Poll: Who Will Win in 2006?

[The Question]

Who will win in 2006?

I WILL!!! MUWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!! :bwahaha:

 

[Ogami]

TJHairball wrote:

In 2000, they clearly were.

No, that's your opinion, not fact. By every official count and recount, Bush was the winner of the 2000 election. A candidate cannot demand endless months of recounts until he gets a desired result, Gore wanted to continue recounts into what would be the new president's term. The Supreme Court ruled that Gore could not do that. Gore considered his own personal ambition more important than the country. In that he proved why he was not qualified to be president. His arrogance was his undoing.

Congratulations. Now add up the actual vote totals in the 2000 election; courtesy of Jeb's screwballs, George won.

It's called the electoral college. Look it up. The election was not stolen, and those who did try to steal it afterwards were defeated. And that's what the 2006 election is all about, their rage, their hatred, and it's why they'll lose.

Thank goodness none of the Democrats were bright enough to figure that out for the 2002 and 2004 elections.

-Ogami

 

[Rafterman]

TJHairball wrote:

In 2000, they clearly were.

No, that's your opinion, not fact. By every official count and recount, Bush was the winner of the 2000 election. A candidate cannot demand endless months of recounts until he gets a desired result, Gore wanted to continue recounts into what would be the new president's term. The Supreme Court ruled that Gore could not do that. Gore considered his own personal ambition more important than the country. In that he proved why he was not qualified to be president. His arrogance was his undoing.

Congratulations. Now add up the actual vote totals in the 2000 election; courtesy of Jeb's screwballs, George won.

It's called the electoral college. Look it up. The election was not stolen, and those who did try to steal it afterwards were defeated. And that's what the 2006 election is all about, their rage, their hatred, and it's why they'll lose.

Thank goodness none of the Democrats were bright enough to figure that out for the 2002 and 2004 elections.

-Ogami

Ogami,

You are a total fucking moron and a waste of time. People like you can never find the forest for the trees. The better part of you obviously dripped down you fathers leg.

Fortunately, for the country, you are in the minority. It's also forntunate that you are going down in flames.

Read it and weep:

President Bush Job Approval
PollDateApproveDisapproveSpreadRCP Average08/07 - 08/1937.1%57.3%-20.2%Rasmussen08/17 - 08/1943%56%-13%CBS News08/11 - 08/1336%57%-21%Pew Research08/09 - 08/1337%54%-17%Newsweek08/10 - 08/1138%55%-17%Gallup08/07 - 08/1037%59%-22%FOX News08/08 - 08/0936%56%-20%AP-Ipsos08/07 - 08/0933%64%-31%
See all Poll Data


Generic Congressional Vote
PollDateRepublicanDemocratSpreadRCP Average08/07 - 08/1337.6%50.8%-13.2%Pew Research08/09 - 08/1341%50%-9%Newsweek08/10 - 08/1139%51%-12%Gallup08/07 - 08/1041%50%-9%FOX News08/08 - 08/0930%48%-18%AP-Ipsos08/07 - 08/0937%55%-18%
See all Poll Data


Congressional Job Approval
PollDateApproveDisapproveSpreadRCP Average07/28 - 08/0929.3%61.0%-31.7%FOX News08/08 - 08/0924%58%-34%AP-Ipsos08/07 - 08/0929%69%-40%ABC News/Wash Post08/03 - 08/0636%60%-24%Cook/RT Strategies07/28 - 07/3028%57%-29%
See all Poll Data


Direction of Country
PollDateRight DirectionWrong DirectionSpreadRCP Average08/07 - 08/1126.7%69.0%-42.3%Newsweek08/10 - 08/1126%67%-41%Gallup08/07 - 08/1028%69%-41%AP-Ipsos08/07 - 08/0926%71%-45%

 

[The Question]

^^It's a rare day when I'll side with a lefty like Rafterman over a righty like Ogami.

It is not, on the other hand, at all rare when I'll side with the one who's right -- which happens to be Rafterman in this case -- over a complete fucking moron like Ogami.

 

[Rafterman]

^^It's a rare day when I'll side with a lefty like Rafterman over a righty like Ogami.

It is not, on the other hand, at all rare when I'll side with the one who's right -- which happens to be Rafterman in this case -- over a complete fucking moron like Ogami.

Come on Quest, you know we also reach on Israel.

 

[The Question]

Come on Quest, you know we also reach on Israel.

True that, there has been a surprising frequency of meeting of the minds on that issue, shocked the shit outta me frankly.

 

[Ogami]

Rafterman oozed:

You are a total fucking moron and a waste of time.

I don't know what you're so angry about. Is it because you call Bush a dummy, yet he's proven that he's smarter than all of his critics combined? Stay angry and bitter on the sidelines, that's just where Bush supporters want you to be.

