ABSTRACT
The economy is strong, the president ends his second term with high public approval ratings, and his vice president, an experienced and seasoned politician, runs for the White House. Under ordinary circumstances, the vice president would be expected to win. Indeed, the Washington Post reported in August 2000 that “for one group of political scientists who study U.S. elections, Campaign 2000 is effectively over. And the winner is … Vice President Gore, narrowly but clearly.” 1 In the 2000 election, however, the circumstances were far from ordinary, and Vice President A1 Gore failed in his attempt to gain the presidency. On the one hand, the vice president did win, at least in the number of actual votes cast. On the other hand, such numbers provide scant comfort to a politician whose opponent is the one taking the oath of office and settling into the White House. For years to come, scholars will attempt to explain what exactly happened in 2000 and what it means to American democracy. One particular question to be addressed is what role the economy plays in an election and whether election 2000 defied the conventional wisdom that presidential elections during times of peace are won or lost on the state of the economy.
