numbers1

(UPDATE: Republican Norm Coleman has now officially conceded in the hotly contested and litigious battle for Minnesota’s Senate seat.)

As an ex-mathematician, I like digits, numbers.

While statistics can be made to lie, I don’t believe pure numbers do, except when manipulated by Rush Limbaugh, as in the recent Supreme Court decision involving Sotomayor.

Numbers haven’t lied in the case of the Franken-Coleman election battle. (UPDATE: Norm Coleman has now conceded.)

On a 5-0 vote (that is unanimous), the Minnesota Supreme Court today declared Democrat Al Franken the winner in that state’s bitterly contested senatorial election.

In “Court Rules Franken Has Won Senate Seat,” the New York Times has these other interesting, indisputable numbers—“factoids”:

– $51.1 million has been raised between Coleman and Franken for the entire campaign

– $50.3 million has been spent between the two candidates

– $11 million (at least) has been spent on the recount

– 2,424,946 votes were cast

– 312 votes separate the candidates (Franken leads)

– 239 days since Election Day 2008

– 34 weeks since Election Day 2008

– 7 months, 27 days since Election Day 2008

– 4 seasons seen since Election Day 2008 election.

And did I mention it was an unanimous 5-0 decision?

And the sweetest number of them all—if the decision holds–the number 60. Care to guess why?

UPDATE: Norm Coleman has just conceded. Congratulations, U.S. Senator Al Franken!

It’s now 60!

Dorian de Wind, Military Affairs Columnist
Leave a replyComments (15)
  1. DLS June 30, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    I hope Al Franken isn’t going to become the next Michael Jackson on this “moderate” [sic] non-partisan [?] site in the next day, or two, or more. How many threads will there be on this tiny news item, that is the question…

  2. DdW June 30, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    UPDATE: Norm Coleman has just conceced. Congratulations, U.S. Senator Al Franken!

    It’s now 60!

  3. kathykattenburg June 30, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Oh my god, I thought this day would never come. Hallelujah lord.

  4. tidbits June 30, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Congratulations, Senator Franken.

    But, that isn’t a tingle going up my leg; it’s a chill running down my spine at the thought of one party rule.

  5. DdW June 30, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    “it’s a chill running down my spine at the thought of one party rule.”

    I wonder if Republicans felt the same chill running down their spines when their party experienced “one party rule”?

    • $199537 June 30, 2009 at 4:57 pm

      I wonder if Republicans felt the same chill running down their spines when their party experienced “one party rule”?

      Some of us did, now we’re not Republicans any more.

    • tidbits June 30, 2009 at 5:17 pm

      “I wonder if Republicans felt the same chill running down their spines when their party experienced ‘one party rule’?”

      DER – I can’t speak for Republicans since I am not one. I feel a chill run down my spine whenever either party achieves one party rule.

  6. Jim_Satterfield June 30, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    But of course it isn’t really one party rule, given the Blue Dogs.

  7. polsarecrooks June 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    Lol@the Blue Dogs!!!

    Oh yeah an 52 member caucus in the House which usually splits its votes between progressive drivel, toeing the party line, and conservative hyperventilating constitutes a bi-partisan Congress.

    Lol, you cannot be that dumb so you must be smoking some good stuff.

  8. DdW June 30, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    DG and TidBits:

    Since I don’t remember the last time Democrats had a “one party rule,” I am really curious as to whether I’ll experience a tingle going up my leg or a chill running down my spine…will let you know

    Dorian

    • keelaay June 30, 2009 at 8:26 pm

      Not that long ago sir — under President Clinton as a matter for fact. Coming from this yellow dog Democrat, the only tingling I expect to feel his Messers Reid and Pelosi reaching for my grandchildren’s wallets. Not that the last one party ruler, W, didn’t already steal them.

    • kritt12 June 30, 2009 at 8:31 pm

      Dorian—-

      I do remember, and it was in the late 70’s. Carter was president and got a lot of grief from Ted Kennedy in the Senate. He was not successful in getting many of his initiatives through- even though there was one party rule.

      Also, in the 60’s many Democrats bucked LBJ— liberal ones because of the Vietnam war and southern ones because of his civil rights and poverty programs which aimed to end the subjugation of blacks.

  9. $199537 June 30, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    Well DE, for me it was initially a tingle going up my leg and over the years it developed into a chill running down my spine.

  10. MudEngineer June 30, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    Typically, the initial count is more accurate than any most likely biased recount could possibly be. Based on that, I am wondering how a new count of showing a winner by 312 votes outweighs the original count of Coleman winning by over 700 votes. In a recount, the challenger should have to win by at least as many votes as the original count. Can you imagine the outrage if Franken won by only one vote and the original count difference was over 700?

  11. AustinRoth June 30, 2009 at 10:09 pm

    I actually have the same viewpoint I did about Bush/Gore in Florida – it was a tie.

    All vote counts, all recounts, were so far inside the margin of error as to make any pronouncement of the ‘actual winner’ by vote count as statistically relevant as a coin flip.