How would Gore have done in WV/TN/AR/LA against McCain?

[Fancyarcher]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

That's the narrative but I've read multiple articles from 2000 on why WV was competitive that year and when voters were interviewed they said they were voting for Bush for social/cultural reasons.

When people bring up Gore's environmentalism as the reason that West Virginia swung in 2000 so hard to the right, they seem to forgot that Clinton actually did worse in the state in 1996 than he did in 1992, despite the fact that he won a larger percentage of the popular vote.

The state was going to be competitive in 2000, even if Clinton could run for a third term. It was trending away from Democrats in the long run.

Same with Tennessee, it actually swung left in 2000, it was simply too red by that point, and Gore wasn't going to be winning the popular vote by Bill Clinton like margins.

[Fancyarcher]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

That's the narrative but I've read multiple articles from 2000 on why WV was competitive that year and when voters were interviewed they said they were voting for Bush for social/cultural reasons.

When people bring up Gore's environmentalism as the reason that West Virginia swung in 2000 so hard to the right, they seem to forgot that Clinton actually did worse in the state in 1996 than he did in 1992, despite the fact that he won a larger percentage of the popular vote.

The state was going to be competitive in 2000, even if Clinton could run for a third term. It was trending away from Democrats in the long run.

Same with Tennessee, it actually swung left in 2000, it was simply too red by that point, and Gore wasn't going to be winning the popular vote by Bill Clinton like margins.

Technically West Virginia trended R in both 1992 and 1996, but not by much in both years and it still swung Dem in 1996. I don't think there were many signs that it was about to become a swing state. Tennessee OTOH was trending R pretty rapidly by the 90's, especially given suburban growth.

Relative to the popular vote, it trended a few points R in 1996, especially when Clinton was winning Northeastern type states by much bigger margins that were actually swinging left. The signs were definitely there.