even though the Republican candidates would have won it if Ross Perot wasn't on the ballot.
Eh. Where do Republicans get this silly idee from that Perot's 92 voters would have favored them if Perot had somehow disappeared? All the evidence suggests it would have been a wash.
I seem to recall that he did.
He would've been defeated in 2004 anyway by McCain, so he would've only served one term.
Possibly... probably not though. If Bush could get reelected thanks to 9-11, anyone could.
And he really wasn't a native of the state in any meaningful way. He grew up in D.C. and spent only his summers in the state. When he became a Congressman and then a Senator, he basically only spent campaign season there. He didn't speak like them. He didn't act like them. He wasn't one of them.
Check 2004's biggest swings if you believe Gore didn't get a sizeable home state advantage bump. Unlike John Kerry, by the way. "Gore's not really from Tennessee" was, of course, a major Republican campaign theme/media talking point during 2000. It probably influenced some people... but not nearly enough to swing the state.
Gore was perceived as too liberal.
Bingo. In a nationally close someone-like-Gore vs someone-like-Bush election, Tennessee as it stands now (with far more suburbs than 30 years ago, that is) is safe for the Bush guy.
