Why was 2000 so close?

[barfbag]

The media was totally in the bag for Bush.

This.

Yep it's exactly why the media called Florida for Gore before the western panhandle had finished voting.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Yep it's exactly why the media called Florida for Gore before the western panhandle had finished voting.

Is that anything like how they called Indiana for G.H.W. Bush in 1992 before Gary and Evansville were finished voting?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Or the Ernie Fletcher incident in 2003, when they handed the election to Ernie on a silver plate?

[barfbag]

Yep it's exactly why the media called Florida for Gore before the western panhandle had finished voting.

Is that anything like how they called Indiana for G.H.W. Bush in 1992 before Gary and Evansville were finished voting?

No because in 1992, they got it right. In 2000 they actually caused precincts to close hour early which prevented people from voting by prematurely calling the state for Gore. If the media had waited, Bush would've won Florida by nearly 4 points. Not to mention the way they described the hanging chads and butterfly ballots as if the election were being stolen for Bush. You couldn't turn a news network on without hearing about his brother being the governor of the state. Does anyone who is intellectually honest actually believe votes were counted accurately each time? If so, how were there different results each time? All that was happening was they were going to count the votes and change the rules over and over again until Gore finally won. If only there were a comparison between Florida 2000 and Indiana 1992. If only.

[memphis]

Yep it's exactly why the media called Florida for Gore before the western panhandle had finished voting.

Is that anything like how they called Indiana for G.H.W. Bush in 1992 before Gary and Evansville were finished voting?

No because in 1992, they got it right. In 2000 they actually caused precincts to close hour early which prevented people from voting by prematurely calling the state for Gore. If the media had waited, Bush would've won Florida by nearly 4 points. Not to mention the way they described the hanging chads and butterfly ballots as if the election were being stolen for Bush. You couldn't turn a news network on without hearing about his brother being the governor of the state. Does anyone who is intellectually honest actually believe votes were counted accurately each time? If so, how were there different results each time? All that was happening was they were going to count the votes and change the rules over and over again until Gore finally won. If only there were a comparison between Florida 2000 and Indiana 1992. If only.

FL was called a whole seven minutes before voting closed in the Panhandle. Back in the days before facebook and smart phones, news didn't travel that fast. If you were home watching tv, you weren't going to make it to the polling place anyway. As to the original question, this is why 2000 was so close:

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

5,963,110 people voted in Florida in 2000. 4% of that is 238,524 people.

You're telling me that several hundred thousand people were still waiting last minute to vote in 2000, but one news report that somehow reached them before the age of instant digital media sent them all home?


Good Lord, you really are living in the Far Right Fantasy World^TM. It must be really nice in there.

[Space7]

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.

Good, I see you've brought up the most most viable of all the electoral college supporter's arguments. This is the most known and most simple argument. Summed up, the argument is:

Everyone gets a vote which will help to decide who the president is.

And at face value, the argument is correct.

The thing is, each individual voter in swing states are exceedingly more likely to determine who the president will be, and therefore, their vote counts for more. Hence why the parties spend the vast majority of their campaign money in these states.

But you know what? Your point isn't wrong, and so I have compiled a list of pros and cons of proportional representation.

Cons:

...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...

(May lead to dangerous slip and slide that destroys whole legal system, among other things?)

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.

(If it isn't broken don't fix it principle)

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.

(May hurt state sovereignty)

Pros:
-Eliminates chance of electing a president without having more vote than the other candidate.

-Eliminates chance of depressed voter turnout in non-swing states.

-Eliminates "winner takes all" system in most states. e.g. Barely winning is the same as winning by a massive margin.

-Makes sure everyone's voice weighs the same (this is key)


So some of your points are certainly not incorrect, I just think that we might have to look at the lesser-of-two-evils principle here.

Feel free to add to the list or refute points.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2000 and 2004 which were GOP years on prez were very close due the fact the change in the country demographically. The added popular vote strength in California, which elected a Kennedy republican, did in fact represent the country at large and GOP haven't recovered from.

[barfbag]

2000 and 2004 which were GOP years on prez were very close due the fact the change in the country demographically. The added popular vote strength in California, which elected a Kennedy republican, did in fact represent the country at large and GOP haven't recovered from.

What do you mean by Kennedy Republican? Who are you talking about?

[Californiadreaming]

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??

In short: Because Gore didn't sufficiently emphasize the Clinton-era peace and prosperity during his campaign, because Gore was boring while Bush was charismatic, likable, and homely, and because Nader's 2000 run probably hurt Gore more than it hurt Bush (and thus made the 2000 election closer than it would have otherwise been).

[sg0508]

People still vote their wallets and the economy was thinning starting in Q2'2000.  Nader hurt him, but Gore distancing himself from Clinton and the overall record of the eight years is what lost it.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Voters came back home to Dems at last minute, but 3 terms are rough anyways for incumbant part. And Bush W said hewould govern like a moderate; instead governed as a partisan.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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??

The same thing happened in 1960.  Just looking at the surface, you'd think Nixon should have skated to an easy victory.  But when you dig deeper, you see that there was more to it.  Clinton's environmental policies were very unpopular in the coal-mining regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, etc., and many of those regions were very socially conservative, making the easy pickings for the GOP.  You could say that Bush's election was the end of the New Deal coalition in Appalachia.  I remember reading Karl Rove's book, where he stated that the Bush campaign made a conscious play for West Virginia because they were aware of this shift. 

Plus, Gore lacked much of the charm and charisma that attracted voters to Clinton.  He came across in the debates as a bully, and made a number of gaffes on the campaign trail (like claiming that his mother sang him to sleep with "Look for the Union Label.")  Simply put, Gore was not early as likable as Clinton.  Just as Kennedy's charisma and strength with Catholics, coupled with the 1957-8 recession, helped Dems in 1960, so Bush's charisma, the recession in late 2000, and the increasing hostility toward Democrats in socially conservative regions helped the GOP.

Yep it's exactly why the media called Florida for Gore before the western panhandle had finished voting.

Is that anything like how they called Indiana for G.H.W. Bush in 1992 before Gary and Evansville were finished voting?

No because in 1992, they got it right. In 2000 they actually caused precincts to close hour early which prevented people from voting by prematurely calling the state for Gore. If the media had waited, Bush would've won Florida by nearly 4 points. Not to mention the way they described the hanging chads and butterfly ballots as if the election were being stolen for Bush. You couldn't turn a news network on without hearing about his brother being the governor of the state. Does anyone who is intellectually honest actually believe votes were counted accurately each time? If so, how were there different results each time? All that was happening was they were going to count the votes and change the rules over and over again until Gore finally won. If only there were a comparison between Florida 2000 and Indiana 1992. If only.

This is exactly right.  Not only was Panhandle turnout hurt, but GOP turnout across the country was depressed by the early call of Florida.  In all likelihood, that call cost Bush Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Oregon.  Not only would it have been horrifying for Dems to see Gore losing in a bunch of Dukakis states, but Bush could have won the election without Florida if he'd carried all those states--and probably the popular vote as well.  It's quite possible that Slade Gorton would've won reelection, too.  But because the exit polls showed Gore winning in Florida, and because the news media was in such a rush to make the big calls first, they screwed up big time.  So Bush did not steal the election; if anything, the media tried steal it for Gore.  And while they learned their lesson not to call states before all the polls are closed, they are still relying on exit polls to make their calls.  So I guarantee it will happen again.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

Exactly.  Fox News was actually the last state to retract their Florida call for Gore.  But in fairness, they were also the first to call the state (and the election) for Bush later in the evening.  I remember watching a documentary in 2010 on the 10th anniversary of the recount battle, and when the first call for Gore was made, Bush was actually leading the raw vote tallies in Florida (something Karl Rove has confirmed in his book.)

[SingingAnalyst]

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.

Exactly.  Fox News was actually the last state to retract their Florida call for Gore.  But in fairness, they were also the first to call the state (and the election) for Bush later in the evening.  I remember watching a documentary in 2010 on the 10th anniversary of the recount battle, and when the first call for Gore was made, Bush was actually leading the raw vote tallies in Florida (something Karl Rove has confirmed in his book.)

Good point OldiesFreak in both your comments. My response is that in our media saturated culture there will always be irregularities (such as Carter conceding in 1980 at 8:30 PM EST which may have contributed to Frank Church losing in ID by 1%). I recall in 2012 Obama was called the national winner when Romney was still leading in the PV nationally or in OH (I forget which), which call turned out to be correct. Voting is a sacred privilege, and those who care too little to vote, including  for issues further down the ballot, because the Presidential winner has already been called have no one to blame but themselves. I don't mean to sound harsh.

[Californiadreaming]

People still vote their wallets and the economy was thinning starting in Q2'2000.

Yes, the economy was already thinning, but wasn't the economy still perceived as being in good shape by a majority of voters on Election Day 2000? After all, unemployment only began increasing in January 2001.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely agreed. Indeed, running away from the Clinton-Gore economic record was certainly utter idiocy for Al Gore.

[SingingAnalyst]

Why was 2000 so close? Statistically speaking, it is possible due to random chance. The elections of 1876-1892 were very close, as were the elections of 1960, 1968, and 1976 (in the sense that a few thousand votes could have altered the outcome--a few hundred thousand in the case of 1968).

