How did Gore not win comfortably?

[pbrower2a]

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. Much is said of Gore winning had Florida played out honestly, but when you face a cheating opponent you had better find ways to thwart the cheat.

Gore, I think, could have spent some time in West Virginia, a state which then was decidedly liberal on economic issues. Arkansas? Bill Clinton was still popular there. Tennessee? The Favorite Son effect is worth at least ten points in the polls if one doesn't throw it away as Gore did. Any one of those would have won the 2000 election for Gore had he won any one of them.

Florida was the political equivalent of the lions' den: the Republican nominee's brother was governor, and anything that Jeb Bush could do to help his brother without getting caught... he was going to do.

The political dynamics of 2000 were very similar to those that stared Barack Obama in the early autumn of 2008, when Obama had to win one of a handful of states to win the election outright. Obama played the game masterfully with a scattershot approach, forcing his opponent to defend everything. Obama won, of course -- comfortably -- because he chose a strategy that would beat a cheat.

Say what you want about Florida... but when you play poker with a cheat who has friends in the management of the casino, you had better find some other table if you can't leave the casino.

[memphis]

Ralph Nader.

[Keystone Phil]

Ralph Nader.

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

[Ringorules]

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?

[nclib]

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.

[pbrower2a]

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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. 

[Californian Tony]

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.

[I left.]

funny thread

[pbrower2a]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[dialectical fetishist]

well he did win. 

Works both ways.

[memphis]

Ralph Nader.

[Sasquatch]

Ralph Nader.

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

[Bo]

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.

[memphis]

Ralph Nader.

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

They never vote Dem in presidential elections.

[Bo]

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.

[memphis]

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%

[Senator Ben]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[Senator Ben]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[phk]

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.

[Bo]

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.

[phk]

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.