How Could Bradley have won?

[Akno21]

What would Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) have to do to win the Democratic Nomination in 2000? He was competitive with Gore early on, but after New Hampshire he didn't do much.

[True Democrat]

He didn't really appeal to the liberals in the party.  Had Bradley gotten the 18-29 year olds and liberals to vote for him, he could have won.

[HamRadioRocks]

I never understood how a Bill Bradley administration would differ from an Al Gore administration.  I'm not sure if there was any way Bradley could have won given that Al Gore was the vice president and Clinton's natural successor.

The Democratic primary was boring that year, and I only voted in it because my mother was running to be a delegate for Al Gore.  (She didn't make it, though.)

If my mother hadn't been running to be a delegate for Al Gore, I would have voted in the Republican primary (Illinois) for John McCain.  I didn't like Bush back then, either, and I couldn't believe that Republican leaders were tripping over each other to support him over better qualified candidates.  In spite of my political leanings, I found it hard to object to McCain, and I would be his #1 fan if I were a conservative.

[patrick1]

What would Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) have to do to win the Democratic Nomination in 2000? He was competitive with Gore early on, but after New Hampshire he didn't do much.

...Gotten a personality transplant.  The guy was out charmed by Al Gore.  That is pretty hard to do.

[BobOMac2k2]

...by pulling a Bush.

[J. J.]

Bradley was hoping to be a "reformist" and "maverick" type of candidate.  McCain was that type of candidate in that election.  In NH, independents cas vote in primaries and in 2000, the went for McCain.  Bradley would had to change the way he was presenting himself to win.

[Reignman]

That's like asking how Forbes could have beat Bush in 2000.

[Akno21]

That's like asking how Forbes could have beat Bush in 2000.

He only lost by a few in New Hampshire

[Reignman]

That's like asking how Forbes could have beat Bush in 2000.

He only lost by a few in New Hampshire

Yeah, but that was just one state.  If he had won New Hampshire, I still doubt very much that he could have won.

[12th Doctor]

Funny, I was always told by Poli Sci types that Bradley probably would have won if he didn't have his heart condition.  They had to rush him from a campaign speech and shock him back to life in 2000.

[Platypus]

[TexasGurl]

He may have won if Gore dropped dead.

[afcassidy]

Bradley came pretty close, really... if he had managed to upset Gore in New Hampshire, there was more than a month until the next big round of primaries.

During that time, McCain was running around sucking up all the oxygen... but if Bradley had actually beaten Gore, then Gore would have been hit with a month of terrible press about how his campaign was collapsing, etc.

It was possible... Gore only took NH by about 4%.

[Ben.]

Well had Dick Gephardt and John Kerry both run for the nomination, as they both intended to, the field would have become more crowded and as a result it would have been less likely that the Democratic establishment would have formed up lock stock behind Gore, allowing a credible candidate such as Bradley to have made more of an impact and also forced Gore into a tougher race. 

[Know Your Rights!]

Didn't he also end up not defending himself against attacks? I recall reading that Gore was picking him apart during a debate and he didn't put a stop to it, mainly because he didn't want to run a negative campaign.

[Reignman]

Could not have happened period.

[adam]

It's funny. Bradley could have won the 2000 election any day...but he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ever winning the Democratic nomination. Bill Bradley was just an unintresting character that didn't inspire well against Gore who had experience in his corner.

[Nym90]

About the only way Bradley could have won would have been for there to be a major backlash against Clinton within the Democrats, and then for Bush to make some major blunder in the campaign. Bradley would have done worse than Gore did in the general if nothing else had changed, and he didn't really have any chance of winning the nomination with Clinton being so popular.

[adam]

About the only way Bradley could have won would have been for there to be a major backlash against Clinton within the Democrats, and then for Bush to make some major blunder in the campaign. Bradley would have done worse than Gore did in the general if nothing else had changed, and he didn't really have any chance of winning the nomination with Clinton being so popular.

One of the few things bradley was good at was "attack debating". When he debated people of an opposing party, he was vicious and pretty good. If you thought Gore man handled the 2000 debates, you would have been tickled pink by Bradley.

Unfortunatly, Bradley didn't even try to attack Gore in the primaries. He tried to get people to vote for him rather than against Gore. Democrats just don't think that way. Almost all of them vote against something/someone rather than for something/someone.

[Nym90]

About the only way Bradley could have won would have been for there to be a major backlash against Clinton within the Democrats, and then for Bush to make some major blunder in the campaign. Bradley would have done worse than Gore did in the general if nothing else had changed, and he didn't really have any chance of winning the nomination with Clinton being so popular.

One of the few things bradley was good at was "attack debating". When he debated people of an opposing party, he was vicious and pretty good. If you thought Gore man handled the 2000 debates, you would have been tickled pink by Bradley.

Unfortunatly, Bradley didn't even try to attack Gore in the primaries. He tried to get people to vote for him rather than against Gore. Democrats just don't think that way. Almost all of them vote against something/someone rather than for something/someone.

True, Bradley was generally a good debater.

I don't really agree with your second paragraph. Who were people who voted for Gore in the primaries voting against? They were quite clearly voting in favor of a third Clinton term, with Gore being the logical beneficiary of that sentiment. Likewise, in the general election, Democrats were voting far more for Gore and Clinton than they were against Bush.

[adam]

That paragraph was directed more toward's Bradley's point of view. Who was going to vote for Bradley over the incumbent-two term VP of a popular administration. No one in their right mind. If your running an uphill campaign like Bradley was, than trying to garner pro-votes is pointless. He should have gave people a reason to not vote for Gore. He still would have lost...but it would have been more intresting.

Why didn't Bradley run again? I think he could have won the nomination in 04'.

[Nym90]

That paragraph was directed more toward's Bradley's point of view. Who was going to vote for Bradley over the incumbent-two term VP of a popular administration. No one in their right mind. If your running an uphill campaign like Bradley was, than trying to garner pro-votes is pointless. He should have gave people a reason to not vote for Gore. He still would have lost...but it would have been more intresting.

Why didn't Bradley run again? I think he could have won the nomination in 04'.

I agree that Bradley's campaign itself was primarily against Gore and thus by extension Clinton, not in favor of himself.

And yeah, it didn't really make sense for him to choose 2000 as his year to run, as opposed to a year when he could have actually won the nomination. He would have been a decent nominee in 2004, probably better than Kerry at least, though the fact that he would have been out of the Senate for 8 years by then would hurt. He should have run for reelection to the Senate in 1996; he would have won and would have been far better than Bob Torricelli.

[Michael Z]

Witchcraft.

[Reignman]

Witchcraft.

HAHAHAHAHA.

[Pictor Ignotus]

By getting the VP nod in 92.