# The "I Told You Gore Won!" Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2001, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905 "2001-11-12T12:45:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/81 "2001-11-13T19:00:45Z")
ITR, I agree with a some of your post. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ITR champion \*The article has no trouble making very precise claims about who did and didn’t get their votes counted in Florida, but they don’t even try to explain what methods they used to get those results. This is sort-of true, but IMHO the article left an implication that the study used analysis of variance. Perhaps I’m making that assumption because this is the same techniques used by the US Civil Right Clmmission study – the one that found that a disproportionate number of Black ballots had been discarded. (As I read it, Glassman and Lott don’t claim that their result is a correct description of what happened; but that their study is a as good as the Civil Right Commission study.) > [@](#): > > When counting ballots by hand, there is no way to know whether the voter is Democrat or Republican, white or black. Right, as to race. Of course, the actual vote indicates which party the voter favors. > [@](#): > > The claims made by Jackson and others concerning the high rate of ballots from black voters being scrapped were based on comparing rates of spoiled ballots in districts that were mostly black and districts that were mostly white. Since there is obviously no district with a majority of black Republicans, there is no way to measure what percentage of their ballots got thrown out. Not exactly. The US Civil Rights Commission study looked at all districts and used ANOVAR to reach certain conclusions. I looked briefly at their study, and it seemed reasonable to me. However, as ITR pointed out, you cannot tell the race of a voter from a ballot, so no such study can be conclusive. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, that website that the article is on seems to contain mostly paranoid, conspiracy-oriented articles about evil government beaurecrats. It’s not exactly what I would call an unbiased source. No doubt right-wing web sites were thrilled to reprint this article. However, it originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times, a responsible (and left-leaning) newspaper. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/82 "2001-11-13T19:17:33Z")
Elvis: > [@](#): > > \*\*Oh, and Milo, you seem to have missed this in earlier threads. Florida, like all states, further delegates the choice of electors to its voters as part of its own state constitution. Let’s see an explanation from you as to how any state legislature can choose a slate of electors on its own without violating its own state constitution. \*\* When you say “futher delegates” you should think, “adds additional legal requirements that do not ultimately supercede the Legislature’s role in determining presidential electors.” Indeed Florida’s law does say its presidential electors would go to the candidate with the most votes. But _ultimately_, the authority to make the decision on the electors rests with whatever manner the Legislature of that state deems fit. It’s written in plain black-and-white in the U.S. Constitution, and its bolstered in the Florida case by the federal law dealing with a **federal** , presidential election, in which the electors are undetermined on the date at which they are supposed to be determined (dates, in this case, as the Florida Supreme Court kept doing their best to help out their buddy). You’re aware that no law supercedes the U.S. Constitution, right? The way I read it, on any given election a state Legislature could decide their electoral votes will go to the candidate with the funniest hat. They may have hell to pay with their electorate over it, but they would be acting in a manner consistent with the powers granted them in the U.S. Constitution to determine presidential electors. But then, I’m one of those “strict constructionists” who could never wear a black robe and write Legislation on the fly from a bench in Tallahassee. Additionally, the Legislature had a certified election total from its Secretary of State. The legal battles were exceeding deadlines. Florida ran a legitimate risk of not having its electors tallied. The exact scenario that the federal law that I cited foresaw, where the Legislature steps in and makes a determination. Tejota: Count the votes, count the votes, count the votes. Didn’t want “the votes” counted. > [@](#): > > \*\*We can’t accept it because elections shouldn’t turn on who has the best lawyers. It should turn on who got the most votes. \*\* So … I’ll just keep asking it. **What’s a vote?** That was the whole damn problem with this election, and you know it! > [@](#): > > \*\*Gore fought to have votes counted, Bush fought to have them discarded without ever even looking at them to SEE if the machines had made a mistake. Regardless of who would have won, The only moral position that either one could have taken was to count every vote and let the final result be decided by that. \*\* And others might argue that, **given that what constituted a vote was varying from place to place, and there was evidence that partisanship may have been shaping that interpretation** , the only moral position was to follow the law. And to recognize that there isn’t a whole lot you can do about an election involving anonymous ballots to divine voters’ intent, if their ballots are improperly cast in certain ways. The more incorrectly cast the ballot, the more open to interpretation what the voter’s intention was. And because they’re anonymous, where does that leave you? It sure as _hell_ wouldn’t be right to have an election where the numbers are fairly solid, and a person knows the amount they need to overtake their opponent, as the intent of voters on individual ballots is then discerned by partisans with standards that