Clinton/Gore vs. Bush/Cheney in 2000

[Democratic Hawk]

If in the unlikely even of Bush winning in 2000, 2004 will have seen Clinton defeat him handidly. It would be a straight battle between a competent former president and an incompetent incumbent. Simple

Unlikely event? A 10 point lead for Bush makes his election an unlikely event? A poll that says 54% of Americans will be happy to see Clinton go makes Bush's election an unlikely event? Uh, no.

Clinton would have been drilled on terrorism, and his integrity would immediately become an issue. He would have lost worse than Kerry, though perhaps not as bad as in 2000.

Clinton, overall, did a good job as President. Bush led Gore pretty comfortably, too and Gore won the popular vote. Clinton may jolly well  have come from behind and won - as for 2004, I've told you once and I'll tell you again - no contest

Dave

[A18]

The Bush-Gore numbers included tons of Nader voters who switched to Gore at the end of the election cycle. That's not an issue here. Even if Clinton won all the undecided, he still would only be on par with Gore.

On 2004, you're correct. Bush would absolutely defeat Clinton, no contest.

[Democratic Hawk]

On 2004, you're correct. Bush would absolutely defeat Clinton, no contest.

If you read me correctly - prior to post before last - I said it 2004 would be competent former president against an incompetent incumbent. Clinton would win it

Dave

[A18]

Why would Clinton be the incumbent?

[Gabu]

On 2004, you're correct. Bush would absolutely defeat Clinton, no contest.

If freaking John Kerry came within striking distance of winning the election, why would Clinton have no chance?

[A18]

On 2004, you're correct. Bush would absolutely defeat Clinton, no contest.

If freaking John Kerry came within striking distance of winning the election, why would Clinton have no chance?

Did you see the poll numbers I posted? Clinton would not have a chance because he's running for a third term. Kerry and Gore did not have that problem. Gore beat Bush in the popular vote, yet Clinton would have been crushed, according to the poll. That doesn't mean Gore is a better candidate in a generic race.

Actually, Jimmy Carter has a higher approval rating than Bill Clinton in the most recent Gallup poll. Granted, that was a couple years ago.

[Lincoln Republican]

Bush/Cheney          284
Clinton/Gore           254

Clinton's past would catch up to him.  Bush would win.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Clinton/Gore: 371
Bush/Cheney: 167

[HappyWarrior]

On 2004, you're correct. Bush would absolutely defeat Clinton, no contest.

If you read me correctly - prior to post before last - I said it 2004 would be competent former president against an incompetent incumbent. Clinton would win it

Dave

No experts have ever said he was incompetent.  He was an excellent president.  He just could'nt keep it in his pants.

[AndrewTX]

I believe that Bush would have made it intersting, but Clinton still would have won. Bush was quite popular in the south, so he would have taken quite a bit of states away, including Kentucky and Tennessee. Arkansas, West Virginia, and Ohio would have stayed in Clintons camp.