Opinion Which Presidential Election loss was more consequential? Al Gore losing the 2000 Election or Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 Election?

[PhitePhan]

You know this reflects a complete misunderstanding of how political candidates are chosen right?

So you’re saying I shouldn’t expect to have a say in which political candidate represents me, and that me complaining about the DNC rigging the primaries is due to my “misunderstanding” that my vote wouldn’t actually count?

Wow.

 

[sleepwalk]

What on Earth does that mean? Buchanan is an isolationist.

Buchanan was also socially conservative to the point it worried my dad, a social, fiscal conservative who loves the hell out of John Wayne, red meat, and the GOP. Over (probably way over) 70% of voters don't give a shit about fixing or preventing any problems. They care about how these candidates make them feel. Democrat and left-leaning folks were going to feel very bad.

 

[panamaican]

its early yet to properly assess the orange fuckwits legacy, im inclined to think bush gave us the clusterfucks of iraq, afghanistan and the war on terror that came to roost in the west , but trumplestilstkin could ignite another major event if he lets putin get away with his bullshit, and he has dragged politics down into the sewer, the age of stupid is upon us and idiocracy is in full flow..

As much as people decry Bush and Iraq, I don't think there would have been any other outcome after 9/11.

 

[Hog-train]

The question is asking which election loss was worse, so we are pretty much comparing whether we are worse off because of Trump or Bush.

The only thing catastrophic that happened due to Trump is the skewing of the Supreme Court.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Definitely HRC. Gore lost to Bush but despite the criticisms of him, Bush understood the general gravity of his responsibilities. HRC lost to Trump, who in my opinion is the dumpster fire of dumpster fires as a world leader.

Tangentially, no matter what anyone thinks about him, DJT and his heirs will always be able to claim "Yeah but he was the President of the United States...what have you done with your life?" And there really isn't a rebuttal, lol.

- Was all Bush Jr fault wasnt his cabinet wanting war for whatnever reason? As a poster said before. Trump isnt a leader, he is a charismatic manipulative person.

 

[curryjunkie]

As much as people decry Bush and Iraq, I don't think there would have been any other outcome after 9/11.

well, they could have picked the correct country for retribution instead of finishing bush seniors crusade.

 

[panamaican]

So you’re saying I shouldn’t expect to have a say in which political candidate represents me, and that me complaining about the DNC rigging the primaries is due to my “misunderstanding” that my vote wouldn’t actually count?

Wow.

I'm saying that before you claim that your vote was stolen or that something was rigged, it would help to actually understand what is happening.

If that's a "wow" moment for you then I'm disappointed in your grasp of the election process.

I'll try to keep this simple. Political parties are not government entities. They do not have to follow any rules on how they select their candidates. When you vote in a primary or other such event, you are not voting for the candidate who will represent you. Let that sink in for a moment. The primaries are not about which candidate will represent you.

The primaries are how the parties determine which of their preferred candidates will get the most support if they ran them as their nominee. But if you're not part of the party leadership, you don't have any real say in who they nominate. Your primary vote doesn't even mean anything until the actual conventions where the party delegates, not the random voters, actually vote for the nominee.

But to add more detail to this tragic lack of understanding. If someone voted for Joe Biden then they voted for Kamala Harris as his running mate. That means they voted for Joe Biden knowing that if Joe ever had to drop out of his role as POTUS, they would be okay with his VP stepping into that role. His VP was Kamala Harris.

It is deeply disingenuous for people who claim to understand politics to say that they voted for Joe Biden knowing that his replacement was Kamala Harris if something went wrong to subsequently complain that they didn't vote for Kamala Harris to take over if something went wrong. That's exactly what the VP position does -- it takes over if the POTUS can't/won't continue.

Either these people are stupid or they're liars.

 

[panamaican]

- Was all Bush Jr fault wasnt his cabinet wanting war for whatnever reason? As a poster said before. Trump isnt a leader, he is a charismatic manipulative person.

I think we end up in Iraq and Afghanistan no matter what because I don't think 9/11 happens and we do anything except invade.

 

[panamaican]

well, they could have picked the correct country for retribution instead of finishing bush seniors crusade.

But they wouldn't have picked the correct country because the backend Pentagon piece was always going to drive that decision. And Al Gore wouldn't have had the political strength to tell them no. Americans wanted blood. And even if we picked the "correct country", it's the same War on Terror conversation and Patriot Act outcomes.

I just don't see how we don't end up fighting terrorists in the Middle East regardless of which country we initiated the invasion through.

 

[curryjunkie]

But they wouldn't have picked the correct country because the backend Pentagon piece was always going to drive that decision. And Al Gore wouldn't have had the political strength to tell them no. Americans wanted blood. And even if we picked the "correct country", it's the same War on Terror conversation and Patriot Act outcomes.

I just don't see how we don't end up fighting terrorists in the Middle East regardless of which country we initiated the invasion through.

think it depends how well an administration handled the post conflict hearts and minds debacle, if the likes of haliburton and others werent so fuckin greedy, they could have toppled saddam, got the fuck out, job done, cutting the head off the ba'ath party and leaving would have been enough, but they wanted that oil and reconstruction cash. they could have leaned heavily on saudi arabia to cough up billions in reparations instead. nope, they pissed in the hornets nest and look what happened.the british (three times) , the germans and the russians all got their asses kicked in afghanistan, yet the yanks thought they could win.

