Gore lost.
Posted on 05/25/2008 5:24:16 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
The military absentee ballots that Gore got thrown out were never included in the final certified vote, and I don’t believe were ever included in the recounts conducted by the liberal newspapers. Why don’t we ever read about that in the fishwrappers?
LOL
I've never seen any estimates of how many votes that cost Bush but I'm willing to bet it was enough to be a clear margin of victory.
And the Rats in the MSM knew exactly what they were doing — you'll never convince me it was an “accident”.
You are correct. Those military ballots which were disallowed -- wrongly -- were never counted.
And you know damn good and well why we've never "read about that in the fishwrappers".
To add a needed dimension to your post...
The reason Gore specified Broward, Palm Beach and Dade Counties is because a.) they favored Democrats and b.) they used the punchcard ballot (and its famous chads).
Note that William Daley, the mayor of Chicago, was Gore's campaign manager and that Cook County has always used punchcard ballots -- for a reason that will become apparent.
It is the nature of punchcard ballots that, every time they are handled, more chads will fall out. Run a thousand punchcard ballots and get a result of say, 500 to 470 -- a thirty vote margin with thirty no votes. Run them thru a second time...and you'll get something like 505 to 474 -- a 31 vote margin with 21 no votes. A third time...and you'll get maybe 509 to 477 -- a 32 vote margin with 14 no votes.
In other words, with each recount, the Democrat running in Broward, Dade and Palm Beach Counties was bound to gain votes by virtue of the punchcard's physical characteristics.
But, if you recounted the votes in Republican counties using punchcards -- then it would be Bush who would gain votes.
Recall that Daley and Gore were riding together to what was going to be Gore's concession speech. Somewhere along the way, Daley had to say, "Al, we can still cheat our way into the White House". And, while the limousine sat in the square surrounded by the crowd, Al must've turned to Daley and said "Let's go for it".
Recall also that Dade County started the recount and, then, about half way through their precincts halted the operation. That was because they had counted all the Democrat precincts, maxing out Gore's vote gain in the county. If they had counted the rest of the precincts, Bush would've narrowed the margin.
Further recall that the State Supreme Court approved the Dade County recount as it was, even though it was only half-completed, specifically ordering that those numbers would become part of the state's official count. Otherwise, Bush's eventual 537 vote margin would've been over a thousand.
Between Gore, the Democrat party and the Florida State Supreme Court, there was a concerted effort to steal the 2000 election in Florida. Those who say otherwise are a.) lying or b.) blind partisans.
I like red meat as much as the next guy, but objectivity says that the panhandle votes were probably more than offset by the overly inclusive felons’ list that excluded voters, and we know the type that weren’t allowed to vote probably would have voted Rat. Let’s face it - if the shoe were on the other foot we would be stewing the same way they are now, and making the same whining arguments.
I have a book written about this event and the media calling Florida for Gore before the polls closed costed Bush at least 10,000 votes in heavily Republican counties in the panhandle.
Nader took over 97,000 votes from Gore. Why isn’t anyone blaming him?
That’s a strange pic.
ping
I feel certain Dems are now outraged that the movie didn't corroborate their arguments more unequivocally.
Dems in the fight and in the media were and are sincere in their take, in my opinion. And they sincerely believed and believe the Republicans were cynically suppressing votes.
However, I would criticize their side in these three ways:
1. their stances on points of contention, in general, are extremely situational and elastic, far more inconsistent than their opponents
2. as a group they are laughably ignorant of the other side's well-reasoned positions
3. their opponents may acknowledge their sincerity, but owe the Dems no "benefit of the doubt" on account of ignorance of a. their own hypocrisy or b. the honesty and validity of their opponents positions
Some Rats actually believe the nonsense their demagogues spew. But the ones making the decisions know it is all a lie. Florida was no different.
Liberals are always good for a few laughs. Thanks for the ping.
Full disclosure: I believe Al Gore wrongly undermined the legitimacy of a Presidential election. He knowingly caused events that ended up harming America. However, I would argue the point that "Dems making the decisions knew it was all a lie."
There is of necessity a Machiavellian component in advocacy. But it doesn't follow that disputants are 100% cynical.
Should the nominal loser never seek recounts? Of course not! The kernel of sincerity on the Gore side was that the basic desire was for a fair recount (that may give Gore the victory). The mere fact that the sought-after recount became a fiercely advocated dispute is not enough reason to unequivocally condemn the Democrats' early actions.
“Between Gore, the Democrat party and the Florida State Supreme Court, there was a concerted effort to steal the 2000 election in Florida. Those who say otherwise are a.) lying or b.) blind partisans.”
You forgot: (c)ignorant of the facts and the real issues
and (d): (c) plus a Dim partisan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.