LAST EDITED ON 12-14-14 AT 06:39 PM (EST)Keith may well be Natalie's 'only challenger'. But she has to get to the F3 to find out if that's so. And along her route there are three women who can't possibly believe that any one of them is going to win against her: Jon can only vote once. So, why would they (as an alliance of convenience) come to the conclusion at F4 (assuming that one of those stranger things that happen actually does and Natalie does not win that II) that it is in the best interest of any one, or two, or three of them to keep her in the Game?
From their perspective, 'How dumb would that be?'
And we have only my wild conjecture that Keith would ever turn on his benefactor, quashing the option of a 2-2 vote. I mean, borrowing a pinch of wisdom from the recently-departed Woo, with a Jury of Survivor purists and Natalie admirers to face, 'How dumb would that be?' ...
G