2000 without the Lewinsky scandal

[Mr. Smith]

Who would Al Gore face? And would Gore win everything? Or would he lose both by greater margins?

Lewinsky is why Gore didn't have Clinton campaign alongside him,which probably is why he lost Arkansas, West Virginia, and his home state of Tennessee in the right-wing uprising.

On the other hand, a lot of Clinton critics that were successfully thrown under for overreach would probably be viable.

So how would it work out?

[andrew_c]

If Clinton had campaigned for Gore, Gore would have won at least 300 electoral votes.

[Mr. Morden]

I posed this same question back in February:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=187410.0

One obvious change is that Gore wouldn't have picked Lieberman as his running mate.

[RR1997]

If Clinton had campaigned for Gore, Gore would have won at least 300 electoral votes.

^

No Lewinsky Scandal=Clinton actually campaigns for Gore.

Clinton actually campaigns for Gore=Gore wins comfortably.

[dougie77]

Gore was a bore.maybe give him arkansas and TN.Bush would've won florida and wisconsin though.

[NHI]

W/o the Lewinsky scandal Gore narrowly holds ont AR and TN. Popular vote is still close ≈49%-48%

[Lief 🗽]

I think people over-estimate how much Clinton campaigning for Gore would have changed things. It's not like people didn't know that Gore was the Vice President of the incredibly popular incumbent and had his full support. Of course Gore only lost the election by 500 or so votes, so it would have probably been enough to swing Florida. But Gore lost Arkansas and West Virginia by 5-6%. Clinton wouldn't have closed that gap just because he held a few rallies for him.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Al Gore/Bob Graham     49%  303
G W Bush/R Cheney      47%  235
Ralph Nader/W LaDuke   2.5%