it?

Bill lost us the culture war, any way you spin it.

...Suppression of minority voters probably contributed at least as many lost votes. Gore lost TN by 80,000.

the fact that he couldn't keep it in his pants. A Pew poll from 1999 indicates:

In a Gore-Bush match-up, Clinton's mixed favorability ratings are a stronger predictor of support for Gore than is Clinton's job approval.

While Gore does benefit from Clinton's robust job approval ratings, he is clearly being hurt by weariness with problems of the Clinton administration. An overwhelming majority (74%) of Americans agree with the statement, "I am tired of all the problems associated with the Clinton administration." This view is held by 77% of Independents and 64% of Democrats. Among those who express fatigue, 60% say they would vote for Bush over Gore in a two-way 2000 match-up; only 35% pick Gore.

Despite Clinton's strong 62% job approval rating, few Americans wish he could run for a third term. Only 29% of the public would like to see four more years of Clinton; 69% would not.

all of them ganged up on Gore in the south, it seems.

"If Clinton is to blame for his loss in any way, it's because of that."

Some price for progressive policies that those lobbies opposed and campaigned against was likely a factor in the red states, but Clinton scandal/impeachment fatigue was the overwhelming factor.

This exit poll question makes that quite clear:

"Which issues, if any, were most important to you in deciding how you would vote for president today?..." Up to two responses accepted.

				All	Gore	Bush
	"Moral/Ethical values"	35	17	55	
	"Jobs/The economy"	26	36	16	
	"Education"		25	31	20	
	"Social Security"	21	25	16	
	"Taxes" 		16	9	25	
	"Abortion"		14	12	17	
	"The environment"	10	14	2	
	"Health care"		8	11	5	
	"Medicare/Prescription drugs"	8	10	6	
	"Budget surplus"	6	6	6	
	"Foreign affairs"	5	5	5	
	None of the above	4	3	4

Gore won on all issues here except for "Moral/Ethical values" (where he badly lost) and abortion and taxes.

Gore started down to Bush by 15-20% in national polls and that's mostly attributed to Clinton scandal fatigue which was intense among both Republicans (we used to need about 10-13% of crossover Republican vote) and Independents (60-67% of the entire population was unfavorable towards Clinton "as a person"; assuming those favorable were mostly Democrats, that translates into most indies finding Clinton unfavorable). If Gore was even in the "blue states" (at that stage, a fair enough assumption), it translates into him trailing by 30-40% in southern/red states (effect was probably lesser in TN because of Gore's roots there but I doubt that it was absent. As such, Clinton/Gore barely managed to win TN in 1996 after working overtime there) from the get go. That's a HUGE barrier to overcome.

"or evening running closer to Clinton than he did."

Nope.

Clinton campaign effort could hurt Gore more than help, poll suggests

   CNN, From staff and wire reports
   October 24, 2000

   Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.

Clinton was always popular with Democrats and mostly unpopular with Republicans, but in 1999/2000, he was also extremely unpopular with independents because most of them seem to have faulted Clinton for his reckless conduct paving to the impeachment drama by Republicans, with the country mired in that nonsense for 3 years as result.

"Probably about the only thing that didn't cost Gore the election was Bill Clinton's political positions."

Nope, again. Nader bashed Gore for not only alleged sins of Gore, but also those of Clinton at the policy level (eg, it was Clinton that didn't put his weight behind environmental matter such as Kyoto as Gore wanted him to do, but Nader bashed Gore for it). Nader's attacks in turn:

1. probably made many Bradley voters vote for Nader

2. were used by the GOP to turn off as many Indie voters as possible and to undercut Gore's strengths (on the environment, eg).

The 2000 election was a multi-ring circus, but Clinton scandal provided the whopping starting handicap that hampered Gore badly. Media smears and the Nader factor were the other factors not exactly of Gore's making.

to people being appointed to fill out someone else's Senate seat, for Wikipedia indicates that the 1992 Senate elections were a draw for both parties.

Gore's Senate seat was filled by appointment by Harlan Matthews. Fred Thompson won it in 1994.