Would West Virginia have remained Democratic if Al Gore were not the Democratic Party nominee?

[WalterWhite]

Al Gore was known for being an environmentalist. He supported policies meant to reduce the total carbon footprint of the United States. In doing so, he was perceived as anti-coal, which hurt him in West Virginia. This is probably the reason why West Virginia voted for George W. Bush in 2000.

If Al Gore were not the Democratic nominee, the Democratic Party would have not been as associated with environmentalism as it was during our timeline. With that in mind, would West Virginia have remained a Democratic state?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not with George W Bush as President. Bush as President caused the parties to be polarized on environmental/energy issues which benefited the GOP quite a bit. Bush was also the first Republican President in a while to be outright against gun control as well as keep in mind Nixon/Reagan/HW were all pro gun control while W Bush let the AWB expire and then exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits so the parties became polarized on guns under his presidency too.

Bush also pushed the last of the liberal Republicans into the Democratic Party for good and brought over the last of the Southern Conservative Democrats into the GOP which made it much harder for the type of Democrat who would be able to win West Virginia to win a Democratic Primary. Now while it took until 2014 for this realignment of West Virginia politics to effect downballot races, realignments usually happen first at the Presidential level then trickle down.

[WalterWhite]

Not with George W Bush as President. Bush as President caused the parties to be polarized on environmental/energy issues which benefited the GOP quite a bit. Bush was also the first Republican President in a while to be outright against gun control as well as keep in mind Nixon/Reagan/HW were all pro gun control while W Bush let the AWB expire and then exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits so the parties became polarized on guns under his presidency too.

Bush also pushed the last of the liberal Republicans into the Democratic Party for good and brought over the last of the Southern Conservative Democrats into the GOP which made it much harder for the type of Democrat who would be able to win West Virginia to win a Democratic Primary. Now while it took until 2014 for this realignment of West Virginia politics to effect downballot races, realignments usually happen first at the Presidential level then trickle down.

If West Virginia had stayed Democratic in 2000, the Democratic nominee would have probably been POTUS from 2001 to 2005. Without the polarization of energy issues and gun rights, West Virginia might have actually stayed Democratic.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Not with George W Bush as President. Bush as President caused the parties to be polarized on environmental/energy issues which benefited the GOP quite a bit. Bush was also the first Republican President in a while to be outright against gun control as well as keep in mind Nixon/Reagan/HW were all pro gun control while W Bush let the AWB expire and then exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits so the parties became polarized on guns under his presidency too.

Bush also pushed the last of the liberal Republicans into the Democratic Party for good and brought over the last of the Southern Conservative Democrats into the GOP which made it much harder for the type of Democrat who would be able to win West Virginia to win a Democratic Primary. Now while it took until 2014 for this realignment of West Virginia politics to effect downballot races, realignments usually happen first at the Presidential level then trickle down.

If West Virginia had stayed Democratic in 2000, the Democratic nominee would have probably been POTUS from 2001 to 2005. Without the polarization of energy issues and gun rights, West Virginia might have actually stayed Democratic.

Keep in mind though a Democratic nominee that was less liberal on the environment probably does not win Oregon in 2000 due to Nader doing even better which means Bush still wins anyway.

[WalterWhite]

Not with George W Bush as President. Bush as President caused the parties to be polarized on environmental/energy issues which benefited the GOP quite a bit. Bush was also the first Republican President in a while to be outright against gun control as well as keep in mind Nixon/Reagan/HW were all pro gun control while W Bush let the AWB expire and then exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits so the parties became polarized on guns under his presidency too.

Bush also pushed the last of the liberal Republicans into the Democratic Party for good and brought over the last of the Southern Conservative Democrats into the GOP which made it much harder for the type of Democrat who would be able to win West Virginia to win a Democratic Primary. Now while it took until 2014 for this realignment of West Virginia politics to effect downballot races, realignments usually happen first at the Presidential level then trickle down.

If West Virginia had stayed Democratic in 2000, the Democratic nominee would have probably been POTUS from 2001 to 2005. Without the polarization of energy issues and gun rights, West Virginia might have actually stayed Democratic.

Keep in mind though a Democratic nominee that was less liberal on the environment probably does not win Oregon in 2000 due to Nader doing even better which means Bush still wins anyway.

Such a Democrat would have probably done better than Gore in the Appalachian Part of Ohio, which would have probably given the state to the Democratic nominee.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't think just subbing out Gore is enough to keep Dems from becoming the climate change party, which is the minimum of what would be necessary to keep WV voting D today.

[MT Treasurer]

Democrats lost WV not just because of "climate issues" but even more so because of social/cultural issues, and someone like Jeanne Shaheen or Bill Bradley being the nominee instead of Al Gore hardly would have helped matters. This is revisionist history.

People also keep ignoring how much Bill Clinton's second term actually hurt Democrats in more conservative rural/small-town areas.

[DS0816]

I would say that the Democrats lost West Virginia, with it having realigned to the Republicans with a pickup of the presidency and this state for 2000 George W. Bush, because the Democrats, on the watch of Bill Clinton, passed NAFTA.

[progressive85]

I don't even think WV would have voted for a third term of Bill Clinton if the R opponent was George W. Bush.

