I found this interesting tidbit on-line today.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/16/112451.shtml

In short, it states that the key to the 2000 results in FLorida came from voters in Israel.

The thing that frustrated people in 2000 is that after election day results were counted, Gore was ahead by 202 votes.  However, after the overseas ballots were counted, Bush was ahead by 537 votes.  A lot of people think this was largely due to campaigning among the over 12,000 expatriate Americans living in Israel.

I found this interesting tidbit on-line today.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/16/112451.shtml

In short, it states that the key to the 2000 results in FLorida came from voters in Israel.

The thing that frustrated people in 2000 is that after election day results were counted, Gore was ahead by 202 votes.  However, after the overseas ballots were counted, Bush was ahead by 537 votes.  A lot of people think this was largely due to campaigning among the over 12,000 expatriate Americans living in Israel.


My understanding is that military people overseas (for whatever reason) tend to vote pro-Republican, and that military absentee ballots were the bigger factor.

Who knows though?  The Zionist lobby pumps money to all of the candidates.

I think it is abundantly clear that the US has not been a melting pot but a salad bowl.  Lots of groups have emerged, each with its own agenda based on specific issues, and the Jewish community does overwhelming support Isreal, as should be expected.  How that tanslated into votes in Florida in 2000 is hard to tell, but I'm sure it wasn't "Jews for Buchanan".

My understanding is that military people overseas (for whatever reason) tend to vote pro-Republican, and that military absentee ballots were the bigger factor.

Who knows though?  The Zionist lobby pumps money to all of the candidates.


The point of the article is that while the military is a big factor, the one that probably tipped the ballance is the vote of "Expatriate Americans", most notably the ones who currently reside in Israel.  That was a group that had largely been ignored in the past.

And whatever you may believe, I do not believe in a "Zionist Conspiracy" or anything like that.  Remember these are American citizens.  Just like Johnny Depp, who is an Expatriate living in France.  Mr. Depp is also allowed to vote in US Elections because he is still a US citizen.

If you can link the same info to a reputable source, not newsmax, I'll read it.  I don't want to give that site another "hit."

The problem with the military overseas votes is that Bush people only wanted ballots from certain Republican-voting counties counted, not ALL military votes counted.  That's why the Dems objected.

The point of the article is that while the military is a big factor, the one that probably tipped the ballance is the vote of "Expatriate Americans", most notably the ones who currently reside in Israel.  That was a group that had largely been ignored in the past.

And whatever you may believe, I do not believe in a "Zionist Conspiracy" or anything like that.  Remember these are American citizens.  Just like Johnny Depp, who is an Expatriate living in France.  Mr. Depp is also allowed to vote in US Elections because he is still a US citizen.
Indeed, when will the liberals stop whining about Bush winning in 2000 ::).....let's move on :)

Indeed, when will the liberals stop whining about Bush winning in 2000 ::).....let's move on :)

Yeah, stop whining about the crime of the century!

I think it is abundantly clear that the US has not been a melting pot but a salad bowl.  Lots of groups have emerged, each with its own agenda based on specific issues, and the Jewish community does overwhelming support Isreal, as should be expected.  How that tanslated into votes in Florida in 2000 is hard to tell, but I'm sure it wasn't "Jews for Buchanan".


From what I have seen over the years, the Jewish comminity tends to split over Conservative/Liberal ideas.

The more Orthadox tends to be Conservative, and votes that way.  They also tend to be more "Pro-Israel".  The less Orthadox Jews tend to be more Liberal, more Socialist, and less "Pro-Israel" then they are "Pro-Jewish".  Of course, this is not a kind of a blanket statement, just things I have noticed.

I have read before that the 2 states which have the most expatriate citizens living in Israel are New York and Florida.  Since New York is traditionally a Democrat state, the botes there do not matter much.  But as we saw in 2000, just a few hundred votes in a key state like Florida can change the entire outcome of an election.

