Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 12:55:13 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  How did Gore not win comfortably?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Author Topic: How did Gore not win comfortably?  (Read 20036 times)
How Erg the Self-Inducting Slew a Paleface
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 37985


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2010, 10:25:59 am »
Ignore

Running-mate problem:

Lieberman bring more Jewish votes, but alienated a lot of liberal Democrats. Good pick would be Russ Feingold: strong regional base in Midwest, Jew votes and liberal voting record.

Lackluster campaign:

Gore campaign simply lack a fire and not using Clinton, one of the most popular Presidents in history, was stupid.

Since Gore actually won pv and maybe in Florida too (we never going to know for sure), with good running-mate and doing better campaigning, Bush would be dead.
Logged

It's a good thing to be laughed at. It's better than to be ignored

Harold Macmillan
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2010, 02:14:11 pm »
Ignore

Gore had image issues as well. He came off as an overly cerebral nerd, and was quite boring. This is in stark contrast to Clinton's image in '96.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2010, 09:05:22 pm »
Ignore

What about picking a woman (like Dianne Feinstein or Patty Murray) instead of Lieberman? Both would energize the women's vote in favor of Gore (and believe me, that would matter in a close election. Also neither of them is as stupid and incompetent as Palin, so there's pratically no downside). Feinstein would also help in increasing the Jewish vote (especially in Florida) and in bringing moderates to Gore, while Murray would have energized the Democratic base and also possibly brought some Nader voters back to Gore.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2010, 09:47:31 pm »
Ignore

He should have picked Feingold or Wellstone.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #79 on: January 09, 2010, 03:23:34 pm »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2010, 03:27:34 pm by phknrocket1k »Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #80 on: January 09, 2010, 11:35:06 pm »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2010, 09:26:44 pm »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%
Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2010, 10:08:02 pm »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2010, 10:15:52 pm »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

Well I suppose, but keep in mind, it was expected for him to win comfortably, considering the relative peace and prosperity of the preceding 8 years. He ended up basically fighting to a draw however.
Logged

Хahar
Xahar
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38882
Bangladesh


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2010, 02:47:29 am »
Ignore

I think it's fair to say that a plurality of people who went to the polls in Florida in 2000 intended to vote for Gore.
Logged

Update reading list

The idea of parodying the preceding Atlasian's postings is laughable, of course, but not for reasons one might expect.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #85 on: February 20, 2010, 11:57:12 am »
Ignore

I think it's fair to say that a plurality of people who went to the polls in Florida in 2000 intended to vote for Gore.

That's debatable.
Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #86 on: February 20, 2010, 11:59:16 am »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

Well I suppose, but keep in mind, it was expected for him to win comfortably, considering the relative peace and prosperity of the preceding 8 years. He ended up basically fighting to a draw however.

Then how come Gore failed to open a large lead in the polls in the fall like Bush Sr. did? The conditions in 1988 and 2000 were roughly similar (good economy, lack of foreign threats, popular incumbent President), yet Bush Sr. won in a landslide and Gore lost by an extremely narrow margin.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #87 on: February 20, 2010, 01:53:32 pm »
Ignore

I don't think its exactly correct to say that each vote +1 Nader = -1 Gore and vice-versa. Some would have even voted for Bush over Gore and some would have Abstained over Gore.

I knew people with preferences like.

Bush > Nader > Gore
Nader > Bush > Gore

Its not always the assumed preference of

Nader > Gore > Bush

If I had to venture a guess to the preferences of Nader voters however.

~60% would have had the preference relation of Nader > Gore > Bush
~40% would have had other preference relations.

Even that would have been enough for Gore to win, though. 20% of 90,000 (the total # of Nader voters in Florida) is 18,000 votes, much more than the 537 votes Gore needed to win Florida.

Sure he could have won if 60% of Nader voters had switched. But he still wouldn't have won comfortably.

Interestingly Clinton got a slightly higher % in TN in 1996 than Al Gore did himself in 2000. It was 48% vs 47.28%

It wouldn't matter if Gore would have won comfortably or not. All that would have mattered is that he would have won. Winning narrowly and winning in a landslide makes no difference to the winner--he still wins (even though a larger victory might make governing easier due to coattails). However, there is a massive difference between winning narrowly and losing narrowly.

Well I suppose, but keep in mind, it was expected for him to win comfortably, considering the relative peace and prosperity of the preceding 8 years. He ended up basically fighting to a draw however.

Then how come Gore failed to open a large lead in the polls in the fall like Bush Sr. did? The conditions in 1988 and 2000 were roughly similar (good economy, lack of foreign threats, popular incumbent President), yet Bush Sr. won in a landslide and Gore lost by an extremely narrow margin.

I'm pretty sure Gore's personality is what turned a solid victory into a draw that could go either way and pretty much caused lots of bleeding to Nader.
Logged

Guderian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 576


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: February 20, 2010, 04:31:07 pm »
Ignore

It's hard to "win comfortably" after your party held the White House for 8 years. Neither party has a lock on the presidency, partisanship is strong and independent voters are likely to be fatigued after two terms.

Even Bush's win in 1988 wasn't all that comfortable. He was trailing Dukakis deep into the summer and really his electoral victory seems very impressive only because he pulled off an ungodly number of tight wins (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania - just to mention the big states, all won with about 51% of the vote). Shuffle Dukakis and Bentsen on the ticket and you have a true cliffhanger election.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #89 on: February 20, 2010, 06:32:39 pm »
Ignore

It's hard to "win comfortably" after your party held the White House for 8 years. Neither party has a lock on the presidency, partisanship is strong and independent voters are likely to be fatigued after two terms.

Even Bush's win in 1988 wasn't all that comfortable. He was trailing Dukakis deep into the summer and really his electoral victory seems very impressive only because he pulled off an ungodly number of tight wins (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania - just to mention the big states, all won with about 51% of the vote). Shuffle Dukakis and Bentsen on the ticket and you have a true cliffhanger election.

Even flipping all states that Bush won by 6% or less. We get 286-252 for Bush-Dukakis.


Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #90 on: February 20, 2010, 08:27:43 pm »
Ignore

It's hard to "win comfortably" after your party held the White House for 8 years. Neither party has a lock on the presidency, partisanship is strong and independent voters are likely to be fatigued after two terms.

Even Bush's win in 1988 wasn't all that comfortable. He was trailing Dukakis deep into the summer and really his electoral victory seems very impressive only because he pulled off an ungodly number of tight wins (California, Illinois, Pennsylvania - just to mention the big states, all won with about 51% of the vote). Shuffle Dukakis and Bentsen on the ticket and you have a true cliffhanger election.

Even flipping all states that Bush won by 6% or less. We get 286-252 for Bush-Dukakis.




Exactly. Dukakis would have needed to swing 4% or more to win the election, and since people began to really pay attention to the race after Labor Day and due to the fact Dukakis had many flaws (in both personality and record), it seems very unlikely that he would have gotten 4% more of the vote than he did in RL. A stronger Democrat might have been able to, but not Dukakis.
Logged

Guderian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 576


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: February 22, 2010, 01:30:19 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes my point was that the question should be "How did Bush win comfortably" instead of "How did Gore not win comfortably". Democrats were definitely seen as bigger favorites in early 1988 than they were in early 2000, given the normal cyclical way politics usually work. Bush got lucky when Gary Hart self-destructed and Dukakis won the primaries. Gore also got a bit lucky since he faced W instead of McCain, but overall W was still a much stronger candidate than Dukakis.   
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #92 on: February 22, 2010, 10:06:01 pm »
Ignore

Well, yes my point was that the question should be "How did Bush win comfortably" instead of "How did Gore not win comfortably". Democrats were definitely seen as bigger favorites in early 1988 than they were in early 2000, given the normal cyclical way politics usually work. Bush got lucky when Gary Hart self-destructed and Dukakis won the primaries. Gore also got a bit lucky since he faced W instead of McCain, but overall W was still a much stronger candidate than Dukakis.   

I'll admit that a Bush-Hart race in 1988 would have likely been much closer if Hart didn't have his affair. Bush Sr. might have even defeated Hart though, and even if Hart would have narrowly won, it would have only been due to his charisma and Bush Sr.'s lack of it. I admit that Gore's lack of charisma definitely cost him many votes, but he should have at least used Clinton to campaign with him and pick a better VP. He would have won that way.
Logged

CultureKing
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3218
United States


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: February 22, 2010, 10:50:55 pm »
Ignore

Also everyone needs to remember the whole Monica L. scandal, while it sounds stupid now people were actually quite upset about it.
Logged

Econ: -6.50, Social: -5.23
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #94 on: February 22, 2010, 11:40:45 pm »
Ignore

Also everyone needs to remember the whole Monica L. scandal, while it sounds stupid now people were actually quite upset about it.

Why blame Gore for that, though? He wasn't involved in any way. Besides, Clinton's (job) approvals were about 60% throughout 2000, and that should have been enough for Gore to win the White House.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #95 on: February 24, 2010, 02:15:18 pm »
Ignore

Also everyone needs to remember the whole Monica L. scandal, while it sounds stupid now people were actually quite upset about it.

Why blame Gore for that, though? He wasn't involved in any way. Besides, Clinton's (job) approvals were about 60% throughout 2000, and that should have been enough for Gore to win the White House.

What do you think he should have done to stop the bleeding of potential supporters to Nader?
Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #96 on: February 24, 2010, 08:16:31 pm »
Ignore

Also everyone needs to remember the whole Monica L. scandal, while it sounds stupid now people were actually quite upset about it.

Why blame Gore for that, though? He wasn't involved in any way. Besides, Clinton's (job) approvals were about 60% throughout 2000, and that should have been enough for Gore to win the White House.

What do you think he should have done to stop the bleeding of potential supporters to Nader?

Campigning with Clinton might have helped, but I think his best move to prevent the bleeding of Nader supporters was to pick Feingold as VP. However, the best move to win the election would have been to pick Feinstein, since she might have helped less with Nader voters than Feingold would have, but she might have compensated for that by allowing Gore to win over many female and moderate voters that Feingold would not have delivered.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: April 27, 2010, 08:03:37 pm »
Ignore

I don't find Bush's personality (contrivances and all) to be all that endearing either. Tax cuts were the issue that put Bush over the top.

See I'd rather him use that money to pay off the deficit while lowering taxes rather than just giving the money back.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: April 27, 2010, 08:04:51 pm »
Ignore

Plus people saw the difference.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
cpeeks
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 767
View Profile
« Reply #99 on: June 09, 2010, 11:22:05 pm »
Ignore

Ya Derrick and while your hero was in office we went from 5 trillion in debt to 12 trillion in debt.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines