What Went Wrong for Bradley

[JSojourner]

I supported Bill Bradley in 2000.  I liked Gore very much, particularly on environmental issues.  But I felt that we needed a break from the Clinton Administration.  Bradley was a mainstream liberal with a solid intellect.

So did he lose the nomination because....

Gore was, for all practical purposes, "the heir apparent"...

Gore had the money...

The Republican primary was so exciting and lively, Democrats weren't paying attention...

Gore was smarter and the better choice...

Something else...

Have at it, gang!

[adam]

He was running against the 8 year Vice-President of an incumbent DEMOCRATIC administration. I never thought he had much of a chance.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Perhaps he should have waited four years..

That might be a good thread for the what-if forum: Bradley v Bush 2004.

As for the question at hand, what Adam said. The Incumbent factor.

[Gabu]

In essence, the thing that went wrong with Bradley is that when you challenge your party's proespective nominee who is the second in command from the previous popular administration, you'd better be prepared to give the voters a damn good reason why that person should not be nominated, and Bradley had no such reason to give.

[Beet]

Bradley kept getting dodged by his so called heart palpatations in the media.

His reason for running was basically that Gore was too boring.

[minionofmidas]

His reason for running was basically that Gore was too boring.

And his main problem was that he himself was far too boring to be able to push that point home.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Bradley's biggest mistake in 2000 was getting into the Presidential race eight years too late.

[Smash255]

He was running in a Primary against a sitting VP, when the Pres had over 60% approvals, and close to 90% among Democrats

[George W. Hobbes]

Spent too much time in Iowa and lost two to one.  He actually almost won NH, IIRC.

[Verily]

Bradley's biggest mistake in 2000 was getting into the Presidential race eight years too late.

Or four years too early.

[True Democrat]

Spent too much time in Iowa and lost two to one.  He actually almost won NH, IIRC.

He lost NH by about 4-5 points, which should've given him so momentum if it hadn't for the media's focus on McCain's upset of Bush.

[12th Doctor]

Simple... having his heart stop and having to be rushed to the hospital to be revived during the campaign.

[Ferdinand]

He was running against the 8 year Vice-President of an incumbent DEMOCRATIC administration. I never thought he had much of a chance.

That about sums it up. I will never understand why Bradley picked 2000 of all god awful years to run his presidential campaign. I think that he would have made a fantastic candidate in 2004.

[StateBoiler]

Who were his backers within the Democratic Party?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Perhaps he should have waited four years..

Bill Bradley left office in January 1997.  He'd have had 8 years of irrelevance under his belt.  That's practically Gravel territory.

[Verily]

Perhaps he should have waited four years..

Bill Bradley left office in January 1997.  He'd have had 8 years of irrelevance under his belt.  That's practically Gravel territory.

Not that he would have known ahead of time, but he probably would have returned to the Senate in the 2002 election instead of Lautenberg.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Bradley was offered a chance to return to the Senate in 2002, but declined.  He was Washington and Trenton's first choice.  Lautenberg was somewhere around number eight or nine on the list.

[Verily]

Bradley was offered a chance to return to the Senate in 2002, but declined.  He was Washington and Trenton's first choice.  Lautenberg was somewhere around number eight or nine on the list.

Had he not burned himself out running for President in 2000, I think his choice would have been different.