Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stephanopoulos: Candidate Not Wrong to Say Bush Stole Election
Don Imus, Quoted in NewsMax ^ | 5/14/03 | Carl Limbacher

Posted on 05/14/2003 11:24:38 AM PDT by Paul Ross

NewsMax.com

 

Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:07 p.m. EDT

Stephanopoulos: Candidate Not Wrong to Say Bush Stole Election

In a radio interview Wednesday morning, ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos defended a claim by one of the Democratic Party presidential candidates that President Bush stole the 2000 election, saying it was "a reasonable inference" based on the evidence.

Stephanopoulos was asked to respond to a comment by former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, who told Sen. Joe Lieberman during the party's May 3 presidential debate: "We need to pursue opportunities for individuals to vote, instead of making it a high hurdle that they have to leap. And in all cases, make certain that we never again allow for the stealing of an election, as happened with you and, and Senator Gore."

Asked why, as the debate's moderator, he didn't challenge Moseley Braun when she made the erroneous claim, Stephanopoulos told radio host Don Imus that the debate rules didn't allow him to follow up.

But in the next breath the objective newsman insisted that Bush really didn't win the state of Florida legitimately.

"I believe that Al Gore got more votes both in, obviously the popular vote," insisted the "This Week" host, "and if you count all the votes in the state of Florida, Al Gore would have had more."

When Imus pointed out that investigations by numerous media organizations failed to turn up compelling evidence that Gore won more Florida votes than Bush, the former Clinton spokesman countered, "To not believe [that Gore beat Bush], you'd have to believe that 30,000 elderly Jewish voters in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan.

"You can't believe that," Stephanopoulos added.

The Democrat spinmeister-turned-ABC newsman then explained that while he disagreed that the election was deliberately stolen by Bush, he didn't think the claim was unreasonable.

"It doesn't mean that George Bush stole the election," he told Imus. "I don't think he did. But it's just this. I just think it's a reasonable inference."

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2000election; 2004election; abc; abcdisney; abcnews; algorelostgetoverit; boycott; boycottdisney; bushgore; clymers; denydenydeny; dnc; donimus; election; election2000; election2004; georgestephanopoulos; hangingchad; mediabias; mickeymouse; moseleybraun; mousesevilempire; moveonmorons; paidshill; slapthadonkey; spinspinspin; stole; waawaaaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last
Objective news analysis by ABC's finest. Learned parsing of sentances from previous boss. Next stop, Howell Raines job...'to restore the NYT's integrity.'
1 posted on 05/14/2003 11:24:39 AM PDT by Paul Ross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"I believe that Al Gore got more votes both in, obviously the popular vote..."

There is no national popular vote in Presidential elections. Get it right, schmuck!

2 posted on 05/14/2003 11:29:50 AM PDT by SunStar (Democrats piss me off!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
So Stephanopoulos says that GWB 'stole' the election 'by accident'?

This just goes to show that once a lying Xlowntoonian POS, always a lying Xlowntoonian POS.

3 posted on 05/14/2003 11:30:13 AM PDT by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Bush won.
Get over it, George and Carol.
4 posted on 05/14/2003 11:30:58 AM PDT by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Gorgie Porgie should get down his history book aand look at the "Hayes/Tilden" election which was in 1878, or somewhere near there, and learn how presidential elections are really stolen.
5 posted on 05/14/2003 11:31:38 AM PDT by tsali1927
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
And Richard Nixon won in 1960 because everybody knows that Chicago's River Wards had the dead voting!

In this case the errors were made by the Palm Beach Democrats from start to finish and, as in elections past, where there is no FRAUD there can be no contest!

6 posted on 05/14/2003 11:31:53 AM PDT by SES1066
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
He can believe in the Tooth FAIRY for all I care.

