Did Tipper and Lieberman hurt Gore with young voters?

[Calthrina950]

I would say so. The NBC News reports on the 2000 presidential campaign, between July and November 2000, have been uploaded to YouTube, and they are very fascinating to watch. In those reports, they discuss Lieberman's criticism of Hollywood and of video games when explaining why Gore chose him as his running mate. Interestingly enough, they didn't mention Tipper Gore's censorship campaign, though they did talk about her staunch pro-choice positions on abortion-which I find to be greatly ironic.

The reports also discussed how younger voters were among the most enthusiastic for Nader's candidacy, and undoubtedly many of them were probably turned off by Lieberman's and Tipper's social moralism. As a side note, there is an episode of the Oprah Winfrey Show from 1990, which can be found on YouTube, in which there was a debate over the music censorship campaign. Tipper Gore (whose husband was in the Senate at the time) appears in that episode defending her side, and she doesn't come across that well, to put it mildly. I found the rebuttals to her by Jello Biafra and Ice-T to be particularly effective.

[Calthrina950]

though they did talk about her staunch pro-choice positions on abortion-which I find to be greatly ironic.

Lieberman was also pro-choice and for LGBT rights. The Religious Right != soccer momism.

The fear of Tipper and Lieberman, combined with Bush saying, “Too often, on social issues, my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah”, may have made Bush seem like the less “puritanical” candidate.

You're right, but it still seemed jarring to me. From the media reports, you would get the impression that Tipper Gore was a liberated, modern woman, not the "moralizing household wife" that she seemed to be as a result of her music censorship campaign. As I said, they did not mention it. But getting back to what I was saying earlier, part of the reason Gore chose Lieberman was because he was trying to distance himself from Clinton, and to demonstrate to American voters that his administration would be a more ethical, less controversial one. Lieberman was one of Clinton's strongest critics in the Senate, even though like all other Democrats he voted to acquit him.

[Calthrina950]

though they did talk about her staunch pro-choice positions on abortion-which I find to be greatly ironic.

Lieberman was also pro-choice and for LGBT rights. The Religious Right != soccer momism.

The fear of Tipper and Lieberman, combined with Bush saying, “Too often, on social issues, my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah”, may have made Bush seem like the less “puritanical” candidate.

You're right, but it still seemed jarring to me. From the media reports, you would get the impression that Tipper Gore was a liberated, modern woman, not the "moralizing household wife" that she seemed to be as a result of her music censorship campaign. As I said, they did not mention it. But getting back to what I was saying earlier, part of the reason Gore chose Lieberman was because he was trying to distance himself from Clinton, and to demonstrate to American voters that his administration would be a more ethical, less controversial one. Lieberman was one of Clinton's strongest critics in the Senate, even though like all other Democrats he voted to acquit him.

I'm not sure who you are attributing that to, but I find the idea of discussing if the nominee's wife is a "liberated, modern woman" or a "moralizing household wife" pretty gross.

I'm certainly not trying to cast aspersions on Tipper Gore, or anyone else. I'm discussing the contrast between how she was portrayed in the media reports on the 2000 election, and how she came off as in that Oprah Winfrey Show episode. Like I've noted, the media highlighted how she had pushed her husband to become more openly pro-choice on abortion, but said nothing about the PMRC or anything associated with it.

[Calthrina950]

though they did talk about her staunch pro-choice positions on abortion-which I find to be greatly ironic.

Lieberman was also pro-choice and for LGBT rights. The Religious Right != soccer momism.

The fear of Tipper and Lieberman, combined with Bush saying, “Too often, on social issues, my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah”, may have made Bush seem like the less “puritanical” candidate.

You're right, but it still seemed jarring to me. From the media reports, you would get the impression that Tipper Gore was a liberated, modern woman, not the "moralizing household wife" that she seemed to be as a result of her music censorship campaign. As I said, they did not mention it. But getting back to what I was saying earlier, part of the reason Gore chose Lieberman was because he was trying to distance himself from Clinton, and to demonstrate to American voters that his administration would be a more ethical, less controversial one. Lieberman was one of Clinton's strongest critics in the Senate, even though like all other Democrats he voted to acquit him.

I'm not sure who you are attributing that to, but I find the idea of discussing if the nominee's wife is a "liberated, modern woman" or a "moralizing household wife" pretty gross.

I'm certainly not trying to cast aspersions on Tipper Gore, or anyone else. I'm discussing the contrast between how she was portrayed in the media reports on the 2000 election, and how she came off as in that Oprah Winfrey Show episode. Like I've noted, the media highlighted how she had pushed her husband to become more openly pro-choice on abortion, but said nothing about the PMRC or anything associated with it.

I understand. But then why do people sometimes say that Tipper Gore's association with PMRC moved a certain type of young person to Bush if that was not something that got talked about during the campaign?

The media reports I'm referring to are those of NBC News, which are available on YouTube. I don't know if ABC or CBS mentioned the PMRC, though I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't. But the media, as I noted above, did talk about Lieberman's comments, and Gore's push to distance himself from Clinton, from a moral perspective, alienated many voters who approved of Clinton's job performance. A considerable number of these people cast their ballots for Nader.

[Calthrina950]

Lieberman may have also been intended to appeal to Cuban Exiles and Florida Jews.

Lieberman may have helped with Cuban exiles- there were plenty of articles from the fall of 2000 about Lieberman's popularity with that group- and Jews in Florida, but if Gore really wanted to win the state of Florida outright, maybe there was a popular sitting Senator from Florida who had previously served as their Governor that could have helped to make a Gore candidacy much stronger statewide. Much as 2016 (at least to me), it seemed like Gore thought he could win with anybody as his running mate.

You're obviously referring to Bob Graham here. Gore's selection of Lieberman was one of the two most critical mistakes he made during his 2000 campaign. The other was his attempts to distance himself from Clinton (which, as I noted above, Lieberman was intended to help him achieve) and his refusal to allow Clinton to campaign vigorously for him on the campaign trail. If Clinton had been on the stump for Gore, and had Gore emphasized his time with him more, than he would have won at least Arkansas-which would have given him the Presidency without the need for Florida.