August 23, 2004

Media Matters for John Kerry's Election
Posted by Jon Henke

Neal Boortz claims "every single recount in Florida, even a recount handled by a media consortium unfriendly to [George W.] Bush, showed Al Gore lost", and Media Matters jumps all over him for it....

As MMFA has noted on each occasion, the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center (NORC) conducted a study which concluded that in at least four different recount scenarios, Gore emerged the winner of the disputed election.
Aha! So, NORC reported that Gore would have won! Except..., well not so much.
A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.
[...]
Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.
The only scenarios in which Gore would have won were those involving the loosest possible standards...standards not adopted by most counties. So,yes....if everybody had done something that almost nobody was going to do, Gore would have won.

Well, yes...and--to borrow a line--if we only had eggs, we could all have ham and eggs, if we had ham.

What's more, the margin of error made the study--per CNN--"instructive but not definitive in its findings".

So, they've cited a study--though, not a definitive study--which verified that Bush would have won Florida. Which is, you know, what Neal Boortz said in the first place.

Good work, Media Matters!

TrackBack

Comments