[Dales]

Well, I didn't get all the states right back in February, but I came close. Both by the initial designations (which included NJ for Bush) and by my predictions (which did not, but did have Bush winning Minnesota) I had Bush getting 288 electoral votes.

I think, if I can pat my back for a moment, that I did pretty good on my February read of the election.

[Coop]

I don't know about way back when, but going into Tuesday I expected Dubya would lose NH, gain NM, WI and maybe IA. (And I REALLY wanted to include MN in the gains, but couldn't bring myself to do it.) I did call +4 for the Senate, though.

[commish]

What is amazing to me is how basically static this election actually ended up. For all the twists and turns and "revelations' and "debate wins" and "october surprises" -- if you look at the polls from way back in the spring, and the results Tuesday, there was in reality very little change overall.

[Torie]

I did pretty good on my February read of the election

You did indeed, and throughout the election, and did a great job on your website. Kudos. You did have your little NJ thingie, but I along with you thought Minnesota would go Bush. The trend up there to the Pubbies is on hold for the moment. I was also surprised Iowa went to Bush (assuming it does, but the MSM keeps holding off for some reason in calling it), what with the Iraq war. I guess social issues in Iowa are trumping their dovish instincts.