Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ericson00

(2,707 posts)
14. you can't win 'em all. And Gore was a media unsavvy gaffe machine.
Wed Jul 22, 2015, 10:19 PM
Jul 2015

Gore shoulda known that the internet comment would be wildly taken out of context, or the "love story" thing. Also, did he really expect to win Florida given the kind of machinery that ran that place in 2000 (his opponent's brother as gov and his campaign manager as SoS aka vote counter)? Gore just wasn't media savvy: people found a WASPY rich kid pretending to be a cowboy hick more trustworthy than him (see the exit polls from 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20001214221524/http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html). He won 267 electoral votes before the faithless elector; had he just spend just a little bit more money and time in another state, like New Hampshire, or his home state than he did an likely-to-be-rigged state like FL, he'd have been President. Also, he coulda used Clinton in some states and not in others instead of blanketly hiding him: he had stratospheric approvals at the time, varying state to state. He was gonna get linked by Bush anyway. Or how about the sighing at the debates? I respect Al Gore and all he's done (and the ticket he was on, the Clinton-Gore ticket) his activism against global warming, but not his election 2000 act. (1988 tho was much worse for Gore's presidential ambitions if you know how he came behind Dukakis and Jesse Jackson (!) in that primary)

Monica didn't help as well, but that was the obvious goal of the GOP pulling Monica, or they'd have gotten cleaned out badly in 2000, dededee.

2008 was no realigning election. Clinton won and kept in the D column a lot more formerly GOP states than Obama in 2008, no disrespect to him. The states I mentioned in the OP, had they gone to McCain, Obama woulda lost, even if he kept FL and OH. A better name for the "blue wall" is the President William Jefferson Clinton Electoral College Wall.

Let's rephrase your question: If the Clintons didn't change the electoral calculus radically, why has the GOP only won the most votes (by a tiny margin) one time in the last quarter century? That was the spot we were in the aftermath 1988 when the Dem party was starting to look like its days were over at the national level. Why did the GOP go from >400 EVs on average to barely 200?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

People forget that Perot's support had dwindled to a trickle by election time. Chemisse Jul 2015 #1
his support didn't "seem" to come from both sides, ericson00 Jul 2015 #3
Clinton did not win a majority in 1996 either. former9thward Jul 2015 #2
How many elections in the last 125 years have a different popular vote & electoral vote winner? ericson00 Jul 2015 #5
Intersting you use "125 years" former9thward Jul 2015 #7
did you read the post? ericson00 Jul 2015 #8
Current System is Precarious mvymvy Jul 2015 #20
pork-barrel spending will never allow a national popular vote ericson00 Jul 2015 #21
Only 7 Swing States Expected in 2016 mvymvy Jul 2015 #35
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service friendly_iconoclast Jul 2015 #11
GOP talking points are disruptive ericson00 Jul 2015 #12
Still sore about it, huh? ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #23
Its not different than "I am not a scientist" ericson00 Jul 2015 #25
Republicans can shut their f'ing mouths ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #27
its amazing how on progressive blogs the myth is almost as popular ericson00 Jul 2015 #28
You hate election facts. former9thward Jul 2015 #32
also he did win a majority, a "relative majority", a synonym for plurality ericson00 Jul 2015 #37
Nice try but i don't buy that 1992 was a realigning election for a minute. craigmatic Jul 2015 #4
you sound like a Republican ericson00 Jul 2015 #6
1994? 1939 Jul 2015 #9
I'm talking about Presidential elections here ericson00 Jul 2015 #10
1800, 1828, 1932, 1980, 2008 those were realigning elections. If Clinton changed the electorate so craigmatic Jul 2015 #13
you can't win 'em all. And Gore was a media unsavvy gaffe machine. ericson00 Jul 2015 #14
The reason the republicans stopped winning so many electoral votes is because craigmatic Jul 2015 #15
Your definition of realignment leaves out 1968 ericson00 Jul 2015 #16
Most people don't consider 1968 realigning because policy didn't really change neither did craigmatic Jul 2015 #17
"most people?" ericson00 Jul 2015 #18
We'll just never agree on Clinton's importance. craigmatic Jul 2015 #22
Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2015 #24
The electoral votes of CA, DE, MD, IL, ME, NH, VT, PA, MI, NJ, CT, ericson00 Jul 2015 #26
SCOTUS justices are the bare minimum of what we expect of a democratic president. craigmatic Jul 2015 #33
and so ought to be electoral votes. The guy who fought ericson00 Jul 2015 #34
EVs are important but so are coalitions and more importantly policy. craigmatic Jul 2015 #36
Also, if you, like me, are offended by the smear against the facts the Clintons, ericson00 Jul 2015 #19
If anyone has a WSJ account, ericson00 Jul 2015 #29
Rachel covered this tonight Gothmog Jul 2015 #30
I know! She was epic ericson00 Jul 2015 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Taking on the Zombie Pero...»Reply #14