> I'm also not sure where you hear that Gore is in the lead in the Florida recount. I can't find that anywhere -- but that's also a relatively meaningless factoid without taking into account what those same tallied regions reported for numbers the first time.

Even if Gore is in the lead in the recount, that just might mean they haven't gotten to the stacks of Bush votes.

If you asked me twenty-four hours ago if the vote tallying was going to take more than a day, I would've said yes, but I would've thought it was because of California, not Florida.

It's amazing when you look at the margin of victory in several states. Iowa had only 5000 more people vote for Bush than Gore. Wisconsin had 6000 more votes for Gore than Bush. Minnesota had about 55,000 more vote for Gore than Bush (1.16 MM for Gore, 1.11 MM for Bush). New Mexico; less than 8000 more votes for Gore. Even in Tennessee, the votes were just over a million for Bush, just under a million for Gore.

Another thing is interesting about these results. If we make the assumption that everyone who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore, the only state Al Gore would have taken that he didn't take is New Hampshire. Bush would be at 242, Gore would be at 264 which means that Gore would have to win EITHER Oregon or Florida to reach 270.

Also, with the Nader factor removed, Gore would be leading in Oregon, and would've taken Florida (but still might have triggered the recount).

I say the heck with Florida. Let's just place Bush and Gore in the Thunderdome. Chant with me. "Two candidates enter, one President-Elect leaves."

-Faux "It's all New Hampshire's fault!" Pas