• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I know this is ancient history but who do you think really won the 2000 election?

Who do you think really won the 2000 election?

  • Bush

    Votes: 14 46.7%
  • Gore

    Votes: 12 40.0%
  • It was a virtual tie. Constitutionally it should have gone to the Fl (GOP) legislature. Bush

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • It was a vitual tie. Florida's results should have been thrown out. Gore

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • The media called Fl for Gore before the polls closed in a GOP area. Bush voters went home. Bush

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30

Smeagol

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
4,147
Reaction score
1,694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hurdle 1 is to get people to lay their political leanings aside and simply be honest and objective; I know, easier said than done.

I was just trying to verifying to data and to my surprise a couple of the after the fact recounts showed Gore winning Florida. I'd always thought despite all the moaning and groaning from the left, the Supreme Court getting involved, putting an end to the endless re-re-re-re-re-counts until enough chads had fallen out due to excessive handling to change the results in favor of the democrats and the subsequent left-wing PR spin and dishonest politicizing, Bush won fair and square verified by every recount including a final after the election tally requested by the media under FOIA. However, in my research today I see its possibly Gore might have actually won Florida. I'm not sure what to believe? Not that it matters now anyway.

FULL ANSWER

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

None of these findings are certain.


FactCheck.org : The Florida Recount of 2000

Being as honest a juror as you can be, who do you think really won the 2000 election?
 
I think Gore really won, I also think it doesn't matter anymore.

Bush came, did his damage to our rights, our economy, started his wars and set the stage for Bush 2.0 aka Obama.
 
I still think Gore won it...but it is what it is....Dubya just used his brother and some confused Hebrews.
 
I still think Gore won it...but it is what it is....Dubya just used his brother and some confused Hebrews.

What? Jeb wasn't involved at all.
 
According to the rules in place, Bush won. If I remember correctly, and to be honest I haven't thought about this in several years, Bush would have taken Florida anyway, though not by much.

Keep in mind that the overall popular vote is meaningless. That's not how we elect a President. Whether or not that's how we *should* elect a President is a different topic for another thread.
 
You're awful! :lamo

It's true - I watched the trial during my lunch break each day and it was the worse prosecuted case in the history of American jurisprudence. If those prosecutors had been in charge at the Nuremberg trials, the Allies would have been paying compensation to the surviving Nazis.
 
I think Gore really won, I also think it doesn't matter anymore.

Bush came, did his damage to our rights, our economy, started his wars and set the stage for Bush 2.0 aka Obama.

You should get down on your knees and give thanks to God every day that Al Gore wasn't your President - you'd be paying $20 a gallon for gas, your electricity bills would be astronomical and everyone would have a windmill in their backyard.
 
Peripherally related, we may be seeing the law of unintended consequences. It the election had been given to that total fool Gore, would we have had the disaster of Obama now?
 
You should get down on your knees and give thanks to God every day that Al Gore wasn't your President - you'd be paying $20 a gallon for gas, your electricity bills would be astronomical and everyone would have a windmill in their backyard.
I do believe that Gore would have handled 9/11 miserably.
 
You should get down on your knees and give thanks to God every day that Al Gore wasn't your President - you'd be paying $20 a gallon for gas, your electricity bills would be astronomical and everyone would have a windmill in their backyard.

Why would gas be $20 a gallon?

I do believe that Gore would have handled 9/11 miserably.

How does that compare with sitting idle in a classroom for minutes on end?
 
I think Bush won. The state with confusing unreliable ballots along with the media calling the highly GOP Western Panhandle for Gore while people were still in line at the polls, botched the election. Constitutionally the results should have been thrown out and the legislature should have exercised its duty to speak for the state in such cases. The Florida legislature at the time (and still is I think) is Republican controlled and would have voted for Bush.

Lessons learned:

1. Punch card ballots are a horrible idea
2. Early voting is a great idea

Bonus:

-IMHO I think we can figure out a way to make voting more convenient with the use of electronic voting technology. If we created a national elections board, people could vote in any city in America where any polling place can pull up the ballot for their state, district, precinct and let them vote there.

-I don't like hurdles that make voting more difficult but I do think people busted in voter fraud as well as VOTER REGISTRATION fraud, which some people think is no big deal, should face life altering legal consequences.

-I think the Electoral College is outdated and I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers would put it in the Constitution under today's conditions.
 
What? Jeb wasn't involved at all.

He was the friggin governor.....and "promised" his brother that he would deliver Florida for him (Despite the fact that Gore had led consistently in every poll leading up to the final months of the campaign). His secretary of state Katherine Harris was instrumental in stopping the counts before it went to the SCOTUS. How can you say with a straight face that Jeb "wasn't involved at all"? DOH!
 
Last edited:
I do believe that Gore would have handled 9/11 miserably.

Worse than Bush? Surely you jest. How can you possibly handle it worse than...taking your eyes off those who attacked us and manipulating fears to justify starting a war with a country that wasn't even involved? Somehow...I think even a moron like Gore would have been able to handle it better than GWB did.
 
Hurdle 1 is to get people to lay their political leanings aside and simply be honest and objective; I know, easier said than done.

I was just trying to verifying to data and to my surprise a couple of the after the fact recounts showed Gore winning Florida. I'd always thought despite all the moaning and groaning from the left, the Supreme Court getting involved, putting an end to the endless re-re-re-re-re-counts until enough chads had fallen out due to excessive handling to change the results in favor of the democrats and the subsequent left-wing PR spin and dishonest politicizing, Bush won fair and square verified by every recount including a final after the election tally requested by the media under FOIA. However, in my research today I see its possibly Gore might have actually won Florida. I'm not sure what to believe? Not that it matters now anyway.

FULL ANSWER

According to a massive months-long study commissioned by eight news organizations in 2001, George W. Bush probably still would have won even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida’s highest court.

Bush also probably would have won had the state conducted the limited recount of only four heavily Democratic counties that Al Gore asked for, the study found.

On the other hand, the study also found that Gore probably would have won, by a range of 42 to 171 votes out of 6 million cast, had there been a broad recount of all disputed ballots statewide. However, Gore never asked for such a recount. The Florida Supreme Court ordered only a recount of so-called "undervotes," about 62,000 ballots where voting machines didn’t detect any vote for a presidential candidate.

None of these findings are certain.


FactCheck.org : The Florida Recount of 2000

Being as honest a juror as you can be, who do you think really won the 2000 election?

According to your link the answer seems fairly clear? If those studies are accurate it sounds like most outcomes would have lead to a narrow Bush victory. The presumption from what I stand would be to assume Bush won based on that evidence.

"An earlier study by a different media consortium reached similar conclusions. That study was conducted by a group that included the Miami Herald, USA Today and Knight Ridder newspapers. As USA Today said of the findings on May 11, 2001:

USA Today: George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida’s presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied.

The newspaper said that Gore might have won narrowly if lenient standards were used that counted every mark on a ballot. "But," it said, "Gore could not have won without a hand count of overvote ballots, something that he did not request."

It sounds like Gore winning was an outside shot dependent on hand count of overvote ballots. Whatever that is.
 
According to your link the answer seems fairly clear? If those studies are accurate it sounds like most outcomes would have lead to a narrow Bush victory. The presumption from what I stand would be to assume Bush won based on that evidence.

You need to read past the first paragraph in the link.
 
You need to read past the first paragraph in the link.

I read the whole article, that was a quote from the latter half of the piece. The margin for a hand recount was 42-100 votes with 2,200 ballots missing. Given the lean of all the other recounts my presumption would be that Bush likely won.
 
i think they did a full count a year or so later and Bush was just barely on top. what an ugly election that one was.
 
How does that compare with sitting idle in a classroom for minutes on end?
I think that's been way over-analyzed. Purposely so, IMO.

If he had jumped up and run out of the room, which seems to be what most people would have wanted, then he would have possibly caused a panic right there with those kids... and then he would have been criticized for that. It was a no-win situation. Plus, when something huge happens, it's not unreasonable for a person to take a few minutes to collect their thoughts before they proceed.

There's plenty to criticize the man for, but this one is just for those close-minded individuals who will never think reasonably to begin with.
 
I think that's been way over-analyzed. Purposely so, IMO.

If he had jumped up and run out of the room, which seems to be what most people would have wanted, then he would have possibly caused a panic right there with those kids... and then he would have been criticized for that. It was a no-win situation. Plus, when something huge happens, it's not unreasonable for a person to take a few minutes to collect their thoughts before they proceed.

A couple minutes maybe, not 7.
 
He was the friggin governor...

An unrelated coincidence.
.....and "promised" his brother that he would deliver Florida for him

A campaign speech to fire up the base in his capacity as state campaign chair. Nothing to do with his official duties as Governor.

His secretary of state Katherine Harris was instrumental in stopping the counts before it went to the SCOTUS.

The Secretary of State in Florida is (was) not appointed by the Governor and as such was not his employee. She was elected directly by the people. But even if she was a gubernatorial appointment, that same logic could have applied to Kenneth Starr who was appointed by Clinton's Attorney General. Just because the outcome of a specific case happens to favor the side that seems to have connections with those in positions of influence, doesn't mean they disregarded their oaths of office and must have exploited their power for corrupt reasons. I see no evidence Jeb Bush was involved in the 2000 Florida vote other than as a state campaign chair who sat back and allowed those with jurisdiction in the matter do their jobs.
 
The media has NO business calling any election before the polls close.
This is a traversity....on our system and our people...
A ton of reform/improvement is necessary here..
And that we do not seem capable of designing, nor building, nor using a decent voting machine....
Well, we just have to go to the same place where we buy our motor vehicles.
One would think that our manufacturers would have a red face over this...
Well, they can just junk their machines; maybe in the next century we will be able to vote over the internet..
We can land a man on the moon, but cannot make a good reliable voting manhine....
 
An unrelated coincidence.


A campaign speech to fire up the base in his capacity as state campaign chair. Nothing to do with his official duties as Governor.



The Secretary of State in Florida is (was) not appointed by the Governor and as such was not his employee. She was elected directly by the people. But even if she was a gubernatorial appointment, that same logic could have applied to Kenneth Starr who was appointed by Clinton's Attorney General. Just because the outcome of a specific case happens to favor the side that seems to have connections with those in positions of influence, doesn't mean they disregarded their oaths of office and must have exploited their power for corrupt reasons. I see no evidence Jeb Bush was involved in the 2000 Florida vote other than as a state campaign chair who sat back and allowed those with jurisdiction in the matter do their jobs.
riiiight....just an "unrelated coincidence" that despite every poll in the months leading up to the election had Gore comfortably leading...but Jeb "promised" that Florida would go for W. Just an unrelated "coincidence".
 
riiiight....just an "unrelated coincidence" that despite every poll in the months leading up to the election had Gore comfortably leading...but Jeb "promised" that Florida would go for W. Just an unrelated "coincidence".
I bet you fall for it every time when a candidate is introduced to an audience as "...the next President of the United States!!!", don'tcha?
 
Back
Top Bottom