Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: Akno21 on July 26, 2004, 06:56:27 AM



Title: FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Akno21 on July 26, 2004, 06:56:27 AM
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.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ATFFL on July 26, 2004, 09:34:44 AM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I suggest the democrats move on, its over.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Jake on July 26, 2004, 09:55:42 AM
Really, just let it go. George Bush was elected president. Al Gore wasn't.  I'm not to sure Outfoxed is the most credible source of info, beings that it was put out w/ Moveon.orgs help.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: minionofmidas on July 26, 2004, 10:03:37 AM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Absolutely nothing, indeed. Also, notice that the guy who made that decision was a close relative of Bush's.

Quote
I suggest the democrats move on, its over.
That's obviously true. It's definitely way too late to change anything about it.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Keystone Phil on July 26, 2004, 10:06:34 AM
To my Democratic fans, do AMERICA a favor and accept that, nearly 4 years later, you lost the 2000 Presidential election. And its more than Florida, it's Tennessee. If you guys could only win Gore's HOME STATE. The state that elected him Senator and went for Clinton twice. All you had to do was win there and even if Bush got Florida, Tennessee would have been enough for Gore to win. But guess what? Neither Tennessee nor Florida wanted Gore. You lost. It's done.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ATFFL on July 26, 2004, 10:06:45 AM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Absolutely nothing, indeed. Also, notice that the guy who made that decision was a close relative of Bush's.


One guy?  The vote was counted by hundreds if not thousands of people all across the state.  All of them sent their totals to Kathryn Harris, who added them up and certified them then passed the results on to the legislature and JEB.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: minionofmidas on July 26, 2004, 10:10:51 AM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Absolutely nothing, indeed. Also, notice that the guy who made that decision was a close relative of Bush's.


One guy?  The vote was counted by hundreds if not thousands of people all across the state.  All of them sent their totals to Kathryn Harris, who added them up and certified them then passed the results on to the legislature and JEB.
Relax -  I was talking merely of the decision to call Florida for Bush and declare the election decided by FOX News.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: elcorazon on July 26, 2004, 10:49:00 AM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I suggest the democrats move on, its over.

you are correct: it is over.  However, the FACT is that Gore had MORE VOTES.  Just making sure you know the FACTS.

The point of the thread is valid, however, although it may not have changed the result (we'll never really know that one).  The biggest impact may have been the impact of Gore "seeming" to be the loser, before that was clear, causing the perception of him to be more negative.



Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ATFFL on July 26, 2004, 11:11:58 AM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I suggest the democrats move on, its over.

you are correct: it is over.  However, the FACT is that Gore had MORE VOTES.  Just making sure you know the FACTS.

The point of the thread is valid, however, although it may not have changed the result (we'll never really know that one).  The biggest impact may have been the impact of Gore "seeming" to be the loser, before that was clear, causing the perception of him to be more negative.



No, Bush had more votes in every credible count by a variety of organizations.

More people may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Gore, but if they are unable to figure out a ballot and too proud to ask for help, they forfeit their right to vote.

The state being called for Gore also kept people in the panhandle from voting.  No one knows how many people with the intent to vote for Bush stayed home or left the line at a polling place because they heard the state was over.  They also forfeit their right to vote.

In the end, Florida was a mess for a variety of reasons.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ThePrezMex on July 26, 2004, 04:03:30 PM
To my Democratic fans, do AMERICA a favor and accept that, nearly 4 years later, you lost the 2000 Presidential election. And its more than Florida, it's Tennessee. If you guys could only win Gore's HOME STATE. The state that elected him Senator and went for Clinton twice. All you had to do was win there and even if Bush got Florida, Tennessee would have been enough for Gore to win. But guess what? Neither Tennessee nor Florida wanted Gore. You lost. It's done.

I agree. It was all Gore's fault.
Yes, Florida was a mess and it shouldn't have happened the way it did (and hopefully nothing like that will be repeated), but.. Gore should have won his home state! and NH and WV, and even NV!
Given the state of the economy back then, Clinton's approval ratings, etc., the defeat can only be explained by Gore's incompetence.
Even if I could also write dozens of reasons why I believe W has been a bad president, Gore proved that he was not up to it either (for a sample, just look at his great gratitude towards Lieberman by betraying him and endorsing Dean).


