I found a blurb on this site:
<a href='http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/tilting/2000/0003.tilting.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/tilting/2...03.tilting.html</a>

to be interesting. It was written years before our recent election. Seems those looking and hoping for a scandal need only check a little history:

Quote:Bill Bradley had led Al Gore in New Hampshire public opinion polls for months, but when Gore finally won the primary by a 52-48 margin, the pundits almost acted as if Bradley had won instead of hailing Gore for a come-from-behind victory. Why? One reason is that Gore had, in the 10 days before the primary, overtaken Bradley in the polls and in some for a few days at least he was ahead by a margin greater than he ultimately won by. The other reason is that reporters love a horse race and they don't like to see any candidate anointed too early. They therefore tend to build up the second-place finisher and to disparage any victory less than double-digit. Bill Clinton was helped by this tendency in 1992. It has even affected history. Many people think that Eugene McCarthy won the New Hampshire primary in 1968 and that George McGovern won it in 1972. Actually Lyndon Johnson won in 1968 and did so, incredibly enough, with write-in votes. Ed Muskie beat George McGovern but most people remember that Muskie lost because he cried in the snow. The reason Mc-Carthy and McGovern are remembered as the winners is because that is the impression the media wanted to give.

You should pass this on to those idiots lobbying for a recount in Ohio now.