This, right here, shows why Al Gore has done more to damage this country's political system than perhaps any other person in history: Rather than concede the '00 election, which he lost fair and square (actually he DID concede, then he called back and withdrew his concession, which is a whole other story) he dragged things out with a messy, divisive, and time-consuming legal battle. It didn't get him the Oval Office, but it did add an incredibly stupid page to the Democratic playbook. The recall strategy was used by Washington State Democratic gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire to steal the Washington Statehouse. And now Kucinich is using it for reasons that are, quite frankly, mystifying. Is he hoping a recount will be tilt the win from Hillary to Obama? Is he thinking that, somehow, he got 40% of the votes (vice 2%)? Or does he just want to try and get 4% in his lousy finish? At any rate, it pretty much confirms Kucinich should never and will never be allowed to be President. Not only does his strategy make no sense, it appears from the story that he doesn't even understand what he is doing and is wasting his backers' money. (From the link) Since the 39% Hillary got is a bit more three percentage points higher than Kucinich's 2%, he's going to need to pony up a heckuva a lot more than two grand.
And if you were paying attention, you'd realize that in Iowa he told his supporters to vote for Obama.
Could also be that Kucinich actually believes what he says about why he wants the recount... which would put him 20 steps ahead of Hillary, Edwards, and possibly Obama.
If 'a difference from pre-election polls' is seriously one of the reasons why Kookcinch wants a recount then he's just a fucking loon.
In the 2000 fuck-up, a recount was necessary, because the first count was indeed false. But rather than have a simple and complete recount, the two sides struggled about whether to have one, whether to count certain districts, and whether the recount should fail because it would take 4 days longer than expected. Which results in a major and continuing loss of faith in the process. In this case, Kucinich has clearly said he does NOT expect a better result for himself, and he does NOT claim that the first count was false, but he wants a complete paper recount done because it will restore faith in the process. Agree or disagree with his hopes that this will work, he's trying to mend, not continue, the damage done by Gore and Bush in 2000.
i suggest that the phrase "the damagedone by gore and bush", since the damage was done by bush considering that gore actually won. if bush hadnt have cheated, then nobody would hear anything else about it.
Am I one of the few posters here who actually remembers reports that the Gore campaingn was predicting that they would lose the popular vote, but would still win the electoral college? They were fine with that idea until it became apparent that President Bush had won the college, then it was all about how unfair the (democratic party created ) ballot was, and how only a few cherry-picked districts should be recounted. And then it was all about how, since we don't like the outcome, let's sue to change the rules of the game, after the game's been played and lost.
Does anyone else remember the Florida Supreme Court basically rewriting election law, and allowing endless recounts? Which is what finally got the US Supremes involved. On another note, doncha just love the input of a socialist kraut, and a mick?
^ Of course I remember. That was what was illegal about the election. The Florida Supreme Court, composed of six Democrats and one independent if I remember correctly, kept changing the rules from what the law said to what they thought it should be, in order to allow yet another recount. And every time that also resulted in a Bush win, they tried to change it again. Finally, SCOTUS stepped in to say they couldn't do that, which put an end to the whole process. But the tinfoil-hat-on-the-left crowd keeps trying to re-write history to make it out that SCOTUS "gave the election to Bush" or something.
If there is concern with the Diebold system, why not do a hand count in a tiny state like New Hampshire (It's like recounting Chester and Delaware Counties here in PA.)? If there is an issue, then it becomes evident. If not, then people can trust the computer results more. I see no downside if Kucinich has to pay for it.
All of that is true. However, it is also true that none of those recounts actually encompassed all the inaccurate previous counts that needed correction, not least because the Democrats wanted to restrict the recounts in hopes of increasing their chances, but also because the Republicans were doing the same thing. If they had simply agreed to recount all the districts, the process would have retained some credibility -- and incidentally, in that scenario, Gore would have won. So while it is inaccurate to say that Bush stole the election, or that SCOUTUS stole it for him, it is also inaccurate to say that Bush won the election. But instead, both sides tried to play the game rather than determine the rightful winner. Again, what Kucinich is tyring to do here seems to be the opposite. Wikipedia actually gives a rather good overview of the admittedly complicated process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
If it's done for an incredibly inane reason (like the folks who voted in areas where they hand counted the ballots voting differently then the folks who voted in areas where the votes were counted by machines) then it's just a colossal waste of time.
Most of the world takes a lot more interest than we should in what is going on in America since it is deciding who is then going to be putting input into the affairs of our countries.
When you're doubting that the machines work, what could be more troubling than that result? What would be a non-inane (ane? ) reason?
Then all I ask is that they get the facts right, and not tell me their fantasy versions of what happened.
