- Messages
- 4,025
A lot of you may recall the too-close-to-call 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote to George W. Bush. Well, after I change history, the 2000 election won't be such a big deal at all, either during the time or historically.
In my rough model, Bush beat Gore handily in both the popular and electoral vote. This shall be fueled by the fiasco over the Clinton scandals and the controversy over Gore's stance on global warming, among a few other things I can't name right now.
As of now, I don't currently have a model for how the Electoral College will look state-by-state in the election, but I do have estimates for the popular vote. I have Bush at 52.7%, Gore at 46.0%, and third parties at 1.3%. So, we should assume the electoral vote is strongly in favor of Bush as well.
This election, as good as it sounds, won't be as good for Bush as reelection time in 2004, where Bush beats John Kerry by a landslide. This is fueled by grassroots patriotism following the 9/11 attacks, and that includes a Grassroots Patriotic-American Movement beginning shortly after 9/11, instead of beginning shortly after Obama takes office, as is the current historical case.
I know Dubya was not one of our best presidents, but IMO he was certainly not near as bad as Obama, Carter, LBJ, or Nixon. Thoughts?
In my rough model, Bush beat Gore handily in both the popular and electoral vote. This shall be fueled by the fiasco over the Clinton scandals and the controversy over Gore's stance on global warming, among a few other things I can't name right now.
As of now, I don't currently have a model for how the Electoral College will look state-by-state in the election, but I do have estimates for the popular vote. I have Bush at 52.7%, Gore at 46.0%, and third parties at 1.3%. So, we should assume the electoral vote is strongly in favor of Bush as well.
This election, as good as it sounds, won't be as good for Bush as reelection time in 2004, where Bush beats John Kerry by a landslide. This is fueled by grassroots patriotism following the 9/11 attacks, and that includes a Grassroots Patriotic-American Movement beginning shortly after 9/11, instead of beginning shortly after Obama takes office, as is the current historical case.
I know Dubya was not one of our best presidents, but IMO he was certainly not near as bad as Obama, Carter, LBJ, or Nixon. Thoughts?