#2000 election

[thashining]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Jermaine Fowler | Public Historian (@thehumanityarchive)

[deadpresidents]

Their paths into politics could hardly have been more different, and their first encounter was rough. In 1999, both George W. [Bush], as Governor of Texas, and Jeb [Bush], newly elected in Florida, visited the White House during a Governors' conference. [President] Clinton liked Jeb right away but found George W. downright surly. Still, when Clinton's aides noted that the Texan seemed particularly uncomfortable, Clinton came to his defense: "Look, the guy's just being honest. What's he supposed to do, like me? I defeated his father. He loves his father. It doesn't bother me -- this is a contact sport." During the 2000 campaign, Clinton watched George W. with growing respect -- "compassionate conservatism" is a "genius slogan," he warned Al Gore's team -- and when George W. paid a visit after he won, Clinton came away from their meeting and a long lunch in the White House residence saying, "It's a mistake to underestimate him."

-- Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, on the first impressions and interactions between then-President Bill Clinton and Texas Governor George W. Bush, TIME Magazine, August 3, 2015.

[countesspetofi]

Can I go down to the DMV and get eight years taken off my age, because APPARENTLY it's FUCKING 2016 ALL OVER AGAIN.

I'm FUCKING sorry the Democratic candidate isn't FUCKING perfect enough for you fucking, FUCKING CRYBABIES.

If there was another viable candidate with the delegates and the numbers to take Trump down, don't you FUCKING think they would have come forward by now? Don't you think Joe would RATHER spend the next four FUCKING years relaxing in his backyard? Here's a hint for you fuckers: that candidate DOES NOT EXIST! And even if they did, it's too late to switch horses! WE ARE MIDSTREAM, BITCHES! Crank up the Tammy Wynette and STAND BY YOUR FUCKING MAN!

Don't you FUCKING ASSHOLES do this to me again, because my FUCKING heart can't take it. And I'm not talking any Romantic-era metaphor for sadness here; I'm talking about my LITERAL circulatory system and stress-induced myocardial ischemia, and I don't know if the treatment for that will be covered under a second Trump administration.

[la-principessa-nuova]

as someone who was too young to know what was going on with the election in 2000, i feel like the people who were aware of that really let me down on leaving out some crucial details.

they told me about the hanging chads, but that’s not all they were doing

no, if you’re too young to have heard of this, you may hear “chad” and have a certain image in mind, but back then the chads were:

hanging

swinging

dimpled

pregnant????

there were even tri-chads, which now just sounds like a nickname for the try guys

[aardwolfpack]

Get out there and vote!

[lil-als]

I’m settling a debate

[darthkieduss]

The 2020 Election was not stolen

But even if it was:

What the fuck are you gonna do about it?

Consider us even for 2000.

[lightdancer1]

The 2000 election was a catastrophe at multiple levels. One of the more understated was the racist voter suppression campaign Jeb Bush did in Florida:

By itself this did not cost Al Gore the 2000 election, though it contributed to the outcome of the strife in the state of Florida. Ralph Nader's proto-Bernie Sanders in 2016 moment where he deliberately sabotaged the Gore Campaign for not being Left enough to suit him did far more. Had Gore won the states where Nader sucked off just enough voters to deny them to him Florida would have been irrelevant. He didn't, so Florida became very relevant and the margin of voter suppression in the particular counties that became the focus of the Bush Vs. Gore case were more than sufficient to steer them to George Bush....but not to prevent Gore ultimately winning the state (which he did in the overall recount and which he elected not to contest as that for a variety of reasons).

Unlike in the current age white Dems shrugged and decided voter suppression of Black votes was someone else's problem. This attitude really started to bite them 13 years later.

[vergess]

You're right. We need Harris to win. We cannot afford to fuck around with that. Every vote is critical. This needs to be not just a win, but a full downballot landslide.

I agree with you. So, please understand me when I say: this is so counterproductive you may as well move to a Russian cyberfarm and start getting paid.

You want to reach out to third party voters? First off, start with the larger party. That's not the Greens.

Secondly, instead of trying to guilt people into starting a new behaviour, a technique which does not work on the human brain?

Explain how the candidate benefits your target.

Like, here's some tips that work not just on green voters, but also on the much larger libertarian population, and the largest group of all: independents.

Here's how to convince someone to vote for Harris instead of their fave:

Find out their pet issue.

Find out their preferred candidate's stance/record and platform plank on that issue

Find out the Dem candidate's stance/record and platform plank

Civilly compare and contrast those differing stances, and if relevant, point out that the Dem is a similar or even better fit

Finally, point out that the Dem candidate has a stronger record (which they do, because they have a record at all; 3rd party candidates are often newcomers and republicans have been obstinate rather than productive for a long time now).

