Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 517

Wow! That about sums it up. It was truly amazing, I didn't expect much more than the usual "I won the popular vote...", and Gore showed himself to be an honest human being. I thought Bush did a pretty poor job with the acceptance speech. He should have focused more on what Gore had said (for his own benefit). He just repeated the same bipartisan stance over and over and over again and threw in his campaign material. He thinks it is going to be so easy to convince the Democrats in Washington to see things his way after dealing with all of those conservative Texas Democrats. I think he is in for a big surprise.

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Registered: Feb 2000
Location: Moved to Clie Land
Posts: 331

I thought they both did well. Attitude is everything. If W is met with attitude on the part of the Washington Democrats, then nobody wins. As adults we can make up our minds to capitolize on this FINAL decision and actually get something constructive done or we can whine. It would be so easy to continue on this bi-partisian note but where would we be in four years? ...oh, yeah, some people could say "I told you so". Boy, that's worth putting the whole country on hold for four years...NOT!

It might be some comfort to look at the powerhouse cabinet and posts that W is putting together...It is probably the strongest non-partisian team in history.

__________________
"Stupid Handspring."

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

I thought they both did a good job too. I liked how they both referenced historical elections during their speeches. I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: SoCal
Posts: 115

Gore gets an A- Bush a C. I think the GOP call for cooperation and bipartisanship is a bit disengenuous considering their actions and behavior over the last several years. How is Lott's comment re: Hilary being struck by lightening a sign of cooperation.

Don't get me wrong I'd like to see more cooperation and less gridlock but I'm not going to hold my breath - It will be politics as usual.

Registered: Jan 2000
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 1683

quote:

---

I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.

---

How did you expect him to read his cue cards, then?

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 3034

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHromadka
I thought they both did a good job too. I liked how they both referenced historical elections during their speeches. I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.

---

Registered: Nov 2000
Location:
Posts: 1

I agree with James that Bush should have looked into the camera more. When he bobs his head to one side and then back to another side with only a quick glance at the camera and keeps doing this... he reminds me of those little dogs in car windows.

Gore gave a wonderful concession speech and he must be so terribly disappointed... not just because he is not president, but because in his heart, he believes he really won and that something in the ballot or counting process has cost him.

But regardless of who we voted for and how disappointed some of us may be, what a wonderful lesson this has been. What a powerful nation. Even in the midst of great political party turmoil... and a shifting of power... and a race so close... and people everywhere being politically charged and outraged... we still manage to have a peaceful conclusion to this election, no widespread violence like in other countries, etc.

Registered: Oct 1999
Location: I'm not sure, but I see lots of lights everywhere.
Posts: 1287

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHromadka
I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.

---

__________________
My blog: Pocketfactory

Registered: Nov 1999
Location: bright side of the moon.
Posts: 996

quote:

---

Originally posted by foo fighter
Why should he? He was addressing a legislative body, not a TV camera. Gore was merely speaking to television viewers, so naturaly he had his eyes glued to the camera at all times.

---

__________________
Ever feel like the train left while you were busy reading the paper?

Stealth-Mod.

Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 604

I thought Gore did a good job, but so did Bush. I fail to see how someone could give him a "C."

While I appreciated Gore's graceful speech, I wish folks would stop acting like he really "won" Florida and that he "won" the popular vote. The only way Gore "won" in Florida is if you count all the "dimpled" chad votes, which no one can prove to me (or anyone else) are real votes for Gore.

The race was a tie, both in Florida and nationally. Gore's margin of victory on a proportional basis was about as narrow in the national popular vote as Bush's margin was in Flordia. The tie got resolved according to the rules in place before the election. Bush is the president-elect, and folks need to respect that for now. If you don't like the result, vote for someone else in four years.

Just my two cents.

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

quote:

---

Originally posted by foo fighter

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHromadka
I did think that Bush should have looked into the camera more.

---

Why should he? He was addressing a legislative body, not a TV camera. Gore was merely speaking to television viewers, so naturaly he had his eyes glued to the camera at all times.

---

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 517

quote:

---

Originally posted by VTL
While I appreciated Gore's graceful speech, I wish folks would stop acting like he really "won" Florida and that he "won" the popular vote. The only way Gore "won" in Florida is if you count all the "dimpled" chad votes, which no one can prove to me (or anyone else) are real votes for Gore.

---

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Registered: Apr 2000
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 604

Lennonhead:

It is NOT "obvious" that a dimpled chad was evidence of an intention to vote. The problem with your argument is that you don't know why a chad is "dimpled" when you are reviewing the ballot days, weeks or (at this point) months later.

There are several possibiilties. Did the person mean to vote for a candidate, and just failed to push all the way through? Did they toy with voting for a candidate, placed the stylus in the hole, but changed their mind and decided not to vote that race at all? Or is the bump just the result of all of the handling these things have experienced since the election?

There's simply no way to know the answer. That's why reading "dimpled" or "pregnant" chads is not divining the intent of the voter, it's imposing the counter's interpretation, or wish, on a piece of paper. That's also why Palm Beach, Broward and Miami Dade had generally in the past refrained from counting a dimpled chad - its not sufficiently clear evidence of anything.

My point on the narrow national vs. Florida margin of victory is this. Gore and his supporters pointed to the fact that he had "won" the national popular vote as legitimizing his attempt to reverse the result in Florida by litigation. It didn't, because statistically it was insiginficant. The margin of victory in Florida and nationally is less than the margin of error imposed by the disparate means of counting the votes.

The race was essentially a tie, and it was resolved by the methods in place before the election. Bush's win is as legitimate (or illegitimate) as a Gore win would have been, if the situation was reversed.

Registered: Feb 2000
Location: Moved to Clie Land
Posts: 331

'nuff said....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/da...tent/chads.html

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 443

I don't live in America and haven't watched any of the tv or read any of the news regarding this. From what I understand, from what other ignorant Canadians have explained to me, is:

1. there was an election.
2. the ballots were designed by an idiot of a graphic designer.
3. because of the poor design, the technology that was counting the ballots was getting a faulty count.
4. gore wanted the ballots to be recount by hand. bush did not.
5. bush "won" by 500 or so votes.

if this is in fact the case, i must admit that i am completely baffled by:

a. why anyone in their right mind would say no to a manual count. i mean, it's the next president of the usa... wouldn't it be fairest to simply count the damn things and find out who people really voted for?
b. why the ballots were not seen as problematic *prior* to the vote. who signed off to the GD on this project?

just curious.

mc.

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 517

VTL-

quote:

---

Did the person mean to vote for a candidate, and just failed to push all the way through?

---

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>

Registered: Oct 2000
Location: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 2531

There have been (and are always going to be given the current election process) presidents who lost the popular vote but were still the president because of the electoral college. Let's take am America composed of two states: California and South Dakota. Let's propose an election between two people: Bore and Gush. Let's say Bore wins in Calif with 51% of popular vote. Let's say Gush wins in SD with 99% of the pop. vote. CA's fifty-some electors vastly outweigh SD's 3 so Bore wins a landslide. Gush would've actually won the national popular vote (unless 2% of CA population is more than 99% of SD's). This is not a true democracy (1 person = 1 vote) because the framers of the Constitution were forced to compromise between each state having equal say and a states clout being determined by its population. During this time people didn't think of themselves as Americans to the degree that they thought of themselves as South Dakotans, Californians, etc.. So, there it is. It's still better than having no say in who leads the country.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Registered: Sep 1999
Location: Texan in Calgary for a while
Posts: 1361

What I don't understand is why didn't Gore call for a manual recount in all Florida counties? That would have done a better job of conveying that he wanted to make sure the "American people were heard" than calling for a recount in only 3 heavy Democratic counties.

__________________
James Hromadka
Old Friend

Registered: Feb 2000
Location: Moved to Clie Land
Posts: 331

Mensachicken- The so called "uncounted" votes were counted twice. There is a certain percentage of ballotts that were unrecognizeable to the non-biased counting machines because voters could not follow clearly posted instructions. The problem arose when certain counties were singled out to be counted AND they were being counted by people with an agenda. The normal percentage of uncountable votes nationwide is somewhere around 2%. Thus there were MANY votes not "counted" nationwide. The press to count hevily Democratic counties in Florida was done to achieve a specific outcome.

In any case, I am glad that we have finally seen the last of punchcard voting in the USA. I can't imagine it NOT being replaced after this fiasco.

Registered: Mar 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 517

quote:

---

Originally posted by MIKE STH
The press to count hevily Democratic counties in Florida was done to achieve a specific outcome.

---

__________________
<A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>