In the 2000 presidential election, who did you vote for and why?

[© tweed]

1988:  dukakis,
1992:  clinton,
1996:  clinton,
2000:  nader, definitely wanted gore to lose but didn't care for bush
2004:  bush,

WTF?

That's basically a case of somebody changing politically, rather than just slobbering over Dukakis and Clinton and rejecting Gore and Kerry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1988:  dukakis,
1992:  clinton,
1996:  clinton,
2000:  nader, definitely wanted gore to lose but didn't care for bush
2004:  bush,

WTF?

That's basically a case of somebody changing politically, rather than just slobbering over Dukakis and Clinton and rejecting Gore and Kerry.

Anyone who voted for Dukakis and against Kerry is a total fool.

[phk]

I wasn't old enough to vote, but I remember 9th grade history class and having to debate for Gore, non-stop.

[nclib]

I voted for Gore because I agreed with him on more issues and he was clearly the more intelligent candidate.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In the 2000 mayoral election I cast my vote for Ingrid Häußler (SPD).... d'oh, I regret this now, instead I should have voted for this overweight homosexual male stripper from Berlin who ran as a joke candidate.

[Dave from Michigan]

I wasn't able to vote but at the time I would have voted for Al Gore. 

[7,052,770]

I wasn't able to vote but at the time I would have voted for Al Gore. 

I wasn't able to vote but at the time I would have voted for Al Gore. 

surprising on both counts!

[angus]

I wasn't able to vote but at the time I would have voted for Al Gore. 

surprising on both counts!

haha.  you're like, "hmm, is he a convicted felon?  or just not old enough to vote?  or maybe a recently minted citizen?" but too shy to ask.  I hear ya, man.  I wonder the same thing.

of course, all those three demographics are famous for supporting demographics, so it would make sense that no matter the reason he couldn't vote, he'd support gore.

[opebo]

of course, all those three demographics are famous for supporting demographics, so it would make sense that no matter the reason he couldn't vote, he'd support gore.

Presumably you meant 'Democrats'.  And again you have it backwards - demographic groups which are likely to be left leaning are of course the ones that are disenfranchised.  Such has been the case throughout the history if this sad land.

[Citizen James]

In the primaries, McCain.

In the General, Gore.

I had to chuckle in the debates when Bush claimed he wanted a more 'humble' foriegn policy - anyone who had studied the candidates rather than listening to the rhetoric and talking heads would realize neither humility nor moderation were part of his makup.

McCain v Gore would have been a tough choice for me.  Bush v. Gore was a no brainer (or perhaps more accurately, a no brainer vs a well educated wonk).

Probably the only thing that amazes me more than the fact that anyone beyond the cult-like armageddon seeking ultra-fundementalists supported bush is the fact that he has done an even worse job for America than I could have possibly imagined.

The main difference between Bush and Clinton is that while Clinton screwed an intern - Bush screwed the whole country.

[??????????]

In the primaries, McCain.

In the General, Gore.

I had to chuckle in the debates when Bush claimed he wanted a more 'humble' foriegn policy - anyone who had studied the candidates rather than listening to the rhetoric and talking heads would realize neither humility nor moderation were part of his makup.

McCain v Gore would have been a tough choice for me.  Bush v. Gore was a no brainer (or perhaps more accurately, a no brainer vs a well educated wonk).

Probably the only thing that amazes me more than the fact that anyone beyond the cult-like armageddon seeking ultra-fundementalists supported bush is the fact that he has done an even worse job for America than I could have possibly imagined.

The main difference between Bush and Clinton is that while Clinton screwed an intern - Bush screwed the whole country.

Total hack.

[angus]

at least he's a hack with a sense of humor.  I found the post mildly amusing.

What I don't understand is why he, or any democrat, would have such fondness for McCain.  This man is a bigger kill-em-all-let-god-sort-em-out Hawk than Bush.  And he's anti-tax and pro-privatization as well.  So what gives?  Does his willingness to trample the constitution with his restrictions on campaign finance so appeal to the average authoritarian democrat that they're willing to overlook all they claim to despise in the GOP?  Or is it just the ABB mentality at work, and since it came to Bush versus Somebody Else in the primaries, the Somebody Else seems nice by comparison?  That could be part of it, but it would not explain Citizen James' waffling on McCain versus Gore, unless deep down he realizes what a schmuck Gore is as well.  (I suspect that all democrats realize this too, since their party flatly rejected his bid for presidential candidate in 1988, and it was only because he was Clinton's hand-picked successor in 1992 that he ever even became their candidate.  Without Clinton's grand favor, which Gore promptly shat upon in his Distance Myself From Bill campaign in 2000, Gore wouldn't have been a Democrat candidate for President.)

[A18]

Couldn't vote. I would have voted for Bush, of course.

[Citizen James]

Total hack.

Guilty as charged on that one.  I will defer to your expertise on what is hackish, giving your vast experience in the subject.  I will admit that I let the hyperbole get the better of me.

McCain would have been a tougher choice than Bush, but I always had a very high regard for Gore and prefered him from the start.

Back in 2000 I was still a Republican, though I had been growing increasingly disillutioned with my party at the time.  The nomination of Bush was the final straw that convinced me to change my registration.

Back in 1990, when I originally chose a party (I originally registered in 1985 as a non-partisan), I liked Bush Sr, Dukemajian, and the early pragmatic Pete Wilson.  (looking back over history, I may have also been a bit less informed back then).  I had voted for all three of these, and several others.  I believed (and still believe) in fiscal responsibility, and in a long term view in making sure programs were effective and worthwhile rather than throwing money at them.  This is perhaps the issue in which the parties have most switched places in the last decade.

I thought highly of Clinton's policies; his increased emphasis on fighting terrorism (just because congress ignored it and obsessed with his affair doesn't mean he didn't take it seriously), and his relatively ballanced budget.  (the rate of increase on the total debt decreased, and did the total amount of debt held by private individuals - rather than money the government owed to itself).

Gore's plans continued this trend (lockbox anyone), and he took a strong concern about the enviorment (enviormental health is important for long term prosperity).  I strongly believe that he would have been a vastly superior president than Bush.  9/11 would have still probably happened (taking notice of the warning memo might have stopped one group of terrorists - most likely filght 93 as they were detained in security before being allowed to board) but probably not all of them.  From there the actions in Afganistan would have likely started identically, but would have continued with Gore engaging in trying to build additional stability rather than wandering off into Iraq, and a stronger, earlier focus on fuel economy.

[The Dowager Mod]

Ah the day my faith in the american electoral system went away.
I voted Gore reluctantly because i didn't like his running mate.

[Inverted Things]

Didn't vote owing to the fact that I was 17 at the time. Would have voted Nader.