Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 23, 2018, 06:53:59 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2018 predictions for US Senate are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Torie)
| | |-+  Are the 2016 election results now more controversial than the 2000 results
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Are the 2016 election results now more controversial than the 2000 results  (Read 617 times)
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8156


View Profile
« on: December 09, 2017, 04:02:42 pm »
Ignore

Both election results were very controversial


2016 because of the Russia investigation

2000 because of Bush v Gore
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
TheElectoralBoobyPrize
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 347


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2017, 04:32:10 pm »
Ignore

I would say 2016 is more controversial because...

1. Hillary won the popular vote by way more than Gore did

2. 2000 at least resulted in the election of, more or less, a conventional politician
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8156


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2017, 05:40:32 pm »
Ignore

I would say 2016 is more controversial because...

1. Hillary won the popular vote by way more than Gore did

2. 2000 at least resulted in the election of, more or less, a conventional politician


THough you can argue more of the Left's hatred of Bush was due to how that election was resolved, while for Trump it was more about how bad a person he was and his campaign itself.
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
America's Sweetheart ❤
TexArkana
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3789
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2017, 06:08:30 pm »
Ignore

I would say 2016 is more controversial because...

1. Hillary won the popular vote by way more than Gore did

2. 2000 at least resulted in the election of, more or less, a conventional politician
But at the same time, Trump won the electoral college much more easily than Bush did.
Logged

"For it is both a great honor, and my righteous duty, to eat that booty" - Abraham Lincoln
 
God is a big, beautiful black woman named Arianna.

Booty obsession
L.D. Smith, Aggie! It's Real Expenses Again
MormDem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13930
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2017, 08:58:53 pm »
Ignore

2000 would've been a sleeper without the Florida incident if Bush had won the state a bit more convincingly and/or if Gore had won...unless New Hampshire, Wisconsin, New Mexico, or Oregon had been the lightning rod.

2016 was insanity as soon as Cruz jumped in.
Logged

Atlas PM Score:

S: 3.7
E: -7.4
twenty42
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2017, 11:13:30 pm »
Ignore

2016 wasn’t anywhere near as controversial as 2000. Election Night 2016 ran relatively smoothly...Election Night 2000 was a clusterf**k.
Logged
Tekken_Guy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 366
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2017, 01:24:22 am »
Ignore

I'd say so. Gore won the PV quite narrowly and I don't recall many people saying Bush would be dangerous to America.

At least most of Gore's voters warmed up to Bush once the campaign ended. Trump gained virtually no support beyond those who voted for him.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8156


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2017, 03:19:12 am »
Ignore

2000 would've been a sleeper without the Florida incident if Bush had won the state a bit more convincingly and/or if Gore had won...unless New Hampshire, Wisconsin, New Mexico, or Oregon had been the lightning rod.

2016 was insanity as soon as Cruz jumped in.


I said the results not the campaign it self



So basically Bush v Gore legal case vs Russian Involvement
Logged

Favorite Politicians from the last 50 years:




Economic Score: 3.61
Social: -0.1


"http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/grid/28x23.gif

Foreign Policy: 1.6


My Timeline: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=261223.0
kcguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 524
Romania


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2017, 11:35:03 am »
Ignore

If there were actual proof that the Russians were able to hack into the computer system of some specific jurisdiction and change actual numbers, then the 2016 would be more controversial.

Until that's been proven, 2000 will be the textbook case of a controversial election:
1.  The entire results hinged on one state.
2.  The governor of that state was the brother of one of the candidates.
3.  The margin of victory in that state was less than 0.01%.  (I doubt many of us would declare FULL confidence in any vote if the first count was 5424 to 5423, and then officials refused to double-check themselves.)
4.  At the time the state results were declared by the networks, voting was still in progress in 6% of the state.
5.  A 3rd-party candidate took a large number of votes--181 times the margin of victory--and there's no doubt that he took votes disproportionately from the losing candidate.  (I heard a theory once that 60% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore otherwise, 10% for Bush, and 30% wouldn't have bothered to vote at all.)
6.  A poor ballot layout in one county produced some unlikely results, implying that the votes that were recorded were probably not for the intended candidate.  (In particular, a precinct consisting heavily of elderly Jews produced a surprisingly strong showing for Pat Buchanan, or as the result was dubbed, "Holocaust survivors for Holocaust deniers".)
7.  The final result was basically a coin toss, with the courts shutting down a more thorough count mainly because the process was running up against some hard deadlines.  When a Supreme Court decision says that the decision itself should not be cited for precedent, you know that it's not actually great law.

The only reason--at the moment--for considering the 2016 more controversial is that it was more of a middle finger to the democratic concept of "majority rules" than 2000 was.  But unlike Bush's hair's-breadth win in 2000, Trump's victory in 2016 is the clear result of election rules that have been in place longer than any of us have been alive.
Logged

Economic left:  -0.75
Social libertarian:  -3.44
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 639
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 11, 2017, 12:54:22 pm »
Ignore

If there were actual proof that the Russians were able to hack into the computer system of some specific jurisdiction and change actual numbers, then the 2016 would be more controversial.

Until that's been proven, 2000 will be the textbook case of a controversial election:
1.  The entire results hinged on one state.
2.  The governor of that state was the brother of one of the candidates.
3.  The margin of victory in that state was less than 0.01%.  (I doubt many of us would declare FULL confidence in any vote if the first count was 5424 to 5423, and then officials refused to double-check themselves.)
4.  At the time the state results were declared by the networks, voting was still in progress in 6% of the state.
5.  A 3rd-party candidate took a large number of votes--181 times the margin of victory--and there's no doubt that he took votes disproportionately from the losing candidate.  (I heard a theory once that 60% of Nader voters would have voted for Gore otherwise, 10% for Bush, and 30% wouldn't have bothered to vote at all.)
6.  A poor ballot layout in one county produced some unlikely results, implying that the votes that were recorded were probably not for the intended candidate.  (In particular, a precinct consisting heavily of elderly Jews produced a surprisingly strong showing for Pat Buchanan, or as the result was dubbed, "Holocaust survivors for Holocaust deniers".)
7.  The final result was basically a coin toss, with the courts shutting down a more thorough count mainly because the process was running up against some hard deadlines.  When a Supreme Court decision says that the decision itself should not be cited for precedent, you know that it's not actually great law.

The only reason--at the moment--for considering the 2016 more controversial is that it was more of a middle finger to the democratic concept of "majority rules" than 2000 was.  But unlike Bush's hair's-breadth win in 2000, Trump's victory in 2016 is the clear result of election rules that have been in place longer than any of us have been alive.


This. Until anything serious is proven with regards to Russia, 2016 was more of a shock than a controversy.
Logged

RINO Tom
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8604
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -4.70

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2017, 03:10:06 pm »
Ignore

I mean, it's all relative, so it's hard to say.  I was pretty young, but I remember 2000 seeming uprecedentedly nasty, especially compared to the three or four elections that came before it.  I think people were really taken aback by how bitter and divisive it was, and it definitely set the stage for this very unfortunate "Red America" vs. "Blue America" dynamic we have where a conservative Republican living in an urban area who shops at the co-op for some reason feels "politically out of place" because he or she doesn't resemble other Republicans in other areas of the country in some cultural ways, for example.  So, 2016 might have been nastier because things have only gotten worse with polarization, but I don't think it was more "controversial."
Logged

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

- Abraham Lincoln, 16th President
uti2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1270


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2017, 03:20:09 pm »
Ignore

I'd say so. Gore won the PV quite narrowly and I don't recall many people saying Bush would be dangerous to America.

At least most of Gore's voters warmed up to Bush once the campaign ended. Trump gained virtually no support beyond those who voted for him.

Bush's approval ratings were mediocre until 9/11 hit. He didn't really gain national support beyond his base either until 9/11.
Logged
Tekken_Guy
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 366
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2017, 09:48:37 pm »
Ignore

I'd say so. Gore won the PV quite narrowly and I don't recall many people saying Bush would be dangerous to America.

At least most of Gore's voters warmed up to Bush once the campaign ended. Trump gained virtually no support beyond those who voted for him.

Bush's approval ratings were mediocre until 9/11 hit. He didn't really gain national support beyond his base either until 9/11.

Still way above Trump's.
Logged
North Fulton Democrat
mollybecky
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 387


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2017, 05:43:24 pm »
Ignore

I mean, it's all relative, so it's hard to say.  I was pretty young, but I remember 2000 seeming uprecedentedly nasty, especially compared to the three or four elections that came before it.  I think people were really taken aback by how bitter and divisive it was, and it definitely set the stage for this very unfortunate "Red America" vs. "Blue America" dynamic we have where a conservative Republican living in an urban area who shops at the co-op for some reason feels "politically out of place" because he or she doesn't resemble other Republicans in other areas of the country in some cultural ways, for example.  So, 2016 might have been nastier because things have only gotten worse with polarization, but I don't think it was more "controversial."
[/quote

Remember that 2000 election well.  Clearly, that election was more partisan than previous elections but nothing to the level that the 2004-2016 elections have become.  There was still a fair amount of crossover voting (for instance, Zell Miller won the U.S. Senate race in Georgia by a large margin whereas GWB took the state easily). 

I agree the result of the 2000 election created such a bitterness that over the near term at least, it's hard to see a level of bipartisanship to bring this country together. 
Logged
Liberalrocks
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1517
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -4.35


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2017, 09:08:21 pm »
Ignore

I would say 2016 is more controversial because...

1. Hillary won the popular vote by way more than Gore did

2. 2000 at least resulted in the election of, more or less, a conventional politician
Agreed, no need to analyze it further...
Logged

MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 845
United States


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2017, 09:19:50 pm »
Ignore

The Bush v. Gore decision was much worse than just "controversial." That decision by the SCOTUS convinced me that Republicans do not appoint better SC Justices than the Democrats. And that decision also convinced me that I did not want to vote any more. I did not vote in any elections from 2003 to 2015 inclusive because of Bush v. Gore.

But I can't say which election was more controversial. On the one hand 2000 was awful because of the SCOTUS sticking its nose where it did not belong; one the other hand 2016 was awful because of the guy who got elected.
Logged

Rewrite the 14th Amendment!
States should have clear guidelines what laws they cannot pass, and the federal courts should have far less discretion in choosing what laws to strike down. Take away from the federal courts the power to define liberty and the power to define equality. Those are legislative powers and should be in the hands of legislators. Rewrite Section 1 of the 14th to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
mianfei
Full Member
***
Posts: 104
View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2018, 05:27:08 pm »
Ignore

Being familiar with the differences between the US electoral system and that if my native Australia, I have (instinctively) felt that the 2016 result is less unfair to the Democrats than 2000.

Although Trump lost the popular vote by more than Bush, I have always felt that Gore was with the entirely electorate more preferred than was Hilary.

If the US used the “preferential” or “instant runoff” system which is used in Australia and requires each candidate to gain an absolute majority via distribution of preferences, I imagine that Gore would have carried FL and NH from the preferences of Nader voters. In 2016, by contrast, the preferences of minor parties would most likely have allowed Trump to retain all the states he won, plus NH, MN and possibly ME (Hilary keeping a vote from ME-1) and CO.

Were a second runoff election required in states with no majority, Trump would have gained an even stronger chance in CO and ME at large.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines