Can you answer a question concerning the 2000 election with an intelligent answer?

Question

Can someone provide a thought out intelligent answer as to why they believe George Bush did not win the 2000 election by providing definite proof and without resorting to name calling, and spounting unsubstantiated accusations?

Come on - give me an intelligent answer - don;t resort to giving stupid ansawers and name calling.

Answer 1

I certainly can't. I can give you an emotional one. The Democrats just can't accept the fact they played a lousy game and they lost. They should have won in a walk but didn't. In their eyes if they didn't win the other side must have cheated.

The whole thing was stacked in their favor. They had Al Gore. He was squeaky clean. Totally untouched by the type of stuff that wrecked Clinton's time. An excellent record in Congress where he had served for many years. Eight years as VP.

The Republicans were running a one term Texas governor who's Dad had been beaten by Clinton badly. His record at best was shakey.

In the end though it was the guy from Texas that came out on top. How did this happen?

Remember I said they played a lousy game? Well here are the fumbles and interceptions that went against Gore. And Gore didn't do them all.

Gore ended up losing Florida because of disputed ballots and that was the final straw. But before that there were a number of things that hurt him. I'll get back to Florida later.

In the debates Gore came across as aloof and his facial expressions killed him. Bush on the other hand didn't try and dazzle anyone with brilliance. He couldn't if he tried. So he played the only card he had. Ack like himself. Unassuming simple and easy to understand. And there were a lot of people who liked what they heard. It didn't matter if Bush was right. There were a lot of people who just liked him more than Gore.

But there were mistakes even before the debate. But it wasn't Gore that made them. It was the Democratic party as a whole. Bill Clinton had screwed up. The Monica thing started it all. Bill could have said he'd gotten a ******* from and intern and squelched the whole thing. But he lied and said he didn't and denied it several times.

Now a politician can lie to the public and they do frequently. But you can't be blatant about it. And that got Bill's impeachment started. Lying under oath is what Bill was impeached for.

Here's where the Democrats screwed up. They voted not to remove Clinton from office. Right then the lost the moral high ground they had claimed for so long. And Al lost the chance to be President. Not only was the Democrats fair haired boy a proven liar, but the Democrats were still backing him.

Gore lost Florida by less than a thousand votes. IF the Democrats had removed Clinton and replaced him with Gore they wouldn't have lost the moral high ground and Gore would have ben running not as a VP but as a sitting President. Those two factors whould have surely accounted for the votes he needed to win.

But why did it even come down to Florida? Because Gore lost two states he should have won easily. Tennessee his home state for Pete's sake. Why didn't Tennessee go for him instead of Bush? If he'd won Tennessee Florida would be irrelevant.

And Arkansas, home state of Bill Clinton. Although Arkansas had voted for Reagan they voted for Clinton the last two times and there are still more Democrats in Arkansas then Republicans. If Gore had won Arkansas he would be POTUS.

Who had the most votes in Florida will be debated till the cows come home. Both sides swear their boy got the most votes. the point is the first count showed Bush ahead. And here's where the last Gore/DNC fumble occured. They wanted a selective recount only in places that were firmly for Gore.

Florida law states when the difference is less than one percent all you have to do to get a FULL recount is ask for it. But that wasn't what Gore and company asked for. They wanted to cherry pick where the recounts would be done. And so the legal battle insued. Eating up time until the Supreme Court finally said the only way to do it is a 100% recount or no recount. The state then said but there's not enough time left to do a full recount. And so Bush got Florida's electoral votes and Gore got first runner up.

The bottom line is the Democrats had blown the election in so may other ways, to even try and blame the loss on Republican dirty tricks and legal slight of hand is shirking their own responsibilities. Which is where this whole thing really started. They shirked their responsibility to the American voter during the impeachment and came back and bit them.

Answer 2

The Florida Supreme Court ruled that there was to be a full recount of all votes cast. When this ruling came out Bush went to the US Supreme Court ( Bush v Gore ). The Court ruled that a full recount would irreparably hurt Bush. A consortium of news outlets ( I believe it was 7) did a full recount and found that any way the ballots were counted Gore won. This wasn't a mathematical, statistical recount. They had possession of the ballots and hand counted them. 4 people had to agree on any ballot that might be in question before it was counted. The story was set to come out on Sept 12, 2001 but was pushed back till Nov. of 2001.

Answer 3

There are plenty of facts. That is why it is such a hot button issue. But answer me this: What is the point of telling them to you? You are obviously convinced that Bush is a great man. Can I convince you otherwise? Of course not. If Bush's actions haven't led you to disapprove of him, nothing will.
If you really want to know about the 2000 election than research these facts:

1. Al Gore WON the popular vote. Do you know what that means? That means that the majority of people voted for him. It also means that the electorial college is supposed to comply with those results.

2. Democratic minorities were not allowed to vote in Florida.

3. Jeb Bush & ballot box rigging.

There are many more but do you really want to know? If so do some research yourself. Are you afraid of the truth about your perfect republican party? You will be....you will be.

Answer 4

Here's some evidence:
Oh, and by the way here are the actual election results in Florida, in the study by the National Opinion Research Center:

Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000:
Review Method Winner
Review of All Ballots Statewide (never undertaken)
• Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey
Gore by 171
• Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots
Gore by 115
• Any dimples or optical mark
Gore by 107
• One corner of chad detached or optical mark
Gore by 60

Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (initiated but not completed)
• Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties
Bush by 225
• Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide
Bush by 430
• Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes
Bush by 493

Certified Result (official final count)
• Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

The NORC undertook the largest study of the ballots to date and is the only one to review the ballots under this many circumstances. The silly thing is that recount that Gore picked still would have had him losing. The full state recount that some Republicans were saying was the only way to do it would have proven Gore to be the winner.

When an election is that close, proper care should be taken to make sure the results are perfectly accurate. I don't think proper care was ever actually taken.

My final point: Why is it legal for the Secretary of State to also be a Presidential candidate's Campaign Coordinator in a particular state. How is that not a conflict of interest? Katherine Harris is responsible for making sure the election is fair. By being Bush's Campaign coordinator, it's her responsibility to make sure Bush wins in Florida. Can you see how that automatically is going to make people question her certifications? And the same thing happened in Ohio.

Why can't we have laws that make that illegal to prevent that conflict of interest? And why can't we make sure that all touch-screen voting machines have paper copies so that voters can verify their ballots were properly entered, and that recounts can be compared? And why, when North Carolina passed a law saying just that, did Diebold buy all of their machines back and tell North Carolina they can no longer use their machines?

Just some questions to follow up my points.

Answer 5

The argument was that the ballots were miscounted and that they needed to be recounted and that would take more time. The argument was that it was worth the extra time to be sure the count was done right. Also, I suggest you read the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court. I'm surprised you cannot seem to understand this intelligent answer. Weather you agree with it or not is another matter. I don't agree, but at least I understand it.

Answer 6

Many of the voting machine booths in the heavily minority communities in Southern and Central Florida were malfunctioning. This tainted the final results because not all the votes could have been counted. A lot of the voting machines were broken. This is not to say, I'm anti-Bush, I just tend to shrug when I hear his name. No doubt being the US President is the toughest job in the world, but voting for the president should be an easy job, and counties in Florida should have been prepared to handle all those voters.

Answer 7

any kind of activity that involves some kind of thinking helps one to become more intellectual. The more you do one thing the better you get at it and because yahoo answers are becoming such of a legit source to find out opinions and advise from others who know what they are talking about people are taking this somewhat seriously and actually putting thought into their responses. I think yahoo answers are helping some people to be more intuitive with certain things so yeah I guess you could say its helping some peoples intelligence

Answer 8

diebold is the company that does the election machines & the texas lotto. they have been brought up on fraud charges many times over the years but were always rescued by the bushs. google 'greg palast diebold'. theres a mass of info about it from writters throughout the years. also, look up the offices of kathryn harris. just draws a yawn around here.

Answer 9

I think it went the way it was suppose to. I really don't think the election has alot to do with it. To much money is at stake to let an election pick the president.

Answer 10

He did not outright get caught breaking any laws. It was just that there were enough unethical activey to make one wonder. These act were numerous enough to give weight to suspision.