When will Bush's approval ratings be above 50 again?

[J. J.]

Well, the newspapers did examine the ballots and determined Bush won.  Now, if count votes there illegal, or through out some legal votes, you get a Gore victory.

Basically, the perennial "Bush bashers" will never be satisfied because they can't get over it.

WTF? Plenty of illegal absentee votes were counted for Bush while plenty of legal votes were never counted.  One member of the military admitted he sent in his postmarkless ballot Nov. 8th for Bush, after he heard how close the election was. It was counted. There were other absentee ballots that were modified after they were recieved.

Would you care to provide a link for this, or explain the where the other 500+ votes came from?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, the newspapers did examine the ballots and determined Bush won.  Now, if count votes there illegal, or through out some legal votes, you get a Gore victory.

Basically, the perennial "Bush bashers" will never be satisfied because they can't get over it.

WTF? Plenty of illegal absentee votes were counted for Bush while plenty of legal votes were never counted.  One member of the military admitted he sent in his postmarkless ballot Nov. 8th for Bush, after he heard how close the election was. It was counted. There were other absentee ballots that were modified after they were recieved.

Would you care to provide a link for this, or explain the where the other 500+ votes came from?

OK, I was wrong, it was 6 days, not 1 day after the election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.law.ufl.edu/faculty/publications/pdf/mazur3.pdf

Appearantly not only did they count illegal absentee military votes without a postmark, they even counted ones postmarked after election day! There was also the other controversy, which involved the modification of non military Republican absentee ballots after they were receieved.

Al Gore contested none of these illegal absentee votes, so as to not hurt his "count every vote" message. That didn't stop plenty of legal votes from never being counted.

[Boris]

Jfern - There is no proof that Al Gore ever won Florida popular vote in 2000. There's common sense and gut instinct, but there is no solid proof. And I'm sorry; you do not hand Al Gore the presidency in 2000 if you think that Gore won, but cannot actually prove it.  George W. Bush did not try to "steal the election;" he merely exploited the screw-ups of a lot of people, from the Florida poll workers, to idiotic voters, to the VNS. After those screw-ups, he came in front with 537 votes. He could've won if everyone did their part correctly. He could've lost. There is no solid evidence to indicate either way. Based upon the evidence presented, the Supreme Court was correct in their decision. I do not like their decision anymore than you do, but let's face it, accept it, and move on.

Vlad - you really need to post better links relating to 2000. Your site seems okay at first glance, but loses all credibility when he says that the VNS screw-up was part of a conspiracy that would allow Gore to take Florida (wtf?). Posting actual documents from the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case and reports done by the Florida Secretary of State/Election offices would give your anti-Gore rants far more credibility.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Jfern - There is no proof that Al Gore ever won Florida popular vote in 2000. There's common sense and gut instinct, but there is no solid proof. And I'm sorry; you do not hand Al Gore the presidency in 2000 if you think that Gore won, but cannot actually prove it.  George W. Bush did not try to "steal the election;" he merely exploited the screw-ups of a lot of people, from the Florida poll workers, to idiotic voters, to the VNS. After those screw-ups, he came in front with 537 votes. He could've won if everyone did their part correctly. He could've lost. There is no solid evidence to indicate either way. Based upon the evidence presented, the Supreme Court was correct in their decision. I do not like their decision anymore than you do, but let's face it, accept it, and move on.

Vlad - you really need to post better links relating to 2000. Your site seems okay at first glance, but loses all credibility when he says that the VNS screw-up was part of a conspiracy that would allow Gore to take Florida (wtf?). Posting actual documents from the Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case and reports done by the Florida Secretary of State/Election offices would give your anti-Gore rants far more credibility.

Even ignoring all the other factors of bad ballot design, scrub list, and illegal absentee ballots. If the standard had been

1. If a statewide recount were conducted of all the disqualifed ballots counting dimpled punch-card votes if there were dimples on the rest of the ballot. This standard was used in Palm Beach County at some points during their hand recounts.  GORE WINS BY 42 VOTES

2. f a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots was undertaken using the standards each county’s election officials have said they would use in a recount. GORE WINS BY 171 VOTES

And there are numerous other ways that Gore would have won despite illegal military and non-military ballots being counted, all his overvotes, the scrub list, the butterfly ballot, the Duval 2 page ballot, each of which would have made the difference by itself.

Need I remind you that the margin when the recount ended was much closer than 537 votes?

Despite the media's bias in favor of Bush, there was a poll in 2002.
1. If the election was held today, who would you vote for: Bush or Gore. Bush won by 2 points
2. Who won the 2000 election? Bush won by 2 points.

[J. J.]

OK, I was wrong, it was 6 days, not 1 day after the election.

According to the source, ballots can be receive ten days after the election.  Likewise, the margin was by more than one vote; this sounds suspiciously like CARLHAYDEN on Washington.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As usual, Gore's actions and words don't match; he never asked for a full recount.  He wanted to cherry pick.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

OK, I was wrong, it was 6 days, not 1 day after the election.

According to the source, ballots can be receive ten days after the election.  Likewise, the margin was by more than one vote; this sounds suspiciously like CARLHAYDEN on Washington.

The vote was  CAST AND MAILED SIX DAYS AFTER THE ELECTION!!!!! What part of that don't you understand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As usual, Gore's actions and words don't match; he never asked for a full recount.  He wanted to cherry pick.
[/quote]

I'm not sure if that was because of some sort of law or what, but what is most relevant here is that the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount.

[TomC]

When the Nasdaq hits 3000.

[J. J.]

OK, I was wrong, it was 6 days, not 1 day after the election.

According to the source, ballots can be receive ten days after the election.  Likewise, the margin was by more than one vote; this sounds suspiciously like CARLHAYDEN on Washington.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

537 minus one equals 536.  What part don't you understand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's very relevant, because Gore could have petitioned for a statewide recount immediately after the results were certified.  Instead, he delayed certification and attempted to litigate his way to the White House by disenfranchising the entire state of Florida.  He did everything in his power to delay the final certification.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There was a statewide recount going on until SCOTUS ended it on Dec. 9th, 3 days before the non-binding deadline of Dec. 12th. Need I remind you that JFK was awarded Hawaii's electoral votes in 1961, and that the 1876 election controversy didn't end until March 1877? It's more important to have an accurate vote count than a fast vote count.

The illegal absentee ballots involved far more than just 1 vote.

[jokerman]

Vlad, lets cut the sh**t with the Gore debate.  Posting a graphic reading "sore loserman" is not a valid rebuttle.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Vlad, lets cut the sh**t with the Gore debate.  Posting a graphic reading "sore loserman" is not a valid rebuttle.

since when?

[adam]

Vlad, lets cut the sh**t with the Gore debate.  Posting a graphic reading "sore loserman" is not a valid rebuttle.

I also posted a link. Yes It's true that some of its content is questionable but it gets the point across. The point that a screwed up ballot is invalid, regardless of who it's cast for...it's not a sufficient vote. To say that "86,000 dimpled chads weren' counted" is correct, but it was because they were dimpled chads - not Gore votes. It also pointed out that Gore didn't challenge the high amount of discarded ballots in red counties because then his attempt to steal Florida may have been harmed by doing so. Another great point it makes is that under Florida state law, tabulation machines are used to recount votes and only under very extreme circumstances are manual recounts done. No candidate is entitled to manual recounts as Gore seemed to think he was.

[J. J.]

On the absentee ballot, you've cited one example; CARLHAYDEN at least had 2 or 3.

There was a statewide recount going on until SCOTUS ended it on Dec. 9th, 3 days before the non-binding deadline of Dec. 12th. Need I remind you that JFK was awarded Hawaii's electoral votes in 1961, and that the 1876 election controversy didn't end until March 1877? It's more important to have an accurate vote count than a fast vote count.

The decision was handed down on 12/12/2000, on day before the deadline.

The most important thing was that the voters for president be counted; those are the electors.  The 1877 election was conducted prior to the safe harbor statute (that law was introduced as a result of the 1876 election); also, the term started nearly two months later than now. 

Further, Kennedy had a majority of the electors whether or not the HA electors were ever counted; Kennedy had more than half of the total number of possible electoral votes, without HA.  That was not the case with Gore.

Gore's basic plan was to prevent Florida for casting any electoral votes that were not for him.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On the absentee ballot, you've cited one example; CARLHAYDEN at least had 2 or 3.

One example of what? The thing I linked to mentioned that many ballots were counted that had a post-mark after election day, in addition to all of the illegal ballots with no postmark. In addition, there are the illegal non-military ballots. No, this is THOUSANDS of ballots.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The decision was handed down on 12/12/2000, on day before the deadline.
[/quote]
The SCOTUS stopped the recount on Dec. 9th.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about 1961?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I see, the Republican gets the electors in the case that the Republcian getting the electors causes the Democrat to get a minority of the electoral votes. That logic makes perfect sense. Of course it didn't matter that without Florida Gore had more electoral votes than Bush.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Gore's basic plan was to count every vote.


If the situation was reversed, I'd be pissed as hell at Gore. You pathetic partisan hacks disgust me. You are more interesting in stealing an election than letting democracy prevail. And then you have audacity to claim that elections in other countries are stolen.

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

The thing is most liberals hate Bush because of what he's done in office, and the marine refuge thing is not enough to make up for it. Most liberals will never approve of Bush, simply because he's Bush really.

[J. J.]

On the absentee ballot, you've cited one example; CARLHAYDEN at least had 2 or 3.

One example of what? The thing I linked to mentioned that many ballots were counted that had a post-mark after election day, in addition to all of the illegal ballots with no postmark. In addition, there are the illegal non-military ballots. No, this is THOUSANDS of ballots.

You've shown one case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

The decision was handed down on 12/12/2000, on day before the deadline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They did not make the decision until the 13th.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now you are having a problem with simple math.  HI had three electoral votes, of that year's total of 537 (AL and HI were just added; DC didn't have any); a majority of the total possible electoral votes was 269 (in whole numbers).  Kennedy had 303, with HI.  Even if these were not counted, JFK still had more than a majority.

JFK's situation did not affect the result.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He never once went into court to even request it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe I've ever claimed that an election in another country was "stolen," or at least posted anything about this.

I will that, in the absolute spirit of total partisanship(that's sarcasm), that I have strongly stated Christine Gregoire (Democrat) was legitimately elected governor of WA, in exceptionally similar circumstances, and a lower raw vote total.

Frankly, had Gore gone to court, and wanted a legitimate recount of the entire state, immediately after the certification (which was delayed by an automatic recount), and it was a count of legitimate votes, I would have supported it.  Gore said he wanted to count every vote, but he lied.

Interestingly, the people of Florida, not only voted again for George W. Bush, but re-elected Jeb Bush.

[Emsworth]

Need I remind you that JFK was awarded Hawaii's electoral votes in 1961, and that the 1876 election controversy didn't end until March 1877?

Need I remind you that the 1876 election is irrelevant? The Electoral Count Act, which set the "safe harbor" date, was passed after 1876, not before. I do not see how you can compare the two elections, when the laws that applied were different.

Need I also remind you that the 1960 election is irrelevant? The recount was ended early because Florida law--not federal law--required it to end on a particular date. As you may or may not know, different states sometimes have different laws. Hawaii's election laws are probably not identical to Florida's. Again, therefore, the comparison is invalid.

[Frodo]

Another possibility: if Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress, and start launching impeachment proceedings against President Bush. 

[Sarnstrom]

I'm beginning to think: NEVER

[Nym90]

Another possibility: if Democrats take control of one or both houses of Congress, and start launching impeachment proceedings against President Bush. 

If it is for some trumped up charges or for something that has little to nothing to do with anything of significance to the country, I'd definitely agree.

I don't think it's right to say definitively that Bush would become popular if proceedings were started, however. Nixon's popularity sure didn't go up when things started going against him.

[adam]

When will his approval ratings be over 50? Well, I'm sure hell will freeze over eventually.

[MaC]

He's at 47% currently.  Given the ME he very well might be over 50%

I'll say possible, but not likely.  A grace period after elections (if the Republicans do well) might be the best chance of it.

[Joe Biden 2020]

January 21, 2009

[© tweed]

Probably in the interval between the 2008 election and 01/20/09.  Presidents usually get a bounce in this period; Clinton went up to the mid/high sixties in this time frame and Bush41 even got over 50%.

[All aboard the Carney-val]

Never.