole, without the numerous legal references. The Election Contest Court will resume on Friday at 9 AM CT and adjourn early, probably around 12:30 PM CT. The court will then reconvene on Monday February 16th for a "Motion Day." On Monday, the campaigns will not be allowed to call witnesses, but they will be able to present motions and arguments for the ECC's consideration. I would then presume that the ECC would issue a series of rulings later that evening; depending on the direction of these proceedings, Monday could be decisive day for either campaign. One other area of contention does however remain; the testimony of King Banian, an economic professor at St. Cloud State University. The Coleman campaign initially asked Professor Banian to present statistical evidence regarding potential, absentee ballot anomalies on January 27th; the Franken campaign then objected and the saga began. I initially covered this topic on Tuesday, but the issue runs much deeper than my brief synopsis. I intend to cover this scenario in much greater detail, while providing a statistical model of my own within the next few days.

More Extrapolations and Interventions

2/10/2009 11:34:34 PM CT

A few days ago I wrote about Norm Coleman's list of potentially wrongfully rejected absentee ballots by presenting a spreadsheet and a series of extrapolations. I've since updated the spreadsheet [csv] and recompiled the extrapolations using the Coleman provided breakdown of Hennepin County: Download the complete table: PDF 108 KB I find it curious that the Coleman campaign only separated regions within Hennepin County, but the table below seems to explain why:

   Scenario                               Coleman Net
   (1) 100% of Coleman's List Accepted:       44.80
   (2) Only Counties that Coleman Won:       368.87
   (3) 100% Accepted with 5% Coleman Bias:   267.70
   (4) Coleman Counties with 5% Bias:        509.97

   Listed from Franken Regions:               1,636
   Listed from Coleman Regions:               2,822
   Total:                                     4,458

Using our previous compilation as a baseline, the Coleman campaign is able to present a more mathematically appealing argument by differentiating between the various regions within Hennepin County. This separation, which I failed to take into account originally, places roughly 950 additional ballots into regions favorable to Coleman while subtracting nearly 850 from Franken friendly territory. Coleman will likely gain votes from these 4,458 ballots, but the exact quantity remains to be seen; it's also likely that Franken will submit a similar set of ballots, so this difference may be offset. Now onto a different front. There was news yesterday regarding the intervention of the seven petitioners represented by Bruce D. Kennedy; today brings an order regarding the group of 61 represented by Chris Nauen:

This matter comes before the Court on Petitioners Dennis Peterson, et. al.'s (''Petitioners'') motion for summary judgment. After consideration of the arguments of counsel, the written submission of the parties, and the pleadings in the case. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioners' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. 2. The following absentee ballots shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to be opened and counted at a date to be determined by the Court, and the total be declared and certified for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court, or any other proper use under law. [List of 24 voter's and their associated counties] 3. The absentee ballot of Roxanna Saad of Dakota County shall be provided to the Secretary of State at a date to be determined by the Court to open the secrecy envelope to determine whether it contains a complete voter registration application. In the event that a complete voter registration application is found within the secrecy envelope, Ms. Saad's absentee ballot shall be opened and counted in accordance with section 2 of this Order. 4. The attached Memorandum is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 5. Any requested relief not specifically granted herein is denied. Source: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petitioners Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

In short, the court agreed to open and review 24 of the 61 absentee ballots listed within Mr. Nauen's motion for intervention. The court was not convinced that the other 36 ballots merited inclusion based upon the evidence submitted. The Election Contest Court did leave the door open for further evidence, but at the moment, these 36 ballots will not be counted. The Election Contest Court resumes tomorrow at 9 AM CT, with an important deadline set at 4 PM CT:

A. In order to streamline proceedings in this action, the parties are directed to submit briefing by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 on whether the ballots in the following categories are not legally cast under relevant law: [Listing of nineteen categories.] B. Hearing on the parties' submissions shall be at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 12,2009. C. Hearing on Contestants' Motion for Class Certification and Contestee's Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony of Professor King Banian shall proceed thereafter. Source: Order Establish Hearing on Motions via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

Professor King Banian teaches at St. Cloud State University and is a member of SCSU Scholars. If you recall, this group released a poll on October 22nd showing 21 percent of all Minnesotans as still undecided in the Senate race. The Coleman campaign has asked Prof. Banian to use his background in statistics to analyze the rejection rate of absentee ballots across Minnesota's 87 counties; a tall order, but the Coleman campaign has nothing to lose in trying.

Bruce's Intervention Denied

2/10/2009 12:50:49 AM CT

The Senate Litigation website finally uploaded the correct version of the Election Contest Court's order regarding the intervention of seven voters represented by Bruce D. Kennedy:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on January 30, 2009, upon motion for leave to intervene in this election contest filed by seven voters. Appearances were noted for the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. The Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED. 2. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. 3. The attached memorandum is incorporated as is fully set forth herein. [From the attached memorandum:] The Court notes that the procedure under § 204B.44 remains open and available to the seven voters who seek to intervene in this election contest. Source: Order on Motion for Leave to Intervene via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

It appears as though these seven voters will have to wait a little longer before their currently rejected absentee ballots qualify for reconsideration. Once the intervention is refiled, the Election Contest Court will likely heed their request. In fact it seems likely that the other intervention, with 61 voters, is simply being delayed until both interventions can be addressed at the same time. I should also mention that the likely outcome of other 61 interventioners is less mysterious; this group was established by the Franken campaign and is represented by Charlie Nauen, a Democrat. The original intervention request from Bruce D. Kennedy contains the names of these seven voters. Using our recent compilation of Coleman's Rejected Absentee List, we may be able to determine or at least estimate the allegiance of each voter:

   (1) Paul Happe (Scott County)
   (2) Eugene C. Markman (Stearns)
   (3) Sharon Cook (Anoka)
   (4) Joel Gregory Uldrych (Wright) 
         Listed as "Joel Gregory"
   (5) Claudia Bernstein (Hennepin-Edina)
         Listed as "Claudia Bernsten"
   (6) Michael J. Hall (Hennepin-Edina)
   (7) Sehwah Maggie Philips (Hennepin-Brooklyn Park)

Norm Coleman won Scott, Stearns, Anoka and Wright County by a minimum of nine percent; but the three voters listed from Hennepin County pose a slightly more difficult scenario. I scanned through the Coleman campaign's original election contest submission and the subsequent response by Franken hoping to find each voter identified within their precinct, but no such luck. Instead I consulted my precinct table and extracted the following data:

   Candidate   Brooklyn Park     Edina
   Coleman        13,282         15,172
   Franken        17,155         12,428
   Other           5,530          3,894

   Total          35,967         31,494

If we follow a straight extrapolation, Coleman seems likely to win six of the seven votes that could result from these seven interventioners.

Coleman Allows Franken Latitude

2/8/2009 2:32:27 AM CT

The Coleman campaign released their reply to the Franken Motion we recently covered; the Election Contest Court has yet to issue an official order on the subject, but a lot of insight can be gleamed from the exact wording of Coleman's answer:

Contestants agree that Contestee should be granted leave to amend his counterclaims to include additional wrongly rejected absentee ballots so long as all similarly situated rejected absentee ballots--that is, those that reasonably fall within the same category--are subject to review by the Court to determine if they too are legally cast votes. Contestants have endeavored to include all similarly situated ballots within each and every category presented to the Court, in their summary judgment motion and at trial, and welcome all efforts to ensure that legally cast votes are counted. As to the timing of any amendment, Contestants respectfully request that Contestee be required to identify any additional rejected absentee ballots before the Court makes any rulings regarding which, if any, of the rejected absentee ballots identified by Contestants should be counted. Dated: February 6, 2009 Source: Contestants' Response to Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim via MNCourts.gov

The Coleman campaign has conditionally accepted Franken's request, contingent upon their inclusion of additional absentee ballots. This response by the Coleman campaign reveals the dreary prospect of an absentee ballot inspired comeback; they have internally realized that the origin of any given absentee ballot is irrelevant. The Coleman campaign has shifted their focus to quantity, in the hopes that each wrongfully rejected absentee ballot inherently tends toward Norm Coleman. An analysis of the rejected voter list [csv] posted on Norm Coleman's website seems to verify this premise. The ballots listed on Coleman's site belong to the C1 region of our absentee ballot universe diagram. Using the aforementioned data, an extrapolation can be performed: Download the complete table: PDF 113 KB The extrapolation uses the final recount result, as certified by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board on January 5th, and assumes that any subsequent absentee ballot, in any county, will follow the trend established by the recount. All candidates were considered. A brief synopsis of our results is available below:

   Scenario                               Coleman Net
   (1) 100% of Coleman's List Accepted:      -84.18
   (2) Only Counties that Coleman Won:       269.98
   (3) 100% Accepted with 5% Coleman Bias:   138.72
   (4) Coleman Counties with 5% Bias:        368.73

   Listed from Franken Counties:              2,490
   Listed from Coleman Counties:              1,968
   Total:                                     4,458

The results listed above can be used to determine the complete set of potential absentee ballot results. To determine what would happen if just 20% of listed ballots were counted with a 10% uniform bias toward Coleman, above and beyond the recount result, the following calculations can be used:

      100% Accepted with 5% Coleman Bias = 138.72
    x                                         20%
   -----------------------------------------------
        20% Accepted with 5% Coleman Bias = 27.74
    x                                           2
   -----------------------------------------------
       20% Accepted with 10% Coleman Bias = 55.49

Now that you understand where the data came from and how it can be used, we can discuss what it actually means. Norm Coleman has essentially two options, they are not mutually exclusive, but they are strongly correlated: A. Try and cherry pick absentee ballots that come from statistically favorable counties. B. Hope that the set of currently rejected absentee ballots systematically favors Norm Coleman. Scenario (1) represents a complete failure, on the part of the Coleman campaign, to implement either option (A) or (B); scenario (2) represents the successful implementation of option (A); scenario (3), option (B) and scenario (4) encompasses both options (A) and (B). At this juncture, the Coleman campaign seems to be keeping their options open, but in including more ballots from Franken territory, they seem to be relying more heavily on option (B), despite the lacking quantitative evidence. The only empirical data pertaining to option (B) stems from the testimony of three county election directors; Joe Mansky representing Ramsey, Kevin Corbid from Washington and the Election Manager of Anoka County, Rachel Smith. Rachel Smith's testimony covered the vast majority of the 107 ballots presented by the Coleman side; from my non-scientific observation of the trial proceedings, Ms. Smith stated that less than five of these ballots were improperly rejected. Mr. Mansky and Mr. Corbid covered a much smaller and unequally distributed set of the proposed ballots, thus making any reasonable estimate impossible. With the possible exception of Anoka, any projection of a wrongful rejection rate is a complete shot in the dark. Regardless of the odds, there are still ballots meriting inclusion and it's entirely possible for Norm Coleman to retake the lead, although not necessarily probable. To expedite the investigative process, it would make sense for the Election Contest Court to categorize and count the remaining absentee ballots meriting reconsideration. If upon this categorization and subsequent counting, the Coleman campaign still has a mathematical opportunity to win, the court should proceed by analyzing the category's most favorable to Coleman first. If a crucial category is eliminated from contention, the litigation ends and the candidate currently in the lead is issued an official election certificate. I have not studied the legality of this proposed resolution.

MN Sen: Universe of Reconsideration

2/6/2009 1:45:42 PM CT

I realized that my previous article regarding the Minnesota Senate Election Contest Court's Tuesday rulings may have been vague, as well as incomplete. I want to take this opportunity to clarify those rulings with respect to previous and future events. To begin I'd like to restate the pertinent information from Tuesday's rulings:

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon a Motion in Limine by Contestee Al Franken to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest. The Court having read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee A1 Franken's Motion in Limine to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The scope of this trial shall be limited to the following: i. Absentee ballots where it is claimed that the voter complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes § 203B.12, subd, 2. ii. Absentee ballots where it is claimed that the voter's non-compliance with Minnesota Statutes § 2038.12, subd. 2 was not due to fault on behalf of the voter. b. Contestants estimate the total number of these ballots to be 4,797. c. Contestants are limited to presenting evidence on only those ballots that were specifically disclosed to Contestee on or before January 23,2009. 2. Any other relief not specifically provided herein is DENIED. 3. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. [From the attached Memorandum] [I]n order for Contestee to be given a fair opportunity to meet the asserted claims, Contestants are limited. to the individual voters whose ballots they believed were wrongly rejected prior to the commencement of trial, Contestants, therefore, are limited to presenting evidence on only those ballots that were specifically disclosed to Contestee by name as of January 23, 2009. Source: Order on Contestee's Motion in Limine to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

At this juncture, the Election Contest Court will only consider absentee ballots that are contained within the area specified by the above order in sections 1.a.i. and 1.a.ii; section 1.c also applies, but only to the Contestant, Norm Coleman. This order only applies to absentee ballots, it does not affect the double counting issue or any other anomaly. I've created an Euler Diagram below that illustrates the now restricted universe of absentee ballots, as the above order applies to Norm Coleman: C1. This circle represents the initial list of some 12,000 absentee ballots that are currently rejected; the Coleman campaign presented a Motion for Summary Judgment requesting that these 12,000 ballots be opened, counted and certified. As of yesterday, their motion was denied:

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Court on January 23, 2009, upon Contestants' "Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel noted their appearances on the record. The Court having heard and read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. 2. Any other relief not specifically ordered herein is DENIED. 3. The attached Memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Source: Order on Contestants' Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

C2. Represents the 4,797 absentee ballots as estimated within section 1.b by the Coleman campaign. The ruling in 1.b does not apply to the Franken campaign in any way shape or form because the request was filed by Franken requesting restrictions upon Coleman. The Coleman campaign did not append any requests to Franken's motion, as they are allowed to do, requesting restrictions on Franken. If there was no request for restrictions, restrictions cannot be created. C3. This circle explicitly outlines section 1.c, although the exact number of presentable ballots remains unclear. The best guess I can provide stems from the original election contest filing; on page 36 the document reads, "the Coleman campaign contends that there are 654 [rejected absentee] ballots, in addition to those identified by local election officials, that should be examined." The Coleman campaign disclosed at least 654 specific, rejected absentee ballots before the January 23rd deadline. C4. This circle deals with the future tense and represents the ballots which will be explicitly presented as evidence to the court by Norm Coleman. Franken will be allowed to file rebuttal evidence on any ballot Coleman presents to the court within this subset. C5. This final circle represents the final number of currently rejected absentee ballots that will eventually be counted that were originally presented by Coleman. The Election Contest Court uses the adversarial legal system; each side presents their side of the issue and in doing so both sides are represented. This, in theory, ensures that each ballot, presented by either side, receives fair consideration. Coleman's side is very well established, while Franken's is less understood. To begin defining Franken's outer circle, I will make an assumption; Franken wants to maximize the ratio between potentially rejected absentee ballots and potential Franken votes. In other words, Franken wouldn't submit a rejected absentee ballot if it is more likely to contain a vote for Coleman; the burden is on Coleman to ensure that each ballot cast for Coleman is considered in accordance with the ECC. The document below was presented by Franken on January 12th in response to Coleman's election contest filing; pay close attention to the specifically referenced absentee ballots that were rejected:

INTRODUCTION Contestee, Al Franken ("Franken"), certified as having been chosen as United States Senator by the people of Minnesota in the November 4, 2008, election ("Election"), files this Answer to the Notice of Contest ("Notice") filed by Contestees Norm Coleman and Cullen Sheehan (collectively, "Coleman"). ... FIRST COUNTERCLAIM [Page 21 of 565] LAWFULLY CAST ABSENTEE BALLOTS REJECTED BY COLEMAN 3. Although Franken agreed with local election officials that many of the absentee ballots on the list of 1,346 ballots were obviously erroneously rejected, Coleman's campaign objected to the opening and counting of many such ballots. In Duluth, in S1. Louis County, Coleman refused to allow 35 absentee ballots, identified below, to be counted solely because the dates of the signatures of the voter and witness were not the same: [Table of 35 absentee voters from 11 Duluth precincts in St. Louis County] ... SECOND COUNTERCLAIM [Page 23 of 565] ERRONEOUSLY REJECTED ABSENTEE BALLOTS 5. Franken has identified a large number of absentee ballots that were rejected in error by election judges and local election officials, and which were not included on the list of 1,346 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots created by local election officials, and were not counted as part of the recount. In Exhibit D, for each voter identified below, Franken attaches declarations from each voter and/or other supporting documentation demonstrating that local election officials rejected each ballot in error. [Table of 86 absentee voters from 79 precincts, across 20 counties] THIRD COUNTERCLAIM [Page 26 of 565] MISSING BALLOTS 6. In a number of precincts not selected by Coleman, ballots went missing between Election Day and the recount. Under Minnesota case law, a ballot serves as the best evidence of a vote. But when ballots are missing, or their integrity is otherwise compromised, election officials must turn to the next best evidence: here, the vote totals provided by election officials on Election Day. Where, as here, actual ballots cast on Election Day cannot be found, local election officials must submit-and the State Canvassing Board must accept-the Election Day return as reflecting the proper tally of votes for purposes of the canvass, the recount, and the Board's certification of the results under Minn. Stat. § 204C.33. ... 8. Similarly, ballots went missing during the course of the recount from the following precincts and were not adjusted for, resulting in a net loss of votes for Franken: [A total of 16 precincts were listed, across 9 counties totaling 55 votes; the individual ballots are not explicitly listed] ... FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM [Page 27 of 565] COUNTING OF ORIGINAL AND DUPLICATE BALLOTS 9. If and when Coleman is allowed to and does identify the "numerous precincts throughout the State of Minnesota," and proves that irregularities did, in fact occur during the recount, Franken reserves the right to identify additional precincts in which the numbers of original ballots and duplicate ballots were not identical and propose procedures whereby all identified precincts are treated uniformly with respect to inspection and relief, if any, ordered by the Court. 10. Coleman gained votes in the recount in certain precincts where the increase is as likely due to counting of original and duplicate ballots as in the precincts identified by Coleman. Those precincts are: [A total of 12 precincts were listed, across 6 counties totaling 34 votes; the individual ballots are not explicitly listed] FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM [Page 28 of 565] ILLEGAL VOTES 11. Under Minn. Stat. § 201.014, subd. 2, individuals convicted of felonies whose civil rights have not been restored are ineligible to vote. Under Minn. Stat. § 204C .13, if election judges determine that a voter is not eligible to vote, they must place the ballot of that voter unopened among the spoiled ballots. ... EXHIBIT E [Page 545 of 565] Lawfully Cast Absentee Ballots That Were Not Counted [A list of 673 voter's names is detailed along with the precinct and county in which they voted] Source: Contestee's Answer and Counterclaims via MNCourts.gov [PDF, 17.3 MB]

The above document lists 794 specific voters who cast absentee ballots that were rejected, and still remain uncounted. I think it is fair to assume that Franken's outer circle roughly encompasses these 794 specific voters, as listed directly above, who cast absentee ballots. From this list we can construct an Euler Diagram of Franken's absentee ballot universe: F1. This circle represents at least the aforementioned 794 specific absentee ballots, but this number may, and probably will change, as evidenced in this motion filed by Franken on February 4th:

MOTION Contestee Al Franken moves for leave to amend his Answer and Counterclaims in light of the Court's Order dated February 3, 2009, allowing Contestants to pursue claims involving approximately 4,800 absentee ballots. Specifically, Contestee intends to amend his counterclaims to reflect his continuing review and analysis of the approximately 11,000 rejected absentee ballots. Among other things, Contestee will further refine Exhibit E to the Second Counterclaim, eliminating some ballots and adding others. Source: Contestee's Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaims via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Franken filing does not however reference any specific changes and for this reason it is likely to fail. The Coleman campaign has yet to file a response. F2. The Election Contest Court has yet to determine the number of ballots from Franken's list, estimated at 794, that qualify for consideration under 1.a.i and 1.aii. It is possible that F2 is a subset of C2, but the information expressed in 1.b is somewhat unclear. Are there 4,797 total absentee ballots meeting the requirements expressed in 1.a.i and 1.aii, or are there 4,797 absentee ballots that Coleman has cherry picked that meet the restrictions? If the first statement is true then F2 is a subset of C2, otherwise it is not and the total universe of considerable rejected absentee is whatever Franken's list is determined to be plus the 4,797 in which Coleman is already restricted. F3. This region represents the number of ballots that are eligible for future consideration and may be presented as evidence. Coleman will be allowed to file rebuttal evidence on any ballot Franken presents to the court within this subset. F4. These are the ballots that will eventually be presented to the Election Contest Court as evidence. Like C4, this region is not explicitly defined, although the aforementioned 794 will likely be eligible. F5. This final circle represents the final number of currently rejected absentee ballots that will eventually be counted that were originally presented by Franken. If we put everything together, the set of all ballots, that will eventually be counted as a result of the Election Contest Litigation is shown below: It remains to be seen how these various sets of ballots will be counted but the review will not be done on a ballot by ballot basis. The court will likely request an election inspector to examine all ballots in a certain subset if the Coleman campaign is able to prove that there were inconsistencies when applying election statutes or if there were generic equal protection violations. In any case, the Election Contest continues and the burden still lies upon the Coleman campaign. Full Disclosure: The empirical information is authoritatively correct, but my interpretation of the legal proceedings may not be accurate. If you notice any legal fallacies, please alert me of my error; I am not a legal expert, but I have thoroughly researched the preceding article.

Litigation, Day 7

2/3/2009 12:34:24 PM CT

I probably won't be able to watch any of today's proceedings live, but I will have a summary later on this evening. 2:29 PM CT: Joe Friedberg is questioning the Washington County Elections Director, Kevin Corbid. 2:33 PM CT: Mr. Friedberg then discussed a ballot completed by an absentee voter. The election officials agreed with the original determination; it was properly rejected because the signatures did not match. This was from Exhibit C4. 2:34 PM CT: Onto Exhibit 5 and 6. Mr. Friedberg stated that there were stickers placed on the ballot but they did not overlap the signature signing area. Mr. Corbid agreed and stated that the ballot was properly rejected. 2:35 PM CT: Mr. Lillehaug then objected and addressed the judges. He referenced Exhibit C325; he asked under Minnesota Statue § 203.b12 sub 2, that any ballot where a sticker is not concealing directions should require a signature. The objected was noted, but overruled. 2:37 PM CT: Mr. Friedberg then offered Exhibit C7 and C8. Mr. Corbid stated that the original issue was a signature mismatch, and upon further inspection, was properly rejected. Mr. Friedberg then asked Mr. Corbid to analyze the similarity of the application signature and the envelopes signature, specifically the 'N's. Mr. Corbid stated that the 'N's were similar, but the rest of the signature was not close enough. 2:40 PM CT: Mr. Friedberg then moved onto Exhibits C9 and C10; the panel then asked whether Mr. Friedberg was going to continue offering signature mismatched ballots. The judge stated that the panel could do this on their own. Mr. Friedberg stated that he had specifics he wanted to cover. Summary [1:29 AM CT]:I will eventually update this page with a summary of today's events. In the meantime, two major decisions were published by the court. The first order is fairly self explanatory:

Contestants Cullen Sheehan and Norm Coleman ("Contestants") and Contestee Al Franken ("Contestee"), through their attorneys, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: ... 2. The 933 Ballots were properly and lawfully opened and counted, and the results of the 933 Ballots were properly and lawfully included in the results of the 2008 United States Senate election as certified by the Minnesota State Canvassing Board. Accordingly, Contestants dismiss with prejudice all claims in the Notice of Contest relating to the 933 Ballots, and Contestee consents to the dismissal. Costs, if any, shall be determined later. To further Minnesota's policy of ballot secrecy, the Minnesota Secretary of State shall take all necessary steps to remove and/or redact permanently the numbers affixed to the ballot envelopes and ballots on January 3, 2009. The totals from the opening, sorting and counting of these ballots shall be included in the results of the 2008 United States Senate election. Dated: February 3, 2009 Source: Stiputlation and Order Re: Absentee Ballots via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The quoted text above is literally the entire order, although a memorandum with some other background information was appended to the end of the document. This ruling basically means that the absentee ballots that were counted under the pretense of wrongful rejection were validly counted and cannot be uncounted by any means. The court also ruled that any identifying marks, contained on any of these 933 ballots, resulting from the absentee ballot sorting process, should be permanently removed. The court also presented their ruling with "prejudice;" this verbiage establishes a pseudo-precedent, although not a legal definition, for any re-review of the ruling, by the same court. This classification does not however have any effect on the application of this order. It should also be noted that this determination was a stipulation agreed to by both campaigns; the probability of this issue resurfacing in front of the Election Contest Court is unlikely. The second order was slightly lengthier, and even more important:

The above-entitled matter came before the Court upon a Motion in Limine by Contestee Al Franken to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest. The Court having read the arguments of counsel, and based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, makes the following: ORDER 1. Contestee Al Franken's Motion in Limine to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The scope of this trial shall be limited to the following: i. Absentee ballots where it is claimed that the voter complied with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes § 203B.12, subd, 2. ii. Absentee ballots where it is claimed that the voter's non-compliance with Minnesota Statutes § 2038.12, subd. 2 was not due to fault on behalf of the voter. b. Contestants estimate the total number of these ballots to be 4,797. c. Contestants are limited to presenting evidence on only those ballots that were specifically disclosed to Contestee on or before January 23,2009. 2. Any other relief not specifically provided herein is DENIED. 3. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein by reference. Source: Order on Contestee's Motion in Limine to Limit Absentee-Ballot Evidence to Ballots Pleaded in the Notice of Contest via MNCourts.gov [PDF]

At this point, the Coleman campaign will likely subpoena each and everyone of these 4,797 rejected absentee ballots, from their respective counties. If the Coleman campaign's subpoenas are successful, the number of ballots actually presentable as evidence, under section 1C, remains unknown. If for a moment we assume that all 4,797 ballots are admitted as evidence, they simply become eligible for consideration; they are not automatically placed in the to be counted pile. Although this order places significant restrictions upon the Coleman campaign, the Franken campaign is completely unaffected by today's determination. The wording of the order appears to imply an overarching decision, but it only affects the potential inclusion of absentee ballots; the doubling counting issue and others, raised by the Coleman campaign, are still very much alive. On a somewhat related subject; why are people incapable of referencing the actual court documents? If you are going to write an article referencing a decision or order put forth by the Election Contest Court, link to the source. This process is about disseminating information and ensuring that all lawfully cast ballots are accurately counted; not perpetuating spin and misinformation. The only people who have an opinion in this matter are the three judges presiding behind the bench, this is not an election, this is a judicial process. The people of Minnesota have already spoken, it is now the duty of the State to ensure that their will is upheld.

Litigation, Day 6

2/2/2009 9:09:14 AM CT

The intraday log is below, followed by a comprehensive summary and a few extra tidbits. 9:08 AM CT: The judges have yet to enter the courtroom. 9:19 AM CT: The start time has been pushed back to 9:30 AM CT. 9:39 AM CT: The proceedings are still delayed, I don't expect this to start anytime soon. 9:55 AM CT: Still waiting... 11:27 AM CT: Mr. Mansky is being questioned by Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton is presenting absentee ballots which were rejected. The last several ballots were rejected, but Mr. Mansky stated that they should have been counted. The ballots in question were presented by the Ramsey County during the re-review but the Coleman campaign rejected their submissions. 11:32 AM CT: Mr. Hamilton then discussed a specific absentee ballot request form. The two of them discussed the reasons for which an absentee ballot could be requested; it is a felony to request an absentee when you do not meet the request guidelines. Minnesota does not have no questions asked absentee balloting like "Oregon, where everybody votes by absentee." 11:35 AM CT: Mr. Hamilton continued to reference ballots which were put forth by the election officials for inclusion, but were rejected by Coleman. Mr. Mansky stated that these ballots should be been counted. There were numerous reasons for which ballots were originally rejected, all of which were incorrect and later acknowledge by election officials. 11:38 AM CT: Another ballot was present with a note; Mr Mansky stated the note was on the original absentee ballot/envelope/return form. Yet another ballot was presented that was identified by Ramsey County, but rejected by the Coleman campaign. An objection was then put for by Mr. Rock, but was overruled; the court did say it would note the request for admissibility. 11:41 AM CT: At this point Mr. Hamilton just told Mr. Mansky to go through the rest of the current list; Mr. Hamilton asserted that the remainder were identified by Ramsey County officials, but rejected by the Coleman campaign. This list apparently goes from Exhibits F1668 to F1675. Mr. Mansky confirmed that each of this ballots was identified by Ramsey County and that every one was objected by the Coleman campaign. There were 9 ballots contained within the preceding exhibits. 11:43 AM CT: Mr. Hamilton then referenced Exhibit F117, a letter written by the Frederickson law firm representing the Coleman campaign. Mr. Mansky recieved this document as part of his daily job. The document contained 15 ballots which Mr. Lillehaug believed should have been counted. Mr. Hamilton then submitted Exhibit F133 which contained an email by Mr. Mansky stating that two of these ballots were improperly rejected. Within the document he stated that they did not meet the 3 PM deadline for inclusion into the pool of potentially wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. 11:47 AM CT: Mr. Hamilton asserted that the letter by Lillehaug was written on December 26th, well in advance of the time these wrongfully rejected absentee ballots were counted. Mr. Mansky and Mr. Hamilton then went through each of the 15 ballots included in Mr. Lillehaug's email. A spreadsheet, labeled as Exhibit F44, contained these 15 ballots issued by the SOS office. Mr. Mansky asserted that the first ballot was improperly rejected. 11:50 AM CT: Next exhibit, F36. Onto the second ballot of this set of 15. Mr. Mansky asserted based upon the ballot envelope that this voter did not submit a voter registration. Mr. Mansky then stated that the voter was registered, and that their vote should should have been counted. Summary [6:16 PM CT]: After a bit of a late start, the sixth day of the election contest got underway; Mr. Mansky returned to the stand and Mr. Hamilton resumed his line of questioning. Mr. Mansky is the Chief Election Officer of Ramsey County and he takes his duty personally. Mr. Mansky then discussed the role that volunteer election judges play in the election process; they are normally tired a fatigued after their fifteen hour day. Sometimes these election officials make mistakes, at the precinct level. Mr. Mansky then stated that math errors do and did occur. Mr. Hamilton then presented a document from St. Paul Ward 3 Precinct 9. Mr. Mansky asserted that the numbers did not add up. He stated that it was possible for voters to sign in and not vote, to vote and not sign in, or perhaps leave at any point in the process, thus creating arithmetic errors. Mr. Hamilton then presented an incident log that election officials are supposed to fill out if anything peculiar happens throughout election day. The log recorded a voter he walked out of the precinct with a ballot after refusing to get a new one after overvoting. Mr. Hamilton commented that "these errors, in reality do not mean that there were more votes than people," Mr. Mansky agreed. Mr. Mansky then stated that it would not be difficult to find errors within the paper filed by election officials, but "this do not necessarily mean that there was fraud, or malfesence or double counting." It is Mr. Mansky's goal is to ensure that elections go smoothly and that all valid votes are counted. Mr. Hamilton then recalled Mr. Rock's hypothetical 110 votes, 100 signatures scenario presented yesterday. Mr. Mansky and Mr. Hamilton then stated that the header cards used to signal the conclusion of counting. Mr. Mansky then "definitively" stated that the incidents that occurred in Maplewood P6 were not the result of double counting, but rather the poor implementation of a header card. Mr. Hamilton then presented a spin off of Mr. Rock's previous hypothetical in which voters were actually disenfranchised. Mr. Mansky stated that this new scenario was plausible. Mr. Hamilton then spoke about twelve ballot found in a zip lock bag in a Minneapolis precinct that were not counted on election due to their missing duplicate. In Mr. Mansky's experience, election officials take their job very seriously; but the process is also intended to be inherently fair. Mr. Hamilton then submitted Exhibit F1677 to the court and Mr. Mansky. The document lists the processes, as outlined by the election official guide, by which ballots are to be duplicated. There are nine steps total, its a very logical and fair process, no surprises. In order for a duplicate ballot, without a matching original, to be fed through the machine, both election officials required for duplication would have had to knowingly ignore the laws for ballot duplication. Mr. Hamilton then referenced Exhibit F9; it was a copy of the court filing against Ramsey County to disclose duplicate ballot issues with respect to data privacy issues. The court eventually ruled that the absentee ballot envelopes in question were ruled to be public data and were required to be produced.; the Coleman campaign opposed this decision. You cannot look at simply the face of the ballot envelope to determine whether the ballot was actually counted. The absentee ballots are counted in their respective precinct; the transportation of these ballots is required to count out the number of ballots in front of the head election judge; both coming and going. In the "mid to later afternoon" the election judges feed the absentee ballot through the scanner; this can be done at any point in the day however. Each precinct is required by law to record the number of absentee ballots, for this reason a header/ender card is used to notify the scanner of the type of ballot. Once an ender card is submitted, the scanner prints the official election tape. If the header card is not inserted at the correct time, absentee ballots will still be counted, but they will be recorded as in person votes; the same can happen in reverse. At 8 PM, the election judges will determine if there are any voters and determine the last person who will be allowed to vote. If the machine is busy, or inoperable ballots will be placed in an emergency ballot receptacle within the scanner. Once all ballots are counted, the result is printed and uploaded to the central database. At this point, the ballots are sealed and shipped to a secure holding place, usually the city hall. The scanner and memory cards are also returned to a secure location at the end of the day, by the election judge. Mr. Mansky stated that this was a safe and secure election, there were no security related issues, "none." Mr. Mansky was then presented with two spreadsheets created by Ramsey County officials; a detailed list of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots was provided in accord with the MN Supreme Court ruling. The exhibit was listed as F1698. Mr. Mansky stated that he hand picked two of the most experienced election officials to aide in the creation of these spreadsheets. Mr. Mansky then discussed the process by which rejected absentee ballots were reexamined for potentially erroneous exclusion. The process took two weeks, just for Ramsey County; this was the second time these ballots had been viewed. Mr. Mansky stated that he wanted to count each and every last valid vote. Mr. Mansky stated that his two aides should take as much time as possible; he wanted the process to be thorough and accurate. Now going back to the previous list which contains 133 absentee ballots that Mr. Mansky and his staff determined to have been improperly rejected. Mr. Hamilton then referenced Exhibit F114. Mr. Mansky stated that he could identify this document which was sent out by the SOS office on December 24th to all officials taking part in the resorting of rejected absentee ballots. The document detailed the procedure that local election officials were supposed to follow in the Fifth Article [1]. Officials were not supposed to rely solely upon the face of the envelope, but were expected to explore other data in making their determination. Of the 133 ballots presented by Ramsey County, 62 of them were rejected by wither campaign and just 71 were counted. At this point, Mr. Hamilton wants to analyze some of the 61 ballots which were rejected. Mr. Hamilton presented Exhibit F1655; this was a ballot identified as having been wrongfully rejected. Mr Mansky agreed with Mr. Hamilton's assessment of Exhibit F1655; it was originally rejected because the voter was not registered and there was not registration form. The last page of the exhibit confirmed that the voter was in fact registered. Mr. Mansky stated that the ballot was rejected by the Coleman campaign based upon the registration issue. Mr. Hamilton then presented F1656, another ballot that was identified by Ramsey County, but was rejected by the Coleman campaign; citing insufficient voter identification, the original ruling. The Exhibits have been redacted of any identifying information. Exhibit F1565 was never counted. Mr. Hamilton put forth another ballot F1657. This ballot was from Mounds View and was identified as being wrongfully rejected; the proper ballot was not mailed. As a result the ballot was not counted, as it was rejected by the Coleman campaign. Exhibit F1658 was then presented by Mr. Hamilton; the voter was cited as having not been registered. Mr. Mansky stated that the voter was registered, that their vote was never counted because it was rejected by the Coleman campaign. Onto the next ballot, Exhibit F1659; the voter was not found within the voter roster. Mr. Mansky asserted that this was an error and that it should have been counted despite the Coleman rejection. Mr. Hamilton then discussed a specific absentee ballot request form. The two of them discussed the reasons for which an absentee ballot could be requested [2]; it is a felony to request an absentee when you do not meet the requesting guidelines. Minnesota does not have a no questions asked absentee balloting system like "Oregon, where everybody votes by absentee." Mr. Hamilton then directed the court's attention to F1660; another rejected ballot from Ramsey County. The ballot was originally rejected because the local election officials could not find the voter in the registration database; Mr. Mansky stated that it was a mistake and that it should have been counted. Mr. Hamilton then asserted that Coleman rejected the ballot within F1660. Onto F1661, again from Ramsey County. This ballot was originally rejected because the voter only had a passport; Mr. Mansky then asserted that this was not a valid reason to reject a ballot. It should have been counted, but was not because the Coleman campaign rejected. Exhibit F1662 was then presented and received; the original reason for rejection was lack of registration. Mr. Hamilton then stated that the voter was registered and that their vote would and should have been counted had the Coleman campaign not rejected it. Mr. Mansky agreed with this assessment. Next, Exhibit 1663; from Ramsey County, again. The ballot was rejected because the voter was not registered. The county corrected this error, but the Coleman campaign later rejected it. F1664 was then received by the court; the judge asked about a note written on the ballot. Mr Mansky stated the note was on the original absentee ballot/envelope/return form. This ballot was originally rejected because the voter was not a resident of Minnesota; upon further inspection, the county officials determined that their first ruling was inaccurate. The Coleman campaign then rejected it before it could be counted. Yet another ballot was presented that was identified by Ramsey County, F1665, but was rejected by the Coleman campaign. An objection was then put for by Mr. Rock, but was overruled; the court did say it would note Mr. Rock's stipulation for admissibility. Mr. Mansky stated that this vote should have been counted. At this point Mr. Hamilton then spared us all by just asking Mr. Mansky to go through the rest of the list; Mr. Hamilton asserted that the remainder were identified by Ramsey County officials, but rejected by the Coleman campaign. The Exhibits in question ranged from F1668 to F1675. Mr. Mansky confirmed that each of this ballots was identified by Ramsey County as improperly rejected and that each and every one them was objected to by the Coleman campaign. There were 9 ballots contained within the preceding exhibits. None of these nine were counted. Mr. Hamilton then referenced Exhibit F117, a letter written by the Frederickson Law Firm the attorneys representing the Coleman campaign. Mr. Mansky received this document as part of his daily job. The document contained a copy of Mr. Lillehaug's letter of December 26th 2008 containing materials relating 15 rejected absentee ballots in Ramsey County which he believed should have been counted. Mr. Hamilton then submitted Exhibit F133 which contained Mr. Mansky's email response to Mr. Lillehaug's letter. Mr Mansky stated that two of these 15 ballots were improperly rejected; he then read off the list of voters included within the list of 15. Within the document he stated that they did not meet the 3 PM deadline for inclusion into the pool of potentially wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Hamilton asserted that the letter by Lillehaug was written on December 26th, well in advance of the time these wrongfully rejected absentee ballots were counted, January 3rd. Mr. Mansky and Mr. Hamilton then went through each of the 15 ballots included in Mr. Lillehaug's email. A spreadsheet, labeled as Exhibit F44, contained these 15 ballots as issued by the SOS office. Mr. Mansky asserted that the first ballot was improperly rejected due to lack of voter registration submission. Mr. Mansky then agreed that this ballot was improperly rejected. Next exhibit, F36. Onto the second ballot of this set of 15. Mr. Mansky asserted based upon the ballot envelope that this person did not submit a voter registration. Mr. Mansky then stated that the voter was registered, and that their vote should should have been counted. Mr. Hamilton then presented F1697; the exhibit contains five documents pertaining to a single voter. The ballot was rejected because the voter was not registered at the specified address. Mr. Mansky believes that this ballot should have been counted. Mr. Hamilton presented another ballot and its accompanying data in Exhibit F1700; the ballot was originally rejected due to a lack of voter registration cards. Mr. Mansky asserted that this was an error and that this ballot should have been counted. Up next, Exhibit F1695, another rejected absentee ballot that was not counted, but Mr. Mansky's believed that it was improperly rejected and should have been counted. More exhibits, F1696; it contained the same five documents as the previous few exhibits. This ballot was originally rejected because there was not registration card, it was just a mistake; Mr. Mansky believed that it should have been counted. Up next, F102 which follows the same trends; it was rejected because of a proof of residence issue. The ballot should have been counted, but was not; Mr. Mansky agreed. Then Exhibit F62; Mr. Hamilton wanted to draw specific attention to the absentee ballot envelope. Mr. Hamilton asserted that it was rejected for an incomplete identification; this ballot was rejected, but should have been counted. Mr. Hamilton then presented Exhibit F63. The voter in F63 was the husband of the previous exhibit, their ballots were both rejected for the same reason and should both have been counted. Onto F56, the ballot was rejected for a signature problem. Mr. Mansky asserted that this was an error and should have been counted. Exhibit F113 was then presented; it was rejected due to a signature mismatch. The voter had glaucoma and had her son sign in her place, Mr. Mansky ruled that this ballot should have counted because this process was legal because she had a disability. Another exhibit, F55 but this ballot was rejected due to a lack of a drivers license. Mr. Mansky stated that the drivers license ID was not required and as such, with some reservation, Mr. Mansky decided that the ballot should be counted based upon the information within the exhibit. Mr. Mansky the stated that he was aware of the voter through a voter on youtube; Mr. Hamilton stated that he did not want to go down that path. The final exhibit of the morning session was F104; this ballot was originally rejected based upon a signature issue. The voter was legally blind, and had his wife sign his ballot; which was completely legal based upon her power of attorney. Based upon these assertions, his ballot should have been counted, but it was not. A recess was ordered until 1:30 PM CT. [Upon resumption, Mr. Mansky's testimony continued for two additional hours; I will eventually summarize this portion, but at this moment, I simply do not have the time.] Upon the conclusion of Mr. Mansky's testimony, the Coleman campaign, specifically James Langdon, called Elissa Ryan Jackson to the witness stand. Mr. Langdon began the examination by presenting Exhibit C295 which contained Ms Jackson's absentee ballot documentation. Mr. Langdon then preceded to show Ms. Jackson her own absentee envelope. She stated that her husband was the witness. Ms. Jackson stated that she requested an absentee ballot because her husband was traveling and she had a five month old baby at home. She had not voted absentee before, and she did receive her absentee ballot through the mail. Mr. Langdon observed that there was no signature by Ms. Jackson on the signature line, he then asked her why she did not sign her ballot. "I thought I had everything correct," until she received a call from the Republican Party notifying her that her ballot was not counted. She received no other notification from any other party, group or government body. Mr. Langdon asked her what she would have done had she been notified of her error. Ms. Jackson stated that she would have done "whatever needed to be done, that's why I'm here; hoping that my vote will be counted." Mr. Hamilton then conducted the cross examination; his first question asked Ms. Jackson to explain the circumstances surrounding the phone call she received from the Republican Party. She estimated that she received the phone call about three weeks ago from the Coleman campaign. She stated that they asked her who she voted for, and then they asked here to fill out an affidavit, which they prepared. They did not send offer to send here an affidavit until she told them how she voted. Ms. Jackson did not sign the absentee ballot envelope, and Mr. Hamilton wanted to review the exhibit for a moment. Ms. Jackson stated that a sticker was overlapping some of the instructions, but she went on to say that she "truthfully I don't know how I missed the signature." Mr. Hamilton then asked her a series of rhetorical questions to establish the foundation of his arguement; she stated that the signature directions and a required check box were not overlapped by the sticker. Mr. Langdon then asked Ms. Jackson if she was a registered voter and if she meet all the other requirements to be an eligible voter; replied "yes" to both questions. She was then excused from the witness stand. The Coleman campaign then called Joel Thomas Koehnen. Mr. Langdon then presented Mr. Koehnen with an exhibit containing his ballot. Mr. Koehnen stated that he went to the Inver Grove Court House to cast his ballot because he was going out of town. Mr. Koehnen gave the election officials his drivers licensee and they gave him a ballot; he then took the ballot into a voting booth, filled it out and returned it. An election official at the Court House witnessed Mr. Koehnen's ballot. Mr. Koehnen stated that he was never informed of any wrongdoing while at the Court House; had he been informed of his error, he "woulda done it over." Mr. Koehnen stated that nobody ever told him he had to fill out an application; he was simply given the ballot. Mr. Koehnen was informed that his vote was note counted in a letter mailed to him by the State of Minnesota. Upon reading the letter Mr. Koehnen called the state of Minnesota and then "Joe Friedberg's law office" because he had a "friend that follows him." Mr. Hamilton began the cross examination; he began by inquisitively asking "you called Joe Friedberg's office?" The witness responded by saying "yeah, whats wrong with that?" Mr. Hamilton responded with a chuckle, "there is nothing wrong with that, in fact there's everything right with that. He is an excellent lawyer and I'm just wondering how that happened." Mr. Koehnen stated that he got a letter "that the Franken campaign canceled my vote, alright I didn't vote for Al Franken." When Mr. Koehnen called the State, he told them that he was going to call Friedberg's office because he represented Norm Coleman; the state responded by saying that "it was an excellent idea." Mr. Koehnen then called Friedberg's office. Mr. Hamilton asked Mr. Koehnen whether he requested an absentee ballot, Mr Koehnen responded by saying that he "just walked into the court house, and gave them my license and they gave me a ballot and I voted." Mr. Hamilton then asserted that there was no form involved and no signature, Mr . Koehnen agreed. The court then recessed until 9 AM CT tomorrow morning. I'd also like to point out that Coleman's US Senate website is still fully functional.

MN Senate Litigation Recap, Week 1

2/2/2009 12:57:47 AM CT

Below is a recap of this past week's election contest proceedings; each day's events are detailed in 650 words or less: Monday, January 26th
Complete Summary: Day 1 The first day of the trial began at 11 AM CT, and each side presented their very dry opening remarks. The proceedings progressed and the Coleman campaign called Kristen Fuzer, a "Political Director," to the stand. The witness spoke about two issues; the Coleman campaign's internal position regarding rejected absentee ballots and the process by which ballots were copied within the Coleman campaign. The witness repeatedly stated that she was "not a lawyer" and was not in attendance for legal meetings. One of the judges stated that her purpose, as a witness, was to "lay a foundation for the admissibility of the [ballot] copying issue." Ms. Fuzer stated, toward the end of her testimony, that it was possible for errors to have been made based upon the quantity of ballots that were reproduced. Gloria Sonnet, a lawyer at the Minnesota firm Dorsey & Witney was then called to the stand. Gloria was apparently responsible for the compilation of a ballot table used by the Coleman campaign, and later presented as evidence in Exhibits C1 and C2. The Exhibits contained some 5,000 absentee ballots which were classified, by the Coleman campaign, as wrongfully rejected. The witness and a Coleman attorney began sorting through each ballot and verifying its classification; was it rejected because of a signature mismatch, was it marked as accepted but never counted, etc. The Franken campaign eventually objected to this process based upon the inherent errors within the Exhibits and the lack of prior documentation. The court eventually recessed, and ruled that the Coleman campaign would have to use the original ballots and that these original ballots would have to be subpoenaed from each of Minnesota's 87 counties. Tuesday, January 27th
Complete Summary: Day 2 The second day of the trail was supposed to begin at 9 AM CT, but was delayed due to a private meeting regarding the logistics associated with the ballots presented in Exhibits C1 and C2 during yesterday's proceedings. The Coleman side, courtesy of Mr. Friedberg started by asking that Ms. Sonnen's prior testimony be stricken from the record; the Franken campaign objected, but only because they wanted to question the witness. The events proceeded, because Ms. Sonnen was not present, with the Coleman campaign eventually presenting six witnesses whose absentee ballots had been rejected. Each of these voters was notified by the Republican Party that their vote was not counted. The common theme amongst all six of these Coleman witnesses centered around the voter's claim of wrongful rejection, not necessarily the legality of each election judges rejection. Jim Gelbmann, the Deputy Secretary of State, was designated by the Secretary of State's office after a subpoena request, and was then called to the stand by the Coleman campaign. While on the stand, Mr. Gelbmann initially discussed the circumstances under which wrongfully rejected absentee ballots were counted. The Coleman campaign was attempting to show that these ballots were not treated equally by each of Minnesota's 87 counties; if this discontinuity could be proven, it would illustrate a breach in the adherence of the equal protection clause within the US Constitution. Mr. Gelbmann was unable to provide any substantial evidence supporting the Coleman campaign's theory; instead Mr. Gelbmann stated that any specific inconsistencies would have to be addressed by the election worker who dealt with a specific ballot. Mr. Gelbmann then spent the last thirty minutes addressing specific situations for accepting and rejecting absentee ballots in various counties, and the various processes used by these counties. The day reached an end, but before the court adjourned the Franken campaign voiced a complaint regarding anomalies within new evidence submitted by the Coleman campaign; both campaigns agreed to review the documents for errors and defects. Wednesday, January 28th
Complete Summary: Day 3 At 9 AM CT, Jim Gelbmann resumed his position on the witness stand, a position he would occupy for the remainder of the day. In the morning session Mr. Gelbmann's testimony encompassed a variety of subjects relating to rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Gelbmann stated that election officials created a 3a pile in which they examined the secrecy envelope to determine if there was a registration card within the absentee ballot envelope; this determination was done by any means necessary without physically opening the envelope. If there was a registration within the envelope, that vote may have been validly cast, despite the lack of prior registration. Mr. Gelbmann discussed the scenario by which originally rejected absentee ballots were reclaimed as valid votes while Mr. Friedberg presented specific examples. During the cross examination, Mr. Gelbmann was on the record stating that ballots were not intentionally counted twice. Mr. Lillehaug then referenced several documents which facilitated further discussion on the topic. Mr. Gelbmann established that there was a disagreement between the campaigns on the subject of ballot ownership; the Coleman campaign believed that the secrecy envelopes were private data, while the Franken campaign believed they should be made public. Mr. Gelbmann went on to say that the Secretary of State's office eventually sided with the Franken position. The morning session concluded with Mr. Gelbmann stating that "the decision of the local election officials should be assumed to be correct." After the lunch intermission, Mr. Lillehaug resumed the tedious process of reviewing email correspondence between the various parties involved in the recount. The documents pertained to ballot duplication; as such Mr. Gelbmann discussed the circumstances required for a ballot to be duplicated. Mr. Lillehaug then referenced a letter written by Mr. Gelbmann regarding missing duplicates in eleven Brooklyn Park precincts. Through Mr. Lillehaug questioning, Mr Gelbmann asserted that it was proper, under Minnesota statue, to count the original ballots in the case of any discrepancies. Mr. Lillehaug then referenced Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1 and Maplewood Precinct 6 in relation to Mr. Gelbmann's prior assertion; the Coleman campaign asserted that "found" ballots in these two precincts lead to counting errors. Mr. Lillehaug then presented two other examples of "found" ballots; Mr. Gelbmann stated that this second set of "found" ballots occurred in Republican leaning area's and that the Coleman campaign made no objections to there inclusion. Thrusday, January 29th
Complete Summary: Day 4 Mr. Gelbmann reclaimed his position at the witness stand around 9:04 AM CT, after a brief discussion at the bench, and Mr. Lillehaug continued his line of questioning. They first discussed the state funded training provided to each election auditor and election official. This related to the re-review of rejected absentee ballots; Mr. Gelbmann stated that during the reexamination of rejected absentee ballots, the election officials were not supposed to rely upon the reason presented on the secrecy envelope. The process by which rejected absentee ballots were designated and counted as wrongfully rejected absentee ballots was then discussed. Mr. Gelbmann talked about the 1,394 absentee ballots presented to the State Canvassing and the 654 rejected absentee ballots that were eventually presented by the Coleman campaign. Mr. Lillehaug then lead a discussion on the specific processes employed by each county when submitting wrongfully rejected absentee ballots; Mr. Lillehaug presented several examples from Yellow Medicine and Itasca County. Mr. Gelbmann briefly discussed the process for challenging ballots before reading the State Canvassing board's certified recount result; after which, a recess took place. Upon resumption, Mr. Friedberg, a Coleman attorney began his questioning. Mr. Friedberg first tried to correlate the increase in absentee ballots submitted and the number of errors in the sorting and eventual counting of these ballots. Mr. Gelbmann then discussed the procedure required to duplicate a ballot; two election judges must be present, from differing political parties. One judge reviews the original ballot while directing the other judge, who is manually creating a duplicate from a blank ballot. The chain of custody was then discussed with regard to several precincts, specifically Maplewood Precinct 6; at this juncture the Coleman campaign moved to dismiss their own claim regarding Maplewood Precinct 6. The conversation was then redirected back toward the topic of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots, specifically with regard to the 401 ballots which were identified by election officials as wrongfully rejected absentee ballots, but never counted. After lunch, the court decided to postpone Mr. Gelbmann's testimony until the Coleman campaign presented two other witnesses whose absentee ballots were rejected; again these voters were contacted by the Republican Party. The first witness signed his ballot through the use of a computer, and as such his signatures were noted as not matching. The second witness completed his ballot at Hastings City Hall in front of an election official. In both cases, the Franken campaign asked the witnesses if they had any personnel knowledge relating to whether their voters were or were not counted; in both cases the witness said they had no knowledge, outside of what the Republican Party had told them. They both believed that their vote should be counted. Mr. Gelbmann then went back to the stand and discussed some of the events presented by the two prior witnesses. Mr. Friedberg then resumed the practice of allowing the witness to read a document before subsequently providing additional information relative to their experience. Mr. Gelbmann then discussed a Minnesota law which allows voters who have already voted by absentee to cast another ballot, in person on election day; only the ballot cast on election day counts. Mr. Gelbmann then discussed Minnesota law relative to deceased voters. Mr. Friedberg concluded his questioning, and Mr. Lillehaug asked Mr. Gelbmann to address the number of challenges put forth by each campaign and the number that were actually presented to the State Canvassing board. Mr. Gelbmann's three day marathon then ended. Joe Mansky, the Ramsey County Election Director was then called to the stand by the Coleman campaign. John Rock, a previously unheard of Coleman attorney, essentially sought to establish Mr. Mansky's position as an election expert with years of experience. He spoke about election day registration and the incidents that are subsequently filed by some precincts. He also spoke about the various mechanisms by which these errors were reported. Mr. Mansky then discussed, for the remainder of the day, the process by which election officials process and verify voter registrations. Friday, January 30th
Complete Summary: Day 5 The fifth day of the trial began with Mr. Mansky at the witness stand. Mr. Rock led Mr. Mansky through a discussion on inactive and active voters and their relevance to absentee voting; inactive voters must essentially re-register in order to vote. Mr. Mansky then articulated a multitude of legal ways by which a person could obtain a ballot and vote. The conversation then looped back to absentee voting. Mr. Mansky stated that there are two separate absentee ballots; one for registered voters, and one for unregistered or inactive voters. Mr. Mansky eventually discussed the procedures in place for alerting absentee voters of an error. The error must be found more than five days from the election in order for the voter to be notified. On a side note, I voted absentee for the primary and was notified of a witness hyphenation error; they promptly sent me another ballot and my witness corrected the error. Mr. Mansky then laid out the process by which absentee ballots are examined and eventually counted; Mr. Mansky stated that the resources simply do not exist, in both time and man power, to investigate each ballot beyond its face value. Mr. Rock then directed Mr. Mansky to discuss inherent errors within the counting system, Mr. Mansky responded by stating that election officials are instructed to err on the side of enfranchising voters. Mr. Mansky later went on to list the rejection rate of absentee ballots in Ramsey County; roughly 5% out of a little less than 31,000 cast. Mr. Rock then asked if any rejected absentee ballots should still be counted; Mr. Mansky replied by saying that "a small group" of absentee ballots, no less than 61, which remain rejected qualify to be counted. The format of the questioning then shifted; Mr. Rock preceded to present several exhibits containing rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Mansky was then instructed to review each return envelope and registration form contained within each Exhibit, there were probably about 20 ballots total, and determine the reason for rejection. In some cases the ballot was originally rejected, and forgotten, in others it was marked accepted but never counted and in other cases the ballot was placed in the pile of 954 ballots which were deemed to have been wrongfully rejected. Mr. Mansky stated that several of the ballot which were never counted in any capacity should have been counted due to an error made by an election official. Mr. Rock then presented a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the possibility of double counting; there were 110 votes and 100 voters. Based upon Mr. Rock's scenario, Mr. Mansky agreed that double counting was a possibility. Mr. Rock concluded his questioning of Mr. Mansky; Mr. Hamilton stated that his cross examination would take "two to three" hours; Mr. Mansky's testimony will resume on Monday. The next issue the court took heard related to two separate petitions; one filed by 61 voters and represented by Charlie Nauen and the other by 7 voters and represented by Bruce D. Kennedy. The 68 voters are seeking to have their rejected ballots counted. Mr. Nauen spoke first and went on to say that Mr. Mansky just stated that two ballots from Ramsey County belonging to his group of 61 petitioners should have had their votes included in the wrongfully rejected absentee ballot pile. A group of state attorneys and judges then addressed the three judge panel with respect to the previous petitions. Bruce D. Kennedy then addressed the court; Mr. Kennedy put forth the grounds under which the intervention was presented to the court. After Mr. Kennedy concluded, Mr. Langdon, a Coleman attorney, stated that he also believes that these 68 ballots should be counted. He stated that their are other voters with similar claims that deserve to have their votes counted. Marc Elias then took issue with the intervention process and the court took the issue under advisement. Monday, February 2nd
Week 1 Auxiliary Over the course of the last week there were seventeen documents released by the court; the most important order is detailed below:

The Court being fully advised concludes that it is appropriate to dismiss Contestants' Maplewood Precinct 6 Claim and St. Paul Ward 3, Precinct 9 Claim. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Contestants' Maplewood Precinct 6 Claim and St. Paul Ward 3. Precinct 9 Claim be, and hereby are, DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs, if any will be addressed at a later date. Dated: January 30, 2009. Source: MNCourts.gov [PDF]

The Coleman campaign gave up on excluding some 199 anomalous votes that favored Franken by roughly 53; these precincts were listed in Coleman's original election contest. The only remaining precinct with potential custody issues is Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1; it seems probable that Cindy Reichert, the Hennepin County Election Director, is the only person who can provide testimony with enough weight to settle this issue, one way or another. She will be called to the stand, the question just remains, when?

