"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0307021247.4e3049f@posting.google.co m...
> "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
news:<bdt0sm$j75$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:0404gvookrfroaknsvvrrs8tdbnkavvoja@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > The Supreme Court ruled last week to strike down Texas' archaic and
> > > homophobic sodomy law, and Antonin Scalia was pissed.
> > >
> > > In a 21 page dissenting opinion (which was longer than the majority
> > > opinion) he ranted against the evils of gayo-Americans and the
> > > devilishness of what they get up to in private.
> > >
> > > "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual
> > > conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
> > > children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders in
> > > their home," he wrote.
> > >
> > > Now replace the phrase "persons who openly engage in homosexual
> > > conduct" with the phrase "persons of color" and you'll see how far
> > > neanderthals like Scalia have to go.
> >
> > Use that nonsense in a campaign speech and see how quickly the
heterosexual
> > black voters abandon you. You sorry racist, how dare you equate being
black
> > with being a homo?
> >
> > > Comically, Scalia also suggested that the court was "departing from
> > > its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules
> > > of engagement are observed."
> > >
> > > Sorry fella, you hammered the final nail into that particular coffin
> > > on December 12, 2000.
> > >
> > > Remember?
> >
> > He remembers better than you how he stopped the Florida State Supreme
Court
> > from selecting the loser, Gore. Independent recounts have vindicated
the
> > USSC decision.
>
> Dear Mr. or Ms. Chain Smoker,
> The only recount that matters, NORC's Florida statewide one--all
> counties, all precincts--shows that Mr. Bush did not win. Not
> incidentally, Florida law requires such recounts in certain close
> elections, and Judge Lewis was ordering it when the 5-4 United States
> Supreme Court order stopped the counting. Neither independent recount
> nor history can vindicate the partisan decision in _Bush v. Gore_.
> --Russ

That's not true. First, no recount matters at all in this context since the
election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest court
in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters -- the vote
in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held, it
would have been held using the standards established for the origianl count.
In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore are not
allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than the
person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over again,
yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long enough
to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are just as
they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had more
legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've got 5
1/2 more years to get used to the idea.

"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0307030421.35a55fa3@posting.google.c om...
> "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
news:<bdvi07$jku$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > news:7e483417.0307021247.4e3049f@posting.google.co m...
> > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bdt0sm$j75$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:0404gvookrfroaknsvvrrs8tdbnkavvoja@4ax.com...
> > > > >
> > > > > The Supreme Court ruled last week to strike down Texas' archaic
and
> > > > > homophobic sodomy law, and Antonin Scalia was pissed.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a 21 page dissenting opinion (which was longer than the
majority
> > > > > opinion) he ranted against the evils of gayo-Americans and the
> > > > > devilishness of what they get up to in private.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in
homosexual
> > > > > conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
> > > > > children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders
in
> > > > > their home," he wrote.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now replace the phrase "persons who openly engage in homosexual
> > > > > conduct" with the phrase "persons of color" and you'll see how far
> > > > > neanderthals like Scalia have to go.
> > > >
> > > > Use that nonsense in a campaign speech and see how quickly the
> > heterosexual
> > > > black voters abandon you. You sorry racist, how dare you equate
being
> > black
> > > > with being a homo?
> > > >
> > > > > Comically, Scalia also suggested that the court was "departing
from
> > > > > its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic
rules
> > > > > of engagement are observed."
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry fella, you hammered the final nail into that particular
coffin
> > > > > on December 12, 2000.
> > > > >
> > > > > Remember?
> > > >
> > > > He remembers better than you how he stopped the Florida State
Supreme
> > Court
> > > > from selecting the loser, Gore. Independent recounts have
vindicated
> > the
> > > > USSC decision.
> > >
> > > Dear Mr. or Ms. Chain Smoker,
> > > The only recount that matters, NORC's Florida statewide one--all
> > > counties, all precincts--shows that Mr. Bush did not win. Not
> > > incidentally, Florida law requires such recounts in certain close
> > > elections, and Judge Lewis was ordering it when the 5-4 United States
> > > Supreme Court order stopped the counting. Neither independent recount
> > > nor history can vindicate the partisan decision in _Bush v. Gore_.
> > > --Russ
> >
> > That's not true. First, no recount matters at all in this context since
the
> > election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest
court
> > in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters -- the
vote
> > in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held, it
> > would have been held using the standards established for the origianl
count.
> > In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore are
not
> > allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than the
> > person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over again,
> > yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long
enough
> > to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are just as
> > they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had more
> > legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've got
5
> > 1/2 more years to get used to the idea.
>
> No. When the NORC study counted all valid Florida votes, Mr. Bush did
> not carry the state and thus could not have got a majority in the
> electoral college, had the five partisans on the USSC not intervened.
> You can get reports by Googling "NORC" or, even better, get the full
> study at your library.
> --Russ

On the NORC website itself, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of
specifics. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to say that they don't
want to try and determine the "real winner" so I'm not sure what information
you were able to garner from them . . . if you have a URL, please provide it
and I will read it.

