Minnesota Secretary of State: Franken Pseudo-Declaration of Victory ‘Premature’
EmailWe just finished a podcast interview with Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie about the Senate recount going on in that state of 10,000 lakes.
Mr. Ritchie had lots to say about the continuing process to recount the 2.9 million ballots in that state — as you may know, on election night, incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., lead Democrat Al Franken by 215 votes, or .007%, kicking in an automatic recount of the state’s ballots.
ABC News Shuffle podcast producer Huma Khan is working right now on posting the audio and writing up some of the more interesting bits.
But one thing seemed immediately interesting: Of Franken’s declaration that "it looks like we’re on track to win. The state canvassing board has completed its job of reviewing all the ballots — and at the end of this important step in the process, we’re ahead," Ritchie, a Democrat, not only called it "premature," he seemed almost offended.
More to come…
- jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
Franken already has a credibility problem concerning his ability to serve as a legit politician. His cred would surely vanish if he demands to be seated before he is even officially the winner of the race. Not good times for Senate Dems…
Posted by: matt | December 31, 2008, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
jpt,
“he seemed almost offended”. really? could you not have included that embellishment in your report? Why would he be offended by something like that?
Posted by: Question | December 31, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
It appears that even if Franken wins the dems really dont want the attention he will bring. This seat isnt a “Game Changer” but taking it from the reps does make for good humor!
Posted by: Bathroom Republican | December 31, 2008, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
Matt said: “Not good times for Senate Dems…”
You must be drunk! Yeah, with 57 or 58 dems in the senate the situation is really bad for them…oh my goodness!
Posted by: Republican_Paulie | December 31, 2008, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
What are all these morons talking about. The man did not declare victory yet, but said he was “on track to victory”.
In light of the mess GOP has made of our nation, it is stupid to be bad mouthing the democrats or Al Franken.
Comedian or not, Al Franken has every right to vie and go to Senate if elected. So what is Matt’s problems?
Senate will be enhanced and benefited from Al Franken’s unique comic characteristics. He will spice up and stir up the senate with his humor, so relax and enjoy the rid. At least change is indeed coming to the stoick exclusive senate club.
I cant wait to get Franken’s first comic quote from the floor of the senate. It will bring human element and ordinary citizen flavor to this ancient chamber.
Posted by: Ed Banks | December 31, 2008, 1:52 pm 1:52 pm
Premature ? Heck, we’ve been counting and counting and counting – now the math is simple: Franken’s ahead, and there are only 1350 more ballots to count, coming mostly from the strongly-DFL (that’s Minnesotan for Democrat) parts of the State.
Posted by: Minnesotan | December 31, 2008, 1:55 pm 1:55 pm
Franken is doing a darn good impersonation of BUSH with his vote stuffing. Looks like the DNC has become what it has despised. Hey if it works, right? HYPOCRITES!!! Mayor Daley would be PROUD!
Posted by: please! | December 31, 2008, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
Go Al!
Posted by: BessPorgy | December 31, 2008, 2:20 pm 2:20 pm
ABC gets the facts wrong again. Franken did not make a “declaration of victory”. Time to pull your heads out and learn to properly interpret what Franken actually said.
Posted by: Robert | December 31, 2008, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Jake – Good job of making nothing into news on a slow day.
Posted by: Jeff in Michigan | December 31, 2008, 2:27 pm 2:27 pm
go Al!! … and get it straight jake, frankin did not declare victory, he just stated the FACTS about the votes so far… and indeed, it looks good for him!! whooo hoooo!
Posted by: earthisnotflat | December 31, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
It might seem like no bit deal, but if this seat goes unfilled into February or March and the Ill seat will almost certainly be vacant, then Obama and the Democrats may have a hard time getting an economic stimulous package done.
Posted by: GreggW | December 31, 2008, 2:42 pm 2:42 pm
The more you count the better chance he has to win. Maybe they will find some more uncounted votes in the trunk of another car. He is just another democrat joke…he will fit well in the circus in Washington.
