Florida's butterfly ballot mess results in revote in 2000.

Suppose those 20,000 butterfly ballots in West Palm Beach that caused may voters to select Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore back in 2000 was important enough to have a re-vote in West Palm Beach.

I still think Bush would still have won anyway since Gov. Jeb Bush would campaign there big time to ensure a victory for his brother. Florida State secretary Catherine Harris would play a major role in how the re-vote would be set up. Sorry but I don't see much of a chance for Gore to be victorious here.
 
It's possible that you might have had the whole state revote, but just one area is unlikely. There was some screw ups in the heavy republican areas as well.

Final outcome? Who the hell knows. Gore came very close the first time, he very well may have won the second.

You might also have a re-vote in Arizona in that case. There was a bunch of ballots found uncounted from republican districts after the final results where in. Bush very well might have won Arizona baring that bit of voter fraud or ineptness.

Again I doubt it would have made little difference in the long run. Gore would have invaded Iraq and did most of the somethings Bush did (he might have been better at it though). Remember Gore was the guy who would say "Bomb em" when Clinton was quivering about legalities over dealing with rogue powers.
 
Suppose those 20,000 butterfly ballots in West Palm Beach that caused may voters to select Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore back in 2000 was important enough to have a re-vote in West Palm Beach.

I still think Bush would still have won anyway since Gov. Jeb Bush would campaign there big time to ensure a victory for his brother. Florida State secretary Catherine Harris would play a major role in how the re-vote would be set up. Sorry but I don't see much of a chance for Gore to be victorious here.


I refuse to believe that Democratic voters are dispoportionally dumber than Republican voters.;)

Despite all evidence...
 
I assume that in a second Florida vote (which was probably what should have happened)

1) Nader's vote would be squeezed to virtual non existence

2) There would be a huge effort by Democrats to make sure that innocentl people unjustly denied the vote because of false claims that they were fellons.

Gore would win by say 50 000- if not more
 
Are you sure you don't mean New Mexico, or somewhere else. Bush won Arizina in 2000. Clinton won it in '96, the first Democrat to do so since 1948. But Bush won AZ easily both times. NM was very close, but wemt to Gore.
It's possible that you might have had the whole state revote, but just one area is unlikely. There was some screw ups in the heavy republican areas as well.

Final outcome? Who the hell knows. Gore came very close the first time, he very well may have won the second.

You might also have a re-vote in Arizona in that case. There was a bunch of ballots found uncounted from republican districts after the final results where in. Bush very well might have won Arizona baring that bit of voter fraud or ineptness.

Again I doubt it would have made little difference in the long run. Gore would have invaded Iraq and did most of the somethings Bush did (he might have been better at it though). Remember Gore was the guy who would say "Bomb em" when Clinton was quivering about legalities over dealing with rogue powers.
 
But Gore didn't complain, because he didn't want to be a sore loser. Maybe it'd have been better, had he done that.
 
I can't see anyone standing for a revote only in one particular city. Whoever figured to lose in that city, would fight it to the death. Presumably, if a revote had occurred, it would have had to have been the entire state. My understanding is that it remains unclear who would have won -- the butterfly ballot hurt Gore, but there were other shenanigans that hurt Bush, and it's just very difficult to say how a revote turns out. Considering that the Supreme Court was conservative, perhaps it just would have been essentially the same thing, where the revote is still within the margin of error and the SC calls it for Bush.

Had Gore pulled the election out and had 9/11 occurred, I don't think he would have gone into Iraq. I agree that he was not a pacifist and would have no problem putting the armed forces into action, but it would have been Afghanistan and perhaps Pakistan if necessary. Regime change in Iraq had been a long-simmering neoconservative project. For those without that affiliation, there is not much reason to go in there.
 
I assume that in a second Florida vote (which was probably what should have happened)

1) Nader's vote would be squeezed to virtual non existence

2) There would be a huge effort by Democrats to make sure that innocentl people unjustly denied the vote because of false claims that they were fellons.

Gore would win by say 50 000- if not more

I dunno... in a case of a state wide revote, both sides would be doing the utmost to get out the vote... and I think you'd see a MUCH bigger turnout on the revote, since the state would literally decide the election... I don't think those denied the vote the first time around would be eligible, since the revote is likely to be restricted to those eligible and registered the first time around... otherwise, the revote would be open to a lot of shenanigans...

and I would hope that the state would switch to simple "Put an X next to the name" type of ballots instead of those punch chad things...
 
Are you sure you don't mean New Mexico, or somewhere else. Bush won Arizina in 2000. Clinton won it in '96, the first Democrat to do so since 1948. But Bush won AZ easily both times. NM was very close, but wemt to Gore.


Your right, it was new mexico. Thanks for the correction.
 

burmafrd

Banned
In a revote the odds still favor Bush in Florida. And another thing: remember that drunken driving charge made so convienently the friday before the election? The more time away from that the better for Bush.
That made a small but definite impact.
 
Top