Litigation, Day 5

1/30/2009 1:27:25 PM CT

An incomplete log of today's events is detailed below followed by a complete summary of today's proceedings: 11:32 AM CT: John Rock is questioning Joe Mansky. Exhibit C209 is the current topic of discussion; the document is an email Mansky sent to Tony Trimble after they had concluded sorting the rejected absentee ballots. The purpose of the letter was to explicitly state that the addition of further ballots was not within Ramsey Counties jurisdiction pursuant to the MN SC ruling. Mansky also stated that there were other ballots in the wrongfully rejected universe and that he was not and still is not opposed to counting those. 11:35 AM CT: The topic shifted to the creation of duplication of ballots. Mr. Mansky discussed the scenario of ballot duplication of absentee ballots. He essentially regurgitated the same information, and process that Mr. Gelbmann witnessed yesterday. The federal ballot is authorized under federal law who are indefinitely living outside of the USA but are still eligible to vote for the federal offices. Pres, Senate and House. 11:39 AM CT: They established 8 recount teams and "two or three" election judges from St. Paul for each team. The judges counted the ballots that the recount teams had sorted into piles of 25; their was a separate pile for each candidate. 11:42 AM CT: The election officials were not aware of the machine determination during the recount. Duplicate ballots were produced in Ramsey County on election night. During the recount, the duplicate ballots were used when the situation presented itself. In past recounts, it was customary to count the duplicate ballots with the originals on hand for verification if the need arose. 11:45 AM CT: Mr. Mansky stated that it should be possible to discern any errors in the counting of duplicate ballots based upon the number of votes and the number of voters. A hypothetical situation was then presented to Mr. Mansky; in Mr. Rocks scenario the originals were to be counted. Mr. Mansky stated that duplicates would have been sorted out. Th e next scenario presented involved original ballots for which its corresponding duplicate could not be found, under the pretense that originals were to be counted. 11:49 AM CT: Mr. Mansky was then asked how an audit would be conducted to verify that double counting did not occur, pursuant to Rule 9 for the above scenario. Mr. Mansky stated that it would be possible to identify this occurrence based upon the number of recounted ballots and the number of total voters. 1:31 PM CT: Charlie Nauen represents 61 voters whose absentee ballots were rejected; this group was established by the Franken campaign. He also spoke to the issue requesting a summary judgment for these voters. 1:43 PM CT: Mr. Nauen just listed off a series of voters whose ballots were rejected, but whose votes should be counted. He then went on to say that Mr. Mansky stated that two ballots from Ramsey County belonging to the group of 61 petitioners should have had their votes included in the wrongfully rejected absentee ballot pile. 1:50 PM CT: A group of state workers are now addressing the three judge panel with respect to the petition above. Pat Diamond is now speaking; he is an attorney for Hennepin County. He is also appearing on behalf of Crow Wing County. He stated that 16 of the 61 ballots included in the petition are from Hennepin County, with one from Crow Wing. 1:56 PM CT: Mr. Langdon then took the floor; he stated that he believes that these 61 ballots should be counted. The Franken side did not offer a response. Mr. Nauen took the floor again and discussed some further issues associated with his constituents. 2:03 PM CT: Bruce D. Kennedy then took the floor; he is representing were voters whose absentee ballots were also not counted. He has no idea who these people voted for, he has not asked them and he will not ask them. 2:06 PM CT: Mr. Kennedy put forth the grounds under the intervention was presented to the court. Mr. Langdon took the floor and stated that he also believes that these seven ballots should be counted. He stated that their are other voters with similar claims that deserve to have their votes counted. 2:09 PM CT: Franken's lead attorney, Marc Elias, was then allowed to respond to Mr. Langdon and the intervention brought forth by Mr. Kennedy. This is not a question of whether these voters should be considered, the question is whether the intervention is the correct process; it would effectively created another participating party. Mr. Elias does not believe that all seven voters were included in the 1,354 originally identified wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Each campaign will check their records to confirm this assertion. 2:14 PM CT: The court stated that they would release an order relating to the voter intervention, the court then recessed until Monday. Summary [9:31 PM CT]: If you recall, yesterday concluded with Joe Mansky, Ramsey County Election Official, at the witness stand; the trial picked up right were it left off with Coleman attorney John Rock performing the questioning. They were on the topic of voter registration, specifically inactive voters. A vote becomes inactive if they do not vote for four years. Mr. Mansky stated that inactive voters can essentially "register on election day," and their vote will be counted. Joe Mansky then stated that an application for an absentee ballot could be hand written on a blank piece of paper; there is no specific document that must be filled out. You must fill out some sort of request before an absentee ballot can be mailed. Mr. Mansky then discussed and defined early voting in Minnesota; he stated that early voting was not specifically outlined within Minnesota law, but it did occur in the 2008 election. Mr. Mansky stated that their was a substantial increase in early voting when compared to previous elections. Mr. Mansky was then asked to establish the process a voter would have to undertake in order to vote absentee. He then continued by saying that the secrecy envelope is scanned and a link is provided within the registration database for use by election officials. Apparently their is a process, at least in Ramsey County, by which voters are allowed to vote in person up to five Fridays before election day. If an error is made, and the error is identified at least five days before the election another absentee ballot will be mailed to the voter whose ballot was rejected. This process varies on a county by county because not all counties have an absentee canvassing board. In some cases, an "agent" is used to allow ill or disabled voters the capability to vote. This option is available up until 3:00 PM on election day. Mr. Mansky stated that the vast majority of absentee ballots are received around 6:00 PM, but due to the large number of absentee ballots this year, the deadline was pushed back in some precincts. There are two type of absentee ballots; one version is for voters who are already registered, and the other classification includes ballots which must be accompanied by a valid registration form in order for the associated vote to count. "In Ramsey County they use a header card" to distinguish absentee ballots from regular ballots when the ballots are machine counted. If their is a registration outside of the secrecy envelope, election officials do not open the secrecy envelopes, "as a matter of practice." Voters whose ballots are identified as invalid within the aforementioned five day window are not notified of the error; they are not mailed another ballot. The voter is classified as having voted for the purposes of remaining an active voter within the registration database. Mr. Mansky then laid out the process by which absentee ballots are examined and eventually counted. Election officials do not actively search for a signature or other misplaced information on the absentee ballot; "if we don't have a clear indication that the person is registered to vote," the resources are not available in both time and man power to investigate each individual case. Mr. Rock then asked if a witness whose ballot was rejected yesterday should have been counted. Mr. Mansky was very clear that some ballots were rejected because adequate information was not available when the decision was made on election day. He stated that the witnesses vote would have been counted if the information that is currently available was available when the decision was made. Mr. Mansky stated that election officials try to err on the side of enfranchising voters. Mr. Mansky explicitly stated that mistakes are made when deciding to accept or reject absentee ballots. There was a little under 31,000 total absentee ballots in Ramsey County; the rejection rate was about 5%, which was slightly higher than in previous years. Mr. Mansky could not provide any factual reason for this increase but did express an opinion; he believed that the influx of new voters attributed to the increase in the rejection rate. Ramsey County sorts rejected absentee ballot by issue; this facilitated the creation of the infamous fifth pile. The wrongfully rejected absentee ballots which were counted on January 3rd are in the custody of the Secretary of States' office. Mr. Mansky stated that there is "a small group" of absentee ballots which remain rejected that qualify to be counted; he stated that there was a minimum of 62 that fit this description. Mr. Rock then moved to Exhibit C210; Mr. Mansky has previously viewed this document during his deposition. The document contains a selection of rejected absentee ballots and Ramsey County documentation. Mr. Mansky stated that a ballot from Roseville had an address sticker placed over the signature portion; this was an error by the election official, and as such Mr. Mansky believed that this vote should be counted. Mr. Rock moved forward with Exhibit C251, another return rejected absentee ballot with a missing signature. The address sticker was again placed over the signature portion, Mr. Mansky believed that this ballot should also be accepted. Mr. Mansky stated that he only needed to analyze the absentee ballot envelope to determine that the voter was not presented with proper instruction. Mr. Mansky asserted that Ramsey County officials try and give latitude to the voter when signatures are compared. Mr. Rock then presented yet another rejected absentee ballot in Exhibit C252; it was rejected because there was not signature no signature, but Mr. Mansky asserted that the proper signatures were present and the vote should be counted. Onto Exhibit C253, only this time there are three rejected absentee ballots and their associated registration and secrecy envelopes. They were all "apparently" rejected on a signature issue. Mr. Mansky stated with regard to the first ballot that the two signatures were somewhat different but they were not "dissimilar enough" to warrant rejection; Mr. Mansky likely would have accepted this ballot. On the second envelope, a middle initial was included in one signature but not the other; Mr. Mansky stated that he would "probably accept this" despite the inclusion of a middle initial. Mr. Mansky stated that the third ballot should also be accepted based upon another misplaced sticker from Roseville. Mr. Mansky then discussed some special circumstances where the voter themselves is not required to sign their own signature. In order for forgery to be permissible, it must have been indicated on the absentee ballot request form. In some cases, an 'X' can be used as a signature so long as the "same marks" are included on the application and the ballot envelope. Turning back to another Exhibit, C205; it contains another rejected absentee ballot due to mismatched signatures. Mr. Mansky stated that the signatures do not match and was therefore properly rejected. There was a note on the envelope stating that the signature was signed by somebody other than the voter; this complicated the manner, but they did not specify that another person would be signing the ballot when they applied for a ballot; had there been additional information about the voters physical condition the vote may have been allowed to count, but because this additional information was not available the vote was properly rejected. Mr. Mansky reaffirmed his previous assertion that it is not necessary for the signature to appear in the signature placeholder, but there is no guarantee that the election worker would have seen the signature elsewhere on the ballot. If they would have noticed a signature somewhere on the envelope, they were instructed to count the vote. Mr. Rock presented another Exhibit in the long line of rejected absentee ballots, C254. The election judge stated that the drivers license number was incorrect on the return envelope, but Mr. Mansky stated that this was not required by law. The ballot in question was for a non-registered voter; Mr. Mansky was then asked to refer to Exhibit C245, a list of the absentee ballots which were opened by the State Canvassing board on January 3rd, 2009. Mr. Rock then pointed out another ballot which was also incorrectly rejected due to the drivers license number, but was eventually counted. Mr. Rock referenced another absentee ballot which was rejected for a mismatched drivers license number. Mr. Rock then presented Exhibit C255 which contained three sets of absentee return envelopes and applications. Mr. Rock asked if he knew if any of the ballots listed within C255 contained a registration form within the secrecy envelope. He could tell based upon the format of the return envelope that the voters were deemed to have been registered by an election official receiving the absentee ballot request. Judge Marben then asked if there was a signature mismatch that was witnessed by an election official. Mr. Mansky stated that in that situation the election official would have known it was the same person who signed both signatures. In any particular situation, the election official would have been present and could have directly questioned the voter regarding the signatures. A fifteen minutes recess was ordered. The registration cards which are within the return envelopes are card stock so long as they are supplied by a Ramsey County election official. Another exhibit was introduced with three return envelopes and three application cards, C258. The first ballot was originally accepted and was "presumed" to have been counted. Turning back to Exhibit C245, the first ballot in C258 was not counted on election day, but was included in the 953 ballots which were classified as wrongfully rejected. The second ballot in C258 was marked as accepted, but it was not counted on election day, but was also included in the 953 ballot subset previously mentioned. The third and final ballot within C258 was marked as accepted and was also excluded from the election day count, but was eventually counted. The third ballot's return envelope was that of a non-registered voter, but was previously registered as noted on the envelope. Mr. Mansky stated that the noted would have caused the ballot to be treated as a registered voter's absentee ballot. Exhibit C259 was submitted with a single return envelope and a single registration form. Mr. Mansky was unsure as to whether the ballot was accepted or rejected; he stated that the ballot should have been accepted. Mr. Rock asked Mr. Mansky to find the ballot depicted within C258 in the list presented in C245. If a ballot is not marked as accepted or rejected, there is no clear protocol. Exhibit C260 was then presented with a single return envelope and the application form. The ballot was rejected with an unclear reason, but Mr. Mansky believed that the ballot should have been accepted. This ballot was also included in the 953 ballots that were counted on January 3rd. Mr. Mansky stated that the wrong absentee ballot is occasionally sent to a voter; in this situation a duplicate ballot is created and counted. The attention turned to Exhibit C261; this ballot had three return envelopes and three application forms. The first ballot was accepted, but was not counted until January 3rd; the ballot was originally rejected, and Mr. Mansky stated that the absentee ballot was not from the correct precinct. The election judges should have duplicated the ballot and counted it. The second ballot was rejected for the same reason as the first, and like the first, should have been counted. The second ballot was however not counted on election night or on January 3rd. Dating the signed envelope is not required for either the voter or the witness; a date mismatch is irrelevant. Mr. Mansky then defined the fifth pile which included ballots which should not have been rejected, but were; this fifth pile was partially counted on January 3rd. Election officials reviewed the polling roster for all rejected absentee ballots; they also looked at the reason for rejection. In most cases the inclusion of exclusion of a ballot could be determined from the face of the return envelope. Mr. Mansky stated that all possible permutations revolving decision that could made based soley upon the face of the return envelope were covered. At this point go read the log at the very top of the page starting at 11:32 and ending at 11:49 AM CT. Mr. Rock established the information that would have to be acquired to determine the total number of voters and the total number of votes. Mr. Rock then presented a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the possibility of double counting; there were 110 votes and 100 voters. Based upon Mr. Rock's scenario, Mr. Mansky agreed that double counting was a possibility. Mr. Mansky suggested that abandoned duplicate ballots could have been identified based upon voting patterns and by their appearance. Mr. Rock concluded his questioning of Mr. Mansky; Mr. Hamilton stated that his cross examination would take "two to three" hours. Mr. Mansky was ordered to return on Monday as the court was going to devote its afternoon session to "several important motions." The three judge panel requested a meeting with the presiding attorneys in the conference to talk about future scheduling issues. The afternoon session began at around 1:30 PM CT and center around individual voters who were requesting to intervene into the election contest to ensure that their votes are counted. The afternoon session last about half an hour and is detailed above beginning at 1:31 and concluding at 2:09 PM CT. The election contest will resume on Monday at 9 AM CT. I plan on writing another article tomorrow providing a less detailed summary of this week's proceedings. In the meantime I would suggest reading my analysis of Norm Coleman's election contest and the subsequent data tables [PDF].

Litigation, Day 4

1/29/2009 4:26:40 PM CT

I'm just catching the tail end of today's proceedings, but I'll post a summary later tonight: 4:24 PM CT: The Coleman campaign had called Joe Mansky, the Director of Election for Ramsey County, to the stand and some point during the day. John Rock, of the Coleman campaign, is currently questioning the witness. 4:28 PM CT: Joe Mansky just explained why some voter registrations are listed as November 5th. Any voter who filed a registration form within 20 days of the election is set aside and filled on the day after the election. The state suggests that such voters should register on election day when they vote in person. 4:30 PM CT: The court will recess until tomorrow, and the three judge panel would like to meet with the trial attorneys, from both sides, to discuss scheduling. Summary [9:26 PM CT]: The court rejoined this morning, but before anything actually happened, a private discussion (although still in courtroom) was conducted between the attorneys and the three judge panel on "two preliminary manners". The meeting lasted for about four minutes; I have no idea what was discussed. The attention then turned back to the witness Mr. Gelbmann [1], for the third consecutive day. Franken attorney Mr. Lillehaug captained the questioning by reviewing some testimony from yesterday regarding how the SOS and State Canvassing board were to count wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Gelbmann then reaffirmed that state election auditors did receive training in all 87 counties, two days of training; the auditors then train election officials at each of Minnesota's "4128 polling places". Each election official receives two hours of training and the lead official receives either "three or five" hours of training; Mr. Gelbmann was uncertain. Mr. Gelbmann then talked about the inherent differences present at each training session across Minnesota. He referenced police training for identifying a drunk driver. The official training guide explicitly details the procedure for including, or excluding an absentee ballot. Mr. Gelbmann sated the we encourage our officials to "error on the side of allowing the vote;" he also stated that veteran election officials do a better job of identifying voters who may have a disability that impedes their handwriting ability. During the reexamination of rejected absentee ballots, the election officials were not supposed to rely upon the reason presented on the secrecy envelope; specifically if the reason was "not registered." If the reason was not registered, the local election officials were supposed to verify this conclusion. Mr. Gelbmann then verified that the local election officials had performed the due diligence required to include additional absentee ballots; he thought the process was "exceedingly thorough." There was a bit on confusion regarding a document which had been three hole punched through some of the text. Mr. Gelbmann explained that the SOS would have had to redraft and absentee ballot counting plan had the "relief" not been provided by the MN Supreme Court. Mr. Gelbmann established that the Coleman campaign agreed to "133" of the 1,346 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots proposed by the counties. At this point Mr. Lillehaug began introducing evidence and asking Mr. Gelbmann to identify the documents and provide some auxiliary information. The documents involved various different counties' procedures for handling absentee ballots that were requested for review; Mr. Gelbmann called the documents "email strings." They committed most of their time on this issue to Yellow Medicine County, which had "expressed concern" over the taxpayer expense associated with the request for review. They also focused on seven ballots in Itasca County. The presentation of "email strings" continued as the conversation shifted from county to county, vote by vote. Mr. Lillehaug was simply establishing that the evidence presented within the exhibits is infact accurate based upon Mr. Gelbmann's recollection and his position within the vote counting process. Mr. Gelbmann discussed the reason why each presented ballot was originally rejected and offered further procedural rules on a case by case basis. Mr. Gelbmann then read a quote referencing the Coleman campaigns request to include an additional 654 rejected absentee ballots based upon copies of "the envelopes furnished by the counties." Mr. Gelbmann then discussed the establishment and enforcement of the 10 AM deadline for the submission of rejected absentee ballots which were believed to be erroneously excluded from the count. He went on to say the the Coleman campaign did not meet this deadline with respect to the aforementioned 654 ballots. The 654 ballots were apparently presented at 3:08 PM, roughly 5 hours after the specified deadline on December 29th. Mr. Gelbmann reviewed "some" of the 654 ballots out of pure curiosity and was able to discern a pattern for their selection; unfortunately for Mr. Lillehaug, the Coleman campaign objected, and question remained unanswered. Mr. Lillehaug returned to the Franken side, and Coleman attorney Mr. Friedberg interjected an was granted the ability to question Mr. Gelbmann regarding the term "cherry picked." Mr. Friedberg established that Mr. Gelbmann worked for Sen. Mark Dayton (D) and was apprised of the internal happenings of political campaigns. Mr. Friedberg then tried to establish a definition of "cherry picked" based upon Mr. Gelbmann's testimony and passed work. His line of questioning was rejected by the judge and Mr. Lillehaug resumed the floor. Mr. Gelbmann was then asked to briefly describe the process of challenging ballots during the recount. The election official designated or "called" a ballot for a given candidate and then that decision became challengeable by two representatives from each participating party. Mr. Lillehaug then asked Mr. Gelbmann to read off the number of votes received by each candidate in the Minnesota State Canvassing Board's recount result; the vote total showed that Coleman recieved 1,212,206 votes an Franken received 1,212,431. Mr. Lillehaug then stated that he had no further question for Mr. Gelbmann; a fifteen minute recess was declared. After about 25 minutes the court resumed with Mr. Gelbmann still at the witness stand. I believe Mr. Friedberg took over questioning for the Coleman side. Mr. Friedberg first established through questioning that there was not yet a winner; the process was currently within the election contest phase, as specified by Minnesota law. They the discussed election official training; apparently the SOS office produces a training video but Mr. Gelbmann unsure if that was legally allowed to count for the two hours of required training. The discussion then turned to voter turnout; Mr. Gelbmann stated there were approximately twice as many absentee ballots during the 2008 election when compared to 2006 elections. Mr. Friedberg is attempting to illustrate that the election officials were not properly trained to handle the increase in absentee voting. Mr. Gelbmann stated that the election auditors, the professionals above election officials, were required to attend "breakout" sessions; one of the "breakout" sessions was two hours long and covered the issue of absentee ballots. Mr. Gelbmann recalled a noticeable increase in the number of absentee ballots cast in Hennepin and "to a lesser extent" Ramsey County over last election; he could not recall this phenomenon happening in other counties because he was not as involved in other counties. The discussion then moved to Rule 9; the conclusion by the State Canvassing Board to use the original ballots to determine the intent of the voter. Mr. Gelbmann was eventually asked to open the state issued election official training guide; he was asked to turn to § 14.2 which covers ballot duplication for the purpose of feeding a damaged ballot through the optical scanner. Mr. Friedberg referenced nine directions within the manual; his main point was that at least two separate judges with separate party affiliations must be present at the time of duplication; party status is dependent upon receiving at least 5% of the vote in the previous election. The election judges are supposed to mark the duplicate with the reason for duplication. The ballots are not mechanically duplicated; one election official dictates who the given voter voted for and the other election official fills in the votes on another, blank ballot. They then verify that the duplicate conveys the voter's intent, as depicted on the original according to Minnesota law. Mr. Gelbmann stated that "95% of ballots were duplicated after the polls closed." Mr. Gelbmann was then asked to address the discrepancy the number of original ballots and duplicates during the recount. He could not specify the exact county, but he stated that the first incident occurred on November 19th, the first day of the recount. Gary Poser was contacted about the issue. Mr. Gelbmann stated that if the duplicates were not marked, it would have been impossible to distinguish them from an original ballot. Mr. Friedberg then tried to establish a probable scenario in which the process of duplication and the ensuring counting mechanism may have created errors. Mr. Gelbmann presented the possibility of a voter not signing in on election day as another explanation to explain a discrepancy between the number of voters and the number of votes. A brief, private meeting (still within the courtroom) was held between the attorneys and the judges as a result of a questioned posed by Mr. Friedberg regarding his double counting scenario. The question was eventually withdrawn. The SOS presented a process that was approved by both the Coleman campaign and the Franken campaign that was designed to handle the issue of Mr. Friedberg's double counting scenario. The topic then moved to the chain of custody associated with each ballot. Mr. Gelbmann stated that any concern regarding the chain of custody could ultimately be heard in an election contest if the precinct or county or Minnesota State Canvassing Board did not satisfactorily resolve the issue. Mr. Friedberg then transitioned away from the double counting issue to the 171 ballots that were left in an optical scanner in Maplewood P6. Mr. Gelbmann stated that the chain of custody regarding these ballots was upheld, Mr. Mansky of Ramsey County agreed. An important event then occurred, Mr. Friedberg stated the following to the three judge panel:

Mr. Friedberg: If it pleases the court, we have had a challenge to those 171 votes; we are convinced that the integrity of the chain of custody has been protected and we withdraw our challenge to those Maplewood votes. Source: TheUpTake.org via Mogulus at 2:32:30

The Coleman campaign just conceded a 37 vote Franken gain amongst these 171 ballots from Maplewood P6; based upon our previous work Coleman must now overcome a best case scenario deficit of 106 votes. The Franken campaign did not object. The Coleman campaign is not however conceding the issue that have arisen from Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1. Mr. Gelbmann discussed a plastic bag that was found in the precinct that contained ten to twelve absentee ballots; he was not sure whether these ballots were eventually counted, but he believed they were. A note was attached to this bag stating that the particular election judge did not know what to do with these ballots. Mr. Gelbmann was not specifically involved in the search for the 133 missing ballots, he only had a passive involvement and would have to base any answer on "here say". The voter intent of these 133 ballots cannot be determined, other than the election night result, because the ballots are currently lost. Mr. Friedberg then questioned on the grounds of the chain of custody of these lost ballots, stating that "this is the ultimate chain of custody problem isn't it?" Mr. Gelbmann responded by saying that "[he] was not legally qualified to answer this question," and would like legal council if the current line of questioning is to continue. When the SOS was in need of legal advice, they asked the Minnesota Attorney General for guidance. Mr. Friedberg then switched gears and asked if the three judge panel would like to recess before a "different area" is covered. He began by recalling an exhibit presented by Franken before settling on Coleman-265. This exhibit was an email sent by Mr. Lillehaug to the Secretary of State's office entitled "Cover Letter, Memorandum and Declarations" and was received on November 17th by Mr. Gelbmann office. One of the attachments contains a memorandum from the Al Franken for Senate campaign regarding rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Friedberg then read a series of passages from the memorandum and then asked Mr. Gelbmann if he read correctly. The quoted passages focused on the issue of equal protection in regard to absentee ballots and those which were wrongfully rejected. Mr. Gelbmann was then asked about the documentation associated with the 401 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots which were identified by the local officials but were not agreed to by both campaigns, these votes were not counted. There is no information regarding which campaign rejected which ballots. At this point only the Coleman and Franken campaigns were involved; it was then learned that Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley was initially invited to recount proceedings, but declined to participate. Mr. Friedberg continued to read through the memorandum, as written by the Franken campaign:

Mr. Friedberg: Going down a little bit further in Mr. Franken's position, back then, post election statutory provisions that address such issues as the timing of election official's actions are generally directory and not mandatory. Procedural rules cannot override the principle that all validly cast ballots must be counted to reveal the electorate's true vote and the expression of its will. Skipping the citation. Quote, to rule otherwise, the court has recognized, would require the loser to become the winner in spite of the vote of the people. Did I read that accurately? Mr. Gelbmann: You read it accurately. Source: TheUpTake.org via Mogulus at 3:05:52

Mr. Friedberg then continued to read through the exhibit and the contained text pertaining to absentee ballot inclusion after previous rejection. Mr. Friedberg then got "tired" and asked Mr. Gelbmann to read the next passage on equal protection as it pertains to absentee ballots. Mr. Gelbmann state that it "was not the role the State Canvassing Board to count these absentee ballots;" he stated that an election contest would be the appropriate medium for counting absentee ballots. Mr. Friedberg exhausted his questions relating to the current exhibit and the court recessed for lunch. When the trial resumed, Mr. Gelbmann was still on the stand, but the panel allowed Mr. Langdon (Coleman) to field another witness. Peter Robert DeMuth [2] was called to the stand. He lives in Fargo as a student; his permanent address in in Plymouth, Minnesota. Mr. Friedberg handled the questioning. Much like the previous civilian witness he was presented with his absentee ballot and his registration form. He received a phone call from the Republican Partynotifying him that his vote was not counted. He stated that he voted absentee because he could did not want to travel to vote on election day. He drover from Fargo this morning to appear in court today. He filled out his registration form on a computer and emailed it to the election office; he initialed on the signature line using a mouse instead of physically signing the document. Mr. Hamilton to cross examine the witness; he began by establishing the conversation when the Republican Party called. The Republican party asked him he supported Norm Coleman, and Mr. DeMuth responded "yes." The Coleman campaign also wrote the affidavit which Mr. DeMuth signed. Mr. DeMuth used a mouse to initial his name on the registration form because he did not have a printer and it cost money to print and scan at his College. Mr. Hamilton ended his questioning. Mr. Langdon again questioned the witness. He established that emailing the registration was a valid option presented by election officials and that as far as Mr. DeMuth knew, his parents were not contacted regarding his absentee ballots submission. Mr. Langdon stepped down and the floor went back to Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton establish that the witness was physically able to sign his name, he simple choose to do it on a computer. The witness was then dismissed. Mr. Langdon then called another witness; James D. Wadzinski [3]. He lives in Hastings, Minnesota and verified his address as listed on his voter registration. He went to Hastings City Hall and cast an absentee ballot in front of an election official. Mr. Langdon basically established that Mr. Wadzinski wants his vote counted and does not know why it was not counted. Mr. Hamilton on the cross examination; Mr. Wadzinski was not absent from the precinct on election day and he had no personal knowledge as to whether his vote was counted or not. The witness was excused. Mr. Gelbmann went back to the stand and the questioning continued from Mr. Friedberg. They discussed the testimony of Mr. DeMuth with respect the computer generated signature. Mr. Friedberg established that the first signature presented by any individual should be assumed to be valid; the first signature is used for comparison of subsequent signatures. Mr. Friedberg then resumed the practice of allowing the witness to read a document and then subsequently provide additional information relative to their experience. The next line of questioning focused on placing absentee ballots into two piles based upon the "face of the lists," either erroneously rejected, or not. When using the "face of the envelope, the previous task was not possible. Mr. Friedberg then questioned Mr. Gelbmann regarding the possibility having accepted absentee ballots rejected. There is a statute within Minnesota law that allows a voter to vote in person even though they have completed an absentee ballot; the absentee ballot will be discarded. Mr. Friedberg then discussed the counting of deceased voters; Mr. Gelbmann stated that dead people's votes are not counted, but they do not check the obituaries. If a ballot is present, the election official assumes the voter is alive, unless they know otherwise. Mr. Friedberg then read a passage written by the Coleman campaign suggesting that rejected absentee ballots should be litigated during an election contest. Mr. Lillehaug began the cross examination. Mr. Lillehaug established the number of votes cast and the number of challenges; there were 6,500 initial challenges and about 1,000 ballots were actually examined by the Minnesota State Canvassing board. The MN Attorney General was consulted with regard to Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1. The December 12th State Canvassing board meeting was then discussed; Mr. Gelbmann provided testimony on this day regarding the potential for erroneously rejected absentee ballots. The Minnesota Attorney General then used this information to make a legal decision. Not a single erroneously rejected absentee ballot was counted by a county canvassing board was because the "Coleman campaign went to the Minnesota Supreme court to shut it down;" Mr. Gelbmann agreed. Mr. Gelbmann is done! Joe Mansky, the Ramsey County Election Director was then called to the stand by the Coleman campaign. He was on the witness stand for the remainder of today's session. John Rock, a previously unheard of Coleman lawyer, essentially sought to establish Mr. Mansky's position as an election expert with years of experience. He spoke about election day registration and the incidents that are subsequently filed by some precincts. He also discussed the various mechanisms by which these errors were reported. Mr. Rock then established the procedure by which the total number of ballots cast is calculated. Mr. Mansky defined over, undervotes and the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS). This list contains a lot of data that is used by each of Minnesota's 87 counties; this is where the counties can figure out if a voter is registered, and if they are their information can be update. The SVRS is used to mail registration notification post cards. Mr. Mansky then provided some details regarding voter who were registered on November 5th. Any voter who filed a registration form within 20 days of the election is set aside and filled on the day after the election. The state suggests that such voters should register on election day when they vote in person, but most do not. It is interesting that Mr. Mansky was called to the stand after the Coleman campaign conceded the 171 votes in Maplewood P6. Relatively little happened regarding Mr. Mansky's testimony; we will likely seem much more from Mr. Mansky tomorrow.

Litigation, Day 3

1/28/2009 9:17:42 AM CT

I'll publish sporadic updates throughout the day, and I'll finish it up by doing a thorough summary at the end of the day; just like I did yesterday. 9:18 AM CT: Mr. Gelbmann is still on the stand and is speaking to the issue of absentee voting registration; Mr. Friedberg is doing the questioning. During the sorting of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots, election officials created a category called 3a in which they examined the secrecy envelope to determine if there was a registration card within the absentee ballot envelope. If there was a registration within the envelope, that vote may have been validly cast, despite the lack of prior registration. 9:43 AM CT: Mr. Gelbmann is now talking about a specific absentee ballot that was rejected; the ballot was cast in Hubbard County. The ballot was apparently rejected because the voter used a hyphenated last name that was not on the voter roles. Upon closer inspection, election officials determined that the voter was registered and that their ballot was wrongfully rejected. 11:31 AM CT: Mr. Lillehaug, Franken's attorney, is cross examining Mr. Gelbmann, who is still on the stand. I believe he is discussing the issue of potentially double counted ballots. Mr. Lillehaug is essentially trying to establish that election officials did not intentionally double count ballots and that the MN Canvassing Board passed the issue to this Election Contest. 11:45 AM CT: Mr. Gelbmann was asked to identify a document sent by Coleman attorney Fritz Knaak to the Secretary of State's office. The document highlighted a disagreement between the campaigns regarding their position on whether wrongfully rejected absentee ballot envelopes are/were private or public data. 11:49 AM CT: Mr. Lillehaug probed further by asking whether the Secretary of State's office ever definitively took a stand on the public or private issue. Mr. Gelbmann stated that the SOS had expressed the opinion that the envelopes should be public data. 11:49 AM CT: There was another document presented to the Minnesota State Canvassing Board on November 18th which was supposed to clarify each campaign's position on the absentee ballot custody issue highlighted previously. Mr. Lillehaug asked if this was a big deal at the time and the witness responded, "yes." Mr. Gelbmann then went on to say that "the decision of the local election officials should be assumed to be correct." 1:20 PM CT: The court is in recess until 1:30 PM CT. 1:34 PM CT: The court has resumed. Mr. Gelbmann and Mr. Lillehaug are still discussing the email correspondence between the Coleman campaign and the Secretary of State's office. The current document in question was emailed by an associated of Tony Trimble to the SOS office on November 19th. 1:50 PM CT: The Fox affiliate in the Twin Cities area has reported that the ColemanForSenate website was down after an influx of "tens of thousands of page views" after a searchable database of "disenfranchised" voters was made available. As a comparison, this site received around a million page views during the week of November 4th. I'd be willing to bet that the math associated with our election projections caused a far higher amount of server load than searching a database. This is yet another example of the Coleman campaign's technological ineptitude. 1:55 PM CT: Mr. Gelbmann is still on the stand, and is taling questions regarding the process required to duplicate a ballot. One of the judges just asked how many ballots were duplicated in total; Mr. Gelbmann said he had no idea. 2:00 PM CT: This will apparently be the last question related to duplicate ballots. Mr. Lillehaug presented a document sent by Mr. Gelbmann to Mr. Poser relating to a Brooklyn Park precinct. The Brooklyn Park election officials found duplicate ballots marked in "eleven precincts," of which there was no corresponding original. They apparently found envelopes containing these original ballots during the recount. Brooklyn Park asked the SOS office for guidance. The Exhibit stated that the SOS office instructed Brooklyn Park to re-review ballots in these eleven precincts. 2:05 PM CT: In the case of any discrepancy, the procedure is to count the originals. At the time, the Coleman campaign did not object to these proceedings. The talks moved forward to the events of the November 26th Minnesota State Canvassing Board meeting. At the meeting they discussed the possibility of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. 2:11 PM CT: The next document presented was written by Tony Trimble and addressed to Mr. Gelbmann on December 12th. 2:17 PM CT: Moving on, the next document is also from Tony Trimble and covers rejected absentee ballot sorting. Within the document, Mr. Trimble expressed concern that the SOS had suggested "non-partisan" workers instead of election officials who had received proper training. Mr. Gelbmann stated that "the justification of an election judge is within the precinct that they are assigned to." Mr. Lillehaug then asked if Tony Trimble's intention was to have the absentee ballot review take place on the precinct level. Mr. Gelbmann responded by saying that Mr. Trimble just wanted election judges to preside over the proceedings. 2:23 PM CT: Moving on to the next Exhibit; Exhibit F79. A letter from Fritz Knaak dated December 29th to county election officials regarding the opening of rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Gelbmann was not a direct recipient, but had knowledge of the document's existence. Exhibit F88 is next. 2:28 PM CT: This document relates to Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1; the precinct where an envelope was missing and not found during the recount. The letter is dated December 11th 2008. There had been considerable sorting by the counties as of this letter's writing. Mr. Gelbmann had concluded on or before this day that ballots had been wrongfully rejected. 2:31 PM CT: Mr. Gelbmann then read the following quote from the exhibit; "Every ballot in the 5th pile was originally rejected, by county election officials or an absentee ballot board or 2 election judges and that these ballots should be deemed improperly rejected, after an ad-hoc statutory counting process that is not clear or undisputed." 2:37 PM CT: Mr. Gelbmann was "convinced" that he saw wrongfully rejected absentee ballots; he saw evidence of this fact. 2:41 PM CT: The court will eventually recess at a convenient point around 3 PM CT. 2:42 PM CT: Brooklyn Park was not the only jurisdiction with duplicity errors; Maplewood Precinct 6 was brought into the fray. Mr. Gelbmann first heard of the situation in Maplewood Precinct 6 through Minnesota Public Radio. Mr. Gelbmann then contacted a Ramsey County election official. He learned that a voting machine broke down on election night, and the resulting ballots were not counted until the recount. He stated that neither campaign raised any objection to these proceedings initially. 2:49 PM CT: Mr. Gelbmann then discussed his conversation with the Ramsey County election official, Joe Mansky. The ballots which were not counted on election night due to machine error were found in an auxiliary box within the ballot scanner during the recount. Mr. Mansky stated that they were not counted on election night. 2:51 PM CT: Mr. Gelbmann stated that the Coleman campaign did take issue with the inclusion of these 171 ballots in the final recount numbers. Mr. Gelbmann personally believed that "it was appropriate to include [the 171 ballots found in the auxiliary ballots] in the final recount numbers." When asked if he believed these balots to have previously been counted, Mr. Gelbmann reponded with "no;" he was then asked if fraud was involved, "absolutely not." There were ballots found in Becker County and they were counted. There were no complaints filled by the Coleman campaign regarding Becker County. Mr. Lillehaug then brought forth another, similar case in Scott County. Mr. Gelbmann stated that these ballots, in Scott counted were counted and that based upon his work in Mark Dayton's (D) campaign, Scott County typically voted Republican. 2:56 PM CT: Afternoon recess. The court will resume in fifteen minutes, but I will not. I'll provided a detailed summary of today's events later tonight in this article. Summary [1:37 AM CT]: The day three proceedings actually started on time today, but before Mr. Gelbmann re-took the stand, the panel ruled on a motion put forth by the contestant Norm Coleman. Justice Kurt Marben stated that "it was a motion in limine to exclude evidence of each campaign's prior position regarding when and how absentee ballots should be reviewed. The panel has read the memorandum that has been received and are prepared to rule without further arguement." The motion was denied. Onto Mr. Gelbmann, again. Before I move further ahead I want to point out two documents which have been posted on the election contest judicial page that may be of interest. The first document is a listing of exhibits provided by the Franken campaign and the second document details Coleman's exhibits. The three judge panel is illustrated on the left side of the image below and a scene from the courtroom is depicted on the right. Mr. Friedberg, an attorney representing Coleman, is questioning Mr. Gelbmann, the Minnesota Deputy Secretary of State as Norm Coleman watches from the side. Mr. Friedberg resumed his questioning of Mr. Gelbmann after adjourning yesterday evening. Mr. Gelbmann voted for Dean Barkley. The first phase of questions concerned the creation of a 3a pile during the sorting of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Mr. Gelbmann discussed the standing order to include any vote, rather than exclude, if a questionable problem had occurred. This related to the 3a pile because election officials were asked to bend and fold and analyze the absentee ballot secrecy envelopes to determine if a registration card may be enclosed. Mr. Gelbmann stated that it could have been very obvious based upon the style of paper used for the registration form. He said that some registration forms were printed on card stock and were easily identifiable from the outside of the envelope. He stated that envelopes which the election judge believed to contain a completed registration form was placed in pile 3a where they remain. Pile 3a was not included in the recount. Mr. Friedberg then began to question Mr. Gelbmann on specific ballots which were rejected. He discussed the scenario by which originally rejected absentee ballots were reclaimed as valid votes. During the recount election officials were able to check a more comprehensive list of voter registration tables; for example, if a voter used a hyphenated name when they signed their ballot but they were registered using a non-hyphenated name their vote was likely rejected by the original election official. During the resorting, these errors were corrected. Mr. Friedberg posed several questions regarding specific absentee ballots that followed this pattern. Mr. Friedberg was trying to show that some ballots were tried differently than others, and thus their handling would violate the equal protection clause within the constitution. Mr. Friedberg finished with Mr. Gelbmann and the cross examination began, as lead by Mr. Lillehaug. Mr. Lillehaug got Mr. Gelbmann to say that ballots were not intentionally counted twice; which is not a revelation. The conversation then shifted to the issue of ballot ownership. Mr. Lillehaug referenced several documents which facilitated further discussion on the topic. Mr. Gelbmann established that there was a disagreement between the campaigns on the subject of ballot ownership; the Coleman campaign believed that the secrecy envelopes were private data, while the Franken campaign believed they should be made public. Mr. Gelbmann went on to say that the Secretary of State's office eventually sided with the Franken position. The topic then switched back to the issue of equal protection, Mr. Gelbmann stated in response to a question regarding the possibility of duplicate counting that "the decision of the local election officials should be assumed to be correct." The lunch recess then took place until 1:30 PM CT. Mr. Lillehaug resumed the tedious process of reviewing email correspondence between the various parties involved in the recount. Mr. Gelbmann discussed the circumstances required for a ballot to be duplicated. One of the judges then asked him how many total ballots were duplicated, Mr. Gelbmann stated that he had absolutely no idea. At this point you should go read the timestamps above beginning with 2:00 and concluding at 2:56 PM CT. When the court resumed Mr. Gelbmann spoke about the issue of ballot security. If ballots are left unattended in an improper place and are found with broken seals, those ballot must be invalidated. This issue was raised because of the 32 ballots that were not counted on election day in Hennepin County, but were properly transported to the Minneapolis City Hall and counted later. They next discussed the missing ballots from Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1; I believe the Franken campaign is waiting for another witness before they dig into this issue. Mr. Gelbmann was not deeply involved in the situation around this Minneapolis precinct; I think Cindy Reichert, the Hennepin County Election Director, is the only person who can provide testimony, with enough weight to settle this issue, in one direction or another. Now to cover the issue of the "fake" controversy associated with Norm's website. Norm's website was not intentionally taken down by anybody within the campaign. The site is run from a remote location. I have logically concluded that his site crashed for one of two reasons, (i) either an extreme amount of traffic, or (ii) poor coding resulting in a memory leak. If the site was getting hit with a decent amount of traffic, which does appear to be the case, the number of database connections may have exceeded the allowable limit due to poor coding. When this happens there is essentially nothing that can be done from a remote location. The server is inaccessible because the processor is always trying to catch up with the current number of requests. In order to fix the problem, the admin would need access to the server, but they could not gain access because the server was constantly busy. Their solution was to redirect traffic to the IP address 1.1.1.1. They would have been wise to setup of an error page on another server and redirect to that, but I don't know the details. Whenever the IP address is changed, the new address must propagate back through the internet; this can take up to 72 hours. To compensate for this delay, they changed the TTL to 600 for the 1.1.1.1 IP address, which is a very small amount of time in this application. They wanted the dummy address to propagate to as many people as possible as fast as possible so that they could attempt to fix the original error. In changing the TTL they are able to gain access to the original server faster, without the new address propagating through the internet over the actual server address. In changing the address they made a calculated decision; one I would guess they currently regret. When their old server came back online, each and every file they had hosted was available for download. There were documents available that would not have justified any publicity stunt. My guess is that somebody outside of the campaign initially discovered the outage and began to push the "excessive traffic from voter database leads to crash" story. At this point the story was picked up by drudge.com and the Coleman was really left with really no choice but to propel the story. If they had actually acknowledged the problem, the news would have spread faster than they could have fixed; which happened anyway, but it took some time for people to figure out that files were available. I do not believe the initial crash was intentional, I believe it was a very poor implementation of technology that forced the Coleman campaign to run with the spin. The trial will resume tomorrow at 9:00 AM CT.

Litigation, Day 2

1/27/2009 9:04:09 AM CT

The second day of Coleman's Election Contest was supposed to begin at 9 AM CT; as you can see below, that simply did not happen: 9:12 AM CT: Nothing has happened yet, but I did snag a picture of the binder containing Exhibits C1 and C2. I don't know If all twelve binders make up the Exhibits, or if the binders are just stockpiled for later distribution. There was also a box that appeared to contain ballots, its impossible to know at this point, but it did resemble previous boxes used for storing ballots. 9:23 AM CT: Nothing has happened yet, I don't know if there is a delay or if the court simply wasn't scheduled to begin yet. Apparently the start of proceedings is delayed, possibly until 10:00 AM CT. 10:17 AM CT: The proceedings have been delayed; the judges are in a private meeting. A time for resumption has not been specified. Gary Poser, the Deputy Secretary of State, was just spotted in the Judicial Center. 12:37 AM CT: The trial will apparently resume at 1:00 PM CT; which just so happens to be the exact same time as when I need to leave. 2:35 PM CT: The Coleman campaign is calling a series of witness whose absentee ballots were rejected. Douglas Thompson took the stand at this time. "Is this your signature on the absentee ballot envelope" Yes. Is this your signature on the absentee ballot application. No. It appears as though the Franken attorney established probable cause for rejection of Douglas ' absentee ballot envelope. 2:38 PM CT: Jim Gelbmann, Dep. Sec. of State. will now take the stand. He worked for Sen. Mark Dayton (D). 2:41 PM CT: I don't know where they are going with this witness, and I don't have time to find out; more later. 7:41 PM CT: I'll have a more thorough update later tonight, or tomorrow morning. Summary [11:43 PM CT]: When the court finally resumed, Judge Denise Reilly explained the circumstances behind the delay:

[The] Secretary of State's Office, the AGs, the attorney for the petitioner, as well as the three of us and our law clerks meet for almost all morning trying to work out the logistics of how to get the best evidence to this courtroom so that we can make the findings of fact that we need to make. We also understand that the municipalities and the 87 counties that are holding these original documents are under stress and strain for budgetary reasons and that's why we want to see if there is someway for us to streamline the process. Having said that, Mr. Friedberg [Coleman Attorney] had Ms. Sonnen on the stand yesterday when we ended. Source: TheUpTake.org via Mogulus

The proceedings began, and six, civilian witnesses were called throughout the day's proceedings; their pictures are below: Mr. Friedberg stared by asking that Ms. Sonnen's testimony (from yesterday) be stricken from the record and the court moved forward with a slight objection from Marc Elias; I believe Elias wanted to question Ms. Sonnen, but she was not present. Coleman Attorney, Mr. Langdon, then proceeded by calling a new witness; Gerald Walter Anderson [1] a voter whose absentee ballot was not counted. Gerald Anderson first voted in "1952 for Eisenhower;" he is blind and is 75 years of age. Mr. Anderson mentioned repeated a similar refrain through his testimony; "my vote was not counted in America." The Coleman campaign seemed to be appealing for empathy, but they make an interesting case. They appear to be arguing that his vote should count because he says he signed his absentee ballot properly. Upon cross examination Mr. Anderson failed to recall when he signed his affidavit, he stated "Friday," but the affidavit was dated January 20th. Mr. Anderson was then allowed to leave. Eugene Carl Markmen [2] was then called to the stand by Mr. Langdon. He lives in Sterns County and voted by absentee because he was an election judge. He has voted absentee before. As an election judge he stated that his ballot was likely rejected "because the 'n' on the end of my name is not got two humps in it, it has one hump and a line that goes straight down." In the cross examination, Mr. Marken stated that he was asked to intervene in the lawsuit by Publica. Mr. Markmen stepped down. Kevin Hendrickson [3] was then called as the next witness, but before he could take the stand the Franken campaign objected because "this individual was not on the list." The court allowed the witness, but will take the objection under advisement. Mr. Hendrickson is from Zimmerman and was eligible to vote in the past two elections; he stated that he "voted in the past two." The Coleman campaign basically established that Mr. Hendrickson does not know why his vote was not counted. Mr. Hamiltion, of the Franken campaign, then tried to deduce what the witness "does not know," by asking him who rejected his ballot; Mr. Hendrickson confirmed that he did not know. The next witness was Wesley A. Briest [4]. The Coleman attorney began by asking Mr. Briest how he voted. Mr. Briest responded by saying that he "went to the voting place and voted, not by absentee." He was however called to the stand because he voted absentee, the Coleman lawyer corrected his previous assertion by providing a document of his absentee ballot envelope. Mr. Briest then asserted that he had voted absentee. During the cross examination, Franken's representation suggested that Mr. Briest may have voted in person on election day as well as by absentee; Mr. Briest denied this assertion and affirmed his earlier claim that he had voted by absentee only. The Franken Attorney then asked Mr. Briest to observe that the address box for a "non-notary witness" was not filled in on the absentee ballot envelope; Mr. Briest then acknowledged that the form was not completed. The Coleman campaign responded by asking where his wife lived and Mr. Briest replied "with me at the same address." The Franken side then argued that this fact was not stated anywhere on the envelope. Mr. Briest was excused. Mijanou Rodriguez Sampers [5] was the next witness; she resides in Rosemount and is a registered voter who cast an absentee ballot in the November 4th election. Mr. Langdon essentially confirmed that Ms. Sampers could identify her own signature on her own absentee ballot. Mr. Hamilton then lead the cross examination; he preceeded in a manner very congruent with his cross examination of Mr. Hendrickson. Mr. Hamilton then learned that the Republican Party contacted Ms. Sampers and alerted told her that her ballot was rejected; the Republican party contacted the previous 4 witness as well. Mr. Langdon concluded by establishing that Ms. Sampers did request an absentee ballot. She had not been shown her absentee ballot request form. She was then allowed to step down. And the final civilian witness brought forth by the Coleman campaign; Douglas Thompson [6]. His girlfriend, "of 20 years" filled out his absentee ballot request form. The Coleman campaign then asserted, with Mr. Thompson's assistance, that he had filled out the actual absentee ballot himself. The Republican Party contacted Mr. Thompson as well, informing him that his ballot was not counted. The witness believes that his vote was not counted because his girlfriend signed his name on the request form, and he signed his own name on the actual ballot. Witness dismissed. The common theme amongst all Coleman witnesses seems to center around the voter's claim of wrongful rejection, not necessarily the legal claim regarding the rejection. Both campaign's attorney's were very polite to the witness throughout the day's events. Jim Gelbmann, Dep. Sec. of State. was then called to the witness stand to testify. The Coleman campaign essentially asked Jim Gelbmann to define the process by which wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. were counted. The Coleman campaign was attempting to show that these ballots were not treated equally by each of Minnesota's 87 counties; this discrepancy would violate equal protection. David Lillehaug of the Franken campaign then began the first wave of the cross examination. It was learned that Jim Gelbmann was put forth by the Secretary of State's office in response to a subpoena request by the Coleman campaign. Mr. Gelbmann's testimony lasted for about an hour and a half; during that time a recess was ordered. After the recess, Mr. Gelbmann went through a series of technical details associated with ballot counting law. He gave specific scenarios related to the requested situations. At the end of the day Mr. Gelbmann essentially stated that any errors in the counting of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots would have to be addressed by the election worker who dealt with that specific ballot. He also went on to state that the head election official, for each county, would have adequate knowledge regarding the roughly 1,400 absentee ballots that were presented by the counties, but lower level election workers would have to be consulted for ballots outside of that subset. Mr. Gelbmann asserted that "each [ballot] has a story behind it." Mr. Gelbmann then spent the last thirty minutes addressing specific situations for accepting and rejecting absentee ballots in various counties, and the various processes used by these counties. The witness was then dismissed, for the day. The Franken campaign then objected to the replacement of sum 500 names to the Coleman campaign's list of 5,000 voters whose absentee ballots were rejected. The Coleman campaign said they were unaware of the situation and would look into it. The Franken campaign stated that this discrepancy was not random. A backroom meeting was then commissioned, and the court adjourned until 9 AM CT tomorrow.

MN Recount Litigation Begins

1/26/2009 2:43:33 PM CT

The 2008 Minnesota Senate Election Contest began today at 11 AM CT in the Judicial Center of St. Paul. Each side presented their opening statements, which took longer than expected, and nothing really happened. We'll begin our log with the Coleman campaign calling the first witness of the election contest: 2:47 PM CT: Franken Lawyer Marc Elias is questioning a Coleman aid, Kristen Fuzer, familiar with the processes associated with the photocopying or reproduction of ballots. She had worked with the campaign for about 1 year. She is apparently a "Political Director." 2:52 PM CT: The witness is now reading a brief entitled "Reply for Senate Coleman Memorandum Regarding Improperly Rejected Absentee Ballots." It was apparently authored by the Coleman campaign on November 18th. The Coleman campaign objected and it was sustained. 2:59 PM CT: Marc Elias is attempting to get the witness to reveal the internal beliefs of the Coleman campaign regarding rejected absentee ballots. She continues to say that she is "not a lawyer" and that "I was not in the legal meetings." 3:00 PM CT: One of the judges stated that the purpose of the witness is to "lay a foundation for the admissibility of the [ballot] copying issue." The judge then went on to say that each witness may be recalled at a later date. Apparently Elias was completely unaware that this witness was going to be called to the stand. 3:05 PM CT: The witness again said that "it is beyond the scope of my position." Elias then had the witness discuss the situation associated with the image below. The image depicts an error between the original (on the left) and the copy (on the right); the reason for the rejection has been recanted in the duplication: 3:09 PM CT: Elias just asked the witness to read her own affidavit associated with her contribution to challenging ballots on behalf of the Coleman campaign in Sherburne County. 3:18 PM CT: The witness finished getting "acquainted" with past events by reading, what I believe was here own affidavit. She stated that the Coleman campaign wanted 654 additional rejected absentee ballots. Elias is now done with the witness. 3:19 PM CT: The Coleman campaign then asked the witness if it was possible through the many copies that were made, if some errors occurred. The response: "Yes." Next Witness. 3:20 PM CT: Gloria Sonnet (or Sonnen) works at the law firm Dorsey and Witney in Minnesota. 3:24 PM CT: Gloria was apparently responsible for the compilation of a ballot table. The attorney is asking the witness to state basic facts about the exhibit they are referencing. 3:28 PM CT: A judge just ruled that Exhibits C1 and C2 will be received in the court. I'm not exactly sure what is included, but this is good news for Coleman. 3:30 PM CT: These ballots are marked accepted, despite the fact that they were rejected and not counted. 3:33 PM CT: The witness and lawyer are going through a list of ballots contained within Exhibit C1 and verifying their placement within the exhibit. The ballots listed so far are from Anoka County. A five minute recess has been ordered, which means I can eat quick. 3:47 PM CT: Court back in session. This is going to take forever. They are going through each ballots within C1 and C2 and reading the name of the voter and the original status of the ballot. I should also mention that these are absentee ballots that were not counted. During the recess they showed the binders containing exhibit C1 and C2. There is at least one binder with about an 8 inch spine. I saw three binders total, but they may have been for distribution. 3:51 PM CT: None of these ballots were counted according to the Coleman campaign. The court reaffirmed their motion to conditionally receive these exhibits. Elias stated that "I don't know what to make of these," having just received the evidence and the shift of allocation as Gloria reads through them. 3:53 PM CT: The court believes that election judges and election employees will be called to the stand to speak to the ballots present within the presented exhibits. 3:57 PM CT: There are apparently 5,000 ballots total. This will take a very long time. There are none form Becker County; next onto Benton. 4:05 PM CT: It appears as though they will continue to go through each of the ballots present within C1 and C2; I'll try and get a PDF of the actual exhibits later tonight. They are taking another "brief" recess to consider the objection by the Franken campaign. This will probably be my last entry for today. 5:14 PM CT: The court resumes and declares that the original ballots must be brought to the court house and reviewed in conjunction with Coleman's presentation of exhibits C1 and C2. Coleman must subpoena for this evidence. The court then adjourned. The need for the originals is in large part due to the errors that were made in photocopying the ballots; as previously discussed by the first witness. It seems likely that a subpoena will be granted based upon the Election Contest Court's position. Coleman only needs one county to consent and the rest will likely follow; both based upon precedence and equal protection laws. Last Friday, Norm Coleman put forth a motion requesting that a certain set of identified ballots be sent to the Election Contest Court for inspection; the court then promptly denied this motion. Today's late decision by the court seems to indicate a departure from their previous order; the absentee ballots in question will eventually be transported to the court house for further review, assuming a subpoena from one of Minnesota's 87 counties is approved. Did the Coleman campaign's sloppy copying facilitate the need for original ballots, or did the need for original ballots facilitate the need for sloppy copying? In either case, Coleman's requested relief will eventually be granted. The court reconvenes tomorrow at 9 AM CT. If any new documents are posted, specifically the ballots contained within Exhibit C1 and C2, I'll be sure to let you know.

Inauguration Crowd Count

1/25/2009 12:56:58 AM CT

Barack Obama became the 44th President of the United States last Tuesday, January 20th at precisely 12:00 PM ET. Many converged on the National Mall for this historic occasion, but exactly how many made this historic trek? Thanks to satellite imagery, provided by GeoEye, an accurate estimate of attendance, or at least area, can be ascertained. I downloaded the high-resolution satellite image and traced the population areas in Adobe Acrobat. Using the resulting polygons, the area can be calculated: (Click the image for a larger version) The effective scale is acquired by measuring the diameter of the Washington Monument's base (which we know to be 250 feet) on the image, and converting to real world measurements. In this case, each inch represents 500 feet. A table of each polygon's area is listed below:

       Label    Area (sq ft)   Label   Area (sq ft)
         0        132,500        19       15,000
         1         20,000        20       25,000
         2         27,500        21      105,000
         3        302,500        22       10,000
         4         5,000        23       52,500
         5        287,500        24      100,000
         6         12,500        25       27,500
         7         72,500        26      125,000
         8        117,500        27       65,000
         9         12,500        28       75,00
         10        25,000        29       75,00
         11       155,000        30       7,500
         12        40,000        31       57,500
         13       172,500        32       27,500
         14        27,500        33       17,500
         15        27,500        34       7,500
         16        45,000        35       32,500
         17        32,500        36       20,000
         18       140,000      Total    2,365,000

Despite their appearance, these figures are not exact. The area calculations are quantized based upon the capabilities of Adobe Acrobat and the resolution of the image. It would have been better to use a tool like AutoCad to trace the regions, but even so, the resolution issue would still persist. The resolution of the image makes it impossible to accurately trace each and every crowd region. Based upon these assertions, and the knowledge that low-density crowds are not visible to a satellite, we know that some spectators were not and cannot be identified; their exact number will forever remain unknown. It then follows that our 2,365,000 sq. ft. figure excludes these spectators. While we have a baseline measurement for the size of the crowd, we still do not know the quantity of the crowd. Fear not, our Clinton Era tax dollars were hard at work:

In the model, all people are modeled in circles individually to consider human spatial requirement. The diameter of a circle is determined as 0.4 meter with consideration of the size of body. Using the distance between evacuees and spatial requirements, interactions between people are assessed. It is an important factor in predicting congestion or contra-flows of a crowd. Source: Building and Fire Research Laboratory via NIST.gov

The area within a circle of diameter .4 m is 0.125 sq. meters; this then converts to a crowd density of one person per 1.35 square feet. If this density is uniformly applied to our baseline area of 2,365,000 ft. sq, we can obtain a minimum boundary for the number of inauguration onlookers; at least 1,748,445 people attended Barack Obama's Inauguration.

Coleman Files Additonal, Potential Errors

1/22/2009 6:21:49 PM CT

Four interesting, yet separate filings were issued today regarding the Minnesota Senate Election Contest. I will first cover the Coleman campaign's reaffirmation of their intent to focus on potential voting anomalies:

TO: The Honorable Judges of the above-named Court, Al Franken, Contestee. 1. As stated in Contestants' Notice of Contest dated January 6, 2009, Contestant Cullen Sheehan believes and states that Contestants cannot properly prepare their case for trial without an inspection of Ballots and Election Materials relating to the office of United States Senate in the General Election, including, without limitation, all Ballots and Election Materials in the precincts described hereinabove. 2. Contestant Cullen Sheehan therefore requests this Court to order such inspection pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 209.06 and to implement procedures for appointment of inspectors on behalf of Contestants and Contestee pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 209.06. 3. Contestant Cullen Sheehan further believes and states that Contestants cannot properly prepare their case for trial without a recount of the Ballots in certain precincts pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 209.06 and therefore request this Court to order such recount relative to those precincts identified by Contestants. 4. The precincts to be inspected and/or recount are as identified within Exhibit A through Exhibit E attached hereto. Source: Verified Petition For Appointment of Inspectors via MNCourts.org [PDF]

The Coleman campaign is essentially asking the court to appoint inspectors with the power to examine whatever ballots the Coleman campaign wants to evaluate. A brief summary of the Exhibits referenced above follows:

EXHIBIT A PRECINCTS WHERE DOUBLE COUNTING OCCURRED DUE TO DUPLICATE/ORIGINAL PROBLEM [214 ballots are listed in 38 precincts across 9 counties.] EXHIBIT B PRECINCTS WHERE BALLOTS WERE NOT COUNTED DURING THE RECOUNT DUE TO SECRETARY OF STATE INTERPRETATION OF RULE 9 [39 ballots are listed in 12 precincts across 6 counties.] EXHIBIT C PRECINCTS WITH MORE BALLOTS COUNTED THAN PERSONS VOTING ON ELECTION NIGHT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY QUESTIONS [372 ballots are listed in 20 precincts across 11 counties.] EXHIBIT D COUNTIES/PRECINCTS WITH FEWER BALLOTS COUNTED THAN PERSONS VOTING ON ELECTION NIGHT [76 ballots are listed in 7 precincts across 6 counties.] EXHIBIT E PRECINCTS WITH OTHER IRREGULARITIES DURING THE RECOUNT [17 ballots are listed in 9 precincts across 5 counties.] Source: Affidavit of Matthew W Haapoja - Counsel for Contestants via MNCourts.org [PDF]

In total, the affidavit lists 718 ballots in 86 precincts across 21 counties. Of these 718 ballots, 586 ballots (as listed in Exhibit A and C) correspond to the apparent discrepancy between the number of voters on Nov 4th and the final recounted total. Recalling from our complete precinct data table, there appear to 1391 ballots that meet the specifications set forth by the Coleman campaign in regard to the aforementioned 586 ballots. The increase in the number of anomalous votes presented by the Coleman campaign illustrates a potential realization within their campaign. Based upon yesterday's court hearing and the subsequent motions by Franken, it appears as though the Coleman campaign is building a safeguard against the possibility of the three judge panel ruling against their request to have rejected absentee ballots re-available for review as requested in Article 22 of the election contest and in Article 7 of affidavit filed by Matthew W Haapoja. If we also recall Exhibit C from Coleman's Election Contest and our corresponding article, it is highly probable that the ballots listed within Exhibit A and Exhibit C of this latest filing heavily favor Coleman. If each request associated with these 586 ballots is granted, I believe Coleman would take the lead. Coleman has specified an additional 460 anomalies, above and beyond the 126 first laid out within the election contest. Based upon our simple extrapolation of the 126 original anomalies, Coleman should gain about 51 votes. While I have not repeated the calculations for these additional 460 precincts, I think it is reasonable to assume that these ballots have a high likelihood of benefiting Coleman. The scenario under which Coleman could take the lead represents an unbalanced scenario; if Franken were to submit an equal number of ballots, the effect of Coleman's additions would likely be negated based upon the composition of the 1391 ballots I have previously identified. The table below illustrates the information presented within Exhibit B of the affidavit filed by Matthew W Haapoja: [The County, Precinct and Number of Ballots Potentially at Issue columns are listed within Exhibit B; the Nov 4th Voters, Recount Total and Coleman Margin (%) columns have been appended using data from our PDF.]

COUNTY/PRECINCT         BALLOTS AT NOV 4TH  RECOUNT COLEMAN
                           ISSUE    VOTERS   TOTAL  MARGIN %
Anoka/Spring Lake Park 1A    3        895     892    -3.13
Dakota/Burnsville P11*       1       2016     2017    7.07
Dakota/Farmington P1*        1       1016     1017    3.54
Dakota/Lakeville P10        11       2549     2538    30.3
Hennepin/Bloomington W4-P6*  9       1951     1950   -3.79
Hennepin/Brooklyn Park WEP8  1       1898     1897    15.1
Hennepin/Edina P11           4       1845     1841    4.89
Hennepin/Maple Grove P6      3       2047     2044    24.4
Itasca/Comfort**             1        601      600    18.3
Ramsey/Roseville P2          1       2423     2422   -7.68
St Louis/Duluth P16          1       1531     1530   -28.9
St Louis/Hermantown P3       3       1831     1828   -8.81

*If the proposed corrections were to be made, the resulting total number of votes counted would exceed the number of voters recorded on election day. **There is no "Comfort" precinct in Itasca. There is a "Comfort" in Kanabec County; the Kanabec data is used. Within Exhibit B, the Coleman campaign is not only asserting that 39 ballots were erroneously ignored, but that twelve additional ballots, across three precincts, were cast above and beyond the number of voters present on election day. The Coleman campaign has long argued that a discrepancy between the number of voters and the number of counted votes is reason for concern; they appear to be suggesting that other votes were double counted in these three precincts. The second filing comes not from the Coleman campaign, or the Franken campaign, but instead is an intervention from seven voters who received notification on January 8th, 2009 that their absentee ballots were not counted. Within the eleven page document, their lawyers, Bruce D. Kennedy and Mark Priore, request that the courts intervene during the election contest to review these ballots; they also request that any legal fees be reimbursed under the equal protection clause. The first paragraph of their claim follows:

TO: The Honorable judges of the above-named Court, Norm Coleman, Contestant, Cullen Sheehan, Contestant; and AI Franken, Contestee. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that [seven citizens] desire to collectively intervene in this action pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 and 24.02; and that in the event of objection, they will move this Court for an order granting leave to intervene as a party in this action as soon as the parties may be heard. In the absence of objection by an existing party to this action within 30 days after service of this notice on that party, such intervention shall be deemed to have been accomplished. Source: Notice of Intervention via MNCourts.org [PDF]

It's tough to determine the allegiance of these seven voters especially given the views put forth by Bruce D. Kennedy, their representation. I find it probable that these seven voters do not represent a single constituency. The third document presented to the election contest court centers on the issue of privacy protection; the document is 75 pages. The filing doesn't appear to contain any election specific requests, but rather attempts to establish standards by which information should be cited and presented while upholding privacy and data practice laws. The three judge panel will, in theory, present their ruling of Wednesday's motion to dismiss, tomorrow (Friday) at 12:00 PM CT. During the Friday hearing they will also hear Coleman's version of the headshot, the Motion for Summary Judgment. The entire request is literally presented below and essentially states that the court should just grant all of Coleman's requests and declare Coleman the winner:

Petitioners respectfully request this Court grant judgment as a matter of law in their favor as follows: 1. Directing that Petitioners' absentee ballots shall be opened and counted immediately, and the total be declared and certified, for such use as might be appropriate by the United States Senate, this Court in the above-captioned matter, or any other proper use under law; and 2. Granting Petitioners such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Source: Petitioners' Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment via MNCourts.org [PDF]

This request by Coleman has zero chance of success, or the same chance as Franken's earlier motion for instant victory. Like Franken, Coleman seems to be introducing other beneficial evidence, as described above, into the election contest through the Motion for Summary Judgment. Update [9:09 AM CT]: The courts have denied Franken's motion to dismiss the election contest; this ruling was posted after midnight local time. This is not a surprise. The court cited two main items supporting their decision:

II. Contestee AI Franken's Motion to Dismiss Is Denied a. The Court Is Vested with Jurisdiction to Hear an Election Contest i. Motion to Dismiss Legal Standard
ii. The Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction is Constitutional
iii. The Court Has Jurisdiction Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 209.12. b. Contestants' Notice of Contest Is Sufficient to Withstand a Motion to Dismiss The Court finds the Notice of Contest sufficiently Specifies the grounds on which the contest will be made pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 209.021, subd. 1, specifically referencing absentee ballots, missing ballots, and ballots that were counted twice. Viewing the Notice of Contest in light of relevant case law and construing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to Contestants, the non-moving party, Northern States Power, 122 N.W.2d at 3D, the Court finds the Notice of Contest puts Contestee on notice of the grounds of the contest and affords him a fair opportunity to rebut the asserted claims. See Greenly, 395 N.W.2d at 90; Christenson, 119 N.W.2d at 39. Therefore, the Court finds the pleading sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Source: Order on Contestee's Motion to Dismiss via MNCourts.org [PDF]

The court destroyed Franken's claim, and they are likely to reach the same conclusion after hearing Norm's similar, Motion for Summary Judgment later today. Update [3:44 PM CT]: The MN Election Contest Court published another ruling from yesterday's hearing regarding Coleman's request to have both original and rejected absentee ballots deposited with the court. The motion, by Coleman, was denied:

At the hearing on this matter on the morning of January 22,2009, Contestants stated that their primary reasons for requesting an inspection under Minnesota Statute § 209.06 were to narrow the issues for trial and compare voter rolls to the number of votes cast in a precinct Contestants conceded that they would be able to prove their case without an inspection by calling election judges as witnesses, subpoenaing voter rolls, and subpoenaing ballots. The parties already viewed the ballots during the recount process. Given that the trial of this matter must begin on January 26,2009, the Court is not convinced that another inspection of the ballots is efficient or needed to prepare for trial. Source: Order - relating to Inspection of Ballots and Other Relief with attached Memorandum via MNCourts.org [PDF]

The Coleman campaign can still however subpoena this information (or attempt to) through the election contest process slated to begin next Monday, the 26th of January. The Election Contest Court has not yet reached a decision regarding today's Summary of Judgment Motion; I will publish an analysis of their decision, when it becomes available.

Coleman's Contest Faces First Test

1/21/2009 1:48:43 PM CT

Contrary to popular belief, Franken is not explicitly seeking to dismiss Coleman's election contest. Based upon the actual court filings (there are two), Franken appears to have an alternative motive. Franken has presented, along with a motion to dismiss the entire contest, three other arguments explicitly opposing Coleman's desire to re-review all 12,000 rejected absentee ballots. Franken's motion to dismiss the entire contest contains two arguments and is likely to fail:

[Note: The arguments appear to be misnumbered.] ARGUMENT I: THE COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO HEAR COLEMAN'S CLAIMS BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF CONTEST FALLS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS SET BY MINN. STAT. § 209.12. ARGUMENT III: COLEMAN'S OPPOSITION ERASES ANY DOUBT AS TO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF HIS CLAIMS. Source: MNCourts.org [PDF]

I'm not really going to go into detail about Franken's motion to dismiss the contest because there appear to be actual anomalies within the recount process. The very purpose of an election contest is to ensure that each and every stage of the counting process occurred lawfully. Any indication of malfeasance warrants an audience of the court. The actual purpose of Franken's motion appears to be information gathering; the last 12 pages of the motion contain documents from the Coleman campaign that were previously not available. Franken's other motion regarding the 12,000 rejected absentee ballots, appears to be a valid attempt at preempting Coleman's already slim chances:

ARGUMENT I: COLEMAN'S REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 12,000 ABSENTEE BALLOTS MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE HIS VAGUE AND NON-SPECIFIED CLAIMS REGARDING THOSE BALLOTS LIE BEYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT. ARGUMENT II: AT MOST, ONLY THE BALLOTS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY COLEMAN AND THE ADDITIONAL BALLOTS IDENTIFIED BY FRANKEN ARE RELEVANT TO THIS COURT'S PROCEEDINGS. ARGUMENT III: TRANSPORT AND DEPOSIT OF 12,000 ORIGINAL BALLOTS IS UNNECESSARY AND WASTEFUL WHERE ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION IS GENERALLY ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES. Source: MNCourts.org [PDF]

The court case proceedings will take place at 2:30 PM CT in Ramsey County. The events can be watched live at the Minnesota CBS affiliate WCCO. Update [9:40 PM CT]: The three judge panel has taken the issue under advisement; a timetable for a decision was not provided. Barring this decision, the election contest proceedings will officially begin next Monday, January 26th.

