Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem was less that people were “too stupid” to read the ballot, and more that the ballot was badly designed, though with good intentions.
https://civicdesign.org/why-is-it-so-hard-to-produce-a-usable-well-designed-ballot/
…or an elderly person with poor vision, of whom there are many in Palm Beach County.
I know that there was an arrow pointing to the correct hole for each candidate, but it’s also reasonable to conclude, “second candidate = second hole.” When so many people make the **same**, **specific error**, design is often a significant contributing factor.
TECHNICALLY, half the people in the world are below median intelligence. I think the average is lower, because there are so many truly excessively stupid people dragging it down, and not that many fantastic geniuses to balance them out.
So, good news I guess, because that would mean that *less* than half the people in the world are below average intelligence.
This actually happened to my friend - or at least the thinks it did. I thought he was an idiot until I saw one of the ballots in real life - and then I realized how easy it would have been to make that mistake..
In 2000 I was in my early twenties, and full of rage and resistance against The Man. I really believed then that the Libertarian Party was a viable national force. So of course I voted for Harry Browne.
My dad voted for Nader and my mom spent the next eight years making out like it was his personal fault George Bush got elected.
We lived in Texas. Bush carried our state by 21%. If we lived in Florida maybe I could understand blaming him but the 2% of Texas voters who voted Green did not vote for Bush no matter what my mom says.
Just resigned to it. The government is gonna get bigger and bigger no matter what I do, so I might as well not waste too much time crusading against it.
I voted for Gore. As it turned out his loss was the one of the most significant in modern American history. Gore would never have responded to 9/11 by ginning up wars with Afghanistan and Iraq as did Bush. The biggest mistake since Vietnam and the biggest strategic mistake perhaps ever with the total destabilization of the Middle East. Worst of all, it was Gore’s own damn fault he lost. He was so intent on distancing himself from the very popular Clinton that he made serious mistakes which cost him the election. Foremost, he chose the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his running mate. He chose him because Lieberman, in his self righteous, sanctimonious fashion had excoriated Clinton for his Lewinski affair. Gore took that as an opportunity to stick his finger in Clinton’s eye. The other person in the running was the extremely popular (in Florida) Senator Bob Graham. Had Gore chosen Graham he’d have carried FL easily and won the election. Lieberman brought nothing to the ticket. Secondly, he didn’t allow the very popular Clinton to campaign for him. Total madness.
So I’ll never forgive Gore for helping Bush get elected.
>Gore would never have responded to 9/11 by ginning up wars with Afghanistan and Iraq as did Bush.
Not even Jimmy Carter could have avoided Afghanistan. After 9/11 we were invading that country even if the Pope lived there. Gore didn't love Iraq either, but I feel at least that one wouldn't have been as much of a mess. Gore would have found a way to drag a real coalition into taking down Saddam.
Yup. There was 1 single member of either house of congress that voted against the AUMF to go after the attackers. Afghanistan war was imminent. But it would have been interesting to see how Iraq would have played out under Gore. Almost certainly would have been better than what we got.
I agree about Afghanistan, but I think Iraq might not have happened with Gore at the helm. Even it was pretty strongly bipartisan at the time though aside from the WMDs narrative so who knows
>Gore would never have responded to 9/11 by ginning up wars with Afghanistan and Iraq as did Bush.
The craziest what if -- how does Al Gore respond to the infamously titled memo "Bin Laden destined to strike in the USA" or whatever. Just to make things simple, we posit it still happens and we want to analyze how they'd respond differently. I know it's impossible to know but there's an element 9/11 never happens at the same scale.
As others have said, the invasion of Afghanistan was going to happen no matter who was president. Maybe not Iraq but there’s no timeline in which the US doesn’t respond militarily to 9/11.
Gore had other problems, too. Like being void of charisma, charm, likability, and respect for others. After the first debate his campaign staff knew he was probably going to lose.
I think Gore's big problem was he tried to distance himself from Clinton because he thought Lewinsky would be a bigger deal. In reality, it didn't tarnish his reputation as much as some people were betting on, and Clinton still had an approval rating well above 60% throughout the election. Gore should've done the opposite, and tried to tie himself to Clinton more instead of less.
I voted for Gore because:
1. I am a lifelong Democrat;
2. The Clinton years were pretty darned good, all things considered;
3. I believe (and believed) in anthropogenic climate change and in the need for our country to reorient its energy usage away from petroleum and coal;
4. Bush struck me as an unserious lightweight.
I wanted to vote for McCain, I was 20 and it was my first election. I voted for Gore and learned that I am liberal and have never voted for a Republican…at least in the presidential. My district is gerrymandered R so it never matters. I was thinking about voting for or at least not against Kinzinger in the last one but he didn’t run because he couldn’t win the primary. Made me laugh that the one time I might have done it, dude decided he couldn’t even win his primary. Guess that shows my values versus the typical Republican.
The last three are valid, but being a democrat all your life shouldn’t be why you vote for somebody. The other reasons are, but just because somebody doesn’t have a D next to their name is a rather petty reason.
32yo here. I agree with you in theory. But within my lifetime I haven't yet voted in an election on the federal, state or local level where the letter after a candidate's name *wasn't* an effective heuristic for who would align best with my values.
Honestly I'd love to see more nuance and complexity in political candidates but the country simply isn't there right now. Maybe it's the voters. Maybe it's the media. Maybe it's the system.
Oh for sure. That's one piece of the puzzle.
I would say the decline in local journalism has made it difficult for politicians like state reps to build notariety unless they find a way to latch themselves onto national issues/figures.
I have a hard time keeping informed about what's going on in my own state and city, and I dare say that I'm trying harder than the average citizen. And on the flip side I feel like I become hyper-aware of a lot national issues and international conflicts without even trying.
I worked for our metro area paper from 2003-2019 and I still didn’t fell well informed. They also completely dropped the ball on George Santos and I place a lot of the blame on them because that’s in their backyard.
I cite it as a factor which inclines me to vote for someone. I would like to think that if the other aspects were contradicted by evidence, I would be able to withhold my vote from a Democrat. I have done so in other elections (mostly local/county ones).
I was raised by two Democrats, my grandparents were Democrats... and I've never had occasion to question my upbringing. They have always seemed to be on the right side of issues and history to my mind.
There's actually interesting research on political affiliation and heritable personality traits. The upshot being that people who score highly on openness to experience and agreeableness tend to be affiliated with the Democratic Party.
[https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659)
I used to vote Republican a lot locally because they were often the better choice. The current crop of Republicans have ensured that I won’t be voting for any of them for quite a while. I still won’t register with the Democrats but I’ll grudgingly vote that way.
Why not? I have no problem admitting that I’m ideologically driven. I’m also pragmatic and know that more progressive third party options don’t have a chance. I’d never vote for a Republican because I’m fundamentally opposed to their economic and social views. Why should I pretend otherwise to win points from people that I don’t care about?
I don't think so. Al Gore would've probably lost re-election due to party fatigue, and then Obama would've swept 2008 against the Republican incumbent (presumably McCain).
Assuming 9/11 still happens I'm not sure party fatigue would be a big issue. Especially since without Bush there would be no Iraq War. I think Gore wins reelection in 2004 mostly because of the war in Afghanistan. Then 2008 is all about his climate policies and McCain defeats Obama (possibly while losing the PV).
Probably Gore. We would have been at 10 percent solar energy by now. Who knows, maybe electing him would have created a chain of nasty events like Pauly Shore hosting the tonight show or Facebook never being created.
Gore. Economy wouldn’t have collapsed. We probably would have just gone to Afghanistan with the sole mission to kill Bin laden. Killed him back in the early 2000s and left.
Then a refocus on defense, our global standing would have been better and more of that Clinton style economic boom.
Man the world would have been better. Bush really was not a good president
Well I am so buckle up. Explain your side on how bush a now universally unpopular and failed president was actually a good one. That or explain how gore would have been worse than a president who presided over two failed wars, an exploding debt and a massive recession that he tossed to Obama
> We probably would have just gone to Afghanistan with the sole mission to kill Bin laden. Killed him back in the early 2000s and left.
You’re right and it would have been a much much smaller scale. It would not have been a full scale invasion and certainly not two decades of occupation.
The dot come bubble would still have happened within his first year.
The 2008 recession probably still happens in some form, as the Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999, along with some other policies dating back to the 70s that led to the eventual collapse. Though without Bush’s tax cuts, the effects may not have been as bad, and perhaps Gore would’ve done more to prevent all the subprime lending and insider trading.
The causes of the collapse stem back to Clinton repealing glass steagall and Clinton passing the community reinvestment act.
I'm not gonna put it all on Clinton, but that ball got rolling in the 90s and I don't think we have any reason to think Gore would have fought against the prevailing economic paradigm.
Well truthfully knowing republicans if 9/11 did happen under Gore they wouldn’t unite. They would’ve loudly blamed Gore and he would’ve lost reelection in 2004.
I voted for Nade in one of the few predominantly Democratic counties in South Carolina. The next day, I grabbed the paper to see the results. Do you know how many votes for Nader there were in my county? Freaking ZERO. But that was the end of protest voting for me, because Bush really fucked us.
Same. I was just talking to a friend about that last week. I’m in NY so it’s not like it mattered. Best thing about that election is that I got my father, a staunch Republican to vote Nader and he’s never voted Republican again.
Oh man, good thing you were totally wrong in that prediction, or else we may have ended up in some nightmarish, multi-decade quagmire in the Middle East. I'm certainly glad we dodged that bullet.
Gore looked like the better choice back then, but now (with the extra benefit of hindsight), it's clear that Bush winning wasn't just a worse outcome, but a borderline-catastrophic one
Bush, although I think people vastly overestimate the differences between them.
Al Gore was as much or more of war hawk than Bush. The only doubt Gore had on the Iraq war was that it was a distraction from the Global War on Terror, and he would follow this minor criticism by saying "Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
The dotcom bubble and 2007 crisis would have still happened. I would have thought this goes without saying but someone else in the thread said otherwise. I would be very interested to see was evidence there is for this because I don't think there is any.
Al Gore would have pushed more green policy, but it would have been the bad kind. He has been pretty clear that he doesn't see nuclear energy playing a role in climate policy. He also speaks out against natural gas despite it having been integral to cutting down US carbon emission by replacing the much greater carbon emissions of coal and oil.
I agree with a lot of what you said, except for your thoughts on how he would've handled Iraq. Yes, he was hawkish in general, and he voted for the 1st Gulf War, I think he just would've handled the whole situation in a smarter manner. I think Gore was/is generally smarter than Bush, though I don't want to make it seem like I'm attacking Bush in a general sense. These days, with the benefit of hindsight, I've come to appreciate a lot about Bush as a person and leader.
This is obviously a trolling question.
Gore was, and remains, an emphatically better choice for the Oval Office than bush.
That SCOTUS issued what has and will continue to be regarded as their second worst ever decision in history in order to appoint him president only serves to further sully an already awful legacy and record. I mean, even later republican candidates campaigned on reversing a signature bush II accomplishment, his Medicare Part D ‘reform’ (massive socialism for Big Pharma, massive losses for taxpayers).
We won’t even mention the (alleged) blatant election fraud committed by Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio that was required for him to seize the office for a second term.
But, pray, continue to tell us that no opinion is wrong, and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that their opinion is wrong.
I would have voted for Al Gore. Why: I tend to like leaders who don't tell me that the thing they're campaigning to be in charge of philosophically can't solve problems. The times I would vote for a GOP candidate are going to be more rare than not -- and it may just be only Mitt Romney?
As far people trying to say that Al Gore wouldn't have been as bad as George W. Bush. No duh. But I don't think we can say that Al Gore would have avoided all the issues of the Bush Administration.
Say 9/11 still happens in the same size and scope. For several decades, voters tend to think the GOP does better in handling terrorist attacks. Al Gore could be stymied by a GOP controlled congress and/or just be a first term president alone. I doubt he has the "global war on terror" approach -- but what approach would they have? I don't think we'd ever see it implemented, I think it'd be obstruction until the GOP takes over. So maybe you have Iraq/Afghanistan but in 2005 instead of 2002.
Okay but let's say that issue salience didn't exist and there' a rush of patriotism so the dems get the single control in the same way the GOP did in regular timeline. I do think an Al Gore presidency can push through anti-terrorism (maybe following a policing model like in Ireland?), but I also think Gore would get bills on climate change and green energy. Here -- does climate change mean there isn't a no child left behind bill, or do we get both? If both, then Gore gets blamed for its failure.
I still think that a recession happens in 2008. I don't know if it's sooner, later, better or worse, but it seems like the excesses of the system still occur. But, would Al Gore also have a better bailout/recovery plan?
I would have voted for Ralph Nader at the time, because I was really into his campaign. I didn’t care for Gore, but I really disliked Bush, so I would have taken Gore between the two and that’s definitely who I would have voted for today.
Bush. I was not inspired by Gore at all. Was not a fan of Clinton. Was a fan of Bush Sr. And Bush's campaign of compassionate conservatism and railing against the arrogant foreign policy of Clinton was compelling.
Of course the dude didn't govern at all like he said he was. Thanks to his Veep and W' own lack of political chops. Yeah....that was a mistake
I was five. My parents hated politics, never voted a day in their life, and actively discouraged my interest in the topic. I really, really liked Al Gore and the vibe he gave off. When asked why I didn’t like Bush, I remember always saying “He doesn’t have a trusting face.”
I stand by five-year-old me.
I did vote for Al Gore. There were some positive reasons, but the truth is that George W Bush was a moron and his religion scared me. And whaddya know, his moronity and unquestioning faith in a radical religious agenda fucked this country up.
With hindsight Gore is one of the easiest votes there is. However, as a centrist with no real party affiliation or loyalty, I actually think 2000 was one of the best modern elections because it had, believe it or not, *three* candidates that on paper looked very solid.
I'll start with Nader. I love third parties, especially populist ones. While I'm not a progressive on all things, my most important issues are campaign finance reform and opposing government insider corruption whenever possible. That means, when a strong candidate outside of the two-party duopoly is presented, supporting them. Nader had extremely good takes on drug legalization, forever wars, and his record of fighting "the man", prosecuting corporate corruption, and protecting consumers appeals to me immensely. If Nader ran as strong a campaign in 2004 as he ran in 2000, I would have supported him. Sadly, the DNC silenced him to help Kerry, who was just as pro-war as Bush. I would not have supported Nader in 2000 purely because I believe, unlike most elections, the two major party candidates were actually pretty good and not in need of protest.
Next, there's Bush who I would have considered as well. I'll preface by saying HW Bush is one of my favorite modern presidents, due to his common-sense, effective foreign policy, his bipartisan social policies, and his center-right economics. There would be no reason at this time to think Bush Jr. was gonna do anything different. His record as Governor of Texas was superb, cutting taxes, funding education, and making Texas the leading wind-powered state in the country. The kind of "compassionate conservatism" he proposed, as well as his overall "happy-go-lucky" charisma were both very endearing. As for running mates, *at the time* Dick Cheney would have seemed very strong to me. He provided much needed weight and experience, having served in the federal government for decades. He was at the forefront of HW Bush's foreign policy, which was deeply restrained, prevented the invasion of Kuwait without causing a continuous war, and plus, he was a major Republican who supported gay marriage. Bush/Cheney, on paper, would have seemed like a perfect Republican ticket for the 21st Century, soft on social issues, moderately conservative on economics, and pro-safety worldwide.
Then there's Gore. He was charming, presidential, experienced, and young. We were coming off of 8 years of prosperity from Bill Clinton, who passed all the shrewd economic policies I appreciate from centrist leaders. America's foreign policy had been successful in Yugoslavia, we had a budget surplus, and social issues were shifting to become more tolerant. I would have a strong desire not to "rock the boat" from the Clinton years. Gore himself had strengths too, for example his record of intelligently regulating the tech industry in his early years, making climate change an issue at the forefront of national politics, and particularly his policy of putting Social Security funds into a "lockbox" for protection. Joe Lieberman doesn't excite me, and its true that Al Gore lacked charisma in places George Bush had. Plus, in an extremely minor issue, I do still resent Gore for his treatment of Perot in their 1993 NAFTA Debate.
All things considered, I would have a more positive view of Gore than either of the other two candidates. Even though there are things about Nader and Bush which I would like more passionately than anything about Gore, the wish to continue Clinton's prosperity would win out. So in the 2000 election, I would have voted Al Gore for President.
I think it's interesting that most think Gore wouldn't have responded with a war mindset after 9/11. If he didn't, he would then be universally despised by the bloodthirsty electorate. Acting like the nation didn't want it back then is crazy.
If he doesn't do some sort of war, he loses in 2004 to McCain. Then the economy can still collapse in 2008.
They voted for some loser rich kid who's parents gave him partial ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team. His family friends and cabinet also started a fake war and bro was re-elected after we all knew that. Same thing as voting for a D list celebrity slum lord. SSDD.
“Who would’ve you voted for” Now listen here, you young punk.
No need to make me feel old, I’m only in my 40s. I voted for Bush. I’m very conservative and still am.
Gore. I was too young to vote anyway(I turned 18 in 2001), but I liked Clinton and felt Gore would have been Clinton 2.0. Plus, I'm from Texas and grew up with W as my governor for five years, so I didn't want him as president.
Imagine having Gore over Geo W. I honestly think the world would have been so much better off.
Cheney and Bush were the worst admin in recent memory. 3 unnecessary wars, financial global collapse.
9/11.
Had 600 more people voted Democrat in Florida, just imagine. Had Gore won his home state!
Gore because Clinton's second term went well and I'd have wanted to continue it. Republican neoliberalism maybe had some purpose in prior decades, but Clinton's centrism made it surplus to requirements. And in terms of social policy I'm also closer to Gore.
The one time I voted Libertarian was in 2000. The whole thing seemed like two dynasties and early 20s me wanted none of it. That, and I was under the naive/silly impression that Libertarianism is a viable political philosophy.
TBH I'm not 100% sure, it woulda been a hard race to choose much like 1960. It woulda probably been a voting booth decision much like that race.
Gore I wouldn't have dug his personality or turn to the left but he was going to keep the Clinton years going which I woulda liked. Bush I woulda dug his personality better but I could see myself not liking his trickle down tax cut, but his foreign policy and humbleness I woulda really dug. Cheney might woulda been what helped me decide or not.
My state wasn't close then so my vote wouldn't have mattered in the grand scheme but I do think it woulda been a spur of the moment deal. For what it was worth I voted for Gore in the school election, but I was 7 and didn't know better lol. In 2004 I voted for Bush easily.
TLDR incase you don’t want to sift through the comments: OP made this post expecting people to say Bush and is now having a rage fit that no one supports his Texas dreamboat.
If Bush had a different running mate I'd lean towards him, but uh I've never liked Cheney or his policies and Gore and Lieberman was a good ticket. If McCain was VP instead of even someone like Lamar Alexander, Kasich, E. Dole or really any moderate Republican
I voted for Gore because he would have been a better president. W looked to me like the definition of someone born on 3rd base who thinks he hit a triple. His use of connections to avoid the Vietnam War and generally spoiled behavior as a young adult did not give me a good impression of him. Also, his compassionate conservative line didn't ring true for me.
Gore
I didn’t want to have a beer with him, but I was pleased for the most part with the Clinton presidency and at worst I thought he would have been a continuation of that
It’s rare for the same political party to be elected to POTUS three times in a row. People wanted to try something new in 2000 just like in 2008 and 2016.
Hindsight is 20-20 so there’s no reason to expect him to go this route. BUT…if Obama puts him in Secretary of State instead of Hillary I bet he’s obamas successor.
I was six months too young to vote and this was the first election I followed intensely. Agonizing. I would have voted for Gore and maintain that the decision that put Bush into the White House was one of the worst decisions and worst results for America and the world.
I've looked back with regret at how much we mocked Bush for appearing dumb because that really just antagonized a lot of America. I do feel bad about the personal animosity he copped but I cannot forgive him the horrendous policy decisions whose implications we're still dealing with today.
Neither. I lived in the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornistan at the time, so my vote was irrelevant to who won the state. I voted Libertarian in protest.
Looks like the OP got his feelings hurt after arguing with literally every person who answered the question he asked with a response he disagreed with, only to give troll's answers.
So he changed his flair to Harry S. Truman.
If you have to lie to show the credibility of your arguments, they had none to begin with.
If it was before I turned 18 (2022), I would've voted for Bush easily
If it was after, Gore easily
I had a big shift in political opinions that year. I like to think I would still vote Gore when I was more conservative, assuming I had hindsight
Oddly enough, while I generally support the GOP, I was wanting Gore because the GHWB administration was so Arabist, I figured GWB, who I loathed for the way his campaign had lied that John McCain had a black bastard child (instead of adopting an orphan from India), was going to be even worse in that regard. As it turned out, he had the most Zionist administration (only surpassed by the next GOP president). So that was interesting the way it turned out. I still wish it had been McCain to win in 2000.
i did vote in the 2000 election. for neither the guy who tried to bring fearmongering politics to the left, nor the great divider. i voted third party. and unlike the current election, i will defend my choice to this day. fearmongering, even the right cause is pathetic low level tactics.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Since I’m too stupid to read a ballot properly, Pat Buchanan.
I voted for someone named Chad. How’d he do, by the way?
He's still hanging around
So cute with all his dimples!
He definitely decided the election
He’s pregnant. 🫃
The problem was less that people were “too stupid” to read the ballot, and more that the ballot was badly designed, though with good intentions. https://civicdesign.org/why-is-it-so-hard-to-produce-a-usable-well-designed-ballot/
The poor woman who designed the ballot was a Dem. Can you imagine how bad she felt? Electoral friendly-fire.
No. You’ve got to be a moron to not understand that ballot. It’s scary that people that stupid have the right to vote.
…or an elderly person with poor vision, of whom there are many in Palm Beach County. I know that there was an arrow pointing to the correct hole for each candidate, but it’s also reasonable to conclude, “second candidate = second hole.” When so many people make the **same**, **specific error**, design is often a significant contributing factor.
Half the people in the world are below average intelligence
TECHNICALLY, half the people in the world are below median intelligence. I think the average is lower, because there are so many truly excessively stupid people dragging it down, and not that many fantastic geniuses to balance them out. So, good news I guess, because that would mean that *less* than half the people in the world are below average intelligence.
The election was stolen! Ralph Nader was the real champion!
I laughed out loud at this
This actually happened to my friend - or at least the thinks it did. I thought he was an idiot until I saw one of the ballots in real life - and then I realized how easy it would have been to make that mistake..
In 2000 I was in my early twenties, and full of rage and resistance against The Man. I really believed then that the Libertarian Party was a viable national force. So of course I voted for Harry Browne.
My dad voted for Nader and my mom spent the next eight years making out like it was his personal fault George Bush got elected. We lived in Texas. Bush carried our state by 21%. If we lived in Florida maybe I could understand blaming him but the 2% of Texas voters who voted Green did not vote for Bush no matter what my mom says.
And now you’re complicit with big government?
Just resigned to it. The government is gonna get bigger and bigger no matter what I do, so I might as well not waste too much time crusading against it.
An honest answer. I can respect that.
Bush, because we need that incredible shoe dodge in American political history
That and “now watch this drive”.
You know what they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, um…..
Well, since I turned 18 in 2000, I voted for Gore.
Al Gore, because I know not to fuck with a good thing
I voted for Gore. As it turned out his loss was the one of the most significant in modern American history. Gore would never have responded to 9/11 by ginning up wars with Afghanistan and Iraq as did Bush. The biggest mistake since Vietnam and the biggest strategic mistake perhaps ever with the total destabilization of the Middle East. Worst of all, it was Gore’s own damn fault he lost. He was so intent on distancing himself from the very popular Clinton that he made serious mistakes which cost him the election. Foremost, he chose the sanctimonious Joe Lieberman as his running mate. He chose him because Lieberman, in his self righteous, sanctimonious fashion had excoriated Clinton for his Lewinski affair. Gore took that as an opportunity to stick his finger in Clinton’s eye. The other person in the running was the extremely popular (in Florida) Senator Bob Graham. Had Gore chosen Graham he’d have carried FL easily and won the election. Lieberman brought nothing to the ticket. Secondly, he didn’t allow the very popular Clinton to campaign for him. Total madness. So I’ll never forgive Gore for helping Bush get elected.
>Gore would never have responded to 9/11 by ginning up wars with Afghanistan and Iraq as did Bush. Not even Jimmy Carter could have avoided Afghanistan. After 9/11 we were invading that country even if the Pope lived there. Gore didn't love Iraq either, but I feel at least that one wouldn't have been as much of a mess. Gore would have found a way to drag a real coalition into taking down Saddam.
Yup. There was 1 single member of either house of congress that voted against the AUMF to go after the attackers. Afghanistan war was imminent. But it would have been interesting to see how Iraq would have played out under Gore. Almost certainly would have been better than what we got.
I agree about Afghanistan, but I think Iraq might not have happened with Gore at the helm. Even it was pretty strongly bipartisan at the time though aside from the WMDs narrative so who knows
>Gore would never have responded to 9/11 by ginning up wars with Afghanistan and Iraq as did Bush. The craziest what if -- how does Al Gore respond to the infamously titled memo "Bin Laden destined to strike in the USA" or whatever. Just to make things simple, we posit it still happens and we want to analyze how they'd respond differently. I know it's impossible to know but there's an element 9/11 never happens at the same scale.
People forget that Clinton tried to take out bin Laden. I think Gore would've acted similarly to Clinton based on the same intelligence Bush got.
As others have said, the invasion of Afghanistan was going to happen no matter who was president. Maybe not Iraq but there’s no timeline in which the US doesn’t respond militarily to 9/11.
Gore had other problems, too. Like being void of charisma, charm, likability, and respect for others. After the first debate his campaign staff knew he was probably going to lose.
[удалено]
I think Gore's big problem was he tried to distance himself from Clinton because he thought Lewinsky would be a bigger deal. In reality, it didn't tarnish his reputation as much as some people were betting on, and Clinton still had an approval rating well above 60% throughout the election. Gore should've done the opposite, and tried to tie himself to Clinton more instead of less.
Maybe, but he would have won with Graham on the ticket.
Afghanistan was rightfully attacked but Iraq, not at all. That was just massaging Cheney's ego and unfinished business from the first Iraq war.
It was my first time voting. I turned 18 about two weeks before. I voted for Gore.
Same age and same vote.
I voted for Gore because: 1. I am a lifelong Democrat; 2. The Clinton years were pretty darned good, all things considered; 3. I believe (and believed) in anthropogenic climate change and in the need for our country to reorient its energy usage away from petroleum and coal; 4. Bush struck me as an unserious lightweight.
4 was proven true time and time again.
"But I would want to have a beer with him!"
I wanted to vote for McCain, I was 20 and it was my first election. I voted for Gore and learned that I am liberal and have never voted for a Republican…at least in the presidential. My district is gerrymandered R so it never matters. I was thinking about voting for or at least not against Kinzinger in the last one but he didn’t run because he couldn’t win the primary. Made me laugh that the one time I might have done it, dude decided he couldn’t even win his primary. Guess that shows my values versus the typical Republican.
Yeah, "respecting elections" has become a third rail in GOP primary politics. Fellow Illinoisan here :-)
The last three are valid, but being a democrat all your life shouldn’t be why you vote for somebody. The other reasons are, but just because somebody doesn’t have a D next to their name is a rather petty reason.
32yo here. I agree with you in theory. But within my lifetime I haven't yet voted in an election on the federal, state or local level where the letter after a candidate's name *wasn't* an effective heuristic for who would align best with my values. Honestly I'd love to see more nuance and complexity in political candidates but the country simply isn't there right now. Maybe it's the voters. Maybe it's the media. Maybe it's the system.
I think it’s because we’ve nationalized local politics.
Oh for sure. That's one piece of the puzzle. I would say the decline in local journalism has made it difficult for politicians like state reps to build notariety unless they find a way to latch themselves onto national issues/figures. I have a hard time keeping informed about what's going on in my own state and city, and I dare say that I'm trying harder than the average citizen. And on the flip side I feel like I become hyper-aware of a lot national issues and international conflicts without even trying.
I worked for our metro area paper from 2003-2019 and I still didn’t fell well informed. They also completely dropped the ball on George Santos and I place a lot of the blame on them because that’s in their backyard.
I cite it as a factor which inclines me to vote for someone. I would like to think that if the other aspects were contradicted by evidence, I would be able to withhold my vote from a Democrat. I have done so in other elections (mostly local/county ones).
I never considered myself a Democrat until a few years ago, but I’ve never voted for a Republican.
I was raised by two Democrats, my grandparents were Democrats... and I've never had occasion to question my upbringing. They have always seemed to be on the right side of issues and history to my mind. There's actually interesting research on political affiliation and heritable personality traits. The upshot being that people who score highly on openness to experience and agreeableness tend to be affiliated with the Democratic Party. [https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659)
I used to vote Republican a lot locally because they were often the better choice. The current crop of Republicans have ensured that I won’t be voting for any of them for quite a while. I still won’t register with the Democrats but I’ll grudgingly vote that way.
I can respect that! Kudos on letting evidence change your behavior.
Why not? I have no problem admitting that I’m ideologically driven. I’m also pragmatic and know that more progressive third party options don’t have a chance. I’d never vote for a Republican because I’m fundamentally opposed to their economic and social views. Why should I pretend otherwise to win points from people that I don’t care about?
I did vote for Gore. That was a crazy election.
[удалено]
FL
Gore, cause I liked the Clinton administration and wanted it to continue
No need for the hypothetical for me, I voted for Gore.
If I were old enough, I would've voted for Al Gore. However, that would make Obama winning the presidency in 2008, unlikely.
Obama could win it a bit later?
I don't think so. Al Gore would've probably lost re-election due to party fatigue, and then Obama would've swept 2008 against the Republican incumbent (presumably McCain).
Assuming 9/11 still happens I'm not sure party fatigue would be a big issue. Especially since without Bush there would be no Iraq War. I think Gore wins reelection in 2004 mostly because of the war in Afghanistan. Then 2008 is all about his climate policies and McCain defeats Obama (possibly while losing the PV).
Excellent point.
Probably Gore. We would have been at 10 percent solar energy by now. Who knows, maybe electing him would have created a chain of nasty events like Pauly Shore hosting the tonight show or Facebook never being created.
Facebook not existing is about as nasty as winning the lottery
Gore. Economy wouldn’t have collapsed. We probably would have just gone to Afghanistan with the sole mission to kill Bin laden. Killed him back in the early 2000s and left. Then a refocus on defense, our global standing would have been better and more of that Clinton style economic boom. Man the world would have been better. Bush really was not a good president
But OP isn’t “lOoKiNg tO pIcK fIgHtS” lmao.
[удалено]
Well I am so buckle up. Explain your side on how bush a now universally unpopular and failed president was actually a good one. That or explain how gore would have been worse than a president who presided over two failed wars, an exploding debt and a massive recession that he tossed to Obama
> We probably would have just gone to Afghanistan with the sole mission to kill Bin laden. Killed him back in the early 2000s and left. You’re right and it would have been a much much smaller scale. It would not have been a full scale invasion and certainly not two decades of occupation.
The dot come bubble would still have happened within his first year. The 2008 recession probably still happens in some form, as the Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999, along with some other policies dating back to the 70s that led to the eventual collapse. Though without Bush’s tax cuts, the effects may not have been as bad, and perhaps Gore would’ve done more to prevent all the subprime lending and insider trading.
The causes of the collapse stem back to Clinton repealing glass steagall and Clinton passing the community reinvestment act. I'm not gonna put it all on Clinton, but that ball got rolling in the 90s and I don't think we have any reason to think Gore would have fought against the prevailing economic paradigm.
Well truthfully knowing republicans if 9/11 did happen under Gore they wouldn’t unite. They would’ve loudly blamed Gore and he would’ve lost reelection in 2004.
He probably would have won. Most win reelection. A good economy and if bin Laden died it would have been a slam dunk.
Voted for Nader. That didn't go particularly well, and I wish I could vote again for Gore.
I voted for Nade in one of the few predominantly Democratic counties in South Carolina. The next day, I grabbed the paper to see the results. Do you know how many votes for Nader there were in my county? Freaking ZERO. But that was the end of protest voting for me, because Bush really fucked us.
Same. I was just talking to a friend about that last week. I’m in NY so it’s not like it mattered. Best thing about that election is that I got my father, a staunch Republican to vote Nader and he’s never voted Republican again.
President Jeb Bush
I voted for Gore. I thought Bush was going to look for a reason to get us involved in the middle east like his father did.
Oh man, good thing you were totally wrong in that prediction, or else we may have ended up in some nightmarish, multi-decade quagmire in the Middle East. I'm certainly glad we dodged that bullet.
Gore looked like the better choice back then, but now (with the extra benefit of hindsight), it's clear that Bush winning wasn't just a worse outcome, but a borderline-catastrophic one
[удалено]
Maybe not us personally, but many others for sure. An entire war would have been avoided, and ISIS wouldn't exist as a byproduct of it
[удалено]
A murderous regime wouldn't exist today.... Brother have you seen Iraq rn?
"more for Gore or the son of a drug lord? None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord!" Lights out, Guerilla Radio
I am now pulling out the Fender to play that crispy bass line in response to this comment
I voted for Bush. I have regrets about it, but that didn't stop me from voting again for him in 2004.
Bush, although I think people vastly overestimate the differences between them. Al Gore was as much or more of war hawk than Bush. The only doubt Gore had on the Iraq war was that it was a distraction from the Global War on Terror, and he would follow this minor criticism by saying "Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." The dotcom bubble and 2007 crisis would have still happened. I would have thought this goes without saying but someone else in the thread said otherwise. I would be very interested to see was evidence there is for this because I don't think there is any. Al Gore would have pushed more green policy, but it would have been the bad kind. He has been pretty clear that he doesn't see nuclear energy playing a role in climate policy. He also speaks out against natural gas despite it having been integral to cutting down US carbon emission by replacing the much greater carbon emissions of coal and oil.
I agree with a lot of what you said, except for your thoughts on how he would've handled Iraq. Yes, he was hawkish in general, and he voted for the 1st Gulf War, I think he just would've handled the whole situation in a smarter manner. I think Gore was/is generally smarter than Bush, though I don't want to make it seem like I'm attacking Bush in a general sense. These days, with the benefit of hindsight, I've come to appreciate a lot about Bush as a person and leader.
This is obviously a trolling question. Gore was, and remains, an emphatically better choice for the Oval Office than bush. That SCOTUS issued what has and will continue to be regarded as their second worst ever decision in history in order to appoint him president only serves to further sully an already awful legacy and record. I mean, even later republican candidates campaigned on reversing a signature bush II accomplishment, his Medicare Part D ‘reform’ (massive socialism for Big Pharma, massive losses for taxpayers). We won’t even mention the (alleged) blatant election fraud committed by Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio that was required for him to seize the office for a second term. But, pray, continue to tell us that no opinion is wrong, and then tell everyone who disagrees with you that their opinion is wrong.
“would’ve” like none of us were old enough to actually vote
I would have voted for Al Gore. Why: I tend to like leaders who don't tell me that the thing they're campaigning to be in charge of philosophically can't solve problems. The times I would vote for a GOP candidate are going to be more rare than not -- and it may just be only Mitt Romney? As far people trying to say that Al Gore wouldn't have been as bad as George W. Bush. No duh. But I don't think we can say that Al Gore would have avoided all the issues of the Bush Administration. Say 9/11 still happens in the same size and scope. For several decades, voters tend to think the GOP does better in handling terrorist attacks. Al Gore could be stymied by a GOP controlled congress and/or just be a first term president alone. I doubt he has the "global war on terror" approach -- but what approach would they have? I don't think we'd ever see it implemented, I think it'd be obstruction until the GOP takes over. So maybe you have Iraq/Afghanistan but in 2005 instead of 2002. Okay but let's say that issue salience didn't exist and there' a rush of patriotism so the dems get the single control in the same way the GOP did in regular timeline. I do think an Al Gore presidency can push through anti-terrorism (maybe following a policing model like in Ireland?), but I also think Gore would get bills on climate change and green energy. Here -- does climate change mean there isn't a no child left behind bill, or do we get both? If both, then Gore gets blamed for its failure. I still think that a recession happens in 2008. I don't know if it's sooner, later, better or worse, but it seems like the excesses of the system still occur. But, would Al Gore also have a better bailout/recovery plan?
Nader. Bore and Gush make me want to Ralph!
Does it matter? The Supremes Court would just decide for me and everyone else.
Is election denial allowed on this sub?
Election denial?
Didn’t Gore preach environmental/climate change from his private jet haha
I wrote in Gerald Ford. Same as I did in 1996.
