Forget the myth - Gore was not a weak candidate in 2000
Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 07:38:22 PM PDT
Just had to get this off of my chest - I'm getting tired of otherwise sensible people promoting the notion that Gore was a weak candidate in 2000, that he blew an easily winnable election and therefore we should let pundits like Maureen Dowd off for slandering him. The fact of the matter is that Gore started the race well behind and it was Bush who nearly blew the election.
CNN has a convenient
archive of polling stories from the 2000 election that show the progress of the election. Gore started out well behind Bush and didn't catch up until after the Democratic Convention.
As far back as March, 1999 Bush led Gore in polls 52-41.
In June of 1999, 45% of likely voters polled said they definitely wouldn't vote for Gore. Bush had a twenty point lead on Gore over the issues of the economy and foreign policy.
A year before the election, Bush had a 15 point lead over Gore.
In March of 2000, Bush still lead but Gore had narrowed the gap to 6 points.
On the eve of the Democratic Convention, Bush led Gore by 16 points. Only after the convention did Gore pull even with Bush. Maybe the kiss was a good idea. Gore remained close to Bush from then on, winning the popular vote. In an honest count, he would have won the electoral college as well.
Why am I rehashing ancient history? Because the conventional wisdom sees Gore as a Dukakis, someone who blew an easily winnable race. There are similarities between 1988 and 2000, but Gore in 2000 was like Bush the elder in 1988 - a vice president of an administration coming off a scandal, facing an electorate looking for change. This story prior to the Democratic Convention noted the parallels between 1988 and 2000, but also noted that Bush was a far more popular opponent than Dukakis. I might add much better funded as well.
Bush had a double digit lead over Gore. Thanks to his religion and family background, Bush was on good terms with both the Republican establishment and the Christian Right. Bush demolished previous fund raising records. Bush had the aid of Ralph Nader running to Gore's left. And after all that, Bush came within 1,000 votes of becoming the Republican Michael Dukakis. Remind me again why Karl Rove is supposed to be a genius?
The Daily Howler has done a good job of showing how our chattering class slandered Gore in 2000. In such a close race, this probably was enough to make the difference in 2000. Claing that Gore was incompetent is a convenient way for pundits to excuse their own actions. Gore ran a good race and would have won with honest refs. The pundits want to avoid responsibility for the Bush administration - over 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands Iraqis dead in a needless war, deficits as far as the eye can see, and trampled civil liberties.
Bush and Rove aren't supermen. They've had a favorable environment and a lot of luck but can be beaten - we beat them on Social Security. But constantly tearing down Democratic champions while praising the other side's brilliance isn't the way to do it.
Permalink | 102 comments