Posted by: Josephine | December 31, 2008, 2:59 pm 2:59 pm
Take away the double-counted votes, the illegal ballots and the ballots that somebody “interpreted,” and Coleman is ahead.
Nobdy has an business “interpreting” the Will of the voter who is too stupid to fill out a ballot according to instructions. It’s either a vote, or it isn’t, on the face of it. If it isn’t clear on the face of the ballot, the ballot should not be counted. Interpretations of other than the voter, whose intention is either marked on the ballot, or it isn’t, should not be counted. If a voter cannot vote clearly, that’s too bad. Voting cannot be any easier.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
If we’re gonna interpret ballots, who’s gonna interpret the Will of the ones doing the interpreting? Shouldn’t THAT enter into it, too, as long as we’re interpreting Wills?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
How do we know that the ones interpreting fuzzy ballots are not adding their own Wills to the mix? Should their Wills in interpreting be counted as votes?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
Are they any better at interpreting the Will of the voter who casts a fuzzy ballot than I am?
If an official interprets a ballot to mean the voter intended to vote for Franken[stein], and I say the voter ntended to vote for Colman, who’s to say that his interpretation is better than mine? He has no expertise that I don’t have.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
ABC gets the facts wrong again. Franken did not make a “declaration of victory”. Time to pull your heads out and learn to properly interpret what Franken actually said.
Posted by: Robert | Dec 31, 2008 2:25:54 PM
———————————–
Where does the Tapper say that Franken[stein] declared victory?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
Several posters see something that isn’t there.
They say that Tapper reported a declaration by Franken[stein] of victory.
I’d like to know where Tapper says this cuz I don’t see it. I don’t see it cuz it ain’t there.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Jake, is this that slow a news day that you have to resort to embellishment? I like you a lot better when you are more professional and read less like a tabloid writer.
Posted by: Lydia | December 31, 2008, 3:21 pm 3:21 pm
What is the big problem? There is a legal recount going on. It’s taking a lot of time, but the process is being closely monitored.
At least its not like the Republicans in Florida the previous presidential election using scheming lawyers and undemocratic tactics to stop the counting of legitimate ballots.
Posted by: pefros | December 31, 2008, 3:23 pm 3:23 pm
==Jake, is this that slow a news day that you have to resort to embellishment?==
What’s the “embellishment”?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
==There is a legal recount going on.==
Yeah, double-counting, interpreting the Will of voters who can’t read instructions and who cast illegal ballots, counting other illegal ballots, etc. That takes time, for sure.
== It’s taking a lot of time, but the process is being closely monitored.==
Monitored for every possible thing, legal, or not, that can be interpreted in Franken[stein]‘s favor.
==At least its not like the Republicans in Florida the previous presidential election using scheming lawyers and undemocratic tactics to stop the counting of legitimate ballots.==
Republicans didn’t take the vote in Florida to court. Gore did. SCOTUS, then, ultimately, had to get involved cuz the issue involved federal, election law. So, had Gore not gone to court, there woulda been no issue to keep you embittered for eight years.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
==What is the big problem? ==
The big problem is that it is taking some time for the Franken[stein] campaign to come up with more illegal ballots and forcing officials to interpret the Will of voters who can’t read. And we thought the stupid ones were limited to Florida.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
Lydia, we’re still waiting for you to tell us what Tapper “embellished.”
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
There are only sixteen [16] lines in the Tapper story above.
Somebody tell us in which line Tapper “embellishes” and says that the Franken[stein] monster declared victory.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
We know that the Franken[stein] Peanut Gallery is choking on the challenges to their assertion that Tapper “embellishes” in his story, that Tapper says Franken[stein] declared victory.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | December 31, 2008, 4:12 pm 4:12 pm
Mr. Incredible,
Minnesota election law requires that the “intent” of the voter be considered when reviewing machine-rejected ballots. Unless there are identifying marks, the judges must attempt to interpret the voter intent on the ballot AS PER THE LAW.
