Gore's near miracle

[dsc]

In light of all the historical revisionism about 2000 I think it is time again to put Gore's run in perspective. Gore, had he had his win ratified, would have pulled of a miracle of epic purportions.

First in comparison to the runs since 1948. Democrats have won 1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996, and 2000. We lost 1952, 1956, 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988. That is a 7 and 7 record. Yet, lets take a closer look. The seven Republican wins, except 1968 were all either solid (80, 88) or blowouts. The 7 Democratic wins were one blow out (64), two solid wins (92, 96) and 4 close wins (48, 60, 76, 00). Only two of our wins were over 50% (64, 76). Gore's percentage beat Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton. That makes his run third. Only beaten by LBJ who ran as heir to a martyr and Carter who ran against the man who pardoned Nixon.

Second compare to other who ran for an open seat Presidency. We are 2 and 6 on those. We lost 1908, 1920, 1928, 1952, 1968, 1988. We won 1960, and 2000. Republicans won one close race, one solid win, and 4 blowouts. We had two close wins. Gore did better than Kennedy did in terms of margin and percent of vote.

Third. Gore came back for the third largest deficit since 1948. Truman's famous comeback, Ford's near comeback and Bush's big comeback are all a little better but that is it. Gore and Ford were about tied on this score. He did this with a hostile media, being hugely outspent, and a third party on his left. He won back 15 points in a year and a half.

We need to understand this because we lost 2000, not because Gore was a bad candidate but because our candidates have to be lucky, good, or both to win. Kennedy and Truman were both awesome. Clinton was unreal. Johnson, Carter, and Kennedy were lucky. Gore was terrific but very unlucky. To win 2004 we need to be great and lucky. We need to be unified.

The good news is beating incumbent Republicans historicly has been easier. We won 1912, 1932, 1992 one blowout and a solid win. We lost 1904, 1924, 1956, 1972, 1984. All solid wins or blowouts. We are close though to 50/50 here. Our candidates can win but only if we are united and have a good candidate. We have to face our challenge before we can win.

[Gloria]

1. Interesting analysis.....kick

I need something to cheer me up....

[wuushew]

2. 1876 Worst election ever

I don't think Al Gore outperformed Samuel Tilden




Presidential
Candidate Vice Presidential
Candidate Political
Party Popular Vote Electoral Vote

Rutherford Hayes Republican 4,034,311 47.95% 185 50.1%
Samuel Tilden Democrat 4,288,546 50.97% 184 49.9%

[fairfaxvadem]

3. yes, thanks for posting this...

I've always liked Al Gore and I will never be graceful about that election. I just don't go down that road much anymore because he has moved on and our country is in big trouble right now.

But all Democrats need to get their heads on straight and be prepared to go after Bush with everything we have next year.

I think we can be great, but I am concerned about the luck factor. This is when I hope that old saying "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves" will be the bit of luck we need against the GOP.

[fujiyama]

4. Interesting Analysis...

I would say Gore's mistakes were largely superficial, having to do with how he presented himself.

However there were a few strategic mistakes as well. Gore shouldn't have pulled out of OH a few weeks before the election. Had he campaigned harder and stronger in most of the urban areas there (and the suburbs as well), he may have been able to overcome that 3 percent margin he was beaten by.

Gore's other problem was playing up issues that shouldn't have been, such as gun control and abortion. Gore should not have made those issues as defining for him. Clinton shared similar views as Gore on these issues but Gore decided to pander to gun control groups during his primaries against Bradley (who supported more drastic gun control measures like registration). The same can be said of abortion. Our party's stance on it need not have changed, but it should still have been more of a "safe, rare, but legal" sort of thing. WV and NH are two states that should not have been lost, though NH was one of the two states where Nader did make a big difference.

As for Gore losing TN, I don't know why people even bother bringing it up. This is a red state for all practical purposes. It has been trading that way for a while.

However, unlike what Greens may claim, the election wasn't lost because Gore didn't run far enough to the left, because many exit polls showed that those that many that voted for Bush thought Gore was TOO liberal. Unfortunately Gore lost a lot of democratic votes that way.

