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

[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?
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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?
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[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.