Talk Elections

Gore himself.

Either Gore or Lieberman.

Al Gore

Gore himself.

1. Ralph Nader and his voters.

2. Electoral college system.

3.  Butterfly ballot.

4. Clinton's libido.

5. Gore himself.

...

825. Lieberman.

Idea that Gore commited an electoral suicide and pulled the defeat out of the jaws of victory is wrong, in my opinion. People often try to blame everything on the candidate, it seems like every losing candidate in last 200 years blew an election by campaigning poorly or picking the wrong running mate (which is always the most overanalyzed campaign decision that rarely makes the difference between winning and losing). As a matter of fact, Gore ran a solid campaign and managed to beat Bush by 550,000 popular votes after trailing in polls against him since mid-1999. It was a bizarre and unrepeatable set of circumstances that prevented him from becoming President, and if those circumstances haven't been in place, he'd be praised for Truman II comeback. Sure, he made some mistakes, but almost everybody does. Bush made even more of them, in my opinion.

Now I'm going to take a shower because I feel dirty after defending Al Gore.  

Butterfly ballot

That was designed by a Democrat.

Gore, without a doubt.  This should have been the map:
()

Give TN to Bush and OH+NV to Gore. That should have been the map. (I would anticipate Gore losing TN since he flip-flopped on abortion and gay rights after he left the Senate.)

OK.

It was so close that any reason anyone names can be argued to be the reason. He should have given more attention to Arkansas and West Virginia, he should have gone for Ohio rather than Florida, he should have carried his home state, he shouldn't have sighed... or its Nader's fault, it's the fault of minor Trot parties in Florida, its the fault of the ballot design in Florida, the fault of the blacklist in Florida, the fault of the Supreme Court, the fault the electoral system, fault of the fault of the fault of the fault...

But, basically, Guderian is right. Gore did very well - a few minor mistakes and various weird events (most of which no one could have ever predicted) where what cost him the election, not major errors. Most fightbacks don't quite make it at this level; as HHH and Ford could tell you as well.

Gore. He to way to much for granted. Although, I still say Bill could've helped a bit more than he did.

Ralph Nader should've been an option in this poll!

The Supreme Court ;)

Gore told Bill not to help and if Gore had run a good campaign he could have made Nader irrelevant.

If you're going to say Nader, then you might as well say it was Bush. 50,456,002 people voted for him. Only 2,882,955 voted for Nader.

I agree with this. Bush Sr. didn't need Reagan's help to win a landslide victory, so Gore shouldn't have needed Bill Clinton's help to do the same.

Actually if you're going to say 'Nader' you might as well say 'Clinton'... there's a reason why nearly three million voted for a fringe candidate despite the election being close...

TIPPER!!!!!!

Why?

Is his point that hard to comprehend?

Ralph Nader

I'm always amazed he came as close to winning as he did.

Let's see, he lost his home state of TN, Clinton's home state of AR, an WV which had been a locked in democratic state since the civil war.  Another mistake was OH which Gore pulled out of 6 weeks before the election because of polls showing him down by double digits and it turned out to only be by a few points.  Any of these states would've helped.  His positions on guns hurt him in all 4 of those states too.  Going into that election I had Bush winning 51-45 anyhow so I was surprised to even see it that close.

A Democrat in name only, who used the term "Democrat Party", and later switched parties.

Correct.

She was still a Democrat at the time of the election, though.

Looking back at this, I should have included Joe Lieberman as an option.

Nader was only second to Gore himself is causing Gore to lose.

Yes, in name only.

That's irrelevant whether she was a DINO or a real Democrat. Democrat means Democrat.

He should have brought Bill Clinton onto the campaign trail, and campaigned in Tennessee, Arkansas and Ohio more.

How Al Gore managed to lose his home state is beyond me. Even Walter Mondale won his home state. By that point, people from Tennessee had been electing a guy named "Gore" at the state level since the 1950s--it's amazing how he could throw away a statewide political dynasty.

Even if he had asked Bill Clinton to campaign in Arkansas (hardly a move that would alienate swing voters), he could've won.

Gore lost Tennessee because he flip-flopped on abortion, guns, and gay rights after he became VP and thus many of his former supporters deserted him. And I agree that Clinton should have campaigned more with Gore, but Clinton should have focused more on FL and NH. I doubt Clinton could have swung Arkansas to Gore--the margin there was just too large.

Clinton could have helped Gore in Ohio aswell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPPdqWzIaXU&feature=related

Gore for sure. The debates were critical.

Gore himself. He ran a horrible campaign, while Bush ran a great, I have to admit, campaign. While he actually won a popular vote, I'd rather attribute this to Democratic administration popularity, than anything Gore did as a candidate.

Also, Gore took his home state (which still was fairly close) for granted. Had he only show up, he'd probably carry it (and the Presidency).

Oh, and distancing from Bill didn't help at all.

Jeb Bush.

He wasn't liberal enough.

Kathrine Harris

Gore worked as hard as he could have and while he may not have been the most likable candidate, his personal attributes were/are somewhat out of his control.

With regard to using Clinton, I think that he was advised not to due to the Lewinsky debacle. Whether she should have is hindsight in 20-20, but I think it might have helped him in some places (Arkansas, West Virginia, Tennessee) and perhaps hurt him elsewhere by drawing his focus (and money) to these smaller battlegrounds. Let's remember that Oregon, Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent, Minnesota were up for grabs throughout the campaign and an increase in spending in Appalachia could have cost him in the Midwest and PNW.

On a side note, that is what I based my timeline on (Clinton being used more) and we'll see if it proves successful. Yes, I will be updating it soon. I am getting ready to move in this week so things are rather up in the air.

It was Bush who was ahead most of the time.

Gore only started catching up at the end due to the DUI scandal's release.

Gore could of picked Bob Wise as a running mate, won WV, and then the Presidency. Or he could of won his home state, which shows how popular he was.

Looking at the tracking polls, Bush led throughout most of the race. Since he won his reelection his reelection in 1998, he had been touted not only as the front runner for the GOP nomination, but the Presidency on the whole. There are three ways to interpret this: either Bush was an uber-campaigner, he was a media darling, or Gore was viewed very negatively from the start. I would argue that only the second factor was totally true. The media created an image of Bush as some sort of "compassionate conservative", a term he used but they refused to dig into. They allowed him to set the tone of the election, and rarely called into question many of his decisions as Governor. For those who say that they made him look like an idiot, most of his gaffes made him appear relatable and lovable to most Americans.

With that in mind, the next question is why did Bush end up losing the popular vote? It was often speculated that he could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, when the opposite ended up happening. But why did this happen? There are several factors. The first is the DUI revelation. Rove urged Bush to publicize this after he wrapped up the nomination. Much like the Jeremiah Wright story, it would have largely blown over by November. Instead, it became public in September and caused an erosion of support among Evangelicals. Many stayed home, making states like Florida much closer. A second factor is that many undecideds ultimately backed Gore due to their stable economic positions. They saw him as a continuation of Clinton-era policies which had brought them stability. The third factor is that Gore actually ran a solid campaign post-Convention. While he had many slip-ups (most notably the debates) and could have chosen a better running-mate, Gore effectively narrowed the gap between him and Bush. Some of this can be attributed to his populist re-branding and effective use of the economy as a crucial issue. In the end, it wasn't enough.

In conclusion, it's important to understand the realities of the 2000 Campaign. Bush, not Gore, had everything to lose. He was touted by the media as the most likely President of any of the candidates in the field. The Monica Lewinsky scandal made many Americans hungry for a morally sound leader. Bush appeared to be that. Also, he lacked many substantial differences with Clinton on economic policy. He was no Tea Partier. It was Gore who had everything to win. He trailed in the polls literally for years. He bested Bill Bradley in the primaries, and made a solid comeback against Bush. The fact that he lost can be attributed to several factors. Despite the fact that he ran a good campaign, Gore is still largely to blame. Part of the reason he started so far behind Bush was his personality. Voters didn't see him as Presidential or a strong, charismatic, leader. They also failed to connect him to the prosperity of the Clinton years. In short, Gore's campaign was better than Gore the candidate.

The fact that Monica was even an issue shows you what a screwed up value system Americans have.

^^^^

It was obviously the Bush campaign. There's no way in hell Bush could have won in a situation where the vote was extremely close.

"Gore himself" is the answer. However, Lieberman and Tipper Gore should be options in this poll.

What about Ralph Nader?

Uh, no. Blaming third party candidates (especially those who got less than 5% nationwide) is an easy excuse.

The supreme court, Katherine Harris, and Gore for not embracing Clinton and his legacy

The same thing of my friend over here but I added some responsibles for Gore loss...

Gore and Lieberman. Lieberman was a poor running mate choice, and Gore should have campaigned more in New Hampshire. Would have won him the election at an even 270 (factoring in faithless elector). Regardless, the Supreme Court also played a role in this.

Gore, for running from the Clinton record.  The 90s were a very prosperous time for the country, he had no REAL reason to distance himself from that.  Clinton's infidelity wasn't going to sway very many people away from Gore.  This should have been his map.  

