Scarborough's explanation for repeatedly saying Franken "can steal" votes: "I'm like a scientist. This is a theory that I'm trying out"
SUMMARY: On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough again claimed that Al Franken "can steal" enough votes in the Minnesota Senate race to emerge victorious, marking at least the sixth time Scarborough has invoked "steal[ing]" votes since the recount began. Scarborough later denied that he was "saying Al Franken's stealing votes" but was instead "just saying how easy would it be for Al Franken to steal 150 [votes]." He added: "I'm like a scientist. This is a theory that I'm trying out there."
On December 19, Joe Scarborough, co-host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, returned to his "theory" that Democrat Al Franken "can steal" enough votes in the Minnesota race for U.S. Senate to emerge victorious, marking at least the sixth time Scarborough has invoked "steal[ing]" votes since the recount began on November 19. After co-host Mika Brzezinski reported that "[t]here are now just two votes separating Republican incumbent Norm Coleman from Democratic challenger Al Franken in Minnesota's still undecided Senate race," Scarborough asserted: "You can steal that. That's like -- you can keep -- you can [inaudible] steal those votes in the glove compartment." Moments later, after revealing that political consultant Mandy Grunwald told him to "quit saying Al Franken's stealing votes," Scarborough declared: "I said I'm not saying that, I'm just having fun with [MSNBC political analyst Pat] Buchanan -- and just saying how easy would it be for Al Franken to steal 150 [votes]." Scarborough added: "I'm like a scientist. This is a theory that I'm trying out there. You know what? And [Morning Joe co-host] Willie [Geist], I think this reminds me once again that Democrats are hostile to science, and that makes me sad."
As Media Matters for America noted, when Brzezinski reported on December 16 that Franken trailed Coleman by 188 votes in the ongoing recount, Scarborough asked Buchanan, "Buchanan, can you steal 188 out of 1,500? That's easy, right?" Brzezinski then asked, "You can find those in your trunk?" Buchanan replied: "You can get -- find them in your trunk up in the Iron Range. They've been lost up there." Later, Scarborough said: "Now, I don't think -- and to my good friends at Media Matters -- I don't actually think Al Franken is going to steal votes, I just -- I ask the question." Brzezinski's and Buchanan's comments about finding votes in "your trunk" was a reference to the widely discredited rumor that 32 absentee ballots from Minneapolis were mishandled in Franken's favor during a pre-recount audit of votes. Indeed, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Republican Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has said there was no actual evidence of fraud during the pre-recount audit.
From the December 19 broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
BRZEZINSKI: There are now just two votes separating Republican incumbent Norm Coleman from Democratic challenger Al Franken in Minnesota's still undecided Senate race -- two votes.
SCARBOROUGH: You can steal that.
BRZEZINSKI: That's not a good day.
SCARBOROUGH: That's like -- you can keep -- you can [inaudible] steal those votes in the glove compartment.
BRZEZINSKI: Stop it. Coleman's lead all but disappeared after the state canvassing board spent a third day ruling on disputed ballots. That process continues today. And with the falling price of crude oil, airlines are seeing drastic cuts in fuel charges, but that doesn't mean they're passing along the savings to travelers. The major carriers are showing no signs of dropping baggage fees that went into effect as fuel prices soared over the summer.
SCARBOROUGH: So I saw Mandy Grunwald last night --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. Oh, yeah, I did too.
SCARBOROUGH: -- at the Bradleys' party, Christmas party. She comes up to me, and she says, quit saying Al Franken's stealing votes. You know what I said to her?
BRZEZINSKI: What'd you say?
SCARBOROUGH: You know what I said to her?
BRZEZINSKI: What'd you say?
SCARBOROUGH: I said, all the flacking I did for my girlfriend this past year, and that's your welcome to me?
BRZEZINSKI: That's a little rough.
SCARBOROUGH: And then she said, well, thank you so much for being the --
BRZEZINSKI: Well, that's good. And then did she --
SCARBOROUGH: -- the fair --
BRZEZINSKI: -- again sock it to you?
SCARBOROUGH: and then she said, stop -- yeah. And I said I'm not saying that, I'm just having fun with Buchanan --
BRZEZINSKI: It's a lovely party.
SCARBOROUGH: -- and just saying how easy would it be for Al Franken to steal 150.
BRZEZINSKI: OK.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm like a scientist.
BRZEZINSKI: All right.
SCARBOROUGH: This is a theory that I'm trying out there.
GEIST: Theoretically. Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what?
GEIST: Hey, Joe, what --
SCARBOROUGH: And Willie, I think this reminds --
BRZEZINSKI: Good of you.
SCARBOROUGH: -- me once again that Democrats are hostile to science, and that makes me sad.
Just think about how easy it would be for Scarborough to kill an intern and leave her in his office. I'm not saying he did it, I'm just like a scientist.
Well thanks captain obvious.
I only say that because it's so obvious that Joe is completely wrong about the motivations behind his statements, it didn't deserve any thought.
Simmer down, hot rod. Today is the first trial day of Remedial Matters For Anutty American Beta 1.0, in deference to Barney and others who find the normal MMfA conversations a little outside their comfort zones.
Try to dig up some compassion and join BillJ in helping the less fortunate more easily assimilate into the commenting by assisting their comprehension, and let's just see if we don't end up with a few less "WITH"s today, 'kay?
Neon, this one might not be a good test run for the RMAA 1.0. Joe is spewing BS, but he seems so unfocused and confused by his own layers of insincerity that it's difficult to pin down any deliberate misinformation. This is more of a hypnotic rambling mindmelder that may be intended to make anything else Joe says seem coherent and reasonable.Do me a favor and check the settings--
So sorry for you, but all your nasty statments about Media Matters just make you seem BVERY stupid. As to Joe, he is silly and bigoted and really hateful, and he is the one who convines everyone of those facts by just making his really silly unreasonable comments. Media Matters has a long history of making factual evaluations of media statements so when it comes to believability, Media Matters is the one I believe every time when it comes to chosing between MM and Scarborough. There is not one thing scientific about either Savage or Savage. Both are extreme doctrinaires and anything that threatens their opinions they give convinces me there is not one scintilla of science about the blather coming from either Joe or Michael Savage. Poor, poor things.
Maybe I missed something, but what nasty statements did neon make about MMfA?
I'm something of a science buff and get very irritated when the terminology is misused. Kind of like my reaction to the morons who say that "Evolution is just a theory."
Excellent! A Theory has been well-tested, yields predicted results, and is considered "fact" until evidence to the contrary is found.
There you go again, BillJ, acting all hostile and trying to separate Joe from his science. Are you TRYING to make him sad?
You're also like a political talk show host, Joe...just not a very good one.
Merely more evidence that Conservatices and Republicans really have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to science.
Accusing someone of theft has become a scientific undertaking for Joe Scarborough.
There are winged monkeys in my intestinal tract.
This is weird. It's obvious that Joe's making a joke, he must know it's ridiculous, but then he's trying to turn around the conservative aversion to science.It's like those posters her who try to sarcastically say what they really think.I don't get that.
Oh gee, that REALLY bothers me that you don't get that. I'll get RIGHT to work at my earliest opportunity to see what I can do to help you "get that". I'll call my sick mother and tell her I can't visit her in the hospital today because I have a more important mission - helping Colonel Beach "get that". I'll cancel my daughter's Christmas play - THAT SHE'S PLAYING THE LEADING ROLE IN - because I just won't have the time to attend since I'll be helping you "get that". She won't mind, because she knows that it's REALLY REALLY super important for you to "get that". In fact, I'm on the phone RIGHT NOW with the Obama administration so that he can rearrange his agenda and focus on your inability to "get that"...
Thanks, Neon, I appreciate you doing that.
If Joe Scarborough is a scientist, Ann Coulter's a rabbi.
If Joe Scarborough is a scientist, Shyawn Hannity's a journalist.
I think Hannity's a professor, and a close associate of Dr. Scarborough. They've just received a large grant to test their theory questioning whether angels walk among us.They're starting with the assumption that an angel gets its wings every time a bell rings. Now all that's left is to prove that bells exist.At that point, Professor Hannity and Dr. Scarborough will have satisfied all real Americans.