 

[panamaican]

think it depends how well an administration handled the post conflict hearts and minds debacle, if the likes of haliburton and others werent so fuckin greedy, they could have toppled saddam, got the fuck out, job done, cutting the head off the ba'ath party and leaving would have been enough, but they wanted that oil and reconstruction cash. they could have leaned heavily on saudi arabia to cough up billions in reparations instead. nope, they pissed in the hornets nest and look what happened.the british (three times) , the germans and the russians all got their asses kicked in afghanistan, yet the yanks thought they could win.

I don't know enough to say you're wrong but my sense at the time and the subsequent years is that this was always going to be fait accompli.

 

[curryjunkie]

I don't know enough to say you're wrong but my sense at the time and the subsequent years is that this was always going to be fait accompli.

i think america would have demanded blood someway,it was an unprecedented shock, but im not sure a democrat admin would have made as many blunders.if that happened today they would simply drone the fuck out of the offending nation.

 

[PhitePhan]

I'm saying that before you claim that your vote was stolen or that something was rigged, it would help to actually understand what is happening.

If that's a "wow" moment for you then I'm disappointed in your grasp of the election process.

I'll try to keep this simple. Political parties are not government entities. They do not have to follow any rules on how they select their candidates. When you vote in a primary or other such event, you are not voting for the candidate who will represent you. Let that sink in for a moment. The primaries are not about which candidate will represent you.

The primaries are how the parties determine which of their preferred candidates will get the most support if they ran them as their nominee. But if you're not part of the party leadership, you don't have any real say in who they nominate. Your primary vote doesn't even mean anything until the actual conventions where the party delegates, not the random voters, actually vote for the nominee.

You’re simply parroting what I’ve stated about the DNC and then telling me I lack understanding for criticizing this anti democratic process. I understand the process but believe it is antithetical to democratic principles.

Prior to 2016, it was not common knowledge that peoples’ votes in the primaries were meaningless (hence the lawsuits and political fallout after DNC rigged the “election”) and that is when the DNC was exposed and the general public learned that they have no say in who represents them as president.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Bush-Gore and it's not remotely close. Only mental midgets would argue the opposite. 9/11, Afghanistan/Iraq, the Patriot Act, housing collapse, our massive neverending and continually climbing debt could have possibly all gone differently.

You could argue that 9/11 and the housing crisis would've happened either way but I agree that the Iraq war was a massive and avoidable disaster that would not have happened had Bush lost.

So is that a “yes” or a “no” to the SCOTUS allowing the DNC’s rigging of the primaries?

The DNC is a private organization and has wide latitude to conduct the primaries as they see fit. You can take issue with how they ran it but its not a constitutional matter as far as I know. You could theoretically have a political party where the primary is contested by rock, paper, scissors and it would legal if unorthodox.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Buchanan was also socially conservative to the point it worried my dad, a social, fiscal conservative who loves the hell out of John Wayne, red meat, and the GOP. Over (probably way over) 70% of voters don't give a shit about fixing or preventing any problems. They care about how these candidates make them feel. Democrat and left-leaning folks were going to feel very bad.

It's just an odd way to say it and suggests that your dad didn't actually understand Buchanan's policy positions. Pretty much every Republican other than Ron Paul made Buchanan 'seem like a teddy bear' given that Buchanan didn't want America getting involved in pretty much any foreign wars.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The case for Bush would be that had Gore won, the US and possibly the entire world would likely be in a much better position against climate change. If the human race were to someday end because of climate change, aliens would probably point to the Bush election as the turning point for us .

This might upset people on all sides, but I think the end is in sight for climate change. There's been a lot of damage done by our delayed action, and further damage is inevitable, but I think if everyone hits realistic targets, we should stop the rise at about 2C, which means we avoid some of the worst-case projected scenarios, though that will still have a big cost. I agree that a Gore win in 2000 would have saved a lot of damage, but I don't think that should be measured in terms of apocalyptic risk as much as in damage (economic and quality of life).

 

[PhitePhan]

The DNC is a private organization and has wide latitude to conduct the primaries as they see fit. You can take issue with how they ran it but its not a constitutional matter as far as I know. You could theoretically have a political party where the primary is contested by rock, paper, scissors and it would legal if unorthodox.

Cool, so our votes don’t really count. You seem surprisingly chill about this affront to our blessed democracy and the fair transition of power, weird.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The DNC is a private organization and has wide latitude to conduct the primaries as they see fit. You can take issue with how they ran it but its not a constitutional matter as far as I know. You could theoretically have a political party where the primary is contested by rock, paper, scissors and it would legal if unorthodox.

Or they can have no primaries or no meaningful ones, as was the case until very recently. It's 100% not a constitutional matter.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Cool, so our votes don’t really count. You seem surprisingly chill about this affront to our blessed democracy and the fair transition of power, weird.

Uh that's not what I said but I'm not surprised you'd respond with this kind of post.

Or they can have no primaries or no meaningful ones, as was the case until very recently. It's 100% not a constitutional matter.

If people don't like it they can and should make it know to the relevant party but to equate that with Trump's attempted coup strikes me as a false equivalency. Trump was asking Pence to ignore the Electoral Count Act of 1887, big difference.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Uh that's not what I said but I'm not surprised you'd respond with this kind of post.

If people don't like it they can and should make it know to the relevant party but to equate that with Trump's attempted coup strikes me as a false equivalency. Trump was asking Pence to ignore the Electoral Count Act of 1887, big difference.

It's absolutely a false equivalence. The only reason parties have primaries is that they get voters more engaged, and taking them away once they were put in place would upset their own voters. But general elections are fundamental to our freedoms.