Skip to main content

View Diary: MN Sen: Cataloging the known universe. (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Many ballots were not detailed. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright

    I have recorded 875 ballots that have been introduced as evidence by both parties, Coleman usually gets the reason for rejection, introduces the ballot as evidence, and moves on to the next one. Franken's team doesn't introduce a ballot unless they have something to make the ballot countable.

    There are a couple areas that I believe would skew one way or the other, but I don't want to give Coleman's team any ideas so I won't mention them.

    Coleman hasn't been helped by AB's at any stage. Since they are the only source of votes he can use to make up the difference he has to use them. Coleman's only hope is one or two of the areas which will be allowed will skew in his direction due to his cherry picking or a causative relationship.

    Franken's success rate for his 771 has been almost perfect. Franken's team was unsuccessful in only one attempt to validate their ballots. Coleman's team did show 11 of Franken's 30 Anoka ballots were invalid in a preemptive strike.

    I thought I was clear on the charts. Specifically what are you missing?

    •  Charts (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      Did not want to seem like an idiot but since someone else asked a question - why not?

      1. On the first chart, below the Venn diagram, do  the numbers 1-10 correspond to the 10 categories listed above as dismissed by court?  For example, is #8 the category of ballot dropped off too late.

      Does "Reviewed" mean the number already brought in to court and "Listed" as potential total in category?
      Are the last 3 columns on right the total universe for Franken, Colemn and Total AB in that order?
      Where are rows 6,7, and 8?

      1.  Is second chart for categories NOT yet covered by court order?

      Does "Good" mean that is how many you think will be valid and could be counted?  Does that mean you really think Coleman could get no more than 76 +8 in "Signature Mismatch" category?  (I hope, I hope, answer is yes.)
      Are the first 4 columns the number of ballots already entered?  What do the last 6 columns represent? The 875, 5097 and 11,000 stand for what? I assume the 11,000 is total universe but the other two?

      Sorry to be so dim - if you have a chart explanation just point me to it.  Sometimes I find that I am not the only one that failed to understand the obvious....

    •  I didn't realize that 875 ballots (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tomtech, Clem Yeobright

      have already been reviewed. My estimate, as I wrote, was much, much lower than that. If I take your 875, and the 314 (C) + 32 (F) = 346 of those were rejected for the reasons in the Friday's ruling, then I get 429 remaining.   I do not see that number, so I mentioned that I must be missing something in your table(s). I am sorry for being obtuse.

      Then, in Table 2, you have 426 (C) remaining and 47 (F) remaining of the reviewed 875(?). That's 473. Your Table 2 states that it deals with the 479 remaining.  So, again, my arithmetic must be wrong.

      If I read the rest of the Table 2 correctly, you extrapolate the "good" (surviving) Coleman ballots from the reviewed 875 - Franken's 32 (?) to the universe of 5097, and then to all 11,000 in the last doublets of columns. Is that the combined good ballots out there for Coleman + Franken? Is that correct?

      If so, then I have a problems with that assumption: Franken's batting average ought not to apply to "Franken equivalent unclaimed share" of the RABs. Coleman rate applies to the Coleman 4797 (or whatever that number is after his share of 933 is subtracted).  Franken's rate applies only to the <800 Franken has id'ed. If Elias has no reason to believe there are valid ballots outside of that number, then even if the Panel ends up expanding the count to all 11,000 RAB's, those 11,000-4,797-771 ballots will not yield valid ballots, imho.  </p>

      Secondly, I believe Coleman's 4797 number was based on his most optimistic estimate of how many Coleman votes there might be in the 12,000 RAB's total. IMHO, Coleman simply applied his 40% across the total RAB # to come up with his desired (at one early point) universe.  That is what the Panel ultimately allowed him.

      The trick for Coleman then became HOW does he id those 4800 votes and then, and less importantly to him, how does he VALIDATE them? They've gone to the red-most MN counties and pockets based on the recount numbers.  That's why Washington and Anoka went first in their review order. They sifted through the donor lists, party rosters, past voting, their version of GOTV operations stats and did the best they could to pin down those 4800 after the fact.  We will not/might not ever know how good their guesstimate was, but imho it is not fair for that reason to extrapolate those 4800 cherries on the Coleman CRAB universe list to the rest.  

      [My guess, their list managed to rake about 80% of the CRABs. The rest of their 4800 (or the 960=20%) are prob. fairly equally split between Franken and Barkley.]  

      Sorry for the overly long posts. I cannot seem to grasp something very basic in your reasoning assumptions, and wanted to lay out my reading of what you wrote vs my thoughts in as much detail as I could. I really want to get to the bottom of this and presently am feeling hopelessly stupid. :(

      ~ Latte

      •  Quibble (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tomtech, Clem Yeobright, nathguy

        If Coleman's campaign was able to find 80 percent of 4,800 votes that should lean toward him, how come his witnesses came off so badly in court?  Surely with a pool of nearly nearly 4,000 to choose from, he could have found some voters better than the one who admitted his girlfried signed for him (and committed voter fraud) and the lady who said she probably also voted in person?
        Maybe he has been sandbagging?  Or maybe they really are incompetent.

        •  80% is my guesstimate for the Coleman ceiling (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          of the 4800.  

          As far as your question of why hasn't Coleman campaign looked better in the court, a couple of thoughts:

          1. just because Coleman Campaign thinks they narrowed/tracked down 3800 votes for Coleman among the RAB's, that doesn't make those RAB's VALID and LEGAL.
          1. selecting a witness to put on the stand Coleman Campaign probably relied on several other factors ahead of the potential validity of their RAB. Those obviously include the a) sympathy angle (blind, incapacitated man) for the camera, b)loyalty/probability of a Coleman vote, c)painting as wide and diverse disenfranchisement story, d)painting an unequal protection story and some others I cannot even guess at. I am not, after all Tony Trimble, Knaak or Friedberg.    

          If I read TomTech's numbers correctly (a huge if), Coleman has id'ed 52 good ballots from his pool. And yet, not one (or was there one?) of those folks made it to the stand. Why?  

      •  I had a great reply! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        It was wiped by an accidental refresh.

        The numbers don't add because some voters are on both lists.

        I changed the 479 since It was a preliminary estimate which wasn't updated.

        Extrapolation would be effected by Coleman's bad selections and Franken's presentation of the best he has.

        The 4797 were identified and a lot of Franken's lawyer's objections come because he strays from the lists.

        The error rate from Coleman is probably good for extrapolation unless a common demographic leads to party identity and a certain type of error (I have a couple examples but won't list them to keep from tipping off  the wrong people).

        Coleman cherry picked the areas he wants votes from and added known votes but he didn't cherry pick the types of errors.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site