If we knew this was coming, would Gore have won?

Do you think that Gore would have gotten more votes if this current crisis was expected, or perhaps suspected to occur, by the voting public?

Please believe me that I’m not asking this question to bash Bush; my personal opinion is that so far, Bush is doing OK and I don’t believe Gore would be doing anything different. But, I think the dems could have made leeway during the election with the fact that Gore is simply more experienced in the international arena.

Given that, plus the closeness of the election, I think that Gore would have had the White House by a clear margin. Just my guess, of course.

He probably would have.
Let’s face it, the election was the tightest in U.S. history, and it’s going to be a long time for the stars to align in a way to make it that tight again.
If we know there is an impending international crisis on the horizon, Gore talks up his international credentials (although they ain’t too impressive) vs. Bush’s (pre-Sept. 11, practically nil), instead of that stupid “lock-box” shit.
Probably enough to swing some key states his way (at least Florida), and he’s the Prez.

I’m sorry, Revtime, but I think I may be misunderstanding your question. It seems to be suggesting that, having foreknowledge of the attack, I (a member of the voting public) would have been more concerned about who was president than with screaming warnings to everyone within vocal and electronic range. Yipes!

Maybe a more realistic way to phrase it would be not that we knew this particular attack was imminent, but that it was likely that some kind of crisis with international ramifications would occur, perhaps because of the world political climate.

I don’t know, but Cheney vs Lieberman would have been a bigger part of the overall picture, that’s for sure.

Now, if it had been Gore/Cheney vs Bush/Lieberman, Gore would have won easily, IMO. Or if Gore had picked a more experienced military/strategic leader. Perhaps Gore/Kerrey would have won. Actually, if it had been Gore/Kerrey, I think Gore would have won anyway.

Ah, okay. Thanks.

In that case, I do believe that Mr. Gore would have won, given that he already had an established relationship with current world leaders. While that may not have, in reality, made him the best choice, he would likely have been perceived as someone who was experienced in the international arena; someone familiar with the difficulties of oil politics. Perhaps he would also have been seen as someone more willing to think before speaking; to be more likely to weigh the consequences of his actions and seek the advice of others.

(Whether he would actually have been more effective, just as effective, or less effective that President Bush is a different question. Also, Nadar may have picked up a larger pecentage of the votes and put the whole thing back into Florida.)

Hm. I dunno. I was real concerned about the environment during our election. And the economy. I wasn’t thinking about foreign affairs, or defense, or peace issues. Boy has that changed.

I don’t think it would have changed my choice (I voted for Gore–I think given my nature, I’d prefer how Gore would handle this crisis, but that’s purely personal and I don’t know that he’d be overall more effective). However, I could see how some fence-sitters who voted for Gore woulda voted for Bush instead, had they known how important those defense-type issues would become. So I guess my answer would be no; if anything, I think W. would have had more votes.

I voted Gore.

I’m very happy that it is Bush in the White House. As he promised while running, Bush has surrounded himself by “good” people. I’m very glad to have Cheney, Powell, and even Bush Sr. around.

This is about the only situation I think I’d feel that way though.

Hmmm, you think many more people would have voted for Al Gore than voted for George Bush? Guess we’ll never know . . .

Cranky, that’s a good point. It seems that the Democrats are seen as being soft on defense and that might well have swayed some votes. However, I’d then have wanted Bush Sr. as president, not someone inexperienced in international politics. (Hell just froze over. I had something vaguely nice to say about former-President Bush.)

That said, I think that President Bush is, as pointed out by Gazoo, enrolling some good advisors and is hopefully paying attention.

(Revtim, I’ve just noticed that I misspelled your nickname in my previous post. Sorry. I hate when I do that.)

No sweat xcheopis, lots of people make the same mistake with my username. I shoulda made it “RevTim” with a capital T.

Big time.

Corvairs and conservatives show up as little green blips on “Nadar.”

Gore probably would have won. But somehow I don’t see him handling the actual crisis any better. It seems to me that Bush has done about everything that could be done. He has rallied support from moderate Arab states, mobilized the troops, and been a much better national “cheerleader” than I ever thought he was capable of.

His simple approach–which has led to some embarrasing gaffes IMO (too much religiosity when we should be toning that down)–has worked well insofar as he looks resolute, unambiguous, and tough to our adversaries. I am afraid Gore might have tried to finesse the situation and appeared weak and indecisive as a result.

Bush would have won solidly, I think. I’m not bashing Gore, but I think that people in America(at least enough to make a difference in this election) believe that Republicans are good with war and military, while Dems are good with social issues.

Having Cheney and Powell lined up probably would have done enough to solidify his win.

But, except for Gulf war, weren’t all 20th Century Wars “Democrat Wars?” (pace Bob Dole)
WWI: Wilson (Democrat)
WWII: Roosevelt & Truman (Democrats)
Korea: Truman (Democrat)
Vietnam: Kennedy, Johnson (Democrat) & Nixon (Republican)

Crisis or no crisis, Gore would have won easily anyway if over 14% of Florida’s black voter’s ballots were spoiled (according to the recent Civil Rights Commission report) due to inferior voting technology in predominantly black districts. In contrast, only 1% of nonblack Florida ballots were spoiled.

I’ve done my fair share of it, but blaming the USC for the results is just smoke and mirrors. Yeah, it may be one of the least justifiable decisions of the previous century and it was inexcuseable that Scalia and Thomas did not recuse themselves… but I’m not convinced that Gore would have prevailed in recounts, anyway. Plus, it only masks the true deciding factor: black ballot spoilage…

But, I must say, it is supremely ironic that the USC claimed the Equal Protection Clause (which conservative jurisprudence is loath to apply to much of anything) applied to disparity in vote standards (which would seemingly nullify the Electoral College) while there was a true Equal Protection issue that didn’t cross their minds.

I still can’t believe Bush actually coined the term “Crusade against terrorism” - monumental in its stupidity - but besides the 9/11 “duck and cover,” he’s handled this situation admirably. The speech was excellent. I’ll wait to see how the situation develops, because he is taking some tremendous risks, particularly when it comes to Pakistan.

Someone had a very good point about Veep selections earlier. Lieberman was selected as a moral foil to President Clinton; to portray a more positive family image. I doubt character would have been an issue if we knew of these things then, and you probably would have seen a Gore/Kerry or Gore/Nunn ticket.

It may very well have crossed their mind. It is irrelevant because the USC decides cases that are argued before them. And Gore’s team didn’t argue what you deem to be the “true equal protection issue.”

nolo has implicitly accused Demcrats of being racists, and I rise to defend them.

Since the Black voters in Florida live mostly in districts where the voting was controlled by Democrats, that 14% statistic implies that the Florida Democratic Party purposely invalidated a large number of Black ballots. :frowning: I don’t believe it!

Seriously, that Civil Rights Commission was a total hatchet job, and not skillfully done. Note that one cannot tell the race of a voter whose ballot was spoiled. There’s simply no way to match a particular ballot with a particular voter. (Maybe there should be, in order to detect fraud, but that’s another matter.) That 14% figure (if it’s accurate) is a statistical projection of some sort based on heaven-knows-what assumptions.

Iti would be nice to review the assumptions and calculations, but the Commission has refused to release their statistical analysis – presumably because it’s full of flaws.

That report was an embarassment.

Revtim, you may want to brush up on your nautical terminology.

>> I think the dems could have made leeway during the election with the fact that Gore is simply more experienced in the international arena.

leeway is what they made. I assume you meant headway.


I invite you to read my post again. After you’re done, why not read the report itself rather than parroting inaccurate misinformation from “Heaven-knows-who.”

Once you’re done, I’ll explain to you:

  1. how local elections officials don’t have you the sort of authority you seem to believe.
  2. how your strawman claim of purposeful invalidation doesn’t fly with the CRC’s findings of voting technology inferiority in black communities.
  3. if “Demcrats,” as you say, are racists, 90% of black Florida voters would cast ballots for Republicans, rather than against them.

Estimate? Yes. Of course. But clearly you are completely in the dark as to (among other things) the business of estimatation. Do you know what an actuary is? Are you aware that there are firms hired by your life insurance company to estimate how many people in your demographic will kick off this year? And are you aware that their estimates are generally very accurate? If they weren’t, your life insurance company wouldn’t be in business for long.

Before you reduce all high school concepts to “mystics,” let’s break it down. If you have a precint where you know the ethnic makeup of the local community, you have a reasonably accurate estimate of voter turnout by ethnicity, you know how many ballots were spoiled, and you can eliminate any reasons why the spoilage rate would be higher for one group than another… well, it’s not hard to create an estimate of spoiled ballots by ethnicity.

I can see the little wheels in your little mind spinning already… “If you eliminate all reasons why the spoilage rate would be higher for one group than another, how can they be higher for blacks?” Easy. Location. You break the results down by precints and add them up. And if, as they did, they reveal a disparity on the magnitude of 14:1, you, to put it mildly, have a problem.

You may assign otherwordly characteristics to this reasoning, but this mystical science of “probability” is taught in high schools throughout the country!
<sarcasm> Call your local school board in protest, december! You must stop them from indoctrinating American youth with such “nonsense!” Next thing you know, they’ll be teaching our kids the earth revolves around the sun when we all know it’s the other way around. We can’t let that happen! </sarcasm>

BTW, I clearly see the methodology. Staring me in the face. How closely did you look? Did you even try? If not, whose “analysis” are you parroting?

Speaking of hatchet jobs, care to explain to me how Equal Protection applies to different counting standards in different precints but not different counting VALUES in different states? A vote in Alaska, for example, counts FOUR TIMES as much as one in Minnesota. If different voting values are constitutional, how can different voting standards be unconstitutional? I’d love to hear that one, but I don’t know whether I should bother asking a guy who has apparently never heard of the mathematical concept of “probability.”