The military vote is one that the Democrats rarely look for as a general rule.  For the most part it is Republican, because that is the party which gives them the most support.  While Carter and Clinton let them largely languish, Reagan and Bush gave them lots of support, both morally and in "new toys".

As my company's "Voter Registration NCO" in 1998, I can fairly make the statement that the party affiliation of the servicemen is pretty much equal Democrat to Republican.  This support rarely makes it's way to have one change party over it.  But it does tend to make them want to back the candidate that will "do the most for them".

I think that Buchanan did have an influence in the 2000 election though.  As a spoiler, he collected a lot of support because of his "Pro-Israel" stance.  The fact that he was an Independent made him a more favorable choice.

I for one do not accept the idea that voted meant for Gore were counted as Buchanan by mistake.  And there is a valid reason for this.  In looking at the 2000 results state-by-state, Buchanan got roughly the same number of votes as Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate.  For the most part, both of them were VERY close in numbers state-by-state.  In fact, added together, Buchanan beat Browne in 34 states.  That is just a little over half, and Buchanan was not included on 2 balots (Washington DC and Michigan.

Then when you look at the votes in Florida, Buchanan got 17,484 and Browne got 16,415.  Both of them catered to roughly the same crowd.  Looking at this, I can comfortably state that the votes for Buchanan in most cases really were cast for Buchanan.  Othewwise, I would expect to see a surge of votes far in excess to those that Browne got.  The spread of 1,069 votes is actually much smaller then the spread between them in most other states.  In fact, the votes recieved by Ralph Nader (97,488) is much more likely the REAL "spoiler" of the results there.  This is one reason why there is almost nothing being said about Nader in the press now, they do not want him to be a spoiler again.

If anybody wants to check this out, here is a link to a breakdown, state by state, of all the maajor parties.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

If you can link the same info to a reputable source, not newsmax, I'll read it.  I don't want to give that site another "hit."

The problem with the military overseas votes is that Bush people only wanted ballots from certain Republican-voting counties counted, not ALL military votes counted.  That's why the Dems objected.


I am so sorry Max, I forgot that you consider Newmax an unreliable source which is all propaganda and lies.

OK, how about this.  Is MSNBC reputable?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5715758/

How about the Chicago Sun-Times?
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-camp16.html

Indeed, when will the liberals stop whining about Bush winning in 2000 ::).....let's move on :)



Well, there are some people who can't stop whining about Clinton and he has been out of office for 4 years now.

The thing is, the election was stolen-which is a very serious crime. It is documented that people were denied their right to vote, votes were not counted and discarded. In other words, the voice of the "people" was silenced. Unfortunately, the perpatrators will not be held accountable and that is what the real crime is. Because ALL of us pay. It really makes our democracy a joke. The sad point about it is that it can be done again. How would you feel if you went to the polls on election day and told that you could not vote? That is what happened to many, many people-most of them were black. Yeah, you could have that corrected but by then, election day was over and they couldn't vote. That is a violation of their Constitutional Rights. I'm sorry but I can't just look the other way when a crime was committed and justice was not served!




Cat

Yeah, stop whining about the crime of the century!
The crime of the century was my son being murdered.....I was just saying my feelings.

Well, there are some people who can't stop whining about Clinton and he has been out of office for 4 years now.

The thing is, the election was stolen-which is a very serious crime. It is documented that people were denied their right to vote, votes were not counted and discarded. In other words, the voice of the "people" was silenced. Unfortunately, the perpatrators will not be held accountable and that is what the real crime is. Because ALL of us pay. It really makes our democracy a joke. The sad point about it is that it can be done again. How would you feel if you went to the polls on election day and told that you could not vote? That is what happened to many, many people-most of them were black. Yeah, you could have that corrected but by then, election day was over and they couldn't vote. That is a violation of their Constitutional Rights. I'm sorry but I can't just look the other way when a crime was committed and justice was not served!




Cat
I may talk about Clinton but it's because HE got away with releasing CRIMINALS....I am gonna probably vote for a guy who acted when our nation was attacked over a guy who says he is reporting for duty...and then he'll go drink champagne with Jane Fonda. Bush may bother many...even I don't like all he does, BUT he is the lesser of two evils...Kerry is a flake and a fake. This is nothing personal, just how I feel.

Yeah, stop whining about the crime of the century!


Good God how many times do we have to count those ballots?  And even if Gore did win the popular vote in the state of Florida (which he didn't) the electoral vote could still go for Bush, especially by such a thin margin.

And wasn't the crime of the century 9/11?

Good God how many times do we have to count those ballots?  And even if Gore did win the popular vote in the state of Florida (which he didn't) the electoral vote could still go for Bush, especially by such a thin margin.

And wasn't the crime of the century 9/11?
It's the war of politics....we aren't right about everything and neither are the liberals....it's a tie and this election will come and go

I will keep hammering this point until one of you guys has the cajones to answer it.
What about the 56000 African American votes? The bushs'  engineered it, the Senate
let us down, the american people let us down, and now it is being ignored. Address
the issue.

I will keep hammering this point until one of you guys has the cajones to answer it.
What about the 56000 African American votes? The bushs'  engineered it, the Senate
let us down, the american people let us down, and now it is being ignored. Address
the issue.


Okay i'll bite:

05/11/2001 - Updated 10:36 AM ET
By Dennis Cauchon and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY

George W. Bush would have won a hand recount of all disputed ballots in Florida's presidential election if the most widely accepted standard for judging votes had been applied, the first comprehensive examination of the ballots shows. However, the review of 171,908 ballots also reveals that voting mistakes by thousands of Democratic voters — errors that legally disqualified their ballots — probably cost former vice president Al Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes. That's enough to have decisively won Florida and the White House. Gore's best chance to win was lost before the ballots were counted, the study shows. Voters' confusion with ballot instruction and design and voting machines appears to have changed the course of U.S. history.

Who won Florida?

Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten the manual counts he requested in four counties?
Answer: George W. Bush.

Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president?
Answer: Bush, under 3 of 4 standards.

Who would have won if all disputed ballots - including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president - had been recounted by hand?
Answer: Bush, under the 2 most widely used standards; Gore, under the 2 least used.

Source: USATODAY.com http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm AND http://www.nytimes.com/images/2001/11/12/politics/recount/

--How many times do I have to say it, A STATE CAN CAST ITS ELECTORAL VOTE FOR WHOEVER THEY WANT.  California this election will probably be over 60% for Kerry, but California if it wanted to could cast all its 55 electoral votes for Bush.  But it doesn't matter, this 20,000 black voters in Florida couldn't vote is B.S., and not one black person has ever steped forward to my knowledge.

Gore: ''We should re-count all the Jewish, black, and hispanic vote in liberal counties of Florida, and whoever wins between me and Bush should win Florida.'' -Mad TV (just a joke.)

You did not address my question. I am much to incensed to write rationally about this so I will copy and paste
this article from Greg Palast.  The facts in this article are all on the congressional records.

Five months before the election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris ordered the removal of 57,700 names from Florida’s voter rolls on grounds that they were felons. Voter rolls contain the names of all eligible, registered voters. If you’re not on the list, you don’t get to vote.

If you commit a felony in Florida, you lose your right to vote there, and you‘re “scrubbed” from the rolls. You become a non-citizen, like in the old Soviet Union. This is not the case in most other states; it’s an uncivilized vestige of the Deep South.

My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime – except for being African American. We didn’t have to guess about that, because next to each voter’s name was their race.

When I questioned Harris’ office about the high percentage of African Americans on the scrub list, they responded, “Well, you know how many black people commit crimes.”

But these people weren’t felons, so why were they scrubbed?

The Florida Republicans wanted to block African Americans, who largely vote as Democrats, from voting. In 1999 they fired the company they were paying $5,700 to compile their felony “scrub” lists and replaced them with Database Technologies , who they paid $2.3 million to do the same job.

There are a lot of Joe Smiths in the Florida phonebook. DBT was hired to verify which Joe Smith was a felon and which was not. They were supposed to use their extensive databases to check credit cards, bank information, addresses and phone numbers, in addition to names, ages, and social security numbers. But they didn’t. They didn’t use one of their 1,200 databases to verify personal information, nor did they make a single phone call to verify the identity of scrubbed names.

So where did DBT get their data?

From the Internet. They went to 11 other states’ Internet sites and took names off dirt-cheap. They scrubbed Florida voters whose names were similar to out-of-state felons. An Illinois felon named John Michaels could knock off Florida voter John, Johnny, Jonathan or Jon R. Michaels, or even J.R. Michaelson. DBT matched for race and gender, but names only had to be similar to a certain degree. Names could be reversed, and suffixes (Jr., Sr.) were ignored, but aliases were included. So the felon John “Buddy” Michaels could knock non-felon Michael Johns or Bud Johnson Jr. off the voter rolls. This happened again and again.

Although DBT didn’t get names, birthdays or social security numbers right, they were very careful to match for race. A black felon named Mr. Green would only knock off a black Mr. Green, but not a single white Mr. Green. That’s how DBT earned its $2.3 million.

Why didn’t DBT use their own databases?

They didn’t, because the state told them not to. Choicepoint vice-president James Lee was grilled by a Congressional committee, headed by Cynthia McKinney, and he admitted everything, but said DBT was following state directives. Florida state officials told DBT to knock off voters by incorrectly matching them with felons.

Congresswoman McKinney led this commission to her own peril. Choicepoint is in her Atlanta district. She was destroyed in the last election by fabricated quotes and a vicious propaganda campaign.

Is this the only way votes were stolen?

No. There were 8,000 Floridians who had committed misdemeanors, but were counted as felons. Their votes were scrubbed. Katherine Harris’ office illegally scrubbed people who’d served time in other states, then moved to Florida, and Jeb Bush’s office illegally barred these people from registering to vote at all.

The biggest wholesale theft occurred inside the voting booths in black rural counties. In Gadsden County, one of the blackest in the state, thousands of votes were simply thrown away. Gadsden used paper ballots which are read by an optical reader. Ballots with a single extra mark were considered “spoiled“ and not counted. The buttons used to fill out the ballots were set up – with approval from Bush and Harris – to make votes appear unclear to the machine. One in eight ballots in Gadsden was voided by the state.

The same ballots were used in Tallahassee County, which is mostly white. There only one in 100 votes was “spoiled.” What made the difference? In Tallahassee, ballots were read on the premises, and if they were marked incorrectly, voters were sent to revote until they got it right. In the black counties, the votes were trucked off immediately. There were no machines on site. Voters weren’t told that their votes were spoiled, and they certainly weren’t permitted to re-vote.

When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t. He didn’t even bother to ask how the machines were set up. This is the kind of reporting we get in America. In Britain, this story ran 3 weeks after the election, when Gore was still in race. It was in the papers and on TV. In the US, it was seven months before the Washington Post ran it, and then it was only a partial version. After the election, Gadsden County replaced its voting commissioner. In 2002 they only lost one in 500 votes. So you can say blacks in Gadsden got smarter in one way – they elected a black elections chief.

What happened to Choicepoint?

Bush is handing them the big contracts in the War on Terror; immigration reviews, DNA cataloging, airport profiling, and their voting systems are being rolled out across the country.

It wasn’t reported in mainstream press, but the NAACP sued Harris and the gang for the black purge, and won. The state threw up its hands immediately and said, ‘You got us! We’ll put these people back as soon as we can.’ We’re still waiting.