Ted Stevens Loses Senate Re-Election Bid 337
JakartaDean writes "Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, famed Internet regulator, has lost his Senate seat. The AP is reporting that 'Stevens was declared the loser in Alaska on Tuesday night after a two-week-long process of counting nearly 90,000 absentee and early votes from across Alaska. With this victory, Democrat Mark Begich (the mayor of Anchorage) has defeated one of the giants in the US Senate by a 3,724-vote margin, a stunning end to a 40-year Senate career marred by Stevens' conviction on corruption charges a week before the election.' It's probably too early to tell what this means for Internet regulation, but at least there's a > 0 chance that the next committee chair will understand something about the Net."
Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
Senator Stevens re-election bid is down the tubes [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Senator Stevens re-election bid is down the tubes [slashdot.org].
To add insult to injury -- a whole series of them!
Re:Too Bad (Score:5, Funny)
Senator Stevens re-election bid is down the tubes [slashdot.org].
Hey Slashdot ain't a big truck. You can't just dump anything on it, more it's like a series of tubes. And all your damn YouTubes, why I had my staff send me an Internet the other day, took 2 weeks to get here!
Re:Too Bad (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
C'mon, guys, how many more times after this are we really gonna be able to beat this dead meme? You could at least try...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anti-White Racism in the Afro Community (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree entirely. Hilary lost because she insisted on being in the spotlight for years leading up the the campaign; this is the main reason her supporters and haters were so divided. The problem with this was, all the usual campaign hand-waiving and distractions can't change the mind of voters who made up their minds years before.
She lost my vote early on when she revealed her true colors as a censorship machine. First she tried to to censor video games for violence at the federal level [wikipedia.org] (thankful
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree entirely. Hilary lost because she insisted on being in the spotlight for years leading up the the campaign; this is the main reason her supporters and haters were so divided.
No. The #1 reason she lost was her support of the Iraq war and refusal to apologize for it. If she had opposed the war from the beginning like Obama, she would have had the blowout victory on Super Tuesday that she was expecting.
But she still could have had this in the bag if she and her team weren't so damned arrogant
Re: (Score:3)
I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah -- essentially what this result means is that those Alaskans who cast their vote for Stevens would rather vote for a shamelessly corrupt convicted felon than for a Democrat.
Most of the time, I'm with 'em. ;)
(though, to be fair, he would have probably resigned and been replaced with a better candidate by appointment or special election, had he won.)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, it occurred to me that's probably why he was still voted for. If he was forced out of office in disgrace he would be replaced by another less obviously disgraceful Republican. At least I hope that's what happened, although after seeing who they elected Governor I could be giving Alaskan's too much credit.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Interesting)
If he was forced out of office in disgrace he would be replaced by another less obviously disgraceful Republican. At least I hope that's what happened, although after seeing who they elected Governor I could be giving Alaskan's too much credit.
Funny you should mention that. Even though his replacement would be chosen by special election and appointed, the consensus in the punditocracy was that Palin would run for the seat and probably win.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually my favorite part about this: her national political career is now stillborn, she'll have to wait for an actual election to be able to take a Senate seat.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt Palin would have appointed herself. First off, that's probably against the law, or Governor Murkowski would have done it to himself a few years ago rather than appoint his daughter Lisa to the seat. Since then she has won reelection on her own merits.
More importantly, though, if you look into Ms. Palin's history a bit you'll find that her whole campaign for Governor was pretty much based on running against the extremely corrupt Republican machine in Alaska.
Appointing herself to the seat would cause
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Interesting)
First off, that's probably against the law, or Governor Murkowski would have done it to himself a few years ago rather than appoint his daughter Lisa to the seat.
Why would he appoint himself to fill the seat he just vacated to become Governor?
His appointing of his daughter was why we changed the laws here.
Regarding Stevens, it's good to finally be rid of the embarrassment... too bad we're replacing him with someone who is equally corrupt - only instead of belonging to big oil, Begich belongs to organized crime.
But then, corruption is a requirement to be in politics in the United States, so I guess Begich arrives well qualified.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Regarding Stevens, it's good to finally be rid of the embarrassment... too bad we're replacing him with someone who is equally corrupt - only instead of belonging to big oil, Begich belongs to organized crime.
Care to back that up with facts?
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Interesting)
They're at least somewhat orthogonal I thought? I'm not American so sometimes I can have really skewed views of how things work down there, but I don't see either as junior to the other. They have a very different set of responsibilities and privileges.
Regarding why she'd want to run... from up here I'd heard some rumblings about how Palin might have some executive experience, but a stunning lack of information about the rest of the country. Said persons then went on to suggest that some senate experience would be good for her if she wants to be involved in the 2012 race, get her some additional exposure out-of-state and some experience in Washington(being a maverick outsider renegade is all well and good, but some knowledge of how things work in Washington isn't entirely bad).
I'm not sure how many millions of Americans this would carry weight with, but these two seemed to think it'd be a splendid idea.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
"Aren't Governers > Senators?"
Strict constitutionalists would tell you so, or at least they tell me so. The nature, qty, and method of procuring the federal funding that flies around these days has made the D.C. delegations much more powerful than their state level counterparts.
Anyhow, I usually hear the Civil War cited as the tipping point between state/federal power with feds going unchallenged for supremacy since I have been alive to witness.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
Our nation is in debt. If you have moral character, you agree that you must service your debt until you can pay it off. This requires that revenues come from somewhere. I'll take an honest politician who tells me that I have to pay my share of the debt, to one who says, "Don't worry! There are no consequences to being deeply in debt, and nobody will have to sacrifice to pay off this debt." Yes, a big-taxing, big-spending Democrat is morally and effectively superior to a small-taxing, big-spending, big-debt Republican.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Afuckingmen.
I've started calling them 'borrow and spend' Republicans.
Look, I'm a progressive guy, and things like some sort of national health care make sense to me. But I can see how reasonable people would disagree.
It's my job to get people in that would demonstrate that those people are incorrect, and it's other people's job to stop me, and we can behave rationally as we disagree.
Meanwhile, I think our 'larger than the entire rest of the world combined' military budget is perhaps slighty to large unless there's some alien menace we don't know about, and I'll disagree there.
But there is a place the Republican have not been behaving rationally: Taxes.
Incoming must match outgo, period. This isn't debatable, this isn't some reasonable disagreement, we must take in as much as we spend, on average. (Year to year we can fiddle with that, overtaxing in a boom and undertaxing in the recession, but whatever.)
And yet Republicans constantly pretend the amount of tax is government policy that they disagree on. That we're having some sort of fucking rational debate whether or not we should tax people enough to run the damn government!
They do this because they, if you can't see my signature, want to 'drown the government in the bath tub'. They are attempting to cripple the government so badly that it can't actually run social services.
You know what 'crippling the government' is, in my book? Treason
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm right there with you, politically. But a slight fact-check might be in order. Last I looked, the US defense budget is about 45% of the entire world. So we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined, and about as much as the next 14 or so countries, combined. And that list of 14 countries includes all of the biggies: Russia, China, Germany, England, etc. Maybe with Iraq and Afghanistan supplementals included, we have crossed the 50% mark, but I haven't seen any numbers to say so.
Barry Goldwater (perhaps the father of American Conservatism) gave a speech toward the end of his life. One of the things that he said is, "We have to turn The Pentagon into a triangle." Where have those kind of Conservatives gone? I like Ike: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, the local vote doesn't rest so much on the personal qualities of a candidate so much on his ability to bring pork to his district. Having been convicted on things like having a piece of furniture in his home won't impress votes who depend on the pork for their jobs that much. And from what little I drained from the tubes on the topic, Mr. Stevens was an expert at getting quality output from them pork tubes.
Besides, he doesn't stand alone, and it dozen't only happen in the US. In Japan a few years back an MP got convicted, did jail time, got out and got promptly re-elected, despite the national media turning him into a sort of laughingstock. Similarities: he was from the northern, relatively unpopulated and cold part of Japan, and he was a "pork expert".
So, it is either the pork, or the ice. You decide.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two words: Marion Barry.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Informative)
Wait, never mind, Stevens has been kicking around longer than Alaska has been a state, precisely for that skill...
Actually, Stevens became a Senator in 1968, whereas Alaska became a state in 1958. He's been a prick for much longer than Alaska's been a state, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is a case of more power with less votes rather than ideology.
In underpopulated states, the amount of people that share the spoils is smaller, so each individual gains more.
Therefore, they have more incentive to stand behind the incumbent senator (especially if the guy is a crook), and also why the incumbent senator has more incentive to be creative about pork.
In populous states, this kinda works in reverse. If the pork is spread over the total population it won't make much difference. And if spre
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm NOT amazed. Congress collectively has an approval rating below ten percent leading up to the election and yet over 96 percent get re-elected. The American electorate definitely get what they deserve because they keep sending the same idiots back time and time again.
The real shame is that it takes a felony conviction to create enough momentum to throw the guy out. How that William Jefferson in Louisiana is still in office is beyond comprehension.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm NOT amazed. Congress collectively has an approval rating below ten percent leading up to the election and yet over 96 percent get re-elected. The American electorate definitely get what they deserve because they keep sending the same idiots back time and time again.
It's called gerrymandering and the congress, they doing it right.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Informative)
Gerrymandering is impossible in Senate elections as long as state borders remain fixed.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily - if you can't move the borders, sometimes you can move the people cf 'Dame' Shirley Porter's gerrymandering in Westminster [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, but it could also mean that the alternative choice is even worse than the berated incumbent.
Maryland (my state) is just about all Democratic. The Republicans often run some turkey just to have a race. The results are usually embarrassing to the Republicans, but at least they tried.
As a registered Republican I've been frustrated year after year having to vote for the Democrat (usually the incumbent) because the Republican was clearly unqualified.
Re: (Score:2)
That's mostly because people's approval (or lack thereof) of Congress is mainly based on their opinions of the people they didn't vote for. It's why I cringe every time I hear a complaint about people in Congress criticizing Bush when their approval rating is even lower. Apples and oranges, people!
(That's not to say that Congress is all sunshine and ponies, either, just that that particular argument is thoroughly flawed.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. Contrary to the breathless summary:
what would have been "stunning" would have been if Stevens survived. In fact the pre-election polls suggested he was a goner, and the fact that he nearly won was very surprising.
What this really means is that (a) the Repugs won't have to vote to sack one of their own from the senate and (
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I don't know about "stunning"... Is there anything left that our elected leaders can do that would really "stun" the American public?
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there anything left that our elected leaders can do that would really "stun" the American public?
If one of them were to turn out to be decent and upstanding, that would utterly shock us.
Re:I'm amazed (Score:5, Insightful)
He's the loser, everyone else is a winner! (Score:2)
It's not a truck (Score:2)
One last time, because it's got a good techno beat. DJ Ted Stevens, "A Series of Tubes" [youtube.com]
No Senator Palin then (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
She's going to run against a Republican incumbent? That should be entertaining.
That's how she got her current job. Coincidentally, in the gubernatorial race she ran against Frank Murkowski, the father of Lisa Murkowski, who she'd be running against for the Senate seat. The charge of the nepotism of Murkowski picking Murkowski for the Senate was one of the things Palin ran on in her gubernatorial race.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs a senate seat when you've got legs??
http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2008/11/16-22/palin-poolside.jpg [babble.com]
Oh noes! (Score:3, Funny)
Stevens goes bye bye and the tubes are already breaking down! Slashdot stories disappearing, seas boiling, dogs and cats living together!!!!
This is the end!
He'll be missed (Score:4, Insightful)
As a vicious, corrupt scam artist (and convicted felon) whose major contribution to American politics was to funnel millions of taxpayers dollars into one "Bridge to Nowhere" after another, Ted Stevens is the perfect representative of one of the most influential segments of the internet community: spammers.
An Alaskan's perspective (Score:5, Informative)
This is just really sad. Ted Stevens played a greater role in the development of Alaska as a state than any other person. Most people outside Alaska are unaware that he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
This is not to defend him. I disagreed with a lot of what he did. (Well, to be more accurate, I disagree with him and all the Robert Byrds, etc who stuffed their states full of pork at the expense of the nation. But at least Stevens had the excuse that Alaska really got a hugely raw deal in its statehood compact, and the lack of fulfillment thereof by the federal government.)