_____________________

Question wrote:

It is not, on the other hand, at all rare when I'll side with the one who's right -- which happens to be Rafterman in this case -- over a complete fucking moron like Ogami.

Why would I ever post for your approval? I think it would be rather boring if we all agreed on politics and social issues. Your insults make me smile though, because it means I win. Keep sputtering in outrage.

-Ogami

 

[TJHairball]

TJHairball wrote:

In 2000, they clearly were.

No, that's your opinion, not fact. By every official count and recount, Bush was the winner of the 2000 election.

You display your ignorance. No official recount was completed; the full recount required by Florida law was halted by the Supreme Court, handing Bush the election.

Further studies, finished a year later by a wide assortment of groups, demonstrated that Gore was appropriately the winner in Florida, given a complete recount - or accurate initial count - of the entire state. With the stories coming out shortly after September 11th, with Bush enjoying some of the highest popularity levels in his career as president, they were downplayed in the news; people were, on the whole, quite happy to have Bush as president at that particular moment, and the quietly noted news that Bush shouldn't have been elected in the first place was met with an "Oh, well, I would rather have Bush than Gore in office right now!" in most of the cases it was even noticed by the public.

The "unofficial" recount, i.e., the recounts carried out by a consortium of third-party groups, of course, discount all the assorted partisan claims that ballots were destroyed or hidden, completed illegally by poll workers, or that black voters were disproportionately denied the right to vote through the misapplication of a felon list.

A candidate cannot demand endless months of recounts until he gets a desired result, Gore wanted to continue recounts into what would be the new president's term.

We only would have had "endless months of recounts" due to incompetence on the part of the state of Florida. It is Florida's responsibility to be able to carry out a recount promptly - not Al Gore. It was also Florida's responsibility to recount all votes in the event of a contest; they did not attempt to do so. The Supreme Court intervened more than a month before the beginning of the next presidential term.

It has not always begun so early; there would have been nothing wrong with delaying the start of the new presidential term a week or two.

It's called the electoral college. Look it up.

By which mechanism the Democratic electors for Florida should have been voting - not the Republican electors. As you are well aware, that makes Gore the proper winner, even under the archaic, outdated, illogical, and inappropriate electoral college. As a matter of fact, Florida being unable to determine at the time the true winner, the "fair" solution would have been having no electors for Florida.

Don't try to call a voting theory specialist ignorant of the quaint systems in place. I'm quite familiar with the electoral college and its quirks, ranging from the amplification of the power of voters in large states to the way in which it encourages voter fraud.

On the whole, it's a system due to be dispensed with, of course. But that's not the question at all when we ask if Gore got cheated out of the presidency. From what we know now, had the state of Florida accurately and completely counted all legitimate ballots cast in the initial election, it would have been given to Gore in a resounding victory.

 

[bad dog]

^^^^ Oh brother, another excuse. Whats next? blame the Jews?

 

[Ogami]

TJHairball wrote:

You display your ignorance. No official recount was completed; the full recount required by Florida law was halted by the Supreme Court, handing Bush the election.

Again, you are stating your opinion, you have no facts to back up your claim.

But think about this for a moment. You, along with all the Democrats, are still refighting the 2000 election. It's why the Democrats have lost all elections since then, they're fixated on it and can't see past it. Just like you. Keep refighting past defeats if you like, it won't help in 2006.

Further studies, finished a year later by a wide assortment of groups, demonstrated that Gore was appropriately the winner in Florida, given a complete recount - or accurate initial count - of the entire state.

Well let's put your "wide assortment" to the test, shall we?

Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
05/15/2001 - Updated 05:18 PM ET

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes — more than triple his official 537-vote margin — if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm
_____________________________

Analysis suggests vote recount favored Bush
February 26, 2001
Web posted at: 1:31 a.m. EST (0631 GMT)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- In a post-election analysis, The Miami Herald suggests that George W. Bush likely would have won the presidency outright if Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris had allowed South Florida counties to complete manual recounts before certifying last November's election.

The Herald, on its website and in a front-page story today, said that Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore would have not have gained enough votes in the recount of Miami-Dade County "undervote" ballots to overcome Bush's lead.

The Herald reported that its inspection of undervotes, done by a public accounting firm, used the broadest possible standard possible "to decide when a mark is a vote."

The Herald review suggested that Gore would have gained no more than 49 votes if a recount of Miami-Dade ballots had been allowed. "That would have been 140 too few to overcome Bush's lead, even when joined with Gore gains in Volusia, Palm Beach and Broward counties -- the three other counties where Gore had requested manual recounts," The Herald reported.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/02/26/miami.herald.recount/
___________________________

MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH WON THE 2000 ELECTION
April 3, 2001

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards.

