What was the real difference?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 01:55:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderator: Dereich)
  What was the real difference?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Who had more of an effect on the 2000 election?
#1
Dan Rather
#2
Pat Buchanan
#3
Ralph Nader
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: What was the real difference?  (Read 2837 times)
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 24, 2006, 08:37:25 AM »

While CW might tell you Nader had the biggest impact, did he really?

First there's Pat Buchanan, he received higher vote totals in Palm Beach County than anywhere else.  If those people voted Gore, he probably wins.

Dan Rather you say?  Well, the news networks calling FL too early probably cost Bush somewhere near 5,000 votes on the panhandle.

I vote Dan Rather
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2006, 08:45:07 AM »

Each in their own special way.

Rather is the only who I think is a questionable. No one is exactly sure what impact that had. I have read something that does kind of refute it.

Nader got over 97,000 votes in a state lost by Gore officially by 537... I think it's fair to say that at least 1,000 of the would have voted for Gore were Nader not there.

Buchanan himself said that there is NO WAY he would get 3,000+ in Palm Beach Co. The ballot was stupid... but you did have to be pretty stupid to get it that wrong.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,082
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2006, 11:48:58 AM »

I agree totally with polnut.

I have a question about the case of Florida being called too early causing voters in the panhandle to go home.  If you're standing in a line of people waiting to vote, how do you know what the media is saying?  I would have thought that access to a TV would have been a little limited.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2006, 12:09:46 PM »

Overall Nader, obviously, for the reasons Polnut mentioned.

Why blame Rather as opposed to Voter News Service? In addition, I think the idea that Bush lost massive numbers of votes in the panhandle is overblown. The call of Florida was 10 minutes before the polls were to close there, and it would've cost Gore votes as well. And of course I could just as well argue that if those people didn't care enough to vote under those circumstances they shouldn't be voting to begin with. Smiley

And obviously it's not Buchanan's fault that the ballot in Palm Beach County was messed up.
Logged
DownWithTheLeft
downwithdaleft
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,548
Italy


Political Matrix
E: 9.16, S: -3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2006, 12:10:27 PM »

I agree totally with polnut.

I have a question about the case of Florida being called too early causing voters in the panhandle to go home.  If you're standing in a line of people waiting to vote, how do you know what the media is saying?  I would have thought that access to a TV would have been a little limited.

It was more business people who were on their way home going to vote and they heard on the radio that Gore had won.  These people would've gone heavily for Bush and a lot of them stayed home.  It wasn't really the ppl standing in line.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2006, 12:11:48 PM »

Each in their own special way.

Rather is the only who I think is a questionable. No one is exactly sure what impact that had. I have read something that does kind of refute it.

Nader got over 97,000 votes in a state lost by Gore officially by 537... I think it's fair to say that at least 1,000 of the would have voted for Gore were Nader not there.

Buchanan himself said that there is NO WAY he would get 3,000+ in Palm Beach Co. The ballot was stupid... but you did have to be pretty stupid to get it that wrong.

Well, not necessarily stupid, just have poor vision, which of course is a common problem among the elderly who make up a disproportionate number of the voters in Palm Beach County, especially the Democratic voters.
Logged
adam
Captain Vlad
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,922


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -5.04

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2006, 01:33:42 PM »

Buchanun cost Bush Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa if I remember correctly. However, Nader allowed the states to be that close in the first place.
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,643
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2006, 01:47:39 PM »

Nader, he's the one who sucked votes away from Gore.
Logged
Michael Z
Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,288
Political Matrix
E: -5.88, S: -4.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2006, 05:53:17 PM »

Nader, he's the one who sucked votes away from Gore.
^^^
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2006, 11:33:48 PM »

Nader. 



his voters were the greater than the difference in NH and FL.  Either would've given the college to Gore.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 24, 2006, 11:38:36 PM »

Each in their own special way.

Rather is the only who I think is a questionable. No one is exactly sure what impact that had. I have read something that does kind of refute it.

Nader got over 97,000 votes in a state lost by Gore officially by 537... I think it's fair to say that at least 1,000 of the would have voted for Gore were Nader not there.

Buchanan himself said that there is NO WAY he would get 3,000+ in Palm Beach Co. The ballot was stupid... but you did have to be pretty stupid to get it that wrong.

Well, not necessarily stupid, just have poor vision, which of course is a common problem among the elderly who make up a disproportionate number of the voters in Palm Beach County, especially the Democratic voters.

Yes, that was a tad harsh on my part. I'm not surprised that Down is supporting the idea that would have Bush gaining over Gore losing them. Wink
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 28, 2006, 01:27:32 AM »

Buchanun cost Bush Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa if I remember correctly. However, Nader allowed the states to be that close in the first place.

If you assume that all of Buchanan's votes would've gone to Bush, and of course as you also noted that none of Nader's votes go to Gore. Both of which are obviously suspect assumptions to make.
Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,236


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 28, 2006, 03:27:12 AM »


Of course you do.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 14 queries.