[Sumner 1868]

The gun issue would have still been a hot potato. In hindsight, Reb and VoDka were the ones that made George W. Bush President.

[darklordoftech]

Not with George W Bush as President. Bush as President caused the parties to be polarized on environmental/energy issues which benefited the GOP quite a bit. Bush was also the first Republican President in a while to be outright against gun control as well as keep in mind Nixon/Reagan/HW were all pro gun control while W Bush let the AWB expire and then exempted gun manufacturers from lawsuits so the parties became polarized on guns under his presidency too.

Bush also pushed the last of the liberal Republicans into the Democratic Party for good and brought over the last of the Southern Conservative Democrats into the GOP which made it much harder for the type of Democrat who would be able to win West Virginia to win a Democratic Primary. Now while it took until 2014 for this realignment of West Virginia politics to effect downballot races, realignments usually happen first at the Presidential level then trickle down.

If West Virginia had stayed Democratic in 2000, the Democratic nominee would have probably been POTUS from 2001 to 2005. Without the polarization of energy issues and gun rights, West Virginia might have actually stayed Democratic.

Keep in mind though a Democratic nominee that was less liberal on the environment probably does not win Oregon in 2000 due to Nader doing even better which means Bush still wins anyway.

How about a Democratic nominee who was to the right of Gore on coal but anti-NAFTA and more dovish?

[Fancyarcher]

No. Gore is just an easy scapegoat. The state was already trending away from Democrats, and its demographics were a ticking time bomb. Clinton's big popular vote wins in 1992, and 1996, masked the fact that it actually got redder.

[RINO Tom]

It's important to note that these states don't switch entirely because a bunch of people just decide between elections that their preferred party "left them" or whatever.  Sure, that happens, but generational displacement and net migration to and from the state are also huge factors.  Consider the exit polls in West Virginia for the 1996 election by age group:

18 to 29: 51% DEM, 29% GOP
30 to 44: 45% DEM, 39% GOP
45 to 59: 52% DEM, 37% GOP
60 and Older: 57% DEM, 38% GOP

18 to 64: 48% DEM, 38% GOP
65 and Older: 61% DEM, 33% GOP

You could already seeing older generations being significantly more loyal to the Democratic Party than younger ones, and more and more of them are going to die off every four years.  So, combined with everything else (let's also not forget that the Clinton scandal hurt the party a lot in more socially conservative areas, regardless of who the nominee ending up being), I am not sure another candidate could have hung on to the state ... however, it's far from impossible.

[WalterWhite]

It's important to note that these states don't switch entirely because a bunch of people just decide between elections that their preferred party "left them" or whatever.  Sure, that happens, but generational displacement and net migration to and from the state are also huge factors.  Consider the exit polls in West Virginia for the 1996 election by age group:

18 to 29: 51% DEM, 29% GOP
30 to 44: 45% DEM, 39% GOP
45 to 59: 52% DEM, 37% GOP
60 and Older: 57% DEM, 38% GOP

18 to 64: 48% DEM, 38% GOP
65 and Older: 61% DEM, 33% GOP

You could already seeing older generations being significantly more loyal to the Democratic Party than younger ones, and more and more of them are going to die off every four years.  So, combined with everything else (let's also not forget that the Clinton scandal hurt the party a lot in more socially conservative areas, regardless of who the nominee ending up being), I am not sure another candidate could have hung on to the state ... however, it's far from impossible.

The Clinton scandal actually helped Bill Clinton's net approval ratings. Plus, Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. I think environmentalism was what killed the West Virginia Democratic Party, a state so heavily reliant of the coal industry.

[RINO Tom]

It's important to note that these states don't switch entirely because a bunch of people just decide between elections that their preferred party "left them" or whatever.  Sure, that happens, but generational displacement and net migration to and from the state are also huge factors.  Consider the exit polls in West Virginia for the 1996 election by age group:

18 to 29: 51% DEM, 29% GOP
30 to 44: 45% DEM, 39% GOP
45 to 59: 52% DEM, 37% GOP
60 and Older: 57% DEM, 38% GOP

18 to 64: 48% DEM, 38% GOP
65 and Older: 61% DEM, 33% GOP

You could already seeing older generations being significantly more loyal to the Democratic Party than younger ones, and more and more of them are going to die off every four years.  So, combined with everything else (let's also not forget that the Clinton scandal hurt the party a lot in more socially conservative areas, regardless of who the nominee ending up being), I am not sure another candidate could have hung on to the state ... however, it's far from impossible.

The Clinton scandal actually helped Bill Clinton's net approval ratings. Plus, Al Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton. I think environmentalism was what killed the West Virginia Democratic Party, a state so heavily reliant of the coal industry.

The Clinton scandal might have helped his popularity overall (I would need to confirm that), but I am HIGHLY skeptical that the type of socially conservative voter who was voting for Democrats because of tradition/economic issues only actually became more fond of the party AFTER the scandal...

[Sumner 1868]

The Lewinsky circus is so insanely overrated by the punditry. Columbine-inspired rural gun control panic was the crux of Dubya's rural support. Any the people who would have been angry about the impeachment were evangelical suburban females - not exactly a great Clinton group in 1996!

[Mr. Smith]

No, but it might've if McCain were.