3 ms·

Yep. He made a mistake in conceding as he could have won that battle: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa https://www.theguardian

• ethbr1 9mo ago
  Yes and no. It would have been corrosive to democracy to fight too hard. Gore cared more about the country than his own ambition. See: Trump
  • wizzwizz4 9mo ago
    Insisting that the proper process is followed, when that process is known to be good, is fighting the good fight. Sure, the fight would've been corrosive, but I don't think the burden of moral responsibility for such a thing is on the defenders.
    • ethbr1 9mo ago
      If Gore had fought harder and won, Gore would have been president but democratic legitimacy and belief in the voting process would have been damaged (in half the country). If Gore had fought harder and lost, Bush president and same. The public wouldn't have believed / understood voting recount nuances: longer battle in courts = less faith in voting. So it came down to weighing the corrosion of the voting process against goodness of Gore v Bush as president. I don't think in 2000 anyone (including Gore) could have predicted that W's (and Cheney's) choices would be as poor as they were.