Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: Asoure on December 06, 2013, 06:08:16 AM



Title: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Asoure on December 06, 2013, 06:08:16 AM
I know this is an open question, but in general: why did people vote for him for? I don't understand why people wanted for him to be president


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Franzl on December 06, 2013, 08:00:55 AM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Longer answer: The Bush campaigning was nothing like the Bush we got. (You know, a humble foreign policy and "compassionate conservatism". The fact that he (in reality) lost was actually hard to believe considering how big of a lead he had had at one point.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Consciously Unconscious on December 06, 2013, 08:08:58 AM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Right, because we all know the popular vote determines who wins an election.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: sg0508 on December 06, 2013, 08:13:58 AM
1) People just get bored of one party being in power too long (in the presidency). 
2) The economy was thinning in 2000.  By the end of 2000, many were starting to fear for their jobs
3) Al Gore was given more power in 2000 and some attributed the last year of Clinton's presidency in which the dot.com boom started to wane to him. 


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: IceSpear on December 06, 2013, 04:24:48 PM
Because of the prosperity brought by Clinton, people felt comfortable voting based on Monica rather than based on the issues. This made the election close enough for SCOTUS to give to Bush.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Pessimistic Antineutrino on December 06, 2013, 08:46:07 PM
Bush was seen as a folksy guy one could share a beer with, while Gore was more distant in terms of personality. Gore also chose to distance himself from Clinton, probably as mistake as he was still pretty popular at that time. Bush was actually leading by a lot until news broke of his DUI arrest which made it much closer and possibly gave the popular vote to Gore.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: eric82oslo on December 06, 2013, 10:34:46 PM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Right, because we all know the popular vote determines who wins an election.

We also know what's the definition of democracy. Except for in South Carolina of course. What's called "democracy" in US (electoral college) would be called dictatorship or at best quasi-dictatorship in about 90% of the other nations of the world, including 100% of Western Europe.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Consciously Unconscious on December 06, 2013, 11:10:53 PM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Right, because we all know the popular vote determines who wins an election.

We also know what's the definition of democracy. Except for in South Carolina of course. What's called "democracy" in US (electoral college) would be called dictatorship or at best quasi-dictatorship in about 90% of the other nations of the world, including 100% of Western Europe.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that under our voting system, Bush won.  Unless you mean he won the election in the sense that in a true democracy he would have, but the United States is not a true democracy. 


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: hopper on December 07, 2013, 02:57:14 AM
I didn't vote that year but I liked what Bush W. had to say. The guy just seemed refreshing. I would have voted for Bush W. that year too.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Franzl on December 07, 2013, 05:10:17 AM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Right, because we all know the popular vote determines who wins an election.

We also know what's the definition of democracy. Except for in South Carolina of course. What's called "democracy" in US (electoral college) would be called dictatorship or at best quasi-dictatorship in about 90% of the other nations of the world, including 100% of Western Europe.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that under our voting system, Bush won.  Unless you mean he won the election in the sense that in a true democracy he would have, but the United States is not a true democracy. 

Not the "we're a republic, not a democracy" nonsense again... ::)


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 07, 2013, 05:23:54 AM
Joke media attacked Gore for being boring, and for supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet, rather than discuss real issues like how right-wing Bush was.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Consciously Unconscious on December 07, 2013, 01:40:30 PM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Right, because we all know the popular vote determines who wins an election.

We also know what's the definition of democracy. Except for in South Carolina of course. What's called "democracy" in US (electoral college) would be called dictatorship or at best quasi-dictatorship in about 90% of the other nations of the world, including 100% of Western Europe.

Which has nothing to do with the fact that under our voting system, Bush won.  Unless you mean he won the election in the sense that in a true democracy he would have, but the United States is not a true democracy. 

Not the "we're a republic, not a democracy" nonsense again... ::)

Well you see, there's this little thing called the Electoral College. . .


