Clinton and Gore's performance in the South

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

A lot of the time, people attribute Gore's stance on gun control to be a significant factor for how he lost certain states in 2000 (particularly Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc.).  But if one of the main reasons why Gore lost is his stance on gun control, then how was Clinton able to carry the states he lost in 1996?  From what I recall, Bush had a fairly pro-gun control record when he was Governor, so I don't see how that single issue could have flipped so many states to the GOP that year.  Or, was gun control actually not as much of an issue as some have claimed it to be?  And if it wasn't, then what cost Gore every single Southern state that Clinton carried?

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

A lot of the time, people attribute Gore's stance on gun control to be a significant factor for how he lost certain states in 2000 (particularly Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc.).  But if one of the main reasons why Gore lost is his stance on gun control, then how was Clinton able to carry the states he lost in 1996?  From what I recall, Bush had a fairly pro-gun control record when he was Governor, so I don't see how that single issue could have flipped so many states to the GOP that year.  Or, was gun control actually not as much of an issue as some have claimed it to be?  And if it wasn't, then what cost Gore every single Southern state that Clinton carried?

It's the same reason that Clinton did well in the South vs GHWB in 1992. GHWB=Gore- both Southern but lacking a movingly Southern persona, or any meaningful charisma. Clinton and young Bush were both charismatic "made for the South" personalities(although in Clinton's case that was only a particular type of Southerner, while young Bush had cross-appeal among most types of white Southerners.

[old timey villain]

A lot of the time, people attribute Gore's stance on gun control to be a significant factor for how he lost certain states in 2000 (particularly Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc.).  But if one of the main reasons why Gore lost is his stance on gun control, then how was Clinton able to carry the states he lost in 1996?  From what I recall, Bush had a fairly pro-gun control record when he was Governor, so I don't see how that single issue could have flipped so many states to the GOP that year.  Or, was gun control actually not as much of an issue as some have claimed it to be?  And if it wasn't, then what cost Gore every single Southern state that Clinton carried?

It's the same reason that Clinton did well in the South vs GHWB in 1992. GHWB=Gore- both Southern but lacking a movingly Southern persona, or any meaningful charisma. Clinton and young Bush were both charismatic "made for the South" personalities(although in Clinton's case that was only a particular type of Southerner, while young Bush had cross-appeal among most types of white Southerners.

I don't think GHWB was all that southern IMO.

What kind of southerner do you think Clinton appealed to?

[Dumbo]

I think it is has something do to with Gores 8 years as vice president too.
Serving so many years in Washington without anything important to decide, always
in the shadow of President Clinton, might have disconnect Al Gore from the
people in the South while Bush was present there. The Al Gore of 1984 or 1990, when
he was elected as Senator with over 60 % might have won Tennessee in 2000
so that he and not Bush had won the electoral vote.

[phk]

Pre-DC DLC Gore would have easily won TN and WV and had an outside chance at AR.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

When Gore was younger, he had that handsome young southern populist thing going for him. But after his 8 years as VP, he was tired and had moved more to the left. The old Gore started to show himself towards the end of the campaign, but by then it was too late.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

A lot of the time, people attribute Gore's stance on gun control to be a significant factor for how he lost certain states in 2000 (particularly Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, etc.).  But if one of the main reasons why Gore lost is his stance on gun control, then how was Clinton able to carry the states he lost in 1996?  From what I recall, Bush had a fairly pro-gun control record when he was Governor, so I don't see how that single issue could have flipped so many states to the GOP that year.  Or, was gun control actually not as much of an issue as some have claimed it to be?  And if it wasn't, then what cost Gore every single Southern state that Clinton carried?

It's the same reason that Clinton did well in the South vs GHWB in 1992. GHWB=Gore- both Southern but lacking a movingly Southern persona, or any meaningful charisma. Clinton and young Bush were both charismatic "made for the South" personalities(although in Clinton's case that was only a particular type of Southerner, while young Bush had cross-appeal among most types of white Southerners.

I don't think GHWB was all that southern IMO.

What kind of southerner do you think Clinton appealed to?

Gore probably didn't strike Southerners as particularly Southern by 2000 either. He has a more authentic claim to Southerness then either Bush, but it's perception that matters.

As for Clinton, the Ozarkians in general, and the relatively poorer and less sincerely fundamentalist elements of the lowland South.

[Indy Texas]

There is nothing Southern about GHWB. His extremely strong showing in the South in '88 had more to do with the cynical way Lee Atwater crafted campaign ads that appealed to the latent racism of that region.

As for Gore, he was certainly a more liberal, less Southern candidate in 2000 than he was when he ran in 1988. A lot of that has to do with the direction the Democratic Party went in and the fact that he had to be vice president of the whole country for eight years. It is still kind of sad when you can't even manage to win your own state.

Bush II and Clinton are both good retail politicians; they can glad-hand and back-slap with the best of them. GHWB and Gore are not; they're both more cerebral, patrician types. GHWB won in '88 not because he was a good campaigner but because Dukakis was a worse one.

[Rhodie]

Gore was too left-wing in terms of his positions on a number of issues such as the environment. His personality also seriously p****d off many people.

[Incipimus iterum]

gun control was only a part of the problem it was also the environment and well Gores opposition to clean coal tech with cost Gore West Virginia

[morgieb]

He wasn't very Southern by 2000 and Clinton's sex scandal.