Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2015, 03:01:06 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Delicious Steak Pentagram)
| | | |-+  How did Gore not win comfortably?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print
Author Topic: How did Gore not win comfortably?  (Read 21572 times)
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 52879


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: March 11, 2009, 10:52:33 am »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.

If you actually read the first (and other) posts, you'd understand why Nader shouldn't have even been a factor.
Logged



The entire country is pretty much Republican.
Ringorules
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 336


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2009, 11:32:48 am »
Ignore

I also fault Joe Lieberman. Couldn't he have spent more time in New Hampshire, a state very close to Connecticut? To be sure New Hampshire isn't quite Connecticut, Lieberman's state, but it could have been enough.

On the other hand, if not for Lieberman's pull with Jewish voters, Florida would have a clear, controversy-free win for Bush.

This, though, may have been the only meaningful contribution Lieberman made to the ticket.  Why would Al Gore NOT choose a running-mate with some charisma, given his own deficiences in that department?
Logged

"If nominated, I shall run to Mexico.  If elected, I shall fight extradiction."- Morris K. Udall
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9004
United States


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2009, 07:57:42 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.

Well, I certainly found Bush's personality very repulsive. But sadly his personality was appealing to enough voters.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12020
United States


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2009, 09:12:32 pm »
Ignore

I also fault Joe Lieberman. Couldn't he have spent more time in New Hampshire, a state very close to Connecticut? To be sure New Hampshire isn't quite Connecticut, Lieberman's state, but it could have been enough.

On the other hand, if not for Lieberman's pull with Jewish voters, Florida would have a clear, controversy-free win for Bush.

This, though, may have been the only meaningful contribution Lieberman made to the ticket.  Why would Al Gore NOT choose a running-mate with some charisma, given his own deficiences in that department?

Right. I also think that it was a huge blunder for Gore to bet everything on Florida , especially considering that Dubya's brother was Governor of Florida. The temptation for electoral fraud was high, so it would have made good sense to ensure that GOP vote fraud (if such in fact happened, and it cannot be repudiated) would have been pointless. Perhaps Gore underestimated how corrupt the Rove/Bush clique was; heck, if these fellows signed off on the "black baby" canard against a primary opponent, what would be too low for them? 

I can say this: had Gore picked up even one state with at least four electoral votes, then he would have also won Florida because nobody would have had an incentive to cheat.

Gore could have campaigned in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri; any one of those would have won the election. Was Clinton influence that weak that the incumbent President couldn't have pulled Arkansas? Lieberman could have also campaigned in Ohio, a state that (like Florida) also has lots of Jews and was also close in 2000.

When the opposition is as ruthless and amoral as the Rove/Bush clique one must play "Beat the Cheat".  One must put that opposition on the defensive everywhere that it can be put on the defensive. I contrast Obama in 2008, who took no such chance. Maybe McCain was not as ruthless and amoral as the Rove/Bush clique... but that was not a chance worth taking.

It could be that Joe Lieberman was a bad choice as a VP nominee. Connecticut was never in doubt, and John Edwards might have picked off one of the states that Clinton had won but neither Gore, Kerry, nor Obama has since won. "You go for Southern moderate populists and I'll go for Yankee liberals" might have made good sense in the 2000 election.
Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Landslide Lyndon
px75
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10257
Greece


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -5.22

View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2009, 02:14:43 am »
Ignore

I also fault Joe Lieberman. Couldn't he have spent more time in New Hampshire, a state very close to Connecticut? To be sure New Hampshire isn't quite Connecticut, Lieberman's state, but it could have been enough.

On the other hand, if not for Lieberman's pull with Jewish voters, Florida would have a clear, controversy-free win for Bush.

This, though, may have been the only meaningful contribution Lieberman made to the ticket.  Why would Al Gore NOT choose a running-mate with some charisma, given his own deficiences in that department?

Right. I also think that it was a huge blunder for Gore to bet everything on Florida , especially considering that Dubya's brother was Governor of Florida. The temptation for electoral fraud was high, so it would have made good sense to ensure that GOP vote fraud (if such in fact happened, and it cannot be repudiated) would have been pointless. Perhaps Gore underestimated how corrupt the Rove/Bush clique was; heck, if these fellows signed off on the "black baby" canard against a primary opponent, what would be too low for them? 

I can say this: had Gore picked up even one state with at least four electoral votes, then he would have also won Florida because nobody would have had an incentive to cheat.

Gore could have campaigned in Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri; any one of those would have won the election. Was Clinton influence that weak that the incumbent President couldn't have pulled Arkansas? Lieberman could have also campaigned in Ohio, a state that (like Florida) also has lots of Jews and was also close in 2000.

When the opposition is as ruthless and amoral as the Rove/Bush clique one must play "Beat the Cheat".  One must put that opposition on the defensive everywhere that it can be put on the defensive. I contrast Obama in 2008, who took no such chance. Maybe McCain was not as ruthless and amoral as the Rove/Bush clique... but that was not a chance worth taking.

It could be that Joe Lieberman was a bad choice as a VP nominee. Connecticut was never in doubt, and John Edwards might have picked off one of the states that Clinton had won but neither Gore, Kerry, nor Obama has since won. "You go for Southern moderate populists and I'll go for Yankee liberals" might have made good sense in the 2000 election.

For what's worth, Bob Shrum said last summer that in hindsight, the time and money they spent on Tennessee, should have spent on New Hampshire.

Also, as Chuck Todd said, West Virginia in 2000 was something similar with Indiana in 2008. A reliably Democratic/Republican state who nobody believed was in danger, until it was too late. 
Logged

Bob Findley: "You're a real dyed-in-the-wool son-of-a-bitch. Anyone ever told you that?"
Steve Everett: "Just close friends and family,"

Clint Eastwood's "True Crime", 1999.
Αλληλεγγύη
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 34871
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2009, 05:41:27 am »
Ignore

Please try your best not to turn this into "He did win!" and that type of nonsense.
It depends to the sense of the verb "win". If you think that the man who is become president, with or without the support of people, is the winner, also Bush won. If you consider that winning means being chosen by a plurality of citizens as the best candidate and receive more popular support, Gore won.
Logged

RIP Greece. RIP European Federalism.



"It's easy to confuse what is with what ought to be, especially when what is has worked out in your favor."

Tyrion Lannister, Game of Thrones, ep. 5x09
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22410
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2009, 07:56:40 am »
Ignore

funny thread
Logged
pbrower2a
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12020
United States


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: March 12, 2009, 10:01:17 am »
Ignore

I also fault Joe Lieberman. Couldn't he have spent more time in New Hampshire, a state very close to Connecticut? To be sure New Hampshire isn't quite Connecticut, Lieberman's state, but it could have been enough.

On the other hand, if not for Lieberman's pull with Jewish voters, Florida would have a clear, controversy-free win for Bush.

This, though, may have been the only meaningful contribution Lieberman made to the ticket.  Why would Al Gore NOT choose a running-mate with some charisma, given his own deficiences in that department?

Right. I also think that it was a huge blunder for Gore to bet everything on Florida , especially considering that Dubya's brother was Governor of Florida. The temptation for electoral fraud was high, so it would have made good sense to ensure that GOP vote fraud (if such in fact happened, and it cannot be repudiated) would have been pointless. Perhaps Gore underestimated how corrupt the Rove/Bush clique was; heck, if these fellows signed off on the "black baby" canard against a primary opponent, what would be too low for them? 

I can say this: had Gore picked up even one state with at least four electoral votes, then he would have also won Florida because nobody would have had an incentive to cheat.

...

For what's worth, Bob Shrum said last summer that in hindsight, the time and money they spent on Tennessee, should have spent on New Hampshire.

Also, as Chuck Todd said, West Virginia in 2000 was something similar with Indiana in 2008. A reliably Democratic/Republican state who nobody believed was in danger, until it was too late. 

Gore should have campaigned in New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia. West Virginia should have been an easy state in which to campaign because it is one of the most unionized states in America; the UMW would gladly have bussed mineworkers and their families to Gore rallies.  By winning either, Gore would have succeeded at the strategy of beating the cheat and wouldn't have needed Florida. New Hampshire? You bring busloads of canvassers from New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey into New Hampshire where they can do some good.

If one can make campaign stops in West Virginia, one can also make them in Ohio. Really, Ohio is an easy state in which to campaign because it is so compact with population concentrated heavily in seven metropolitan areas (Cleveland, Toledo, Dayton, Cincinnati, Columbus, Akron, and Youngstown).  Anyone who wants a political crowd can hardly find a better place than Ohio.

Here's one of the ironies: West Virginia and new Hampshire are separated by about a one-hour trip by jet. Neither state is glamorous, to be sure, but neither should have been ignored.

Non-partisan polls are the only reliable source of knowledge of how states are doing in a Presidential race.  Don't dispute them; work to change the results.

Logged



Your political compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #58 on: December 23, 2009, 08:25:10 pm »
Ignore

Because Gore did not campaign with Clinton and did not talk enough about the good economy and Clinton's economic record. Also because Gore picked a bad running mate--he should have picked a qualified, competent woman like Dianne Feinstein or Patty Murray--that way, he would have energized the women's vote in his favor and won the election.
Logged

k-onmmunist
Winston Disraeli
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11965
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2010, 07:03:30 am »
Ignore

well he did win.  Smiley



Works both ways.
Logged

memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16125


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: January 04, 2010, 11:45:05 am »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
Sasquatch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 810


Political Matrix
E: -8.13, S: -8.52

View Profile
« Reply #61 on: January 04, 2010, 12:52:34 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
Logged
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #62 on: January 04, 2010, 06:12:54 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?

