Talk Elections

Gore seems to have lost the least ground from Clinton 96 in those three states compared to the rest of the country. In a lot of counties in the tri state area, he achieved Obama '08 levels of support but in a neutral presidential year. Gore is from Tennessee so I can't imagine what kind of appeal he had to do so well up there.

Keep in mind that his running mate Joe Lieberman hailed from Connecticut. The Republican swing was weakest in the Greater NYC area.

The hard Democratic trend that we are seeing currently in the D.C suburbs of Northern Virginia is basically what went on during the 90's in the NYC suburbs

This. And the 2000 election was arguably the first time the GOP more or less stopped contesting the votes of Northeastern suburbanites by openly embracing a pro-life, pro-evangelical Christian candidate and platform.

The urban/rural divide increased pretty notably in 2000.  That's why densely populated states in the Northeast and California trended Democratic the most.  (Maryland was the one state that swung Gore's way).

Guns had something to do with that, and up against Bush, Gore looked fine in the urban Northeast. 

Every candidate has certain areas which they appeal to more than others- Obama was strong in the Midwest (particularly in 2008), and Gore overperformed in the Northeast. Gore did very well with Orthodox Jews and Hasidim, and additionally overperformed with suburbanites who swung to Bush afterwords because of 9/11.

I disagree on this.  If gun control was such an important factor into why all those states swung R, why wouldn't this have happened in 1996 when it was on the minds of more voters?  And even in 2000, Bush was hardly the most pro-gun candidate (http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/george_w__bush_gun_control.htm) to ever run.

youre right.

the gun control thing is a myth.

I meant to say "might have", but I remember plenty of people here complaining that Gore threatened gun-owners.  But yes, it probably wasn't the biggest issue at all.

The period when the attention of the news media and political debate was most focused on guns was following the Columbine High School shootings in 1999. So even if opinions didn't change much, 2000 was the election when people would be mostly likely to prioritize this issue when voting.

Linus is right. Culture might have also had something to do with it- Bush was perceived as a more southern, rural type, which may have rubbed wealthy suburbanites the wrong way.

Which is hilarious when you think about it.

Not really. Gore might have started off with a more typical rural southern upbringing but he had been in DC for several decades at that point. Whenever a politician spends that much time in DC their constituents start to feel like they're not as tied to their roots anymore. Bush, on the other hand, certainly wasn't born in a log cabin in a swamp (neither was Gore) but he had spent decades in Texas and was seen as more tied to the south than Gore was. Not to mention his political platform was more in line with the majority of southerners.

I mean, Elizabeth Warren grew up in Oklahoma but she has spent so much time in Massachusetts that nobody thinks she's southern.

Connecticut is easy: Joe Lieberman on the ticket.  I can't explain NY or NJ, though.

The 1992 Republican National Convention put off many Northeastern secular-minded voters to the point where it would take a lot for some of them to vote for a national Republican.

W's Southern Cowboy Jesus persona was not at all a good fit culturally with New Netherlands/Lower New England, especially with him as a relative unknown.  I'm actually a little surprised he did better in New England than Dole did.