The Link to the story here

Gore's Lead in the Popular Vote Now Exceeds 500,000

December 30, 2000 THE FINAL TALLY By DAVID STOUT

ASHINGTON, Dec. 29 — Vice President Al Gore's nationwide lead in the popular vote has grown by about 200,000, to more than half a million, since Dec. 18, when the Electoral College sealed his fate and made Gov. George W. Bush the 43rd president of the United States.

A state-by-state survey by The Associated Press of the final certified results put Mr. Gore's popular vote edge at 539,947, up considerably from the lead of about 337,000 that was widely reported in the first several weeks after the election. The totals were 50,996,116 for Mr. Gore and 50,456,169 for Mr. Bush.

Much of the increase came in California, New York, and other, smaller states that went for Mr. Gore, said Curtis B. Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, a nonpartisan research group that has followed presidential elections for a quarter-century.

Election officials in California and New York said today that the bigger numbers for Mr. Gore were not hard to explain. Mr. Gore carried both states easily. Both had large numbers of absentee ballots, which could not be counted immediately, and, because absentee votes generally do not vary sharply from election night returns, it was predictable that the absentees would widen the vice president's lead.

Mr. Gans said that in 1996, President Clinton's lead over Bob Dole grew by some 200,000 votes from election night until all absentee ballots were counted and all the votes certified, a fact all but forgotten except by political trivia buffs.

"But it didn't matter," Mr. Gans said, in a race that the incumbent won by more than eight million popular votes and by a 379-to-159 advantage in the Electoral College.

In the 1960 election John F. Kennedy had the electoral vote edge and a 114,673-vote margin in the popular vote over Richard M. Nixon. A total of 68.8 million votes were cast for president. Eight years later Mr. Nixon won the Electoral College and a popular vote margin of 510,645 out of 73.2 million votes cast for president.

The 2000 election, of course, will be remembered as the first in 112 years in which the leader in the popular vote lost the White House because his opponent prevailed in the Electoral College.

Mr. Bush got 271 electoral votes, one more than he needed for a majority and five more than Mr. Gore, who lost one vote in the Electoral College when a Washington, D.C., elector left her ballot blank to protest the District of Columbia's lack of voting power in Congress.

Mr. Gore won New York State, 4,107,697 to 2,403,374, or by some 1.7 million votes. Lee Daghlian, the chief spokesman for the state's Board of Elections, said today that about 360,000 absentee ballots were requested, and that about 260,000 were returned in time to be counted. In New York, absentee ballots must be postmarked no later than the day before the election and received no later than a week after the election.

Mr. Daghlian said absentee balloting was about 20 percent higher this year than in 1996. He speculated that the presence of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut on the Democratic ticket might have caused more American Jews to mail ballots from Israel.

It was clear on election night that Mr. Gore had carried California in a landslide, so it was expected that the nearly 1.5 million absentee ballots that arrived in time to be accepted would sharply augment his victory — and they did.

The final certified totals in California were 5,861,203 for Mr. Gore and 4,567,429 for Mr. Bush. Alfie Charles, a spokesman for the California secretary of state, Bill Jones, said that the percentage of Californians voting by absentee ballot had been increasing, and that about one-quarter now did. (Californians can vote absentee without showing a compelling reason. Their ballots must arrive by Election Day to be counted.)

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Answers

You only listed the states where Gore won. WHAT ARE THE FINAL COUNTS IN BUSH'S STATES?

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Bush=Winner

Gore=Loser

End of story!

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Barry:

I hope so, but I doubt it. My guess is that the story is only starting and will get really ugly. But that is just a guess.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Since Al Gore claimed that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, we need to add Nader's total to Bush's total. Now Bush has won by over 2 million votes.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Z:

I must admit I have no idea what you're driving at. You seem to be trying to hint that Gore will somehow replace Bush, or that there will be some kind of general strike, or something else equally unlikely. What is this ugliness? My imagination comes up empty.

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

Flint:

My imagination comes up empty.

Mine does too; we will have to wait and see.

Best Wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 30, 2000

>> My guess is that the story is only starting and will get really ugly. <<

Yes, Z, the story about political shenanigans on November 7 (and, in Florida, just afterward) is not over. It may very well be a "really ugly" story. We can only hope the Miami Herald and a few other papers are committed to pursuing it. No TV network would touch this one.

My guess is that when the story does come out there will hundreds of powerful PR-types working overtime to convince editors to bury it. They will say Bush didn't authorize the dirty tricks and should not be undercut by revealing how the sytem was manipulated on his behalf. This often works. It may work again.

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Brian:

Ah, you awaken fond memories of the y2k doomies. So if the media find dirty tricks, it proves there were dirty tricks. If they report none, it proves that there were dirty tricks but that they were covered up! In a nutshell, we have "proof" there were dirty tricks *no matter what* is reported. These cannot be permitted! We're all gonna die!

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Flint:

Very good. There is a problem that I have with the analysis. Last year, based on what I could piece together from people doing the work [real people that I trusted and could talk to], there wasn't all that much to cover-up.

Now this seems different. Talking to people that I know and trust, there is a lot to cover-up. The question is: does this have anything to do with Bush.

Hence; wait and see.

Really, it probably makes little difference; I expect to see application of the Armey technique against Bush.

Best Wishes,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

>> If they report none, it proves that there were dirty tricks but that they were covered up! <<

Get back to me when I say what you said I said.

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

Brian:

[My guess is that when the story does come out]

Note: not if. When. And just how do you know there even IS such a story if it hasn't come out? Magic?

[there will hundreds of powerful PR-types working overtime to convince editors to bury it. They will say Bush didn't authorize the dirty tricks]

Not "were there dirty tricks?", you will notice. The ONLY question you are addressing is who authorized them and whether they will be buried by editors. The tricks themselves you take for granted.

[and should not be undercut by revealing how the sytem was manipulated on his behalf.]

Was the system in fact manipulated on his behalf? Don't ask, just assume. Let's talk about HOW it was done, not WHETHER it was done. And will the efforts to bury these tricks and keep the pure light of truth off of them succeed?

[This often works. It may work again.]

Well, There's our conclusion. IF they report the tricks, this is honest journalism. IF they don't, then the effort to cover them up worked again!

What's such a delicious reminder of y2k here is, once your mind is made up then *everything and its opposite* supports your foregone conclusions. You remind me of the guy who admitted he himself could not think of any evidence banks were OK that he could possibly find credible. But that didn't matter, because banks were toast anyway!

-- Anonymous, December 31, 2000

>> The tricks themselves you take for granted. <<

The first words in my reply were "My guess is..." Who (besides you) could have known I was taking what followed "for granted"? Your superior intellect once more triumphs.

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001

CPR, thanks for reminding me how wrong I was about y2k, you are so smart, we are such worms. Thankyou for not giving up on us lower life forms.

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001

Brian:

Playing dumb is something you can no longer get away with, sorry. You were clearly guessing about what might happen WHEN the "real" story comes out. MAYBE the press will report it for all to see, but you GUESS that it will be covered up because such things have been before.

You are NOT "guessing" about the dirty tricks, you assume they exist and are only speculating about how the press will handle them. But I must admit I have to laugh when I see you quoting *yourself* out of context to pretend you didn't say what you clearly did. Sorry, but your position is neither subtle nor open to interpretation, as I demonstrated.

-- Anonymous, January 01, 2001

>> as I demonstrated. <<

I believe the tag is: QED.

BTW, how refreshing it is to be lectured on what I meant. In the future I should just dispense with the middle man and let you speak for me. In fact, that's just what I will do.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

That would be nice.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

>> That would be nice. <<

Please address any future correspondance to my mouthpiece: Flint.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

hey flint do you still plan on voting for the green party presidential candidate in 2004?

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Brian:

I can only read your words, not your mind. So I could only evaluate what you wrote, not what you meant. If the two are all that different, this should be of some passing concern to you as a professional writer.

You made the same underlying assumptions time after time. You *knew* there must have been unreported dirty tricks. You speculated as to whether these would be reported or covered up, and guessed that they'd be covered up. This isn't surprising, since if there WERE NO such tricks, claiming a cover-up is a good prepared position.

But why continue making weak attempts to weasel out of what you said, and trying to deflect the light being shone on it? If you believe there were dirty tricks, why not stake a claim to this belief, supported or not? If you are waiting for evidence, why not claim that tricks are the default until someone says otherwise in a fashion you find convincing? You said what you said (and did NOT make any other case) no matter what you think of me.

You are being undone by your own antipathies. How very sad.

Barry:

Hey, c'mon now, Brian is kinda cool. I love it when I can get him to say, essentially, "I was just, uh, *dusting* the inside of the cookie jar, yeah, that's what I was doing. So YOU are jumping to comclusions!" This is just good clean fun.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

>> But why continue making weak attempts to weasel out of what you said, and trying to deflect the light being shone on it? <<

So good of you to tell me what I was trying to do. Please do continue.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Happy New Year Brian…..give and take, you know the drill.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Hehehe. Point out that he weasels -- and he promptly weasels!

And this is yet *another* doomie tactic. Say something unsupportable, and then attack whoever points this out, but NEVER address what you actually said. Unsupportable things are kinda like that, I guess.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

>> he promptly weasels [...] then attack whoever points this out <<

So, I am an attack weasel?

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Ah, how the mighty have fallen, and to such mean and lowly estate. And yet by your own efforts. The wages of deceit are most tragic when you are your own victim. Or something like that, anyway.

-- Anonymous, January 02, 2001

Don't expect Flint to acknowledge that Bush "won" even though he lost the popular vote and the votes in Florida. That would be admitting there was a coup, wouldn't it? That would be admitting that our precious right to vote had been dismantled by the Gop, which Flint and all the other everyday traitors continue to justify. These traitors-next-door refuse to acknowledge that democracy was just overthrown here in the good ol' USA.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001

>> And yet by your own efforts. <<

And yet ... and yet ... had Flint not been there to interpret "my own efforts" into other words and characterize them to suit his own point of view ... perhaps... ah, but I dream.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001

But then, why become an attack weasel rather than make the effort to cast your words into their proper light? Can we assume that if you'd had a leg to stand on, you'd have stood on it? Why didn't you?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001

>> Can we assume that if you'd had a leg to stand on, you'd have stood on it? <<

Clearly, you can assume whatever you want to assume. It's easy, really. If you just put your mind to it, you can assume like crazy. Why pretend you need my permission?

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001

Present score; an average of 9 for Brian, and an average of 7.5 for Flint.

-- Anonymous, January 03, 2001