1) It was Clinton's legacy. The polls, even before the 2000 campaign started, consistently showed Bush ahead of Gore. This was all the way back in 1999 - before Gore could have the opportunity to utilize Clinton and Clinton's numbers were at their highest. The reality is, most Americans were experience Clinton fatigue - as shown in polls suggesting they wanted to turn the page on all the Clinton scandals. It didn't necessarily mean they thought he was a bad president, they certainly liked him, but his popularity didn't necessarily transition well with Gore - even back in '99. Gore struggled defining himself and, initially, polls did indicate he probably would be best served distancing himself from Clinton the person (not necessarily the presidency) because people were tired of Clinton era scandals.
Hell, in 1999, only 54% of Democrats wished Clinton would run again in '00 - that is a startling low number considering how popular he was. Moreover, only 25% of independents thought he should run again. Had Clinton been constitutionally eligible to run for a third term, it's possible even he loses to Bush - though, obviously, this is all conjecture on my part.
http://www.people-press.org/1999/04/17/clinton-fatigue-undermines-gore-poll-standing/
2) Gore ran a bad campaign. He should have used Clinton more ... specifically in regions where he was popular. He shouldn't have selected Lieberman because it brought absolutely nothing to the campaign. He should have never focused winning Florida because that was always going to be a challenge considering their governor was. He should have focused more attention on Ohio, a state that he lost by roughly three-points, and could have potentially flipped had he campaigned there (which, in 2000, had 21 electoral votes). He should have focused on West Virginia instead of taking it for granted, and leaving it entirely to Bush - since this had been a reliably Democratic state ... so reliable, in fact, Dukakis carried it in '88! He ignored the state, either because he thought they were going to win it or didn't really feel the need to win it because it didn't offer up many electoral votes. Unfortunately, had he won WV, a state he lost by five-points, he would've been president. It was also the best a Democrat has done there since, as Kerry and Obama both have lost the state in landslides. He should have focused more on New Hampshire - a state he lost by less than two-points and a state, had he won, would've delivered him the presidency - even though it had a paltry four electoral votes. He should have also focused on Tennessee. It was his home state - a state Democrats carried in '92 and '96 and again, a state that would've delivered him the White House had he won it. Instead, Gore lost it by four-points.
The reality is, Gore shouldn't have lost 2000. Take out all the stealing in Florida, ignore it for a second, there was a reason everyone, from the Gore campaign to the Bush campaign, planned on Gore winning the electoral college but losing the popular vote and it's because he had far less hurdles to win the electoral college. Bush had to run the table in Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Florida ... and if he lost Ohio or Florida, he then needed to flip Iowa, Oregon and Wisconsin. Basically, to win that election, Bush needed to thread the needle just perfectly...and he pretty much did. Sure, expose the fraud in Florida, but that was only one state out of 50 and Gore just needed one other state to flip, and then for him to hang on to New Mexico, Oregon, Wisconsin and Iowa, to win the election. Run that election 100 times and Bush maybe wins it 40 times at the most - leaving the rest for Gore. But because Gore went hard at Florida in the end, and neglected a handful of other states that could put him over the top, it allowed for Bush's perfect storm to set up - as no one quite knew how those other swing states were going to go.
Gore shoulda won. It shouldn't have come down to Florida. But it's also important to point out Clinton, while popular, still had issues attached to his name and Bush did run a campaign to clean up the White House (ha). Clinton fatigue was real - but it didn't cost Gore the election. You're right about that. It didn't help, tho. Had there been no Lewinsky scandal and impeachment, Gore probably wins in 2000.
= new reply since forum marked as read
