A note on the Journal Sentinal article numbers for those who may be swayed by the arguments performed there. First of all, that piece appeared yesterday only hours after Nickolaus started grandstanding with her 14000 vote "error". More importantly, there is a disputed figure reporte there that may not be true. The figure is that turn out was set at 37 percent which is compared to the large dropoff from the 62 percent in 2010. That is a red herring, the turnout comparison is irrelevant since the turn out figure only changes to 47 percent which is only a 10 percent discrepency between the original totals and her new numbers. But thats according to the MJSO. According to the clerk herself, the original tunout was 42 percent and not these false figures and trickery.

here

 http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Major_shift__in_Supreme_Court_vote_count.html

One last mention, the 2010 numbers are also not dependable because the Clerk (Nickolaus) is still the was still in charge then and using the same shady methods. Who’s to say she didn’t pad those numbers to be rewarded for having the highest turnout for Republicans in a wave year? The veracity of those results were never challenged because the elections were not close. Should those numbers be scrutinized as well?