In the mean time, I think the best analysis I saw of what those NORC results
were was here.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election
in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide
vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still
have been elected president.
The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago
conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media
companies, including CNN.

Later in the article, they do go into a number of "what if" scenarios, but
those scenarios would have required an "on the fly" change in the rules each
county uses to determine which ballots are valid and which aren't. Even the
FSSC didn't (as far as I recall) issue an order that the recounts should be
done using a standard not existant in some of those Florida counties at that
time. After you've spent all this time considering all of the "coulda,
shoulda, woulda" that would have made Gore win, consider that major news
outlets write history as much as anyone, and CNN, among others, thinks the
"Gore won" crowd is wrong. History will never vindicate you, now that so
many of the majors have acknowledged Bush really did win. And he'll win
again in 2004, after which your complaints will seem even more out of place
than they do today.

"Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message news:<be1hms$u8g$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:7e483417.0307030421.35a55fa3@posting.google.c om...
> > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdvi07$jku$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7e483417.0307021247.4e3049f@posting.google.co m...
> > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdt0sm$j75$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:0404gvookrfroaknsvvrrs8tdbnkavvoja@4ax.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Supreme Court ruled last week to strike down Texas' archaic
> and
> > > > > > homophobic sodomy law, and Antonin Scalia was pissed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a 21 page dissenting opinion (which was longer than the
> majority
> > > > > > opinion) he ranted against the evils of gayo-Americans and the
> > > > > > devilishness of what they get up to in private.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in
> homosexual
> > > > > > conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
> > > > > > children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders
> in
> > > > > > their home," he wrote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now replace the phrase "persons who openly engage in homosexual
> > > > > > conduct" with the phrase "persons of color" and you'll see how far
> > > > > > neanderthals like Scalia have to go.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use that nonsense in a campaign speech and see how quickly the
> heterosexual
> > > > > black voters abandon you. You sorry racist, how dare you equate
> being
> black
> > > > > with being a homo?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Comically, Scalia also suggested that the court was "departing
> from
> > > > > > its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic
> rules
> > > > > > of engagement are observed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry fella, you hammered the final nail into that particular
> coffin
> > > > > > on December 12, 2000.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remember?
> > > > >
> > > > > He remembers better than you how he stopped the Florida State
> Supreme
> Court
> > > > > from selecting the loser, Gore. Independent recounts have
> vindicated
> the
> > > > > USSC decision.
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr. or Ms. Chain Smoker,
> > > > The only recount that matters, NORC's Florida statewide one--all
> > > > counties, all precincts--shows that Mr. Bush did not win. Not
> > > > incidentally, Florida law requires such recounts in certain close
> > > > elections, and Judge Lewis was ordering it when the 5-4 United States
> > > > Supreme Court order stopped the counting. Neither independent recount
> > > > nor history can vindicate the partisan decision in _Bush v. Gore_.
> > > > --Russ
> > >
> > > That's not true. First, no recount matters at all in this context since
> the
> > > election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest
> court
> > > in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters -- the
> vote
> > > in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held, it
> > > would have been held using the standards established for the origianl
> count.
> > > In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore are
> not
> > > allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than the
> > > person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over again,
> > > yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long
> enough
> > > to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are just as
> > > they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had more
> > > legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've got
> 5
> > > 1/2 more years to get used to the idea.
> >
> > No. When the NORC study counted all valid Florida votes, Mr. Bush did
> > not carry the state and thus could not have got a majority in the
> > electoral college, had the five partisans on the USSC not intervened.
> > You can get reports by Googling "NORC" or, even better, get the full
> > study at your library.
> > --Russ
>
> On the NORC website itself, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of
> specifics. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to say that they don't
> want to try and determine the "real winner" so I'm not sure what information
> you were able to garner from them . . . if you have a URL, please provide it
> and I will read it.
>
> In the mean time, I think the best analysis I saw of what those NORC results
> were was here.
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election
> in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide
> vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still
> have been elected president.
> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago
> conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media
> companies, including CNN.
>
> Later in the article, they do go into a number of "what if" scenarios, but
> those scenarios would have required an "on the fly" change in the rules each
> county uses to determine which ballots are valid and which aren't. Even the
> FSSC didn't (as far as I recall) issue an order that the recounts should be
> done using a standard not existant in some of those Florida counties at that
> time. After you've spent all this time considering all of the "coulda,
> shoulda, woulda" that would have made Gore win, consider that major news
> outlets write history as much as anyone, and CNN, among others, thinks the
> "Gore won" crowd is wrong. History will never vindicate you, now that so
> many of the majors have acknowledged Bush really did win. And he'll win
> again in 2004, after which your complaints will seem even more out of place
> than they do today.

"Best analysis"? Doesn't the above seem a bit partisan? Also, you may
have noted the above "analysis" is talking about the media, not NORC.
You might want to go to the library for the full NORC study, with no
"coulda, shoulda, woulda," and no partisan spin. You'll see that when
all valid Florida votes are counted, Mr. Bush does not win.
--Russ

"rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:7e483417.0307031340.c825d57@posting.google.co m...
> "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
news:<be1hms$u8g$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > news:7e483417.0307030421.35a55fa3@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bdvi07$jku$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:7e483417.0307021247.4e3049f@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<bdt0sm$j75$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:0404gvookrfroaknsvvrrs8tdbnkavvoja@4ax.com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The Supreme Court ruled last week to strike down Texas'
archaic
> > and
> > > > > > > homophobic sodomy law, and Antonin Scalia was pissed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In a 21 page dissenting opinion (which was longer than the
> > majority
> > > > > > > opinion) he ranted against the evils of gayo-Americans and the
> > > > > > > devilishness of what they get up to in private.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in
> > homosexual
> > > > > > > conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for
their
> > > > > > > children, as teachers in their children's schools or as
boarders
> > in
> > > > > > > their home," he wrote.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now replace the phrase "persons who openly engage in
homosexual
> > > > > > > conduct" with the phrase "persons of color" and you'll see how
far
> > > > > > > neanderthals like Scalia have to go.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Use that nonsense in a campaign speech and see how quickly the
> > heterosexual
> > > > > > black voters abandon you. You sorry racist, how dare you equate
> > being
> > black
> > > > > > with being a homo?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comically, Scalia also suggested that the court was "departing
> > from
> > > > > > > its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic
> > rules
> > > > > > > of engagement are observed."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry fella, you hammered the final nail into that particular
> > coffin
> > > > > > > on December 12, 2000.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Remember?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He remembers better than you how he stopped the Florida State
> > Supreme
> > Court
> > > > > > from selecting the loser, Gore. Independent recounts have
> > vindicated
> > the
> > > > > > USSC decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Mr. or Ms. Chain Smoker,
> > > > > The only recount that matters, NORC's Florida statewide
one--all
> > > > > counties, all precincts--shows that Mr. Bush did not win. Not
> > > > > incidentally, Florida law requires such recounts in certain close
> > > > > elections, and Judge Lewis was ordering it when the 5-4 United
States
> > > > > Supreme Court order stopped the counting. Neither independent
recount
> > > > > nor history can vindicate the partisan decision in _Bush v. Gore_.
> > > > > --Russ
> > > >
> > > > That's not true. First, no recount matters at all in this context
since
> > the
> > > > election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest
> > court
> > > > in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters --
the
> > vote
> > > > in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held,
it
> > > > would have been held using the standards established for the
origianl
> > count.
> > > > In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore
are
> > not
> > > > allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than
the
> > > > person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over
again,
> > > > yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long
> > enough
> > > > to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are
just as
> > > > they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had
more
> > > > legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've
got
> > 5
> > > > 1/2 more years to get used to the idea.
> > >
> > > No. When the NORC study counted all valid Florida votes, Mr. Bush did
> > > not carry the state and thus could not have got a majority in the
> > > electoral college, had the five partisans on the USSC not intervened.
> > > You can get reports by Googling "NORC" or, even better, get the full
> > > study at your library.
> > > --Russ
> >
> > On the NORC website itself, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of
> > specifics. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to say that they
don't
> > want to try and determine the "real winner" so I'm not sure what
information
> > you were able to garner from them . . . if you have a URL, please
provide it
> > and I will read it.
> >
> > In the mean time, I think the best analysis I saw of what those NORC
results
> > were was here.
> > http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
> >
> > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
election
> > in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a
statewide
> > vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still
> > have been elected president.
> > The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago
> > conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media
> > companies, including CNN.
> >
> > Later in the article, they do go into a number of "what if" scenarios,
but
> > those scenarios would have required an "on the fly" change in the rules
each
> > county uses to determine which ballots are valid and which aren't. Even
the
> > FSSC didn't (as far as I recall) issue an order that the recounts should
be
> > done using a standard not existant in some of those Florida counties at
that
> > time. After you've spent all this time considering all of the "coulda,
> > shoulda, woulda" that would have made Gore win, consider that major news
> > outlets write history as much as anyone, and CNN, among others, thinks
the
> > "Gore won" crowd is wrong. History will never vindicate you, now that
so
> > many of the majors have acknowledged Bush really did win. And he'll win
> > again in 2004, after which your complaints will seem even more out of
place
> > than they do today.
>
> "Best analysis"? Doesn't the above seem a bit partisan? Also, you may
> have noted the above "analysis" is talking about the media, not NORC.
> You might want to go to the library for the full NORC study, with no
> "coulda, shoulda, woulda," and no partisan spin. You'll see that when
> all valid Florida votes are counted, Mr. Bush does not win.
> --Russ

CNN is no friend of GWB. If it is partisan, it should skew against him. It
doesn't because the facts are plain. GWB beat your loser, just as he'll do
again in 2004.

Chain Smoker wrote:
>
> "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:7e483417.0307030421.35a55fa3@posting.google.c om...
> > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdvi07$jku$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7e483417.0307021247.4e3049f@posting.google.co m...
> > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<bdt0sm$j75$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:0404gvookrfroaknsvvrrs8tdbnkavvoja@4ax.com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The Supreme Court ruled last week to strike down Texas' archaic
> and
> > > > > > homophobic sodomy law, and Antonin Scalia was pissed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In a 21 page dissenting opinion (which was longer than the
> majority
> > > > > > opinion) he ranted against the evils of gayo-Americans and the
> > > > > > devilishness of what they get up to in private.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in
> homosexual
> > > > > > conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their
> > > > > > children, as teachers in their children's schools or as boarders
> in
> > > > > > their home," he wrote.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now replace the phrase "persons who openly engage in homosexual
> > > > > > conduct" with the phrase "persons of color" and you'll see how far
> > > > > > neanderthals like Scalia have to go.
> > > > >
> > > > > Use that nonsense in a campaign speech and see how quickly the
> > > heterosexual
> > > > > black voters abandon you. You sorry racist, how dare you equate
> being
> > > black
> > > > > with being a homo?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Comically, Scalia also suggested that the court was "departing
> from
> > > > > > its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic
> rules
> > > > > > of engagement are observed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry fella, you hammered the final nail into that particular
> coffin
> > > > > > on December 12, 2000.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remember?
> > > > >
> > > > > He remembers better than you how he stopped the Florida State
> Supreme
> > > Court
> > > > > from selecting the loser, Gore. Independent recounts have
> vindicated
> > > the
> > > > > USSC decision.
> > > >
> > > > Dear Mr. or Ms. Chain Smoker,
> > > > The only recount that matters, NORC's Florida statewide one--all
> > > > counties, all precincts--shows that Mr. Bush did not win. Not
> > > > incidentally, Florida law requires such recounts in certain close
> > > > elections, and Judge Lewis was ordering it when the 5-4 United States
> > > > Supreme Court order stopped the counting. Neither independent recount
> > > > nor history can vindicate the partisan decision in _Bush v. Gore_.
> > > > --Russ
> > >
> > > That's not true. First, no recount matters at all in this context since
> the
> > > election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest
> court
> > > in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters -- the
> vote
> > > in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held, it
> > > would have been held using the standards established for the origianl
> count.
> > > In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore are
> not
> > > allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than the
> > > person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over again,
> > > yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long
> enough
> > > to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are just as
> > > they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had more
> > > legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've got
> 5
> > > 1/2 more years to get used to the idea.
> >
> > No. When the NORC study counted all valid Florida votes, Mr. Bush did
> > not carry the state and thus could not have got a majority in the
> > electoral college, had the five partisans on the USSC not intervened.
> > You can get reports by Googling "NORC" or, even better, get the full
> > study at your library.
> > --Russ
>
> On the NORC website itself, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of
> specifics. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to say that they don't
> want to try and determine the "real winner" so I'm not sure what information
> you were able to garner from them . . . if you have a URL, please provide it
> and I will read it.
>
> In the mean time, I think the best analysis I saw of what those NORC results
> were was here.
> http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
>
> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election
> in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide
> vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still
> have been elected president.
> The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago
> conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media
> companies, including CNN.

CNN was technically not part of NORC.

They pulled out before the group started counting.

> Later in the article, they do go into a number of "what if" scenarios, but
> those scenarios would have required an "on the fly" change in the rules each
> county uses to determine which ballots are valid and which aren't. Even the
> FSSC didn't (as far as I recall) issue an order that the recounts should be
> done using a standard not existant in some of those Florida counties at that
> time. After you've spent all this time considering all of the "coulda,
> shoulda, woulda" that would have made Gore win, consider that major news
> outlets write history as much as anyone, and CNN, among others, thinks the
> "Gore won" crowd is wrong. History will never vindicate you, now that so
> many of the majors have acknowledged Bush really did win. And he'll win
> again in 2004, after which your complaints will seem even more out of place
> than they do today.

--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
Teddy Roosevelt

rbbomber wrote:

<snip>

> > election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest court
> > in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters -- the vote
> > in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held, it
> > would have been held using the standards established for the origianl count.
> > In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore are not
> > allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than the
> > person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over again,
> > yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long enough
> > to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are just as
> > they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had more
> > legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've got 5
> > 1/2 more years to get used to the idea.
>
> No. When the NORC study counted all valid Florida votes, Mr. Bush did
> not carry the state and thus could not have got a majority in the
> electoral college, had the five partisans on the USSC not intervened.
> You can get reports by Googling "NORC" or, even better, get the full
> study at your library.
> --Russ

You can claim any result you wish for the NORC survey. What you
can not do is to cite any single report from NORC stating the
results of their survey. Given, that fact, all that you can
offer is spin.

David

"Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message news:<be28ut$ic$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:7e483417.0307031340.c825d57@posting.google.co m...
> > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<be1hms$u8g$04$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > news:7e483417.0307030421.35a55fa3@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdvi07$jku$06$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > "rbbomber" <rbbomber@netzero.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:7e483417.0307021247.4e3049f@posting.google.co m...
> > > > > > "Chain Smoker" <joe@noname.com> wrote in message
> news:<bdt0sm$j75$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> > > > > > > "Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:0404gvookrfroaknsvvrrs8tdbnkavvoja@4ax.com...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The Supreme Court ruled last week to strike down Texas'
> archaic
> and
> > > > > > > > homophobic sodomy law, and Antonin Scalia was pissed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In a 21 page dissenting opinion (which was longer than the
> majority
> > > > > > > > opinion) he ranted against the evils of gayo-Americans and the
> > > > > > > > devilishness of what they get up to in private.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in
> homosexual
> > > > > > > > conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for
> their
> > > > > > > > children, as teachers in their children's schools or as
> boarders
> in
> > > > > > > > their home," he wrote.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now replace the phrase "persons who openly engage in
> homosexual
> > > > > > > > conduct" with the phrase "persons of color" and you'll see how
> far
> > > > > > > > neanderthals like Scalia have to go.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Use that nonsense in a campaign speech and see how quickly the
> heterosexual
> > > > > > > black voters abandon you. You sorry racist, how dare you equate
> > > being
> > > black
> > > > > > > with being a homo?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Comically, Scalia also suggested that the court was "departing
> from
> > > > > > > > its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic
> rules
> > > > > > > > of engagement are observed."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sorry fella, you hammered the final nail into that particular
> coffin
> > > > > > > > on December 12, 2000.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Remember?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He remembers better than you how he stopped the Florida State
> > > Supreme
> > > Court
> > > > > > > from selecting the loser, Gore. Independent recounts have
> > > vindicated
> > > the
> > > > > > > USSC decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Mr. or Ms. Chain Smoker,
> > > > > > The only recount that matters, NORC's Florida statewide
> one--all
> > > > > > counties, all precincts--shows that Mr. Bush did not win. Not
> > > > > > incidentally, Florida law requires such recounts in certain close
> > > > > > elections, and Judge Lewis was ordering it when the 5-4 United
> States
> > > > > > Supreme Court order stopped the counting. Neither independent
> recount
> > > > > > nor history can vindicate the partisan decision in _Bush v. Gore_.
> > > > > > --Russ
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not true. First, no recount matters at all in this context
> since
> the
> > > > > election results were certifiied, upheld (indirectly) by the highest
> court
> > > > > in America, and affirmed in the one election that really matters --
> the
> vote
> > > > > in the electoral college. Besides that, if a recount had been held,
> it
> > > > > would have been held using the standards established for the
> origianl
> count.
> > > > > In other words, people too stupid to know Pat Buchanan from Al Gore
> are
> not
> > > > > allowed to come back and insist their vote go to anyone other than
> the
> > > > > person for whom they originally voted. If they had it to do over
> again,
> > > > > yes, the idiots may have pulled their heads out of their asses long
> enough
> > > > > to get Gore into office. However, the true election results are
> just as
> > > > > they would have been had the USSC refused to intervene -- GWB had
> more
> > > > > legally cast votes in Florida than Gore did. Deal with it. You've
> got
> 5
> > > > > 1/2 more years to get used to the idea.
> > > >
> > > > No. When the NORC study counted all valid Florida votes, Mr. Bush did
> > > > not carry the state and thus could not have got a majority in the
> > > > electoral college, had the five partisans on the USSC not intervened.
> > > > You can get reports by Googling "NORC" or, even better, get the full
> > > > study at your library.
> > > > --Russ
> > >
> > > On the NORC website itself, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of
> > > specifics. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to say that they
> don't
> > > want to try and determine the "real winner" so I'm not sure what
> information
> > > you were able to garner from them . . . if you have a URL, please
> provide it
> > > and I will read it.
> > >
> > > In the mean time, I think the best analysis I saw of what those NORC
> results
> > > were was here.
> > > http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/flo...ries/main.html
> > >
> > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential
> election
> > > in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a
> statewide
> > > vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still
> > > have been elected president.
> > > The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago
> > > conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media
> > > companies, including CNN.
> > >
> > > Later in the article, they do go into a number of "what if" scenarios,
> but
> > > those scenarios would have required an "on the fly" change in the rules
> each
> > > county uses to determine which ballots are valid and which aren't. Even
> the
> > > FSSC didn't (as far as I recall) issue an order that the recounts should
> be
> > > done using a standard not existant in some of those Florida counties at
> that
> > > time. After you've spent all this time considering all of the "coulda,
> > > shoulda, woulda" that would have made Gore win, consider that major news
> > > outlets write history as much as anyone, and CNN, among others, thinks
> the
> > > "Gore won" crowd is wrong. History will never vindicate you, now that
> so
> > > many of the majors have acknowledged Bush really did win. And he'll win
> > > again in 2004, after which your complaints will seem even more out of
> place
> > > than they do today.
> >
> > "Best analysis"? Doesn't the above seem a bit partisan? Also, you may
> > have noted the above "analysis" is talking about the media, not NORC.
> > You might want to go to the library for the full NORC study, with no
> > "coulda, shoulda, woulda," and no partisan spin. You'll see that when
> > all valid Florida votes are counted, Mr. Bush does not win.
> > --Russ
>
> CNN is no friend of GWB. If it is partisan, it should skew against him. It
> doesn't because the facts are plain. GWB beat your loser, just as he'll do
> again in 2004.

Dear Ms. Smoker,
I hold no brief for Mr. Gore and have no interest in him. If you
have Googled "NORC" you know that when all valid Florida votes are
counted Mr. Bush does not win. Your best bet in learning from the
post-election ballot studies is more than a website--it's the full
NORC study, available at your library.
--Russ

rbbomber wrote:

<snip>

> Dear Ms. Smoker,
> I hold no brief for Mr. Gore and have no interest in him. If you
> have Googled "NORC" you know that when all valid Florida votes are
> counted Mr. Bush does not win. Your best bet in learning from the
> post-election ballot studies is more than a website--it's the full
> NORC study, available at your library.
> --Russ

Two facts.

One, no NORC issued report on the Two Thousand election exists.

Two, votes are not counted. Ballots are counted and votes are
determined. That one, or more, way existed to count ballots
which would given the election to Al Gore Junior does not show
that either the certified vote total was wrong, or that the new
vote total was any more reliable than the old.

Showing a different result, in of itself, does not establish that
the different result was the correct result.

David