In their reports, the newspapers assumed counts already completed when the court-ordered recount was stopped would have been included in any official count. Thus, they allowed numbers from seven counties -- Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, Hamilton, Manatee, Escambia and Madison -- to stand, but applied the most inclusive standards to votes in the rest of the state. If those numbers did not stand, the Herald reported, a more generous hypothetical revisited recount would have scored the White House for Gore -- but with only a 393-vote margin.

Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

Feel free to tell me how CNN, PBS, the Miami Herald, and USA Today are bastions of Bush-supporters. You can't, of course, but go on believing in delusions.

This is the best the Democrats can offer? Half-baked conspiracy delusions? No wonder Bush has won all the past elections, his opponents spend all their time in delusional dreamworlds where they're always cheated out of winning. They never have to spend any time examining their campaign messages or themes, why should they? It's all a conspiracy that stole each election from them!

At least this explains why the Democrats never changed their message from 2000, 2002, 2004, and now 2006. Very informative, TJ, thank you.

-Ogami

 

[Ogami]

TJ continued:

We only would have had "endless months of recounts" due to incompetence on the part of the state of Florida. It is Florida's responsibility to be able to carry out a recount promptly - not Al Gore.

There was nothing wrong with Florida's voting system or counting procedures. These procedures elected many Democrats. And there were many votes thrown out in other states. Rather, Gore's slick team of sleazy lawyers swept into Florida hoping to overturn the results of an election. They failed.

By which mechanism the Democratic electors for Florida should have been voting - not the Republican electors. As you are well aware, that makes Gore the proper winner, even under the archaic, outdated, illogical, and inappropriate electoral college.

When you say it's the fault of the electoral college that Gore isn't president, you've got me there!

LOL You people are hilarious. The law was never on Gore's side, his lawyers wanted to file endless appeals saying the law was unfair, they lost. Get over it.

-Ogami

 

[Ogami]

I can't edit old posts or I would have put these in one. TJ wrote:

Don't try to call a voting theory specialist ignorant of the quaint systems in place. I'm quite familiar with the electoral college and its quirks, ranging from the amplification of the power of voters in large states to the way in which it encourages voter fraud.

Then use your command of history and ask why the vote was close enough to even trigger a recount in any state. The election was Gore's to lose. He was an incumbent running on a strong economy, he should have won with a landslide with no recounts in sight. Instead, Gore ran away from Bill Clinton, he wanted to run on his own merits. Whatever they were. In the end, Gore couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee.

Keep looking elsewhere for the reasons for Gore's defeat. They are not in a Florida voting system that had elected generations of Democrats, and they are not with Gore's voters being somehow too stupid to select the right punchhole (another hilarious claim of the batty left). Gore's defeat can only be blamed on the man looking at himself in the mirror. He has no one to blame but himself. The aftermath of the election, his attempts to lawyer his way into office after he lost, simply add to his discredit.

-Ogami

 

[TJHairball]

There was nothing wrong with Florida's voting system or counting procedures.

There was. A number of things were changed after the election in response to protests.

These procedures elected many Democrats.

That would not be a measure of whether or not the system is any good... nor does it have any relevance to the theft of the 2000 presidential election.

And there were many votes thrown out in other states.

Albeit not enough to swing the entire presidential election - thus the concentration on wrongdoing in Florida above that in all other states.

Rather, Gore's slick team of sleazy lawyers swept into Florida hoping to overturn the results of an election. They failed.

Actually, Bush's team of slick politicos swept in and obstructed the legally required recount process. Gore made no inappropriate moves in court - perhaps some poorly informed moves, such as not continuing to insist on a recount of all of Florida's votes, offering a concession based on false voter data, etc.

By which mechanism the Democratic electors for Florida should have been voting - not the Republican electors. As you are well aware, that makes Gore the proper winner, even under the archaic, outdated, illogical, and inappropriate electoral college.
When you say it's the fault of the electoral college that Gore isn't president, you've got me there!

When you learn how to read, you'll be able to argue. I've already stated that even the electoral college should have granted Gore the win. The status of the electoral college regarding American elections is not under question here.

LOL You people are hilarious. The law was never on Gore's side, his lawyers wanted to file endless appeals saying the law was unfair, they lost. Get over it.

Florida law required a recount of the entire state. The Supreme Court concurred, but halted the recount process based on time considerations.

The state of Florida had dragged its feet.

Then use your command of history and ask why the vote was close enough to even trigger a recount in any state. The election was Gore's to lose. He was an incumbent running on a strong economy, he should have won with a landslide with no recounts in sight. Instead, Gore ran away from Bill Clinton, he wanted to run on his own merits. Whatever they were. In the end, Gore couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee.

He should have supported Clinton, sure. But if you go away from Florida...

Without Florida on the charts, Gore would have won the electoral college 266-246 in a resounding 20 point victory, with a firm popular margin of 0.65%.

