<p>Just wanted to read from the link myself. Can you post it?</p>
<p>Sorry, I’m not going to pay for the article, but here is the link if you want to:</p>
<p><a href=“http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA071FFA385C0C718DDDA80994D9404482[/url]”>http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA071FFA385C0C718DDDA80994D9404482</a></p>
<p>This is from an early analysis by the Washington Post of the overvotes in eight of the largest counties (which should, by FL law, have been counted because the voter’s intent was clear):</p>
<p>“According to the Post’s analysis, the biggest problem for Gore was in “overvotes,” ballots invalidated because voters indicated multiple choices for president. Although the number of ballots thrown out for that reason was known shortly after the Nov. 7 election, The Post analysis for the first time shows the voting patterns contained in those ballots. Gore was by far most likely to be selected on invalid overvoted ballots, with his name punched as one of the choices on 46,000 of them. Bush, by comparison, was punched on 17,000.” </p>
<p>An analysis of the statewide overvotes by the Miami Herald published in May, 2001, showed Gore winning by a margin of 46,000. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53804-2001Jan26[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A53804-2001Jan26</a></p>
<p>The later analysis, paid for by a consortium of newspapers, was published by the Wall Street Journal in late 2001. I saw a hard copy, but do not have a subscription to their online service, so can’t post a link. The recount was analysed under several different scenarios, and different scenarios yielded different outcomes, but a statewide recount using the standard (for interpreting hanging chads, etc.) proposed by the Bush campaign, would have made Gore the winner. Ironically, Gore had asked only that certain counties be recounted, because he lacked the funds to pay for a statewide recount.</p>
<p>Note that this recount did NOT include the overvotes. Also remember that Kathryn Harris systematically disenfranchised thousands of black voters, presumably Gore voters, via the notorious “felon” list.</p>
<p>After September 11 (the date that the media consortium analysis was due to be published), much of the right-wing corporate media (including the NY Times) chose to highlight the results of the incomplete count scenarios that would have made Bush the winner, in order not to undermine Bush’s authority after the terrorist attacks.</p>
<p>“The later analysis, paid for by a consortium of newspapers, was published by the Wall Street Journal in late 2001. I saw a hard copy, but do not have a subscription to their online service, so can’t post a link. The recount was analysed under several different scenarios, and different scenarios yielded different outcomes, but a statewide recount using the standard (for interpreting hanging chads, etc.) proposed by the Bush campaign, would have made Gore the winner. Ironically, Gore had asked only that certain counties be recounted, because he lacked the funds to pay for a statewide recount.”</p>
<p>I have a hard copy in my hot little hand right now. Will look for a link to the actual report and post it tomorrow. VERY enlightening. Debunks lots of things on both sides. Under every scenario that was requested, Bush would have won. He did win. </p>
<p>I ask you respectfully and politely: when are you (collectively) going to Moveon.org from the contested election? Gore won the popular vote, no question about it. But that’s not how the President is elected here. Bush was elected twice. Why not focus on getting a stellar candidate for 2008, instead of fighting a battle that was lost 5 years ago? I’m not being facetious here, I’m really not. It’s just not in my nature to continue to beat a dead horse.</p>
<p>And guess who was prominently involved in stopping the recount? John Bolton. And guess who jumped on a plane immediately after the 2000 election was over to lend a hand in stealing the election? SC Chief Justice and corporate hack Roberts.</p>
<p>“And guess who was prominently involved in stopping the recount? John Bolton. And guess who jumped on a plane immediately after the 2000 election was over to lend a hand in stealing the election? SC Chief Justice and corporate hack Roberts.”</p>
<p>Wow. It must be very frustrating and upsetting to live your live in that frame of mind.</p>
<p>Funny how that worked, huh, NYMomof2? Such a tight little web they wove…</p>
<p>Zoos, for many people it isn’t as easy as “moveon.org” (are you sure I don’t know you from another site???), when one considers what the country is like now…vs what it could have been like had Gore been rightfully elected (as opposed to selected by SCOTUS). Everyone should be crying over the mess that Bushco has created.</p>
<p>“Zoos, for many people it isn’t as easy as “moveon.org” (are you sure I don’t know you from another site???), when one considers what the country is like now…vs what it could have been like had Gore been rightfully elected (as opposed to selected by SCOTUS). Everyone should be crying over the mess that Bushco has created”</p>
<p>In light that Gore’s current poll numbers are still lower than Bush’s, I don’t think that’s too many people. No, I don’t know you from another site.
