If there was a single crucial blunder by Gore, it was his misstatements in the first debate. He was leading going into it and was declared the "winner" in the immediate polls afterwards. It was the reporting of and hammering on his stupid misstatements (went to Texas with the FEMA director, etc.) that turned it around and pushed Bush into the lead that he never lost until the very last day.
BTW, it appears that Nader also gave New Hampshire and (probably) Oregon to Bush. Without Florida, Gore would have won if he had taken both of those.
The margin in Wisconsin was only 6,000 or so, but Gore did get it.
BTW, the only state that Buchanan beat Nader where they were both running was Idaho, 7,000 to 5,000, although Buchanan's best percentage was in North Dakota at 3%. Nader's was in Alaska at 10%. Bush's best states were Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah, 69, 68, and 67%, although Utah gave Gore his lowest at 26%. Of course, Gore's best was D.C. at 85 to 9 for Bush and 5 for Nader, followed by Rhode Island (61, 32, 6, and 1 for Buchanan), and Massachusetts (60, 33, 6, and 0). Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: RE <earnest at tallynet.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 9:38 PM Subject: down here in Tallahassee...
>Hello, everyone. Sorry if this is a duplicate post.
>I live in Tallahassee, Florida and have had a number of conversations with
Gore
>supporters over the course of the campaign. When I asked about their
>conversations with undecideds or Bush supporters, they often would refer to
the
>“trust issue,” and talk about being kidded as a “yellow dog Democrat”
(“they’d
>vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat”) for voting for someone who
would,
>for example, “lie about fighting forest fires.” “We’re in trouble, he’s
sounding
>like Clinton” was a common theme. So were winces and other manifestations
of
>physiomoral discomfort.
>
>Thus, from my loose sampling, for an important sector of the electorate
down
>here,
>this mattered, big time, and Gore simply blew it. Whether we think of this
as
>dumb mistakes, or as rooted in a character disorder of the sort Cockburn
and
>St.Clair speculate about, his failure at this raw, behavioral level (ego
scans
>subarticulate speech, recognizes failure in reality testing, anticipates
shame,
>censors) to maintain a distinction between himself and Clinton cost him.
At this
>superficial level, so important when policy differences narrow (not
vanish!) and
>when you run a campaign of images, whatever mileage Gore might have gotten
from
>other gestures like the convention kiss was lost when he couldn’t stop
puffing
>himself up. Tripping over his spotlighted boasting, he made it more
likely,
>inevitable, for people around here to think about the wearying evasions of
the
>Clinton administration. (I suppose there’s a tragic note to this, but only
>because many will suffer; as far as Gore’s concerned, it’s farce. “They see
him
>as another liar.” “He just can’t stop bullshitting.”)
>
>This seems to be completely ignored by those progressives now moving in to
trash
>Nader as a spoiler. (Yeah, I voted for Nader, sort of, by trading my Nader
vote
>with a Massachusetts Gore supporter.) How does it happen that Gore
himself, and
>the party/electoral system that props up his candidacy, is taken as a
constant, a
>given, and anyone else is fair game for blame, a responsible actor? Why
not
>turn on the Bush-voting Floridians who might have voted for Gore, but
wouldn’t
>because he lied to them, right to their face? (“I couldn’t believe that he
was
>saying that, right there, in the debates!”) After all, what’s so important
about
>“trust,” it’s the “policy menu” that counts, right? On the other hand,
why not
>grant Nader some structural considerations, even a pardon? Why not
recognize
>that there’s some tragedy, non-farcical variety, in Nader’s position and
>decisions? If he asks his supporters to vote Gore, does that risk
demoralizing
>them, gutting the struggling Green party? Does it confirm to the Dem elite
that,
>in the end, the errant will return, and so they can continue to blow off
the
>party’s left? Anyone who approaches these questions with the simple answer
that
>“Ralph did it” either isn’t bothering to think, or they’re intent on a
hatchet
>job.
>Randy Earnest
>
>
>
>