bush beat himself in 2000.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:50:59 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  bush beat himself in 2000.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: bush beat himself in 2000.  (Read 8477 times)
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: May 24, 2006, 09:54:03 AM »

imagine how different the election would have turned out if bush spent the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign in florida, new mexico, oregon, iowa and wisconsin...instead of california, illinois and new jersey.

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.

agree?  disagree?
Logged
TomC
TCash101
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,973


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2006, 10:12:49 AM »

Yeah and imagine if Gore had spent the final weeks in Nevada and Hew Hampshire instead of Florida. Hindsight's 20/20.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2006, 10:38:31 AM »

Yeah and imagine if Gore had spent the final weeks in Nevada and Hew Hampshire instead of Florida. Hindsight's 20/20.

no, gore did the right thing by camping out in florida the last week or so.

dont forget, most floridians went to the polls intending to vote for gore.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2006, 01:45:18 PM »

Hmmm... one thing to remember: The Democrats pulled out of Ohio two weeks or so before the elections. The Republicans kept throwing money at it. The state went Rep by 3.5 points or so.
4 years later, both camps threw money at the state like there was no tomorrow. The state went Rep by 1.5 points or so.

THere`s only so much money and campaigning etc will do in a polarized election. The most effective way to spend it is probably to bus voters to the polls. And to slash the other side's vehicles tyres.
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 #4 on: May 24, 2006, 07:55:26 PM »

Rove publically predicted a 6 point Bush win with 320 electoral votes. I think part of the idea of his poor choice of strategy was to try to project an image of confidence; that if Bush was campaigning in solidly Democratic states, he must already have the race wrapped up, so there would be no point in Democratic voters bothering to turn out.

Needless to say, this was a bad idea.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2006, 08:52:02 PM »
« Edited: May 24, 2006, 08:55:47 PM by Winfield »

imagine how different the election would have turned out if bush spent the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign in florida, new mexico, oregon, iowa and wisconsin...instead of california, illinois and new jersey.

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.

agree?  disagree?

I agree.

Likely, Bush would have won Florida, by an insurmountable margin, and would likely have taken New Mexico and Iowa comfortably, giving him an uncontested win.  He would have won the popular vote as well, had not some sensationalist interloper and Democrat dirty trickster, engaged in a  campaign of subversion, and broke the DWI story the Thursday before the Tuesday vote.

Bush was as well hurt on election night itself when the biased networks, with the exception of Fox, were jumping over each other to declare Gore the winner in Florida, even before all Florida precincts were closed.  The panhandle was still voting, and heavily for Bush.  No doubt this early and innacurate news put a damper on Republican voters in this part of the state, and cost Bush thousands of votes.       
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2006, 05:10:40 AM »

imagine how different the election would have turned out if bush spent the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign in florida, new mexico, oregon, iowa and wisconsin...instead of california, illinois and new jersey.

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.

agree?  disagree?

I agree.

Likely, Bush would have won Florida, by an insurmountable margin, and would likely have taken New Mexico and Iowa comfortably, giving him an uncontested win.  He would have won the popular vote as well, had not some sensationalist interloper and Democrat dirty trickster, engaged in a  campaign of subversion, and broke the DWI story the Thursday before the Tuesday vote.

Bush was as well hurt on election night itself when the biased networks, with the exception of Fox, were jumping over each other to declare Gore the winner in Florida, even before all Florida precincts were closed.  The panhandle was still voting, and heavily for Bush.  No doubt this early and innacurate news put a damper on Republican voters in this part of the state, and cost Bush thousands of votes.       
Yeah, right. Anyone still at home to see that wouldn't have made it to the precincts in time anyways.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2006, 06:48:23 AM »

imagine how different the election would have turned out if bush spent the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign in florida, new mexico, oregon, iowa and wisconsin...instead of california, illinois and new jersey.

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.

agree?  disagree?

I agree.

Likely, Bush would have won Florida, by an insurmountable margin, and would likely have taken New Mexico and Iowa comfortably, giving him an uncontested win.  He would have won the popular vote as well, had not some sensationalist interloper and Democrat dirty trickster, engaged in a  campaign of subversion, and broke the DWI story the Thursday before the Tuesday vote.

Bush was as well hurt on election night itself when the biased networks, with the exception of Fox, were jumping over each other to declare Gore the winner in Florida, even before all Florida precincts were closed.  The panhandle was still voting, and heavily for Bush.  No doubt this early and innacurate news put a damper on Republican voters in this part of the state, and cost Bush thousands of votes.       
Yeah, right. Anyone still at home to see that wouldn't have made it to the precincts in time anyways.

there were long lines at many of the polling places.  once florida had been called, many voters in the panhandle left the line and went home.
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 #8 on: May 25, 2006, 07:14:46 PM »

imagine how different the election would have turned out if bush spent the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign in florida, new mexico, oregon, iowa and wisconsin...instead of california, illinois and new jersey.

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.

agree?  disagree?

I agree.

Likely, Bush would have won Florida, by an insurmountable margin, and would likely have taken New Mexico and Iowa comfortably, giving him an uncontested win.  He would have won the popular vote as well, had not some sensationalist interloper and Democrat dirty trickster, engaged in a  campaign of subversion, and broke the DWI story the Thursday before the Tuesday vote.

Bush was as well hurt on election night itself when the biased networks, with the exception of Fox, were jumping over each other to declare Gore the winner in Florida, even before all Florida precincts were closed.  The panhandle was still voting, and heavily for Bush.  No doubt this early and innacurate news put a damper on Republican voters in this part of the state, and cost Bush thousands of votes.       
Yeah, right. Anyone still at home to see that wouldn't have made it to the precincts in time anyways.

there were long lines at many of the polling places.  once florida had been called, many voters in the panhandle left the line and went home.

I'm not sure what the source of information is for this, but even if it did happen, there is still a big difference between people choosing not to vote vs. people voting and having their votes not counted the way they intended them to be.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2006, 07:27:53 PM »

For clarification purposes only, and I know this has been rehashed inumerable times since 2000 -

In fairness to Bush, regarding Florida, the post-election recounts conducted by the state, showed Bush the winner, with the most VALID ballots.  Controversial?  Yes, without a doubt, but, nonetheless, official and legal. 

Academic recounts conducted by a consortiuim of news organizations later, as well showed Bush as the winner in Florida, with the most VALID ballots.  In any democracy, only valid ballots can be considered as being binding.

I agree, that yes, Bush should have spent the last two weeks of the campaign in Florida, New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin.   
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,368
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2006, 07:58:29 PM »

Did Rove think the polls were wrong in California or something?
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 #11 on: May 25, 2006, 11:35:47 PM »

Lets not forget that Gore lost huge percentages in all of the close states. I believe between the first poll and the last, Gore lost 11 points in Oregon and 9 points in New Hampshire. He also lost 5 in Florida. I for one have no sympathy for him...he ran a poor campaign and flushed the whole Clinton base down the toilet. He is just lucky that Republican apathy was high enough to give him the popular vote.

A real scenario to ask yourself would be, what if both Bush and Gore lost in the primaries? Bradley versus McCain. That would have been a good one.
Logged
ATFFL
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,754
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2006, 06:09:58 AM »

Bush was trying to convince Gore voters to stay home and that the election was over already.  The plan should have been changed when the DUI report came out.
Logged
Cubby
Pim Fortuyn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,067
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -3.74, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2006, 02:02:00 AM »

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.
agree?  disagree?

I think the DWI story was a major detail since it came right in the final days of the campaign, too late to be discredited by the Bushies. I don't have any numbers but I recall that Bush was doing better before the story broke, and probably lost a few points because of it.

I know someone in upstate New York who is strongly pro-life, and I remember she said when she got to the voting booth, she just couldn't vote for Bush, he was "too inexperienced and not serious enough" (something to that effect) and the DWI story must have been a reason for that change of heart.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2006, 09:33:09 AM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2006, 11:28:05 AM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

gustaf, gore didnt lose the election.

he won the popular vote and only 'lost' the electoral college by legalities and technicalities.

im not a gore fan, by any stretch.  but i am honest.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2006, 07:24:25 AM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

gustaf, gore didnt lose the election.

he won the popular vote and only 'lost' the electoral college by legalities and technicalities.

im not a gore fan, by any stretch.  but i am honest.

Well, if you run for president and you don't get it, in some way I would say you lost it. Regardless, my point is that 2000 was a good year for Democrats and that indicates that with equally strong campaigns the Democrat would have won. So I would say that there was something wrong with Gore.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2006, 10:58:47 AM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

gustaf, gore didnt lose the election.

he won the popular vote and only 'lost' the electoral college by legalities and technicalities.

im not a gore fan, by any stretch.  but i am honest.

Well, if you run for president and you don't get it, in some way I would say you lost it. Regardless, my point is that 2000 was a good year for Democrats and that indicates that with equally strong campaigns the Democrat would have won. So I would say that there was something wrong with Gore.
or at least, that his campaign made more mistakes than Bush's.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2006, 12:52:45 PM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

gustaf, gore didnt lose the election.

he won the popular vote and only 'lost' the electoral college by legalities and technicalities.

im not a gore fan, by any stretch.  but i am honest.

Well, if you run for president and you don't get it, in some way I would say you lost it. Regardless, my point is that 2000 was a good year for Democrats and that indicates that with equally strong campaigns the Democrat would have won. So I would say that there was something wrong with Gore.
or at least, that his campaign made more mistakes than Bush's.

Yeah, I just didn't have the energy to construct a sentence that would convey both these things at the same time. 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 #19 on: May 28, 2006, 01:01:49 PM »

For clarification purposes only, and I know this has been rehashed inumerable times since 2000 -

In fairness to Bush, regarding Florida, the post-election recounts conducted by the state, showed Bush the winner, with the most VALID ballots.  Controversial?  Yes, without a doubt, but, nonetheless, official and legal. 

Academic recounts conducted by a consortiuim of news organizations later, as well showed Bush as the winner in Florida, with the most VALID ballots.  In any democracy, only valid ballots can be considered as being binding.

I agree, that yes, Bush should have spent the last two weeks of the campaign in Florida, New Mexico, Oregon, Iowa, Wisconsin.   


Actually most of the academic recounts showed a Gore win, though it all depends on what standard is used.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2006, 07:20:39 PM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

A. Gore won
B. Of course the Democrats were going to gain Senate seats, it was 6 years after 1994.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2006, 05:39:24 AM »

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

A. Gore won
B. Of course the Democrats were going to gain Senate seats, it was 6 years after 1994.

While that is a fair point, they also won a lot of gubernatorial elections in 2000, 8/11. And 1994 was so seismic only because it was a long over-due realignment, finally reaching congressional elections (voters were finally beginning to vote Republican for congress, instead of just doing it for president). My point is that for Democrats to win a majority of the senate seats in a cycle is far from a given and that they did so indicates that 2000 was a pretty good year for them.
Logged
HardRCafé
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,364
Italy
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2006, 05:48:23 PM »

The state went Rep by 3.5 points or so.
4 years later, both camps threw money at the state like there was no tomorrow. The state went Rep by 1.5 points or so.

Bush 50.82% - Kerry 48.71% = 2.11%
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,611


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2006, 05:50:16 PM »

Did Rove think the polls were wrong in California or something?

I don't understand what they were thinking in 2000 if they did target California. Maybe they weren't trying to win those states in the final weeks (I believe Nym noted that they did this to keep Dem voters home) but if I recall correctly, the Bush campaign tried to make a serious run in the state earlier in the campaign.

I don't know what they were thinking and the same goes for Dole in '96. I remember reading over and over again how the Dole people made an attempt at taking California. How could they be so foolish? Clinton was a popular incumbent Democrat - how does someone like that lose California? What a waste of time, effort and, above all, money. You'd think that the Bush people would know better.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2006, 05:57:02 PM »

Did Rove think the polls were wrong in California or something?

I don't understand what they were thinking in 2000 if they did target California. Maybe they weren't trying to win those states in the final weeks (I believe Nym noted that they did this to keep Dem voters home) but if I recall correctly, the Bush campaign tried to make a serious run in the state earlier in the campaign.

I don't know what they were thinking and the same goes for Dole in '96. I remember reading over and over again how the Dole people made an attempt at taking California. How could they be so foolish? Clinton was a popular incumbent Democrat - how does someone like that lose California? What a waste of time, effort and, above all, money. You'd think that the Bush people would know better.

i dont recall dole making a *serious* play at california.

the dole campaign did make pushes for states like connecticut, new hampshire, new jersey and pennsylvania.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« 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 0.062 seconds with 12 queries.