Wednesday, January 30, 2008



Mike said...

Hey, Nikki.

I will concede that Gore's strategy during the Florida recount was flawed. (Just like 98% of his campaign.) However, my contention is that if all of the disputed votes had been counted, then no matter what method was used (strict or lenient,) Gore would have won. From the article you linked to:

"If all the ballots had been reviewed under any of seven single standards, and combined with the results of an examination of overvotes, Mr. Gore would have won."

Gore's mistake was in focusing his lawsuit on 4 counties, rather than the whole state. But one interesting thing is the problem with absentee ballots:

"Another complicating factor in the effort to untangle the result is the overseas absentee ballots that arrived after Election Day. A New York Times investigation earlier this year showed that 680 of the late- arriving ballots did not meet Florida's standards yet were still counted. The vast majority of those flawed ballots were accepted in counties that favored Mr. Bush, after an aggressive effort by Bush strategists to pressure officials to accept them."

So Bush's people decided that it was better to "win" than to have a fair election.

"A statistical analysis conducted for The Times determined that if all counties had followed state law in reviewing the absentee ballots, Mr. Gore would have picked up as many as 290 additional votes, enough to tip the election in Mr. Gore's favor in some of the situations studied in the statewide ballot review."

Bush stole the election. Period. And we haven't even discussed things like the butterfly ballot, the erroneous felon list, Katherine Harris, etc. And to top it all off, there was a flawed decision by the so-called Supreme Court. (And don't even get me started on Ohio in 2004!)

Sorry this comment is so long! I must be suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome!

icanseeclearlynow said...

oh pulleeeaazzee! he's a cheater. some reporter(s) spinning stories in his favor does not change my opinion.

still love ya!



Nikki said...

Hey Mike.....thanks for chiming. splitting hairs until Al wins doesn't sound fair to me....I could put up 100 more articles supporting these 2. Bush is NOT a media darling as a matter of fact the media HATES my opinion AL tried to steal the election. But at the time I remember thinking if I were Bush it wouldn't be worth the fight cuz his presidency will always be tainted and in my opinion he has NEVER recovered and Al is soooo good at playing the victim. thanks :) Nik

Maria.....the New York Times is hardly Bush friendly. they tried to spin as best they could and the headline speaks very loud. thanks for commenting. you know I luv ya. :N

icanseeclearlynow said...

nik, we, in this society, especially those of us who are law-abiding citizens, are often AMAZED at the intricacy of BAD DEEDS by our leaders. NOONE is untouchable/unreachable when wealth and power is in place. NYT sucks camel-balls most of the time. i don't care if they APPEAR to be anti-bush, they're full of SH*T and they don't fool me! i will always take that paper and all other such large, power-house papers with a few loads of salt grains!

i know, love ya too.



Nikki said...

which is why I posted the PBS article. now would sesame street lie? jk.... there are over 100 more I could post. not all information is bullcrap....I am sure the news agencies tried hard to prove Al the winner. think of them buying the ballots and Al did prove to be the winner no matter how they sliced it.......TOP STORY and all dems are vindicated. this did not happen. we will have to agree to disagree on this one :)N Nik