My Prediction: Gore drops by Monday

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

As public sympathy continues to turn towards Bush.

-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), November 11, 2000

Answers

In your dreams.

-- (day@dream.ing), November 11, 2000.

Oh boy, who's ass do you have your head up this morning?? better come out for some air....

-- It did Happen (Right.here@right.now.com), November 11, 2000.

Ain't:

As in AInt gonna happen-why should he concede before all the votes are counted? Why assume the overseas vote is going to Bush? What kind of man would gore be if he took a knee with a minute and a half left and his team 10 yards from a touchdown?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), November 11, 2000.


If one thing is clear here, it is that Ain't Gonna Happen is deeply emotionally invested in seeing Bush win this.

He reminds me of a bowler who tries to use body english to will his ball into making that 7-10 split. Except in this case the ball is moving v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, so his contortions go on for days instead of a couple of seconds.

Calm down, Ain't. As soon as this thing reached the stage of having a recount (automatically triggered by Florida law) it was destined to take a good week to reach closure. With at least 3 other states close enough to merit a recount (though controlling far fewer than 25 electoral votes), we may need to sit tight for another week or 10 days.

Bush isn't the winner, yet. Gore isn't the winner, either. Let the process run. It is guaranteed to produce a President if we just let it run to a conclusion. Meanwhile, go rake leaves or watch a football game.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.


Brian:

I think that it really makes no difference. If either is elected and goes on Meet the Press, the first question will be "How does a President who was elected by the courts and not the people expect to gain the support of the electorate"; or some such thing. And you thought an albtross about the neck was a problem; "bad poet".

Just my opinion.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), November 11, 2000.



>> How does a President who was elected by the courts and not the people expect to gain the support of the electorate... <<

Which is precisely why both candidates should not resort to the courts.

Requesting a recount does not require a judge. It is within each candidate's rights and prescribed for in the law. Unfortunately, I see that the Bush campaign has already brought in a judge, by requesting an injunction against a hand recount. Bad move. Very bad move. Counting ballots with the greatest possible accuracy is a legitimate action that both candidates should at least pretend to welcome.

Just my opinion.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.


Hey Futureshock....heres another one for ya...



-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), November 11, 2000.


Ain't Gonna Happen, I would like to go out on a limb and agree with your prediction.

-- Wizard (onedirector@email.msn.com), November 11, 2000.

I believe that Gore will use all available means to get elected. If his legal team can stuff the courts with litigation until 18DEC00, then he will by default win the existing Electoral College votes.

Gore is smart; he's borrowing Slick Willie's lawyers...

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 11, 2000.


dinosaur,

> If his legal team can stuff the courts with litigation until 18DEC00, then he will by default win the existing Electoral College votes.

No, that's not true. It's going to take 270 electoral votes to win no matter whether the Florida election winner has been determined by then or not.

- - - - -

Bush supporters,

Please stop making up stuff about the electoral process that isn't true -- if you don't know, look it up first.

Obviously Bush supporters generally want there not to be any more recount in Florida as long as Bush has the lead, and equally obviously Gore supporters will want to press on with recounts as long as the margin is as slim as it is now.

The proper standard is that Florida should determine as accurately as necessary and possible just who won that state's electoral votes, and that the existing legal mechanisms and procedures to do so whould be followed.

It is somewhat odd that supprters of Bush, who has so often championed states' rights and complained that his opponent favored federal power, should now be talking about goint to _federal_ court to try to stop Florida _state_ legal procedures.

Bush supporters should support the existing Florida state legal procedures and not accuse the Gore camp of improper conduct in this area as long as the legal procedures are being followed.

Gore supporters (which includes me, though I don't think a Bush election would be a great disaster that will destroy the country) should support the legal procedures and be prepared to accept the final result if it should turn out that at the end of the legal procedures Bush still has the lead in Florida.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.



Ain't,

>As public sympathy continues to turn towards Bush.

Are you talking about the same Bush who during his campaign repeatedly said he trusts the people and said he favors states' rights over federal power, but _now_ wants to go to *federal* court to stop the carrying out of Florida *state* legal procedures? Is that the one? Hmmm?

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.


Very well-said, No Spam. About the only thing with which I tend to disagree is that I do think a Bush presidency will be bad. Not a disaster, but not good. Unfortunately, I think a Gore presidency at this point might be just as bad, due to the circumstances.

Because of that, I actually hope Bush does take it. This way we can all see just how "well" a Republican President and a Republican Senate and a Republican House work toward "the best interests of the people".

Jeez, it even hurt to type that.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), November 11, 2000.


Brian or No Spam:

There's a procedural issue here I don't understand. If Florida law clearly provides for a second recount done by hand at the behest of either candidate, then that's what the law says.

Why would the Bush campaign try to get an injunction against what the law clearly provides? Why would any judge not throw out such a request as frivolous? If Bush is trying to deny Gore redress clearly granted to Gore in existing law, then Bush is wrong legally and risks looking stupid (which is worse, politically).

What's going on here?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.


Amazing, isn't it?

Statute 102.166B Protest of election returns; procedure

(4)(a)B Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 11, 2000.


Flint: You FINALLY woke up! I think you got so wrapped up in the partisanship of TB2000 that you lost sight of the fact that SOME folks actually speak the truth on fora.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.


Anita:

I question the wisdom of making use of this part of the law, because eventually we have at least three counts of the same votes, potentially with three very different results and two different "winners", and nobody can know which result is most nearly correct. But I see no wisdom at all in trying to prevent someone else from undermining the apparent legitimacy of the process. Whatever could the Bush camp be thinking of?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 11, 2000.


Flint,

>If Florida law clearly provides for a second recount done by hand at the behest of either candidate, then that's what the law says.

I think it's not "at the behest of either candidate", but at the behest of any voter in the relevant country. But most candidates could find a sympathetic voter in any perticular county.

>Why would the Bush campaign try to get an injunction against what the law clearly provides?

Because Bush is a politician, and politicians (prepare yourself for a shock) who say they favor states' rights over federal rights sometimes don't practice what they preach when it gets to the nitty-gritty?

(And, of course, politicians who _don't_ say that about states' rights _also_ sometimes don't practice what they preach.)

>If Bush is trying to deny Gore redress clearly granted to Gore in existing law, then Bush is wrong legally and risks looking stupid (which is worse, politically).

Prepare yourself for another shock -- Politicians have been known (a) to do things that were legally wrong, (b) to not just risk looking stupid, but actually achieve looking stupid, _and_ (c) to survive politically nevertheless!

Looking stupid may be a significant political liability to you and me, but to some voters it's not so bad, apparently.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.


Flint:

The hand-count is considered more accurate simply because people can check for those chads that are flipped open or closed. Sometimes these flipped chads fall off with handling, which could very well explain why the hand-count was requested when massive discrepancies were revealed between the first machine count and the second. You must remember, as well, that the Gore camp didn't request the second machine count. It was mandated by Florida law.

Regarding the Bush camp disputing the hand-count, I have no clue. Bush, himself, signed into law in 1997 here in Texas something that stated that in the case of a close election, a hand-count should be done, as it is the most accurate method.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 11, 2000.


>> Whatever could the Bush camp be thinking of? <<

You're asking me???

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), November 11, 2000.


Gore drops what by Monday? A loaf?

I just dropped a loaf, it's nothing special. You don't have to be a Vice President to do that, but if he is holding it in until Monday that is pretty amazing.

-- sphincterhead (look@out.below!), November 12, 2000.


I think it's not "at the behest of either candidate", but at the behest of any voter in the relevant country.

Actually, it is at the behest of either candidate or even political party. See my quote above.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 12, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