Coleman's Futile Election Contest

1/18/2009 4:04:52 AM CT

The Coleman campaign has long contended that ballots were counted twice in certain precincts due to clerical errors. Within their election contest they explicitly address this issue, and for the first time reveal which precincts meet their double counting criteria; the motion was filled on January 6th, 2009. The Coleman campaign also addresses a few other issues pertaining to appearing ballots and other errors. The contents of this article will focus entirely upon Article 12 of the election contest, beginning on page 4, and the Exhibits referenced therein:

12. By way of example only, erroneously and wrongfully included in the vote totals certified by the Board were a significant and material number of: (a) Ballots which were counted twice during the Recount due to such Ballots being not marked as "DUPLICATES" and matched with its "Original" Ballot in contravention of Minnesota Statutes § 206.86, subd. 5. On information and belief, double-counting has occurred in numerous precincts throughout the State of Minnesota including, without limitation, the precincts described within Exhibit C attached hereto. The Coleman for Senate campaign filed a Petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court seeking to avoid this double-counting, but the Minnesota Supreme Court, pursuant to Order dated December 24, 2008, held that the proper venue for resolution of this issue was an election contest. A true and correct copy of the Minnesota Supreme Court Order dated December 24, 2008 relative to double-counting of original and unmarked duplicate Ballots is attached hereto as Exhibit D; (b) Ballots which were not counted on election night but were "found" and counted during the Recount (despite lack of any chain of custody or other assurance or evidence of the reliability or integrity of such Ballots), which Ballots exceed the number of persons who voted in such precincts on Election Day. This occurred in numerous precincts throughout the State of Minnesota including, without limitation, the precincts described within Exhibit E attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. True and correct copies of documents relating to these precincts are attached as Exhibit F hereto and incorporated herein by reference; (c) Alleged Ballots which were not located or viewed during the Recount but which were "counted" during the Recount and included within Recount totals because they were deemed "missing" by the Board, despite any evidence that such alleged Ballots were actually missing and contrary to Minnesota case law. This occurred in the City of Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1. Accordingly, the Board erroneously and inconsistently certified election-night numbers from this precinct, despite the fact that the Board did not certify election-night numbers from any other precincts during the Recount, including, without limitation, the precincts identified within Exhibit C and Exhibit E attached hereto. True and correct copies of documents relating to the City of Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1 are attached as Exhibit G hereto and incorporated herein by reference; ... (f) Ballots which were challenged by representatives of the Coleman for Senate campaign during the Recount, which challenges were erroneously and inconsistently rejected by the Board and therefore erroneously ruled by the Board as votes for Contestee Al Franken. (g) Ballots which were challenged by representatives of the Franken for Senate campaign, which challenges were erroneously and inconsistently upheld by the Board and therefore erroneously not ruled by the Board as votes for Contestant Norm Coleman. Source: MNCourts.org

Articles 12.D and 12.E govern the improper inclusion or exclusion of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. These articles do not directly reference any supporting evidence due to voter protection laws. The Coleman campaign may have internal data that supports this case, some of which they presented in Exhibit B, but the public release of this information must be cleared with the voter whose ballot they wish to publish. As such, there is no publicly available information pertaining to the complete subset of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Thus, any consideration involving Articles 12.D and 12.E are omitted. The entire election contest contains seven exhibits (A-G); five (C-G) are referenced within Article 12 and are analyzed in detail below. Exhibit A consists of three documents posted on the SOS website pertaining to the recount result. The first document provides a scan of the Certificate of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board acknowledging the result of the recount as signed on January 5th. The second document depicts a scanned copy of the recount results by county as of January 3rd. The final document contains the Senate Recount Canvassing Draft as published on January 4th and presented at the January 5th meeting of the State Canvassing Board. Exhibit B contains the Order of the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision regarding absentee ballots on January 5th. The Exhibit is then divided into Sub-Exhibits, B-1 and B-2. Exhibit B-1 is further divided into four groups, A-D; each of which contains scanned copies of the secrecy labels located on the outside of absentee ballots. Each subgroup contains ballots which were opened and counted during the recount. Exhibit B-2 contains scanned absentee ballot labels which were not opened and counted, but the Coleman campaign alleges that they should have been opened and counted. Let's begin by looking at the evidence the Coleman campaign presents in Exhibit C:

EXHIBIT C: [Page 109 of 204] PRECINCTS IN WHICH DOUBLE VOTES WERE CERTIFIED BY MINNESOTA STATE CANVASSING BOARD [The County/Precinct is the only column listed within the legal brief; the Errors and Margin column have been appended along with the Total row.]

     County/Precinct              Errors   Margin (%)
     Dakota/Eagan P-3                9     Col (4.11)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W2-P5      4    Fra (49.14)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W3-P5      4    Fra (41.11)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W5-P6      2    Fra (66.18)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W7-P6     12    Fra (36.66)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W7-P7      9    Fra (25.25)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W8-P7     11    Fra (65.00)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W8-P10     2    Fra (61.48)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W9-P2      6    Fra (59.37)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P2    11    Fra (53.81)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P4     5    Fra (57.14)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P7     1    Fra (59.38)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W10-P10    0    Fra (52.14)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W11-P7     9    Fra (42.02)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W11-P8    22    Fra (31.88)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W12-P8    14    Fra (47.00)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W13-P1     0    Fra (29.93)
     Hennepin/Minneapolis W13-P3     1    Fra (43.13)
     Hennepin/St. Louis Park W3-P12  1    Fra (25.98)
     Saint Louis/Cedar Valley        0     Fra (9.16)
     Saint Louis/Duluth P4           2    Fra (10.88)
     Saint Louis/Duluth (Gnesen)     1     Fra (5.72)
     Total                          126

Source: MNCourts.org

These 22 precincts originate from an affidavit filed [Original 18.6 MB] in connection to the Coleman campaign's December 19th request to the Minnesota Supreme Court to prevent any ballots from being counted twice. Their original table included one additional precinct:

     County/Precinct              Errors   Margin (%)
     Hennepin/Robbinsdale W-4        1    Fra (27.56)

I have no idea why the Robbinsdale precinct was removed from the election contest brief; although it was the only one, of the 23, to list "N/A" as the challenge reason. Within Article 12.A, the Coleman campaign justifies their inclusion of the 22 precincts included within Exhibit C based upon the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision on December 24th in Exhibit D regarding unmarked duplicate ballots:

EXHIBIT D: [Page 111 of 204] ... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The petition of Norm Coleman for relief from the December 19, 2008 decision of the State Canvassing Board rejecting challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots be, and the same is, denied. But our denial of the relief requested does not constitute a binding determination in a subsequent election contest proceeding. 2. Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order be, and the same is, denied as moot. Dated: December 24, 2008 BY THE COURT Alan C. Page Associate Justice MAGNUSON, C.J., and ANDERSON, G. Barry J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter. ... Source: MNCourts.org

The Minnesota Supreme Court essentially ruled that they could not definitively reach a decision regarding the double counting issue based upon the lack of evidence presented during the oral arguments and within the attached affidavits (case# A08-2206) provided by the Coleman campaign. The Coleman campaign provided just 20 precincts with anomalous voting errors, as listed in Exhibit C, but based upon my work there appears to be 351 precincts which meet the Coleman campaign's classification, and likely the correct interpretation of double counted votes. I've compiled a comprehensive list of Minnesota's 4130 precincts and the ad-hoc absentee ballot precinct into a series of tables, detailing these voting anomalies. These tables are available for download below: By Precinct: PDF, 588 KB
By County: PDF, 112 KB
Composite of All Precincts and Counties: PDF, 604 KB
Anomalous Precincts Sorted Alphabetically and by Errors: PDF, 200 KB Had the Coleman campaign presented all 351 precincts, instead of cherry picking precincts likely to favor their cause, the Supreme Court may have reached a more favorable determination. Instead the Coleman campaign is left fighting an election contest, which may have happened anyway. Let's take a look at a few possible outcomes regarding double counting in these 351 precincts:

Error            Anomalous          Won By         Coleman
List             Precincts  Franken  Coleman  Tie    Gain
Exhibit C            22        21       1      0     50.9
VoteForAmerica[1]    9         8        1      0    -26.9
VoteForAmerica[2]   351       176      173     2     44.3
VoteForAmerica[3]    3         2        1      2     46.8
VFA Composite[4]    356       178      175     2     74.2
Maplewood P-06       1         1        0      0     13.2
St. Paul W-3 P-09    1         1        0      0      3.9

(1) References non-zero entries within the "Total Voters 11/4 - Pre-Recount Results 11/17" column of the "Anomalous Results" section from any of the precinct level PDFs provided above. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are not included in this list. (2) References non-zero entries within the "Total Voters 11/4 - Final Recount Results 1/5" column. This list matches the classification used by the Coleman campaign within Exhibit C and is bolded for this reason. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are included in this list. (3) References non-zero entries within the "Registered Voters 11/4 - Final Recount Results 1/5" column. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are not included in this list. (4) References non-zero summations of all three columns present within the "Anomalous Results" section from any of the precinct level PDFs provided above. Maplewood P-06 and St. Paul W-3 P-09 are not included in this list. Note: The ad-hoc absentee ballot precinct is not included in any of calculations above. Minneapolis W-3 P-01 is not included in any of the VFA error lists because there were no errors recorded in any of the three columns present within the "Anomalous Results" section from any of the precinct level PDFs provided above. After the final day of challenge resolutions on Friday, December 18th, the Coleman campaign knew they trailed. While the public was unaware of how the withdrawn challenges would lie, my guess is that both campaigns had a fairly good idea of their probable outcome; which eventually resulted in a Franken lead of between 46 and 50 depending upon the day and the source. The very next day, on Saturday the 19th of December, the Coleman campaign filed their case with the Minnesota Supreme Court containing their original list of potentially double counted ballots as discussed previously. The Coleman campaign knew going into the filing that they trailed by about 50 votes and they knew that their list of double counted ballots would probably net them about 50 votes with just the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots left to count. The Franken campaign had long attempted to include these wrongfully rejected absentee ballots because it would likely add to their vote total; the Coleman campaign seemed to embrace this reasoning. Had the Coleman campaign submitted a more comprehensive list of potentially double counted ballots, say a list containing 351 precincts, the Supreme Court may have reached a different conclusion. The Coleman campaign could have lead going into the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots stage; they would have then been in a position to essentially bypass the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots based on the Supreme Court's later ruling. The Coleman campaign could have been in a vastly superior position had they take into account the interest of all Minnesotans, rather than just the Minnesotans in a select 22 precincts. Coleman would likely have been certified the winner and it would be Franken filing the election contest seeking to include the absentee ballots which the Coleman campaign would have likely vetoed. Instead it is Coleman arguing for additional votes. The following three Exhibits illustrate specific precincts in which the Coleman campaign believes systematic errors occurred that "artificially" benefited Franken's vote total:

EXHIBIT E: [Page 118 of 204] DESCRIPTION OF PRECINCTS IN WHICH MORE BALLOTS WERE COUNTED DURING THE RECOUNT THAN PERSONS VOTED ON ELECTION NIGHT Maplewood Precinct 6: The election night totals indicated 1,396 votes cast (inclusive of accepted absentee ballots). However, the Recount tallied 1,564 votes cast although only 1,533 voters cast ballots according to the precinct's record of pre-registered voters, election day registrants and accepted absentee ballots. Hence, an excess of thirty-one (31) more votes than voters were certified by the Board relative to this precinct in the Recount. St. Paul Ward 3, Precinct 9: The election night totals indicated 1,747 votes cast (inclusive of accepted absentee ballots). However, the Recount tallied 1,764 votes cast. Hence, an excess of seventeen (17) more votes than voters were certified by the Board relative to this precinct in the Recount. Source: MNCourts.org

I have absolutely no idea how the Coleman campaign arrived at the 1533 number described within the preceding quote. The total voters per precinct data that I used in my calculations was accessed at the Secretary of State's website on January 12th; I compared this data to a subset of the same data as accessed on November 24th. From this comparison, Hennepin County's total voter data increased by 8 votes. I could not identify which precinct(s) were affected in Hennepin County as I do not have a complete set of precinct data from November 24th; I have data from about 3400 of Minnesota's 4130 precincts and a complete overview of the count by county. Each of these 3400 precincts and all other counties remained completely unchanged from November 24th to January 12th. It is entirely possible that the data available before November 24th presented different information and that is where the Coleman campaigns gets their 1533 figure. The data provided in the contest brief relating to St Paul's 3rd Ward and 9th precinct are much more agreeable to the data I used:

                   Maplewood P-06  St. Paul W-3 P-09
Candidate              Votes             Votes
DEAN BARKLEY (IP)   197 (14.24%)     223 (14.24%)
NORM COLEMAN (R)    542 (39.19%)     563 (39.19%)
AL FRANKEN (DFL)    628 (45.41%)     933 (45.41%)
OTHER                16 (1.16%)       8 (1.16%)

NOV 4TH TOTAL      1383 (Fra +86)   1727 (Fra +370)
FINAL RECOUNT      1564 (Fra +123)  1765 (Fra +386)
TOTAL VOTERS            1396              1747

FINAL - VOTERS           168               18

I think it's fairly safe to say that something unusual happened in both of the preceding precincts. While St. Paul W-3 P-09 seems to be a standalone anomaly, that will eventually benefit Coleman, Maplewood P-06 is another story. The Coleman campaign further addresses this precinct, and the issues surrounding it in Exhibit F:

EXHIBIT F: [Page 120 of 204] DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO BALLOTS "FOUND" DURING THE RECOUNT BUT WHICH LACK ANY CHAIN OF CUSTODY OR VERIFICATION AS TO RELIABILITY ... It is our understanding that you have not yet located any voter registration applications relative to the 171 additional ballots allegedly "found" in a voting machine in Maplewood Precinct 6, despite your assertions to the Star Tribune (in an article posted online yesterday afternoon) that these applications had already been found. ... According to the statistical information provided by the election judges to the Maplewood city clerk, a total of 1,396 persons voted on Election Day. That was also the number of votes reported as cast by the summary statement tapes from the ballot counter. Since the total voting reported by the election judges agreed with the total number of ballots cast on the summary statement tape from the ballot counter, there was no reason at the time to believe that there was any problem with either of these data. At the conclusion of the recount for that precinct, it became clear that the summary statement tape did not accurately reflect the number of persons and how they had voted. After reviewing the pre-registered polling place roster, the voter registration cards of election day registrants, and the accepted absentee ballot return envelopes, we have determined that the voter statistics submitted by the election judges were also in error. We have determined from the recount that a total of 1,564 ballots were cast at that precinct. From an examination of the voter registration and absentee voting materials, we can confirm that 1,560 persons voted. It is possible that the other four voters were issued a ballot without signing the polling place roster, but at this point we do not know this for a fact. We will continue to examine the materials in our possession and will inform you if we are able to resolve this matter. ... Source: MNCourts.org

I honestly have no idea what to think of Maplewood P-06, but we do know that Franken gained 37 votes from the late inclusion of the 171 ballots referenced above within Exhibit F. Coleman's entire case may rest on the possibility of these 37 votes affecting the outcome. For now we'll move onto another weird scenario discussed in the next exhibit:

EXHIBIT G: [Page 129 of 204] DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS WARD 3 PRECINCT I ... While only 1,896 ballots were produced, the figures furnished to the campaigns by Minneapolis elections official Cindy Reichert show that at least 2,028 people voted on Election Day. The machine tape for Precinct 3-1 shows that 2,028 voters cast ballots. Further, according to Ms. Reichert: 1,047 people signed the roster; 932 people were new registrants; and 50 absentee ballots were accepted. The total of these is 2,029. Further, Minneapolis reported that 1,965 people cast votes in the U.S. Senate race. In other words, there are 133 missing ballots. ... Source: MNCourts.org

At first glance this Minneapolis precinct appears to mirror the situation of Maplewood P-06; but the correlation between the number of acknowledged voters and the number of recorded votes on November 4th yields fairly conclusive evidence to support the assertion that 133 ballots were in fact lost. There is additional evidence beyond this numerical correlation to support the lost ballot theory. Minneapolis Elections Director Cindy Reichert stated that there were five envelopes containing ballots in Minneapolis W-3 P-01; of these five envelopes, the first is missing while the remaining four envelopes and the ballots contained therein were located. A more official report from Hennepin County suggests that there may have actually been six envelopes; the report also concludes that an envelope label "1 of 5" is likely missing containing the suspicious 131 ballots. The reversion to original election day tally netted Franken an additional 46 votes. Regarding Articles 12.F and 12.G: The Coleman campaign had an opportunity to re-challenge the challenge ballot determinations of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board on December 23rd. The Coleman campaign presented a list of 16 ballots which they believed merited reconsideration. They also included 24 similar ballots that they believed supported their objective. The Board reviewed these 40 ballots, and nothing happened. If past performance is any indication of future success, it doesn't appear as though the Coleman campaign has a serious case regarding "challenges [which] were erroneously" ruled upon by the State Canvassing Board. The ballots in question can be viewed on the StarTribune website, at least until they're forced to close shop. With Franken currently certified as the recount winner by 225 votes, Coleman faces a tough battle. If we go through each Exhibit presented within this article and extract any votes that may potentially be added to any candidate, Coleman does not retake the lead:

     Precinct                                      Coleman 
     List                                            Gain
     VFA Composite[4]                                74.2
  -  Maplewood P-06 Projection                       13.2
  -  St. Paul W-3 P-09 Projection                     3.9
 ---------------------------------------------------------
     Coleman's Best Case Double Counted Result       57.1
  +  Maplewood P-06 Late Inclusion of 171 Ballots    37.0
  +  St. Paul W-3 P-09 Late Inclusion of 38 Ballots  16.0
  +  Minneapolis W-3 P-01's 131 Lost Ballots         46.0
 ---------------------------------------------------------
     Coleman's Best Case Election Contest Gain      156.1

Norm Coleman is unlikely to pick up enough votes during his election contest to overcome the current deficit. Coleman may have to rely on absentee ballots if he hopes to mount any sort of comeback. Based upon Norm's past performance in the realm of absentee ballots it will most certainly be an uphill climb. The first step of the election contest occurred on January 12th when MN Supreme Court Justice Alan Page appointed the three member judicial panel tasked with presiding over the election contest; the appointed members are as follows: Elizabeth Hayden: Stearns County Judge, appointed in 1986 by Democratic Governor Perpich. Denise Reilly: Hennepin County Asst. Chief Judge , appointed in 1997 by Republican Governor Carlson. Kurt Marben: Pennington County Asst. Chief Judge , appointed in 2000 by Independent Governor Ventura. The next step of the process occurs on January 21st when the panel will meet to address Franken's motion to dismiss part of Coleman's election contest. This will not be granted, the election contest will proceed. The actual contest will begin on January 26th but the actual agenda for that date has not yet been set.

Is Coleman Fighting Human Error?

1/7/2009 4:26:31 AM CT

Yesterday, Norm Coleman made his first public appearance since the State Canvassing Board certified Franken the recount victor. During his speech, Norm stated that "Minnesotans deserve 100 percent confidence that their senator was fairly elected," this is true, but Norm Coleman will not win an election contest arguing that Minnesotans only have 99% confidence in the veracity of the recount. Coleman is hanging his hat on a series of oddities, totaling less than the margin of defeat. The cornerstone of their arguement rests upon the double counting issue and the 171 ballots that turned up relatively late during Ramsey County's recount process. I've compiled a table detailing the breakdown of anomalous results within each of Ramsey County's 178 precincts. Based upon relatively simple math, it appears as though 350 more ballots were counted above and beyond the total number of actual voters; the number of votes does not exceed the number of registered voters in any precinct. This 350 vote discrepancy can mostly be explained based upon the events after November 4th. We know that 171 ballots were found in Maplewood P-6 that were not present on election day; thus they could not be counted as actual votes. Reading through my table, there is a 168 vote difference between recounted votes and total voters in Maplewood's sixth precinct. If these 171 are valid to begin with, there is actually a nine vote drop off between the number of voters and votes cast; a consistent correlation in relation to the rest of Ramsey County's 177 precincts. Subtracting these 171 votes from 350 yields a diminishing discrepancy of 179. This number can further be reduced based upon the 71 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots present within Ramsey County. That leaves 108 anomalous votes, or just .0388% of all votes cast in Ramsey County. That's fewer than one error per precinct, well within the realm of human error.

Reporter A: Is this process fair and accurate and true and are the results that you announced today accurate? Mark Ritchie: As accurate as was humanly possible within Minnesota law. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:06:12, 71 MB)

Norm's argument is not without merit however; if the .0388% error rate is extrapolated onto the state's 2,887,337 Senate votes, the resulting calculation yields 1,120 potentially erroneous votes. Coleman would need to win these potentially erroneous votes by over 60% of the two way vote to overcome the current margin of 225. Not only are the numbers stacked against Coleman's election contest, but the very core of his argument hinges upon correcting human error. Based upon the actual court documents, Norm is arguing that "numerous and material errors, mistakes and other irregularities" occurred during the initial canvass, the re-canvass and the recount. Note: The entire premise of this article rests upon the inaccuracy of the "Total Voters in Precinct" column based upon the unlikelihood of that column's pre-recount value remaining consistent through the recounted result, despite an addition to the total number of ballots counted. Update [1/13 4:37 AM CT]: Just a small, but very important correction. The 171 ballots that were not counted on election night in Maplewood were not specifically absentee ballots according to an article published by Minnesota Public Radio; they may have been absentee ballots, but that detail is unknown. It does however appear as though these 171 ballots were not included in the November 4th voter records:

The election judges apparently didn't run some ballots through the ballot counter after their ballot counter had gone down during the day. So, we had apparently more ballots in the box than we had on the tape. Source: Minnesota Public Radio

This statement by a Ramsey County election official affirms my explanation for the discrepancy between the November 4th voter records and the recounted vote totals within Maplewood's Sixth Precinct. The election night discrepancy of 31 votes still remains unexplained. These 171 ballots may have been sporadically counted when they were initially run through the machine; whether that means votes were counted twice, or simply the presence of a ballot remains unknown; its even possible that something entirely different happened, we simply don't know. In any case its unlikely to make a difference in Coleman's legal contest.

Franken Wins, Coleman Contests

1/6/2009 2:55:22 PM CT

The Minnesota State Canvassing Board has certified the result of the Senate Recount. I've got complete video and excerpts from the four major events that took place yesterday in the Minnesota Senate race. I'll start with the complete proceedings of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board:

Gary Poser: And on page nine [of this document] our final vote totals, starting with Mr. Barkley with 437,505. Coleman with a, 1,212,206. Franken with 1,212,431. Aldrich the 13,923 and Niemackl the 8,907. Followed by the write-ins and registered write-in candidates on the succeeding pages. These vote totals then included all of the votes from the recount, including any absentees that were counted on Saturday. I have presented in these reports for your consideration. Let me ask for any questions. Mark Ritchie: Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Poser? Do I have a motion to accept the Recount Canvassing Report as presented by Mr. Poser? Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Eric Magnuson: So moved. Mark Ritchie: Is there a second? Ramsey County District Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin: Second. Mark Ritchie: All in favor say "I." Five Member Minnesota State Canvassing Board in Unison: I. Mark Ritchie: Opposed, same sign. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:19:07, 219 MB)

There you have it, Franken wins the recount. The board agreed to the result and eventually went on to sign the recount certificate officially designating the result. This certificate is different than the election certificate that will eventually be cosigned by Gov. Pawlenty and SOS Ritchie; this certificate simply states that the votes have been counted and the canvassing process has concluded. The Coleman campaign then immediately announced their intent to contest the result of the State Canvassing Board:

Tony Trimble: The actions today by the Canvassing Board are but the first step in what unfortunately will have to be a longer process. This process isn't at an end; it is now just at the beginning. We will contest the results, of the Canvassing Board; otherwise literally millions of Minnesotans will be disenfranchised. While we appreciate the effort of the Canvassing Board to do the work, the reality is that any certification of the vote totals at this point is only preliminary. ... Reporter A: Do we need to do a whole other recount? Fritz Knaak: Well in theory the answer to that question is yes, but that would depend on the parties and what the parties can agree to in the process of the recount. Our expectation is, what usually happens and Tony you can, I haven't anytime on that of course, but a our expectation is that we will reach an agreement as to a proposal. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:17:04, 194 MB)

The Franken campaign took a remarkably different approach during their press conference, which was to be expected:

Marc Elias: Today is a great day for the people of Minnesota. I stand before you proudly, as the attorney for the next Senator from state, Senator-Elect Al Franken. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:11:05, 127 MB)

Marc Elias also announced that Al Franken would not travel to Washington DC to be sworn in today. Finally, Mark Ritchie held a brief press conference; I missed the first ten seconds or so because I caching video I had already recorded, but nothing notable happened during this time.

Reporter B: Is this process fair and accurate and true and are the results that you announced today accurate? Mark Ritchie: As accurate as was humanly possible within Minnesota law. And the issues that were corrected by the State Supreme Court. For those voters in Baghdad and Kuwait whose ballots came in one day late and who were not included in the election, it breaks my heart. And we need to look at some of those issues, but this number that we came to today, 99.97% of the decisions at the local level were agreed to by both candidate's representatives and local officials. So that is an incredible agreement at the local level. 95% of the ballots that were challenged, we all agreed to 5-0 in the State Canvassing Board. All of the big decisions of the State Canvassing Board were 5-0 consensus and there were zero challenges to the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots counted on Saturday. So every step of the process has been one at a time, slow and meticulous, incredible consensus; this number is the culmination of that consensus process. Reporter C: Mr. Secretary, do you believe that all lawful votes that were cast in this election were counted? Or are there some that were not and why was that and does that concern you? Mark Ritchie: Well, within the order of the Supreme Court and within the laws of the State of Minnesota I believe all lawful votes were counted. ... Reporter D: D you give me an idea how much the recount cost. Initially you said it would be about $75,000 do you know yet? Mark Ritchie: We, our professional election staff anticipated there would be a recount, we made an agreement with the local officials, 3 cents a ballot, that was about $90,000. There's probably been another equivalent to that amount for all the copying, all the setup, everything else; this was going to cost somewhere around $200,000, or a little more. The other plan that the Secretary of States office here had developed in the past to do a statewide recount was actually estimated to be 2 million dollars. That was the process of bringing all the ballots to St. Paul and counting them. So this cost about one-tenth of what had been previously estimated, would be the cost of a statewide recount. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:06:12, 71 MB)

I'll update my maps either later tonight or tomorrow and post another article detailing the empirical results of the recount. Note: If you are having trouble watching the embedded video I would recommend centering your screen on the video you want to watch and then refreshing your browser. For some reason this seems to work. If the embedded video still does not work I would simply download the file by right clicking and selecting "Save as..." from the resulting menu.

Counting Rejected Absentee Ballots

1/5/2009 1:14:56 AM CT

Before I delve into Saturday's result, I want to focus on the process. Friday, the 2nd of January, marked the deadline imposed by the Minnesota Supreme Court for individual counties to report their re-review of previously rejected absentee ballots. The following exchange, following the most recent canvassing board meeting on December 30th, by Mark Ritchie (the Minnesota Secretary of State) provides additional insight into the process; ignore the notification portion for the moment:

Reporter A: My understanding of the process is, if any one party doesn't agree, it is an improperly rejected absentee ballot. The voter then gets a note explaining it so they can take further steps. On the ones that Coleman says we need to take a look at, if they're not going to get looked at, are those voters going to get that note; per your understanding. Mark Ritchie: There are 12,000 voters whose absentee ballots were rejected. There were 1,350 that the local election officials identified under the supreme court ordered procedure, our responsibility under that order, and under procedure is notification of those identified by the local election official. Part 1 Video: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:10:55, 125 MB) Part 2 Audio: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:11:27, 1.06 MB)

Based upon Mark Ritchie's statement, there were around 12,000 rejected absentee ballots spread throughout Minnesota's 87 counties. From this list, the county election officials created a new pile containing 1,350 absentee ballots that should have and should be counted, but were not for whatever reason. The Venn Diagram below illustrates the relationship between the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots and all other ballot subsets: While the counties narrowed the list down, election officials still had work to do. Per the Supreme Court order, both campaigns and the county election representative are required to agree before a ballot can be marked for inclusion into the wrongfully rejected pile, in preparation for counting. At this point nobody knew how a given ballot was cast, they were simply deciding whether the outer envelope, immediately containing the ballot, should be opened and examined by election officials.

In Hennepin County, Democrat Al Franken's campaign quickly blocked an attempt by Sen. Norm Coleman to add ballots to the 329 rejected absentee ballots county officials were ready to consider. ... So with no agreement, the two campaigns watched as county officials slowly went through each of the 329 ballots, starting with 38 ballots in Bloomington, the county's second largest city. After nearly an hour, the campaigns accepted 26 ballots from Bloomington and rejected 12 others. Of the 12 rejections, the Coleman campaign accounted for eight, and Franken blocked the other four. Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

Upon completion of this agreement process, 955 ballots emerged in the wrongfully rejected pile awaiting to be counted. The counting process for these ballots worked exactly the same way as within previous phases of the recount; each campaign was allotted equal representation and were allowed to challenge the ruling of the election official. The challenges from the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots, if there are any, will be reviewed during Monday's meeting. While there is no official tabulation detailing the votes gained in each county (or precinct), the SOS did provide a spreadsheet detailing the number of wrongfully rejected absentee ballots present in each county. I've created an animated map depicting the relationship between the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots and residual votes: After all was said and done, and the votes were counted on Saturday, Franken gained 176 votes:

      Candidate      Additive Absentees     Total Votes
      Franken (D)            481             1,212,431
      Coleman (R)            305             1,212,206	

      Current Margin: Franken +225

At this point the election is essentially over, but the road may take a few additional turns. If you remember the quote earlier, by Mark Ritchie, the State of Minnesota is required by law to notify the 395 voters whose absentee ballots were initially identified in the 1,350 originally set aside by county election officials but were not included in the final 955. It is within a voter's legal right to challenge, in court, for the inclusion of their vote. It is possible, but not probable for those 395 votes to alter the current outcome pending the result of individual lawsuits. The Coleman campaign has acknowledged an additional 654 absentee ballots which they believe merit inclusion; the MN Supreme Court seems to disagree. The State will not be notifying voters who are identified within these 654 ballots. Norm Coleman has also signified his commitment to challenging the election result should he lose. The State Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow at 2:30 PM CT to tie up any lose ends and review any challenges. I'll have an update after the meeting adjourns around 5:30 PM CT depending upon traffic.

Board Meets, Finalizes Challenges

12/30/2008 11:35:46 AM CT

The Minnesota State Canvassing Board met today, at 9 AM CT, to finalize all challenge resolutions. Each campaign brought forth a series of ballots that were believed to have been inaccurately allocated. At the end of the day, Franken gained 6 votes and Coleman added 2 for a net Franken gain of 4 votes. This addition extends Franken's lead to 50. The final seven and a half minutes of the of the Canvassing Board's discussion can be viewed below or downloaded (*.wmv, 00:07:41, 87.7 MB):

Shortly after the Canvassing board concluded, Marc Elias, Franken's lead lawyer, conducted a brief press conference. Below is an excerpt followed by the full video:

Marc Elias: And now with everything except for the absentee ballots counted we are leading by 50 votes. We could not be more thrilled with where we stand, in this process. This recount has gone exceptionally well. ... Marc Elias: At every stage we have gained votes. And we have every reason to believe that will be true of the absentee ballot review as well. As you know we made an offer to accept all thirteen hundred and fifty of them, because we are confident that if all those were counted we would gain even more votes. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:03:56, 45.5 MB)

Tony Trimble then discussed the Coleman campaign's view of the recount proceedings in a lengthier proceeding. An excerpt is available below followed by the video:

Tony Trimble: The Canvassing Board, as we all know, has not taken care of the duplicate voting, the double voting thats occured in Minneapolis. We are faced with an artificial Franken lead, of a, double digits is all. There were a hundred double counted ballots, actually a hundred and ten doubled counted ballots that will wipe out that lead and keep Coleman, justifiably in front. That's where we stand today. ... Reporter A: If you have that faith in local officials, why are you not accepting their list of the thirteen hundred? Tony Trimble: We have faith in local officials, they're going do the right thing. But we have brought to their attention, and the Franken campaign's attention, that there is another stack, a small stack ten to twelve thousand that ought to be reviewed. And we have faith that they will produce those, and show those to the Franken folks [so that they can agree]. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:09:51, 113 MB)

Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie then held a Press Conference. The first, probably ten minutes, pertained directly to the recount; the second half focused on some of the legislative responsibilities of the Secretary of State. I only have the first portion in video form, but the second portion is still available, and pretty interesting. The video portion is available below along with an excerpt from part one:

Mark Ritchie: To my knowledge neither of the campaigns even attempted to get agreement from the other campaign to meet this requirement. So as of three o'clock yesterday this agreement made by both campaigns, the local elections officials, and our office was that by three they had to have agreement by both campaigns to add any additional challenges. It is not that complicated of a rule. It is under the order of the SC of MN. Its a very straight forward thing that's fairly easy to read and interpret. If anybody would like to ask for further clarification on whether this rule should be changed they should say that, but that's a different thing than saying the rule does not exist. Reporter A: So the rules says that after 3 PM you cannot add to pile 5, except by mutual agreement. Mark Ritchie: Correct. Part 1 Video: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wmv, 00:10:55, 125 MB) Part 2 Audio: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:11:27, 1.06 MB)

The only remaining step, for the Canvassing Board, revolves around acknowledging sum potential 1,350 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. The board will meet on January 5th and 6th from 2:30 to 5:00 PM CT. During this time, the five member committee will review the challenged absentee ballots before they allocated. It is possible, perhaps even probable that on January 6th the State Canvasing Board will declare that one of the candidates has received the most votes. This is not to be confused with an election certificate. Acknowledging the receiver of the most votes does not imply certification. Once it is known who received the most votes, the loser may request an "election contest" within seven days. If a contest does occur, the winner is officially certified after the resolution of that contest. If there is no contest, the winner is certified seven days later. Minnesota will not have a second Senator on January 6th, the would-be day of admittance.

The Coleman Response

12/29/2008 11:32:00 AM CT

The following conversation occurred last Tuesday, December 23rd, after the State Canvassing Board adjourned, but before the Minnesota Supreme Court convened that afternoon. This pseudo-press conference involved two members of Coleman's legal counsel; Fritz Knaak and Tony Trimble. Summary: The Coleman campaign believes there are about 20 allocation errors pertaining to the challenged ballots that will directly benefit Coleman's vote count. They believe that the Franken campaign has issues with just a third of that number.

Fritz Knaak: A well, we think that there are any of a number of situations where they failed to count Coleman votes, there in the reconciliation process. I think Tony, maybe if you want to weigh in on that, but a -- Tony Trimble: Sure. Fritz Knaak: We're quite confident they just missed a few. Tony Trimble: We provided to the SOS and the Franken campaign today with a list of 20 ballots that were allocated incorrectly. They have quite a task ahead working on the spreadsheet with some sixty six hundred ballots to allocate and so over the weekend it's not to be unexpected that there might be a few clerical mistakes. But we have located 20 clerical mistakes in which votes that should have been allocated to Norn Coleman, err Senator Coleman where instead allocated to the other column meaning Barkley or another candidate. And also a handful that were allocated to Franken and of course if you deduct, redact the Franken vote and put it in the correct vote one which is the Coleman vote that's a two vote gain right there. That's a substantial correction and you'll note that the Franken campaign had a very very tiny list of reconciliation that they submitted today; not even a third of the size of ours. We picked up a goodly number of votes today just on reconciliations, so far. Reporter B: How many ballots or still in your reconciliation pile? Tony Trimble: We're still going through that, we submitted 20 today. But there is another dozen or so that were crosschecked and of course both campaigns, this is not done yet, both campaigns are scouring the list, as they should, to make sure that the count, at least the allocation of these challenges rolls was made correctly. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:07:28)
Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:07:45)

The next quote picks up where the last quote ended. Summary: The Coleman lawyers seem to have a disagreement regarding the release of some internal information. Tony Trimble starts to answer a question, but is semi-interrupted by Fritz Knaak; Tony Trimble then states that there are two or three challenges that were allocated to Franken that should be allocated to Coleman. Apparently Fritz Knaak did not want this count to be public knowledge. The Coleman campaign still believes they can overcome the StarTribune reported 47 vote discrepancy; the StarTribune is now reprting a 46 vote lead for Franken.

Reporter C: How many are there of the two for one variety? Tony Trimble: I'd have to go back to the list but it was a -- Fritz Knaak: We can't specify that -- Tony Trimble: it was a, two or three at least. Fritz Knaak: We're expecting more. Understand that this is an ongoing process and we're, I think we're mostly done but a, at this point the staff is still working through these. Reporter D: Is it enough to overcome the 47 votes? Tony Trimble: We sure think so; we were quite pleased with the results from last night's review. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:07:28)
Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:07:45)

The following quote preceded the two already listed, by about three minutes. No summary required.

Reporter A: Can you win without a favorable decision from the supreme court? Fritz Knaak: Yes we can. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:07:28)
Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:07:45)

At this point, on December 23rd, the Coleman campaign apparently thought they could still win by overcoming the current deficit without a favorable Supreme Court ruling. This stance appears to have changed. On December 24th, after the Supreme Court ruled against Coleman's petition, the Coleman campaign released the following statement:

The decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court today virtually guarantees two things in this recount. One: it ensures that there will be an election contest because Minnesotans simply will not support an election as close as this being decided by some votes being counted twice. Two: this ensures that no certificate of election will be issued due to an election contest inevitably being filed, leaving Minnesota without two sitting United States Senators on January 6th. Source: Norm Coleman for Senate

Thus, one of two things occured; either something caused their internal count to change (which we'll never know, because they don't release that information), or the Coleman campaign never actually thought they could win, without the need for an election contest, based upon the challenged ballot returns. In either case we'll all find out more tomorrow, when the State Canvassing Board meets again at 9 AM CT to finalize all 6,688 challenge resolutions. I think its fairly safe to say that the Coleman campaign believes they will lose amongst the rougly 1,600 yet to be counted absentee ballots based upon their already announced intent of challenging, what they perceive to be, the outcome of the recount.

State of the Minnesota Senate Recount

12/25/2008 7:41:42 PM CT

Just a quick holiday update on the Minnesota Senate Recount. Each of Minnesota's 4130 precincts completed reporting on December 12th, the result follows:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,208,935   -   1,210,995  =  -2,060
Franken:   1,208,747   -   1,210,285  =  -1,538

Current Margin: Coleman +188
Precincts Recounted: 100% (4130 of 4130)

There was an additional 6,688 challenged ballots still left to be decided. On Monday, December 22nd, the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office posted a draft quality spreadsheet containing a proposed resolution for all 6,688 challenges. Drawing from my previous tabulation:

Candidate     Challenges  ->Coleman  ->Franken  ->Other
Coleman (R)     3,404         32       3,125      247
Franken (D)     3,296       2,926        71       299
Both              12          3          5         4
Total           6,688       2,955      3,191      478

Challenge Margin: Franken +236

Now if the precinct's reported recount results are combined with the draft result of the challenge resolutions, the horserace stands as follows:

      Precinct Recount Margin:  Coleman +188
      Challenge Draft Margin: Franken +236
      Current Recount Margin: Franken +48

Franken is not yet the winner however, there are still ballots left to be counted; about 1,600 according to MN SOS Mark Ritchie. According to the StarTribune there are at least 727 wrongfully rejected absentee ballots from 54 of Minnesota's 87 counties. The remaining counties have yet to finalize their count, but each county has until January 2nd to report their totals. The canvassing board meets next Tuesday, December 30th, to finalize the challenge resolutions. I will hopefully have a live stream of the proceedings and the subsequent press conferences.

MN Supreme Court Reaches Decision

12/24/2008 4:05:15 PM CT

The Supreme Court has ruled:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The petition of Norm Coleman for relief from the December 19, 2008 decision of the State Canvassing Board rejecting challenges to unmatched original damaged ballots be, and the same is, denied. But our denial of the relief requested does not constitute a binding determination in a subsequent election contest proceeding. 2. Petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order be, and the same is, denied as moot. Dated: December 24, 2008 BY THE COURT Alan C. Page Associate Justice MAGNUSON, C.J., and ANDERSON, G. Barry J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter. Source: MNCourts.gov

This appears to be good news for the Franken campaign, but they are likely to remain apprehensive over the following line from the ruling:

But our denial of the relief requested does not constitute a binding determination in a subsequent election contest proceeding. Source: MNCourts.gov

Unless I am mistaken, which I very well could be (I'm not a legal expert) why couldn't the Coleman campaign just take their petition to an "election contest proceeding?" This ruling appears to be good news for Franken, but I'm not certain the issue is actually resolved. From a legal standpoint Coleman is helpless, at least until a winner is certified; as an "election contest" implies contesting the result of an election after a winner has been certified. The State Canvassing Board could require that each county double check their count to try and preempt any such election contest, but even then an election contest seems likely.

MN Senate Recount Audio

12/23/2008 4:02:56 PM CT

Here's an audio recap of the recount events that took place today. The audio isn't great, but the content is still discernible, despite some obvious background artifacts; the time is presented as HH:MM:SS. The first recording comes from a pseudo press conference conducted with two members of Coleman's legal counsel, Tony Trimble and Fritz Knaak:

Coleman's Counsel: We see the number as much better from our point of view. We'll know more after we've had this dialogue with the Secretary of State. Reporter A: What's your internal count at? Coleman's Counsel: Our internal count is a, something we don't share. Reporter B: Why is that? Coleman's Counsel: Because we don't, as a matter of policy; very early on we decided. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:07:28)
Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:07:45)

There are essentially only two reasons why they don't want to reveal their internal count. The most likely scenario is that their internal numbers actually show that they are trailing; and secondly they simply do not have an internal count. I find the second option very unlikely, basically impossible. The campaign has demonstrated no restraint when it comes to declaring victory. I think if they thought they were winning, we would all know that they thought they were winning. Hence because they are not stammering about their lead, they are in fact, not in the lead. The next event was the press conference conducted by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie:

Reporter A: Is it almost certain that there is not going to be a winner certified by January 6th, when they're supposed to be sworn in? Is that being taken into consideration? Sec. Mark Ritchie: Absolutely not a consideration. I have until November 2010, personally. The 5th and 6th [of January] we have scheduled from 2:00 to 5:30 both days [for the canvassing board to meet]. ... Reporter B: Can a winner be certified by January 6th? Sec. Mark Ritchie: If the stars align...Our top priority is accuracy and transparency. And the timing thing is just not our issue. You know I want to put an underline: we don't care as long as it's accurate and is done in a transparent way. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 00:26:10)
Video: TheUpTake.org via Qik.com (00:09:19)

Finally the MN Supreme Court met to decide, once and for all, whether the case made by the Coleman campaign regarding the supposed inclusion of doubly counted ballots should be reexamined. A decision has not yet been reached, but the Supreme Court is allowed to take as much time as necessary; expect a decision by tomorrow evening:

Supreme Court Justice: Where have you shown to us, that there is, there are [more] votes counted in any given precinct than the number of voters as would be determined under §204C.20. Source: VoteForAmerica.net (*.wav, 1:04:38)
Video: TPT.org via MNCourts.gov (01:03:47)

I personally find it very likely that the petition, as put forth by the Coleman campaign, will fail; but I am not a great supreme court mind. My verdict is based entirely on my interpretation of the proceedings.

The Canvassing Board Meets

12/23/2008 9:30:48 AM CT

The entire proceeding can be watched live, at TheUpTake.org. 9:25 AM CT: The board is discussing the possibility of going back into the pile of challenges to re-review some questionable ballots. There are apparently 16 ballots that were marked with an X; from these 16 ballots, the board discerned that the X was written in a "different ink," or on a different plane (above or below another mark) on the ballot. 9:31 AM CT: The board is now considering whether to actual "pull" and review those ballots. Apparently it would result in reviewing 40 total ballots due to the comparisons requested; the clerk estimated that the review would take about half an hour. 9:33 AM CT: If they review those 16 ballots, as requested by the Coleman campaign -- which would require 40 total ballots to be reviewed -- the Franken campaign has argued that they also have a select group of ballots they would like to have re-reviewed. 9:35 AM CT: An hour long recess is forthcoming as they sort through the challenges and "pull" the 40 ballots in question. Recess until 10:30 AM CT. 9:47 AM CT: On a side note; Coleman counsel, Fritz Knaak was just semi-complaining about the recess. After the recess, Mr. Knaak preceded to the back of the room to get his get something in his laptop bag. On the way, a member of the audience asked Mr. Knaak if "[he] got paid" for waiting. Mr. Knaak responded by saying, "wait, its what lawyers do." At the same moment in time, Franken counsel, Marc Elias was talking with a group of about four people who were laughing. Bottom line: Knaak is nervous and Elias seems at ease. In the meantime, let's look at the composition of the Minnesota Supreme Court:

Justices are elected to six-year terms unless a mid-term vacancy occurs, in which case the governor appoints a replacement to finish the term. Justices have a mandatory retirement age of 70. Source: Wikipedia

Chief Justice Eric J. Magnuson: (Member of the Canvassing Board) Rise: Appointed by Republican Tim Pawlenty, 2008
Estimated Party Affiliation: Conservative
MNCourts.gov Bio Justice Alan C. Page: Rise: Elected, 1993
Estimated Party Affiliation: Liberal
MNCourts.gov Bio Justice Paul H. Anderson: Rise: Appointed by Republican Arne Carlson, 1994
Estimated Party Affiliation: Conservative
MNCourts.gov Bio Justice Helen M. Meyer: Rise: Appointed by Independent Jesse Ventura, 2002
Estimated Party Affiliation: Independent/Democrat
MNCourts.gov Bio Justice G. Barry Anderson: (Member of the Canvassing Board) Rise: Appointed by Republican Tim Pawlenty, 2004
Estimated Party Affiliation: Conservative
MNCourts.gov Bio Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea: Rise: Appointed by Republican Tim Pawlenty, 2006
Estimated Party Affiliation: Conservative
MNCourts.gov Bio Justice Christopher J. Dietzen: Rise: Appointed by Republican Tim Pawlenty, 2008
Estimated Party Affiliation: Conservative
MNCourts.gov Bio The two justices who are member of the canvassing board must abstain from participating, from the bench on any item related to the recount. That leaves five judges, two liberals, two conservatives, and an independent to decide on the double balot issue later today at 2 PM CT. 10:32 AM CT: Meeting reconvenes. The Coleman campaign has asked the board to compare their decision on a challenged ballot to that of other challenges. 10:33 AM CT: A motion is required to even begin reconsidering a ballot. 10:39 AM CT: The first two challenged challenges fell without a second motion. 10:45 AM CT: The board has yet to acknowledge a desire to reconsider any of these challenged challenges. 10:52 AM CT: The board still has not seconded a motion to reconsider their decision. A lot of the challenges in question have pertained to unanimous decisions by the board. I'll post the document containing the specific ballots later. 10:57 AM CT: All 40 ballots were reviewed and nothing happened. The board then sarcastically remarked that they would not acknowledge similar challenges from the Franken campaign. 10:59 AM CT: Recess until 9 AM CT on December 30th. They will validate their challenge counts. The Supreme Court will convene at 2 PM CT to tackle the issue of doubly counted ballots. Check back for live coverage. Update [8:29 PM CT 4/17/2009]: I updated the bio of Justice Paul H. Anderson to reflect the fact that he was originally appointed to the bench, not elected, as previously stated.

MN Board Resolves 6,688 Challenges

12/22/2008 8:07:12 PM CT

The Minnesota Secretary of State's Office posted a draft quality spreadsheet containing a proposed resolution for all 6,688 challenges. I've tabulated the results into a more readable format below:

Candidate     Challenges  ->Coleman  ->Franken  ->Other
Coleman (R)     3,404         32       3,125      247
Franken (D)     3,296       2,926        71       299
Both              12          3          5         4
Total           6,688       2,955      3,191      478

Challenge Draft Gain: Franken +236

Margin (Pre-Challenges): Coleman +188
Current Recount Margin: Franken +48

The State Canvassing Board will meet tomorrow morning, at 9 AM CT, to finalize the allotment of all challenges. For now however, based upon this initial draft, Franken has taken a 48 vote lead. The only ballots left to count or perhaps uncount, are the wrongfully rejected absentee ballots and a few ballots that were possibly double counted. The MN Supreme Court will meet tomorrow at 2 PM CT to tackle the issue of the duplicate ballots. The State Canvassing Board's discussion will be streamed live via TheUpTake.org starting at 9 AM CT.

Review of Challenged Ballots, Day 4

12/19/2008 3:56:37 PM CT

The final day allocated by the State Canvassing Board for the review of challenged ballots started today at 9 AM CT. The proceedings can be watched at the Minnesota House of Representatives Website (as shown below) or at TheUpTake.org. [The final session has ended, but a replay is available: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4] Here's a recap of yesterday's challenge results:

Candidate    Franken Challenges   Coleman Challenges    Total
Coleman (R)         238                   15             253
Franken (D)          63                  369             432
Other               114                   84             198
Unknown              0                    0               0
Total               415                  468             883          

Challenge Gain: Franken +179

Margin (Pre-Challenges): Coleman +188
Post-Day 3 Recount Margin (w/ Challenges): Coleman +5

Yesterday, the board reviewed 468 of the 1,017 challenges put forth by the Coleman campaign. Based upon these figures, 549 challenges remain, that must be reviewed by the canvassing board before the conclusion of today's session. Current Challenge Resolution Count: 5:54 PM CT: Coleman +319, Franken +757, Other +248 (After 1,325 Challenges) And the final challenge count provided by the Minneapolis StarTribune:

Candidate   Challenges  ->Coleman    ->Franken     ->Other
Coleman (R)     852     36 (4.23%)  687 (80.63%) 129 (15.14%)
Franken (D)     472    283 (59.96%)  70 (14.83%) 119 (25.21%)
Unknown          1      0  (0.00%)   0  (0.00%)   0   (0.00%)
Total          1,325   319 (24.08%) 757 (57.13%) 248 (18.72%)

There are however still challenges outstanding; those challenges will be reviewed on December 30th by the State Canvassing Board. The already withdrawn challenges will be included into the count on Tuesday, December 23rd. The Minnesota Supreme Court will also meet on Tuesday to discuss the duplicate ballot issue.

Review of Challenged Ballots, Day 3

12/18/2008 7:51:03 AM CT

The second to last day allocated by the State Canvassing Board for the review of challenged ballots started today at 9 AM CT. The proceedings can be watched at the Minnesota House of Representatives Website (as shown below) or at TheUpTake.org. [The third session has ended, but a replay is available: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4] Yesterday the Board examined 415 total ballots, predominately from the Franken pile, and ruled as follows, according to the StarTribune:

Candidate   Challenges  ->Coleman    ->Franken     ->Other
Coleman (R)     20      7  (35.0%)    7 (35.0%)   6  (30.0%)
Franken (D)    391     225 (57.5%)   56 (14.3%)  110 (28.1%) 
Unknown         4       0  (00.0%)    0 (00.0%)   0  (00.0%)
Total          415     232 (55.9%)   63 (15.2%)  116 (28.0%)

TheUpTake.org arrived at the same total of 415, but their intermediate numbers differ slightly:

                 238 awarded to Coleman 
                 63 awarded to Franken
                 114 awarded to "Other"

The day seemingly belonged to Democrat, Al Franken. Roughly 15% of Franken's challenges were for himself; I find it unlikely that Coleman will reach a similar threshold, but we won't know until the results are in. Today, the board will review, or start to review approximately 1,017 Coleman challenges. If Coleman's challenges follow the same trend as Franken's (using Star Tribune data), the following result seems possible, if not probable:

Candidate  Gain from Coleman Challenges   Net Challenge Gain
Coleman      1016 * (14.3%) = 145.2       232 + 145.2 = 377.2 
Franken      1016 * (57.5%) = 584.2       63 + 584.2 = 647.2
Other        1016 * (28.1%) = 285.5       116 + 285.5 = 401.5
Total                  1016                   Franken +270

The Star Tribune arrived at "Franken by 275," and that includes the thousands of withdrawals issued by each campaign; a fact the above calculation ignores. So if Franken gains in the ballpark of 270 votes from the challenges, where does that leave the count? There is still the issue of the mistakenly rejected absentee ballots place in the "fifth pile." According to the Star Tribune, with 51 of 87 counties having completed their review of absentee ballots, 721 remain in the "fifth pile." If Franken does in fact gain the 270 votes from the challenges, he will overcome the current 188 vote deficit and take an 82 vote lead. This may explain why the Coleman campaign has taken a sudden interest in the double ballot counting issue. They released the following statement yesterday on the topic:

If the founders had wanted some people to have their vote counted once and other people to have their votes counted twice it would have been in the Constitution. Unfortunately for the Franken campaign the case law in this matter is quite clear: Double-counting votes violates the concept of "one person, one vote." The Franken campaign's refusal to correct errors in which the same voter's originally cast ballot, and a duplicate ballot made election night because the original was inadvertently damaged, will create an inaccurate count. It would be an aberration and a corruption of the Constitution to allow for a new standard to be applied to double-count votes just because the Franken campaign is asking for it to be done. Source: Norm Coleman for Senate

The canvassing board, yesterday, allowed each campaign to make their case regarding this topic. The board essentially decided that this is not an issue they will look into, at the moment, and suggested that a court would be the proper place to take of the claim. They may address the issue again today, however. The board also hinted at the possibility of releasing data this morning, but that does not appear to be the case, at least so far. Perhaps they will address this issue too. Current Challenge Resolution Count (from TheUpTake.org): 9:00 AM CT: Meeting started; 208 additional challenges from the Coleman campaign. Lunch from 12:30 to 2:00 PM CT. They will handle these additional challenges on December 30th. 9:06 AM CT: The first three ballots were withdrawn with 2 being allocated to Franken and 1 to Other. 9:07 AM CT: They are apparently placing "incident report" challenges in a blue folder for later review. 9:09 AM CT: First actual challenge, goes to nobody; an undervote. 9:17 AM CT: Coleman +238, Franken +72, Other +116 (After 426 Challenges) 9:27 AM CT: Coleman +238, Franken +79, Other +118 (After 435 Challenges) 9:38 AM CT: "Lizard People" ballot ruled an overvote. 9:39 AM CT: Coleman +238, Franken +96, Other +120 (After 453 Challenges) 9:40 AM CT: After 38 challenges, Coleman has not gained a vote. 9:43 AM CT: "Flying Spaghetti Monster" ballot ruled a vote for Franken. 9:56 AM CT: Coleman +238, Franken +127, Other +122 (After 486 Challenges) 10:16 AM CT: Coleman +240, Franken +147, Other +130 (After 518 Challenges) 10:38 AM CT: Coleman +243, Franken +151, Other +133 (After 527 Challenges) 10:49 AM CT: Coleman +243, Franken +153, Other +138 (After 534 Challenges) 11:05 AM CT: Coleman +244, Franken +165, Other +141 (After 549 Challenges) 12:07 PM CT: Coleman +248, Franken +245, Other +155 (After 648 Challenges) 5:12 PM CT: Coleman +253, Franken +432, Other +198 (After 883 Challenges)

Review of Challenged Ballots, Day 2

12/17/2008 2:48:27 PM CT

Day 2 of the challenged ballot review process was restarted this morning at 9 AM CT, by the five member Minnesota Canvassing Board. The proceedings can be watched at the Minnesota House of Representatives Website (as shown below) or at TheUpTake.org. [The second session has ended, but a replay is available: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3] A full recap of yesterday's event is available, along with a full video replay of the proceedings. The board reviewed just 160 votes yesterday placing them well short of the trend required to complete all challenges by the pseudo-deadline of Friday the 19th. Mark Ritchie, the Minnesota Secretary of State requested that each campaign re-review their challenges based on the first phase of rulings. The Coleman campaign did just that, issuing this statement last night:

Today, the Board decided that a series of ballots to which we had withdrawn our challenges should be counted in a certain way. In order to achieve consistency in votes counted for voter intent, we are reinstating a portion of our initially withdrawn challenged ballots to protect our rights and the concept of voter intent. Source: Norm Coleman for Senate

There has been no further word from the Franken campaign regarding any challenge withdrawal or additions. Current Challenge Resolution Count: 9:41 AM CT: Coleman +116, Franken +26, Other +48 (After 190 Challenges) 9:49 AM CT: Coleman +122, Franken +26, Other +52 (After 200 Challenges) 2:43 PM CT: Coleman +208, Franken +52, Other +102 (After 362 Challenges) 3:06 PM CT: Coleman +216, Franken +57, Other +106 (After 379 Challenges) 3:16 PM CT: Coleman +220, Franken +60, Other +106 (After 386 Challenges) 3:28 PM CT: Coleman +227, Franken +61, Other +110 (After 398 Challenges) 3:39 PM CT: Coleman +237, Franken +63, Other +112 (After 412 Challenges) 3:49 PM CT: Coleman +239, Franken +63, Other +113 (After 415 Challenges) 3:50 PM CT: Break time for the panel, Coleman challenges to start at 4PM CT. 4:06 PM CT: Discussion on duplicate ballots. 4:11 PM CT: Challenge reviews are done for the day. 4:50 PM CT: Meeting adjourned to reconvene tomorrow at 9 AM CT.

Review of Challenged Ballots, Day 1

12/16/2008 1:25:36 PM CT

The State Canvassing Board has begun the tedious process of reviewing the challenged ballots from the Minnesota Senate Recount. The proceedings can be watched at the Minnesota House of Representatives Website (as shown below) or at TheUpTake.org. [The first session has ended, but a replay is available: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3] The exact number of challenges, by either campaign, remains somewhat uncertain. Each campaign has released three phases of withdrawals, roughly halving their initial number of challenges. The most recent withdrawal statement came from the Franken campaign last Friday:

The Franken campaign today announced that it would withdraw another 750 ballot challenges, bringing the total number it has withdrawn to over 1800. Source: Al Franken for Senate

Based upon each candidate's withdrawals and the Secretary of State's data, the challenge count stands as depicted below:

                          Current   Withdrawn
            Franken:       1,470      1,808
            Coleman:       2,027      1,350
            Total:         3,497      3,158

            Margin:          557        458

Norm Coleman and Al Franken each issued further statements regarding potential withdrawals. We'll start with Norm Coleman's statement issued on Sunday, December 14th at 5:41 PM CT:

With that in mind, it is our intent to reduce our challenges to somewhere south of 1,000 ballot challenges by the time the board meets on Tuesday. It is our hope that prior to the Canvassing Board meeting the board and the Secretary of State will have a credible process that is both uniform and consistent for reviewing challenged ballots. Source: Norm Coleman for Senate

Franken released a similar statement yesterday, December 15th at 7:52 PM CT:

Two days after members of the state canvassing board issued an urgent plea for campaigns to withdraw additional challenges in order to allow them to finish their work in a timely fashion, the Franken campaign today announced that it would have fewer than 500 challenges remaining by the time the board meets on Tuesday. Source: Al Franken for Senate

Depending on who you believe, or which count you use, a plethora of challenges, by both campaigns, still must be reviewed by the five member canvassing board. The review process started at 12:00 PM CT today, after a delay, and intends to conclude on Friday the 19th. The recount results from each of Minnesota's 4130 Precincts were semi-finalized last Friday, the 12th of December. The results are depicted below; challenge conclusions are not included: It appears as the the board as begun by reviewing only challenges made by Al Franken, at least so far. [2:27 PM CT] Current Challenge Resolution Count: 2:06 PM CT: Coleman +25, Franken +5 2:10 PM CT: Coleman +27, Franken +5 2:16 PM CT: Coleman +29, Franken +6 2:24 PM CT: Coleman +31, Franken +8 2:35 PM CT: Coleman +35, Franken +8 2:39 PM CT: Coleman +37, Franken +8 2:45 PM CT: Coleman +37, Franken +8 (After 62 Challenges) 2:47 PM CT: Coleman +37, Franken +9, Other +12 (After 64 Challenges) 2:58 PM CT: Coleman +43, Franken +9, Other +18 (After 70 Challenges) 3:05 PM CT: Coleman +49, Franken +9, Other +19 (After 77 Challenges) 3:55 PM CT: Coleman +77, Franken +14, Other +29 (After 120 Challenges) 4:12 PM CT: Coleman +79, Franken +14, Other +30 (After 123 Challenges) 4:23 PM CT: Coleman +82, Franken +15, Other +32 (After 129 Challenges) 4:49 PM CT: Coleman +90, Franken +19, Other +36 (After 145 Challenges) 5:02 PM CT: Coleman +96, Franken +21, Other +40 (After 157 Challenges) 5:07 PM CT: Coleman +97, Franken +22, Other +41 (After 160 Challenges) The Canvassing Board has concluded reviewing ballots, for today. After the final ballot was reviewed they went on to talk about the need for each campaign to further reduce the number of challenges brought to the board. The board reviewed 159 challenges put forth by the Franken campaign, and a single challenge by the Coleman campaign which was mistakenly in the wrong pile. Coleman's challenge was overruled and the vote went to Franken.

Recount Canvassing Board Reconvenes

12/12/2008 3:53:01 PM CT

The Minnesota Canvassing Board convened today to decide the fate of 133 missing ballots and to settle the issue of allegedly wrongfully rejected absentee ballots. Before I provide their verdict, I want to recap the current state of the race as provided by the MN Secretary of State's website:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,208,344   -   1,210,995  =  -2,651
Franken:   1,207,657   -   1,210,285  =  -2,628

Current Margin: 687

Precincts Recounted: 4129 of 4130 (99.93% of 11/4 Votes)

The excluded precinct, Minneapolis' 1st Precinct in Ward 3, has yet to release their tally due to the missing "1 of 5" envelope containing 133 ballots. At today's meeting the Canvassing Board decided that the original election day tally would be used, for the precinct in question:

First, the board voted to count 133 missing ballots from a Minneapolis precinct, despite the objections of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman. Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson told the board this morning that it could include the ballots, which otherwise would have cost Franken dozens of votes in his bid to unseat Coleman. Source: St. Paul Pioneer Press

There were 1,965 votes cast on election day in Minneapolis Ward 3, Precinct 1; Franken won 1,090, and Coleman 595 for a difference of 495 votes. Roughly 1,832 votes were recounted in the Minneapolis Precinct for ballots that were not misplaced; the result of that recount will be added to the election day total for the 133 missing ballots. Of the 133 missing ballots, Franken holds a 46 vote lead. There is no publicly available figure for the actual recount result in this precinct. For the purposes of moving forward I will assume that the 495 vote margin will remain consistent. Factoring in the 495 vote gain for Franken decreases the margin to 192 votes.

         Recount [VFA]      Original
Coleman:   1,208,939   -   1,210,995  =  -2,056
Franken:   1,208,747   -   1,210,285  =  -1,538

Current Margin: 192

Precincts Recounted: 4130 of 4130

The canvassing board also voted unanimously to include the allegedly wrongfully rejected absentee ballots:

The announcement came just hours after the state Canvassing Board, which is overseeing the recount in contest between Coleman and Democrat Al Franken, voted unanimously to ask election officials in all 87 counties to identify and count improperly rejected ballots. Board members stressed that they only have the authority to make a recommendation and not to issue an order. Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune

Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann also suggested that there may be as many as 1,600 of these allegedly wrongfully rejected absentee ballots, or around 13% of all rejected absentee ballots. At this point it's impossible to know the extent to which these rulings will favor either candidate, but the Franken campaign had long been pushing for these resolutions. As a result, the Coleman campaign is asking the MN Supreme Court to halt the recounting of these allegedly wrongfully rejected absentee ballots "until a standard procedure is established." Today's rulings place the final certification 133 votes closer, with challenges and absentee ballots still to be resolved. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie continued to push for a reduction to the number of challenges making this remark: "Don't make us tell you when they're frivolous." He expects both campaigns to further reduce the number of challenges. Coleman preempted this request last night by issuing his third statement relating to challenges:

Today Fritz Knaak, Senior Counsel for Coleman for Senate, announced that the campaign will be withdrawing an additional 225 ballots challenged during the hand recount. To date, the Coleman campaign has withdrawn 1,350 challenged ballots, with the State Canvassing Board set to meet on December 16 to start reviewing ballots challenged by both campaigns. Source: Norm Coleman For Senate

Al Franken has yet to issue a third round of withdrawals; thus leaving his challenge numbers unchanged:

                          Current   Withdrawn
            Franken:       2,220      1,058
            Coleman:       2,027      1,350
            Total:         4,247      2,408

            Margin:          193        192

There are still 4,247 challenges yet to be resolved and an unknown number of allegedly wrongfully rejected absentee ballots possibly numbering in the 1,600 range. The 12 sealed and uncounted absentee ballots also remain at large, although today's ruling will likely mark their inclusion. Combing these separate results yields a total of 5,859 outstanding and uncounted votes still to be acknowledged before the very flexible December 19th deadline.

All's Quiet on the MN Recount Front

12/11/2008 2:24:16 PM CT

In the span between the pseudo-conclusion of the recount last Friday, and today, the flow of actual information has essentially ceased; having been replaced by the battle over public perception. With the first round of challenge withdrawals having already taken place, each candidate decided a second round was in order. The Franken campaign lead, again by releasing the following statement on December 9th at 9:43 AM CT:

The Franken campaign announced today that it was withdrawing an additional 425 ballot challenges, bringing the total number of challenges withdrawn by Franken to 1,058. Source: Al Franken For Senate

Coleman was again, late to the withdrawing party; issuing this release about 8 hours later at 5:33 PM CT:

The Coleman for Senate campaign today announced it would be withdrawing an additional 475 challenged ballots ahead of the Minnesota State Canvassing Board meeting to review these ballots next week. On Thursday, December 4, the campaign withdrew 650 challenges for a total of 1,125 challenges withdrawn by the Coleman campaign. Source: Norm Coleman For Senate

The Secretary of State's data does not exclude these withdrawn challenges, so its impossible to draw any trends about these challenges beyond simple arithmetic. If all withdrawn challenges are factored into the publicly available challenge count, a new challenge count emerges:

                          Current   Withdrawn
            Franken:       2,220      1,058
            Coleman:       2,292      1,125
            Total:         4,514      2,183

            Margin:           72         67

Its is absolutely impossible to know how these challenges will break, but we do know that Franken currently trails by at least 180 votes. Using this assumption, I created functions for each candidate's challenge gains as a function of the total number of relevant challenges; these functions are shown below:

                 180 = Franken - Coleman
                   x = Franken + Coleman

Where x is the number challenges directly adding to either candidate's total. Here's an example; lets assume x is 3,000 meaning that out of the 4,514 total challenges, only 3,000 of them actually resulted in either candidate gaining votes:

                 180 = Franken - Coleman
                3000 = Franken + Coleman

               3000  = (180 + Coleman) + Coleman
               2820  = 2(Coleman)

                1410 = Coleman
                1590 = Franken

So if there are 3,000 additive challenges, Franken must win 53% of them. The graph below illustrates the above relationship for all values of x ranging between 180 and 4514: There is absolutely no data available to access the relative difficulty associated with reaching any challenge percentage in the above graph. The graph simply presents the outcome necessary for a Franken victory based on the currently available data.

Jamie McIntyre, of CNN, is a Joke

12/8/2008 11:49:40 PM CT

A fascinating, and I don't mean intellectually stimulating, article was published today by CNN contributor Jamie McIntyre entitled Myth of Shinseki lingers. I'm going to include his entire piece and work through it paragraph by paragraph. The thesis of the article reads as follows:

The nomination of retired Army Chief Gen. Eric Shinseki to be secretary of veterans affairs is widely seen as an appointment with a message, since Shinseki ran afoul of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But CNN Senior Pentagon Correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the inside story of how Shinseki's reputation as a "truth-teller" has been burnished beyond what the facts support. Source: CNN

Seems interesting enough right, wrong. It takes just thirteen words for Jamie to entirely contradict the premise of his piece:

In fairness to Gen. Eric Shinseki, he's never said "I told you so."

What does that even mean? Seriously. Either Jamie is implying that Gen. Eric Shinseki was wrong, which in itself is wrong (more on that later) or Jamie is saying that Gen. Eric Shinseki wasn't arrogant enough to boast, thus implying that he was right. In either case Jamie is wrong.

But many others have elevated his now-famous February 2003 testimony to the level of Scripture.

And if by "Scripture" you mean that Gen. Eric Shinseki's foresight regarding the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation were correct, then yes; otherwise no.

Shinseki was right, they say, when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee a month before the invasion that something on the order "several hundred thousand troops" would be necessary to keep order in a post-invasion Iraq.

Thank you for proving my previous point, Jamie.

At the time, that observation drew loud scoffs from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and from his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, who dismissed the prediction as "wildly off the mark." Still, Shinseki wasn't advocating 300,000 troops be dispatched into Iraq. In fact, he said specifically that the forces mobilized in the region to that point were probably enough, and he made it clear he would have defer to the combatant commander, Gen. Tommy Franks. "I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements," he said. But pressed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, to make an off-the-cuff guesstimate, Shinseki said "it would take a significant ground force."

Okay? What part of "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required" to invade Iraq, is so difficult to comprehend? Shinseki absolutely supported a ground force of at least 300,000; I would say several implies at least three as couple typically denotes two.

Since that day, critics of the war have lauded Shinseki's prescience and his willingness to speak truth to power. "Here was a career officer who had valuable insights who was shunted aside by arrogant civilians," University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole is quoted as saying in Sunday's Washington Post. "When he had his disagreements with the administration, he wasn't afraid to speak up," Vietnam Veterans of America's John Rowan told CNN on hearing of the nomination. It's an appealing narrative, but the facts as we know them are not nearly so complimentary to the retired Army chief.

Let's see the "facts" then Jamie, so far neither Prof. Juan Cole nor John Rowan have said anything disputable.

You see, Shinseki never made any recommendation for more troops for Iraq. In fact, as Army chief of staff, it wasn't really part of his job to take part in direct war planning.

If it wasn't part of his job, why would you expect him to do it?

But as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he did owe the president his best military advice. And if he felt strongly enough that the advice was not being taken, he could have resigned.

So let me get this straight Jamie, you're suggesting that one of the few Generals with any say in any military planning, who was ultimately proven to be correct about his pre-war assertions, should have resigned because the President ignored his advice. Unbelievable.

According to senior military officers who were in the pre-war meetings, Shinseki never objected to the war plans, and he didn't press for any changes.

Wait, if "it wasn't really part of [Shinseki]'s job to take part in direct war planning" why was he in "the pre-war meetings?"

When the joint chiefs were asked point-blank by then-Chairman Gen. Richard Meyers if they had any concerns about the plans before they went to the president, Shinseki kept silent.

Jamie, you've already stated that Shinseki believed "it would take a significant ground force" to invade Iraq. Did you want Shinseki to stand up and say this is a bad idea, we need more troops? It wasn't his job, as you previously mentioned, and his views were clearly understood and already ignored by all those involved.

He kept his counsel But Shinseki was a very private leader who did media briefings only when ordered to and rarely gave interviews. If he had concerns about the Iraq war plans, he kept them to himself. He admitted as much in a rare e-mail exchange with Newsweek magazine in 2006. Asked to respond to the criticism that he failed to push to stop Rumsfeld from going into Iraq with too few troops, he told the magazine, "Probably that's fair. Not my style." Knowing his opinions were not particularly welcome, Shinseki kept his mouth shut. In that sense, he was "marginalized," as some say.

Again Jamie, you prove my point, and contradict your own. Nobody had anything to gain from Shinseki's contining vocalization of his views. The war was still going to happen in whatever manner Rumsfeld and Bush wanted it done, and I would rather have a General who was correct and silent (Shinseki) than a General who was loud and wrong (possible replacement had Shinseki resigned).

And it's true that in retrospect, many U.S. commanders believe there should have been more troops sent to Iraq, even though it's far from clear that would have prevented the insurgency and sectarian violence that the Pentagon failed to anticipate. But the idea that Shinseki was a strong advocate for a bigger force and that no one listened vastly overstates his role. It's one of those Washington myths that are almost impossible to dispel -- like the popular misconception that Shinseki was fired for standing up to Rumsfeld. That myth is so pervasive, the authoritative Associated Press repeated it again Saturday night, saying "Shinseki was removed from [his] post after challenging the Bush administration." He did not stand up to Rumsfeld, nor was he fired.

Nobody is overstating Shinseki's role. Perhaps you are understating the gross incompetence of the Bush Administration's planning of the Iraq War. Shinseki may not have been removed from his post but there was definitely contempt from Rumsfeld. Shenseki's retirement took place just 4 months after his preceding testimony. At Shinseki's retirement ceremony, no senior civilians attended breaking an historical precedence. I'll also point out that the AP is garbage, go ahead and find another source propagating this "myth," and get back to me.

There's no question that Shinseki was on the outs with his civilian bosses, especially Rumsfeld. Shinseki ordered that all soldiers wear black berets, a move that infuriated the special forces community, for whom the berets were a badge signifying their elite status. Rumsfeld, according to aides, was particularly miffed that Shinseki spent so much effort changing the Army's head gear, when the nation was at war. He retired after serving a full four years as chief at a ceremony in 2003 that neither Rumsfeld nor Wolfowitz attended.

In a briefing carried by CNN, Shinseki stated that "The Army will change to remain the most capable and the most respected Army in the world." Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz then went on to say that "[Shinseki & Wolfowitz] thought it important to have a symbolic and a visible demonstration that this Army was prepared for change and undertaking it." Both were commenting on the inclusion of the black beret into the Army uniform. It seems as though Rumsfeld was more concerned with physically waging war than he was with supporting the operations of the US Army.

A man of principle In announcing Shinseki's selection as secretary of veterans affairs, President-elect Barack Obama called him someone who "always stood on principle." "No one will ever doubt that this former Army chief of staff has the courage to stand up for our troops and our veterans," he said. In applauding the selection, Brandon Friedman, vice chairman of VoteVets.org, said, "If there are two things everyone knows about Gen. Shinseki, they are that he always thinks ahead to what needs may be down the road, and is not afraid to strongly speak his mind to the president of the United States." Now that Shinseki is working for someone who believes in him, that could well turn out to be true -- no matter how much he kept his counsel to himself in the past.

Seriously Jamie, what was your point? You know what the facts support? The facts support an opinion formulated by Gen. Shinseki before the invasion of Iraq, this truth was his truth, what he believed. When the dust settled, Shinseki was correct. Whether you want to call him a "truth-teller" because of this has absolutely nothing to do with deception, but rather perception. If you value honesty and integrity Shinseki did absolutely nothing wrong, he stood by his beliefs and didn't waver; others may have disagreed with him, but he always agreed with himself. he told his truth, and it just so happens that it turned out to be the truth.

MN-Sen: Recount Complete...Sort Of

12/5/2008 4:02:19 PM CT

The semi-final results of the hand recount were published today at 1:28 PM CT on the Minnesota Secretary of State's website. Of Minnesota's 4,130 precincts, 4,129 have finished reporting. The remaining precinct represents the Minneapolis' 3rd Ward where 133 Ballots have gone missing. During the ensuing search 12 sealed and uncounted absentee ballots were found. Pending the returns of these 145 ballots, here is the count:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,208,344   -   1,210,995  =  -2,651
Franken:   1,207,657   -   1,210,285  =  -2,628

Franken Net Today:   13 (91 Yesterday, -13 day before, 41)
Total Franken Net:   23
Franken Deficit:    192
Current Margin:     687

But there are also 1,965 votes, as certified on November 18th, from the aforementioned Minneapolis precinct, which are not included in the count. Based upon those roughly two thousand votes, Franken leads Coleman by 495; and that 495 is not included in the table above. There are still 6,655 challenged ballots that have not been counted that will be reviewed by the canvassing board starting next week. From the challenge pile, Coleman is responsible for 3,375 and Franken 3,280. Both sides have called the opposition's challenges frivolous, and both sides appear to be right. On December 3rd, the Franken Campaign issued a press release regarding their frivolous challenges:

This afternoon, the Franken campaign sent a letter to the Secretary of State withdrawing 633 challenges. The fact that we are withdrawing these challenges does not in any way have any effect on the likelihood that Al Franken will win the recount. The only practical impact of what we are doing today is that it will save the state canvassing board the trouble of looking at these challenges themselves. Source: Al Franken For Senate

Not to be out done, the Coleman campaign released their version of the story on December 4th:

Today, in the spirit of working to remedy an excess of challenged ballots, we will voluntarily withdraw 650 challenged by the Coleman campaign. This morning, I left a voicemail, and sent an email, to Franken campaign attorney Marc Elias regarding challenged ballots. We are doing so this in the spirit of reaching out to their campaign so we can sit down early next week and discuss what process we can agree to in order to winnow down these challenged ballots. Source: Norm Coleman For Senate

Factoring in the 1,283 withdrawals into the challenge count yields the following result:

            Franken:  2,647
            Coleman:  2,725
            Total:    5,372

            Margin:      78

Once the final precinct is included, disregarding the 133 ballots, Franken could net as many as 495 votes. If the 133 ballots were erroneously counted twice, Franken would lose 46 votes, reducing his gain from Minneapolis Ward 3's First Precinct to 449. If Franken also sweeps the 12 new absentee ballots, he will head into the challenge phase, of the recount, with a minimal deficit of 180 votes.

Al Franken Holds An Interesting Lead

12/4/2008 6:51:56 PM CT

            Franken:  +619
            Coleman:  +63

            Net Franken: 556

While Franken is certainly not challenging more total ballots, it does appear as though 60% of Franken's challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, only 50.8% of Coleman's challenges come from precincts Coleman is winning. If the current data is extrapolated into the remaining precincts the margin for Franken increases:

            Franken:  +637 (+/- 76)
            Coleman:  +57  (+/- 65)

            Net Franken: 580

We'll find out later tonight after the official SOS result if these numbers mean anything. Franken is releasing 633 of his challenges, and Coleman is doing about the same. If The 580 vote margin holds up it may suggest two things: (1) Franken is challenging more ballots for himself. (2) Franken is challenging a ton of ballots in precincts where the race is relatively close, and the challenges by Franken, are actually inducing a Franken lead. We'll find out more later tonight. Update [8:15 PM CT]: Well its later tonight and the new numbers have been posted by the MN SOS. First a recap of today's official result:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,193,307   -   1,195,885  =  -2,578
Franken:   1,197,965   -   1,200,533  =  -2,568

Franken Net Today:   91 (-13 Yesterday, 41 day before, -29)
Total Franken Net:  -10
Franken Deficit:    225

The challenge numbers have also been updated and are shown below using the postive/negative convention already established:

            Franken:  +765
            Coleman:  -41

            Net Franken: 806

Unfortunately the new challenge numbers do not factor in the withdrawn ballots by both campaigns; there is a disclaimer on the results page explicitly stating that "these totals do not include results for 633 challenged ballots that were withdrawn by the Al Franken campaign." Each candidate increased their challenge count, Coleman by 70 and Franken 112. If we compare today's challenges with yesterday's, it is safe to assume that Coleman's frivolous challenges are also included in today's count; unless of course, Franken challenged 745 ballots today. It now appears as though 62% of Franken's challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning. Coleman's percentage slipped from 50.8% to 49.4% with the inclusion of the newly posted data.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 14

12/4/2008 3:06:39 AM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,174,964   -   1,177,465  =  -2,501
Franken:   1,186,134   -   1,188,736  =  -2,602

Franken Net Today:  -13 (41 Yesterday, -29 day before, -100)
Total Franken Net: -101
Franken Deficit:    316

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression when applied to precincts of all sizes; Wright County, the largest county finished recounting. The dotted lines represent the two-day-ago regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification. Performing the calculation across all precincts yields the following result:

            Franken:  -2634 (+/- 152)
            Coleman:  -2535 (+/- 144)

            Net Franken:  -98 (+/- 296)

Franken still appears to trail by 98 votes but these projections have a large window of certainty. If the extreme is taken, by taking -98 and adding 296 votes, Franken still falls short of the pre-recount deficient of 215. The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (3:06 AM CT 12/4), after 97.58% of all votes have been recounted. Recounting should continue, uninterrupted through Friday.

Georgia Runoff Fallout

12/3/2008 2:41:15 PM CT

The internet-left seems to be horrifically consumed with the Chambliss victory, but it all seems rather baseless, rooted purely in emotion. Nothing went wrong for the Democrats, they simply did not win. To prove my point I'll refer to the following analogy: In any given state (with a Senate Election) the incumbent walks to the top of a building holding their opponents' egg. Throughout the campaign the challenger attempts to "protect" their egg by any means. The height of the building is decided by the political environment. Using Georgia as an example, the initial deficit facing a Democratic Challenger is comparatively higher than other Senate races across the country. The demographics in Georgia were not advantageous to Jim Martin at any point. After the November 4th result, Martin's egg was essentially intact, but showed signs of breakdown; Martin initially lost by about 3 percent. When the runoff was sanctioned, the same egg was used again as Jim Martin was still the candidate. Martin not only had to protect his egg, but he had to do a better job, from a taller building; the Republican's had motivation and, as evidenced by the initial result, more support. On the second time around, Martin's already weakened egg shattered on the pavement below. Did this Republican victory signal a blatant rejection of Democratic values? No. It is impossible to argue that the Democratic brand was rejected in the Georgia runoff, if it was already rejected on November 4th, nothing changed; remember Obama lost Georgia too. If you look at the polls in the initial Senate election, or the runoff Martin NEVER led. It is absolutely foolish for anyone to manufacture a Democratic "problem" based upon the runoff result. If this was your message you should have been on it 28 days ago. A Republican led the entire election cycle, and eventually went on to win; there was no upset, but there was some drama. This is what should have happened; there is no Democratic tragedy, there is nothing to learn.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 13

12/2/2008 9:21:43 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,119,878   -   1,122,217  =  -2,339
Franken:   1,122,413   -   1,124,840  =  -2,427

Franken Net Today:   41 (-29 Yesterday, -100 day before, -20)
Total Franken Net:  -88
Franken Deficit:    280

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,494; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the two-day-ago regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 17,270 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,858 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,858 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Franken:  -2478 (+/- 116)
            Coleman:  -2402 (+/- 112)

            Net Franken:  -76.56 (+/- 228)

Franken is now actually projected to lose votes, about 77 to be exact but with all the challenges outstanding, these projections are far from accurate. There are also 17,270 votes excluded from the above extrapolation. If those additional 17,270 votes are applied to the process, nothing really changes but the margin of error:

            Franken:  -2495 (+/- 251)
            Coleman:  -2418 (+/- 261)

            Net Franken:  -77.29 (+/- 512)

The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (9:21 PM CT 12/2), after 92.69% of all votes have been recounted. Recounting should continue, uninterrupted through Friday.

Ready, Set, Bailout?

12/2/2008 12:11:20 AM CT

The banks got their bailout, will the automakers be next? I'm sadly inclined to say probably, despite the first bailout's focus on presidential politicking. The forthcoming bailout will likely follow the same path. But it doesn't have to be like that; the auto industry can be saved without writing a blank check. The greatest obstacle to any bailout revolves around the concern of limited monetary resources; is any one entity more worthy than the next? In the case of the big three, a valid argument could probably be made to support the bailout of each company, but a definitive answer does not exist. So what comes next? Two questions must be asked of the situation; (A) Is the company worth saving? (B) Can the company use the money to survive, while providing a service or product that enables all involved to thrive? In the case of the auto bailout, A is essentially unarguable as people need cars, but B presents a dilemma. Is a stagnant, but functional auto industry better than no auto industry at all? Capital Hill seems to be struggling with an answer, but it doesn't have to be like that; the auto industry could be made better. The American Auto Industry has demonstrated a complete inability to compete with the likes of Honda and Toyota over the past decade. Why should the American Taxpayer be required to prop up these failing entities with years of historical incompetence? The truth is, Americans need cars, and at the moment there are only three American options. In the future a fourth company may arise, but in the interim, at least two of these companies must exist; for both diversity of product and antitrust laws. If two of these companies must survive, doesn't it make sense to choose the two companies best situated for future growth and expansion? Here's the plan: a massive auto industry throwdown with the winners splitting the currently proposed $25 Billion bailout. Each company sends a representative to a congressional oversight panel and the rules are decided in committee. The competition is open to any company, any entity, any single person meeting predetermined qualifications and will last 6 months. If at the end of 6 months, the designated objectives are not met, the $25 Billion is not allocated and the companies must survive on their own, or fold. If just one company meets the objectives, the next closest company must also receive funding. All of these contingencies, and others, must be established in advance, by the aforementioned committee. If the participants want to compete, they must be held accountable by providing non-subsidized financing. Banks accepting money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) would be required to provide a loan to any interested participant using reasonable lending discretion. Each bank would also be forgiven of the 5% interest rate associated with their participation in TARP, upto the amount loaned to automotive throwdown participants. Essentially all funding for the throwdown would be provided by TARP through participating banks. The Treasury Secretary could then insure these automotive loans, thus removing liability from the banks themselves. Under these circumstances, the banks benefit by collecting interest and the government is not required to spend additional money (assuming the banks are responsible lenders) for at least another 6 months. This scenario presents essentially two possible outcomes; either (1) All participants collapse, or (2) at least two participants succeed and the automotive industry gets, what is hopefully a jump start into economic and technological prosperity. In both scenarios, it is assumed that the banks made reasonable lending decisions, and are consequently unaffected by either outcome. The first scenario presents possible ramifications; I'll start with job loss. Should the jobs created by the autos factor into the bailout decision? There seems to be a growing movement, John McCain included, who foolishly believe once manufacturing jobs are lost, they are gone forever. The manufacturing sector will never disappear so long as there are items to be made. Anybody working, with the right support can be retrained to make another item, so long as there are other items to be made. So how could the government ensure job availability to these workers in the event of an American automotive collapse? I suggest a public works project. Anybody unemployed can go work for the federal government, in their home state building windmills or solar panels under a newly created National Alternative Energy Agency (NAEA). Using the World War II model, a massive industrial complex could be created that generates new jobs and reduces America's strain on foreign fuels. If the government is willing to float a $700 Billion check to the banking industry why wouldn't it spend $647,521,359,420 (PDF) to alleviate America's need for fossil fuel generated electricity. Wasn't the down fall of the auto industry higher gas prices? Doesn't it seem absurd to blindly support a failing industry without addressing the central cause of its failure? Yet it seems all too likely that such a thing will happen. The auto industry has survived on minor revisions for the better part of a decade, but America doesn't need a recolored cozy-coupe, we need a green cozy-coupe.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 12

12/2/2008 12:11:02 AM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,100,922   -   1,103,291  =  -2,369
Franken:   1,105,030   -   1,107,528  =  -2,498

Franken Net Today:   -29 (-100 Yesterday, -20 day before, -5)
Total Franken Net:  -106
Franken Deficit:     321

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,494; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the two-day-ago regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 17,270 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,858 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,858 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman:  -2493 (+/- 112)
            Franken:  -2619 (+/- 118)

            Net Franken:  -126.33 (+/- 230)

Franken is now actually projected to lose votes, about 126 to be exact but with all the challenges outstanding, these projections are far from accurate. There are also 17,270 votes excluded from the above extrapolation. If those additional 17,270 votes are applied to the process, nothing really changes but the margin of error:

            Franken:  -2637 (+/- 258)
            Coleman:  -2510 (+/- 272)

            Net Franken:  -127.28 (+/- 530)

The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (12:12 AM CT 12/1), after 91.13% of all votes have been recounted. Recounting should continue, uninterrupted through Friday.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 8

11/26/2008 10:22:50 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

            Recount         Original
Coleman:   1,044,255   -   1,046,101  =  -1,846
Franken:   1,040,285   -   1,042,208  =  -1,923

Franken Net Today: -100 (-20 Yesterday, -5 day before, 14)
Total Franken Net:  -77
Franken Deficit:    292

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,858; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the two-day-ago regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 17,270 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,858 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,858 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman: -1599 (+/- 92)
            Franken: -1612 (+/- 95)

            Net Franken: -83.169 (+/- 187)

Franken is now actually projected to lose votes, about 83 to be exact but with all the challenges outstanding, these projections are far from accurate. There are also 17,270 votes excluded from the above extrapolation. If those additional 17,270 votes are applied to the process, nothing really changes but the margin of error:

            Coleman: 1610- (+/- 236)
            Franken: 1623- (+/- 244)            

            Net Franken: -83.703 (+/- 580)

The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (10:22 PM CT 11/26), after 89.64% of all votes have been recounted. Recounting should resume on the first of December after a Thanksgiving recess.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 7

11/26/2008 4:52:39 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

           Recount       Original
Coleman:   978,751   -   980,121  =  -1,370
Franken:   976,187   -   977,580  =  -1,393

Franken Net Today:  -20 (-5 Yesterday, 14 day before, 43)
Total Franken Net:   23
Franken Deficit:    192

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,858; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the two-day-ago regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 17,270 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,858 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,858 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Franken: -1614 (+/- 63)
            Coleman: -1599 (+/- 63)

            Net Franken: -12.642 (+/- 126)

Franken is now actually projected to lose votes, about 13 to be exact but with all the challenges outstanding, these projections are far from accurate. There are also 17,270 votes excluded from the above extrapolation. If those additional 17,270 votes are applied to the process, nothing really changes but the margin of error:

            Coleman: -1610 (+/- 172)
            Franken: -1626 (+/- 175)            

            Net Franken: -12.928 (+/- 357)

The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (4:52 PM CT 11/26), after 80.62% of all votes have been recounted. Check back tomorrow for the day 8 result and accompanying analysis.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 6

11/25/2008 3:58:58 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

           Recount      Original
Coleman:   908,063   -   909,114  =  -1,051
Franken:   889,891   -   890,899  =  -1,008

Franken Net Today:   -5 (-52 Yesterday, 14 day before, 43)
Total Franken Net:   43
Franken Deficit:    172

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,494; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the two-day-ago regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 32,186 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,494 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,494 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman: -1356 (+/- 51)            
            Franken: -1300 (+/- 49)            

            Net Franken: 55.679 (+/- 100)

Franken falls short of the pre-recount deficit by about 56 votes, with 32,186 votes entirely ignored and the challenges left uncounted. If those additional 32,186 votes are applied to the process, nothing really changes but the margin of error:

            Coleman: -1374 (+/- 151)
            Franken: -1318 (+/- 147)

            Net Franken: 55.987 (+/- 298)

The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (3:58 PM CT 11/25), after 74.18% of all votes have been recounted. Check back tomorrow for the day 7 result and accompanying analysis.

MN Senate Recount Consolidation

11/24/2008 5:15:08 PM CT

There were no new recount results yesterday, so I took the opportunity today, to provide an overview of where the recount currently stands. The images below serve to illustrate the current state of the recount, with respect to the originally certified result. The first image below draws from the official SOS recount result as of 8 PM CT last night. A complete description of the colorization process for the above image is available for those who are curious. The following image shows the result of the certified result as of November 18th. A detailed description of the colorization process is also available for the above image. Both maps are embeddable. The next series of graphs illustrates the current state of the race in each county alphabetically. There are several counties that have yet to begin the recount process; these counties are all depicted on the last graph in the series. For counties with recount data, the certified result, the current recount result, and the number of challenges by Coleman and Franken are depicted. The vote totals use the left y-axis, while the challenge totals use the right. Also be aware of the inconsistency of the scaling between each graph; if the scale is normalized the data is uninterpretable in most counties. I talked yesterday about the correlation between challenges and the current vote totals in a given precinct. I concluded that both candidates seem to be challenging more votes in precincts where they are currently leading. The maps and graphs above seem to reaffirm this assertion with one notable exception; Hennepin County. Franken won Hennepin County based on the certified result, is currently leading and will eventually win the county; but Norm Coleman has challenged 23 more ballots than Al Franken in the County containing Minneapolis. Hennepin County has the largest population of any county in Minnesota and contains at least 6,000 residual votes. It is very likely that both candidates are challenging votes for Al Franken; as these residual votes tend to lean towards the Democratic candidate. I think its very possible for Franken to make up votes when the Hennepin challenges are finally reviewed. Franken may still have ground to gain in Ramsey County too, judging by their anemic progress, of just less than 50%. Ramsey County has a similar residual vote pattern and it's very possible that the same trend occurring in Hennepin could also be observed in Ramsey County as the remaining ballots are recounted.

Dynamic Minnesota Recount Maps

11/22/2008 10:38:35 PM CT

The Minnesota Senate Recount is in full swing, and with new numbers posted daily, it can, at times seem overwhelming. But fear not, I've created a snazzy new image that dynamically updates each night (at 8 PM CT) upon the release of new data by the Secretary of State. The maps may initially seem cryptic, but its all explained below. I've also posted html and BBcode for each image so you can help spread the word, and keep others in the know. The data from the SOS is provided at the precinct level, but our maps are only presentable at the county level. To compensate, our algorithm loops through the entire result adding each precinct's data to the associated county; the result of this computation provides a county level extrapolation that allows for a graphical visualization of the most current recount result. Minnesota Senate Recount by County (490 x 610 Pixels):

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net"><img src="http://www.voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Minnesota_9" alt="VoteForAmerica.net Minnesota Recount Results by County Map" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net][img]http://www.voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Minnesota_9[/img][/url] I'll now attempt to explain the peculiarities of each map and the associated colorization process. Franken vs Coleman (0%, 1, 3) The upper left most map of Minnesota depicts the percent margin of victory in each county using the unofficial results of the Minnesota Senate election. All totals pertaining to unlisted candidates are included in our analysis. The color purple represents counties decided by less than 3% of the final margin, decrementing by 1 percent for each change in color. The darkest purple represents a voting margin of 1% or less, the middle purple between 1% and 2% and the lightest purple between 2-3%. The blue and red then represent counties that were decisively won by either Al Franken or Norm Coleman, respectively. The red and blue counties follow a 3% scale. The lightest blue (or red) represents a 3-6% margin, followed by 6-9% as the color grows darker, then finally a 9%+ margin of victory for the darkest blue (or red). % Ballots Counted (0%, 16.6, 16.6) The upper right most map illustrates the ratio between the number of recounted votes and the certified vote totals for each county. The counties in gray have yet to begin the recount process. If the percent of recounted votes over certified votes is less than 50%, the county is colored purple; if this ratio is greater than 50% the county is colored with respect to winning candidate, either blue or red. The color gradations take place in 16.6% divisions. The tint, for each color represents the highest range. For purple this range is 33.3-50% segment while the darkest blue (or red) represents the 83.3%-100% division. The color grows lighter as the percentage decreases. Ballots Challenged (0%, 1, 7) The bottom left map attempts to illustrate the discrepancy between challenged votes, in each county, by each candidate. The purple counties are divided into single challenge divisions while the partisan colors are separated by seven. The partisan coloring begins after a four challenge offset with blue representing a Franken challenge and red a Coleman challenge. Gray depicts counties with no challenge discrepancy; this may or may not include counties that have yet to begin recounting. Recounted Vote Gain (0%, 1, 5) The last image provides the net vote gain, per county based on the difference between the current recount result and the initially certified count. If less than 3 votes have been gained by either candidate in a given county that county will be colored purple in single vote divisions. If a candidate has a net gain of more than 3 votes in any county it will be colored accordingly; blue for Franken, and red for Coleman. The partisan coloring is done in 5 vote increments. Gray again represents counties that have yet to begin their recount process. Preliminary Minnesota Election Results by County (490 x 610 Pixels):

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net"><img src="http://www.voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Minnesota_4" alt="VoteForAmerica.net Minnesota Recount Results by County Map" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net][img]http://www.voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Minnesota_4[/img][/url] The previous map follows about the same pattern as the first, but a full description is available in a previous article.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 4

11/22/2008 10:22:43 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

           Recount      Original
Coleman:   809,677   -   809454  =  -669
Franken:   784,310   -   784022  =  -621

Franken Net Today: -52 (14 Yesterday, 43 day before, 43)
Total Franken Net:  48
Franken Deficit:    67

I've added a challenge regression into the mix (at the end), above and beyond the error rate analysis I have routinely conducted. The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,494; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the first day's regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 32,186 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,494 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,494 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman Gain: -968.186777451647 (+/- 30)
            Franken Gain: -911.227610123547 (+/- 28)

             Franken Net: 56.9591673280993 (+/- 58)

Franken falls short of the pre-recount deficit by about 160 votes, with 32,186 votes entirely ignored and the challenges left uncounted. If those additional 32,186 votes are applied to the process, Franken less than a single vote:

                
            Coleman Gain: -981.037349428085  (+/- 145)
            Franken Gain: -923.639100212363  (+/- 101)

             Franken Net: 57.3982492157215  (+/- 246)

The graph below shows the number of challenges by each candidate relative to how they are performing in a given precinct. The dots represent challenges; a dot to the north of the x-axis represents a precinct that the candidate is currently winning. A dot to the south shows the number of challenges in a precinct that each candidate is currently losing. There are no negative challenges. The next graph shows each candidate's challenge regression on the same graph: It appears that a larger percent of Franken challenges occur in precincts he is currently winning, relative to Coleman's percentage. They both appear to be challenging more ballots in precincts they are winning, but Franken at a higher rate. This discrepancy may allow Franken to make up additional votes, but an exact number is impossible to predict. This analysis is valid as of right now (10:38 PM CT 11/22), after 65.65% of all votes have been recounted. Check back tomorrow for the day 5 result, if there is one, it's Sunday and I don't know if they continue counting.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 3

11/21/2008 10:26:45 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. Recap of today's official result:

           Recount      Original
Coleman:   751898   -    752438 =  -540
Franken:   723378   -    723818 =  -440

Franken Net Today: 14 (43 yesterday, 43 day before)
Total Franken Net: 100
Franken Deficit:  115

The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,494; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the first day's regression, while the dashed lines represent yesterday's. The thin lines depict the linear regression while the thicker curvy lines present a quartic regression. The black bars emanating from the x axis represent the number of precincts, statewide with x number of total votes. There are a few straggler precincts between 2600 and 6621 that are not depicted due to the resolution of the graph. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 32,186 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,494 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,494 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman Gain: -832.977997236315 (+/- 24)
            Franken Gain: -681.983934516065 (+/- 20)

             Franken Net: 150.994062720251 (+/- 44)

Franken falls short of the pre-recount deficit by about 65 votes, with 32,186 votes entirely ignored and the challenges left uncounted. If those additional 32,186 votes are applied to the process, Franken adds an additional vote:

                
            Coleman Gain: -844.072810341355 (+/- 103)
            Franken Gain: -691.688480481963 (+/- 97)

             Franken Net: 152.384329859392 (+/- 200)

As of right now (10:24 PM CT 11/21), after 60.86% of all votes have been recounted. Check back tomorrow for the day 4 result, if there is one, its Saturday and I don't know if they continue counting.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 2

11/20/2008 9:26:05 PM CT

For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 3,494; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The dotted lines represent the previous day's regression. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 32,186 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 3,494 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 3,494 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman Gain: -514.680649876274  (+/- 8)
            Franken Gain: -295.310532175405  (+/- 4)

             Franken Net: 219.37011770087  (+/- 12)

Franken makes up the pre-recount deficit of 215 votes, while 32,186 votes are entirely ignored. If those additional votes are applied to the process, Franken adds an additional 9 votes:

           Coleman Gain: -539.655665129103  (+/- 1648)
           Franken Gain: -311.596023329002  (+/- 1916)

            Franken Net: 228.059641800101  (+/- 3564)

As of right now (9:20 PM CT 11/20), after 42.33% of all votes have been recounted. Check back tomorrow for the day 3 result.

MN-Sen: Recount Regression, Day 1

11/20/2008 2:28:23 AM CT

Using the pretense of my pre-recount audit analysis I've incorporated the initial recount returns into the regression mechanism. For a more complete explanation of the process used, please refer to my initial post on the subject. The following two graphs depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct that has completed their recount. Each dot represents the change between the originally certified result and the post recount tally in a given precinct with x number of total votes: And the current functions used in conjunction with the regression: Now again using those functions, the following two graphs further illustrate the regression interpolation. The graph below illustrates the regression on precincts whose vote totals are less than 2,668; the largest precinct that has completed a recount. The graph below goes further and fits the regression onto all 4,130 precincts statewide; this forces 214,813 additional votes, that lie in precincts that surpass the 2,668 vote threshold, into the predetermined trend. Using the previous two graphs, and the functions they represent, a projection can be made for the cases covered. The first case simply includes precincts with 2,668 or less, while precincts above and beyond that figure are entirely ignored. For each precinct, the total vote total is taken and applied to the listed function for each candidate. The result is then added to that candidate's sum, and the next precinct is calculated. This process is done using precinct results from the final certification.

            Coleman Gain: -407.600629299817 (+/- 2.4)
            Franken Gain: -194.977755790799 (+/- .62)

             Franken Net: 212.622873509018 (+/- 3.02)

Franken nearly makes up the pre-recount deficit of 215 votes, while 214,813 votes are entirely ignored. If those additional votes are applied to the process, Franken takes a decisive lead:

           Coleman Gain: -540.336882632741 (+/- 4925)
           Franken Gain: -237.764374574729 (+/- 6342)

           Franken Net: 302.572508058013 (+/- 11267)

As of right now (4:16 AM CT 11/20), after 15.49% of all votes have been recounted, Franken stands poised to become Minnesota's next Senator. Later today, after the second day of recounting is over, and the officially unofficial results are posted at the SOS site, I'll post another article with the new data included in the analysis. As each day goes by, the graphs, and projections should begin to converge. If Franken gains another 40 votes throughout the upcoming day, Team Coleman is definitely in trouble. The only way to find out is by counting the votes.

MN-Sen: Audit Regression

11/19/2008 11:23:41 PM CT

The following analysis uses data provided by Prof. Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA who coauthored Residual Votes in the 2008 Minnesota Senate Race. My analysis is entirely independent and not in anyway shape or form associated with the aforementioned individuals or institutions. The data contains an exhaustive compilation of the revised Post Election Audit Review published by the Office of the Secretary of State in Minnesota. I parsed the data and created the graphs shown below. The three graphs immediately following this paragraph depict the number of votes gained or lost with respect to the total votes recorded for each precinct included in the audit. The dots represent the change between the machine counted votes and hand recorded votes surveyed in the audit. A dot located at (443, 2) represents a gain of 2 votes by the given candidate in a precinct with 443 total votes. Each approximation line uses a least-squares nonlinear regression for arbitrary fit functions as provided by Mathcad's genfit() function: You'll notice that the graphs range from 0 to 2,645 votes; this is because the largest precinct surveyed in the audit contained just 2,645 votes. The following functions correspond to the resulting regression's interpolation. The input x represents the number of votes in a given precinct. Although it appears as though the first two terms cancel, the truncated three decimal numbers are in actuality much more precise: The following graph illustrates the best fit regression functions, developed above, extrapolated out to include the vote totals of all 4,130 precincts statewide. As of right now (12:55 AM CT 11/20) the Otstego precinct of Wright County currently leads the state in total votes with 6,621. I plan on rehashing this analysis with the current results of the recount within the immediate future. Today Franken gained 43 votes as a result of today's recount over the certified returns published on November 18th:

                       Nov. 18       Recount    Change
       Coleman (R)     195,708       195,638     -70
       Franken (D)     180,950       180,923     -27

                       Franken Net Gain:          43

Franken made up much of his ground in St. Louis County, as I have previously suggested, by gaining 40 votes and losing 16. St. Louis County has recounted just 77 of 232 precincts (33.18%) and has contributed to a 23 vote decrease in Coleman's lead. Overal, Franken gained votes in 50 precincts, and lost votes in 79 while Coleman gained votes in 40 precincts and lost in 92. While today's result appears to be good news for Team Franken, the result of a Ramsey County lawsuit may be even better. The Franken Campaign sued the St. Paul county for the names of voters whose absentee ballots had been rejected. The presiding judge issued this statement: "With each passing hour, the Franken campaign is irreparably harmed in its efforts to ensure that each valid vote is properly counted." Franken's attorneys said the ruling strengthens their case in other counties and with the canvassing board over the ongoing issue of "wrongfully" invalidated absentee ballots.

MN-Senate: Precinct Audit Analysis

11/16/2008 4:58:18 PM CT

On Friday November 14th, the Post Election Audit Review was carried out in 53 (1.297%) precincts across the state. The audit recounted 54,036 (1.872%) Senate votes statewide and included voter intent into some determinations. Throughout the entire process 106 votes were corrected and Franken accumulated 2 additional votes. The table below depicts the results of this audit for each precinct in which it was conducted. The error rate measures the number of corrections relative to the total number of votes in each precinct. Votes for Dean Barkley and other Senate candidates were included in the math, but are not depicted due to space limitations.

County	Precinct	Total Changes	Franken Net Gain	Coleman	Franken	Total	Error %
Anoka	Coon Rapids W3 P-2	2	-2	874	811	2026	0.10%
Anoka	Lino Lakes P-4	1	0	1177	548	2019	0.05%
Becker	Detorit Lakes W3 P-1	1	1	770	475	1414	0.07%
Benton	Minden TWP P2	0	0	2	2	4	0.00%
Benton	Sauk Rapids P-3	1	0	749	502	1564	0.06%
Benton	Sauk Rapids P-4	1	1	503	417	1154	0.09%
Brown	Cottonwood TWP	1	1	200	149	478	0.21%
Carver	Chaska W4	3	1	1426	790	2645	0.11%
Chippewa	Clara City	1	0	304	232	683	0.15%
Chippewa	Montevideo P-1	1	-1	432	519	1202	0.08%
Cottonwood	Windom W-1 P-2	1	-1	320	281	707	0.14%
Dakota	South St. Paul P4 W2	1	1	516	802	1608	0.06%
Fairbault	Blue Earth W-2	1	1	314	212	636	0.16%
Hennepin	Bloomington W1 P15	1	-1	606	546	1349	0.07%
Hennepin	Maple Grove P-18	2	2	1074	438	1723	0.12%
Hennepin	Minneapolis W7 P9	3	-1	304	876	1327	0.23%
Hennepin	Minneapolis W9 P4	1	1	111	654	848	0.12%
Hennepin	Plymouth W4 P22	2	-1	835	487	1517	0.13%
Hennepin	Plymouth W4 P25	2	2	785	759	1853	0.11%
Itasca	Greenway TWP P-3	1	-2	112	218	382	0.26%
Kanabec	Ann Lake TWP	1	0	87	98	232	0.43%
Koochiching	Scarlett Precinct	1	-1	31	28	65	1.54%
Lac Qui Parle	Maxwell TWP	1	-1	39	36	93	1.08%
Lake of the Woods	5-A Unorg	1	1	157	114	324	0.31%
Marshall	McCrea TWP	1	-1	87	37	146	0.68%
Mille Lacs	South Harbor TWP	1	0	202	182	455	0.22%
Morrison	Little Falls TWP	1	-1	483	296	936	0.11%
Otter Tail	Dunn TWP	1	1	351	212	631	0.16%
Pipestone	Jasper	2	0	100	109	234	0.85%
Polk	Fosston City	1	1	363	276	733	0.14%
Ramsey	Roseville P-2	4	-2	924	1110	2399	0.17%
Ramsey	St. Paul W3 P5	2	-2	782	1060	2129	0.09%
Ramsey	St. Paul W3 P13	1	1	447	1341	2023	0.05%
Ramsey	St. Paul W6 P5	3	3	226	678	1055	0.28%
Redwood	Redwood Falls W3	0	0	358	310	860	0.00%
Renville	Franklin	1	-1	81	100	243	0.41%
Rock	Beaver Creek TWP	2	-2	130	66	210	0.95%
St. Louis	Babbit	28	-2	299	471	905	3.09%
St. Louis	Eveleth P6	11	5	61	214	310	3.55%
Scott	Prior Lake P5	2	1	1110	488	1824	0.11%
Scott	Savage P-2	1	1	1031	870	2332	0.04%
Sherburne	Clear Lake TWP	1	1	555	297	1079	0.09%
Sherburne	Elk River W2 P2B	1	-2	961	464	1746	0.06%
Stearns	Fair Haven TWP	2	0	354	236	830	0.24%
Steele	Merton TWP	1	0	87	53	222	0.45%
Stevens	Swan Lake TWP	2	2	95	36	149	1.34%
Swift	Swenoda TWP	0	0	25	25	72	0.00%
Traverse	Wheaton P2	1	1	151	165	403	0.25%
Waseca	New Richland City	1	0	221	222	573	0.17%
Washington	Cottage Grove P3	1	-2	651	790	1774	0.06%
Washington	Cottage Grove P5	1	1	644	644	1539	0.06%
Winona	Lewiston	1	-1	345	340	829	0.12%
Wright	Buffalo P1	1	-1	744	509	1542	0.06%
Total		106	2	23596	21595	54036	Avg: 0.37%

Based upon the random sample, Norm Coleman won 33 (62.26%) precincts, while Franken won the other 20. This ratio slightly exaggerates support for Norm Coleman; using the complete sample of 4,130 precincts, Coleman wins just 60.46% of all statewide precincts. If the result from the audit sample is extrapolated out into the remaining precincts, where Franken accrues 2 votes for every 53 precincts, the Democratic challenger should pick up 156 votes through the recount process. If an adjusted ratio is used, which reflects the statewide precinct ratio, Franken gains approximately 5 votes in addition to the aforementioned 156. Another item to consider is the high error rate in St. Louis County. St. Louis County is the largest county in Minnesota, and is located in the upper right portion of the state: Using the information presented in the above image (click on the image for a more thorough explanation) St. Louis County may hold the key to a Franken comeback. Noting the results of the Audit, where Franken accrued 3 votes in just five (three are not depicted in the table because there was no change) precincts from St. Louis County, Franken could gain 120 votes if the aforementioned trend continues in all 232 precincts of St. Louis County.

Minnesota Senate: Recount Preview

11/15/2008 12:58:15 AM CT

The Minnesota Senate recount hasn't started, but the already fierce campaign continues to escalate. No amount of complaining will win this election, but both sides seem content to try. Each campaign is spewing propaganda, but the vast majority of media coverage seems to involve Republican talking points, rather than facts. This is an obvious problem; as a result the actual information takes a backseat to spin and deception. Using the current results, as provided by the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office, the reasoning behind the right-wing's focus can be extracted: There's a lot of information in the image above that may not be directly apparent; I will do my best to explain its meaning; if you don't care about the peculiarities of each maps' coloration, skip to the ellipses. Franken vs Coleman (0%, 1, 3) The upper left most map of Minnesota depicts the percent margin of victory in each county using the unofficial results of the Minnesota Senate election. All totals pertaining to unlisted candidates are included in our analysis. The color purple represents counties decided by less than 3% of the final margin, decrementing by 1 percent for each change in color. The darkest purple represents a voting margin of 1% or less, the middle purple between 1% and 2% and the lightest purple between 2-3%. The blue and red then represent counties that were decisively won by either Al Franken or Norm Coleman, respectively. The red and blue counties follow a 3% scale. The lightest blue (or red) represents a 3-6% margin, followed by 6-9% as the color grows darker, then finally a 9%+ margin of victory for the darkest blue (or red). Obama vs McCain (0%, 1, 3) Instead of depicting the unofficial Senate Results, the upper right most map shows the result of the Presidential Election between Barack Obama and John McCain; the color scales are identical to those used in the first Senate map. Franken vs Obama (12%, .166, 1.5) The lower left most map differs from the previous two, but conveys a combination of their data. Based on the current statewide result, Al Franken received 12.07903% less votes than Obama. For the proposes of this graph that number was rounded to 12% and used as a baseline. If Al Franken performed better than that 12% difference in a given county, the county is designated as blue; if Obama did better, the county was colored orange. The purple represents counties where the adjusted margin, after the 12% is applied, lies within .5%. The darkest purple shows counties decided by .166% or less, the middle purple .333% or less, and the lightest purple .5% or less. The blue and orange counties follow a 1.5% scale. The lightest blue (or orange) represents a 1.5-3% adjusted margin, then a 3-4.5% margin for the next darkest color. followed by the darkest blue (or orange) representing a 7%+ adjusted margin of victory for the associated candidate. Residual Votes (0%, 200, 2000) The final map, the lower rightmost, reveals the most interesting conclusion of the currently unofficial result. This map illustrates the difference between the number of total ballots cast and the number cast in the Senate Election; this difference is commonly referred to as the residual vote. The counties are colored with respect to the first map, but the degree of coloration corresponds to the number of residual votes in a given county. The lightest color depicts a county with fewer than 200 residual votes, followed by the middle color with 200-2,000 residual votes, and finally the darkest color representing a county with more than 2,000 residual votes. ... The right-wing (LetFreedomRingBlog.com, Amanda Carpenter, HotAir.com, RedState.com) seems content to perpetuate misinformation of the residual vote variety. Contrary to their belief, the relationship between Franken's outcome and Obama's outcome has absolutely nothing to do with the current, and likely spread of residual votes. Are they simply refusing to accept the empirical facts or are they already starting to play the blame game? The raw data, our results, depict a very plausible comeback by Al Franken during the recount. Drawing from our Residual Votes map, there were 34,703 votes cast on a presidential ballot that were not cast in the Senate race. Of those 34,703 residual votes, 17,839 (51.04%) of them occurred in counties that Franken won, a margin of 975. If just 21.13% of the statewide residual votes are classified as either undervotes or overvotes Al Franken should statistically pull ahead during the recount. If you want a higher degree of residual vote accuracy, perhaps the county and precinct level results should be taken into consideration. Using county level data, Franken needs slightly less than 40% of the 34,703 previously identified residual votes and just 13.2% of that total using precinct data. All modes of interpretation clearly point to a likely surge by Franken during the recount process due to these residual votes; a fact the right seems content to ignore. If you don't trust my analysis, perhaps you should argue with Dartmouth College or MIT instead. Update: The obvious discrepancy in my initial result revolved around the exclusion of Presidential residual votes. The MN SOS website happens to provide a count for the total number of ballots cast in each county which allows us to find the number of Presidential residual votes through a simple subtraction. The Presidential residual vote was then added to the Senate residual vote to arrive at the total number of residual votes cast in the Minnesota election. I've updated the numbers within the the article to reflect this change. The inclusion of this new information increased the number of effective residual votes needed, for a Franken victory, by roughly 10%; definitely good news for Norm Coleman's reelection effort.

Alaska is...Interesting

11/14/2008 11:52:24 PM CT

With the Alaska Senate race still in full swing, a few pieces of information bear consideration. The Democratic challenger, Mark Begich of Anchorage currently holds a 1,022 vote lead over the convicted felon and Republican, Ted Stevens. The percent margin is exceptionally close, just .35%, a slim enough margin to qualify for a state funded recount under Alaska Statutes § 15.20.450: If the recount includes an office for which candidates received a tie vote, or the difference between the number of votes cast was 20 or less or was less than .5 percent of the total number of votes cast for the two candidates for the contested office...the application need not include a deposit, and the state shall bear the cost of the recount. The recount is not automatically triggered, as is the case in Minnesota, but rather must be requested under Alaska Statutes § 15.20.430: A defeated candidate or 10 qualified voters who believe there has been a mistake made by an election official or by the counting board in counting the votes in an election, may file an application within five days after the completion of the state review to the director for a recount of the votes from any particular precinct or any house district and for any particular office, proposition, or question. As the Alaska count currently stands, a state funded recount is a realistic outcome. In preparation for the recounts, in both Minnesota and possibly Alaska, I sought to collect geographic information from each state that would allow for the creation of county and precinct level maps. Minnesota went off without a hitch (more on that later) but I ran into some issues with Alaska. There appears to be an attempt by the Alaskan Government to provide the mapping data I sought, albeit a very sorry attempt. The page appears to provide a plethora of maps and resources, but any effort to actually obtain said files, results in a 505 error. I could always shell over the $150 required to purchase this data from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, but I don't have the urge. Why does Alaska need to charge for this government funded information, haven't the taxpayers already paid? Apparently a viable link to an image of Russia remains of paramount importance, while essentially every other link, to the actual data, fails. Unbelievable. Source: Alaska Department of Natural Resources To be fair, this image exists in a specific surveying format; the equal area model. That said, there is absolutely no reason why the page could not have been more logically oriented. But ignoring this issue; why is a bizarre image of Russia available on a government sponsored server, while data directly pertaining to the state, and country for which that government seeks to represent, unavailable? It all makes sense now.

MN-Sen: Undervote Redux

11/11/2008 3:27:11 AM CT

In my previous article on undervotes, which you should probably read before continuing, I looked at the undervote totals in the 87 counties of Minnesota. While counties provide a fair level of resolution, the precinct data could provide an additional level of detail. This time around I used the precinct data, from the MN Secretary of State's Office, for both the Senate and Presidential elections. The resulting calculation was performed identically to the method described in the aforementioned article, just with additional data. The precinct calculation yielded 17,831 undervotes in precincts won by Obama, while the county result ranged roughly 500 votes higher at 18,328. This deviation initially appears worrisome, for Franken, but the final tally shows a staggering drop off in the number of undervotes necessary for a Franken victory. An undervote total of just 3,280 votes, evenly distributed across each precinct and inline with the current trend, delivers Franken the votes necessary to overcome his 206 vote deficit. These 3,280 votes represent just 13.2% of all potential undervotes, as identified in the preceding article. Given this result, I have no idea if 13.2% exists in the realm of likelihood, but its better news, for Franken, than our previously determined 40% threshold. Tomorrow (or the next day) I plan on exploring the historical correlation between overvotes, undervotes, and the Presidential to Senate ratio; I'll report back with my findings.

MN-Sen: Undervotes Favor Franken

11/10/2008 7:12:08 PM CT

With each passing day, Norm Coleman's lead, currently 206, slips further into obscurity as the final canvassing concludes. No amount of crying, here, here and here, by Norm Coleman will change the fact that the final canvassing total often differs from the election night tally; as evidenced in a document released by the Franken campaign. If you want further evidence, a quick glance to our previous post, illustrates a perceived inequality with relation to the expected trend and the actual result.

	       4:21 AM       Proj       Actual      Diff.
   Franken      80,600      92,990      88,620     -4,370
   Barkley      20,550      23,415      22,652      -914
   Coleman      55,840      63,650      61,513     -2,137

Drawing from the table, Coleman may continue to bleed votes as these four northern counties continue to finalize their vote tally in preparation for the automatic recount. But even if Franken cannot close the 206 vote advantage Norm Coleman currently holds, Franken may be able to make up ground in the undervotes. Undervotes occur when the ballot reading optical scanner fails to record a vote in a given race, in this case the Senate race. Using data provided by the Minnesota Secretary of State for the presidential and senate elections, I tabulated a massive grid with data from each of Minnesota's 87 counties. I took this data and calculated the discrepancy between Presidential votes and Senate votes, it turned out to be 24,830; in other words, 24,830 people cast a vote for President, but did not cast a machine defined vote in the Senatorial election. This number represents a maximum number of undervotes that could possibly exist (technically it could be more, but its statistically improbable); in reality it is likely fewer. There are three scenario's that could result in a vote being marked as an undervote by the optical scanner; perhaps the person legitimately did not vote for a Senate candidate, there may have been a random malfunction or perhaps the voter failed to adequately mark their Minnesota ballot as depicted below: The three above instances clearly demonstrate the intent to vote, but would still none the less be classified as undervotes. It is these instances which could very well allow Franken to surpass Coleman upon the conclusion of these undervotes in the impending recount. Using the previously collated data table, I concluded that there is a maximum of 18,328 undervotes present in counties won by Obama, but this isn't news, the Associated Press beat me to it, but I still have more to offer. This tilt towards Obama translates into a rather large lead for Franken in counties that have a high number of undervotes. If a uniform distribution of undervotes exists in each of Minnesota's 87 counties and the current trend holds in each county, Franken could pull ahead if just slightly less than 40% of the potential undervotes are infact undervotes. Franken will likely win the recount if the trends hold and there are 9,848 undervotes evenly distributed across the state.

Franken Will Likely Prevail

11/5/2008 2:55:48 AM CT

Al Franken stands to gain 4580 votes if the remaining precincts follow their trend. This is essentially a death sentence for Coleman as he only leads by 2568. The table below includes all uncounted counties and the probable vote allocation based on the current percent of precincts reporting and the current results.

St. Louis	Est.		Cass		Est.
Al	59050	70298		Norm	7407	8051
Norm	34812	41443		Al	5699	6195
Dean	12920	16326		Dean	2380	2587
% Rprt	0.84			% Rprt	0.92	
						
Pine		Est.		Itasca		Est.
Al	5824	5943		Norm	7977	8397
Norm	5644	5759		Al	10027	10555
Dean	2471	2521		Dean	2779	2925
% Rprt	0.98			% Rprt	0.95	
						
	Total	Current	Est.	Chng		
	Norm	55840	63650	7810		
	Al	80600	92990	12390		
	Dean	20550	23415	2865		
	% Rprt			4580		
	
	Current Votes
	Franken:	1203315
	Coleman:	1205883

Data taken from CNN at 4:21 AM CT.

Exit Polls Dictate a Landslide

11/4/2008 7:20:09 PM CT

Based upon exit polls provided by MSNBC, it appears as though Obama has this election in the bag. Obama will win Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Florida and North Carolina if the exit polls are accurate.

	Georgia			  Florida		
	Obama	McCain	% Total	  Obama	  McCain  % Total
Male	51	56	0.46	  49	  49	  0.47
Female	54	55	0.54	  50	  48	  0.53
							
Male	23.46	25.76		  23.03  23.03	
Female	29.16	29.7		  26.5	 25.44	
Total	52.62	55.46		  49.53	 48.47	
							
	Alabama			  North Carolina		
	Obama	McCain	% Total	  Obama	  McCain  % Total
Male	38	60	0.45	  46	  53	  0.46
Female	45	55	0.55	  56	  43	  0.54
							
Male	17.1	27		  21.16	  24.38	
Female	24.75	30.25		  30.24	  23.22	
Total	41.85	57.25		  51.4	  47.6	
							
	Virginia		  Missouri		
	Obama	McCain	% Total	  Obama	  McCain  % Total
Male	52	46	0.46	  52	  47	  0.46
Female	56	44	0.54	  54	  45	  0.54
							
Male	23.92	21.16		  23.92	  21.62	
Female	30.24	23.76		  29.16	  24.3	
Total	54.16	44.92		  53.08	  45.92	
							
	Indiana			  Ohio		
	Obama	McCain	% Total	  Obama	  McCain  % Total
Male	49	49	0.47	  52	  46	  0.48
Female	55	44	0.53	  54	  44	  0.52
							
Male	23.03	23.03		  24.96	  22.08	
Female	29.15	23.32		  28.08	  22.88	
Total	52.18	46.35		  53.04	  44.96

Data gathered from MSNBC's exit polls.

Our Final Projections

11/4/2008 4:43:02 PM CT

Non-Partisan Polling, Final Projections: Partisan/Internet Polling, Final Projections:

Poll Update (11/4): Finale

11/4/2008 2:27:38 PM CT

A ton of new polls, with 86 coming from Polimetrix/YouGov. They are marked as a partisan pollster because the internet was used to gather their data. While this in itself does not constitute partisanship, the sample is likely skewed by the internet demographic. Our algorithm only defines partisan and non-partisan polls so in order to filter out these polls (due to the aforementioned questionable sample) a partisan suffix is added. Other than those 86 polls, the remaining non-partisan polls really provide no new information:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alabama Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	26	54	20
Alabama (9)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	39	57	4
Alaska Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	44	42	14
Alaska (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	38	55	7
Arizona (10)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	46	50	4
Arkansas (6)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	41	53	6
Arkansas Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	52	19	29
California (55)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	55	40	5
Colorado (9)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	55	40	5
Colorado Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	36	13
Connecticut (7)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	58	37	5
DC (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	81	15	4
Delaware Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	58	31	11
Delaware (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	59	37	4
Florida (27)	SurveyUSA	11/3/2008	50	47	3
Florida (27)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	49	48	3
Florida (27)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	49	47	4
Georgia (15)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	47	50	3
Georgia Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	37	43	20
Hawaii (4)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	56	34	10
Idaho (4)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	36	59	5
Idaho Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	31	56	13
Illinois (21)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	58	39	3
Illinois Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	54	31	15
Indiana (11)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	45	50	5
Indiana (11)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	45	53	2
Iowa (7)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	52	41	7
Iowa Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	56	36	8
Kansas (6)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	41	52	7
Kansas Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	32	56	12
Kentucky (8)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	41	53	6
Kentucky Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	42	49	9
Louisiana Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	52	39	9
Louisiana (9)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	45	52	3
Maine Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	35	55	10
Maine (4)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	42	7
Maryland (10)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	60	35	5
Massachusetts (12)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	57	39	4
Massachusetts Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	55	32	13
Michigan (17)	Mitchell Interactive, LLC	11/3/2008	54	38	8
Michigan (17)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	55	42	3
Michigan Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	52	29	19
Minnesota (10)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	45	4
Minnesota Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	40	39	21
Mississippi (6)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	42	55	3
Mississippi-A Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	28	56	16
Mississippi-B Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	40	48	12
Missouri (11)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	49	49	2
Missouri (11)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	47	49	4
Montana Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	60	32	8
Montana (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	44	54	2
National (538)	Harris Interactive (D)	11/3/2008	52	44	4
National (538)	Marist College	11/3/2008	52	43	5
Nebraska (5)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	38	57	5
Nebraska Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	34	53	13
Nevada (5)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	53	42	5
Nevada (5)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	46	3
New Hampshire (4)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	54	40	6
New Hampshire Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	49	41	10
New Jersey Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	48	34	18
New Jersey (15)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	55	40	5
New Mexico (5)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	53	43	4
New Mexico Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	54	33	13
New York (31)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	58	38	4
North Carolina (15)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	49	50	1
North Carolina (15)	American Research Group	11/3/2008	49	48	3
North Carolina (15)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	47	2
North Carolina Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	48	42	10
North Dakota (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	43	50	7
Ohio (20)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	49	47	4
Ohio (20)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	45	4
Oklahoma Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	39	50	11
Oklahoma (7)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	39	58	3
Oregon Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	44	43	13
Oregon (7)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	54	43	3
Pennsylvania (21)	SurveyUSA	11/3/2008	52	43	5
Pennsylvania (21)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	51	41	8
Pennsylvania (21)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	51	44	5
Rhode Island Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	64	25	11
Rhode Island (4)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	58	37	5
South Carolina Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	31	47	22
South Carolina (8)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	44	52	4
South Dakota (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	43	52	5
South Dakota Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	60	35	5
Tennessee (11)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	44	53	3
Tennessee Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	30	53	17
Texas Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	35	47	18
Texas (34)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	43	54	3
Utah (5)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	34	61	5
Vermont (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	62	32	6
Virginia (13)	American Research Group	11/3/2008	51	47	2
Virginia (13)	Reuters, Zogby, CSPAN	11/3/2008	52	45	3
Virginia (13)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	52	45	3
Virginia Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	58	33	9
Washington (11)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	53	43	4
West Virginia (5)	American Research Group	11/3/2008	42	53	5
West Virginia (5)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	43	52	5
West Virginia Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	55	37	8
Wisconsin (10)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	53	41	6
Wyoming (3)	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	29	67	4
Wyoming-A Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	25	68	7
Wyoming-B Senate	YouGov, Polimetrix (D)	11/1/2008	29	63	8

I'm declaring the polling for this election over; I will so be posting out final projections.

The Multiplicity of Electoral Models

11/4/2008 5:54:51 AM CT

Foreclosure Suppression Model: Using foreclosure data from 2007, the only data set I could find, a suppression model was devised. It's quite simple, but gives a good result; I take the number of foreclosures in 2007 and divide that by the 2004 popular vote total in a given state. The result represents the percentage of eligible voters [based on 2004] under foreclosure. The table below illustrates the ten states with the greatest percentage of foreclosures relative to the 2004 turnout:

State	Status	2004 Votes	Foreclosures	%
Nevada (5)	Weak Dem	825,899	66,316	8.030
California (55)	Safe Dem	12,419,857	481,392	3.876
Florida (27)	Core Dem	7,609,810	279,325	3.671
Arizona (10)	Weak Rep	2,012,585	69,970	3.477
Colorado (9)	Weak Dem	2,130,330	71,149	3.340
Georgia (15)	Toss Up	3,298,790	99,578	3.019
Michigan (17)	Safe Dem	4,839,247	136,205	2.815
Ohio (20)	Core Dem	5,627,903	153,196	2.722
Indiana (11)	Weak Rep	2,468,002	52,930	2.145
Texas (34)	Safe Rep	7,410,749	149,703	2.020

Source: Princeton Election Consortium Judging from the graph and more specifically the data points on the far right corresponding to the year 2006, it can be seen that the Bradley Effect was distributed between +5%, (meaning the African American candidate polled 5% lower in the final result than in the public polls leading up to the election) and -5%. For the purpose of this analysis we are trying to find the maximum degree to which the Bradley Effect could occur; in order to achieve this end we will use the maximum racial offset of +5% as prescribed in the 2006 data. Incorporating the 5% into the projection algorithm presented the following changes: Obama's Projection: I calculated his initial projection and then subtracted 5% of it to arrive at his adjusted projection. McCain's Projection: I started by figuring out the number of undecided voters at the end of the initial projection; this is done by subtracting 100 from McCain's and Obama's initial projection. I then added this number to McCain's projection; to account for the adjustment made to Obama's total above, 5% of Obama's initial projection is then added to McCain's running sum to arrive at McCain's final adjusted projection. Translating the pure formula into words results in a much more succinct correlation to the core principles behind the Bradley Effect. I assumed that 5% of Obama's support was racially tinged so I added it to McCain's total while subtracting it from Obama's. I then also assumed that of all the currently undecided voters, 5% are racist and as a result they will cast their vote for McCain. The result of this application can be seen in the map below: Independent Shift Model: While altering the outcome of our model, I wondered what would happen if all currently undecided voters suddenly moved to McCain en masse: The next four model's are almost guaranteed to not happen, but since the means to make the maps exist, the maps corresponding to these unlikely models also exist. Bradley Effect & Independent Shift Model: I combined the results of the Independent Shift Model and the Bradley Effect Model by first applying the Bradley Effect scenario and then forcing the independents to support McCain: Independent Shift & Foreclosure Suppression Model: I simply subtracted the Foreclosure percentage from Obama and then shifted the independents over to McCain: Foreclosure Suppression & Bradley Effect Model: First I applied the Bradley Effect scenario, then the Foreclosure victims were subtracted from Obama's total: Complete Combination Model: The absolute worst case for Barack Obama. First the Bradley Effect is taken into account, then Foreclosed voters are suppressed, and then every currently undecided voter decides to support McCain: The first three models lie much closer to the plane of realism and although their purpose is to depict a worst case scenario, they cannot overcome the ever increasing likelihood of an Obama victory.

Poll Update (11/4): Morning Edition

11/4/2008 4:04:02 AM CT

I really thought there would be more polls tonight, but I guess I was wrong:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Florida (27)	SurveyUSA	11/3/2008	50	47	3
National (538)	Marist	11/3/2008	52	43	5
North Carolina (15)	American Research Group	11/3/2008	49	48	3
Virginia (13)	American Research Group	11/3/2008	51	47	2
West Virginia (5)	American Research Group	11/3/2008	42	53	5

I'm curious to see if any polls are even released tomorrow; this may be our last update before either John McCain or Barack Obama becomes president elect. I'll be making my final projection tomorrow at some point before the polls close in Indiana ; the frequency of polling tomorrow, or perhaps the lack thereof will dictate the timing. If you're bored and can't sleep checkout the new Senate Projection map along with our projections: I've got a few other things lined up, but I can't guarantee that I'll deliver on all of them, so I'm not going to tell you about any of them.

Poll Update (11/3): Evening Edition

11/3/2008 8:22:33 PM CT

Busy day and there are still things to do. Here's the second batch of today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alaska Senate	Hays Research (D)	11/2/2008	49	42	9
Alaska (3)	Hays Research (D)	11/2/2008	45	48	7
Colorado (9)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	51	47	2
Florida (27)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	50	48	2
Florida (27)	Datamar Inc	11/2/2008	47	48	5
Florida (27)	Quinnipiac University	11/2/2008	47	45	8
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	49	50	1
Florida (27)	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	49	47	4
Georgia Senate	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	44	48	8
Georgia (15)	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	45	52	3
Georgia (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	48	50	2
Georgia Senate	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	44	48	8
Georgia Senate	InsiderAdvantage	11/2/2008	43	48	9
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	11/2/2008	47	48	5
Georgia (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	46	50	4
Georgia Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	46	48	6
Georgia Senate	POS (R)	10/30/2008	39	48	13
Georgia Senate	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/23/2008	39	45	16
Indiana (11)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	49	48	3
Missouri (11)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	49	49	2
Missouri (11)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	49	49	2
Missouri (11)	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	48	48	4
Montana Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	71	26	3
Montana (3)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	48	47	5
National (538)	Marist College	11/2/2008	53	44	3
National (538)	FOX News, Opinion Dynamics	11/2/2008	50	43	7
National (538)	CBS News	11/2/2008	51	42	7
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	11/2/2008	51	44	5
National (538)	Ipsos	11/1/2008	53	46	1
Nevada (5)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	51	47	2
New Jersey (15)	Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	57	42	1
North Carolina (15)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	49	50	1
North Carolina (15)	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	48	49	3
North Carolina Senate	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	50	43	7
North Carolina Senate	Mason-Dixon	10/30/2008	45	46	9
Ohio (20)	Quinnipiac University	11/2/2008	50	43	7
Ohio (20)	Ohio Newspaper Poll	11/2/2008	52	46	2
Ohio (20)	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	46	48	6
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	49	49	2
Ohio (20)	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	48	46	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	51	44	5
Pennsylvania (21)	Quinnipiac University	11/2/2008	52	42	6
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	11/2/2008	51	47	2
Washington (11)	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	55	40	5
Washington (11)	SurveyUSA	11/2/2008	56	40	4
Wisconsin (10)	Strategic Vision (R)	11/2/2008	53	40	7

I've updated our Georgia graph to include the Liberatarian candidate Allen Buckley. The Senate election in Georgia will very likely end in a runoff, but I suppose anything is possible. In 2004, 3,301,875 votes were cast in Georgia and this year early voting has already accounted for 60.4% of the that total. This contest is far from decided: I hope to accomplish three things tonight/morning; the first, another poll update after the late polls surface. I also want to create a Senate Projection map and possibily a probability graph, but we'll see on the latter. Finally I'd like to find a live election data feed to allow for a comparision between our projections and the actual results as they trickle in.

Poll Update (11/3): Late Night Edition

11/3/2008 2:07:25 AM CT

Public Policy Polling (D) and Reuters/Zogby decided that they needed to release their latest numbers at around midnight; and I was all over it. There was also a late straggler in Minnesota by SurveyUSA/KSTP that slipped through the crack earlier in the day. Here's our late night edition:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Florida (27)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	47.5	46.2	6
Indiana (11)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	43.9	49.1	7
Minnesota (10)	SurveyUSA	11/1/2008	49	46	5
Minnesota Senate	SurveyUSA	11/1/2008	39	44	17
Missouri (11)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	47.4	45.7	7
National (538)	NBC News, Wall Street Journal	11/2/2008	51	43	6
Nevada (5)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	50.7	42.9	6
North Carolina (15)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	49.3	47.7	3
North Carolina Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	51	44	5
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	50	49	1
Ohio (20)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	50.2	43.9	6
Ohio (20)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	50	48	2
Pennsylvania (21)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	53.7	40	6
Virginia (13)	Reuters, Zogby	11/2/2008	50.7	44.6	4

Of the fourteen polls included in the roundup, the Republican party leads in just two; Indiana and the Minnesota Senate race. The results of any SurveyUSA poll taken in Minnesota have been suspect throughout the election cycle and this result is no different. Based on the cross tabs Barack Obama is garnering 50% of his support from voters over 50 and just 49% from voters aged 18-50. Can you say Halloween sample skew? In fact SurveyUSA's results have been consistently awkward; to prove this I highlighted (with gray circles) SurveyUSA's polls on our Minnesota Senate graph below: always fits the most recent data point within the specified confidence level, so this really isn't an exception, but rather a technicality. That said, I may be able to choose another pollster to illustrate a similar bias towards Franken. The bottom line is that the Minnesota Senate race remains extremely tight and any additional polling is unlikely to sharpen the direction of this race.

Final MN Senate Debate: Live Analysis

11/2/2008 7:01:45 PM CT

You can listen to the debate at MPR. 7:02 CT: There will be no rules, but candidates should keep their answers concise. The candidates were then wheeled out in alphabetical order: Dean Barkley, Norm Coleman and Al Franken. 7:03 CT: Coleman starts first, the lawsuits will take the stage. Coleman stated that he has not received any gifts from family friends or allies. "The plaintiff to the lawsuit said that their was not basis for this claim." I highly doubt that if they took the time file a lawsuit. 7:04 CT:Norm was then asked if Al Franken has any connection to the lawsuit; Coleman did not answer the question but detoured to talk about how "Al Franken is targeting [Norm's] family." 7:05 CT: "Mr. Franken, do you have any connection to the lawsuit?" Franken responded, "None," and then paused for a moment. "The lawsuit is not about Norm Coleman's wife it's about Norm Coleman's sugar daddy. Norm Coleman cannot blame this on me; this is Norm Coleman's problem." Franken would not go so far to say that Coleman is corrupt, but called it a serious allegation. 7:08 CT: Barkley has had no part in this debate so far. 7:09 CT: Coleman: "There is a line to be drawn." The ad Norm Coleman continues to referrer to, the one where Al Franken attacks his wife follows. Nothing in the ad directly attacks his wife.

7:10 CT: Franken responded by stating that the lawsuit "is not about Norm Coleman's wife, this is about money." 7:13 CT: Now onto Dean Barkley, "now you know one of the reasons I'm running. This is probably the most negative campaign in Minnesota history...I may end up getting sued too." 7:14 CT: What will be the biggest issue to face America in the next six years? Dean went first and stated that he wants to turn America around and put it on a new direction. He also wants to clean up Washington; "Lets take the direct bribery out of politics." 7:16 CT: Norm Coleman next: "If you play to the partisan divide you accomplish nothing." 7:17 CT: Franken then stated that he wants to fix the economic situation; "Washington has not been working for Minnesota families." Franken then went on to list several issues that he believes he can fix. 7:18 CT: Question from a women in the audience. She asked each of the candidates to name one program they support that could be set aside while the nation gets its financial situation in order. 7:20 CT: Franken gets to respond first, "every item on my agenda has a return on my investment...that's what Clinton did." 7:21 CT: Barkley then got his typical line of "I've been working on the issues since 1992 when I first said it was broke...We need a four year spending cap to stop the bleeding; how are we going to pay for these things Al." Barkley then went on to question the massive military spending that contributes to our nations 11 trillion deficit. 7:22 CT: Coleman then stated the standard Kerry line: "You can't support something if you voted against it." The moderator then essentially said that's not the question, please answer it. "I would give up my raise," the crowd started booing and then he again got side tracked after briefly mentioning a spending freeze." 7:24 CT: Another question from the audience; the college question. How will you make it more affordable? 7:25 CT: Coleman essentially stated that he will continue his work with Pell grants. He was also sure to point out that his IRA has taken a hit and that he has two kids in college. 7:26 CT: Franken discussed his intention to give a $5,000 tax credit for kids seeking higher education. Franken then told a story about a student from Mankato State University who has to donate his plasma to pay for his education and he will still graduate with debt. He then went on to mention Obama. 7:28 CT: Onto Barkley, "If you want a guy who can make empty promises, I'm not your guy." He later went on to say that he will not pander, but will focus on the issues. 7:30 CT: Barkley gets to ask a question to Al Franken: "I know you support Obama, but can you name a position McCain supports that you also support." 7:31 CT: "I agree with Sarah Palin and John McCain...on their counter terrorism stance. You don't kill everybody. You make friends and then your friends tell you who to kill." 7:32 CT: Norm Coleman then asked Franken to "name three things Franken has done for Minnesota." 7:33 CT: Franken started but Coleman didn't like the fact that Al was actually answering the question. It got testy for a moment. "Franken went on to say that he worked with chemical dependency" patients. Franken then cited his participation in Operation Helmet, a joint venture with a Republican from Texas with the intention of providing additional helmets for the troops overseas. The third activity he cited was his numerous charitable events. 7:36 CT: Franken then asked Coleman "how many years should a politician have to debate until they can be a lobbyist." 7:37 CT: Coleman responded by saying "what would that accomplish" in reference to a lifetime ban. 7:38 CT: Franken responded by answering Norm's question; Franken roughly stated that Senators vote on certain bills because they believe it will benefit them later down the road. 7:39 CT: Barkley finally got another question. Would you cut off funding for the war? Barkley said "Yes," Coleman said "No" and then gave a story about mothers in his office, and then Franken said "No." Barkley stated that the question was not a direct question about "the Iraq war, but rather a hypothetical immoral war." 7:42 CT: Another question from the crowd; it sounded like a young boy. How would you help push alternative energy? 7:43 CT: Coleman went first and stated his support for the 2005 energy bill citing the fact that "85 senators voted for this bill and Franken said he would not." 7:44 CT: Barkley next; "I will not support tax breaks for Oil Companies." Barkley then cited the difference between the passive income stipulation included in the 2005 energy bill "that only benefits the wealthy." 7:45 CT: Franken gets the last word on the energy issue. "Norm Coleman basically said that if people agree blah blah blah [sic]." Then went onto say that if people actually agreed this election wouldn't look so bad for the Republicans. 7:46 CT: Another question from South Minneapolis. Is health care a privilege, right or responsibility? 7:47 CT: Barkley first; "16% of our GDP [Gross Domestic Product] is taken over by health care. That is much higher than other European countries." Barkley believes that health care should be a right and the ultimate solution is a single payer plan, although he has other solutions that are less drastic.. 7:49 CT: Al then agreed with Barkley on the "right" to health care. Al stated that "I support Barack Obama's health care plan. If you like your health care now you can keep it, if you don't have health care it will be less expensive." 7:50 CT: Coleman followed citing "Franken's support for a single payer plan during his primary run with Cirisii...Under that plan you take the healthy kids and make them unhealthy because they aren't allowed to take Liptor and Prilosec." These are not drugs, kids are taking, or need to be taking under any plan. 7:51 CT: Yes and no question time. Is Medicare better than no Medicare? 7:52 CT: Coleman: "Yes", Barkley: "Yes', and Franken "Sort of." 7:53 CT: Raise taxes? Barkley: "No", Franken "No", Coleman "No." 7:54 CT: Is our current plan for children's health care adequate? Barkley "Yes", Coleman "Yes", Franken "we can fix it." 7:54 CT: Franken wants to do a quad-partisan bill with Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. 7:54 CT: Approve a Supreme Court Justice who differs with your view on abortion. 7:54 CT: Barkley: "I would never ask that question". Coleman: would ask "if they're qualified." Franken: responded that he would not press the issue because "privacy emanates from the constitution." 7:55 CT: End Iraq war? 7:55 CT: Barkley "Yes", Franken "Yes". Coleman "Yes because we're not gonna be in Iraq in six years because gen. Petreaus has achieved such great success." 7:56 CT: Final statements, Franken first. 7:57 CT: "Elections are a time to hold our politicians responsible. If you believe George Bush was right 90% of the time I'm not your guy." Franken then did his "I ask for your vote" bit. Ending with his desire to end the war. 7:57 CT: Now Norm: "These are the most challenging times in my 37 years of public service. The question is not who do you blame, but rather who will fix it...We can bridge the partisan divide." 7:58 CT: Barkley concludes the night: "There are a lot of people who believe that Al or Norm are their worst nightmare...Do you think that Al and Norm will change the direction of Washington...Send Washington a message by sending Dean Barkley to the Senate."

Poll Update (11/2)

11/2/2008 5:31:27 PM CT

Quick update for now, the Minnesota Senate debates starts in an hour and a half and I've got things to do before then. Here are the polls so far today. I'm still convinced a few will trickle in later:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Colorado (9)	Mason-Dixon, Denver Post	10/29/2008	49	44	7
Colorado (9)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	49	44	7
Florida (27)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	47	45	8
Illinois (21)	Rasmussen Reports	11/1/2008	50	38	12
Iowa (7)	Des Moines Register, Selzer	10/31/2008	54	37	9
Kentucky (8)	SurveyUSA	11/1/2008	40	56	4
Kentucky Senate	SurveyUSA	11/1/2008	45	53	2
Maine (4)	Rasmussen Reports	11/1/2008	56	43	1
Maine Senate	Rasmussen Reports	11/1/2008	41	57	2
Michigan (17)	Detroit Free Press	10/31/2008	53	37	10
Minnesota Senate	Star Tribune	10/31/2008	42	38	20
Minnesota (10)	Star Tribune	10/31/2008	53	42	5
Missouri (11)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	46	47	7
National (538)	Pew Research Center	11/1/2008	49	42	9
National (538)	CNN, Opinion Research Corp.	11/1/2008	53	46	1
Nevada (5)	Mason-Dixon, Review-Journal	10/29/2008	47	43	10
New Hampshire (4)	WMUR, UNH Tracking	10/31/2008	52	41	7
New Mexico (5)	SurveyUSA	10/31/2008	52	45	3
New Mexico Senate	Albuquerque Journal	10/30/2008	53	39	8
New Mexico (5)	Albuquerque Journal	10/30/2008	51	43	6
North Carolina (15)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	46	49	5
Ohio (20)	Columbus Dispatch	10/31/2008	52	46	2
Ohio (20)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	45	47	8
Pennsylvania (21)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	53	45	2
Pennsylvania (21)	SurveyUSA	10/31/2008	51	44	5
Pennsylvania (21)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	47	43	10
Virginia Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	62	36	2
Virginia (13)	Public Policy Polling (D)	11/2/2008	52	46	2
Virginia Senate	SurveyUSA	11/1/2008	59	35	6
Virginia (13)	SurveyUSA	11/1/2008	50	46	4
Virginia (13)	Mason-Dixon, Times-Dispatch	10/30/2008	47	44	9
Virginia (13)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/29/2008	47	44	9

Here's just a quick thought; judging from our Senate Projections its pretty much a given that the Democrats will end up with at least 58 members in their caucus. But acquiring the final two needed to push them to 60 seems to be a stepper climb. The two best opportunities seem to be Georgia and Minnesota. I discussed the Minnesota race earlier but the Georgia race is also deserving of attention; or is it? I said it yesterday, but I'll say it again: If the Democrats are serious about reaching 60, which I assume they are, it would be a wise move to pseudo concede Georgia, and then later fight in the runoff. Be sure to comeback later and checkout out our recap of the final Minnesota Senate debate.

Norm Coleman on the Ropes

11/2/2008 2:48:34 AM CT

The three way Senate race in Minnesota took another bizarre turn this weekend, leaving all three candidates with a viable shot at becoming Minnesota's next Senator. Before I delve into the details, lets take a look at the current state of the race:

Donate: Al Franken (D), Dean Barkley (I), Norm Coleman (R) And our Senate to Presidential correlations:

           VFA Projection [10/18]    VFA Projection [11/2]
            Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep    Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep
President  49.98  43.71     6.27    53.61  40.67    12.94
Senate     38.61  40.15    -1.54    40.90  39.32     1.58
Pres-Sen   11.37   3.56     7.81    12.71  -1.35    14.06

Norm Coleman is now polling slightly worse than John McCain, while Franken continues to lag behind the levels established by Obama. If you take the numbers above at face value, Coleman is losing 1.35% of McCain's vote and Barkley appears to be making up the difference between Franken and Obama. If these trends were to continue, Barkley would likely be eliminated but recent events have left the election wide open. Heading back to last Monday (10/27), Paul McKim, founder and former CEO of Houston-based Deep Marine Technology, filled a lawsuit alleging that an ally funneled $75,000 to the Colemans. Reading directly from the Star Tribune article on the subject, "A Texas businessman has filed a lawsuit alleging that Minnesota multimillionaire Nasser Kazeminy used his Houston marine company to funnel $75,000 to Sen. Norm Coleman last year via a Minneapolis insurance company that employs the senator's wife." The Coleman campaign immediately went to work trying to kill the story, but the DFL may have gotten the best of him:

This suit was later withdrawn, but it didn't end there. The Coleman campaign responded with a lawsuit of their own; on Thursday October 30th, Norm Coleman filed a defamation lawsuit against Al Franken. The Coleman campaign concluded that "Mr. Franken ha[d] chosen to push the lines of believability far beyond the bounds of the truth." The "truth" Coleman is questioning relates to an ad released by Franken citing Norm Coleman as the "fourth most corrupt senator in Washington." Franken responded by saying this: "Our ads are factual and true, even if Norm Coleman doesn't like being held accountable for his conduct. Every time someone tries to hold Norm Coleman accountable, he runs to court to try to weasel his way out of it. And none of the three prior times he's done this has he been successful, and he won't be this time, either." To be fair the report Franken appears to be citing does not explicitly rank corrupt Senators, but they did place Norm Coleman, along with three other Republican senators in the "Dishonorable Mention" category. Here's where it gets interesting. The lawsuit filled on Monday by Paul McKim was refiled again Thursday evening, just hours after Coleman's defamation charge. The Coleman campaign responded by calling the suit "false and defamatory...My wife has been devastated by this. She's angry -- and she has a right to be -- and so am I. So Coleman's wife can be angry but Al can't? Seems semi-hypocritical but that's not the most interesting nugget from the quote. The use of "defamatory" was likely intended to cascade into the suit filed against Franken, and it may have worked. If you do a google search for "Coleman Franken Defamatory" the results are roughly split between the two cases, but the issue still lingers. The Coleman campaign tried to kill the issue again Friday night by saying the premise of the suit was "baseless and [contained] false claims ... being used to influence the outcome of the election.'' Still sensing the urgency Coleman tried to link the funneling charge to Franken; "If my opponents have any shred of decency left in this campaign -- stop attacking my family." Franken's campaign, specifically Colleen Murray released a statement rebutting Coleman's charge; Franken had nothing to do with the lawsuit. In fact the plaintiff justified the timing of the suit by stating that it has "absolutely nothing to do with politics." In any case the Coleman campaign released a new ad overtly linking Franken to the money funneling suit:

If the Coleman campaign is going to make a connection that just blatantly doesn't exist they should at least be consistent. "Yesterday, Coleman's statement segued from the [Star Tribune] receiving a pre-filing 'copy of these false allegations' to Franken 'running vicious, untrue attacks against me' on filing day." I also thought Norm was done with negative ads, but apparently it's not politically convenient anymore. Al Franken and Norm Coleman clearly have a fight on their hands, but Barkley remains unscathed. Within the entire body of this article Barkley's name was not mentioned. When the last debate occurs later today, Barkley can reside above the fray while Franken and Coleman undoubtedly duke it out. If Barkley strikes the right cord he may very well be able to peel off 5% from each of his opponents and sneak away with a victory. We likely won't know the result of the whole lawsuit situation or the debate until the actual votes are counted.

Poll Update (11/1)

11/1/2008 8:08:26 PM CT

This is pretty much all you need to know: Yes, Obama is now winning Indiana; by .02%. While this is likely insignificant, the election could very well be over when the first phase of polls in Indiana close at 5 PM CT; and the exit polls are revealed. If Obama's within 5% or so, the Evansville and Gary regions may very well push him over the edge when their polling closes an hour later. But even if Obama does not in fact win Indiana, the result should be very telling of where the election is headed. Just eleven pro-Republican polls today, definitely not a good sign for the GOP. Here were today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arkansas (6)	American Research Group	10/31/2008	44	51	5
California (55)	SurveyUSA	10/31/2008	60	36	4
Florida (27)	American Research Group	10/31/2008	50	46	4
Florida (27)	Datamar Inc	10/30/2008	47	47	6
Florida (27)	Mason-Dixon	10/30/2008	49	47	4
Indiana (11)	American Research Group	10/31/2008	48	48	4
Iowa (7)	Research 2000, KCCI	10/29/2008	53	39	8
Kentucky (8)	Mason-Dixon, Courier-Journal	10/29/2008	42	51	7
Kentucky (8)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	39	56	5
Kentucky Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	44	47	9
Minnesota (10)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	53	38	9
Minnesota Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	40	43	17
National (538)	CBS News	10/31/2008	54	41	5
National (538)	Harris Interactive (D)	10/27/2008	50	44	6
National (538)	Associated Press, Yahoo	10/27/2008	50	43	7
New Hampshire Senate	WMUR, UNH Tracking	10/26/2008	49	38	13
New Hampshire Senate	WMUR, UNH Tracking	10/22/2008	49	36	15
New Jersey (15)	Monmouth University, Gannett	10/31/2008	55	34	11
New Jersey Senate	Monmouth University, Gannett	10/31/2008	50	31	19
North Carolina Senate	Elon University	10/30/2008	44	37	19
North Carolina (15)	Elon University	10/30/2008	45	38	17
Ohio (20)	Ohio Newspaper Poll	10/23/2008	57	41	2
Oregon (7)	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	54	42	4
Oregon (7)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	55	39	6
Oregon Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	48	42	10
Oregon (7)	Moore Information (R)	10/28/2008	51	37	12
Oregon Senate	Moore Information (R)	10/28/2008	41	45	14
Oregon Senate	Portland Tribune, Fox 12	10/25/2008	45	40	15
Oregon (7)	Portland Tribune, Fox 12	10/25/2008	53	34	13
Pennsylvania (21)	American Research Group	10/31/2008	51	45	4
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	10/30/2008	53	43	4
Pennsylvania (21)	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	51	47	2
South Dakota (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	44	53	3
Utah (5)	Dan Jones, Deseret News	10/30/2008	32	57	11
Virginia Senate	Mason-Dixon	10/30/2008	62	31	7
Washington (11)	University of Washington	10/31/2008	51	39	10
Wisconsin (10)	University of Wisconsin	10/29/2008	52	42	6
Wyoming (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	36	61	3
Wyoming-A Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	35	62	3
Wyoming-B Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	35	60	5

If the Dems want to reach 60, there are really only three viable options; they must win two of the following: Kentucky (4.58%), Minnesota (20.4%) and Georgia (7.72). Georgia law requires a runoff election if the winner recieves less than 50% of the vote; this could legitimately happen, but more on this possibility Monday afternoon. If the Democrats are serious about reaching 60, which I assume they are, it would be a wise move to pseudo concede Georgia, and then later fight in the runoff. What an epic battle that could be.

Poll Update (10/31)

10/31/2008 11:46:38 PM CT

Today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alaska Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/30/2008	58	36	6
Alaska (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/30/2008	39	58	3
Arizona (10)	American Research Group	10/30/2008	46	50	4
Arizona (10)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/30/2008	47	48	5
Colorado Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	56	41	3
Colorado (9)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	54	44	2
Colorado (9)	American Research Group	10/30/2008	52	45	3
Colorado Senate	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	53	43	4
Georgia Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	43	48	9
Georgia (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	47	52	1
Georgia (15)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/30/2008	44	47	9
Georgia Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/30/2008	46	47	7
Georgia Senate	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	44	53	3
Indiana (11)	SurveyUSA	10/30/2008	47	47	6
Kentucky Senate	Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll	10/29/2008	42	49	9
Michigan Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	58	36	6
Michigan (17)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	55	42	3
Michigan Senate	Strategic Vision (R)	10/29/2008	56	33	11
Michigan (17)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/29/2008	54	41	5
Michigan (17)	EPIC-MRA	10/28/2008	50	38	12
Minnesota (10)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	57	41	2
Minnesota Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	45	40	15
Minnesota Senate	MPR, Humphrey Institute (U of MN)	10/28/2008	41	37	22
Missouri (11)	American Research Group	10/30/2008	48	48	4
Missouri (11)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/29/2008	47	50	3
Montana (3)	American Research Group	10/30/2008	46	49	5
Montana (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/30/2008	44	48	8
National (538)	Marist College	10/29/2008	50	43	7
New Hampshire (4)	Research 2000, Concord Monitor	10/30/2008	51	44	5
New Hampshire Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	52	44	4
New Hampshire (4)	SurveyUSA	10/30/2008	53	42	5
New Hampshire Senate	SurveyUSA	10/30/2008	53	40	7
New Hampshire (4)	American Research Group	10/30/2008	56	41	3
New Hampshire Senate	American Research Group	10/30/2008	53	41	6
New Hampshire (4)	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	51	44	5
New Hampshire Senate	Research 2000, Concord Monitor	10/30/2008	52	42	6
New Hampshire (4)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/29/2008	50	41	9
New Hampshire Senate	Strategic Vision (R)	10/29/2008	48	41	11
New Jersey (15)	SurveyUSA	10/30/2008	52	42	6
New Jersey (15)	Fairleigh Dickinson University	10/29/2008	53	35	12
New Mexico Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	58	39	3
New Mexico (5)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	58	41	1
North Carolina (15)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/29/2008	48	48	4
North Carolina Senate	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	53	44	3
North Dakota (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/29/2008	46	47	7
Oregon Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	51	43	6
Oregon (7)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	57	42	1
Oregon Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/30/2008	49	46	5
Pennsylvania (21)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/29/2008	49	44	7
West Virginia (5)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	42	55	3
West Virginia Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/30/2008	58	40	2

Minnesota and Georgia remain the most closely contested Senates races. The Democrats appear to have North Carolina and Oregon under wraps, but that only leaves them at 58; two shy of the magical 60 needed to override a filibuster. Below is the Minnesota Senate graph: As you can see Barkley remains a distant third, but don't count him out. The final debate for this race is November 2nd and could very well decide the outcome. I'll be doing a live analysis of this debate on Sunday.

A Voter Suppression Model

10/30/2008 4:00:01 PM CT

I've already discussed various electoral scenarios associated with the Bradley Effect, but I have yet to look at voter suppression. Using foreclosure data from 2007, the only data set I could find, a suppression model was devised. It's quite simple, but gives a good result; I take the number of foreclosures in 2007 and divide that by the 2004 popular vote total in a given state. The result represents the percentage of eligible voters [based on 2004] under foreclosure. The table below illustrates the ten states with the greatest percentage of foreclosures relative to the 2004 turnout:

State	Status	2004 Votes	Foreclosures	%
Nevada (5)	Weak Dem	825,899	66,316	8.030
California (55)	Safe Dem	12,419,857	481,392	3.876
Florida (27)	Core Dem	7,609,810	279,325	3.671
Arizona (10)	Weak Rep	2,012,585	69,970	3.477
Colorado (9)	Weak Dem	2,130,330	71,149	3.340
Georgia (15)	Toss Up	3,298,790	99,578	3.019
Michigan (17)	Safe Dem	4,839,247	136,205	2.815
Ohio (20)	Core Dem	5,627,903	153,196	2.722
Indiana (11)	Weak Rep	2,468,002	52,930	2.145
Texas (34)	Safe Rep	7,410,749	149,703	2.020

Using this foreclosure percentage allows us to model a potential source of voter suppression. If we assume that all people currently under foreclosure are voting for Obama, we can simulate what would happen if these voters were suddenly prevented from voting in their home state. I've taken the current projection for Obama and subtracted from that the foreclosure percentage in the given state. The result of this calculation projects the following electoral outcome: Notice that Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and Indiana all shifted towards McCain, which is to be expected given that we subtracted from Obama, but the model serves to verify the affect voter suppression could have on this election. I should also mention that this "foreclosure effect" will be larger in theory than in practice due to the likely increase in voter turnout over the 2004 result. While I was messing with the model I went ahead and ran the current Bradley Effect and Independent Slide scenarios. We'll start with the Bradley Effect model: This week Obama gained 14 Electoral votes over last week's Bradley Effect model. Moving on to the Independent Slide model; if all currently undecided voters suddenly moved to McCain en masse: Obama still wins, just like last week but this time he's added 77 Electoral Votes to his total. Its starting to look more and more like voter suppression is the only avenue by which McCain can win. Update: A reader asked what would happen if the Bradley Effect model were to be combined with the suppression model. Here's the result: Any other suggestions?

Poll Update (10/30)

10/30/2008 3:27:09 PM CT

I've added all the polls that are going to be added today and still the only change was in Montana; this is consistency. There was an number of new senate polls today, but the Democrats were unable to squeak closer to 60; our projection still stands at 58-42. Today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arizona (10)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/28/2008	44	48	8
Arizona (10)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	46	53	1
California (55)	Field	10/28/2008	55	33	12
Colorado Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	56	41	3
Colorado (9)	Marist College	10/28/2008	51	45	4
Colorado (9)	Allstate, National Journal	10/27/2008	48	44	8
Delaware (3)	SurveyUSA	10/28/2008	63	33	4
Delaware Senate	SurveyUSA	10/28/2008	66	32	2
Florida (27)	Allstate, National Journal	10/27/2008	45	44	11
Idaho (4)	Harstad Strategic Research (D)	10/22/2008	32	55	13
Indiana (11)	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	46	49	5
Indiana (11)	Selzer, Indianapolis Star	10/28/2008	46	45	9
Iowa (7)	SurveyUSA, KAAL-TV, WHO-TV	10/29/2008	55	40	5
Iowa Senate	Sur, KAAL-TV, WHO-TV	10/29/2008	61	35	4
Kansas Senate	SurveyUSA, KCTV-TV, KWCH-TV	10/28/2008	32	65	3
Kansas (6)	SurveyUSA, KCTV-TV, KWCH-TV	10/28/2008	37	58	5
Kentucky Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	44	51	5
Kentucky (8)	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	43	55	2
Louisiana (9)	Ed Renwick, WWL-TV	10/26/2008	40	43	17
Massachusetts Senate	SurveyUSA, WBZ-TV Boston	10/28/2008	58	34	8
Massachusetts (12)	SurveyUSA, WBZ-TV Boston	10/28/2008	56	39	5
Minnesota (10)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/28/2008	48	40	12
Minnesota (10)	MPR, Humphrey Institute (U of MN)	10/28/2008	56	37	7
Minnesota Senate	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/28/2008	36	42	22
Montana (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	46	50	4
National (538)	FOX News, Opinion Dynamics	10/29/2008	47	44	9
National (538)	CBS News, New York Times	10/29/2008	52	39	9
National (538)	YouGov, Economist (D)	10/27/2008	49	42	9
Nevada (5)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	52	45	3
Nevada (5)	Research 2000, Reno Gazette-Journal	10/28/2008	50	45	5
New Hampshire Senate	Suffolk University	10/29/2008	48	39	13
New Hampshire (4)	Suffolk University	10/29/2008	53	40	7
New Hampshire Senate	WMUR, UNH Tracking	10/28/2008	48	40	12
New Hampshire (4)	WMUR, UNH Tracking	10/28/2008	58	34	8
New Jersey Senate	Research 2000, Bergen Record	10/28/2008	56	39	5
New Jersey (15)	Research 2000, Bergen Record	10/28/2008	54	38	8
New York (31)	SurveyUSA	10/28/2008	62	33	5
North Carolina (15)	Civitas Institute (R)	10/29/2008	47	46	7
North Carolina Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	52	46	2
North Carolina (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/29/2008	50	48	2
North Carolina Senate	Civitas Institute (R)	10/29/2008	45	43	12
North Carolina (15)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	52	46	2
North Carolina (15)	Allstate, National Journal	10/27/2008	47	43	10
Ohio (20)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	51	47	2
Ohio (20)	Allstate, National Journal	10/27/2008	48	41	11
Pennsylvania (21)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	55	43	2
Pennsylvania (21)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/28/2008	47	43	10
South Carolina (8)	SurveyUSA, WCSC-TV	10/29/2008	39	58	3
South Carolina (8)	SurveyUSA, WCSC-TV	10/29/2008	44	52	4
South Carolina (8)	NBC, PSRA	10/28/2008	42	53	5
South Dakota (3)	Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D)	10/28/2008	40	45	15
Texas Senate	University of Texas Austin	10/22/2008	36	45	19
Texas (34)	University of Texas Austin	10/22/2008	40	51	9
Utah (5)	Mason-Dixon	10/25/2008	32	55	13
Vermont (3)	Research 2000, WCAX-TV	10/26/2008	57	36	7
Virginia (13)	Marist College	10/27/2008	51	47	2
Virginia (13)	Allstate, National Journal	10/27/2008	48	44	8
Wisconsin (10)	SurveyUSA, KSTP-TV, WDIO-TV, WGBA-TV	10/29/2008	55	39	6
Wisconsin (10)	Research 2000, WISC-TV	10/28/2008	53	42	5

The Minnesota poll conducted by the Humphrey Institute at the University of Minnesota will likely release their Senate supplement later tonight or tomorrow. There are also a few other polls in the field today that may have yet to publish a Senate result. I'll update the polling database upon the public release of this information.

A More Perfect Democracy

10/30/2008 5:40:21 AM CT

The defining characteristic of any democratic government should be the continual pursuit of citizen participation. I often question whether our government truly strives to meet this ideal. From a historical perspective there are few occasions in which our government has pursued democracy first and politics second. Our nation was founded some 232 years ago on the principle that "all men are created equal," but still to this day not all men are treated to equal rights. The root of this problem lies deep within the fabric of American consciousness and the Constitution provides no further assistance. Each state is allowed to implement voting procedure however it deems necessary; as the Constitution makes no explicit reference to voting, the cornerstone of its very existence. For most of America's childhood, states reserved the right to limit eligible voters to property owning, white males. On the first day of January, 1863 Abraham Lincoln stated within his Emancipation Proclamation "that all persons held as slaves [within the rebellious states] are, and henceforward shall be free." This famous declaration paved the way for the 14th Amendment in 1866. The 14th Amendment elevated previously indentured servants from 3/5 of a person into full blown citizens. This momentous event laid the foundation for the 15th Amendment in 1870: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." In order to further my dialogue, I must dispel a commonly held and misconstrued belief. Despite what the Republicans may want you to believe, their current platform does not derive their existence from Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln would almost certainly be a New England Lefty if he were around today; need proof: "In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed a bill that imposed a 3% tax on incomes between $600 and $10,000 and a 5% tax on higher incomes." Lincoln was the father of the income tax, a policy the current Republican Party supposedly detests; yet they hypocritically continue to trumpet the man from Illinois. While Lincoln definitely leaned to the left, he was not single highhandedly responsible for enacting the first major addition to America's democratic model; that task was left to the states. The next major piece of legislation came in the form of the 19th Amendment which granted women the right to vote. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson played an integral role in securing the amendment's passage. The amendment failed on several occasions prompting Wilson to call a special congressional session in advance of the Presidential election of 1920. Although a member of the Democratic Party, by today's standards he would likely be considered socially conservative. Wilson played a more direct role in the resolution of Woman's Suffrage when compared to Lincoln's aforementioned accomplishments but he still does not deserve all the credit. The third and final amendment arrived on July 7, 1971. The twenty-sixth amendment was certified by the Administrator of General Services granting anybody aged eighteen or older the right to vote. The amendment was proposed by Senator Jennings Randolph (D) of West Virginia in response to procedural matters within the Selective Service Draft of 1969. Anybody aged eighteen or older could be drafted and fight America's War, but they could not vote. The amendment was ratified by thirty-nine states (eventually forty-two) thus making Randolph's amendment law. Throughout history, each ideology has helped expand our democracy; regardless of motivation, in these three instances, the people won. If the amendment trend continues, our democracy should expand in some fashion within the next generation despite the forever growing partisanship this country faces.

Poll Update (10/29): The Ad

10/29/2008 7:27:53 PM CT

A new poll by Arizona State University now shows Obama within the margin of error in Arizona. Based on this result, the rest of today's polls suddenly seem comparatively irrelevant:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alaska Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/28/2008	52	44	4
Alaska (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/28/2008	41	57	2
Arizona (10)	Arizona State University	10/26/2008	44	46	10
Colorado (9)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	53	45	2
Colorado (9)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	50	41	9
Florida (27)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	51	47	2
Florida (27)	Quinnipiac University	10/26/2008	47	45	8
Georgia (15)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	47	52	1
Michigan (17)	Rasmussen Reports	10/28/2008	53	43	4
Minnesota (10)	Rasmussen Reports	10/28/2008	55	43	2
Minnesota Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/28/2008	39	43	18
Missouri (11)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	48	50	2
Nevada (5)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	52	40	8
New Hampshire (4)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	55	37	8
New Mexico (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/28/2008	54	44	2
North Carolina (15)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	48	46	6
Ohio (20)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	48	41	11
Ohio (20)	Quinnipiac University	10/26/2008	51	42	7
Ohio (20)	Marist College	10/26/2008	48	45	7
Pennsylvania (21)	Quinnipiac University	10/26/2008	53	41	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	52	40	8
Pennsylvania (21)	Marist College	10/26/2008	55	41	4
Pennsylvania (21)	Franklin & Marshall College	10/26/2008	53	40	7
Virginia (13)	Time, CNN	10/28/2008	53	44	3
Virginia (13)	Associated Press-GfK	10/26/2008	49	42	9
Washington (11)	SurveyUSA	10/27/2008	56	39	5
Washington (11)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/26/2008	54	42	4

On other unrelated notes, Obama's 30 minute television ad was aired on seven different TV networks today at 7 PM CT. The ad was a mix of policy and story telling; of the personal stories that were highlighted, one came from Kentucky and another from Missouri. Obama is targeting two deeply red states six days before the election. Obama currently has a 33.66% chance of winning Missouri and a 2.63% chance in Kentucky. The Kentucky spot is likely an appeal to the Senate race while Missouri seems to be legitimately in play. There was also a new Rasmussen Poll released from Alaska showing Sen. Stevens (R) in a significant amount of trouble; our model now gives Stevens a 99.03% chance of losing.

A McCain Victory Requires What?

10/29/2008 12:21:12 AM CT

I'm going to keep this simple because the results speak for themselves. I've taken the Presidential vote totals from 2004 and calculated the number of additional votes needed, beyond what our projection dictates, for the trailing candidate to reach the 50% threshold. The result of this arithmetic can be seen in the Votes Needed column. The EVs Per Voter (10^-4) column takes the Votes Needed and divides by the voting population of the given state in 2004. The results of this calculation are very small, with four zeros directly after the decimal point, but their meaning is very large. Take a look at the data before I explain its significance; the results are ordered based on Obama's projection percentage in descending order.

State	Status	Total Votes	Obama %	McCain %	Votes Needed	EVs Per Voter (10^-4)
DC (3)	Safe Dem	227,586	82	13	84,207	0.356
Hawaii (4)	Safe Dem	428,989	67.5	28	94,378	0.424
New York (31)	Safe Dem	7,448,266	63.39	29.36	1,537,322	0.202
Maryland (10)	Safe Dem	2,384,206	59.79	36.87	313,046	0.319
Illinois (21)	Safe Dem	5,274,727	59.3	34.56	814,418	0.258
New Jersey (15)	Safe Dem	3,609,691	57.88	37.99	433,524	0.346
California (55)	Safe Dem	12,419,857	57.08	33.05	2,105,166	0.261
Delaware (3)	Safe Dem	375,190	56.07	41.33	32,529	0.922
Connecticut (7)	Safe Dem	1,578,662	55.78	32.64	274,056	0.255
Massachusetts (12)	Safe Dem	2,905,360	55.35	34.34	454,979	0.264
Michigan (17)	Safe Dem	4,839,247	55.16	37.65	597,647	0.284
Washington (11)	Safe Dem	2,859,084	54.41	35.84	404,846	0.272
Oregon (7)	Safe Dem	1,827,826	53.84	36.22	251,874	0.278
Vermont (3)	Safe Dem	312,309	53.8	27.93	68,927	0.435
New Hampshire (4)	Safe Dem	676,227	53.34	38.75	76,076	0.526
Maine (4)	Safe Dem	740,748	53.25	32.41	130,298	0.307
Pennsylvania (21)	Core Dem	5,765,764	52.76	45.01	287,712	0.730
Iowa (7)	Safe Dem	1,505,814	51.68	41.94	121,369	0.577
Wisconsin (10)	Core Dem	2,997,007	51.42	44.68	159,441	0.627
Colorado (9)	Weak Dem	2,130,330	51.17	45.87	87,983	1.023
Virginia (13)	Core Dem	3,192,894	50.99	43.27	214,882	0.605
Minnesota (10)	Safe Dem	2,825,866	50.78	39.22	304,628	0.328
New Mexico (5)	Core Dem	756,304	50.24	42.16	59,294	0.843
Nevada (5)	Weak Dem	825,899	50.11	44.71	43,690	1.144
Florida (27)	Core Dem	7,609,810	49.94	42.95	536,492	0.503
Ohio (20)	Core Dem	5,627,903	49.81	43.36	373,693	0.535
North Carolina (15)	Toss Up	3,498,746	48.15	47.9	73,474	2.042
Missouri (11)	Toss Up	2,731,364	46.91	46.46	96,690	1.138
Rhode Island (4)	Safe Dem	437,134	46.56	25.11	108,803	0.368
Georgia (15)	Toss Up	3,298,790	45.9	48.19	135,250	1.109
Montana (3)	Toss Up	450,434	45.29	44.32	25,585	1.173
Indiana (11)	Weak Rep	2,468,002	45.16	49.11	119,451	0.921
North Dakota (3)	Toss Up	312,833	44.54	42.8	22,524	1.332
Arizona (10)	Weak Rep	2,012,585	43.62	48.15	128,403	0.779
Texas (34)	Safe Rep	7,410,749	42.56	55.27	551,360	0.617
Kansas (6)	Core Rep	1,187,709	42.22	51.19	92,404	0.649
Kentucky (8)	Safe Rep	1,795,882	42.19	52.05	140,258	0.667
Mississippi (6)	Core Rep	1,152,145	42.19	49.92	89,983	0.570
Alaska (3)	Safe Rep	311,808	41.91	53.06	25,225	1.189
Arkansas (6)	Safe Rep	1,053,694	41.67	53.06	87,773	0.684
Tennessee (11)	Safe Rep	2,437,319	41.23	54.83	213,753	0.515
South Carolina (8)	Safe Rep	1,615,606	40.84	53.98	147,990	0.541
West Virginia (5)	Safe Rep	755,887	40.35	50.83	72,943	0.685
South Dakota (3)	Core Rep	388,215	40.29	48.95	37,696	0.796
Louisiana (9)	Safe Rep	1,943,106	38.63	51.65	220,931	0.407
Nebraska (5)	Safe Rep	777,255	36.84	57.15	102,287	0.489
Wyoming (3)	Safe Rep	242,948	36.36	57.58	33,138	0.905
Alabama (9)	Safe Rep	1,883,415	35.8	56.29	267,445	0.337
Oklahoma (7)	Safe Rep	1,463,758	34.56	61.84	226,004	0.310
Utah (5)	Safe Rep	912,728	27.75	64.93	203,082	0.246
Idaho (4)	Safe Rep	597,261	24.9	69.6	149,913	0.267

If you order the results by EVs per Voter the twelve most contested states fall within the top fifteen. This would be great news for McCain if eleven of these twelve states weren't states previously carried by Bush in 2004; Pennsylvania is the exception and ranks fifteenth. Within the eleven he must win, McCain is currently trailing in seven; North Carolina, North Dakota, Montana, Nevada, Missouri, Colorado and New Mexico. If we total the Votes Needed column for these seven states the result is 409,239; this is the absolute minimum number of additional votes (beyond our projection) McCain needs to win the Election. McCain needs 409,239 votes in seven states to win the election, whereas John Kerry needed 118,599 votes in Ohio.

Poll Update (10/28)

10/28/2008 10:07:06 PM CT

In our national non-tracking polling projection, Barack Obama has surpassed the 50% threshold for the first time: Anyways, there was a plethora of state polling today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arkansas (6)	Rasmussen Reports	10/27/2008	44	54	2
Colorado (9)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/26/2008	52	45	3
Florida (27)	LA Times, Bloomberg	10/27/2008	50	43	7
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	10/27/2008	47	48	5
Georgia Senate	InsiderAdvantage	10/27/2008	44	46	10
Indiana (11)	Research 2000, IndyStar	10/25/2008	48	47	5
Indiana (11)	Howey Politics	10/24/2008	45	47	8
Louisiana Senate	Southeastern Louisiana University	10/23/2008	53	34	13
Louisiana (9)	Southeastern Louisiana University	10/23/2008	38.3	50.6	11
Maine (4)	Market Decisions	10/27/2008	52.4	33.3	15
Maine Senate	Market Decisions	10/27/2008	36.6	54	9
Mississippi (6)	Rasmussen Reports	10/27/2008	45	53	2
Mississippi-B Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/27/2008	43	54	3
Montana (3)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/25/2008	44	48	8
National (538)	Ipsos	10/27/2008	50	45	5
National (538)	American Research Group	10/27/2008	50	45	5
National (538)	Pew Research Center	10/26/2008	53	38	9
Nevada (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/27/2008	50	46	4
Nevada (5)	Suffolk University	10/26/2008	50	40	10
New Hampshire (4)	WMUR, UNH Tracking	10/26/2008	55	39	6
New Hampshire (4)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/25/2008	50	39	11
New Jersey (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/26/2008	53	38	9
New Jersey Senate	Strategic Vision (R)	10/26/2008	49	41	10
North Carolina (15)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/25/2008	47	47	6
Ohio (20)	SurveyUSA	10/27/2008	49	45	6
Ohio (20)	LA Times, Bloomberg	10/27/2008	49	40	11
Pennsylvania (21)	Rasmussen Reports	10/27/2008	53	46	1
Pennsylvania (21)	InsiderAdvantage	10/26/2008	51	42	7
Virginia (13)	Roanoke College	10/26/2008	48	39	13
Virginia Senate	Roanoke College	10/26/2008	57	22	21
Wisconsin (10)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/26/2008	50	41	9

The most notable result today probably comes from Mississippi-B's Senate race. The new Rasmussen poll shows a once competitive race, essentially beyond reach for Musgrove (D), the Democratic challenger who trails the incumbent by 11%. Granted this is a single result, but its not something you hope for if you're in the Musgrove campaign. But there still may be hope for his candidacy. Yesterday saw the expansion of our Senate Coattails Calculation and from that result reads: "Our little conclusion may give hope yet to Musgrove (D), the Democratic challenger in Mississippi-B. Musgrove's coefficient is below both 1 and his competitors coefficient, but recent polling has shown Wicker (R) with a significantly large lead." Musgrove has nothing going for him right now with the exception of this historically accurate trend.

Senate Coattail Coefficients Continued

10/28/2008 1:43:34 AM CT

Let me start by saying this was a gauntlet. I started by collecting election data for the Presidential Election of 2004 and the Senate Elections of 2004 and 2006. I then parsed the results and created a massive table while incorporating our projections into a 2008 metaset. From here I just did the simple division necessary to compute the Coattail Coefficient. The table below illustrates the outcome of our study. The "XXX Pres Coefficient" column represents the calculation previously prescribed in our previous article on coattails; if the result of the simple division is greater than 1, the Senate candidate is over performing relative to that party's Presidential nominee. A number below 1 implies the opposite. For Senate races that occurred in 2006 I used the 2004 Presidential result from that state as the comparator. The 2008 data is drawn from our projections, and the 2004 data is provided by the Federal Election Committee. The furthest column to the right, Winner's Coattail, corresponds to the Coattail Coefficient of the party that won the given Senate Election. The "<" and ">" illustrate whether the eventual winner of the given Senate seat had a larger coefficient than the competition. The "<" is used when the victor did in fact have a larger coefficient, while the ">" implies the opposite. I have bolded all races in which the actual or projected margin ranged between zero and six percent. I encourage you to take a detailed look at the table below, but when you're done don't forget to continue reading.

State           Year    Dem Pres     Rep Pres     Winner's
                       Coefficient  Coefficient   Coattail
Nebraska        2006       1.95        0.55      < 1.95 (D)
North Dakota    2004       1.92        0.50      < 1.92 (D)
Maine           2006       0.38        1.66      < 1.66 (R)
North Carolina  2006       1.58        0.53      < 1.58 (D)
Indiana         2004       1.57        0.62      < 1.57 (D)
Rhode Island    2008       1.55        0.80      < 1.55 (D)
Maine           2008       0.77        1.53      < 1.53 (R)
West Virginia   2008       1.51        0.65      < 1.51 (D)
Arkansas        2008       1.49        0.93      < 1.49 (D)
West Virginia   2006       1.49        0.60      < 1.49 (D)
South Dakota    2008       1.49        0.72      < 1.49 (D)
Indiana         2006       0.00        1.46      < 1.46 (R)
Idaho           2004       0.00        1.45      < 1.45 (R)
New Mexico      2006       1.44        0.59      < 1.44 (D)
Montana         2006       1.41        0.74      < 1.41 (D)
Iowa            2004       0.57        1.41      < 1.41 (R)
Arizona         2004       0.46        1.40      < 1.40 (R)
Hawaii          2004       1.40        0.46      < 1.40 (D)
Wisconsin       2006       1.35        0.60      < 1.35 (D)
New Hampshire   2004       0.67        1.35      < 1.35 (R)
Mississippi-A   2008       0.92        1.29      < 1.29 (R)
Louisiana       2008       1.28        0.77      < 1.28 (D)
West Virginia   2004       1.28        0.79      < 1.28 (D)
Florida         2006       1.28        0.73      < 1.28 (D)
Illinois        2004       1.28        0.61      < 1.28 (D)
Nevada          2004       1.28        0.70      < 1.28 (D)
Montana         2006       1.27        0.82      < 1.27 (D)
Wyoming-A       2008       0.75        1.27      < 1.27 (R)
Delaware        2006       1.26        0.60      < 1.26 (D)
Ohio            2004       0.74        1.26      < 1.26 (R)
Arkansas        2004       1.25        0.81      < 1.25 (D)
Oregon          2004       1.23        0.67      < 1.23 (D)
Connecticut     2004       1.22        0.73      < 1.22 (D)
Wyoming-B       2008       0.82        1.22      < 1.22 (R)
Virginia        2004       1.21        0.80      < 1.21 (D)
Vermont         2004       1.20        0.63      < 1.20 (D)
Virginia        2008       1.19        0.72      < 1.19 (D)
Maryland        2004       1.16        0.79      < 1.16 (D)
Ohio            2006       1.15        0.86      < 1.15 (D)
Pennsylvania    2006       1.15        0.85      < 1.15 (D)
Vermont         2006       1.15        0.83      < 1.15 (D)
Tennessee       2008       0.84        1.14      < 1.14 (R)
Delaware        2008       1.14        0.74      < 1.14 (D)
Minnesota       2006       1.14        0.80      < 1.14 (D)
Hawaii          2006       1.14        0.81      < 1.14 (D)
Alabama         2008       0.90        1.12      < 1.12 (R)
New York        2004       1.12        0.60      < 1.12 (D)
Massachusetts   2006       1.12        0.83      < 1.12 (D)
New Mexico      2008       1.12        0.86      < 1.12 (D)
Kansas          2004       0.75        1.12      < 1.12 (R)
Alaska          2008       1.11        0.86      < 1.11 (D)
Michigan        2006       1.11        0.86      < 1.11 (D)
Iowa            2006       1.11        0.92      < 1.11 (D)
Kansas          2008       0.83        1.10      < 1.10 (R)
Nevada          2006       0.86        1.10      < 1.10 (R)
California      2006       1.09        0.79      < 1.09 (D)
Colorado        2004       1.09        0.90      < 1.09 (D)
Virginia        2006       1.09        0.92      < 1.09 (D)
Pennsylvania    2004       0.82        1.09      < 1.09 (R)
Alabama         2004       0.88        1.08      < 1.08 (R)
Washington      2006       1.08        0.87      < 1.08 (D)
Michigan        2008       1.08        0.84      < 1.08 (D)
Missouri        2006       1.08        0.89      < 1.08 (D)
Mississippi-B   2006       0.88        1.07      < 1.07 (R)
California      2004       1.06        0.85      < 1.06 (D)
New Hampshire   2006       1.06        0.91      < 1.06 (D)
Missouri        2004       0.93        1.05      < 1.05 (R)
South Carolina  2008       0.98        1.04      < 1.04 (R)
New York        2006       1.03        0.67      < 1.03 (D)
Wyoming-A       2006       1.03        1.02      > 1.02 (R)
Massachusetts   2008       1.01        0.58      < 1.01 (D)
Texas           2006       0.94        1.01      < 1.01 (R)
Georgia         2004       0.96        1.00      < 1.00 (R)
New Hampshire   2008       1.00        0.85      < 1.00 (D)
Illinois        2008       0.99        0.98      < 0.99 (D)
Colorado        2008       0.99        0.87      < 0.99 (D)
Mississippi-B   2008       0.97        0.99      < 0.99 (R)
Texas           2008       0.96        0.98      < 0.98 (R)
Minnesota       2008       0.72        0.98      < 0.98 (R)
Arizona         2006       0.98        0.97      > 0.97 (R)
Maryland        2006       0.97        1.03      > 0.97 (D)
Nebraska        2008       0.96        0.97      < 0.97 (R)
Florida         2004       1.03        0.95      > 0.95 (R)
Kentucky        2008       1.06        0.93      > 0.93 (R)
South Carolina  2004       1.08        0.93      > 0.93 (R)
North Carolina  2004       1.08        0.92      > 0.92 (R)
Georgia         2008       0.99        0.92      > 0.92 (R)
Rhode Island    2006       0.90        1.20      > 0.90 (D)
Louisiana       2004       1.12        0.90      > 0.90 (R)
North Carolina  2008       0.90        0.88      < 0.90 (D)
Tennessee       2006       1.13        0.89      > 0.89 (R)
Utah            2006       1.20        0.87      > 0.87 (R)
New Jersey      2008       0.86        1.02      > 0.86 (D)
Kentucky        2004       1.24        0.85      > 0.85 (R)
Oregon          2008       0.84        1.08      > 0.84 (D)
Oklahoma        2008       1.17        0.84      > 0.84 (R)
Idaho           2008       1.20        0.83      > 0.83 (R)
Oklahoma        2004       1.20        0.80      > 0.80 (R)
Alaska          2004       1.28        0.80      > 0.80 (R) 
Connecticut     2006     0.73/0.93     0.22    < 0.73/0.93 (D)

What does this massive compilation of data mean? The result is surprisingly straightforward and allows for a nice generalization. Focusing our attention towards the bottom of the table reveals that the winner, in a competitive race, rarely garnered a coefficient greater than 1. This result appears to be counterintuitive but just wait, it gets stranger; notice the large quantity of ">" signs towards the bottom of the table. Under this interpretation the candidate who can win more votes from the opposite party is the likely victory; its actually better to abandon your own party and run across the aisle. Using this result, a succinct postulate can be formed: if candidate A has a coefficient less than 1 and their opponent, candidate B, has a coefficient greater than 1, candidate A has the historic advantage. Using the above postulate, what can then be said about the 2008 Senate races? We'll start from the bottom and work our way up through the bolded races happening this year. Our first stop is Oregon. Oregon seems to be safely in Democratic hands, Smith (R) has a coefficient greater than 1 at 1.08, while his challenger Markley (D), is repping a 0.84. Merkley has also opened up a healthy four to five point lead in recent polling. Moving on up; North Carolina is our next stop. Hagan (D) is currently leading our projection, but the coefficients in this race favor the incumbent Dole (R). Georgia's like North Carolina, but the opposite. Martin (D) is trailing in the polls, but he's got the better coefficients. Kentucky exemplifies our rule and seems to be safely in McConnell's (R) court. Minnesota features a competitive three way race so I'm not exactly sure how our generalization applies, but here it goes. Franken's (D) coefficient is significantly below 1, in fact its the lowest coefficient in the field, but Coleman (R) is still maintaining a slight lead; in large part due to a very suspect St. Cloud State poll that showed 21% of the Minnesota electorate as undecided. Barkley could still make a run too, its impossible to tell. Our little conclusion may give hope yet to Musgrove (D), the Democratic challenger in Mississippi-B. Musgrove's coefficient is below both 1 and his competitors coefficient, but recent polling has shown Wicker (R) with a significantly large lead. The last on the list is Alaska, but after today's news of the Stevens' conviction, Begich (D) seems destined to the Senate. Using just the conclusion of this report as a predictor, the Democratic Party stands to pickup Oregon, Georgia, Minnesota, Mississippi-B and Alaska. By my count that would put the Democratic caucus at the magical 60 Senator, filibuster proof majority.

Poll Update (10/27)

10/27/2008 6:29:49 PM CT

Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was convicted on seven felony counts relating to his corruption trial. After the verdict was read Steven continued to profess his innocence and went on to say that "this verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial. I ask that Alaskans and my Senate colleagues stand with me as I pursue my rights. I remain a candidate for the United States Senate." If you truly believe that a federal trial was carried out in an "unconscionable manner," you have defied your obligation as a US Senator to uphold the Constitution of the United States' fifth and fourteenth amendment, and thus, you are unfit to hold the office which you seek. The mere absurdity of your reasoning justifies your conviction. Now onto the polls. Obama now has an outside shot at hitting 400 Electoral Votes. A new poll by Rasmussen places Arizona in the Lean Rep category. If in the next eight days Obama takes the lead in Arizona the election is over. Here were the rest of today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arizona (10)	Northern Arizona University, U of WA	10/27/2008	41	49	10
Arizona (10)	Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	46	51	3
Arizona (10)	Zimmeran & Associates	10/19/2008	41.5	43.5	14
Colorado (9)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	50	46	4
Colorado Senate	Public Opinion Strategies (R)	10/23/2008	51	38	11
Connecticut (7)	University of Connecticut	10/22/2008	56	31	13
Florida (27)	Suffolk University, 7News	10/26/2008	47	43	10
Florida (27)	Datamar Inc	10/26/2008	49.2	44.4	7
Florida (27)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	47	47	6
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	51	47	2
Illinois Senate	Research 2000, Post-Dispatch	10/23/2008	59	34	7
Indiana (11)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	44	50	6
Iowa (7)	Marist College	10/24/2008	52	42	6
Mississippi (6)	Press Register, U of Alabama	10/23/2008	33	46	21
Mississippi-B Senate	Press Register, U of Alabama	10/23/2008	32	45	23
Missouri (11)	SurveyUSA	10/26/2008	48	48	4
Missouri (11)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	48	47	5
Missouri (11)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	48	46	6
Nevada (5)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	48	44	8
New Hampshire (4)	Marist College	10/23/2008	50	45	5
New York (31)	Siena	10/21/2008	62	31	7
North Carolina (15)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	48	49	3
North Carolina Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/26/2008	48	45	7
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/26/2008	49	48	3
North Carolina (15)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	50	46	4
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	49	45	6
Ohio (20)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	50	45	5
Ohio (20)	University of Akron	10/15/2008	44.6	40.9	14
Oklahoma Senate	TVPoll.com	10/26/2008	41	51	8
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	10/26/2008	34.8	61.6	3
Oregon Senate	SurveyUSA	10/26/2008	49	42	9
Oregon (7)	SurveyUSA	10/26/2008	57	38	5
Pennsylvania (21)	Temple University	10/26/2008	50	41	9
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	10/25/2008	53	41	6
Virginia (13)	SurveyUSA	10/26/2008	52	43	5
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/26/2008	51	47	2
Virginia (13)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	52	45	3
Virginia Senate	SurveyUSA	10/26/2008	63	32	5
Virginia Senate	Washington Post	10/25/2008	61	31	8
Virginia (13)	Washington Post	10/25/2008	52	44	4
Virginia (13)	VA Commonwealth Poll	10/22/2008	51	40	9
Virginia Senate	VA Commonwealth Poll	10/22/2008	61	27	12
Washington (11)	The Washington Poll	10/26/2008	55	34	11
West Virginia (5)	Reuters, Zogby	10/26/2008	40	50	10

I've spent the majority of my free time today collating 2004 and 2006 election results. Using this data I hope to provide some historical perspective on Senate Coefficients. Look for it later tonight and look for a follow up to our Bradley Effect Model later in the week. Update: I incorrectly entered the Senate poll for Virginia taken by VCU as a presidential poll. This has now been corrected; my thanks goes out to "dickelocker" for bringing this to my attention.

Is Syria the Surprise?

10/27/2008 1:58:47 AM CT

The United States of America has attacked Syria, Iraq's neighbor to the West. "A U.S. military official said the raid by special forces targeted the network of al-Qaida-linked foreign fighters moving through Syria into Iraq." The attack, which Syria decried as "serious aggression" resulted in the deaths of eight civilians; "The government said civilians were among the dead, including four children." According to the MSNBC article the Syrian border is loosely controlled in comparison to the shared border's with Saudi Arabia and Jordan, two of Iraq's other neighbors. US Major General John Kelly stated that the US is helping to construct a series of sand burms and ditches between the Iraq-Syria border. He then went on to say that "there hasn't been much, in the way of a physical barrier, along that border for years." Is the grand answer a wall? I thought Reagan's greatest accomplishment was supposed to be the destruction of the Berlin wall, where he famously declared: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." But now his party seems content to rebuild it. Why on earth would the Bush administration order an attack on Syria nine days before the election? There are two scenarios; either Bush believes this escalation will help McCain or he believes that McCain is so far behind that his only resort is to leave Obama with a bigger problem. I'm still disregarding a possibility however; perhaps this attack was actually the right course of action. Or not. Any attack that could be carried out now, could be carried out in nine days, after the election. The timing of this attack illustrates its intention. What made this attack imperative? The apparent reasoning follows, as quoted from the MSNBC article: "The area targeted is near the Iraqi border city of Qaim, which had been a major crossing point for fighters, weapons and money coming into Iraq to fuel the Sunni insurgency." If the US government just realized rebels were entering Iraq through the borders they are absolutely stupid. They should have known this already, and as such they could have conducted such a raid anytime within the last three years. The White House's supportive reasoning behind this attack illustrates its intention. The intention of this attack was not in America's best interest, but rather George Bush's. This October surprise will not help John McCain, whether intended or not, for two reasons. The first is the youth vote; McCain already stands to lose by a considerable margin among this demographic, and war usually drives the youth turnout. The second issue focuses on a mindset, the anti-war mindset of most Americans. A poll conducted by CNN between 10/17 and 10/19 showed that 66% of American's already oppose the War in Iraq. If you were one of the 66% and have not decided who you are going to vote for, this attack on Syria is unlikely to push you towards McCain, regardless of his foreign policy experience. The ramifications of this attack on Syria will not be good for America, for John McCain, and when history writes itself, for George W. Bush.

Poll Update (10/26)

10/26/2008 8:24:25 PM CT

I know there are a few polls missing, but I'll just add them tomorrow morning. Here's what I added today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arizona (10)	Zimmeran & Associates	10/19/2008	41.5	43.5	14
Georgia (15)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/23/2008	43	49	8
Iowa (7)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/23/2008	51	40	9
Massachusetts (12)	Suffolk University, 7News	10/22/2008	53	34	13
Massachusetts Senate	Suffolk University, 7News	10/22/2008	56	19	25
Missouri (11)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/23/2008	45	46	9
New Hampshire Senate	University of New Hampshire, Globe	10/22/2008	49	36	15
New Hampshire (4)	University of New Hampshire, Globe	10/22/2008	54	39	7
New Jersey (15)	Marist College	10/21/2008	56	39	5
New Jersey Senate	Marist College	10/21/2008	48	41	11
Virginia (13)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/23/2008	52	43	5
West Virginia (5)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/24/2008	43	49	8
Wisconsin (10)	Rasmussen Reports	10/23/2008	51	44	5

In the last few day's the site has come under attack from a massive spam operation. Many of our older articles' comments were infiltrated by this operation, but worry not, a fix has been devised and is now operational.

Poll Update (10/25)

10/25/2008 7:21:42 PM CT

Today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arizona (10)	Grove Insight (D)	10/24/2008	40	44	16
Arkansas (6)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/22/2008	41	52	7
Colorado (9)	Public Opinion Strategies (R)	10/23/2008	52	40	8
Illinois (21)	Research 2000, Post-Dispatch	10/23/2008	59	35	6
Iowa (7)	Research 2000, Courier-Lee Enterprises	10/22/2008	54	39	7
Minnesota Senate	St. Cloud State MN	10/22/2008	27	36	37
Minnesota (10)	St. Cloud State MN	10/22/2008	42	37	21
Missouri (11)	Research 2000, Post-Dispatch	10/23/2008	48	47	5
New York (31)	Marist College	10/22/2008	65	29	6
Ohio (20)	Ohio Newspaper Poll	10/22/2008	49	46	5
South Dakota Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/24/2008	57	35	8
South Dakota (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/24/2008	41	50	9
Tennessee (11)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/22/2008	38	54	8
Tennessee Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/22/2008	37	59	4

The Minnesota polls conducted by St. Cloud State University are just terrible. Its ten days from the election and they show 21% of the Minnesota population as undecided. This is either a massive new development or a poorly conducted poll. After disregarding the Minnesota poll, the next most interesting result comes from the Missouri result conducted by Research 2000 on behalf of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Obama continues to maintain a thin lead in Missouri, despite its past voting record. The ethanol issue is no doubt hurting McCain in the largely agricultural Show-Me-State. Palin was in Iowa today voicing her support for ethanol; may this be a last ditch effort by the McCain campaign to win over uncommitted farmers in the Midwest?

The 4th MN Senate Debate

10/24/2008 9:46:10 PM CT

The full debate can be watched at tpt.org. Here's where the MN Senate race currently stands based on public polling and our projections: The debate was conducted by Twin Cities Public Television with funding provided by Travelers, Health Partners, Great River Energy, Flint Hill Resources, Education Minnesota, The University of Minnesota and AARP. Now onto the actual debate. 7:01 CT: This will be the last televised debate, although a final debate is scheduled to take place on November 2nd. "We call this a debate, but that's probably too formal a term; there are no time limits, no opening or closing statements." 7:02 CT: The camera panned through the candidates in alphabetical order; Dean Barkley (I), Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D). 7:03 CT: "That's an easy one;" the first words of the debate by Norm Coleman when asked to state the biggest misrepresentation of his candidacy in opposing ads. Norm cited the ad run by the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee stating that Coleman has "voted for tax breaks for big oil." Sen. Coleman supported his vote by stating that 85 other Senators, including Obama, voted for the 2005 Energy Bill because "it contained the first renewable fuel standard." 7:04 CT: Franken was then asked the same question. After talking about a medicare ad he ran, the moderator pushed Al to answer the question. He then called out Norm for running a false ad counter to the medicare ad he had just mentioned. "I am for a prescription drug program and medicare, in which medicare is allowed to be negotiated on medicare part D. That'll bring down the price of drugs for seniors...[Norm's] ad said that I was laying in my ad but I wasn't." Norm Coleman then interjected by saying that "this is a great division." 7:05 CT: Norm followed up by questioning Al Franken's ability to actually vote for the issues he claims to support. Norm's trying to run on the: I didn't like everything in every bill I voted for, but I vote for certain bills because of specific details that are important to Americans. Norm questioned Franken's ability to do the same. Al Franken seems content to accept this conjecture. Norm continues to cite his support for the 2005 Energy Bill despite its big oil tax breaks by citing its inclusion of renewable energy standards. Norm concluded by stating that "you gotta be for something in this business." The problem with this arguement is that Norm Coleman has largely been for the policies established and support by the Republican party during Bush's reign. I don't know if this is a particularly good arguement by Sen. Coleman. 7:07 CT: Dean Barkley then contributed for the first time. He was asked the same question. "I get a badge of honor. The DSCC just put up an ad today, I saw it on TV, claiming that I was in favor of privatization of Social Security...I've been railing against Social Security and trying to fix it since 1992." Dean Barkley then went on to state that the ad implied this result by "hedging" the wording. Al Franken then distanced himself from the ad, as it as the Democratic Party, not his campaign who put the spot together. Al then stated that he would ask the DSCC to take down the ad. 7:08 CT: "Norm Coleman voted to put money from social security into private accounts which would have ment putting social security in the stock market...it would have been a terrible mistake, as we can see now." Al Franken seems to have realized that his strongest line of attack focuses on the weakness of the economy and the inherent superiority of the Democratic Platform on the issue. 7:09 CT: Norm was then asked to respond to the previous assertion by Franken. Norm responded as follows, "I have supported the idea of folks having some ownership [of Social Security]." Norm went on to suggest the creation of a committee to fix Social Security; Barkley interjected by stating that "we get elected to make decisions, not to pass it off to somebody else...our Senate doesn't have the courage to make the fix." 7:11 CT: Norm Coleman then made a baseball reference that made absolutely no sense; "This is kinda like watching Carlos Gomez of the Minnesota Twins, he's kinda fun to watch but if you don't know the fundamentals you can't win the game." Barkley is running against the political mindset, while Coleman is running as a bipartisan member of machine. 7:12 CT: The Social Security question then moved to Franken. "Social Security right now is solvent until 2041." Franken wants to end the "regressive" tax structure of FICA, "this is what Senator Obama is talking about....I'm not gonna raise taxes on anyone." 7:13 CT: Barkley then immediately questioned Al's assertion that Social Security will remain solvent until "thirty-one, forty." Barkley then referenced a question he asked "150 kids" at Cretin-Durham Hall (a respected St. Paul Catholic High School); "Any of you in this room think you are going to get Social Security? Not one of them raised their hand." 7:15 CT: Franken: "If the US treasury bonds aren't good, we're in a whole bunch a trouble." 7:17 CT: Does it make sense to pass another stimulus bill? Barkley went first. Barkley is against a further stimulus package. Onto Franken, his mantra is "Jobs Baby, Jobs." He's also against another stimulus bill. Norm didn't really answer the question, he mainly just talked about why he voted for the first bailout bill. Norm then briefly answered the question, "if [a second potential bailout bill] is another spending package I'm not going to support it." 7:19 CT: Al spent much of his time talking about a "Golden Parachute" clause in the first bailout bill that indirectly allowed executive level employees the ability to receive upto "$59,999,999" in severance if the situation were right. Coleman countered by saying that "[Al] can't just be against things." 7:21 CT: Barkley interjected into the conversation. He first targeted Al Franken for his massive spending projects while citing the fact that "we're eleven trillion dollars in debt." Al Franken did not immediately respond to this attack. Barkley then moved onto Coleman. "Norm, I'm glad you're saying we wanna balance the budget in five years, but where were you for the last six where we accumulated five trillion dollars of debt on your watch." Norm immediately interrupted. I find it very interesting that Coleman responded, but Franken let the accusation pass. 7:22 CT: Coleman responded by citing Barkley's time as "Ventura's right hand guy." Coleman went on to pin the Ventura administration for a budget bill that left the state with a huge budget deficit. Barkley blamed the bill on a deal orchestrated by Roger Moe (D) and Tim Pawlenty (R). Ventura vetoed the bill, but it was overridden in the legislature because of this deal. 7:23 CT: The conversation moved to Franken who stated that "[he is] against deficit spending" and supports balanced budgets. 7:24 CT: "Norm wants to continue the Bush economic policy, understand that...Norm thinks that wealth starts at the top and trickles down." At this point Norm jumped, Al waited patiently, and then continued his attack completely ignoring Norm. 7:26 CT: Barkley conjured the possibility of a filibuster proof majority of 60 Democratic Senators and stated that this mindset is why Washington is broken. "If you only get 59, is nothing gonna happen?" 7:27 CT: Commercial break, two minutes. During the break Twin Cities Public Television promoted a half-hour special spotlighting the three candidates' history. 7:30 CT: The debate resumed with a question directed at Norm Coleman regarding bipartisanship, "The partisan divide is what's tearing America apart." 7:31 CT: Al Franken then brought up the fact that Coleman is also running for chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Franken then cited the statistic that Coleman has voted with Bush "98% of the time." 7:32 CT: Barkley completely called out Coleman and Pawlenty as being "handpicked" by the Bush-Cheney Administration. 7:34 CT: The previous arguement halted as the question moved to Franken. Al recalled his work with a Republican from Texas and his work that helped raise money for "40,000 helmet liners for our troops." Coleman again jumped in, "Would [Franken] work across party lines if somebody disagrees with [him]?" The moderator jumped in and killed the discussion. 7:36 CT: The discussion shifted to the 2nd Amendment. One of the moderators stated that "[Franken's] writings are replete with sort of negative comments about the NRA." Al Franken then asked the moderator to cite one. The moderator said he had seen a list. Franken then again asked him to cite one. The moderator couldn't, Coleman then tried to have his way but got side tracked. Franken then stated that he "supports the 2nd Amendment." Throughout the whole discussion neither Coleman nor Barkley could definitively recall anything Al Franken had written that neglects the 2nd Amendment. 7:39 CT: The moderator then switched the topic to another anti-Franken issue; the are you anti-Catholic question. Franken stated that his wife is Roman Catholic. Sensing that the anti-Catholic story line was being diffused, Coleman brought up a reference to John Kerry and communion. I don't think this arguement will stick because it wasn't presented in a coherent matter. 7:42 CT: Barkley essentially let the circumstances of the anti-Catholic arguement die and the moderator moved on. 7:44 CT: Should the capturing of Osama bin Laden have a higher priority? Franken lead off by saying that the war in Iraq is distracting the USA from the true war on terror. Barkley went next, "Al Qaeda didn't show up in Iraq until we got there." Barkley wants to get out of Iraq in "6 months to a year" but he understands that there may be deviations from that timetable. Finally Coleman countered by saying that Barkley supports a "precipitous withdrawal" and Franken wants to leave Iraq in defeat. 7:46 CT: "If we followed the advice of Dean or Al we would have been in a worse situation [in Iraq]." Norm again sides with a minority position on a major issue. Norm justified his support for permanent bases in Iraq under the premise that our troops are "not in the crossfire." This stance seems somewhat contradictory to his unequivocal support for the war itself. 7:48 CT: Does Franken want permanent bases in Iraq? "No." 7:49 CT: Dean Barkley shifted the conversation to how the US should adjust its spending practices, "why do we need to spend this much money, [on the war] that we don't have." 7:51 CT: Franken wants to end the "cowboy foreign policy" of the current administration. Coleman agreed that there were foreign policy mistakes during the Bush administration and then went on to say that "we shouldn't be the world's police man." 7:52 CT: Franken shifted the dialogue to Norm's position as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations; "[Norm] did not have one committee meeting on the contracting in Iraq." Norm responded by stating that he had found "$80 billion in wasteful and abuse." Franken responded by blatantly saying that Coleman's statement was not true; Coleman then replied by blaming the Democrat currently chairing that committee. 7:53 CT: Barkley decided against a final twenty second arguement, instead he simply stated that he "rests his case." Franken's final 20-second arguement: "We need to send somebody to Washington who's gonna work for change." Coleman concluded by saying "we need to work together."

Obama's Senate Coattails

10/24/2008 5:30:01 PM CT

I wrote an article on Tuesday that discussed the correlation between Obama's performance in Minnesota and that of his Senate counter part, Al Franken. While the article specifically focused on Minnesota, the method could be applied to any state. The table below illustrates, in the "Coefficient" column, how a given Democratic Senate candidate is polling relative to Obama. A result greater than 1 indicates an over performance by the Senate candidate relative to Obama, while a number below 1 implies the opposite. The bolded rows signify Senate races which our projection algorithm defines as Lean or Toss Up:

State (Flip %)     Coefficient  Obama %  Senate %  Incumbent
Rhode Island (0)       1.55      46.56    72.00     Democrat
Arkansas (0)           1.49      36.19    54.10     Democrat
South Dakota (0)       1.49      40.29    60.00     Democrat
West Virginia (0)      1.42      42.83    61.00     Democrat
Montana (0)            1.41      45.35    64.00     Democrat
Louisiana (2.72)       1.28      41.11    52.68     Democrat
Idaho (0)              1.20      24.90    30.00    Republican
Oklahoma (0.3)         1.20      33.34    39.89    Republican
Virginia (100)         1.17      50.12    58.61    Republican
Delaware (0)           1.14      56.07    64.00     Democrat
New Mexico (100)       1.12      50.24    56.21    Republican
Alaska (62.08)         1.11      41.91    46.60    Republican
Mississippi-B (35.72)  1.10      42.89    47.06    Republican
Michigan (0)           1.08      55.16    59.36     Democrat
Iowa (0)               1.07      53.31    57.16     Democrat
Kentucky (13.48)       1.06      42.19    44.80    Republican
Illinois (0)           1.04      59.72    62.00     Democrat
Massachusetts (0)      1.03      58.71    60.38     Democrat
New Hampshire (99.91)  1.02      50.20    51.29    Republican
Colorado (99.76)       0.98      50.95    50.00    Republican
South Carolina (0)     0.98      40.84    39.83    Republican
Nebraska (0)           0.96      36.84    35.50    Republican
Texas (0.19)           0.96      42.56    40.82    Republican
Georgia (34.13)        0.95      45.86    43.44    Republican
New Jersey (0)         0.92      58.71    54.29     Democrat
North Carolina (59.53) 0.92      47.94    43.94    Republican
Alabama (0)            0.90      35.80    32.26    Republican
Tennessee (0)          0.84      41.23    34.62    Republican
Kansas (0)             0.83      42.22    35.05    Republican
Wyoming-B (0)          0.82      36.36    29.90    Republican
Oregon (72.85)         0.78      49.90    38.97    Republican
Maine (0)              0.77      54.45    42.10    Republican
Mississippi-A (0)      0.75      42.89    32.00    Republican
Wyoming-A (0)          0.75      36.36    27.10    Republican
Minnesota (66.9)       0.73      54.38    39.96    Republican

You hopefully noticed that the most highly contested Senate races appear towards the bottom of the table. This finding is absolutely fascinating and requires some sort of explanation, but I'd rather hear your interpretation of the data. I'll post a detailed explanation later this weekend with additional analysis.

Poll Update (10/24)

10/24/2008 3:02:46 PM CT

I think new polling has concluded for the day, here's where it ended up:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alabama (9)	AEA, Capital Survey	10/21/2008	34	54	12
Florida (27)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/22/2008	48	47	5
Florida (27)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/22/2008	46	48	6
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	10/22/2008	48	47	5
Georgia Senate	InsiderAdvantage	10/22/2008	42	44	14
Georgia Senate	Strategic Vision (R)	10/22/2008	44	46	10
Georgia (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/22/2008	45	51	4
Georgia (15)	AEA, Capital Survey	10/7/2008	35	55	10
Iowa (7)	Rasmussen Reports	10/23/2008	52	44	4
Kentucky (8)	Research 2000, Herald-Leader	10/21/2008	39	55	6
Michigan Senate	EPIC-MRA	10/22/2008	58	30	12
Michigan (17)	EPIC-MRA	10/22/2008	51	37	12
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	10/23/2008	52	43	5
National (538)	YouGov, Economist (D)	10/21/2008	49	41	10
New Hampshire (4)	Rasmussen Reports	10/23/2008	50	46	4
North Carolina (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/23/2008	48	50	2
North Carolina (15)	Winthrop, ETV	10/19/2008	45	44	11
Ohio (20)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/23/2008	51	44	5
Ohio (20)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/22/2008	45	48	7
Ohio (20)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/22/2008	52	42	6
Oregon (7)	Riley Research	10/20/2008	48	34	18
Oregon Senate	Riley Research	10/20/2008	36	35	29
Pennsylvania (21)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/22/2008	50	43	7
South Carolina (8)	Winthrop, ETV	10/19/2008	35	55	10
Virginia Senate	Mason-Dixon	10/21/2008	58	33	9
Virginia (13)	Winthrop, ETV	10/19/2008	45	44	11

In a poll conducted by InsiderAdvantage, Obama has his first lead in the state famous for peaches, Georgia. Although the poll appears to be an outlier based on the graph below, one things for certain: John McCain at least has to think about defending Georgia. Our model doesn't show any imminent threat to McCain's chances in Georgia, but its one more thing the Republican nominee has to worry about.

RealClearPolitics.com is Run by GOP Hacks

10/23/2008 10:16:49 PM CT

Yesterday we incorporated two polls conducted by Orion Strategies (R) into our database. Today RealClearPolitics.com followed suit, but in doing so erroneously (or perhaps intentionally) labeled them as Democratically skewed. Orion Strategies LLC is co-owned by Randy Scheunemann, a die hard Republican based on about five minutes of research. You've probably never heard of this guy but he's donated $2,000 to McCain and upon further examination he's actually a foreign-policy aide to John McCain. I don't know how a given pollster could be more partisan, but RealClearPolitics.com seems to disagree with this assessment. Did they even do the leg work? My guess is surprisingly yes and here's why. RealClearPolitics.com has consistently conveyed a conservative slant; this does not necessarily mean that their polling averages are partisan however; although they do have some questionable practices. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their polling methods are impartial. If an impartial algorithm exists, the only way to control the output is by altering the input. Well they tried this and got caught. The only remaining avenue for manipulation lies in the presentation. By mislabeling the polls' party affiliation they do no harm to their averages' credibility (as its still classified as partisan), but they are still manipulating their supposedly impartial presentation to fulfill their agenda. When RealClearPolitics.com was previously called out for bias they pleaded innocent, but they seem to be repeat offenders. This latest example serves to highlight the fact that RealClearPolitics.com is run by Republican hacks who will go to the end of the earth to further their political beliefs. This example of intentional misinformation highlights everything wrong with the current Republican movement. The means by which they seek to improve the democracy actually runs counter to the principles of democracy.

Poll Update (10/23)

10/23/2008 6:58:00 PM CT

There were 41 new polls today which made me a busy body; here are the results:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Arkansas (6)	University of Arkansas	10/21/2008	36	51	13
California (55)	Public Policy Institute of California	10/19/2008	56	33	11
Florida (27)	St Petersberg Times, Bay News 9	10/22/2008	49	42	9
Florida (27)	Quinnipiac University	10/21/2008	49	44	7
Georgia Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/22/2008	45	47	8
Georgia (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/22/2008	46	51	3
Illinois (21)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	61	32	7
Indiana (11)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	51	42	7
Indiana (11)	Survey USA, WHAS11-TV	10/22/2008	49	45	6
Iowa (7)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	52	39	9
Kansas (6)	SurveyUSA	10/22/2008	41	53	6
Kansas Senate	SurveyUSA	10/22/2008	35	57	8
Kentucky Senate	Research 2000, Herald-Leader	10/21/2008	43	47	10
Louisiana (9)	Rasmussen Reports	10/21/2008	41	57	2
Louisiana Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/21/2008	53	43	4
Maine (4)	Critical Insights	10/19/2008	56	35	9
Maine Senate	Critical Insights	10/19/2008	42	54	4
Michigan (17)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	58	38	4
Minnesota (10)	Rasmussen Reports	10/22/2008	56	41	3
Minnesota (10)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	57	38	5
Minnesota Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/22/2008	41	37	22
Minnesota Senate	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	40	34	26
Minnesota (10)	Allstate, National Journal	10/20/2008	50	40	10
Montana (3)	Montana State University	10/20/2008	44	40	16
National (538)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	52	43	5
National (538)	CBS News, New York Times	10/22/2008	52	39	9
New Jersey Senate	Monmouth University, Gannett	10/18/2008	52	36	12
Ohio (20)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	53	41	6
Ohio (20)	Quinnipiac University	10/21/2008	52	38	10
Pennsylvania (21)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	52	42	6
Pennsylvania (21)	SurveyUSA	10/22/2008	53	41	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Quinnipiac University	10/21/2008	53	40	7
Pennsylvania (21)	Allstate, National Journal	10/20/2008	51	41	8
Rhode Island (4)	Opinion Factor	10/1/2008	48	26	26
Tennessee (11)	Rasmussen Reports	9/29/2008	39	58	3
Texas (34)	Rasmussen Reports	10/21/2008	44	54	2
Texas Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/21/2008	40	55	5
Texas (34)	Rasmussen Reports	9/29/2008	43	52	5
Washington (11)	Rasmussen Reports	10/22/2008	54	43	3
Wisconsin (10)	Big Ten Battleground Poll	10/22/2008	53	42	5
Wisconsin (10)	Allstate, National Journal	10/20/2008	53	40	7

Of the 41 polls, only 12 favor the Republican candidate, just slightly under 30%. Given the correlation between the number of polls published in a given state and the importance of the state in the Electoral College this seems to be an ominous sign for the elephants. The Republican Party may be facing a disastrous presidential outcome as well as the possibility of losing upwards of nine Senate seats. Last night I finished implementing phase two of our Senate projections. Our projection methods are fully implemented and are currently projecting a 59-41 outcome in favor of the Democratic caucus. Over the weekend I hope to add scenario probability graphs to finish the page.

Debunking the Bradley Effect, Again

10/23/2008 2:24:31 AM CT

About two weeks ago I altered our model to reflect the mere possibility that the Bradley Effect could rear it's ugly head; the article was met with mixed reviews. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my original explanation so I'm going to do it again. In the next twelve days there will be a plethora of articles relating to the Bradley Effect, but none of them will be conclusive; not because they are poorly reasoned or factually inaccurate, but rather due to the complexity of the issue. Nobody can definitively say whether the Bradley Effect will or will not occur; it's simply impossible to know. There is no historical precedent, on the national scale by which an accurate conclusion can be drawn. Given the aforementioned limitations of the problem, I'll take a different approach. Rather than trying to prove that the Bradley Effect will or will not play a role in the upcoming election, I'll try and show that it simply doesn't matter. In order to debunk the affect of the Bradley Effect, I'll try and simulate the potential outcome of the election should the Bradley Effect occur; we'll assume a historically significant racial offset as dictated by the Princeton University graph below:

Source: Princeton Election Consortium Judging from the graph and more specifically the data points on the far right corresponding to the year 2006, it can be seen that the Bradley Effect was distributed between +5%, (meaning the African American candidate polled 5% lower in the final result than in the public polls leading up to the election) and -5%. For the purpose of this analysis we are trying to find the maximum degree to which the Bradley Effect could occur; in order to achieve this end we will use the maximum racial offset of +5% as prescribed in the 2006 data. Incorporating the 5% into the projection algorithm presented the following changes: Obama's Projection: I calculated his initial projection and then subtracted 5% of it to arrive at his adjusted projection. McCain's Projection: I started by figuring out the number of undecided voters at the end of the initial projection; this is done by subtracting 100 from McCain's and Obama's initial projection. I then added this number to McCain's projection; to account for the adjustment made to Obama's total above, 5% of Obama's initial projection is then added to McCain's running sum to arrive at McCain's final adjusted projection. Translating the pure formula into words results in a much more succinct correlation to the core principles behind the Bradley Effect. I assumed that 5% of Obama's support was racially tinged so I added it to McCain's total while subtracting it from Obama's. I then also assumed that of all the currently undecided voters, 5% are racist and as a result they will cast their vote for McCain. The result of this application can be seen in the map below: Using a severe over exaggeration of the Bradley Effect's potential outcome, Obama would still emerge victorious. In fact, Obama has gained three Electoral Votes during the two weeks that have elapsed since our previous experiment. The Bradley Effect would likely manifest itself differently in each state, but in assuming this large discrepancy between what would likely happen and what could happen the absolute worst possible outcome (for Obama) is presented. If the most severe Bradley Effect outcome still results in an Obama win, it's fair to say that the Bradley Effect will not alter the outcome of this election. While altering the outcome of our model, I wondered what would happen if all currently undecided voters suddenly moved to McCain en masse: Wow, Obama still wins. Given the outcome of this scenario McCain must win every currently undecided voter in the United States along with a handful of Democrats already committed to supporting Obama; a monumental task. Our models don't show any chance of this happening. Update: Several comments have suggested that I also create a voter suppression model; this is a good idea. I'll work on it this weekend.

Poll Update (10/22)

10/22/2008 8:08:16 PM CT

Sorry for the late update; I had a busy day and there were a ton of new polls today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alaska (3)	Ivan Moore Research	10/19/2008	42	53	5
Alaska Senate	Ivan Moore Research	10/19/2008	46	45	9
Florida (27)	Mason-Dixon	10/21/2008	45	46	9
Kentucky Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/21/2008	43	50	7
Kentucky (8)	Rasmussen Reports	10/21/2008	44	52	4
Maine Senate	SurveyUSA	10/20/2008	43	54	3
Maine (4)	SurveyUSA	10/20/2008	54	39	7
Maine (4)	Pan Atlantic SMS Group	10/16/2008	51	39	10
Maine Senate	Pan Atlantic SMS Group	10/16/2008	36	57	7
National (538)	Diageo, Hotline	10/21/2008	47	42	11
National (538)	FOX News, Opinion Dynamics	10/21/2008	49	40	11
National (538)	Associated Press-GfK	10/20/2008	44	43	13
National (538)	Franklin & Marshall College	10/19/2008	50	45	5
Nevada (5)	Time, CNN	10/21/2008	51	46	3
North Carolina Senate	WSOC-TV	10/21/2008	44	43	13
North Carolina (15)	Time, CNN	10/21/2008	51	47	2
North Carolina (15)	WSOC-TV	10/21/2008	48	46	6
Ohio (20)	Time, CNN	10/21/2008	50	46	4
South Dakota (3)	Mason-Dixon, Argus Leader, KELO-TV	10/15/2008	41	48	11
Tennessee Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/16/2008	35	62	3
Tennessee (11)	Rasmussen Reports	10/16/2008	42	54	4
Tennessee (11)	Ayres McHenry (R)	10/15/2008	39	54	7
Tennessee Senate	Ayres McHenry (R)	10/15/2008	27	64	9
Virginia (13)	Mason-Dixon	10/21/2008	47	45	8
Virginia (13)	Time, CNN	10/21/2008	54	44	2
Washington (11)	Elway Poll	10/19/2008	55	36	9
West Virginia (5)	Time, CNN	10/21/2008	44	53	3
West Virginia (5)	Orion Strategies (R)	10/21/2008	43.5	49.2	7
West Virginia (5)	Rainmaker Media Group (D)	10/15/2008	41	42	17
West Virginia (5)	Orion Strategies (R)	9/22/2008	40.7	51.7	7
Wisconsin (10)	Research 2000, WISC-TV	10/21/2008	52	41	7
Wisconsin (10)	Wisconsin Public Radio	10/17/2008	51	38	11

The general pro-Obama trend seems to be holding with the exception of a few deviations. West Virginia, a state Obama led briefly in our projection is securely back in the Safe Rep category. The Kentucky Senate race also appears to have calmed down; the tie in yesterday's poll appears to be an anomaly. Speaking of anomalies: there has been some chatter regarding the "tightening of the race," mainly by the Associated Press, after their national poll revealed Obama with just a percentage point lead. People, specifically the liberal side, have been quick to discredit the merits of poll. While it does not align with the vast majority of national polling, that doesn't mean its result is invalid. When dealing with population sampling there are many factors taken into account, but ultimately the random sample decides the outcome. If you get a bad sample no amount of finagling can change that. Rather the outcome of the AP-Gtk poll is nothing more than a statistical outcome. Given the monumental number of polls taken this election cycle, the standard distribution principle dictates that any set of data will have outliers. The AP poll is simply an outlier, nothing more, nothing less; but apparently the Associated Press failed to realize this mathematical caveat given the degree to which they pushed this singular poll. I hope to have an article pertaining to the Bradley Effect later tonight, and then after that I'll look to finish the new Senate Projection page.

Minnesota Meta-Polling

10/21/2008 10:50:20 PM CT

The Minnesota Senate race is likely the most contentious battle this election cycle, and will likely end up being the most heavily financed when all is said in done. The race features Incumbent Republican Norm Coleman, Democratic challenger Al Franken and Independent Party of Minnesota candidate Fmr. Sen. Dean Barkley. Coleman and Franken remain the front runners, but Barkley has consistently polled in the high teens; while down, Barkley is not out. A new round of Minnesota polling was concluded on October 18th from two local media pollsters based in Minneapolis; the Star Tribune Newspaper, and KSTP-TV (the ABC affiliate). Each pollster performed Presidential and Senate polls sixteen days prior to their most recent release. I've included the results of their new polls, their old polls, and our projections for both time frames below:

            Star Tribune [10/17]       SurveyUSA [10/18]
            Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep    Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep
President    55     37      18        46     47      -1
Senate       43     34       9        33     43     -10
Pres-Sen     12      3       9        13      4       9

            Star Tribune [10/1]        SurveyUSA [10/2] 
            Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep    Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep
President    52     41      11        50     44       6
Senate       39     36       3        39     41      -2
Pres-Sen     13      5       8        11      3       8

           VFA Projection [10/2]    VFA Projection [10/18]
            Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep    Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep
President  52.93  38.97    13.96    49.98  43.71     6.27
Senate     41.61  36.64     4.97    38.61  40.15    -1.54
Pres-Sen   11.32   2.33     8.99    11.37   3.56     7.81

The bolded row at the bottom of each pollster's result represents the correlation between that pollster's Presidential and Senate race findings. If you look at all six results, the bolded numbers for each column reasonably agree with the other five. This result shows that within the meta sample of all four polls and our projections the correlation remains consistent. Using this consistency and our projections on October 18th, I have derived a set of simple formulas that correlate Senate and Presidential performance: An Obama victory in Minnesota with just 50.97% of the vote correlates to a razor thin victory by Al Franken using the above formulas (see note at bottom). Given that the Minnesota Senate race is a three way ordeal and the fact that our projection neglects to allocate independents or uncommitted voters I'll dive deeper into the meta sample. If we assume that Barkley receives eighteen percent of the vote, as he has in the last four polls, the independents cannot save Norm. As it stands, under this assumption, Barkley is receiving roughly 63% (11.37 / 18) of his backing from Obama supporters, just 20% (3.56 / 18) from McCain supporters and 17% from Independents. Again under the eighteen percent assumption, just 3.24% of population is left undecided. If we just arbitrarily allocate this demographic to Norm Coleman, Obama must increase his popular vote percentage by 4.19% (3.24 / .7725) to 55.17% in order to guarantee a correlated victory for Franken. Although the current polling doesn't show this kind of lead for Obama; if I were Norm Coleman I would be looking to fundamentally alter the "coattail coefficients" to better situate myself for reelection. Looking at the MN Senate graph below it appears that the scorched earth strategy doesn't seem like an option. Coleman needs a game changer, but with just 14 days to go his options seem limited. Although Norm has the lead in the interim, his support is deteriorating at a much greater rate than his opposition. Note: The threshold of victory for a Senate race is found by averaging the projection of the two leading candidates and dividing by two. In the case of Minnesota, a popular vote greater than 39.98% should result in a Senate election victory.

Poll Update (10/21)

10/21/2008 2:22:06 PM CT

Today is done:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Colorado (9)	InsiderAdvantage	10/20/2008	51	46	3
Florida (27)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/19/2008	48	47	5
Illinois (21)	Chicago Tribune	10/18/2008	56	32	12
Indiana (11)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/19/2008	48	46	6
Kentucky Senate	SurveyUSA	10/20/2008	48	48	4
Kentucky (8)	SurveyUSA	10/20/2008	41	54	5
Minnesota Senate	Star Tribune	10/17/2008	39	36	25
National (538)	American Research Group	10/20/2008	49	45	6
National (538)	NBC News, Wall Street Journal	10/20/2008	50	39	11
National (538)	Ipsos	10/20/2008	50	42	8
National (538)	Pew Research Center	10/19/2008	53	39	8
Nevada (5)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/19/2008	47	47	6
New Jersey (15)	Quinnipiac University	10/19/2008	59	36	5
New Jersey Senate	Quinnipiac University	10/19/2008	55	33	12
New Jersey (15)	Monmouth University, Gannett	10/18/2008	55	38	7
North Carolina (15)	Civitas Institute (R)	10/20/2008	48	45	7
North Carolina Senate	Civitas Institute (R)	10/20/2008	44	41	15
North Carolina (15)	SurveyUSA	10/20/2008	47	47	6
North Carolina Senate	SurveyUSA	10/20/2008	46	45	9
North Carolina (15)	InsiderAdvantage, Politico	10/19/2008	49	48	3
Oklahoma Senate	TVPoll.com	10/20/2008	40	53	7
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	10/20/2008	32	64	4
Oklahoma Senate	SurveyUSA	10/19/2008	39	51	10
Oklahoma (7)	SurveyUSA	10/19/2008	35	59	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	10/20/2008	52	42	6
South Carolina (8)	Rasmussen Reports	10/20/2008	43	54	3
Tennessee Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/20/2008	34	62	4
Vermont (3)	Macro International	10/12/2008	51	29	20
West Virginia (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/20/2008	43	52	5
Wyoming (3)	SurveyUSA	10/19/2008	37	58	5
Wyoming (3)	Mason-Dixon	10/14/2008	32	58	10

If you were a McCain strategist in charge of campaign optimism, your line of attack today would be: "We have a solid lead in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Wyoming, that's all I have to report." If you're McCain's strategist in charge of realism, you probably didn't bother showing up at work today. Obama on the other hand has taken his first lead in a Public Policy Polling (D) poll of Indiana and has led or been tied in the last eleven polls taken in North Carolina. If you're a Republican you've probably redirected your focus to the Senate. Although the Senate picture doesn't look much brighter for your favorite right winged party. A new poll by SurveyUSA shows the Kentucky Senate race as an absolute dead heat. Republicans can try and spin this all they want, but it ultimately comes down to the fact the Kentucky is one of the few states McCain absolutely does not have to worry about; and the fact that Mitch McConnell is the Republican Minority leader. The leader of the Republican Party in the Senate faces a potential defeat in one of the reddest states in the Union; talk about a poor brand. The Kentucky Senate graph is below: The condition of Kentucky's Senate race is not an isolated issue, Republican Senators elsewhere are facing fierce competition. Today brought two new polls from such races; Civitas Institute (R) shows Democratic challenger Claire Hagan with a four point lead over Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina; and the Minnesota Star Tribune's Senate supplement was published late last night. The Minnesota Senate race has been contentious throughout and the Star Tribune poll makes no exceptions. Al Franken, the Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Norm Coleman has a slim lead of three, down from nine in the previous conducted by the Star Tribune. If this seems like an oddity, it is, and I'll prove it later. I'm working on a slick analysis of the Minnesota Senate race. I'm going to wait until after Rasmussen publishes today's polls because I'm terrified they'll pop out a Minnesota poll and force me to start over. Check back later tonight for the result.

How the Base was Won

10/21/2008 2:57:58 AM CT

I'll first start off by overtly saying that this is not a base election, the Religious Right will not carry McCain to glory; just as they did not carry Huckabee to the nomination. This example may make it appear as though I'm picking on the Republican base, but it could also be said that the blue-collar base of the Democratic party didn't get their candidate, Hillary Clinton, the nomination either. As primary season concluded, each party's base was left out in the rain; this void opened the door for summertime scheming. Heading into the general election each nominee likely devised a plan to win over disenfranchised base voters; the extent to which this targeting varied greatly between the candidates and probably shaped the outcome of the election. While I stated earlier that this is not a base election, the base will no doubt still play a role, just not the whole role. At the beginning of August each candidate was less than liked by their base; Obama was enduring the whole Hillary supporter thing and McCain was struggling with deep-in-the-red conservatives. The VP selection gave each candidate an opportunity to shore up their base, but it also presented perhaps greater opportunities. Obama largely ignored the pleas from the Democratic base and selected Joe Biden for his breadth of knowledge on all things political. McCain chose an entirely different route; his selection of Sarah Palin exclusively appealed to the Republican base. After the conventions in mid-September, the right wing the of the Republican Party was clearly behind McCain, while the Democratic contingency was left largely in the shadows. Instead of targeting blue-collar Democrats as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards did through their primary campaign, Obama focused on his base; the youth demographic. Obama left the traditional base behind and set about building another foundation. It was a risk, but it appears to have paid off. The Obama campaign used their excitement gap advantage among the youth demographic to mobilize the stereotypical Democratic base. Obama used his base to win over the party's base. The ingenuity of this entire strategy allowed for a fail safe scenario in the event that the kids don't show up on election day. If however these kids do vote, Obama wins; if not the mainstream Democratic base is still on Obama's side and the two candidates enter the final month in nearly identical positions. Judging by last month's polls, that didn't happen. Obama was able to capitalize on another aspect of the youth movement; while the kids were out volunteering and winning over the real Democratic base, Obama was able to hold onto his message of hope through McCain's period of negativity. As a result Obama was able to target swing voters before McCain was dialed in on the independent crowd. Obama began delivering his message to the country while McCain was still delivering his message to Oklahoma.

Poll Update (10/20)

10/20/2008 12:47:34 PM CT

The FOX/Rasmussen polls were just released so I'm declaring today done. This should be all of today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Colorado (9)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/19/2008	51	46	3
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/19/2008	48	49	3
Georgia Senate	Democracy Corps (D)	10/19/2008	44	48	8
Georgia (15)	Democracy Corps (D)	10/19/2008	44	46	10
Louisiana Senate	OnMessage (R)	10/16/2008	47	42	11
Minnesota (10)	SurveyUSA	10/18/2008	50	44	6
Minnesota Senate	SurveyUSA	10/18/2008	39	41	20
Missouri (11)	Suffolk University	10/19/2008	44	45	11
Missouri (11)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/19/2008	49	44	7
National (538)	CNN, Opinion Research Corp.	10/19/2008	51	46	3
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	10/19/2008	49	44	7
National (538)	YouGov, Economist (D)	10/12/2008	48	42	10
New Hampshire (4)	Research 2000, Concord Monitor	10/19/2008	50	43	7
North Carolina Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/19/2008	49	42	9
North Carolina (15)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/19/2008	51	48	1
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/19/2008	51	44	5
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/19/2008	47	49	4
Ohio (20)	Suffolk University	10/19/2008	51	42	7
Oregon (7)	Grove Insight (D)	10/9/2008	52	39	9
Oregon Senate	Grove Insight (D)	10/9/2008	41	36	23
Pennsylvania (21)	Susquehanna, Tribune Review	10/18/2008	48	40	12
Virginia Senate	SurveyUSA	10/19/2008	60	36	4
Virginia (13)	SurveyUSA	10/19/2008	51	45	4
Virginia (13)	Rasmussen Reports	10/16/2008	54	44	2

Missouri appears to legitimately be in play, as evidenced by yet another poll showing the race as essentially a dead heat; this time it the result comes from Suffolk University. Suffolk also released an Ohio poll that showed Obama with a nine point lead with just seven undecideds. The other poll of note is the new SurveyUSA poll sponsored by KSTP, the Minneapolis ABC affiliate. The combination of SurveyUSA and KSTP has given consistent, although perhaps inaccurate results for the entire election cycle; more on this in a later article. Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama yesterday on Meet the Press. While this is a large development, I don't think it was the biggest political event to occur yesterday. The other major piece of news, with huge political ramifications is the advancement of the Tampa Bay Rays into the World Series. Keep reading, I promise this relates. The World Series pitches two teams, from two major swing states against each other. If the series goes to a game six, the start time will be delayed 15 minutes to allow FOX to televise Obama's half an hour ad buy. If this occur you can be sure that a massive percentage of Pennsylvania and Florida residents will be watching. Obama may have the opportunity to speak directly to, perhaps 5 Million swing state voters; just five days before the election. While Pennsylvania seems to be in Obama's court, Florida is still very much in play.

Poll Update (10/19)

10/20/2008 12:34:30 PM CT

Today's Polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Kentucky Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	42	46	12
Kentucky (8)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	39	53	8
Maine Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	40	53	7
Maine (4)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	55	38	7
Minnesota (10)	Star Tribune	10/17/2008	52	41	7
Minnesota Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	41	39	20
Minnesota (10)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	52	39	9
Montana (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	45	49	6
Ohio (20)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/17/2008	45	46	9
West Virginia (5)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/17/2008	41	47	12
West Virginia (5)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/17/2008	42	50	8
Wisconsin (10)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	10/17/2008	51	39	10

Only four non-partisan polls today, three from NBC and one from The Minneapolis Star Tribune. Combined the four polls really didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. Minnesota is Obama's, Wisconsin is Obama's, West Virginia is McCain's and Ohio is close. Nothing to see here, move it along. If you look at the DailyKos' polls you get essentially the same feel, but they do provide some interesting Senate polls. Al Franken (D) is narrowly beating incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Lundsford is giving the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a fight. If the Dems can somehow win both these seats they will essentially secure a filibuster proof majority of 60 Senators. Keep in mind that DailyKos polls are excluded because they are partisan, not because they are wrong.

Poll Update (10/18)

10/18/2008 5:20:29 PM CT

Today's Polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Alaska Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	48	46	6
Alaska (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	38	57	5
California (55)	SurveyUSA	10/16/2008	59	35	6
Colorado Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/16/2008	51	44	5
Colorado (9)	Rasmussen Reports	10/16/2008	52	45	3
Florida (27)	Herald Tribune	10/15/2008	47	43	10
Nevada (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/16/2008	50	45	5
North Carolina Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	49	45	6
North Carolina (15)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	46	44	10
Oregon Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	47	41	12
Oregon (7)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	53	38	9
Wisconsin (10)	University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee	10/15/2008	51.4	36.3	13
Wyoming (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	35	58	7
Wyoming-A Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	34	61	5
Wyoming-B Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/16/2008	36	57	7

Three non-partisan polls in three Bush states reveal three leads for Obama. The fourth and fifth non-partisan polls depict Obama with large leads in Kerry states. The DailyKos provided, for the second day in a row, a rather large sampling. Looking at just the presidential race, North Carolina is the only interesting result. McCain had maintained a steady lead for much of the cycle in North Carolina, until right around the time the economy crashed and the debates began. Looking at the graph below, McCain has a lot of ground to make up in a relatively short amount of time: The Senate polling in Oregon, Alaska and North Carolina must also be discouraging news for the GOP. Incumbent Senator Elizabeth Dole (of North Carolina) is in the fight of her life with Democratic challenger Claire Hagan. The culmination of a very effective campaign by Hagan and the fact that Elizabeth Dole has done essentially nothing as a Senator, may doom Republican hopes of avoiding a 40 seat minority.

Poll Update (10/17)

10/17/2008 9:52:25 AM CT

There will probably be another phase, but here's where today's polls currently stand:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Florida (27)	SurveyUSA	10/16/2008	47	49	4
Florida (27)	Research 2k, FL Times-Union	10/15/2008	49	45	6
Georgia Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	45	47	8
Georgia (15)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	43	49	8
Mississippi (6)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	40	50	10
Mississippi-B Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	46	47	7
Missouri (11)	Rasmussen Reports	10/15/2008	52	46	2
North Dakota (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	45	45	10
Texas Senate	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	44	50	6
Texas (34)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/15/2008	40	52	8

McCain is now winning Florida, but at the cost of Missouri?

MN Senate Debate: Live Analysis

10/16/2008 6:42:22 PM CT

Tonight's debate started at 7 PM CT and runs until 8:30 PM at the University of Minnesota Duluth. 7:01 CT: It would appear that the crowd is cheering for the water pitcher, oh wait, no the candidates have just entered the stage. 7:02 CT: Senator Coleman went straight to the water pitcher. 7:04 CT: Two minute opening statements by each of the candidates. Three issues will then be discussed; economy, foreign policy and energy. The candidates will then respond to audience questions. Then two minutes for closing statements. 7:06 CT: Fmr. Senator Barkley to lead off the night. "I know the middle class because I grew up in the middle class...I even drove a Metro Mobility bus to make ends meet." Barkley leads off with an appeal to middle class voters. 7:08 CT: Franken followed Dean Barkley by reiterating his similar middle class roots. It'll be interesting to see if Norm follows the same path. "I'm going to be working for middle class families." 7:10 CT: "The people in Washington who caused this mess will be held accountable and thrown in jail," a very strange statement by a sitting US Senator. Norm later went on to conjure a parable that included FDR. 7:12 CT: "Does either Presidential candidate get to the heart of the [economic] matter, if not why?" 7:14 CT: Barkley goes first. He took the stance that neither Obama nor McCain has an adequate economic plan. Barkley focused on the need to have "pure" economics in which spending fulfills a very specific purpose. Look for Franken to side with Obama's plan. I'm curious to see which way Norm will go. 7:15 CT: Al Franken asked the moderator to repeat the question. "I'm the only one up here you would not have supported the bailout....[McCain] gets it a lot less than Senator Obama." Franken jumped on the Barack Obama Economic Train. 7:17 CT: Coleman just said "Dean's right." Norm better be careful or his lukewarm support may continue to slide over to Barkley. Norm then brought up Al's prior support for a single payer health care plan. Norm did not say McCain or Obama (or any such reference) in his response, therefore he did not answer the question. 7:20 CT: Dean Barkley's stance on getting out of the economic situation, "Our country can do anything it wants to if we have the political will to make it happen." 7:21 CT: Franken just stated that he does not support the concept of "tickle down" economics. He believes that "wealth starts in the middle class." 7:22 CT: Sen. Coleman referenced an energy bill from 2005 that Obama voted for. Coleman stated that "Franken would have voted against it." 7:23 CT: Can we ever win the war on terror. How will we know? 7:26 CT: "We have not won this war on terror because we took the wrong actions. Invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do...Then we made a tragic mistake [by going] to war with Iraq. Senator Coleman thinks going to war with Iraq was a good idea." Franken then went on to cite Paul Wellstone's vote against the war while debunking Coleman's principle of "it must have been a good vote because lots of other people voted for it." Franken later went on to say that "you can never win a war against a tactic." 7:27 CT: The question goes to Norm: "We have to win and failure really isn't an option...If Iran got a nuke...the Saudis would buy [a nuclear weapon]" Norm said this in the last debate and it didn't make sense then. If it was so easy for Saudi Arabia to buy a nuclear weapon, then why can't Iran do it. Norm's arguement for the war on terror is a slippery slope that ends in a giant fallacy. 7:29 CT: Now onto Barkley, "In hindsight I agree with Al, Paul Wellstone was right on his vote...It's time now for [Iraq] to decide their fate...they have to make that decision on their own, and we need to get out and let them make it." Barkley stated that the solution in Afghanistan is "to build schools, not drop bombs." 7:31 CT: Franken's view on the Iraq war, "We have to get out of Iraq, we need to do it responsibly, we need to do it now." Al then wiped out a devastating statistic. If the US Government was not funding Iraq we could have "58,000 additional teachers." 7:33 CT: "Everybody wants to end this war." You are a sitting Senator, Norm Coleman, help end it then. "I will not tell a parent whose son died: your son died for a mistake." Under that logic war is cyclical without end. You are then constantly fighting war to justify a mistake. 7:35 CT: Barkley: "Can we afford to be the world's policeman." 7:37 CT: Norm on alternative energy, "The french aren't braver than we are. About 80% of their energy is Nuclear." Norm says that he is working on the energy problem in a bipartisan way. 7:38 CT: "I've worked in a tripartisan way," Barkley loves this line. Barkley is furious at Congress for not passing the "Use-it-or-lose-it" doctrine. 7:40 CT: "The most important barrel of oil is the one you don't buy." Franken then went on to discuss the significant impact of Geo-Thermal energy on the job market. 7:41 CT: Norm Coleman is trying to like alternative energy breakthrough to the 2005 Energy Bill that he voted for. 7:43 CT: Barkley's rebuttal, "I'll throw out some facts...during [Norm's] years, you've given 20 million dollars in tax breaks to oil companies." 7:44 CT: Franken reference the possibility of a filibuster proof Democratic senate. 7:45 CT: Onto audience questions, many appear to be regarding education. 7:46 CT: First question to Norm: "Education doorway to success." Norm referenced his recent support for the doubling of Pell grants, a piece he believes is critical to financing higher education. 7:49 CT: Barkley called out Norm for not answering the question. "I studied economic development under the Ventura administration." Barkley believes that the internet is of paramount importance to sustaining rural business. 7:50 CT: Franken again asked to have question repeated, but this time it highlighted the fact that neither of the other candidates answered the question. Franken stated that "Pell Grant's [used to] pay for 86% of education now they pay around 40." 7:51 CT: "Smarter kids are going to be key to ending the brain drain [in rural Minnesota]." Norm just stated that the solution is the answer, a nice recurrence relation between cause and affect. 7:52 CT: Barkley just called Norm out on something, but my stream froze. Barkley then countered by pinning the blame (whatever the issue was) on Pawlenty; the crowd applauded. 7:54 CT: Franken wants to give anybody who wants to seek higher education a $5,000 tax credit. 7:55 CT: The moderator got confused. New question, appointing Supreme Court justices. 7:56 CT: Barkley only requires that Supreme Court Justices be "Qualified and follow president." 7:57 CT: On to Franken, "I don't want ideologues...I want a justice who believes that the Constitution is a living breathing [document]." Franken referenced Sandra Day O'Connor as a judge he admired. Franken then countered Barkley's attack on his $5,000 tax credit by saying the "Education pays for itself many times over." 7:58 CT: Coleman again brought up Franken's supposed support for a single payer health plan. This has nothing to do with Justices, he later stated that he can cover justice issue in "a minute." 8:00 CT: Barkley response, "[the economic situation] happened on your watch," in reference to Senator Coleman. "I hope the market does bounce back." 8:02 CT: Franken supports Barack Obama's health care plan. Franken then stated that he doesn't know where Norm Coleman stands on the health care issue. Franken than again referenced his dissatisfaction with "trickle down economics." 8:03 CT: Norm thinks that the answer to health care will lie somewhere in between Obama's plan and McCain's plan. Norm continues to harp on Franken's stance on single payer health care. Norm ended by saying that "there are no Mayo Clinics in Canada." 8:05 CT: New question relating to revising Minnesota mining and forestry. 8:06 CT: Franken stated that "until there is a bottom to the housing crisis, we will not be building new houses." Franken says that supports the forestry and mining industry and claimed that we can help those industries most by improving our general economy. 8:08 CT: Barkley partially blamed the Iron Ranges problems on poor trade agreements. "We need a Senator that will be tough on trade agreements." 8:10 CT: "I provided some stability against dumping...I've been there for timber...It is about jobs." This sequence by Norm Coleman was terrifyingly similar to the now (in)famous statement by Sarah Palin in her interview with Katie Couric. 8:11 CT: New question: Special interests & campaign money. 8:12 CT: "Bribery is illegal everywhere, except Congress," that statement pretty much sums ups Barkley's view of how government works. Barkley is tired of the current form of political campaigns. He then cited some finance numbers that depicted Franken in a bad light, but Norm in a worse light. 8:14 CT: Coleman stated that he's against current public campaign finance laws. Norm doesn't want tax payers paying for negative ads. 8:16 CT: Franken just destroyed Norm's gimmick of ending negative campaign ads, to a chorus of applause. Franken supports public finance because in the end he believes it would save Americans money in the long run by eliminating corporate earmarks that ultimately end up hurting Americans more. "Stand up to the special interest, don't take money from them." 8:18 CT: Barkley's rebuttal to Coleman on the suspension of his negative ads, "I'd love to here an apology for all the negative ads [Sen. Coleman] has done." 8:20 CT: Norm didn't apologize. 8:21 CT: Franken chastised Coleman for who he acts on behalf of. Franken continued by saying that Coleman may act, but he doesn't act on the best interest of Americans. "I'm going to fight for real folks." 8:22 CT: Closing statements. 8:23 CT: Barkley goes first. "Minnesota has an historic opportunity to show Washington who you feel." He referenced the negative campaigning tactics of Presidential politics and the growing negativity in the Senate race. Norm Coleman looks very agitated. 8:24 CT: "Elections are chance to hold your elected official accountable." Franken concludes his remarks with his classic "I ask for your vote" line. 8:26 CT: The night concludes with Coleman. "The better question is: who is best at fixing it." Norm then went on to list numerous bill which he has supported and helped pass. "Government needs to live within its means...Patriots not partisans." Norm then concluded by echoing Franken's line, "I ask for your vote in November." Thanks to theuptake.org for providing a live stream of the debate.

Poll Update (10/16): The Server Saga

10/16/2008 5:23:06 PM CT

Where to start? Saturday night, a few hours after the MN Senate Debate, I went to check the site and discovered it was down. I called the host (easycgi.com) and they literally had no idea what was happening. Fast forward four days and they still have (as in the present tense) no idea what is happening. To make a long story short they were a terrible host; but now everything is fine. During the outage, I collated historical Senate polling. As of this moment all of the current Senate races have their own graph; Minnesota for example. We'll call this phase one of the Senate move; the eventual intention is to have a dedicated Senate page with neato graphs and such. In the interim I plan on creating a snazzy probability curve that reflects the number of projected seats held by each party. The Senate polling is updated in the same fashion as our Presidential model; if a poll is in the database, it is reflected in our maps and graphs and projections. Now onto the polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Connecticut (7)	Rasmussen Reports	10/14/2008	56	39	5
Illinois Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	62	31	7
Kansas Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	36	55	9
Massachusetts Senate	SurveyUSA	10/14/2008	59	29	12
Massachusetts Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	63	31	6
New Mexico Senate	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	57	37	6
New York (31)	Rasmussen Reports	10/14/2008	57	37	6
Ohio (20)	Rasmussen Reports	10/14/2008	49	49	2
Oregon (7)	Rasmussen Reports	10/14/2008	54	41	5
Oregon Senate	Rasmussen Reports	9/14/2008	47	47	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	10/15/2008	53	37	10
Virginia (13)	Christopher Newport University	10/14/2008	49.2	43.2	8

It's bad news for the Republican party when the only red on a recent polls table occurs in Kansas' Senate race.

Final Debate: Live Analysis

10/14/2008 7:57:11 PM CT

8:01 CT: I have nothing witty to say about Bob Schieffer's introduction. 8:03 CT: McCain with the first word. He referenced Nancy Reagan's recent hospitalization in much the same way he referenced Ted Kennedy's hospitalization on the day of the first debate. It seems to be a strategic point; I wonder why he didn't mention somebody in the second debate? 8:07 CT: "Would you like to ask him a question," Schieffer asked McCain. The response: "No." McCain then brought up a conversation Obama had with a plumber named "Joe" from Ohio. The video of this conversation with Joe is available on youtube. 8:09 CT: Barack Obama's tax policy, "95% of working families will get a tax cut." Obama has completely won the tax cuts vote. 8:10 CT: McCain responded to Obama's economic plan by again bringing up Obama's conversation with Joe. McCain finished by saying this: "the purpose of taxes is not to spread the wealth around." He also brought up the business tax, instead of talking about individual taxes. Nobody cares about business taxes, if you can't pay your rent. I don't not care that Ireland has an 11% business tax rate while the USA has a 35% rate; this statistic does not play into McCain's narrative of helping the little guy. He just stated that businesses should get tax breaks ahead of individuals. 8:17 CT: Why did McCain just overtly say that his depression era proposal of buying crippled home mortgages was supported by Hillary Clinton. 8:19 CT: "I know how to do this," John McCain. Schieffer: "Which ones?" McCain literally couldn't think of anything legitimate. He listed two references relating to Ethanol. If he actually knew how to do this, I would like to think that he could have thought of an example that didn't playing horribly in Midwest battleground states. 8:20 CT: Barack Obama: "Eliminating earmarks will not solve the problem." 8:21 CT: Can either candidate balance the budget? "I am not President Bush., if you wanted to run against President Bush you should have run four years ago." He then answered the question by saying "we can do it;" but his statement was too garbled to correctly write down. 8:23 CT: "Even FOX News disputes it," Obama said in response to McCain's accusation that he voted for "a bill that raised taxes on those making under $42,000." Obama then went on to say that McCain, "On the core economic issues? you have been a staunch supporter of Bush's economic policies." 8:25 CT: The dirty campaigning question. Nobody cares about McCain's town hall meetings, nobody. McCain's number plummeted on the CNN uncommitted graph when he raised that issue. John McCain is about to get destroyed. "I will run a truthful campaign." Nobody cares if Obama backed out of public financing. 8:28 CT: "We expect Presidential campaigns to be tough?.100% of your campaign ads have been negative," responded Barack Obama. "I don't mind being attacked for the next three weeks. We need to talk about what's most pressing to [Americans]." 8:29 CT: Apparently McCain supports federal funding for stem cell research. That's definitely news to me. 8:31 CT: Obama just threw Palin under the bus, while defending Rep. Lewis. 8:32 CT: McCain wants to talk about his healthcare plan when Obama is defending himself, but he doesn't want to talk about health care when it doesn't fit into his "Obama is not one of us" narrative. 8:34 CT: "I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies," responded John McCain after Barack Obama cited an attendee at a Palin rally screaming "Kill Him" in reference to Obama. 8:35 CT: Whenever McCain starts talking the Uncommitted voter line on CNN immediately reseeds. 8:37 CT: "Ayers has become the center piece of McCain's campaign over the last week?40 Years ago when I was 8 he did some bad things." Obama then linked Ronald Reagan to Ayers. Obama essentially nullified the Ayers narrative. 8:40 CT: Obama's facial expressions tell the tale. You better believe people are noticing this. Every time McCain says something outrageous he gives a huge smirk. It's the "you have no idea what you are even saying" smirk. 8:41 CT: Obama just listed several reasons why Joe Biden would be an excellent president. When the question goes to McCain he isn't going to talk about why Palin would be a good President. McCain is going to attack Joe Biden. 8:42 CT: So I was wrong, but McCain let slip this classy quote: "Sarah Palin is a role model to reformers." She's such a good reformer she was convicted of ethical violations in the state she represents. "We need to understand what's causing autism," I would agree, but scientific research requires funding and therefore spending. This very research would get cut under McCain's proposed spending freeze. 8:45 CT: McCain followed up his Sarah Palin rhetoric with "[Biden] voted against the first Gulf War?He also had this cooky idea to divide Iraq." I was eventually right on McCain's attacks of Joe Biden. 8:48 CT: "We need to expand domestic production." Obama just voiced his support for offshore drilling under the "use-it-or-lose" doctrine. 8:51 CT: McCain then misquoted Obama as saying, "We will look at offshore drilling." No, that is not what Obama said, see above quote. McCain then made a starky comment about Obama's elegant style of speech. 8:53 CT: "We can create 5 million new jobs" if the transportation industry is guided down the right path according to Barack Obama. 8:55 CT: McCain just linked Obama to Herbert Hoover. This comparison just doesn't make sense. The uncommitted voters on CNN agreed. 8:56 CT: Obama on his healthcare plan: "If you have health insurance, you don't have to do anything; you can keep your plan. The only thing we are going to try and do is lower cost. We can cut $2,500 off your premium a year. If you don't have health insurance we will allow you to buy into a plan similar to the health care that myself and John McCain have access to." 8:58 CT: "47 million people are without healthcare today." The 47 million people without healthcare know they do not have healthcare. McCain's healthcare plan seems to revolve around exercise credits. McCain also wants to give families a $5,000 tax credit. Obama isn't offering a single payer system, as McCain just suggested. McCain also stated that the government will fine you under Obama's plan if you do not have health insurance. 9:00 CT: "Here's the fine: Zero." Obama just crushed McCain's only healthcare talking point. Obama then countered McCain's $5,000 tax credit by stating that older people will have a hard time getting insurance with just $5,000. "The average healthcare plan costs $12,000." 9:05 CT: McCain has referenced Joe the plumber way too many times during the debate. I'd be willing to bet that Joe is voting for Obama. Organ transplants should not be a right reserved for the rich, this should not be included in the "Cadillac" healthcare plan that McCain seems to oppose. 9:06 CT: McCain just blamed the last eight years on the last two years with a Democratic Congress. 9:07 CT: John McCain just stated that "there should not be a litmus test for Supreme Court Judges." 9:09 CT: Obama just overtly stated that he supports Roe vs. Wade. 9:10 CT: "I supported [equal pay for equal work], John McCain voted against it." John McCain then countered by stating that his vote related to the statute of limitations, "a trial lawyer's dream". Did McCain just justify his vote against this bill solely on the basis that it was "a trial lawyer's dream?" 9:14CT: Abortion: "It divides us. We should try and prevent unintended pregnancies. Nobody is pro-Abortion." ? Barack Obama. 9:16 CT: Last question on education. The USA spends more per capita on education, yet trail most countries of the world. What do you intend to do about it? 9:17 CT: Obama cited the correlation between education and military supremacy. Obama wants to focus on early childhood education and "an army of new teachers, especially in math and science." Obama stated that the affordability of college also plays a role in the diminishing quality of American education. He is proposing a $4,000 college credit in exchange for country service, and not just military service. 9:19 CT: "Education is the civil rights crusade of the 21st century," responded John McCain. McCain wants to eliminate teacher certification for teachers coming directly from the military. He wants to improve teachers by eliminating teaching standards; simply stunning. 9:21 CT: "[President Bush] left the money behind for No Child Left Behind," replied Barack Obama. 9:23 CT: "I don't think America's youth is an interest group, they're our future." That's likely the line of the night by Barack Obama. 9:23 CT: "Lets reform it and fund it," a nice succinct statement by John McCain encompassing the intended message of his campaign. 9:23 CT: Why did John McCain bring up Autism again. Is he trying to when the Autistic parents vote? I agree that it's an important issue, but I'll again reference the funding needed for research which McCain opposes under his spending freeze plan. 9:27 CT: "I think we've had a very healthy discussion," began John McCain's closing remarks. He then went on to state essentially every major issue that needs addressing. Throughout the entire campaign McCain has focused on the issues rather than their solutions. 9:30 CT: "Washington's unwillingness to tackle tough problems [is plaguing America]" Obama just won the debate with that line. 9:31 CT: Insta-Poll Prediction: Obama 55, McCain 25.

Poll Update (10/15)

10/14/2008 7:04:06 PM CT

Today's Polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Colorado (9)	Time, CNN	10/14/2008	51	47	2
Delaware (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/10/2008	56	41	3
Florida (27)	Time, CNN	10/14/2008	51	46	3
Florida (27)	Datamar Inc	10/13/2008	47	42	11
Florida (27)	InsiderAdvantage	10/13/2008	48	44	8
Georgia (15)	Time, CNN	10/14/2008	45	53	2
Illinois (21)	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	56	39	5
Kansas (6)	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	41	54	5
Massachusetts (12)	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	58	38	4
Missouri (11)	Time, CNN	10/14/2008	48	49	3
National (538)	Americab Research Group	10/13/2008	50	45	5
National (538)	Ipsos	10/13/2008	48	39	13
National (538)	Pew Research Center	10/12/2008	49	42	9
Nevada (5)	InsiderAdvantage	10/13/2008	49	46	5
New Mexico (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/13/2008	55	42	3
New Mexico Senate	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	58	40	2
New Mexico (5)	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	52	45	3
North Carolina (15)	InsiderAdvantage	10/13/2008	48	46	6
South Carolina Senate	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	40	56	4
South Carolina (8)	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	41	55	4
Virginia (13)	Time, CNN	10/14/2008	53	43	4
Washington (11)	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	56	40	4
West Virginia (5)	InsiderAdvantage	10/13/2008	47	49	4

Updated everything after our hosting issues; all data is now current. During the downtime I added Senate polling graphs. More on both topics tomorrow.

Poll Update (10/14)

10/13/2008 1:49:19 PM CT

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Colorado Senate	Suffolk University	10/13/2008	45	34	21
Colorado (9)	Suffolk University	10/13/2008	47	43	10
Colorado Senate	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/12/2008	54	40	6
Colorado (9)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/12/2008	52	43	5
Colorado (9)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/7/2008	52	43	5
Colorado Senate	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/7/2008	48	43	9
Michigan (17)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/12/2008	54	38	8
Michigan (17)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/7/2008	55	37	8
Minnesota (10)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/12/2008	51	40	9
Minnesota Senate	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/12/2008	38	36	26
Minnesota Senate	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/7/2008	39	37	24
Minnesota (10)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/7/2008	51	43	6
Missouri (11)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/12/2008	48	46	6
National (538)	LA Times, Bloomberg	10/13/2008	50	41	9
National (538)	CBS News, NY Times	10/13/2008	53	39	8
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/12/2008	49	46	5
North Carolina Senate	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/12/2008	46	44	10
North Carolina Senate	Anzalone-Liszt (D)	10/9/2008	45	34	21
Ohio (20)	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	50	45	5
Pennsylvania (21)	SurveyUSA	10/13/2008	55	40	5
Wisconsin (10)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/12/2008	54	37	9
Wisconsin (10)	Quinnipiac, WSJ, WA Post	10/7/2008	51	43	6

Poll Update (10/13)

10/13/2008 2:12:56 PM CT

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/12/2008	51	46	3
Georgia (15)	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	43	51	6
Georgia Senate	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	43	46	11
Missouri (11)	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	51	43	6
Missouri (11)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/12/2008	50	47	3
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	10/12/2008	51	42	7
National (538)	USA Today, Gallup	10/12/2008	52	45	3
National (538)	TechnoMetrica Institute of Public Policy	10/12/2008	45	40	15
National (538)	ABC News, Wash Post	10/11/2008	53	43	4
New Jersey Senate	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	51	38	11
New Jersey (15)	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	55	40	5
New York (31)	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	64	31	5
North Carolina (15)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/12/2008	48	48	4
North Dakota (3)	The Forum, MSU Moorhead	10/8/2008	45	43	12
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/12/2008	49	47	4
Ohio (20)	Marist College	10/8/2008	39	45	16
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	10/12/2008	32	63	5
Oklahoma Senate	TVPoll.com	10/12/2008	40	53	7
Oregon Senate	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	46	42	12
Oregon (7)	SurveyUSA	10/12/2008	57	40	3
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	10/10/2008	52	42	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Marist College	10/8/2008	53	41	6
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/12/2008	50	47	3

Poll Update (10/12)

10/12/2008 12:12:34 PM CT

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Dem	Rep	Other
California (55)	Rasmussen Reports	10/9/2008	56	40	4
Colorado (9)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/10/2008	52	42	6
Delaware Senate	West Chester University	10/8/2008	65	29	6
Nevada (5)	Mason-Dixon, Review-Journal	10/9/2008	47	45	8

MN Senate Debate: Live Analysis

10/11/2008 7:08:44 PM CT

7:04 CT: They all did their over the top introductions and thank yous to the moderators. 7:08 CT: "We shouldn't be in this situation, but we are," Al Franken 7:13 CT: Here comes an unusual quote from Norm Coleman: "You're not going to generate hope if you're constantly destroying the other side." I thought Barack Obama was all about hope, Norm. 7:15 CT: "We have people who have lost 2 trillion dollars in retirement," Dean Barkley. 7:16 CT: Barkley first ran in 1992 and brought up the fact that Social Security was broke. Barkley says "[he] has been railing against Social Security since" because it is broke. 7:17 CT: "I would bring AARP into the discussion...if we get them to buy in we can fix [Social Security]," -Dean Barkley. 7:18 CT: Franken says that "Norm Coleman wanted to put the Social Security trust fund in the stock market. Can you imagine if we did that." Franken essentially wants to push back the Social Security issue to a later date. Social Security will remain solvent until "2040 something", but "we should not put the money in the stock market." 7:20 CT: Norm Coleman just called Al Franken "Alvin." 7:21 CT: "If we can put the partisan politics aside, we can, we have to get this done. We have to have the political courage to move forward," responds Norm Coleman. 7:22 CT: "I just saw the Texas two step, you side stepped the question," says Dean Barkley in his one minute rebuttal. "The longer we wait the longer the draconian issue [of Social Security] will be." 7:23 CT: Franken jumps on the no new FICO fees bandwagon for anybody making less than 250,00. 7:25 CT: "We can do a lot of fighting," on any issue, but "its the bipartisan way that fixes things. That's what [Norm Coleman] has done." 7:27 CT: "It would be a GRAVE mistake to use military force against Iran, as we did in Iraq. Senator Coleman and I disagree on this." Franken's sole objective seems to be linking Norm to all things Republican. Norm seems to be trying to link himself to both parties, and Dean Barkley is running as the anti-party candidate. 7:28 CT: Apparently Norm thinks that if Iran gets a Nuclear weapon "Egypt will buy one." If it were that easy Iran would already have purchased a Nuclear weapon. 7:30 CT: If 85 Senators vote against a bill that's probably a pretty good indication that it was a bad bill Mr. Coleman. 7:31 CT: "Iran is supporting terrorism," which is why Dean Barkley thinks Iran is of concern. "Make sure nobody can get their hands on the stockpile of Nuclear fuel and weapons. We should talk to Russia as a safeguard." 7:32 CT: Franked responded: "Military action should not be used. Iran has been strengthened because of US involvement in the Iraq war. We need to talk to Iran, using patient diplomacy. We need to end the cowboy foreign policy of the Bush administration." 7:33 CT: Norm replied by stating that "This is a problem for the whole world not just the United States. We cannot take military action off the table, but we also need to use diplomacy...Lets make ourselves energy independent and end our dependency on foreign oil." 7:34 CT: "We cannot allow Iran to get nukes; we need to safeguard the nuclear stockpiles throughout the world, not just Iran," responded Barkley. 7:35 CT: Franken started ragging on Coleman because of a provision in a bill that had something to do with securing our reports after 9/11 that Norm voted for. Norm chimed in and said "Minnesota needs to decide if they want a Maverick or somebody who gets things done. I want to be measured by what I've done. I'm tired of playing gotcha." 7:36 CT: Still on the topic of nuclear sovereignty Barkley stated that "there is a need to discuss the role of the US in the world...We have to much debt and our military budget is too large. We should put our efforts into Afghanistan." 7:37 CT: "I guess maybe I'm just a Maverick," Franken sarcastically retorted. 7:38 CT: In regard to the 6.2% unemployment in Minnesota Norm responded by stating that "the housing is a critical crisis piece, so more effort to bring stability in the housing market [is needed]. We have to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and we should not raise taxes." 7:39 CT: "We could have been [studying stem cells] in the last seven years in Rochester, instead of spending money on Iraq" proclaims Franken. 7:40 CT: One of the Moderator stated that he has is "running a cold." 7:41 CT: Barkley has repeatedly said that he "hopes the 700 billion bailout works." He does not seem confident. "Our economy is consumer driven. Until public confidence turnarounds around our economy will not turnaround." 7:41 CT: Norm Coleman on the economy: "You can't talk about it you have to do it. We passed, in this last bill a wind energy tax break, Franken would have voted against it." 7:44 CT: "The bailout should have passed on its own merit, it did not need [to contain] wind power;" Franken then went on to link himself to Obama. 7:45 CT: Barkley: "I was a key player in the homeland security bill. I didn't spend any money when I was [in the Senate]; Norm, you got me the money." 7:47 CT: "I agree with Barack Obama," Al seems to know the correlation between Obama's support and his own. 7:49 CT: "40% of that debt has occurred under your watch, Norm," Dean Barkley is positioning himself as very fiscally responsible candidate. He's hanging his hat on responsible spending. 7:51 CT: I wonder how many times Norm has said partisan during the debate. It seems he would rather say "[not] partisan" rather than "bipartisan". Coleman then stated that "We are very close to solving the energy issue." How are we close to solving the energy crisis? 7:52 CT: "I support Barack Obama's [health care] program," again Al links himself to Obama. 7:53 CT: "I'm not going to hold [Norm] responsible, but you were there, you didn't stand up.," says Barkley. 7:54 CT: "What a horrible idea to put kids into a government run program [for health care]," Norm replied in response to Franken's supposed position on health care. So are public schools bad for kids because it is a government program? 7:55 CT: "If you believe that hope can conquer fear...I challenge you to come together and make it happen," marked Barack Obama's, err sorry Norm Coleman's final remarks of the televised portion of the debate. 7:57 CT: "I you think President Bush has been right 90% of the time...laughs in the crowd...then I'm not your guy." Franken's final statement ends with his trademark "[list an issue I support]" followed by "then I ask for your vote." 7:58 CT: "I am the only person on this stage that can bring about the change we need," concludes Dean Barkley. ***Televised Debate Ends***
The remaining portion of the debate could be viewed on Kare11.com or one of the CSPANs and features questions from the audience. 7:59 CT: "A good Supreme Court justice will follow precedence, and adhere to the constitution. I would not ask how they would vote on Roe v. Wade," declared Barkley. 8:02 CT: "I take the responsibility of advising and consenting [judges] very seriously," said Norm Coleman in response to the Supreme Court Judge question. "Judges need to interrupt the constitution not legislate from the bench." 8:04 CT: "We may be settling a presidential election. If you wanna talk about bad decisions, Bush v. Gore would kinda be towards the top," Franken clearly defining himself as the leftist candidate. 8:05 CT: "I hope that Barack Obama will be nominating the next supreme court justices," if Al can make a vote for Obama a vote for himself he will likely win. 8:06 CT: Dean Barkley admires Justice Scalia. 8:08 CT: "The judiciary should not be politicized, but we've seen that under the current administration," responds Franken. Al also just made a joke, but I wasn't paying attention, the crowd laughed. 8:10 CT: "My favorite movie is the Godfather...but seriously, maybe John F. Kennedy's Commitment to Courage. It's all about courage. You gotta take tough votes," Norm's stance on leadership. 8:12 CT: Franken took the courage comment and ran with it, "Sometimes it takes courage. I wanna act, that's why I'm running for the Senate. It's about who you are acting on behalf of. I'm acting on behalf of American families." 8:14 CT: "I'll be the common ground. People can come to me to breakdown those barriers." Barkley then told a good story about his experience in the Senate. He moved a table in the cafeteria into the middle to where Democrats and Republicans would eat with him. 8:16 CT: Franken wants a time table (or "time horizon") for the war in Iraq. "In one month the war in Iraq will have gone on longer than World War II...Barack Obama wants a 16 month time table for withdrawal, and I agree with that." 8:18 CT: "I think one of the original goals of why we went into Iraq was to have a regime change, find the WMD's, and install Democracy...Its time for self determination, let Iraq settle their own political battles." Barkley then referenced to the "next president" unlike Franken, which seems to be a good strategic move for the Independent Party candidate. 8:20 CT: "We would have lost if we withdrew when Franken wanted to withdraw. I was in Iraq when Harry Reid said the war was lost, and the troops were very, very angry." How are we going to win the war now, Mr. Coleman? 8:21 CT: "Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq when the war started. How can [Coleman] still be for the war is beyond me," responded Franken. 8:22 CT: "We were all anti-war activists during Vietnam...What's the similarities between the two wars. When the job is done, and I [think it is], we should bring our troops," proclaimed Barkley. 8:23 CT: "We need to get out as quick as possible without losing what we have gained. I will take Ppetraeus' advice over Harry Reid's." This seems like a huge blunder by Norm. I see a flip-flop ad in the works with a nice quote coming down the pike. 8:24 CT: One more question. 8:27 CT: "All [current Senators] should be ashamed because of the position they put this country in...I hope the bailout package will start working." Barkley again mentions that he hopes the bailout works. There is great uncertainty in a potential Senate candidate regarding the financial crisis; this is the issue of the election. 8:28 CT: "It requires folks who have the ability to work with folks on the other side of the aisle...It takes 60 votes to get something done." Coleman's entire candidacy is based on the premise of "bringing people together." 8:30 CT: "We should not do what McCain did...but rather would Franklin Roosevelt did, renegotiate these bad loans one by one. We need to stop the downward spiral of the housing market," in this statement by Franken he distanced himself from McCain will agreeing with FDR. 8:31 CT: "We should prohibit Senators from taking campaign money from companies who you are regulating in a Senate committee. That would be about 2.5 million for Coleman and about half a million for Franken," Barkley then said he was unassociated with type of money. 8:32 CT: "Lets figure this out working together as Minnesotans," marked Coleman's final comment of the night. 8:34 CT: The final statement of the night saw Franken bring up Coleman's desire to chair the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Franken stated that it would be difficult "to bring Democrats and Republican's to the table when your job is to defeat Democrats," in such a position. [Update 7/5/2009]: First Debate, from Oct. 5 at U of MN Rochester, Audio:

Poll Update (10/11)

10/11/2008 12:44:27 AM CT

Some late night polls, and a few released this afternoon:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	SurveyUSA	10/9/2008	35	62	3
Delaware (3)	West Chester University, NPR	10/8/2008	55.5	38.5	6
Florida (27)	Research 2k, FL Times-Union	10/8/2008	49	44	7
Iowa (7)	SurveyUSA	10/9/2008	54	41	5
Michigan (17)	Rossman Group, Denno-Noor (D)	10/4/2008	44	39	17
National (538)	Newsweek, PSRA	10/9/2008	52	41	7
National (538)	FOX News, Opinion Dynamics	10/9/2008	46	39	15
North Carolina (15)	WSOC-TV	10/7/2008	46	47.8	6
Ohio (20)	Ohio Newspaper Poll	10/8/2008	46	48	6
Oregon (7)	Rasmussen Reports	10/9/2008	54	43	3
Pennsylvania (21)	West Chester University, NPR	10/6/2008	52.3	42	6
Vermont (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/6/2008	65	32	3

North Carolina seems to be swinging between the Obama camp and the McCain camp. McCain should spend his time campaigning in Colorado and North Carolina exclusively. If he can gain traction in these states, the blow out narrative will dissipate and Obama's numbers may drop in other battleground states as the bandwagon effect dissipates as well. It's McCain's last, best hope.

Palin Just Lost the Election

10/10/2008 8:22:00 PM CT

John McCain selected a "maverick" but it turns out Sarah's about as much a "maverick" as McCain himself. The AP just reported the Troopergate verdict and its not good for Palin: "Panel finds Palin abused her power in safety official's firing." Now both candidates on the Republican ticket have an ethically questionable mark on their political resume. No longer can they pretend to carry the baton for reform. The McCain campaign's response by Meg Stapleton: "Today's report shows that the Governor acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan. The report also illustrates what we've known all along: this was a partisan led inquiry run by Obama supporters and the Palins were completely justified in their concern regarding Trooper Wooten given his violent and rogue behavior. Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached, making a tortured argument to find fault without basis in law or fact. The Governor is looking forward to cooperating with the Personnel Board and continuing her conversation with the American people regarding the important issues facing the country." There's just one problem with spinning this as a partisan result: "The council include[d] 10 Republicans and four Democrats." I also watched a little analysis on FOX News. They continually pointed out that the trooper Palin wanted to fire tasered a ten year old. This is a truthful statement but does not in anyway counter the findings of the report. The council ruled that Palin's dismissal of Monegan was "proper and lawful," but this was not the principal result of the conviction. Palin "knowingly...permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office and the resources of the Governor's office," in direct violation of state's ethical codes. How many times has Obama or Biden been convicted of ethical violations? Zero. Case closed. Today the Republican Party lost.

Measuring the Bradley Effect

10/10/2008 3:23:11 PM CT

The Princeton Election Consortium published an article a few weeks back discussing the diminishing effect of race in our elections; its pretty much a must read. Within the article a graph appears tracing the evolution of racial bias in public polling, the results were surprising. Based on the chart African American candidates have just recently started over performing relative to election polling. This information is all very interesting, but there is no data on the Bradley Effect for a National campaign; it is impossible to tell how race will impact the 2008 Presidential Election. It is thus plausible to assume, for the sake of comparison, that the Bradley Effect is real and will affect Obama. I've taken the liberty to include a racial bias coefficient into the projection algorithm for a little experiment. The Princeton graph provides a ceiling (or floor, depending on how you look at it) for racially induced bias in public polling at around 5%. I've taken that 5% and incorporated it into the algorithm as follows: Obama's Projection:
I calculate his projection and then subtract 5% of it to arrive at his adjusted projection. McCain's Projection:
I start by figuring out the number of undecided voters in at the end of the initial projection; this is done by subtracting 100 from McCain's and Obama's initial projection. I then add this number to McCain's projection along with 5% of Obama's initial projection to arrive at McCain's adjusted projection. The English version of all this reads as follows: I assume that 5% of Obama's support is racially tinged so I add it to McCain's total while subtracting it from Obama's. I then also assume that all the currently undecided voters, 5% are racist and as a result will vote for McCain. The result of this application can be seen in the map below: If the Bradley Effect manifests itself in the upcoming election, Obama would still win. While I was messing around with the math I wondered what the outcome would be if all currently undecided voters suddenly moved to McCain en masse: A tie? But this year a tie goes to the African American. In the event of a tie the decision rests within the House of Representatives. Each state's delegation receives one votes. Based up upon the current and probable makeup of the 111th Congress, Barack Obama would almost assuredly become the 44th President.

Poll Update (10/10)

10/10/2008 3:05:57 PM CT

Today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alaska (3)	Ivan Moore Research	10/6/2008	38	55	7
Florida (27)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/8/2008	52	44	4
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	10/9/2008	46	49	5
North Carolina (15)	Civitas Institute (R)	10/8/2008	48	43	9
Ohio (20)	InsiderAdvantage	10/9/2008	49	44	7
Ohio (20)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/8/2008	48	46	6

McCain only winning Georgia by three?

Sarah Palin's Excellent Adventure

10/9/2008 9:41:11 PM CT

On Friday October 10th, Sarah Palin could have a rough day. The most pressing issue she will face on Friday presides over the release of the Troopergate verdict. "The Legislative Council's independent investigator is scheduled to deliver his findings tomorrow morning in Anchorage. The council includes 10 Republicans and four Democrats," according to a direct quote from an article by Bloomberg. I have no idea what the Council's findings will be, but the decision itself will dominate the news cycle. The McCain campaign has painted themselves into such a corner that they cannot afford to waste news cycles on content of this variety. If Palin is acquitted, which in all likelihood will happen, the news cycle will still be centered around her very involvement in the case. If she is convicted, McCain's candidacy essentially ends. A guilty verdict will likely result in Palin's impeachment as Governor of Alaska and the end of her political career. The second news item revolves around a supposed leak of her high school test scores. I'm fairly certain the report is fake judging by the baseline variation of the typeset, but the pretense of such a fake could precipitate the release of the actual document. The PDF file includes various information relating to her time spent at Wasilla High. Nestled within the document appear to be scans of her SAT scores, Wasilla High GPA and the result of an IQ test; all of which were taken during her high school years. Again I believe this document is a forgery, and as such I am simply reporting its existence. If these results are however validated, and people are working on it, her candidacy will take yet another huge hit. Fake or not the American people have a right to know. All four of the candidates should release their school transcripts.

McCain is Not Racist, as Far as I Know

10/9/2008 2:23:18 PM CT

If the title of this article were quoted by Sarah Palin, she would no doubt attribute it to Hillary Clinton (see Madeline Albright reference). During the presidential primary Hillary voiced the following refrain: "Obama is not a Muslim, as far as I know." Her statement is redundant, as is mine, but neither is a tautology. They both convey a sense of doubt while maintaining a warped sense of validity. But there does exist a difference; Hillary's statement can essentially be proven true with facts, whereas mine remains gray around the edges. The genius of this archetypal statement resides within its easily deniable purpose of excitation. McCain may not be a racist, I don't believe he is, but I cannot say one way or another with absolute certainty. I know I'm walking a slippery slope, but so are 6,440,000 other people; John included, especially after his "that one" comment in the most recent debate. Yes, I'm going there, but it's not what you think. Throughout the debate I recorded quotes and moments of significance for inclusion into the live analysis article. When the "that one" exchange occurred I noticed it, I did a double take and mentioned the racial overtone to the other person watching with me, but I didn't think to write it down. For some reason this statement did not strike me as news worthy; likely because it should not have been news worthy. I could not fathom the possibility of an intentionally racial remark; I immediately assumed McCain garbled the sentence. I then reasoned as to what McCain might have intended to say; my best guess goes something along the lines of "he supported that one," in reference to the energy bill, but it of course did not come out like that. It took some time, an hour and sixteen minutes later to be exact (while watching a replay) for the gravity of this misstatement to solidify. It finally clicked and when it did, I knew McCain's campaign was over. This blunder should not have been the defining moment of the campaign, but unfortunately I think it was. The McCain campaign tried to walk the fine line required to effectively wage a negative campaign, but McCain lost his balance and the liberal media helped push him to the floor. McCain became lost in a sea of blue; while desperately struggling to find his own message he concurrently hurled the kitchen sink at his opponent. McCain's entire campaign has failed to realize the need for a systemic shift in their messaging. The current Republican path doesn't lead to glory as the road nears it's November end, they need to find a new path. At this point Obama should simply ignore the race issue and place the "that one" quote in his back pocket for a rainy day. If the McCain campaign starts overly playing the race card, Obama can then easily counter. I've talked about it before, but I'll say it again; John McCain can do more good for the Republican party if he loses honorably, than if he blazes a path of divisiveness to the White House. I don't know if he knows this, his ego is clouding his judgment. I fear the moral compass required to end the smears may extend beyond McCain's scope of reasoning. McCain, like his party sees the world in absolutes, the with us or against us mindset; I just hope he realizes that his character is absolutely being questioned.

Poll Update (10/9)

10/9/2008 1:52:21 PM CT

Some interesting results today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Florida (27)	Rasmussen Reports	10/8/2008	50	47	3
Georgia (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/7/2008	43	50	7
Indiana (11)	Rasmussen Reports	10/7/2008	43	50	7
Michigan (17)	Rasmussen Reports	10/8/2008	56	40	4
Minnesota (10)	American Research Group	10/7/2008	47	46	7
Missouri (11)	American Research Group	10/6/2008	46	49	5
Montana (3)	American Research Group	10/8/2008	45	50	5
New Hampshire (4)	American Research Group	10/8/2008	52	43	5
New Jersey (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/7/2008	50	42	8
North Carolina (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/8/2008	49	48	3
Ohio (20)	American Research Group	10/7/2008	48	45	7
Pennsylvania (21)	Strategic Vision (R)	10/7/2008	54	40	6
Texas (34)	American Research Group	10/8/2008	38	57	5
Virginia (13)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/7/2008	51	43	6
West Virginia (5)	American Research Group	10/8/2008	50	42	8

The American Research Group released some peculiar numbers today. Their polling showed a tight race in Minnesota, but an eight point spread in West Virginia for Obama. How can this be? I find it hard to believe that Obama is only winning Minnesota by a single point, but due to erratic polling its simply too tough to tell where the race truly stands. On the other hand is the West Virginia poll, which is likely an outlier, but what if it isn't? West Virginia borders Pennsylvania, a state where Obama has seen huge gains. It seems very likely that the same demographic group supporting Obama in Pennsylvania is now supporting Obama in West Virginia. Georgia and Montana still remain eerily close. Montana loved the Palin selection, but their numbers seem to be trending back toward Obama in recent polls. That leaves Georgia; the state features the hugely Democratic center of Atlanta, but the rest of the state remains solidly southern. Come November 4th around 8 PM ET time, Georgia will provide a reasonable indication of how the election will turn out. If McCain's margin of victory is anything below ten, I thinks its cause for concern within the Republican camp; that is if the election is not already decided.

Poll Update (10/8)

10/8/2008 2:16:50 PM CT

There will likely be no new polls today, but rather the release of already conducted results. Here's the published results, so far:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Georgia (15)	Rasmussen Reports	10/7/2008	45	54	1
Minnesota (10)	Rasmussen Reports	10/7/2008	52	45	3
National (538)	Ipsos	10/6/2008	47	40	13
New Jersey (15)	Fairleigh Dickinson University	10/5/2008	50	37	13
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	10/5/2008	29	66	5
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	9/28/2008	27	68	5
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	9/22/2008	26	66	8
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	9/14/2008	27	69	4
Oklahoma (7)	TVPoll.com	9/7/2008	30	66	4
Wisconsin (10)	Research 2000, WISC-TV	10/6/2008	51	41	8
Wisconsin (10)	Rasmussen Reports	10/6/2008	54	44	2

With the addition of the Rasmussen and Research 2000 sponsored Wisconsin polls, Obama is now winning every Kerry state, with the exception of Maine, by at least nine points. These 242 Electoral Votes are Safe[ly] Dem on the map according to our projection. Using our flipping point calculation, Obama has a 87.79% chance of winning all the Kerry states. Take Maine out of the equation and his percentage increases to 99.55%. This number is absurd. Back in August I wrote about Obama's chances of winning the election under the assumption of a full Kerry state sweep; the result a 99.97% chance of victory. If we merge our findings (including Maine) Obama has a 87.39% statistical probability of winning the election. Keep in mind that one side of the equation comes from August, you know, before McCain's number's plummeted in battleground states like Ohio and Florida.

The Second Debate: Live Analysis

10/7/2008 7:54:51 PM CT

8:01 CT: The Brokaw neck jerk leads off the night. 8:02 CT: Obama with the coin flip win. 8:05 CT: McCain probably should have gotten either a shorter stool or a taller stool. It doesn't matter but he should have made a decision, he looks pained. 8:06 CT: Apparently keeping taxes low fixes the bad loans that are crushing the economy. 8:07 CT: "We need to stabilize home values," says John McCain. That is excellent, how do we do this Mr. McCain? "I know how we can fix this economy," John rhetorically responds, but never actually tells us how he will do it. 8:11 CT: What was that Brokaw rant about. 8:12 CT: Anybody who owns a home has heard of either Fannie May or Freddie Mac, John. Their logo is all over mortage documents. 8:13 CT: Obama looks very comfortable in his bar stool. 8:14 CT: "I have to correct some of John McCain's history, not surprising," marks Obama first zinger of the night. 8:19 CT: Section "F," what a segue Mr. Brokaw. 8:20 CT: Nothing has happened so far. 8:20 CT: "The system in washing is broken, I have been a consistent reformer...Senator Obama has never taken on the leaders of his party." Senator Obama has not been in a position during a period in time where the Democratic leadership was wrong. 8:22 CT: McCain agreed that he would not go into the audience, and he just walked between the seating divisions. Clearly against the rules. 8:24 CT: Apparently McCain thinks he can conquer the three biggest issues of our election but yet he cannot campaign and help push the bailout bill. Sounds like a contradiction. 8:26 CT: Some of the "700 Billion that goes overseas is going to terrorists," I have no idea where McCain is getting this number from. 8:28 CT: Why does McCain want a spending freeze on everything but defense? 8:33 CT: I do not want to another image of McCain sitting awkwardly in his chair. I'm glad he's standing now. 8:36 CT: To bad health insurance costs more than $5,000. 8:37 CT: The Social Security question is now out in the open. 8:38 CT: Brokaw says Obama cannot talk about taxes, so Obama takes the next question and responds to the tax question anyway. 8:39 CT: If a small business is useful to society it becomes a big business. A small business should not get tax breaks, unless they contribute to society. You are not special because you have a small business. 8:40 CT: "Social Security is not that tough," what is your plan then Mr. McCain. I do not care about Tip O'Neil. If you want us to have a commission to solve social security with the smartest people in America, while you be in that Commission Mr. McCain. 8:42 CT: I do not care what section the question is coming from Tom Brokaw. 8:44 CT: McCain is trying to distance himself from the Bush Administration on the environment, nobody cares. Apparently John thinks Japan is an example of reusing Nuclear Fuel but Japan is not allowed to have Nuclear fuel. That was part of the Geneva convention. The people who tried to take over the world are not allowed to have Nuclear. 8:48 CT: McCain simply does not understand the concept of the Manhattan Project reference in the question. It has nothing to do with Nuclear it has to do with funding a purely scientific project to conquer the energy problem. 8:50 CT: Why is McCain just pacing in the background. In 2000 Gore startled Bush in a debate so they have no set aside a specific region in which the candidate can be. McCain is all over the place. 8:53 CT: "Obama keeps talking about what the government will do," that is correct Mr. McCain. The reason he believes in the government achieving these objectives is because the private sector has not adequately provided for the citizens, in Obama's opinion. 8:55 CT: McCain's joke fell entirely flat. I know the crowd is allowed to make noise, but there was definitely laughter in the VP debate. 8:55 CT: "With the plan I have that will do that." Thanks, what is your plan Mr. McCain? 8:56 CT: "Health care should be a right," Barack Obama. 8:57 CT: "McCain voted against expanding health care for children," Barack Obama. 8:59 CT: "Did we hear the size of the fine?" I have no idea what McCain was referring to. 9:00 CT: I'm glad McCain understands the concept of Universal Instantiation. 9:05 CT: "We're not going to be able to be everywhere at anytime," is the essence of the Obama Doctrine on humanitarian combat operations. 9:08 CT: "We ended up having to withdrawn in humiliation." Wow John, sounds an awful lot like the current situation. Lebanon seems to have turned out okay. 9:10 CT: "The young men and women in our military our my number one priority, after our country," sounds fairly fascist to me. You have two cows, the government kills you and takes them. 9:12 CT: McCain just blamed the current Afghanistan mess on the 1980s Afghan war with Russia. Who was president during the Afghan war, your boy Reagan. 9:15 CT: McCain just made the leap from "I was joking with a veteran about bombing Iran" to "I know how to handle these crises." 9:21 CT: What is Russia going to do us? The USA has bigger issues at the moment. 9:22 CT: "Energy is going to be key in dealing with Russia," Barack Obama on Russia. 9:23 CT: "Maybe," the biggest moment in the debate. McCain failed to take a stance, Obama did as well, but he talked through the question instead of entirely dodging the question. 9:25 CT: Nothing in the question about Israel asked by Terry Shirey had anything to do with Nuclear weapons. 9:33 CT: Senator McCain invokes an indirect use of the POW card. "When times are tough we need a steady hand on the tiller." Interesting farming reference to concluded the debate.

Poll Update (10/7)

10/7/2008 2:32:10 PM CT

More post VP Debate polling today. The general trend seems to be away from McCain, but not necessarily toward Obama. A lot of committed McCain voters seem to have moved back toward the middle. Tonight's debate at 9 PM ET while likely decide the path of McCain's future campaign. If Obama wins in a decisive fashion McCain is likely finished; although the polls seem to be say that already:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alaska (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/6/2008	40	55	5
California (55)	SurveyUSA	10/6/2008	55	39	6
Colorado (9)	InsiderAdvantage	10/6/2008	51	45	4
Florida (27)	Mason-Dixon	10/6/2008	48	46	6
Indiana (11)	Time, CNN	10/6/2008	46	48	6
Indiana (11)	Research 2000, WISH-TV	10/3/2008	46	46	8
Minnesota (10)	MPR, Humphrey Institute (U of MN)	10/5/2008	54	40	6
Minnesota (10)	MPR, Humphrey Institute (U of MN)	10/1/2008	47	43	10
National (538)	American Research Group	10/6/2008	49	45	6
Nevada (5)	InsiderAdvantage	10/6/2008	49	47	4
Nevada (5)	Research 2000, Reno Gazette-Journal	10/6/2008	50	43	7
New Hampshire (4)	Time, CNN	10/6/2008	51	43	6
North Carolina (15)	Time, CNN	10/6/2008	49	48	3
North Carolina (15)	SurveyUSA	10/6/2008	46	49	5
Ohio (20)	Time, CNN	10/6/2008	48	45	7
Ohio (20)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/5/2008	49	43	8
Pennsylvania (21)	Rasmussen Reports	10/6/2008	54	41	5
Pennsylvania (21)	SurveyUSA	10/6/2008	55	40	5
Wisconsin (10)	SurveyUSA	10/6/2008	52	42	6
Wisconsin (10)	Time, CNN	10/6/2008	50	42	8

I talked yesterday, while focusing on Virginia polling, about the VP Debate's effect on the race. Today brings perhaps the best indication of this affect. The University of Minnesota performed a poll in the three days prior to the VP Debate, and a poll in the first three days after the VP Debate. Neither poll is good news for McCain, but the latest poll highlights a ten point drop in McCain's number. There is no doubt a correlation between Palin's performance in the debate and McCain's diminishing support; but its unfair to say this is completely Palin's fault, I'm sure the ailing economy played a role as well. In either case, Minnesota seems out of reach for McCain. He simply has no shot based on these two results. In the report a breakdown of support is chronicled. The survey concluded that 88% of the sample was certain to vote for a given candidate. Of this 88%, 57% support Obama and 40% for McCain. The remaining 12% said they could still change there minds; of this group 49% supported McCain and 45% for Obama. Based on the "certain" voters in this sample, Obama has already won the state; the remaining 12% could all vote for McCain and Obama would still come out on top with 50.16% of the vote. This is a startling finding. McCain has outspent Obama in Minnesota by nearly a 2:1 margin and is still likely to face a double digit defeat. During tonight's debate I'll be doing a Live Analysis so check back.

Poll Update (10/6)

10/6/2008 3:02:25 PM CT

The first light resulting from the VP Debate is starting to shine through in the polling and it doesn't look good for the McCain-Palin ticket:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/5/2008	51	45	4
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/5/2008	52	45	3
Georgia (15)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	10/1/2008	43	50	7
Maine (4)	Rasmussen Reports	10/2/2008	51	46	3
Missouri (11)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/5/2008	50	47	3
National (538)	CNN, Opinion Research Corp.	10/5/2008	53	45	2
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	10/5/2008	48	45	7
National (538)	NBC News, Wall Street Journal	10/5/2008	49	43	8
National (538)	CBS News	10/5/2008	48	45	7
National (538)	Zogby Interactive (D)	10/3/2008	48	44	8
New Hampshire (4)	SurveyUSA	10/5/2008	53	40	7
New Mexico (5)	Albuquerque Journal	10/2/2008	45	40	15
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/5/2008	50	44	6
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/5/2008	47	48	5
Ohio (20)	ABC News, Washington Post	10/5/2008	51	45	4
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	10/5/2008	49	38	13
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	10/5/2008	50	48	2
Virginia (13)	Suffolk University	10/5/2008	51	39	10
Virginia (13)	SurveyUSA	10/5/2008	53	43	4

Virginia exemplifies my point: The dotted orange line represents the VP Debate on our time scale. Looking at the trend shows that after Biden's performance in the debate, the Democratic ticket's performance remained largely unchanged. The same cannot be said for Palin's performance. After the orange line, McCain's number continues to plummet. This "Palin Bounce" clearly shows that her performance did not win over independents, in fact the debate seems to have pushed leaning Republican voters back onto the fence. The snap polls taking immediately after the debate presented Biden with a huge win; now the individual state polls seem to verify this assertion.

Poll Update (10/5)

10/5/2008 5:52:07 PM CT

Its been three days since the VP debate and just one non-tracking poll has been released. The Columbus Dispatch released a mail based Ohio poll that spans roughly a week; 9/24-10/3. The poll doesn't really provide any information regarding the VP Debate, but it does seem to verify the recent trend in Ohio.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	Mason-Dixon, Denver Post	10/1/2008	44	44	12
Minnesota (10)	Star Tribune	10/2/2008	55	37	8
Ohio (20)	Columbus Dispatch	10/3/2008	49	42	9
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	9/30/2008	48	41	11
Pennsylvania (21)	Morning Call Tracking	9/25/2008	47	43	10

You'll notice that I have again included the outdated Morning Call tracking polls. I've adjusted the methodology for handling tracking polls. In the case of the Morning Call poll they use a five day moving average to calculate their result. This means that every five days a new, roughly 1,000 person sample, is cycled. In the future I will record every fifth day of the Morning Call tracking poll and treat it just like a normal poll taken over a five day span. The two previous five days sample have been added to the database and the individual results have been purged. Tomorrow's release will be inducted into the collection as the sample will include polls from 10/1-10/5, and the previous set ended on 9/30. The just released Star Tribune poll from Minnesota includes the same sample as their previously released Senate sample. The Senate results showed Democrat Al Franken with a 43-34 lead over incumbent Republican Norm Coleman. These results contradict the findings of a SurveyUSA poll released a day earlier. In the SurveyUSA poll Obama trailed 46-47 and Coleman lead 43-33. As these polarized results are being scrutinized another interesting peculiarity is being overlooked. Each poll shows an identical correlation between the Presidential result and the Senate result. Observe the table below:

                Star Tribune              SurveyUSA
            Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep    Dem    Rep    Dem-Rep
President    55     37      18        46     47      -1
Senate       43     34       9        33     43     -10
Pres-Sen     12      3       9        13      4       9

Notice the correlation of the bottom row (bold numbers) between each pollster. Franken consistently polled 12-13 points lower than Obama, and Coleman 3-4 points lower than McCain. This result reveals that third party Senate candidate Dean Barkley is gaining more support from Obama voters than from McCain voters. If the Senate race remains contentious come election day with Barkley a distant third, Franken is likely to pick off Barkley voters in greater numbers. The direction of the Presidential race will likely dictate the Senate outcome. Look for Obama to step up his spending and ground game in Minnesota in the final weeks. As an aside, when I write the poll updates (or any other story for that matter) I usually forget to "hide" them as I write and proofread leaving a thoroughly unpolished, yet temporary result.

Poll Update (10/4)

10/4/2008 8:35:18 PM CT

A light update, just one poll today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
North Carolina (15)	Elon University	10/2/2008	38.9	38.8	22

Nothing really substantive to talk about so I'll spur the speculation. Remember the 2004 Presidential debate between John Kerry and George Bush where an image of a purported audio device could vaguely be seen under Bush's suit.

There appears to be a similar image, but this time with Sarah Palin at the recent VP debate. In a few screenshots a wire-ish looking device can be seen protruding over her right shoulder. I tend to disbelieve these claims but two pseudo looking audio devices in two consecutive presidential elections makes me question my first and probably correct notion.

Bridging the Partisan Divide

10/4/2008 3:25:56 AM CT

This article will focus on the methods and transparency provided by this site, VoteForAmerica.net, in regard to our electoral projections. If you have ever questioned the impartiality of our mathematical methods you should continue reading. We are able to separate fact from opinion. The ultimate purpose of these projections is to predict what will happen in the future based on publicly available information. If personal thought is injected into a mathematical model, the model quickly digresses to a personal model in disguise. The central issue arises when the mathematical facade is used to promote ones own personal agenda, despite the presented intent; this process of deception is wrong. My opinion may differ from yours, you may think I'm biased, which is fine, but you cannot think my electoral projections are biased. You may question my methodology, but you cannot question the result. I have created an enormous level of transparency regarding my calculations, beyond that of any other projection site. Our methodology should provide the details necessary to duplicate our results, but I'm going to provide an additional resource. Through the use of KyPlot (Download KyPlot 2 B15) and MathCad I have compiled sample calculation worksheets that validate our approach using polling data from Iowa. The image below shows the output of a Local Regression fit in KyPlot using our parameters. You'll notice that the end points (in the thick black rectangles) exactly match our results. Our polling graph from Iowa taken on October 4th; observe the equivalence of our projection and that presented in the KyPlot screenshot above. The KyPlot file used to create this table is available for download; screenshots taken directly from KyPlot are available for McCain and Obama. The MathCad worksheet produces an identical result, but provides a more thorough example of the applied mathematics of Local Regression. The files for both approaches are available for download. The KyPlot approach provides an easier and quicker method for validation, while the MathCad approach provides a more in depth analysis. There should now be absolutely no question about the accuracy of our projection results; if only other sites provided such transparency. RealClearPolitics provides polling projections based on simple averages. Their results are very easy to check, but the method by which they collate data and arrive at these results is very questionable. There is no publicly available document that explicitly lists the methodology for poll inclusion into their averages. It took me just 30 seconds to peruse their state tables and find an inconsistency in methodology. Analyzing the Virginia, Minnesota and Michigan pages highlights this inconsistency. On the Minnesota page, four polls are included in the average with the first excluded poll showing Obama with a lead of two and an end date of 9/17. Heading over to the Virginia page reveals that there are five polls included in the average, with the first exclusion ending on 9/25. Michigan deviates even further, with eight polls included and the first excluded poll ending on 9/21. Judging by these three states there is no discernible pattern, I'm not saying there isn't, but I have no idea what is it. Until this information is published the quality of RealClearPolitics' averages should be questioned. FiveThirtyEight.com includes an excellent methodology page, but neglects to provide information regarding the bandwidth or degree of the Local Regression method. The bandwidth determines the tightness of fit; if the bandwidth is very low the trendline will be adjusted to fit more recent data; if the bandwidth is high a more gradual trend is approximated based on an older subset of polling data. The bandwidth could be altered on a state by state basis to tailor the result to a specific agenda. The degree will have a negligible affect on the result, but is vitally important in duplicating a result. VoteForAmerica.net uses a bandwidth of 15 and a degree of 3 for all states with some exceptions. FiveThirtyEight.com also performs 10,000 simulations to compute win probability based on a mathematically valid Monte Carlo method. The problem however stems from the relatively small number of simulations. In my experience 10,000 simulations will provide relative accuracy when applied to 51 events, but is by no means an authoritative result. The result itself is random, although still situated within a reasonable window of accuracy. I may be wrong on the convergence of the simulation, 10,000 may be enough, but FiveThirtyEight.com has never directly addressed this situation. To entirely eliminate this issue VoteForAmerica.net uses the concept of the Cumulative Distribution Function to arrive at an absolute result. Pollster.com provides the service most similar to our own, but again, like FiveThirtyEight.com does not disclose information on bandwidth or degree. Pollster.com provides very little transparency on their methods as their FAQ page is still under construction. Overall, Pollster.com suffers from nearly the same short comings as FiveThirtyEight.com. As a final comment; I do not necessarily believe that any of these sites are manipulating their result to achieve a certain end. I am simply stating that it is impossible to know due to a lack of transparency.

Poll Update (10/3)

10/3/2008 2:12:00 PM CT

Just two polls so far, I half expected there to be more, but understand that the post debate polls are not likely ready for release at this time. I do however expect such polls to be released later in the day. Rasmussen eventually released two polls, but neither were post debate. I guess we'll have to wait until tomorrow to see how Palin's performance affected public opinion.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Minnesota (10)	SurveyUSA	10/1/2008	46	47	7
Nevada (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/2/2008	51	47	2
New Hampshire (4)	Rasmussen Reports	10/1/2008	53	43	4
New York (31)	Siena	9/30/2008	58	36	6
Rhode Island (4)	Rhode Island College	9/24/2008	45	31	24
Washington (11)	Rasmussen Reports	10/2/2008	53	43	4

First the SurveyUSA poll from Minnesota. Looking at the detailed breakdown reveals a curious peculiarity of the sample. The age group split appears to be unreliable; Obama won the 18-34 crowd by 4, McCain won the 35-49 crowd by 16, but here's were it gets interesting, Obama then won the 50-64 group by 5 and the 65 and over group by 10 points. Previous polls have dictated a different state of affairs. Obama is usually depicted with a larger margin among the youth vote, and McCain usually leads among the 50+ age group. The results of the SurveyUSA poll seem to depart from these traditional story lines. The new poll also departs from the 2004 result in Minnesota where John Kerry won the 18-29 age group 57-41. I'm not discounting the quality of this poll, simply the random sample, although the sample tells a tale of its own. Rasmussen just released a New Hampshire poll in agreement with a recently released Saint Anselm College poll. New Hampshire was close, not so much anymore. Take a look at the graph to see the current projection for New Hampshire: New Hampshire and Minnesota appear to be the only Kerry states that McCain has any hope of picking off. McCain, yesterday, packed up and moved out of Michigan. He intends on redistributing his resources to Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. This strategy makes no sense. Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri are all currently in the Obama column, if McCain doesn't win all of these states he loses the election, Minnesota cannot save him.

VP Debate: Live Analysis

10/2/2008 7:59:13 PM CT

8:00 CT: Everybody seems to think Joe Biden will make some big blunder. This will not happen. 8:01 CT: Glen Ifill with the introductions. Debate will focus on domestic and foreign policy affairs. 8:02 CT: "Can I call you Joe?" Sarah Palin's first words at the debate. 8:05 CT: You don't need to go to a soccer game to know that the economy is terrible, Sarah. 8:08 CT: Sarah says, "John McCain sounded the Fannie May and Freddie Mac warning bell two years ago." Biden responds with the classic "McCain said the economy was strong." Did Sarah Palin just wink? 8:09 CT: 96% of the time Obama has voted with the Democrats. That is not a good Republican talking point. Sarah should have known not to mention that. 8:10 CT: Joe Biden is going to recall quotes all night long. Sarah Palin cannot match Biden's references. When she starts telling a story or analogy the facts Biden just presented solidify in people's minds because they are not opposed. 8:14 CT: Joe just destroyed Palin's tax increase line. Then he destroyed her by directly stating that she did not answer the question. Joe smiled big. 8:15 CT: Oh sorry Sarah, we're up against the clock. To bad you couldn't make your point in a responsible amount of time. 8:20 CT: How does giving $5,000 tax credits to citizens not cost the government money. This is not "budget neutral," the government is not able to tax that credit, therefore they generate tax revenue on that $5,000. 8:21 CT: "[McCain's health care plan] is the Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere," then Biden turned and looked Palin in the eye as the crowd laughed. 8:23 CT: Sarah Palin is just talking about whatever she wants to talk about. The topic was health care, lets talk about energy because I come from a state that produces oil. 8:28 CT: Sarah Palin goes back to energy again. 8:30 CT: I legitimately have no idea what point Sarah Palin was trying to make. 8:32 CT: The debate started out with each candidate targeting the other parties presidential nominee. The tide has changed and it seems that instead of going after Obama, Palin is spending most of her time saying John McCain did... 8:34 CT: How is "Drill Baby, Drill" funny? Palin though it was. 8:36 CT: Joe just said the Constitution upholds same sex marriages. Is Palin going to play the trump card, the Bible? 8:38 CT: Nobody cares if your friends disagree with your stance on gay marriage Sarah. 8:40 CT: Sarah Palin claims that there is an exit strategy. Please tell. 8:42 CT: Joe wants to hear it too, but he stated, "With all due respect, I didn't hear a plan." 8:44 CT: She was speechless, then called [Obama's] plan a "White flag of surrender...al-Maliki and the Talibani [that is legitimately what she said, exactly as it is written] will work with us." 8:48 CT: Sarah's going back down the "without preconditions road." It clearly didn't work in the presidential debate, why would she bring it up? 8:50 CT: "[Henry Kissinger]'s passion for diplomacy" has nothing to do with your thoughts on meeting without precondition. You regurgitated a talking point to avoid the question. 8:51 CT: Why does Sarah Palin continue to refer to the Bush administration. It's a terrible strategy. 8:53 CT: "Nobody in the Senate has been a better proponent for Israel than Joe Biden." 8:55 CT: Palin has gone back to the Bush administration, again. 8:56 CT: "Change is coming," you are correct Sarah, look at the polls. 8:58 CT: "Can we go back to Afghanistan," looks like she ran out of Nuclear talking points. She then again supported the Bush administration in regard to Afghanistan. 9:04 CT: Joe Biden just told you why he voted for the Authorization Bill. He just gave you that straight talk. And there is no way Sarah Palin watched any of the Democratic Debates. 9:08 CT: How does McCain know how to win a war? What in his history proves this position? 9:09 CT: Does Sarah Palin know that John McCain will eventually die? Is she aware that she will eventually die? 9:11 CT: Joe Biden just subliminally asked the question: "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?" 9:14 CT: "We need flexibility in 'No Child Left Behind,'" if she's close to the three of four teachers she previously named she would know that no teacher supports 'No Child Left Behind.' 9:19 CT: Palin is the Governor of a huge state. That was good enough qualification for Bush, so it must be for Palin as well. Paying for health care has nothing to do with experience, sorry Sarah, but it doesn't. 9:22 CT: Any women on the fence just moved over to the Obama-Biden ticket after Biden mentioned his authoring of the Violence of Women Act; he then astutely pointed out that McCain voted against it. 9:23 CT: Why did Sarah Palin just reference Romney, Giuliani, and Liebermann. Could she be setting up a VP swap. Very curious. 9:24 CT: Biden just cut in over Sarah's babbling to call out McCain's "Maverick" status. "Maverick he is not, on the important critical issues that effect people at the kitchen table." 9:25 CT: Biden just dropped Roe v. Wade into the discussion. Watch for Palin to close with a mention to this decision. 9:28 CT: Joe Biden's lesson on bipartisanship: "Don't question their motive, question their judgment." 9:29 CT: Sarah Palin just gave her closing statement, and then realized she has to make her closing statement. She blamed the mainstream media and said the "John McCain and I will fight for America." End on a Reagan quote. 9:32 CT: Joe Biden's final statement presented himself as the everyman.

Youth Vote: The Power of Registration

10/2/2008 2:12:18 PM CT

Each election cycle brings with it the promise of increased citizen participation, especially among eligible voters aged 18-24. This election cycle is no different. But unlike year's past, the internet will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the election, especially amongst the aforementioned age group. Perhaps the most blatant example of the Internet's influence is a single link Google added to their homepage; the link reads "Sign up to vote in your state. Get registered today!" Clicking the link takes you to a specialized Google Maps page that asks for your legal place of residence. Upon submitting your address, Google presents an assortment of links regarding registration deadlines, absentee requests, and other voting information specific to your state; it couldn't be easier. This simple link will alter the election, here's why. Anybody between the age of 18 and 24 visits Google at least once a day. Many people in this age group have the intention of voting, but are simply unaware of the requirements for registration. This link may provide the needed incentive. Let's take a look at how registration effects voting in this age group. I've compiled a graph of historical registration data and voter turnout for the youth demographic, aged 18-24. The graph below shows the percentage of registered voters and the percent of actual voters in the eligible population: Source: U.S. Census Bureau [.xls] As I'm sure you can tell, not everybody who is registered actually votes. The average vote per registration ratio amongst voters aged 18-24 is approximately .78, or for every 100 registered voters, 78 actually go to the polls. This ratio is almost ten points lower than the the national average and presents an interesting question: why is the youth demographic so heavily targeted? The answer is simple, they tend to vote Democratic. The graph below illustrates who they voted for in the past four presidential elections as data prior to the 1992 election groups the 18-24 age group into a larger 18-29 group; the trend however, still seems to hold: Source: Roper Center for Public Opinion Research In the past four election cycles the youth vote has been divided, on average, 51% to the Democratic candidate, and 39.5% to the Republican candidate, with the remaining votes cast for other parties. What does this all mean? Any registered voter aged 18-24 has a statistical probability of voting for the Democratic candidate 39.8% of the time, and only a 30.8% chance of voting Republican. The votes unaccounted for are either cast for another party, or not cast at all. This means that for every 100 registered voters aged 18-24, the Democrats accrue a 9 vote advantage. Apply this to a larger scale, such as the Google link, and the participation of the youth demographic could easily swing the election in the Democrat's favor.

Poll Update (10/2)

10/2/2008 10:59:51 AM CT

Yesterday brought a slew of good results for Obama in traditionally blue states, but today (so far) seems to focus on his gains in red states:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	Ciruli Associates	9/23/2008	44	43	13
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	9/30/2008	44	50	6
Indiana (11)	Research 2k, SouthBend Trib	9/30/2008	45	46	9
Iowa (7)	Research 2000, KCCI	9/30/2008	55	39	6
Kentucky (8)	Rasmussen Reports	9/30/2008	42	52	6
Michigan (17)	Public Policy Polling (D)	10/1/2008	51	41	8
Montana (3)	Rasmussen Reports	10/1/2008	44	52	4
National (538)	Marist College	9/30/2008	49	44	7
National (538)	YouGov, Economist (D)	9/29/2008	47	42	11
Nebraska (5)	Rasmussen Reports	9/30/2008	37	56	7
New Hampshire (4)	Saint Anselm College	9/30/2008	49	37	14
New Mexico (5)	Rasmussen Reports	10/1/2008	49	44	7
New Mexico (5)	SurveyUSA	9/30/2008	52	44	4
North Carolina (15)	Rasmussen Reports	9/30/2008	50	47	3
Ohio (20)	Democracy Corps (D)	10/1/2008	49	43	8
Virginia (13)	Mason-Dixon	10/1/2008	45	48	7

A serious trend is starting to emerge, a trend the McCain campaign should not take lightly. Obama has begun to gain traction in Georgia, Indiana, and Missouri, as well as posting leads in Virginia and North Carolina. If McCain simply watches the pro-Obama narrative play out he will lose, I don't even think a national security event could salvage his chances at this point. McCain is playing a blank hand, and needs to get the dealer's attention. Unfortunately for McCain, he was dealt the VP debate in his moment of greatest need. The debate starts at 9 PM ET (8 CT, 6 PT) and features the mentally inept Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden's thirty-five year Senate career, should be fun to watch. I'll be watching and posting my comments in a live thread, much like I did during the previous debate. As another aside, if you count the number of Electoral Votes currently projected as Safe Dem the result is 217. On the other hand John McCain is projected to win just 183 total, a difference of thirty Electoral Votes. Taking a quick look at the scenario probabilities reveals another issue for John McCain. Our model shows Obama with a 14.15% chance of acquiring today's projection. McCain has a much larger percentage, 42.16%, but his tells another story, the great probability of losing.

Poll Update (10/1)

10/1/2008 9:13:20 AM CT

So far a blue day for John. The new batch of Quinnipiac polls showed that "more than 84 percent of voters in each state say the debate did not change their mind. But by margins of 13 to 17 percent, voters in each state say Obama did a better job in the debate. And by margins of 15 to 27 percent, independent voters in each state say Obama won." If these results are supported by further polling McCain is finished. Wednesday is historically a large release day so expect an update later on. Well its later on and I've added a plethora of polls released today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Florida (27)	Time, CNN	9/30/2008	51	43	6
Florida (27)	Suffolk University	9/30/2008	46	42	12
Florida (27)	InsiderAdvantage	9/30/2008	49	46	5
Florida (27)	Quinnipiac University	9/29/2008	51	43	6
Florida (27)	Quinnipiac University	9/26/2008	49	43	8
Minnesota (10)	Time, CNN	9/30/2008	53	41	6
Mississippi (6)	Rasmussen Reports	9/30/2008	44	52	4
Missouri (11)	Time, CNN	9/30/2008	47	46	7
National (538)	CBS News	9/30/2008	50	41	9
National (538)	Associated Press-GfK	9/30/2008	48	41	11
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	9/30/2008	49	45	6
National (538)	Ipsos	9/29/2008	48	45	7
National (538)	Time	9/29/2008	50	43	7
National (538)	Pew Research Center	9/29/2008	49	43	8
National (538)	YouGov, Economist (D)	9/24/2008	46	43	11
Nevada (5)	InsiderAdvantage	9/30/2008	48	47	5
Nevada (5)	Time, CNN	9/30/2008	49	44	7
Ohio (20)	Quinnipiac University	9/29/2008	50	42	8
Ohio (20)	Quinnipiac University	9/26/2008	49	42	9
Oklahoma (7)	SurveyUSA	9/29/2008	34	64	2
Pennsylvania (21)	Quinnipiac University	9/29/2008	54	39	7
Pennsylvania (21)	Franklin & Marshall College	9/28/2008	48	43	9
Pennsylvania (21)	Quinnipiac University	9/26/2008	49	43	8
Tennessee (11)	Rasmussen Reports	9/29/2008	39	58	3
Texas (34)	Rasmussen Reports	9/29/2008	43	52	5
Virginia (13)	Time, CNN	9/30/2008	52	42	6
Wisconsin (10)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/26/2008	49	40	11

You may have noticed the large number of new Pennsylvania polls today. While there were four new polls from the Quaker state, the other five represent a consolidation of old data. Muhlenberg College, Morning Call began releasing a tracking poll on September 26 for Pennsylvania. I had begun collecting data from this pollster but managed to incorrectly record their results. I have purged the database of these previous entries and reentered all six days of Muhlenberg's tracking poll every fifth day of the tracking poll. Obama now has his biggest lead ever in our projection, by a whopping 172 electoral votes.

A New Republic...an Party

9/30/2008 2:35:46 PM CT

After yesterday's schism of House Republicans the path forward seems clouded. Two-thirds of the party broke with leadership on the most crucial bill of the session. Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) cited the reason for the bill's failure as "maybe the bill just wasn't good." Maybe the bill wasn't good, but under that premise the negotiations also weren't good. If the negotiations weren't good how can the rank and file Republicans continue to blame Pelosi for her speech, or Obama's inability to deliver Democrats; when in essence all parties were responsible for the negotiations. Last time I checked the Democrats delivered 141 votes or two-thirds of the votes needed for the bill's passage. If the House Republicans voted in this same number there would be no discussion. The negotiations broke down at some point causing the Republican caucus to jump ship. I'm not going to focus on how the negotiations broke down, but rather the result of such a catastrophic miscalculation. John McCain, whether responsible or not clearly played a role in the failed negotiations. McCain supported the bill, but only sixty-five others in his party held this same view. Going into the vote McCain's election chances hinged on the success or failure of the bailout. A deficiency pertaining to the politics at play is not acceptable. As a Republican, a vote against the bill was not necessarily the issue, but a vote against the failing bill had huge ramifications. It was not the Democrats who doomed McCain, but rather his own party. As a result McCain can no longer win the economic vote. His chances of stealing Michigan or Pennsylvania are gone. He must restore his credibility, he must act, he cannot let the clock expire. His candidacy is at risk, but perhaps more importantly to him, the ideals for which his party stands hang in the balance. If John McCain truly puts his country first he will release Sarah Palin. The Sarah Palin selection embodies everything wrong with personal politics; a retreat from this selfish blunder would signify a new direction. Such a decision would also carry great personal sacrifice. John McCain's own presidential aspirations would essentially die. He's at a crossroad in American politics, he has a choice; he can either be charged with the proliferation of the Old Republican politics or he could be credited as the selfless creator of a New Republican Party.

Poll Update (9/30)

9/30/2008 2:06:52 PM CT

Obama is now winning or tied in essentially every state he thought he could compete in; North Carolina, Virgnia, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, the list goes on. McCain is in serious trouble, and today's polls backup this claim:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Arizona (10)	Rasmussen Reports	9/29/2008	38	59	3
Florida (27)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/28/2008	49	46	5
Georgia (15)	SurveyUSA	9/29/2008	44	52	4
Indiana (11)	SurveyUSA	9/29/2008	45	48	7
National (538)	ABC News, Washington Post	9/29/2008	48	45	7
National (538)	American Research Group	9/29/2008	49	45	6
Nevada (5)	American Research Group	9/29/2008	47	49	4
New Jersey (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/28/2008	48	39	13
New Jersey (15)	SurveyUSA	9/28/2008	52	42	6
North Carolina (15)	American Research Group	9/29/2008	46	49	5
Ohio (20)	InsiderAdvantage	9/29/2008	47	45	8
Ohio (20)	SurveyUSA	9/29/2008	48	49	3
Virginia (13)	InsiderAdvantage	9/29/2008	51	45	4
Virginia (13)	American Research Group	9/29/2008	46	49	5

Investor's seem to be optimistic that some sort of bailout bill will be passed judging by the jump in the Dow, up almost 400 points. Unlike the traders I'm starting to legitimately question whether such a bill will actually get done. The White House is pushing the bill, McCain is pushing the bill, but when push came to shove they could not even get their constituency to support the bill. If you look at Arizonan and Alaskan Representatives, none of them voted for the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008." If the Republican's are going to paint a doomsday scenario, they need to support their rhetoric with votes. I'll have an article up later tonight on the ramification's of McCain's failed "suspension" gimmick and what steps he must take to restore credibility.

Will McCain Re-suspend His Campaign?

9/29/2008 3:37:01 PM CT

The bailout failed in the House by a vote of 227-206. The House Republicans will ultimately face the blame. House Minority Leader John Boehner (Republican, Ohio) blamed the defeat on a partisan speech delivered by House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi preceding the vote. Rep. Roy Blunt (Republican, Virginia) later commented in a press conference that "a dozen or so votes" were lost due to this speech. The Republican machine is running with this talking point. It can however be easily rebutted and was by Rep. Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts) who said "Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them. If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest [wanted], then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough." The Republican wing is also criticizing Nancy Pelosi for bringing a bill of such magnitude to the floor without the requisite votes for passage; the problem with this logic is that she had the votes. Nancy Pelosi, on Sunday evening, went to Republican leadership and said "I need 80 votes;" Rep. Roy Blunt stated that this threshold was deliverable, well it wasn't. Only 65 Republicans voted for the measure, 15 shy of expectations. The House Republican's will however share the blame, with John McCain. John McCain, sensing the gravity of the situation issued the following statement on the matter: "Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faces...at first he didn't want to get involved, then he was monitoring the situation. That's not leadership that's watching from the sidelines." This statement comes in stark contrast to a statement McCain made earlier: "I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers where not left footing the bill of mistakes by Wall Street and the evils of Washington." Well John, the taxpayer won't be left footing the bill, for the moment. Based on his supreme support of a bailout bill the logical conclusion follows that if not this bill, another. Will you suspend your campaign again to focus on the now amplified situation, or is that not politically convenient anymore? John McCain must re-suspend his campaign in order to validate his prior suspension, because nothing has changed. The entire affair contributed to the single greatest point drop in the history of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (-777.68). Update [4:17 CT]: McCain's giving a press conference right now. He just looks and sounds sad. His performance is almost robotic. John reads about five words, looks up, and then looks down again. He blamed congress for failing to pass the bailout while accepting no responsibility his inability to negotiate a bipartisan solution.

Poll Update (9/29)

9/29/2008 2:49:56 PM CT

Nothing of note yet, but Rasmussen's releasing five new polls at 6pm (ET, I think). The new Rasmussen polls are now included; Obama is losing by a single point in Ohio while leading by eight in Pennsylvania. The other states are within the margin of error with Obama slightly ahead or tied. An all around rough day for McCain:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/28/2008	49	48	3
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/28/2008	47	47	6
Florida (27)	SurveyUSA	9/28/2008	47	48	5
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/28/2008	47	45	8
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/28/2008	47	48	5
Pennsylvania (21)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/28/2008	50	42	8
Tennessee (11)	Middle Tennessee State	9/27/2008	36	48	16
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/28/2008	50	47	3

The VP Debate looms large in the distance, especially after today's market collapse. The debate will no doubt focus on the failed bailout bill and the economy at large. Palin knows nothing about the economy and I legitimately question her ability to comprehend the bill's text.

The Bailout Bill: First Impressions

9/28/2008 10:55:59 PM CT

I've traversed through page 76 of the "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008," and have learned relatively little about how the actual bill will effect the current economic situation. The text is very dense and appears to be written by multiple parties, comprehension suffers as a result of both. I am by no means an expert on legislation, so for now I'd like to focus on the political impact rather than the substance. After McCain's galactic stunt last week he's politically obligated to vote for whatever bill arrives on the Senate floor; and the Democratic leadership knows this. There are two paths this bill can go down, neither road is good for McCain. If the Democrats play their cards right they can turn McCain's opportunism into a disaster. I'll start by arbitrarily assuming the Democratic leadership supports the bill's content. If the Democrats want the bill to pass, the bill will pass. Under this pretense we can assume that the bill leans left and would likely be supported, at least ideologically by Obama. We already know that McCain has to vote for the bill which leaves Obama in an interesting situation. If the vote follows party lines and McCain supports the bill, Obama's vote is not essential for passage. Using the fact that most American's do not support a financial bailout of Wall Street, Obama could publicly denounce the bailout while pinning the final result on McCain. This brilliant tactic would play extremely well among independents and may create dissonance amongst McCain's base. The second path includes some theatrics by the Democratic leadership, perhaps they are faking their support. If they force the bill to the House floor knowing they have the votes to kill it, the Senate vote is simply irrelevant. It would take at least another week to sort through additional agreements causing the economic cloud to loom over the presidential race for yet another week. If the vote doesn't matter in the Senate Obama can do whatever he wants, he can vote for it, he can vote against, he doesn't even have to take a position. If the bill falters in the House, McCain will be held responsible for the failed compromise. A stalled bailout falls directly into Obama's narrative. The issue dominates until the VP debate, forcing Palin to answer economic questions; something she knows nothing about. If the topic is the economy and Palin cannot pull through, John McCain's campaign is over. I really don't see both sides mutually agreeing to the resolution, but tomorrow's polls may dictate what route the bill follows; if Obama gets a huge boost from the debate, the bill will likely pass, if not the Democrats will try and further damage McCain's stock, whatever form that takes. The House vote is scheduled for Monday, and the Senate's on Wednesday. I hope to have some additional commentary on the bill's content tomorrow.

Poll Update (9/28)

9/28/2008 4:40:02 PM CT

I was struggling to come up with a topic for discussion so I went back into our archives and compiled a list our best, timeless articles. In the The Red November I discussed the historic implications governing the color red. Since 1972, perhaps earlier, only two presidential tickets have been elected in which red did not appear in their campaign sign. With John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin the Republicans tried to paint Obama as a grossly under experienced and therefore under qualified candidate; the Constitution actually lists the Qualifications of a President. A few months back I compiled a fairly limited Senate ranking system using the average number of cosponsors needed for a bill to become law. I included all first term Republican Senators up for reelection with a few others for comparison. Our analysis revealed that Elizabeth Dole is a Senate Parasite. One day while watching CSPAN-2 I heard a peculiar quote, so I researched its significance. The quote by Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) led me to conclude that the Senate Republicans had set the filibuster record as far back as June. Now onto the polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
California (55)	Public Policy Institute of California	9/16/2008	50	40	10
Connecticut (7)	SurveyUSA	9/25/2008	54	38	8
Kentucky (8)	Mason-Dixon	9/25/2008	41	53	6
Tennessee (11)	Mason-Dixon	9/24/2008	39	55	6

Nothing significant happened in the polling world today, but tomorrow should reveal how Americans perceived the debate. Today's national tracking polls all seemed to illustrate a bounce for Obama with the inclusion of the new Saturday sample. If the trackers tomorrow show a further increase for Obama it's safe to say that Obama clearly won the first debate, and likely the election. If McCain's numbers surge it could mean any number of things; perhaps it was a bad sample, perhaps McCain's debate content took a while to set in, or perhaps people are linking the bailout progress to McCain's Campaign suspension (McCain was not on Capital Hill). In any case tomorrow's polls hold the key. The text of the bailout bill has been posted at https://financialservices.house.gov/. The site is getting pounded, they probably should have set aside 10k for a server upgrade.

