It’s crazy to think it’s been sixteen years since Bush v. Gore.
Crazier yet to see parallels between this contest and that one, between these candidates now and those of 2000.
And I found these ‘parallels’ mostly because of a recent election anger that felt so oddly familiar.
I was watching CNN and the main banner read, “Trump is seen as more honest and trustworthy” in a new poll.
What the Trump?
I got angry because it means in a larger sense that the media is not doing its rightful job - it’s fishing for ratings and following a narrative that can be packaged, sold, digested, regurgitated.
Yes, that same anger came to me in the 2000 election.
I was so incensed that the media gave Bush a pass on his intelligence and experience, further made worse by the continuing narrative of Gore as the “inventor of the Internet.”
We had one candidate who was unqualified and unfit for the office while the other was over-qualified and experienced.
And despite that simple reality, the kid from Maine with the fake accent was viewed as the more honest of the two. Republicans made sure it stuck like glue to Gore and in the end, it worked and Bush was “elected” President.
Moreover, Gore and Clinton both have enjoyed something their opponents didn’t: a popular sitting president. Gore’s mistake was perhaps in keeping Bill on the sidelines while Hillary is embracing Obama — is that a game changer? A difference-maker?
Regardless, the popularity and success of Bill should have given Gore an advantage. So let’s be honest and stop blaming Florida: Gore lost.
He blew what should have been a slam dunk against a weak opponent. He tried to be all things to all people at the same time and disappeared into a caricature of himself while democrats simply ‘LOL’d at the opponent.
Bush didn’t win, Gore lost, he choked in epic fashion long before election day and the “tie”.
Now we sit at an eerily similar spot, an unfit boob versus an overqualified candidate with a popular sitting president and a race that is currently far closer than it should be.
The U.S. Presidency is lost, not won. There is always a better candidate with stronger credentials and knowledge and experience. They are the ones about whom we say, “it’s theirs to lose,” And then they go out and do that, they lose and because they do so, the educated voter gets the shaft...or the Bush.
In fact, what ultimately happened in 2000 is that the democrats spent so much effort and time and money condescending Bush that they forgot to humanize their own candidate (who would then humanize himself by ending the election gracefully).
And that is the most frightening parallel I see today: democrats expending so much on Trump that they’ve under estimated his appeal while forgetting to humanize Hillary. Democrats haven’t even tried to sell some of the things she’s accomplished — they’re playing offense, yes, but in any team sport you have to play defense too.
Polls are playing this out, same as 2000, where Democrats laughed at the GOP nominee all the way to a historic loss.
In the end though, there is one difference between Election 2000 and Election 2016 — my own perspective. I truly believed back then that the polls were off and that there was NO WAY the American public would elect that spoiled rich kid, made by his father, who knew nothing about the world — nor did he want to.
They elected that boob alright...twice.
So yes, now I know better and if she’s as smart as they say, Hillary should too. Indeed, as a candidate, Trump makes Bush Jr. look like Eisenhower so it goes almost without saying….
It’s very much hers to lose but, I’m sorry to say, that’s precisely what she is doing.