Hillary vs. Gore 2000

[ButterflyBlood]

This is a map of how Gore performed in New York in 2000. The traditional color scheme is reversed, he is in red, Dumbass is in blue:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2000&st=NY&type=map&off=0&fips=36&elect=0

This is how Hillary performed the same year:

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/img.php?year=2000&st=NY&type=map&off=3&fips=36&elect=0

Notice a difference?

Most notable in Long Island. Hillary received only around 45% in Nassau County and barely 41% in Suffolk. Gore won each with almost 58% and 53% respectively. Note that's only Gore's numbers and Nader took a fair chunk in both. Plenty of people who liked Gore clearly didn't like Hillary.

Now how do we expect someone who ran that far behind a guy who only barely beat one of the stupidest pieces of shit ever to seek the White House to win against a GOP candidate who almost certainly would be more competant?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. Perhaps it's worth noting

that Clinton's opponent in 2000 was a congressman from Long Island.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Bingo, and Gore's was from Texas. nt

[ButterflyBlood]

12. Staten Island is on the other side of the city

Gore won it. Hillary just barely broke 41%.

Also take a look at the county differences upstate.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. In 2006, Clinton

got 57% in Staten Island.

Stupid flamebait thread, and a lame attempt to smear Clinton.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Clinton's negatives are so high, she would never pull in the indies and swings. plus

half the democrats will not vote for her. She totally turns off the base. If she becomes the nominee we will lose again only it will be our fault because we know this. And this worries me.

[Captain Hilts]

6. She gets more votes than polling points. Ind./Suburban women will vote for her.

They're crossovers in elections.

[ButterflyBlood]

11. They sure didn't crossover in 2000.

These numbers show that independent suburban voters clearly DID NOT like Hillary.

[MonkeyFunk]

15. who gives a fuck about 2000?

Why not look at the more relevant numbers from 2006, when Clinton got 67% of the vote statewide.

[ButterflyBlood]

21. Because in 2000 she had a serious well funded opponent

In 2006 she did not.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. and in 2000

she trounced her serious well-funded opponent.

[ButterflyBlood]

26. Performing significantly weaker than Gore

That being the whole point of the thread. Winning in New York is not an accomplishment for a Democrat.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. Weaker than Gore

In the HOME DISTRICT OF HER OPPONENT!!!

She still kicked Lazio's ass. Give it up - this very sad attempt at a smear was debunked in the first reply.

[ButterflyBlood]

30. There are other counties I mentioned

Where she did perform much weaker than Gore that are not part of Long Island, also I'm pretty sure Lazio's district did not contain any part of Nassau County.

[ButterflyBlood]

7. Yep, and these maps are proof of the toxic effect she had on such voters

Clearly moderate voters throughout the NYC area were thoroughly disgusted with both her and Dumbass.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. there is no toxic effect

you omit to mention that her opponent was from Long Island in 2000. In 2006, she did BETTER than Gore did there in 2000.

[ButterflyBlood]

19. Races against sacrificial lambs are not worth analyzing

Look at the numbers people like Tancredo, Brownback and Hunter get against sacrificial lamb opponents. It doesn't mean they wouldn't get their asses thoroughly kicked in a general election.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. Clinton kicked

Lazio's ass in 2000. Your point remains lame and easily refuted.

[ButterflyBlood]

28. Yet she still did far weaker than Gore

In 2002 John Cornyn won by a fairly large margin over Ron Kirk. Yet his numbers were still pretty bad for Texas.

[rinsd]

44. LOL.

"Clearly moderate voters throughout the NYC area were thoroughly disgusted"

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1206,2

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1207,1

So disgusted her approval ratings don't dip below 65%!

And here's the NYC suburbs who have thought quite high of her of late.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1207,2

Here's Democrats and Liberals.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1205,2

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=77ca4b7e-ec24-4213-a4d6-f5053467ebf4&x=1206,3

[John Q. Citizen]

3. We would win New York if we ran anyone. It's solidly in the Dem catagory

for Presidential elections.

I do believe Gore is a far stronger choice though, for many many reasons.

[ButterflyBlood]

9. Of course. That's why her numbers are so troubling

It's the equivalent of a Republican getting 55% in Texas. Obviously they'd still win Texas in a general election, but no one with those types of numbers are going to win nationwide.

Hillary would win New York, no question about that. But you need a lot more than New York.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Wow. This is meaningless! I worked in polling for 8 yrs. Means nothing. nt

[ButterflyBlood]

10. What the hell does it have to do with polling?

It's actual voting returns. Not polls.

