Counting chickens

via an Anon.

In response to an article about Mitt Romney possibly winning the popular but losing the electoral vote, Freepers don't really get too involved in the complications of electoral law. Instead, they just count their chickens:

bolobaby ain't sweating it:

Forget it. Obama is gonna feel worse than Mondale after this coming election.

E. Pluribus Unum also sets the bar high:

I think it is going to be an historic landslide.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Nasty Pelosi presiding over no more than two dozen Democrats.

Sooth2222 explains why:

Many conservatives just stayed home in 2008. They'll crawl to the polls over burning embers in November to vote against Zero.

a fool in paradise predicts Democrats will lie about something or other:

the media loves the lie that “Gore really won”. Even in 2004 when Bush got more votes (after also winning back Congress in 2002), they claimed that the Rat “really won”.

Vote tallies don’t matter to Democrats. At all. They will take the count by whatever means necessary. Which is why they insist that middle America is brainwashed to vote against their own interests in voting Republican.

Vigilanteman knows why the Founders had an electoral college:

For the umpteenth time, our founding fathers had the vision to design a system where a president needed both deep support (popular votes) and wide support (electoral votes) to win the office.

In the event of a split decision, the wide support took precedent, as has only happened three times in 56 presidential elections.

Yep, had nothing to do with the practicalities of a nationwide election in the 1700s!

jimsin is stil humping Palin:

'How Mitt can win the popular vote AND the election...'

Time to bring in the BIG GUN Mitt....the one who made it almost possible for EVEN McLAME to have a chance at winning....the only Republican I know who can fill a 60,000 seat venue at the drop of a hat....

'60,000 greet Sarah Palin at Florida rally -- 9.21.08'