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Akno21 on July 26, 2004, 04:04:04 PM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I suggest the democrats move on, its over.

you are correct: it is over.  However, the FACT is that Gore had MORE VOTES.  Just making sure you know the FACTS.

The point of the thread is valid, however, although it may not have changed the result (we'll never really know that one).  The biggest impact may have been the impact of Gore "seeming" to be the loser, before that was clear, causing the perception of him to be more negative.



More people may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Gore, but if they are unable to figure out a ballot and too proud to ask for help, they forfeit their right to vote.


O, so now Republicans want to discriminate against dumb people? You guys are really elitist.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: elcorazon on July 26, 2004, 04:10:06 PM
To my Democratic fans, do AMERICA a favor and accept that, nearly 4 years later, you lost the 2000 Presidential election. And its more than Florida, it's Tennessee. If you guys could only win Gore's HOME STATE. The state that elected him Senator and went for Clinton twice. All you had to do was win there and even if Bush got Florida, Tennessee would have been enough for Gore to win. But guess what? Neither Tennessee nor Florida wanted Gore. You lost. It's done.

I agree. It was all Gore's fault.
Yes, Florida was a mess and it shouldn't have happened the way it did (and hopefully nothing like that will be repeated), but.. Gore should have won his home state! and NH and WV, and even NV!
Given the state of the economy back then, Clinton's approval ratings, etc., the defeat can only be explained by Gore's incompetence.
Even if I could also write dozens of reasons why I believe W has been a bad president, Gore proved that he was not up to it either (for a sample, just look at his great gratitude towards Lieberman by betraying him and endorsing Dean).

I think Lieberman cost Gore the election.  If Gore hadn't made the mistake of selecting that guy, he would be president today.  Gore realized how poor a choice Lieberman was, and endorsed his choice in 2004.

By the way, Gore received hundreds of thousands MORE votes than Bush.  You all know this, but when I said Gore got more votes previously, I was told I was wrong.  Gore got more votes.  This is NOT in dispute.  Whether he got more votes in FL is unclear.

I've heard MANY times on this board that "every recount proved Bush won".  This is not true either.  Many did show Bush won; some showed Gore won.  Of course it's all moot since the U.S. Supreme Court decided there wasn't enough time for a proper recount.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ATFFL on July 26, 2004, 05:11:00 PM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I suggest the democrats move on, its over.

you are correct: it is over.  However, the FACT is that Gore had MORE VOTES.  Just making sure you know the FACTS.

The point of the thread is valid, however, although it may not have changed the result (we'll never really know that one).  The biggest impact may have been the impact of Gore "seeming" to be the loser, before that was clear, causing the perception of him to be more negative.



More people may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Gore, but if they are unable to figure out a ballot and too proud to ask for help, they forfeit their right to vote.


O, so now Republicans want to discriminate against dumb people? You guys are really elitist.

Who made the confusing ballot?

If you do not understand tha ballot and do not ask for help you do not get to complain if you screw up.  You had the chance to do it right and blew it.  No, you do not get to go back and fix it.

And I love how my view represents all Republicans.  I had no clue I was so influential.  Fear my power over the party!

Since you ignore the effect of the early call I can only assume Democrats* would like to ignore that.  

* Possibly just you.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: KEmperor on July 26, 2004, 05:56:53 PM
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 fact that Bush had more votes had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I suggest the democrats move on, its over.

you are correct: it is over.  However, the FACT is that Gore had MORE VOTES.  Just making sure you know the FACTS.

The point of the thread is valid, however, although it may not have changed the result (we'll never really know that one).  The biggest impact may have been the impact of Gore "seeming" to be the loser, before that was clear, causing the perception of him to be more negative.



More people may have gone to the polls intending to vote for Gore, but if they are unable to figure out a ballot and too proud to ask for help, they forfeit their right to vote.


O, so now Republicans want to discriminate against dumb people? You guys are really elitist.

Well, if you are too dumb to use the voting machine correctly, I really don't want you choosing who runs the country.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on July 29, 2004, 04:26:58 AM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Akno21 on July 29, 2004, 04:36:16 PM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again. Always pray Katherine Harris gets run over by a car. Never, ever forget.

