| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | GenghisTheHun (167) 03/10/2008 | I voted for Bush over Gore. Of course, I wouldn't have voted for Gore if he were unopposed on the ballot--total moron. My Bush choice was a disaster, wasn't it? I wonder who the third party candidates were in that election!
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | abichara (60) 11/21/2006 |  Bush won simply by default in 2000. He won because of two basic reasons: he ran a more effective campaign than Al Gore did and because of "Clinton fatigue". People simply were tired of having a "scandal of the week" come out of White House. Bush promised to "bring integrity" back to the White House. In many ways, 2000 was a referendum on Bill Clinton more than anything else. With a strong economy behind his back, the election was Gore's to lose, and he lost because he ran an overly cautious campaign.
But for all of Gore's strategic faults during the campaign: things like pulling the plug on his Ohio operation, a state that would have won him the Presidency had he kept the pressure up there, he nearly won the thing. Clearly Gore saw himself as on the defensive. What created the deadlock which ultimately came about was the big October surprise that Bush had been caught driving drunk while on vacation in Maine in 1976 when he was 30 years old, certainly no youthful indiscretion! His poll numbers were showing a steady lead in Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, and a building one in Pennsylvania--all states that proved critical, and all states (except controversially Florida) which went Democratic. It may have also cost him the popular vote. Exit polls showed that news of the incident influenced some suburban voters in those states inclined towards voting for Bush to switch to Gore. Had Gore won New Hampshire, which went for Bush by 2,000 votes, he would have been elected.
But it didn't have to be that close. All what Gore needed to do was run a consistent campaign running on the positives of the Clinton years to win, while distancing himself from the scandal of those years, which he mostly didn't take part in anyways. Bush though did run a much better campaign than Bob Dole did 4 years earlier, and that helped a lot.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | magellan (151) 09/10/2004 | I excercised my rights as an American in this election and didn't vote. Those of you that read my posts know that I'm pretty into politics - so my decision not to vote had nothing to do with apathy. I didn't vote because of the mediocrity of the two candidates. Neither inspired me, neither impressed me, and neither reflected even remotely my world views. As the disastrous Bush presidency (hopefully) draws to a close, Americans are again presented with two less than compelling candidates. One who is divisive, misleading, and disrespectful of some of my favorite things about America (rule of law, federalism, free trade, etc.), and the other a career politician who seems to value polls more than conviction. Because of the horrendous leadership of the current administration economically, militarily, and socially, I know who I have to vote for. I can't say I'm excited about it however.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | weedie (1) 06/18/2004 | Two awful candidates who ran awful
campaigns and ended in an awful
deadlock. John McCain was far more
popular than either of them and would
have won if on the ballot and would have
made a superior president, but he wasn't
on the ballot. The Republicans chose to rebuff a man who was running 25 points ahead in the polls precisely because he had appeal to independents. It cost them the election, except for a fluky electoral college perversion of the popular vote. No president has ever won election to a second term after losing the popular vote. Bush has a steep hill to climb, and even if he makes it in 2004, I see Hillary taking over in 2008. It is all so unnecessary. McCain would have won clearly and I think would have forged a durable majority coalition.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | HalJor (0) 06/08/2004 | This wasn't an election. This was 36 days of political pandering and legal maneuvering, ultimately decided with total disregard for the people's voice. And yet, we haven't learned a thing.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Anonymous (1) 01/22/2004 | Despite how unfair the outcome was, Election 2000 could change America forever, and not in a good way.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | andyknoedler (0) 08/18/2003 | Now here's an election that would prefer to crawl under a rock and die, if it only could!
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-7 OF 7 | View All |