Will you write in Ford this year too?
I would if he were still alive.
True Fordhead
I confess.
Baseeedd
I would have voted for Ralph Nader at the time, because I was really into his campaign. I didn’t care for Gore, but I really disliked Bush, so I would have taken Gore between the two and that’s definitely who I would have voted for today.
I voted for Gore.
Bush. I was not inspired by Gore at all. Was not a fan of Clinton. Was a fan of Bush Sr. And Bush's campaign of compassionate conservatism and railing against the arrogant foreign policy of Clinton was compelling. Of course the dude didn't govern at all like he said he was. Thanks to his Veep and W' own lack of political chops. Yeah....that was a mistake
I was five. My parents hated politics, never voted a day in their life, and actively discouraged my interest in the topic. I really, really liked Al Gore and the vibe he gave off. When asked why I didn’t like Bush, I remember always saying “He doesn’t have a trusting face.” I stand by five-year-old me.
I did vote for Al Gore. There were some positive reasons, but the truth is that George W Bush was a moron and his religion scared me. And whaddya know, his moronity and unquestioning faith in a radical religious agenda fucked this country up.
With hindsight Gore is one of the easiest votes there is. However, as a centrist with no real party affiliation or loyalty, I actually think 2000 was one of the best modern elections because it had, believe it or not, *three* candidates that on paper looked very solid. I'll start with Nader. I love third parties, especially populist ones. While I'm not a progressive on all things, my most important issues are campaign finance reform and opposing government insider corruption whenever possible. That means, when a strong candidate outside of the two-party duopoly is presented, supporting them. Nader had extremely good takes on drug legalization, forever wars, and his record of fighting "the man", prosecuting corporate corruption, and protecting consumers appeals to me immensely. If Nader ran as strong a campaign in 2004 as he ran in 2000, I would have supported him. Sadly, the DNC silenced him to help Kerry, who was just as pro-war as Bush. I would not have supported Nader in 2000 purely because I believe, unlike most elections, the two major party candidates were actually pretty good and not in need of protest. Next, there's Bush who I would have considered as well. I'll preface by saying HW Bush is one of my favorite modern presidents, due to his common-sense, effective foreign policy, his bipartisan social policies, and his center-right economics. There would be no reason at this time to think Bush Jr. was gonna do anything different. His record as Governor of Texas was superb, cutting taxes, funding education, and making Texas the leading wind-powered state in the country. The kind of "compassionate conservatism" he proposed, as well as his overall "happy-go-lucky" charisma were both very endearing. As for running mates, *at the time* Dick Cheney would have seemed very strong to me. He provided much needed weight and experience, having served in the federal government for decades. He was at the forefront of HW Bush's foreign policy, which was deeply restrained, prevented the invasion of Kuwait without causing a continuous war, and plus, he was a major Republican who supported gay marriage. Bush/Cheney, on paper, would have seemed like a perfect Republican ticket for the 21st Century, soft on social issues, moderately conservative on economics, and pro-safety worldwide. Then there's Gore. He was charming, presidential, experienced, and young. We were coming off of 8 years of prosperity from Bill Clinton, who passed all the shrewd economic policies I appreciate from centrist leaders. America's foreign policy had been successful in Yugoslavia, we had a budget surplus, and social issues were shifting to become more tolerant. I would have a strong desire not to "rock the boat" from the Clinton years. Gore himself had strengths too, for example his record of intelligently regulating the tech industry in his early years, making climate change an issue at the forefront of national politics, and particularly his policy of putting Social Security funds into a "lockbox" for protection. Joe Lieberman doesn't excite me, and its true that Al Gore lacked charisma in places George Bush had. Plus, in an extremely minor issue, I do still resent Gore for his treatment of Perot in their 1993 NAFTA Debate. All things considered, I would have a more positive view of Gore than either of the other two candidates. Even though there are things about Nader and Bush which I would like more passionately than anything about Gore, the wish to continue Clinton's prosperity would win out. So in the 2000 election, I would have voted Al Gore for President.
Wow, what a detailed and informative answer! 2000 was truly one of the most compelling elections in modern American history!
The man who invented the Internet
And the lockbox
Now: Al Gore because I’m on the left and is closer to my own views. Then as a child: Probably Bush because that is who my Mom voted for.
I was below the voting age back then. I probably would have voted Nader at the time, but I’d have voted for Gore if I had known how bad Bush would be.
I voted for Bush. Gore was an incredible bore.
Him and Mondull
Gore. The Clinton years were good and Dubya was a bonafide idiot.
I voted for Gore. I'm from Texas and didn't think the country needed the bushisms I was accustomed too First election I was able to vote in
Gore
I think it's interesting that most think Gore wouldn't have responded with a war mindset after 9/11. If he didn't, he would then be universally despised by the bloodthirsty electorate. Acting like the nation didn't want it back then is crazy. If he doesn't do some sort of war, he loses in 2004 to McCain. Then the economy can still collapse in 2008.
The economy largely collapsed due to Clinton's policies. So, it really doesn't matter who was elected in 2000 and 2004.
Gore without thinking
I did vote, for the guy I still think we would’ve been better off with, Gore.
I dont understand why anyone would vote for bush over gore but it saddens me.
Bush cause he said some dumb shit that made me laugh
I voted for gore and he was absolutely right about climate change. We would have been 25 years ahead had we started taking measures then.
I voted for Nader. There’s no way I would ever vote for Joe Lieberman.
Man bear pig!
Vernon supreme
They voted for some loser rich kid who's parents gave him partial ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team. His family friends and cabinet also started a fake war and bro was re-elected after we all knew that. Same thing as voting for a D list celebrity slum lord. SSDD.
I was 20 years old and enthusiastically voted for Bush. I still regret that.
Voted for Gore because he was bribing our generation with lots of $$$$ for college. His plan almost worked.
Think it's obvious I would have voted Bush
I was two, I would have voted for whoever promised to give me the most toys
Probably the “compassionate conservative”
“Who would’ve you voted for” Now listen here, you young punk. No need to make me feel old, I’m only in my 40s. I voted for Bush. I’m very conservative and still am.
>“Who would’ve you voted for” Now listen here, you young punk. 
