The Supremes sing again!

Great Debates
21

Not to be too nasty to a newcomer…But, you made a big mistake in quoting this source. It utterly and completely discredits everything you said…much of which I might have had to take your word for since I don’t have firsthand experience about the “word on K Street” on the night of the election (although your claim did sound fishy to me). I looked at this analysis you speak of in a previous thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=46135&pagenumber=3

To make a long story short, that guy doesn’t just distort things…He just downright lies about the data! Complete and utter fabrication. If you don’t believe me, go to the Florida Dept of Elections Website and look yourself. Here is the link to that site: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/ There you can find the election results for this year, for the 1996 primary, as well as the voter registration by county.

Basically, I have to assume that if you are quoting such garbage as “VERY good analysis” (emphasis yours) then you yourself are either very ignorant of a situation which you claim to know a lot about or you are not ignorant and don’t mind using fabrications and lies to advance your cause.

Sorry to be so harsh, but when people start posting links to lying bullshit, someone has to stand up and call it what it is.

22

P.S.—This Original Sources website claims to be “Where the facts are”…Perhaps a better slogan would expand on that slightly to say “Where the facts are…completely made up to suit our purposes.” (BTW, I found another thing written by Mary Mostert herself on that site which was similar lies…or at least very serious distortion on the PBC Buchanan votes saga. So, this ain’t just an aberration)

Have both sides in this debate been partisan and disingenius and occasionally colored the truth a bit to suit their own purposes? Definitely. Have there been lies and rhetoric by the Dems that match these extremes to which some Republican partisans have gone? I don’t know…But I haven’t seen any.

23

Unfortunately, part of what you say is correct. I refuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however. The numbers I was referring to were numbers I gathered immediately after the first recount.

Quite honestly, the post I submitted got a lot longer than I expected, and I got a little sloppy at the end. I do apologize for not specifying what I was talking about in terms of his “analysis” but what I was getting at were the methods and indications that fraud were occurring.

The “K” Street reference was made on our message board the evening of the election by a person who works there. The next morning, that specific number (3 million dollars) was confirmed in news reports. That was close enough for me to consider as corroboration.

24

Micromanaging lawyers. absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the fundamental complaint of the GOP: the counts themselves and how they are conducted. He and his lawyers have tried, but they have had no control, have they? If they had, we wouldn’t be here.

Of course not, especially if they were looking at booger marks and finger presses, which is not something I’ve heard anyone say except you, just now. That doesn’t mean I’d be all for stopping the counts. Or rather, I might be for stopping them, but I’d recognize that justifying it would be pretty much impossible. Especially with everyone breathing down their necks and cameras in their faces.

Furthermore, I said at the outset that I thought counting dimples was pretty lame. I only rethought my position after reading TEXAS law, at which point, I decided that anything that was good enough for Bush was good enough for me…

Additionally, as far as I’m concerned, the count of ALL the counties undervotes was certain to include all-republican teams. That’s life…

stoid

25

Canned Meat,

I can understand forgiving someone a few mistakes but claiming things like “ONLY in Palm Beach did Buchanan get less than HALF the of votes he received before in 1996,” when the fact of that matter is that he was receiving about 12% of the votes this year that he got in 1996 in nearly all the counties is not my idea of a small error. And that was only one of the ones that I found in that link. I mean, I just don’t have enough time on my hands to go through all of his claims to see if any are not complete and utter fabrications. (And I am still not sure what the methods and indications of fraud that you speak of are. As near as I can tell, the methods are to fabricate data and the indications of fraud are probably non-existent once you correct these fabrications.)

The thing that sounds sort of fishy about the K Street thing to me is that I just don’t see how the Gore folks could be so prescient. You mean to tell me that they knew the whole thing was going to come down to Florida that evening? Or did they have contingency plans for other close states like New Mexico, Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin, …

And, while I’m at it, are you claiming that those voters who claimed to be confused even before the polls closed were making this up in advance? It just doesn’t make sense. As for the claim that Reps ought to have been just as confused as Dems: Look, as you scanned down the lefthand side of the page, Bush had the first line and the first hole. Gore had the second line and the third hole! What could possibly make the Bush voters believe that they should punch the second hole? (I could imagine a few maybe punching two holes, although even that would be a bit of a stretch.)

26

And what is the point of this information, in any case? It has been commonly talked about that the Democrats were hot on the heels of possible problems in Florida on the day of hte election. It started with the Palm Beach ballot and the elections supervisor’s memo midday reminding the election workers to help voters with the ballot.

