Let's keep the history accurate. Gore won the election in 2000, if the votes were counted accurately; the election problems prevented that.
The butterfly ballot confusion alone caused enough voters to accidentally vote against him, while another factor that alone cost him the election was the black districts using the less expensive, far higher error rate centealized vote counting, and a third that alone cost him the election was the large number of innocent blacks erroneously removed as felons.
The butterfly ballot confusion alone caused enough voters to accidentally vote against him, while another factor that alone cost him the election was the black districts using the less expensive, far higher error rate centealized vote counting, and a third that alone cost him the election was the large number of innocent blacks erroneously removed as felons.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Let's keep the history accurate Gore lost. If he had 'won' then he would have been President and not Bush.
Now about the popular vote total discussion.
Gore had a total of 543, 816 more votes than Bush.
Seems like a lot, but if you look at the state total you will see that Gore beat Bush in California by 1.3 million votes. Take away those votes and in the rest of the country Bush ends up with 800,000 more votes.
Now California was never 'in play' which means Bush never tried to get votes in the state, just like Gore never tried to get votes in Texas.
My point is that because of the way our electoral process works looking just at popular vote is note a way to gage over all support for a candidate. There are too many states that one side does not contest and those states end up voting for the other side in disproportion amounts.
BTW Al Gore was the first candidate since 1972 not to win his home state. If he had won his home state he would be President.
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
People just don't like to elect people that ran and lost before. The prior loss makes a candidate reek of "eau de loser". It's not rational but that's just the way it is.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
My guess is that after the 2000 election, Gore did alot of soul searching and decided that public service was not worth the cost.
in fairness, Gore really won the election
/canofworms
I'd say the most likely reason is that Gore doesn't want to be president anymore.
also, most parties don't look fondly on losers, even if they really did win... I mean, who was the last person to lose the national election one cycle and re-run and win both the primary and national election the next? nixon, and look how well that turned out.
Ryan
Lifer
- Oct 31, 2000
- 27,519
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: loki8481
in fairness, Gore really won the election
/canofworms
I'd say the most likely reason is that Gore doesn't want to be president anymore.
also, most parties don't look fondly on losers, even if they really did win... I mean, who was the last person to lose the national election one cycle and re-run and win both the primary and national election the next? nixon, and look how well that turned out.
The only hope I see for Gore would be a slow rise back into popularity - call it the Hillary formula - take the Senate seat of some state, work hard for two terms to build popularity again - then run for the White House after two terms of Hillary
Yeah, whatever, go tell that to the left leaning newspapers who even after a year of review concluded he lost.
I know, if you keep pretending it happened as you think it did you can feel justified in your angst. Facts are facts, he lost fair and square and attempts to cirumvent the Florida's laws were shot down. If they had wanted a fair recount they would have done every county, but no, they didn't and therefor my support for them went right out the door. I am all for a fair fight, but don't try and change the rules... and counting ballots is more likely to be laden with fraud than electric means of accounting... they have had more years to practice.
You don't have to win the popular vote to become President, Clinton never won over 50% and he did fine up until he started lieing under oath.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
And the fact that he wanted to cherry pick the recount in Florida.
Popular vote totals do not couint per the way the government was designed.
Gore lost the electoral vote (which is the one the counted).
Bush won the electoral vote, but the chain of events that led to that did not follow precedent, or the letter of the US Constitution or the Florida Constitution. However, the US Constitution gives authority to the Supreme Court to do what it did, so that's the way it goes.
From the point of view of a person who thinks getting it right is more important than winning, the fact is nobody has the slightest idea who got the most votes in Florida.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
I think it's simply because the Dem political machinerey won't suport him.
With Hillary, Obama & Edwards I doubts there's enough enthusiasm or money to support him as a candidate.
He's proven that he's not a charasmatic candidate, and many prolly still remember his poor performance in the debates with GWB, of all people.
I'm still saying an Edwards/Obama ticket is the winnar for Dems. If it ever hapens.
Fern
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,197
- 126
Gore could probably win. I doubt the Republican candidate will have any real chance in 2008, the way Iraq is going.
I don't think he'd go back to politics, he seems to be enjoying his current life where he can focus on his favorite issues without trying to be all things to all people.
I don't think he'd go back to politics, he seems to be enjoying his current life where he can focus on his favorite issues without trying to be all things to all people.
Wrong. The election was flawed in the ways I stated, causing the vote totals not to be accurate. You did not disprove anything in my post.
You did not even try. That's good, but then you post nonsense about Gore losing. As I said, he lost because the election was flawed, and had the votes been accurate he won.
John, posting a lot of trivia like how he lost his home state may seem like you are making a point in response to the fact that Gore was the choice of the voters and lost to a bad election, but it's not, it's just posting some trivia. You seem to feel a partisan need to say something, anything, to respond to something on the side of a democrat.
Are you an American or a partisan republican first, John? If you claim American, you should be expressing regret that the will of the people was thwarted in 2000.
You can add a comment that you are glad as far as not liking his policies.
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Gore ends up as the Democratic candidate in 08, and he's got a good campaign strategy waiting for him, he's part of the last team that didn't run us into a ditch, then start digging the ditch deeper and deeper.
No, he won the election except for the one in the Supreme Coup. It was America that lost by having the real President kept from taking office.
We now know the results, a total disaster.
Right! That's why he's been acclaimed for his work focusing public attention on the threat of global warming, including being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. :roll:
Your definition of "assclown" is wildly out of sync with reality. For a better understanding of the term, search Google for assclown + "George Bush".
I think it's possible Gore may be waiting to see how the Democratic campaign shapes up. If it's too contentious, or if it looks like no solid winner who can defeat a likely Republican opponent emerges, he may step forward as a "white knight" to lead the party.
AFIC, the only thing better than a Nobel nominee as a Presidential candidate would be having a Nobel Peace Prize winner as a candidate. The 2007 prize will be awarded before the election so it could happen. :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:If Edwards, or even Biden, would agree to run as his VP, it would be a hell of a team.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter