[Krankor]

Well, their first mistake was predicting Franken would be the one who challenged the recount results. It was, of course, Coleman. They also predicted the absentee ballots would go 50/50 and basically wash each other out.
They also initially put a lot of credence in Coleman’s claim of double counted ballots. It’s apparent, Coleman himself has more or less abandoned that route as a way to victory. His strategy now appears to be having as many absentee ballots as possible counted. Amazingly, even before the recount process was completed, the Franken camp predicted almost spot on their margin of victory.

[GreatOne]

To defend them (I don't know anyone from the blog), their prediction about Franken being the one filing the contest would have occurred but for the state Supreme Court's inexplicable decision to allow the campaigns to review the rejected absentee ballots and to count those that the campaigns agreed were wrongly rejected. There is no basis in Minnesota law for this, and Franken's team had researched the absentee ballots (they were the ones requesting copies of them from county auditors) and knew who/where their voters were. Simple thing for them to agree to count improperly rejected ballots from areas that were heavily in their favor, and not agree to count those ballots that came from Coleman areas. That's how Franken's team could be in the ballpark predicting their margin of victory.

I don't see how putting credence into Coleman's claim of double-counted ballots discredits them. It's true that there were a number of double-counted votes; it's also true that there do not appear to be enough to overcome Franken's present lead, and that his primary hope is the rejected absentee ballots.

Don't mean to pick on you, but I think Powerline has been a tremendous source of info in this process.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Amazingly, even before the recount process was completed, the Franken camp predicted almost spot on their margin of victory.

Well, they knew how many votes they needed to manufacture.