Those Democrats voted for Bush because Gore was a crappy candidate and ran a crappy campaign. Also, he picked a very crappy VP.
Logged

memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16125


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: January 04, 2010, 06:19:45 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
They never vote Dem in presidential elections.
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #64 on: January 04, 2010, 06:22:17 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
They never vote Dem in presidential elections.

I think some of them voted for Carter and Clinton.
Logged

memphis
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16125


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: January 04, 2010, 06:43:39 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
They never vote Dem in presidential elections.

I think some of them voted for Carter and Clinton.

Probably Carter, lost he lost a lot of them in 1980. Clinton is pretty much impossible to tell because of Perot. Remember, he never broke 50%
Logged

I cannot do anything good under my own power. 
I don't want my women talking to people
Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30368
United States



View Profile
« Reply #66 on: January 04, 2010, 07:42:18 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?

Would not have mattered if 1% of Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #67 on: January 04, 2010, 08:42:29 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?

Would not have mattered if 1% of Nader voters in Florida had voted for Gore.

Would not have mattered had Gore run a better campaign.
Logged

Warner for President '16
benconstine
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30368
United States



View Profile
« Reply #68 on: January 04, 2010, 08:45:37 pm »
Ignore

Would not have mattered had Gore run a better campaign.

I totally agree, and think the two are mostly interrelated.  It's worth noting, though, that a lot of Nader voters knew it would be a close race, but still voted for Nader.
Logged

Obama High's debate team:

"Now let me be clear...I...I...um...uh...now let me be clear.  I strongly condemn the affirmative in the strongest possible terms, and I am closely monitoring their arguments.  Let me be clear on this."
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #69 on: January 04, 2010, 08:47:58 pm »
Ignore

Would not have mattered had Gore run a better campaign.

I totally agree, and think the two are mostly interrelated.  It's worth noting, though, that a lot of Nader voters knew it would be a close race, but still voted for Nader.

Still, had Gore planned a better campaign strategy (including campaigning with Clinton and picking a comptent woman as VP instead of that sleazebag Lieberman) those Nader voters would have been irrelevant and that election possibl wouldn't even be that close.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12952


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #70 on: January 04, 2010, 08:52:45 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
They never vote Dem in presidential elections.

I think some of them voted for Carter and Clinton.

Probably Carter, lost he lost a lot of them in 1980. Clinton is pretty much impossible to tell because of Perot. Remember, he never broke 50%

I think what really damaged Al Gore was around 1 in 5 Clinton 96' voters switching to Bush in 2000.
Logged

Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14180
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #71 on: January 04, 2010, 08:57:31 pm »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
They never vote Dem in presidential elections.

I think some of them voted for Carter and Clinton.

Probably Carter, lost he lost a lot of them in 1980. Clinton is pretty much impossible to tell because of Perot. Remember, he never broke 50%

I think what really damaged Al Gore was around 1 in 5 Clinton 96' voters switching to Bush in 2000.

Maybe he should have had Clinton campaign with him. That way, it is likely that at least some of those voters would have voted for Gore, allowing him to win.
Logged

phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12952


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2010, 04:27:32 am »
Ignore

Ralph Nader.
What about the 10% or so of Democrats who voted for Bush?
They never vote Dem in presidential elections.

I think some of them voted for Carter and Clinton.

Probably Carter, lost he lost a lot of them in 1980. Clinton is pretty much impossible to tell because of Perot. Remember, he never broke 50%

I think what really damaged Al Gore was around 1 in 5 Clinton 96' voters switching to Bush in 2000.

Maybe he should have had Clinton campaign with him. That way, it is likely that at least some of those voters would have voted for Gore, allowing him to win.

I'm not sure if they would prefer Gore to Bush however firstly. Whose to say they still approved of Clinton personally post-Lewinsky.

Maybe Gore is right after all that the Lewinsky scandal may have hurt his chances in 2000, as Clinton's personal approval ratings were in the toilet in most states and would not have been a good campaigner for him. Though maybe in Arkansas it could make a difference.

Losing 18% to 20% of Clinton 1996 voters is more responsible for making Gore lose than anything Nader did. Could have retained WV, TN, FL (even without the Jewish pull of Lieberman), AR (maybe), OH (decent chance), NH.

This pretty much answers from a numeric perspective of why Gore did not win comfortably.

Dole 1996 => Bush 2000 was around ~39 million => ~50.5 million in terms of the pV. The 11 million is composed of mostly Perot voters and around 18% of Clinton voters.

I could even argue that the D+9 situation of 1996 was sort of out of balance and that the D+.5 was more of a "correction" than anything and those 1 in 5 Clinton 96/Bush 00 voters likely felt likewise.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2010, 06:04:20 am by phknrocket1k »Logged

At-large Senator Kalwejt
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39927


View Profile
« Reply #73 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

Good books tell the truth, even when they're about things that never have been and never will be. They're truthful in a different way

Stanisław Lem
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8088
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #74 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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines