Skip to comments.Media Recount Alert: Did Gore Blow It? (How To Counter the Impending Dem Spin!)
Posted on 11/11/2001 12:38:32 AM PST by Timesink
Surprisingly, the results of the media consortium recount of the Florida presidential ballots, scheduled for publication on Monday, haven't leaked out yet and it's already Saturday night. But Joshua Micah Marshall's me-zine has a partial scoop. Marshall hears that the impending consortium tally will find that "[I]f you count overvotes, Gore would have won big." (Remember overvotes? They're ballots disqualified when the ballot-counting machine detects votes for more than one candidate. But they can be legal votesif, for example, a voter marks the little circle next to "Gore" and also marks the circle next to "write-in" and writes in "Gore" also.)
Good news for the Gore team? Not quite. The barb, for them, is that they didn't ask that the overvotes be counted! Instead, their entire effort was directed at counting "undervotes," ballots on which no vote was detected by the machines, but which might have a partially perforated "chad" detectable by humans.
Relying on intercepted communications, Marshall predicts a massive self-exculpatory spin offensive by former Gore campaign aides, all designed to erase the impression that they foolishly ignored the very ballots that would have given them the presidency. Indeed, since the results are out Monday, this spin campaign has probably been underway for several days. There is a significant possibility it will succeed Gore aide Ron Klain played the Washington Post like a fiddle earlier this year, for example. (Details here.)
To help avert this possibility, kausfiles inaugurates its branded Spinoculator service, which provides both reporters and ordinary citizens with information that may protect them and their loved ones from misleading spin attacks.
In this case, the antidote to the looming Gore-team spin can be found in the transcript of the final U.S. Supreme Court hearing in Bush v. Gore. Several justices were concerned that the Florida Supreme Court's recount was focused on undervotes and ignored overvotes, even though some overvotes might be valid, a concern that had prompted Florida's chief justice to dissent. Here is the relevant excerpt from the dialogue between the Court and Gore's lead lawyer, David Boies [emphasis added]:
JUSTICE STEVENS. What is your response to the chief justice of Florida's concern that the recount relates only to undervotes and not overvotes?
MR. BOIES. Well, first, nobody asked for a contest of the overvotes.
Later in the argument, the overvote issue comes up again:
when you're dealing with overvotes -- and remember, this is a machine issue. When you're dealing with overvotes, the machine has already registered two votes. Now, there may be another vote there, a dimpled vote or an indented vote, that the machine did not register. But once you get two votes, that ballot doesn't get counted for the presidency.
JUSTICE BREYER. They gave an example. The example they gave in their brief was, there's a punch for Governor Bush, and then there's a punch for "write-in," and the write-in says, "I want Governor Bush." And so I think their implication is that that would have been rejected by the machine, but if you looked at it by hand, the intent of the voter would be clear. I don't know if there are such votes, but they say there might be.
MR. BOIES. There's nothing in the record that suggests there are such votes.
But there is plenty in the record, you now know, to suggest that the Gore team blew it by ignoring a trove of potentially valid Gore ballots. Resist all spin to the contrary!
P.S.: If the overvotes do turn out to be crucial, I told you so!
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.
With one exception, and it's a big one. If you count overvotes, Gore would have won big.
That's the scoop.
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.
- 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.
FReep Halibut Award-- Dishonorable Mention
The NYT wouldn't commit to that unless they already knew what that "outcome" would be.
For the purposes of what, exactly? They can't anoint Gore king.
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.
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?
Oh is that ALL they have to do? Give me a break.
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.
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?
Tempest in a teapot.
Rather than be concerned about our national welfare, and security, these dunderheads continue to stir a pot that has long since grown cold.
Why even bother.
Like some Dems I know, they'd rather piss in their pants than admit Bush is President.
People... move on with your life!
I am curious as to how many dems would actually vote for Al Gore today. (You'd be amazed at how many I know that are so thankful Dubya is in!!!)
Now... go get some coffee!!!
