How is it that (according to the media outlets that have not already called it) Ohio is too close to call when Bush leads Kerry by 136,221 votes (100% precincts counted), yet Pennsylvania, a slightly larger state where Kerry leads Bush by 121,818 votes has been called for Kerry (with 99% of precincts reporting)? Another example, although in this case it is a slightly smaller state: Michigan was called for Kerry. With 96% of precincts reporting, he leads by 146,704. Yet another example, though this time a much smaller state, Wisconsin. Kerry leads Bush by only 13,293 votes, with 96% of the vote counted, yet that state also has been called for Kerry already. As my mother would say (inspired by a TV commercial), "something stinks and it's not the litter box."

But leaving Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin alone, and giving Kerry the rosiest scenario possible, from the data that has been thrown around, if there are 175,000 provisional ballots, and 90% of them count, that's 157,500. If they break the way Kerry's strongest county did (67% to 33%) that's 105,525 for Kerry, 57,750 for Bush. Assuming the bleakest scenario for Bush, that there are no absentee ballots at all - which is known to not be true - Bush still wins Ohio by 88,446.

And, why are members of the media who have called Ohio for Bush not calling Nevada for Bush - while those who have not called Ohio for Bush yet, are calling Nevada for Bush? What gives? Is it because if they call those races they would have to declare Bush the winner and they cannot accept that outcome? Or are they just trying to give Kerry time to wake up and smell the coffee?

Can you say "bias," "ratings" and "loser denial?"

Well, they may have an agenda, but I am going to be bold. Bush has won.

The networks are bad, but my thankfulness for not having cable grows.

Oh, did I mention that I hate lawyers even more than I did before?