Category: Uncategorized

Bush Country, 2000

In just over the hundred years that had passed after the 1876 contested election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden, there wasn’t really any other contested elections that could match that scale, that is, until the turn of the twenty-first century. 

The election of 2000 is one that most people remember as an incredibly close race between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. There were concessions made, taken back, and ballots recounted, leaving the overall general American public just really confused as to who had emerged victorious in the 2000 presidential election. 

What added to this confusion was the people putting out the information to the American people: the news. While Americans waited with bated breath to hear what the remaining state Florida’s votes look like, one news source broke the story that Bush had won. 

Other news channels followed suit, only to ultimately take this back because Florida ended up being too close to call. Since news channels had being using different systems to count the votes, their information was contradictory. So where does that leave us in 2024 with already partisan and conflicting news sources? 

In the 2024 election between President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, there have already been tensions over news media. When determining what news network the second presidential debate should be on, Trump argued that he would not participate unless the debate was held on Fox News. 

Parties aren’t just splitting people apart anymore, they’re splitting the news we receive as well. News audiences have to comb through the information they receive, weeding out the ‘fake’ from the real.

With media contesting elections like we saw the 2000 election, how will we know what to believe in the predictably contested 2024 presidential election? Further, having gone over a hundred years without a contested election, does evolving and ever-present media mean we have to prepare for contested elections to become the norm for American democracy?

In last week’s blog post, I compared the tone of the 1800 and 2024. In these elections, candidates framed the stakes as particularly consequential. The same can be said of the election of 1860. 

In 1860, the nation’s debate around slavery had reached “a boiling point” (UVA Miller Center). The debate around slavery complicated each party’s nomination process. The Democratic convention was so heated, that the party wasn’t even able to make a decision when they initially met; debate between the Northern and Southern delegates about how the party should address slavery was too intense. When the party reconvened six weeks later, Stephen Douglas was eventually nominated. However, Southern democratic delegates were unsatisfied with this choice. These delegates would reconvene and nominate John C. Breckenridge as the Southern Democratic nominee.  

On the Republican side, the convention was also somewhat contested. Entering the convention, William H. Seward was seen as the frontrunner. However, by the third ballot, Abraham Lincoln had captured the nomination. Additionally, John Bell of the Constitutional Union party was elected.

As the campaign heated up, Lincoln was seen as a frontrunner. The divided support of the Democrats paired with the North’s views on slavery gave Lincoln a clear advantage. This perceived advantage made Lincoln the target of dramatic personal attacks. These attacks dramatized how Lincoln’s position on slavery would direct the future of the country. A secessionist in Georgia claimed Lincoln wanted to “force the inter-marriage of black and white children” (UVA Miller Center). 

In the last presidential debate, Trump similarly criticized the future a Harris presidency would create. These critiques often include racial undertones, particularly when Trump critiques Harris’ plans on immigration. 

Like Jefferson in 1800 and Lincoln in 1860, Kamala faces bold attacks against the future of America that could be created by her presidency. Lincoln seemed to follow the mentality adopted by Jefferson when he faced these attacks; he stayed calm and non combative. While it might be difficult for Kamala to appear unfazed by Trump’s attacks – especially in a modern media environment – history seems to encourage such a mentality. 

References: 

“Abraham Lincoln: Campaigns and Elections,” Michael Burlingame, https://millercenter.org/president/lincoln/campaigns-and-elections

“Harris says ‘We’re not going back!’ So did Thomas Jefferson?”, jarviser2, https://his295-fall2024.sites.grinnell.edu/week-3/harris-says-were-not-going-back-thomas-jefferson/