Note the lack of demoralizing guilt trips that stop people from going to the polls. Note also how it doesn't re-frame the loss of elections due to everything from suppression to big party apathy to the fuckbedamned electoral college as "the fault of voters."

In fact, it places no fault whatsoever on your prospective target!

BECAUSE GUILT MAKES PEOPLE NOT VOTE

And turnout always helps Democrats, whereas refusal helps republicans.

Stop! Fostering! Refusal!

Also, a correction to your factual claims: third parties don't cost people elections.

Gore lost in 2000 for many reasons; none were Nader's 3% vote share. But the most prominent one, which the democratic party would like everyone to forget, is that he rightfully won by a decent margin, but Al Gore declined a recount.

Finally, more third party voters peeled away from Trump to the then center-right Libertarians than peeled from Clinton to the Greens in 2016. Clinton lost the election for many reasons, including both a media circus around Trump and her campaign's startling ineptitude. She also lost in spite of the assistance of third parties, which affected the vote in her favour.

With Kamala/Walz going up DAILY, I've seen more people talking about voting third party/Jill Stein (EW) and I believe the above screencaps from @three--rings can explain WHY Third Party votes NEVER work NOR is this the election to screw around in.

Everyone....like she says above.....PLEASE LEARN FROM HISTORY!!!

(Because if Trump gets in, he's NEVER LEAVING).

[deadpresidents]

If for some reason George W Bush had run against Jeb Bush for the republican nomination who would have won?

That's a pretty great idea for a topic for historians to debate.

I think people forget how effective of a campaigner that George W. Bush was. Yes, he was pretty goofy at times and a master of malapropisms. But he was pretty incredible on the campaign trail in front of smaller crowds and as a one-on-one retail politician. Much like Lyndon B. Johnson, those skills did not translate to television and, on many occasions, it reinforced the idea that Bush was dumb. But simply believing that Bush was dumb is one of the reasons why so many people underestimated him -- and that made him a very dangerous opponent for pretty much everybody that he ran against beginning with Ann Richards in his first race for Governor of Texas to John McCain and Al Gore in 2000 and finally to John Kerry in 2004. That was evident in his Presidential debate performances. In my opinion, Bush probably lost the first of his three debates to John Kerry in 2004, but I've always felt that he won the other two debates against Kerry and all three debates against Al Gore in 2000.

George W. Bush was also one of the most disciplined leading Presidential candidates of the past 40-50 years. He stayed on message, no matter where he was campaigning, who he was campaigning against, or what other news might have been seeping into coverage of him at the time. That was a credit to his enormously talented political teams over the years, but it was also the result of hard work. He'd still say something odd or mangle a few sentences at every campaign stop, but you never had to guess where he stood on the positions he built his campaigns upon.

While he was certainly no Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama when it came to charisma, George W. Bush did have his own unique brand of charisma. Despite his background and the privileges he had from day one due to his family name and his father's accomplishments, Bush had a real ability to connect with people while campaigning. People genuinely liked him. I mean, that's even better understood now when you hear about his relationship with his surprise BFF Michelle Obama or with fellow Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Many of his political opponents have noted in interviews or books that they've found it hard not to like him once they got to know him. Again, that's an attribute that doesn't translate well to television, but it was clearly a strength when he was meeting folks while campaigning. He made a lot of people want to vote for him -- as opposed to John Kerry, whose personality didn't inspire a whole lot of fervent supporters in 2004 (I say that with personal experience).

Jeb Bush was a more serious, wonky politician -- with a personality more similar to that of their father whereas George W. famously took after his outspoken, direct mother. Jeb did not easily connect with voters, and was a more naturally cautious politician while George W. was more emotional and decisive (for better and worse). One example of Jeb's cautious nature is demonstrated by the poor timing of his eventual candidacy for President. Once Jeb finally decided to run for President in 2016 he was nearly 10 years removed from the end of his term as Governor of Florida. He jumped into a crowded field where it was difficult to distinguish himself despite his famous last name (and the exclamation point behind his first name on his campaign logo) and was steamrolled by Donald Trump. I think George W. probably would have defended himself and his family against Trump's attacks better than Jeb did if George W. had been the candidate in 2016 instead of an ex-President in retirement. Jeb's 2016 campaign was almost sad in how timid he came across at times against Trump.

Both brothers were born with more advantages than most people will ever have come their way in a lifetime. But I do think George W. tried to be someone other than his father's son more than Jeb ever did. George W. ran for Governor of Texas in 1994 despite the fact that his opponent was the legendary Governor Ann Richards. Jeb ran for Governor of Florida the same year, and their parents believed that Jeb was the Bush son with the real political future and kind of saw George W.'s candidacy as a hopeless cause. But on Election night in 1994, George W. was victorious and Jeb was not. I think that Jeb Bush wanted to follow in his father's footsteps, but George W. wanted to surpass George H.W. Bush's legacy. He didn't in terms of the quality of his Presidency, but George W. Bush did get reelected as President while George H.W. Bush was only a one-term President.

So, in a head-to-head race, I think George W. would probably smoke Jeb. He was just that much more skilled as a politician. Plus, a brother vs. brother matchup would probably be emotionally difficult for anybody and I think George W. clearly had more of a killer instinct than Jeb ever did (that's probably a perfect setup for a drone strike or war crimes comment). Bush had no problem running a ruthless campaign, either. If you don't know what I mean, look up the 2000 South Carolina GOP primary campaign against McCain and the Swift Boat ads against Kerry in '04 (he was also one of the hatchet men for his father during the 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis, which was one of the nastiest campaigns in American history up to that point). Anyway, I just think George W. was a better politician than Jeb ever hoped to be. In fact, from a purely political perspective -- as a campaigner out on the trail, as a one-on-one retail politician, even as a debater -- George W. was probably a more talented politician than his father. Of course, George W. was nowhere near as experienced or competent as George H.W. Bush was as President. But George W. would easily defeat his brother in a one-on-one campaign and I think he'd even give his father some trouble on the trail in a one-on-one race between them. And then if he was elected, he'd promptly become the really bad President we all remember him as!

Great question and interesting thought experiment!

[harriswalz4usabybr]

Speech Vice President Harris Gave in Jacksonville, FL!

~BR~

[wildsummerrose]

I'd also like to point out that in both 2016 and 2000, the right person won the fucking popular vote. But because we have this weird ass outdated electoral college system the wrong people got the reins of power.

Thank someone that we didn't have a war going on, or we might have ended up with Trump for a second term and we'd all be fucked forever already.

"democracts always say that this election is the most important one yet" yes because we're in the flaggy bit of the history book that could either end with "end of american democracy, lead up to war world iii" or "tensions fizzle, beginning of post trump restoration" depending on how you vote. like every election since 2016 has been "the most important election yet" because trump won in 2016 and trump has made his desire to be a dictator clear.

in fact, i don't think 2008 or 2012 were given the same weight of "this is the most important election ever" because we were not living in the dangerous time of a dictator literally trying to take over the united states

[reclaimedcliche]

When I was in the second grade it was the year 2000 and my school decided to do a mock election for Bush v Gore. I, being a precocious child, decided I wanted to vote for Ralph Nader, because as I understood it he was with the green party and that meant he would protect trees.

But you see the school did not include Nader as an option, because of the fact that 1. Who was voting for Nader and 2. He wasn't going to win. But my mom was a teacher and went to the woman who made all the ballots to tell them that I had my heart set on Nader.

And that's how I made some poor woman reprint like 800 ballots for an elementary school mock election when I was like 9.

[cirrus-grey]

[indigo-skies2315]

The DNC was never going to nominate another primary candidate over the incumbent, the sitting president, who is in charge of the entire Democratic party.

I don't think the sun shines out of Biden's ass, guys, but please look at the bigger picture here.

Our presidential election is not ranked choice and is not won by a majority of over 50%. It is a two party system that is won by plurality; whoever gets the biggest slice of votes, even if it's under 50%, is the winner and they take all. First the district, then the state, then the Electoral College. This is why third parties have little influence. This is why voting for them or not at all benefits the opposition. This is why Trump won in 2016.

A 2024 Trump victory is an not something we as a nation can bear - it's bad for us, and it is unspeakably bad for Palestine because Trump's a far-right lunatic lacking morals and human compassion.

Not voting for Biden, third party or abstaining, will split the vote and cause a spoiler in favor of Trump. See the 2000 George W Bush vs Al Gore election for reference. Take a long look at those razor thin margins. Al Gore lost Florida by 0.009%. Hell, walk down memory lane to the 2016 election. States where Trump won by a margin of 3% or less - Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin - would have won Hillary the Electoral College, 316 to 224.

We cannot forget Russia's war on Ukraine either. Do you honestly think Trump will want to continue US aid to Ukraine? Really? The guy who's all buddy-buddy with Putin and has Russia-supporting followers? He's been vocal about his lack of enthusiasm for supporting Ukraine, and has threatened to hamstring NATO - Ukraine's principal ally - should the situation escalate further.

Russia is angling towards a return of the Soviet Union's former territory - look at Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia (the country). Appeasement is not an option - that's a proven failure. A possible return to the Cold War status quo is horrifying, and there's every reason to believe they won't stop there, setting off a multitude of geopolitical tinder boxes. God above forbid any one of the parties involved sets off a nuclear bomb, tactical or ICBM.

to be honest it would make me a lot more comfortable if you guys would show a little concern about trump running for president again. Do not inbox me and say you don’t like joe biden omg i already know. but can we show a little concern. about donald trump. being the republican candidate for president. for the third election in a row.