Why Don't We Hear Much On The Minnesota Recount?

[Dinger]

Poll question: Why Don't We Hear Much On The Minnesota Recount?

[geardaddy]

1. We're hearing about it as the trial goes along. n/t

[Dinger]

3. BFD. I Want To Hear About It On The Networks, CNN, MSNBC, Even faux!

I want it all!

[geardaddy]

Me too.

I want to see Normie's idiot lawyers' mistakes broadcast nationwide.

[Dinger]

7. Exactly

:) :thumbsup:

[annabanana]

2. There is just so little NEWS involved...

Once every couple of weeks there's a nugget of news. We read it and re-set our clocks "Maybe we'll know in another couple of weeks."

It's just Coleman dragging his feet.

[Dinger]

4. smarmy little beyotch! (nt)

[kickysnana]

8. Hope the above was sarcasm. Its very much like watching paint dry. n/t

[Aloha Spirit]

5. It would force coverage of Norm's scandals... which would seemingly make coverage seem unfair or

or seemingly influence the proceedings.

just a guess! :hi:

[Dinger]

6. Makes Sense To Me

Good guess IMO:hi:

[FrenchieCat]

9. Cause the media doesn't find it to be in our best interest?

[Occam Bandage]

10. Because there's not much happening.

"In the Minnesota recount, nothing has happened today. Lawyers for the Coleman campaign claim this is a major victory for their candidate. A Franken spokesman says that Franken remains cautiously optimistic over this development."

[jzodda]

11. Recount fatigue

I think people are tired of hearing about it and the daily news is just swamping it in overall importance. If the Senate was 50-49, you would be hearing about it all the time though. Since it doesn't mean 60 and just moves from 58 to 59 it becomes less important as a news story.

[ikojo]

12. Perhaps because the votes are being

rigged and the ones doing the rigging want to do a Friday news drop when they come out with the winner's name.

[endarkenment]

13. because THE RECOUNT is over

[MADem]

14. There's not much new to report. NT

[camera obscura]

15. Read TPMDC on Talking Points Memo. They are doing daily updates on the trial.

[snowbear]

16. There's a brand new article out.. Looks like 4,800 ballots may be reviewed..

.
.

Senate recount trial judges: 4,800 ballots may get a look

By PAT DOYLE and KEVIN DUCHSCHERE, Star Tribune staff writers

Last update: February 3, 2009 - 10:05 PM - 22 minutes ago

In a ruling that keeps alive Republican Norm Coleman's chances of overturning Minnesota's U.S. Senate recount, a three-judge panel on Tuesday allowed him to bring evidence to trial that as many as 4,800 absentee ballots were wrongly rejected and should now be counted.

The decision expands the evidence that can be considered in the recount trial, giving Coleman the opportunity to put more ballots into play in his effort to erase a 225-vote lead for DFLer Al Franken. The Franken campaign had tried to limit Coleman to bringing evidence on only 650 absentee ballots that he cited specifically when he filed his lawsuit challenging the recount results.

In the ruling, the judges said they will focus on rejected absentee ballots cast by voters who complied with the requirements of Minnesota election law or failed to comply because of mistakes by local elections officials.

"We're very, very pleased with the ruling," said Coleman legal spokesman Ben Ginsberg, who predicted that "the vast majority" of the 4,797 ballots would be accepted and counted.

Franken chief recount lawyer Marc Elias said the ruling was "neither a loss nor a win" for his candidate.

Continued: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/38890229.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUjc8LDyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

-

[Blue_Tires]

17. ugh...how much longer is it going to take?

Franken will be running for re-election before he even gets to cast a senate vote...