I'm perfectly happy if they leave Stevens in the Senate, should he actually be declared the winner. He will be a toxic pool sitting in with the rest of the Republican caucus. He will vote with them and poison them by doing so.

I need some help understanding this. Stevens was convicted of several felony charges. Why is he not in prison? I didn't think you could stay out of prison after conviction during the appeal process. All you lawyer types help me out here.

Memo to Mitch: It's obvious to everyone that your words are hollow. At 84, Ted "Tubes" Stevens is as likely to be alive at the end of his appeals process as I am to land on Mars.

And there might be a bit of voter fraud going on here as well.

I've forgotten where (I'll look around), but I read a long list of things that look "funny" in this election. For example, voter registration added about 12% more new voters in a year where Obama got people excited in both directions, AND their Gov. Sarah Palin was on the ticket - YET, they had very low voter turnout.

Makes no sense! Should be (probably are) a lot of missing votes somewhere.

Technically, as DeMint says, any Senator can offer a motion to expel another Senator. His point is that he wants the Republican leadership to do it. Pushing against that idea is a standard that has been widely accepted for some time in American politics -- conviction, loss of all appeals, and actual imprisonment is what's required to end the career of an elected official. The longer than official has been around, the more rigid that standard is. Stevens first went to the Senate in 1968.

Bush will pardon him.

This guy's been an AK fixture for 1/2 a century. Do ya think he's just gonna fade away?

@ckelly: You may have seen it on 538. Nate had a really good write-up on it yesterday. OT, but you were great (as usual) on Rachel's show last night! I wish she'd had you on last week to talk her down from some of her concern trolling! :-)

Oddly enough, there's at least one Republican senator who's publicly uncomfortable serving alongside a convicted felon. - Steve B

Gee whiz, Steve, are you already assuming McCain has flip-flopped? I'm not arguing, just sayin'.

Re: funny voting, try this from the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/stolen-election-in-alaska_b_141704.html

Do ya think he's just gonna fade away? - Tom Nicholson

Well, maybe not as fast as a glacier.

[Debunked BS deleted. -Mod]

I think McConnell has been spending more time working to avoid getting defeated in his own contest, than worry about the whole Stevens mess.

I suspect he won't do anything in the short-term, as I think his preference is to have Stevens go away via the election of Mark Begich.

Is it possible he wants Stevens gone so that Palin can take over before she's impeached in AK?

Just wish Rachael Maddow's staff had done better homework, the night before - They did not realize the appointment of a Senator in Alaska had been changed, because of the nepotism involved with the Murkowskis, to a Special Election. Of course, as all state laws are not uniform as to this subject, can understand her missing the change.

But, the important matter in Alaska, is whether the Moose votes have been counted, yet.

ckelly, thousands of convicted felons roam free while appeals are processed. Judges have wide latitude to grant such terms, especially in the case of nonviolent crimes and absent any flight risk. Jack Abramoff pled guilty to several felonies on January 3, 2006 but did not enter jail until November 15th, 2006. Keep in mind this delay in prison was for charges NOT appealed. Imagine how long you can drag it out when you are vigorously disputing the conviction.

mark (10:30) - The tire gauge promotion is done, OK?

Mark-NC, I read that article and this one at mudflats:

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/crunching-the-numbers-in-alaska/#comments

The turnout in Alaska was much lower than expected and the McCain-Palin ticket, Ted Stevens and Don Young ALL did better than expected by 12-15%. In order to account for both the turnout and the results, you would have to believe that all of the Republicans expected to vote did, while 25-30% of the Democratic voters decided to stay home.

The race between Don Young and Ethan Berkowitz is that hardest to accept. The final polls had Berkowitz leading by 8% and every single poll from May on had him leading by 5-14% but Don Young somehow wins by 7%? Incredible.

I am very reluctant to believe in outright fraud, but SOMETHING isn't right there.

Of course a very cionservative will call for Stevens resignation. Then Palin A far right wing nut can take the postion of Senator from AK.

What is Alaska some kind of 21st century haven for felonious and meglomaniac politicians? Even in a half assed state like Ohio we wouldn't vote for a convicted felon for senator. We certainly wouldn't even allow the blatant disregard for ethics and good behavior shown by their present govenor.

First, he won't be expelled by the lame-duck Senate. As his presence there is governed by his 2002 election, he would have to be re-expelled some time next year from the new Senate, in which his presence would be governed by the current election.

Psychologically, if not legally, some senators might accept the first expulsion. Stevens wouldn't.

Second, despite the election-driven nattering by McCain and McConnell, other senators, such as the non-nutbar conservative Kay Bailey Hutchison, have weighed in AGAINST expulsion until Stevens' appeals run their course.

So, let's take a chill bill on this.

Per Steve Duncan, I would like McConnell and Reid to file a bipartisan "brief" requesting Stevens' appeal be expedited to the greatest degree allowable.

I am very reluctant to believe in outright fraud, but SOMETHING isn't right there. -tanstaafl

Agreed minus the reluctance to believe Republicans would engage in outright fraud.

I'll join in with the others wondering what the hell happened in that Alaska election --- this is looking very very fishy.

And if you're looking for a motive? If Stevens wins, then he resigns or is tossed out --- then Palin can run in the special election to succeed him (and get out of Juneau before she can be impeached). If Begich wins, then he holds the seat for six years and Palin has no office to flee to.

Since the appeals process can literally take years the odds are Stevens will die before his appeals are up. By setting this standard McConnell is effectively saying Stevens will stay in the Senate until he decides to leave.

Add to that the almost certain pardon to come from Bush as he leaves office and Stevens isn't going anywhere unless the Democratic leadership forces the issue at the opening of the next session.

It's starting to look my scenario of Senator Palin will not come to pass.

Since accepting a pardon is implicitly an admission of guilt, I would expect the Senate to move for expulsion if that happened.

I need some help understanding this. Stevens was convicted of several felony charges. Why is he not in prison?

He hasn't been sentenced yet, as far as I know. Once he's sentenced, the judge has discretion to stay exection of the sentence pending appeal. Ordinary criminals don't usually get stays pending appeal, but white collar criminals sometimes do.

Why was he allowed to run!? My (admittedly layman's) understanding is that felons aren't allowed to vote so it stands to reason that they wouldn't be allowed to run for Senate. What gives?

Someone please explain this to me!

"Is it possible he wants Stevens gone so that Palin can take over before she's impeached in AK? "

Bingo. For 2012 Senate credentials > Govenor Credentials.

Cue false equivalence comparisons to Democrats from GOP trolls in 3...2...

Regarding Alaska's suspiciously low turnout, here's an article from KTUU in Anchorage: http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=9309054&nav=menu510_2_6

My favorite quote is at the very end, when Alaska's elections director brags about the quality of the voting machines that were used: "Our equipment has been certified up to 2002 voting standards." I mean, who could doubt the results if they're up to the high standards set during the mid-term elections six years ago?

It would be very interesting to see Alaskan turnout by precinct. I'm guessing the 11% drop isn't uniformly distributed.

The voting irregularities in Alaska are extremely troubling.

Not only are we expected to believe that Stevens and Young, both losing by large margins according to all polls, both won (with Young, IIUIC, coming in up to 21 points above where he was polling and Stevens up to 22 points ahead of polls). We're also being asked to accept that fewer progressives, including double digits of newly registered voters, came out for Obama than did for Kerry. Meanwhile, fewer Alaskan Republicans came out for Sarah Palin than voted for Bush in '04, and overall turnout was lower than in the primaries, before their own governor joined the McCain ticket?

I think not.

I'm think McConnell and many in the GOP are just waiting to see if

A) Stevens wins reelection
B) Bush pardons him

If that's the case, they'll make a case for him to stay.

1)With a quarter of the votes still to be counted, mostly from Democratic leaning areas, and Begich needing 53% of those votes to win, there is a pretty good chance that Stevens won't be re-elected.

2)I can believe that fewer Alaskans voted this time compared to four years ago. There was no chance your vote could make a difference in the presidential race. I noticed far fewer campaign signs than usual by the Republicans, who mostly don't like McCain. Begich and Berkowitz were not really inspiring. The 2004 Senate race between Knowles and Murkowski aroused more passion (and voting).

3) The news the last weekend heavily favored Stevens. The trial had been a mixed disaster, what with the misconduct by the prosecution and anarchy among the jurors. Then the only juror who explained her decision was the one who lied about her father's death to go to the Breeder's Cup horserace. She thought Stevens was guilty, but no more so than most other politicians. That is probably how many Alaskan felt, and quite a few decided to not bother voting.

Ah, that juror had her priorities straight, eh? Do hope she placed a fiver on Raven's Pass. Might help to pay for any misconduct fines imposed by the trial judge.

@Badass4Peace - Some, but not all states stip felons if their vote. None prohibit them from running.

The lame-duck session offers an interesting possible maneuver. McConnel, with Democratic support, could arrange to expel Stevens from the remainder of the 110th congress; but as an earlier poster noted, that would not affect his election to the 111th congress. So the Republicans could take a stand on "principle" by expelling the felon, and having done so as a token slap on the wrist let him resume his service in January 2009. Though in a nice bit of irony, given the short break in service, I believe that would make him technically the most junior senator in the Republican caucus.

I have to revise my earlier opinion that Begich would pick up enough votes from the remaining uncounted absentee, early votes, and questioned ballots. Using the percentages from the different districts, I come up with Stevens adding about 950 votes if the districts vote in the same % as already counted. Hopefully the early,absentee, and questioned ballots will have a different result.

Steve, it's about time to start posting what is getting rather clear: the Alaska election "results" are very dubious to begin with. OK?

update: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/alaska-on-ebay-election-n_b_142021.html

The democrats should send an army of lawyers to Alaska to challenge the election. Alaska and Georgia are where the republicans are trying to steal 2 senate seats. You betcha.

Don't know if anyone else mentioned this, but could DeMint also be hoping to rid the Senate of Stevens and usher in Senator Palin? (Could she appoint herself, then resign the governorship? The shopping's good here in metro DC, consignment stores included.)

Although I suspect DeMint is appalled at seeing a convicted felon re-elected to the Senate. Think he's sincere there.

That would be the Mitch McConnell who single-handedly stopped the Republicans from impeaching President Clinton because he had not been convicted of seven felonies and had the conviction upheld on appeal, right?

I mean, at least he's consistent.

Grace, no. Alaska requires a special election, though there is a provision for a temporary appt. for 90 days or so until the special election.

"innocent until proven guilty" AND appeals denied?

I'm okay with that.

Still, what's happening in American elections is obviously flawed (to say the least) and needs to be explored now, starting in Minnesota and Alaska and perhaps Florida & West Virginia.