They'd have to dig them up and find all the illegal aliens again. All cheating aside... Bush probably won by a large margin...IMHO.
You will not read about it in the NYT tomorrow.
If the Gorons dems, and big media want to spin this again, it's time for us to FLOOD them with the truth. For every newspaper, magazine, tv show, etc, that publishes the NYT's story, write a letter to the editor.
1. Overvotes are NEVER counted. Not in Florida, not anywhere. No state, from Alabama to Wyoming, counts overvotes.
2. Gore's defense team did not make overvotes an issue, and the record shows they refused to do so (insert Boies's remarks to US Supremes).
3. Any voter who punches a ballot and doesn't check it for hanging chads, non-punched blocks, or any other error DID NOT follow instructions provided with the ballot itself.
4. You cannot have another chance once you've turned in your ballot, and since no one's name is on the ballot itself, there is no way once it's turned in to retrieve it. As in poker, a card laid is a card played.
5. The election is over, Bush won, get over it!!!!
The county was Escambia, where Pensacola is located, and the number was closer to 800.
Tonight at 10PM go tosptimes.lostvotes
Arduous ballot review--- It's an unprecedented double-check on democracy. At a cost of nearly $1-million, some of the nation's top news organizations have spent the past year in a painstaking review of 175,010 Florida ballots from last year's disputed presidential election.
Someone should run a poll: who would you vote for today, Bush or Gore?
It should have been Gore in a landslide. He was the incumbent VP, the economy was humming along and as we all know, Gore was just so smart and superior compared to candidate Bush. But Gore blew it. Had he carried his home state, all of this would have been a non-issue. Had Clinton been able to carry his own state for Gore, this would have been a non-issue. I'm sure the Yankees were devastated this year to have lost the World Series in the ninth inning of Game 7. But you don't see them pissing and moaning about what could've been. Instead, they are doing what Gore should be doing right now, preparing for the next campaign.
Which kind of overvotes, the 1 candidate/1 write-in or 2 candidates? My feeling is that it is the latter, considering PBC.
Wasn't it recently reported that 350,000 Mexican illegals have returned to Mexico since 9/11? There went over half of Algore's "popular vote majority".
In this case, the voter is given another ballot. Were the "original" ballots in this case destroyed? Or are these the "overvotes" that have now been counted?
*chuckle* I haven't read that.... where did you find it? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Or so they claim. Make'em prove it. Don't accept their count. I want to see the ballots one by one, where is the video of the recount? Each ballot pictured as it was prior to being handled by a Democrat. Oops, can't happen because all of those ballots have been bent, spindled and mutilated by partisan Democrat vote recounters prior to the partisan media recount.
Of course, bert!
All the votes for the local dog-catcher was supposed to be votes for Al Gore for the Presidency, too!
What I'm puzzled about is why there hasn't been a change in the way we elect our president?
With all the problems we had in the last election it would seem to me that a number one priority in this country would be to force the states to select one positive means of voting and counting the votes for the presidency before this happens again.
It was Okaloosa County, in the panhandle (Fort Walton Beach, Eglin AFB).
It is one of the problems with our system of government, but it's better than any other, so unless we decide to go to a parliamentary system, we have President Bush, we could have had President Gore, it's just the way things are.
I still find it amazing, that we have this winner takes all system. This was basically a 50-50 election, and even though 50% of the people voted for Gore, whatever Bush says goes, or would have been the reverse if Gore had won.
It works ok with 2 candidates, but what if we ever get a strong third party candidate? Just say, for example, Sam Nunn, and Zell Miller are the Democratic nominees, the party moves more towards the center. Liberals are furious, and throw all their support behind Ralph Nader and the Greens.
The Country is moving to the right as well. Bush gets 34% of the vote, Nunn gets 34%, and Nader gets 32%, but he wins California, NY, Illinois, and Florida with winner takes all systems, and with a few other key states, takes the presidency, even though 68% of the people in this country repudiate his ideas. Something like that happens, then what?
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.