Posted by: Marc, MN | December 31, 2008, 5:10 pm 5:10 pm
“Franken already has a credibility problem concerning his ability to serve as a legit politician.” –Matt
I didn’t even think he was credible to serve as a comedian.
Posted by: Farmer Bob | December 31, 2008, 6:32 pm 6:32 pm
The only thing here Ritchie is “offended” by is that Franken’s comments, especially the “we” in “we’re on track to win,” imply his alliance with Franken in stealing the rightful election victory from Senator Norm Coleman. Ritchie wants to maintain the image of propriety, knowing full well in his own heart, of his own commitment to ensuring Franken succeeds in stealing the election. This is right out of ACORN’s playbook, and Ritchie is one of their greatest supporters.
Posted by: Thank God for Karma | January 1, 2009, 12:37 am 12:37 am
OH , COME ON NNNN !@ DOES ANYONE ANYWHERE , DOUBT FRANKEN WILL WIN???
I THOUGHT EVERYBODY KNEW THAT’S WHAT CHEATING MEANS !!!!!
Posted by: MY WORLD | January 1, 2009, 9:05 am 9:05 am
As a fierce independent you people make me laugh. Neither side talks about what is good for America. Both sides are partisan hacks, you disgust me. The democrats were weak not to end the war in Iraq and, well Bush he did it to everyone in the good ‘ol USA. Lighten up folks. Let’s try to concentrate on the ball for once and do what’s good for the USA. Let’s give the State on Minn. the benefit of the doubt and going by their rules let this play out. You can say the same about the state of Ill. Let it be and let’s work to fix America. We cannot be the saviors of the world anymore. Let’s take care of home first! America the beautiful, remember those words folks?
Posted by: Indy | January 1, 2009, 11:41 am 11:41 am
==Mr. Incredible,
Minnesota election law requires that the “intent” of the voter be considered…==
“Considered,” not determined.
== when reviewing machine-rejected ballots.==
The machine knows only “legal.” THAT should be the standard.
== Unless there are identifying marks, the judges must attempt to interpret the voter intent…==
How does one do that objectively?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | January 1, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
==Minnesota election law requires that the “intent” of the voter be considered…==
That’s impossible, from an objective standpoint. The only intent that matters is what the legal ballot says. If it is not marked properly, according to instructions everybody gets beforehand, it is not a ballot. If it is not a ballot, it is not a vote. That’s the voter’s fault, not the system. Officials should not be in the osition of going beyond the voter’s “voice” on the ballot itself, when cast legally.
Now, how do you, or anybody else, know that the voter intended to vote for one candidate, or another? Maybe he wanted just to go through the motions without committing to a candidate so he could have an excuse to say that he voted. Then, the canvassing board would be applying an intent to the ballot that isn’t there. Then what?
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | January 1, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
Typically lacking in insight. I suppose the deepest question is why have we Americans become so dumb? It certainly isn’t the case that the politicians have become so smart, and even less the case that these Franken and Coleman could possibly be so nearly equivalent. The electoral technicians have obviously become *MUCH* too adept in “guiding” their respective candidates into indistinguishable positions and nipping at each other’s heels.
No, I don’t know if Obama can really fix the system. He might have ‘mastered’ it this time around, but it is the system that elected him, after all. Will he really have the will and brains to fix it? However, I know damn well Palin couldn’t have fixed anything.
Posted by: Shannon Jacobs | January 2, 2009, 4:21 am 4:21 am
==I know damn well Palin couldn’t have fixed anything.==
However, Palin, who has public experience, could’ve fixed more than Caroline Kennedy who has no public experience.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | January 2, 2009, 7:43 am 7:43 am
==I know damn well Palin couldn’t have fixed anything.==
The vice prez is in no position to “fix” anything anyway.
Posted by: Mr. Incredible | January 2, 2009, 7:44 am 7:44 am