Democrats vs. Republicans-Florida 2000

[J.R. Brown]

Why are there still some democrats out there that just can't let go of 2000? I mean, its been nearly 5 years since we lost. I guess at the time I was only 14 and didn't really care one way or the other, but seriously, it's over. And since I'm asking the Dems that question, I have ot ask the Republicans, Why do you feed into it? Just ignore it. Don't get so defensive when the issue of Florida is brought up. Most of the time we're just trying to piss you off, and aren't sincere in what we are saying about the Recount. I hope I'm correct when saying that most dem's have gotten over Florida. And Republicans, Gore won. JK.



Hail to the Chief!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Bush had won the election, and Gore had taken office, sh**t would have hit the fan. There are some serious double standards going on. Look at the Republicans whining about the Washington governor race that was certified by a Republican.

[Rob]

If Bush had won the election, and Gore had taken office, sh**t would have hit the fan. There are some serious double standards going on. Look at the Republicans whining about the Washington governor race that was certified by a Republican.

It's because the Democrats are such pussies, and they let the GOP dominate them. Maybe if they actually fought for what they believe (SHOCKER!), they would actually win elections.

[Moooooo]

It's because the Democrats are such pussies, and they let the GOP dominate them. Maybe if they actually fought for what they believe (SHOCKER!), they would actually win elections.

Agreed.  Democrats back down to much.  Back down isnt even in the Republican vocabulary.

[dazzleman]

The problem is not that the Democrats backed down in Florida.  The problem is that the Gore campaign went about the whole thing in the wrong way.

Given the closeness of the election, there should have been a bipartisan-supervised recount of the full state, and both campaigns should have agreed in advance to abide by the results without further legal action.  All the rules on counting should have been agreed to in advance, like the dimpled versus hanging chads, etc.

Instead, Gore played the little girl, running to the courts for recounts only in heavily Democratic counties.  Right then and there, it was obvious that he didn't want a fair count, but was simply mining for enough votes to put him over.

Gore's campaign made strategic errors early on that doomed him later.  And as it turns out from hand recounts that were done later under several methodologies, Bush won the state in any case.

Gore also erred in aligning himself with Jesse Jackson and his false charges of racial intimidation, etc.  Democrats love to trot out that old donkey whenever things don't go the way they want.  Many heavily Democratic districts don't even have Republican poll watchers, and the whole Palm Beach County f'up with the butterfly ballot was designed by the Democrats.  It's typical of the Democrat mantra of always blaming other people when things don't work out the way they want.

It was actually uncharacteristic of Bush to refuse to back down, as Nixon had done in 1960 in the face of massive fraud in Illinois and Texas.

If you expect the Democrats to fight, they better figure out something positive that they're fighting for.  This has yet to emerge.

[Nym90]

Regarding 1960, is there a realistic chance that Texas was stolen? The margin for Kennedy in Texas was about the same (in percentage terms) as Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004. Seems to me that Republican sour grapes about 1960 makes as much sense as Democrats claiming that 2004 was stolen.

Nixon needed Texas as well as Illinois to win, remember (some people claim that Mayor Daley stole the entire election for Kennedy; clearly not true, as Kennedy would have still won even if Illinois went for Nixon).

I agree that there should have been a full manual recount of the entire state. It's important to remember, however, that Bush opposed this. My guess is that Gore thought that since Bush was opposing a full recount, due in large part to the argument that it would be too expensive and too time-consuming, he thought maybe suggesting a smaller recount would be a good idea. Of course, the fact that he picked Democratic counties to count probably isn't just a coincidence, but still, it's important to remember that Bush opposed a full manual count, and it would have been hard for Gore to get one.

[Rob]

Regarding 1960, is there a realistic chance that Texas was stolen? The margin for Kennedy in Texas was about the same (in percentage terms) as Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004. Seems to me that Republican sour grapes about 1960 makes as much sense as Democrats claiming that 2004 was stolen.

No. The margin was narrow but historians have agreed that it was solid, unlike the questionable Illinois vote.

[Ebowed]

Agreed.  Texas definitely wasn't stolen.  For the last two days of the campaign, Georgia Senator Richard Russell actively campaigned with Lyndon Johnson to put Texas in the bag for Kennedy.  Now Illinois is questionable, however.

[12th Doctor]

Regarding 1960, is there a realistic chance that Texas was stolen? The margin for Kennedy in Texas was about the same (in percentage terms) as Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004. Seems to me that Republican sour grapes about 1960 makes as much sense as Democrats claiming that 2004 was stolen.

Nixon needed Texas as well as Illinois to win, remember (some people claim that Mayor Daley stole the entire election for Kennedy; clearly not true, as Kennedy would have still won even if Illinois went for Nixon).

I agree that there should have been a full manual recount of the entire state. It's important to remember, however, that Bush opposed this. My guess is that Gore thought that since Bush was opposing a full recount, due in large part to the argument that it would be too expensive and too time-consuming, he thought maybe suggesting a smaller recount would be a good idea. Of course, the fact that he picked Democratic counties to count probably isn't just a coincidence, but still, it's important to remember that Bush opposed a full manual count, and it would have been hard for Gore to get one.

During Johnson's first run for the Senate, he was expected to get trounced by his primary opponent.  He gained a lot of votes through his campaign style, but it is nearly impossible for him to have won without massive, wide-spread cheating... massive.  Probably enough to shift the vote 7%-10%!  Those same people ran the Kennedy campaign in Texas in 1960 and turnout patterns were, uhhh... abnormal, to say the least.

[Ebowed]

Regarding 1960, is there a realistic chance that Texas was stolen? The margin for Kennedy in Texas was about the same (in percentage terms) as Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004. Seems to me that Republican sour grapes about 1960 makes as much sense as Democrats claiming that 2004 was stolen.

Nixon needed Texas as well as Illinois to win, remember (some people claim that Mayor Daley stole the entire election for Kennedy; clearly not true, as Kennedy would have still won even if Illinois went for Nixon).

I agree that there should have been a full manual recount of the entire state. It's important to remember, however, that Bush opposed this. My guess is that Gore thought that since Bush was opposing a full recount, due in large part to the argument that it would be too expensive and too time-consuming, he thought maybe suggesting a smaller recount would be a good idea. Of course, the fact that he picked Democratic counties to count probably isn't just a coincidence, but still, it's important to remember that Bush opposed a full manual count, and it would have been hard for Gore to get one.

During Johnson's first run for the Senate, he was expected to get trounced by his primary opponent.  He gained a lot of votes through his campaign style, but it is nearly impossible for him to have won without massive, wide-spread cheating... massive.  Probably enough to shift the vote 7%-10%!  Those same people ran the Kennedy campaign in Texas in 1960 and turnout patterns were, uhhh... abnormal, to say the least.

Johnson's win in a 1941 ('42?) Democratic primary was stolen, and consequently he made sure that his Senate seat would not be stolen again.  I agree his 1948 win in the Democratic primary was stolen, but his future re-elections to the Senate from Texas were massive, and I doubt that the Texas results in the 1960 election were stolen, unless someone has any information that would lead me to conclude otherwise.

[zorkpolitics]

Regarding 1960, is there a realistic chance that Texas was stolen? The margin for Kennedy in Texas was about the same (in percentage terms) as Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004. Seems to me that Republican sour grapes about 1960 makes as much sense as Democrats claiming that 2004 was stolen.

No. The margin was narrow but historians have agreed that it was solid, unlike the questionable Illinois vote.

I think there remains a lot of doubt about 1960.  In many states Democratic party machines totally controlled the ballot counting and local judges in the cities.  Besides generating 9000 votes in Chicago to give IL to Kennedy, 10,000 in St. Louis and Kansas City might have given him MO, 17,000 in Philadelphia and Pittsburg might have given him PA, 22,000 in Hudson County might have given him NJ.  We'll never know.

[MaC]

chances are it wouldn't have made a lick of difference which of them got elected.  I was afraid in 2000, if Gore won we'd have more censorship, more gun control, more cover-ups and less freedom (in general).  And what did we get with Bush?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Regarding 1960, is there a realistic chance that Texas was stolen? The margin for Kennedy in Texas was about the same (in percentage terms) as Bush's margin in Ohio in 2004. Seems to me that Republican sour grapes about 1960 makes as much sense as Democrats claiming that 2004 was stolen.

Nixon needed Texas as well as Illinois to win, remember (some people claim that Mayor Daley stole the entire election for Kennedy; clearly not true, as Kennedy would have still won even if Illinois went for Nixon).

I agree that there should have been a full manual recount of the entire state. It's important to remember, however, that Bush opposed this. My guess is that Gore thought that since Bush was opposing a full recount, due in large part to the argument that it would be too expensive and too time-consuming, he thought maybe suggesting a smaller recount would be a good idea. Of course, the fact that he picked Democratic counties to count probably isn't just a coincidence, but still, it's important to remember that Bush opposed a full manual count, and it would have been hard for Gore to get one.

Appearantly the fraud in Southern Illinois probably canceled out the Chicago fraud anyways.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Not every close election seems to have allegations of fraud.
What about

1884: Cleveland wins critival state of New York (his home state) by 1,047 votes
1916: Wilson wins critical state of California by 3,773 votes

[MissCatholic]

I think its because the country would be so much different.