Another Reason Why Gore Will Win

[BERT]

Once upon a time I thought your system of two parties is perfect.

But now ???
I do not see democracy anywhere !
I am only an observer, but I think that it would be not correct, if the candidat wins, who has not the most votes on his side.
(In my opinion the man, who has the most votes on his side should win).

I am only an observer and I hope your problems are solved within the next two weeks.

Good luck

[Phil]

Cons - it's interesting that to note that this far down the process, the odds on both are still esentially the same as what they closed at on election day. If the bet is "Who will be inaugarated" I'd take Bush even at the big odds as I just don't see anyway (as I stated in my previous post) for Gore to win this. Even if it goes to Congress, eventually he loses to the Republican majority there.

Mind you there is one way perhaps. If this drags on and on, Bush Jr. might just do the honorable thing and for the good of the country concede. Gore, being the base politician that he is would never consider this, but I believe Bush would.
Other than that, even if the Supreme Court upholds the recounts, that just means two sets of electors and probably it heads to Congress.

Although, I believe I heard overnight that the some of the Republican leaders in the Florida legislature said they're not looking to give they're electors to Bush no matter what, they just want to make sure Florida sends SOME ELECTORS. So if the recounts in theory get down and show Gore and this all happens in time for a Democratic slate to be sent, then it sounded like they would just let that be.
But that all presuposes a whole lot.

Isn't there some Chinese proverb/curse that says, "MAY YOU LIVE IN INTERESTING TIMES"...looks like the States are taking that one to a whole new level.

[Cons]

Well, I've lived in the States for two years, and compared to Europe I've found it to be a police-state, totalitarian in some sense.

Some of my best friends are American, even a large chunk of my family, but for me there are several other countries that I would rather be a resident of. Maybe it's because I lived in Washington State, who knows? As students we had a riot there and I found out first hand how much human rights mean over there. Believe me, Washington State is more similar to China than any Western democracy...

But what is happenning with the election is unbelievable. I still have full faith in Bush winning the election, and I'm going to take -200 odds at this moment as I believe they are still almost a fix. I would expect Bush to be -400, so getting him at such sweet odds is a gift to me. So two grand to win a grand seems decent to me, and will at least cover the beer expenses for the next several weeks...

[TrendSetter]

Cons, the only reason this is happening is because Algore is taking after Billy Bob.
It's something what the Democrats will do to stay in power.
Remember who sold out to the Chinese and Ruskies,
Remember Waco,
Remember Elian,
etc..etc..etc..

[MarkDel]

Wow, I missed a lot here during my self-imposed absence this weekend to concentrate on gambling only!!! I see here some pretty good comments from a new poster named MadameX and I have to comment on the exchanges here between "her" and Jeff K.

In previous posts, I have sung the praises of Jeff K. as someone who brings a lot to the table in his analysis of this election mess, but it now appears that I again owe Jeff K. an apology. It would seem that in my previous comments, I have GREATLY overestimated your objectivity and the depth of your analysis. For this, I am sorry, because it would now appear that your main objective is to be anti-Bush at all costs regardless of the objective facts. MadameX made some good points which you dismissed without rebuttal and fell back on quasi-insults. As someone who tends to hurl insults on occasion, I would advise you that they only work once you've established your own credibility with a statement of your factual position.

Bottom line Jeff, you owed MadameX the courtesy of a rebuttal on the merits rather than an emotional anti-Bush response. Just my extremely humble opinion.

[Jeff K]

MarkDel... I guess the truth (about Bush) hurts. I suggest you get a copy of that "Frontline" program, and see just what type of person he is. Hey, you can knock Gore, but Bush is off limits to me? Give me a break! Remember, at least I said the lesser of the TWO losers. I don't hold Gore in any high regard, but next to Bush he's acceptable.

As far as MX is concerned, when she stated the networks called Florida at 6:12 and the polls closed at 7 in the panhandle, this just isn't true. She's either ignorant of the facts, or a liar, and you can't reason with either. Hell, the networks didn't even start their coverage until 7, and the polls closed later in the panhandle than the rest of Florida. She went on the say the USSC voted in favor of Bush, which is also not true. They vacated the decision, and asked the FSC to explain their decision. This was more of a neutral decision, but worked in Bush's favor. Finally, Gore's lawyers never tried to knock out the military vote, in or out of court. Local Dem officials requested that all absentee ballots should follow the postmark laws. Even Butterworth said all military ballots should be counted, as long as they were signed and hand dated.

P.S. Now, please tell me what "good points" MX made, and where I was inacurate???


[This message has been edited by Jeff K (edited 12-11-2000).]

[jlpblade]

Jeff K

"Network coverage started at 7", what do you consider a network? CNN, CNBC, FNC, MSNBC aren't networks?

Jeff

[JT]

If I am not mistaken the Randy Weaver incident happened before Clinton took office so Bush, Gore, Clinton, Feds will be Feds. As for your comments Cons, have to agree with you. We arrest and kill as many people as China and Russia and we patronize others about human rights. I am not a citizen of the world but my impression would be that most of the world looks at us as the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Oh well, still rather live here that Sierra Leone. As for the election quagmire it still is nothing compared to some of the messes that happen in elections in other places. I think the best thing would be for congress to vote for throwing Bush and Gore out and have Lieberman and Cheney as our leaders.

[Jeff K]

Jeff... When people refer to the TV networks, they are usually referring to the 4 major networks. Not one of these called Florida for Gore early. Did any of the 4 that you mentioned call Florida for Gore at 6:12?

[MarkDel]

Jeff K,

Of course you're allowed to criticize Bush the way I critcize Gore, that's not what I was talking about by lack of objectivity. But the reasons for your animosity towards Bush illustrate more emotion than rationality and that's what I meant by the lack of depth in your analysis.

As to the "objectivity" argument in your debate with MadameX...I would say that you have made a couple of correct assertions, but you also distorted some of her reasonable observations. While the polls in Florida did not close at 7 PM as she stated, she was correct in her assertion that the networks declared Florida for Gore soon after the polls closed in most of Florida, nearly one hour before the polls closed in the heavily Republican panhandle. The truth here is the polls in most of Florida closed at 8 PM Eastern Time and the networks declared for Gore around 8:15 on average and at 8:12 on one network. I know this because I taped the entire election night, as I have every year since 1988, and checked this after reading your last post. While the effect of this early declaration was probably minimal by normal standards, it could have had a significant impact in a race this close. While this falls into what I had would call "it's too bad" category like the Butterfly Ballot and the Seminole Absentee Ballot issues, it's at least worthy of mention as there have been a number of sworn depositions by people who claimed that they heard the news in their car and decided not to vote. While I agree with you that these people thus probably didn't deserve to have their vote counted if they were that lazy (just like the people who were too stupid in Palm Beach) it is somewhat unfair to dismiss the point as irrelevant because it's not irrelevant, even though it is at best a marginal point. So while she may have misstated the times, her underlying point was at least somewhat relevant and not worthy of your scorn.

Also, you completely ignored her very good point about the U.S. Supreme Court only involving itself when a Federal issue was in question and that really is the heart of the entire matter. While you may or may not agree with the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, it is at least arguable that the Florida Supreme Court violated both Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and Title 3, Section 5 of the U.S.C. as was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court today. She correctly pointed out that this was a potential issue and you dismissed her as an idiot, and that wasn't fair. She also made a very subtle point about federal law pre-empting state law and I think we'd both agree that this is a fairly crucial issue in a number of these court cases in Florida. So she did make some good points even if she didn't articulate them up to your standards.

[MadameX]

Gentlemen,
Please let me clarify the times of the closing of the polls and the calling of the
state for Gore. I believe the polls closed at 7pm. If it was 8pm, I stand correted. However, I do think it was 7 because 7 in the majority of the state is 6 in the panhandle. And I heard the same reports of people having left work and heading to the polls when they heard on the radio that Gore had won. If they were heading to the polls at 8pm, it would have been 9 here on the east coast, long after the call on TV. But I bow to Mark's tape in definitively stating the correct time.

Jeff, you stated: "She went on the say the USSC voted in favor of Bush, which is also not true." If you will check my post you will find that I said: "The democratic judge in Leon just ruled yesterday in favor of the Bush petition."
NOT, that Bush won in the USSC as you assert.

Mark, your knowledge of the Constitution and its specifics relating to this fascinating issue is quite impressive! And I thank you for your supportive comments. I was getting a bit discouraged that no one was trying to achieve any intellectual honesty on this most contentious matter! I am glad you returned to the forum -i am rejuvenated!

[zippy]

I believe Jeff is mistaken and MadameX and Mark are right about Florida having been called by the networks prior to the polls closing in the panhandle.

A few points about this, however, because there seem to be a lot of misconceptions bouncing around.

1. (Minor point.) Though some have charged that the networks violated their own policies by calling Florida early, this is not true. I happened to be watching CNN for much of that night, and they stated that their policy in the case of a state with staggered poll closing times is to hold off making any calls until the polls have closed in at least 75% of a state. That criterion was fulfilled by the time they called Florida. I believe the other networks have similar policies.

2. Any network rules concerning exit polls and delaying the announcement of election results is purely voluntary and self-imposed. They are under zero obligation to hold off making such projections. Politicians have pressured them about this in the past, but let’s hope they’re just bluffing, since it would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment to ever impose any such restrictions.

When a network calls a state like that, they are simply taking an educated guess based on the evidence available to them at the time. If you or I or the man in the moon wants to say, “Based on my talking to people coming out of polling places today, I predict Gore will win Florida,” we have every right to do so, and so do the media.

It carries no legal weight of course. They can’t “declare” Florida for Gore or Bush in the same way that a jury can declare you guilty or a justice of the peace can declare you husband and wife, but they’re free to predict whatever they please.

By the way, I think it’s dumb that they do so. Predicting outcomes as early as they do is rather like a skilled meteorologist predicting the weather: they’re right a lot more often than they’re wrong, but they’re still wrong quite a lot.

In fact, I frankly wish they’d approach it more like the meteorologist. If they must make very fallible predictions, present them as precisely that. Instead of “CNN is declaring Al Gore the winner in Florida!” what’s wrong with, “CNN has been able to obtain early data from precincts that have closed in Florida as well as exit polling in that state. This limited evidence indicates that Al Gore is significantly more likely than George W. Bush to win that state”?

If you’re not sure about something, say you’re not sure. If you think something is extremely likely, say it is extremely likely. If you think something is somewhat likely, say it is somewhat likely. Etc.

I guess the networks are so simple-minded, and take their audience to be so simple-minded, that they can’t handle communicating something more complicated or uncertain than “Gore wins!” or “Bush wins!”

But in any case, whatever I might think of the (lack of) wisdom of their present policies about projecting election results, they, and we, still have a First Amendment right to make any such prediction they please.

3. The early call for Gore in Florida should not be categorized with the other election controversies, as Markdel does when he compares it to the butterfly ballot dispute.

The crucial disanalogy is that the networks are not state agents. If you choose not to vote based on a prediction some private party made about the election, that’s on you. You have not thereby been deprived of your right to vote.

On the other hand, some of the other controversies involve precisely allegations of improper state action that could potentially have altered the outcome of the election. These include the disputes about whether some ballots were too confusingly designed; people who sought help at polling places concerning such confusion found that no one was willing or able to answer their questions; military personnel had their votes thrown out for flaws that did not rise to the level to warrant such action; African Americans were intimidated into not voting in certain areas; boxes of votes were mysteriously lost and then found again with suspiciously high Gore vote totals; election officials allowed Republican party functionaries to alter absentee ballot applications in violation of the law governing such matters; etc.

I’m not taking a stand on any of these claims. Perhaps some have no validity. Perhaps others have some validity, but unfortunately cannot realistically be addressed retroactively, and we’ll just have to change some things between now and the next election to lessen the chances of them happening again. Perhaps still others are so significant that they warrant seeking to impose some form of remedy for this election itself, as well as trying to improve for next time.

But in any case, the actions of the networks in predicting the election results prematurely in no way, shape or form fit into the same category as actions the state did or did not do to enable people to fulfill their right to vote. They should not be cited to somehow “balance out” alleged irregularities that might have inappropriately helped Mr. Bush.

[Jeff K]

Zippy... I actually said they called Florida 1/2 hour before the polls closed in the panhandle. I'll correct that to 45 min. Other than that, nice post.

P.S. This thread is getting too long. There's another started with the same heading.

[zippy]

You're right, Jeff. I should have reread the early portion of the thread more closely. At most, you were only mistaken about the timing of the call by a few minutes. My apologies.