Skip to comments.
Media Recount Alert: Did Gore Blow It? (How To Counter the Impending Dem Spin!)
Slate / kausfiles.com ^
| November 10, 2001
| Mickey Kaus
Posted on 11/11/2001 12:38:32 AM PST by Timesink
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Be ready come Monday, Freepers!
1
posted on
11/11/2001 12:38:32 AM PST
by
Timesink
To: Timesink
Here's what Marshall has written, in decending order as all blogs are (newest material is at the top):With regards to the last update about Gore winning Florida on overvotes, Mickey Kaus correctly notes that it all depends on what kind of overvotes. If tons of folks in Palm Beach voted for Gore and Pat Buchanan, we may know as a matter of logic that most of these were really Gore votes. But that surmise would be irrelevant in terms of those votes counting. On the other hand, if lots of people checked Gore's name and then also put down Gore in the 'write-in' section, then under Florida law those votes could have and should have counted.
Let me try to clarify this as much as I can.
As you certainly know, Talking Points has a powerful intelligence network with both HUMINT (human intelligence) and SIGINT (signals intelligence) capabilities. And through our aggressive tracking we've been able to monitor internal Gore mafia communications in advance of the Monday release of the data.
The word from Goreland is an aggressive push to rebut the argument that they did not ask for a count of overvotes. That tells me that the overvotes in question were countable overvotes. Otherwise the 'we did so want overvotes counted' spin would be irrelevant.
Here's one other tidbit: two prominent Gore field operatives are telling fellow Gore-ites that the debate within the New York Times at the moment is over how definitively to say that Gore would have won. Whether he definitely would have won or whether he probably would have won. There also seems to be a lot of intra-Gore camp spinning, with HQ folks like Tad Devine and Monica Dixon successfully putting the blame on the Florida field team for whatever screw-ups took place.
So, as we've seen with the FBI and CIA recently, intelligence intercepts are sometimes hard to interpret. But that's what I glean based on the information I have.
-- Josh Marshall
(November 9th, 2001 -- 12:58 PM EST //
link)
The word I'm getting from within the Gore campaign is that the recount results to be revealed Monday show ambiguous results for all possible ways of counting the ballots.
With one exception, and it's a big one. If you count overvotes, Gore would have won big.
That's the scoop.
-- Josh Marshall
2
posted on
11/11/2001 12:41:56 AM PST
by
Timesink
To: Timesink
Storm brewing. Batten down hatches.
3
posted on
11/11/2001 12:43:54 AM PST
by
Gimlet
To: Timesink
I would be glued to the ceiling right now if Gore was president. No telling how many personas he would have tried on if he had been President from Sept 11 till now. Imagine his speech before the joint session. That fake, black preacher goofy style he acts out makes my skin crawl. I am embarassed for the man. If Gore should have won, then it is a sure sign that God stepped in and saved us from the stupidity of half of our fellow citizens.
But I don't think the public wants to go back over this ground and if the media and the Dems harp on it too much there will be a backlash. All it will boil down to for now is that Gore will be more encouraged to run again. This story will have a one week life span.
4
posted on
11/11/2001 12:55:33 AM PST
by
Theresa
To: Timesink
So, if the Overvotes were counted, it appears that Gore would have won. Is that it?
- did they factor in the panhandle vote that got dissed?
- did they recount ALL of Dade or stick with just the Dem' districts, not wanting to count the Republican Cuban vote again (wonder how many Cuban's overvoted for Bush twice?)
- How much did they factor in for the lost Military vote?
- Did this "recount" calculation factor in "overvotes" (and "undervotes") for the entire country? Or are we just (belatedly) pretending "If we redid Florida only"? i.e. the same trick that Gore tried to do with Florida Dem Counties only.
Yup, batten down the hatches, but I don't think this "hypothetical" year late "what if" recount will amount to much.
5
posted on
11/11/2001 1:01:55 AM PST
by
AgThorn
To: Timesink
Is there any chance this could result in a Constitutional Convention-- supported by the Majority Rats in Congress?
FReep Halibut Award-- Dishonorable Mention
To: Timesink
I was ready since Friday, when I'd heard that the New York Times plans to make the recount outcome their headline story on Monday "whatever the outcome."