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Franzl on December 07, 2013, 02:12:40 PM
Don't see why that's relevant. Indeed, it reduces the quality of American democracy, but the words democracy and republic do not contradict each other.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: old timey villain on December 07, 2013, 02:32:18 PM
A lot of people are surprised that the Democrats didn't hold the WH in 2000, considering how high Clinton's approvals were. But most people gave him high marks on his job performance and low marks on favorability due to his scandals. So in 2000 there was a strong desire among conservatives and moderates to restore morality to the Presidency and George Bush fit the bill very well. He seemed to be a devoted husband with no rumors of infidelity as well as a born again Christian who preached compassionate conservatism. This is why the revelation of his DUI conviction was feared to be so damaging at first because it shattered his clean image.

And in a relatively stable period like 2000, where domestic and foreign issues were put on the back burner, character and personality became the most important issues for voters. Gore was boring and was associated with the scandals of the Clinton years while Bush represented a clean slate.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Consciously Unconscious on December 07, 2013, 09:58:53 PM
Don't see why that's relevant. Indeed, it reduces the quality of American democracy, but the words democracy and republic do not contradict each other.

It's relevant because you said that Bush lost. 


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Pessimistic Antineutrino on December 07, 2013, 10:01:41 PM
Don't see why that's relevant. Indeed, it reduces the quality of American democracy, but the words democracy and republic do not contradict each other.

Of course not, hence the term "Democratic Republic".


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on December 07, 2013, 10:09:15 PM
We have a constitution, and that is the supreme law of the land, Franzl. As awful as Bush was, he won by constitutional standards, and that is that. I wouldn't be lecturing America on how "democratic" our nation is, considering your own country's history with democratically electing awful people.....


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Franzl on December 08, 2013, 08:49:28 AM
Don't see why that's relevant. Indeed, it reduces the quality of American democracy, but the words democracy and republic do not contradict each other.

It's relevant because you said that Bush lost. 

And he did, in the sense that fewer people wanted him to become President than Al Gore. I don't think even the Republican Party disputes this fact (although considering their problem with facts...guess it wouldn't completely surprise me.) Since the question was why people wanted Bush to be President, I thought it was a good idea to point out that they were, in fact, a minority.

Of course Bush "won" in the sense that he became President.

We have a constitution, and that is the supreme law of the land, Franzl. As awful as Bush was, he won by constitutional standards, and that is that. I wouldn't be lecturing America on how "democratic" our nation is, considering your own country's history with democratically electing awful people.....

Indeed, although I think anyone with more than a peanut-sized brain would be aware that developments in the 1930s are a bit more complicated than problems with the democratic process.

Regarding the quality of American democracy today, it's pretty hard to argue that it's any better than mediocre in comparison with the rest of the developed world.

(And by the way, I happen to vote in American elections as well, although I always question whether it's worth the 2€ to send in the absentee ballot, considering the choices and results.)


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Person Man on December 08, 2013, 11:27:38 AM
A lot of people are surprised that the Democrats didn't hold the WH in 2000, considering how high Clinton's approvals were. But most people gave him high marks on his job performance and low marks on favorability due to his scandals. So in 2000 there was a strong desire among conservatives and moderates to restore morality to the Presidency and George Bush fit the bill very well. He seemed to be a devoted husband with no rumors of infidelity as well as a born again Christian who preached compassionate conservatism. This is why the revelation of his DUI conviction was feared to be so damaging at first because it shattered his clean image.

And in a relatively stable period like 2000, where domestic and foreign issues were put on the back burner, character and personality became the most important issues for voters. Gore was boring and was associated with the scandals of the Clinton years while Bush represented a clean slate.

This. The 2000 election probably came entirely down to who the average person thought was more normal.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Oakvale on December 08, 2013, 12:34:55 PM
Well, he didn't either morally or constitutionally (Florida's electoral votes were stolen). But since what you're asking is how it was close enough for Bush to steal - the short answer is that Bush was far more likeable than Al Gore, people were tired of the Democrats because of Clinton's sleaziness, and Bush campaigned on basically continuing the Clinton policies with added tax cuts.

It's worth noting that at the start of the campaign Gore was virtually losing the entire country to Bush so the fact that it got so close toward the end is fairly surprising.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: sg0508 on December 08, 2013, 09:22:23 PM
You guys are underestimating the impact of the dot.com boom ending and the economy thinning in the second half of 2000.  Many probably pointed to Gore as the reason (even though we know he wasn't) given that Clinton distanced himself/Gore distanced him in the final year of the Clinton presidency.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Tender Branson on December 09, 2013, 02:42:08 AM
Al Gore won the election.

George W. Bush was, is and will always be a surreptitious POTUS, installed by the US Supreme Court.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: BlueSwan on December 09, 2013, 03:55:17 AM
Obviously, the premise of the question is that Bush ought not to have won. That premise is probably built on at least three ideas:

Idea #1: Gore was an obviously more competent man for the job.

Idea #2: The Clinton presidency was succesful, therefore it is only logical that Gore would win.

Idea #3: Bush was a horrible president, so that ought to have been clear to the American people before the election.

As for idea #1, that is something which seems obvious to people who are either highly educated or support liberal/progressive ideals. Preferably both. This is not the case for the american people at large. Bush was in the fairly unique position of at the SAME TIME having a folksy anti-elitist appeal and having the support of the republican elite. In short, he was an elitist with an anti-elitist appeal. That's not a bad position to be in. Gore appeared as a typical liberal elitist who is "out of touch" with ordinary people. Sure he was competent, sure he was following a succesful democratic president and sure he did pretty well (winning the popular vote). I personally feel that Gore like many elitist liberals before and after him, in countries around the world, too often try to appear as someone they are not. If you are a liberal elitist, just act like a liberal elitist. Stay true to who you are. Don't try to be folksy. Remember THAT kiss anyone??

As for idea #2: Yes, Clinton was fairly popular at the end of his presidency, but first of all, Gore did his best to distance himself from Clinton, second of all, Bush embodied morals that were quite different from those of Clinton, appealing to lots of voters who regard family values as important. Third, people like change. Change happens all the time. It is no coincidence that every non-incumbent candidate is always campaigning on change. The longer your party stays in the white house, the harder it is going to be to keep it. Not JUST because people want change, but also because you'll be repsonsible for everything that is still bad in the country, you'll have no new ideas and the opposing party/candidate will probably have overtaken some of your popular positions and formulated other positions that challenge yours.

As for idea #3: In 2000, people did not know what sort of President Bush would turn out to be. He ran on a moderate "compassionate conservatism" platform, that had broad appeal to moderates from both parties and independents. He also had a pull with the religious right that other more intellectual candidates probably didn't.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Mordecai on December 09, 2013, 04:04:43 AM
I know this is an open question, but in general: why did people vote for him for?
He was more likeable than Gore, he promised tax cuts, he portrayed himself as a non-interventionist and made Gore out to be a hawk who would meddle in the affairs of other countries, and he was seen as socially moderate (for a conservative).

I don't understand why people wanted for him to be president
It's more the fact that people were tired of the same party holding the White House for eight years. People were rather unenthusiastic about the election because Gore was seen as boring and yesterday's news, and Bush, while personable, was nothing to get excited about.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: BlueSwan on December 09, 2013, 06:18:00 AM
People were rather unenthusiastic about the election because Gore was seen as boring and yesterday's news, and Bush, while personable, was nothing to get excited about.
True. This is also supported by the fact that voter turnout was terrible for such a close election (for instance, voter turnout was even lower in 1996, but that was understandable given the fact that the result was a foregone conclusion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Voter_turnout.png


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Person Man on December 09, 2013, 10:04:05 AM
A lot of guys really thought that both of them were very moderate and to many, it came down to is that they were basically the same but Gore cared more for the Environment and Bush cared more about abortion. That helped Bush carry West Virginia, Ohio and Tennessee and basically with people thinking that Gore was "out to get them", let Bush win Nevada, New Hampshire and win in a mini landslide in Colorado (though with the high Nader vote, it seems like Gore wrote off the state too early).


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: H. Ross Peron on December 09, 2013, 08:37:29 PM
()


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on December 09, 2013, 11:37:21 PM
Short answer: He didn't. (Even ignoring the Florida mess, fewer people voted for Bush than Gore).

Right, because we all know the popular vote determines who wins an election.

We also know what's the definition of democracy. Except for in South Carolina of course. What's called "democracy" in US (electoral college) would be called dictatorship or at best quasi-dictatorship in about 90% of the other nations of the world, including 100% of Western Europe.

Why the Palmetto State hate?


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Dancing with Myself on December 10, 2013, 01:37:18 AM
From what I remember, everyone around here thought Clinton was a fine enough President but the whole Monica thing made him despised down here. My area had a ton of Republicans in those days and they were fired up for Bush because he was different than Gore.  My dad hated Clinton but my mom and sister liked him, my mother is still a major fan.

Bush was more real and had a likeable persona, Gore seemed bored and distant, like he thought he was above campaigning.  He didn't connect with the average worker, Bush wanted to do a tax cut and modify the code, all Gore wanted to do was focus on higher up issues. Gore ran a mediocre campaign from the primary until the end, he struggled at one point in the primary. Like Nader said "If Gore ran a better campaign and focused on the issues, he wouldn't have struggled."

My whole family was for Bush though, but I voted for Gore in the school election, I was only 6 so I had no clue.  They found Gore to be a "wimp"


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Sumner 1868 on March 16, 2015, 12:54:22 AM
I think it's quite clear why he won, going by statistics collected in Erika Shaker's book "Great Expectations" comparing American attitudes between 1992 and 2000. The results are...unpleasant. Here's a sampler:

-In 1992, 16% of Americans believed non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate. By 2000, it was 25%

-34% of Americans believed a widely advertised product was probably good in 1992. In 2000, it was 45%.

-In 1992, 66% of Americans discussed local issues with other people. That number was 34% in 2000.

-36% of Americans believed that men should be heads of their household in 1992. In 2000, that number was 49%.

-The number of Americans who believed that violence is a normal part of life rose from 9% in 1992 to 31% in 2000.

-The number who believed that violence is an acceptable way to meet your goals rose from 14% in 1992 to 26% in 2000.

-In 1992, 72% of Americans considered defending the environment a priority. In 2000, 57% did.

-American's time spent watching television increased from 35% to 40% between 1992 and 2000.

-65% of Americans considered materialism a threat to society in 1992. In 2000, that number was 48%.

- In 2000 34% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992.

I could go on, but you get the point. Something about the Clinton presidency caused a shift from relatively progressive attitudes toward reactionary conservatism and shallowness. This is why Bush was elected.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers on March 16, 2015, 05:59:53 PM
Dubya came across as the change agent and Gore came across as a conventional politician. And the Lieberman pick didnt do him any favors. Had Bob Graham, been picked, maybe it would have been overlooked, and squeaked out a narrow victory.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Sumner 1868 on March 16, 2015, 06:14:59 PM
Dubya came across as the change agent and Gore came across as a conventional politician. And the Lieberman pick didnt do him any favors. Had Bob Graham, been picked, maybe it would have been overlooked, and squeaked out a narrow victory.

Sure, but it seems a disturbing psychological shift during the Clinton era also helped Bush, as I observe above.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Türkisblau on March 16, 2015, 06:38:19 PM
I think it's quite clear why he won, going by statistics collected in Erika Shaker's book "Great Expectations" comparing American attitudes between 1992 and 2000. The results are...unpleasant. Here's a sampler:

-In 1992, 16% of Americans believed non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate. By 2000, it was 25%

-34% of Americans believed a widely advertised product was probably good in 1992. In 2000, it was 45%.

-In 1992, 66% of Americans discussed local issues with other people. That number was 34% in 2000.

-36% of Americans believed that men should be heads of their household in 1992. In 2000, that number was 49%.

-The number of Americans who believed that violence is a normal part of life rose from 9% in 1992 to 31% in 2000.

