Kevin Tarr wrote:

> 
> I never heard that before. I thought all the predictors were caught with
> their pants 'round their ankles when Gore didn't win by 5-7% and Bush did
> win.

I seem to recall just the opposite.  Bush even stopped campaigning because he
was far enough ahead in the polls to coast in.  _He_ was the one that was
expected to win, not Gore.

> 
> And the popular vote thing: I heard that the nationwide popular vote was
> closer than the uncounted mail-in ballots in California alone but they
> didn't count them cause the state was won by Gore by more than the
> difference in that state. So Gore may have won the California vote but Bush
> 'may' have won the nationwide popular vote. There were other states, like PA
> grrrrr, where they didn't count mail-in ballots for the same reason.
> 

Sounds like another good reason to can the electoral vote.

Doug

Reply via email to