The NYT wouldn't commit to that unless they already knew what that "outcome" would be.
-- Weekly Universe
To: let freedom sing
Is there any chance this could result in a Constitutional Convention-- supported by the Majority Rats in Congress? For the purposes of what, exactly? They can't anoint Gore king.
8
posted on
11/11/2001 1:21:34 AM PST
by
Timesink
To: Timesink
All they have to do, is change the Constitution-- and then they can change the President. Change the rules of the game, and play it another way. The WTO will be the WGO (World Government Organization) or OWG-- One World Government. That's prophecy. All the world religions are waiting for the King to come. Depending on who's left holding the reigns of government-- ultimately decides who'll be King of this World.
To: Timesink
If these weasels from the newspapers do what I think they're going to do, they will destroy their franchise with the American public. Doing this now -- undermining the presidency in time of war -- is the most obtuse, blatant act of politcal partisanship imaginable. They will suffer horribly if they do this, and they will deserve it. |
To: Timesink
Let TeamGore engage in the blame game all they like. Their operatives in Florida, the Gore-Lieberman Hqs in Tennessee, or the DC crowd. The country already knows AlGore micromanaged his campaign...if there was a blunder, giving Bush the presidency, AlGore is to blame, whether he accepts responsibility or not.
And Duh! If Gore couldn't even manufacture a "win" in Florida, how the heck do you think he would do against bin Laden and his network of terrorists?
11
posted on
11/11/2001 1:42:29 AM PST
by
YaYa123
To: let freedom sing
It'll never, ever happen. Don't worry about it.
12
posted on
11/11/2001 1:44:47 AM PST
by
Timesink
To: let freedom sing
All they have to do, is change the ConstitutionOh is that ALL they have to do? Give me a break.
13
posted on
11/11/2001 2:11:52 AM PST
by
boomop1
To: Timesink
Let them whine, let them spin, let them cry. The bottom line is: George W. Bush is now the President of the United States. And, it appears, that a large amount of citizens of this country are happy about that! We are at war, and IMHO the media is irresponsible to put this out now. However, it could work to the Republicans advantage. By the time the next elections roll around, it's a non-issue. The contrived outrage will be diminished.
To: Nick Danger
If these weasels from the newspapers do what I think they're going to do, they will destroy their franchise with the American public. Doing this now -- undermining the presidency in time of war -- is the most obtuse, blatant act of politcal partisanship imaginable. They will suffer horribly if they do this, and they will deserve it. I'll be listening to Drudge tonight--he'll have the scoop. I believe Drudge said some time ago (or maybe it was Rush) that the NYT has had this story for a while and were set to run it in Sept., but backed off it after 9/11. They should back off it permanently, but they are sick.
15
posted on
11/11/2001 3:14:52 AM PST
by
randita
To: Timesink
I don't recall the FL Supreme Court ruling thusly, nor the FL State Legislature asserting this law, so I'm skeptical of this statement. I do recall that there was a law in place that said that if there was a punched vote AND a write-in vote for the same or different candidate on a ballot, it was automatically disqualified. I do know that one of the things the scanners did was spit out ballots (not count) that had punched votes and marks or any other extraneous marks.
16
posted on
11/11/2001 3:18:36 AM PST
by
randita
To: Timesink; carlo3b; LadyX; Billie; ofMagog; COB1; Scuttlebutt; parsifal; Fred Mertz; Snow Bunny
Overvotes meaning a vote for two different candidates in the same race.
So this means that to the NYT: a voter that voted for both Bush and Gore, or both Gore and Pat, or both Pat and Bush, really meant to vote for Gore!
Is Miss Cleo moonlighting at the NYT?
To: Timesink
Have overvotes ever been counted in any state before? Have they ever been counted in Florida? Does any state even permit the counting of overvotes?
18
posted on
11/11/2001 3:48:23 AM PST
by
djpg
To: razorback-bert
bttt
To: Gimlet
Storm brewing. Batten down hatches. Tempest in a teapot.
Yawn.
20
posted on
11/11/2001 4:00:09 AM PST
by
Ole Okie
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson