Why did Gore do so well in the Lower Northeast (RI, CT, NY, NJ)? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 29, 2024, 06:59:02 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Why did Gore do so well in the Lower Northeast (RI, CT, NY, NJ)? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Why did Gore do so well in the Lower Northeast (RI, CT, NY, NJ)?  (Read 3009 times)
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,040


« on: November 29, 2023, 11:55:54 AM »

This conception of the Lower Northeast vs Upper Northeast is an interesting one, where Massachusetts is grouped with northern New England and Rhode Island with the Tri-State area.
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,040


« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2023, 09:56:22 PM »

Gun control and environmentalism. It's the same reason why Gore lost TN, AR, MO and WV. In the 90s gun control and environmentalism became hot button issues and the Mid Atlantic backed both. The NYC/NJ/CT suburbs back gun control.

The Clinton/Gore administration also signed the environmental agreement, the Kyoto Protocol which also was popular in the region.

I think it's more to do with just the fact that Dubya was seen as a hick and Clinton was very popular in the Northeast, than it is to do with these specific issues.

Re: "hicks", Clinton was rather unique in his ability to appeal to Northeastern suburbanites (with his Yale Law/Rhodes Scholar pedigree) while retaining a good share of the "bubba" vote.   
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 14 queries.