How did Gore not win comfortably?

[Keystone Phil]

One thing you have to keep in mind is that there actually isn't that much evidence that an incumbent's popularity / unpopularity transfers over *that much* to the chosen successor within his own party.  Eisenhower was pretty popular in 1960, but JFK still beat Nixon, LBJ was pretty unpopular in 1968, but Nixon only just barely beat Humphrey, Bush and Gore basically fought to a draw in 2000, despite Clinton being fairly popular, Obama beat McCain by "only" 7 points, despite historically low job approval ratings for Bush.

Bottom line, the voters don't necessarily all see the incumbent party nominee as being a potential "third term" for the incumbent president.  Elections with no incumbent president running always seem to be closer than you would "expect" if the voters actually thought that way.

But look at every example you gave. Weren't we just getting over a recession in 1960? Things weren't that great. Things got closer in 1968 (despite LBJ's horrific ratings) because the war was starting to look a little better. By today's standards, a seven point win (even when you consider how terrible the President's ratings were) is about as big of a win as you can hope for running in an open race.

I'm not trying to say that Gore should have won by a bigger margin just because Clinton was still popular. Take a look at how things were economically. Take a look at how things were around the world.

[Mr. Morden]

One thing you have to keep in mind is that there actually isn't that much evidence that an incumbent's popularity / unpopularity transfers over *that much* to the chosen successor within his own party.  Eisenhower was pretty popular in 1960, but JFK still beat Nixon, LBJ was pretty unpopular in 1968, but Nixon only just barely beat Humphrey, Bush and Gore basically fought to a draw in 2000, despite Clinton being fairly popular, Obama beat McCain by "only" 7 points, despite historically low job approval ratings for Bush.

Bottom line, the voters don't necessarily all see the incumbent party nominee as being a potential "third term" for the incumbent president.  Elections with no incumbent president running always seem to be closer than you would "expect" if the voters actually thought that way.

But look at every example you gave. Weren't we just getting over a recession in 1960? Things weren't that great. Things got closer in 1968 (despite LBJ's horrific ratings) because the war was starting to look a little better. By today's standards, a seven point win (even when you consider how terrible the President's ratings were) is about as big of a win as you can hope for running in an open race.

I'm not trying to say that Gore should have won by a bigger margin just because Clinton was still popular. Take a look at how things were economically. Take a look at how things were around the world.

Who says that the guy running to replace the incumbent president automatically gets credit or blame for everything that's going on around the world?  I agree that there's a correlation between the popularity of the *incumbent president himself* and what's going on around the world, but who says that that transfers over to his presumed successor?  Don't you first have to demonstrate that such a relationship exists, before I have to refute that it exists in any particular circumstance?

[Nixon in '80]

I remember hearing that Gore would win the Electoral Vote and Bush would win the Popular Vote.

and Bush was prepared to fight that:

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

This is by far one of the funniest things I have ever seen.

To answer Phil's question... I have no idea. The benefit of hindsight, I suppose.

[Keystone Phil]

Who says that the guy running to replace the incumbent president automatically gets credit or blame for everything that's going on around the world?

Look at the results of elections like 1968, 1988 and 2008.

Don't you first have to demonstrate that such a relationship exists

Being the Vice President (as was the case in 1968 and 1988) for eight years isn't enough?

[Nym90]

Gore ran a horrid campaign and Bush ran a superb one.

Clinton definitely should've been used more.

[ShadowOfTheWave]

Most people didn't think the election really mattered that much, isn't wasn't such a life or death thing like 2004 and 2008. Most people just voted on who they liked or disliked more, which split the country between those who liked Bush and those who disliked Gore. Gore was perceived as being an enviromental extremist, exaggerator, stuck-up politician, while Bush was perceived as an honest, down to earth, Christian family man. Clinton's personals outweighed his job approvals because, once again, people really didn't think the election's result would have any real impact on the country or their lives. Had it not been for 9/11 it would probably still be this way. 9/11 not only re-created the national security issue, but it helped make the election more serious, and with a significant percentage of the religious base now believing we are living in the end times, makes them take other social issues, abortion, gay marriage ect, all the more seriously.

