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

[hcallega]

TIPPER!!!!!!

[hcallega]

Looking at the tracking polls, Bush led throughout most of the race. Since he won his reelection his reelection in 1998, he had been touted not only as the front runner for the GOP nomination, but the Presidency on the whole. There are three ways to interpret this: either Bush was an uber-campaigner, he was a media darling, or Gore was viewed very negatively from the start. I would argue that only the second factor was totally true. The media created an image of Bush as some sort of "compassionate conservative", a term he used but they refused to dig into. They allowed him to set the tone of the election, and rarely called into question many of his decisions as Governor. For those who say that they made him look like an idiot, most of his gaffes made him appear relatable and lovable to most Americans.

With that in mind, the next question is why did Bush end up losing the popular vote? It was often speculated that he could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote, when the opposite ended up happening. But why did this happen? There are several factors. The first is the DUI revelation. Rove urged Bush to publicize this after he wrapped up the nomination. Much like the Jeremiah Wright story, it would have largely blown over by November. Instead, it became public in September and caused an erosion of support among Evangelicals. Many stayed home, making states like Florida much closer. A second factor is that many undecideds ultimately backed Gore due to their stable economic positions. They saw him as a continuation of Clinton-era policies which had brought them stability. The third factor is that Gore actually ran a solid campaign post-Convention. While he had many slip-ups (most notably the debates) and could have chosen a better running-mate, Gore effectively narrowed the gap between him and Bush. Some of this can be attributed to his populist re-branding and effective use of the economy as a crucial issue. In the end, it wasn't enough.

In conclusion, it's important to understand the realities of the 2000 Campaign. Bush, not Gore, had everything to lose. He was touted by the media as the most likely President of any of the candidates in the field. The Monica Lewinsky scandal made many Americans hungry for a morally sound leader. Bush appeared to be that. Also, he lacked many substantial differences with Clinton on economic policy. He was no Tea Partier. It was Gore who had everything to win. He trailed in the polls literally for years. He bested Bill Bradley in the primaries, and made a solid comeback against Bush. The fact that he lost can be attributed to several factors. Despite the fact that he ran a good campaign, Gore is still largely to blame. Part of the reason he started so far behind Bush was his personality. Voters didn't see him as Presidential or a strong, charismatic, leader. They also failed to connect him to the prosperity of the Clinton years. In short, Gore's campaign was better than Gore the candidate.