All the news analysis I have seen of the Florida ballots after the fact supports the conclusion that Bush would have won, anyway. It appears that Moore found one person who had a different opinion, although he doesn't say what it's based on.
>>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.
NORC dispatched an army of trained investigators to examine closely every rejected ballot in all 67 Florida counties, including handwritten and punch-card ballots. The NORC team of coders were able to examine about 99 percent of them, but county officials were unable to deliver as many as 2,200 problem ballots to NORC investigators. In addition, the uncertainties of human judgment, combined with some counties' inability to produce the same undervotes and overvotes that they saw last year, create a margin of error that makes the study instructive but not definitive in its findings. <<
cnn.com
The fact that not one Democrat Senator wanted to investigate the election tends to prove it was valid, not disprove it.
It's simply not true that protestors don't show up for inagurations. Read up on the Nixon inauguration as an example.
You left out Moore's argument that Gore won the popular vote, which is pig-ignorant. Presidents are not elected by popular vote, but by the electoral college. Any well educated teenager knows that, but apparently not Moore.
What is the relevance of Bush having a relative at Fox? Are you sure you have your tinfoil wrapped tight? |
