4 ms·

Interesting read. The TV-show "Veep" dealt with the case of a tie. Based on my memories, they got it right. Funny that the article points out the circus of 2

by dudul 10y ago

Interesting read. The TV-show "Veep" dealt with the case of a tie. Based on my memories, they got it right. Funny that the article points out the circus of 2000 with the endless Florida recount, especially after everybody went after Trump for not saying that he will respect the outcome of the election. I guess that's what you need to be in politics: the ability to forget what you did a few years ago to be able to blame your opponent for doing the same thing.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sgift 10y ago
> the ability to forget what you did a few years ago to be able to blame your opponent for doing the same thing. The ability to claim two completely different things (i.e. saying a very close vote is a reason for a recount vs "if I loose it's due to cheating") are the same thing is also very helpful.
jimktrains2 10y ago
> Funny that the article points out the circus of 2000 with the endless Florida recount, especially after everybody went after Trump for not saying that he will respect the outcome of the election. We were talking about recounting a county or two of votes. The election wasn't under contest. Gore conceded when it was clear what the count was. People are going after Trump because it's (widely assumed based on his own words and lack of qualification and historic understanding) worrying that he won't accept a clear outcome.
- vxNsr 10y ago
  If you read the insider stuff that came out later you'd see that the concession wasn't a sure thing quite a few of Al's advisors wanted him to fight more in the ends there other camp won out but it wasn't a sure thing.
maxerickson 10y ago
Here's the end of the exchange that people took issue with: Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you're not prepared now to commit to that principle? Trump: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay? (search "one last question" on http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-... to see the full exchange) What you are doing is taking the weakest argument people might make about those statements. The Florida recount in 2000 was triggered simply by the close outcome of the vote there. There literally isn't a final result until the recount has been done. The recount didn't require anybody to question the results of the election, there wasn't a result at the time it started. Going to back to the exchange between Wallace and Trump, part of the question asked was do you make the same commitment that you'll absolutely accept the result of the election. Wallace isn't asking Trump if he will exercise all available legal options in determining the result of the election, he is asking if Trump will concede after that process has played out. Trump starts his answer with I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I'll look at it at the time. I think there is some legitimate room to argue that the presentation I make depends on parsing the language too closely, and that Trump is speaking more broadly about playing the process out, but it's a tactical mistake for him to do that, the nuanced answer about using the full extent of the legal process and accepting it is stronger than the grandstanding (his campaign started saying this immediately after the debate and he more or less said it in the following days...).
- vxNsr 10y ago
  Basically everyone heard what they wanted to hear which what always seems to happen with Trump.
stormbrew 10y ago
They got it almost right. They had the senate-chosen VP becoming permanent President, but he would only be acting as president until such time as the House elected a president. In other words, the House would keep getting kicks at the can until they choose someone.
shagie 10y ago
It should be pointed out that Gore wasn't contesting the count. Florida automatically has a recount if the difference is 0.5% or less for an office or issue ( http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automat... ).

by dudul 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

sgift 10y ago

> the ability to forget what you did a few years ago to be able to blame your opponent for doing the same thing. The ability to claim two completely different things (i.e. saying a very close vote is a reason for a recount vs "if I loose it's due to cheating") are the same thing is also very helpful.

jimktrains2 10y ago

> Funny that the article points out the circus of 2000 with the endless Florida recount, especially after everybody went after Trump for not saying that he will respect the outcome of the election. We were talking about recounting a county or two of votes. The election wasn't under contest. Gore conceded when it was clear what the count was. People are going after Trump because it's (widely assumed based on his own words and lack of qualification and historic understanding) worrying that he won't accept a clear outcome.

vxNsr 10y ago
If you read the insider stuff that came out later you'd see that the concession wasn't a sure thing quite a few of Al's advisors wanted him to fight more in the ends there other camp won out but it wasn't a sure thing.

maxerickson 10y ago

Here's the end of the exchange that people took issue with: Wallace: But, sir, there is a tradition in this country, in fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and no matter how hard fought a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying you're necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you're not prepared now to commit to that principle? Trump: What I’m saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay? (search "one last question" on http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-... to see the full exchange) What you are doing is taking the weakest argument people might make about those statements. The Florida recount in 2000 was triggered simply by the close outcome of the vote there. There literally isn't a final result until the recount has been done. The recount didn't require anybody to question the results of the election, there wasn't a result at the time it started. Going to back to the exchange between Wallace and Trump, part of the question asked was do you make the same commitment that you'll absolutely accept the result of the election. Wallace isn't asking Trump if he will exercise all available legal options in determining the result of the election, he is asking if Trump will concede after that process has played out. Trump starts his answer with I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I'll look at it at the time. I think there is some legitimate room to argue that the presentation I make depends on parsing the language too closely, and that Trump is speaking more broadly about playing the process out, but it's a tactical mistake for him to do that, the nuanced answer about using the full extent of the legal process and accepting it is stronger than the grandstanding (his campaign started saying this immediately after the debate and he more or less said it in the following days...).

vxNsr 10y ago
Basically everyone heard what they wanted to hear which what always seems to happen with Trump.

stormbrew 10y ago

They got it almost right. They had the senate-chosen VP becoming permanent President, but he would only be acting as president until such time as the House elected a president. In other words, the House would keep getting kicks at the can until they choose someone.

shagie 10y ago

It should be pointed out that Gore wasn't contesting the count. Florida automatically has a recount if the difference is 0.5% or less for an office or issue ( http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automatic-recount-thresholds.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/automat... ).