4 ms·
The Bush v Gore fiasco is nothing like what is going on now: in 2000, in Florida, after all votes were tallied, the vote totals were so close a recount was lega
by Fezzik 5y ago
The Bush v Gore fiasco is nothing like what is going on now: in 2000, in Florida, after all votes were tallied, the vote totals were so close a recount was legally mandated. During the recount a large number of ballots (actual, tangible evidence) were noted to have unclear undervotes and overvotes on them and were simply not counted. To compare this to the utterly baseless claims that lack even a scintilla of evidentiary support made by the current republican congress-folk is wacky.
- pyuser583 5y agoEven if the discarded ballots Gore fought to save had been counted, Bush would have won. It was very close. Close enough to reveal the messiness that extremely close elections can create. But not enough to change the outcome. Bush won. He probably won by double digits in Florida. But he still won. As late as 2008, Howard Dean was falsely claiming SCOTUS had “snatched” the election from the Dems, which was demonstrably untrue at this point. https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/howard-dean-rep.html https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/howard-d... Read that article. Nowhere do you see the “this is a lie” disclaimers. Yes, Trump is spreading disinformation, as Howard Dean did (and probably still does.) Here’s another good example: by the end of the Democratic Primary in 2020, Biden had more than enough votes for the nomination. He had won, plain and simple. But he and Sanders kept campaigning, because they knew an active campaign would turn out Democratic votes in downstream elections. The press went along with this facade. At no point did they “declare a winner” even though Biden had effectively won. They allowed the charade of a campaign to go on, allowing Democrats a heavy advantage in elections like the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Again, the election was already over, and a winner should have been declared. But it wasn’t. The press is very selective. And study after study after shows journalists are almost exclusively Democrats.
- rootusrootus 5y ago> Trump is spreading disinformation, as Howard Dean President Trump. What was Howard Dean? The distinction really matters. > They allowed the charade of a campaign to go on, allowing Democrats a heavy advantage in elections like the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. Primaries are not elections, though, and there is no reason a political party has to call them off just because someone believes the game has already been effectively won. I.e. it ain't over until it's over. It's bad enough that voters in later primaries basically believe their vote doesn't matter, but you're suggesting that we should formalize that? The parties are private organizations, so who do you propose gets to decide when to call the whole thing off?
- bobsmooth 5y agoA former governor and at the time of the 2008 comments the DNC chair.
- pyuser583 5y agoI’m not criticizing the political parties for keeping the fake campaign going. A clever trick on their part. I’m criticizing the press for not calling the winner. In most elections, the press takes their duty of calling the winner very, very seriously. Almost like it’s a constitutional role. And yet when it would have mattered, they decided not to.
- pyuser583 5y agoHoward Dean was speaking in his official capacity of head of the DNC. He was literally being paid by the Democratic Party to say what he said.