Andrew Dowd sends me a genuine, attested case of the kind of sentence that I have elsewhere called plausible angloid gibberish. It is a particular kind of mangled comparative that somehow seems English when it isn't. It has absolutely no right to be called grammatical, and nothing can explain why it is that we (falsely) believe that it has a meaning that could be accounted for in the regular way — it doesn't and it couldn't. No syntacticians that I know of can say why it sort of slips by, in comprehension and sometimes (as here) even in production. The sentence came from http://www.backspace.com/notes/2004/06/, citing AdAge, and it reads thus:
Complete and utter syntactic nonsense. And yet when you read it you see what they meant long before you realize that they couldn't have meant it.
In Michigan and Minnesota, more people found Mr Bush's ads negative than they did Mr Kerry's.
The meaning you wrongly pick up is something like "In Michigan and Minnesota, more people found Mr Bush's ads negative than found Mr Kerry's ads negative." But why? It doesn't say that! Andrew says, "It took me days to figure out there was anything wrong with it."
There really is a lot we don't know about syntactic processing.