ventura

Perhaps Ventura won because Ventura supporters felt that Coleman and Humphrey were equally worse, in which case voting for Ventura wasn't risky.

By ignoring that advice, the Ventura supporters ended up with Ventura.

If Ventura then loses by one vote, you still made the best choice with the info you had.

If Ventura then loses by one vote you can take comfort that you did the best you could.

Let's assume that Ventura was the best choice, ignoring his poll numbers, and Humphrey was way worse than Coleman.

Also, Ventura county is a pretty nice place to live/work (unless you hate temperate coastal weather).

As a litmus test, the recent Jesse Ventura defamation suit took two years to conclude.

The defense for voting for Coleman is, recent polls showed that Ventura wasn't very viable.

I presume that Ventura wasn't polling way below the other candidates, like Nader was in 2000.

Why were the 773,713 Ventura voters wrong to vote as they did?

I used to live in Ventura and surfed almost every day but now I live in a landlocked country - Switzerland.

Assume that a Ventura supporter considered Coleman way worse than Humphrey.

For California, that above average outlier appears to be counties Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Bernadino and Inyo.

This is one of the things I miss about CA (specifically, I lived in Ventura, CA).

It was much more likely, given the info you had, that Coleman could beat Humphrey, so that you indirectly support Humphrey by voting for Ventura.