Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Battleground: Georgia

The Democrats are trying to take a Senate seat away from victorious Senator Saxbe Chambliss in Georgia. This is happening while they are also trying to steal a seat from Senator Norm Coleman in Minnesota. And, they're still seeking that disputed Senate seat in Alaska.
Fillibuster-proof control of the Senate is at stake. This is serious business.
It ain't over till it's over, folks!


Anonymous said...

I don't understand what you mean here. The recounts in Georgia and Minnesota are automatic because of the initial close outcomes of the race. They are required because of legislative enactments, not merely because one candidate or another asked for them.

What do you mean by "steal" in Minnesota? What have the Democrats done in Minnesota that was not an automatic procedure that was already in place with that state's election law?

Dan Cirucci said...

The fact is that two-party democracy hangs in the balance and depends on these three races and the Democrats know it. That's why the Ds made peace with Lieberman today and allowed him to keep his Chairmanship. They need him. And they need these three seats.
If they can't win Minnesota fair and square (and Coleman has never been behind in the race) they will drag it our and/or go into the courts. Georgia has a strange 50% rule that the Ds hope to take full advantage of - using tons of Obama money. Alaska is the only one of these three where they MAY have actually, won the election. I emphasize 'MAY.'

Anonymous said...

What is not fair and square about what's happening in Minnesota? The state law required the automatic recount because the threshold is 0.05%, and Coleman is ahead by only 0.007% of the votes in the initial count.

No one has yet gone to the courts to enforce the law, because the state election commission is merely doing its duty. The rule of law is playing out just as the state legislature planned when they drafted and passed the law.

As for Georgia's "strange" rule, again, it's what the legislature drafted and passed. I found a news article that says Georgia enacted its rule in 1964 (the same year as the Civil Rights Act), that it's largely seen as a method to keep minority candidates from winning primaries, and that about 10 other states have the same rule.

The major policy justification behind it is to avoid having a person in government who was elected by a plurality rather than a majority. Do you disagree with that policy?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, forgot to include a link to the Georgia news article.