[Cascadian]

5. This proves Gore would be a better candidate.

Hillary would spell doom for the Democrats and I will keep saying it. Al Gore must run again! I will gladly back him in 2008 if he runs.


John

[MonkeyFunk]

13. You also don't note

that in 2006, Clinton did better than Gore did in 2000 on Long Island.

She got >59% in Suffolk county and over 60% in Nassau.

What a lame attempt to smear Clinton.

[ButterflyBlood]

17. yeah, shit happens when you outspend a joke opponent 20:1

in the most brutal year for the GOP in decades.

Sam Brownback got 69% in 2004 while Dumbass took 62% in Kansas. By these standards Sam Brownback is a great candidate for the GOP.

Only serious races that are seriously focused on by the two parties are worth analyzing.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. nonsense

you found some lameass statistic that you want to present as meaningful, but you leave out all the important factors.

Her opponent in 2000 was a congressman from Long Island.

Clinton is very popular in New York, despite your lame attempt at a smear. Seriously, you should at least try to create one that isn't so easily debunked.

[ButterflyBlood]

24. Staten Island is not part of Long Island last time I checked

Neither are upstate counties like Monroe and Broome.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. sorry

this ridiculous idea is such a stretch, it's laughable.

[ButterflyBlood]

31. Explain then her underperformance to Gore in those counties then

Since the Long Island excuse doesn't work here.

She ran behind Gore in EVERY SINGLE COUNTY.

[Captain Hilts]

43. What don't you understand? She ran against someone from LONG ISLAND.

People usually - except for Tennesseans and South Dakotans - vote for their own in an election.

What's complicated about that?

[w4rma]

20. Republicans didn't put up a credible opponent to her in 2006.

And Democrats swept everything, anyway. It should be argued that Hillary should have gotten many more votes considering that she is a Democrat.

Also, she had and spent (read:wasted) an insane amount of money in that race while Republicans hardly spent anything.

[MonkeyFunk]

25. You think she should've gotten

more than 67% of the vote in 2006? Sorry, that's an unreasonable expectation.


Clinton kicked Lazio's ass in 2000 and won handily in 2006. This is one of the stupidest smears against Clinton I've seen here, mainly because it's so easily debunked.

[ButterflyBlood]

32. John Cornyn would be a great GOP candidate

He kicked Ron Kirk's ass in 2002. We all know winning 55% in Texas is great for a Republican. :sarcasm:

[w4rma]

33. Yes, I do. Considering the Democratic sweep and her outspending that guy 20:1.

And with her being the former first lady of the United States. (Even though her fame came from her failed health care reform, the Whitewater "scandal" and the Monica/Bill adultery.)

[ButterflyBlood]

35. Also worth noting that

She underperformed Spitzer in 2006. Since Spitzer had the same scenario (underfunded joke opponent), the comparison of the two is quite apt.

[w4rma]

37. I agree. Spitzer's and Clinton's 2006 campaigns are very good campaigns to compare. (nt)

[ButterflyBlood]

36. btw, it's not an unreasonable expectation

Eliot Spitzer got almost 70% of the vote the same year. So getting over 67% is clearly possible. Also note that Hillary was an incumbent and Spitzer wasn't.

[saltpoint]

34. Gore's popular vote win over Dubya was by the thinnest of margins.

Senator Clinton's numbers are from her senate campaigns, which are similar in some respects and useful because of it, but by no means comparable. A presidential election produces a different voting demographic per district than a state-wide race.

Not a fair comparison.

[ButterflyBlood]

38. Want to compare two statewide elections?

Look at her run in 2006 against Spitzer's for Governor.

She ran behind Spitzer by a small but statistically significant margin.

[saltpoint]

39. No. Those are both state-wide candidacies. Al Gore's 2000 race was

a national campaign.

They are not comparable kinds of campaigns.

The turn-out percentages rise for a presidential election.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. so what?

They both won handily. Spitzer got 69%, Clinton got 67%.

Are you saying that in order to be an effective candidate, she'd have to have done better than any other candidate for any office in any other election?

[ButterflyBlood]

41. My point is she always underperforms similar candidates

Against a serious candidate, she underperformed Gore. Against a sacrificial lamb, she underperformed Spitzer.

[MonkeyFunk]

42. and your point

has been debunked.

She underperformed a man who was the sitting vice president for 8 years, in her first run for office, and she "underperfomed" him on Long Island, where her opponent is from.

And of what possible relevance is it that Spitzer did 2% better than her in 2006? She won in a landslide, as did Spitzer.

Your point is, to put it bluntly, stupid.