It still doesn't make it true.
7 posted on 05/14/2003 11:32:51 AM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tsali1927; William McKinley
Yup...that sure was a doozie of election-theft!
8 posted on 05/14/2003 11:33:29 AM PDT by Paul Ross (From the State Looking Forward to Global Warming! Let's Drown France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!
9 posted on 05/14/2003 11:33:46 AM PDT by hgro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hgro
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

Or opening their mouths!

10 posted on 05/14/2003 11:34:49 AM PDT by Paul Ross (From the State Looking Forward to Global Warming! Let's Drown France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Funny, Stephanopoulus sounds like something you need to get vaccinated for.
11 posted on 05/14/2003 11:36:18 AM PDT by Dead Dog (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
To believe that GW stole the elections is to believe that Democrat precinct supervisors of Democrat precincts turned away bonafide Democrat voters. You have to believe that Democrat poll workers threw out Democrat votes.

Anyone that says the election was stolen is either irrational or lying.
12 posted on 05/14/2003 11:36:26 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Bush won.
Get over it, George and Carol.

And Bush will win 2004. Stock up on your meds...you idiots!

13 posted on 05/14/2003 11:37:23 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (When the tree of Liberty is washed, may it be only with the blood of tyrants!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
So Stephanopoulos says that GWB 'stole' the election 'by accident'?

Yep, that's what he said. Now we can use Stepindroppingsolous alternate universe logic to post a corollary: Algore failed to steal the election on purpose.

14 posted on 05/14/2003 11:40:16 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Gore got the felon vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: VRW Conspirator
The only presidential election stolen in our lifetime was by JFK...not George Bush.

Bill Clinton was also elected president by default....thanks to one Ross Perot!! But you will never here libs talking about that.

15 posted on 05/14/2003 11:41:56 AM PDT by Cameron1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
What Georgy meant to say was count all the votes except the absentee military. Sh#thead Wimp!
16 posted on 05/14/2003 11:43:14 AM PDT by Arkie2 (TSA ="Thousands standing around")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Actually his name is Stuffinenvelopes.
17 posted on 05/14/2003 11:44:37 AM PDT by LuisBasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Stephanopoulus sounds like something you need to get vaccinated for.

The result of contracting Stephanopoulus is that you turn red inside and out and die ignorant.

18 posted on 05/14/2003 11:45:15 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Gore got the illegal alien vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
AND MORE
GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

WHY????????????????????????????????????????
WHY????????????????????????????????????????
WHY????????????????????????????????????????

DOESN'T EVEN IMUS TALK ABOUT THE 90%??? OF
THE MILITARY VOTERS DISINFRANCHISED/STOLEN
FROM IN THAT ELECTION AT SUCH MOMENTS IN
MEDIA IDIOCY??????????????????????????????

GGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

19 posted on 05/14/2003 11:46:33 AM PDT by Quix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cameron1
It's good that the left continues to believe this.

For example in the 2002 elections that blew a lot of their powder on challenging Jeb Bush, not because it was a strategically sound thing to do, but because they thought it would bring some sort of "justice" or vindication to what happened in Florida in 2000.

I can only surmise that similar miscalculations will follow for similar reasons. They are starting to sound like Dodger fans who can't forget the Bobby Thomson home run, or Red Sox fans who can't get over Bucky Dent, or Bill Buckner. If they want to live in the past, I say let them!
20 posted on 05/14/2003 11:46:38 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
The Democrat spinmeister-turned-ABC newsman...

BOYCOTT DISNEY: a vortex of seductive evil™

21 posted on 05/14/2003 11:46:42 AM PDT by Petronski (I'm not always cranky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Dog
Just tell Staphlococcolus to put some ice on it.
22 posted on 05/14/2003 11:47:09 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
You know, the same thing that applies to the NYTs LATs applies to the CNNABCCBSNBC news. You know what lies you are going to get before you turn it on. So why watch?
23 posted on 05/14/2003 11:49:35 AM PDT by snooker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
http://elections.harpweek.com/9Controversy/events-controversy.htm

Day by Day: What Happened in the Electoral College Controversy of 1876-1877




June 14-16 The Republican National Convention in Cincinnati nominates Governor Rutherford B. Hayes of Ohio for president and Congressman William Wheeler of New York as vice president.




