How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:00:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: How could Bush win the 2000 presidential election?  (Read 7780 times)
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 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).
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2013, 08:37:29 PM »

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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?
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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"
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,806
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 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?
Logged
Sumner 1868
tara gilesbie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,053
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
SingingAnalyst
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.