Who is most responsible for Gore's loss in 2000? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 06, 2024, 03:26:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Who is most responsible for Gore's loss in 2000? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: .
#1
Gore himself
 
#2
Monica
 
#3
Bill Clinton
 
#4
Hillary Clinton
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 135

Author Topic: Who is most responsible for Gore's loss in 2000?  (Read 28255 times)
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


« on: November 18, 2014, 10:59:55 PM »

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.
Logged
Dancing with Myself
tb75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,941
United States


« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2014, 04:29:31 AM »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 15 queries.