Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

From the F 9/11 Fact Sheet:

[A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush’s advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.  Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

“The review found that the result would have been different if every canvassing board in every county had examined every undervote, a situation that no election or court authority had ordered. Gore had called for such a statewide manual recount if Bush would agree, but Bush rejected the idea and there was no mechanism in place to conduct one.”   Martin Merzer, “Review of Ballots Finds Bush’s Win Would Have Endured Manual Recount,” Miami Herald, April 4, 2001.

Out of the half a dozen speeches, this is the point you decided to rebut? As far as I’m concerned, this whole he said/she said about the last election is old news, and a talking point that I’m just plain sick of hearing about. (From both the left and the right.)

I think you should also include this part of the NORC study as well…

“In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties’ inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings.”

Before you accuse Al Gore of lying you should first relisten to what he said. He said every vote counts and that every vote should be counted this year. I did not hear him say, “George Bush stole the election”.

It doesnt matter who really won or lost in Florida, the fact remains that some peoples votes were not counted and this is unamerican and undemocratic.

better yet….

in florida..some 2300 black democrats are listed as “potential felons” and are thus banned from voting…

AND IN AN ODD NOTE….

some 1500 ILLEGAL CUBAN IMMIGRANTS were also listed..
however, they were on the register TO VOTE…..REPUBLICAN.

hmmmmm…..

Gore had three points. The first was that people should go out and vote because the votes of a small number of people can still make a difference. This is still a valid point.

The second (thinly veiled) point was that a protest vote for a third party like Nader could still lead to a Bush victory, and that people considering voting for Nader should think about that.

His third point, that some votes were unjustifyably not counted at all due to various and sundry election fiascos around the country, is also indisputably true. It was a national embarassment that the election went to the Supreme Court at all, regardless of how they decided.

Whether Gore would have won or not is obviously totally disputable. The election was a tie as far as I’m concerned.

The “butterfly ballot” fiasco, however, where thousands of people apparently voted for Buchanan mistakenly, is another story. Legally it is of course a moot point since unproveable voter error (or, as Republicans say, voter “stupidity”) isn’t really a good enough reason to change a cast ballot. But common sense tells us that, if the ballot was designed in the way it was intended, then these errors would have been avoided and Gore would likely have won Florida by thousands of votes. In other words, common sense tells us that a plurality of Floridians, like the majority of Americans, wanted to pick Gore.

I repeat, all of the above wasn’t and isn’t good enough to justify putting Gore in office, but it’s good enough to tell us that the election in Florida in 2000 was a tragic miscarriage of American democracy. Al Gore was right to defer to the Court’s decision. The election was not “stolen”. But it was not truly “won” either.

This time, hopefully, it will run better. Do you begrudge that objective?

-Cf

Gore believes that every vote should be counted unless we’re talking about the votes of the military stationed overseas, in which case those votes should be challenged in court and thrown out (which his allies attempted to do in Florida— where his outrage then?), or the votes of those in Republican-dominated counties, which his legal team showed no interest whatsoever in holding up to the magnifiying glass forDemocrat-selected psychics (is that they were?) to “interpret” and reinterpret until they could be envisioned as “votes” for Gore.

I don’t blame him for trying to tweek the rules to find a victory, actually, but pretending that he was really just wants to enfranchise voters seems pretty ridiculous and self-serving.

Also, I think that convicted felons who have paid their debt to society should be allowed to vote, but I wonder how politicaly wise it is for Democrats to be so vocal about it? Does the implication that felons tend to vote Democrat really help their cause?

And will somebody PLEASE tell the likes of Jesse Jackson that of all the black votes thrown out and not counted in 00,
the majority were actually black Republican voters? Don’t expect those whose political interest lies in fanning racial resentment to tell the real story of Florida in 2000.

Sure, he didn’t exactly say Bush stole 2000. But as we all know, he meant it. Lay off the Kool-Aid. They pay professional spinsters for that kind of stuff.

As for Martin’s points, in addition to agreeing with all of them, I would like to add one other.

Don’t forget the networks calling the election for Gore before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state which was in another time zone and mostly Republican. Makes you wonder! Hmmmmmm!

To CJ’s point about the butterfly ballot, perhaps if they hadn’t been told to vote for the third one down rather than trusting them to find the candidate on their own, then perhaps they would have been cast properly. Another Hmmmmmmmm!

And lastly, Robert, exactly who on the right is complaining about the election? Or why would they for that matter.

Does the implication that felons tend to vote Democrat really help their cause?

EX-felons. Please. :)

Look, Gore basically said “this time, don’t let it come as close as it did with me” Every vote counts- in other words, don’t presume victory like I did. He showed animation, had some pretty good lines, and he didn’t go Abu Ghraib on Bush.

Don’t forget the networks calling the election for Gore before the polls had closed in the western panhandle of the state which was in another time zone and mostly Republican. Makes you wonder! Hmmmmmm!

What does that mean anyway? I’ve never seen any analysis that shows that Republicans stayed away from the polls because they thought they lost, just a lot of wild speculation. I find it equally plausible that more Republicans went to the polls who wouldn’t have because they thought their votes were more needed than ever.

This is just another in a list of silly accusations that fly around due to Florida 2000.

If it is wild speculation as you suggest then why the silence on projecting winners in every single state by every single network until the polls are closed?

I suppose you are suggesting that the networks would stand by and let wild speculation, as you put it, dictate their policies on projecting a winner. Hardly!

The “butterfly ballot” fiasco, however, where thousands of people apparently voted for Buchanan mistakenly, is another story. Legally it is of course a moot point since unproveable voter error (or, as Republicans say, voter “stupidity”)

It isn’t just Republicans who say that people who can’t read a ballot are stupid. As a Florida resident, I have had to endure three years of jokes (from all angles) lumping all of Florida in with the people who were confused by a ballot. Find the name you want, follow the line, punch. Not difficult. Why do you think it is that the Democrats continually act as if their voters are the only ones on the planet who could be confused by the butterfly ballot? Do you think there are no idiots on the Republican side?

In other words, common sense tells us that a plurality of Floridians, like the majority of Americans, wanted to pick Gore.

Careful now. Bush had 47.87% of the national popular vote, while Gore had 48.38%. A few thousand more votes would not bump Gore over 50%. A little vocabulary lesson for you: if a man wins a plurality, he simply had more votes. If a man wins a majority, he won over 50% of the votes. I think we can all agree that there is a difference. In fact, we even have a special term for a president who gets over 50% of the popular vote - we say he has a “mandate.” Of course, said mandate is always disputed by the other side, isn’t it?

Don’t expect those whose political interest lies in fanning racial resentment to tell the real story of Florida in 2000.

Did anyone notice the absence of the NAACP and Rainbow/PUSH when Clarence Thomas was being assaulted during his Senate confirmation? Has anyone noticed the absence of the NAACP and Rainbow/PUSH during the Senate Democrats’ filibuster of Bush’s minority judge nominee Miguel Estrada? To be fair, has anyone seen any minority groups protesting the blocking of his confirmation? In short, any conservative minority is labelled a sellout. This goes to show that minority groups, in general, only care about liberal minorities. The thing that bugs me it that, as a conservative, I will be labelled a racist for the rest of life. Unless of course I go lib.

What does that mean anyway? I’ve never seen any analysis that shows that Republicans stayed away from the polls because they thought they lost, just a lot of wild speculation.

Actually, I have heard arguments from both sides of the aisle that announcing any results before Hawaii is done voting disenfranchises the Hawaiians. Not only our South Pacific brethren, but also anyone of the west coast who happens to paying attention. I will grant you that my first reaction to hearing that Gore had won, was that I wished I could vote again. I can say, however, that most of the people I know I had voted before hearing the news.

Dale, I think the NAACP had greater respect for Justice Thurgood Marshall, the guy who won Brown Vs. The Board of Education, than Clarence Thomas, who took the teeth out of the EEOC. As for Miguel Estrada, are you saying people have to defend others just because they are of the same race? Doesn’t work like that. Honestly speaking, there is some political bias in these organizations, and that is entirely appropriate. We don’t have free speech and assembly on the condition that we be arbitrarily consistent in our politics.

As for the Butterfly ballots, it’s not necessarily stupidity. It’s convenient to call it that, but there is a such thing as a confusing layout. It’s a matter of aesthetics.

In film, vectors (lines in the image or motion of the shot), focus, composition, color and blocking can mean the difference between a character being lost in the shot to the viewer’s eye, and one being able to focus on them, even in crowds of thousands.

On a ballot, it is imperative for the visualcues to be clear and unambiguous. Different people follow different cues out of habit, neurological differences and perhaps the speed with which they vote. You might have a perfectly intelligent voter who makes a mistake because they make a quick assumption about how the ballot works, and simply rushes through it. Not everybody reads the directions, or believes they have to.

Stephen:

You might have a perfectly intelligent voter who makes a mistake because they make a quick assumption about how the ballot works, and simply rushes through it. Not everybody reads the directions, or believes they have to

The point is that an intelligent voter willread the directions, and does believe they have to.

My wife initially was confused on the ballot she received (it was about a local issue, not national), so rather than just guess, she poked her head out of the booth and got clarification.

THAT is the responsibility of the voter. And that makes for an intelligent AND informed voter.

You seem to want to excuse a person who willfully decides to not follow directions nor even read them. I freely allow them that choice, but i hold them responsible for the outcome.

I agree that ballots should be simple and understandable. But how much fairer can you be than allowing the Democratic party to design the damn ballot? They then complained that they didnt like their own design. That’s just too damn bad—-and a case of sour grapes to boot.

If it is wild speculation as you suggest then why the silence on projecting winners in every single state by every single network until the polls are closed?

I suppose you are suggesting that the networks would stand by and let wild speculation, as you put it, dictate their policies on projecting a winner. Hardly!

I think it’s a great idea to wait until an entire state’s polls have closed before predicting a winner. The wild speculation is that not following that policy in 2000 cost Bush, when it’s equally plausible it helped Bush, or it could have had no overall effect at all.

> Don’t forget the networks calling the election
> for Gore before the polls had closed in the
> western panhandle of the state which was in
> another time zone and mostly Republican.

The first network called it less than ten minutes before the polls closed, the others waited a few minutes thereafter, and ABC actually waited until after closing time. The only people who would have been affected would have been those waiting in line at the polling places minutes before closing time, and who were carrying portable TV sets, and who were tuned to the stations that were making those early announcements, and who were Republicans. We’re talking about maybe a dozen people, folks.

-Cf

If intelligent people like your wife are unable to quickly and intuitively vote for their preferred candidates, is that not a sign that the ballot is too confusing in its layout? If so, there’s no good to come of it. It’s not stupidity if the ballot’s too cryptically designed for ordinary folks to work out whether they’re making the choice they intended to make.

I can sometimes be mislead by ambiguous patterns in the information before me. I might look at a particular pattern and think to myself “oh, I know how this works” and mess things up. It won’t occur to me to read the directions, because I’ve already convinced I know how it works. I might only figure out I’m wrong after the fact. Does it mean I’m stupid? Not at all. It just means that the layout was ambiguous enough to present another pattern to those who looked at certain cues first. An error in the voting process might then not be an indicator of not having the intelligence to vote, but instead simple perceptual problems, ones that I would not be alone in having.

> Why do you think it is that the Democrats
> continually act as if their voters are the
> only ones on the planet who could be confused
> by the butterfly ballot?

Because since Bush was at the top of the ballot, making such an error is nearly impossible, even for the most inattentive, rushed, lazy, or stupid voter. If your candidate is at the top, you simply punch the first hole. The problem was that the candidate in the second position, Gore, corresponded with the third hole.

> Find the name you want, follow the line,
> punch. Not difficult.

See, that’s just it!! You put your finger on it. If you follow the “line”, you will vote for Buchanan, but if you follow the “arrow”, you vote for Gore.

Dale, I don’t get it. Are you seriously suggesting that this butterfly ballot problem actually didn’t happen, that Palm Beach County is actually a hotbed of Buchanan supporters?

> A little vocabulary lesson for you:

Gee, thanks for the condescending “lesson” to correct what was obviously a simple mistake. I did use the word “plurality” in the first instance, but forgot it the second time. Sheesh.

Joe wrote:
> That’s just too damn bad—-and a case of
> sour grapes to boot.

I am perfectly aware that, legally, it indeed is just “sour grapes”. But beneath the sob story lies a stark reality: a clear plurality (thanks Dale!) of Floridians tried to vote for Gore. I say this only to explain the emotions we Democrats feel about the 2000 election, not as an argument that the election was “stolen”. It should be obvious that my measured and rational position on this issue is also Gore’s position.

-Cf

My wife initially was confused on the ballot she received (it was about a local issue, not national), so rather than just guess, she poked her head out of the booth and got clarification.

joe, that’s great that she had the self confidence to ask a perfect stranger for help. Or if it was you who helped her, she sure was lucky you were around. Thank you for the inspirational story.

This much is true: Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris deliberately disnefranchised thousands of voters, most being likely Democrats, by accusing them of being convicted felons when many were not. There was no available recourse available on election day to individuals who challenged this removal from the voting rolls and there was no warning to these legal voters beforehand. They just arrived at the polls and were turned away. Can you imagine how that must feel? But don’t take my word for it, or anyone else’s. Watch the documentary, Unprecedented, and judge for yourself. I’m pasting the link below so you can view it online. Please watch it and then form your own opinion. Unless you know what really happened in Florida, you cannot with any credence dispute the fact that Bush was not fairly elected:

.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5278.htm

[actually you are WRONG, the miami herald showed that if all the votes were counted gore would have won…

[comment deleted for critiquing messenger instead of message - Watchblog Manager]

Again,

Chill! Why so much anger?

Lawnboy wrote,

I think it’s a great idea to wait until an entire state’s polls have closed before predicting a winner. The wild speculation is that not following that policy in 2000 cost Bush, when it’s equally plausible it helped Bush, or it could have had no overall effect at all.

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

About an hour before the polls closed in panhandle Florida, the networks called the U.S. Senate race in favor of the Democratic candidate. The networks seriously compounded the problem because from 6-7 Central Time, they repeatedly announced that polls had closed in Florida—even though polls were open in the panhandle. (See also Joan Konner, James Risser & Ben Wattenberg, Television’s Performance on Election Night 2000: A Report for CNN, Jan. 29, 2001.)

The false announcements that the polls were closed, as well as the premature calls (the Presidential race ten minutes early; the Senate race an hour early), may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the conservative panhandle, as discouraged last-minute voters heard that their state had already been decided; some last-minute voters on their way to the polling place turned around and went home. Other voters who were waiting in line left the polling place. In Florida, as elsewhere, voters who have arrived at the polling place before closing time often end up voting after closing time, because of long lines. The conventional wisdom of politics is that supporters of the losing candidate are most likely to give up on voting when they hear that their side has already lost.

Even if the premature television calls affected all potential voters equally, the effect was to reduce Republican votes significantly, because the Florida panhandle is a Republican stronghold. Most of Central Time Zone Florida is in the 1st Congressional District, which is known as the “Redneck Riviera.” In that district, Bob Dole beat Bill Clinton by 69,000 votes in 1996, even though Clinton won the state by 300,000 votes. So depress overall turnout in the panhandle, and you will necessarily depress more Republican than Democratic votes.

(Let us not forget the absentee military vote. )

Haha! So, you’re saying that Gore stole the election? I love it!

AP
Never said that. But I certainly wouldn’t say that Bush stole it as you do. But there is a lot of truth that if the news media did not project the winner before the polls closed the outcome may have been a lot different. Despite that paragon of virtue Michael Moore suggesting that Bush’s cousin actually stole it.

That’t the real joke here.

Now I am really off to the movies. Check later. It will give you time to dispute my Kerry budget numbers and tell me later how he makes 2 + 2 = 2. That should be interesting.