General discussion

2000 changed everything

Sometimes a decision made in the heat of partisan battle has reverberations for years to come.

One such decision was the one of Al Gore's campaign to selectively challenge the results of the 2000 election in Florida by demanding hand counts of votes cast in three counties -- Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach. The latter two produce huge majorities for Democratic candidates, and the election officials in charge of the hand counts were Democrats. In other words, Gore sought new counts only in areas where he was likely to gain votes and would not take the risk of a statewide hand count, where those gains might be offset by others for George W. Bush.

We know now that, thanks to the news media consortium that recounted ballots in every Florida county, recounting under any method and any criterion they tested would not have overturned Bush's exceedingly thin plurality.

But the Gore campaign, Terry McAuliffe during his four years as Democratic National Chairman and John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign encouraged rank-and-file Democrats to believe that the election was stolen. They decided to delegitimize an American election for partisan gain. And in the process, they did much damage to George W. Bush and the Republicans, to the reputation of the American political process and, inadvertently but to a far greater extent, to their own Democratic Party.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20050221.shtml

Discussion is locked

Follow
Reply to: 2000 changed everything
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: 2000 changed everything
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Comments
- Collapse -
Hate to bust your bubble, but the Florida election was being

reported as tainted by the BBC, Sky News and Deutche Welle immediately after the polls closed. I have a very limited idea what the American reaction was because we were living in Britain at the time, but all the reporting we saw was about hanging chads and Jews voting for Pat Buchanan by mistake because of the butterfly ballot and the voters lists being purged indiscriminately of the names of felons regardless of the state of residence of the felon before the election thus disenfranchising legitimate legal voters and other irregularities. The controversy pre-dated the recount or anything that Terry McAuliffe did or said.

I think Gore should have contested the whole of Florida, and that it was a huge mistake on his part to concede when he did.

Now everybody here says Florida didn't happen, so maybe it didn't happen in the US but it sure happened and was extensively reported everywhere outside the US. Frankly I'm more inclined to trust external news sources like the BBC and Sky News (Sky is owned by Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch and even it reported the irregularities) than domestic news sources with their own axes to grind.

Rob Boyter

- Collapse -
Cling to it!

Maybe you'll go to your grave believing the lie that Bush stole the election in spite of all the evidence that he did not.

- Collapse -
Since I was several thousand miles away at the time and

contemplating a new life which I thought would be permanently in the UK I could have cared less about that particular election except in so far as it made the US a joke in the eyes of the international community, and in so far as I was required to explain the travesty over and over and over again to everyone I met there.

You all seem to think I derive some benefit from trying to remind you what happened and what the consequences were for the US in other countries. You want an explanation for the distrust and contempt other countries feel these days, look there and to Bush's fumble tongued performance during his first term. The only thing that saved him frankly was 9/11 which earned the US enormous sympathy even in countries which were opposed to its policies.

The good news for you is that Bush won 2004 fair and semi-square, and he seems to have learned that the "High Noon" model of international diplomacy is unproductive. His performance in his new term in everything but the budget and Social Security has been a vast improvement.

I get no benefit from trying to open your eyes and ears, to give you a view from outside. It is frankly a total pain in the *** to offer what could be useful information only to have it thrown back in my face.
As for trying to blame me for repeating what you call fiction, I can do without the self-righteousness and the abuse.

If it is your preference you can go back to your forum of the sound of one hand clapping, congratualating one another on your shared view of the world where everybody is hostile, and the benign old USofA is oh, so misunderstood. A more adolescent response I cannot conceive. Grow up America, and stop whining.

Rob Boyter

And remember, unlike the situation for conservatives, there is no financial support for liberal dissent.

- Collapse -
If you can't accept ...

... that Bush won 2004 FAIR and completely SQUARE, I suppose that's your problem.

And remember, unlike the situation for conservatives, there is no financial support for liberal dissent.

What the heck are you talking about??

- Collapse -
Unlike you

I paid extremely close attention to the 2000 election, thus I know exactly what happened and need no reminders from someone who obviously doesn't.

Gore tried to steal it and failed. Bush won fair and square BOTH times. It is zee so-called "international commmunity" which is zee joke, not US.

- Collapse -
Actually it wasn't so to the best of my recall,
If it is your preference you can go back to your forum of the sound of one hand clapping, congratualating one another on your shared view of the world where everybody is hostile, and the benign old USofA is oh, so misunderstood.

Actually before the 2000 election and all the challenges, while there was political discussion, and even occasional virulance in SE, I don't recall politics being even 50% of the discussions, much less the current 99% arguments.

From the moment the debacle with the Florida being called early, uncalled, conceded, unconceded, contested, uncontested, etc began, the atmosphere here went downhill.

Actually that may not be quite fair. It severely esculated then. Clinton's impeachment and arguing about whether or not he should have been impeached for lying about sex under oath may have started it. But the mismanagement by the news reporting, then the claims of disenfranchisement, and demands for very selective recounts, etc, launched it from a tempest in a teapot all the way to an orbit around Pluto.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
hey remember the earths not flat

you wont beleave that either stick with it you wont see a democrat as president if the democrats donr get a good viable candidate.

DR. RICE in 08 will have my vote so far

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Yeah, and Bush "stole" the 2004 Election?Big Time
- Collapse -
A lie, Mark.

>>We know now that, thanks to the news media consortium that recounted ballots in every Florida county, recounting under any method and any criterion they tested would not have overturned Bush's exceedingly thin plurality.<<

The links are no longer valid, but a COMPLETE recount in all counties would have shown Gore the winner. And even Pat Buchanan candidly admitted that most of his votes in Palm Beech country (home of the slightly skewed butterfly ballot) were intended for Gore -- more than enough to show that in a fair election, Gore would have not only won the popular vote nationwide, but also the electoral vote.

And yes, it all changed in 2000 -- Bush's election (and relection) clearly marked the end of "the American Century," which didn't have to end with the century on the calendar, but clearly did. Country after country is now reducing the amount of American dollars in their treasuries, marking the end of the era of dollar supremacy as the world's reserve currency. And that makes today's deficit's much more damngerous and damaging than those that Reaga and Bush the first left us, but Clinton (and the republican House) were able to reverse, only to be squandered on the wealthy and a pointless reveng war by Bush the younger.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Link works fine for me.

Regardless of what Buchanan said about votes INTENDED for Gore he also said that vootes castg for him must be counted for him. If people are too stupid to vote correctly then maybe they don't deserve to vote? You can't claim it's an unfair election if people can't mark the ballot correctly. There has to be a threshold of intelligence connected to voting. That ballot was not that confusing.

Why did only Democrats have problem with the butterfly ballot? I think it's mostly bull that they voted "mistakenly".

Woulda coulda shoulda. Howcum Bush won Florida by a larger margin in 2004? Democratic vote fraud machine shut down?

Rest of your nonsense is just ---nonsense.

- Collapse -
No, Ed, the link to the story refuting the lie

that no combination of recounts would have Gore won. In fact, a complete recount would have shown Gore the winner. here's part of the story, but not complete:
>>Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. <<
Now, why should someone who both voted for Gore regularly and to be DOUBLY sure his vote counted, also wrote his name in and marked it have NEITHER vote counted? Is that democracy in action?
(That link is Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory -- but it's not the one to which I refer.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
well if that persons stupid

to do both you should vote.
should be a requirement to have brains

- Collapse -
Theoretical / wishful thinking

Did you read the story? It hardly refutes any "lie".

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

If the rules could be ignored...ah, if only liberals didn't have to follow the rules, what a wonderful world it would be!

- Collapse -
In addition ...

... the "voted for and wrote in" Gore votes were only an EXAMPLE of the overvotes they counted. But you are correct, this is meaningless as such ballots were never counted according to election law in force prior to the 2000 election, or to be counted even in Gore's selective assertion of what was to be recounted.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
right and the moons made of cheese dave

if you beleave that thats why gore didnt want all of fl checked.
he lost get over it as its been said to me

bush won 2000, 2004, and if it stays the same with dean in 08 another republican

Dr.Rice will win if she runs

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) moon NOT made of green cheese
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) so they say but you may be wrong
- Collapse -
Of all the counts done, and standards applied ...

... there was only one -- utterly inconsistent with any election law -- that would have given Gore a slight margin. But that didn't count all the military ballots (yet to all be counted and included I believe) and it was an absurd standard that shouldn't have even been used. Keep believing your own lies if you like.

Squandered on the wealthy? Try taking your head out of the sand for long enough to see the simple fact that EVERYONE that pays taxes got a cut, and REVENUES INCREASED!!!

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Not sure that's SAND, Evie.
- Collapse -
You said,

The links are no longer valid, but a COMPLETE recount in all counties would have shown Gore the winner. And even Pat Buchanan candidly admitted that most of his votes in Palm Beech country (home of the slightly skewed butterfly ballot) were intended for Gore -- more than enough to show that in a fair election, Gore would have not only won the popular vote nationwide, but also the electoral vote.

----------------------------------------------------
So you are saying that the decision of the National Democratic party and less that intelligent Democratic voters in Florida were the problem and Bush didn't really steal anything, it was given to him by Democratic mismanagement at all levels? I might agree with that. Happy

- Collapse -
No way!!!

The evil Jeb Bush conspired with local Democratic officials to throw the election for his brother. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
So you disagree with these stories Dave?

From PBS:

"An Online NewsHour Report

More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories. "

More...

and from CNN:

"Florida recount study: Bush still wins

Study reveals flaws in ballots, voter errors may have cost Gore victory


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN. "

More...

Now, can you really discredit the work of the study conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman or the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago with proof that we can look at? We are awaiting your answer but, in the interest of self preservation I won't hold my breath while waiting for it.

- Collapse -
he cant admit there wrong

it would hurt

- Collapse -
Give up Clay

It's long been nothing but leftist trolling. Over and over.

Facts don't matter to them and reason is wasted on them. It's a waste of a real American's time to try yet again to demonstrate this to them. They're just too far gone and will never be reached. It's hopeless.

The only good thing about the leftist delusion is this: they still don't realize it, but they all work for me! Yuk Yuk Yuk!

DE

- Collapse -
It is fun to remind them of the FACTS though
Facts don't matter to them and reason is wasted on them.

You are correct though. I knew when I posted that he couldn't come up with any proof but I figured he won't even respond to it at all and that speaks volumes in and of itself.

- Collapse -
This is a good read
http://www.pushback.com/justice/votefraud/DimpledChadPictures.html

based on these limited tests, is that any chad (hanging or otherwise) that is missing both the pinprick and the vertical crease is likely a fraudulent vote, or quite possibly an indication that the voter started to vote, but had a second thought and decided not to vote for any presidential candidate, as a small percentage of people in all presidential elections do.

CNET Forums

Forum Info