so an associate told me that the NYT confirmed the recount in Florida indicate bush won

[still_one]

Does anyone have a source to contradict that? Appreciate any input, thanks in advance

[Cha]

1. BullShit..

No links..I just paid attention to this when it happened.

Google it.

[still_one]

8. Yup, I agree, I just want to provide some documentary evidence

The msm has distorted so much crap through the last seven years

They hardly mention GITMO anymore, and how we are violating the Geneva Convention, which we are a signer to

Juan Padilla is an American citizen, and they justify he has no right to due process because he is an "enemy combatant". That is the reasoning we used to intern Japanese Americans during WWII.

They argue we don't engage in torture, then when the Abu Garb truth comes out, the media is very tame on the whole issue, along with the public

I could go on, but I think most already know the attack that is occurring on our Constitution, by the republicans, and some Democrats

[Cha]

19. Yeah..sorry I was so

abrupt..I was po'd at your "associate"..

http://www.americanpolitics.com/2001gore.html

If you link on this don't gag on a picture of lieman with the President, Al Gore.

[still_one]

35. I felt the same way. Thanks /nt

[Lefty-Taylor]

2. Nope. Just the opposite.

However, they buried that little fact in about the, Oh, 16th paragraph of the story, if I recall correctly.

[still_one]

12. do you have the link to the NYTimes story. I will subscribe to it just to justify he is full of it

[annabanana]

3. Did you ask your associate to provide proof of that ridiculous assertion?

Theft of the ballots

[still_one]

14. No, but I know his answer would be for me to provide the proof /nt

[Fridays Child]

17. Call bullshit, then. He made the assertion. He needs to bring the proof.

[still_one]

27. Actually other posts in this thread have made my case for me, so I actually have substance

to go against him with. Thanks

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Total BS. Google is your friend.

[JeffR]

5. Try this site for starters;

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

[still_one]

20. That link has the NYT article in it, and they are talking out of both sides of their mouths

They start off like this:

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Then later in the story they say this:

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ''count all the votes.''

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

and throw this in also:

The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

They are talking out of both sides of their mouth in that NYtimes article:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63

That is exactly what I was looking for. Effectively, the NYTimes played it both ways. What a POS that newspaper has become. Through Miller and others, they helped lie us into Iraq

Appreciate the source

[Cha]

nyt talking outta both sides of

their mouth!! Mock Shock! :wow:

[aquart]

47. "Mock shock." I like that. Plan to steal it.

[Cha]

50. Good! I

stole from a book. :)

[Demit]

6. They published a very confusing account, as I remember it, and cherry-picked data

There were a couple of theoretical 'recounts', done by the Miami Herald, that had different scenarios showing how Bush could have won & showing how Gore could have. It was hard to follow, and I even seem to remember their publishing it on September 11, 2001, so it got little attention.

[alfredo]

10. A lot of ballots never made it to the SoS office to be counted. Of course

they were from blue areas.

Oh yeah, there were the 50 thousand plus who were improperly removed from the voting roles because someone with the same name, somewhere in the US had a felony conviction. They were denied their right to vote even though the accusers had no proof they were the same person. These people were selected because they had African American sounding names or were from Democratic regions.

[JDPriestly]

18. I watched it carefully at the time.

There was kind of a test you could take. You picked which vote count methodologies you thought were acceptable and then you found out who won by that methodology. Gore won by most of the most rational methodologies. I remember that. When you picked the methodologies, you did not know who would win by that methodology. So, I believe Gore actually won by a fair accounting of the votes.

[Selatius]

7. Wrong. Read this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,450313,00.html

Either the Guardian Unlimited is bullshitting you, or the New York Times is bullshitting you. I have a hunch the liar is closer to home than abroad.

[still_one]

21. Thanks, a previous link to the NYTimes article showed me that the NYTimes played it both ways

Obviously, he took the parts from the NYTimes article to show his position was right, but by taking it out of context, it shows how weak his position is when taking the whole article in whole


Thanks

[niyad]

9. google "gore won election"

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
http://www.americanpolitics.com/2001gore.html

[still_one]

26. That first link is right on, thanks /nt

[JDPriestly]

11. They counted the votes by different measures

Gore won by the measurement methods that made sense to me. Bush won by other measurement methods. So it depends.

[hlthe2b]

13. We need a "FACTS YOU MUST KNOW AS A PROGRESSIVE"

This and related RW talking points get rehashed constantly and with more and more new DUers, we keep having to revisit. It would be nice to be able to point to an archive with this info...:shrug:

[still_one]

38. That is why DU is such a terrific place, but you have a a good point /nt

[hlthe2b]

44. Don't get me wrong.. I'm glad folks are asking...

Just trying to think of someway to make getting the info, a bit more easy.

[bluestateguy]

15. 55,000 people were wrongly removed from the voter registration rolls

They were misidentified as "felons" by ChoicePoint, the private company Katherine Harris contracted out to to run the state's elections.

I don't care how many media recounts you do, it will not pick up that fact.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Only kinda sorta

they showed, iirc, that the recount of the particular counties being done, under the rules being done, would've given Bush a slight victory.

But a recount of the entire state would show Gore had won handily.

[deutsey]

23. Right...the consortium did a number of "recount scenarios"

In one of them, at least, Bush won, but in most of them (particularly the statewide recount) Gore won.

The NYT and the corporate media, of course, all focused on the scenarios Bush won and now the meme that Bush won is firmly in place even in the minds of some liberals and Democrats I know.

[deutsey]

31. Some links...but none that your friend will see as unbiased, though

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.


http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1115-02.htm


http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

[still_one]

40. Thanks. Found enough to challenge him with /nt

[patrice]

22. As I recall the recap of the various "studies" that were done by newspapers,

the determining factor was whether you counted only the counties that Gore requested, or whether you recounted the entire state. This doesn't factor in the mail-in ballots, which was another story entirely.

There are plenty of people around the '04 count in Ohio who have backgrounds in Florida, so you should google Ohio too.

Raw Story was following it too and came up with a tidbit: Thor Hearn, who engineered the "citizens' protests" to the recount in Florida and legal fights against voting investigations in Ohio in '04, ended up on the HAVA committee in Missouri afterward.

[sce56]

24. Outright theft of the election process by the BFEE

Look at the bio for madam Butterfly

LePore grew up in Palm Beach County, attending Cardinal Newman High School in West Palm Beach.

In the 1980s she worked as a junior elections clerk in Palm Beach County; by the time of her departure in 1996, she would attain the position of Chief Deputy Supervisor. During the 1980s she also moonlighted as a ramp clerk at Palm Beach International Airport; she later became friendly with pilots of the private jets of Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi, and occasionally worked as a flight attendant on Khashoggi's flights.<2>

LePore was a registered Republican, but then switched her party to Democratic because, according to her, "when I ran , I chose Democrat because the incumbent was Democrat and the county registration is predominantly Democrat." After the 2000 election, she switched her party registration to No Party Affiliation.
From Slate http://www.slate.com/id/1006609/
Did Adnan Khashoggi Throw the Election to Dubya?
Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Dec. 4, 2000, at 5:56 PM ET

On Dec. 1, the "Washington Wire" column in the Wall Street Journal published this gratifyingly noir item about the postelection drama in Florida:

"Madame Butterfly" Theresa LePore wasn't always an embattled Palm Beach ballots chief. In the 1980s, she moonlighted as a flight attendant on private planes owned by Saudi weapons dealer Adnan Khashoggi, a middleman in Reagan administration arms sales to Iran.

[papau]

25. Link here: The media reports of the recount of the whole state were spun by the media to

stories of partial recounts once it became clear that Gore had won (remember the delay in releasing the report that was needed to agree on how this bad for corporate America news was going to written up). Many of us screamed about the Miami Times running a 3 day long article that only near the end of the 3rd day reported the Gore won the total state recount in all 3 versions of the media's "how to count the votes" procedures.

But remember - somehow even though under court order, the Florida GOP managed to "lose" some votes before the media recount - but not enough as it turned out.

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf


Table 1
Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000

Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken)
Review Method...................................Winner.................... Margin of Victory

Standard as set by each county Canvassing.......Gore....................... 171 votes

Board during their survey
Fully punched chads and limited marks on.........Gore........................115 votes

optical ballots
Any dimples or optical mark.......................Gore................. 107 votes

One corner of chad detached or optical mark.......Gore...................... 60 votes



Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (Initiated But Never Completed)

Review Method.............................. Winner ............. Margin of Victory

Gore request for recounts of all ballots in
Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties.....Bush..........225 votes


Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes
statewide........................................Bush...........430 votes

Florida Supreme Court as being implemented
by the counties, some of whom refused and
some counted overvotes as well as
undervotes.......................................Bush.......... 493 votes



Certified Result (Official Final Count)

Recounts included from Volusia and
Broward only................................Bush.................537 votes

[still_one]

30. Excellent, thanks /nt

[Enrique]

28. he's referring to the "Consortium"

that is, a study by the University of Chicago's NORC research organization, sponsored by a consortium of news organizations including the NYT.

Here are the results under their various scenarios:

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

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
Unofficial recount totals
• Incomplete result when the Supreme Court stayed the recount (December 9, 2000) Bush by 154


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

[still_one]

32. just saw that, thanks /nt

[flashl]

Archives of Democrat.com

13 Myths About The Results Of The 2000 Election

9) Myth: The election process in Florida outside of Palm Beach County was fair.

Fact: Actually, thousands of irregularities in over a half-dozen categories have already been reported:

-Ballots ran out in certain precincts according to the LA Times on 11/10/00.

-Carpools of African-American voters were stopped by police, according to the Los Angeles Times (11/10/00). In some cases, officers demanded to see a "taxi license".

-Polls closed with people still in line in Tampa, according to the Associated Press.

-In Osceola County, ballots did not line up properly, possibly causing Gore voters to have their ballots cast for Harry Browne. Also, Hispanic voters were required to produce two forms of ID when only one is required. (source: Associated Press)

-Dozens, and possibly hundreds, of voters in Broward County were unable to vote because the Supervisor of Elections did not have enough staff to verify changes of address.

-Voters were mistakenly removed from voter rolls because their names were similar to those of ex-cons, according to Mother Jones magazine.

-According to Reuters news service (11/8/00), many voters received pencils rather than pens when they voted, in violation of state law.

-According to the Miami Herald, many Haitian-American voters were turned away from precincts where they were voting for the first time (11/10/00)

-According to Feed Magazine (www.feedmag.com), the mayoral candidate whose election in Miami was overturned due to voter fraud, Xavier Suarez, said he was involved in preparing absentee ballots for George W. Bush. (11/9/00)

-According to tompaine.com, CBS's Dan Rather reported a possible computer error in Volusia County, Florida, where James Harris, a Socialist Workers Party candidate, won 9,888 votes. He won 583 in the rest of the state. <11/9/00> County-level results for Florida are available at cnn.com.

-Many African-American first-time voters who registered at motor vehicles offices or in campus voter registration drives did not appear on the voting rolls, according to a hearing conducted by the NAACP and televised on C-SPAN on 11/12/00.

[NNN0LHI]

29. The associate who told you this was being honest. Others who say differently are not

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEEDB1338F931A25752C1A9679C8B63

EXAMINING THE VOTE: THE OVERVIEW; Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN AND JOHN M. BRODER
Published: November 12, 2001

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ''count all the votes.''

[still_one]

34. Only partially honest, because as your last sentence states if all the votes were taken

Gore might have won

and isn't that what our Democracy is about, i.e. that all the votes are counted

I appreciate the article with the whole thing in context

[NNN0LHI]

36. Most people don't read beyond the headline

NYT knows that.

Don

[still_one]

43. I know, but that is what I needed /nt

[papau]

37. not quite true - see post 25 above n/t

n/t

[Skarbrowe]

33. Where would one begin? There was the "heavier" paper made

by a paper factory that had been producing the punch card paper for years with no problems. Suddenly, before the 2000 election they were constantly sent the wrong weight of paper. They would reject this paper, but it would end up coming back. The bad paper would cause the stylist to not clearly PUNCH out the whole, leaving those awful things called hanging chads. These batches of bad paper were to be sent to Florida.

Also, the Republican machine in Florida had already systematically disenfranchised thousands of minority voters who never had a chance for their vote to be counted in the first place by wiping all kinds of similar names to criminals off the voter rolls. These people didn't know this had happened to then until the day they tried to vote. They were turned away with no recourse. All phone lines to clear anything up were BUSY.

Also, if some parts of florida where you would mark your candidate on the optimal scanner sheets, you were told to write in the name of your candidate too. If you DID write in the candidate after marking him on the ballot, it was called an over vote and discarded.

After blocking thousands of Democratic votes with tricks like I'm pulling from my memory above, if every ballot had been looked at, ACTUALLY looked at, Gore still would have won. Now, just from the ballots that they did have a chance to go over before the count was unconstitutionally stopped, the weird way they set up how they would look at a hanging chad, one quarter out, half-out, really ridiculous stuff, some people said Bush would have won with the strictest interpretation of the ballot. If they could have just had a chance to read the ballots that had Al Gore's name written on it because that legally fell under voter INTENT, Gore probably had the election with ease.

Edited to point out that while I was taking forever to type all of this, several posters got in some great information with links.

Again, all this is right off the top of my head. I'm sure like people have said, Google should have it all.

Still bugs me to death.

[papau]

39. And Gore still won all 4 variations of a statewide recount - see post 25 above n/t

[JanMichael]

41. Best reply is that without the PURGE it wouldn't have been close.

Toss out tens of thousands of potential Gore voters with a crooked database company and all the squawking over a 100 here or a 100 there is moot.

[Gman]

42. That is a complete distortion of the actual truth

IIRC, there was only one scenario that was tested where Bush would have won Florida. The corporate media, who previously reversed and pulled Florida from the Gore column on election night, seized on that one scenario and the story became that Bush won Florida.

Google is your friend

[whistle]

45. Ask your associate for the source he is using or tell him to go Cheney himself

....you can refute his claims using almost any number of sources:

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

http://www.fringefolk.com/gorevictory.html

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/flor-f05.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0127-01.htm

http://www.gregpalast.com/florida-by-the-numbersal-gore-won-florida-in-2000-by-77000-votes/

http://www.bushwatch.com/gorebush.htm

[Gman]

46. And it is very much worth noting that...

a plane crashed in New York City on the very day the consortium report was released. Remember the 737 that lost it's tail after takeoff? Guess which story, Gore won Florida or a plane crash in New York City, got the media attention.

The report was very highly anticipated and the WH was bracing for the fallout from the report. Then, gee... a plane crashes in a way a 737 has never crashed before. I'll go to my grave believing that was no accident.

[B Calm]

48. Imagine how big Gore would have won without Nader taking away votes!

Regardless, Al Gore still won that election!

[Gman]

49. Nader pulled many times the amount of votes that Bush won by

This is exactly why Nader has the blood of Iraq all over his hands. That lady that confronted Condi with the bloody hands needs to really do the same thing to Nader.

[tiptoe]

51. "The 2000 election wasn’t even close...Gore's true margin was close to 3 million, not the 540,000

recorded."

The 2000 Election

In every election, millions of votes are never counted.  They represent a significant component of the exit poll discrepancies.  According to the 2000 Census, 110.8m votes were cast but only 105.4m recorded, leaving 5.4m uncounted. Most were from heavily democratic minority districts. Assuming that 75% were Gore votes, his true margin¹ was close to 3 million, not the 540,000 recorded. But that doesn’t include likely vote-switching to Bush on DREs and optical scanners.  And don’t forget the millions of disenfranchised Democrats who never even got to the voting booth. Gore’s 540,000 “official” vote margin is a long-running media myth.

The 2000 election wasn’t even close, although the media would like us to believe it was. Only the 5-4 Supreme Court decision was close.  Consider the Florida fiasco.  Bush “won” by 537 “official” votes before the Supreme Court aborted the recount - and 175,010 spoiled (under-punched and over-punched) ballots were never counted.  Since approximately 75% were intended for Gore, he probably won Florida by more than 80,000 votes.  The spoiled punched cards in Florida were just the tip of the national iceberg.
...

Florida 2000 Uncounted Votes by County
...

¹ See Uncounted and Switched Votes for demonstration of the True Vote Model in 2004,
where: True Vote (T) = Recorded (R) + Uncounted (U) + Switched (S)

Also accessible here:
Part I: ANALYTIC SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The 2000 Election: Starting Point of the Analysis