> I think I'd fade your five bucks on the counterfactual, Dennis. I've
> quoted this piece on this list before, but these three paragraphs from
> three years ago still seem to me the most accurate account of what
> happened in the 2000 election:
>
> "What, then, explains the failure of the Democratic succession? The answer
> is obvious enough. Clinton, though his poll ratings were high at the end
> of his term (when voters knew they would see the back of him), was an
> albatross in a way that Reagan was not. Partly this was because, unlike
> Reagan, it was plain that Clinton had no particular convictions, beyond
> the desire to stay in office -- he attracted no broad or dedicated
> following.
[clip]
You may be right, but again I have my doubts. Gore's handlers clearly underestimated Clinton's value in the election, and you saw that they understood this when, at the very end, Gore leaned on Clinton for help. Focus groups and polls are indicators, but not conclusive. During that period I heard from many "non-political" people that they wished that Clinton could run for a third term. This included some former Reagan voters. I still think that if Clinton, as an incumbent (which is what Gore was), had run against W., Bush would be back in Crawford plotting his revenge for '04. Gore's problem wasn't Clinton -- it was Gore. If not for Clinton making him VP, Gore probably wouldn't have gotten the Dem nom, esp when you recall what a horrible candidate he was in '88. He wasn't much better in '00, and he had 8 years as VP behind him.
But this is all speculation. We have a whole new set of problems now.
DP