They should still have some grant money left over from the Schiavo project. And really, how much does a bible cost these days anyhow? For that matter, they could just use the Google, and find a bible on line. That should save a few dollars. Because, we know that even though conservatives embrace science with all their hearts and souls, they have an aversion to actually funding research.
By the way, did you just stumble upon the idea of "Dr Scar and Professor Featherbrain", or did the whole concept occur to you because of the relation of Hannity and Scarborough to the phrase "believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see."?
Or as the former Mayor of New Orleans, Vic Schiro, once famously said on television during a hurricane way back in the day...Don't believe any false rumors unless you hear them from me.
Michael Savage is a trained scientist.
So in that, would you rather have the analysis of a scientist (Scarborough), or a trained scientist (Savage)?
Even in his field, I'd be leary of participitating in in any savage experiment. It'd probably be a study of zombie herbs.
Anyone real familiar with the recount process or is it different in almost every state?
For instance, do they just not count any votes that aren't obvious for one party or the other, and then try harder if there's a recount?
I think Nate Silver's been doing a good job explaining it as the process continues.
There's a lot of variation from state to state. Here in MN most ballots are paper ballots where the voter fills in an oval. Those are counted by electronic tabulators. They have a low error rate, generally well within the recorded margin of victory, but they do miss some votes or get others wrong. When the victory margin is within 1/2 of 1% a hand recount is mandatory. Coleman's lead was less than 7/1,000 of 1%.
The standard for the hand recount is "clear voter intent." A panel of election judges looks at each ballot to see if there is clear intent and there is a representative of each candidate there who has the right to challenge that decision. Those challenged ballots go to an appointed canvassing board who have the right to accept the original judges' decision or uphold the challenge. That's the stage we are now at.
It's really a pretty good system. There is very little room for cheating or abuse as long as the ballot-handling procedures required by law were followed on election night.
good stuff. Seems fair.
Seems to me it's the Coleman camp that's trying to pinch the senate seat. They're the ones filing the court challenges to keep absentee ballots from being counted. If he does win the election by blocking valid votes, I wonder if Joe the Scientist will be willing to revise his theory.
Oh, I see.... "science".... sort of like Creationism?
Kind of like asking a girl to take off her clothes because you're like a doctor. It's the motivation that's important... In this instance Joe just badly wants Al Franken to get busted for stealing votes.
Kind of like one of the funniest posts I've ever seen at this site, where a wingnut legendary for generally not understanding the topics ,lying, plagiarizing, abusing logical fallacies cruelly, and having his arguments demolished on a daily basis, mentioned that he always thought he would have made a good lawyer because he liked arguing. Coming to a conclusion is just one part of the scientists job, and it generally comes after a whole bunch of hard work.
Coming to a conclusion... generally comes after a whole bunch of hard work.
Not in right wing politics...
I was listening to him on his radio show and he devoted 1 hour and 45 minutes to Mika getting mugged, running wild with Jeff Christie's assinine analysis, telling Mika she needs to be a conservative and start carrying a gun. It was actually a fast 1:45.
If ya can't blind them with science, baffle them with BS.
Here's a theory I'm trying out: People who find a dead body in their office ought to learn to shut up.
I agree with other posters who point out that the common use of the term "theory" enables some people to argue AGAINST science, as in "well, evolution is only a THEORY."
In science a "theory" is an observable model or explanation that provides an reasoned interpretation for a set of facts or observations. A scientific theory is based on tests, experiments and additional observations that can be repeated and reviewed by peers. In other words, in science "theory" is the exact opposite of the common usage.
He didn't say he was a scientist, he said he was "like" a scientist. So technically, outside of saying that anyone who calls him an idiot is "hostile to science" he was being honest.
If he's really "like a scientist" wouldn't he inform us as to how he plans on testing his hypothesis? Oh wait, he says its a theory! So that means he's already tested and validated his hypothesis enough for it to be widely considered true! Let's ask him how he did that!
"I'm like a scientist "... Joe Scarborough
A mad scientist.
The problem is scientists don't "try out" theories by repeatedly talking about them. A scientist develops tests to disprove a theory. Theories are never proved true. They can only be proven false or ineffective as an explanation of the observed facts. This is just another example of the right-wing's lack of knowledge about science. Or maybe I should say their willful misuse of science.