For Democrats: Does 2000...

[Akno21]

Yes. Bush seemed more naive and unpresidential then compared to now, when he's arrogant and wrong on many issues.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes. Bush seemed more naive and unpresidential then compared to now, when he's arrogant and wrong on many issues.

I really resented Bush when he "won" in 2000 without a majority PV, but when he was re-elected I didn't suffer any blues at all since the EV and PV for both he and Kerry were pretty "fair"

I wouldn't dwell on the past. The important thing now is to nominate a Democrat who can win in 2008!

Furthermore, its important to concentrate our efforts regaining control of Congress, governor's mansions and state legislatures

Dave

[Sibboleth]

Control of the State Legislatures results in Control of the House.
If the Democrats can remember Tip's advice ("All politics is local") they should be able to build on their solid preformance in the State Legislatures this year.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

It brings up a rather explainable anger in me too... anger that Democrats almost got away with stealing an election.

[True Democrat]

Yes

[Vasall des Midas]

No, there's nothing "unexplainable" about it.

[Gabu]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

[Akno21]

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Basically, is there something almost so natural about hating the way the 2000 election was decided that there's no need to explain it.

[Akno21]

It brings up a rather explainable anger in me too... anger that Democrats almost got away with stealing an election.

For the record, I wanted state-wide recounts, not just those in South Florida, which would have favored the Democrats.

[phk]

Nationwide babay!

[Nym90]

It brings up a rather explainable anger in me too... anger that Democrats almost got away with stealing an election.

For the record, I wanted state-wide recounts, not just those in South Florida, which would have favored the Democrats.

Same here. A statewide manual count should have happened.

I'm angry that ballots that were intended for Gore were not counted for him for a variety of reasons. The election wasn't stolen, but Bush did win on a technicality due to voters who wanted to vote for Gore not having their votes counted for him due to a variety of reasons in different areas.

[zorkpolitics]

FL Presidential 2000 and WA Governor 2004 have much in parallel.

Recounts of all the votes cast switched WA from Republican to Democrat, and might have done so in FL.

But both states allowed 1000's of fraudulent, mostly Democratic ballots, to be cast from felons, prisoners, the dead, out of state residents, dual registered and unregistered voters. 
And both WA and FL divined voter intent among overvotes and undervotes that more closely matched the ballot readers prejudice than met a standard of clear intent.

[J.R. Brown]

Its not unexplainable. A majority of the people chose Al Gore to be their president. It may have been a small majority but it was still a majority.

[ATFFL]

Its not unexplainable. A majority of the people chose Al Gore to be their president. It may have been a small majority but it was still a majority.

It was not a majority, it was a plurality.

[BobOMac2k2]

Of course, whether or not it was stolen, it sure as hell seemed like it.

[skybridge]

The outcome is incredibly unfair. Gore, who I believe is more liberal than Clinton, received more popular votes than Bush while at the same time 2.8 million people stood up for one of the most liberal third party candidates since Debs. In spite of the overwhelming demand for a liberal president, who do you get? Perhaps the most conservative ever! I really think there should be some way to fix this defect of the system.

[Thanks for all the fish!]

I don't think either party was trying to really steal the election. It was a coin that landed on its edge and both Bush and Gore were trying to blow it their way.

[zorkpolitics]

The outcome is incredibly unfair. Gore, who I believe is more liberal than Clinton, received more popular votes than Bush while at the same time 2.8 million people stood up for one of the most liberal third party candidates since Debs. In spite of the overwhelming demand for a liberal president, who do you get? Perhaps the most conservative ever! I really think there should be some way to fix this defect of the system.

The Electoral system in the US purposely marginalizes third parties (whether Nader in 2000 or Wallace in 1968).  This has the beneficial result of keeping demagogues and radical ideas from dominating an election, promotes moderation by the major parties, and provides the most stable, competitive electoral system on the planet. 

[chris allen]

Yes. There is not one shread of doubt in my mind that Al Gore won Florida. If the GOP wanted to have recounts in other close states, so be it. A vote is a vote and a vote should always be counted. If Gore, after the recount, still lost Florida so be it, but that recount never really happened, so there are still a lot pissed off Democrats.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes, except for the unexplainable part.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes. There is not one shread of doubt in my mind that Al Gore won Florida. If the GOP wanted to have recounts in other close states, so be it. A vote is a vote and a vote should always be counted. If Gore, after the recount, still lost Florida so be it, but that recount never really happened, so there are still a lot pissed off Democrats.

The GOP had a recount in NM.

[J. J.]

Yes. There is not one shread of doubt in my mind that Al Gore won Florida. If the GOP wanted to have recounts in other close states, so be it. A vote is a vote and a vote should always be counted. If Gore, after the recount, still lost Florida so be it, but that recount never really happened, so there are still a lot pissed off Democrats.

The GOP had a recount in NM.

Would you care to site the source for your claim, in regard to the 2000 Presidential Election?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yes. There is not one shread of doubt in my mind that Al Gore won Florida. If the GOP wanted to have recounts in other close states, so be it. A vote is a vote and a vote should always be counted. If Gore, after the recount, still lost Florida so be it, but that recount never really happened, so there are still a lot pissed off Democrats.

The GOP had a recount in NM.

Would you care to site the source for your claim, in regard to the 2000 Presidential Election?

Yawn, here you go.

Almost unnoticed in the 24-hour stream of cable punditry, the GOP demanded and got a hand recount in New Mexico after opposing one for weeks in Florida. W. picked up 125 votes on the recount of Roosevelt County, narrowing Gore's lead to 368.

Incredibly, Mickey Barnett, the GOP national committeeman for New Mexico and a lawyer for the party, wrote a district court judge that there was "of course, no other way to determine the accuracy of this apparent discrepancy, or machine malfunction, other than the board reviewing the votes by hand."

Barnett got a recount of the undervote, pointing out how unusual it was that 10 percent of the county's voters did not vote for president. While Roosevelt went for Bush 2 to 1, the GOP did not seek a recount of much larger undervotes in three highly Democratic counties. Barnett said Roosevelt's undervote for president "defies historical precedent and common sense."

The only conceivable reason why the GOP cared enough about New Mexico's five electoral votes as late as December 1 was the fear that if it carried Florida by legislative fiat—in defiance of the courts—it might lose individual electors in other states. New Mexico would have been a cushion against such defections.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0051/barrett.php

[J. J.]

One county, not the entire state, which in terms of raw votes (but not percentage) was closer than FL.   Bush probably should have asked for a recount of the entire state.

Gore had recounts in several counties in FL, and those were hand recounts.

The yawning might indicative of a lack of blood flow to your brain, which could explain the delusional aspects of some of your posts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

One county, not the entire state, which in terms of raw votes (but not percentage) was closer than FL.   Bush probably should have asked for a recount of the entire state.

Gore had recounts in several counties in FL, and those were hand recounts.

The yawning might indicative of a lack of blood flow to your brain, which could explain the delusional aspects of some of your posts.

Spin spin spin, you hypocrite.