O'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did

[wacki]

Prof. KRUGMAN: Here we are. Published by AP in November 2001, the National Opinion Research group, they looked at statewide counts under six standards, prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard, and under every one of those Gore won.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Look, if you want to think that, fine.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Hey, guys ...(unintelligible), Russerts...

Mr. O'REILLY: All right? Now I'll--hold it, hold it, hold it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...you can check this out.

Mr. O'REILLY: You can check this out.

Prof. KRUGMAN: You can get--do it by Google.

RUSSERT: But Moore has said every...

Mr. O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I gotta get this in.

RUSSERT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just...

Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read.

Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.

Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Not true. I mean, again, folks, this is the modern world. You can go check it.

I remember these statements from the show, and found them in a transcript.
So, I did a google, and this is what I found.

CNN Article (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/)

"The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month.
Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore. "
-QUOTE FROM CNN ARTICLE


Transcript -May not be a good source, but best I could find. (http://pkarchive.org/economy/TimRussert080704.html)

Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct? I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the news business is that dumb. Maybe they are bickering over Semantics and fine line details of the discussion, but Oreilly was right about those 4 saying Bush won.

[Utah]

I did the same. Krugman is dead wrong.

Also, I looked for the national opinion research group and I cannot find it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Your search - "National Opinion Research Group" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search.

[/ QUOTE ]

You weren't kidding.

[TenPercenter]

I did the same think hehe. /images/graemlins/smile.gif First search results, in fact the first nine words: "CNN.com In-Depth Specials... Florida recount study: Bush still wins."

Ten

[Please, no one bother correcting me on that not really being nine words. I know how even a misplaced apostrophe can drive people here crazy.]

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on. I would expect you - a poker player - would recognize a bluff when he sees one. It's not a matter of being dumb, as you suggested. He made his point very strongly, knowing that 49 out of 50 viewers will never do the search. They are, therefore, convinced by his insistence, and will never know the facts didn't back him up. Well played.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on. I would expect you - a poker player - would recognize a bluff when he sees one. It's not a matter of being dumb, as you suggested. He made his point very strongly, knowing that 49 out of 50 viewers will never do the search. They are, therefore, convinced by his insistence, and will never know the facts didn't back him up. Well played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about it being a well played move, but my opinion of the New York times has just gone down one more notch.... again. They are supposed to be reporters (commentator in O'reilly's case) working at esteemed news outlets. In poker you expect people to trick you, it's part of the game. In fact, simply by sitting down at the table you are asking someone to try their best to do so.

I don't like the thought of reporters (I use plural because this isn't the first case) that work for the New York Times, or anywhere else in the media "Elite", misleading, let alone flat out lying to us. I like to think humans are better than that. After all, they are supposed to be our "Elite".

[riverflush]

O'Reilly/Krugman take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200408090930.asp

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
O'Reilly/Krugman take:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200408090930.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, thank you very much. Very good article. Sourced and linked just like every paper should be. I just added Donald Luskin to my list of good reporters.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about it being a well played move... I don't like the thought of reporters (I use plural because this isn't the first case) that work for the New York Times, or anywhere else in the media "Elite", misleading, let alone flat out lying to us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let me clarify. I mean "well played," in that he accomplished what he wanted to, despite the facts being against him.

As an American citizen, and as someone who would like to be able to trust the mainstream media sources, it is upsetting and disturbing. I hope O'reilly (or anyone) exposes to the masses those who do this kind of thing.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
As an American citizen, and as someone who would like to be able to trust the mainstream media sources, it is upsetting and disturbing. I hope O'reilly (or anyone) exposes to the masses those who do this kind of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

O'reilly tends to do a decent job of this. He could be better, but he's not bad. Also, Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard is a very good analyst. He's not exactly what I would consider a hard news reporter, but an analyst. He mainly shows well known news, and then clarifies and points out certain things that you probably missed. He's very good at it.

[nicky g]

" did the same think hehe. First search results, in fact the first nine words: "CNN.com In-Depth Specials... Florida recount study: Bush still wins." "

From the story you mention:

"Use of Palm Beach County standard

Out of Palm Beach County emerged one of the least restrictive standards for determining a valid punch-card ballot. The county elections board determined that a chad hanging by up to two corners was valid and that a dimple or a chad detached in only one corner could also count if there were similar marks in other races on the same ballot. If that standard had been adopted statewide, the study shows a slim, 42-vote margin for Gore . "

"Inclusion of overvotes

In addition to undervotes, thousands of ballots in the Florida presidential election were invalidated because they had too many marks. This happened, for example, when a voter correctly marked a candidate and also wrote in that candidate's name. The consortium looked at what might have happened if a statewide recount had included these overvotes as well and found that Gore would have had a margin of fewer than 200 votes. "


Several Florida electoral officials said that overvotes would have been counted in a state recount. Flordia law stipulates that all votes where voter intent can be dicerned must be counted - and overvotes where the candidate ticked a box and wrote in the same candidate's name clearly fit that bill. Furthermore, the US Supreme court said a count that included undervotes but not overvotes would have been unconstituional. If there had have been a statewide recount that included overvotes, which it probably would and certainly should have, Gore would have won. Krugman was wrong to say that under all scenarios Gore won. But under the fairest and legally-demanded one, he would have.

Florida recount study: Bush still wins (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html)

[nicky g]

"also, I looked for the national opinion research group and I cannot find it."

He misspoke. It's the The National Opinion Research Center (NORC).

[nicky g]

"They are supposed to be reporters (commentator in O'reilly's case) working at esteemed news outlets. "

Krugman isn;t a reporter, he's a columnist.

[Chris Alger]

As everyone should know, the data reveiwed by NORC indicated that the intent of Forida voters under a host of standards indicated a Gore victory. The only basis for the claim that "Bush would have won," which garnered most of the mainstream headlines, was under the narrow scenario unsuccessfully advocated by Gore's legal team. This analysis, however, failed to account for the valid but ignored "overvotes" that Gore's people didn't know about. Had they won, these overvotes might well have been counted (according to the official who would have made the decision).

The result? Gore would have won under that scenario also. So the big papers (and the CNN article you found) got it wrong, a fact uneartehd by more diligent reporting by the Orlando Sentinal, which Slate (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058603) later picked up on.

As for Krugman's claim, it is correct and O'Reilly, as usual, is shown in this transcript trying to cut him off after accusing him of lying. Small wonder that polls show that Fox news viewers are abysmally ignorant of the simplist facts about politics.[1]

Here's what Krugman said: "Published by AP in November 2001, the National Opinion Research group, they looked at statewide counts under six standards, prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard, and under every one of those Gore won."

The only thing incorrect about this is that he called NORC the "National Opinion Research Group" instead of the National Opinion Research Center.

Here are the standards considered by the study (in addition to those proposed by Gore’s lawyers) and their results. Six standards, six Gore victories. Sounds like Krugman's been vindicated.

1. PREVAILING STANDARD: County election officials told Florida journalists how they would define votes if required to do a recount and in this scenario the majority standard was imposed statewide. A notable element of this standard was that, in punch-card counties, ballots with at least one corner of a chad detached counted as votes.

Result: Gore ahead by 60 votes.

2. TWO-CORNER STANDARD: At least two corners of a chad must be detached to count as a vote, a position that had been argued, at times, by Bush supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 105 votes.

3. MOST INCLUSIVE: Ballots with dimpled chads count as votes, an argument often made by Gore supporters. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 107 votes.

4. LEAST INCLUSIVE: Only cleanly punched chads count as valid votes. For optical scan, only fully filled ovals and those ballots on which a voter filled in the oval and wrote in the candidate's name, too.

Result: Gore ahead by 115 votes.

5. COUNTY-by-COUNTY: Drawn from the county election officials. It accepts results from Broward and Volusia counties because those counties completed hand counts that were included in state-certified election totals. For those counties that said they would not count overvotes, relies on prevailing standard.

Result: Gore ahead by 171 votes.

6. PALM BEACH STANDARD: Based on a standard Palm Beach election officials briefly used, this counts dimpled chads as valid votes if a pattern of dimpled chads exists elsewhere on the same ballot. Same as prevailing standard for optical scan ballots.

Result: Gore ahead by 42 votes.

Source: salon (http://dir.salon.com/politics/wire/2001/11/12/recount/index.html)

_________________________________
"For example, 33 percent of Fox News viewers incorrectly believed it was true that the U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; only 11 percent of people who said they relied on PBS or NPR for news got this wrong. Thirty-five percent of the Fox viewers thought that world opinion favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq; only 5 percent of those who get their news from PBS or NPR had this misconception. And an overwhelming 67 percent of those who relied on Fox thought that the U.S. had found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda; if you got your news from PBS/NPR, you had just a 16 percent chance of believing this falsehood." FAIR (http://www.fair.org/extra/0312/fox-pipa.html)

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

_________________________________
"For example, 33 percent of Fox News viewers incorrectly believed it was true that the U.S. has found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction; only 11 percent of people who said they relied on PBS or NPR for news got this wrong. Thirty-five percent of the Fox viewers thought that world opinion favored the U.S. invasion of Iraq; only 5 percent of those who get their news from PBS or NPR had this misconception. And an overwhelming 67 percent of those who relied on Fox thought that the U.S. had found clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had worked closely with Al Qaeda; if you got your news from PBS/NPR, you had just a 16 percent chance of believing this falsehood." FAIR (http://www.fair.org/extra/0312/fox-pipa.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your information on the polls. I will look into that information when I get time. For the mean time, in all fairness I take back what I said about Krugman. I made those comments ignorant of this information, but that is why I'm posting. Unfortunitally, It looks like it's going to get harder and harder to figure out what really happened. It seems like whenever you find one newspaper that says one thing, you can always find one that says the complete opposite if you dig hard enough. Still, I'm suprised none of the media "Elite" reported this. It makes me wonder about the story's credibility, but it's seems like it's hard to know anything for sure.


As for the WMDs and Al Qaeda I believe you are wrong. Rueters reported the polish uncovered a stockpile of 15 inch shells filled with cyclosarin. There has been numerous other reports of small amounts of WMD's but no large stockpiles as expected. We have also found small stockpiles of long range missiles in violation of UN resolutions.

Greenpeace even launched a "Dollars for Barrels" campaign along side the US army to get people to return barrels that they had looted from a nuclear facility and dumped yellowcake out of in order to store water. Yelowcake is used to make nuclear weapons/fuel.

More when I get time, I have to work.

[nicky g]

"Greenpeace even launched a "Dollars for Barrels" campaign along side the US army to get people to return barrels that they had looted from a nuclear facility and dumped yellowcake out of in order to store water. Yelowcake is used to make nuclear weapons/fuel. "

As I've posted before, the site that hosts that Greenpeace campaign pints out that none of the material at the site was in violation of UN resolutions. Yellowcake is completely useless for producing a nuclear bomb unless you have very advanced refining technology, which Iraq didn't. As for the sarin found, my understanding is that it had expired, as the weapons inspectors said pre-1991 shells would have if they still existed. I don;t think expired chemical shells count as WMDs.

[wacki]

There were old outdated shells found yes, but I remember seeing pictures of shells that looked new. And were reported as being valid chemical weapons. Not to mention Kornet-E missiles which even though weren't WMDs were in violation of UN resolution and weren't even manufactured till 98 I believe. Tons of dual use facilities, and numerous other factories that could easily be started at a moments notice. The 9/11 commission confirmed Iraq trying to buy more Yellowcake. Also a quote from PUTIN
PUTIN QUOTE saying Iraq Planned U.S. Attacks (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/06/21/001.html)

This can go on forever, the point is he wanted to do us harm. Yes, he wasn't connected to 9/11, but he was with Al Queda. But how late in the game can you wait before you do something about it.

Ugh... somehow we have gotten off topic... that's it I have to stop posting.... Need to work.

Thanks for the information though, it's good to know all sides.

[nicky g]

I'll stop too but just one thing: even if serious evidence of ongoing WMD programmes has been found, and I don;t think it has, it is a big leap from there to "the point is he wanted to do us harm". There's no serious evidence to suggest he was planning to use any of these things against the US, and most of them would have been unsuitable for that purpose.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Rueters reported the polish uncovered a stockpile of 15 inch shells filled with cyclosarin.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "stockpile" consisted of 16 rocket shells, only two of which were found to have any trace of cyclosarin. These cannot reasonably be construed as "WMD," according to the U.S. military: "In Baghdad, the U.S. military issued a statement saying that two 122 mm rockets found by Polish forces had tested positive for sarin gas and confirmed that they were left over from the Iran-Iraq war, but said they posed little danger. The statement said an Iraqi civilian had led the soldiers to the rockets in the town of Hilla, 62 miles south of Baghdad on June 16. 'Due to the deteriorated state of the rounds and small quantity of remaining agent, these rounds were determined to have limited to no impact if used by insurgents against Coalition Forces,' the statement said." ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040702_209.html)

Note: if they're not a threat to occupation forces, they couldn't possibly have been a war justifying "threat" to the U.S. Nor can they be construed as "Iraqi WMD," as that term was used and understood by US officials and propagandists and their victims, the public. This obvious distinction, however, is routinely ignored by the reporters and commentators at Fox. As a result, Fox viewers are more ignorant than the rest of the public, a state that many of the former probably prefer.

[ QUOTE ]
There has been numerous other reports of small amounts of WMD's ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Quite a bit more numerous on Fox. Such as the airtime Fox gave Rep. Duncan Hunter to wave around a photo of the single artillery shell found last spring as if it vindicated all the claims about "thousands of tons" of WMD.

[ QUOTE ]
We have also found small stockpiles of long range missiles in violation of UN resolutions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect you're referring to the Samoud missiles that Iraq agreed to destroy (and were being destroyed) shortly before the war began. They weren't "long range" missiles but missiles whos range tested about 5-10% longer than the 153 km. allowed by the UN. If anything, this story testifies to the efficacy of weapons inspections, not the existence of WMD.

[ QUOTE ]
Greenpeace even launched a "Dollars for Barrels" campaign along side the US army to get people to return barrels that they had looted from a nuclear facility and dumped yellowcake out of in order to store water.

[/ QUOTE ]
I suspect solely for the purpose of embarrassing Bush. The point of this is that the war created a nuclear contamination threat that previously didn't exist. The IAEA knew all about the Iraqi yellowcake that had been safely stored for years.

[wacki]

Thanks for the info on the 15 inch shells. That's good info to know. I'm kind of suprised rueters didn't say that in the article. Still, the pic I saw had shells on pallets and there were more than 15 or 16 and they looked like they were in good condition. Also one nerve shell was used against US soldiers when someone strapped explosives to the shell. Luckily the binary agents didn't mix properly in the explosion. (not cyclosarin I assume)


But still I posted Putins Quote and now this:
Gore's Memory Lapse (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040624.htm)

Clinton Administrations Case Against Saddam (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20040623.htm) --- Very Good

There was bad intel, yes. If you were going to call Bush a liar about WMD's and Iraq, then you would have to do the same with Gore, Clinton, Putin, and just about every intelligence community in the world. They were wrong about the stockpiles, but I don't think they lied. And I don't think they inflated the threat of Saddam. The threat just wasn't a now with WMD's as we thought, but they were a threat. Read the Putin link on that one.

I'm at work so I appologize for the incomplete response. I really don't have time for this right now. I have a meeting to prepare for.

[Utah]

"Note: if they're not a threat to occupation forces, they couldn't possibly have been a war justifying "threat" to the U.S. Nor can they be construed as "Iraqi WMD," as that term was used and understood by US officials and propagandists and their victims, the public. This obvious distinction, however, is routinely ignored by the reporters and commentators at Fox. As a result, Fox viewers are more ignorant than the rest of the public, a state that many of the former probably prefer. "

A distinction that is also clearly lost on FAIR too. Fair is about as biased an organization that you can find. I spent a lot of time on their site and their sole objective is to attack Fox news. I wonder what democrat group funds them?

[cardcounter0]

Why would the democrats fund an attack on a completely fair and balanced and objective news channel? Wouldn't their money be better spent trying to attack some media with a large right-wing bias?
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would the democrats fund an attack on a completely fair and balanced and objective news channel? Wouldn't their money be better spent trying to attack some media with a large right-wing bias?
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
The lack of a left wing bias is good enough to get all pissy about.

[nicky g]

The two aren;t really comparable. Fair is a pressure group. Fox is a news channel.

[cardcounter0]

I thought all the media was part of the vast left-wing liberal machine. It is all controlled by Northeasten Liberal French-speaking Elites, isn't it?

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Yellowcake is completely useless for producing a nuclear bomb unless you have very advanced refining technology, which Iraq didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about "dirty" bombs? I believe this type of device can unrefined yellow cake.

[nicky g]

Dirty bombs of various degrees of efficacy can be made with all sorts of things that the Iraqis (and just about everybody)legally had, yellowcake probably included (I don;t know). They don't constitute WMDs though, and that yellowcake was there legally and its uses being monitored by the inspectors.

[cardcounter0]

I have a bottle of CLOROX Bleach under my kitchen sink. It can be used to manufacture deadly Clorine Gas, which killed thousands during WWI.

WMDs FOUND! WMDs FOUND! WMDs FOUND!

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

That's why the Democrats are getting all pissy - one of the outlets is stepping 'out of line' and, worse yet, is wildly popular with the not-so-liberal rest of the country (every state not touching an ocean).

[sweetjazz]

Actually, Krugman's statement was completely correct, except that he misspoke the name of the organization (the National Opinion Research *Center*, not *Group*).

You can debate whether Krugman's point was relevant to anything or misleading because of the source it came from. But Krugman's information was carefully researched, whereas O'Reilly was just spouting stuff off of the top of his head.

I'm not going to defend Krugman, since I don't agree with many of his arguments. But I'll acknowledge that he did a better job of research than O'Reilly on this matter (if I recall correctly, the debate was over whether there were any credible recounts which gave Florida to Gore). That said, Krugman and O'Reilly are like just about all the other popular pundits who are willing to stretch their "researched" (I put that in quotes because I think research should involve more than Google searches) facts into misleading statements to support their position. I think it's somewhat foolish to worry whether it's done more by the left or the right or the green men from Mars, and more important that people impose higher standards on news analysts, commentators, etc. so that we might get something better than the garbage we often get now.

[cardcounter0]

Are the States that don't touch an Ocean just jealous? OR is it something in the sea water (salt, maybe?) that turns the States touching them Liberal?

What about Colorado? I was in Colorado Springs and it looked like a bunch of tree-loving gay hippee Commies running around. How about Vail? Isn't that where the Liberal French-Loving Hollywood Loonie Liberals hang out? What ocean does Colorado touch?

How come the overall popular vote was almost 50%/50% between Gore and Bush? Don't the people in the States that don't touch an Ocean vote? OR Does 50% of the population live in States that do touch an ocean?
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Garbonzo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about it being a well played move... I don't like the thought of reporters (I use plural because this isn't the first case) that work for the New York Times, or anywhere else in the media "Elite", misleading, let alone flat out lying to us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let me clarify. I mean "well played," in that he accomplished what he wanted to, despite the facts being against him.

As an American citizen, and as someone who would like to be able to trust the mainstream media sources, it is upsetting and disturbing. I hope O'reilly (or anyone) exposes to the masses those who do this kind of thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be a much shorter list to expose those who DON'T do this sort of thing.

[MuckJagger]

>>A distinction that is also clearly lost on FAIR too. Fair is about as biased an organization that you can find. I spent a lot of time on their site and their sole objective is to attack Fox news. I wonder what democrat group funds them?


I'm not saying that FAIR doesn't lean left, but it's a far cry from your "sole objective is to attack Fox news" claim.

I checked out the FAIR site today and found stories critical of the New York Times, Pacifica Radio, National Public Radio, PBS, the Washington Post and Viacom/CBS (which I include because a right-leaning friend of mine claims that Viacom/CBS is the "liberal" equivalent of Clear Channel).

FAIR also covers talk radio, John Stossel, Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, U.S. News, Washington Times, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan.

I must confess that it took me nearly two whole minutes to find these links, so I obviously didn't spend as much time there as you did. Perhaps if I'd spent as much time there as you, I might have reached the same conclusion.

Muck

[Utah]

Please - point me to a single story on their site that critizes something on the left (e.g., show me a story saying that xxxx news has been to liberal). Their criticism of NPR is that is was going too conservative.

[Utah]

Hi Nicky,

I agree. However, I would never take anything that FAIR said as fact without verification elsewhere. They have zero credibility.

[Utah]

Hi Chris,

Your inform is very very misleading. Wow, Krugman would be proud of you! lol

You fail to mention all the recount scenarios of NORC. The two most important scenarios: Supreme Court Simple and Supreme Court Complex - which were the only two scenarios that tried to measure the effects of the Supreme Court decisions - show that Bush won. Supreme Court Complex takes into account the counties that were counting overvotes. Bush still wins.

So, while the question of whether more voters intended to vote for Gore under some scenarios is interesting, it is clear under the NORC study that the U.S. Supreme Court didnt alter the election.

Also, it is completely disingenuous of Krugman to say that the six scenarios shows Gore would have one and at the same time fail to mention that the two most important scenarios shows Bush winning. It is also disingeuous to not mention that the 6 scenerios were not real possibilities.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Supreme Court Complex takes into account the counties that were counting overvotes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not according to the Slate article I cited. Do you have a source or are you just pulling this out of some blog site?

And, although its irrelevant ot the point that Krugman was making, and O'Reilly's usual name-calling "response," the Supreme Court unquestionably determined the outcome of the election. By depriving Florida legislators and courts of jurisdiction over Florida voting law, the Supreme Court terminated a process and appointed the President. The "Bush would have won" claimants are speculating about how that process would have ended, as the overvote issue shows. All sorts of scenarios might have ultimately been adopted as additional facts about the ballot counting problems came to light, which makes all six scarios that Krugman alluded to "real possibilities." The only thing we know for sure is that the most inclusive measures of the will of Florida voters has Bush losing the election.

Your preference for calling the least democratic scarios the "most important" ones is argument by labeling.

[Utah]

Hi Chris,

Slate is one of my favorite sites and I give it a lot of credibility (or Salon - I like them both). However, it has it wrong here I believe (unless I am missing something). I took it straight off the NORC site: Here is the relevant passage from the actual study:

Supreme Court “complex” scenario
This scenario starts with the same baseline as Supreme Court Simple (accepting the four sets of hand counts that were accepted in the order) but elsewhere applies various standards to varying sets of ballots, by county, in an attempt to gauge what was really happening that day. Many counties did not follow a literal interpretation of the Dec. 8 Florida Supreme Court order, according to the Florida Newspaper Survey. And each county applied individual standards. Officials in nine counties -- most notably Lake County -- planned to review and count overvote ballots on Dec. 9. Circuit Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide count, has said in an interview that he probably would have held a hearing sometime that afternoon to consider whether to accept voter intent found on overvotes. Other counties were refusing to count, and NORC data from those counties are excluded in this scenario. Some counties managed to complete their hand counts that day and report new totals before the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, and NORC data are excluded while BUSHDEC9 and GOREDEC9 adjustments for the counties are added to their certified results in this scenario. Results from NORC data everywhere else are applied to adjusted certified totals. DAWG applied the scenario at four levels of coder agreemen

The simple Supreme Court scenario is unrealistic because it follows the exact nature of the Florida ruling, which obviously would not have happened.

It depends what you mean. You are correct in your assertion. However, it appears that Bush won have won either way.

Now, you can make a very strong argument that the U.S. Supreme Court tried to steal the election for Bush and I believe this is highly probable (not to steal the election for Bush necessarily but more to attack the Florida Supreme Court). The Wall Street Journal basically called it a terrible piece of law and that the case should not even have been taken up by U.S. Supreme Court in the first place.

All sorts of scenarios might have ultimately been adopted as additional facts about the ballot counting problems came to light, which makes all six scarios that Krugman alluded to "real possibilities."

I Dont agree. But even if I did, Krugman is still guilty of trying to mislead by not stating the full scope of scenarios.

The only thing we know for sure is that the most inclusive measures of the will of Florida voters has Bush losing the election.

Again, yes and no. It is estimated that Bush lost 10,000 votes because the election was called early by the news media. If we dont need to consider legal votes as the only basis, then their will should count as well shouldnt it?

Your preference for calling the least democratic scarios the "most important" ones is argument by labeling.

They are the most important ones for answering the question, "if the supreme hadnt intervened would Gore be president?". The other scenarios dont attempt to answer that question as they were not remotely possible. For example, the Gore 4 county vote was not ever going to happen. Also, all counties were never going to use the same standard. etc.

Finally, the rulings by the Florida Supreme Court were as bad as the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida Court has gotten a free pass because the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in. Democrats dont ever talk about the rulings that started the whole mess.

[cardcounter0]

Bush lost 10,000 votes? Who made that estimate?

The election was called 10 minutes before the polls closed for the small part of Florida that is in the Central Time Zone.

Some one thinks there were 10,000 people all lined up at the polls waiting to vote for Bush 10 minutes before closing in that small section of Florida? Some how they heard the TV announcement and left the polls without voting?

There must have been one hell of a traffic jam leaving the polls!

Who made this estimate?
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Utah]

If my memory serves me correctly, the call was made an hour before the polls closed because part of the panhandle is in another time zone.

[riverflush]

Someone earlier wondered about the 50/50 split in popular vote - how could that be if "most of the states that don't touch an ocean are more conservative?"

It's simple. Major metro areas trend Democrat (Boston, NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran, Seattle, Miami/Broward Co., Twin Cities, etc). Where population is dense, people rely on social services more (public transit, housing density laws, rent control, public housing, etc.) - and these voters tend to regard government as a vital part of "organizing" life. The more rural areas and the mid-sized cities (Cincy, Indianapolis, Vegas, Charlotte, etc.) tend to be more spread-out and attract a different type of person. The popular vote is very close, but that is due more to the sheer population density of the Democratic strongholds vs. Republican areas (which are a much larger part of the country). The Dems get a lot out of a little (relatively speaking).

If you look at Election 2000, the contrast is striking:

U.S. Counties won by Gore: 677
U.S. Counties won by Bush: 2436

Square miles of U.S. won by Gore: 588,000
Square miles of U.S. won by Bush: 2,427,000

This map is stunning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

The fact is, much of "middle America" is very different from the coast cities in political philosophy...but that shouldn't be surprising - it's an entirely different way of life.

What these stats and maps should make very obvious is that if the Democratic Party ever loses grip on the black vote, they will find themselves in a very dire position. The two-party system (and a possible rise of a third party - Libertarian?) hangs in the balance - and I believe that the black vote will shape the next 100 years of politics in this country. A 20% shift would change the whole political landscape permanently.

[Chris Alger]

The source is a poll of 676 non-voters by a GOP-tied polster (http://www.mclaughlinonline.com/newspoll/np2000/001120panh.htm) that was publicized among the right-wing fringe in a book by Bill Sammon, correspondent for the Moony-owned Washington Times. ("At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election").

NBC apparently "called" the Florida vote for Gore 11 minutes before the 7:00 p.m. closing of the polls. Several counties in the Florida panhandle, however, are on central time and closed their polls and hour later. As a result, tens of thousands of voters who would have rushed out to vote for Bush just before the polls closed exercised their option to stay home, according to the poll's extrapolations.

Note that the poll didn't ask them: "Was the network call the only reason you didn't vote?" or "Did you stay home because of the networks?" Instead, it asked them "Did the news reports about Al Gore winning Florida influence you not to vote for President," leaving open the possibility that they wouldn't have voted anyway. Consider that you're telling people, admittedly too lazy to participate in what turned out to be one of the closest elections ever, that they had a good reason to stay home and whether that good reason "influenced" them. Then you ask whether they would have voted for the winner or the loser. Real scientific stuff, this.

According to Sammon, the network calling the election was just another event related to Gore's conspiracy to "steal" the election, implying that NBC and the other networks secretly knew that Florida favored Bush and tried to throw the election to their pal, Al Gore.

[nicky g]

"The only thing we know for sure is that the most inclusive measures of the will of Florida voters has Bush losing the election.

Again, yes and no. It is estimated that Bush lost 10,000 votes because the election was called early by the news media. If we dont need to consider legal votes as the only basis, then their will should count as well shouldnt it? "

There are two separate issues here, one of legal votes and one of people who didn't get to vote for a variety of reasons. The over votes where intention could be discerned were legal votes under Florida law. You maybe correct that they wouldn;t have been counted in certain counties whatever they were told to do, but that doesn't change the fact that they were legal votes, and that in the scenario closest to Florida law and closest to judging voter intent (ie counting all legal undervotes and overvotes), the NORC had Gore winning.

The 10,000 Reuplicans allgedly not voting is a separate issue. If you;re going to use them to discount Gore's slim margin, you have to bring in the people who were wrongly barred from voting and the absurdly high spoilage rate in demcocrat leaning counties (and across the country), not to mention the thousands of people who mistakenly voted for the wriong candidate, which, if added to any of the voting scenarios, give Gore Florida by a walk.

I don;t understand why you are so fixated by the Supreme Court issue. Krugman doesn't even mention it. It was your bet with jokerswild; the main point that most people want to get across is that regardless of the effect of the Supreme Court decision, there are many recount scenarios including what many of us believe is the fairest and most in line with Florida and US law, under which Gore would have won.

[Utah]

I don;t understand why you are so fixated by the Supreme Court issue. Krugman doesn't even mention it.

I am fixated by it because its the most important issue. did the U.S. Supreme Court change the president with a very bad ruling (i.e., was history altered)? I have left open that possibility yet no one has really provided good evidence to show this.

Almost all other questions are minor. The question of whether more voters tried to vote for Gore is unimportant to me and to create some scenario that never would have happened means nothing.

My point about Krugman is only that he was completely misleading. He mentions the 6 scenarios and fails to mention the other ones. Most importantly, he fails to mention that the scenarios that try to show what would have actually happened have Bush winning.

Note - a overvote is not a legal vote. The Florida Court ruling was as bad as the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling as the FSC completely defied the legislature and the rule of law. If the FSC wanted to use the "intent of the voter standard" they should have defer to the laws that those voters had put into place via the legislature.

[Utah]

Almost no stock should be placed in the 10,000 number. However,it is very reasonable to assume that the early call hurt Bush heavily in a incredibly tight race since the Panhandle is pro Bush country.

[nicky g]

"Note - a overvote is not a legal vote. The Florida Court ruling was as bad as the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling as the FSC completely defied the legislature and the rule of law. If the FSC wanted to use the "intent of the voter standard" they should have defer to the laws that those voters had put into place via the legislature."

According to Florida law all votes where intention can be discerned are legal votes that should be counted. It would be absurd to say that someone who has written in a candidate's name next to where they have also ticked that candidate's box has cast an illegal vote.

The simple fact is we don;t know what would have happened. The scenarios you cite assume overvotes wold not ahve been counted when the official in charge suggested they might well have been. "What would have happened" is also not necessarily what should have happened. Regardless of what would have happened, the method that counts the most legally valid votes and best reflects voter intention - counting all vbotes where intent is clearly discernible - would have given Gore the state.

[MuckJagger]

My post was a response to your claim that FAIR's "...sole objective is to attack Fox news." If you're changing the parameters from that to "...show me a story saying that xxxx news has been to liberal...," I'll concede that point to you.

But that's not what FAIR does. I don't know whether the following qualifies as a mission statement, but under the link "What's FAIR?" the following paragraph can be found:

"FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

Whether or not you believe the above paragraph is noble or merely self-serving baloney, there's nothing I read in there that suggests FAIR should or must criticize liberal media for being *too* liberal. My post was made only to point out that your blanket condemnation of FAIR as being obsessed with Fox News is far from accurate.

Muck