Why are there people still crying about the 2000 election, and claiming bush "stole" the election?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ajr_mmxCwPmp4Vwp5KirUqDsy6IX?qid=20070117091416AAPGMSt&show=7#profile-info-40bf811bd1a89ca1b9e200c930908a11aa

Do they just refuse to see the truth, or are they just so pathetically lazy, they choose to believe anything their neolib hero's tell them without looking to validate it?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The only scenario by which Gore would have won Florida would have involved recounts of "overvotes"--ballots which were spoiled because the voter voted for more than one candidate (such as by marking two names, or by punching out two chads). Most of the overvotes which were recoverable were those on which the voter had punched out a chad (or made a check mark) and had also written the candidate's name on the write-in line. Gore's lawsuits never sought a recount of overvotes, so even if the Supreme Court had allowed a Florida recount to continue past the legal deadline, Bush still would have won the additional recount which Gore sought

I guess, as shown in an answer below, if a liberal is too lazy to click on my link provided, they won't see my example i provided for them. That is pretty much the same thing i am referring to in my main question. The lazyness, or just stupidity of a liberal not being able to research something before they open their ignorant mouths.

Answer 1

Will you forget if some body stole any thing from you.That is why.

Answer 2

An accurate recount was never actually done in Florida. The Supreme Court never said one was done. Between all the voting issues here, its still unknown who won the popular vote with certainty. However, Florida law only allows for one recount, and federal law does not come into play on this. There is a chance that Bush did steal the election, but by our laws he won. Both counts that mattered showed him with the advantage. Even had they not it wouldnt have mattered. The Electoral Votes in Florida still would have gone to Bush.

Answer 3

It's just the common democrat cry baby syndrome. Did you hear what happened in WA governor race?? The Republican candidate won, then there was a mandatory recount because it was close. The R won again, so the D called for another recount. That time she came out on top so she accepted it. What the heck?? I say best 2 out of 3. There are bumper stickers all over that say "She's not my governor" and "If at first you don't succeed, count, count again."

They feel that if they don't win, something must be wrong, or unfair. They can't accept that sometimes the other party wins. We have a system that allows for multiple people to run and only one can win. I don't think that is a difficult concept, but it seems they do.

Answer 4

Here is an unbias site on the recount. You are right that a lot of over votes would have been counted. But if a person punches the chad for Gore, and writes in Gore, I think that means they voted for Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_recount

But the fact that Bush wins without over votes, and Gore wins with over votes, shows an obvious problem in the voting process itself. If problems were completely random, the over vote issues would not favor anyone.

Answer 5

There's supposed to be other theories, like absentee ballots from the troops that didn't make it in time for the count were automatically given to the Republican party, since the military usually votes Republican. But they did it on 2000 and then again to Kerry in 2004. But really, from Kerry, Gore, and Bush, can we really say any of them would have made a better president than the other two? I mean, really?

Answer 6

Read "Too Close to Call" by Jeffery Toobin. He talks about the 2000 recount in detail. Read it, that is, if you're interested in the facts.
One fact that is undeniable is that more people nationwide voted for Gore than voted for Bush. That would have been true even if Bush had won Florida without a recount. A quirk in our Electoral College system allowed the candidate with the fewest votes to become president.

Answer 7

because he (meaning those whom he controls/pays off through business, political personal relationships) set up a situation that was truly unfair. i was in line at the poll for 10 hours (the last ballot booth in the entire country to close) in a pivitol town in ohio. we made national and international news coverage and then kerry came to speak to us in person to thank us for our efforts. i'm not going to get into details beyond the fact that we are a liberal town and ohio is a swing state and it was no coincidence that one of our two voting machines was not functioning and then they were down one machine and we had to stand in line for 10 hours.

Answer 8

Probably for the same reason that republicans keep bringing up Ted Kennedy's incident that happened 40 years ago.

Answer 9

Hardly anyone is still crying about the 2000 election, there have been too many other disasters since then.

Answer 10

i guess the libs stole the 06 election NEOLIBS are just sore losers

Answer 11

I'm not a Bush fan. But everyone needs to get over it. He's in office, and has been in office for awhile. You can't change anything by sitting back and crying about it. How about if they find something to cry about that he is doing now instead. Just tell them to "shut up" and get a life"