Media Recount Alert: Did Gore Blow It? (How To Counter the Impending Dem Spin!)

Slate / kausfiles.com ^ | November 10, 2001 | Mickey Kaus

[hchutch]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

See the above link. This is what I was afraid of. Partial counts as Gore wanted, Bush wins. Full count: Gore wins. Ergo, the Dems can say that the thing was stolen, and Gore is sunk because he screwed up.

Interesting that this was Jeffrey Toobin's take, IMO.

[GoredInMich]

PRECISELY. The so-called undervotes/overvotes are ILLEGAL under florida law.

this is a pointless venture to undermine Bush's popularity.

Let 'em do it. it will only show the country (again) how pathetic and petty the demoflop part has become.

[Howlin]

I would be glued to the ceiling right now if Gore was president

It took me six months just to stop clinching my teeth every single time I heard the words "The White House said today......" I finally figured out it was US......LOL.

[Howlin]

I hope they do it, but what could the rationale be for saying "If you'll let us count illegal votes -- only in Florida, of course -- Gore would have won?"

[savedbygrace]

How To Counter the Impending Dem Spin?

Just four words: Professor Gore, President Bush.

[Miss Marple]

All these counted votes are ILLEGAL, according to Florida state law. What has you so afraid? You KNEW that sooner or later they would manufacture something to say this. Now that we are at war, most people, having seen Bush in action, WILL NOT CARE. Instead, they are going to get annoyed at the press.

McAuliffe has been yammering about this for months. We all knew it was coming, ever since the papers announced it.

Putin will be here next week. That should fill some of the news cycle, and the rest will be filled with Afghanistan stuff and this. This is a nine days wonder and will move on to something else.

[alnick]

No, but they are legal votes-the fact that they aren't routinely counted is a matter of custom, not law. This is a dumb argument-don't try it. Even libs can figure this one out, and they'll shout "rule of law!" and other dumb stuff at us.

No, they are not legal votes; they are disqualified, invalidated ballots.

[jackbill]

*chuckle* I haven't read that.... where did you find it? It wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Check out:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/565593/posts

[boop]

On liberal dicsussion boards, they are asking for "proof" that over or undervotes are illegal. Is this really FL law? I didn't have an answer.

[alnick]

Well, since common sense isn't enough for them, refer them to CNN's article which states, "However, the double votes on both butterfly and caterpillar ballots were clearly invalid under any interpretation of the law." http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

[VRWCmember]

With one exception, and it's a big one. If you count overvotes, Gore would have won big.

By a range of 60 to 180 votes, Gore would have "won big"??!!

[Alas Babylon!]

I don't think "you" get it! I'm gonna rename you to... TooWrong!

On item # 1. Overvotes aren't counted because they're LEGALLY not votes. It's not a custom, but the law, not to count them. My point was in accordance to the law, not what silly things you think are true.

On # 3 & 4. The democrats wanted, because some people made mistakes with their ballots, so they say, because, again according to them, the ballots were confusing, a revote. Again, the law states once the ballot is turned in that is it. The voter is responsible for ensuring they're correct, and can ask for assistance if not sure. In light of what the democrats said, I hardly think the laws are irrelevant. Otherwise, they would have had vote after vote until Gore won. LoL!

[LaineyDee]

Thanks! :)

[TooRight]

I'm terribly sorry, but there are certain overvotes that are admissible by law. You are simply very, very wrong on that point. Florida election law is extremely nebulous, but it does state that, in a recount, if the clear intent of the voter can be discerned, the vote is valid. Thus, an overvote that includes a punch for a candidate and that candidate's name as a write-in is a legal vote. It's not terribly complicated. Tsk.

[Alas Babylon!]

Well, according to the US Supreme Court, yes, it was too complicated--so complicated, in fact--they threw the whole recount fiasco out! And America is grateful for that!