John. Kerry. Not. Running. In. 2008. Stop.

[ParkCungHee]

Besides, secretary of the Navy is a highly non-political position. Frank Knox was Roosevelts Secretary of navy, and he was on the ticket opposing roosevelt as Vice President.

 

[MobBoss]

Anyone else notice that Mob has carefully ignored my post?

This whole thread is moot. Gore won Florida. Game over man! Game over!

Get over yourself. Do you reply to each and every post? Nope.

As he has mine. I think maybe to clean up Off-Topic we should have a "Posts that Mobboss ignores" forum, just to make it easier for him to avoid answering people's points.

Ditto. But in response to your Lincoln post, Lincoln was loved by his supporters and vehemently hated by his opponents. You dont get assassinated because everyone thought you were great. He was the most hated man of the South, and a extremely large number of people hated him in the North as well for many reasons.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Great, but obviously in the country your at war with hes unpopular. You could equally argue that Roosevelt was our least popular president because virtually everyone in Germany and Japan hated him.

 

[IglooDame]

Ditto. But in response to your Lincoln post, Lincoln was loved by his supporters and vehemently hated by his opponents. You dont get assassinated because everyone thought you were great. He was the most hated man of the South, and a extremely large number of people hated him in the North as well for many reasons.

No, you get assassinated because at least one person didn't think you were great.

Or was Reagan as unpopular as Lincoln when Hinckley took his shot?

 

[MobBoss]

More ballots in Florida were marked Gore than Bush.

Why dont you give the title of the story instead of being misleading? The title is: Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush

And the first paragraph:

In all likelihood, George W. Bush still would have won Florida and the presidency last year if either of two limited recounts -- one requested by Al Gore, the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court -- had been completed, according to a study commissioned by The Washington Post and other news organizations.

I love it when people try to mislead you with links and it backfires.

But it does make for great conspriacy material for some loonies.

Great, but obviously in the country your at war with hes unpopular. You could equally argue that Roosevelt was our least popular president because virtually everyone in Germany and Japan hated him.

Ah...Germany and Japan were not part of the USA. Just to make it clear for ya. By definition, the people from the South were still Americans despite their attempt at leaving the union.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Admitedly the assassination was a valid point. Because unlike Kennedy, Reagan, Roosevelt, etc. Lincolns assassination was part of a larger conspiracy, involving many people, well backed by powerful elites. The plot was to whipe out the whole Lincoln administration therefor leaving Washington in Chaos, and the South to take this as a sign to revive.
I will cede that much.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

@ MB - your statement:

Bush would win. I have no doubt about it at all.

Filling a page with irrelevant links does not support your statement.


Your links:

1. Bush won the electoral college vote against Gore in 2000. Already agreed upon. Why post it?

2. Bush beat Kerry despite low approval rating. This is the best link you gave but Gore and Kerry aren't the same and Bush still barely beat Kerry. Just because someone with low approval can win doesn't mean Bush would win. With a high approval Bush still got less votes than Gore, and now his approval is even lower. This hardly justifies your "I have no doubt about it at all".

3. A poll from 2002? Why post this? My premise is that your statement is false and that Bush isn't still "just as strong" as in his early years. Totally irrelevant to your statement which is based on right now, not five years ago.

4. A statement that Gore isn't viable for the White House. This statement, besides being an opinion piece and not actual data, compares him to other candidates running in 2008. It does not in any way address his standing vs. Bush, or how he would fare against someone as unpopular as Bush. Even then it included this speculation:

Chances of Winning the Party Nomination:
If Al Gore runs, he wins. 65%
Chances of Winning the Presidential Race:
Vice President Gore has become one dimensional (environment) and recent polls suggest that his approval rating is not where it needs to be to take the White House. The memory of the Clinton years is strong but not strong enough to put Al Gore back in the White House. 33%

4. Iowa straw poll. George Bush is never mentioned, and Gore, who isn't even a candidate still got 7% of the voters who picked anyone. No Democrat got over 22%, yet I'm certain one of them will run for President, and may well win. This doesn't address Bush v. Gore either, it only shows that Gore still has some supporters against the '08 candidates, even when he isn't running.

5. A Blog? A Blog from Slate no less? This is called an opinion. It is not in any way actual data. It also discusses the author's opinion of Gore against the best of the '08 crowd, not the much-hated and despised Bush. Not data, irrelevant speculation.

