In a message dated 10/28/00 3:38:04 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> And you claimed there were only eight battleground states, too. That's
> what I was addressing.
>
> > I *know* it can affect the outcome, and even addressed that in my
> original
> > post. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my post completely.
>
> There's no need to be snide. You had a numerical discrepancy from
> the information I had seen. I corrected that. End of post.
Which states are battleground states, depends entirely on which polls you
follow some polls will call one margin a sure victory while others will say a
larger margin is required. The exact number of battleground states is
irrelivant though, in the majority of the states, non-battleground states,
who you vote for has little/no impact on who is elected president. If
someone wants to check the polls in thier state and check if one or another
candidate has a solid lead before voting, I encourage them to.
I was not trying to be snide, I only wanted to correct you in what you impied
that I said. I never said voting for Nader in the battleground states would
not affect the outcome (which your post implied that I did say, so I assumed
you hadn't read my post entirely, rather than assuming that you were
intentionally trying to put words into my mouth that I didn't say). I said
it *could* affect the outcome in the battleground states, and that if it did,
it may actually be a *good* thing in the long run from a future policy
standpoint, though we may have to suffer with G.W. Bush through the next four
years.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