Keep looking elsewhere for the reasons for Gore's defeat. They are not in a Florida voting system that had elected generations of Democrats,

They are in the fraudulent and/or inaccurate system which had recently changed substantially and was operated by a close relative of Bush II.

and they are not with Gore's voters being somehow too stupid to select the right punchhole (another hilarious claim of the batty left).

The issue of increased ballot spoilage among Democratic voters has been traced to the use of different voting procedures in predominantly black and predominantly white precincts.

When the voting procedures formerly used for predominantly black precincts were replaced with those for predominantly white precincts, the ballot spoilage rate for black (and therefore Democratic) voters declined dramatically in Florida in 2002.

Gore's defeat can only be blamed on the man looking at himself in the mirror. He has no one to blame but himself. The aftermath of the election, his attempts to lawyer his way into office after he lost, simply add to his discredit.

Gore's defeat can be blamed on several things; after all, without any of these, he would have won.

First, his failure to win by a large enough margin to render the debacles of Florida moot. E.g., practically disowning Clinton.

Second, the state of Florida's failure to swiftly and consistently recount its votes in a scenario that it was required to by its own laws.

Third, the Supreme Court's legitimation of Florida's electors, declaring a victor in Florida before any accurate determination had been made.

Fourth, the Democratic party's failure to cheat by any means possible. A small amount of fraud would have given Gore the victory; this is not necessarily desirable.

Fifth, the various illegitimate means by which black voters were disenfranchised.

Without any of these five, Gore would have won in 2000, and it would be a very different world for us.

 

[Rafterman]

Rafterman oozed:

You are a total fucking moron and a waste of time.

I don't know what you're so angry about. Is it because you call Bush a dummy, yet he's proven that he's smarter than all of his critics combined? Stay angry and bitter on the sidelines, that's just where Bush supporters want you to be.

_____________________

Question wrote:

It is not, on the other hand, at all rare when I'll side with the one who's right -- which happens to be Rafterman in this case -- over a complete fucking moron like Ogami.

Why would I ever post for your approval? I think it would be rather boring if we all agreed on politics and social issues. Your insults make me smile though, because it means I win. Keep sputtering in outrage.

-Ogami

Angry?

I find your igorance amusing.

The jury remains out on bush getting over on anything. He remains true too his track record,

 

[Ogami]

TjHairball wrote:

There was. A number of things were changed after the election in response to protests.

Which is perfectly fine to have a uniform system of balloting statewide. What no Democrat disputed was that there was nothing wrong with Florida's voting systems in previous elections. It was only when Gore's lawyers saw opportunities in attacking the state for political purposes that there was any controversy.

What was really weird about the Gore team was that they wanted 1) Florida election law changed and 2) apply the changes retroactively to a previous election. That has never been done, anywhere, anytime. Yet it's what Gore argued. The Florida Supreme Court voted to give him endless appeals and legal interdictions, the U.S. Supreme Court told him he couldn't do this indefinitely. I guess to satisfy Gore we would have had Clinton stay on as president for another few months or a year until he got the count he wanted.

Actually, Bush's team of slick politicos swept in and obstructed the legally required recount process.

Never happened. The notion that Bush's brother Jeb somehow stole the election for him is nonsense. While Florida is nominally a Republican state, all local politics are handled by Democrats. Thus it would have taken massive voter fraud by local Democrat officials in order to have "stolen" the election for Bush. And last time I checked, Democrats don't do that for Republicans.

Conspiracy nuttiness aside, Gore's team sought to overturn existing election law and create new election law to benefit them, and then apply the changes to an election that had already taken place! You know that if you change election law, it applies to the next election. You don't retroactively change the law to affect past elections to get a new result! And a new result was what Gore's team wanted. They didn't get it.

Gore made no inappropriate moves in court - perhaps some poorly informed moves, such as not continuing to insist on a recount of all of Florida's votes, offering a concession based on false voter data, etc.

Florida's state law was quite clear on recounts, a recount was ordered precisely according to state law, and Bush won Florida precisely according to that law. Gore's team argued that they wanted the election law changed, they lost. It's as simple as that.

I've already stated that even the electoral college should have granted Gore the win.

I can read what you say, but what you say is nonsense. Gore won the popular vote, Bush won the electoral college. By Federal election law, Bush got the win, not Gore. Do you need me to explain the electoral college to you? Those dastardly Republicans didn't just invent it to foil you. And Republicans didn't invent any of Florida's election laws in 2000, either. Those laws elected Democrats quite fine in past elections, it was quite silly to see them argue that the laws should be changed because they didn't like the result. Well boo hoo!

Florida law required a recount of the entire state. The Supreme Court concurred, but halted the recount process based on time considerations.

I've already proven you false on the recount, I had the links to back it up. Bush won the election, Bush won all recounts, Gore lost. Get over it. The Florida Secretary of State successfully followed the law in conducting a mandatory automatic recount. If she didn't, why isn't she in jail? You can't answer that, can you? Not without going into your kook fringe conspiracy theories.