could be described as nebulous and shifting _at best_. The Florida Legislature recognized the lunacy and fundamental unfairness of giving Gore crack after crack at achieving a number of votes that **was no longer uncertain, but that he knew he needed to win**. That’s why they were preparing to put the puppy to bed, regardless. > [@](#): > > \*\*Bush’s no-holds-barred legal battle to prevent counting was just wrong. If he felt that Gore was looking for advantage in his choice of where to count, he should have looked to balance that advantage by exercizing his right to request recounts in other places that would favor him. \*\* If Bush’s legal battle was “no-holds-barred,” please give me your description of the Gore camp’s post-election activities? This is where you say “count the votes” several times. Who says Bush should have taken the Gore strategy and ordered recounts in hand-picked counties? The more logical option is to say, “We had a count, and I won. We had a recount, and I won.” To follow a tactic Gore was undertaking would have undermined his position that Gore shouldn’t have been doing what he was doing. It’s not a question of morality; it was a question of strategy. Come on, Tejota. Do you honestly think Gore was motivated by morality, or attempting to find an effective strategy? > [@](#): > > \*\*Given that belief, his action to stop the counting is the moral equivalant of ballot-box-stuffing. Legal though it may have been, it was wrong to even attempt it. Gore, on the other hand, refused to take legal options that were available to him if they were immoral. \*\* Again, what’s this “legal though it may have been, it was wrong” crap? Secondly, give me examples of what Bush did that was “immoral” and examples of Gore refusing to do something that was “immoral.” If you bring up overseas absentee ballots re: Gore, I will assert that again, that was a calculated political strategy, not white-horse-riding morality. Gore would have taken too damaging a political blow by voiding the ballots of American servicemen and women who, **unlike the Gore-voters in Florida who cast their ballots improperly** , did everything right, and their ballots did not have a postmark through no fault of their own. Could he have won such a battle in court, legally? Probably. Would the political fallout and popular support damage have been worth it? No. He recognized this. Like everything else involved here, it was a _strategic, political move_. Politics is unsavory stuff. And nothing is more political than an election. If people are operating within the law, morality has little to do with it. > [@](#): > > \*\*It was the recount that turned me into an Anti-Bush, Pro-Gore partisan, up until that time I had no strong opinions about either of them. \*\* Funny how the world works. Because I supported McCain. I was really outraged at how successfully the Bush camp tarred McCain as a non-conservative following McCain’s victory over Bush in the Michigan primary (my state). In hindsight, I see it was just successful political strategy by the Bush camp. They were able to effectively do it, and it got them the critical South Carolina primary, and from there, momentum to the Republican nomination. All that said, I found Bush almost consistently in the right and Gore consistently in the wrong in the Florida aftermath. For example, all the whining about the Gore-Buchanan votes in Palm Beach. _What did you expect us to do about it after the election?!?_ Come up with a percentage that we **think** Gore should have gotten, and give it to him? Nonsense! ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/83 "2001-11-13T20:36:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > We have also not yet been treated to indignant assertions that the Supreme Court acted nobly and was doing us a favor by “preventing chaos”. We also have not yet been treated to claims that _Gore_ was trying to subvert democracy by going to court to get all the votes to be counted, while Bush was acting honorably by trying to prevent votes from being counted. Or how about claiming that Katherine Harris was _completely impartial_ and fair-handed in her actions, had _no bias whatsoever_ in her decisions, and was _never_ eying any sort of lucrative ambassadorship in a Bush administration? This still gets a round of chuckles at my house. 🙂 > [@](#): > > I’m actually starting to think there’s hope. Dunno if I’d go that far. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/84 "2001-11-13T22:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Gore would have taken too damaging a political blow by voiding the ballots of American servicemen and women who, unlike the Gore-voters in Florida who cast their ballots improperly, did everything right, and their ballots did not have a postmark through no fault of their own. Geez Millo, your guy is in. It is time to restore your intellectual honesty and recognize that whole mess as a successful political ploy to villify Gore and get illegal votes counted. Hell, they were so successful they even got in ballots postmarked after the election. ---
**Author:** ![Milossarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Milossarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milossarian)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/85 "2001-11-13T23:36:42Z")
So, Ned, it was **Bush** that prevented **Gore** from challenging unmarked overseas military ballots. It wasn’t a decision Gore decided would be political suicide. Ohhhhhhh. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/86 "2001-11-14T00:43:18Z")
