That means he won by the true democratic process. Democracy failed this time, big time in America. In 2000 why were so many people wanting Al Gore to be our Commander in Chief? If you were a supporter why did you vote for him?
2007-10-14 11:06:01 · 20 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't believe for one minute that all the populace of one state vote as a whole. Everybody has their own mind and this is the reason voting is private.
2007-10-14 11:19:14 · update #1
Ted please tell me that doesn't mean that you voted for Bush!
I suspect a lot of uninformed voters voted for him.
2007-10-14 11:42:41 · update #2
Because even then, Americans knew not to trust Bush.
2007-10-14 11:12:52 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Cause quite simply the electoral vote in this country is and always has been a bit joke. It actually ends up hurting the ones that think they want it the mose. Minority groups feel if they can concentrate votes they can win states or on a smaller scale precincts. What they forget is this opens up other states. And 5 states of 5 electoral votes means more than 1 state with 24 eletoral votes. Quite frankly, and Iam a long term never voted for a Dem nationally Republicn, I think te presidency should be base on an electoral system like the Senate where each state gets say 10 electoral votes regarless of size. More states would be paid attention to and it would be more geographically representative.
2007-10-15 18:30:32 · answer #2 · answered by Gabriel Archangel 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People tend to vote for a party, not a specific candidate. More people obviously wanted Bush's party as president, although remember that the vote was incredibly close. Maybe it was for the best anyway. Al Gore wouldn't have done An Inconvenient Truth if he was president and just because he believed in stuff doesn't mean he could necissarily make them happen in government. I think that he has made just as big of an influence now as he would of if he was president, maybe even bigger. I also want to remind people that Bush runs the most powerful country in the world and, regardless of what some people think, has not done that bad of a job. Obviously I don't necissarily support him, as you can tell from everything else I have said, but I do think that people need to give him a chance and cut him some slack. After all, he probably has one of the hardest jobs in the world!
2007-10-14 13:56:31 · answer #3 · answered by Kisses & Hugs 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the electoral system is screwed in such a way that U can only often be able to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.Or maybe Jorge Bush is such an idiot as it is,even he could make someone like Al Gore look like a good candidate,being the smart(er) one of the 2! That just comes to show that how badly electoral reform is really needed at this point in history.
2007-10-14 11:55:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was disgusted with the republicans wasting so much time and money in impeaching a popular President. Al Gore was part of the Clinton/Gore team and I felt he would have been a good president too. So did a half million more voters than voted for Bush.
2007-10-14 11:22:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
It was a vote against the alternative. Unfortunately our system is not a Democracy, at best one could call it a representative Democracy. If lil' Bush had his way it would be a Theocracy with himself as the Deity.
2007-10-14 12:16:10 · answer #6 · answered by HP 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Because I was an uninformed voter. The scariest thing in America. Now I know what's up, and to vote people on what they stand for, not for false promises. This time around, it's Ron Paul.
2007-10-14 11:39:16 · answer #7 · answered by Ted S 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I think a lot of people liked what Clinton did for the country, especially in terms of balancing the budget, and they thought that Clinton's VP would probably do as good a job in office as he had.
And the older Democrats may not have liked GHWB's regime, so they wouldn't want to see his son in power... or if GHWB's son had to be President, perhaps they would have preferred to see Jeb get the job.
2007-10-14 12:27:27 · answer #8 · answered by Lily Iris 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
worldwide warming is significant adequate to get him elected? you may't be severe. i do no longer remember worldwide warming being on the suited of any pollfinal election. It is in simple terms no longer this next election the two. If he have been to get the nomination, which at this factor he's not searching for, and he ran on a worldwide warming platform then he could lose (returned).
2016-10-22 10:14:25 · answer #9 · answered by courts 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The popularity of Clinton likely helped him, however, minus the Lewinsky scandal, I think Gore would have likely beaten Bush comfortably since Clinton left with about 65% approval ratings. So Clinton both helped and hurt him.
2007-10-14 11:14:19 · answer #10 · answered by Super Tuesday 3 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I have always liked Al Gore. I think he would have used much more thought before acting after 911, but I am sure he would have attacked Afghanistan. He would never have invaded Iraq without provocation. He would never have mentioned an axis of evil to contribute to our problems. That is what I think, but we'll never know now how it could have been different.
2007-10-14 11:16:26 · answer #11 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 6⤊ 2⤋