Gore's campaign
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:11:26 AM
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)
  Gore's campaign
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Who was more responsible for Gore losing?
#1
Ralph Nader
 
#2
Al Gore
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 68

Author Topic: Gore's campaign  (Read 12448 times)
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,870
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2017, 01:41:13 PM »

Both, but Gore more so than Nader for these reasons:

1. If Gore had picked Bob Graham instead of Lieberman (who was a poor pick), that most likely would've flipped Florida, as if I remember correctly, Graham was more popular in Florida than Jeb! was.

2. If Gore hadn't distanced himself from Clinton, not only would picking up Florida be a great possibility, but so would winning New Hampshire, Nevada, and maybe even Bill's home state of Arkansas, and it might've put Ohio and Missouri in play as well.

3. As others have said, he should've stuck to his environmental roots. It still would've cost him West Virginia, but it would've fired enough liberal Nader voters up to make the difference.

4. He came off as very arrogant, especially in the debates (the sighing, the awkward moment when he approached Bush, etc...). If he worked on this, this also might've made the difference.
Logged
NoTrump
Rookie
**
Posts: 83
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2017, 05:22:44 PM »

Agreed; after all, Al Gore had the choice of securing Florida by picking Bob Graham as his VP and yet chose not to do this.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2017, 11:41:29 PM »

Gore didnt even need FL to win the election ,as if he just held on to WV(a state that even Dukakis won ) he wins, and he can do that by selecting Gephardt as his VP.


Logged
NoTrump
Rookie
**
Posts: 83
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2017, 12:01:15 AM »

Gore didnt even need FL to win the election ,as if he just held on to WV(a state that even Dukakis won ) he wins, and he can do that by selecting Gephardt as his VP.
Couldn't Gore have lost West Virginia due to his environmentalism, though?

Also, please keep in mind that Gore only won New Mexico by 0.05%. Indeed, winning Florida would provide a bit more security for Gore than winning West Virginia would.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2017, 01:46:36 AM »
« Edited: November 07, 2017, 01:49:36 AM by Old School Republican »

Gore didnt even need FL to win the election ,as if he just held on to WV(a state that even Dukakis won ) he wins, and he can do that by selecting Gephardt as his VP.
Couldn't Gore have lost West Virginia due to his environmentalism, though?

Also, please keep in mind that Gore only won New Mexico by 0.05%. Indeed, winning Florida would provide a bit more security for Gore than winning West Virginia would.

Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert in the NBC election coverage both state that Florida was considered to be in the bag for Bush until the last week of the campaign . Picking Gephardt also probably means Gore wins MO too meaning that he wins.


In a way 2000 was like 2016 in that the GOP won by winning states that were considered solid dem states in the previous decade.

Logged
Lechasseur
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,757


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2017, 04:50:33 AM »

Both, but Gore more so than Nader for these reasons:

1. If Gore had picked Bob Graham instead of Lieberman (who was a poor pick), that most likely would've flipped Florida, as if I remember correctly, Graham was more popular in Florida than Jeb! was.

2. If Gore hadn't distanced himself from Clinton, not only would picking up Florida be a great possibility, but so would winning New Hampshire, Nevada, and maybe even Bill's home state of Arkansas, and it might've put Ohio and Missouri in play as well.

3. As others have said, he should've stuck to his environmental roots. It still would've cost him West Virginia, but it would've fired enough liberal Nader voters up to make the difference.

4. He came off as very arrogant, especially in the debates (the sighing, the awkward moment when he approached Bush, etc...). If he worked on this, this also might've made the difference.

This, or at least pick someone better than Lieberman
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
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 0.034 seconds with 16 queries.