Comment by gringo on Saturday, Jun 23 at 09:58 AM

I can't believe he said he could have made a positive difference in Arkansas and NH in 2000. In both states Clinton's favorable rating in 2000, according to the exit polls, was below 40%. In Arkansas he had 36% favorable and 61% unfavorable. http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=ar In NH 31% favorable 66% unfavorable. http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=P&state=nh But somehow that wouldn't have mattered had the NRA been defeated? Well what would that have meant? In Arkansas Bush won by 50,172 votes. In NH by 7211 votes. Clinton says that Gore would have received at least 25, 087 votes (assuming that every voted had been legal and in fact counted) and in NH at least 3605 if he had gone there and "defeat the NRA". Well is there anyone who believe that with those favorable/unfavorable ratings Gore wouldn't have lost even more voters had they seen Clinton campaining for him? Let's see: In Arkansas 18% of the voters approved the job Clinton was doing as president but at the same time had an unfavorable view of him. (That was directly the result of his scandal.) Surprise surprise 35% of those voters voted for Bush. That meant 58,000 votes. Again Bush's margin was 50,172 votes. Same thing happened in NH: 25% Approve/unfavorable 32% Bush = 45,000 votes Bush's margin of victory 7211 votes. You can look at swing state after swing state and see the same pattern: Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida, Nevada, Ohio. These exit polls were confirming a poll during the campaign and Gore's internal polls which were showing the same phenomenon: those who approved Clinton's job preformance (i.e. his policies) but disliked Clinton himself were split between Bush and Gore: People who like Clintonâ??s policies and like Clinton personally â?? 29 percent of registered voters â?? are a strong Gore group. But people who like Clintonâ??s policies but dislike him personally â?? 28 percent of voters â?? split evenly between Gore and Bush. Gore needs to win that group. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll000811.html Clinton and most Democrats may deny that Clinton fatigue was real. But the data clearly proves the opposite: it was as real as the computer you are using now and it helped Bush in state after state. He talks about Bush's slogan 'compassionate conservativism' but he forgets to mention another one which Bush actually used just as often: restoring honor and dignity in the White House. Clinton knows very well what that was all about but somehow he pretends that it didn't matter. That somehow that was not the main theme of the Bush campaigg -- when in fact it was even more than being a compassionate conservativism, which itself left a big room for interpretation, and - also according to the exit polls - Bush didn't defeat Gore on the issues anyway -- except on abortion which would have been a losing issue for any Democrat among those voters who considered abortion the top priority. The data shows that he is dead wrong (or rather he lies by omission, because Bill Daley told him during the campaign that he was unpopular in swing states and therefore he couldn't possibly helped Gore and Daley said Clinton understood that at the time, even while he didn't like to hear it.) The fact is that without Clinton's stupid scandals his favorable rating wouldn't have been so low in swing states and therefore the desire for change wouldn't have been as strong as it was, there would have few if any approve/dislike voters and 30% of them wouldn't have voted for Bush. Gore would have become president regardless of the Nader or the NRA did. So did Gore lose 25, 087 voters because the NRA convinced them Gore would take their guns away? Let's say it's true, although it's impossibly to prove. Did he lose 3605 voters in NH for the same reason? Let's say he did. But if he did and therefore Clinton can legitimately say the NRA defeated Gore in those swing states by the same token he should say with far more confidence that his scandals defeated Gore in those states. For that there is actual evidence in the exit polls. But don't hold your breath. Clinton will never admit that he was one of the reasons why Gore never had a decent chance in those swing states. He simply ignores hiw low ratings and says that he could have convinced all those voters to vote for Gore. I'm sure he would say the same thing now, even though Kerry used him and he lost both the popular vote and the electoral college. Moreover every single candidate Clinton campaigned for in that year lost. But Clinton would freely ignore inconvenient facts if those put him in a bad light.