Hillary, President

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Joseph
You are talking about the dimple and pimple that a maching would never count.
In Calif, we had those cards and each card if you read the instruction stated no hanging chad or your vote would not be counted.
It was the New York Times, LA times, Washing Post, and the Miami papers that counted the votes and said Bush won.

And yes they did count them the way the demo wanted them counted and yes Gore won by 400 and some. But remember they counted the dimple, if 2 vote where punch and one was for Gore, even if there was mark next Gore they counted it.

Apparently you don't understand Florida election law, either, as hanging chads and dimples and marks are to be counted if a hand recount is underway. That's their law. The newspapers you mentioned only did recounts based on select counties--it was not based on a full statewide manual recount. Gore won all of those such recounts that were conducted after the SCOTUS quashed the official recounts.

Gore should have won by several thousand votes, had everyone's vote gone to the candidate they intended. He did win by a handful of votes, but the SCOTUS decided to end the recounts before every vote had been counted.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Joseph
In one party you got the Right wing who I could care less about and the other Party you have left winger who like to KILL UNBORN children, take away my right have a gun, hate the military, raise taxes to pay for all of their little programs.

Load of bull****, of course. It's amazing how you can parrot Limbaugh talking points but can't get Florida election law right.

Oh, and last time I checked, you weren't required to belong to a political party to vote.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Gore is 10 times the candidate than Hillary is plus he has the benifet of already having won one Presidential election.

For student body president of his prep-school? Didn't you hear that his daddy bought that election?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The fact that people are already talking about the next President before Bush even started his 2nd term, says alot about how bad people think he sucks, and how they need a savior.

Bush's second term started earlier this year so you either need to make the tenses in your first sentence agree, or get a clue.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


YUP

That's 100% what it is.

By my calculations there is a 100% chance that your assertion is false.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Rumor has it Hillary supports lowering the voting age. One of these days I'll get around to talking to her office about it.

If she even remotely makes it an issue or speaks positively about it on the campaign trail she's got my vote for sure. Hell I'll volunteer for her.

Go Hill

You might want to get that confirmed (publicly) before you donate too many hours to working for her campaign.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Speculation on your part.

Well, duh... but since Gore didn't win, when he was the VP of an insanely popular President, leads to the speculation being very valid.

And Carville wasn't really busy. He was doing CNN shows and, IIRC, offered Gore his services.

Furthermore, by setting Rove up as this uber-manager who can't be outdone, you are just conceeding every Presidential election from now until Rove dies. He isn't going to stop working because Bush can't run anymore.

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Speculation on your part.

He isn't going to stop working because Bush can't run anymore.

Though he may stop working if he goes to jail.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You forget who has pardon power.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Joseph

In one party you got the Right wing who I could care less about and the other Party you have left winger who support women's right over their own body, seek reasonable gun control laws, decrease excessive military spending, raise taxes for wealthy to pay for crucial social programs, and have more politicians than the other party whom are supportive of equal rights for gays.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The newspapers you mentioned only did recounts based on select counties--it was not based on a full statewide manual recount.

IIRC, those were the counties Gore was pushing for a recount in were they not? He wasn't pushing for a statewide recount. Why the hell are we debating this anyway? Is the 1824 election up next?

[Boris Godunov]

Gore pushed for a statewide manual recount, and Bush rejected it:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/11/15/politics2227EST0864.DTL&type=election

[DinoDoc]

So this article is wrong then:

In picking only five counties in which to ask for a recount, the Gore campaign made two fatal mistakes. First, they gave the impression that they were hoping to cherry-pick the result by asking for recounts only in those counties where they had the most to gain. This played into Republican accusations that Gore was no more interested in a fair vote count than was Florida Secretary of State and Republican insider Katherine Harris; rather, Gore was arguably trying to lawyer himself into the presidency by hook and by crook

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0227-04.htm

[Boris Godunov]

Or, it's focusing only on the initial situation and neglects to mention Gore's subsequent call for a statewide manual recount. Why is this so hard to grasp?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Gore's legal team never pushed for a statewide recount, however (if they had, Bush's rejection of it is a non-issue).