How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?

[Asoure]

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

[Franzl]

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.

[Consciously Unconscious]

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.

[sg0508]

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. 

[IceSpear]

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.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

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.

[eric82oslo]

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.

[Consciously Unconscious]

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. 

[hopper]

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.

[Franzl]

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...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Consciously Unconscious]

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. . .

[Franzl]

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.

[old timey villain]

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.

[Consciously Unconscious]

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. 

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

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".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.....

[Franzl]

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.)

[Person Man]

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.

[Oakvale]

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.

[sg0508]

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.

[Tender Branson]

Al Gore won the election.

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

[BlueSwan]

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.

[Mordecai]

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.

[BlueSwan]

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