June 27-29 The Democratic National Convention in St. Louis nominates Governor Samuel J. Tilden of New York for president and Governor Thomas Hendricks of Indiana as vice president.




November 7 Democrat Samuel Tilden wins a narrow majority of the popular vote against Republican Rutherford Hayes, but both sides claim to have won the presidency in the Electoral College vote. The 19 electoral votes in three states—South Carolina (7), Florida (4), and Louisiana (8)—are disputed. They are the only remaining Southern states with federal troops stationed under Reconstruction policy. One elector in Oregon is also disputed. Tilden’s total stands at 184 electoral votes, one short of a majority, with Hayes at 165 needing all 20 of the disputed electoral votes to win the presidency.




December 6 The Electoral College meets in all the states and cast ballots for president and vice president. The results are certified and sent to Congress. Two sets of results are returned for Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina.




December 7 The Congressional session opens. This is the final session for the lame-duck Congress which leaves office on March 5, 1877 (the day for inaugurating the new president and swearing in the new Congress). Republicans control the Senate and Democrats control the House in both the outgoing and incoming Congresses.




December 21 A special Senate committee for establishing a process for resolving the disputed electoral count is announced. It is chaired by Republican George Edmunds of Vermont. Other Republican majority members are: Roscoe Conkling of New York; Frederick Frelinghuysen of New Jersey; and Oliver Morton of Indiana. Democratic minority members are: Thomas Bayard of Delaware; M. W. Ransom of North Carolina; and Allen Thurman of Ohio.





December 22 A special House committee for establishing a process for resolving the disputed electoral count is announced. It is chaired by Democrat Henry Payne of Ohio. Other majority Democratic members are: Abram Hewitt of New York; Eppa Hunton of Virginia; and William Springer of Illinois. Republican minority members are: George Hoar of Massachusetts, George McCrary of Iowa, and George Willard of Michigan.




January 25, 1877 The Senate passes the Electoral Commission bill, which establishes a 15-member commission—of five senators, five representatives, and five Supreme Court justices—to decide the disputed election. Its decisions will be considered final unless overridden by both houses of Congress. The bill is approved by the Senate, 47-17, with Democrats voting 23-1 and Republicans voting 24-16 in the affirmative.
Justice David Davis, an independent assumed to be the deciding vote on the Electoral Commission, is elected to the U.S. Senate by a Democratic - Greenback coalition in the Illinois state legislature, 101-99. He later resigns from the Supreme Court and refuses to serve on the commission. His place on the Electoral Commission is filled by Justice Joseph Bradley, a Republican.





January 26 The House passes the Electoral Commission bill, 191-86, with Democrats voting 158-18 in the affirmative. A majority of House Republicans voted against the measure, 68-33. In both houses combined, Democrats overwhelming favored the measure, 181-19, while Republicans opposed it, 84-57.





January 29 President Grant signs the Electoral Commission Act into law.





February 1 Congress meets in a joint session to count the electoral votes for president and vice president. Senator Thomas Ferry of Michigan, a Republican and president pro tempore of the Senate, opens the electoral reports and begins the count of states in alphabetical order. Conflicting sets of returns are presented for Florida, which are referred to the Electoral Commission.




February 2-3 The case of Florida is argued by lawyers for both the Republicans and the Democrats before the Electoral Commission.




February 5 William Evarts, lead counsel for the Republicans, argues for admitting only the evidence already submitted to the joint session of Congress. Charles O’Conor, counsel for the Democrats, argues for admitting other evidence. The Electoral Commission dismisses the lawyers and audience, then deliberates in a secret session.




February 8 By an 8 to 7 party-line vote, the Electoral Commission accepts Evarts proposal to disallow the presentation of additional evidence.




