Skip to main content

View Diary: A Letter to Justice O'Connor (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Just one of many stories with info (6+ / 0-)

    and links.

    http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

    “Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

    Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

    The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

    This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

    Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

    The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.

    The new articles make much of Gore’s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to examine only “undervotes,” those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.

    •  The last paragraph is kind of true (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage, ozsea1

      Gore's legal team didn't use the best strategy -- it would have been more appealing to the courts if they'd asked for a full statewide recount -- and in a way, they made it easier for the SCOTUS majority to slime their way through to handing Bush a no-recount victory.

      But that doesn't change the fact that the SCOTUS majority was slimy and did the wrong thing.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Mon Apr 29, 2013 at 09:09:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nov 15, 2000 (0+ / 0-)

        Gore gave a speech on national TV and asked for a statewide recount. But, by FL state law it was already too late to ask for any recounts beyond the 4 counties he had already asked for, plus there was no legal mechanism in place to ask for a statewide recount, he would have had to go to every county individually. I seriously doubt he would have been able to accomplish that in the small window the law allowed. The republican response to his speech was predictable.

        People also cannot discount the real time effect of Jim Baker and all the Bush surrogates and the media gaggle hand wringing on the TV every night yelling how the votes had been counted, and recounted and Sore Loser and Bush won dammit and running clips of Freepers on the street yelling, "Get out of Cheney's house!" The pressure in the media to be DONE was enormous. I think people have forgotten just how tense things were and how crafty the Bush / Cheney / Rove machine was. Gore and his team all brought knives to a gun fight. Looking back, I see a lot of what looks like Shock Doctrine in action.

        "Watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, fanatical, criminal..."-7.75, -5.54

        by solesse413 on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:44:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Essentially Gore flubbed it (0+ / 0-)

        by only wanting a recount a few (Democratic) counties (hey it sounded good at the time- but was essentially a way to get DEM votes rather than ALL votes). "Count all the votes" which most of us recall as the story, actually came late in the process.  After the SCOTUS told the Florida Supreme Court that it couldn’t just count new votes from (heavily Democratic) counties the Gore team had personally selected. Had the Court let Bush v. Gore go, it would have still ended up back there in a few weeks anyway–but as a full-blown constitutional crisis.

    •  jeez (0+ / 0-)

      the only recount that really would have mattered is the one Gore requested:

      here

      here

      According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

      Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found

      here

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site