Talk Elections

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

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.

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

Yes

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

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.

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

Nationwide babay!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

Yes, except for the unexplainable part.

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.

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

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.

Like I said, you've demonstrated once again you delusional state. 

Like I've said, I have no problem with a candidate asking for a recount (and didn't in the WA gubenatorial or OH presidential races this year).  I do have a problem with a candidate asking for recounts in some places, and when he doesn't win, trying to find enough votes to win, like Al Gore tried. 

Had Roosevelt Count provided Bush with a plurality in NM, I certainly would say that there should have been state wide recount there as well.  I didn't see Bush trying to keep couting votes there (or in Iowa or OR) until he had a win.

I also have a problem, as did Congress when they adopted the safe harbor legislation, trying to delay a result so that votes cannot be counted, like Al Gore did.

Tell me jFRAUD is it the Democratic Party's policy to try to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters, like Al Gore tried in 2000?

The greatest hypocracy was Gore's "Count every vote" when the didn't really try to.

You're trying to justify a NM recount while attacking a FL recount? What a bunch of crap.

And how dare you call Al Gore a hypocrite? There were military absentee ballots with no postmark that were never counted before. There were Republican absentee ballots that were modified by a Republican after they were recieved. Normal practicse would be to not count the first, and probably the 2nd. Guess what? Al Gore did not oppose counting those, even though they helped Bush, and they got counted.

It's pretty sad that you have to resort to immature name calling.

I call Gore a hypocrite because he is one.  A call you jFRAUD because you post fradulant things.  But you are hypocrite as well.

I would have supported, after the official count, either candidate calling for a statewide recount FL.  I would have supported either candidate calling for a statewide recount in NM; I certainly would have supported a recount in NM, if Bush would won on the basis of the one county recount.
The problem was that neither candidate ask for one.

Gore was being hypocritical when he said, "Count every vote," and then only tried to count some of them.  He didn't try for a statewide recount until after it was clear he'd still lose after the Democratic areas were counted.

Gore was being hypocritical again, when he tried for the statewide recount, days after the partical recount.  He didn't the votes counted.  He didn't FL to cast its Electoral Votes.  Constitutionally, he need a majority of the Electoral Votes cast; if he could prevent FL from casting theirs, he had a majority. 

Face it, Al Gore's goal was to prevent a state from casting its Electoral Votes.  I ask again jFRAUD,  is it the Democratic Party's policy to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?  That is almost what happened in 2000.

Gore should have called more for a statewide recount. He never opposed a statewide recount. Gore had limited resources for fighting the legal and PR challenges, he had only 25% as much money as Bush.

How can you claim that the Republicans are not hypocrites for opposing the FL recount while getting a statewide NM recount?

Can you give me any evidence that Gore was planning on not having 25 electors cast valid votes for the true winner of Florida? The Republican state legislature was planning on choosing a slate of 25 Bush electors, regardless of the outcome of the recount.

Provide some evidence, or quit defaming Gore.


It's really sad that you don't see how the Republicans are hypocrites here.

Well, that one intelligent thing you've said on this thread.  Yes, he should have ask for one, when there was adequate time to do one.


Here, you've demonstrated that either you don't read your own posts or don't understand them.  According to the Village Voice that you cited, only one county in NM was recounted; the state of NM was not.  I frankly would have urged Bush to request one, but he chose not two.  (I'll add that this one county, Roosevelt, lowered the margin by more than 20% of the NM vote; there is no way of telling how many more votes would have gotten.)


Here is the statement from Gore's spokesman, Warren Christopher, in FL:

"Al Gore has more popular votes than anybody else in this election," he continued. "He has more electoral votes. There is no reason that we shouldn't be defending his rights as well as the rights of people of the state of Florida."

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:qkE7lTkX4vwJ:archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/13/president.election/+Gore+%22more+electoral+votes%22+quote&hl=en

The key here is that they are looking at the current situation.  If it doesn't change Gore had more electoral votes, and they knew it.  The Constitution provides for the candidate with a majority of the votes cast to win. Their goal was to keep it from changing.   Delay until after the count.

That was just a quick Googling; I would suspect that I could find a lot more.  Maybe I could start a "Great Gore Disinfranshisement Plan" thread.

I think you're misreading the situtation. He probably either means
1. That Al Gore with Florida has a majority of the electoral votes, and therefore should win
2. That Al Gore has a majority of the non Florida electors, which he's just mentioning for PR value

Anwyays, you failed to address the other points.

1.  I love how you say, he didn't mean exactly what he says.  Chropher (I beleieve he was near the Florida Supreme Court when he said it) said, "He has more electoral votes."  If the process stopped right there, Gore has more votes and wins. 

2.  As you said, without Florida, Gore has a majority.  Further, he didn't, at first, ask a statewide recount, which we both thought he should have (and yes, I would have supported it).  It takes time to count and it would have delayed the certification until after the "Safe Harbor" period, so that the could be challenged yet again.   He asks for just a few counties, and doesn't win.  He then asks for a time consuming recount statewind.  If that fails, he can challenge the electors.  It's win or disinfranchise; it almost worked, too.

As for the issues, Gore didn't challenge them, or there wasn't any proof (which is the same thing I said about WA, if you recall; in that one a Democrat won).  I'm being very consistent in my position on recounts; I wish you were.

You still have not answered by question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

1. He was not suggesting that the process stop there

2. Yes, a statewide recount like they had in NM would have been the way to go. Gore did eventually start calling for a statewide recount. The problem really is that his legal and PR team were getting their asses kicked by the much more expensive Bush version.

