Even if Brown wins, he doesn't have to be seated right away

[Hugabear]

IF this tea-bagger winds up winning tonight, there's absolutely nothing that says he has to be seated right away. The results will have to be certified. And I imagine that if it's a relatively close election, that there could be ample grounds to request a recount.

So the course is simple. Keep working on the health care plan, get it passed before he can be seated (assuming that he would survive the recount process).

[jacksondem]

1. Hmm

Let's assume for a second that there is populist anger which allows a Republican to come close or win in MA. How does playing games with an election result not feed the beast and cause even worse results in Nov. Boxer in CA, Gillibrand in NY need to worry and creating a perception that we are gaming the system is not helpful

[FBaggins]

6. Only four posts...

But I think you're right on this one.

[Hugabear]

8. It's not about "playing games" - it's about making damned sure that every vote is legitimate

I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of some tea-bagger's election going completely unchallenged, especially when there are already reports of improprieties. If the election is close, then there should definitely be a recount - it's only fair.

I'm just saying that we don't have to wait around for the results to be certified, which as we've seen recently, can take awhile.

[FBaggins]

13. Oh bull.

We don't even know how close the race will be. If he wins by five points, there's no excuse to hold things off while you TABULATE votes that cannot make a difference. It's not "unchallenged" if the race is beyond any legitimate challenge threshold.

If ther IS some doubt on who won, of course they will have to wait... But artificial foot-dragging would be harmful to the party.

[quinnox]

2. recount this thing for months!

If Coleman can extend out the Minnesota election for months with the Republican party cheering him on Coakley can do the same thing!

[Igel]

12. And you?

Were you condemning the tactic as scummy, underhanded and unethical? Or were you at ease with his shenanigans?

So you like scummy, underhanded and unethical?

Now, either way there's a problem. Either you like scummy, underhanded, and unethical -- or you profess one set of values while believing yourself not subject to them, but free to do the opposite. (We have a word for that, and it's also a species of scumminess.)

[WilliamPitt]

3. The winner must be seated within 15 days

by MA law, once a victory has been certified.

[Hugabear]

5. Exactly - once it's been certified

But it can't be certified until they've made sure that every vote has been counted, and if it's within a certain margin of error, then there should automatically be a recount.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. sounds easy

but if Brown wins then the blue dogs are going to piss themselves

[Kat45]

7. That's already being debated here in MA. nt

[Bitwit1234]

9. YOU are correct look what happened here in Minnesota

granted -- the vote was close. BUT FRANKEN WON. The republicans wouldn't let him be seated by donating to Coleman so he could file one lawsuit after another. Keeping the seat vacant for six months. It would serve them right if the Democrats did the same thing with Brown...but I really from the bottom of my heart, can not see the state of MA giving that guy this seat. Especially after Kennedy gave his whole life to the seat and supported the people of that state. You know damn well if Brown wins, he is going to go all out for the republicans and big business and the hell with the citizens of MA> But if they put him in, the deserve to be dumped down the toilet.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

10. oh screw it...

sP

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. You can bet the reich wingers already have a Brooks Brothers riots II contingency plan ready.

Wouldn't be surprised if the buses are already chartered and sitting outside some lobbyist shithole on K Street right now, just waiting for Repuke congressional staffers to get on board.

[Igel]

14. Yes, they do.

And that is to claim that once the elections have been held there will be a qualified replacement for the temp in DC -- and that by MA law once there's a qualified replacement the temp guy's out on his ear.

Yes, there's a problem in that they may not know who's won. But they don't much care that the qualified replacement is unknown. At that point there are two possible winners, both qualified.

They argue that the law doesn't say 'certified', replete with copious quotations from the law (and while I haven't seen a counterargument, I assume there is one and, in any event, I find their argument more annoying than I care to give vent to).

On the other hand, there's no stipulation that the Senate has to comply with MA law. The US Senate, in many respects, is a law unto itself.

I imagine that counterargument or not, no judge, repub or dem, or even Free Soil, would do anything (in between burst of laughter) but toss their briefs into the shredder. (Possibly with the lawyers still in their briefs.)