Why was 2000 so close?

[old timey villain]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think the lesson that we can learn from the 2000 election is that voter fatigue is an extremely powerful force after 8 years of the same party in office. Even, and especially so when the candidate is competent, established and closely linked to the past administration.

This is why I think we shouldn't overestimate Clinton's strength come 2016.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well, even if Clinton got the credit for the good economy, it was largely because he compromised with Republicans in Congress.  If that were true, then Nixon should have coasted to victory in 1960 as well, and we all know how close that election was.  Here are several reasons why I think 2000 was close:

1. The fact that Democrats had controlled the presidency for 8 years; since FDR & Truman, the only time that one party won more than two presidential elections in a row was the GOP with Reagan and Bush I (1980, 1984, 1988).  The historical odds clearly were against Gore that year, especially since he was the incumbent vice president and thus tied to the outgoing president, albeit a popular one (kind of like with Nixon in 1960, although that was also an extremely close election; all these dynamics were eerily similar to 1960).

2. Bush's campaign was far superior to Gore's, even without Gore's missteps during the campaign.  Bush had an excellent campaign team (Karl Rove, Don Evans, Dan Bartlett, Mark McKinnon, Karen Hughes, etc.) that helped him win by having him discuss issues and convince people that just because the last eight years had been mostly good didn't mean that they should vote the incumbent party back in.

3. Gore's campaign team got cocky and believed that they were entitled to victory for the reasons you outlined.  As such, they created plenty of openings for Bush and the Republicans and failed to stop them from taking advantage of those openings.

Hope that helps you.  And was Reagan really less popular in 1988 than Clinton was in 2000?

[Reaganfan]

George W. Bush was the "de-facto" next President since the period of 1998/1999.

ABC NEWS POLL

October 2000

Bush: 54%
Gore: 41%

SEPTEMBER 1999

Bush: 56%
Gore: 37%

I think the question is why was it as close as it was considering George Bush's huge advantage.

[sg0508]

As others stated, one party had the presidency for eight years in a row.  In addition, the economy had thinned by late 2000 and that made a difference.  Bush was thought to be well-ahead until late Oct when the drunk driving past came up and that nearly did it for Gore.

[dudeabides]

2000 shows the divide in American politics to an extent. Bill Clinton was popular, but republicans were going to be voting republican in 2000 and the same with democrats. Republicans probably credited the success of the economy to Newt Gingrich and the GOP, democrats to Bill Clinton and the democrats. So, Bush excited his base; a washington outsider with a record of leadership. Al Gore excited his base; an experienced candidate who would continue the Clinton policies, but move forward on what democrats wanted. Independents seemed divided as well because, both Bush and Gore were strong candidates.

[Ebowed]

Independents seemed divided as well because, both Bush and Gore were strong candidates.

They were both weak candidates who failed to excite the public - a pair of men who both felt entitled to the Presidency and managed to nurture remarkable apathy towards their campaigns, and it shows in the voter turnout.

John Kerry actually ran a far superior campaign to Al Gore, getting most of the Nader voters to 'come home', but he faced a more uphill battle as Bush benefited from a rejuvenated excitement among his evangelical base as well as a more pro-incumbent, patriotic atmosphere.

[barfbag]

Where to start... The issue of gun control could've cost Gore OH, WV, TN, MO and AR. I don't believe FL was as close as the recounts showed. Bush probably won by at least a quarter of a point. Polls usually tighten up the weekend before an election and in an already close election, Gore's last minute surge caused a nail biter. It could've been the breaking story of Bush's D.U.I. which was conveniently tucked under the rug for 8 months and brought back to the surface just in time to scare conservatives away from the polls.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The media was totally in the bag for Bush.

[barfbag]

The media was totally in the bag for Bush.

So they focused on Jesse Jackson and Rosie O'Donnell for a month after the election and refused to declare Bush the winner until Gore seceded?

[DINGO Joe]

Where to start... The issue of gun control could've cost Gore OH, WV, TN, MO and AR. I don't believe FL was as close as the recounts showed. Bush probably won by at least a quarter of a point. Polls usually tighten up the weekend before an election and in an already close election, Gore's last minute surge caused a nail biter. It could've been the breaking story of Bush's D.U.I. which was conveniently tucked under the rug for 8 months and brought back to the surface just in time to scare conservatives away from the polls.

Why would you say Florida wasn't as close as the recount showed?

[barfbag]

Where to start... The issue of gun control could've cost Gore OH, WV, TN, MO and AR. I don't believe FL was as close as the recounts showed. Bush probably won by at least a quarter of a point. Polls usually tighten up the weekend before an election and in an already close election, Gore's last minute surge caused a nail biter. It could've been the breaking story of Bush's D.U.I. which was conveniently tucked under the rug for 8 months and brought back to the surface just in time to scare conservatives away from the polls.

Why would you say Florida wasn't as close as the recount showed?

Overseas ballots weren't counted and I'm skeptical of anyone who has to count their votes multiple times to make sure the right candidate won. Don't forget the over votes and under votes either.

[ElectionsGuy]

The media was totally in the bag for Bush.

What? The only media channel that was in it for Bush was Fox, and they were actually pretty fair back then.

[barfbag]

Where to start... The issue of gun control could've cost Gore OH, WV, TN, MO and AR. I don't believe FL was as close as the recounts showed. Bush probably won by at least a quarter of a point. Polls usually tighten up the weekend before an election and in an already close election, Gore's last minute surge caused a nail biter. It could've been the breaking story of Bush's D.U.I. which was conveniently tucked under the rug for 8 months and brought back to the surface just in time to scare conservatives away from the polls.

Why would you say Florida wasn't as close as the recount showed?

The only media who may have wanted Bush to win was Fox and they weren't conservative until the middle of his presidency. You have to be blind too if you trust a state's results after having to recount votes so many times. There were over votes and under votes counted and thrown out at bureaucratic discretion. It was a nightmare and only naivety and wishful liberal thinking could possibly force oneself to believe the results were really as close as the final recount showed.

One more thing, the panhandle was called as being closed an hour early. This would've easily given Bush the state of FL and probably the popular vote.

[Space7]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

Bush won because of the United State's voting system.

More people voted for Gore than Bush. Therefore, more people wanted Gore to be president. I won't pretend that I don't have very ill feelings towards the United State's pre-Industrial Revolution era voting system.

So in a way, Gore did win, just not the presidency.

In any case, I think a recount in Florida wouldn't have likely changed the outcome, I think Bush did legitimately win the election, but... well 537 votes isn't much, and the list of controversies over at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000), doesn't exactly lead me to believe that the outcome was entirely fair.

Not that fairness is part of the equation.

[barfbag]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

Bush won because of the United State's voting system.

More people voted for Gore than Bush. Therefore, more people wanted Gore to be president. I won't pretend that I don't have very ill feelings towards the United State's pre-Industrial Revolution era voting system.

So in a way, Gore did win, just not the presidency.

In any case, I think a recount in Florida wouldn't have likely changed the outcome, I think Bush did legitimately win the election, but... well 537 votes isn't much, and the list of controversies over at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000), doesn't exactly lead me to believe that the outcome was entirely fair.

Not that fairness is part of the equation.

Our voting system protects us from the majority. We as the U.S. hold that the majority can be wrong and dangerous. Unless it's so overwhelming that it's best for almost every single person, things shouldn't be just decided by politicians who live in D.C.

[Space7]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

Bush won because of the United State's voting system.

More people voted for Gore than Bush. Therefore, more people wanted Gore to be president. I won't pretend that I don't have very ill feelings towards the United State's pre-Industrial Revolution era voting system.

So in a way, Gore did win, just not the presidency.

In any case, I think a recount in Florida wouldn't have likely changed the outcome, I think Bush did legitimately win the election, but... well 537 votes isn't much, and the list of controversies over at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000), doesn't exactly lead me to believe that the outcome was entirely fair.

Not that fairness is part of the equation.

Our voting system protects us from the majority. We as the U.S. hold that the majority can be wrong and dangerous. Unless it's so overwhelming that it's best for almost every single person, things shouldn't be just decided by politicians who live in D.C.

Indeed a majority can be wrong and dangerous. When one party holds all the power to do anything they want clearly there's a problem.

But I'm not suggesting you abolish the House and the Senate and just leave everything to the President. You will continue to be protected from a total majority by the two houses. The only change would be that the president will be elected based on whether more people voted for him/her than the other! Simple!

You may want to explain what you mean by "it protects us from the majority". What aspect of the Electoral College is protecting you from the majority?

[barfbag]

When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??

Bush won because of the United State's voting system.

More people voted for Gore than Bush. Therefore, more people wanted Gore to be president. I won't pretend that I don't have very ill feelings towards the United State's pre-Industrial Revolution era voting system.

So in a way, Gore did win, just not the presidency.

In any case, I think a recount in Florida wouldn't have likely changed the outcome, I think Bush did legitimately win the election, but... well 537 votes isn't much, and the list of controversies over at Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2000), doesn't exactly lead me to believe that the outcome was entirely fair.

Not that fairness is part of the equation.

Our voting system protects us from the majority. We as the U.S. hold that the majority can be wrong and dangerous. Unless it's so overwhelming that it's best for almost every single person, things shouldn't be just decided by politicians who live in D.C.

Indeed a majority can be wrong and dangerous. When one party holds all the power to do anything they want clearly there's a problem.

But I'm not suggesting you abolish the House and the Senate and just leave everything to the President. You will continue to be protected from a total majority by the two houses. The only change would be that the president will be elected based on whether more people voted for him/her than the other! Simple!

You may want to explain what you mean by "it protects us from the majority". What aspect of the Electoral College is protecting you from the majority?

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

[Space7]

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

So your point is, condensed:

-The candidate with the most votes doesn't win [in electoral college system]

-Proportional representation could lead to a dangerous slip and slide where your legal system collapses, everyone would be making all the laws they wanted, and in general it would suck.

Please, take a moment to look at Sweden.

Look at Norway.

Look at Germany.

Look at Switzerland.

They are relatively prosperous, peaceful, happy countries with decent economies, and they are not in chaos. They all use proportional representation.

Don't worry.

You are still protected from the majority by the House and the Senate.

Besides, you don't have to worry because it is exceedingly rare that the party with less votes wins the election. All rep-by-pop is doing is removing that chance.

So really, you won't notice much change at all.

It's only making the election fairer for people who don't live in swing states.

[barfbag]

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

So your point is, condensed:

-The candidate with the most votes doesn't win [in electoral college system]

-Proportional representation could lead to a dangerous slip and slide where your legal system collapses, everyone would be making all the laws they wanted, and in general it would suck.

Please, take a moment to look at Sweden.

Look at Norway.

Look at Germany.

Look at Switzerland.

They are relatively prosperous, peaceful, happy countries with decent economies, and they are not in chaos. They all use proportional representation.

Don't worry.

You are still protected from the majority by the House and the Senate.

Besides, you don't have to worry because it is exceedingly rare that the party with less votes wins the election. All rep-by-pop is doing is removing that chance.

So really, you won't notice much change at all.

It's only making the election fairer for people who don't live in swing states.

I understand what you're saying. The U.S. is too big for what Norway, Germany, and Switzerland do though. Amongst the world, each state could be its own country. Aside from being a representative republic, we're also a nation of states and abolishing the Electoral College would hurt state sovereignty.

[Space7]

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

So your point is, condensed:

-The candidate with the most votes doesn't win [in electoral college system]

-Proportional representation could lead to a dangerous slip and slide where your legal system collapses, everyone would be making all the laws they wanted, and in general it would suck.

Please, take a moment to look at Sweden.

Look at Norway.

Look at Germany.

Look at Switzerland.

They are relatively prosperous, peaceful, happy countries with decent economies, and they are not in chaos. They all use proportional representation.

Don't worry.

You are still protected from the majority by the House and the Senate.

Besides, you don't have to worry because it is exceedingly rare that the party with less votes wins the election. All rep-by-pop is doing is removing that chance.

So really, you won't notice much change at all.

It's only making the election fairer for people who don't live in swing states.

I understand what you're saying. The U.S. is too big for what Norway, Germany, and Switzerland do though. Amongst the world, each state could be its own country. Aside from being a representative republic, we're also a nation of states and abolishing the Electoral College would hurt state sovereignty.

This point you made makes more sense than the other one.

It's true that it might hurt state sovereignty a bit, because the president would be decided by the nation as a whole rather than each individual state.

But that's not to say that Proportional Representation "wouldn't work" in the US just because you're much larger than all of those European nations.

Again, it's a fairly small change; you wouldn't likely notice any difference after a while. The vast majority of the time whoever wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote.

I consider it a worthy trade off. To give every Republican in California, New York, Hawaii, and Illinois a voice. To give every Democrat in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Kansas a voice.

To ensure that the "one person, one vote" principle is a force. So a person in Texas doesn't have a fraction of the voting power of a person from Vermont.

Surely that's worth giving up a little bit of state sovereignty? Some state pride?

To vote as a nation, rather than as a state?

I mean, I understand your concern, but please, just remember most of your fellow citizens of your country don't have the fortune to live in a swing state. Just consider it.

[sg0508]

Again, a lot of this is the economy.  By the middle of 2000, the economy had started thinning, the stock market was declining and many pocketbooks were "feeling it".  Clinton disappeared the second half of 2000 and many potentially attributed the thinning economy (incorrectly of course) to Gore as Clinton all but let him run things the latter part of the year.

[barfbag]

What I mean is that by having an Electoral College, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win and therefore we aren't a majority rules country. If we were a majority rules country at the presidential level, then the next step is having elections every few weeks to vote on legislation because people don't agree with or approve of all of their representatives. At that point we're in danger of becoming a real democracy which is a perverted form of government being that there is no structure to the process. People would get whatever they want all the time which sounds nice but if you think about it, it's also dangerous. Another thing about a true democracy is that law enforcement would become a problem. Imagine trying to enforce laws that are constantly changing. It would be much harder to keep up with laws too. Our legal system would perish. The majority can become a mob if there isn't a government where people are represented as the United States does. Abolishing the Electoral College would start a dangerous slip and slide as well as turn the Presidential Election into a popularity contest. What we have now is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people rather than a majority rules.

So your point is, condensed:

-The candidate with the most votes doesn't win [in electoral college system]

-Proportional representation could lead to a dangerous slip and slide where your legal system collapses, everyone would be making all the laws they wanted, and in general it would suck.

Please, take a moment to look at Sweden.

Look at Norway.

Look at Germany.

Look at Switzerland.

They are relatively prosperous, peaceful, happy countries with decent economies, and they are not in chaos. They all use proportional representation.

Don't worry.

You are still protected from the majority by the House and the Senate.

Besides, you don't have to worry because it is exceedingly rare that the party with less votes wins the election. All rep-by-pop is doing is removing that chance.

So really, you won't notice much change at all.

It's only making the election fairer for people who don't live in swing states.

I understand what you're saying. The U.S. is too big for what Norway, Germany, and Switzerland do though. Amongst the world, each state could be its own country. Aside from being a representative republic, we're also a nation of states and abolishing the Electoral College would hurt state sovereignty.

This point you made makes more sense than the other one.

It's true that it might hurt state sovereignty a bit, because the president would be decided by the nation as a whole rather than each individual state.

But that's not to say that Proportional Representation "wouldn't work" in the US just because you're much larger than all of those European nations.

Again, it's a fairly small change; you wouldn't likely notice any difference after a while. The vast majority of the time whoever wins the popular vote also wins the electoral vote.

I consider it a worthy trade off. To give every Republican in California, New York, Hawaii, and Illinois a voice. To give every Democrat in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Kansas a voice.

To ensure that the "one person, one vote" principle is a force. So a person in Texas doesn't have a fraction of the voting power of a person from Vermont.

Surely that's worth giving up a little bit of state sovereignty? Some state pride?

To vote as a nation, rather than as a state?

I mean, I understand your concern, but please, just remember most of your fellow citizens of your country don't have the fortune to live in a swing state. Just consider it.

We all have voices though. It's just that sometimes the candidate you vote for loses. All voters have the power to vote for the candidate who they want to carry their state's electoral votes. It was actually intended to be voted on by the representatives each state elects. Out of the representatives elected, whichever candidate gets the majority of their vote, takes the state's electoral votes.

[barfbag]

Again, a lot of this is the economy.  By the middle of 2000, the economy had started thinning, the stock market was declining and many pocketbooks were "feeling it".  Clinton disappeared the second half of 2000 and many potentially attributed the thinning economy (incorrectly of course) to Gore as Clinton all but let him run things the latter part of the year.

It's amazing how Gore managed to cling to every single one of Clinton's negatives and not benefit from a single one of his positives. Their home states of Arkansas and Tennessee both voted for Bush. Long time blue state of West Virginia went red and has been ever since. In 2000 though, it was close enough to have gone blue if not for the gun issue. Again, guns were a big issue in Arkansas and Tennessee too. We also saw Al Gore pull out of Ohio just after Labor Day when he trailed by 10-12 points, but by election day he was well within single digits. This was a horrendous campaign strategy. Ohio is way too important to drop out of so early on in the campaign. It's almost as if every little thing that could've gone wrong, went wrong for Gore.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The media was totally in the bag for Bush.

This.