|
2016 COUNTERPOINTS COUMNS Looking
In All The Wrong Places For Evidence Of A
Hacked Presidential Election
Kept
In Suspense Over What May Come Next Cleaning
Up For An Oakland Councilmember How
To "De-Popularize" A Popular Government Service Opening
Up A Second Front In The Black Lives Matter Movement
In Oakland What
Does AB&I Foundry Want From Oakland City
Government? (Part 2) Working
On A Theory About Orlando Expectations Mr.
Houston's Secret Cleanup Plan Current
CounterPoints Columns SEND ME AN EMAIL (to safero@earthlink.net) |
Looking
In All The Wrong Places For Evidence Of A Hacked Presidential
Election December 19, 2016 Much like the generals of the early 20th
century who were accused of always preparing for the war
already past but not the war upcoming, many of my Democrat,
liberal, and progressive friends are still stuck in the
backwash of the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al
Gore. That election, you may remember, hinged upon the
results in Florida, which was initially called for Mr.
Bush—along with the presidential election itself—until
massive discrepancies discovered in the way the ballots had
been interpreted in the first count caused a recount to be
ordered. Despite promising signs—or, perhaps, because
of promising signs—that the recount would reverse the
Florida results, giving both Florida and the presidency to
Mr. Gore, the United States Supreme Court stepped in, halted
the counting, and handed the crown to Mr. Bush. Many on the
left never forgave Mr. Gore for giving in at that point and
conceding the election, and ever afterwards have held onto
the pledge that if such a situation ever came up again, they
would both call for recounts and fight to keep them going to
the bitter end. Thus, no-one should be surprised that
following the surprise and shock of the Trump victory in the
recent presidential election, many Democrats immediately
called for and supported a recount in states where they
thought a victory by Ms. Clinton might have been stolen. But 2000 Florida, with its notorious
hanging chads and interpretive counting, was a special case
that could never be confused with what happened in 2016. And
so even before this year’s recount began to go off the rails
(“Michigan
Recount Over; Pennsylvania Sets Hearing” Washington
Post December 8, 2016; “Trump’s
Lead In Wisconsin Barely Changes As Wisconsin’s Recount
Continues” Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel December 7, 2016), there seemed
little chance of this a recount turning up enough deliberate
fraud or inadvertent miscount to swing the election from Mr.
Trump to Ms. Clinton. The
problem is, though there indeed may have been massive enough
fraud in the 2016 election to give the victory to Mr. Trump,
to paraphrase the old song, we were probably looking for
that fraud in all the wrong places. [To
Complete Column]
|