Who is most responsible for Gore's loss in 2000?

[BugsBunny]

What about Ralph Nader?

Uh, no. Blaming third party candidates (especially those who got less than 5% nationwide) is an easy excuse.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

The Monica Lewinsky scandal made many Americans hungry for a morally sound leader. Bush appeared to be that.

The fact that Monica was even an issue shows you what a screwed up value system Americans have.

^^^^

[Chaddyr23]

The supreme court, Katherine Harris, and Gore for not embracing Clinton and his legacy

[Sec. of State Superique]

1. Ralph Nader and his voters.

2. Electoral college system.

3.  Butterfly ballot.

4. Clinton's libido.

5. Gore himself.

6. Data Base Technologies

7. Bush Friends

...

825. Lieberman.

Idea that Gore commited an electoral suicide and pulled the defeat out of the jaws of victory is wrong, in my opinion. People often try to blame everything on the candidate, it seems like every losing candidate in last 200 years blew an election by campaigning poorly or picking the wrong running mate (which is always the most overanalyzed campaign decision that rarely makes the difference between winning and losing). As a matter of fact, Gore ran a solid campaign and managed to beat Bush by 550,000 popular votes after trailing in polls against him since mid-1999. It was a bizarre and unrepeatable set of circumstances that prevented him from becoming President, and if those circumstances haven't been in place, he'd be praised for Truman II comeback. Sure, he made some mistakes, but almost everybody does. Bush made even more of them, in my opinion.

Now I'm going to take a shower because I feel dirty after defending Al Gore.  

The same thing of my friend over here but I added some responsibles for Gore loss...

[renegadedemocrat]

Gore and Lieberman. Lieberman was a poor running mate choice, and Gore should have campaigned more in New Hampshire. Would have won him the election at an even 270 (factoring in faithless elector). Regardless, the Supreme Court also played a role in this.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Gore, for running from the Clinton record.  The 90s were a very prosperous time for the country, he had no REAL reason to distance himself from that.  Clinton's infidelity wasn't going to sway very many people away from Gore.  This should have been his map.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Gore, for running from the Clinton record.  The 90s were a very prosperous time for the country, he had no REAL reason to distance himself from that.  Clinton's infidelity wasn't going to sway very many people away from Gore.  This should have been his map.  

Besides, he had already tied himself to Clinton during the impeachment fiasco.  Gore's obsequious comments towards Clinton at the end of it are what ensured I wasn't voting for him in 2000.  I was supporting Bradley during the primaries, and then in the general I had a tough time choosing between Bush and Nader.  In the end, I voted Nader, but if he hadn't been on the ballot I would have voted Bush.

[nolesfan2011]

Gore/Lieberman  "blame yourself" and his legal team

Either Gore or Lieberman.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I think they all did to some extent, but probably Gore himself.

[Niemeyerite]

Gore lost?

[You kip if you want to...]

When it was lost by 537 votes, literally anything could be blamed.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

When it was lost by 537 votes, literally anything could be blamed.

Exactly.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The obvious answer is Ralph Nader.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Bubba

[dudeabides]

Look, George W. Bush was a good candidate. Bush was a successful governor who ran on a vision of lower taxes, rebuilding the military, reforming education, and preserving social security and medicare while adding a senior prescription drug program to medicare. Al Gore's agenda was to get the government more involved in education, medicare, and health care. But, if we must assign blame to Gore's loss, it would be Monica. Without Monica, Gore would have used Bill Clinton more and he probably would have won Florida.

[Dancing with Myself]

Gore himself was the main reason why he lost. He had other reasons sure but his campaign lacked some important decisions and steps he should have taken.

Mainly was his distance from Clinton. Billy boy was rarely seen nationally besides mainly being with Hillary and that was a huge mistake.  The man was a success as a President and had fine approval ratings. So what he got in the mood with a hot intern? Gore was an idiot for not bringing him along and promising to continue the success and prosperity.  But like Bush Sr in '88, he could also promise to be better than his boss at certain things, mainly the moral part. Bush Sr promised the "Kinder, gentler America," routine. Gore could have done something like that with his personal ethics but not shoved Clinton away.

Second was his VP choice. I don't know about you folks but I never found Joe Liberman exciting or even memorable. To be fair Chaney wasn't either at first glance but everyone knows him know for being an upmost jerk and supervillain eque. What was Liberman known for? Being the boring old guy who's bud's with John McCain. There were many a man or woman who would have been more fit and excited the base better.

Third was Bush.  Dubya comes across as a nice a good man who sees to be like an everyman and would enjoy a beer here and there, but Gore always came off as a nerd/jerk. He was a bore and seemed too complicated. Bush was connectable and Gore wasn't.  Bush ran a well done campaign that went to the issues and focused on optimism minus the attack ad here and there. Gore's ads were boring or missed the point.

Nader had a small part to do with it but he gets crapped on by liberals way to much for his campaign in 2000.  He was out to give the hard liberals and grass roots progressives a voice because they felt Clinton/Gore sold out to the center too much.  He was wanting to be like Eugene Debs in that way and in a way he did. He got a million people out and that's high for a candidate of his scope.  But the odd thing is that most of his supporters was that a lot of them would have stayed home or skipped the presidential side of the ballot on election day. Bush/Gore didn't turn them on and the other third party candidates didn't matter. Nader gave them their voice and became a pariah to the Democrats as a result. Unfairly I might add.

In the end Gore killed himself more than Billy or Monica did.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Ralph Nader. Without him in the race, yes, some supporters would have stayed home, but tons more than enough would turn out to give FL to Gore.

[The_Doctor]

I'd like to posit: nobody. If that isn't acceptable, Bill Clinton.

Historically, a Vice President following an incumbent President into the White House is a tall order. Nixon scored 49.55%, Humphrey 42.72%, George H.W. Bush 53.37%, and Al Gore 48.38%. The struggle to differentiate and yet retain the incumbent's voters is extraordinarily difficult. Even with a strong economy (present in 1968, 1988, and 2000), and a popular president (1960, 1988, and 2000), vice presidents tend to not win huge majorities of their own. Given that, maybe Gore should be credited as a better candidate than what history remembers him as. He did win the popular vote, and did come within 600 votes of the presidency. He surmounted the Clinton scandal far better than other vice presidents have taken on retiring presidents' scandals.

Alternatively, Bill Clinton's Lewinksy scandal hurt Gore a lot. It forced Gore to separate himself from Clinton more directly instead of directly running on Clinton's legacy in an easier way. It angered Southern voters who had backed Clinton. It gave Bush 43 an opening to take their electoral votes. More than anyone else, Clinton endangered the Democrats' chances of 2000. It hurt the Democrats, where in times of economic peace and prosperity, people shifted their concerns to cultural issues. Exit polls in almost all of the states Bush won that Clinton won in 1992 or 1996 credited the scandal for their vote.

I don't blame Gore directly - he played better than the hand he was given. Nader's a silly third party argument. Clinton or nobody IMO are the best answers.

[Mr. Smith]

He himself, but only because he wrote off his own home state. He won that and Florida would never have been an issue.

[Dancing with Myself]

He himself, but only because he wrote off his own home state. He won that and Florida would never have been an issue.

True that. Same goes for New Hampshire.  Gore was too confident. 

Kind of amazing to see such epic state turnover in one election. 11 states switched over from Clinton to Dubya. The 5% increase in voter population turnout probably helped a lot as well.