Gore Finally Lost The Never Ending Florida Election Recount Cartoongreenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread
-- Ain't Gonna Happen (Not Here Not@ever.com), February 27, 2001
-- Cherri (email@example.com), February 27, 2001.
-- Cherri (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 27, 2001.
Thanks, at first glance I thought maybe your graph was from a biased source (www.gorewonflorida.org), but I guess that organization is would'nt lie, huh??!!! ha ha ha ha ha ha
-- unbiased reporting (email@example.com), February 27, 2001.
The news media is jumping the gun...AGAIN!
"The latest bizarre example of the news media's compulsive rush to judgment has come in the handling of a Miami Herald/USA Today report about an unofficial tally of Miami-Dade "undervotes," ballots that were rejected by counting machines as registering no choice for president.
The latest facts were these: After examining Miami-Dade's 10,646 undervotes -- out of about 60,000 statewide -- this unofficial tally found Gore closing to within about 140 votes of Bush. In other words with nearly 50,000 undervotes still to be examined, only about 140 votes separated the two candidates.
Those who have been following the work of other Florida news organizations in other counties also would know that hundreds of uncounted votes clearly intended for Gore or Bush had been discovered over the past two months, both in "undervotes" and in "overvotes" in which voters had marked their ballot for a candidate and then written in the candidate's name.
From these other unofficial tallies, Gore had made surprising net gains in some counties that had favored Bush overall. By somecounts, Gore even had pulled ahead of Bush, though clearly the outcome of these unofficial tallies remained in doubt.
Once all the counting was over, it seemed plausible that either Bush might hold on to a narrow lead or that Gore might inch ahead.
Either result, of course, would not change the fact that Bush had been awarded Florida’s 25 electoral votes and had become the first national popular-vote loser in more than a century to claim the White House.
The unofficial newspaper tallies were intended only as an historical marker. So why the rush? Wouldn’t it make sense to wait until the statewide tallies were complete so as not to sow any more confusion and distrust? At minimum, wouldn’t it be reasonable to make clear how limited any new partial tally was?
That apparently is not how the American news media works anymore. The big-name news organizations seemed to have learned nothing from Election Night.
"Rather than cautious, balanced stories about the limits of the new Miami-Dade tabulation, the news media rushed to declare Bush the legitimate winner in Florida and thus of the presidency.
By Monday evening on television, the limited findings of the Miami Herald had been transformed into the final word that Bush really did win the election. Without doubt, millions of Americans who still have faith in the national news media will go away with that impression." (mindless sheeple!)
So howzabout you rabid Bush-whackers "simmah down" until the FINAL count is in, okay?
-- Don't (Celebrate@Yet.com), February 27, 2001.
Now, if someone were to produce a graph showing Bush leading, taken from a site called BushwonFla.org and based on information provided by Republicans.com, do you think Cherri would suspect bias? Nah, Cherri is intelligent and can see through nonsense like that, can't she?
As for any "final" count, who are you kidding? Tell me who counted, and I'll tell you who won that count. And when the "final" count produced by the NY Times, Washington Post, and CNN disagrees with the "final" count done by the Wall Street Journal, National Review, and Fox news, which one are you going to believe? Will you be as sensitive to objectivity as Cherri? Will you?
Meanwhile, ignoring such details, the fact remains that top-story headlines all across the nation said "Bush won recount" as plain as can be. How many are really going to care if some losers are still wailing come May? The election is over and Bush is president. Now we have a national story saying that he actually won the votes as well. What's left but sour grapes?
-- Flint (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 27, 2001.
What's left but sour grapes?
What's left? Well, in your world, it surely isn't the Truth! You speak of "objectivity" yet you're willing to come to a conclusion before all the data is in. Not very scientific of you, old chap. Or is that your bias showing?
-- Gribaldi (Gribaldi@yahoo.com), February 28, 2001.
Before you can speak of "all the data", you absolutely MUST select WHOSE data you are talking about. Let's look at the current, hard numbers -- that is, the data *already* in. OK?
Now, the editor of the Miama Herald says Bush currently LEADS (and also says Bush is projected to win when the "final count" is complete). However, Cherri has posted that graph showing Gore currently leading by over 600 votes! Cherri's information is provided by "democrats.com" to an outfit called gorewonflorida.org!
Now, which one of these CURRENT counts is correct? Remember, these are presumably HARD DATA, these are NOT projections. They disagree by a remarkably wide margin. Which one is "real"? Don't you get the feeling that maybe these counts might be based on different standards, so that they generated different results? Didn't the US Supreme Court tell us that when different standards are used, the result can be different winners? Isn't it noteworthy that the standards used by "democrats.com" just happen to favor the democrat? Doesn't this make you even a little bit suspicious? If a count published by BushWonFlorida.org, based on data from "republicans.com" found Bush leading, wouldn't you ALSO be a bit suspicious?
Now, MY projection is that we will eventually come up with MULTIPLE "final" counts. And that the same candidate will NOT come out ahead in all of them -- Gore will win at least one, and Bush will win at least one. That's one of the conclusions I came to, and it is based on discrepancies between current counts. Who wins depends on who counts, as I have been saying since November. When the number of legitimately disputable ballots exceeds the margin of victory, the election *cannot be determined* by examining ballots.
The other conclusion I came to was that this week's headline story, *however premature it may be*, will influence public perception of these several recount projects. The American public has been told that "Bush won the full recount", whether this is true or not. I agree that later on, we will have several more "full recounts". But any subsequent "final count" that has Gore winning will persuade only those who wouldn't accept any other answer in any case no matter what. And *those* people are just sore losers.
-- Flint (email@example.com), February 28, 2001.