Oh definately. Despite what was suggested above, Im not looking for an “echo chamber.” Im into debating, but I am used to other boards. I think I will make this one my home, so far I have gotten many intelligent replies and some not worh my time.
Anyway, I will be sure to cite everything in advance from now on.
This place does seem like a lot of fun, and I hope to be accepted as one of the mature debators. I apologize for getting off on the wrong foot by not citing my sources right off the bat.
Ah, I completely forgot that PBS was following the election. I usually do not watch ANY American news at all, so I tried to stick with the major players.
If you are suggesting that some posters around here engage in sophistry, I’d agree. It’s frustrating as hell. And lately, there has been far too much personal insulting going on here, although it seems to be improving.
Now THAT is an interesting assertion. I’d love to find another high-quality discussion board. Do you have some URLs for us to check out?
This is dumb. The statement is completely devoid of any and all logic.
Picture 2 people living in Florida. 1 wants Bush to win, the other wants Gore to win. Now they both know the polls are still open, but have decided they don’t really ‘need’ to vote because their candidate is going to win.
Then the news comes on saying that Gore has won. What possible motivation is there for a Gore supporter to jump up and run down to the polls to vote? His candidate has ALREADY WON according to the news.
Now let’s reverse that. Let’s say the Bush supporter saw the same thing. But “Ah”, he says to himself… “The polls are STILL OPEN, I CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS” so he rushes down to vote for Bush.
The whole thing just stunk to all high heaven and yes that’s why Bush stole the election and that’s why Bush isn’t the legitimate president. Gore got more TOTAL votes across the nation than did Bush Bush did everything in his power to stop real votes of people from being counted, including using the courts to stop recounts from being done. EVEN LEGITIMATE CARDS THAT THE MACHINE COULD NOT READ. Bush didn’t want people to have their votes counted, period. This flies in the face of democracy and stinks like ass no matter how you look at it. The ballots being messed up and designed improperly caused tens of thousands of votes to go to the wrong candidate, who on average got an obscene amount more votes in FL did nationwide. Let’s not even mention the thousands of reports of black people in FL being stopped on the roads to polling places and hassled by the police an in many cases refused the right to vote. Considering how close FL was any single ONE of these factors would have swung the vote to Gore. I guess it helps to have your brother as governor of a swing state.
Anyways you are high if you think announcing a state for Gore is going to cause even MORE voters to run out and vote for Gore.
You just answered your own question. Joe Shmo knows the statement about Gore winning is wrong for the simple fact that POLLS ARE STILL OPEN. You can’t win if people are still voting. Therefor it’s easy to assume that yes Gore is winning current counts, but there is STILL TIME TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME of the election.
If I were the bush supporter I would RUN not WALK down to the polling station to cast that outcome. In fact I can bet at least 5000 of them did just that, if not a WHOLE lot more. Keep in mind 5000 is more than enough to swing the election back to Gorein FL. Gore supporters did not have the same motivational opportunity.
So, you believe that every voter in America not only knows the exact time the polls close (because even I didnt know) and not only that, but if Dan Rather came on the air and said Gore had already won, these people wouldnt believe him?
Is this where i can start claiming Bush stole the election via illegally preventing hundreds of black voters from voting because they were felons or had the same name as felons or even a similar name as a felon?
and hereshould be action fotage of Clayton Roberts running away when confronted.
Well, this site shows that either there was no effect, or that it actually hurt Gore slightly.
I’m not finding any flaw with their model, since they take both sides into account, but feel free to tear it apart.
If Lott (or Mary Rosh, or whatever he likes to be called these days. I really can’t keep up, so I wish he’d stop creating pseudonyms to support his suppositions) simply claimed that x number of Bush voters didn’t show up after a “winner” was announced, I’d likely believe him. He probably just conveniently forgets that by the same token, x number of Gore voters probably also stayed home.
You’re lookin’ at it bass-ackwards. The premature calling of the state for Gore caused less voters to run out and vote for Bush.