6. USA Today that Gore isn't as environmentally conscious as he claims to be, and that he has room for improvement. OK, so do we all and certainly so does Bush. Gore isn't perfect and the article sounds justified in its criticisms of him. So because Gore isn't as green as he claims, yet is still much more of an environmentalist than Bush ever was, this justifies "Bush would win. I have no doubt about it at all."? Would you like me to find a few thousand (or hundreds of thousands) of articles critical of Bush as rebuttal? Bush is still worst in environmental issues than Gore, so this doesn't support your statement of why you think Bush would defeat Gore.


And that's the best you could do???

 

[brennan]

Why dont you give the title of the story instead of being misleading? The title is: Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush

MB the story is that yes two specific regional recounts favoured Bush. But the big picture is as PP posted: Gore got more Votes. A State-wide recount would have seen Gore elected.

 

[MobBoss]

MB the story is that yes two specific regional recounts favoured Bush. But the big picture is as PP posted: Gore got more Votes. A State-wide recount would have seen Gore elected.

Wrong. You didnt read the story. It says:

Those ballots -- on which a voter may have marked a candidate's name and also written it in -- were rejected by machines as a double vote on Election Day and most also would not have been included in either of the limited recounts.

The study by The Post and other media groups, an unprecedented effort that involved examining 175,010 ballots in 67 counties, underscores what began to be apparent as soon as the polls closed in the nation's third most populous state Nov. 7, 2000: that no one can say with certainty who actually won Florida. Under every scenario used in the study, the winning margin remains less than 500 votes out of almost 6 million cast.

For 36 days after the election, the results in Florida remained in doubt, and so did the winner of the presidency. Bush emerged victorious when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, agreed with his lawyers' contention that the counting should end. Since then, many Gore partisans have accused the court of unfairly aborting a process that would have put their candidate ahead.

But an examination of the disputed ballots suggests that in hindsight the battalions of lawyers and election experts who descended on Florida pursued strategies that ended up working against the interests of their candidates.

The study indicates, for example, that Bush had less to fear from the recounts underway than he thought. Under any standard used to judge the ballots in the four counties where Gore lawyers had sought a recount -- Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Volusia -- Bush still ended up with more votes than Gore, according to the study. Bush also would have had more votes if the limited statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and then stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been carried through.

 

[brennan]

Apparently I read it more carefully than you: you have posted all the qualified bits:

if Gore had found a way to trigger a statewide recount of all disputed ballots, or if the courts had required it, the result likely would have been different. An examination of uncounted ballots throughout Florida found enough where voter intent was clear to give Gore the narrowest of margins.

That's a step further than a recount. Gore got more votes, but slightly more Gore votes were disputed. (typical of Republican policy throughout the entire election).

 

[MobBoss]

Apparently I read it more carefully than you: you have posted all the qualified bits:That's a step further than a recount. Gore got more votes, but slightly more Gore votes were disputed. (typical of Republican policy throughout the entire election).

In essence Gore might have won if the law and the standard were changed. And no, this wasnt some republican conspiracy...as I recall the ballots were screened by both dem and repub reps along with an independant person for each polling place. If two of the three approved the ballot it was counted.

 

[brennan]

Well I don't know the exact standards and laws obviously. But i'm pretty appalled that the 'System' appears to over-ride the popular mandate in the US.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Why dont you give the title of the story instead of being misleading? The title is: Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush

And the first paragraph:

I love it when people try to mislead you with links and it backfires.

But it does make for great conspriacy material for some loonies.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? The article says that a STATEWIDE COUNT of ALL ballots cast would have handed the election to Gore. The study cited is the ONLY statewide count EVER held and it shows that more people marked their ballots Gore than Bush. Such a full statewide count - count every ballot again was never legally mandated by the courts - only a recount of CERTAIN counties, and then a LIMITED recount - so Gore didn't get Florida's electoral votes.

If you can't understand the distinction between a selective recount and actually looking at all the ballots, we have nothing more to discuss.

I fully acknowledge that the legal process ended in a victory for Bush so get your jerking knee out of your mouth (to mix a metaphor). Gore flubbed the recount process, helped ably by the horsehockey excuse for a democratic process the State of Florida thinks is acceptable, and a full recount was never held. Bush won on a legal technicality that would never have been looked on kindly by historians and will now probably be a jumping-off point for discussing his failure of a presidency.

So, I acknowledge Bush won on a technicality. However that's not what this debate is about. It's about whether Gore is a good candidate or not and how 2000 affects that. To know that, we have to know the intent of the voters. Luckily, we have the ballots they cast 6 years ago.

YOUR point in this thread relating to Gore is that he was a bad candidate because he "lost" the election. In fact, MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE by thousands in the popular vote (as everyone knows) and by hundreds in Florida (as the only statewide recount showed).

You phail, sir. Good day. Next time, try to expand your literacy skillz beyond skimming titles and ledes.

 

[bhsup]

They couldn't count every ballot. Some had multiple hole punches, some weren't punched completely, and so forth.

We had these punch cards around here for several elections in the 1990s, and they are easy to use. You just have to follow the instructions. Push the stylus down firmly to ensure the the hole is punched completely, examine the ballot after completion to ensure no incomplete punches, and if you make a mistake, get a new ballot from an election official. Voters who can't read be bothered to read the instructions (or ask for verbal instructions if they cannot read) or be bothered to be sure they are doing it right don't deserve to have their vote counted.

Personal responsibility, that's what it's all about.

Regarding the popular vote nationwide, who gives a rat's backside?! It's irrelevant and has been for over 200 years. It's the popular vote on a State by State basis since that vote determines how the States vote in the EC. You all do know that the States actually elect the President, right?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Voters who can't read be bothered to read the instructions (or ask for verbal instructions if they cannot read) or be bothered to be sure they are doing it right don't deserve to have their vote counted.

Ah yes, as per Article XVI of the Constitution where it says "There shalle be many and sundrie obstacles in ye voting processe to winnowe out ye worthie voters, these obstacles to be decided upon by ye evangelists of ye gospel of Personal Responsibilitie who are themselves clearly beyonde reproach, and if ye be illiterate or unable to paye ye poll tax or whatevere other arbitrarie imposition be needed to thwarte ye actual manifest will of ye people, well, tough beanes to you."

Florida discounted votes where the voter had punched the hole for Gore and had then written in Gore on the write-in line as well. How is that NOT ****ed up? Then again, Florida and neighboring states have a long tradition of trying to make sure the fewest people vote, and even after that the fewest ballots get counted.

 

[bhsup]

Well, I'd actually count those since if they go so far as to write the name, it's evident what they wanted. No argument there. Though they really should have gone back and asked for another ballot.

By the way, nobody talks about all the people in the Panhandle who didn't bother to vote because they had erroneously heard that Florida had already been called. Which is why I personally think we need a Constitutional amendment banning all election result reports until the election is completed in Hawaii.

 

[Hygro]

Get over yourself [Pontiuth Pilate]. Do you reply to each and every post? Nope.

Well I think you ignored 3 of our posts all referring to the same subject.

This whole thread is moot. Gore won Florida. Game over man! Game over!

FTW!

 

[MobBoss]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No...not at all. Just not being misleading like you are. I gave the actual story title...you didnt.

The article says that a STATEWIDE COUNT of ALL ballots cast would have handed the election to Gore.

The point you utterly fail to understand is that not ALL of those ballots for Gore were legal. Again, the story is quite plain in that in order for Gore to win, they would have had to count votes that were 'double-marked' - but such votes were legitimately removed from the process according to election rules.

Thus, Gore only wins if you also count the mis-marked votes that are normally tossed in every election.

I suppose you advocate counting the felon and dead people vote too. Gore scores in those demographs 2:1.

If you can't understand the distinction between a selective recount and actually looking at all the ballots, we have nothing more to discuss.

If you cant understand the distinction made in the story you linked, we have nothing to discuss.

YOUR point in this thread relating to Gore is that he was a bad candidate because he "lost" the election. In fact, MORE PEOPLE VOTED FOR GORE by thousands in the popular vote (as everyone knows) and by hundreds in Florida (as the only statewide recount showed).

People by and large are sheep. All a lot of them will remember is that Gore lost and not recall who got more popular votes. Americans love a winner, and hate a loser. Failed candidates very, very rarely get another shot. Thats just a historical fact.

You phail, sir. Good day. Next time, try to expand your literacy skillz beyond skimming titles and ledes.

Nice Willy Wonka impression. However, try to spell words correctly when taking someone to task for their literacy skills. Makes you look less like an idiot.

 

[brennan]

the story is quite plain in that in order for Gore to win, they would have had to count votes that were 'double-marked' - but such votes were legitimately removed from the process according to election rules.

Thus, Gore only wins if you also count the mis-marked votes that are normally tossed in every election.

OMG ballots marked Gore twice! TWICE! How can these possibly count as Gore votes? I've never heard anything more insane in my life.

The article suggests these votes could be counted as 'voter intention was clear'. You lose.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Nice Willy Wonka impression. However, try to spell words correctly when taking someone to task for their literacy skills. Makes you look less like an idiot.

You didn't catch that? His literacy skills are excellent, all except for the last line.

Read what he said, then look at how he said it. Your calling him an idiot only reinforced his statement.


You used to be good at this. What happened?