-The number who believed that violence is an acceptable way to meet your goals rose from 14% in 1992 to 26% in 2000.

-In 1992, 72% of Americans considered defending the environment a priority. In 2000, 57% did.

-American's time spent watching television increased from 35% to 40% between 1992 and 2000.

-65% of Americans considered materialism a threat to society in 1992. In 2000, that number was 48%.

- In 2000 34% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992.

I could go on, but you get the point. Something about the Clinton presidency caused a shift from relatively progressive attitudes toward reactionary conservatism and shallowness. This is why Bush was elected.

Uh, how have I not seen this before? What is this attributed to?


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: Sumner 1868 on March 16, 2015, 07:28:55 PM
I think it's quite clear why he won, going by statistics collected in Erika Shaker's book "Great Expectations" comparing American attitudes between 1992 and 2000. The results are...unpleasant. Here's a sampler:

-In 1992, 16% of Americans believed non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate. By 2000, it was 25%

-34% of Americans believed a widely advertised product was probably good in 1992. In 2000, it was 45%.

-In 1992, 66% of Americans discussed local issues with other people. That number was 34% in 2000.

-36% of Americans believed that men should be heads of their household in 1992. In 2000, that number was 49%.

-The number of Americans who believed that violence is a normal part of life rose from 9% in 1992 to 31% in 2000.

-The number who believed that violence is an acceptable way to meet your goals rose from 14% in 1992 to 26% in 2000.

-In 1992, 72% of Americans considered defending the environment a priority. In 2000, 57% did.

-American's time spent watching television increased from 35% to 40% between 1992 and 2000.

-65% of Americans considered materialism a threat to society in 1992. In 2000, that number was 48%.

- In 2000 34% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992.

I could go on, but you get the point. Something about the Clinton presidency caused a shift from relatively progressive attitudes toward reactionary conservatism and shallowness. This is why Bush was elected.

Uh, how have I not seen this before? What is this attributed to?

No theories were given in the book, the data was in a chapter on global attitudes.


Title: Re: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
Post by: SingingAnalyst on May 07, 2015, 07:15:26 PM
I think it's quite clear why he won, going by statistics collected in Erika Shaker's book "Great Expectations" comparing American attitudes between 1992 and 2000. The results are...unpleasant. Here's a sampler:

-In 1992, 16% of Americans believed non-whites should not be allowed to immigrate. By 2000, it was 25%

-34% of Americans believed a widely advertised product was probably good in 1992. In 2000, it was 45%.

-In 1992, 66% of Americans discussed local issues with other people. That number was 34% in 2000.

-36% of Americans believed that men should be heads of their household in 1992. In 2000, that number was 49%.

-The number of Americans who believed that violence is a normal part of life rose from 9% in 1992 to 31% in 2000.

-The number who believed that violence is an acceptable way to meet your goals rose from 14% in 1992 to 26% in 2000.

-In 1992, 72% of Americans considered defending the environment a priority. In 2000, 57% did.

-American's time spent watching television increased from 35% to 40% between 1992 and 2000.

-65% of Americans considered materialism a threat to society in 1992. In 2000, that number was 48%.

- In 2000 34% of Americans said they enjoyed showing foreigners that they're smarter and stronger, up from 27% in 1992.

I could go on, but you get the point. Something about the Clinton presidency caused a shift from relatively progressive attitudes toward reactionary conservatism and shallowness. This is why Bush was elected.

Uh, how have I not seen this before? What is this attributed to?

No theories were given in the book, the data was in a chapter on global attitudes.

Harrowing. I can only suspect that (1) Clinton's philandering was still considered unacceptable, and Gore took flak for his association with him; (2) voters were ready for change; and (3) there really were people who opposed increased oversight of racial profiling, supported school vouchers, etc. What always bothered me, still does, is that I am convinced more people in FL left the voting booth thinking they had voted for Gore than had voted for Bush. Buchanan overperformed in Palm Beach Co, FL--and by more than 537 votes.