Can Gore compete in the Southwest?

[leyton]

In my opinion, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada are all ripe for the taking. (Okay, Gore won New Mexico the first time, although it was the closest of any state in the union.)

I'm going to assume here that a major factor in the 2000 election was Gore's poor campaign and a major factor in the 2004 election was the perception of Bush's performance. I'm also assuming Gore, having run one national campaign already, will not make as many mistakes the second time.

Let's take a look:

Colorado. Nine electoral votes. Bush won 51-42-5 in 2000: Gore was not as competitive as he could have been, but he was up against a folksy Texan and Ralph Nader. Bush defeated Kerry 52-47: not much of an improvement for an incumbent Republican, maybe Colorado is becoming bluer. One Democratic Senator recently elected who won, as CW has it, on his Colorado roots. Democrats also retook the lege, I think.

Nevada. Five electoral votes. Bush defeated Gore here 49-45: not very impressive. Bush defeated Kerry 51-48: this state is getting bluer, as this is one of those rare states where Kerry outperformed Gore. Also a rapidly growing state, due to Las Vegas.

New Mexico. Five electoral votes. Gore defeated Bush by a mere 360 votes (IIRC) and Bush bested Kerry by only 6000: this state hangs on turnout as much as anything. It got redder, but is still the bluest of the three. Recently elected a Democratic governor.

Obviously, there are many ways to interpret these numbers. The way I see it, an incumbent President usually performs better across the board (and Bush did) but his gains in these three states, all of which he either won or came darned close to winning in 2000, are unimpressive. They suggest to me that voters in these states are not all that impressed with the way things have been going with Bush.

I firmly believe that our 2008 nominee can win all the Kerry states (would that be that difficult?) and I also believe that with a good campaign and a good running mate we can pick up these states and their 19 electoral votes.

The question is can Gore win these states? Is a progressive environmentalist former Vice-President with plenty of gravitas a guy who can win in the SW? I'm skeptical about the typical Democrats from the East, but something in Gore strikes me as a guy who can compete out West. Y'all know a lot more about Gore than I do, I'd like to hear what you think.

[AlGore-08.com]

1. Of course! (Gotta comment on Gore's "poor campaign" meme as well...)

Short answer:
Of course Gore can win in the Southwest. Of course he can win nationally in 2008.

Because of the long answer:
The idea that Gore ran a poor campaign flies in the face of the facts. If you actually look at the facts you will see that Gore's campaign was very successful.

Gore began his 2000 campaign 20 points behind "any Republican".

Right before he gave his acceptance speech in August, he was still 10 points behind Bush.

He was outspent by Bush by over 2 to 1.

The press was universally hostile to Gore - - smearing Gore as a liar and using as "proof" their own misquotes or truthful Gore quotes stripped of their context. At the same time, they gave Bush universally glowing reviews, ignoring glaring lies that he told about his record, his proposals, and his personal life. (Many in the Dem party like to blame Gore for this, but it is no different from the press' smears against both Clintons, Bob Kerrey, Tom Daschle, and Max Cleland, to name a few. Remember Gary Condit, who the police never suspected of murdering Chandra Levy, but the press spent months speculating how he murdered her, and when he would be arrested?)

Gore got almost no support from the Democratic party, and was attacked by the progressives for being too conservative, and by the moderates for being too liberal.

Even if you accept the Florida election results as accurate, Gore went on to get 500,000 more votes than Bush. Gore won the popular vote by a larger margin than Kennedy in 1960 or Nixon in 1968. Gore won more votes than any Democratic Presidential candidate before him - - including Clinton.

If you do not accept the Florida election results as accurate, for any one of countless reasons (the thousands of African Americans who were illegally purged from the voter rolls, the thousands of uncounted overvotes, the 3000+ votes misdirected to Buchanan by the butterfly ballot, the bogus riot by GOP Congressional Aides and former GOP congressional aides that shut down the Miami-Dade recount, the totally unconstitutional Bush v Gore ruling... ), then Gore's campaign is even more impressive.

Gore's GOTV program was so well constructed that the GOP spent millions studying, and used it in 2002 to win the midterm elections.

Comparing Gore's 2000 campaign to 2004, there are some striking figures to keep in mind:

Kerry spent $190,000,000 (that's $190 million) more than Gore did - - and the 527s, which did not exist until 2002, spent AT LEAST an additional $100,000,000 (that's $100 million) beyond that.

The Democratic party was united behind Kerry in a manner not seen in the party since FDR.

The press gave Kerry much, much, much more balanced coverage than they did Gore. They still broadcast stories uncritically that they should never have broadcast (the Swift Boat Vets) but there was not the same character assassination that was handed out to Clinton, Gore, Kerrey, Daschle, Cleland, et al.

Despite Kerry's huge advantages, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000, but Kerry lost it by over 3 million.

Gore's populist campaign was criticized as too liberal, and Kerry's campaign was praised as the perfect blend of moderate views that would win back the Reagan Democrats in swing states - - yet Kerry got 10% less votes from moderates than Gore did.

Bush won more votes in 2004 than any Presidential candidate in history. But Gore got more votes than he did in 2000. If this were college football, Gore would be the top ranked team.