I’m amazed this isn’t brought up more in the Bush-Gore debate. I was 19 during this election, and it was my first Presidential vote. I didn’t have a ton of political know-how but it was very clear that the Dems were running on the “Not Bush” platform even then.
And I don’t think I’m the only person who voted for “Not Bush” in 2000.
Whereas me, I’m amazed it’s brought up without a cite even once. I voted for Nader in 2000, specifically so I could send a message; if he hadn’t been a candidate, I would have voted for Gore.
Here was my reasoning:
On point 1, I was correct. One point 2, I made a reasonable, but incorrect, prediction. On point 3, my analysis was fundamentally flawed.
You don’t move the country in your direction by casting a vote and by threatening your more powerful allies with abandonment. That doesn’t work. All that does is convince your more powerful allies that you’re flaky and unreliable; all it does is pressure them to build a coalition that doesn’t need you. And that’s what the Democrats, quite predictably, did: they reworked their platform to appeal to more people in the middle, on the belief that they needed to be able to win elections without the support of the people whose support was demonstrably unreliable.
I learned something from that experience. Would that everyone had.
I voted for Nader instead of Gore too. I live in Ohio and by election time Gore had pulled out of Ohio and had conceded it to Bush
I love Nader, but he was wrong in 2000 because he said that there wasn’t any difference between Bush and Gore. They were, in his words, “Republicrats”. In hindsight Ralph was clearly wrong about there being no difference between Bush and Gore. I was wrong in not seeing that there were radical differences between them. Gore would’ve made a better president but he sure ran a lousy campaign.
I didn’t feel this way about the Gore/Bush election but at some point the Democratic party’s drift away from the left is going to result in a choice between a Democratic candidate that is to the right of Bush’s brand of compassionate conservatism (frankly without the Iraq war, I’m not sure I would be quite so liberal right now) and Donald Trump.
You don’t owe your vote to anyone. No party should be able to take your vote for granted. You shouldn’t have to choose between the lesser of two evils and foreclose the possibility of a better option ever arising.
That’s not exactly what I meant. I meant that even after eight years as the VP, Al Gore was basically an empty suit. All the climate change knowledge he had in his head was barely touched upon during the election season. He couldn’t point to any great VP accomplishments as Clinton was such a dominating figure.
So yeah, I think the people who voted for Nader actually voted for Nader. But the people who voted for Gore actually voted for “Not Bush.”
No, I voted for Gore. I thought and still think he would have been an excellent president.
Gore was actually a lot more active as VP then most previous holders of the job. Clinton let him serve a much bigger role in the Admin then previous VPs had been allowed. He only looks inactive compared to his successor.
As did I. But I still didn’t know all that much about him and (I’m not going to lie) a big part of my vote for him was because he wasn’t Bush.
In hindsight, a sound decisionmaking process.
This (though I didn’t have a vote).
And this rehash of how Nadar cost Gore the election in 2000 is relevant to the OP because…?
In an attempt to get the thread back on topic:
The depth of hate the base has for Romney continues to amaze me. I’m beginning to think The Newt may have some staying power. Maybe he will prove to be the Super Duper Not-Romney.
Polls show him with a substantial lead in Iowa and a variety of other early states (Florida). If people keep choosing to ignore all the negative baggage he brings with him this could become very entertaining.
Gingrich taking the lead and staying there for a while has the potential to make all the circus folk that have come before look like part-time, weekend only, children’s birthday party clowns.
Neither are Santorum and Bachmann, I hope.
They are not. Neither is Paul, nor Huntsman, nor the other two who never get mentioned (Roemer and Johnson?). Perry, after the latest “this country sucks because of gay people” TV ad, is toast.
It’s Romney or Gingrich. Which means it’s Romney.
I think Perry may be back in the race. He’s promised that “As President, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.” No , that’s not a paraphrase - it’s a direct quote from his latest ad He’s proud of saying that. He seems to think that since Obama has become president, children are no longer allowed to pray in school.
Yes, he’s in a primary race, and is trying to get votes from those who are ill-informed and believe themselves to be poor, poor persecuted Christians. But really, come on.
Here’s a thread all about Perry’s latest idiocy. That ad is running overwhelmingly high dislikes to likes on YouTube.
Ah, so Perry is in favor of sharia law. I wasn’t quite clear on that.
And you know what? When the greater of the two evils wins because you (and around 5% of the rest of America) decided to try to take the idealistic, unrealistic path which never stood a chance in the first place, then I will still be very, very disappointed.
I think voters should vote their consciences. For some of us that means only voting for someone we can be proud of voting for. For others of us that means voting strategically, whether for or against.
Just think, vote, accept the consequences of your actions, and learn from your mistakes if you made any.
Now, as to the actual topic of this thread, the Republican enthusiasm gap is waning and much closer to the Democrats, now. I don’t know if it will mean anything, but at least some people seem to be reacting to the clown show.
Perry may be proud of it, but that doesn’t change the fact that Obama is a Christian who seems very devout in his faith. A large percentage of the electorate knows this (some of them are even Republicans!) and won’t take kindly to Perry’s message if he gets the nomination.
I’m not really sure if the dislikes are coming from his target demographic.
So you know that Obama’s administration declined to make the morning after pill available OTC. What if the Democratic party thought they could gain net voters by shifting to the right on the abortion issue and the gay rights issue to appeal folks on the right (he seems to be willing to bend over backwards to meet the right half way even if they won’t). Then he decides that Ryan’s voucher plan really is the only way to get medicare costs under control? Do you still vote for him if his opponent is Rick Perry and Kucinich or Nader or someone makes an independent third party bid?
I think the enthuisiams will return once they jettison the joke candidates and the nomination debates come down to Romney and not Romney.
Well, the economy is pretty bad and if they can pin that on Obama you could probably elect a raccoon.