How would Gore have done in WV/TN/AR/LA against McCain?

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

It's easy to see how Gore lost these states against Bush, a socially conservative southerner (Gore wasn't seen as much of a southerner in 2000). How would he have done against a socially moderate, centrist Republican like McCain? I didn't list KY because I assume it would have been Safe R in any circumstance since Clinton barely won it in 1996 and Bush won by it double digits.

[Blow by blow, the passion dies]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

He would have lost all 4.

[nerd73]

It depends IMO on whether or not the McCain campaign sees the opportunity in WV/TN/AR. If they don't, the states narrowly hold for Gore; if they do, the states narrowly go McCain.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

That's the narrative but I've read multiple articles from 2000 on why WV was competitive that year and when voters were interviewed they said they were voting for Bush for social/cultural reasons.

[Fancyarcher]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

That's the narrative but I've read multiple articles from 2000 on why WV was competitive that year and when voters were interviewed they said they were voting for Bush for social/cultural reasons.

When people bring up Gore's environmentalism as the reason that West Virginia swung in 2000 so hard to the right, they seem to forgot that Clinton actually did worse in the state in 1996 than he did in 1992, despite the fact that he won a larger percentage of the popular vote.

The state was going to be competitive in 2000, even if Clinton could run for a third term. It was trending away from Democrats in the long run.

Same with Tennessee, it actually swung left in 2000, it was simply too red by that point, and Gore wasn't going to be winning the popular vote by Bill Clinton like margins.

[morgieb]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

That's the narrative but I've read multiple articles from 2000 on why WV was competitive that year and when voters were interviewed they said they were voting for Bush for social/cultural reasons.

When people bring up Gore's environmentalism as the reason that West Virginia swung in 2000 so hard to the right, they seem to forgot that Clinton actually did worse in the state in 1996 than he did in 1992, despite the fact that he won a larger percentage of the popular vote.

The state was going to be competitive in 2000, even if Clinton could run for a third term. It was trending away from Democrats in the long run.

Same with Tennessee, it actually swung left in 2000, it was simply too red by that point, and Gore wasn't going to be winning the popular vote by Bill Clinton like margins.

Technically West Virginia trended R in both 1992 and 1996, but not by much in both years and it still swung Dem in 1996. I don't think there were many signs that it was about to become a swing state. Tennessee OTOH was trending R pretty rapidly by the 90's, especially given suburban growth.

[Fancyarcher]

Slightly better, but McCain likely chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, thus countering Gore's favorite son effect. Also, McCain was not seen as an out-of-touch intellectual.

Also I think Gore would have fallen off almost as hard in West Virginia as Bush IMO. McCain would have less evangelical support but just as much coal support as I think Gore’s green image was the biggest part of what cost him the state that year.

That's the narrative but I've read multiple articles from 2000 on why WV was competitive that year and when voters were interviewed they said they were voting for Bush for social/cultural reasons.

When people bring up Gore's environmentalism as the reason that West Virginia swung in 2000 so hard to the right, they seem to forgot that Clinton actually did worse in the state in 1996 than he did in 1992, despite the fact that he won a larger percentage of the popular vote.

The state was going to be competitive in 2000, even if Clinton could run for a third term. It was trending away from Democrats in the long run.

Same with Tennessee, it actually swung left in 2000, it was simply too red by that point, and Gore wasn't going to be winning the popular vote by Bill Clinton like margins.

Technically West Virginia trended R in both 1992 and 1996, but not by much in both years and it still swung Dem in 1996. I don't think there were many signs that it was about to become a swing state. Tennessee OTOH was trending R pretty rapidly by the 90's, especially given suburban growth.

Relative to the popular vote, it trended a few points R in 1996, especially when Clinton was winning Northeastern type states by much bigger margins that were actually swinging left. The signs were definitely there.

[Sumner 1868]

The NRA had already decided early on that beating Gore was their main objective that year as a means of teaching Democrats a lesson for post-Columbine gun control proposals. That was going to cost him those states no matter who the GOP ran.

[Alben Barkley]

The NRA had already decided early on that beating Gore was their main objective that year as a means of teaching Democrats a lesson for post-Columbine gun control proposals. That was going to cost him those states no matter who the GOP ran.

Clinton had already passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 before winning all these states and then some in 1996, but OK, keep telling yourself that the NRA was at fault for what happened in the election rather than Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. Whatever helps you sleep at night, and keep those 100,000 dead Iraqis from haunting your dreams because you wanted to stick it to those smug New Democrats and make a "statement" of some kind. Well, you certainly made a "statement." It was heard loud and clear, and has unleashed the forces of hell onto the world. I hope you're satisfied.

[Sumner 1868]

The NRA had already decided early on that beating Gore was their main objective that year as a means of teaching Democrats a lesson for post-Columbine gun control proposals. That was going to cost him those states no matter who the GOP ran.

Clinton had already passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 before winning all these states and then some in 1996, but OK, keep telling yourself that the NRA was at fault for what happened in the election rather than Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. Whatever helps you sleep at night, and keep those 100,000 dead Iraqis from haunting your dreams because you wanted to stick it to those smug New Democrats and make a "statement" of some kind. Well, you certainly made a "statement." It was heard loud and clear, and has unleashed the forces of hell onto the world. I hope you're satisfied.

Yeah, Bill Clinton had a talent for evading consequences and having other Democrats take his hits for him - 1994 congressional Democrats, his VP, even his wife eventually. The gun issue died down after 1994 but was resurged by Columbine as pretty much everybody knows.

Oh, and how did Nader cause Bush to exceed 50 percent in the four states mentioned in this thread? Solar winds?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Beginning in the 1980s Democrats made the strategic choice to pivot away from places like  states like these in favor of places like where I live. These efforts gained steam in the 1990s and 2000s, then accelerated throughout the 2010s. The results have been what you’d expect.

[TDAS04]

Gore would still have lost Louisiana. Not sure about Arkansas or West Virginia. Not sure about Tennessee either, but it likely would have backed a McCain/Thompson ticket (Fred Thompson would have been a smart pick for McCain in 2008 as well).

[Pres Mike]

I think Gore wins Tennessee. He lost it 51-47%. It was the cloest state he lost after FL, NH, MO, OH, NV