(Just kidding about the Harris thing)


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: MarkDel on July 29, 2004, 05:05:09 PM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again. Always pray Katherine Harris gets run over by a car. Never, ever forget.

(Just kidding about the Harris thing)

God, you're right. I mean, where in the hell did Katherine Harris get the nerve to do something as ridiculous as follow the letter of the law...


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Keystone Phil on July 29, 2004, 05:08:23 PM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again.
 

Yes always remember. Remember counting the ballots over and over and over and over...and remember after ALL THOSE RECOUNTS....Gore still lost the state of Florida and the election.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: MarkDel on July 29, 2004, 05:26:44 PM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again.
 

Yes always remember. Remember counting the ballots over and over and over and over...and remember after ALL THOSE RECOUNTS....Gore still lost the state of Florida and the election.

Phil,

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 little detail seems to get left out of their "Bush stole the election" horsesh*t.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Akno21 on July 30, 2004, 06:06:20 AM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again.
 

Yes always remember. Remember counting the ballots over and over and over and over...and remember after ALL THOSE RECOUNTS....Gore still lost the state of Florida and the election.

You guys are sort of making my point. By calling Florida for Bush at 2 AM, and then retracting it, it led to the perception that Bush was ahead, and Gore was trying to catch up to him. The state was too close to call the entire time.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on August 04, 2004, 03:27:23 AM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again. Always pray Katherine Harris gets run over by a car. Never, ever forget.

(Just kidding about the Harris thing)

God, you're right. I mean, where in the hell did Katherine Harris get the nerve to do something as ridiculous as follow the letter of the law...

What letter of the law?
Some counties never had a recount.
Meanwhile all sorts of illegal absentee ballots were counted. Some people admitted to mailing ballots after the election.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on August 04, 2004, 03:30:17 AM
I will NOT get over an election stealing, ever. If Gore had stolen the election, you would not be over it, so why should us Democrats bend over backwards? We will never forget Florida 2000.

Never Forget. Always Remember. Always make sure we don't experience the same pain again.
 

Yes always remember. Remember counting the ballots over and over and over and over...and remember after ALL THOSE RECOUNTS....Gore still lost the state of Florida and the election.

You guys are sort of making my point. By calling Florida for Bush at 2 AM, and then retracting it, it led to the perception that Bush was ahead, and Gore was trying to catch up to him. The state was too close to call the entire time.

FL was called for Bush because a Diebold electronic voting machine gave Al Gore -16,000 votes in one precinct. This was fixed in the results available online, but not in the results used by the media to call the election. For half an hour, Al Gore was down by only 50,000 votes, with only Al Gore's  best counties yet to fully report, and the media thought the election was over.  I kept checking all the media to see if they had retracted the call for Bush. It took them half an hour. You can't make stuff like this up! Truth is really stranger than fiction. Diebold and the media get a grade of 'F'.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Lunar on August 04, 2004, 02:32:19 PM

Err..Florida law regarding the timeframe allowed for recounts?


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Andrew on August 07, 2004, 11:02:35 AM
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


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Lunar on August 07, 2004, 12:21:02 PM
Link?


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Andrew on August 07, 2004, 02:12:29 PM
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.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: freedomburns on August 07, 2004, 06:41:51 PM
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


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Akno21 on August 07, 2004, 09:13:49 PM
Democrats cheeted in 1960, Republicans cheeted in 2000, now we're even.

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


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: qwerty on August 08, 2004, 02:26:40 PM
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?


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Schmitz in 1972 on August 08, 2004, 02:50:38 PM
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.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Defarge on August 08, 2004, 07:09:23 PM
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 :)


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on August 11, 2004, 11:44:47 PM
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.  


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: A18 on September 04, 2004, 04:50:57 PM
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.


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Akno21 on September 05, 2004, 09:16:25 AM

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.  


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ATFFL on September 05, 2004, 10:56:33 AM

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."


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: Volrath50 on September 05, 2004, 01:52:30 PM
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


Title: Re:FOX cost Gore the election
Post by: ATFFL on September 05, 2004, 02:06:41 PM
Note that they do not include the absentee ballots that Gore got thrown out.