Al Gore 2000=Richard Nixon 1960?

[Thunderbird is the word]

Both were uncharismatic Vice-Presidents who botched a televised debate. Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity but were unable to ride the coattails of a widely popular president that they'd served under and both lost in a highly controversial election by a hair thin margin. I remember articles like this around 2006 being written suggesting that Gore would run in 08 with a Nixonian style comeback.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Both were seen as somewhat demagogic early in their career, Nixon with his red baiting and Gore with his PMRC involvement.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

and both had their elections stolen from them.

[Mr. Smith]

Both picked useless running mates too.

[Sumner 1868]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Both picked useless running mates too.

you think Lieberman was useless?  Florida's Jewish population is sometimes overestimated but with margins this close it makes a difference.  Plus he carried himself well in the campaign. He didn't make any major gaffes, or come under any comments questioning his seriousness or ability like Quayle or Edwards did.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Both picked useless running mates too.

you think Lieberman was useless?  Florida's Jewish population is sometimes overestimated but with margins this close it makes a difference.  Plus he carried himself well in the campaign. He didn't make any major gaffes, or come under any comments questioning his seriousness or ability like Quayle or Edwards did.

True...but he did hurt Gore among the Muslims, who were at the time actually Republican-leaning.  He was an overall good for Gore's electoral prospects nonwithstanding - the Jewish vote outnumbered the Muslim vote in 2000.  I also think he helped Gore among moderates, though this was blunted because of the momentum that Bush had going into Election Day.

[NeverAgain]

Lieberman was not chosen to get the Jewish Population, (But I'm sure that was a factor) He was chosen because of he strongly advocated for the resignation of Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinski Scandal.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

Pretty depressing, I imagine that that polling would have gotten better in some areas and worse in others today. I'm really not a fan of Clinton either, I was mainly just making a comparison about the economy which was doing pretty well in 2000 compared to today. The environmental one is particularly depressing, I think that FauxNews turning the environment into a left vs right issue might have had something to do with it whereas it didn't used to be so politically charged.

[Sumner 1868]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

Pretty depressing, I imagine that that polling would have gotten better in some areas and worse in others today. I'm really not a fan of Clinton either, I was mainly just making a comparison about the economy which was doing pretty well in 2000 compared to today. The environmental one is particularly depressing, I think that FauxNews turning the environment into a left vs right issue might have had something to do with it whereas it didn't used to be so politically charged.

Yeah. What concerns me most is the rising indifference to violence and the decline of simply talking about issues. And in only eight years.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

Pretty depressing, I imagine that that polling would have gotten better in some areas and worse in others today. I'm really not a fan of Clinton either, I was mainly just making a comparison about the economy which was doing pretty well in 2000 compared to today. The environmental one is particularly depressing, I think that FauxNews turning the environment into a left vs right issue might have had something to do with it whereas it didn't used to be so politically charged.

Yeah. What concerns me most is the rising indifference to violence and the decline of simply talking about issues. And in only eight years.

I think that social media has made things even worse with people retreating into increasingly ideologically insulated bubbles. One thing I like about uselectionsatlas is that you get people with a wide variety of different views mixing it up and getting along.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

The 1994 Republican Revolution probably had something to do with that and Gingrich Uniting the Conservatives to Witch hunt anybody who's not a Republican. Remember in 1992 the Conservatives got divided between Bush and Perot and Gingrich brought them back together

[Sumner 1868]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

The 1994 Republican Revolution probably had something to do with that and Gingrich Uniting the Conservatives to Witch hunt anybody who's not a Republican. Remember in 1992 the Conservatives got divided between Bush and Perot and Gingrich brought them back together

I think that was a side effect to whatever went on.

[MATTROSE94]

Both should have cruised to an easy victory in a time of peace and prosperity

Yeah, I don't think all was well in 2000. As I've posted already elsewhere:

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.

I don't fully understand how American mindsets deteriorated so badly in the Clinton years, but they did.

The 1994 Republican Revolution probably had something to do with that and Gingrich Uniting the Conservatives to Witch hunt anybody who's not a Republican. Remember in 1992 the Conservatives got divided between Bush and Perot and Gingrich brought them back together

I agree with you on that point, though I also feel that the rise of conservative talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the introduction of more ideologically driven cable news channels such as MSNBC and Fox News helped to make the political and sociological debates of the 1990s much more negative when compared to prior eras.

[Blair]

Nixon had a failing economy in the 1960's, if I'm correct there was a recession and Kennedy was able to run on the basis of getting the economy started.

Interesting comparison between Bush and Kennedy. Both sons of relatively unpopular rich man, yet both Bush and Kennedy came across as charismatic and down to earth

[Sumner 1868]

Nixon had a failing economy in the 1960's, if I'm correct there was a recession and Kennedy was able to run on the basis of getting the economy started.

Interesting comparison between Bush and Kennedy. Both sons of relatively unpopular rich man, yet both Bush and Kennedy came across as charismatic and down to earth

Yes, the economy in 1958-1961 was pretty bad. You also had the civil rights movement and the idea (which even before Watergate was strong) that Nixon was corrupt.

[RINO Tom]

Nixon had a failing economy in the 1960's, if I'm correct there was a recession and Kennedy was able to run on the basis of getting the economy started.

Interesting comparison between Bush and Kennedy. Both sons of relatively unpopular rich man, yet both Bush and Kennedy came across as charismatic and down to earth

Yes, the economy in 1958-1961 was pretty bad. You also had the civil rights movement and the idea (which even before Watergate was strong) that Nixon was corrupt.

Are you positive about that?  From the reading I've done, Nixon actually gained a very good reputation as VP.  Many saw him as more "liberal" (I strongly object to the idea that any past viewpoint that is now deemed "correct" is considered "liberal" for its time, as that line of thinking seems nothing more than a clever ploy to suggest that liberal ideas are always right, and when they're unpopular, it's just because people aren't enlightened enough for them, but I digress) on civil rights issues than Eisenhower, and he played a pretty admirable role in several Senate debates.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, though ... I mean he obviously DID end up being corrupt, haha.

[Dr. Cynic]

Nixon had a failing economy in the 1960's, if I'm correct there was a recession and Kennedy was able to run on the basis of getting the economy started.

Interesting comparison between Bush and Kennedy. Both sons of relatively unpopular rich man, yet both Bush and Kennedy came across as charismatic and down to earth

Yes, the economy in 1958-1961 was pretty bad. You also had the civil rights movement and the idea (which even before Watergate was strong) that Nixon was corrupt.

Are you positive about that?  From the reading I've done, Nixon actually gained a very good reputation as VP.  Many saw him as more "liberal" (I strongly object to the idea that any past viewpoint that is now deemed "correct" is considered "liberal" for its time, as that line of thinking seems nothing more than a clever ploy to suggest that liberal ideas are always right, and when they're unpopular, it's just because people aren't enlightened enough for them, but I digress) on civil rights issues than Eisenhower, and he played a pretty admirable role in several Senate debates.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, though ... I mean he obviously DID end up being corrupt, haha.

Yes, he is... Remember Checkers?

[Mr. Smith]

Nixon had a failing economy in the 1960's, if I'm correct there was a recession and Kennedy was able to run on the basis of getting the economy started.

Interesting comparison between Bush and Kennedy. Both sons of relatively unpopular rich man, yet both Bush and Kennedy came across as charismatic and down to earth

Yes, the economy in 1958-1961 was pretty bad. You also had the civil rights movement and the idea (which even before Watergate was strong) that Nixon was corrupt.

Are you positive about that?  From the reading I've done, Nixon actually gained a very good reputation as VP.  Many saw him as more "liberal" (I strongly object to the idea that any past viewpoint that is now deemed "correct" is considered "liberal" for its time, as that line of thinking seems nothing more than a clever ploy to suggest that liberal ideas are always right, and when they're unpopular, it's just because people aren't enlightened enough for them, but I digress) on civil rights issues than Eisenhower, and he played a pretty admirable role in several Senate debates.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, though ... I mean he obviously DID end up being corrupt, haha.

Yes, he is... Remember Checkers?

That's a more forgivable instance far as I'm concerned.

Look to his Senatorial campaign where he red-baited his opponent. He got the name Tricky Dick from that.

[Sumner 1868]

Nixon had a failing economy in the 1960's, if I'm correct there was a recession and Kennedy was able to run on the basis of getting the economy started.

Interesting comparison between Bush and Kennedy. Both sons of relatively unpopular rich man, yet both Bush and Kennedy came across as charismatic and down to earth

Yes, the economy in 1958-1961 was pretty bad. You also had the civil rights movement and the idea (which even before Watergate was strong) that Nixon was corrupt.

Are you positive about that?  From the reading I've done, Nixon actually gained a very good reputation as VP.  Many saw him as more "liberal" (I strongly object to the idea that any past viewpoint that is now deemed "correct" is considered "liberal" for its time, as that line of thinking seems nothing more than a clever ploy to suggest that liberal ideas are always right, and when they're unpopular, it's just because people aren't enlightened enough for them, but I digress) on civil rights issues than Eisenhower, and he played a pretty admirable role in several Senate debates.

I wouldn't be surprised if you're right, though ... I mean he obviously DID end up being corrupt, haha.

Nixon's reputation was always pretty bad. One tactic that the Stevenson campaign used in 1956 was running ads observing that Nixon might be president (the implication being that Eisenhower could die in office), and it actually cut Ike's margin a bit. Nixon's approval ratings as vice president were generally dismal, and I'm sure he made Kennedy all the more appealing to people.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

If you ask me, it's amazing Nixon came as close to winning as he did. Virtually nothing went right for him in that campaign.

[Sumner 1868]

If you ask me, it's amazing Nixon came as close to winning as he did. Virtually nothing went right for him in that campaign.

The Red Scare and Anti-Catholicism probably helped him quite a lot.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you ask me, it's amazing Nixon came as close to winning as he did. Virtually nothing went right for him in that campaign.

The Red Scare and Anti-Catholicism probably helped him quite a lot.

How would the Red Scare have helped him against JFK in 1960?

[Sumner 1868]

If you ask me, it's amazing Nixon came as close to winning as he did. Virtually nothing went right for him in that campaign.

The Red Scare and Anti-Catholicism probably helped him quite a lot.

How would the Red Scare have helped him against JFK in 1960?

A private poll commissioned by Nixon' campaign stated that the voters preferred Kennedy two-to-one on domestic affairs, but Nixon in foreign policy by the same margin, and thus focused his campaign on Cold War issues. This was no doubt a side-effect of McCarthyism.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

If you ask me, it's amazing Nixon came as close to winning as he did. Virtually nothing went right for him in that campaign.

The Red Scare and Anti-Catholicism probably helped him quite a lot.

Eisenhower's popularity probably did too, even if his support was lukewarm.