The timetable for the Electoral College is quite clear, there is no ambiguity. Gore wanted to go outside the law and continue contesting the election into the new president's term. That's unfair and illegal, any way you look at it. Why should Bush have had a shorter term as president, just because Gore was an asshole?

Without Florida on the charts, Gore would have won the electoral college 266-246 in a resounding 20 point victory, with a firm popular margin of 0.65%.

And you just PERFECTLY proved me and every other Republican right. Gore did not contest the 2000 election because of Florida's election laws and voting procedures. There was not a thing wrong with any of them, as all the Democrats elected using those same systems can attest to. The ONLY reason Gore's team of slick sleazeball lawyers were turned loose upon Florida was because they saw a chance to lawyer their way into office when the vote said he lost. Thank you for conceding everything that Gore lied about in 2000, let's see it again:

Without Florida on the charts, Gore would have won the electoral college 266-246 in a resounding 20 point victory, with a firm popular margin of 0.65%.

There is the answer for everyone to see, why Gore cheated, lied, and made himself the ultimate SORE LOSER in 2000. Worse, the Democrats deliberately damaged our country's reputation around the world, they told the world that Bush was the "illegitimate president", that he stole the election. That harmed goodwill around the world more than anything Bush has done, and everything we have done in the war on terror has been made that much harder by the damage to our country's reputation the Democrats did in their sleazy bid for power.

The issue of increased ballot spoilage among Democratic voters has been traced to the use of different voting procedures in predominantly black and predominantly white precincts. When the voting procedures formerly used for predominantly black precincts were replaced with those for predominantly white precincts, the ballot spoilage rate for black (and therefore Democratic) voters declined dramatically in Florida in 2002.

As I told you before, and as you are apparently ignorant of, all local politics in Florida are run by Democrats. If there was voting fraud, denial of votes, it was done by Democrat election supervisors, many of whom were black. The lie spread by the NAACP that blacks were somehow disenfranchised was just another DNC get out the vote ploy for the 2002/2004 elections.

The Democrats have proven they play hardball with politics, but Bush has proven he can swat that ball right back at them. Their lawyering, their schemes did not pay off. We defeated them.

First, his failure to win by a large enough margin to render the debacles of Florda moot. E.g., practically disowning Clinton.

Gore's fault, true.

Second, the state of Florida's failure to swiftly and consistently recount its votes in a scenario that it was required to by its own laws.

While I'm sure you'll find that claim repeated frequently at Democrat Underground or other nut hate sites, there's no one else who will back up your ridiculous claim. There are an awful lot of Democrat officials in Florida who would have loved to haul up Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush on criminal charges if they did anything outside of Florida election law in 2000. Neither of them did, they followed the law. And if they didn't, you pal better step up and offer your damn proof, because you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your lie. If Florida election law wasn't followed, why isn't anyone in jail? You talk the talk, now walk the walk, wise ass. I know you can't.

Third, the Supreme Court's legitimation of Florida's electors, declaring a victor in Florida before any accurate determination had been made.

A fully accurate determination was made. Gore's legal team wanted to recount "dimpled" ballots as votes for Gore, they want to give Palm Beach voters another chance to revote, which was insane, and they demanded that military overseas ballots be thrown out; a particular insult to Florida's troops overseas because the Gore team knew that the military votes Republican.

Fourth, the Democratic party's failure to cheat by any means possible. A small amount of fraud would have given Gore the victory; this is not necessarily desirable.

LOL The Gore team was demanding that ballots clearly shown to be Democrat voter fraud be recounted as votes for Gore. The Gore team didn't want a fair count, that had already been done. They wanted a skewed count that gave them the country. They failed, and amazingly, continue to fail as they base each subsequent election on their deliberate and willful lie that the 2000 election was somehow stolen from them. Gore and his team never truly believed that, they knew the lawyering they were attempting. But they knew their followers were gullible and stupid and would swallow anything they told them, and boy did they succeed. Now we have millions of Democrats, still seething that they were somehow cheated out of their 'Camelot'. Talk about a bunch of sheep.

Fifth, the various illegitimate means by which black voters were disenfranchised.

Never happened. I watched the BLACK Supervisor of Elections from Orlando Florida explain on television that no blacks were disenfranchised at his precincts. The NAACP came up with that rallying cry to turn out the vote for subsequent elections. (This would be the same NAACP that ran ads in 2000 claim Bush wanted to lynch black people by dragging them behind his pickup truck.)

Bottom line is that Bush kicked the Democrats' collective butts in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and they still keep calling him a dummy. Then how smart does that make all of you? I love it.

-Ogami

 

[bad dog]

The democrats war on winning elections is going very well.

 

[Captain Jack]

I will not vote for Geoge Bush in 2008!

