2000: was this ever a realistic possibility

[Nym90]

Right before the election, I knew it would all come down to Florida.

In 1999, Gore was down in 46 states. The exeptions were TN, NY, and I forget the other 2.

Probably MA and RI, assuming that DC is not considered a state.

I think the scenario was not totally out of the question, but pretty implausible. I don't see what Gore could have done that would have won him WV, TN, and AR but cost him states like OR, MN and WA. WI, IA, FL and NM are close enough that them switching is obviously far from out of the question.

The only thing I can think of is that Gore chooses a Southern running mate and Bush chooses a Northerner. But I don't think that would have been enough to do it without both candidates changing their policy positions a bit.

Walter, did you have any particular scenario in mind that would produce this result?

[Nym90]

Right before the election, I knew it would all come down to Florida.

In 1999, Gore was down in 46 states. The exeptions were TN, NY, and I forget the other 2.

Probably MA and RI, assuming that DC is not considered a state.

I think the scenario was not totally out of the question, but pretty implausible. I don't see what Gore could have done that would have won him WV, TN, and AR but cost him states like OR, MN and WA. WI, IA, FL and NM are close enough that them switching is obviously far from out of the question.

The only thing I can think of is that Gore chooses a Southern running mate and Bush chooses a Northerner. But I don't think that would have been enough to do it without both candidates changing their policy positions a bit.

Walter, did you have any particular scenario in mind that would produce this result?

no, i just remember the bush campaign saying in the final days of the election that they could win the election while losing the entire trifecta.  i thought (and still think) that was nonsense.

as for tn, i heard that the gore campaign was shocked to lose it.

Well, if Bush had lost Florida, the most realistic scenario for him to win would be to win WI, IA, and OR. Although actually Bush could have won with NM, WI, and IA, which would have produced a 269-269 tie which Bush could have then won in the House.

Without the "trifecta", Bush would have needed to sweep the vast majority of the smaller swing states. Not impossible, but it's a lot easier to just win one big state than several small ones.

[Nym90]

Didn't like just about every poll project a Bush popular vote victory? I vaguely remember rasmussen saying that Bush was guaranteed a decisive victory on election night.

And he was, before the DUI "scandal".  Only a couple of polls were taken that close to the election, and they all showed Bush had droped quite a bit.

True, although most polls still showed Bush ahead in the popular vote, even those taken in the final day or two. Only a few polls showed Gore ahead, and those were only by 1-2 percent. A few polls still showed Bush in the range of a 4-6 point lead, and I recall Karl Rove predicting a 6 point Bush win with 320+ electoral votes (even after the DUI story, which he predicted would produce a backlash against the Democrats).

I'm not sure how much impact the DUI thing really had, though. It might have hurt Bush a little with the GOP base more than anything, but I can't see swing voters really caring about something like that. I think a larger factor was simply that people were reassessing the candidates and realizing that the economy was going very well and that they liked Clinton.

[Nym90]

I'd say WA, TN, AR, and WV were pretty far off--but other than that, realistic.  If anybody cares, here was mine, but it was pretty bad (percentages were 24/50, but states were 46/50):

I see 7 states that were wrong: NH, MD, WI, MN, IA, CO, and NM.