bush beat himself in 2000.

[minionofmidas]

Hmmm... one thing to remember: The Democrats pulled out of Ohio two weeks or so before the elections. The Republicans kept throwing money at it. The state went Rep by 3.5 points or so.
4 years later, both camps threw money at the state like there was no tomorrow. The state went Rep by 1.5 points or so.

THere`s only so much money and campaigning etc will do in a polarized election. The most effective way to spend it is probably to bus voters to the polls. And to slash the other side's vehicles tyres.

[minionofmidas]

imagine how different the election would have turned out if bush spent the final two weeks of the 2000 campaign in florida, new mexico, oregon, iowa and wisconsin...instead of california, illinois and new jersey.

the dwi story was a minor detail.  bush lost the popular vote, and if not for some legalities, the electoral votes, simply because he was arrogant and complacent.

agree?  disagree?

I agree.

Likely, Bush would have won Florida, by an insurmountable margin, and would likely have taken New Mexico and Iowa comfortably, giving him an uncontested win.  He would have won the popular vote as well, had not some sensationalist interloper and Democrat dirty trickster, engaged in a  campaign of subversion, and broke the DWI story the Thursday before the Tuesday vote.

Bush was as well hurt on election night itself when the biased networks, with the exception of Fox, were jumping over each other to declare Gore the winner in Florida, even before all Florida precincts were closed.  The panhandle was still voting, and heavily for Bush.  No doubt this early and innacurate news put a damper on Republican voters in this part of the state, and cost Bush thousands of votes.       

Yeah, right. Anyone still at home to see that wouldn't have made it to the precincts in time anyways.

[minionofmidas]

I think it's pretty obvious that it was Gore who lost the election. If you look down-ballot, it was a good year for Democrats, gaining 4 seats in the senate, something similar in the House and picking up a gubernatorial seat, winning a total of 8/11 of gubernatorial elections. That Gore still lost the election seems to indicate that he under-performed.

gustaf, gore didnt lose the election.

he won the popular vote and only 'lost' the electoral college by legalities and technicalities.

im not a gore fan, by any stretch.  but i am honest.

Well, if you run for president and you don't get it, in some way I would say you lost it. Regardless, my point is that 2000 was a good year for Democrats and that indicates that with equally strong campaigns the Democrat would have won. So I would say that there was something wrong with Gore.

or at least, that his campaign made more mistakes than Bush's.

[minionofmidas]

The state went Rep by 3.5 points or so.
4 years later, both camps threw money at the state like there was no tomorrow. The state went Rep by 1.5 points or so.

Bush 50.82% - Kerry 48.71% = 2.11%

Yeah, I didn't check the figures before posting. At least I got 2000 right. Still, that's even better for the point I was making.

[minionofmidas]

CT isn't really what I'd call left-leaning. Democrat-leaning, yes.

Delaware should be Rep on your 96 map, Walt. Even the 2000 Bush people were apparently *shocked* at how big Gore won it.

One more note on California - I think Bush's campaigning there actually drove Gore's margin up, not just by keeping Dems from staying at home (which may have cost the GOP House seats as well, btw), but by scaring Nader supporters into going back to Gore.

[minionofmidas]

CT isn't really what I'd call left-leaning. Democrat-leaning, yes.

Delaware should be Rep on your 96 map, Walt. Even the 2000 Bush people were apparently *shocked* at how big Gore won it.

One more note on California - I think Bush's campaigning there actually drove Gore's margin up, not just by keeping Dems from staying at home (which may have cost the GOP House seats as well, btw), but by scaring Nader supporters into going back to Gore.

there is one thing a lot of people dont realize about DE, there are a lot of blacks there.  that factor alone likely tips the scales to the dems.

I know that - but it was Rep in 88, it wasn't all that lopsided in 92, and Reps did hope to retake it someday. The fact that until 2000 (or 2004 depending who you talk to ) it was the longest-running bellwether also had to something with it.
(Of course the numbers of Black Republicans hemorrhaged in the early 90s, and haven't ever recovered, from about 18% to about 10%... which may help explain why the state became more Democratic.)

[minionofmidas]

CT isn't really what I'd call left-leaning. Democrat-leaning, yes.

Delaware should be Rep on your 96 map, Walt. Even the 2000 Bush people were apparently *shocked* at how big Gore won it.

One more note on California - I think Bush's campaigning there actually drove Gore's margin up, not just by keeping Dems from staying at home (which may have cost the GOP House seats as well, btw), but by scaring Nader supporters into going back to Gore.

there is one thing a lot of people dont realize about DE, there are a lot of blacks there.  that factor alone likely tips the scales to the dems.

I know that - but it was Rep in 88, it wasn't all that lopsided in 92, and Reps did hope to retake it someday. The fact that until 2000 (or 2004 depending who you talk to ) it was the longest-running bellwether also had to something with it.
(Of course the numbers of Black Republicans hemorrhaged in the early 90s, and haven't ever recovered, from about 18% to about 10%... which may help explain why the state became more Democratic.)

hasnt it also become just a big suburb of philly?

That was already true in 88.

[minionofmidas]

CT isn't really what I'd call left-leaning. Democrat-leaning, yes.

Delaware should be Rep on your 96 map, Walt. Even the 2000 Bush people were apparently *shocked* at how big Gore won it.

One more note on California - I think Bush's campaigning there actually drove Gore's margin up, not just by keeping Dems from staying at home (which may have cost the GOP House seats as well, btw), but by scaring Nader supporters into going back to Gore.

there is one thing a lot of people dont realize about DE, there are a lot of blacks there.  that factor alone likely tips the scales to the dems.

I know that - but it was Rep in 88, it wasn't all that lopsided in 92, and Reps did hope to retake it someday. The fact that until 2000 (or 2004 depending who you talk to ) it was the longest-running bellwether also had to something with it.
(Of course the numbers of Black Republicans hemorrhaged in the early 90s, and haven't ever recovered, from about 18% to about 10%... which may help explain why the state became more Democratic.)

hasnt it also become just a big suburb of philly?

That was already true in 88.

yes and hw bush did well in suburbia.

Exactly ... as did Gore in 2000. Dole clearly didn't do as good in suburbia as the Gore people thought he would, though.