ALASKA: Let the lawsuits begin! Joe Miller's filed a complaint and "motion for preliminary injunction" contending "the state improperly deviated from the text of the statute, and is substituting a subjective 'voter intent' standard and essentially repealing the legislative objective standard sub silentio," Miller campaign attorney Thomas Van Flein said. (Van Flein, by the way, is also Sarah Palin's attorney.)
"Votes that misspell Lisa Murkowski's name shouldn't count as the state today tallies write-in ballots in the U.S. Senate race, Senate candidate Joe Miller said in a federal lawsuit Tuesday," the Anchorage Daily News writes. Miller is asking a judge to stop the state from making a judgment on a voter's intentions if the voter wrote in something other than "Murkowski" or "Lisa Murkowski." State law allows no leeway for other spellings, his lawsuit says."
Per Alaska NBC affiliate KTUU: “In a statement late Tuesday, Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell said, ‘We've received the lawsuit, and have referred it to the attorney general's office for review. At this time, we intend to go forward with tomorrow's write-in ballot count.’ As for the Murkowski campaign, Kevin Sweeney told KTUU, ‘It appears the Miller campaign will do anything it can to exclude Alaskan votes from being counted.’”
"Election workers will begin scrutinizing tens of thousands of ballots in the Alaska Senate race on Wednesday in a scene reminiscent of the 2000 Florida recount. There will be no hanging chads this time around -- just lots of scribbled names," AP writes, adding, "Write-ins held an overall lead of 11,333 votes Tuesday, when early cast and some absentee ballots were added to the election night count. It remains unclear how many of those write-ins were for Murkowski or for the 159 other write-in candidates. In a count of more than 27,000 absentee and early cast ballots counted Tuesday, Miller showed a gain of 2,106 votes on the write-in candidates. Nearly 12,400 absentee ballots remain to be counted, plus a similar amount of questioned ballots to be reviewed."
More: "The two sides have hired attorneys and started raising money for what could become a lengthy court battle -- the first lawsuit was filed late Tuesday -- particularly if the vote count tightens. Murkowski's legal team includes Ben Ginsberg, who worked for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during the 2000 Florida recount."
MASSACHUSETTS: Some are encouraging Boston Mayor Thomas Menino to challenge Scott Brown in 2012 and run for the Senate.


Actually, it is easy to make sense of the midterms--"it's the economy, stupid" as stated on the Clinton campaign war room door.
dangerfield would be proud of you, Jody...
You've come a long way.
What' s to make sense of? The dems got hammered and for good reason. Move on.
How can you make sense of something so confusing?
The same group of "independents" that swept Obama and the Democrats into office used the same broom to sweep the Republicans into an historic victory in the House. How does this make sense? Are independents so confused that they don't really know what they believe in? Are they so wrapped up in the here and now that they forget history?
Is this the future of our politics?
Hi Frank - while I share in your chagrin, I think "...historic victory in the House..." is kinda an oxymoron. Yeah, it's historic, in the sense that no political party has taken one house of Congress, but not the other since before WWII. This historic precedent could play out in one of two ways that I can see.
Either...:
1. They'll compromise and get some good stuff done for the American people over the next two years, (see also the spanking Clinton took in his first mid-term; but THINK FAST - Name Bob Dole's running mate...ok, I was able to pull Kemp out of my butt, eventually, but admit it...you had to think hard for a moment!) That's because Clinton & Republicans (both house majorities) worked together, did some important stuff, and they were both rewarded for it in '96.
OR...
2. The GOP will remain the "Republi-can't" party, say no to everything (including offers off compromise) at which point the Dem's can legitimately say, (in the run-up to 2012), "Look at how great the economy's doing (anyone that STILL doesn't believe that EVERYTHING the Dem's did the last two yrs. worked, hasn't read the economic indicators that have come out since the election - get really used to hearing good news for the NEXT 2 yrs!)...Look at how great our relationships around the world are (compared with that G.W.-a$$-clown's "F 'em all" dimplomacy)...and all thanks to the policies Dem's put in place in 2009 & 2010, because ain't been $h14 gone on in DC since the Repub's took over the House!
In my opinion, one MAJOR (but overlooked) factor has been the 2 year steady drumbeat of criticism from Fox "News" of anything "Obama, Pelosi, Reid". (Not to mention Rush.) Is there any historical equivalent to this lopsided negative coverage?
I don't understand how Fox gets away with saying they are "fair and balanced" when they have ON STAFF many of the potential Republican 2012 candidates...Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich...
David Neiwert's article hits the nail on the head... http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/maybe-we-should-just-call-fox-electi