An analysis of the al gore email controversy and its effect on 2000 election

Bush became the early front-runner, acquiring unprecedented funding and a broad base of leadership support based on his governorship of Texas and the name recognition and connections of the Bush family.

An analysis of the al gore email controversy and its effect on 2000 election

In 3 states, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, Nader neither appeared on the state ballot nor was he eligible to receive write-in votes. Campaign issues Nader campaigned against the pervasiveness of corporate power and spoke on the need for campaign finance reform.

He also focused on the three-strikes rule, exoneration for prisoners for drug related non-violent crimeslegalization of commercial hemp and a shift in tax policies to place the burden more heavily on corporations than on the middle and lower classes. He opposed pollution credits and giveaways of publicly owned assets.

Nader and many of his supporters believed that the Democratic Party had drifted too far to the right. Throughout the campaign, Nader noted he had no worries about taking votes from Al Gore.

The campaign staged a series of large political Super Rallies that each drew over 10, paying attendees, such as 12, in Boston. Bush defeated Al Gore by votes. Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: The 22, votes for Nader 3. They wrote an open letter to Nader dated October 21,which stated in part, "It is now clear that you might well give the White House to Bush.

As a result, you would set back significantly the social progress to which you have devoted your entire, astonishing career. You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states.

You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states.

Disenfranchised By Design?

Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless.

Our membership did rise, but Mr. Nader ignores the harmful consequences of the Reagan-Watt tenure. Logging in national forests doubled. Acid rain fell unchecked.

Cities were choked with smog. Oil drilling, mining and grazing increased on public lands. A Bush administration promises more drilling and logging, and less oversight of polluters.

Dispelling the Myth of Election Did Nader Cost Gore the Election?

It would be little solace if our membership grew while our health suffered and our natural resources were plundered. If Gore loses even a few of those states, then Hello, President Bush. And if Bush does win, then Goodbye to so much of what Nader and his followers profess to cherish.

So it particularly damning that Nader fails to clear even this low threshold [Honesty]. His public appearances during the campaign, far from brutally honest, were larded with dissembling, prevarication and demagoguery, empty catchphrases and scripted one-liners. Perhaps you think this was an unavoidable response to the constraints of campaign sound-bite journalism.

But when given more than pages to explain his case in depth, Nader merely repeats his tired aphorisms. Burden in showed Nader while did "play a pivotal role in determining who would become president following the election", but that: A spoiler strategy would have caused him to focus disproportionately on the most competitive states and markets with the hopes of being a key player in the outcome.

There is no evidence that his appearances responded to closeness. There was the debate within the Nader campaign over where to travel in the waning days of the campaign. Some Nader advisers urged him to spend his time in uncontested states such as New York and California.

An analysis of the al gore email controversy and its effect on 2000 election

These states — where liberals and leftists could entertain the thought of voting Nader without fear of aiding Bush — offered the richest harvest of potential votes. Nader — who emerges from this account as the house radical of his own campaign — insisted on spending the final days of the campaign on a whirlwind tour of battleground states such as Pennsylvania and Florida.

In other words, he chose to go where the votes were scarcest, jeopardizing his own chances of winning 5 percent of the vote, which he needed to gain federal funds in Here's what happened in On Election Night, Nov.

7, the major TV networks called Florida for Bush (after earlier in the night having called it for Gore), prompting Gore to concede in a phone. Gore () The Supreme Court decision that decided the Presidential Election should go down in history as one of the court's most ill-conceived judgments.

In issuing its poorly-reasoned ruling in Bush v. Vice President Al Gore and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman headed the Democratic ticket.

Ralph Nader presidential campaign, - Wikipedia

Texas Governor George Bush and former Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney headed the Republican ticket. For weeks before the election, polls showed Gore and Bush running neck and neck, too close to call nationally and in many states.

The Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost. by GERALD M. POMPER. Political Science Quarterly, Summer , volume , issue 2, page The presidential election of stands at best as a paradox, at worst as a scandal, of American democracy. (Bush - Gore) The Presidential Election was the most recent election where the popular vote winner was not elected.

George W. Bush, son of former President George H.W. Bush, ran on the Republican ticket against Democratic candidate, and the sitting Vice President, Al Gore.

NBC had been first to declare a winner in Florida on Tuesday, saying Al Gore won at p.m EST. Its rivals quickly followed suit, basing their information largely on polling data provided by Voter News Service, a consortium created by The Associated Press, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC.

The Presidential Election: Why Gore Lost