You won't have to. Dubb'ya has already served his two term limit by then. Just don't vote for ANY Bush-EVER again. No Senior, no Junior, not even brother Jeb Bush. :y_mad:

Congress may just become Democratically dominant due to the current Congress' lack of action and lack of PROPER action, as well as the PotUS who is completely destroying America every time he or Dick Cheney open their mouths.

 

[TJHairball]

Which is perfectly fine to have a uniform system of balloting statewide. What no Democrat disputed was that there was nothing wrong with Florida's voting systems in previous elections.

As I am a registered independent, my own statements do not disprove this.

However, I find it unlikely that this dramatic and sweeping statement (made about millions of peoples' total claims) is, in fact, true.

I will state for the record that I find the status quo of Florida, as illustrated in the 2000 election, to have been inappropriate. There were things already wrong with it.

However, the 2000 election came in the middle of a period of flux. The basic mechanisms for voting had been shifting; the machines used in 2000 were in many cases brand new, the counting and recording systems new, etc. Change was (and still is) a part of the voting environment.

It was only when Gore's lawyers saw opportunities in attacking the state for political purposes that there was any controversy.

Gore's lawyers did not begin controversy. Again, review the actual history.

What was really weird about the Gore team was that they wanted 1) Florida election law changed and 2) apply the changes retroactively to a previous election. That has never been done, anywhere, anytime. Yet it's what Gore argued. The Florida Supreme Court voted to give him endless appeals and legal interdictions, the U.S. Supreme Court told him he couldn't do this indefinitely. I guess to satisfy Gore we would have had Clinton stay on as president for another few months or a year until he got the count he wanted.

The US Supreme Court stated quite clearly what should have been done in the first place:

A complete recount of the entire state. It is the fault of nobody but the Florida state government that this was not achieved properly and in time to report results.

Never happened. The notion that Bush's brother Jeb somehow stole the election for him is nonsense. While Florida is nominally a Republican state, all local politics are handled by Democrats.

The state government - which gives all the local governments their marching orders - was in his hands.

Thus it would have taken massive voter fraud by local Democrat officials in order to have "stolen" the election for Bush. And last time I checked, Democrats don't do that for Republicans.

Depends on the stripe of "Democrat." Not that all local Florida officials were Democratic.

For you to say that it would have taken "massive" voter fraud is to completely and utterly fail to grasp the reality of the official count - which could have changed on the strength of fraud from a single small county.

Conspiracy nuttiness aside, Gore's team sought to overturn existing election law and create new election law to benefit them, and then apply the changes to an election that had already taken place! You know that if you change election law, it applies to the next election. You don't retroactively change the law to affect past elections to get a new result! And a new result was what Gore's team wanted. They didn't get it.

Florida's state law was quite clear on recounts, a recount was ordered precisely according to state law, and Bush won Florida precisely according to that law. Gore's team argued that they wanted the election law changed, they lost. It's as simple as that.

Gore argued for the official recount to take place. A complete recount was required by state law. As a compromise measure with the non-cooperating Republicans, he even tried to get just a complete recount of the counties displaying clear irregularities.

This recount was obstructed by the Bush legal team and the state government of Florida until the deadline left the Supreme Court the choice of (a) altering the deadline for the Electoral college, (b) not allowing Florida its disputed electors, or (c) "calling" the election based on the pre-recount results.

As the Supreme Court's statements make quite clear, the Bush campaign worked to delay things as much as possible in order to force this choice, presumably being aware that any recount would inevitably increase the number of minority votes, decreasing his chances of victory to slim:

On December 8, 2000, the Supreme Court of Florida ordered that the Circuit Court of Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 ballots in Miami-Dade County. It also ordered the inclusion in the certified vote totals of 215 votes identified in Palm Beach County and 168 votes identified in Miami-Dade County for Vice President Albert Gore, Jr., and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Democratic Candidates for President and Vice President. The Supreme Court noted that petitioner, Governor George W. Bush asserted that the net gain for Vice President Gore in Palm Beach County was 176 votes, and directed the Circuit Court to resolve that dispute on remand. ___ So. 2d, at ___ (slip op., at 4, n. 6). The court further held that relief would require manual recounts in all Florida counties where so-called "undervotes" had not been subject to manual tabulation. The court ordered all manual recounts to begin at once. Governor Bush and Richard Cheney, Republican Candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, filed an emergency application for a stay of this mandate. On December 9, we granted the application, treated the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and granted certiorari. Post, p. ___.

Recall - as you seem to have forgotten - that it was not Gore who first brought matters to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Faced with a court order from the Florida Supreme Court to begin immediate hand recounts, Bush appealed to the Supreme Court for a stay.

What most of the Republicans who speak on the matter today (I presume you are one of them) have conveniently forgotten is that Gore was not the one who involved the Supreme Court in the first place; it is the Bush legal team whose endless appeals went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Gore did not attempt to "create new laws" in Florida - not so far as the Supreme Court was concerned:

Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida's election protest provisions

Legal, clear, allowed. Gore's contests were thrown out by lower courts not on the basis of faulty legal reasoning, but instead that he had not met the burden of proof.

