Talk Elections

Many people discuss how controversial that was, which it was, indeed. However, among millennials and those even younger than myself (I was in 6th grade during Election 2000), some seem to really disagree with the decision and consider it even more controversial than it was.

I found these polls conducted in December 2000 by CNN/USA Today/Gallup. Some interesting things.


If George W. Bush is declared the winner and is inaugurated next January, would you accept him as the legitimate president, or not?

Yes      80%
No       18

Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision?

Agree       52%
Disagree    42

Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court was fair or unfair in deciding this case?

Fair       54%
Unfair     38

Do you think the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who voted to end the recount in Florida did so mostly based on the legal merits of the case or mostly based on their own desire to have Bush as the next president?

Legal merits of case      54%
Desire to see Bush win    35

Does this decision make you lose confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court, or does it not have an effect on your view of the Court?

Lose confidence      30%
No effect            66

In his speech tonight, Al Gore is likely to accept the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and acknowledge that George W. Bush will be the next president, even though Gore believes he got more votes in Florida. Do you think Gore should concede that he lost, or should he withdraw from the race without conceding?

Concede that he lost                59%
Withdraw without conceding          32

Those are...quite...favorable to the Supreme Court decision and to George Bush. Like, overwhelmingly more favorable than even I remember at the time.

So my question is, do you think the electorate has changed that much in 19 years to have a revisionist view of the Supreme Court decision for Bush? Was it 40 year old people (now 59 year olds) who don't care and the 21 year old college liberals today who care about it were in diapers at the time? Is that what it is?

Was it the Iraq War and looking back in hindsight?

I know that the media favored Bush from when he started running until it was found that Hussein didn't have WMDs.

This. The media was whoring out for W so hard until about 2004. Also, the late 1990s and early 2000s were a less polarizing time with Americans (even many Gore voters) largely favoring closure after a month of not knowing who their next president would be. Gore hurt himself by requesting recounts and moving the case forward because the public either perceived this as a sore loser dragging the outcome or worse, trying to steal the election. Imo this is the biggest reason Gore decided against running again in 2004. He lost a lot of credibility and the public was ready for W at this point. This can be seen with W, a popular vote loser, having a roughly 60% approval rating upon entering office

It seems like there was more revisionist history about Bush V Gore in the immediate aftermath than there is today. Literally nobody talks about it anymore or cares.

One of the things you well remember, Reaganfan, is what Bush v Gore actually decided. Specifically, whether the third recount would continue past the safe harbor day or not. The people in December 2000 knew well from the coverage that continuing to count under the rules Gore wanted (recounts in three specific counties) was unlikely to change the outcome (and, in fact, they wouldn't have). IMO, Bush V Gore as a decision only took on its legendary status once it became synonymous with the entire election process, which only happened with distance.

Gore could have possibly won with very loose rules that recounted the entire state, as some of the later studies showed, but he would not have won under the rules the recount was proceeding under.