Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: Bo on May 02, 2010, 12:32:58 AM



Title: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Bo on May 02, 2010, 12:32:58 AM
From what I've seen, the media criticized Gore for every little thing that he did, while they gave Bush Jr. a free pass on almost everything he did. Why was the media baised against Gore? Was it due to Monica Lewinsky, close friendship with the Bush family, or something else?


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Derek on May 02, 2010, 04:01:12 AM
I hope you're joking. They held the DUI story til the weekend before the election in order to screw Bush and deflate his surge.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Bo on May 09, 2010, 12:59:37 AM
I hope you're joking. They held the DUI story til the weekend before the election in order to screw Bush and deflate his surge.

No, they didn't. They just accessed the story on the last weekend before the election. They didn't know about it beforehand. Also, the media criticized Gore for every little thing he did (being awkward, beinga  populist, etc.) while giving BUsh Jr. a free pass on many of the same things and also on many of his controversies (like making Jesus Day a holiday in Texas). Even when the DUI story was released, some members of the media tried to turn it against Gore and claim that Gore was reponsible for the leak and is thus engaging in extremely negative campaigning because he has nothing better to offer the country.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 09, 2010, 01:06:28 AM
Gore made them feel dumb. His academic record wasn't impressive, but it was clear that he was much smarter than the average talking head. Also, they wanted that tax cut.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Derek on May 09, 2010, 01:07:58 AM
Bush should have come out with the DUI story himself. Still, I've never seen a candidate get is as badly from the press as Bush did between 2000-2004.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 09, 2010, 01:09:34 AM
Bush should have come out with the DUI story himself. Still, I've never seen a candidate get is as badly from the press as Bush did between 2000-2004.

Fail


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Bo on May 09, 2010, 01:09:53 AM
Bush should have come out with the DUI story himself. Still, I've never seen a candidate get is as badly from the press as Bush did between 2000-2004.

Oh, please. Bush didn't receive much bad press from the media in 2000, and during his first term the media also treated him pretty well (with possibly the exception between Jan 2001 and Sep 2001). It was only during the beginning of his second term, with Iraq becoming unpopular and Katrina, that the media really began to severely criticize Bush Jr.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Bo on May 09, 2010, 01:11:14 AM
Gore made them feel dumb. His academic record wasn't impressive, but it was clear that he was much smarter than the average talking head. Also, they wanted that tax cut.

Gore was also going to pass a tax cut (but not for them :P). Also, if the media wanted low taxes so badly, why did they support Clinton twice and Obama in 2008?


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 09, 2010, 01:12:17 AM
Gore made them feel dumb. His academic record wasn't impressive, but it was clear that he was much smarter than the average talking head. Also, they wanted that tax cut.

Gore was also going to pass a tax cut (but not for them :P). Also, if the media wanted low taxes so badly, why did they support Clinton twice and Obama in 2008?

I guess they like charisma, too.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Bo on May 09, 2010, 01:13:30 AM
Gore made them feel dumb. His academic record wasn't impressive, but it was clear that he was much smarter than the average talking head. Also, they wanted that tax cut.

Gore was also going to pass a tax cut (but not for them :P). Also, if the media wanted low taxes so badly, why did they support Clinton twice and Obama in 2008?

I guess they like charisma, too.

That's a shame. If only Gore had picked a more charismatic (or a competent female) VP, maybe the media wouldn't have treated him as badly and he would have been able to win in 2000.


Title: Re: Why was the media biased against Gore in 2000?
Post by: Derek on May 09, 2010, 01:29:27 AM
The media did not like lower taxes. Gore's tax cut was probably for ppl who don't pay taxes or ppl who barely pay any taxes. A tax cut is a huge reduction of what is paid by all tax payers. Bush's tax cut did not turn out as planned either. He originally wanted to cut taxes instead of hand everyone the same amounts of money depending on if they are married or single. He did not have enough Republicans in the Senate so he did rebates with money that should've been used to pay off the deficit. Bush was portrayed as the candidate running against peace and prosperity. I wouldn't say Bush's charisma is what put him over the finish line of 270 either. The gun issue did that. Gore basically shot himself in the foot by wanting more gun control. It doesn't go over well in places like Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, or Arkansas.