Will they remember?

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

My question I put out there for all guests and members to answer is this: Will the people across the nation remember the debacle of the 2000 election and how Gore won the popular vote, and out of sheer revenge, avenge that Electoral loss, and vote for the Democratic Nominee, no matter who he is?

[Ryan]

The popular vote is irrelevant and most people know it. One may have forgotten that both parties were out to win STATES not individual votes.

A parties turnout in states it was certain it would lose and those it was certain it would win may have been lower than if they were trying to win the popular vote. Thus Bush may have under performed as regards total votes in a State like say South Carolina. There was no competition for the Presidency and no other competitive race such as for the House or Senate or Governor in 2000. Thus turnout may have been lower than normal and (it being a republican state) Bush would have been the main beneficiary of an increased turnout.

Of course one might argue the other way around and say Gore should have won states like Massachusetts by a higher margin in that case. Possibly, though I believe the distribution of competitive non-presidential elections around the country as well as other factors tended to encourage greater turnout in the states or areas where Gore had a higher % and thus benefitted him more as far as the popular vote goes.
Still, I do not say there was "no way" that Gore could have won the popular vote, only that if both the campaigns had been focused on turning out the vote nationwide instead of winning states, it would have been a whole new ball-game. One cannot simply assume because Gore won the vote in 2000 he would have been President if the election was based on the popular vote.

[Nym90]

True, tactics would have been different and thus no one knows what the result would have been, but having looked at Dave's statistics for 2000 showing voter turnout in each state, I fail to see conclusive evidence that a higher turnout would have benefited Bush and that the GOP vote was disproportionately depressed in solid Republican states versus solid Democratic states.
Turnout in the largest states is the most important to look at here. Turnout in California and New York were both below the national average, at 45% and 48%, and in other large Democratic states, Illinois and Pennsylvania, turnout was only slightly above average at 52%. In the largest Republican state, Texas, turnout was low at 43%, but it was higher in Ohio at 56%. Turnout in Florida, despite the fact that everyone knew going in that it would potentially be a decisive state, was only 48%, so the idea that turnout is higher in swing states, while definitely a logical theory, is actually often not true. Likewise, New York, in which you were probably assuming that turnout might have been high due to Hillary's Senate run, also only had a 48% turnout. So the presence of interesting races farther down the ballot is no such guarantee either.
It's true that turnout was fairly low in most of the South, in which Bush did well, but I doubt that a higher turnout here would have benefited Bush. White voters are more likely to vote than blacks, and thus a higher turnout in these states would have been more likely to benefit Democrats. Hispanics likewise tend to have low voting rates, and they also favor Democrats more so than Republicans; this was probably one of the main reasons why California and Texas had low turnouts, and thus higher turnouts there might have benefited Democrats more.
Overall, higher turnout usually benefits Democrats, and strategists from both parties readily admit this.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The GOP's dream is for the Dems to remind Americans of Florida at every turn.

[zorkpolitics]

The 2004 election will turn on what voters believe each candidate will bring in the future.
If the Democrats run a campaign looking back say to the  2000 Recount and the 2003 Recall, they will get a very excited 40% of the voters, but not much else

[DarthKosh]

The 2004 election will turn on what voters believe each candidate will bring in the future.
If the Democrats run a campaign looking back say to the  2000 Recount and the 2003 Recall, they will get a very excited 40% of the voters, but not much else

I think it's less then 20% that care about that stuff.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Will the people across the nation remember the debacle of the 2000 election and how Gore won the popular vote, and out of sheer revenge, avenge that Electoral loss, and vote for the Democratic Nominee, no matter who he is?

If people don't remember this, then their brains must be rotting. After what happened last time, you'd think the Republicans wouldn't stand a chance.

[Beet]

After what happened last time, Democrats should have been rewarded in 2002, especially after the corruption scandals and the drift of the nation, but alas it was drowned out by Iraq.

The 2004 election will be decided on personality, vision, and issues, just like any other election. If the election debate is about "how good are things going" the Democrats will lose not necessarily because things will be going well but because they will be misrepresented as the party on the outside wishing ill. Instead if the election is about Bush's policies and having a leader as strong in bringing unity as in going to war, as well as someone who is more trustworthy, thats the only way the Democrats can stand a chance.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

How good are things going?

The economy is the worst it's been since the Great Depression.

If one had fallen asleep in 1993 and woken up now (like Rip Van Winkle), they would be waking up to find themselves in an America they don't recognize, and they would find the changes to be for the worse. America has become a police state where every move must be taken with extreme caution. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen, and the government takes no action to remedy it, instead intentionally making it worse. America has become the land of lockstep social control and economic injustice, and it's because of the Contract With America and the authoritarian Bush regime.

Unless people are thoroughly brainwashed or if the election is rigged, the Republicans are going to be utterly stomped. If Bush wins another term, that will only confirm my belief that we now live under a failed system.

[jravnsbo]

better brace yourself then.

The GOP will retaina nd increase its majorities int he Congress.  Next I haven't seen anyone predicting a blow out win for Dems vs Bush, but many partisan and not say GOP could do it.

The economy is coming back after being weak when Bush took over, it was dipping a bit.  Next 9/11 shook it then corporate scandals came along.

Stock market finished at 9899 a year long high and soon should be back over 10,000.  Next jobs are coming back and sounds like from what i just heard on hourly news numbers are going tobe coming in about encouraging manufacturing jobs, which would be huge.

Next, Bush has been delivering on his campaign promises and passing legislation for key groups; farm bill; energy bill ( it will pass next year with ethanol); prescription drugs, ban on partial birth abortion.

Oh and worst economyy since great depression.  Anyone think today is worse than the Carter days?  not me.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The economy boomed under Carter.

The stock market is a reverse indicator of real economic conditions, especially when the gap between the rich and the poor is the worst it's been since the 1860s. In other words, when the stock market prospers, most people suffer - and vice versa.

[NorthernDog]

In other words, when the stock market prospers, most people suffer - and vice versa.

Then Clinton's 1990s must have been economic hell since the stock market tripled in value, reaching a peak in March 2000.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Then Clinton's 1990s must have been economic hell

They were.

[Flying Dog]

The clinton years restored the econemy from the first bush destroying it

[Bandit3 the Worker]

But then the Contract With America tore it back down again.

[jravnsbo]

Oh yes the people will remember 2000.  The military in particular, they were alot better at reminding people to vote in 2002, than 2000.  Plus the FL panhandle people and other now realize how important it is to vote even though the press calls a state erroneously for one candidate or another.

PS-check the economic number sof GHWB and you will see the last few quarters of his Presidency the econmy was actually on an upswing.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

But then the Contract With America tore it back down again.

Don't Blame You? Don't Blame You? Your one vote for Nader cost Gore a vote. All the votes for Nader cost Gore votes. Don't Blame You? Look what we have to deal with now? No surpluses, deficits at $400 Billion Dollars. The world hates us more than before Sept. 11th. Europe hates our President. As far as the U.S. Economy, what we need is to put our President and Congress in a cage high above water somewhere and let them battle it out. I posit that there would be more consensus than gridlock, just by keeping the Lobbyists out of their reach or sights.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Don't Blame You? Don't Blame You?

It wasn't me or Nader who squandered a perfect opportunity to tell it like it was regarding the economy.

If the Democrats would have nominated candidates who admitted back in '98 or so that the economy was in shambles, then they'd have less worries about third parties siphoning votes from them.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Don't Blame You? Don't Blame You?

It wasn't me or Nader who squandered a perfect opportunity to tell it like it was regarding the economy.

If the Democrats would have nominated candidates who admitted back in '98 or so that the economy was in shambles, then they'd have less worries about third parties siphoning votes from them.

What the Heck did you say? That the economy was in shambles?Where do you get your numbers from? Newt Gingrich? Bill O'Reilly? The United States saw the greatest Economic boom in its History with record Surpluses.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

When was the last time the economy wasn't in shambles? I think it was back when everyone was wearing bell bottoms and listening to the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

When was the last time the economy wasn't in shambles? I think it was back when everyone was wearing bell bottoms and listening to the "Saturday Night Fever" soundtrack.

Dude, you need to get some history. The 1970's was one of the most TUMULTUOUS economic periods ever. Interest Rates were sky high. Inflation was sky high. There was a horrible energy crisis. The music sucked. My Friend, I know Bell Bottoms, you are not those Bell Bottoms.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The '70s were the best time to live in America. We still had a country back then.

[Nym90]

Much of the 70's music was pretty good. Led Zeppelin, the Who, the Eagles, Elton John, just to name a few off the top of my head.
Otherwise I agree that the economy was not that good in the 70's, though there were many external factors outside of the control of the Presidents during that era. Also, the economy boomed in the 90's and this was largely due to Clinton's economic policies (though again as always external factors played a role).

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Also, the economy boomed in the 90's and this was largely due to Clinton's economic policies (though again as always external factors played a role).

We must remember that the relatively prosperous years of 1993-94 represented only a small part of the Clinton era. It wasn't until 1995 when things really crumbled worse than anyone ever thought possible (both economically and socially).

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

Also, the economy boomed in the 90's and this was largely due to Clinton's economic policies (though again as always external factors played a role).

We must remember that the relatively prosperous years of 1993-94 represented only a small part of the Clinton era. It wasn't until 1995 when things really crumbled worse than anyone ever thought possible (both economically and socially).

What? The Economy didn't even begin to go down, only slightly, until the last quarter of Clinton's Presidency. What beef do you have with one of the Greatest Presidents in U.S. History?