This alerted the Dems to possible problems in a state they knew was going to be tight. Then the count was amazingly close, and we are off… so? I know there is a name for the argument you are trying to make, but I can’t think what it is… essentially, you are making implications from perfectly innocent data, or inviting us to.

stoid

27

re the K Street stuff: If Gore was really planning to fight in Florida that evening, why then did he call Bush to concede and proceed on his way to make a concession speech, or was that all just staged? Or was this 3 million dollars all just a contingency just in case the election came down to, say, 1000 votes and at that point he didn’t think it would?

I am not saying your scenario is impossible…but it doesn’t really have the ring of plausibility to it and makes the Gore team look so prescient or thorough that I am quite impressed…Hell, if they can be THAT smart about an election, don’t you think we ought to let them run the country on that basis alone!?! I mean, these guys ought to be able to figure out what our adversaries are gonna do before they even do it!!!

28

Man, I shouldn’t try posting this late at night…I can’t get all my thoughts together at once.

Just wanted to say that if your definition of “evening” runs til 5 or 6 the next morning, then I am much more willing to accept that Gore was already planning to send legal teams down to Florida by then…Hell, I think they both did send their legal teams down that next day, didn’t they?

29

No, I’m sure the Democrats wouldn’t have rhetoric like that. I might have missed it, though, because of all the time I spent dragging black folks to death in my pick-up truck. Then again, I’m just an in-bred redneck and wouldn’t understand those types of things, right?

If you haven’t seen it, jshore, it’s because you weren’t the recipient.

I’ve heard the Democrats telling me how they knew they picked up “XXX” votes in Miami-Dade…when they hadn’t counted Republican precincts…but that’s just innocent error, right?

I’ve heard Boies’ surrogates claiming Gore picked up 54 votes (in violation of a court “gag-order”), while at the same time, AP (who I consider just a “bit” more objective:D) claiming that it was BUSH showing a net gain.

I’ve heard Democrats claiming as fact that they “know” they won Florida… Uhhh…I can only think of one way anyone could KNOW such a thing, jshore…

I can tell you I BELIEVE George Bush would win the recount based upon a comparison of the numbers of votes gained by Gore to-date and the remaining REPUBLICAN counties outstanding 30,000+ “non-votes” not yet “divined”. (Don’t forget those pesky military absentee ballots that have now been allowed as well–not much “divining” will be needed THERE:D)

By the way, since I hadn’t really looked at the numbers for the site in question (that wasn’t my focus), I went to the Florida Site you posted. They don’t have ANY numbers for the 1996 OR 1998 Elections when it comes to numbers votes per candidate, or spoiled ballots. THEY ARE ONLY VOTER REGISTRATION NUMBERS. Since you claim these numbers are available on the site and they buttress your claims of inaccuracy how “fishy” is it supposed to look when I go there and these numbers DO NOT EXIST?

I noticed that the link I posted quotes numbers as coming from the previous Secretary of State. It appears you can only get this information by sending in a (substantial) fee. Did you do this? If you didn’t compare these numbers…what’s YOUR basis for claiming this is “distortion and lies”? I’m particularly interested in your answer to this because as a result of your remark, I pulled up my numbers and compared them to some of his (I didn’t look at the same things he did). Oddly enough, jshore, I found quite a bit of correlation with the analysis HE did for the 2000 elections recount.

Also, I checked with this person’s home state and he’s a REGISTERED P.E. Do you know what this means? He can LOSE his registration for signing his name to a document as an analysis without foundation.

If you give me the choice of taking the word of a registered Professional Engineer and “some guy on the internet”, I’m afraid “some guy on the internet” is going to be considered “fishy”…not the PE.

30
31

Mr. Canned Meat, I’ll give you a piece of advice… you’re more likely to convince a stone that it’s a bird than convince Stoid that she’s wrong.

32

Appreciate the heads-up:D

I had an idea…I’m new, not stupid:D

The idea, though, is to use verifiable fact and other indisputable evidence (like mathematics, which is neither Republican nor Democrat) to show the “undecideds” or the “apathetics” that us “Conservatives” aren’t armpit-scratching, in-bred hicks with pick-um-up trucks and rifle-racks.

I’m technically not a Republican…they’re just the closest thing that has a chance of getting elected right now. I will say, though, that I feel the Republicans ran a very clean, issue oriented campaign, and didn’t resort to ad-hominem attacks (it’s good against evil, eh?) to make their points… The Republicans ran an inclusive campaign this time and the DEMOCRATS played the divisive game. Didn’t you notice that George Bush rarely said “the Democrats”? He made a great effort to refer to “my opponent” or “the Vice-President”. At least ONE of them didn’t spend the campaign insulting half of the country.

I find it terribly amusing (in a way) to see the hatred spewing out of these supposedly “tolerant” liberals:D.

33

Shame on you.

