Debunking the 2000 election theft CT

[Caustic Logic]

In another thread a member here posted this, which I chose kind of arbitrarily as an example of posts I've seen comparing the recent spike of noise from the Obama Birthers with the *similar theory* that bush stole the 2000 election, a debunked myth fueled by fermenting sour grapes from hardcore Liberals who just hated Bush because of his freedoms and 'cause he won it fair and square.

If you believe Bush stole the election then you believe a conspiracy theory as hard as it may be for some to accept that.

I can accept that - I suspect, strongly, there was a conspiracy of collusion between key people to implement illegal tactics to ensure they won. By the narrow margin, it seems they measured carefully and went for the subtle look - nearly flush, not waaaay too far off... I first suspected this as the election happened and came down to, of all places Florida, with one candidate’s brother as governor and his state campaign director as Sec of State, no wonder he won – but there was the narrowness of it – 537 votes IIRC, and the controversies over ballots and a re-count demand, which was then shut down with the narrowest Supreme Court majority possible. Somehow… that smelled fishy to me.

No secret, I was never a fan of the man, his party, his policies, his style, nor later his manipulation of the shock of 9/11 into the reckless aggression that’s gotten us all in such a mess – nor for that matter his blatant theft of the 2000 election!

Recently I came to suspect my thinking on this issue has been muddled, as I started looking into the available debunks. Rather than try to scan the whole field and get at underlying patterns, I’d like to see first what people have to say about this whacked-out sore-loser conspiracy theory. Links, key quotes, y’know, the standard. Who has debunked this and where? I started looking myself but realized there are multiple motivated minds here to cover that aspect with gusto.

All right, thanks.

 

[Caustic Logic]

bump for the later time zones

grandiose claims of election fraud are at issue.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm sure that this was investigated thoroughly by the DNC. If it was, in fact, stolen - go back to one of the litmus tests for conspiracy theories.

How many people would it take to pull this off? How many people would have to keep quiet about it? The Bush Administration wasn't good about keeping any of their misdeeds and blunders under wraps - wiretapping, Valerie Plame, GITMO, etc.

If there was proof the election was "stolen" I'm fairly sure Democratic Party officials would have found it and raised the roof right off the Supreme Court. They were chomping at the bit to get their man in.

No links for ya, sorry - only my two cents on the matter.

It's past my bedtime.

 

[Good Lt]

Weren't there several media-initiated investigations into this whole affair that turned up nothing?

I'm seriously asking without snark intended - it was so long ago that all I really remember was a bunch of my college classmates (and professors) swearing about Bush, but the details are hazy to me at this point.

The same thing is going on now with the birthers and Obama - swearing, attribution of malevolence to every action, calls for agitation and disobedience because of the coming tyranny, etc.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Cool, thanks guys. That's a start, and before I finally crash out myself.

Well I don't know the debunks real well but the media investigations probably refers to this:

But in fact, every single recount of the votes in Florida determined that George W. Bush had won the state's twenty-five electoral votes and therefore the presidency. This includes a manual recount of votes in largely Democratic counties by a consortium of news organizations, among them the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times. As the New York Times reported on November 21, 2001, "A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward." The USA Today recount team concluded: "Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."

That's from the one debunking site I've looked at much: http://qando.net/archives/004158.htm
Mostly Quoting Stealing Elections by John Fund (misid'd as James Fund), of WSJ

I'm not sure of their methodology, but it certainly sounds like good evidence. Another site specifies that "the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore." This to the 537 from the official count. By sheer accident they had fudged it upwards by only 44 votes out of millions. That's damn good counting.

This would mean the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore is irrelevant. The re-count would only have confirmed - with even greater delay - that the number of cast votes indeed favored the Governor's big bro. This is something the CTers need to acknowledge. And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

But I realize this and I still have my doubts about the election and its fair-n-squareness. And that is the riddle. Who can discover and debunk?

 

[Good Lt]

Cool, thanks guys. That's a start, and before I finally crash out myself.

Well I don't know the debunks real well but the media investigations probably refers to this:


That's from the one debunking site I've looked at much: http://qando.net/archives/004158.htm
Mostly Quoting Stealing Elections by John Fund (misid'd as James Fund), of WSJ

I'm not sure of their methodology, but it certainly sounds like good evidence. Another site specifies that "the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore." This to the 537 from the official count. By sheer accident they had fudged it upwards by only 44 votes out of millions. That's damn good counting.

This would mean the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore is irrelevant. The re-count would only have confirmed - with even greater delay - that the number of cast votes indeed favored the Governor's big bro. This is something the CTers need to acknowledge. And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

But I realize this and I still have my doubts about the election and its fair-n-squareness. And that is the riddle. Who can discover and debunk?

I would probably trust the mainstream sources on this one more than the second one you cited (FrontPageMag) which is biased to the right.

Not that the information isn't valid or correct there, but just so you know where it's coming from

 

[Horatius]

And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

...Voters?


Seriously. The real question here is, in a country as politically polarized as the US has been over the last 10-20 years, how the heck does any election come down to what was essentially a statistical coin flip? About 500 votes between candidates, out of millions?

Someone, somewhere, needs to start running candidates that people actually want to vote for. If either of Bush or Gore had been the sort of man who people wanted to vote for, rather than just being party hacks, even getting 1% of the people who didn't vote out to the polls would have swamped the other candidate.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I would probably trust the mainstream sources on this one more than the second one you cited (FrontPageMag) which is biased to the right.

Not that the information isn't valid or correct there, but just so you know where it's coming from

It was quoting CNN quoting the WSJ, so bias prob. irr.
Pont is, I can see this debunk as valid tho I didn't double check it myself.

...Voters?

I think that works actually

Seriously. The real question here is, in a country as politically polarized as the US has been over the last 10-20 years, how the heck does any election come down to what was essentially a statistical coin flip? About 500 votes between candidates, out of millions?

Someone, somewhere, needs to start running candidates that people actually want to vote for. If either of Bush or Gore had been the sort of man who people wanted to vote for, rather than just being party hacks, even getting 1% of the people who didn't vote out to the polls would have swamped the other candidate.

It's true there would probably be no swamping either way but
well I can't handle the suspense and I'm afraid everyone else will get bored before guessing what I'm getting at - the people who did want to vote either for or against one of the candidates but simply weren't allowed to.

I know this has been "debunked" too, but if you look at the first site I linked, it only covers it barely at the bottom. The writer there knows the best foot - votes CAST had Bush winning - and puts that foot forward, huh?

Here a Youtube video

My point is, I'm not convinced of this second class of debunk.
One example I don't buy:

If even one black person had been denied the right to vote, that person's name would have been blasted on the front page of every newspaper in this country.

http://www.lipstickalley.com/f153/debunking-democrat-myths-136553/
And it's not just me, there are millions of other "Voters" like me who aren't convinced either. Oh I am the last one? oh, dear... So anyway, who's found better debunks that actually discuss on the ground voting and not just the recount crap with a weak aside on the former?

 

[IMST]

How many people would it take to pull this off?

Not ignoring the rest of it, but to this point: 6.
All it took was the Supreme Court stopping all recount efforts, assuming the real vote total in FL came down as a coin flip the other way.
Not some grand conspiracy, but with a SecState willing to stop the recount and a Supreme Court willing to agree, the total that was in favor of the party all 6 belonged to got the white house.
Add to that the poorly designed ballot that got some people confused and left some votes difficult to count (remember pregnant chads? Elderly Liberal Jews for Buchannan?) to further muddle the count.
And to the frustration of the moderate left, the influence of the Workers World party, the Trotzkist party that stole more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.
And don't forget the frustration of those that think maybe democracy should be based on the popular vote.

/rambling frustration

 

[SkepticGuy]

Looking back at George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, and the "conspiracy buzz" of the time, can shed some light on the 2000 victory, and related conspiracy speculation.

CIA Insider Analyzes The 1988 Election (video)
Former CIA official John Stockwell looks at the 1988 presidential elections. He analyzes the amazing loss by the Democrats of a seemingly certain victory. He also assesses what a Bush administration can be, particularly when so many people inside and outside the government, at home and abroad, have knowledge of so much damaging information about Bush's past. Stockwell views the elections from the power elite and ruling class perspective in which we operate under a single party system which is split in two, with both parties being controlled by powerful ruling class institutions and individuals. He places Dukakis' performance within this framework.


At the time, conspiracy theorists in 2000 were drawing many parallels to Bush Sr's victory in 1988. Nine years later, much of that discussion is lost or difficult to locate. This video might provide some insight into the mindset that inspires the speculation.

 

[Horatius]

And to the frustration of the moderate left, the influence of the Workers World party, the Trotzkist party that stole more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.

Yeah! Goddamn voters, voting for the party they actually want to win! Who do they think they are?

And don't forget the frustration of those that think maybe democracy should be based on the popular vote.

Oh....um...wait...what are we being outraged about, again?

 

[Brainster]

Looking back at George H.W. Bush's victory in 1988, and the "conspiracy buzz" of the time, can shed some light on the 2000 victory, and related conspiracy speculation.

CIA Insider Analyzes The 1988 Election (video)
Former CIA official John Stockwell looks at the 1988 presidential elections. He analyzes the amazing loss by the Democrats of a seemingly certain victory. He also assesses what a Bush administration can be, particularly when so many people inside and outside the government, at home and abroad, have knowledge of so much damaging information about Bush's past. Stockwell views the elections from the power elite and ruling class perspective in which we operate under a single party system which is split in two, with both parties being controlled by powerful ruling class institutions and individuals. He places Dukakis' performance within this framework.


At the time, conspiracy theorists in 2000 were drawing many parallels to Bush Sr's victory in 1988. Nine years later, much of that discussion is lost or difficult to locate. This video might provide some insight into the mindset that inspires the speculation.

That's strange, because Bush, Sr., led in all the polls in the runup to the election, and nobody was particularly surprised when he cruised to victory.

Bush, Jr. also led in the pre-election polling, but what nobody knew at the time was that the DWI charge from 1974 apparently caused some voters to change their minds at the last minute.

What surprised me in 2000 was that although there was a heavy focus on who at Fox News had called Florida for Bush, there was not much concern about who at the major nets had mistakenly called Florida for Gore early in the evening. That clearly was the big mistake; the call for Bush seemed right at the time it was made as Bush had a big lead. Remember, Gore was on his way to make a concession speech when suddenly a large block of votes for him was counted (Miami-Dade?) which reduced the margin substantially.

 

[dudalb]

He is being outrages that the voters are not as far to the left as he thinks they should be.

 

[IMST]

Oh....um...wait...what are we being outraged about, again?

I got started on that election and didn't stop where I should've. Feel free to carry on without my angst.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Not some grand conspiracy, but with a SecState willing to stop the recount and a Supreme Court willing to agree, the total that was in favor of the party all 6 belonged to got the white house.

So it might seem, and maybe so. Depends on how many votes there really were each way to count. Some usually credible sources say even if those six hadn't done that, Bush would still win.

Add to that the poorly designed ballot that got some people confused and left some votes difficult to count (remember pregnant chads? Elderly Liberal Jews for Buchannan?) to further muddle the count.

Since this affects votes cast it is a factor in the 50-50 result, not sure how big

And to the frustration of the moderate left, the influence of the Workers World party, the Trotzkist party that stole more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore.
And don't forget the frustration of those that think maybe democracy should be based on the popular vote.

Neither one of us mentoned Nader. Being a Washingtonian can do that, since a lot of us here did vote N but Gore won our 9 anyway, right?

So as I suspected the first debunker mentions what I suspected they would - the recount, and even after I try to shift the gears, those who feel my frustration are - complaining about the recount.

Skeptic Guy: Thanks for the vid link, I'll check it out w/a skim later on.

What I'm curious about is stuff like this from multiple accounts:

when the poll worker tried to call the office of the supervisor of elections to verify Ms. Ramsey’s registration status, she was unable to get through. According to Ms. Ramsey, the phone lines remained busy for three and a half hours—a delay she had never experienced during her time as a poll worker [....] poll workers did not allow them to vote because their names did not appear on the rolls. [...others...] should be allowed to vote, provided that the poll worker could verify the voter’s registration status with the supervisor of elections office. Many of these voters, however, were not permitted to vote because the poll workers could not get through [...] she used her personal cellular phone to call the supervisor of elections office all day, but was only able to get through two or three times over the course of 12 hours. [...] mostly African American and Hispanic voters being turned away because their names did not appear on the rolls. The precinct clerk at her site was unable to get through to the central election office

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

The question here is how many votes were not allowed to be cast this way? If there were enough, between Dem Repub and other to make a net loss of 493 votes all you'd need to get the numbers we got.

and this:

Marilyn Nelson, a poll worker with 15 years of experience in Precinct 232 in Miami-Dade County, encountered “quite a few” people whose names did not appear on the rolls at her precinct. When she called the supervisor of elections office, she was told that their rights had been taken away from them due to an alleged felony conviction. She was further instructed by the supervisor’s office that she could not inform those voters of the reason for their removal from the rolls, but she was instructed to “tell them to call downtown at a later date.”[206]
Professor Darryl Paulson testified that the Hillsborough County supervisor of elections estimated that 15 percent of those purged were purged in error and they were disproportionately African American. According to Professor Paulson, another source estimated that 7,000 voters, mostly African Americans and registered Democrats, were removed from the list.

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

Other estimates run as high as 20,000

An actual Youtube video

 

[IMST]

So it might seem, and maybe so. Depends on how many votes there really were each way to count. Some usually credible sources say even if those six hadn't done that, Bush would still win.

I think I tried to disclaimer that with the bit about actual vote total. Probably should have been more clear.

Since this affects votes cast it is a factor in the 50-50 result, not sure how big

Bush was on top of the ballot and it would have taken a very special kind of stupid not to push the right hole for him. If you weren't paying close attention, Gore was a lot more subtle. I disagree that this is a 50-50 factor.

Neither one of us mentoned Nader. Being a Washingtonian can do that, since a lot of us here did vote N but Gore won our 9 anyway, right?

I went with WWP because at the time I was so sick of people saying "it's all Nader's fault" when every third party had more votes than the difference.

 

[Brainster]

So it might seem, and maybe so. Depends on how many votes there really were each way to count. Some usually credible sources say even if those six hadn't done that, Bush would still win.


Since this affects votes cast it is a factor in the 50-50 result, not sure how big


Neither one of us mentoned Nader. Being a Washingtonian can do that, since a lot of us here did vote N but Gore won our 9 anyway, right?

So as I suspected the first debunker mentions what I suspected they would - the recount, and even after I try to shift the gears, those who feel my frustration are - complaining about the recount.

Skeptic Guy: Thanks for the vid link, I'll check it out w/a skim later on.

What I'm curious about is stuff like this from multiple accounts:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

The question here is how many votes were not allowed to be cast this way? If there were enough, between Dem Repub and other to make a net loss of 493 votes all you'd need to get the numbers we got.

and this:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report/ch2.htm

Other estimates run as high as 20,000

An actual Youtube video

What you are missing is that this is stuff that became significant after the fact. Nobody, but nobody, had any idea that Florida was going to be the linchpin of the entire election going into election day. Indeed, most people just assumed that since Bush had a statistically significant lead in the polls going into the election, that he was going to win. And Gore, despite winning the popular vote by a plurality, actually did pretty well in the tight states; he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico all by a margin of less than 0.5%, whereas Bush won all of his states except Florida by a comfortable margin. Indeed, had he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico (but lost Florida) we would have had the astounding result of a tie in the electoral college.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Bush was on top of the ballot and it would have taken a very special kind of stupid not to push the right hole for him. If you weren't paying close attention, Gore was a lot more subtle. I disagree that this is a 50-50 factor.

I think you misread that - it's an X-factor against Gore that helped towards the 50-50 split. I can't dismiss this one, but my guess is it's secondary.

I went with WWP because at the time I was so sick of people saying "it's all Nader's fault" when every third party had more votes than the difference.

Yep and I also didn't mention Nader for similar reason - I think he was a deciding factor nationwide if not in Florida, but it's only a side issue that might come up AFAIC.

What you are missing is that this is stuff that became significant after the fact.

I'm sure I misunderstood that but - voter disenfranchisement is significant when it happens and someone else is told "you aren't on the rolls, no vote, no matter how much ID you have."

Nobody, but nobody, had any idea that Florida was going to be the linchpin of the entire election going into election day.

Probably not, but it was 25 electoral votes that Bush wanted and, coincidentally, his brother was in charge and had publicly (jokingly) promised to deliver the state, and I suspect he was not joking. That everything else was decided and tied with attention on Florida at the end would then be the "oops, oh s***" point. It was supposed to be one of two or three states, which would have limited scrutiny in an "oh well, he woulda won anyway" situtation. Which is exactly what we heard anyway, based on VOTES CAST.

Indeed, most people just assumed that since Bush had a statistically significant lead in the polls going into the election, that he was going to win. And Gore, despite winning the popular vote by a plurality, actually did pretty well in the tight states; he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico all by a margin of less than 0.5%, whereas Bush won all of his states except Florida by a comfortable margin. Indeed, had he won Wisconsin, Iowa and New Mexico (but lost Florida) we would have had the astounding result of a tie in the electoral college.

Interesting... so Democrat voters then were not particularly likely to be bumped from the rolls and unable to be reinstated in time and thus not allowed to cast their votes?

 

[Kestrel]

Cool, thanks guys. That's a start, and before I finally crash out myself.

Well I don't know the debunks real well but the media investigations probably refers to this:


That's from the one debunking site I've looked at much: http://qando.net/archives/004158.htm
Mostly Quoting Stealing Elections by John Fund (misid'd as James Fund), of WSJ

I'm not sure of their methodology, but it certainly sounds like good evidence. Another site specifies that "the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore." This to the 537 from the official count. By sheer accident they had fudged it upwards by only 44 votes out of millions. That's damn good counting.

This would mean the 5-4 decision in Bush v Gore is irrelevant. The re-count would only have confirmed - with even greater delay - that the number of cast votes indeed favored the Governor's big bro. This is something the CTers need to acknowledge. And what should we be called - we have Truthers, Birthers, this could be...

But I realize this and I still have my doubts about the election and its fair-n-squareness. And that is the riddle. Who can discover and debunk?

The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that a full recount of all Florida ballots statewide would have given a narrow election victory to Al Gore.

Rather than dimples or not-dimples, the deciding factor in the recount was inclusion of all ballots or only a subset of ballots. And the deciding line was very simple – if all of the ballots were counted there were enough potential Al Gore votes to give him a victory, but any smaller subset of ballots would retain or even enlarge George W. Bush’s margin.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The Media Consortium Florida Ballot Project found that a full recount of all Florida ballots statewide would have given a narrow election victory to Al Gore.

I presume this is to be a debunk. Thanks, it perfectly illustrates my points from above.

Also the first link I analyzed does mention race discrimination but only in the context of spoilage/ballot errors, making the genius case that the voting machine can't tell your race. DUHbunkt! Voter rolls, which determined who was allowed to even go to the machines, is not mentioned. One side complaint about traffic stops was half-debunked, only mentiond to show how black voters are scared of cops, which makes you wonder... Felon purges not mentioned. Etc. ...