The Gore 2000 Analogy to Trump 2016 is a False One

[louis c]

What Donald Trump has said, unambiguously, is that the entire democratic process is "rigged" and the results will be wrong. The fix is in and the outcome predetermined (unless he wins)

His surrogates, especially Kelly Anne Conway, point to Al Gores's dispute in 2000 as evidence that a candidate has to hold out their acceptance of the outcome and validation of the election.

Here's the major difference. Al Gore's recount was part of the process. Any state can be recounted, especially if it's within a state's legal percentage for an automatic recount (usually a half of a percent). Gore's lack of a concession before the Supreme Court decision in December was part of the process. No one is saying that any candidate for any office doesn't have the right to recount and validate votes in a close election. The process has laws and contingencies for that possibility. That's not what Trump is saying or implying. He's saying the fix is already in.

Let's use an NFL Football game analogy. The ruling on the field is a fumble by the offense, but it's a close call. That's like a state showing initial results that has candidate "A" with a half point lead over candidate "B". In the football analogy, we go to the video tape. In the political analogy, we go to a recount. That final result, either the ruling of the field stands or it is overturned, or the state validates or changes the winner after the recount. Both are part of the rules or laws. Whatever that decision, whether you like it or not, it is part of the process and proves that there is no fix in either case.

What Trump is doing is saying that the election (or game) is fixed, prior to the actual event. That the outcome is suspect, regardless of the calls on the field or their verification.

In the football analogy, the accusation would call into question the very integrity of the game. In Trump's instance, he calls into question the validity of American democracy, and to our country itself.

[EV_Ares]

1. Exactly, I guess that is all they have to try to reach so far for that one but as you say

no comparison.

[BeyondGeography]

2. That's all he had to say; there is a process and I will abide by it

just as, I'm sure, Secretary Clinton will.

But no.

[COLGATE4]

3. Very well put. Thanks. nt

[louis c]

5. Thanks

[treestar]

4. This is one of their deliberate bad arguments

like comparing no hearings for Obama's nominee for SCOTUS to the Bork hearings.

[louis c]

7. kick

[louis c]

11. Kick, because this post is still relevant (NT)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. A couple of things:

Gore never started whining about the election being rigged against him before Election Day took place. Instead, he campaigned hard as if he planned to win.

Secondly, Gore conceded after the courts effectively shut all legal avenues for a full recount. It sucked royally and it was a horrendous decision, but he knew fighting at that point would be futile.

There's no indication that Trump would ever be that gracious. And Trump's not going to win the popular vote like Gore did or come within a hair of the electoral vote like Gore did. He'll be blown out in a landslide and still complain about it.

[JI7]

8. the dumbfuck media is too stupid to point out the obvious

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Not only false, but remember the conventional wisdom beforehand

I bet politics so I remember the specific numbers: Bush was considered a heavy favorite to win the popular vote. That price got bet up to -300 (300 to win 100) and higher in the days before the election. In fact, some offshore sites were being pounded by so much Bush money that they pulled that prop off the board.

In contrast, Bush was much lower to win the election itself, i.e. become president. That price was -140 and rose somewhat to -160 and -180, depending where you shopped.

Republicans were so fearful of Bush winning the popular vote but losing the election that they started whispering about making a push in the aftermath, both in public opinion and perhaps legally. I'm not saying it was consensus but that theme was out there. There was a groundswell to attack a Gore win as illegitimate if it didn't carry a popular vote victory also.

Of course, days later they switched course completely.

[anamandujano]

10. I was watching the Florida house or senate on CSPAN. Even if the vote came out to favor Gore,

they were going to award the electoral votes to Bush. I heard them say that and apparently it is legal.

[ailsagirl]

12. Of course it's false

I felt that when I heard conway assert this but I couldn't exactly put my finger on why. Now I know. Thanks for putting that together!