Gore comes off pretty badly there. Before tump he was probably the worst "sore loser". At least he no longer has that distinction.
How was Gore a sore loser? He fought his battle in the courts and conceded when he lost his case. If he lost his case, I would hope he disagreed with the decision. (For the record, I voted for W and concurred with the court’s decision.)Gore comes off pretty badly there. Before tump he was probably the worst "sore loser". At least he no longer has that distinction.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but justified or not, he was the only one in that video that contested the results from election night. At least, he's the only one until tump that did so in an election that I've been around to see. Unfortunately, if you challenge the results, and it doesn't work out (even if its by court order), the optics are that you didn't accept the results until you were told they were final. I'm sure we disagree, but that's how the optics look to me.How was Gore a sore loser? He fought his battle in the courts and conceded when he lost his case. If he lost his case, I would hope he disagreed with the decision. (For the record, I voted for W and concurred with the court’s decision.)
“I accept the finality of the outcome, which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.” December 13, 2000.
Considering the Florida vote differential was 537 out of nearly 6 million votes and the Electoral College was 271-266, the challenge was reasonable. I see the optics like challenging plays in sports. We've both seen the offside challenges on goals where Toronto performs freeze-frame analysis of some player dragging his skate at the blue line as the puck enters the offensive zone moments before a goal. Sometimes the coach just needs a second set of eyes on the play.Please correct me if I'm wrong, but justified or not, he was the only one in that video that contested the results from election night. At least, he's the only one until tump that did so in an election that I've been around to see. Unfortunately, if you challenge the results, and it doesn't work out (even if its by court order), the optics are that you didn't accept the results until you were told they were final. I'm sure we disagree, but that's how the optics look to me.
https://www.9news.com/amp/article/n...ident/73-42e9183f-4a12-405a-a8eb-efab7f450872It was dismissed for lack of standing. The merits were not considered.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story...-against-trump-on-florida-ballot/70726059007/
It is far from over ...
"The New Hampshire attorney general's office said this week it is "carefully reviewing the legal issues" presented by the amendment and Trump's 2024 campaign for the Republican nomination."
Look at you - points for the Hockey analogy!Considering the Florida vote differential was 537 out of nearly 6 million votes and the Electoral College was 271-266, the challenge was reasonable. I see the optics like challenging plays in sports. We've both seen the offside challenges on goals where Toronto performs freeze-frame analysis of some player dragging his skate at the blue line as the puck enters the offensive zone moments before a goal. Sometimes the coach just needs a second set of eyes on the play.
Gore’s loss may have been based on a loophole.The 2000 election and the 2016 election are the only elections since 1888 that the winners didn't have the popular vote.
Al Gore should have won the 2000 election and Hillary Clinton should have won the 2016 election.
Loopholes in the voting laws allowed Bush and ahole Trump to win.
What does gerrymandering have to do with the Electoral College? Gerrymandering relates to drawing up congressional districts. The EC votes are strictly allocated based on state populations - plus 2 for the senators.Gerrymandering gave the republicans the 2000 and 2016 elections, without having the popular votes.
No - it is based on winning the popular vote in the state. https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/I thought that the EC electors were chosen based on which party won the most districts, and that gerrymandering would allow republicans to win more districts.