To: HairBall who wrote (62110 ) 11/10/2000 12:32:07 AM From: KymarFye Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 99985 OT: Not sure how I feel about the whole thing, am still collecting information, but, LG, you do have a couple of your facts wrong. The state in which the polls were held open longer in a Democrat-leaning precinct was Missouri, which ended up going for Bush. The loser in the Senate race, Ashcroft, chose not to protest the result. Rep. Wexler claims that the figures the Bush campaign has been putting out about rejected ballots and so on are inaccurate. All the same, I do think that, unless the "hand count" ballots, absentee ballots, and any other votes they come up with push the final tally to Gore over the next week, unless a very strong case can be made in court on behalf of voters who are suing, or unless some new information arises, the Gore campaign will finally drop their claims - but only after they've twisted the de-legitimization knife as Bush's midsection for a while longer. From what I've read about Gore (the Maraniss biography), he's an extremely competitive man, and I think, considering the personal slant of the Bush campaign against him, he has no reason to do them any favors. Still, contrary to popular perception, he doesn't really "want it" for himself so deeply, and it's entirely within his character and profile to offer up an act of apparent self-sacrifice. It's not, however, entirely his decision, at least at this early point. Also, considering that, 1) for the moment, he's still ahead in both electoral and popular counts, and 2) he and his people really do believe they deserve to have won Florida, they have every right and arguably even an obligation to press their case as strongly as they can. From the D point of view, weakening Bush as much as possible is a valid goal: It's their job to make sure no one has any doubts about just how weak his mandate is. Could be very important when the rubber hits the road on policy controversies later on.