Clinton/Gore vs. Bush/Cheney in 2000

[Democratic Hawk]

Clinton would have won - but not to the extent he did in 1992 or 1996. He'd have lost support in the South; though he would have won his native Arkansas, Florida and possibly Louisiana

I'll come back with a map

Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

It's a guess (Clinton would have still won fairly comfortably)



Dave

[Democratic Hawk]

Yeah, the more I think about it, Clinton would have held Louisiana because he won fairly comfortably there in 1996

Dave

[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

Dave

[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

[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