The Florida Supreme Court stated clearly that he had met such burden of proof.

In the Supreme Court's final decision - a court which all have clearly stated decided in favor of Bush - that Florida had acted improperly:

The petition presents the following questions: whether the Florida Supreme Court established new standards for resolving Presidential election contests, thereby violating Art. II, §1, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution and failing to comply with 3 U. S. C. §5, and whether the use of standardless manual recounts violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. With respect to the equal protection question, we find a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

... not in conducting a manual recount, but by failing to use consistent standards from county to county, a matter clearly the responsibility of the state government. Culpable executive: Jeb Bush.

The Supreme Court indicated that both over and under votes should have been recounted, and further, that the processes used in the recount within the State of Florida qualified as a violation of equal protection:

As a result, the citizen whose ballot was not read by a machine because he failed to vote for a candidate in a way readable by a machine may still have his vote counted in a manual recount; on the other hand, the citizen who marks two candidates in a way discernable by the machine will not have the same opportunity to have his vote count, even if a manual examination of the ballot would reveal the requisite indicia of intent.

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer.

To explain the court's reasoning in providing the critical stay of the count, at Bush's request:

Given the Court's assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision.

In this hotly disputed piece, even the per curiam opinion of the narrow 5-4 case halts the recount only on the basis of incompetence by the state of Florida, its government, and - as the last safeguard - its Supreme Court, failing to set standards and conduct the recount within the alloted time.

The court found Al Gore's challenges all grounded legally within existing law; the only consideration under question in the per curiam opinion is the apparent inability of the state of Florida to fulfill its own election laws in a constitutional manner.

As Justice Stevens noted in his dissent, those practical concerns were overrated by critics of the recount process:

They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines.

Compromise measures to either delay the selection of Florida's slate of electors or throw them out altogether would have been logical.

I've already proven you false on the recount, I had the links to back it up.

You have not and you did not.

If she didn't, why isn't she in jail? You can't answer that, can you? Not without going into your kook fringe conspiracy theories.

It's simple: She should be. It doesn't "require" a kook fringe conspiracy theory to explain why she isn't.

Gore wanted to go outside the law and continue contesting the election into the new president's term. That's unfair and illegal, any way you look at it. Why should Bush have had a shorter term as president, just because Gore was an asshole?

As I reiterate... there was sufficient time, and Gore's challenges were entirely legal.

The only problem the Supreme Court had with Gore's efforts is that the State could not fairly re-count ballots manually in time.

As you should be aware, not all presidents have begun their terms on the same day. It is not of critical importance.

And you just PERFECTLY proved me and every other Republican right. Gore did not contest the 2000 election because of Florida's election laws and voting procedures.

Gore contested the election persuant to Florida's election laws - that means "by following them." He did so for the reason that Florida's election results were - and remained for a full year, after which time only ignorant fools and incurable yes-men (such as yourself) still dispute that Gore was voted for by more Florida voters than Bush - in doubt.

There was not a thing wrong with any of them, as all the Democrats elected using those same systems can attest to.

Still waving that red herring.

There is the answer for everyone to see, why Gore cheated, lied, and made himself the ultimate SORE LOSER in 2000. Worse, the Democrats deliberately damaged our country's reputation around the world, they told the world that Bush was the "illegitimate president", that he stole the election. That harmed goodwill around the world more than anything Bush has done, and everything we have done in the war on terror has been made that much harder by the damage to our country's reputation the Democrats did in their sleazy bid for power.

"Gore should have shut up so we would have a better reputation!" A resounding argument in favor of ignoring voter fraud.

What next, will you advocate registering deceased relations to vote?

As I told you before, and as you are apparently ignorant of, all local politics in Florida are run by Democrats. If there was voting fraud, denial of votes, it was done by Democrat election supervisors, many of whom were black. The lie spread by the NAACP that blacks were somehow disenfranchised was just another DNC get out the vote ploy for the 2002/2004 elections.

As you are apparently aware, what I speak of was even admitted by Bush's own Attorney General's office:

Further analysis of the spoilage issue was deferred by passage of the
Florida Election Reform Law in May 2001, which specifically addressed this
problem by requiring those counties which had not already done so to
purchase, by September 2002, voting machines able to detect overvoting
ballot spoilage and give voters a chance to correct it. Many Florida
counties, including Duval, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties, have already
adopted use of such machines, and the information the Division has
indicates that the remainder of Florida's counties will comply before the
Fall 2002 elections.

This speaks of exactly what I am talking about.

The disproportionately high spoilage rates in black counties were due to differences in the voting procedures of those counties. This was a serious problem, and it was fixed. In the 2002 elections, ballot spoilage in Florida was no longer so... racially disproportionate.

That this would have solidified Gore's lead substantially is not disputed by any expert or official.

The Democrats have proven they play hardball with politics, but Bush has proven he can swat that ball right back at them. Their lawyering, their schemes did not pay off. We defeated them.

By out-lawyering, playing dirty, favors from state governors, obstructionist tactics, etc - in other words, by playing dirtier.

Not something to be proud of.

While I'm sure you'll find that claim repeated frequently at Democrat Underground or other nut hate sites, there's no one else who will back up your ridiculous claim.

That "claim" is the unvarnished truth.

We know now - have since late in 2001 - that more Floridians voted for Gore than Bush. It's a very simple fact, verified by a large consortium of bickering organizations, most of whom then proceeded to gloss over that fact in media reporting.

There are an awful lot of Democrat officials in Florida who would have loved to haul up Katherine Harris or Jeb Bush on criminal charges if they did anything outside of Florida election law in 2000. Neither of them did, they followed the law. And if they didn't, you pal better step up and offer your damn proof, because you don't have a shred of evidence to back up your lie. If Florida election law wasn't followed, why isn't anyone in jail? You talk the talk, now walk the walk, wise ass. I know you can't.

Why?

Because culpability is spread. Because admitted wrongdoing by persons acting in their official capacity rarely results in criminal charges. (Was the Board of Education jailed after Brown v Board of Education? No, they were ordered to stop doing that and behave better in the future.)

A fully accurate determination was made.

Incorrect - as the post-election recount demonstrated, the determination was not "fully accurate."

Indeed, as minor variances have indicated, there seems to have been no method capable of resolving the exact number of votes in florida.

Gore's legal team wanted to recount "dimpled" ballots as votes for Gore, they want to give Palm Beach voters another chance to revote, which was insane, and they demanded that military overseas ballots be thrown out; a particular insult to Florida's troops overseas because the Gore team knew that the military votes Republican.

The standards decided on by the Florida Supreme Court: "Clear intent." That standard was affirmed in the Supreme Court's opinion on the matter, and includes dimpled chads.

As far as demanding that all overseas ballots be thrown out after the discovery that postal workers had finished filling out some ballots, it is understandable if you think the Democrats were stooping all the way down to the level of the Republicans.

LOL The Gore team was demanding that ballots clearly shown to be Democrat voter fraud be recounted as votes for Gore.

Evidence for this ludicrous claim is where? The opinion section of Fox News?

Take your own medicine and show me the jail time being served.

... as they base each subsequent election on their deliberate and willful lie that the 2000 election was somehow stolen from them.

Review statements by Democratic candidates. This claim is very rarely made by public officials, although frequently by grassroots organizations, third parties, and anybody who actually studied all the Florida 2000 election debacle.

Never happened. I watched the BLACK Supervisor of Elections from Orlando Florida explain on television that no blacks were disenfranchised at his precincts. The NAACP came up with that rallying cry to turn out the vote for subsequent elections. (This would be the same NAACP that ran ads in 2000 claim Bush wanted to lynch black people by dragging them behind his pickup truck.)

And it coming out of the mouth of a black person means what about that particular lie? Nothing.

The fact of the matter is that predominantly black voters were disenfranchised through a number of admitted [if not admittedly deliberate] means, ranging from the inappropriate application of a "scrub list" for felons (duplicate names being, like the felon list, predominantly black), vote submission methods at the polls (e.g., mostly white counties alerting voters when they have submitted an incorrectly filled out ballots, mostly black counties not doing so), etc. Removing any one of these racially unequal disenfranchisements would have eliminated the possibility of Gore challenging election counts by giving Gore the victory in the first [inaccurate] count.

The Democratic Party and its officials have by and large tried to bury this, but everybody knows about the election having been stolen - this increases the disconnect between the Democratic party and its voting base.

 

[Captain Jack]

Too long, didn't feel like reading it.

 

[Ogami]

TjHairball wrote:

As I am a registered independent, my own statements do not disprove this.

However, I find it unlikely that this dramatic and sweeping statement (made about millions of peoples' total claims) is, in fact, true.

You're as indepedent as all the reporters, anchors, and talking heads in the news media who boast of their independence but always support the Democrat side 100% of the time.

Because culpability is spread. Because admitted wrongdoing by persons acting in their official capacity rarely results in criminal charges.

Okay, that sums up the debate. You believe that not only are the Republicans all-powerful, but you also believe the Democrats are too timid to charge any of them with crimes you clearly believe they are guilty of. I can't sway your deeply-held personal beliefs that the 2000 election was stolen. But I can sure as hell laugh at your notion that there is not a Democrat official in the state of Florida who would not have pressed criminal charges against all involved. What a laugh they gave up so easily, if the guilt is so undeniable as you claim!

-Ogami