"The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court" - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Tex · 03-07-2008, 12:53 PM

Heard this on CBS news again last night. It always kind of ticks me off when I hear it, because it is completely untrue. Al Gore would not have won under any but the most liberal (small "l") set of counting practices.

Even if he had a shot at winning, the Supreme Court did not "decide" the election. They stopped the recount, which had the effect of allowing President Bush to claim victory, but enough voters in enough states gave him enough Electors to claim the Presidency. The Supreme Court did not deliberate, come out of a room, and "pick" a candidate.

Typical of the misinformed crap coming from the media these days.

Indy Coug · 03-07-2008, 01:00 PM

How many "independent" media recounts failed to come up with a Florida victory for Gore?

Cali Coug · 03-07-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Heard this on CBS news again last night. It always kind of ticks me off when I hear it, because it is completely untrue. Al Gore would not have won under any but the most liberal (small "l") set of counting practices.

Even if he had a shot at winning, the Supreme Court did not "decide" the election. They stopped the recount, which had the effect of allowing President Bush to claim victory, but enough voters in enough states gave him enough Electors to claim the Presidency. The Supreme Court did not deliberate, come out of a room, and "pick" a candidate.

Typical of the misinformed crap coming from the media these days.

Tex- sadly for you, Al Gore would have won under most recounting procedures. Sadly for Al Gore, the method he proposed wasn't one of those procedures that would have given him the win.

Tex · 03-07-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex- sadly for you, Al Gore would have won under most recounting procedures. Sadly for Al Gore, the method he proposed wasn't one of those procedures that would have given him the win.

I dispute that he would've won under "most." There are certainly some, all of them quite liberal (and IMO, unreasonable), where he could have won. And as you point out, none of them requested by him. (If only he knew the result ahead of time, he'd have known how to game the system!)

But that's all really a side point. The problem I have is the term "decide." The Supreme Court did not "decide" the election. It gives the impression that the votes of 100 million Americans were voided, and 9 people got together and just picked the President.

That is a lie.

JohnnyLingo · 03-07-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex- sadly for you, Al Gore would have won under most recounting procedures. Sadly for Al Gore, the method he proposed wasn't one of those procedures that would have given him the win.

To his deathbed, hoya, like many thousands of his liberal friends, will remain bitter about the 2000 election.

I can't believe this is still an issue eight years later. Bush is almost out of office after being elected a second time.

Wow.

myboynoah · 03-07-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex- sadly for you, Al Gore would have won under most recounting procedures. Sadly for Al Gore, the method he proposed wasn't one of those procedures that would have given him the win.

I have no idea from whence you came up with this.

I recall the Washington Post doing their own recount and Gore only came out on top in one of four, that one being under the most liberal/intuitive recounting method.

People said they went into the booth intending to vote for Gore but instead voted for Pat Buchannan. I don't know how we help those people.

Frankly, your problem was Gore himself. He couldn't even carry his own state.

Indy Coug · 03-07-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Frankly, your problem was Gore himself. He couldn't even carry his own state.

A prophet in his own country....

Thank heavens people heard his messianic call on global warming.

BigFatMeanie · 03-07-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Tex- sadly for you, Al Gore would have won under most recounting procedures. Sadly for Al Gore, the method he proposed wasn't one of those procedures that would have given him the win.

Dude, you're killing me. Perhaps you should start reading more than just Daily Kos.

NORC Florida Ballots Project Gore 4 out of 7 scenarios (estimated because all of Gore's win scenarios were full statewide recounts which were never undertaken. In the limited recount scenarios, Bush was 3 out of 3 interpretation scenarios).
USA Today Study Bush 3 out of 4 scenarios. Gore only wins in the most liberal interpretation scenario which, as you already mentioned, wasn't the interpretation scenario he proposed.

If you believe the raw data of those studies means Al Gore would have won under "most recounting procedures" then I probably have nothing else to say. To continue would be like arguing the color of the sky with someone that insists it is plaid.

JohnnyLingo · 03-07-2008, 03:36 PM

Cali's as much (or more) of a partisan hack as he frequently accuses Tex of being.

He's proven that time and time again over the years.

Tex · 03-07-2008, 03:42 PM

At the risk of diverting from my primary point ...

Quote:

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.

...

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

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/me...count_4-3.html

Again ... if people want to dicker that Gore "really" won (popular vote, and all that), fine. Dicker away.

But don't tell me the Supreme Court "decided" the election. They didn't.

03-07-2008, 12:53 PM	#1
Tex Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,596	"The 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court" Heard this on CBS news again last night. It always kind of ticks me off when I hear it, because it is completely untrue. Al Gore would not have won under any but the most liberal (small "l") set of counting practices. Even if he had a shot at winning, the Supreme Court did not "decide" the election. They stopped the recount, which had the effect of allowing President Bush to claim victory, but enough voters in enough states gave him enough Electors to claim the Presidency. The Supreme Court did not deliberate, come out of a room, and "pick" a candidate. Typical of the misinformed crap coming from the media these days. __________________ "Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young

03-07-2008, 01:00 PM	#2
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	How many "independent" media recounts failed to come up with a Florida victory for Gore?

03-07-2008, 03:36 PM	#9
JohnnyLingo Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 2,175	Cali's as much (or more) of a partisan hack as he frequently accuses Tex of being. He's proven that time and time again over the years.