2006-09-18 11:14:24 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The vote was extremely close, and many believe that he actually didn't win - that the vote in Ohio was corrupted to allow him to get sufficient elector votes to win the vote. In 2000, he did not win the popular vote (Gore did!) and he only received the elector votes after the state his brother was governor of had a huge vote counting scandaMF The U.S. Supreme Court decided the issue, probably one of the worst decisions it has ever made.
I also understand that many non-Americans who are against Bush were appalled when Americans voted him back into office. Their justification was that Americans did not really know what Bush was about in the first term, but we did for the second and voted him in anyway.
Also I think the swift boat veterans roup, the ones who smeared John Kerry's Vietnam War record, had something to do with it. It diverted our attention. Also Kerry did not run an effective campaign. Instead of talking about a war now, he talked bout the Vietnam War, which is dead and gone.
2006-09-18 11:23:11 · answer #1 · answered by Shelley 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The vote was very tight 51% vs 49% (it would have been that way with Clinton vs Bush I , had it not been for Perot). Basically the country is nearly evenly split. People who make up the 51% who voted for Bush tend to be older and family types (a group that Nixon described as "the silent majority"). So that's why you hear so many negative and few positive things about Bush. Younger, more liberal voters tend to be more vocal and politically active (activist even). So that's why he was voted in and yet you hear so many negative things about him. Oh and the split is very real, that's why Hillary is moderating her rhetoric - for anyone to win in the U.S. at the national level these days, they need to appeal to the 20% in the middle, really the 5% in the middle, since they are the ones that can go either way. One other thing, the way the U.S. set up Presidential elections, this type of split might not matter, since what matters is the number of big states a candidate wins (since they have the most electoral votes), well these days the big states are pretty evenly split between Democrat and Republican, so you can expect more of this.
2006-09-18 18:39:03 · answer #2 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush WASN'T voted in AGAIN - he was only voted in once. The first time - in 2000 - he was appointed following a bitterly contested Florida recount. And it just so happens his brother Jeb Bob is Governor of Florida - my, how convenient. Blame it all on the outmoded, outdated, useless way we have of electing a president - the electoral college where a person's vote doesn't mean diddly. The only votes that matter are those of the electors from your state. So, don't say the fool was elected twice - he wasn't.
2006-09-18 19:16:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you one of those who actually believe Bush was voted in? While not as obvious as the first election when his brother handed him the election illegally, it is still pretty clear that he wasn't legally elected the second time, either.
It also didn't help when the Supreme Court (most of whom were appointed by recent conservative republicans) refused to apply the law, and allowed Bush to remain in office.
Bush, like Hitler before him, went to great lengths to make it appear his take-over was perfectly legal.
2006-09-18 18:27:34 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Pink 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not all of America voted for Bush. I didn't either time so I have every right to "slag him off".............
2006-09-18 18:24:12 · answer #5 · answered by carpediem 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The truth is that George Bush is very religous, he brings religon into politics, which to me shouldnt happen. But anyways people vote for him beacuse of that. Many states ( called the Redneck states) voted for him. Since they are very religous there.
2006-09-18 18:25:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why did voters re-elect Bush? Probably because they wanted him and not John Kerry to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
2006-09-18 19:06:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's a really good question. I don't know how the idiot got elected again; I and everybody I know voted against him.
2006-09-18 18:16:55 · answer #8 · answered by Sarah 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Fear of change, even it means the cost of all we have paid, sadly some would do it again.
2006-09-18 18:18:35 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Look who our other option was...
2006-09-18 18:19:38 · answer #10 · answered by rockinout 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