As a recovering Texan (Town called Waco…quiet little place, nothing ever happens there), I have been occasionally irked by the whole “inbred redneck” stereotype crapola. But even mentioning that putrid incident in this context is vile and repulsive. You trying to start a new joke, “How does an Aggie make a political argument?”

Not about to start another endessly redactive post, try to keep it simple, some folks reading this seem to be about as smart as head cheese…(Yankee invention. Don’t ask)

Even if I accept that there are valid legal arguments for the Supremes to get into, what is the justification for stopping the count? If they decide to overrule the legality of the count after the fact, well, thats that isnt it? Wheres this “irreperable harm?” Simple. They don’t want us to know! As Joe Bob Briggs sez “I shouldn’t have to point this out”

The Supremes know as well as I that time is of the essence. Hell, now they could even walk in, sit down, and Emily Littela “Never mind” and Gore is still screwed because of time. Just like I said, thirty seconds on the clock, clock running but you aren’t allowed to hike.

It isn’t possible for them not to know that they are handing the Presidency to …that guy. The action is deliberate and calculated. Perhaps it doesnt violate the letter of the law, but it violates the spirit of the Constitution. Hell, I wouldn’t let Scalia pick me a hat, much less my government, don’t give a rat’s ass how sincere he is! Next, they will look for a way so’s we never find out whats on those punch cards, Freedom of Information be damned!

So that’s it, Al. Hold your head up and walk away. Concession speech? Fuck 'em! They sold out thier dignity and honor, no reason you gotta lend 'em yours. Had my doubts about you. I was wrong. I salute you.

34

And quit picking on my love slave.

35

It wasn’t a joke…it was sarcasm. Yes, it is vile and repulsive, but not just here…it’s disgusting in ANY context. That didn’t stop the Democrats from using it as a campaign commercial though, did it? Particularly amusing considering it was being used against the Governor of the State that sentenced TWO of them to death over the incident. But then logic and fair-play aren’t real strong points of Gore campaigns, right? So please don’t tell me about “honor and dignity”.

Personally, I wish they hadn’t stopped the count given my belief (I think fairly reasoned–based upon analysis of the remaining counties to be counted plus the 639 votes Bush just picked up HA! from military absentee ballots).

Seeing how Boies’ plan got unraveled, though, I think I understand some of the reasoning. They were hoping that at ANY point Gore might pull ahead in the count. It wouldn’t make any difference if it was an illusion, or temporary…the damage would be done to Bush and it would have done nothing but helped rehabilitate the whiners.

After all…Gore has nothing to lose, and he has no honor OR dignity to surrender. Since this fiasco, reports are that many more Democrats than Republicans are switching parties and from a personal perspective, I know of three Democrats that have sworn to have nothing to do with the party in the future. The numbers might have changed (short-term) over Gore “conceding” or not (as if it is necessary:rolleyes:), but the numbers that believe George Bush will be more accepted and a “better” present haven’t wiggled.

I’d just as well see the two of them skulk off into the sunset without a word. Being a southern gentleman, I’m not concerned not to have the respect of people I’ve come to despise.

36

Al Gore’s dignity and honor? That’s gotta be worth, what, seven, maybe eight cents? And that’s taking into consideration whatever degree of vindication he got from the FSC.

Dammit. I used to be above that sort of comment. You people (you know who you are) are dragging me down to your level.

37

I heard this three or four times yesterday, but I can’t find a cite or a source.

Any references? Details?

Thanks!

Fenris

38

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I believed the GOP had sought and obtained a hand recount in NM.

Turns out they were ready to apply for one, but decided to let the deadline pass yesterday. Here’s the CNN story. mea culpa.

39

I think canned meat may be referring to this story, but got it backwards. If the judge had ruled for the Democratic voters, Bush would have lost a net of 639 votes. This result simply keeps things where they are.

40

The only thing I’m going to say about the silly nonsense posted by canned meat, most of which is way old news to those of use who have discussed these issues in multiple threads over the last month, and most of which has been shown to be based entirely on partisan rhetoric without much foundation (hell, even Freedom2 has backed off quite a bit of it! :wink: ) is this:

Texas does NOT have ‘standards’ regarding counting punch card ballots that are any more explicit or detailed than Florida has. Quoting the relevant Texas statute:

Emphais mine.

In short, ‘clearly ascertainable intent’ is not any different from ‘clear indication of intent’, the standard in Florida, which is now under review by the Supreme Court of the United States. In short, in Texas dimpled chads, perforated chads, even chads with ‘boogers’ (not sure where the hell THAT got injected into this discussion from) can be votes in the great state of Texas.

You want a state with definite standards? Go to Michigan, where it has to have two detached corners or it ain’t a vote, perforation, dimple or booger not withstanding (see Michigan Compiled Laws §168.799a)