Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Perot didn't contribute to the effect though; Dems got 41.6% in TN in each 1984/1988, then got 47.1% and 48% in 1992/1996, as well as 47.3% in 2000 when Gore was the nominee. Immediately dropped back to 42.5% in 2004 and continued declining from there.
The better question is whether having a southern nominee for President created that impact vs Gore himself; Carter got 55.9% in 1976 and 48.4% in 1980 (after Dems got under 30% in 1972). I find it hard to look at those numbers and think Gore or a candidate with Gore's demographics/background on the ballot had no impact, regardless.
Sure. Perot took about 50/50 from both parties. Polling showed a lot of independents and Democrats in his voters. Several polls have stated he wasn't necessarily even a spoiler because he took away from Clinton's margin of victory. So lets be conservative and say 2- 3 percent of those Tennessee votes went to a 3rd party instead of the VP effect. As in Independents that might lean Dem and Dems themselves weren't moved by the VP effect at all. So he didn't contribute to the effect, looks like he muffled it a tad if anything. Although I think he pulled more GOP voters there if you follow from 84-2000.
Yes, having two Southerners(non-Texan) probably did sway some folks. Carter was a legit Southern Democrat before his Presidential run so it's hard to get a direct comparison to Gore. It's there but party realignment over the next decades makes its muddy. I mean sweet ol' Jimmy Carter played both sides against each other at the end of the Civil Rights Movement. Southern politics sucks like that.
The more obvious thing in 92 would be the country coming off 12 years of the GOP in the White House. Clinton was also a highly popular candidate with unique charms... for whatever fucking reason. So Gore being from the state certainly helped I don't think it's very clear by how much.
Post by abefroman1 on Jul 25, 2024 21:42:02 GMT -5
There's a lot that happened in 1992 that probably doesn't apply to today.
Clinton name wasn't toxic, it was fresh, he was young, and went on Arsenio to play the sax. He was "1992 cool".
Bush had Desert Storm and was one of the few Republicans that raised everyone's taxes (after saying "Read my lips, no new taxes"). People hated him in 1992.
Post by braundiggity on Jul 25, 2024 22:00:15 GMT -5
Gore also took 47% in TN in 2000, without Clinton, against a south/southwestern GOP candidate. I just find it really hard to believe that would’ve happened if there was someone else on the ticket.
Post by problem dog on Jul 25, 2024 22:00:57 GMT -5
To repeat, Tennessee had an elected official named Al Gore for 47 of the 53 years between 1939 and the 1992 election. You have to be squinting pretty hard to think he's a comp for any of these current governors.
The fact there’s maybe one example all the way back in 1992…
JFK, both Clinton runs, Gore 2000. The data on the impact is all super muddy and questionable, I’m not arguing otherwise, but it’s not like people made up the idea that where a candidate is from can drive turnout just out of nowhere.
To repeat, Tennessee had an elected official named Al Gore for 47 of the 53 years between 1939 and the 1992 election. You have to be squinting pretty hard to think he's a comp for any of these current governors.
Fair! Sample size is small across the board and that’s definitely an outlier. But when Shapiro polls better than Harris against Trump in PA (better than anyone does against Trump in any swing state), for example, it just feels a little crazy to say picking him would be inconsequential to the outcome there. I’m not sure any of the other proposed VP’s would have that much impact though; the only one I think might is Cooper and that’s just because of their gubernatorial race this year. (I don’t think he’d turn NC blue for the presidency but might for gov)
The fact there’s maybe one example all the way back in 1992…
JFK, both Clinton runs, Gore 2000. The data on the impact is all super muddy and questionable, I’m not arguing otherwise, but it’s not like people made up the idea that where a candidate is from can drive turnout just out of nowhere.
Bill Clinton won both of his elections by landslides, running mate did not matter. Maybe Gore wins in 2000 if he picks Shaheen and gets NH but that’s the small state exception noted above (also, ironically, he lost TN that election). That’s not applicable here though, unless you want to argue she should pick Angus King to help get that last EV in Maine. Otherwise, picking a running mate for a boost in a particular state just isn’t the criteria they should worry about.
Upcoming Shows: 10/18 - Jason Isbell and the 400 Unit & Iris DeMent @ Ryman Auditorium 11/8 - Goose @ The Andrew J. Brady Center 11/13 - Bobby Weir & Wolf Bros w/ The Wolfpack & The Cincinnati Pops Orchestra @ Cincinnati Music Hall 2/14 - Alan Walker @ The Fillmore Detroit 4/15 - Ben Folds w/ The Cincinnati Pops Orchestra @ Cincinnati Music Hall
JFK, both Clinton runs, Gore 2000. The data on the impact is all super muddy and questionable, I’m not arguing otherwise, but it’s not like people made up the idea that where a candidate is from can drive turnout just out of nowhere.
Bill Clinton won both of his elections by landslides, running mate did not matter. Maybe Gore wins in 2000 if he picks Shaheen and gets NH but that’s the small state exception noted above (also, ironically, he lost TN that election). That’s not applicable here though, unless you want to argue she should pick Angus King to help get that last EV in Maine. Otherwise, picking a running mate for a boost in a particular state just isn’t the criteria they should worry about.
Gore probably wins if he picks Bob Graham in 2000. He would have been worth 600 more votes in Florida, but again he had been a Senator and Governor for a long time which doesn't apply to the current state of our VP candidates.
Bill Clinton won both of his elections by landslides, running mate did not matter. Maybe Gore wins in 2000 if he picks Shaheen and gets NH but that’s the small state exception noted above (also, ironically, he lost TN that election). That’s not applicable here though, unless you want to argue she should pick Angus King to help get that last EV in Maine. Otherwise, picking a running mate for a boost in a particular state just isn’t the criteria they should worry about.
Gore probably wins if he picks Bob Graham in 2000. He would have been worth 600 more votes in Florida, but again he had been a Senator and Governor for a long time which doesn't apply to the current state of our VP candidates.
Democrats technically didn’t need 600 more votes. They already had them, they just didn’t get re-counted.
Probably not good if he does a re-do and picks Haley though...
Agreed. There's something to be said about replacing him so quickly showing that he knows he made an obviously bad choice that he never should have made in the first place. It's also against Trump's nature to say he fucked up. On the other hand, the deeper it goes into the season, the worse it looks with people trying to call Harris a bait and switch.
If Trump think's he losing he will drop Vance in a minute. Though I think Vance would have to technically drop out since he's been nominated.
Yeah. You cant "fire" him. He has to give it up. Lets hope he is delulu enough to think if he waits longer for it to get better if he speaks more and they get too close to the deadline.
If Trump think's he losing he will drop Vance in a minute. Though I think Vance would have to technically drop out since he's been nominated.
How bad will it have to be for him to think he's losing though and to think a Vance replacement will change that and will it be too late at that point?