When you look at the fundamentals, you'd think Gore should have coasted to victory. Unemployment was low, satisfaction with the country was historically high, and Gore's boss, Clinton, was incredibly popular. At a time when people are generally satisfied with the country and its leadership, wouldn't the majority of voters want to stick with the status quo and elect Gore, hoping he would be like Clinton's third term? That's what happened with Bush in 1988, and Reagan was actually more unpopular than Clinton at that time? So what gives??
The same thing happened in 1960. Just looking at the surface, you'd think Nixon should have skated to an easy victory. But when you dig deeper, you see that there was more to it. Clinton's environmental policies were very unpopular in the coal-mining regions of West Virginia, Kentucky, etc., and many of those regions were very socially conservative, making the easy pickings for the GOP. You could say that Bush's election was the end of the New Deal coalition in Appalachia. I remember reading Karl Rove's book, where he stated that the Bush campaign made a conscious play for West Virginia because they were aware of this shift.
Plus, Gore lacked much of the charm and charisma that attracted voters to Clinton. He came across in the debates as a bully, and made a number of gaffes on the campaign trail (like claiming that his mother sang him to sleep with "Look for the Union Label.") Simply put, Gore was not early as likable as Clinton. Just as Kennedy's charisma and strength with Catholics, coupled with the 1957-8 recession, helped Dems in 1960, so Bush's charisma, the recession in late 2000, and the increasing hostility toward Democrats in socially conservative regions helped the GOP.
Yep it's exactly why the media called Florida for Gore before the western panhandle had finished voting.
Is that anything like how they called Indiana for G.H.W. Bush in 1992 before Gary and Evansville were finished voting?
No because in 1992, they got it right. In 2000 they actually caused precincts to close hour early which prevented people from voting by prematurely calling the state for Gore. If the media had waited, Bush would've won Florida by nearly 4 points. Not to mention the way they described the hanging chads and butterfly ballots as if the election were being stolen for Bush. You couldn't turn a news network on without hearing about his brother being the governor of the state. Does anyone who is intellectually honest actually believe votes were counted accurately each time? If so, how were there different results each time? All that was happening was they were going to count the votes and change the rules over and over again until Gore finally won. If only there were a comparison between Florida 2000 and Indiana 1992. If only.
This is exactly right. Not only was Panhandle turnout hurt, but GOP turnout across the country was depressed by the early call of Florida. In all likelihood, that call cost Bush Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Oregon. Not only would it have been horrifying for Dems to see Gore losing in a bunch of Dukakis states, but Bush could have won the election without Florida if he'd carried all those states--and probably the popular vote as well. It's quite possible that Slade Gorton would've won reelection, too. But because the exit polls showed Gore winning in Florida, and because the news media was in such a rush to make the big calls first, they screwed up big time. So Bush did not steal the election; if anything, the media tried steal it for Gore. And while they learned their lesson not to call states before all the polls are closed, they are still relying on exit polls to make their calls. So I guarantee it will happen again.
