Skip to comments.Washington Post headline: Study shows recount would have elected Bush
Posted on 11/11/2001 6:51:01 PM PST by dawn53Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:31 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Looks like the Post is following CNN and using a sane headline.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Study: Recounts Would Have Favored BushBy Dan Keating and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, Nov. 12, 2001; Page A01
In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.
But if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.
The study showed that if the two limited recounts had not been short-circuited the first by Florida county and state election officials and the second by the U.S. Supreme Court Bush would have held his lead over Gore, with margins ranging from 225 to 493 votes, depending on the standard. But the study also found that whether dimples are counted or a more restrictive standard is used, a statewide tally favored Gore by 60 to 171 votes.
But luckily most people will just read the headline, which tells the real story.
Recounts are limited by State & Federal election laws which require a certification of results at a date certain. GW was certified.
Any challenge to the result ccertified in Florida would have been determined by the US House.
Upshot? GW was elected by every legitimate consideration. THANK G*D!!
....not to mention Dershowitz's stupid book and Buscaglia's stupid book. Them dummy libs sure do put out a lot of stupid books, don't they?
I now take Drudge's scoops with even more salt than I used to. Sheesh!
November 12, 2001 Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court. (end of excerpt)
Hee hee, so even the NY Times is saying Bush won, and have even taken on the issue of the Supreme Court "awarding" the election to Bush. The DemonRATS must be going bonkers!!!
This is NOT A BIG STORY. The election is a year old. Gore campaigned for several candidates last week and they lost. The ones that won didn't want him around. There are many important things happenineg: this is not one of them.
The same thing that's going to happen to Bill and Hillary's. Remainder bin.
All the ones Clinton worked for lost, too.
Times, they is a changing.
And Alan Dershowitz and Vincent Bugliosi and a dozen more ...
I agree. All the arguments I've read (democRats and Republican) are the same as a year ago. No one's viewpoint has changed, one iota. Time to move on. I only thank God that Katherine Harris upheld the rule of law and that the Supreme Court did as well.
"With the presidency hanging on the outcome in Florida, the Bush team quickly grasped that the best hope of ensuring victory was the trove of ballots still arriving in the mail from Florida residents living abroad. Over the next 18 days, the Republicans mounted a legal and public relations campaign to persuade canvassing boards in Bush strongholds to waive the state's election laws when counting overseas absentee ballots.
Their goal was simple: to count the maximum number of overseas ballots in counties won by Mr. Bush, particularly those with a high concentration of military voters, while seeking to disqualify overseas ballots in counties won by Vice President Al Gore.
A six-month investigation by The New York Times of this chapter in the closest presidential election in American history shows that the Republican effort had a decided impact. Under intense pressure from the Republicans, Florida officials accepted hundreds of overseas absentee ballots that failed to comply with state election laws."
A real push-me;pull-you media battle to cofuse and confound the sheeple... In all fairness, aside from the above issue of the overseas and absentee ballots, if Palm Beach voters had been given a fair shake, President-elect Gore would be in the White House right now, it would seem.
Oh well, the din of battle will drown out this news (see Drudge's banner headline) after a few news cycles, I expect. I can live with p-Resident Bush, I guess...
Look at your source and what they DON'T say. The Republicans were merely trying to require the local election boards to accept the overseas ballots of MILITARY voters that SHOULD have been accepted according to the overriding FEDERAL election codes! This effort was only started after a coterie of DemocRAT attorneys following THEIR PLAN to persuade those same county officials to discard the military ballots. There was no effort to set aside State election law as to other overseas ballots.
Remember also that Clinton/Gore, for the first time in US History ordered that voting stations could not be located on US bases... and delayed delivery of ballots to overseas posts and ships at sea!