|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 05, 2020, 07:01:09 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Election What-ifs?
  Past Election What-ifs (US) (Moderators: Babette d'Interlaken, Apocrypha)
  2000: Clinton/Gore (D) v. Bush/Cheney (R)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: Who would you vote for/ who wins?
#1
Bush/Bush
 
#2
Bush/Clinton
 
#3
Clinton/Bush
 
#4
Clinton/Clinton
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 45

Author Topic: 2000: Clinton/Gore (D) v. Bush/Cheney (R)  (Read 3948 times)
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 23, 2006, 05:02:38 pm »

Suppose the 22nd amendment is repealed in 1999.  Clinton runs for a third term.
Logged
jokerman
Cosmo Kramer
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,969
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2006, 05:37:39 pm »

Clinton wins, easily.

Just look at his approval ratings.  Part of the reason Gore lost was that he failed to associate himself with Clinton-era prosperity.
Logged
kashifsakhan
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 524
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2006, 10:45:32 am »

clinton would have destroyed any opponent if he could have run for a third term. there was no one the republicans could ahve put up against him that could have won.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,050


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2006, 06:53:45 pm »

John McCain could possibly have defeated Bill Clinton in 2000.
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,910


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2006, 06:57:38 pm »
« Edited: January 24, 2006, 07:01:15 pm by phknrocket1k »

John McCain could possibly have defeated Bill Clinton in 2000.

But he's running against the Bush/Cheney ticket...

With that said.. all he'd have to do is win every Gore state and his own, not much of a feat.

He would probably have a decent shot at winning WV, NH.. as well
Logged
True Democrat
true democrat
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 7,369
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.10, S: -2.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2006, 08:46:42 pm »

This might be too generous to Clinton, but. . .



360-178
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2006, 02:41:44 pm »

My guess is Clinton would take a small hit from the 3-term issue, but win 52-46% or so.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,601
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2006, 03:46:22 pm »

John McCain could possibly have defeated Bill Clinton in 2000.

Doubtful... McCain would have been another Dole.  Great person, and if the country wasn't so stupid and ed up... he would have one, but people would have been craving more Willy.
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,241


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2006, 05:20:38 pm »

I think that with no Perot and aiming for a third term the race would be fairly close but I doubt that Clinton would ever be in serious trouble.

Bush would be a stronger candidate than his father in 92 or Dole in 96 and the GOP base would be far more motivated than in either of those contests, whats more I can imagine that Rove would be able to turn the evangelical vote out far more strongly than he actually did in 2000.

Despite this Clinton was a popular president despite WhiteWater, Los Alamos and Lewinsky and had strong electoral pull in both the South and MidWest which Gore did not in 2000. In the end he probably wins but by a fairly close margin, with voter fatigue, an energised GOP base and the absence of a strong third party all playing a part.

   
Logged
YRABNNRM
YoungRepub
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,688
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2006, 05:51:16 pm »

Now the real question is what would happen in 2004? How would the Clinton War on Terror go? Would it be enough to elect him for a fourth term?
Logged
Yates
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,874


Political Matrix
E: -0.38, S: 1.54

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2006, 06:21:32 pm »

Clinton would win solidly, though not in a landslide.
Logged
tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2006, 10:47:17 am »

Now the real question is what would happen in 2004? How would the Clinton War on Terror go? Would it be enough to elect him for a fourth term?

I personally don't think Clinton would run for a fourth term.  But he'd get a bounce out of it possibly in his approval ratings, so Gore might have won in 2004.

The 2004 Republican nominee likely would have been McCain -- the GOP would be tired of not being in power.  Of course, McCain likely would defeat Gore, but against GWB again Gore could win.
Logged
George W. Hobbes
Mr. Hobbes
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 962


Political Matrix
E: -0.38, S: 1.03

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2006, 11:26:40 pm »

In 2004, Dick Cheney wins the nomination and then declares himself Sith Lord of the Americas...
Logged
Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,993
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2006, 06:13:21 pm »

Bush/Clinton
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2006, 07:32:13 pm »

I'm not so sure Clinton would have won in 2000, although I certainly would have voted for him. Nader would have done even better, as Clinton is not so close on the environmental side.
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,275


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2006, 07:34:08 pm »

I'm not so sure Clinton would have won in 2000, although I certainly would have voted for him. Nader would have done even better, as Clinton is not so close on the environmental side.

So you think that Gore was a stronger candidate than Clinton?
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,990


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 28, 2006, 01:34:32 am »

I'm not so sure Clinton would have won in 2000, although I certainly would have voted for him. Nader would have done even better, as Clinton is not so close on the environmental side.

So you think that Gore was a stronger candidate than Clinton?
I think that in 2000 Gore was a stronger candidate than Clinton would have been in 2000, largely because of Clinton fatigue and the self-righteous Greens.
Logged
tarheel-leftist85
krustytheklown
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,274
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 08, 2006, 08:52:23 pm »

Clinton/Bush
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,501
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2007, 09:11:14 am »



354 - 184.

Popular vote... 50 - 47 - 3
Logged
gorkay
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 996


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2007, 04:34:33 pm »

Clinton would have won, although probably by a bit closer margin than in his other two wins, due to anti-third-term sentiment and some erosion in his popular support.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,348
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2007, 05:40:27 pm »

Logged
Sensei
senseiofj324
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,537
Panama


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -5.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2007, 06:04:05 pm »

You guys have to remember, there was no Perot to give him the 92 and 96 margins. It would have been far closer.
Logged
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,133
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 26, 2007, 01:35:09 am »

I believe that had Bill Clinton been allowed to run for a third term in 2000, he would have won. However it would be allot closer than his victories over Bush Senior and Dole in '92 and in '96. With Clinton leading the ticket, he would have been able to do well in the midwest, unlike Al Gore in 2000. Here's how I believe the Election Map would have looked like.



Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D): 306 EV
George W. Bush/Dick Cheney (R): 232 EV
Logged
Cory Booker
olawakandi
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,329
Jamaica


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 26, 2007, 10:16:46 am »



I think that Clinton would of won. He would of been the difference maker in those 500 votes that defected to Nader due to the moral issues. OH was pretty much set towards Bush in 2000, he was leading by 15 pts in that state. Nevertheless, I think Clinton would of won. I think the electoral percentages would of been about the same but Clinton winning the electoral college as well as the popular vote 48-47 for Clinton.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines