Looking very good

Burns probably isn’t close enough to have a recount in Montana.
Virginia is mostly on no-paper-trail electronic machines, so there’s nothing to be recounted once the arithmetic has been checked.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s elections-law expert, says it’s pretty much over.

In Virginia, where Allen is entitled to a recount, there’s really nothing to recount, because the state uses mostly no-paper-trail electronic machines; the canvass that’s now going on, which just checks the arithmetic, is about all there is to do. The last recount in a Virginia statewide race moved dozens of votes, not thousands, and right now Webb is up about 7000. Toobin said he’d never heard of a recount anywhere that moved anything like that many votes.

In Montana, the loser isn’t even entitled to a recount unless he’s within half a percentage point, which would be just about 2000 votes; right now, Tester is up by 3000.

Tradesports has Republicans holding the Senate at 5.5% bid, 6% asked.

This matters a ton; Democrats in the House can be much more ruthless with their Republican counterparts, and with the K Street mob, if there’s no fear of retaliation from the Senate side.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

14 thoughts on “Looking very good”

  1. Jane:
    Not shaking them down. Taking away the goodies they bribed the Republicas to give them.
    Mark

  2. "Huh? I didn't vote Democratic because I thought they needed a fair shot at shaking down lobbyists."
    Posted by: Jane Galt
    You didn't vote Democratic because you're a Republican, Megan. Do you really think that anybody here believes you?

  3. I do. She has repeatedly eviscerated Bush's economic policies, she's liberal on most social issues, and she acknowledges that Iraq is a fiasco. The fact that she knows that D's are also prone to corruption hardly makes her a right-wing hack.

  4. As someone who has been VERY suspicious of electronic voting machines, the thought that they are biting the Republicans, hard, is causing a severe case of hilarity.
    On the other hand — and I doubt if anyone from the Allen campaign will read this — there is at least one thing that could be done. That would be comparing the vote totals from each precinct with the number of voters registered there. I know when i vote, and I assume that in any state this is true, I am given a number that corresponds to the number of people who have already voted. If this was recorded this is the one thing that could be done to check this.
    I only mention it because I STILL am scared of the machines, because if anything questionable was discovered, I bet it would favor Allen, not Webb, and because it would be a precedent for future races.

  5. "This matters a ton; Democrats in the House can be much more ruthless with their Republican counterparts, and with the K Street mob, if there's no fear of retaliation from the Senate side."
    That's assuming the Democrats remember a fundamental law of human relations: TIT FOR TAT and the iterated prisoner's dilemma, which is possibly responsible for the evolution of non-kin altruism.
    Thing is, though, when the other guy defects repeatedly, you must do so also.

  6. Jole, I've been to her blog; I've seen her blog on The Economist. Please don't try to BS me; Jane's the standard issue Libertarian-who-really-hates-liberals that's not credible in the slightest, after the Bush administration.

  7. VA question answered – they just put this up on the state site
    "Important Note about Percentage of Precincts Reporting:
    The percentage of precincts reporting has changed due to the start of the canvas and the counting of provisional ballots. For reporting purposes, the day immediately following the election, each locality creates one conditional vote (CV) precinct, per congressional district, in which to report their provisional votes. Localities with no provisional votes will show total votes of zero in the CV precinct for each candidate/ballot issue."

  8. Megan would have somewhat more authentic libertarian creds in my eyes if she came out and admitted that most of the land owned by non-native Americans was stolen, that, per libertarian doctrine 101, it rightfully belongs to those who first homesteaded it, ie the native Americans, and that the only principled thing to do is to return it to the original owners.
    In the absence of such an admission, she's not interested in libertarian principles, she's interested in justifying the privileges of the powerful.

  9. Seems as if it's time to remind everyone once agai about our posted "play nice" rules: no insults directed at posters or other commenters.

  10. Maynard Handley wrote, "In the absence of such an admission, she's not interested in libertarian principles, she's interested in justifying the privileges of the powerful."
    But in fairness, that applies to many, perhaps most, _soi-disant_ libertarians. (Not sure if it applies to Jane Galt.)
    As pointed out in the essay "Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?"
    ( http://geolib.pair.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royall… ), written by a bona fide libertarian who actually loves liberty, these _soi-disant_ libertarians are anything but.

Comments are closed.