BUt the bottom line is that it’s better to live in the present and for what you perceive as a bright future than to hang on to and nurse grievances. The stolen election myth is so over and so September 10, 2001.</p>
<p>Al Gore received more total votes than George W. Bush, but he lost in the electoral vote. He (and all of his fellow “conspiracy” friends) needs to get over it. Five years later, this is a complete joke! It would be like an NBA team whining that it scored more aggregate points than an opponent, even though it lost 4 out of 7 games. One should know the rules before entering a contest. Assuming that Al Gore was familiar with the election process prior to the election (which perhaps is a BIG assumption) he has absolutely nothing to complain about.</p>
<p>Look into his record in law school and divinity school. Most people who attend law school for three years receive a JD. Al Gore has no law degrees or any other graduate degree. For some reason, liberals seem to think he is very intelligent. I have absolutely no idea why they think this. I have certainly met or seen on TV some very intelligent liberals, but Al Gore is not one of them.</p>
<p>The results of the media recounts were inconclusive and depended upon the rules used to count problem ballots. Some methods showed Gore winning and others Bush. Overall as split as the election.</p>
<p>One thing that was conclusive from the media recounts is that had the recount been done precisely as Gore had asked it to be done, he would have lost by a larger margin than he actually did.</p>
<p>But since we will never know for sure (since that vote count was never really done), it is all speculation anyway, FF. You can believe that Bush won, and I will believe that Gore did.</p>
<p>In the end, we still have to endure 2.5 more years of misery with Bush. Sadly.</p>
<p>fundingfather, you are absolutely right that if the recount had been done exactly as Gore requested, he would have lost. For financial reasons, he asked that only certain counties be recounted. </p>
<p>barrons, you are also absolutely right that the results of the media-paid recounts depended on the chosen scenario. But a state-wide recount would have put Gore ahead, and this would have represented the will of the voters.</p>
<p>None of the media recounts took into account the overvotes, which clearly should have been considered according to Florida law. These would have put Gore far in the lead in FL. They also didn’t consider the smaller effects of the Jewish Buchanan voters and the deliberate disenfranchisement of black voters. No one is talking about the popular vote here. If all the votes in Florida had been counted, Gore would have won.</p>
<p>I am just as eager to look to the future as anyone. But ignoring the skullduggery of the past, particularly when the major architects are still in positions of power, will only ensure that it is repeated.</p>
<p>I am also upset that McCain was not the nominee in 2000 because of Rove’s dirty tricks. He would have almost certainly won the election, fairly. I disagree with him on too many issues to have voted for him, but the country would be in much better shape and I would have been sleeping a lot better the past 5 years. </p>
<p>zoosermom, I enjoy your posts, and respect your willingness to be openminded. I agree that the focus should be on finding a stellar candidate for 2008, and I am involved in that effort. It’s not likely that we’d agree on who that person should be, though! Do you have any thoughts yet? I’d be interested in hearing them.</p>
<p>Ditto, NYmom, on picking Zoos’s brain for her choices of candidates in '08. I am actually curious whom anyone here would support, conservative or liberal, because I am not loving any of the potentials, on either side.</p>
<p>OK, I’ll start. My first choice would have been Howard Dean, but he promised not to run and I’d be completely demoralized if he went back on a promise. I’m supporting Al Gore, as I would be even if he hadn’t run in 2000. I think he’s the best candidate, and I believe that he will run. Poetic justice for 2000 would be only the thinnest glaze of icing on the cake. I also like Russ Feingold. I do not support Hillary Clinton, and I think she has no chance of being the nominee. The Republicans like to say that she will, because it boosts their fundraising.</p>
<p>I’m very interested in what other people think, particularly the conservatives.</p>
<p>“zoosermom, I enjoy your posts, and respect your willingness to be openminded. I agree that the focus should be on finding a stellar candidate for 2008, and I am involved in that effort. It’s not likely that we’d agree on who that person should be, though! Do you have any thoughts yet? I’d be interested in hearing them.”</p>
<p>What a kind post. I thank you. Funny, but I was going to ask you the same question. There is just nobody that I could get excited about or even support in any meaningful way. Hillary is saying all the right things, but the only way I could consider her candidacy is if she renounced her husband! </p>
<p>On idealogical and personal bases, I love Newt Gingrich. He’s a man I’d like to have lunch with. But, of course, he can’t win.</p>
<p>It’s ironic that you would consider supporting Hillary, zooser, when I wouldn’t! Too bad, I’d love to work for a woman president.</p>
<p>You don’t like anyone who is actually running? The names I’ve heard are JEB!, Condi, Hagel, Guiliani, Allen, Romney, and the unbeatable (if the Republicans would ever nominate him) McCain.</p>
<p>On the Democratic side, would you ever vote for Mark Warner or Brian Schweitzer? Or Barack Obama?</p>
<p>"It’s ironic that you would consider supporting Hillary, zooser, when I wouldn’t! Too bad, I’d love to work for a woman president.</p>
<p>You don’t like anyone who is actually running? The names I’ve heard are JEB!, Condi, Hagel, Guiliani, Allen, Romney, and the unbeatable (if the Republicans would ever nominate him) McCain.</p>
<p>On the Democratic side, would you ever vote for Mark Warner or Brian Schweitzer? Or Barack Obama?"</p>
<p>I wouldn’t ever support Hillary, I just meant that her husband’s continued existence means that I don’t even have to think about it. Sorry I wasn’t more clear. I ilke Rudi a lot but he isn’t getting nominated, Allen and Romney are fine but nothing to shout about, and McCain’s stance on immigration slams the door on him for me.</p>
<p>I don’t think that any of those democrats would make me cross party lines, but there’s nothing like a loooooong campaign to clarify one’s thought processes.</p>
<p>Rudi, who had the affair in office, imagine that!!</p>