In MN, Conspiracy Dogs Won't Hunt

http://minnesotarecount.com/

That's a new blog started by Republicans to keep watch on what they call "shenanigans" perpetrated by Democrats as the Minnesota Senate recount proceeds.

They're particularly focused on the way that the results from the re-canvass -- as distinct from the recount -- keep trending in one direction.

But there is precedent: in 2006, Republican Senate candidate Mark Kennedy lost 3,500 votes and Democrat Amy Klobuchar lost only 600. (Historically, the canvass tallies this cycle are more accurate than in the past.)

To be sure -- once the automatic manual hand recount starts -- errors should pretty much cancel each other out, in theory. But in practice, the elderly, the young, and the relatively uneducated tend to cast more undervotes.  As Nate Silver notes, mere chance suggests that a Franken win is not beyond the realm of possibility. There's inherent subjectivity in the way election judges will determine intent -- even when there are bright line rules.  But even if there's no conspiracy, Franken could pick up enough votes to win. Not the likeliest of scenarios, but with the way the votes are distributed, it could happen.

The proceedings have become very political, and even national Republicans are joining the fray: Mitt Romney's PAC publicly announced a $5,000 contribution to the Coleman recount account today. Regardless of what happens, the Minnesota recount has become a football -- a way for Republican activists to close ranks around what they think (hope) is Democratic corruption.