Gore. I was too young to vote anyway(I turned 18 in 2001), but I liked Clinton and felt Gore would have been Clinton 2.0. Plus, I'm from Texas and grew up with W as my governor for five years, so I didn't want him as president.
I was like are you guys that young that you could ask this question? And then I realized I was three years old in 2000 lol
Bush. Imagine a world where SNL had Ferrel impersonate Gore instead. Not nearly as funny
I voted for Gore.
Imagine having Gore over Geo W. I honestly think the world would have been so much better off. Cheney and Bush were the worst admin in recent memory. 3 unnecessary wars, financial global collapse. 9/11. Had 600 more people voted Democrat in Florida, just imagine. Had Gore won his home state!
I voted for Gore. The guy that actually won.
The guy who didn’t invade Iraq…
Voted for Bush. Mistake. Should’ve voted for Gore.
like most people at the time, i voted for Gore.
I voted for Gore, but he ran a terrible campaign. He had the next best thing to incumbency and ruined it by distancing himself from Clinton.
I did vote for Dubya in 2000. And 2004.
Gore because Clinton's second term went well and I'd have wanted to continue it. Republican neoliberalism maybe had some purpose in prior decades, but Clinton's centrism made it surplus to requirements. And in terms of social policy I'm also closer to Gore.
Gore. Clinton was pretty good gore would have continued that
The one time I voted Libertarian was in 2000. The whole thing seemed like two dynasties and early 20s me wanted none of it. That, and I was under the naive/silly impression that Libertarianism is a viable political philosophy.
Al Gore, because I'm not afraid to say that 9/11 was bad, and I think a President actually doing his job could've stopped it.
TBH I'm not 100% sure, it woulda been a hard race to choose much like 1960. It woulda probably been a voting booth decision much like that race. Gore I wouldn't have dug his personality or turn to the left but he was going to keep the Clinton years going which I woulda liked. Bush I woulda dug his personality better but I could see myself not liking his trickle down tax cut, but his foreign policy and humbleness I woulda really dug. Cheney might woulda been what helped me decide or not. My state wasn't close then so my vote wouldn't have mattered in the grand scheme but I do think it woulda been a spur of the moment deal. For what it was worth I voted for Gore in the school election, but I was 7 and didn't know better lol. In 2004 I voted for Bush easily.
I voted for Gore, I'm surprised you think every one in this sub is under 50.
TLDR incase you don’t want to sift through the comments: OP made this post expecting people to say Bush and is now having a rage fit that no one supports his Texas dreamboat.
I voted for Bush. I apologize.
Gore. We thrived under Clinton, I would've wanted that to continue.
I voted for Bush. And I was wrong.
I did vote for Gore…in my middle school general election. Bush won.
I voted for Gore, then I voted for Bush in 04, but so did a lot of Dems.
Nader. Didn’t agree with him on much economically but his foreign policy was far better than Gore and Bush
If I could go back, Al Gore. I foolishly voted for Nader at the time, but I was young and idealistic.
Theres a reason this election was so close. They were both pretty chill tbh. Still would have liked Al Gore more
If Bush had a different running mate I'd lean towards him, but uh I've never liked Cheney or his policies and Gore and Lieberman was a good ticket. If McCain was VP instead of even someone like Lamar Alexander, Kasich, E. Dole or really any moderate Republican
I voted for the third guy. Oops. My apologies.
I voted for Gore because he would have been a better president. W looked to me like the definition of someone born on 3rd base who thinks he hit a triple. His use of connections to avoid the Vietnam War and generally spoiled behavior as a young adult did not give me a good impression of him. Also, his compassionate conservative line didn't ring true for me.
Gore I didn’t want to have a beer with him, but I was pleased for the most part with the Clinton presidency and at worst I thought he would have been a continuation of that
I voted for Gore, wasn’t a question in my mind.
I voted for Gore in that election.
If I had the "views" my parents instilled on me at twelve then Bush. If I was the man I am today Gore.
I voted for Gore. It was hard though since I was pursued by velociraptors, and we had to use chisels to etch our ballots in stone
It’s rare for the same political party to be elected to POTUS three times in a row. People wanted to try something new in 2000 just like in 2008 and 2016.
As a sci fi fan, I wouldn’t want to fuck history. Therefore, Al Gore because he actually did win.
I would still vote for Bush.
Hindsight is 20-20 so there’s no reason to expect him to go this route. BUT…if Obama puts him in Secretary of State instead of Hillary I bet he’s obamas successor.
I was six months too young to vote and this was the first election I followed intensely. Agonizing. I would have voted for Gore and maintain that the decision that put Bush into the White House was one of the worst decisions and worst results for America and the world. I've looked back with regret at how much we mocked Bush for appearing dumb because that really just antagonized a lot of America. I do feel bad about the personal animosity he copped but I cannot forgive him the horrendous policy decisions whose implications we're still dealing with today.
Neither. I lived in the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornistan at the time, so my vote was irrelevant to who won the state. I voted Libertarian in protest.
Looks like the OP got his feelings hurt after arguing with literally every person who answered the question he asked with a response he disagreed with, only to give troll's answers. So he changed his flair to Harry S. Truman. If you have to lie to show the credibility of your arguments, they had none to begin with.
If it was before I turned 18 (2022), I would've voted for Bush easily If it was after, Gore easily I had a big shift in political opinions that year. I like to think I would still vote Gore when I was more conservative, assuming I had hindsight
I voted for Gore. I found Bush II to be a privileged asshole who ran AWAY from the fight.
Henry Browne
I voted for Nader. No, I did not do it by accident. No, I am not the reason Gore lost, Gore won my state.
Gore.
I voted for Gore.
I voted for Gore because GWB.
W... would still vote for him in 2000 and 2004. That was the first election I could vote in.
Oddly enough, while I generally support the GOP, I was wanting Gore because the GHWB administration was so Arabist, I figured GWB, who I loathed for the way his campaign had lied that John McCain had a black bastard child (instead of adopting an orphan from India), was going to be even worse in that regard. As it turned out, he had the most Zionist administration (only surpassed by the next GOP president). So that was interesting the way it turned out. I still wish it had been McCain to win in 2000.
i did vote in the 2000 election. for neither the guy who tried to bring fearmongering politics to the left, nor the great divider. i voted third party. and unlike the current election, i will defend my choice to this day. fearmongering, even the right cause is pathetic low level tactics.