February 9 The Electoral Commission votes 8 to 7 to give Florida’s four electoral votes to the Republican ticket of Rutherford Hayes and William Wheeler.




February 10 A joint session of Congress receives the Electoral Commission directive that Florida’s electoral votes be counted for Hayes/Wheeler. The two houses meet separately, with the Senate affirming the decision of the Electoral Commission.




February 12 The House rejects the Electoral Commission’s report on Florida, 168-103.




February 13-15 The Electoral Commission hears arguments from both sides on the case of Louisiana, then goes into secret deliberations on the 15th.




February 15 According to Harper’s Weekly, an assassination attempt is made on the life of Governor Stephen Packard of Louisiana, a Republican. The governor knocks down the gun aimed at his heart, and the bullet grazes his knee. The perpetrator is taken into custody.




February 16 The Electoral Commission, on an 8 to 7 party-line vote, awards Louisiana’s eight electoral votes to the Republican ticket of Hayes/Wheeler.




February 18 Congress receives the official word of the Electoral Commission’s decision to award Louisiana’s electoral votes to Hayes/Wheeler. The House is in recess.




February 19 A joint session of Congress announces the Electoral Commission’s findings on Louisiana. After a two-hour debate, the Senate approves the decision, 41-28. The House recesses until the next day.




February 20 The House rejects the Electoral Commission’s directive on Louisiana, 172-99. The joint session of Congress reassembles. The electoral count continues until the state of Michigan, at which time a Democratic objection is made to one Republican elector from that state. The houses separate, and both overrule the objection.




February 21 The joint session of Congress continues the electoral count through the state of Ohio. The disputed electoral return in Oregon is submitted to the Electoral Commission.




February 22 Lawyers for both sides argue before the Electoral Commission concerning Oregon, then the commission goes into secret session.




February 23 By an 8 to 7 party-line vote, the Electoral Commission awards Oregon’s three electoral votes to the Republican ticket of Hayes/Wheeler.




February 24 Congress receives the Electoral Commission directive to grant Oregon’s electoral votes to Hayes/Wheeler. The Senate affirms the finding, 40-24, while the House rejects it, 151-107. The joint session of Congress reassembles, and the electoral count continues.




February 26 Democratic objections are made to the electoral returns of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, but are overruled by both houses meeting separately. The South Carolina returns are referred to the Electoral Commission, which hears arguments from lawyers for both sides.
Negotiations begin at the Wormley House hotel in Washington D.C. between a group of Southern Democrats and Ohio Republican supporters of Hayes.





February 27 The Electoral Commission, on an 8 to 7 party-line vote, awards South Carolina’s seven electoral votes to the Republican ticket of Hayes/Wheeler.




February 28 A joint session of Congress receives the directive from the Electoral Commission to count South Carolina’s electoral votes for Hayes/Wheeler. The Senate affirms this finding, while the House rejects it. The Congress reassembles in joint session, and the electoral count continues. Congressman Abram Hewitt, the Democratic party chairman, presents a second set of electoral returns for Vermont, but Senate President Ferry refuses to accept it. Meeting in separate session, the Senate votes down the objection to Vermont’s electoral report. In the House, Democrats filibuster the vote on Vermont by a series of delaying tactics.




March 1 In a late-night session, the objection to Vermont is finally overruled at 10 p.m., and Vermont’s electoral votes are awarded to Hayes/Wheeler. The electoral count continues, but a Democratic objection is made against one Republican elector from Wisconsin. The Houses separate, and the Senate quickly overrules the objection, voting to grant Wisconsin’s votes to Hayes/Wheeler.




March 2 After a long, boisterous session, the House finally overrules the objection at 3:38 a.m. and approves Wisconsin’s votes for Hayes/Wheeler. At 4:10 a.m., a joint session of Congress then awards Wisconsin’s electoral votes to the Republicans. Rutherford Hayes is declared president of the United States and William Wheeler is declared vice president; winning 185-184 in the Electoral College.




March 5 Rutherford B. Hayes is sworn in publicly as president of the United States.




Spring 1877 President Hayes removes the remaining federal troops in the South from political duty (guarding the statehouses) and the era of Reconstruction formally ends.




24 posted on 05/14/2003 11:51:30 AM PDT by William McKinley (Our differences are politics. Our agreements are principles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SES1066
People forget that Pat Buchanan lives in Palm Beach! He maintains a residence there and in a previous election received a higher percentage of the vote locally than he did nationally.

The dumbocraps are STILL in denial.

25 posted on 05/14/2003 11:51:46 AM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
It depends what the meaning of "votes" is. If "votes" means "ballots lawfully cast," then Bush got more of them. That's why Gore spent so much time after the election trying to destroy Florida election law and the US Constitution.
26 posted on 05/14/2003 11:52:03 AM PDT by The Hon. Galahad Threepwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"I believe that Al Gore got more votes both in, obviously the popular vote," insisted the "This Week" host, "and if you count all the votes in the state of Florida, Al Gore would have had more."

What a retard!

27 posted on 05/14/2003 11:52:18 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Pssst!, don't forget the lost votes for Republicans in the Panhandle (thanks to the major networks)
28 posted on 05/14/2003 11:56:14 AM PDT by Helms (Californication Beyond Hollywood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
saying it was "a reasonable inference" based on the evidence.

The "evidence" is that the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.
While Stephanopoulos is talking evidence, shouldn't he also say that Clinton was impeached in the Senate since the "evidence" proved overwhelmingly that he should have been and that most Senators refused to look at all the evidence?
The democrats are drowning in their own cesspool of spin. Someone needs to throw them an anchor.

29 posted on 05/14/2003 11:58:55 AM PDT by The Brush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
More to the point, Steponallofus is covering up the fact that a DNC operative made a major mistake in his/her hole punching gambit, accidentally punching the Buchanan vote instead of the Gore vote, to create the duplicity the DNC exploited for the court challenge. When the error was discovered, the only way to account for the 'phantom ballots' was to punch them again, a second time. Stolen election?... The DNC failed to do their thievery accurately and was rebuffed, so now they claim the Pubbies stoel the theft gambit of the Gore operatives. Yeah, that's typical of the people running the current democrat party ... and they've fielded at least nine of their ilk, with more to come, just you wait and see!
30 posted on 05/14/2003 12:04:12 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
More to the point, Steponallofus is covering up the fact that a DNC operative made a major mistake in his/her hole punching gambit, accidentally punching the Buchanan vote instead of the Gore vote, to create the duplicity the DNC exploited for the court challenge. When the error was discovered, the only way to account for the 'phantom ballots' was to punch them again, a second time. Stolen election?... The DNC failed to do their thievery accurately and was rebuffed, so now they claim the Pubbies stole the theft gambit of the Gore operatives. Yeah, that's typical of the people running the current democrat party ... and they've fielded at least nine of their ilk, with more to come, just you wait and see!
31 posted on 05/14/2003 12:04:22 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
"To not believe [that Gore beat Bush], you'd have to believe that 30,000 elderly Jewish voters in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan.

"You can't believe that," Stephanopoulos added.

Especially since Buchannon only got 3,389 votes in Palm Beach County, 560 in Dade County and 788 in Broward County.

32 posted on 05/14/2003 12:08:33 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Like caps; do ya?
33 posted on 05/14/2003 12:11:26 PM PDT by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Stephanopoulis is obviously an idiot (where he gets that 30,000 elderly south Floridian Buchanan votes is beyond me), but Imus is an idiot as well.

In a debate, the moderators role is not to debate the debaters. It was Joe "Captain Integrity" Lieberman's responsibility to point out the lie, since the comment was directed at him. Thankfully he didn't, because I would have likely died of heart attack on the spot if he had.

34 posted on 05/14/2003 12:12:57 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Actually there were at least three attempts to "steal" the Florida vote and none of them had anything to do with President Bush. First, the media wrongly announced that Gore had won Florida when the polls were still open in the heavily republican panhandle, thereby suppressing the vote in that area that would have favored Bush. Second, the Gore camp chose to go to the Florida courts to seek a limited manual recount of votes only in those counties where they believed a recount would help Gore. Third, the Gore camp systematically challenged overseas military votes because they thought those votes would go more for Bush.
35 posted on 05/14/2003 12:13:27 PM PDT by Pharlap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Actually there were at least three attempts to "steal" the Florida vote and none of them had anything to do with President Bush. First, the media wrongly announced that Gore had won Florida when the polls were still open in the heavily republican panhandle, thereby suppressing the vote in that area that would have favored Bush. Second, the Gore camp chose to go to the Florida courts to seek a limited manual recount of votes only in those counties where they believed a recount would help Gore. Third, the Gore camp systematically challenged overseas military votes because they thought those votes would go more for Bush.
36 posted on 05/14/2003 12:13:35 PM PDT by Pharlap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
...investigations by numerous media organizations failed to turn up compelling evidence that Gore won more Florida votes than Bush...

Why this answer is not given more often to these clymers is beyond me.

As for Stephanopoulos, I watched that show almost every Sunday until that little lying sissy was brought on board, at which point they lost all credibility with me.
37 posted on 05/14/2003 12:13:39 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Beware the Rodham Fedayeen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Wow!

Wow!

You mean a guy who could do everything he could to help BILL CLINTON win, and keep, the White house, and still live with himself, is also capable of having a butt-stupid, uninformed, dishonest opinion about the 2000 election???!

WOW!!!

Dan

38 posted on 05/14/2003 12:16:27 PM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
heh. No wonder Georgie boy's "punditry" show is the lowest rated one of the Big 3's.

There was a day when "This Week" ran second to Meet The DePressed. Not anymore, not since the punk kid started hosting.

39 posted on 05/14/2003 12:19:45 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm SO glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cameron1
>> Bill Clinton was also elected president by default....thanks to one Ross Perot!! But you will never here libs talking about that. <<

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! It's OKAY to lose 57% of the "popular vote" if you're a DEMOCRAT.

40 posted on 05/14/2003 12:23:27 PM PDT by BillyBoy (George Ryan deserves a long term...without parole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
]"To not believe [that Gore beat Bush], you'd have to believe that 30,000 elderly Jewish voters in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan. "You can't believe that," Stephanopoulos added.]

Especially since Buchannon only got 3,389 votes in Palm Beach County, 560 in Dade County and 788 in Broward County.

Furthermore, is Georgie under the bizarre impression that "elderly Jewish voters" are the *only* kind of voters that exist in South Florida?

41 posted on 05/14/2003 12:26:16 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross

what can you expect from a clinton but boy


42 posted on 05/14/2003 12:27:05 PM PDT by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Objective "journalists" like steponallofus and McAuliff think that the rest of the country thinks like they do. Perhaps in '04 the military will get to vote and the so called close election will be more like SHOCK AND AWE!!!

Pray for GW and Our Troops

43 posted on 05/14/2003 12:27:36 PM PDT by bray (Old Glory Means Freedom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Here's a 'simple' explanation of what happened in Palm Beach County that I found on the net..

Palm Beach County and Counties across the United States
We show that in Palm Beach County in the 2000 election the discrepancy between the share of votes expected for Buchanan on the basis of previous election results and the share of votes Buchanan actually received was exceptionally large. The discrepancy in Palm Beach County was the second largest among the 3,015 counties in the U.S. for which discrepancies could be estimated.8 Most of the other counties for which we observe extremely large discrepancies either trace to documented balloting problems or occur in patterns that suggest that systematic and distinctive patterns of support for Buchanan developed in those places.

