It's amazing that the vote was this close in a state that is as entrenched with labor as Wisconsin is.

If the Democrat ends up winning, it will also be interesting to see if the case goes before the court before the newcomer takes her seat, or the "old" court hears the case.

believer;735234 wrote:
Third, it always amazes me that when a Dem is in a tight race, recounts are almost automatic.

So if a Dem is in a tight race doesn't it also mean that a Pub is in a tight race too? I'm just sayin!

Well, it appears that a lot of votes have just been "found" that will give the incumbent a recount-proof lead. How convenient!

BTW, believer, check out the source on my link. Will that satisfy you?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/07/incumbent-appears-retake-lead-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/

Of course, the fair and balanced folks at Fox conveniently left out the part about the clerk who "discovered" the error and her past hijinks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42483089/ns/us_news/

Did that person work in Florida in 2000?

stlouiedipalma;735946 wrote:Well, it appears that a lot of votes have just been "found" that will give the incumbent a recount-proof lead. How convenient!

BTW, believer, check out the source on my link. Will that satisfy you?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/07/incumbent-appears-retake-lead-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/

Of course, the fair and balanced folks at Fox conveniently left out the part about the clerk who "discovered" the error and her past hijinks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42483089/ns/us_news/

Saw this earlier -- and haven't stopped smiling.

stlouiedipalma;735946 wrote:Well, it appears that a lot of votes have just been "found" that will give the incumbent a recount-proof lead. How convenient!

BTW, believer, check out the source on my link. Will that satisfy you?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/07/incumbent-appears-retake-lead-wisconsin-supreme-court-race/

Of course, the fair and balanced folks at Fox conveniently left out the part about the clerk who "discovered" the error and her past hijinks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42483089/ns/us_news/

The error appears to have been legitimate. The Democrats monitoring the process signed off on the final votes--questions had previously been raised about the very low vote total from the county, so this is not a big surprise. Apparently, the total vote normally shifts by as much as 1% during the canvassing (i.e. verification) process. In most years, that doesn't make any difference, but here, because the vote was so close, it's huge.

I Wear Pants;735961 wrote:Did that person work in Florida in 2000?

Or Washington State in 2004?

Or Minnesota in 2008?

Kloppenberg will request a recount anyway. And if that doesn't work, she'll request another. And if that doesn't work, she'll request another. And if that doesn't work......

I Wear Pants;735961 wrote:Did that person work in Florida in 2000?

Ironic...since that was probably the most scrutinized election in history and was recounted many times over by various groups, including major media like the NY Times, and Bush won every single time.

Writerbuckeye;736254 wrote:Ironic...since that was probably the most scrutinized election in history and was recounted many times over by various groups, including major media like the NY Times, and Bush won every single time.

Big Al has done many memorable things...few will top losing the same election 4 times.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_46644a68-6704-11e0-907e-001cc4c03286.html

Writerbuckeye;736254 wrote:Ironic...since that was probably the most scrutinized election in history and was recounted many times over by various groups, including major media like the NY Times, and Bush won every single time.

Writer, generally if I use an emoticon I'm joking.

Gotcha. They really need sarcasm and joking fonts for message boards. (<-real smile, not joking)

Writerbuckeye;741967 wrote:Gotcha. They really need sarcasm and joking fonts for message boards. (<-real smile, not joking)

Actually, they have a sarcasm symbol. I started a thread on it last year.

It looks like a dot with the same swirl around it that you see in an "at" symbol (@).

However, in typing, I believe the sarcasm symbol is represented by an exclamation point in parentheses.

Way to do your homework(!)

O-Trap;741973 wrote:Actually, they have a sarcasm symbol. I started a thread on it last year.

It looks like a dot with the same swirl around it that you see in an "at" symbol (@).

However, in typing, I believe the sarcasm symbol is represented by an exclamation point in parentheses.

Way to do your homework(!)

My last homework was probably 35 years ago and I'd prefer to keep it that way (!)

Writerbuckeye;742111 wrote:My last homework was probably 35 years ago and I'd prefer to keep it that way (!)

By you using the sarcasm punctuation, am I to assume that you're being sarcastic about preferring to keep it that way?

Yeah. I love learning new stuff.