Will 2016 be a repeat of the 2000 election?

[ivwshane]

I can't but help think of the similarities between the two elections.
I remember the sentiment of the day for Bush was that he was a down to earth guy and someone you could have a beer with. Trump appears to be gaining a similar sentiment, he says the things your average American wants to hear.
Gore was a bore, a guy who was smart but lacked the personality to connect to voters. Clinton has similar issues and I constantly hear things like she not likable, she doesn't seem genuine.

In 2000 gore, who was favored to win the presidency, also had to contend with a third party candidate, Nader. Although it's not an apples to apples comparison, it feels like bernie is taking away from Clinton in what appeared to be a sure thing.

2000 didn't seem to be about policies and was instead about personality, 2016 seems to be on the same path. Any policy talk has been shallow, extremely shallow on the Republican side. Sure candidates are talking about immigration, health care, and education but unlike the 2008 election, there doesn't seem to be a central cause voters are really interested in.

There are of course some major differences. The Democrats aren't running away from the current president like they were when Clinton was president. Obama also isn't in the midst of a scandal like Clinton was and so Republicans haven't been able to hammer on Obama like they did with Bill.

While there is a ton of money being thrown around on the Republican side like there was in 2000, this time around trump isn't the major recipient of that money like bush was in 2000. In fact all that money has gone to jeb bush and it's done pretty much nothing.

In 2000 bush ran as a uniter while neither trump or Hillary appear to be running on a similar message.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out, will the American people once again vote for the person who they like better or the more qualified candidate? Americans have a poor memory so my bet is a repeat of history, hopefully that repeat doesn't end in a similar disaster.



Here is a good recap of the 2000 election:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/overview.html

 

[Indus]

Unless the SCOTUS decides the election result, no election will ever be like 2000.

 

[ivwshane]

Unless the SCOTUS decides the election result, no election will ever be like 2000.

That's true but there are plenty of other similarities with regards to how the candidates ran.

 

[Indus]

People wanting a beer with Trump? Are you serious.. the guy is likely to charge $1000 for a 5 min beer session.

The person I'd most likely like to have a beer with besides Bernie is Kasich.

 

[Subyman]

Something to consider though, Bernie is not running third party, so he won't take votes from clinton like nader did to gore. Republicans may be wanting to tear down the establishment, but they will likely shove moderates away at the same time. Repubs need minority vote to win. There is so much conflicting information right now that it is really hard to find a decent poll (yes I've seen some polls showing decent minority support and I've seen some that are abysmal.) I'll be interested to see how Trump pivots after the primary if he becomes the nominee.

 

[MovingTarget]

Is it outside the realm of possibility? Nope. Likely? Nope. One thing is for certain though, the provision that the electoral college punt to the House of Representatives is effectively null and void after Bush v. Gore. For the first time in a decade and a half, I'm thinking that may be a good thing.

 

[theeedude]

In any case, it's going to be a fun election and a lot of turbulence ahead. The country is fundamentally unhappy with where the elites and Wall Street driven values have taken them. The wealth is not trickling down, but instead it's being sucked up. This is not politically sustainable, and it is now coming to a head.

 

[ivwshane]

This thread wasn't meant to be about the supreme Court decision, it was supposed to be about how various campaigns are ran and the publics sentiment toward the candidates.

 

[nickqt]

This thread wasn't meant to be about the supreme Court decision, it was supposed to be about how various campaigns are ran and the publics sentiment toward the candidates.

Barring some type of scandal or health issue among our average-age-of 900-year-old candidates, I can't imagine the electoral college being anywhere close to what it was in 2000. The electorate is substantially different in terms of demographics. For any Republican to win, they have to hope like hell that they get a massive white turnout, and that Democrats just sit at home. A repeat of 2008 or 2012 pretty much nets HRC/Sanders with the WH with 300+ EC votes and close to 52% of the popular vote.

That said, if people vote for Trump because they'd like to have a beer with him, it would be akin to 2000 when people liked Bush, as he was the candidate they'd like to have a beer with. I mean that in the sense that Bush was a dry alcoholic who wouldn't drink a beer with you, and as far as I know, Trump just doesn't drink at all.

I can also see people believing that HRC, like Gore, is just a center-right politician and that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between the two party's candidates...especially if Trump seems to be leading and a brokered convention vomits forth Jeb(?) or Kasich or some other low-energy squish. I mean, neither Jeb nor Kasich are anywhere near "moderate" in terms of policy, but both don't just scream crazy shit, cross their arms, and dare you to correct them. That isn't moderate, it's just calm and civilized. Their actual policies don't differ all that much from Santorum or Cruz, as a whole. I believe a brokered convention pretty much seals the fate of the Republican party for 2016, and 2020 unless something extremely disruptive happens before then.

I'm fairly certain that neither campaign is going to run a repeat of what their party's candidate did in 2000. I mean, policy issues aside, with Citizens United creating speech out of money, there are going to be lots and lots of independent actors putting out all sorts of ads. I'm glad I don't watch TV, so I won't have to watch any of it. It should be mind-meltingly vapid. America's collective IQ will probably drop a good point-and-a-half by November 9th.

At this point, my dream matchup is Sanders v. Trump. Americans seem to believe that we should get away from straight down-ticket politics, and this is probably the best possible example of this happening, as neither is truly a representative of the party they'd be running with.

Sanders v. Trump would also be relatively interesting, as the beltway media (BothSidesDoIt™ champions - they make their money by saying "X says this, Y says that, oogity boogity!") wouldn't know what to do. I'm sure the more deluded will say that the media would clearly favor Sanders, but then you have to be deluded to think that big media, owned by some of the largest corporations in the world, really wants a Democratic Socialist as the President. Hell, I'm surprised that Trump hasn't owned (and failed at making succeed) a media outlet in the past, although he sure is owning the hell out of the social media sewer that is essentially replacing it. Not that I really consider being king of Facebook or Twitter as something to brag about.

Recording for eternity what the BothSidesDoIt™ scumbags in the media do to try to play that ever-profitable game should hopefully lead to an awakening that the media is supposed to have a very large role in informing Americans, and has abdicated that responsibility in order to make money for the corporations that own it. See: Network, 1976.

Perhaps most importantly, there is no actual Nader / third-party candidate. Sanders is running as a Democrat, so if HRC wins the nomination, there isn't that "vote for Nader / Sanders , he'll save us all!" rhetoric. And as much as I'd laugh my ass off, I don't see Trump running as a third party candidate unless there is a brokered convention and he really feels like taking the Republican party and turning it into the Whig party ala 1856.

 

[Moonbeam]

Liberal thinking is a late arrival of the evolutionary time scale. It is an adaption superior to fight or flight, because the liberal brain is able to suppress that reaction and plan and think whether fight or fight, or some other reaction, like none at all, makes better sense. Where an instant reaction was the better survival response, it is a negative trait to have, but it is quite adaptive and successful in modern civilized life. The Republican brain defectives, however, in order to win, will tell us we are all in grave danger and about to die if we elect democrats. They are assholes that way, more interested in winning that evolving the human race. They are a tremendous and a dangerous threat, but fear of them will solve nothing. They are deeply asleep and can't easily waken. They thrive on stress.

 

[master_shake_]

it's all about the chads.