He loses (but wins KY, TN, AZ, and NV in addition to all the Dole states), but a far more interesting question is whether he wins in 2000 if Clinton had been eligible for another term (I think—contrary to popular conventional wisdom—he’d have stood a very good chance).
Yeah, well, you also thought Matt Bevin would win so...
Also the popular conventional wisdom is that Bush would have been absolutely destroyed in 2000 by the charismatic incumbent president who had created the first budget surplus since Andrew Jackson and had an approval rating in the 60s for good reason. The fact that he barely "won" against a charisma-devoid wet blanket like Gore who ran an abysmal campaign that did absolutely everything wrong when it came to pretty much everything, especially his relationship to the extremely popular incumbent POTUS, should say it all. You really don't think Clinton could have come up with those 538 votes in Florida EASILY? Like, BEYOND easily? I would have been shocked into a fatal heart attack if Clinton won Florida by less than 5 points in 2000!
What an absolutely hilarious joke of a post, maybe your most ridiculous and detached from reality ever which is REALLY saying something!
Newsflash (for the 3478th time): Nobody in history, anywhere, EVER has voted for some robotic AI simulation of a party line detached from all personal factors which individual candidates bring to the table. That is precisely why Clinton won landslides against Dole in states like WV and LA which were promptly reversed HARD in 2000. The personal factors of the candidates mean more than your robotic pseudo-models could ever dream of, and the 1996-2000 shift is maybe the best example of this ever so I'm not too surprised you are loath to admit this. And probably particularly HATE this election cycle as it is maybe the coldest, hardest evidence ever against your understanding of politics which seems to be derived from an 11th grade student f--king around with a TI-84 and proclaiming it as gospel.
Since you have probably never actually stepped foot in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, or Louisiana, you probably don't understand why they ACTUALLY turned from Clinton to Bush and never will. Same reason you smugly proclaimed Bevin the winner in KY and mocked me for mocking you. You were wrong then and you're wrong here. You just fundamentally misunderstand politics. It's the wrong field for you, my friend. Go program some calculators somewhere. Anything with a human element involved is clearly beyond your comprehension.
I mean seriously: Clinton not only won states like WV and LA in 1996, he did so with absolute outright majorities by double digit margins, sweeping many counties Democrats haven't been even remotely competitive in since. There is no way to neatly explain this with some computer model, which is why a human bot such as yourself probably explodes trying to make sense of these "trends." The only explanation is factors that can't be quantified so easily came into play, and made a HUGE difference. Deal with it.