The polls were still open in the panhandle of Fla. (central time zone). The panhandle of Fla is predominately conservative, so even if it caused both Bush and Gore votes, it is reasonably expected that it cost Bush more votes.
Furthermore, don’t think that it was all an accident. While the average “Joe” doesn’t have timezones on his mind, those in the media are constantly aware of time-zone implications.
It was another deliberate attempt by Democrats, along with attempting to disqualify as many absentee ballots from our military personel as possible, (The personality of the DNC was really revealed on that one.) to steal the election.
Nothing in this thread, absolutely nothing, has failed to be scrutinized very thoroughly on this board when it was timely. You all, and especially The Republican, would help save bandwidth by using the Search function and educating yourselves first.
Re poll closing times, incidentally, the first call of Florida for Gore occurred something like ten minutes beforehand. The number of voters who have been found to have failed to vote there because of that is up to a solid one (1). The “Democratic” position on counting ballots was that legally-cast ballots should be counted and illegally-cast ones not - got a problem with that? razorsharp, you don’t appear to have a problem with the actual counting of some hundreds of “military” ballots postmarked after Election Day, do you? That’s what happened, though.
The rest of the pro-Bush-honesty argument is likewise pure imagination. Unfortunately, we deal with facts here. Next?
I’m having a little trouble understanding this. Maybe you can help me.
I have to assume that most of these people DID know what time the poll closed, and that would would account for why they waited so long to go. (“Honey, we should get out there and cast our vote” “What’s your hurry, it’s open till 7:30”)
If YOU didn’t know what time the polls closed, would you wait till late in the evening? Or would you go earlier? I don’t know about other states, but California requires that all employers give employees ample time (with pay, if they can only get there during regular work hours) to vote.
While crowing over Vice President Gore’s winning the popular vote by a razor-thin margin after the media prematurely declared Gore the winner in Florida, which undoubtedly cost Bush votes, not only in Florida, but in the western states as well, partisan Democrats sway attention away from the fact that Governor Bush won 60% of the states. Breaking it down further, Governor Bush won 80% of the counties nationwide. In fact, if just the metropolitan areas and surrounding counties of San Francisco and Los Angeles were removed from the total, George W. Bush would have won the popular vote. I wonder what percentage of localities across the nation are willing allow the political climate that reigns in San Francisco and Los Angeles to reign nationwide. I suspect, not many.
Rather than the 2000 election proving the Electoral College to be an antiquated institution that has outlived it’s usefulness, just the opposite has become manifest. The Electoral College is working just as designed. Another testiment to the wisdom and insight of the Founding Fathers.
I got a problem with partisan Democrats circulating memos with detailed instructions on how to disqualify absentee ballots from America’s overseas military personel.
That was especially hypocritical after Gore’s self-righteous proclaimation that “all votes must me counted”.
You’re not answering the question already raised. For someone spouting the RW spin that electoral legitimacy is based not on votes but on acreage, I doubt it, though. As for LA and SF “deciding the popular vote”, you might explain why you picked them instead of Houston and Dallas.
This particular type of dishonesty is a pet peeve of mine. It is the same type of dishonesty that gives rise to statements like “The vast majority of attacks on coalition troops are taking place in a small area of Iraq.” What’s wrong with this? Well, firstly, it is completely accurate, and completely misleading. The fact is, the “small area” in question houses over 60% of the country’s population. The phrasing of the statement implies that a small area houses a small population and therefore the issues affect a very small minority. This is, in reality, simply not true.
“Statistics” like “Bush won 80% of counties” are every bit as bad. Many of the counties he won have tiny populations and abstracting that fact out of the statement is dishonest. The thought that SF and LA are somehow dominating the political climate of the US is rediculous. They are given exactly the weight they deserve given their large population. This fact should be presented when talking about their influence on the national level. In a democracy, large population centers DESERVE a voice becuase they contain lots of PEOPLE. That’s how it works. One person, one vote. Lots of persons, lots of votes. Other entities, county lines, municipalities, cities, etc, simply don’t enter into the equation. San Francisco and LA have over four million people combined. That’s a lot of votes.