[AmericanLiberal]

5. hmm

Gore definitely should have won in 2000. In the four years between 1996 and 2000, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest seen in more than a generation. So did the crime rate. The stock market doubled and the Nasdaq tripled. More Americans became better off than in any other four-year period in U.S. history. Nixon nearly defeated Kennedy in 1960 even though Democrats were the majority party and the economy went into a recession starting in April 1960, and the nation had seen no less than three recessions in the Eisenhower era, the last two in his second term. (the recent recession did not begin until April 2001). Gore ran as a moderate who proposed $800 billion in tax cuts.

[dsc]

6. wrong on so many counts

I won't dispute Nixon Kennedy in that Kennedy being Catholic hurt him and he otherwise would have won a decisive victory. But you are utterly wrong on Gore. The recession started in quite a few places well before 2001. The stock market was heading down. gas and energy prices were high, and people in the midwest at least were losing jobs. Gore did promise tax cuts but it was around 500 billion and they were taretted to middle class.

[burr]

7. great analysis...

in this election the White House is the most logical objective. Logically attempting to win the back the Senate would be an uphill battle, while winning back the House would likely be impossible.

Oddly enough...two-years ago our party controlled the Senate and the House seemed to be within our reach. Now winning back the White House seems to be the last, best hope of again making the Democratic Party a factor in our political system. But certainly with a focused message and some winning Congressional candidates, Democrats can pick up seats in both houses next year...regardless of who wins the White House.

However..playing defense, and running on our recent deeds of the past shall not win us elections. Voters want to know what our party will do to reform things tommorrow, yes...what a radical campaign strategy! :wow:

[neuvocat]

8. ...um...

Gore came back for the 3rd largest deficit? I seem to remember that there was a surplus that Bush spent in 6 months after Clinton left.

[AP]

10. dsc means Gore was polling at a defecit.

Gore made the third largest gain in the polls from whatever his start date (or from the nadir) to election day.

[AP]

9. Regardless of these statistics, there's my favorite statistic:

the number of times I slapped my forehead when I thought, "I can't believe Gore (and Lieberman) didn't just knock that soft ball out of the park."

Gore should have won.

[fujiyama]

12. I honestly think...

Lieberman had a NEGATIVE effect on Gore, and it wasn't because of his religion or ethnicity (well, some on the left may have found him a bit too preachy/ sanctimonious, especially in his "you can't have freedom from religion" comment)...

It had to do with Lieberman not being there to help Gore FIGHT! That debate against Cheney was especially pathetic. My God, he allowed Cheney to get away with so much shit! The same goes with his undercutting Gore during the recounts...

[AP]

13. A couple comments:

- Lieberman was a brilliant selection...if your strategy is to win Florida on a prescription drug program for seniors.

Now, whether foresaking TN and Ark to put all your eggs in a basket governed by the brother of your adversary is brilliant strategy is another question altogether.

- Lieberman was miserable in his debate with Cheney. Cheney said that he never benefitted from a government handout in his life. Lieberman laughed. He thought that was pretty funny. It was a total lie. Cheney's entire career for the previous 6 or 8 years was organized around the principle that he was hired to get government handouts in the form of Fed contracts.

- Lieberman conceded that Gore wasn't going to challenge un-stamped, un-postmarked military ballots on national TV. This was despite the fact that the Gore team had decided that they would challenge un-postmarked ballots because the law required that they have a postmark, even though they didn't need stamps.

[Must_B_Free]

11. *sigh*

He's not running,
He doesn't want to run,
He's a loser,
He's a liar,
He's boring,

but I'll vote for him in a heartbeat. He is the best man to beat Bush.

America loves revenge...

[Adjoran]

14. Gore lost Florida and New Hampshire

because of the Nader vote. The final tally in Florida gave it to bush by 500 votes, while Nader pulled 97,000. New Hampshire was lost by 5000 votes, with 22,000 for Nader.

Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine wouldn't have been razor-thin wins except for Nader.

Gore ran a great campaign. There aren't any perfect campaigns, everyone makes mistakes.

We can argue the Florida count all day, but it doesn't change the fact that if Nader wasn't on the ballot, Gore wins easily.

[AP]

15. If Nader wasn't in it, it's not clear that those voters would have

even showed up at the polls.

A guy at Harvard did an analysis of the vote and said that it was very hard to tell whether Nader's participation influence the outcome of the election for that very reason. He said it's possible, but, to keep it in perspective, there were so many names on the ballot in FL, that there were various combinations of third party candidates who, if they pulled out, would have influenced the election in Gore's favour.