Stevens eventually became exhibit A in the argument for term limits. Well OK, Exhibit C after Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.) When you are in office that long, you just naturally begin to believe that that office is YOURS, it belongs to YOU. And it's not fair that after your decades of able public service, your buddies on K Street are all filthy rich while you make a tenth of what they do. After all the billions you've brought to your state, who could possibly begrudge you $10,000 here or there? Heck, you DESERVE it!
I just want to point out that at one time, there was more to Stevens' career than this, including distinguished service in the Army Air Corps in WWII.
- Alaska Jack
Re:An Alaskan's perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
""After all the billions you've brought to your state, who could possibly begrudge you $10,000 here or there? Heck, you DESERVE it!""
Corruption is like pregnancy ... nobody is just a little pregnant. Whats his name Duke Cunningham (who used to be a Top Gun pilot) also found guilty corruption etc.
A lot of "good" can be washed (down the tubes) by a little bad.
he did it on my dime (Score:5, Insightful)
Alaskans get $1.85 back for every $1.00 they pay to the Federal Gov't.
So Ted Stevens played a huge role in developing Alaska on my dime. I don't need to laud him for that.
What was wrong with the Alaskan statehood compact? From what I can tell, the Federal government purchased Alaska from Russian. Then turns some of the land over to the state of Alaska? And Alaska gets to charge severance tax on oil taken up there?
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I hear that a lot. And when I do, I always respond: "Hey -- make you a deal. For you, no more pork for Alaska. For us, we get back the unprecedented 60% of Alaska owned by the federal government, to develop as we see fit."
Any Alaskan would take that deal in a New York Second. We have far more natural resources than, say, Norway, which seems to get along just fine.
- Alaska Jack
Re:he did it on my dime (Score:5, Informative)
Nevada's got you beat six ways till Sunday. Utah and Oregon are not too far behind, and Idaho and Arizona are roughly 50 percent federally controlled on the basis of land area: Map plus top/bottom ten lists [wordpress.com].
What's more to the point is the fact the federal ownership does not necessarily exclude economic exploitation. A significant portion of federal lands in AK are wide open to oil and gas production, coal and hardrock mining (the latter in the form of legalized looting thanks the the 1872 Mining Act), timber (hello Tongass NF) and dozens of other industries.
You've got a plethora of natural resources and lots of grubby opportunists who'd love an anarchic free-for-all to get while the gettin's good and say the fuck with the long-term consequences. Not too different from the placer miners in 1850s California, the sodbusters in the 1880s/1920s Great Plains, the real estate scammers and S&L kingpins of the 1980s, and myriad other shining examples of unfettered American enterprise. Thanks, but I'd rather see a steady hand on the controls even if some of y'all think it's a dead one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Alaskans get $1.85 back for every $1.00 they pay to the Federal Gov't.
Yeah, so? That's why their called 'taxes', not 'fees for service', it's a redistribution of wealth, metered out by politicians for favors.
Re:An Alaskan's perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rare to have such nuanced views on Slashdot. As much as I wanted Stevens out of the Senate, your perspective on him is quite believable. The world isn't black and white or good vs. evil. People are often shades in between. It doesn't help our understanding of the world to type cast someone or see only one perspective/side of a person, a nation, or an issue.
It is indeed sad to see someone with such a long service to fall to such lows.
Re: (Score:2)
This is just really sad. Ted Stevens played a greater role in the development of Alaska as a state than any other person. Most people outside Alaska are unaware that he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment
I don't get it. Your argument is that it's sad because he did good things too? Doing the right thing doesn't excuse you from having to comply with the law. He doesn't get to eat babies and torture kittens just because he did things that made him wildly popular with his
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
I thought about it.
All I was really left with is that Alaskans must be really hard up for role-models.
pay 'em (Score:2)
I can definitely understand why a public servant would think that...that's why I advocate paying all of them alot more.
How about somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million a year for president? Can you name one single more important job in America (or hell the world)? CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars...we need to adequately compensate the President
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Most people outside Alaska are unaware that he was literally named Alaskan of the Century. Think about that for a moment.
Yeah, there must have been, what, 3 other contenders?
hey ted (Score:2)
a toilet sits atop a series of tubes, with which the electorate flushes you to hell
adios, douchebag
Happy Birthday, Ted! (Score:2)
Stock tip (Score:2)
Lack of comprehension strikes again! (Score:3, Insightful)
While this is certainly true, his failure of reelection has nothing whatsoever to do with any committee chairmanship, since the Democrats control the committee chairmanships in both House and Senate, and they weren't going to pick a Republican no matter what the result of the Alaska Senatorial race.
Well, a certain village in Alaska still has its... (Score:2, Funny)
...governor. Now it will have it for a while longer.
The only shame is that this will be an end to the "series of tubes" jokes.
Poor Sarah (Score:3, Informative)
She'll just have to comfort herself with her book deal [today.com].
"Look at the elegance of the hand-tooled leather binding," said the Conservative Book Club, "the archival quality acid-free paper! Every copy will also come with a set of 100% all-American-made red, white and blue crayons to color it in."
Despite Palin's failure to secure the groups that McCain strategists hoped she might deliver - women, independent voters, suburbanites, those with ten fingers - her supporters insisted that she should not be blamed for McCain's shortcomings or Bush's failures. "It were all the fault o' them Muslin terr'ists," said political commentator Joe the Plumber.
Current projections show Palin taking 95% of 25% of the electorate. "I was against the bank bailout from the first," said Palin. "Lookit the rekerd. It was this governor, not that one! You betcha!"
*shudder*
Re:To Be, or not To Be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To Be, or not To Be... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean it's actually possible to be more of a socialist for Alaska than Ted Stevens?!
You do know that to be an actual socialist (as opposed to a cable-news caricature of one), you have to do more than just spend bucketloads of money on any random thing, right?
Re:To Be, or not To Be... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reminds me of my dear departed bolshie Uncle Ivan. Ivan wasn't really a communist, although he was a socialist by inclination. The reason could never be a communist was that more than anything else, he was a cynic.
"Kid," Ivan used to say, "nobody believes in socialism. Nobody believes in capitalism either. It's socialism for me, capitalism for you."
Wherever he is, he's been reading the newspapers the last couple of months and laughing his ass off.
Re:To Be, or not To Be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rights wise, you trust Republicans more than Democrats?
You mean the republicans who fought against civil rights for blacks, gays, and immigrants, and are always looking for ways to suppress the vote? Or the the republicans behind the Terry Schiavo debacle? Or the republicans who decided pornography and medical marijuana were among the top priorities at the DOJ? Those republicans? Or the republicans who were basically 100% for the PATRIOT act, gutting FISA, and legalized torture?
Those are the people you think are looking out for your civil rights? I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect on civil rights, but dedication to civil rights seems to be much more of a liberal issue (witness right-wing attacks on the ACLU).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect on civil rights, but dedication to civil rights seems to be much more of a liberal issue (witness right-wing attacks on the ACLU).
I disagree... civil rights isn't an issue for either side. They'll pay it lip service when politically expedient, but neither side gives a damn about our individual rights.
Are you sure about that? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals [wikipedia.org]
See also 1968 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Are you sure about that? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh christ not this shit again.
Who signed the CRA into law? A Democrat.
Where did most of the Democrats go in 1964 AFTER the vote on the CRA? The Republican side.
What wing of what party ended segregation as per Newt Gingrich? Liberal Democrats.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On signing the CRA, Johnson is said to have remarked, "There goes the south for a generation." As the parent said, most of the dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond defected to the Republican side after this. The notable exception was Byrd, who repented his racism, but the majority of his electorate apparently did not. Up until 2008, if you looked at t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to have forgotten a very important part of the article you are quoting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You stopped quoting when if gets interesting.
By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who's The Fool (Score:5, Informative)
And now we will be paying him to sit around and do nothing for the rest of his life.
Thanks to his convictions, he will not have a pension, and may spend time in prison.
Re:Who's The Fool (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet Jesus, I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
Hey taxpayers! I'm a convicted criminal and you're paying my pension, bitches!
Just shoot me now.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, he's 84. "Rest of his life" isn't going to be all that long in any case.
Re:Who's The Fool (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks to his convictions, he will not have a pension, and may spend time in prison.
Unless still-president Bush pardons him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who's The Fool (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Carter was also the worst of all of them. People bitch and moan right now about the economy, but I don't hear anything called the "misery index" on the nightly news like during Carter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Who's The Fool (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's getting facts wrong and there's being horrifyingly ignorant about basic concepts. The woman could not articulate an opinion on the Bush Doctrine. It's been the cornerstone of US foreign policy for last 6 years (right or wrong) and she couldn't talk about it. Worse, it's a really conceptually simple idea (get them before they get us, essentially), articulated by the current president, who happens to be a member of her own party. That's like not being able to tie her own political shoes. To claim that being able to see Russia gives her foreign policy experience when she can't speak intelligently about the most basic concept of the currently foreign policy is not a mistake, it's like claiming a PhD (or at least a bachelors degree) in physics but being unclear on what gravity is. Biden may have gotten a few equations wrong, Palin didn't comprehend the foundational theory.
To be fair she got better as the campaign went on; but it still felt like she was mastering the presented material, not actually understanding the theoretical underpinnings that made it all work. I'm not saying she's stupid, I don't have enough information to base such a statement on; but she was clearly very unprepared for the role. The types of mistakes she made were just much more fundamental than the mistakes Biden made.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno how you can really blame the Democrats for this one, given how Republican-dominated Alaska is - the Democrats simply don't have the power to pull something underhanded. Both parties push this kind of legal crap when they feel it's in their favor. This election was Stevens' to lose, and he did so in spectacular fashion by being convicted on corruption charges (and then, somehow, claiming that he'd never been convicted. WTF?).
Re:Funny how recounts work (Score:4, Interesting)
a) Fraudulent ballots are being added for the Democratic candidate in the midst of the recount.
b) For whatever reason, more valid democratic ballots went uncounted during the first counting.
Since recounts are heavily observed by both sides, I find option a to be unlikely. To be perfectly accurate however, the Alaska race was never recounted - they just finished counting all the ballots (absentee and so on take longer) for the first time. Despite this, given the closeness of race, I find it hard to believe that election monitors for either side would have been so incompetent as to allow the level of fraud that you suggest.
Re:Funny how recounts work (Score:5, Informative)
This is neither surprising nor unusual.
For a number of reasons provisional and absentee ballots have historically tended to favor democrats. These include the tendency for the poor & the elderly to vote democratic, as well as democratic voter outreach programs that focus on absentee ballots to lock in the vote early.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that all of the results so far in those races have been from the first count. Nice try, though!
Re:Funny how recounts work (Score:4, Informative)
The only of those races in which a recount was completed is the WA governor's race. The progressive tightening of this race and the Franken/Coleman race in which a recount was triggered (but has not been done yet) was the completion of the first count. Election night returns -- even that include 100% of precincts -- do not usually include 100% of the vote from each of those precincts. Various ballots (provisional ballots, absentee ballots that arrive on the day of the election, possibly early/absentee ballots in general depending on local procedures) require additional verification that prevents them from being counted until after the in-person ballots cast on election day. For a number of reasons, its not uncommon for these ballots to be more favorable to Democrats in general, and those trends may have been reinforced in this election where there were lots of new Democratic voters and a big effort by the Obama campaign to get people to vote early, so the initial election night count (which isn't a full count of all ballots cast in the election) of many races was less favorable to Democrats than the full count.
Re:If Stevens had won (Score:4, Informative)
Alaska doesn't replace Senators by governor appointment. They would have had a special election. Palin likely would have won.
Re:If Stevens had won (Score:5, Funny)
They would have had a special election.
Am I the only one who read the "special" in "special election" with the same connotation as "special olympics"? :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In your made up fantasy land maybe, but in Alaska that isn't how it is done.
Re: (Score:2)