Embeddable Content

9/28/2008 12:52:12 AM CT

With the addition of our new server came the influx of unusable bandwidth. This is a good problem, and I have an excellent solution. I've complied our collection of dynamic images into embeddable code that you can insert into your site or blog. Simply copy and paste the desired code and you're good to go. The images are dynamically updated when our prediction changes so you only have to add the code once. The Silverlight code features a fall through detection mechanism that will at a minimum display the static image, if Silverlight is installed on the visitor's computer the interactive version will be rendered; for this reason I recommend using the Silverlight code. For our first time visitors, here's what our map looks like: Main Content Map (490 x 350 Pixels):

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Map" alt="VoteForAmerica.net Electoral Projection Map" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx][img]http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Map[/img][/url]

Embeddable Silverlight Code:

<div><object data="data:application/x-silverlight," type="application/x-silverlight-2-b2" width="100%" height="142"><param name="source" value="http://voteforamerica.net/VfA_Map_Small.xap"/><a href="http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Map_Small" width="200" height="142" border="0" alt=""></a></object><iframe style='visibility:hidden;height:0;width:0;border:0px'></iframe></div> Side Panel Map (200 x 142 Pixels):

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Map_Small" alt="VoteForAmerica.net Small Electoral Projection Map" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx][img]http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Map_Small[/img][/url]

Embeddable Silverlight Code:

<div><object data="data:application/x-silverlight," type="application/x-silverlight-2-b2" width="100%" height="350"><param name="source" value="http://voteforamerica.net/VfA_Map.xap"/><a href="http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?Type=Map" width="490" height="350" border="0" alt=""></a></object><iframe style='visibility:hidden;height:0;width:0;border:0px'></iframe></div> Printable Maps: Our software can scale the map to larger and smaller sizes. I did some math and figured out the scaling coefficient required to create 8.5 x 11 inch printouts. Print 'em out, hang on your dorm door or cubicle or whatever. Each of these images will take a while to load, so please be patient. Printable National Map (8.5 x 11 inches, 72 dpi) High Resolution Printable National Map (8.5 x 11 inches, 300 dpi) Electoral Scoreboard (200 x 80 Pixels): Our last image is a forgotten relic. Before the ambitious creation of the lovely map you see above, this image was used in its place. While lacking in excitement, this image proudly served its purpose. Now replaced, the code remains, and so I figured I should share it.

HTML Code:

<a href="http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx"><img src="http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx" alt="VoteForAmerica.net Electoral Scoreboard" border="0" /></a>

Forum Code:

[url=http://voteforamerica.net/electoral.aspx][img]http://voteforamerica.net/image.aspx?[/img][/url]

Poll Update (9/27)

9/27/2008 7:26:27 PM CT

These polls mean nothing in the context of today, but they verify the pre-debate mindset:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
California (55)	SurveyUSA	9/24/2008	53	43	4
Colorado (9)	American Research Group	9/25/2008	45	48	7
Florida (27)	American Research Group	9/25/2008	47	46	7
Iowa (7)	Rasmussen Reports	9/25/2008	51	43	6
Louisiana (9)	Rasmussen Reports	9/25/2008	40	55	5
South Carolina (8)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/24/2008	39	54	7
Wyoming (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/24/2008	36	57	7

Thinking back to Presidential Debates past, the 1960 showdown between Kennedy and Nixon comes to mind. The 2008 version featured John McCain playing the part of the agitated, somewhat distressed Richard Nixon and Barack Obama featuring the refined control of John F. Kennedy. Following the classic story line of the '60 debate many people who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon won, while those who watched on TV thought Kennedy pulled ahead; overall it was very close. I think the same could be said of the first debate of the 2008 race. Watching the punditry afterward (on all three networks, CNN, FOX, MSNBC) revealed a curious evolution. Many pundits initially gave McCain a slight victory on the content, but were reluctant to declare him the outright victor. I think many viewers initially thought the same. Of the completely undecided voters I talked to, they all seemed to be disappointed by the debate. They felt that neither candidate actually answered the questions. I wouldn't agree with this assessment, but I'm not an undecided voter. As the night progressed the commentary seemed to slowly turn on McCain. The focus quickly turned to John McCain's body language and perceived dissatisfaction. For much of the debate McCain was hunched over and rigid refusing to even look at Barack Obama. If McCain is positioning himself as the national security, "I looked Putin in the eye" candidate why did he never look at Obama? I have no idea, but it was definitely noticeable; noticeable in the same way as Nixon's five o'clock shadow and profuse sweating. McCain may have won on content, but those voters who are still undecided don't vote on content, they vote on perception. I think these perception voters will see an inherent flaw in McCain's performance that should not substantively matter. The debate is both a discussion and performance; McCain may have been superior at the discussion but Obama's performance highlighted the night and will likely resonant with undecideds.

It's "Barrack Abeam" According to AP

9/27/2008 3:34:36 PM CT

I was reading about the new spending bill that the Senate just passed on MSNBC.com and noticed an error. The article published by the Associated Press refers to Barack Obama as "Barrack Abeam," have a look: Source: MSNBC.com It would appear that somebody hurriedly pressed the "Change All" button on spell check instead of actually proofreading their work. This error serves as yet another indication of the Associated Press' diminishing legacy.

The Debate: Live Analysis

9/26/2008 8:16:47 PM CT

8:22 CT: John McCain just referenced his support for the destruction of Ethanol. Is he aware that his support is dropping in Missouri? Does McCain realize that he may be able to compete in Minnesota, perhaps Wisconsin maybe even Iowa. Not anymore. Any farmer on the fence just jumped off the McCain train. 8:32 CT: John wants a spending freeze on everything but Veteran Affairs, National Security and other important problems. That's a lot like saying we should only spend money on what matters. The USA should be doing that anyway. What about Health care? McCain seemed pretty concerned about Ted Kennedy in his intro, even though Ted's at home and fine (although he was hospitalized earlier due to the side effect of his cancer medication), maybe McCain should put his money where is mouth is and support universal health care if hes going to play the sympathy card. 8:34 CT: What a segue, right into health care. John McCain said, "Obama's plan would make health care part of the Federal Government." John, that's the idea. People pay their taxes, Obama is arguing that health care is a fundamental right of all citizens, thus it should be part of the Federal Government. 8:39 CT: How many times is John McCain going to say "I was not elected Ms. Congeniality of the United States Senate?" That is correct John, you were elected as a Senator. 8:46 CT: If the USA wasn't in Iraq would the Administration care if there was sectarian violence? My guess is no, because they clearly don't care about the violence in Sudan or Burma. 8:47 CT: Obama just attributed numerous Bush quotes to McCain; McCain didn't fight back. Instead he went into story time about how he toured an Iraqi market in a flack jacket. 8:55 CT: McCain just indirectly compared Iraq to Afghanistan saying we don't need more troops, we need a diplomatic solution. Sounds an awful lot like Obama's stance on the surge. 8:58 CT: John McCain has taken a magical ride back to 1983 in which he opposed the Lebanon incident position of Ronald Reagan. He then jumped forward to the First Gulf War. I think he might be forgetting something: Keating Five. 8:59 CT: "I will wear this bracelet with honor," John McCain says of a bracelet he is not wearing. Maybe he should have planned ahead, to bad he was to busy disrupting the financial fix. 9:01 CT: "I have a bracelet too," Barack Obama responds, "its from a mother who doesn't want another son to die." 9:02 CT: Obama just challenged McCain on national security. "You don't muddle through the central front on terror." 9:04 CT: If Gen. Petraeus predicts we will lose Iraq, why is he in command, that just doesn't make since John. 9:04 CT: The League of Democracies? I think there is already something like that: The United Nations. 9:08 CT: Here comes the "without preconditions" rebuttal. Does talking equate to legitimization? Last time I checked nobody legitimately died at a discussion. 9:11 CT: I consider the Iran meeting issue over. McCain has no ground to stand on. Henry Kissinger doomed his arguement, amongst other strong points. Obama then played the "you don't know where Spain is" card. 9:14 CT: "Its dangerous [to meet without preconditions]... its just dangerous," really John, why? He cannot come up with a decent arguement. 9:18 CT: Obama can pronounce all the weird foreign names and countries while McCain struggles to pronounce "Ahmadinejad." 9:19 CT: Where is McCain going with this, he just listed every country that used to be a Soviet satellite. 9:25 CT: Obama just pivoted away from the Russia issue into alternative energy; he then dropped a "McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times." John claims that off shore drilling is a "bridge to the future." 9:26 CT: McCain blinked on the, "will there be another 9/11." He should have just said no. 9:28 CT: McCain: "I know our allies, I can work more closely with them." I know our allies too: Germany, England, Canada, etc. You can look it up on Wikipedia. 9:30 CT: Obama got the first word, will McCain get the last? 9:31 CT: SDI, never happened John. They made that corny "Star Wars" video and it died; mainly because it was never proven. 9:33 CT: Obama looking to end on the economy. 9:35 CT: McCain goes back to his experience, tries to link Obama to Bush? Don't really understand this approach. 9:35 CT: John McCain "I will take care of [veterans], that will be my job." That job gets a lot easier by not fighting wars that produce veterans, or American casualties. 9:37 CT: McCain ends by stating that Vietnam Veterans were not treated properly.

Poll Update (9/26)

9/26/2008 7:00:25 PM CT

If you tried to visit earlier, hopefully you received an "Upgrading Server" message, if not you were likely treated to a cryptic error page. In either case the hosting problem should be resolved, and if not I simply have no money to do anything about it. I'm confident that our current capabilities will allow for persistent and speedy service. On to the polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Florida (27)	Rasmussen Reports	9/24/2008	47	48	5
Missouri (11)	SurveyUSA	9/24/2008	46	48	6
Missouri (11)	Research 2000, Post-Dispatch	9/24/2008	46	47	7
Montana (3)	SurveyUSA	9/24/2008	39	52	9
Oregon (7)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/24/2008	53	39	8
Virginia (13)	Rasmussen Reports	9/25/2008	50	45	5

Today brought comparatively few polls, but the collection is very telling. Obama seems to have solidified his lead in Virginia where he's led in four of the last six polls since the 20th of September. Our model now places Virginia in the Lean Dem category for the first time. Virginia's southern neighbor North Carolina may be heading that way too. For now North Carolina still remains very close, with a slight lead to Obama, but NC seems to be trending in Obama's direction. In fact all states seem to be trending in Obama's direction, but that could all change with tonight's debate. Tonight the first presidential debate of the campaign can be seen at 9 PM ET (8 CT, 6 PT) on any major news network.

The 700 Billion Dollar Concession

9/25/2008 10:11:53 AM CT

I haven't read the plan, I don't know how the financing works and I don't know who is getting the money. But I'm definitely not going to see a cent of the 700 billion dollars currently up for grabs. Sure I'll be indirectly affected, but I'll get nowhere near the $2,333.33 that I would if the bailout money were just evenly distributed to the 300,000,000 residents of the USA. The notion of spending such a large sum of money on bolstering America's failing enterprises mystifies me. It seems almost un-American. The can-do doctrine of America, where if someone cannot do it right somebody else can and will seems to be getting a raw deal. The bailout would essentially reverse the defining principle of American economics while setting a terrible precedent. A healthy economy does not rely on an attempt, it thrives on success; where success is rewarded and failure punished. The Democratic Party has long stood for stringent regulations in the economic realm while the Republican dogma preaches deregulation. Each approach has its advantages, but they both fail when combined; as evidenced by the current state of affairs. Over the last seven years the markets have moved toward the deregulation side of the spectrum, which is fine, remember when the Dow hit 14,000? But when things take a turn for the worst, sudden regulation cannot be a knight in shining armor. The deregulation approach is reactive; it forces markets to adjust after an error has been made, while regulation tends to be proactive attempting to prevent any errors from ever being made. There are obvious problems with both, but choosing both and forgetting about the downfalls of each is not the solution. The entire Republican constituency seems to struggle with the true concept of deregulation. They stand by it when it's great, but they fail to stand by it when it falters. It's like crossing a major highway on foot when one direction is closed. The Republican leadership seems content to run to the middle (crossing the closed side), stop and then call a taxi to pick them up. They can handle the easy part, but when the going gets tough, they can't handle the possibility of getting hit by a bus. In reaching their objective (by way of taxi) they lose sight of what the original objective was, crossing the highway on foot, or to complete the analogy; letting the markets regulate themselves and actually following through on this premise. The canonical example of such deregulation neglect comes from John McCain himself. During the initial drop he declared that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" before back tracking and discussing the potential of another great depression. Sarah Palin did the same thing. They each need to step up to the plate (along with the rest of their party) and take a position. Changing where they stand on the markets doesn't help the markets in anyway; as evidenced by the current dilemma. If the Republicans were so committed to the free market principles they would have no problem walking away from Lehman Bros, Fannie May, and Freddie Mac. But for some reason they can't. They cannot follow their doctrine to its logical conclusion because they risk alienating themselves. They are so financially invested in these large companies who took advantage of deregulation, that in protecting the companies they can protect themselves. The very fact that such a widespread crisis occurred highlights the fact that those in control did not put country first, John McCain among them. You can either be for deregulation or your against it, but walking on the fence is counterproductive to both standpoints.

Poll Update (9/25)

9/25/2008 10:11:20 AM CT

If McCain thought the polls were rough yesterday, I can't wait to see what he does today:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Arkansas (6)	Rasmussen Reports	9/22/2008	42	51	7
Delaware (3)	SurveyUSA	9/23/2008	57	37	6
Maine (4)	SurveyUSA	9/23/2008	49	44	7
Maryland (10)	Rasmussen Reports	9/20/2008	60	37	3
Massachusetts (12)	SurveyUSA	9/23/2008	55	39	6
Massachusetts (12)	Rasmussen Reports	9/23/2008	58	38	4
Michigan (17)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/24/2008	48	45	7
Michigan (17)	Detroit Free Press	9/24/2008	51	38	11
Michigan (17)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	9/23/2008	46	46	8
Michigan (17)	Allstate, National Journal	9/22/2008	47	39	14
Michigan (17)	EPIC-MRA	9/22/2008	48	38	14
National (538)	CBS News, New York Times	9/24/2008	47	42	11
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	9/24/2008	47	44	9
National (538)	LA Times, Bloomberg	9/22/2008	49	45	6
National (538)	Franklin & Marshall College	9/21/2008	45	47	8
New Hampshire (4)	Suffolk University, 7News	9/24/2008	46	45	9
New Hampshire (4)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/24/2008	46	45	9
New Hampshire (4)	Allstate, National Journal	9/22/2008	44	43	13
New York (31)	SurveyUSA	9/24/2008	57	38	5
North Carolina (15)	Rasmussen Reports	9/23/2008	49	47	4
Ohio (20)	Rasmussen Reports	9/24/2008	46	47	7
Oregon (7)	SurveyUSA	9/23/2008	52	41	7
Pennsylvania (21)	Rasmussen Reports	9/24/2008	49	45	6
Pennsylvania (21)	SurveyUSA	9/24/2008	50	44	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Allstate, National Journal	9/22/2008	43	41	16
West Virginia (5)	Rasmussen Reports	9/24/2008	42	50	8
Wisconsin (10)	Research 2000, WISC-TV	9/23/2008	49	43	8

I hope to upgrade the server, again, later tonight. More later...

Does McCain Know What He Did?

9/25/2008 2:09:57 AM CT

As a legitimate contender for the Presidency of the United States there are really only two things that you need to avoid; (a) don't do anything stupid (see Dukakis) , and (b) don't get worked in the debates. McCain managed to defy the two cardinal rules of presidential campaigns in a single idiotic swoop. He suspended his campaign and called for the first debate this Friday to be postponed. The Commission on Presidential Debates already denied his request. John McCain's already failed attempt to transcend politics will ultimately seal his fate as the typical politician which he so greatly seeks to overcome. John didn't even beat Barack to the "above politics" message. Obama contacted the McCain campaign earlier in the day regarding the potential of a joint message targeting the need for an economic remedy. The McCain campaign cooperated, before dropping their bombshell. This latest gimmick is squarely aimed at perception voters; those voters who do not think, but rather feel who is the better candidate. There are plenty of these voters out there, but they are not a pivotal demographic. Anybody who falls for this ploy clearly would have voted for McCain anyway. There is no logical way to perceive McCain's actions today as strength or any other positive attribute. The McCain campaign mortgaged their future to secure a voting bloc they had already secured. The Presidential Debates are a sacred endeavor, journeyed upon just once every four years. The campaign, for many people starts the day of the first debate. These late bloomers span all demographic sets. On a good night a candidate will introduce themselves to these voters just tuning in. Obama already appears to have the upper hand, he will actually prepare for the debates. The problem for John McCain remains in his expectations. How will these first time viewers perceive his lack of preparation for the debate? Will they even care that he was spending his time on the bailout, will they even know? My guess is that many people who are just tuning in will be largely unaware of this current storyline come Friday, but even if they are, I don't inherently think McCain's stunt shifts the scales in his direction. Recent polls have shown between an 8-12% lead for Obama on the issue of handling the economy; McCain is simply trying to keep pace on the issue, although with great difficulty. A new SurveyUSA Poll taken today in response to McCain's antics show that just 10% of all respondents think the debate should be postponed. Either McCain is viciously targeting those 10% or he made the biggest blunder in presidential election history and has yet to realize it. While on the polling front I'll target the "nothing has changed in the past 48 hours but polling" meme. McCain's numbers actually increased in our model from two days ago. On the 22nd McCain was trailing 302-236, today he moved into a 269-269 tie. The polls actually contribute to the "McCain should not have done this" arguement because they actually swung in McCain's direction. As of right now there is no substantive argument to support McCain's decision to suspend his campaign. For weeks I've contended that the first debate will polarize support for each candidate; independents will pick a side and stay there. Too much is at stake in the first debate to pull such an extraordinary political stunt, it's unprecedented. But I guess if you think your back's to the wall, you change your strategy; and based on today's strategy change, they must be right up against the wall.

Poll Update (9/24): Its a Tie

9/24/2008 3:02:19 PM CT

FOX News is reporting: "John McCain announced that he will suspend his presidential campaign on Thursday to return to Washington to help with Wall Street bailout negotiations....The Arizona senator also asked the Presidential Debate Commission to postpone Friday's scheduled debate." This will hopefully be the first and only time I ever cite FOX News. I think John has some ulterior motives with this announcement as evidenced by FOX News' eagerness to release the announcement. I plan on writing a full article on the issue later. At least three more polls should be released, two by Rasmussen in Colorado and Alabama and one by CNN in New Hampshire. Those polls have now been added, here's where it stands:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	Rasmussen Reports	9/22/2008	39	60	1
Colorado (9)	InsiderAdvantage	9/23/2008	50	41	9
Colorado (9)	Time, CNN	9/23/2008	49	45	6
Colorado (9)	Rasmussen Reports	9/22/2008	50	47	3
Florida (27)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/23/2008	45	48	7
Hawaii (4)	Rasmussen Reports	9/23/2008	68	27	5
Iowa (7)	Marist College	9/21/2008	51	41	8
Kansas (6)	SurveyUSA	9/22/2008	41	53	6
Michigan (17)	Time, CNN	9/23/2008	49	43	8
Michigan (17)	Market Research Group of Lansing	9/20/2008	43	46	11
Montana (3)	Time, CNN	9/23/2008	40	49	11
National (538)	FOX News, Opinion Dynamics	9/23/2008	45	39	16
National (538)	ABC News, Washington Post	9/22/2008	52	43	5
National (538)	Ipsos	9/22/2008	44	43	13
National (538)	NBC News, Wall Street Journal	9/22/2008	48	46	6
Nevada (5)	Project New West (D)	9/19/2008	47	45	8
New Hampshire (4)	Rasmussen Reports	9/23/2008	47	49	4
New Hampshire (4)	Marist College	9/21/2008	51	45	4
Pennsylvania (21)	Time, CNN	9/23/2008	51	43	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/23/2008	47	46	7
South Carolina (8)	SurveyUSA	9/22/2008	39	58	3
Virginia (13)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	9/22/2008	44	47	9
Washington (11)	SurveyUSA	9/22/2008	54	43	3
West Virginia (5)	Time, CNN	9/23/2008	44	49	7

Today brings the tie scenario I talked about yesterday. Obama has almost a 48% chance of obtaining at least a tie based on today's numbers. There was what appears to be a rogue poll released by Market Research Group of Lansing, I've never heard of this pollster and they released very little information about their poll. I' feel obligated to add it to the registry to quell partisan bickering. I should also note that this is the first poll since May 27th to show John McCain with any lead in Michigan. Washington and Colorado, yes Colorado are now dark blue and in the Safe Dem categorization based on our model. Washington seems like it should be there, but Colorado may have some fight left for McCain. If you look at the map, three of the most crucial Senate races reside in either Toss Up or Lean states. Coleman (R*) vs Franken (D) in Minnesota, Dole (R*) vs Hagan (D) in North Carolina and Sununu (R*) vs. Shaheen (D) in New Hampshire. You have to wonder if these states stay competitive on both the presidential side and the senate side if that doesn't favor the Democrats who are polling about 3-6% better on generic ballots. I think many undecideds will pair their vote along party lines in these states using the information they know about one candidate to make a decision about the other. These senate races could very well decide the presidential election.

Poll Update (9/23)

9/23/2008 11:01:55 AM CT

I have numerous observations regarding today's polls:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	SurveyUSA	9/17/2008	34	64	2
Arkansas (6)	American Research Group	9/22/2008	41	53	6
California (55)	Rasmussen Reports	9/22/2008	56	39	5
Colorado (9)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/21/2008	51	44	5
Colorado (9)	Quinnipiac University	9/21/2008	49	45	6
Florida (27)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	9/18/2008	47	45	8
Kansas (6)	Rasmussen Reports	9/18/2008	38	58	4
Kentucky (8)	SurveyUSA	9/22/2008	38	57	5
Massachusetts (12)	American Research Group	9/22/2008	55	39	6
Michigan (17)	Quinnipiac University	9/21/2008	48	44	8
Minnesota (10)	Quinnipiac University	9/21/2008	47	45	8
National (538)	American Research Group	9/22/2008	48	46	6
North Carolina (15)	Civitas Institute (R)	9/20/2008	45	45	10
Ohio (20)	InsiderAdvantage	9/22/2008	46	46	8
Oregon (7)	American Research Group	9/22/2008	52	41	7
Pennsylvania (21)	American Research Group	9/22/2008	50	46	4
Vermont (3)	American Research Group	9/22/2008	56	38	6
Wisconsin (10)	Quinnipiac University	9/21/2008	49	42	9

First, starting off with an actual look at the polls, none of them (so far) show any support for John McCain. Arkansas is an exception but who cares in this election. After I post the poll I always go and check the map to make sure nothing terrible happened; today the map went from purple to blue. Every Kerry state is some shade of blue with Minnesota and New Hampshire being the outliers. Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa are also blue. John McCain's in trouble if his best chance of stealing a Kerry state (not New Hampshire) is Minnesota because I just don't see it happening. Second, on the front page where the candidate boxes are I've added a scenario probability. What this does is take the current projection and the flipping point calculations for each state and does a simple statistical computation. Here's a simple example: lets say candidate A is winning two states, X and Y. X has a flipping point of 35.79 and Y has a flipping point of 67.56. Last election B's party won X, Y (so the percents just represent the probability that A will win X and Y) the math is simple; you simple multiply the two percents. The probability of A winning X and Y is .3579 * .6756 = 24.17%. Today's (current) scenario probability is 34.94% for Obama (which is enormous, more on that later) and McCain's is 13.44%. You may wonder why these numbers don't add up to 100. Its simple, our model takes all the information and calculates the most likely scenario based on polling. This literally leaves thousands of possibilities (although less likely possibilities) remaining. So given the most likely scenario Obama has a 34.94% chance of winning. If I were to include all electoral combination's the percentages would more closely represent 100%. I'm working on a full permutations calculation, but I'm running into excessive processing times. Lastly, today brought the legitimate possibility of a 269, 269 tie. Obama appears to have a lock on all the Kerry States (except MN and NH) + Iowa + Colorado + New Mexico. We'll just assume he also wins Minnesota, although its currently a Toss Up. If this scenario plays out its a tie and it goes to the House where each state delegation has one vote, 26 votes are needed for victory in this scenario. Currently Obama leads in Virginia, but that state could go either way come November 4th. Getting back to Obama's 34.95% scenario probability today; Virginia is the state holding this number so low. If Virginia is just arbitrarily placed in McCain's column Obama's scenario probability rockets to 47.63% while McCain's actually drops to 13.43%. What does this mean? Obama currently has a baseline winning percentage of 47.63% percent assuming the House votes in his favor (which is likely).

Poll Update (9/22)

9/22/2008 2:26:24 PM CT

Even though I just upgraded the server, an issue still persists. If you receive the ominous "Service Unavailable" page, trying waiting ten seconds and refreshing. This is caused by a perfect storm of traffic (not so much quantity, but rather the right combination) that causes the memory buffer to overflow and reset server; the new server is much faster but has less memory. I'm currently working on a fix, but it may take a few days. Today's polls, so far:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2008	46	51	3
Georgia (15)	American Research Group	9/21/2008	39	57	4
Michigan (17)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2008	51	44	5
Minnesota (10)	Rasmussen Reports	9/18/2008	52	44	4
National (538)	CNN, Opinion Research Corp.	9/21/2008	48	45	7
Nevada (5)	Suffolk University	9/21/2008	45	46	9
New Hampshire (4)	University of New Hampshire	9/21/2008	45	47	8
New Jersey (15)	American Research Group	9/21/2008	51	42	7
New Mexico (5)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/19/2008	53	42	5
North Carolina (15)	Rasmussen Reports	9/18/2008	47	50	3
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2008	46	50	4
Pennsylvania (21)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2008	48	45	7
Pennsylvania (21)	Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2008	48	45	7
Pennsylvania (21)	NBC News, Mason Dixon	9/18/2008	46	44	10
South Dakota (3)	American Research Group	9/21/2008	39	55	6
Virginia (13)	SurveyUSA	9/21/2008	51	45	4
Virginia (13)	ABC News, Washington Post	9/21/2008	49	46	5
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/21/2008	48	50	2
Wisconsin (10)	American Research Group	9/21/2008	50	45	5

If the election were held today John McCain would lose, and lose handily. John appears to have lost his grasp in Virginia based on the most recent SurveyUSA poll, and has relinquished any hope of competing in Minnesota if the new Rasmussen poll is accurate. Wisconsin also seems to be moving in Obama's direction, while Nevada and North Carolina remain essentially tied. None of this is good for the McCain contingent. Pennsylvania is still within striking distance for McCain, although he has never lead. McCain will need something major to happen in the next ten days or the bandwagon effect will start to kick in. I feel the debate is his last best shot at competing, but can he even compete in the debate?

Youth Vote: The Draft in Your Future?

9/21/2008 5:07:04 PM CT

This will be the first installment in the Youth Vote series. On July 7, 1971 the twenty-sixth amendment was certified by the Administrator of General Services granting anybody aged eighteen or older the right to vote. The amendment was proposed by Senator Jennings Randolph (D) of West Virginia in response to procedures within the Selective Service Draft of 1969. Anybody aged eighteen or older could be drafted and fight America's War, but they could not vote. The amendment was ratified by thirty-nine states (eventually forty-two) making Randolph's amendment law. The 1972 Presidential Election marked the first and largest participation by voters aged 18-24 in history. Youth participation has declined since, but US involvement in foreign war seems to peek youth interest; the reason, conscription or the draft. Below is a graph detailing youth participation in past presidential elections: Source: The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement With the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the possibility of conscription remains. The most recent attempt (or perhaps more correctly, bluff) to reinstate the military draft occurred in 2003 when Representative Charles Rangle (D) of New York proposed House Resolution 163, this version offered no deferments of any kind once over the age of twenty. The bill was never written for serious consideration but rather as a protest to the currently ongoing war. Rangel issued another similar resolution in 2007 (HR 393) that called upon "all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service." Representative Rangel issued the follow statements on the introduction of HR 393: "I don't expect my bill to pass; my purpose in introducing this legislation is for it to serve as a constant reminder that we have lost 2,200 of the best, brightest and bravest Americans, have had thousands more maimed, and countless Iraqi citizens killed. As the President speaks of a national response involving the military option, military service should be a shared sacrifice. Right now the only people being asked to sacrifice in any way are those men and women who with limited options chose military service and now find themselves in harm's way in Iraq. A draft would ensure that every economic group would have to do their share, and not allow some to stay behind while other people's children do the fighting." "The Republican Leadership responded to my first bill by procedurally preventing debate on the issues it raised; let us see how they try to avoid facing the question of shared sacrifice this time." Source: House.gov The Republican leadership has remained passive on conscription dating back to Nixon. In the 1968 Election Nixon promised to eliminate the draft, he did just the opposite. The lottery occurred days before his inauguration and the draft was extended two years to 1973 during his first term. After Vietnam ended the draft died. Today the Selective Service System remains in the event "the country should need it." The SSS has procedures in place if the draft where needed today. Why does any of this matter? Simple, watch this video of John McCain: While John McCain agrees with the establishment a of draft, Barack Obama is committed to ending the war in Iraq. With the upcoming election between Barack Obama and John McCain the draft appears to be on the table. If you are between the age of 18-26 a draft will effect you. Make your voice heard by voting. Register to vote, and request an absentee ballot (Google Absentee Ballot and find your state's page) if you attend an out of state college or will not be able to vote in your legal state of residence. Look for the presidential debate on September 26th to have at least one question pertaining to a draft. The facts show that when military service is an issue the youth vote shows up.

Does Bush Support McCain?

9/21/2008 8:04:36 AM CT

The market's melted, McCain's prospect wilted, and poor George forgot to leave the lights on. If your line of expertise has anything to do with finacials and you didn't see the drop coming, you need to find new work. Unfortunately for the American people Bush isn't going to do that. On the day the markets died Bush was nowhere to be found, but something else was happening, or more appropriately, was not happening. George W. Bush was not using the impending financial crisis for political advancement. Or was he? The Feds and Congress are hard at work this weekend trying to remedy the situation. There have been reports of a trillion dollar bailout to right the current doom, gloom and despair. I question the situation at large: if the government is so willing to write a blank check to bail out the financials, why couldn't they write an equally large check to bail out the autos? It doesn't make political sense, Michigan is a swing state, you write a check to General Motors and Michigan flips. But Bush knows the causality between helping the autos research alternative energy and a drop in his precious petroleum revenue. The issue transcends national politics, but not in a good way, in a personal way. The life long oil man, W, couldn't justify helping his party, the banner under which he lead the country into the ground, at the cost of his own personal finances. Greed ruled the day in the Whitehouse and on Wall Street. It's politics as usual, nothing has changed, George did what was politically expedient, again, and the media didn't notice. Sound like the whole false intelligence in Iraq situation, it should. At the end of the day George Bush doesn't support the country, he doesn't even support his party, he supports himself. John McCain just happens to be the next closest thing to supporting himself.

Poll Update (9/21)

9/21/2008 7:51:38 AM CT

Florida is close, closer than the McCain camp wants it to be. The Research 2000 poll from Florida shows Obama actually winning amongst seniors; this could mean one of two things. Either the sample is just terribly wrong, which seems to be the most likely (Research 2000 is usually a good pollster though) or senior reasoning has drastically changed following the market's freefall. This is a death omen for McCain if the demographic models are accurate. The Alabama poll from the Press Register shows Obama getting crushed, but this is expected. Another item draws my attention, undecideds, all twenty three percent of them. Why have Alabamans not made up their mind in proportion to the rest of the country. My first inkling is race, as this appears to be a classic example of the Bradley effect, there is just no way around it.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	Press Register	9/15/2008	25	52	23
California (55)	American Research Group	9/20/2008	53	39	8
Florida (27)	Research 2k, FL Times-Union	9/18/2008	45	46	9
Florida (27)	Miami Herald, SP Times	9/17/2008	45	47	8
Iowa (7)	American Research Group	9/20/2008	51	44	5
Iowa (7)	Research 2k, Quad City Times	9/17/2008	53	39	8
Minnesota (10)	American Research Group	9/20/2008	48	47	5
North Carolina (15)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/19/2008	46	46	8
Ohio (20)	University of Cincinnati	9/16/2008	42	48	10
Virginia (13)	American Research Group	9/20/2008	46	48	6

Sarah Palin's coming out party appears to have been pushed back, yet again. The debate format for the VP debate will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees. The expectations game is being played, and Palin's bar has been lowered.

Poll Update (9/20)

9/20/2008 12:04:20 PM CT

Today brought two new polls from Michigan that seem to confirm what we already knew, Obama has a slight, but steady lead. The other poll of note took place in Missouri where Research 2000 and the Post-Dispatch showed McCain leading by just four. Missouri has time and time again presented an opportunity for Democrats (see New Jersey for Republicans), but they have repeatedly fallen short. This year presents a different dynamic however, McCain is limited to just 84 million (whereas Obama has opted out of Public Financing, and can spend whatever he raises), and if McCain is forced to use some of that money in a less crucial states, such as Missouri, it may very well cost him.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Connecticut (7)	American Research Group	9/19/2008	54	39	7
Idaho (4)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/17/2008	33	62	5
Illinois (21)	Research 2000, Post-Dispatch	9/18/2008	56	36	8
Illinois (21)	Rasmussen Reports	9/17/2008	56	40	4
Maryland (10)	American Research Group	9/19/2008	54	39	7
Michigan (17)	American Research Group	9/19/2008	48	46	6
Michigan (17)	Detroit News	9/17/2008	44	42	14
Missouri (11)	Research 2000, Post-Dispatch	9/18/2008	45	49	6
North Dakota (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/17/2008	40	53	7
South Carolina (8)	Rasmussen Reports	9/18/2008	45	51	4
Tennessee (11)	American Research Group	9/19/2008	36	59	5

I broke down and upgraded the server. I'm sure some of you have noticed the speed increase while others have not. It usually takes between 24 and 72 hours for the Domain Name Servers (DNS) to reflect the new hosting address. Everybody will still see the site, but for some it may be slower. These side effects should dissipate shortly leaving what is hopefully a more accessible experience.

Poll Update (9/19)

9/19/2008 5:23:32 PM CT

Obama has to be pleased with today's haul. Marsist College shows Obama with a lead in each of the big three, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. If you look at these three polls as a continuum and just assume they have a four point bias towards Obama, he still has a lead in Pennsylvania and Michigan. I'm not saying these polls report the defacto state of the race, but they certainly are interesting. There weren't nearly as many polls released today as in the past couple days, but still a decent catch:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	SurveyUSA	9/17/2008	34	64	2
Alaska (3)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/17/2008	38	55	7
Indiana (11)	Rasmussen Reports	9/18/2008	47	49	4
Indiana (11)	American Research Group	9/18/2008	44	47	9
Iowa (7)	SurveyUSA	9/18/2008	54	43	3
Kentucky (8)	Research 2000, DailyKos (D)	9/17/2008	37	55	8
Maine (4)	Rasmussen Reports	9/17/2008	50	46	4
Michigan (17)	Marist College	9/15/2008	52	43	5
New Jersey (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/16/2008	47	43	10
North Carolina (15)	Elon University	9/16/2008	35	41	24
North Dakota (3)	American Research Group	9/18/2008	43	52	5
Ohio (20)	Marist College	9/15/2008	47	45	8
Oklahoma (7)	American Research Group	9/18/2008	34	61	5
Pennsylvania (21)	Marist College	9/15/2008	49	44	7
Washington (11)	American Research Group	9/18/2008	50	44	6
Washington (11)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/16/2008	47	42	11

I'm thinking about switching to a different server, as I know the site has been dreadfully slow as of late, but I've also made some changes to the code that should drastically increase speeds. Before I shell out the dollars I want to get some feedback; is the site adequately fast or should I proceed with the server upgrade?

Their Possible Pasts

9/18/2008 12:08:25 AM CT

Each campaign sat in a conference room (or presumably something similar) some three or four weeks ago and mapped out their future campaign. Each advisor had "VP" circled somewhere on their memo pad; and each nominee had a VP in mind. But suppose for a second each candidate had a different perspective; could a different decision have entirely effected their nominee's standing in the last four weeks. What are their possible pasts? Everybody is quick to point out that "if Obama had selected Hillary Clinton as his Vice President, the race would already be over;" I simply do not believe this. In fact I think entirely the opposite is true. Knowing what we know now, Hillary would have doomed the Democratic Party, and I mean that in the nicest way possible. McCain would have been forced to react, and would not have chosen Sarah Palin; I say this with 100% certainty. If you're running against the historic ticket you pick the slick white guy and hope to gain racist and sexist votes; that's the sad reality and I don't think the Republicans would have hesitated. Instead Obama's selection of Biden did no harm, the cardinal rule of VP selection. Ultimately I think Biden will do the most good, but that's not the point of this article. John McCain likely chooses Mitt Romney (although, Pawlenty, Ridge or Liebermann would still have been options) to counteract the gravitas of the Obama-Clinton ticket; it's hard to predict, after all McCain did eventually chose Sarah Palin. I think Hillary Clinton is the only person for whom McCain doesn't choose Sarah Palin, with the possible exception of Kathleen Sebelius; but I don't think she was ever legitimately considered. Mitt Romney's strength is the economy and it just so happens that the economy is flying into a sharpened fan right now. McCain's possible past is much brighter with a Romney selection (and likely his future), especially after his disastrous week. McCain likely would not have gotten such a large bounce in the polls had he chosen somebody other than Palin, but it clearly doesn't matter what the polls said at the beginning of September on November 5th. As of right now the only thing Palin has concretely provided McCain was a nice five percent boost in his polling numbers for what amounts to a week; the recent CBS poll shows McCain's support among women plummeting by 21%. Romney may or may not have provided a similar polling spike, but at least he would be useful with regards to the now diseased economy, after all that was Romney's main selling point. If you take a look into the past and alter the VP permutations the scenario that actually happened appears to the best imaginable outcome for Obama and the worst possible for McCain. The McCain campaign fell into the trap of trying to pick what the central issue of the election would be; they guessed energy and fell flat on their face. Nobody cares how much gas costs because they have no money to buy anything. Most people have lost 10% of their portfolio in the past two days and the GOP ticket is offering no solutions to fix the already ailed economy. The Obama campaign instead focused on the actual role of a Vice President and selected somebody who actually ran for the position twice. Joe Biden isn't an expert on the economy or energy by any stretch, but his central claim to knowledge is not the fact that he can see Russia, but rather his 35 years as a Senator. The Obama campaign took an entirely different approach to the selection that maximized their chances on any issue; they played the statistics. That I cannot say about the McCain campaign. I cannot conclude within any reasonable bounds of logic why Sarah Palin was selected. There are simply too many other, better possible pasts for John McCain. The possible future will be theirs to command.

Poll Update (9/18)

9/18/2008 12:00:39 AM CT

This actually happened today: Sarah Palin proposed an online service that would allow ordinary citizens access to federal budget information, but its already been done; by Barack Obama. This enormous gaffe is getting no air time. It reveals two things about the McCain campaign; Sarah Palin (or the campaign) is incapable of fact checking, and they have no idea what Obama's record actually encompasses. Onto the polls, a slew new polls, yet so little time.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	InsiderAdvantage	9/17/2008	51	41	8
Colorado (9)	Allstate, National Journal	9/15/2008	45	44	11
Connecticut (7)	Rasmussen Reports	9/16/2008	53	41	6
Florida (27)	SurveyUSA	9/17/2008	45	51	4
Florida (27)	Allstate, National Journal	9/15/2008	44	44	12
Florida (27)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	46	46	8
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	9/17/2008	43	51	6
Georgia (15)	Rasmussen Reports	9/16/2008	43	54	3
Georgia (15)	SurveyUSA	9/16/2008	41	57	2
Georgia (15)	Public Opinion Strategies (R)	9/11/2008	56	35	9
Illinois (21)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	53	37	10
Indiana (11)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	43	47	10
Indiana (11)	Selzer, Indianapolis Star	9/16/2008	47	44	9
Iowa (7)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	45	45	10
Michigan (17)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	48	44	8
Minnesota (10)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	47	45	8
National (538)	Quinnipiac University	9/16/2008	49	45	6
National (538)	The Economist, YouGov (D)	9/16/2008	43	45	12
National (538)	Pew Research Center	9/14/2008	46	46	8
National (538)	The Economist, YouGov (D)	9/9/2008	41	40	19
Nebraska (5)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	34	60	6
New Hampshire (4)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	45	48	7
New Jersey (15)	Rasmussen Reports	9/16/2008	55	42	3
New Mexico (5)	Allstate, National Journal	9/15/2008	49	42	9
Ohio (20)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	46	45	9
Ohio (20)	Allstate, National Journal	9/15/2008	41	42	17
Oregon (7)	Portland Tribune	9/14/2008	50	40	10
Pennsylvania (21)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	45	45	10
South Carolina (8)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	37	59	4
Vermont (3)	Rasmussen Reports	9/13/2008	60	36	4
Virginia (13)	InsiderAdvantage	9/17/2008	46	48	6
Virginia (13)	Allstate, National Journal	9/15/2008	41	48	11
Wisconsin (10)	University of Wisconsin	9/17/2008	45	44	11

Our national projection now shows a very distinct convention ounce for McCain; unfortunately for him it seems to be over, at the same time Obama is surging. Florida has shifted from a Toss Up to Weak Dem for the first time. Our model gives Obama a 84.3% chance of winning the state. A poll could come out in ten minutes and change that, but for now Florida appears to be Obama's. Turn's out that did happen. SurveyUSA released a new Florida poll, and pushed the state back into the Toss Up column.

Poll Update (9/17)

9/17/2008 9:33:33 AM CT

ARG released twenty-five polls today. The new addition did not change our model's output, McCain is still projected to win with 274 Electoral Votes. Of the massive haul by ARG there were really only 4 polls of interest. The Montana poll shows Obama behind just two, which is a large contrast to some other polling done in the same time frame. Ohio is again in the McCain column, but this time by six. Colorado and Nevada are still both very close. I later added five polls from CNN/Time and our projection changed to Obama 291, McCain 247. The CNN poll showed Obama ahead in both Florida and Ohio, which is good news for the Obama camp. There was even another swath of polls after our first update; Rasmussen released a few battle ground states, then CBS followed with a new national poll showing Obama with a 5 point lead. There's also news that a group of hackers (they shouldn't really be referred to as "hackers" because some of the information they obtained is legally public record) broke into Sarah Palin's semi-personal yahoo email accounts and did some snooping. They handed over their haul to WikiLeaks, who has released the information. Their page is getting pounded right now. Based on the information I've been able to access it does in fact appear that Sarah Palin used these yahoo addresses (gov.palin@yahoo.com and gov.sarah@yahoo.com) for work related matters; there were messages sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, and another to her Chief of Staff. Mother Jones best sums up the situation: "Since then, the accounts have been deleted, which could be considered destruction of evidence if a court chose to pursue it." All we're left to wonder is what her password could have been; Ketchikan seems to be the front runner.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	36	58	6
Alaska (3)	American Research Group	9/11/2008	36	60	4
Arizona (10)	American Research Group	9/14/2008	39	56	5
California (55)	Field	9/14/2008	52	36	12
Colorado (9)	American Research Group	9/13/2008	44	46	10
DC (3)	American Research Group	9/13/2008	82	13	5
Delaware (3)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	51	40	9
Florida (27)	Time, CNN	9/16/2008	48	44	8
Hawaii (4)	American Research Group	9/12/2008	63	32	5
Idaho (4)	American Research Group	9/10/2008	26	68	6
Illinois (21)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	51	45	4
Indiana (11)	Time, CNN	9/16/2008	43	48	9
Kansas (6)	American Research Group	9/10/2008	31	63	6
Kentucky (8)	American Research Group	9/12/2008	37	57	6
Louisiana (9)	American Research Group	9/12/2008	43	50	7
Maine (4)	American Research Group	9/10/2008	51	41	8
Mississippi (6)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	39	55	6
Missouri (11)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	45	50	5
Montana (3)	American Research Group	9/9/2008	47	49	4
National (538)	CBS News, New York Times	9/16/2008	49	44	7
National (538)	Ipsos	9/15/2008	45	45	10
National (538)	Reuters, Zogby	9/13/2008	47	45	8
Nevada (5)	American Research Group	9/14/2008	46	49	5
New Mexico (5)	SurveyUSA	9/16/2008	52	44	4
New Mexico (5)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	51	44	5
New York (31)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	55	38	7
North Carolina (15)	Time, CNN	9/16/2008	45	46	9
North Carolina (15)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	41	52	7
Ohio (20)	Time, CNN	9/16/2008	46	44	10
Ohio (20)	American Research Group	9/13/2008	44	50	6
Oregon (7)	Rasmussen Reports	9/15/2008	51	47	2
Rhode Island (4)	American Research Group	9/13/2008	59	33	8
Rhode Island (4)	Rasmussen Reports	9/13/2008	58	39	3
Texas (34)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	36	57	7
Utah (5)	American Research Group	9/13/2008	29	65	6
Vermont (3)	Research 2000	9/14/2008	55	36	9
Virginia (13)	Christopher Newport University	9/14/2008	39	48	13
Virginia (13)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/14/2008	48	46	6
West Virginia (5)	American Research Group	9/16/2008	45	49	6
Wisconsin (10)	Time, CNN	9/16/2008	49	45	6
Wisconsin (10)	Rasmussen Reports	9/13/2008	48	46	6
Wyoming (3)	American Research Group	9/11/2008	28	66	6

I finally got a DC poll. Up until now I had DC's values hard coded because there was no DC information, at all. The release today doesn't really change anything, because Obama's still up by like 70 instead of 80, but at least it makes my code cleaner. A commenter pointed out that the CNN poll in Florida showed Obama and McCain tied at 48-48; this is true if you are looking at the one-on-one poll, but I've committed to using polls with third party candidates, if available. I'm watching Chris Mathews right now and he just showed the CNN poll in Florida tied at 48-48. A third party candidate changed the election in Florida in 2000 and the media isn't reporting a poll that includes third party candidates, it just doesn't make sense.

Poll Update (9/16)

9/16/2008 2:44:28 PM CT

If you're not polling New Jersey, you're not cool, or something like that. There have been five new polls in the Garden State since September 7th, but none seem to alter the previous model. Take a look at the New Jersey graph below. The trend lines were largely unaffected by these most recent polls; it does however appear that Obama lost a point and McCain gained one, but that can likely be traced to McCain's convention bounce. The important item to consider is the cost of putting New Jersey in play. New Jersey shares its media market with New York (which is the most expensive media market) and is not worth the investment for McCain, especially with just 84 million to work with. If he were serious about putting New York and New Jersey in play, recent polls suggest that he has at least an opportunity of winning, but his money could be more wisely spent in other states. Look for New Jersey to remain solidly in Obama's court come election day. There was a also New York poll released after the initial writing of this article. It reaffirms my position on New York; McCain has no chance. Ohio has been extensively polled and essentially all results since the conventions have shown McCain with a three or four point lead. McCain may have the lead at the moment, but as the money game and the economy creep into the field of play I think McCain's lead in Ohio will dissipate a little. The state will remain very close until the fourth.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
National (538)	American Research Group	9/15/2008	45	48	7
National (538)	George Washington University	9/11/2008	44	48	8
National (538)	The Economist, YouGov	9/9/2008	40	41	19
New Jersey (15)	Monmouth University, Gannett	9/14/2008	49	41	10
New Jersey (15)	Quinnipiac University	9/14/2008	48	45	7
New York (31)	Rasmussen Reports	9/15/2008	55	42	3
Ohio (20)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/14/2008	44	48	8

The national polls continue to do weird things and it appears that the tracking polls are starting to regress back toward a tie. Today McCain led in two trackers by one, and was down by four in the other two. It appears as though his national bounce has ended. The pressing question then becomes, can he hold the slimmest of leads for the next forty-nine days?

Polling Methodology and Application

9/15/2008 5:58:55 PM CT

When I collect polls I attempt to classify them into three categories; non-partisan, partisan and the polls that are just not valid for whatever reason. I add all polls to the database, but not all polls are used in the calculations. Partisan polls, as their name implies were either commissioned directly for a certain candidate, or they are performed by a pollster with a known bias. The partisan polls are suffixed with a (D) or an (R) depending on the party affiliation. An invalid polls is essentially converted to a partisan poll (the algorithm only differentiates between non-partisan and partisan polls) with a (D) or an (R) arbitrarily assigned based on whatever criteria I choose, barring in mind that the classification of a (D) or an (R) makes no difference to the math behind the model. Occasionally a pollster will provide both a Likely Voter demographic and a Registered Voter demographic; when this choice presents itself the Likely Voter result is used. There are also occasions where a pollster will release a poll with separate results for a separate wording or phrasing of questions. In this situation I will average the results of each separate result, assuming of course that the separation is comparably equivalent. Pollsters sometimes release polls with "leaners" and without "leaners", I use the "leaner" result. Pollsters also may include third party candidates such as Bob Barr (L) in their poll; I use the result which includes the third party candidate when available, unless the third party candidate is not on the ballot for the given state. When recording polls I use the end date of the poll's sampling window. I prefer the end date method to a median or start point because it is much easier to interpret end points on the graph than it is to try and extrapolate the meaning of the plot from a median or start point. The Local Regression method chronological arranges the polls based on their end date and discards elapsed time in between. For example if there are two polls, one with an end date of 6/20/08 and another with an end date of 8/15/08 they are treated merely as poll 1 and poll 2, the end dates have no significance other than to order the polls. I disavow dates for two reasons; I assume a poll is true until proven otherwise by another more recent poll, at which point the older poll receives a lower weight in the calculation. The second reason is directly due to processing time. I would ideally like to be able to do a range of influence for each poll and then the regression value for each day (instead of a regression value for each day in which a poll is released as is currently done), but that simply cannot be done in a reasonable amount of computing time while still maintaining the dynamic nature of the site. Moving onto our state graphs. Non-partisan polls are represented on the graphs with a filled-in circle while partisan (and therefore invalid) polls are denoted by their empty centers. A blue circle corresponds to Obama, red for McCain, and a tie is denoted by purple. The thick colored lines are the results of the Local Regression algorithm and the dashed lighter lines are the variances. If there is a lot of fluctuation between successive polls, the variance will be larger, if all the polls tend to follow a similar path, the variance will be smaller. I wrote a nice PDF describing the entire Local Regression method. The arrows to the right of each candidate's name are currently meaningless, but will hopefully have a use fairly soon. The percentage in the parenthesis after the status (more on this later) corresponds to the flipping point calculation. The colors used on the maps, tables and graphs are all based on the status of a given state. The status is defined in three step increments. A state where one candidate is within three points of another is defined to be a Toss Up; if Obama has between a three and six point lead the state is classified as Weak Dem, if McCain has a lead between six and nine its classified as Core Rep and if either candidate has larger than a nine point lead the state is Safe for the given party. The entire site is dynamically created. What this means is that whenever I add a poll to the database all the maps, images and tables instantly reflect the new values. I try and update the "Poll Update" article for the given day whenever I add a new poll, but sometimes this isn't always possible. Luckily the "Latest Polls" side panel reads from the database so you can also be aware of what new polls are included in the calculations. I also do not currently include tracking polls because they outweigh (by outnumbering) the other, more thoroughly conducted national polls. I plan on eventually adding a national tracking poll section that will be separate from the other national polls that are currently collected. The entire mathematical procedure uses only polling data, demographic information is not taken into account; I leave that to the pollsters. The algorithm does have a known weakness however; it cannot predict abnormalities in voting patterns that may be the result of foul play.

Poll Update (9/15)

9/15/2008 2:22:26 PM CT

With the last batch of FOX News/Rasmussen polls, John McCain garners his first lead in quite some time, but a closer look at the contributing factors point to what will probably be short lived reign. Recent polling in Virginia has shown the race to be extremely close with possibly a slight lead for Obama, but our model thinks otherwise. The problem is a CNN/Time poll taken at the height of McCain's convention bounce on September 9th. There were no state polls released during or immediately after Obama's convention; the result is a skew in recent data toward McCain as exemplified in Virginia. Our projection will tend to favor McCain until a more sizable number of polls are released to block out the convention affect. The Pennsylvania and New York results are outliers. If you look at the Pennsylvania graph its fairly easy to tell that the McCain has been consistently less than tied, in fact this is his highest recording ever in Pennsylvania. Combine the pollster (FOX News) and the terrible week McCain had this result just doesn't seem credible, but it gets added to the database none the less. The New York poll from Siena is meaningless. It came at the height of McCain's convention bounce and is his largest haul in New York since April 13th. McCain should disregard this result and stay away from the expensive New York media market with his 84 million. I'll also go out on a limb here and say the 500 point drop in the DOW will not have a positive effect on McCain's number's in states like Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/14/2008	46	48	6
Florida (27)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/14/2008	44	49	7
New York (31)	Siena	9/10/2008	46	41	13
Ohio (20)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/14/2008	45	48	7
Ohio (20)	SurveyUSA	9/14/2008	45	49	6
Ohio (20)	Suffolk University	9/13/2008	42	46	12
Oregon (7)	Moore Information (R)	9/11/2008	43	37	20
Pennsylvania (21)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/14/2008	47	47	6
Utah (5)	Rasmussen Reports	9/10/2008	32	64	4
Virginia (13)	FOX News, Rasmussen Reports	9/14/2008	48	48	4
Virginia (13)	SurveyUSA	9/14/2008	50	46	4

I've also written a detailed procedure regarding how polls are selected, used and applied that anybody visiting this site should probably read.

Cindy McCain's Fallacious Rebuttal

9/14/2008 9:00:46 PM CT

In spite of what you see...in the newspapers, and on shows like The View--I don't know if any of you saw The View yesterday, they picked our bones clean--in spite of what you see, that's not what the American people are saying and what they are believing....They are now seeing a clear difference with these candidates, and they are seeing who is going to make the best president, and that's why we're pulling ahead.-- Cindy McCain Source: CNN

Cindy's paradoxical rant on the media's sudden bias against her husband is one of the poorest pieces of persuasion I have ever seen. Period. In two sentences she manages to present two contradicting arguments that make no logical sense, and I literally mean no logical sense. I'm going to take a mathematical approach and destroy her logic. I'll start by looking at her first sentence. After I parse out her sixty-four references to The View and her repetition of "In spite of what you see" her statement essentially reads like this: "People see things in newspapers and people driven TV shows but that's not reflective of what the American people are saying and what they are believing." If I let the first portion that reads "People see things in newspapers and people driven TV shows" refer to the variable P and the second portion which reads "The American people are saying and what they are believing" as Q. The statement can then be mapped as follows: P implies not Q:
"People see things in newspapers and people driven TV shows" which implies that "the American people are not saying [those same things] and that they are not believing them." Here's where it gets wacky: using the idea of contrapostion the statement can be rewritten as Q implies the opposite of P and the statement should still be valid: "The American people are saying [things] or they are believing [things]" implies that "people see [these same things] in newspapers and people driven TV shows." Using a truth table for implication and going through the various possibilities for the previous statement we run into a fallacy. Cindy has worded her response so poorly that her argument essentially breaks down to "People can only believe things that are told to them by other people," which of course is not true. As an aside this perception seems to highlight the entire McCain campaign's strategy: "Vote for McCain because I tell you to." Her second erroneous statement boils down to a classic AND (&) structure in which all fragments must be true for the statement to be true, (A & B & C = true means that A, B and C must all be true). The breakdown goes like this: A = "[The American people] are now seeing a clear difference with these candidates"
B = "[The American people] are seeing who is going to make the best president"
C = "we're pulling ahead." This should be much easier than the prior result because I only have to disprove one statement. I've already disproved B based on the result of Cindy's first point so I'm essentially done. The easy refutation to B reads as follows: If "[The American people] are seeing who is going to make the best president" then the media should also see who is going to make the best president. We know the media does not think John McCain will be the best president because shows like The View and newspapers are sticking it to him, as Cindy pointed out earlier. Therefore B invalids Cindy's second statement and serves to highlight the point that the McCain entourage has yet to realize that American people are represented in the American media. The common thread running through all of this discussion is that the entire McCain campaign is devoid of logical thought. Update: I had a bad equivalence relation that was not sound (as a commenter pointed out), but it didn't affect my fundamental argument. The erroneous statement was meant to serve as a segue between the math and the exact wording; but my attempt to increase comprehension in effect decreased the quality of my logic. The error has been fixed and hopefully my argument is now mathematically valid.

Poll Update (9/14)

9/14/2008 12:07:26 PM CT

Yet another poll shows Minnesota within striking distance for McCain, but like Washington I just don't see it happening. The ultra competitive Senate race will further push already high turnout, likely favoring Obama. There was also a poll released in Iowa showing Obama with a 12 point lead; this result is likely the product of the severe flooding in Cedar Rapids and the US Government's poor response; the combination of the Iowa and Minnesota polls is peculiar because the neighboring states are demographically similar. I struggle to understand the mechanisms at work in the two most recent Minnesota polls. The collapse report for the Minnesota I35-W Bridge is due out a few weeks before the election and will have a great impact on both the Senate and Presidential races. The very release of the report will favor Obama as Governor Pawlenty was directly responsible for appointing Carol Molnau to oversee infrastructure, a job she clearly did not do well. People in the Twin Cities are furious about the bridge; any item in the report further linking the Republican Governor to the collapse will have dire consequences for McCain.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Delaware (3)	Rasmussen Reports	9/13/2008	55	43	2
Iowa (7)	Des Moines Register	9/10/2008	52	40	8
Minnesota (10)	Star Tribune	9/12/2008	45	45	10
New Jersey (15)	Research 2000	9/11/2008	50	41	9
Utah (5)	Dan Jones	9/11/2008	24	62	14
Washington (11)	Elway Poll	9/8/2008	45.5	38	16

I finally found a source for the Elway poll. I took the two results and averaged them in the database.

Poll Update (9/13)

9/13/2008 12:46:07 PM CT

Just one poll so far, but its was worth posting. Rasmussen gives McCain a three point edge in Nevada, his best result ever in the state. They both increased their performance by a point over Rasmussen's previous Nevada poll. The national tracking polls are all out today and show very little change from yesterday. McCain gained a point in two polls, lost one in another and remained unchanged in the fourth while Obama held steady in three and lost a point in one. McCain's improvement can likely be traced to the inclusion of part one of Palin's ABC interview (clearly the best segment for the GOP) to the tracking polls' three day average. I'll update the table if additional polls are released.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Colorado (9)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	45.5	47.5	6
Florida (27)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	41.8	42.1	16
Michigan (17)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	49	43.3	8
Minnesota (10)	SurveyUSA	9/11/2008	49	47	4
Missouri (11)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	42.4	48.5	10
Nevada (5)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	42.5	50.1	8
Nevada (5)	Rasmussen Reports	9/11/2008	46	49	5
New Hampshire (4)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	42.8	49.1	8
New Mexico (5)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	45.6	44.1	10
North Carolina (15)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	48.1	46.6	5
Ohio (20)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	43.9	49.8	6
Pennsylvania (21)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	44.3	49.1	7
South Dakota (3)	Rasmussen Reports	9/9/2008	37	54	9
Virginia (13)	Zogby Interactive (D)	9/12/2008	43.8	50.3	6

I don't really know why I wasted my time entering the Zogby Interactive polls. They have no basis for accuracy. I have also labeled them with a (D), not necessarily because they are partisan, but because anything internet based should favor Obama's youth centric support. Obama's also out with two new ads (Real Change, Still) overtly calling out McCain on his recent campaign tactics.

Poll Update (9/12)

9/12/2008 2:15:56 PM CT

To contrast with yesterday's large haul it appears many pollsters took the day off. There is nothing too eventful in today's numbers but there are some interesting trends that are emerging. The University of Cincinnati polled Ohio with what appears to be a fairly accurate sample; the results still suggest that Ohio could go either way. Rasmussen decided to do a useful poll today, after doing Wyoming and Idaho yesterday, in Missouri and Washington. The Missouri results show that Obama is steadily gaining ground and could very well force John McCain to throw some of his 84 million at the show me state.

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Missouri (11)	Rasmussen Reports	9/11/2008	46	51	3
National (538)	Newsweek	9/11/2008	46	46	8
National (538)	Associated Press-GfK	9/10/2008	44	48	8
National (538)	Ipsos	9/9/2008	45	46	9
New Jersey (15)	Marist	9/8/2008	48	45	7
Ohio (20)	University of Cincinnati	9/10/2008	44	48	8
Oklahoma (7)	Rasmussen Reports	9/11/2008	32	63	5
Oregon (7)	Hoffman Research Group	9/9/2008	46	39	15
Washington (11)	Rasmussen Reports	9/10/2008	49	47	4

The Washington result is by far the most perplexing poll released today and perhaps confirms the trend established by SurveyUSA's most recent Washington result. The sample seems legitimate, nothing stands out as overtly improbable. Kerry won Washington by 7.18% in 2004 but our model seems to be predicting a much closer race. I just don't see the race being close in Washington; Seattle will carry the state regardless of what the GOP might seek to achieve. The national polls are still showing a lot of volatility. Some give the edge to Obama, others McCain but the spread seems to be equally proportioned. The variation is most certainly caused by the wide sample space of the nation and interference caused by the recent conventions. I've never given much weight to national polls because it simply has no bearing on the electoral college; they are simply useful for demographic information, but even then their usefulness is debatable. Perhaps in a few days the national polls will fall back into a more reliable trend; only to be disturbed by the upcoming debates.

The Red November

9/11/2008 10:49:04 PM CT

The current public sentiment clearly favors the democratic brand, but running blue could have dire consequences. In a previous article I looked at how the Minnesota Republican Party is exclusively using the color blue for their incumbent federal candidates up for reelection. Some pointed out that blue has almost always been the color of choice for campaign signs, and this appears to be true, at least as the primary color. My research revealed very little information about House and Senate signs, but I did stumble upon a wide assortment of past presidential signs dating back to 1964. Sorting through the collection at 4President.org I stumbled upon a curious trend. Dating back to 1964 only four presidential nominees have ever ran a campaign in which their yard signs did not feature the color red; of these four tickets, only two were elected, Carter-Mondale (1976) and Reagan-Bush (1980). Interestingly the 1980 presidential election was devoid of the color red. That leaves just one loser, the McGovern-Shriver ticket of 1972. 1972: McGovern-Shriver (D) vs. Nixon-Agnew (R*)
1976: Carter-Mondale (D) vs. Ford-Dole (R*)
1980: Carter-Mondale (D*) vs. Reagan-Bush (R)
2008: Obama-Biden (D) vs. McCain-Palin (R)
A candidate with a blue sign, bearing no red has never defeated an opponent with a red, white and blue sign; this scenario has only occurred twice however. Still the statistics greatly favor the candidate who incorporates all of America's colors. If we now look at the 2008 campaign signs it is apparent that Obama has a red, white and blue sign, while McCain's features blue, white and yellow. This year's race also marks the first time since 1960, possibly ever, in which a major party nominee has used yellow on their campaign sign. The meaning of yellow on McCain's sign is clearly meant to subliminally convey "support for the troops," of which McCain has clearly not supported [Source: 1, 2, 3]. If McCain was insistent on color messaging he perhaps could have sent a better message by using red instead. As it stands now, the odds are stacked against McCain.

Poll Update (9/11)

9/11/2008 8:14:07 PM CT

I was finally motivated (by the sheer number of new polls today) to patch together a mechanism to list all the polls added to the database on a given day. The table is color coded to reflect the result of each poll; the colors are segmented by three points. You might have noticed that some pollsters have an (R) or a (D) after them, this simply means that the pollster has a partisan affiliation and serves as a marker to eliminate them from the final electoral calculation. Today's polls are listed below:

Race	Pollster	EndDate	Obama	McCain	Other
Alabama (9)	AEA, Capital Survey	9/9/2008	35	55	10
Colorado (9)	InsiderAdvantage	9/10/2008	49	46	5
Colorado (9)	Public Policy Polling (D)	9/9/2008	47	46	7
Florida (27)	InsiderAdvantage	9/10/2008	42	50	8
Florida (27)	Quinnipiac University	9/9/2008	43	50	7
Georgia (15)	InsiderAdvantage	9/10/2008	38	56	6
Georgia (15)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/9/2008	39	52	9
Idaho (4)	Rasmussen Reports	9/9/2008	29	68	3
Maine (4)	Research 2000, DailyKos.com (D)	9/10/2008	52	38	10
Michigan (17)	InsiderAdvantage	9/10/2008	44	45	11
Michigan (17)	Rasmussen Reports	9/10/2008	51	46	3
Mississippi (6)	Research 2000, DailyKos.com (D)	9/10/2008	37	55	8
National (538)	Democracy Corps (D)	9/10/2008	46	48	6
National (538)	InsiderAdvantage	9/8/2008	46	46	8
National (538)	Public Opinion Strategies (R)	9/8/2008	43	46	11
Nevada (5)	InsiderAdvantage	9/10/2008	45	46	9
North Carolina (15)	Civitas Institute (R)	9/10/2008	44	47	9
North Carolina (15)	Research 2000, DailyKos.com (D)	9/10/2008	38	55	7
North Carolina (15)	Garin Hart Yang (D)	9/7/2008	46	49	5
Ohio (20)	InsiderAdvantage	9/10/2008	47	48	5
Ohio (20)	Quinnipiac University	9/9/2008	49	44	7
Ohio (20)	Strategic Vision (R)	9/7/2008	44	48	8
Pennsylvania (21)	Quinnipiac University	9/9/2008	48	45	7
West Virginia (5)	Mark Blankenship Enterprises	9/8/2008	39	44	17
Wyoming (3)	Rasmussen Reports	9/10/2008	39	58	3

There was a lot of irrelevance today (Idaho, Wyoming, Maine) but also some interesting results. The swing states were well represented and uniformly showed that Obama has retaken his pre-convention lead. InsiderAdvantage released five new polls today, three favored Obama, one McCain and the National poll was a tie. I took a look at the cross tabs on each of these polls and it appears that InsiderAdvantage may be underestimating Obama's support among African Americans; the numbers actually represented a drop in AA support from the results Kerry posted in 2004. I highly doubt this phenomenon will occur in November based on AA turn out in the caucuses and the fact that Obama is the first African American presidential nominee. The rest of the non-partisan polls seemed to accurately represent the electorate.