Aw, c’mon, **Milo** you knew you wouldn’t get away with that cute little bit of spin. When it served thier political interest, the Forces of Darkness intoned thier committment to the Letter of the Law with somber bloviation, resonant with percieved threat to the well-being of the Republic. The ballots in question were not kosher. By this standard, they were not acceptable, and should have been discounted. Whereupon the F of D wrapped themselves in bunting, great round tears rolling down thier faces, as they blubbered about “our boys” being denied thier right to vote. This does for hypocrisy for Stonehenge does for rocks. Further, by what legal mechanism does the Gore forces acquiesence become fact? If the law is the law, of what relevence is thier submission? ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/87 "2001-11-14T01:26:10Z")
You missed the point millo, I don’t think that is an example of Gore playing fair. I think it is an example of Bush being prepared to do or say anything to achieve his objective. ---
**Author:** ![Rmat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rmat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rmat)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/88 "2001-11-14T01:34:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally posted by Rmat \* > > As for your suggestion { **DPWhite** ’s - Ed.} that Ari Fleishcher issues at least one whopper per day, I’d invite you to identify just one \* ever_, but I’ll resist. At this point I know what passes for “proof” in your mind, and how recklessly you hurl accusations. \*\* > > [Here’s](http://slate.msn.com/?querytext=whopper+fleischer&id=3944&action=fulltext) an index to a constantly-growing list compiled by Slate, in their “Whopper of the Week” feature. \*\* All in a column that \*\* describes itself \*\* as \* “gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt.” \* I guess that settles it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/89 "2001-11-14T02:06:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rmat \* > All in a column that \*\* describes itself \*\* as \* “gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt.” \* I guess that settles it. **Rmat** I think this settles that you are not reading the whole message: From the column in question: > [@](#): > > To be considered, an entry must be an unambiguously false statement paired with an unambiguous refutation, and both must be derived from some appropriately reliable public source. Preference will be given to newspapers and other documents that Chatterbox can link to online. And that you are counting that people in the SDMB are all link phobic. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/90 "2001-11-14T03:46:47Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by rjung \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > > > [@](#): > > > > I’m actually starting to think there’s hope. > > Dunno if I’d go that far. \*\* Well, I don’t have hope for literally _everyone_, either. ---
**Author:** ![Rmat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85e7bf/32.png) [@Rmat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rmat)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905/91 "2001-11-14T03:57:00Z")
Actually, I read the passage to which my attention was drawn in its entirety. What I did not go on to read was a paragraph that began with these words: “Got a whopper? Send it to [chatterbox@slate.com](mailto:chatterbox@slate.com).” I apologize if my interest in this sort of drivel waned at that point. Congratulations, however, on having provoked my curiosity. I’ve now gone back to the site and surfed around a bit, hoping to discern just how faithful the site is to its assurance that “To be considered, an entry must be an **unambiguously false statement** paired with an unambiguous refutation, and both must be derived from some appropriately reliable public source.” I got this one: > [@](#): > > Whopper of the Week: Donald Rumsfeld > By Timothy Noah > Posted Friday, November 9, 2001, at 9:53 AM PT > “Within recent days—in fact, I think while I was in Pakistan—at his request, he was extracted from Afghanistan with a small number of his senior supporters and fighters, I believe for consultation in Pakistan, and undoubtedly will be going back in there at that point where those consultations are completed. … [H]e requested to be extracted for a period, and we cooperated to extract him.” > > —Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, describing the U.S. rescue of Afghan opposition leader Hamid Karzai, leader of a prominent Pashtun tribe, at a Nov. 6 news briefing > > “In a satellite telephone interview with the BBC World Service today, Karzai not only repeated his assertion that he had not left Afghanistan, but disputed statements by U.S. officials that American aircraft had attacked Taliban forces in support of him. U.S. planes that were in the area when he was at risk of being captured by the Taliban last week appeared to be attacking targets that were ‘not close to us,’ he said. … Karzai said he and his supporters escaped on foot, with only bread and green tea for sustenance—and without help from the U.S. military. ‘We walked for three days from village to village after the attack, and we reached a safe position,’ Karzai told the BBC.” > > —Molly Moore, “Opposition Leader Denies U.S. Chopper Rescued Him in Afghanistan,” Washington Post, Nov. 9. > [Update, 3:30 p.m.: Many readers have pointed out that \*\*it’s possible that Karzai is lying, either because he doesn’t want it known that he’s in Pakistan or because he doesn’t want it known that he’s fraternizing with the U.S. military. If that’s the case, Rumsfeld is at worst guilty of being indiscreet. \*\*But why would Karzai make a secret of his trip to Pakistan? If he were lying low, surely he wouldn’t give an interview to the BBC in the first place. And wouldn’t anyone who considered following Karzai into battle with the Taliban have to understand the U.S. to be an inevitable ally? Chatterbox will, however, keep track of future developments and file whatever updates or corrections that circumstances warrant.] I guess the column’s standard for having an entry “considered” is more rigorous than the standard it uses when deciding what to **publish** [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-i-told-you-gore-won-thread/92905.md?page=4)