Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yuedong wu who wrote (71512)	11/12/2000 3:53:59 PM
From: md1derful	Respond to of 769667

Yes, tomorrows WSJ editorial relates to the blatant unfairness of what Gore is doing, with his selected counting...we need Bush to select a predominantly Republican county in N Florida and have a manual recount to offset the added votes down here (disclaimer-I'm a rarity...I live in Palm Beach County and voted Republican) doc

To: yuedong wu who wrote (71512)	11/12/2000 3:54:07 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Okay, so why didn't the GOP demand vote recounts? In fact they did in Seminole county but besides that why did they strike the pose that the election was already over? It wasn't. The absentee ballots alone dictate that. So why did they pretend? IMHO it was a costly arrogant mistake which may cost them the election, fair or not from a GOP perspective. Again, perhaps the Federal court will overturn Florida state law and allow a total state recount. But even that might not help Bush. The GOP just insisted on a recount somewhere in Florida (I forget where) and it actually cost them votes. Also, I hate to say it but MAYBE democrats make more polling mistakes that Republicans. Ahem. It's certainly looking that way. and remember the last mechanical recount gave 1500 more to Gore than it did Bush. But it's now for the courts to decide, not us.

To: yuedong wu who wrote (71512)	11/12/2000 6:40:18 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 769667

Yes, but you see your friend actually reduces his blood pressure until it is 110/70 on the appropriate measuring device. Under operationalism, the accepted scientific theory of mensuration, his blood pressure is actually okay. The recounting of ballots until a stable, consistent result is another application of operationalism. The first tabulation is just a wild guess with wide margin of error. If it's close it needs to be recounted again and again until we can approximate a true result. "Counting" is the appropriate operation. You might advise your friend to get acupuncture which may help reach an acceptable b.p. level much quicker.