And the evangelical base was much more motivated then before, I remember the entire fundamentalist side of my family being fired up about Bush being born again, and the teachers in my school were very ecstatic about it as well. I believe Rove said that 4 million of them didn't vote in 2000, but it was probably still up from the previous two elections.

[Mr. Morden]

Who says that the guy running to replace the incumbent president automatically gets credit or blame for everything that's going on around the world?

Look at the results of elections like 1968, 1988 and 2008.

Don't you first have to demonstrate that such a relationship exists

Being the Vice President (as was the case in 1968 and 1988) for eight years isn't enough?

My point is that you're starting with the assumption that the rules for presidential elections with no incumbent are basically the same as the rules for presidential elections *with* an incumbent, and I question whether that's true.

In 2008, people were saying "Well yeah, Obama had a decent margin of victory, but, given how terribly unpopular Bush was, one might expect that the Democratic candidate would win by double digits."  In 2000, people said, "Why didn't Gore handily defeat Bush, given how popular Clinton was?"  In 1968 (I wasn't alive back then, so I don't know what people said, but let's suppose....) people might have said, "Wow, given how unpopular Johnson is, I wouldn't have expected this election to be so incredibly close."  In 1960, people might have said "Wow, given Ike's ~60% approval ratings, how the heck did JFK win?"

Those are statements that people might make if their assumption was that the popularity of the incumbent president or the popularity of the incumbent party is the main determinant of who wins the election.  But since this logic seems to fail in a substantial fraction of the elections with no incumbent president on the ballot, maybe the whole premise is flawed?  Maybe we shouldn't take things like the incumbent president's popularity of right track/wrong track numbers or what have you, and use that as the baseline expectation for who's going to win the election?  Maybe, when there's no incumbent on the ballot, the voters' perception of the candidates' personal qualities or the shrewdness of the campaigns or something like that should set our baseline expectations for the election, while voters' opinion as to how well things are going in the country are actually more of a secondary factor??

You might not think this is a logical way for the voters to operate.  I'm just suggesting, maybe it's more accurate than the more traditional paradigm.

[Keystone Phil]

My point is that you're starting with the assumption that the rules for presidential elections with no incumbent are basically the same as the rules for presidential elections *with* an incumbent, and I question whether that's true.

Well, no, not really.

Maybe we shouldn't take things like the incumbent president's popularity of right track/wrong track numbers or what have you, and use that as the baseline expectation for who's going to win the election?  Maybe, when there's no incumbent on the ballot, the voters' perception of the candidates' personal qualities or the shrewdness of the campaigns or something like that should set our baseline expectations for the election, while voters' opinion as to how well things are going in the country are actually more of a secondary factor??

But we're not just talking about the President's popularity; it's about the climate in the country. Feel free to criticize how much effect an incumbent President has during an open race but you can't just dismiss the fact that the late 90s and into 2000 were "the good times."

The personal qualities obviously matter a lot and they especially did in 2000. However, just as people disliked the stiff, patronizing, "Mr. Know it all" Al Gore, George Bush didn't have it that much better. Sure, he won the "I can have a beer with him" contest but I think the best idea that the public had of the man was how he was portrayed on SNL - a bumbling fool who expected his Daddy to run the show in the White House again. This, to me, was almost as bad as people's perception of Gore.

I think the real answer to why this wasn't so comfortable was because things were just too good for people to care. In a way, Gore's campaign gets partial blame for that.

[ChrisFromNJ]

I reject the premise of this thread. Gore won the 2000 Election.

[GPORTER]

One thing you have to keep in mind is that there actually isn't that much evidence that an incumbent's popularity / unpopularity transfers over *that much* to the chosen successor within his own party.  Eisenhower was pretty popular in 1960, but JFK still beat Nixon, LBJ was pretty unpopular in 1968, but Nixon only just barely beat Humphrey, Bush and Gore basically fought to a draw in 2000, despite Clinton being fairly popular, Obama beat McCain by "only" 7 points, despite historically low job approval ratings for Bush.

Bottom line, the voters don't necessarily all see the incumbent party nominee as being a potential "third term" for the incumbent president.  Elections with no incumbent president running always seem to be closer than you would "expect" if the voters actually thought that way.

Eisenhower's approval ratings on personality were practically through the roof. It was his job approval rating that was slowly but surely dropping. And the Nixon campaign was poorly run.

[The Mikado]

I remember hearing that Gore would win the Electoral Vote and Bush would win the Popular Vote.

and Bush was prepared to fight that:

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

And that's unfortunate (though I must note how they only quoted "a Bush aide") but if the quotes from the movie Recount are accurate, when asked about that possibility, the Gore campaign told reporters that they would expect Bush to respect "the rule of law."   Your source backs up those quotes.  Too bad we didn't hear that when their surrogates were spinning everytime they got the chance, saying Gore won the popular (as if we were supposed to make an exception to the rule just this one time).

I actually heard someone in a position to know in the Bush camp say that "We switched talking points after the election,"  (Paraphrase) regarding the possibility of Gore winning the electoral vote and Bush winning the popular one.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I reject the premise of this thread. Gore won the 2000 Election.

1. The thread explicitly asks you not to start a debate like that.

2. The thread asks why he didn't win comfortably, so you're not even answering the right question.

Thank you for playing.

[N.i.K.]

Clinton didn't campaign.

[Mr. Morden]

Eisenhower's approval ratings on personality were practically through the roof. It was his job approval rating that was slowly but surely dropping.

But they were still in the 60% range on election day according to this:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

[Mr. Morden]

Maybe we shouldn't take things like the incumbent president's popularity of right track/wrong track numbers or what have you, and use that as the baseline expectation for who's going to win the election?  Maybe, when there's no incumbent on the ballot, the voters' perception of the candidates' personal qualities or the shrewdness of the campaigns or something like that should set our baseline expectations for the election, while voters' opinion as to how well things are going in the country are actually more of a secondary factor??

But we're not just talking about the President's popularity; it's about the climate in the country. Feel free to criticize how much effect an incumbent President has during an open race but you can't just dismiss the fact that the late 90s and into 2000 were "the good times."

Wouldn't "the climate of the country" have more of an impact on the incumbent president's approval ratings than it would on the veep, or any potential successor?  That is, you can say "well things weren't actually all that good in 1960".  Really?  Then why was Ike so popular?  The president's job approval ratings seem to track a lot better with the mood of the country than does his potential successor's success at the polls.

I think the real answer to why this wasn't so comfortable was because things were just too good for people to care. In a way, Gore's campaign gets partial blame for that.

But here's the thing: There are only so many examples in history of a presidential election in which one of the major party candidates was the sitting vice president.  You can say "Well, the baseline assumption should be that if people are happy with the sitting president or the direction of the country or what have you, then the sitting veep will do really well.  If not, then he'll do poorly."  But then, you have counterexamples like 2000, so you have to construct new rules to account for the exceptions ("Well, OK, it doesn't work if people are *too* happy.  Then it can go the opposite way.")

Since there are so few such elections to consider to begin with, and you're already carving out exceptions, maybe the whole premise is wrong?  Maybe voters simply *don't* view elections without incumbent presidents running as a referendum on the direction of the country.  (Or rather, many of them do, but not nearly as many as is commonly believed.  I've kind of been exaggerating my own opinion on this a little for the sake of being provocative.)

[GPORTER]

Eisenhower's approval ratings on personality were practically through the roof. It was his job approval rating that was slowly but surely dropping.

But they were still in the 60% range on election day according to this:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

this poll does not indicate that he was in the 60% range on election day. It indicates that he was there some time in the year of 1960.

[bhouston79]

I remember hearing that Gore would win the Electoral Vote and Bush would win the Popular Vote.

and Bush was prepared to fight that:

http://www.bartcop.com/111tie.htm

Yep, and Gore was also unprepared to fight.  Did you check out this quote from the article that you link to? 

And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way? (i.e. Gore winning the popular vote and yet losin the electoral college) "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."

That quote says it all.  The Gore campaign ran a horrible campaign and the Bush campaign ran an excellent no holds bar campaign.

It's unreal that they weren't planned for these type of contengencies given the tightness of that race.  Hell Obama had hundreds of lawyers on the ground in every possible swing state even though it was pretty much a forgone conclusion by election day that he was going to win big. 

The bottom line is that Gore ran an inept campaign.  If he would have ran a decent campaign, the election would have been closer than 92 or 96, but he would have won more than 300 EV's by carrying Florida comfortably, carrying his home state of Tennessee narrowly (which he didn't even visit), and carrying Ohio narrowly.  He could have also possibly squeaked out a win New Hampshire if only he had ran a competent campaign.  Here is what the map would have looked like if Gore had have run anything resembling a competent campaign:

[Keystone Phil]

Wouldn't "the climate of the country" have more of an impact on the incumbent president's approval ratings than it would on the veep, or any potential successor?  That is, you can say "well things weren't actually all that good in 1960".  Really?  Then why was Ike so popular?  The president's job approval ratings seem to track a lot better with the mood of the country than does his potential successor's success at the polls.

Ike wasn't that popular at the time. I believe we were just getting out of a recession around that time.

But here's the thing: There are only so many examples in history of a presidential election in which one of the major party candidates was the sitting vice president.  You can say "Well, the baseline assumption should be that if people are happy with the sitting president or the direction of the country or what have you, then the sitting veep will do really well.  If not, then he'll do poorly."  But then, you have counterexamples like 2000, so you have to construct new rules to account for the exceptions ("Well, OK, it doesn't work if people are *too* happy.  Then it can go the opposite way.")

It's not that Gore did poorly because things were too good; it's that his campaign didn't work hard enough to get people to the polls.

  Maybe voters simply *don't* view elections without incumbent presidents running as a referendum on the direction of the country. 

Care to explain 2008?

[Senator Ben]

If Gore had run a strong campaign, he would've won by a much bigger margin; something like this:

[Keystone Phil]

If Gore had run a strong campaign, he would've won by a much bigger margin; something like this:

He should have won NV, AZ and WV, too.

[Lief]

The United States was still a center-right nation in 2000. Even though Gingrich had been disgraced, his Contract with America policies were still popular, and even Bill Clinton had essentially acted like a republican since 1995. Al Gore didn't really give the American people a compelling reason to put aside their preference for conservative ideology. If not for the fact that the economy was very strong and Clinton was still relatively popular, he would have lost by a good deal more.

[The Mikado]

That quote says it all.  The Gore campaign ran a horrible campaign and the Bush campaign ran an excellent no holds bar campaign.

Ah, yes.  The Bush campaign that had George standing around in Califorinia days before the election, wasting a fortune that could be going to shore up Florida, was "excellent."  Of course.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That quote says it all.  The Gore campaign ran a horrible campaign and the Bush campaign ran an excellent no holds bar campaign.

Ah, yes.  The Bush campaign that had George standing around in Califorinia days before the election, wasting a fortune that could be going to shore up Florida, was "excellent."  Of course.

But but but Gore obviously blew it by having Florida be the only state he outspent Bush in, and campaigning the final 36 hours or so nonstop there.

[bgwah]

Because Bush was "likable", as were Clinton and Obama. And that's all it takes to sway your average dumb swing voter.

[hcallega]

Here's how I see it. Clinton won in 1992 because of his personality and economic uncertainty. Did Perot help? Maybe, but Clinton would have won either way. In 1996, the country was headed in the right direction, and Dole didn't resonate with conservatives. In 2000, the prosperity was a major + for Gore. But many voters probably felt that since things were going well, secondary issues (aka environment, foreign policy, moral values). Personally, I may have voted for Bush because of social issues. Another example is Ray Flynn, the former mayor of Boston and a real progressive on domestic issues. Yet he endorsed Bush because the country was on the right track and the issue of abortion became more important to him and other Reagan Democrats.