Al Gore challenged the 2000 election, leading to nasty feelings that survive to this day

[whitehall]

When Al Gore was caught in a felony, campaigning for Clinton using White House phones and soliciting foreign donations his alibi was "there is no controlling authority". Of course there was a "controlling authority" but all bets are off when the media becomes the propaganda arm of the democrat party.

 

[TooTall]

Bush continued the housing policies that were put in place by Clinton and that was his mistake. He then gave Obama TARP to fix the problem and Obama pissed it away on green energy programs and then laughed when asked about all of those shovel ready jobs that weren't there.

Much ignorance there.

1. CRA was put in place in 1977, revised during Clinton and was way down in scope before real estate exploded. It was looked into and the link wan't found, meaning in areas covered by program there were not more foreclosures than non-CRA mortgages.

Most economists attribute GR first and foremost to market exuberance and widespread risk management failures. In English that means real estate was commonly thought of fool-proof investment to be leveraged to no end by fancy financial instruments...and then reality proved that it wasn't.

2. TARP worked more or less as intended, likely preventing widespread financial sector collapse and in the end cost the tax payers. Original 700 billion price tag turned out to be actually around ~30 billion dollar net expense to Federal government after financial institutions have repaid most of it (with interest)

3. The "Green programs" were not part of TARP they were part ARRA aka. Stimulus. The fact that some projects had some delay in implementation (referred to as "not shovel ready") , doesn't mean they didn't happen. They did, even if half a year or year later, in 2011-2012.

Bush continued the housing policies that were put in place by Clinton and that was his mistake. He then gave Obama TARP to fix the problem and Obama pissed it away on green energy programs and then laughed when asked about all of those shovel ready jobs that weren't there.

Much ignorance there.

1. CRA was put in place in 1977, revised during Clinton and was way down in scope before real estate exploded. It was looked into and the link wan't found, meaning in areas covered by program there were not more foreclosures than non-CRA mortgages.

Most economists attribute GR first and foremost to market exuberance and widespread risk management failures. In English that means real estate was commonly thought of fool-proof investment to be leveraged to no end by fancy financial instruments...and then reality proved that it wasn't.

2. TARP worked more or less as intended, likely preventing widespread financial sector collapse and in the end cost the tax payers. Original 700 billion price tag turned out to be actually around ~30 billion dollar net expense to Federal government after financial institutions have repaid most of it (with interest)

3. The "Green programs" were not part of TARP they were part ARRA aka. Stimulus. The fact that some projects had some delay in implementation (referred to as "not shovel ready") , doesn't mean they didn't happen. They did, even if half a year or year later, in 2011-2012.

This is what I read and I don't believe the rest of your spin either.

Jun. 13, 2011 4:36pm

President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness met today in Durham, NC at Cree Inc., a company that manufactures energy-efficient LED lighting. One of the Council’s recommendations to President Obama was to streamline the federal permit process for construction and infrastructure projects. It was explained to Obama that the permitting process can delay projects for “months to years … and in many cases even cause projects to be abandoned … I’m sure that when you implemented the Recovery Act your staff briefed you on many of these challenges.” At this point, Obama smiled and interjected, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.” The Council, led by GE’s Jeffrey Immelt, erupted in laughter.

 

[dannyboys]

If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.

Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.

And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.

No, you could say the same about Al Gore. I remember his childish antics during the debates, where his trick would be to sneak up behind someone and stand very close to them. He tried this on Bush, and it backfired:

Bush was worried Mr. "Vaguely Gay Gore" was going to try to unzip Bush's pants.

 

[dannyboys]

If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.

Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.

And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.

You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.

Comparing the public behaviors of those two men couldn't provide a clearer contrast.

Trump's fans love his behavior - the attacks, the insults, the name-calling, the non-stop hyperbole.

Obama is the opposite of that, and I think we all know it.
.

How has BONOBO's "lead from behind" policies worked out? YA ******* RIGHT!!
The little ***** couldn't have had a job serving the coffee in the White house cafeteria if it hadn't been for 'White-guilt' BBC fantasizing women and the ******* OJ jury.

 

[Mac1958]

If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.

Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.

And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.

You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.

Comparing the public behaviors of those two men couldn't provide a clearer contrast.

Trump's fans love his behavior - the attacks, the insults, the name-calling, the non-stop hyperbole.

Obama is the opposite of that, and I think we all know it.
.

How has BONOBO's "lead from behind" policies worked out? YA ******* RIGHT!!
The little ***** couldn't have had a job serving the coffee in the White house cafeteria if it hadn't been for 'White-guilt' BBC fantasizing women and the ******* OJ jury.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with my point.
.

 

[Votto]

Al Gore challenged the 2000 election, leading to nasty feelings that survive to this day.

The problem started when the networks started calling Florida for Al Gore, based on polls closing in the eastern seaboard part of the state. But the panhandle is in Central Time, and the polls were still open. The Bush team called the networks and told them their predictions of a Florida victory for Gore were premature.

And then it turned out that Bush won Florida, by a wafer-thin margin of some 600 votes. And that decided the election.

Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.

Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.

The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused. So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.

Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.

The media paid for another recount, but when they finally counted up the votes and found out Bush did actually win the election, they buried the results to perpetuate the lie that Bush did not actually win the election.

For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy. They obviously expect the media to NOT remind the American people that the Democrats did this just 16 years ago, and maybe they think the American people are too stupid to remember.

Apples and oranges.

That was then and this is now.

 

[dannyboys]

If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.

Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.

And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.

You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.

Comparing the public behaviors of those two men couldn't provide a clearer contrast.

Trump's fans love his behavior - the attacks, the insults, the name-calling, the non-stop hyperbole.

Obama is the opposite of that, and I think we all know it.
.

How has BONOBO's "lead from behind" policies worked out? YA ******* RIGHT!!
The little ***** couldn't have had a job serving the coffee in the White house cafeteria if it hadn't been for 'White-guilt' BBC fantasizing women and the ******* OJ jury.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with my point.
.

Your "point" is Obama has been an incredible President. Wonderful wonderful in all ways.
My point is Obama turned out to be a ******* idiot!
Example? His number one most amazing health care plan has turned out, as predicted, to be an unmitigated disaster!
The whole bullshit 'ponzi scheme' was designed to FORCE!!!! healthy hard working middle class people to PAY the health care expenses of sick people.
That's known a Socialism!
Obamacare is just one of Obama's failures.
Obamacare Is Experiencing Multi-Organ Failure
How's Obama's ME policy of "leading from behind" working out?
What about the negro on negro inner city shithole crime rate? What's Obama done to even address the problem.
What about the stagnant economy?
I could go on. The point is Obama had eight ******* years to SOMETHING!......ANYTHING! and the asshole went golfing!
Now Hillary claims she'll basically preside over a Obama third term.
Un ******* believable how stupid people can be!

 

[Mac1958]

Your "point" is Obama has been an incredible President. Wonderful wonderful in all ways.

Well, there's one for the Straw Man Hall of Fame.

How simple your binary little world must be.
.

 

[Care4all]

If Trump challenges it, it may be on perfectly reasonable grounds.

Or it may because he has the temperament and personality of a spoiled, petulant 15-year old boy.

And he is the only presidential candidate in my lifetime about whom I can say that.
.

You weren't paying attention to Obama and his whining about everything that went wrong was George Bush's fault. And that went on for at least 4 years.

The egregious whining I've seen was from Republicans who refuse to accept that Bush was a president for 8 years and affected the world beyond his stay in office. According to them the clock rewinded back to 2000 at midnight on Jan 21 2009.

Great Recession on Jan 22 2009 ? OBAMA-DID-IT DONCHA-KNOW!!!

Bush continued the housing policies that were put in place by Clinton and that was his mistake. He then gave Obama TARP to fix the problem and Obama pissed it away on green energy programs and then laughed when asked about all of those shovel ready jobs that weren't there.

Bush doubled down on the Clinton housing and made it a key initiative of his, to add 5 million more poor people in to homes....

You are COMPLETELY INCORRECT on Obama using TARP to fund his Stimulus plan....they were TOTALLY DIFFERENT programs.

 

[Grizz]

"

Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.

Izzat so.

Link?

Are you aware that Al Gore, as the still-sitting vice-president, squashed a protest attempt in the House to award him the Presidency when it came time to certify the vote? Apparently not.

Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.

Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine.

The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused.

You ah, can't declare a winner if you haven't counted the votes. Think about it. Linear time.

So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.

Oh yes, the Court with two justices carrying Bush-related conflict-of-interest baggage. Yup I do remember that.

Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.

Ever hear of "Iraq"?

For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy.

Actually it's the height if illiteracy because Rump never referred to "challenging" an election result. You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened yet (again -- linear time). What he called into question was whether he would accept the decision of the electorate. Which in no way refers to challenging a vote count. In order to challenge a vote count (as in Bush v. Gore), you kinda have to first HAVE a vote --- and THEN it has to be a close one. Neither is the case today.

Now if Al Gore had gone "OK I know the Electoral College voted in the other guy but I don't accept it and I should be President" --- then you'd have (the beginnings of) a valid comparison.

Amirite, President Gore?

" You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened"

Exactly right, but neither can you simply say hell yes I'll support it until it happens, your hypocrisy is showing child.

 

[Pogo]

"

Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.

Izzat so.

Link?

Are you aware that Al Gore, as the still-sitting vice-president, squashed a protest attempt in the House to award him the Presidency when it came time to certify the vote? Apparently not.

Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.

Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine.

The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused.

You ah, can't declare a winner if you haven't counted the votes. Think about it. Linear time.

So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.

Oh yes, the Court with two justices carrying Bush-related conflict-of-interest baggage. Yup I do remember that.

Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.

Ever hear of "Iraq"?

For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy.

Actually it's the height if illiteracy because Rump never referred to "challenging" an election result. You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened yet (again -- linear time). What he called into question was whether he would accept the decision of the electorate. Which in no way refers to challenging a vote count. In order to challenge a vote count (as in Bush v. Gore), you kinda have to first HAVE a vote --- and THEN it has to be a close one. Neither is the case today.

Now if Al Gore had gone "OK I know the Electoral College voted in the other guy but I don't accept it and I should be President" --- then you'd have (the beginnings of) a valid comparison.

Amirite, President Gore?

" You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened"

Exactly right, but neither can you simply say hell yes I'll support it until it happens, your hypocrisy is showing child.

Why the **** not? Every candidate always has up to now. It's the first thing a concession calls for.

I mean unless you have no confidence in your own country's system and cream your jeans at the thought of Vlad the Imputiner.

Oh wait....

 

[Grizz]

Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.

The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.

Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?

He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.

So you're against capitalism huh?

What should he have done --- just give the network away?

"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."

Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.

 

[Grizz]

"

Al Gore insisted that he had won the popular vote, and therefore Bush should concede the election. I watched him do this on national TV and the reporter looked at him with disgust. Gore was being a sore loser, a man who knew the Electoral College was the way the Constitution set up the Presidential election, but then demanded a rule change when he didn't win that way.

Izzat so.

Link?

Are you aware that Al Gore, as the still-sitting vice-president, squashed a protest attempt in the House to award him the Presidency when it came time to certify the vote? Apparently not.

Al Gore, refusing to concede an election he had lost fair and square, challenged the count in four prescincts, all controlled by the Democratic Party, where he knew the Democratic Party could control the recount. A farcical process followed, whereby paper ballots were analyzed for "hanging chads" and other proof that the ballots had been counted wrong.

Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine.

The Florida Supreme Court got involved. Bush asked them to put an end to the recount so that a winner could be declared but they refused.

You ah, can't declare a winner if you haven't counted the votes. Think about it. Linear time.

So then the United States Supreme Court stepped in, and put an end to it.

Oh yes, the Court with two justices carrying Bush-related conflict-of-interest baggage. Yup I do remember that.

Democrats since then have insisted that Bush "stole the election" and this created a toxic atmosphere in Washington that lasted throughout the Bush administration.

Ever hear of "Iraq"?

For Democrats to attack Trump NOW, for saying he might challenge this election if he loses, as some sort of threat to the American Way of Life, Mom, and Apple Pie, is the height of hypocrisy.

Actually it's the height if illiteracy because Rump never referred to "challenging" an election result. You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened yet (again -- linear time). What he called into question was whether he would accept the decision of the electorate. Which in no way refers to challenging a vote count. In order to challenge a vote count (as in Bush v. Gore), you kinda have to first HAVE a vote --- and THEN it has to be a close one. Neither is the case today.

Now if Al Gore had gone "OK I know the Electoral College voted in the other guy but I don't accept it and I should be President" --- then you'd have (the beginnings of) a valid comparison.

Amirite, President Gore?

" You can't "challenge" a vote that hasn't happened"

Exactly right, but neither can you simply say hell yes I'll support it until it happens, your hypocrisy is showing child.

Why the **** not? Every candidate always has up to now. It's the first thing a concession calls for.

I mean unless you have no confidence in your own country's system and cream your jeans at the thought of Vlad the Imputiner.

Oh wait....

(smile) Hypocrite. Up until Gore this was never a question in recent history, 2000 changed all of that.
Now grow up honey, this is a game your side started and now you have to play it.

 

[Pogo]

Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.

The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.

Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?

He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.

So you're against capitalism huh?

What should he have done --- just give the network away?

"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."

Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.

That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.

The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.

Prove me wrong.

 

[kaz]

Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine

Actually, they had counted the vote and recounted it already and W won both times before the farce of the Democrats in four Democrat controlled counties performing a "hand count" started. The hand count of course being a hand vote where Democrats tried to steal the election before the Supreme Court stopped it on a 9-0 vote

 

[kaz]

Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.

The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.

Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?

He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.

So you're against capitalism huh?

What should he have done --- just give the network away?

"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."

Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.

That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.

The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.

Prove me wrong.

You want the Republican to validate the vote before the election and you didn't expect the Democrat to accept it after the election. Sounds fair to me ...

 

[Grizz]

Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.

The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.

Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?

He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.

So you're against capitalism huh?

What should he have done --- just give the network away?

"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."

Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.

That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.

The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.

Prove me wrong.

Translation: " You hurt my feelers so I quit."
You are a hypocrite and it shows.
Your game is stupid on it's face and Trump won't play.
Only a FOOL says "Oh yes, I'll accept the results" BEFORE the election, then if there are irregularities and you try and point them out idiots like you will scream BUT YOU SAID YOU'D ACCEPT THE OUTCOME.
You're an idiot and it didn't work.

 

[Grizz]

Contrast what Gore did in 2000 to the class that Nixon showed in the 1960 elections when he was presented with clear evidence of voter tampering. He chose not to challenge the results as opposed to Al Gore who raised all kinds of stink but who thankfully lost.

The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted.

Are y'all deliberately playing stupid? Is that what today's briefing dictated?

He later proved what a total dick he is with his fraudulent movie and ultimate sellout to Al-Jazeera.

So you're against capitalism huh?

What should he have done --- just give the network away?

"The issue in 2000 was what the actual vote count was --- not whether the result would be accepted."

Aren't you just oh so clever kid?
That will be the question this time around, you children think that your silly little word games are clever, it is funny that every one of you Lefty's love this game
ALL questions are about the legitimacy of the vote tallying, and even the voting mechanisms themselves.
Your, yes YOUR "chads" came back to bite you in the ass.

That's completely incoherent. Might be time to seal up the paint cans.

The fact that the OP drew a false comparison is not up for negotiation. He did, and I demonstrated it. The thread has no point.

Prove me wrong.

You want the Republican to validate the vote before the election and you didn't expect the Democrat to accept it after the election. Sounds fair to me ...

Exactly, it is astonishing how stupid these people are.

 

[paperview]

Actually the state laws of Florida required a recount because of the narrow margin. It's routine

Actually, they had counted the vote and recounted it already and W won both times before the farce of the Democrats in four Democrat controlled counties performing a "hand count" started. The hand count of course being a hand vote where Democrats tried to steal the election before the Supreme Court stopped it on a 9-0 vote

^ Bullshit.

 

[paperview]

Well worth the read, especially those suffering from coneasia -- or are too young to remember:


"For those whose memory of Bush v. Gore is hazy enough to make the Trump surrogates sound plausible, let’s remember six key facts about the controversy that should illustrate the difference...


1. The Recount Was AUTOMATICALLY Triggered.

Because the votes in Florida were so close — Bush beat Gore by 1,784 votes, less than “one half of one percent” of all votes cast, on the initial tally — an automatic recount of the machine votes was triggered. Gore didn’t ask for it, he didn’t have to ask for it. It’s just one of those safeguards we have so that people can’t do what Trump is running around claiming only minority populations do.
People forget this — Al Gore initially called Bush to concede. People had to TELL Al Gore that he hadn’t lost, that the election was so close that Florida’s automatic recount law was in play.
That automatic recount reduced Bush’s lead to just 327 votes out of the six million ballots cast in Florida.


2. Gore Exercised His Right To Ask For A Manual Recount.
Florida has a statutory procedure for contesting elections. Gore requested a manual recount of four counties (all heavily Democratic counties) in Florida under Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000).
At this point, it’s important to note that Gore was not “contesting the results of the election.” He was instead exercising his statutory right to make sure that those results had been counted correctly. There was a process for this. Gore wasn’t questioning the process, he was following it.

3. Katherine Harris Certified The Election Results Before The Count Was Finished.

Remember Kathrine Harris? In 2000, she was the Secretary of State of Florida. It’s an elected position. She was a Republican. For reasons still passing understanding, it fell to an elected, partisan official to certify the results of the Florida election, instead of some kind of non-partisan civil servant.
<snip>
Harris used her discretion to reject applications from the three counties.

THAT’S WHEN SOMEBODY SUED. And it wasn’t just the Gore campaign. Palm Beach County also sought an injunction to prevent Harris from certifying the results.

It is important to note that when we ask whether Trump will accept the results of the election, we’re asking if he will accept the results as certified by the states. <snip>

4. Harris Certified The Results On November 26th, All Hell Broke Loose.
So, funny thing: after the Florida Supreme Court extended the certification deadline until November 26th, Miami just stopped counting. They figured they couldn’t possibly manually count all their votes by then so…**** it.
After Harris certified the election on the 26th, Gore sued, arguing that the count was still going on. The case was dismissed, Gore appealed, the Florida Supreme Court ordered the count to continue. BUSH appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, “Bush v. Gore” and not “Gore v. WTF Is Florida Thinking.”
We can argue about hanging chads. We can argue about “butterfly ballots.” What we cannot argue is that Al Gore was accusing the election of being “rigged.” He was fighting about process.

5. The Supreme Court Stopped The Count.
Bush v. Gore should have been about whether the Florida Supreme Court was correct in its own interpretation of Florida law. But it was not. Instead, the Court found for Bush based on Equal Protection grounds. <snip>

6. Al Gore, Surprisingly, Conceded.
History treats Bush v. Gore as the end of the story, but it didn’t have to be. Gore could have asked Florida to apply a “standard” that would have satisfied the Court. The Court’s decision came on the same day that Florida nominated its presidential “electors” (you know, the people who actually get to vote for the president). Gore could have contested that. Gore could have continued to throw legal challenges against the wall. It could have gotten real ugly.


6 Facts About Bush v. Gore Worth Remembering Before The Trump Campaign Revises History To Death