I have been thinking of of various scenarios for Al Gore winning in 2000 *without* carrying Florida. This particular one was inspired by a 2004 FactCheck.org page alleging that both the Bush and Kerry campaigns had run misleading ads on the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada nuclear waste dump:
"The Yucca Mountain issue might have changed history. Four years ago neither Bush nor Gore promised to block the Yucca Mountain site -- 100 miles outside Las Vegas -- as a permanent repository for used nuclear fuel rods, which are intensely radioactive.
"Gore now has reason regret not catering more strongly to Nevada voters' dislike for the nuclear dump. He lost Nevada by 46 percent to Bush's 50 percent. Had just under 11,000 of those Bush votes gone to Gore instead, the Democrat would have won the state's four electoral votes -- and the presidency -- even without Florida.
"This time John Kerry is promising what Gore didn’t — to keep nuclear waste out. It’s a clear difference between the candidates: Bush signed legislation July 23, 2002, clearing the way for the Department of Energy to go forward with the Yucca project despite objection from the state’s governor, after earlier urging Congress to clear the way."
http://dev.factcheck.org/2004/08/yucca-mountain-mudslide-both-sides-dissemble-on/
FWIW, while Kerry did lose Nevada in 2004 (50.47-47.88--or a 2.59 percent margin) it was one of the few states where he came closer than Gore had done in 2000 (49.52-45.98--or a 3.54 percent margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 So the issue may have had some vote-getting power.
Gore lost Nevada by 21,597 votes in 2000, so a switch of 10,799 votes would have enabled him to carry the state. Moreover, it wouldn't actually be necessary for Gore to gain 10,799 votes from Bush; presumably some of Nevada's 15,008 Nader voters would have voted for Gore if he had come out against Yucca Mountain. And Yucca Mountain is precisely the sort of issue which seems likely to be of particular concern to Nader voters.
Of course it might be argued that if Gore had promised to block Yucca Mountain, so would Bush, thus neutralizing Gore's advantage. But Bush and Rove might underestimate the significance of the issue in Nevada--or might at any rate have underestimated the imoprtance of Nevada itself, a state which then had only four electoral votes. (No election, however close, had been decided by four electoral votes since 1876.)
Anyway, if Nevada is *extremely* close, it could be even more interesting than Florida. For example, charges might be made that some legal prostitutes--who were really residents of other states and merely *worked* at Nevada brothels--illegally voted in Nevada.... https://web.archive.org/web/2003030...j_home/1998/Oct-08-Thu-1998/news/8362244.html
"The Yucca Mountain issue might have changed history. Four years ago neither Bush nor Gore promised to block the Yucca Mountain site -- 100 miles outside Las Vegas -- as a permanent repository for used nuclear fuel rods, which are intensely radioactive.
"Gore now has reason regret not catering more strongly to Nevada voters' dislike for the nuclear dump. He lost Nevada by 46 percent to Bush's 50 percent. Had just under 11,000 of those Bush votes gone to Gore instead, the Democrat would have won the state's four electoral votes -- and the presidency -- even without Florida.
"This time John Kerry is promising what Gore didn’t — to keep nuclear waste out. It’s a clear difference between the candidates: Bush signed legislation July 23, 2002, clearing the way for the Department of Energy to go forward with the Yucca project despite objection from the state’s governor, after earlier urging Congress to clear the way."
http://dev.factcheck.org/2004/08/yucca-mountain-mudslide-both-sides-dissemble-on/
FWIW, while Kerry did lose Nevada in 2004 (50.47-47.88--or a 2.59 percent margin) it was one of the few states where he came closer than Gore had done in 2000 (49.52-45.98--or a 3.54 percent margin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 So the issue may have had some vote-getting power.
Gore lost Nevada by 21,597 votes in 2000, so a switch of 10,799 votes would have enabled him to carry the state. Moreover, it wouldn't actually be necessary for Gore to gain 10,799 votes from Bush; presumably some of Nevada's 15,008 Nader voters would have voted for Gore if he had come out against Yucca Mountain. And Yucca Mountain is precisely the sort of issue which seems likely to be of particular concern to Nader voters.
Of course it might be argued that if Gore had promised to block Yucca Mountain, so would Bush, thus neutralizing Gore's advantage. But Bush and Rove might underestimate the significance of the issue in Nevada--or might at any rate have underestimated the imoprtance of Nevada itself, a state which then had only four electoral votes. (No election, however close, had been decided by four electoral votes since 1876.)
Anyway, if Nevada is *extremely* close, it could be even more interesting than Florida. For example, charges might be made that some legal prostitutes--who were really residents of other states and merely *worked* at Nevada brothels--illegally voted in Nevada.... https://web.archive.org/web/2003030...j_home/1998/Oct-08-Thu-1998/news/8362244.html