()

Besides, he had already tied himself to Clinton during the impeachment fiasco.  Gore's obsequious comments towards Clinton at the end of it are what ensured I wasn't voting for him in 2000.  I was supporting Bradley during the primaries, and then in the general I had a tough time choosing between Bush and Nader.  In the end, I voted Nader, but if he hadn't been on the ballot I would have voted Bush.

Gore/Lieberman  "blame yourself" and his legal team

I think they all did to some extent, but probably Gore himself.

Gore lost?

When it was lost by 537 votes, literally anything could be blamed.

Exactly.

The obvious answer is Ralph Nader.

Bubba

Look, George W. Bush was a good candidate. Bush was a successful governor who ran on a vision of lower taxes, rebuilding the military, reforming education, and preserving social security and medicare while adding a senior prescription drug program to medicare. Al Gore's agenda was to get the government more involved in education, medicare, and health care. But, if we must assign blame to Gore's loss, it would be Monica. Without Monica, Gore would have used Bill Clinton more and he probably would have won Florida.

Gore himself was the main reason why he lost. He had other reasons sure but his campaign lacked some important decisions and steps he should have taken.

Mainly was his distance from Clinton. Billy boy was rarely seen nationally besides mainly being with Hillary and that was a huge mistake.  The man was a success as a President and had fine approval ratings. So what he got in the mood with a hot intern? Gore was an idiot for not bringing him along and promising to continue the success and prosperity.  But like Bush Sr in '88, he could also promise to be better than his boss at certain things, mainly the moral part. Bush Sr promised the "Kinder, gentler America," routine. Gore could have done something like that with his personal ethics but not shoved Clinton away.

Second was his VP choice. I don't know about you folks but I never found Joe Liberman exciting or even memorable. To be fair Chaney wasn't either at first glance but everyone knows him know for being an upmost jerk and supervillain eque. What was Liberman known for? Being the boring old guy who's bud's with John McCain. There were many a man or woman who would have been more fit and excited the base better.

Third was Bush.  Dubya comes across as a nice a good man who sees to be like an everyman and would enjoy a beer here and there, but Gore always came off as a nerd/jerk. He was a bore and seemed too complicated. Bush was connectable and Gore wasn't.  Bush ran a well done campaign that went to the issues and focused on optimism minus the attack ad here and there. Gore's ads were boring or missed the point.

Nader had a small part to do with it but he gets crapped on by liberals way to much for his campaign in 2000.  He was out to give the hard liberals and grass roots progressives a voice because they felt Clinton/Gore sold out to the center too much.  He was wanting to be like Eugene Debs in that way and in a way he did. He got a million people out and that's high for a candidate of his scope.  But the odd thing is that most of his supporters was that a lot of them would have stayed home or skipped the presidential side of the ballot on election day. Bush/Gore didn't turn them on and the other third party candidates didn't matter. Nader gave them their voice and became a pariah to the Democrats as a result. Unfairly I might add.

In the end Gore killed himself more than Billy or Monica did.

Ralph Nader. Without him in the race, yes, some supporters would have stayed home, but tons more than enough would turn out to give FL to Gore.

I'd like to posit: nobody. If that isn't acceptable, Bill Clinton.

Historically, a Vice President following an incumbent President into the White House is a tall order. Nixon scored 49.55%, Humphrey 42.72%, George H.W. Bush 53.37%, and Al Gore 48.38%. The struggle to differentiate and yet retain the incumbent's voters is extraordinarily difficult. Even with a strong economy (present in 1968, 1988, and 2000), and a popular president (1960, 1988, and 2000), vice presidents tend to not win huge majorities of their own. Given that, maybe Gore should be credited as a better candidate than what history remembers him as. He did win the popular vote, and did come within 600 votes of the presidency. He surmounted the Clinton scandal far better than other vice presidents have taken on retiring presidents' scandals.

Alternatively, Bill Clinton's Lewinksy scandal hurt Gore a lot. It forced Gore to separate himself from Clinton more directly instead of directly running on Clinton's legacy in an easier way. It angered Southern voters who had backed Clinton. It gave Bush 43 an opening to take their electoral votes. More than anyone else, Clinton endangered the Democrats' chances of 2000. It hurt the Democrats, where in times of economic peace and prosperity, people shifted their concerns to cultural issues. Exit polls in almost all of the states Bush won that Clinton won in 1992 or 1996 credited the scandal for their vote.

I don't blame Gore directly - he played better than the hand he was given. Nader's a silly third party argument. Clinton or nobody IMO are the best answers.

He himself, but only because he wrote off his own home state. He won that and Florida would never have been an issue.

True that. Same goes for New Hampshire.  Gore was too confident. 

Kind of amazing to see such epic state turnover in one election. 11 states switched over from Clinton to Dubya. The 5% increase in voter population turnout probably helped a lot as well.