[MIKESOWELL]

From what I remember from 2000, Gore consistently trailed Bush throughout 1999-2000. After their respective conventions, I remember the polls tightening a bit, with Bush's lead dropping from say, 51-40 to 49-44 or so. It went back up to double digits in late September very early October, and then came the Bush stumbles and the incredible Democratic showing on Election Day that nearly put Gore over the top. Why did Gore lose? There is no one simple answer to that question, but I will say this: Gore came across throughout that campaign year as stiff, formal, and a snob to be honest. He kept distancing himself from Clinton, which was the opposite of what Nixon wanted from Ike (who limited his campaigning until the very end due to health issues). I think that Nader did play spoiler to Gore. Without Nader, Gore would have beaten Bush by two million votes and gotten about 296 electoral votes. At least that's my opinion.

[chronicleiris]

It was probably close since both candidates had a ladder that couldn't reach up to the presidency full enough, so they battled for the battleground states. Florida was very close at least xD

[Tender Branson]

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.

Bush won.

No, he didn't.

As Al Gore was pulling ahead in the FL vote count, the Bush-aligned Supreme Court stopped the vote count and installed GWB as POTUS in a coup d'état.

Learn history ...

[Doimper]

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.

Bush won.

Thanks for that #hottake, champ

[mencken]

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.

Bush won.

No, he didn't.

As Al Gore was pulling ahead in the FL vote count, the Bush-aligned Supreme Court stopped the vote count and installed GWB as POTUS in a coup d'état.

Learn history ...

He couldn't have been pulling ahead in the vote count because he handpicked which counties he wanted to recount (which the Supreme Court said was a violation of due process)?

[The_Doctor]

W. was probably supposed to win in all honesty. He had been in the polling lead most of the year and given the Lewinsky scandal and the fact we were in the half point of the Reagan era, he should've won by a similar margin to JFK in 1960. In fact 2000 was very comparable to 1960.

Clinton, like Eisenhower, was the first two term president from the minority party that cracked the code after multiple losses. He, like Eisenhower, figured that the nation fundamentally changed since 1980 (1932). Strangely, both Clinton and Eisenhower lost Congress in their first midterm, indicating that the country was still wary of electing the minority party coalition to control everything. An economic boom until the tail end denoted the Clinton and Eisenhower presidencies (the dot com bubble and the 1958-1961 recession). JFK and W. held large leads over their rivals until the general election began (Nixon notes this in his memoirs). The economic slowdowns is probably what cost both Nixon and Gore the election along with defending a minority coalition.

The election of 1960 and 2000 are notable in that the sitting vice president was defending the White House and facing charismatic challengers who were strong proponents of the realigning presidents' ideologies (Reagan, Roosevelt). Gore and Nixon tried to emulate their presidents' strategies to win but narrowly failed.

In all honesty, Florida probably voted for the right person in intent. It may have been within 1,000 votes either way but W. was probably the person Florida wanted to win, in intent. When you calculate all the variables, Florida is a pretty lean Republican state. And in full honesty Rove is right. Without the DUI W wins the popular vote by something like 200,000 votes. And W certainly wins Florida.

To sum up, the successful minority coalition patched together by Clinton and Eisenhower and the good times ran into the majority coalitions of John Kennedy and George W. Bush and the economic slowdowns. Ultimately the majority won out both times.

The eerie parallels between 1960 and 2000 says a lot (and the subsequent trajectory of the W and JFK / LBJ presidencies). Iraq and Vietnam, tax cuts and deregulation and an attempted SS privatization versus the New Frontier / Great Society programs, and so on.  Even W and Jack Kennedy were political scions of powerful families that came to prominence during the realignment era.

 In fact you can roughly chart a very eerie parallel between 1932-1980 and 1980-2016. It is pretty scary at times how political patterns have run.

[Deblano]

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.

Well that was prophetic 5 years later.

[RRusso1982]

It seems that in a race for an open White House, where there is no incumbent running, those elections seem to gravitate towards a tie, unless it is a 2008 type environment when the fundamentals of the race so overwhelmingly favor one side, or a 1988 type environment, when one side nominates a really awful candidate like Michael Dukakis.  Look at 1960, Kennedy vs. Nixon and the fundementals of the race.  A popular president, a country in good shape.   On paper, Nixon should have had the advantage.  Or 1968, with Nixon vs. Humphrey.  With Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam.  On paper, it should have been a Nixon landslide.  Humphrey almost won.  In 2016, Obama had pretty good approval numbers and Hillry Clinton lost to Trump.  Even in 2008, Obama and McCain came out of the conventions running neck and neck in the polls.  It was only when the financial collapse happened that Obama moved ahead.  Also, voters are usually reluctant to give one party the presidency for more than 8 years.  Bush 41 in 1988 is the exception, but again, Michael Dukakis is just a really awful candidate.