Murphy Now Leads By 25 Votes
The latest official score in the NY-20 special election how has Democratic candidate Scott Murphy ahead of Republican Jim Tedisco by 25 votes, or 0.016%, as the absentees continue to be counted.
Murphy led by 35 on Friday, but the lead has now been cut slightly as the absentee votes were counted in the Tedisco stronghold of Greene County. However, it should be noted that while Tedisco won the absentee ballots here by 52.6%-47.4%, he won the Election Night vote here by 55.6%-44.4% -- so Murphy in fact performed above the baseline here, as he has in most of the other counties that have reported their absentees so far.
We're all still waiting for the Tedisco stronghold of Saratoga County and the Murphy bastion of Washington County to start reporting their absentees, as well as more votes from pro-Murphy Warren County, which just began counting some precincts on Friday, plus the military and overseas ballots that are due back in the mail today under an extended deadline. And as I've previously reported, the number is currently distorted by ballot challenges that appear to have kept a disproportionate number of Murphy votes out of the count. We'll see what happens.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Thanks for the update. None of the reporting I have been seeing on this race is mentioning the challenged ballots, all the references to ballots remaining to be counted are to Saratoga and Washington Counties. But Warren has barely started to report, and there are many challenged ballots in several of the counties that need to be resolved.
April 13, 2009 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We'll see what happens."
I can already tell you what's going to happen. No matter what the final vote winds up to be, whoever losses will demand a recount. Even if they or the national organization has to pay for the recount. And whoever loses the recount, will sue if they can (if the laws in that state allows for it; not sure about NY state law; hopefully it can't be as messed up as Minn's is).
Franken/Coleman has set the bar for where essentially tied races are going. No one concedes an inch unless they are forced by law.
April 13, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe not. I mean there's the diminished returns in the House compared to the Senate. The Dems have a solid majority in the House so one vote isn't as important to either side. Yes, there's going to be some fighting, but I cannot imagine that it'll be as ridiculous as MN.
Of course, I'm occasionally wrong. ;)
April 13, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is easier to certify a winner in NY even if legal proceedings are continuing. So it is not likely we will see a repeat of MN Senate, although one or the other may only be seated provisionally at first.
April 13, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that is true "Davidsfr".
Its better to seat someone provisionally, even if its not one of the two candidates, perhaps an independent appointee; while legal proceeding continue. That way, at least your state or district is represented by SOMEBODY.
The way MN has done it is just wrong for everyone. Even themselves. Its ridiculous.
Its like, if we can't decide between the candidates we have, we'd just rather NOT be represented. Talk about self-loathing.
April 13, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Franken's seating is being held up because the Senate allows filibusters. The Senate has all the Constitutional authority of needs to seat Franken immediately, but if the Democrats tried to do that the Republicans would filibuster.
The House, on the other hand, doesn't allow filibusters. The loser of the NY20 race can mount a lengthy legal challenge if he likes, but that won't prevent the winner from being seated.
April 13, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
But I think MN elections law has a lot to do with it as well. If the Senate HAD tried to seat Franken after the recount, filibuster or no, it would look very bad for Franken and the Dems for him to be seated without the proper certifications from the governor and the state secretary of state (which they cannot issue by state law, until at least the appeal is settled by the state SC).
I think most would have viewed that as an "illegitimate" seating; at least on some level. And would have been a propaganda bonanza for the Republicans.
Think how much better it would have been, had the winner of the recount, been allowed to be seated, by MN law, at least provisionally, pending resolution of all legal proceedings (at least at the state level).
Even if that had been Coleman, so what? At least you have constituent services covered.
Whoever wrote the law, was thinking about being as fair as possible to the political parties.
Not the people that need those services. Not to mention, disenfranchising an entire state.
April 13, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink