[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.

[Krankor]

I don’t think you’re picking on me (but you better stop), but I believe their initial prediction about Franken was based on their belief that even if he lost, he would try any way he could to still win- which is what Coleman seems to be doing now since he was initially against counting rejected absentee ballots. I think Franken’s team had a better idea of the recount outcome because they had a top notch team viewing the process and more or less knew which challenges were real and which were phony. Powerline certainly had a large amount of info on the election. I just don’t think they interpreted it correctly.