Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Angelova, Mariyana König, Thomas and Proksch, Sven-Oliver 2016. Responsibility attribution in coalition governments: Evidence from Germany. Electoral Studies, Vol. 43, p. 133.

    Brady, David W. Fiorina, Morris P. and Wilkins, Arjun S. 2011. The 2010 Elections: Why Did Political Science Forecasts Go Awry?. PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 44, Issue. 02, p. 247.

    Barisione, Mauro 2009. So, What Difference Do Leaders Make? Candidates’ Images and the “Conditionality” of Leader Effects on Voting. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 19, Issue. 4, p. 473.

    Campbell, James E. and Dettrey, Bryan J. 2009. Context and Strategy in Presidential Campaigns: Incumbency and the Political Climate. Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 8, Issue. 4, p. 292.

    Shepsle, Kenneth A. Van Houweling, Robert P. Abrams, Samuel J. and Hanson, Peter C. 2009. The Senate Electoral Cycle and Bicameral Appropriations Politics. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, Issue. 2, p. 343.

    HILLYGUS, D. SUNSHINE and SHIELDS, TODD 2008. Polls and Elections: SouthernDiscomfort? Regional Differences in Voter Decision Making in the 2000 Presidential Election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38, Issue. 3, p. 506.

    Bali, Valentina A. 2007. Terror and elections: Lessons from Spain. Electoral Studies, Vol. 26, Issue. 3, p. 669.

    Carter, Amy 2007. Did the Gore Campaign Underemphasize the Economy in 2000?. Journal of Political Marketing, Vol. 5, Issue. 4, p. 1.

    Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Jackman, Simon 2003. Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, Issue. 4, p. 583.


The 2000 US Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved?

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 April 2003

According to a portrait of elections widely held in academic political science, election outcomes depend on the ‘fundamentals’, especially peace and prosperity. Al Gore's election showing in 2000 runs counter to the preceding interpretation of elections. Objective conditions pointed to a comfortable victory, if not a landslide, but Gore's narrow popular vote margin fell well below the expectations held by many political scientists. This article attempts to account for Gore's under-performance via detailed analyses of National Election Studies surveys. We find that Gore's often criticized personality was not a cause of his under-performance. Rather, the major cause was his failure to receive a historically normal amount of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration. Secondary contributors were the drag of Clinton's personal affairs and Gore's decision to run to the left of where Clinton had positioned the Democratic party. Quite possibly these three factors are logically related: failure to get normal credit reflected Gore's peculiar campaign, which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton's behaviour.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *