Recent commentary from National Journal: Social Studies: Nice Process In Florida -- Too Bad About the Candidates, by Jonathan Rauch (December 13, 2000) The surprise has been how well most of the actors have behaved, and how many alarms have been false. Legal Affairs: No Exit -- How the Supreme Court Boxed Gore In, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (December 13, 2000) The D.C. Nine have sent a subtle, but fairly unambiguous, signal that Al Gore's hopes are doomed. Media: Beyond Argument, by William Powers (December 13, 2000) Give them some credit. Cable TV news operations are getting a whole lot better. The Campaign: A Fond Look at the Nagging Riddle of Al Gore, by Carl M. Cannon (December 13, 2000) The striking thing about Gore is that he has always been such an unnatural politician. Legal Affairs: Bush vs. Gore -- A First Draft for the Justices to Consider, by Stuart Taylor Jr. (December 6, 2000) We're judges, not magicians, and so we are in no position to somehow anoint the legitimate president. Media: Tidal Wave? Don't Bet on It, by William Powers (December 6, 2000) Why the hot news of a liberal columnist declaring his independence from Al Gore cooled quickly. Political Pulse: Why Al's Losing the Spin War, by William Schneider (December 6, 2000) Many Americans regard the dispute over the presidential vote as a mere political spectacle. The Campaign: If Gore Loses, He Needs to Be More Than Magnanimous, by Carl M. Cannon (December 6, 2000) Should he fail, the Vice President needs to work to repair the breach this challenge has caused. More from National Journal. Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte.

Political Pulse: Time Is Running Out for Gore While Gore is arguing the facts, Bush is arguing the law. But Bush has the clock on his side by William Schneider December 13, 2000 Florida fatigue is setting in. And that's bad news for Al Gore, whose whole post-election campaign is based on the premise that he really won Florida and only needs enough time to recount the votes to prove it. But the voters may not give him the time he needs. Three times the Newsweek poll has asked whether it is more important to resolve the issue as quickly as possible or to remove all reasonable doubt about the fairness and accuracy of the Florida vote count. Just after the Nov. 7 election, 72 percent of those polled said an accurate vote count was more important. In mid-November, the number dropped to 61 percent. Last week it was 52 percent. If that number ever dips below 40 percent, Gore is in real trouble. Because then it starts cutting into his base. Gore has said the polls don't matter because this is a legal issue. But public opinion does matter because the legal process may not resolve the issue. What happens then is that politicians take over, as provided by law. Politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion. The impeachment experience proved that: Clinton survived because of the polls. The public understands two big things. One is that there is no such thing as an error-free count. Whether it's by hand or by machine, the margin of error in the count is likely to be greater than the margin of victory. The other is that this election could have gone either way. Most people would not see it as an outrageous injustice for either man to be declared the winner. What's driving public sentiment is that people have heard Bush declared the winner in Florida three times: by 300 votes on Nov. 14, by 930 votes on Nov. 17 (including overseas ballots), and by 537 votes on Nov. 26, after the Florida Supreme Court allowed an additional 12 days for hand recounts. So, not surprisingly, most Americans believe Bush won Florida. Last week's New York Times-CBS News poll asked a slightly different question: "Who do you think more voters in Florida intended to vote for?" In that case, Bush narrowly edged out Gore, 40 percent to 35 percent. Many Americans understand that a lot of Florida voters went to the polls "intending" to vote for Gore but then spoiled their ballots -- some because the ballots were confusing (the famous "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County), others because they were misdirected (the thousands of African-American voters in Jacksonville who obeyed the instructions of Democratic Party organizers to "vote on every page," cast two votes for President and, therefore, spoiled their ballots). That's why many Democrats claim the initial network exit polls showing Gore carrying Florida were correct. Voters exited the polling places and told interviewers they had just voted for Gore, because that is what they thought they had done. In fact, their ballots were invalid. What can Democrats do about that? Nothing, now that the Florida Supreme Court has declared that the butterfly ballot was in compliance with the state's election laws. Democrats are frustrated because they believe that Gore did win Florida -- in actual votes, not just intended votes. But they can't prove it without hand counting punch-card ballots missed by the machine count. The legal process may not move swiftly enough for that to happen. Not with the Bush campaign attempting to block Gore's moves at every turn. "It's easier to kill the clock than to move the ball," complained Gore campaign attorney Dexter Douglas at a Nov. 28 court hearing. "We need to move the ball. The referee should keep the game going and make them get off the ground or throw a penalty flag." Democrats are not just pleading for public patience. They are also making the case that the deadlines are not set in stone. A federal statute says that if a final determination of any contest about the presidential election is made by Dec. 12, six days before the presidential electors cast their ballots, it shall be considered conclusive. But the electors' ballots are not counted by Congress until Jan. 6 -- which may be changed to Jan. 5 because the 6th is a Saturday -- making it possible to continue counting Florida voters' ballots past Dec. 12, right up until the time Congress counts the electoral votes. In 1960, Hawaii did not complete its recount until Dec. 28. Only one date appears to be unchangeable -- Jan. 20, when a new President must be inaugurated. That's the only date mentioned in the federal Constitution. But a law professor writing in The New York Times claims even that date is not sacrosanct -- that the Constitution gives Congress the power to name an acting President until the process is resolved. "Surely, Bill Clinton would be willing to stay on for a few weeks," writes professor Stephen Gillers of New York University Law School. In other words, let the counting go on and on. Gore desperately needs a legal victory, but Monday's setbacks in court left little cause for optimism. There's an old saying among lawyers: If you've got the facts, argue the facts. If you've got the law, argue the law. (And if you've got neither, pound the table.) Gore is arguing the facts. Bush is arguing the law. The only way for Gore to win is to prove his facts. Or to demolish Bush's claim to the law. What do you think? Discuss this article in the Politics & Society conference of Post & Riposte. More from National Journal. More on politics and society in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly. William Schneider is the Cable News Network's senior political analyst. He is also a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., and a contributing editor for the Los Angeles Times, National Journal, and The Atlantic Monthly. His column appears every week in National Journal, a weekly magazine covering politics and government published in Washington, D.C. For information on National Journal Group publications, see NationalJournal.com. All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.