To measure discrepancy we use residuals from robust estimation of an overdispersed binomial regression model of the number of votes cast for Buchanan compared to the votes cast for all other presidential candidates.9 We estimate a separate model for each state. The binomial model respects the fact that the basic data are counts of votes. Following McCullagh and Nelder (1989), we allow for overdispersion because we believe that the county-level data (and, further below, precinct-level data) are subject to unobserved internal clustering effects.

We use robust estimators for several reasons. The primary reason is obvious: the voter complaints, legal cases and media reports strongly suggest that the processes that produced the electoral results in Palm Beach County were substantially different from the processes that produced the results elsewhere in Florida. The robust estimators we use have a high breakdown point (Donoho and Huber, 1983; Hampel, 1971) so that they are consistent and produce reliable measures of discrepancy even if unusual voting processes occurred in several counties in a state.10 A large anomaly in one county will not mask (Atkinson, 1986) comparable or perhaps somewhat smaller anomalies that occur in other counties (Hampel et al., 1986, 67). An estimator that lacks a high breakdown point will underestimate the frequency of highly anomalous election results. Another reason to use robust estimators is the fact that the regression models we use are at best rough approximations for the processes that produced the vote counts (Hampel et al., 1986, 82). The estimators we use produce reliable measures of discrepancy even under such conditions, as long as the model gives a pretty good approximation for Buchanan's expected vote share in most counties in each state. Data weakness is another reason for robust estimation. Because our regressors include functions of results from the previous election, there is a generic kind of problem. If anomalies occurred in the earlier election at roughly the same rate as in the current one, then the data include observations that have distorted regressor values. The robust estimators we use protect against the influence such distorted regressors might otherwise have on the results. An observation that has a substantially distorted regressor will not affect the results for the other observations and will itself appear as an observation that has a large discrepancy.

A county that has a discrepancy larger in magnitude than a certain threshold is an outlier. The threshold is defined in terms of quantiles of the standard normal distribution.11 If the threshold is large, it is highly likely that the relationship between current and previous election results in an outlier county differs from the relationship that approximates the data elsewhere in the state. The outlier county may have a different disturbance (e.g., a nonzero mean, a fat-tailed distribution), different regression coefficients or contaminated regressors. To explain why a county is an outlier requires investigation using additional information. There are many possible reasons for Palm Beach County to be an outlier. In later sections we provide further support for our claim that the cause of Palm Beach County's exceptional status is the butterfly ballot.
44 posted on 05/14/2003 12:30:06 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William McKinley
ok, now I have to bump for reading later!
45 posted on 05/14/2003 12:31:12 PM PDT by eyespysomething (Breaking down the stereotypes of soccer moms everyday!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
More accurate to say Algore nearly stole the election.
46 posted on 05/14/2003 12:33:31 PM PDT by RightWhale (Post no Bills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
Didn't John Lott run a regression analysis on the 2000 election which more or less debunked these guys?
47 posted on 05/14/2003 12:37:00 PM PDT by Paul Ross (From the State Looking Forward to Global Warming! Let's Drown France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Tell a lie often enough and people start to believe it.
48 posted on 05/14/2003 12:39:01 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
To not believe [that Gore beat Bush], you'd have to believe that 30,000 elderly Jewish voters in South Florida voted for Pat Buchanan.

You're right. I don't believe it.

Never did.

I believe that this was a lie made up by a Democratic operative to throw the election in the court where they hoped a Democrat judiciary would rule in their favor. The whole thing was bogus from the start, George.

To believe the opposite, you'd have to believe that a consortium of left-wing newspapers who counted the ballots and have consistently stated that Bush won Florida, are lying.

49 posted on 05/14/2003 12:41:17 PM PDT by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross
Didn't John Lott run a regression analysis on the 2000 election which more or less debunked these guys?

That's my recollection. I'm still favoring the theory of poorly done ballot tampering by the dems.

BTW, I recall the only way found to create a 'dimple' was shoving 3 or more ballots at a time into the machine.

50 posted on 05/14/2003 12:50:05 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson