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

[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 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