FOX cost Gore the election

[Andrew]

Yes, they seem to conveniently leave out the FACT that every news agency that "counted" the ballots after the Supreme Court decision reached the conclusion that Bush would have won by a somewhat comfortable margin.

This is untrue.  From page A1 of The New York Times, November 12, 2001:

Ballot standards under which all disqualified ballots statewide would have been re-examined; Gore would have received the most votes

Allowing only fully-punched ballot cards and correctly marked optical-scan ballots:
Bush  2,915,130
Gore  2,915,245

Using each county's own standard:
Bush  2,917,676
Gore  2,917,847

Allowing dimples on punch cards and any marks on optical-scan ballots that indicate a candidate choice:
Bush  2,924,588
Gore  2,924,695

[Lunar]

Link?

[Andrew]

I doubt if this link will work for you; it's from a ProQuest search:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=000000367272162&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=10&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=HNP&TS=1091905612&clientId=65882

You can always go to the library, though.

[freedomburns]

EVERY study has shown that Gore would have gotten more votes if the Supremes had allowed the election votes to be counted fairly.

Fox News definitely cost Gore the election.  The Supremes had a chance to correct the problem of the injustice that was done, but instead appointed Bush on a 5-4 vote strictly along party lines.

Is it any wonder that there was a riot at the inauguration?  Is it any wonder that Bush’s limousine was barraged with eggs and that it was forced to hit the gas and scram out of inauguration/riot before things got out of hand?  When was the last time a President was forced to stay inside his bulletproof limo rather than walk down the street and mingle with the peoples?  Pathetic.  He had no mandate to steer the country so far to the right.

freedomburns

[Akno21]

Democrats cheeted in 1960, Republicans cheeted in 2000, now we're even.

Whatever happened in Illinios didn't cost Nixon the election.

[qwerty]

EVERY study has shown that Gore would have gotten more votes if the Supremes had allowed the election votes to be counted fairly.

No, they don't. They show that a full state recount would have tilted Florida in Gore's favor. However, Gore only wanted a recount in certain districts. Every study has shown that had those re-counts continued, Bush would still have won.

Got it?

[Jim Valvano]

I was watching "Outfoxed" and some guy said something completely true, IMHO. He said that FOX's and then the other networks decisions to call Florida for Bush at 2 AM even though you really couldn't tell from the data, led to a perception throughout the legal battle that Bush was the current winner and Gore was trying to knock him off. That perception may have hurt Gore more than any legal mistake or something of the sort.

The call at 2 AM was when no more votes could be cast, however when Florida was prematurely and erroneously called for Gore earlier that night thousands of people in Florida and beyond still could. This of course caused many Bush supporters in the Panhandle not to vote thinking that their man had already lost. Also you say that the perception that Bush was the current winner hurt Gore. The fact is that from that moment on Bush WAS the current winner. He was the current winner when the initial vote was tallied and he lead by 1,784 votes. He was the current winner after the State mandated recount. He was the current winner after Volusia county turned up a net of 98 Gore votes. He was the  current winner after the overseas votes were tallied (with a 930 vote margin). He was the current winner when Broward and Palm Beach turned in their (possibly unconstitutional) recounts. He was the the current winner when Katherine Harris finally certified him as winner (by 537 votes). He was current winner when the case appeared before the Supreme court. The fact is throughout the legal battle Gore WAS trying to knock him off. The mistake that hurt Gore was how he acted like a "sore loserman" after it was clear Bush had won.

[Defarge]

Gentlemen, both sides are right.  Republicans are right in that the fight over the 2000 election is just dagging on.  We Democrats should, instead of debating over whether the election was stolen or not, should focus our energies on the election this november, not on an election three novembers ago.  Democrats are right in that if we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.  By analyzing the 2000 election for whatever frauds or absent frauds that are present, we will ensure that such a controversial election does not come again.

Of course, Democrats will respond by saying "the republicans are trying to steal the election again!  Look at Ohio and Florida!"  And, when the Republican party tells their voters to use absentee ballots to "make [their] vote count," I can't really blame my dissatisfied progressive countrymen

[HockeyDude]

Democrats cheeted in 1960, Republicans cheeted in 2000, now we're even.

How about 1876?

Meh, even as a Dem I would never support the ultra-conserative racists that used to make up the Democratc party.  If I had lived anywhere from 1860-1930, I would've been a republican, and maybe even in the 60s and 70s.  

[A18]

EVERY study has shown that Gore would have gotten more votes if the Supremes had allowed the election votes to be counted fairly.

No, they don't. They show that a full state recount would have tilted Florida in Gore's favor. However, Gore only wanted a recount in certain districts. Every study has shown that had those re-counts continued, Bush would still have won.

Got it?

False. EVERY study has shown that a full state recount would have won Bush an even bigger % of the vote. But yes, Gore only wanted to count his Democrat counties.

[Akno21]

Sore Loserman

That's really pitiful. If there is one thing I am unhappy with Gore about, it is the fact that he didn't contest everything more so than he did.  

[ATFFL]

Sore Loserman

That's really pitiful. If there is one thing I am unhappy with Gore about, it is the fact that he didn't contest everything more so than he did.  

He did a poor job contesting things.  He wanted every vote to be counted, but only in heavily democratic counties.  He wanted a loose interpretation of voting laws, except where absentee ballots where concerned.  He wanted court involvement, unless the court decided against him.

Finally, he never came up with as catchy a slogan as "Sore Loserman: Don't Be Had By A Chad."

[Volrath50]

False. EVERY study has shown that a full state recount would have won Bush an even bigger % of the vote. But yes, Gore only wanted to count his Democrat counties.

No. A full state recount, under every circumstance wouldn've been a Gore victory. Any of the recounts that Gore wanted would've been a Bush victory. Read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_US_Presidential_Election#The_Florida_Ballot_Project_recounts

The results:
(This table looks like crap, check out the link)

Review Method    Winner
Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)    
Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey    Gore by 171
Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots    Gore by 115
Any dimples or optical mark    Gore by 107
One corner of chad detached or optical mark    Gore by 60
Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (Initiated But Never Completed)    
Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties    Bush by 225
Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide    Bush by 430
Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes    Bush by 493
Certified Result (Official Final Count)    
Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only    Bush by 537

[ATFFL]

Note that they do not include the absentee ballots that Gore got thrown out.