>so you disagree, i take it, with those talking heads and party hacks who
>claim that one side will have to fold up its tent within the week, with or
>without a hand-count resolution?
>it does seem there would be an enormous political cost associated with
going
>on past that point, if only because the conventional wisdom on the subject
>is so pervasive as to ensure a public backlash.
The "conventional wisdom" is an ass, better known as THE NEW YORK TIMES and the Networks. They were wrong on the public demand for impeachment and infinite other issues. And they are wrong on this one.
Most folks know that the world will not crumble if it takes a few weeks more to actually count the votes. The only aversion to litigation in the public is the view that it might not reflect real voting grievances but just lawyer tricks. As long as each step of litigation is seen as representing the real denial of voting rights and assuring a "real count", the public will support it.
The most talked about issue - the "butterfly ballot" - is seen as a mixture of legitimate grievance and lawyering votes cast, so it has mixed support. But if the Miami folks can frame their lawsuits with real legal issues, I think most of the public will accept them as a legitimate delay.
As Letterman keeps saying, Bush isn't President, Gore isn't President, why can't we keep it that way? That joke is the residual support for Clinton-- no one feels terrible that Gore or Bush can't immediately measure drapes in the White House. Each can quietly plan contingency plans for when they win and they'll be a bit slower out of the gates.
Only the political class in DC looking for jobs sees that as a "crisis." Most of the public recognizes it as an inconvenience that is unfortunate but less important than getting a fair outcome.
As for Michael arguing that it would be good for Gore to lose, there are some advantages but oddly, this whole post-election nightmare is actually going to increase the Democratic loyalty to Gore and has radically increased the enthusiasm for him to win among his partisans. For survival in DC, strong unyielding support from your own supporters is far more critical than vague public opinion on "legitimacy", since Gore supporters will see him as completely legitimate because of the popular vote plus the Nader votes they would have gotten (in their perception, so we don't have to have that debate again).
-- Nathan Newman
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Nathan Newman Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 11:29 AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Advantage Bush?
So what? Not that anyone wants it to go that long, but most hand recounts have happened AFTER state certification of local returns and have overturned elections months later.
For all the do-or-die hoopla on state certification of results, it doesn't matter very much legally, although it is probably important symbolically.
So all results in Florida can be certified tonight and 5pm, George Bush can win a majority of the absentee votes on Friday, and Gore can still push for hand counts in counties and win the state election.
Plenty of precedents in past hand counts in Florida.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Perry" <sperry at usinternet.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:14 PM Subject: Advantage Bush?
one thing the pundits are failing to point out: because of the stalls and false starts in initiating recounts in broward and dade, there's little chance those recounts could be completed by friday or saturday. and thus, unless the judge's ruling that's due momentarily should introduce a new wrinkle, there's no percentage for the bush camp in agreeing to a statewide hand recount.