Anyways, the Republican Florida legilsature was planning on voting in some Bush electors, even if Bush clearly lost the recount. I don't see how you can argue that they weren't trying to disenfranchise the voters

There were plenty of people disenfranchied with the scrub list, and plenty more votes that went wrong, particularly in minority areas with the machines set to high reject standards. Then there's the Butterfly ballot, designed by a complete DINO. All of these people didn't have their votes counted (despite the fact that illegal absentee votes were counted).

By denying a fair statewide recount, lots of people were disenfranchied. By your reasoning, 6 million people were disenfranchised.

First, the FL Legislature was preparing to meet the "safe harbor" provision of statute.  They were going to send their own electors, if the case was tied up and no electors were chosen.  Now, I would prefer to elect my own electors, but if given a choice between my elected representatives chosing them and not having any, I'd let my representatives elect them.  It would be an unfortunate choice between indirect repesentation and no representation; I'd chose the indirect over none.

You have not read you own article; they had a recount in one county in NM; they did not have a statewide recount.  They had a three county recount in FL.

Now, you are complaining about the Democrat who set up some ballots; it was found to be legal after a court challenge.  And the people who voted by these ballots, had their votes counted, unless they did something like vote for two people.  Illegal votes like that are not counted; people make mistakes in every election.  Why should we credit those to Gore (or better yet, why shouldn't we credit the mistakes in other states to Bush)?

The absentee ballot issue either wasn't challenged or was adjudicated and found to be valid.

And after all of this, the press reviewed the ballots and came to the startling conclusion that Bush won Florida, using the standards that the Florida Supreme Court set.  Only by attempting to delay the vote count, and disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes could Gore win.  He tried and failed.

You still have not answered my question:  Is it the policy of the Democratic Party to disinfranchise 6,000,000+ votes cast by legal voters?

BTW:  If you want to see my "hypocritical" feelings about invalid votes and recounts, got to this thread: 

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=14570.0

I'll point out that Rossi is a Republican.

I only just noticed this thread.

For the record, I am indifferent to both Al Gore and George W. Bush, but I can still see how Democrats might *still* be angry at the 2000 election.  Even though Bush won a majority in both senses last fall, I would still be bitter that it wasn't Al Gore running for re-election instead.

For me personally, it highlighted a simple fact that if one guy gets more votes than the other and yet still loses because of a clause in the federal constitution, then there is something seriously wrong here.  It has become the ultimate irony now that the US currently seems to be under the impression that all oppressive dictatorships should have democracies just like ours.  I would fully agree with that sentence if only for the last three words.

So should we elect every federal official at large, then, with no local involvement?

Nah, the EC is necessary.  Its gets it right most of the time.  If I had truely felt Gore ost Florida, than I would've said "well, too bad, didn't reach out to anyone outside the citites".  What I'm more PO'ed about is the mass disenfrachisement and stoppage of necessary recounts in the larger (and more democratic) districts.  Gore DID win Florida.  But through the scheming and foul tactics of the Florida Republican Party, the entire election was stolen from Gore. 

Both parties used a fair amount of scheming and foul tactics in 2000.

I used to be a libertarian before Bush ran for office.

After 2000, not only do i not like Bush i dislike the way that republicans defend him so stubbornly.

A libertarian with an economic score in the negatives?

Nomorelies was, I imagine, a lot of things.

She says she was, not is.

Still...

No, because I wasn't a Democrat back then, and therefore I did not vote the Gore/Lieberman ticket. 

it was absolutely disgusting

i wouldnt go as far as to say that it was disgusting, but it did anger me that the person who was clearly going to win was defeated, not by his opponent, but by the conservative dominated supreme court.

The whole election was absolutely unbearable, and it was extremely disheartening when the Supreme Court ruled against continuing the Florida recount.  However, terrible experience that it was, I believe that it is time to move on.  Therefore I agree with Dave's statement here:

Perhaps, because it's clear that the will of the majority of Americans was that Al Gore should have become president, even in the electoral college if it was just a two-way choice, Bush or Gore.

Yes, but it's kinda funny that Democrats don't win even when they get more votes. I doubt the GOP is going to let a Democrat win in 2008, either.

Oh yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought that the Republicans were angry at their base in 2000 which cost them 5 seats in the senate and a few in the house. Their base was very unhappy, my parents included, that Clinton got away with all the white collar crimes he committed in the White House. When Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, the GOP was doomed for 2000.

If the Republicans were doomed in 2000, why did Bush Jr. win that year and why did the GOP retain control of Congress that year as well?

1. They didn't regain, they had control and lost seats in the house.
2. Bush Jr. didn't even win the popular vote.
3. The public was more happy with Clinton then than at any other time in his administration.

1. I didn't say regain--I said retain control of Congress, which the GOP did in 2000
2. Popular vote is irrelevant. It is only the electoral vote that couts, which Bush Jr. won.
3. Maybe, but it doesn't matter since Clinton was unable to run in 2000.

I think Bush was seen as the Washington outsider so his perception wasn't linked to the GOP in the House and Senate who lost that year. By lost I mean lost seats.

I still disproved your point that the GOP was doomed in 2000. Winning the Presidency and keeping control of Congress does not make for a doomed party.

Please do not bump dead threads.

"Doomed" maybe a strong word but they certainly weren't looking at picking any seats up in congress.

Die in a fire.

after you

You first.