Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I hope Gore is our next President [update] (420 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Gore was the winner of the Kos Straw Poll Run-offs (4.00)
    Excuse me for glomming onto your top thread and your diary.  I apologize for that.  

    Anyway, I had been meaning to post this stuff for a while.

    Over the last week, I've posted a number of Straw Poll run off elections.

    The first was based on Kos's straw poll and ran the top four vote getters, the results were:

    Clark 45%
    Feingold: 26%
    Edwards: 21%
    Clinton:  7%

    Next I ran Dean V. Gore

    The results were
    Gore:  59%
    Dean: 41%

    Following that, I ran Feingold v. Clark with the results:

    Clark: 71%
    Feingold: 29%

    Finally, at long last, I ran Gore v. Clark

    That was an interesting poll.  Gore initially ran off in a semi-rout (60-something to 30-something).  Following that, seemingly a group of Clark supporters discovered the poll and "freeped" it so to speak.  However, even despite the, the current results with 1289 votes counted are:

    Clark: 42%
    Gore:  58%

    A clear victory for Gore.

    I'm hoping to have something profound to say about this in the days ahead.  For now, I think its enough to simply acknowledge that Gore is the clear owner of the sentiments of the majority ofthe Kos community.

    We asa community should consider recognizing that and getting behind him early.

    My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

    by dbratl on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:19:23 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Meaningless (none)
      There are probably newer SCIENTIFIC pools, but I know of this won:

      6 May Marist College Poll of 1000+.

      Who would you vote for in the 2008 Presidential primary

      Hillary: 40%
      Kerry: 18%
      Edwards: 16%
      Biden: 7%
      Clark: 4%
      Others: 2% or less
      Undecided: 12%

      http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ050506 .htm

      If anyone had a more recent one, great.  With Gore, even better.  But the dkos polls tell you absolutely nothing about popular thought among Democratic primary voters.  Even in Kos' main poll, only about 11,000 vote, out of 100,000 active users.

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:37:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No not meaningless . . . (4.00)
        Not representative of the general population for sure, but no one is arguing that it is.

        Representative of the Kos community?  I think probably more so than you give it credit for, though of course we have no way of testing that.

        The point of these "straw polls" is to provide insight into the thinking of this community.

        As such they provided me remarkable insight on two things.

        1.  The strength and depth of support for Gore despite an almost complete lack of pro-Gore campaigning on this site.

        2.  The complete and near total rejection of Clinton, and to a lesser extent Kerry, as the standard bearers for this community the next time around.

        My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

        by dbratl on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:45:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Everyone knows (none)
          this is a heavily anti-war site.  Most will vote for whoever gave the last speech against the war that they saw.  Clark isn't for withdrawl, so the support has gone to Finegold and Gore.

          But, again, how many people voted in  your straw-poll?  Mostly just the true-believers.  Good for them (heck I'm a true-believer for Edwards), but again, self-selected types, and what ... maybe 3000 tops?

          Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

          by philgoblue on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:49:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  419??!! (1.50)
            Holy Shit, you're going to make some grand theory out of 419 self-selected folks.

            PUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

            Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

            by philgoblue on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:51:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In each of the polls except the last one (none)
              which drew a heavy number of Clark folks clocking in at late hours, the results stayed stable after about the 100 vote count.  Further, the results are consistent with the overall Kos site straw polls.

              That's actually normal.  There was no proselytizing in the posts, and I expect the people who voted are a fairly random sample of active participants on the site.

              But you know what, its fine if you want to dismiss the results.  I post them for information purposes only.  If you don't find them persuasive, that's your right.

              You should however, feel free to offer other information to the extent you have information other than your opinion to offer.

              My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

              by dbratl on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 07:03:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um (none)
                see above

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 07:06:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Um . . . (none)
                  Thanks for your well-reasoned argument, but the Gore Clark poll has near to 1400 votes.

                  My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

                  by dbratl on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 07:11:37 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nope, it has 1584 (none)
                    Oh, I just voted - 1585
                    61% favor Gore

                    Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.... Tao de Ching

                    by MyName on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 10:41:30 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Um II (none)
                    You asked "You should however, feel free to offer other information to the extent you have information other than your opinion to offer."

                    And I had already offered the well-reasoned arguments inherent in the Marist poll.  Consider the entire thread.

                    So you got a thousand Clarkistas to vote after the answered the call of duty on draftclark.com.  Wooopieee!

                    Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                    by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 05:40:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  The [poll you cite that gave Clinton 40% (none)
              probably had a sample of around 800 - and it is meant to represent NATIONAL feeling.
              •  Do you understand the difference (none)
                between scientific polling and volunteer polling?

                PS: The sun is not as big as Hellas.

                Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:24:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why yes, thanks, (none)
                  I have actually done polling as a job and hold advanced degrees in Public Policy and Economics - both of which require alot of statistics.

                  That said - the complaint was about sample size, and the sample size was perfectly adequate for the size of the kos community.  More than adequate.

                  One might certainly argue that responders were not randomly selected, but that is a different argument.

                  IMHO, the number of people who screen calls via Caller ID puts many "scientific" polls into question.  They assume that these people are random and represent no particular "group" that must be oversampled to make up for the non-answers, but I am not at all sure that's true.

                  •  Oh please (none)
                    You made a direct comparison between the kos poll and the Marist poll.  If you don't understand the difference, I can only hope that no one I want to win hires you sine you clearly don't know the difference between random, scientific polls and volunteer polls.  It's not a different argument.  It's THE argument.

                    Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                    by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:22:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Lack of Gore Campaigning? (1.83)
          This site is littered with Kool-Aid drinkers who think that Gore should get a second chance after pissing the presidency down his leg in 2000.

          It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

          by lando on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can I "Umm" again? (none)
            Since when is winning the popular vote "pissing" anything away?

            Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.... Tao de Ching

            by MyName on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 10:45:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for saying that (none)
              it's amazing how some people, like the one you just replied to, seem to internalize GOP talking points.
            •  Check your Constitution (none)
              Winning the popular vote, don't make you president.  And given the massive positives the Democratic candidate had in 2000, I'd say not becoming president is "pissing away" an easy win.

              Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

              by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 05:38:17 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course - he also won Florida - (none)
                and thus the election - despite a media that was unprecedentedly (my own word?) hostile - and, of course, an insane Nader attack fro the left that claimed that Gore and Bush were basically Coke and Pepsi.  Uhh - THAT turned out to be a little bit wrong.
                •  Nope (1.00)
                  He lost Florida, see my comments above.

                  Yep, Nader and his voters were fools.
                  Yep, the media allowed their personal dislike for Gore (who is apparently more than a bit distant and not much of a people person) get in the way of their supposed neutrality.

                  Still, Gore should have won with numbers close to 60%.  Something tells me the Big Dog would have won his third term with about those numbers (that something is the scientific polling about his favorability ratings in the fall of 2000).

                  Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

                  by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:27:52 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No he won Florida. (none)
                    Every recount showed that he had more legal votes.  That's winnig.  Was it stolen from him?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean he didn't win it.  I do not agree with your definition of "win".

                    There was a plan afoot in Fla for the overwhelmingly Republican l;egislature to overide the voters and giove the state to Bush if Al had come out in front on election day.  They were goig to have Bush allege impropriteties - push recounts (and, of course, Harris would have gone along) - and, if they couldn't get it that way, have the state legislature vote to give the electoral votes to Bush.

                    Tell me, would you also have qualified that as a win?

  •  sorry, that is just plain nonsense (none)
    There is no reason to claim that Gore should have won with 60 percent of the vote.

    PS...Edwards should have carried his state in 2004.   He really did us a diservice dropping out of being a Senator to run for President.  Had he done his job  and waited a few terms we might have one more seat in the senate.

    Liberal, Christian, Feminazi, Mom.

    by TeresaInPa on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 06:50:10 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You Couldn't Be More Wrong (none)
      1.  Clinton's approval ratings were 65% at the end of his term, they had been as high as 70% during the impeachment/coup period.  So, I'm being pretty generous with Al, he ought to have been able to win most (not even all) of the votes that were happy with the incumbent when he was the VP.
      That's a reason Teresa.  Camprende?

      More on your foolish comments on JRE below.

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:02:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are stupider than I initially believed (none)
        if you think that a president's favorability rating somehow automatically translates into votes for his vice president.
        It doesn't work that way never did and never will.
        Even Clinton himself admitted that after he realized that his campaining for Kerry didn't help Kerry at all. Oops!

        It wouldn't have helped Gore either. Especially not in 2000.

        •  ha ha ha (none)
          you've got to be joking ....... right?

          Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

          by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:22:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are right (none)
          Nothing could have helped Gore, because he was such a shitty candidate.

          It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

          by lando on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:40:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  He was a good candidate who ran a reasonable (none)
            campaign with a  reasonable platform.
            Not to mention he was right on every issue.

            And no I'm not kidding. You are fooling yourself if you think that people vote for someone just because he is the veep of a president who has 60+% approval rating.
            There is absolutely no historical evidence for that.

            A poll before the conventions showed that Bush would beat Clinton. Yes. I repeat: Bush lead Clinton in the spring of 2000 in a hypothetical matchup.
            You know why? Because while people approved the job Clinton was doing they were fed up with Clinton himself and with anyone who as associated with him. That's why Karl Rove wanted to link Gore to Clinton and was scared to death when after Gore separated himself from Clinton in the convention he finally managed to pull ahead of Bush for the first time during the campaign.

            But you don't care about those facts. You just believe in you silly theories that 1) people wanted more not less Clinton in 2000 and 2) people would have voted for Gore if he had embraced Clinton just because he had 60-70% job approval rating

            Bullshit.

      •  I am sorry but . . . (none)
        even if you make some good points (and I'm not even ready to concede that because I can't bring myself to read through what you write), you are just so fucking obnoxious it invalidates anything you say.  

        My President fought a war on terror and all New Orleans got was this lousy levee. - me.

        by dbratl on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 03:48:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You Couldn't Be More Wrong II (none)
      Here's a quick quiz Teresa (with answers).

      How many times did the Kerry campaign send Edwards to NC?  Answer: Twice, once in July after the announcement and once in October, for a total of 2.5 days.

      How many times did Kerry visit NC?  Once, in July, for a total of 5 hours.

      How many days did Kerry advertise in NC?  5.

      Sorry, the Kerry campaign wrote off the South just like they said they would and we paid for it with a loss and the loss of 5 senate seats.  You simply cannot blame JRE for not doing something he wasn't allowed to try to do.  Kerry was at the top of the ticket and even though Edwards' rating were over 50%, he couldn't help such a poor candidate at the top of the ticket that made no attempt to win any states in the South.

      What Edwards was set out to do was win over small and medium size towns.  This is one of only two demographics where Kerry did better than Gore (towns between 10-50K).  It was in a November 2004 Cook Political Report.  Kerry gained 10% in this area, going from 37% to 47%.  So, where Edwards was used, he was quite successful.

      Those who didn't understand that Edwards would have beaten BushCo did the disservice to America.

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:13:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hahahaha (none)
        Yeah Edwards would have beaten BushCo
        There was so much confidence in his ability to be commander-in-chief during a war particularly in the South. It would have been a landslide for Edwards no question about that.

        Do you believe that the Jupiter is smaller than the Pluto?

  •  Your ass was an easy win (none)
    Starting the campaign with 20 points behind the prospective Rep nominee is an easy win??
    Hello? Dukakis had that lead over Bush Sr in 1988 and he blew it.
    Bush Jr managed to blew his lead during the campaign in a similar way. It was not Gore who had the advantage but Bush.
    Get back to the Earth from your fantasyland. Thanks to the Clinton scandals Democrats were not popular in 1999 or 2000. Especially not Dems who were associated with Clinton whose personal approval rating were around 40% or worse in the red states.

    Do you care about fact, anyway?

    Gore was the underdog even before he was a candidate because people were fed up with the Clinton years and they wanted change for the sake of change. Get over it. That's what happened even if you can't believe it.

    •  Your facts are wrong (none)

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:21:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My facts are not wrong. (none)
        Look at the exit polls in 2000. Look at the red states and dare say that Clinton was popular there. He was not. The South is culturally conservative and they do not like liar adulterers.

        And Gore was indeed 20 points behind Bush in 1999 BEFORE he separated himself from Clinton. At the same time in 1999 Clinton lost in every hypothetical mathup  with Bush as well. But keep fooling yourself if you want.

    •  Gore facts (none)
      If Al Gore was 20 points behind, it was because he was Al Gore.  People did not like the guy, and they did not warm up enough to him to elect him president.  All the polls showed that Clinton would have buried Bush.  He was far more popular than Gore was.  That is a fact.  I can't figure out why all these people think Gore was hurt by Clinton's Monica problem, when Clinton himself wasn't hurt by it.  

      Maybe people got complacent, maybe they wanted change for the sake of change.  All I know is that it has to be a lot easier to run as part of a succesful administration than a failed one. Yet Gore ran away from Clinton's success.  He basically hid the guy away.  And then he lost the election (blah, blah, blah I know he really won, but you need to win by a significant amount to overcome republican cheating, so he didn't win).  

      It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

      by lando on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:33:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah. People did not like Gore before he was even (none)
        candidate by they liked him when he was already a candidate, right? So that's how he eliminated his 20-point deficit.

        Your argument doesn't make sense.

        •  They just didn't like him enough. (none)

          It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

          by lando on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 11:18:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's not what you said earlier. (none)
            You said that Gore was behind Bush by as much as 20 points even before he was a candidate in 1999 because people didn't like him. Period.

            The problem with that is that in early 1999 most people didn't even know Gore since he was not yet in the spotlight. What didn't they like about him back then that later they started to like when he came up in the polls? Name it.

            We know that in 1999 they knew he was Clinton's vice president and apparently that was enough for them to reject him especially if a man with the name Bush was his opponent.

            But when Gore was already a candidate and in the spotlight and he separated himself from Clinton in the convention he not only erased Bush's lead but actually took the lead in the polls. How could that be true if your theory that Gore lost because he run away from Clinton is true?

            Now you change your mind and say they just didn't like him enough. There are two problems with that claim:

            1.If election victories are based on how much people like a candidate then apparently you have to think that they liked Bush enough even if Bush convinced less voters to vote for him than Gore, both in Florida and nationawide.
            Don't forget that the only reason you say these things about Gore today is that he is not in the White House. If he was you would treat him as a winner and would not create theories about Clinton and Gore and how much people liked him and what not.
            Since Bush is there based on you logic we should say that people liked him enough. But how many people liked him enough to vote for him? More than the people who voted for Bush who is now in the White House and for that reason alone you would never say that people just didn't like Bush enough.

            2.In terms of the election result it's irrelevant how much a voter likes a candidate if he/she votes for him/her. The only thing that matters is the number of voters. (If, of course, their votes are counted)
            How can you possibly judge how much the voters who voted for Gore liked him as opposed to how much the Bush voters liked Bush?
            And why does that matter when Gore actually had more voters than Bush?
            You should say that not enough people liked him which is not the same as saying people just didn't liked him enough.
            But if you say that not enough people liked him we go back to the question: did more voters like Bush? Based on the actual election results the answer to that is clearly: no.

            Your theory is a logical mess.

            BTW, why should anyone, let alone a majority, automatically support  Al Gore for president just because there was 8 years of peace and prosperity? Where is the logic behind that?
            We know that most voters disagreed with you, but I'd like to know why you think that they should have agreed with you.

            •  No (none)
              First, read my response to your other comment.  You are wrong about the polling.  Clinton polled better than Gore throughout the campaign.  Both were behind early, although Gore was much farther behind.  Both surged late, alhtough only Clinton surged (without any campaigning!) enough to beat Bush.   You cannot say that Clinton's extramarital shortcomings hurt Gore, because they did not hurt Clinton.  Why would Gore be blamed for the BJs and not Clinton?  That makes no sense at all.

              You are right that eight years as a VP in a successful administration (one that people wanted to see continue) does not translate into automatic support for the VP.  You are also right that the election also turns on not just how much people like (or want to elect) your candidate, but what they think of the other candidate.  But being VP for a successful administration should at least be an advantage, and running against an illiterate fuckwit should also boost your chances. Gore had both of these things going for him and lost the election.

              I also take issue with the idea that Gore separated himself from Clinton at the convention.  What the hell does that mean?  He said he was his own man?  Gore got a convention bounce, like almost all candidates do.  The idea that his gain in the polls was the result of ditching Clinton does not hold water.  

              It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

              by lando on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 08:32:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You changed the subject. (none)
                First you said Gore should have been ahead from the beginning because there was peace and prosperity and what not. Then after realizing that Gore was actually 20 points behind Bush even before he started his campaign therefore even before most people actually knew who he was or what he stood for or what he would do as president  (what could they dislike in Gore in early 1999? He was not even in the spotlight. There was no orange makup or sighs.) you just said that was because people didn't like him. Then when I pointed out that argument doesn't hold water since Gore came up in the polls as people got to know him more and more you said they just didn't like him enough. Then when I pointed out that  doesn't make sense in light of the actual election result and is totally irrelevant anyway since elections are decided by the number of voters not by the intensity of their feelings you now say 'oh read my other comments about Clinton's polling numbers'. What does that have to do with your original claim that Gore was behind Bush by 20 points because people didn't like him?
                Nothing. Your argument makes no sense.

                He was that much behind because peole didn't know him other than that as someone who was the impeached liar Clinton's veep. Gore actually spent less time in the spotlight during his vice-presidency than Dick Cheney -- which tells a lot. He was rarely on TV, rarely gave interviews and most people just saw him as the wooden Indian behind Clinton who was somehow involved in all dirt generated by Clinton.

                First, read my response to your other comment.  You are wrong about the polling.  Clinton polled better than Gore throughout the campaign.

                No he didn't. You are wrong about the polling because you cherrypick some polls and ignore others which refute your theory. You don't have evidence that Clinton ever led Bush by 10% in any poll. Gore did in Sept, 2000.
                His numbers started going down after the press bashed him for "lying" (sound familiar?) about James Lee Witt, and that standing girl in that Florida school, and a certain lulluby and a dog and a mother-in-law. They did exactly what they did in 1999 with the Internet, Love Story, Love Canal nonsense and it could work so well because the public was fed up with liars in the White House.
                One may wonder why.

                Both were behind early, although Gore was much farther behind.

                But not by election day. It's not fair to compare Clinton vs Bush to Gore vs Bush in those early days. Since Gore could not really introduce himself before the convention, he was just perceived as Clinton' veep (a double negative) and Bush was simply perceived as the alternative. Gore started to pull ahead only after he could shake his Clinton's veep image, that happened during the convention and after that Gore was running better against Bush than Clinton ever did.

                By the way, if you say that Gore should have won easily how is it that Clinton was behind Bush as an incumbent president during peace and prosperity? People just didn't like him enough?
                Clinton was not  just simply behind Bush but Bush would have destroyed  him in Jan 2000 by a whooping  11% if the election had been held then. In Jan 2000 Clinton's job approval rating was above 60%. The economy was still in good shape. He was in the spotlight. There was a State of the Union and everything.  Why did the majority still say that they would vote for Bush? Why did they want change? And not just some of them but 11% more?
                Apparently the very factors that you say should have put Gore over the top easily didn't help Clinton against Bush at all. Not even much in Oct 2000. He got only 3% more while Bush went down. And don't tell me he was not campaning. Everyone knew Clinton. He gave a "let's run on the record" speech at the convetion. He made a 15 minute here I am the big dog performace at the convention. And he was still behind Bush. So how can you blame Gore for not destroying Bush when according to the polls Clinton didn't do that either?

                But being VP for a successful administration should at least be an advantage,

                Why should it be? It has never been. At least not in modern history.
                Bush Sr didn't got any advantage from Reagan's high poll numbers and perceived successes. Nixon didn't got any advantage form Eisenhower's high approval and successes.
                Both administation were viewed favorably at the end of their terms. And despite that both veeps campaigned with big handicaps. In the case of Nixon nothing worked because Kennedy could not be portrayed as a far-left radical. In Bush's case it worked only because they ran an ugly racist smear campaign against Dukakis, potraying him as a far-left liberal. Remember Willie Horton? It was do dirty Lee Atwater later appologized for it.
                But the same tactics couldn't have been applied  against Bush because Bush was very careful to portray himself as a middle-of-the-road guy, the media gave him a free ride, the religious right shut up (unlike in 1992 or 1996, remember the booing in 1992?). So what kind of advantage did Gore have? Nothing. He had an albatross around his neck called Bill Clinton.

                and running against an illiterate fuckwit should also boost your chances.

                Are you kidding? Clinton was losing to that " illiterate fuckwit " even in Aug 2000!!! Don't tell me people couldn't compare him to Clinton at the time. And still there is no evidence that Clinton would have beaten Bush (see my post below) let alone by a landslide.
                Since when does the average American voter care about intellect?
                Bush was proudly  an illiterate fuckwit because he knew that's what the rednecks like.
                Remember Adlai Stevenson and his famous comment? He was right. And he would be right today.
                Being an illiterate simpleton is not a bad thing in US elections. It's an advantage. Sad but true.

                Moreover, because he was  an illiterate fuckwit  the press never went after his lies. They just said oh he doesn't know it. Leave him alone. He cannot tell a lie because he just have no idea what he is talking about.

                Gore had both of these things going for him and lost the election.

                Gore did not lose the election and all he had was a sex maniac impeached president in his living room who had to be first kicked out of the picture if he wanted to have any chance to win.
                And the economy started down in March. Hello? So what did he have? A slowing economy, a dumbass who was proud to be a dumbass and a liar president. Indeed big advantages.

                I also take issue with the idea that Gore separated himself from Clinton at the convention.  What the hell does that mean?  He said he was his own man?  Gore got a convention bounce, like almost all candidates do.  The idea that his gain in the polls was the result of ditching Clinton does not hold water.  

                You really don't understand? Well the Bush  campaign and Karl Rove did. And they started to panic.

                Relinking Gore to Clinton
                From the Weekly Standard
                08/18/2000
                By Fred Barnes

                Around the time of the political conventions in August, voters were asked in a Gallup poll to take another stab at the 1992 election. This time, President George Bush defeated Bill Clinton by 53 percent to 42 percent. Then, assuming Clinton could run for another term, they were asked if they preferred him or George W. Bush. The answer was Bush, 51 percent to 45 percent. Finally, this same group of voters registered a verdict on Clinton's presidency. A whopping 68 percent said it's been a success, 29 percent a failure. The meaning of all this: The Clinton bifurcation lives! Voters still like Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around. And so in the 2000 election, voters want a new president who's the opposite of him personally--and especially morally--but not a strong critic of his policies.

                Until a month ago, that person was George W. Bush. His compassionate conservatism isn't a radical departure from this administration's policies, but he's quite unlike Clinton personally. Now, Al Gore has changed things by pulling off a strategically brilliant political transformation. Gore re-mains vice president in name only. He's disconnected himself from Clinton and shaped his image to meet the requirements of the Clinton bifurcation. His policies are roughly the same, but he's presenting himself as morally separate. How's he done it? First by picking a religious person and critic of Clinton's morals, Joe Lieberman, as his vice presidential running mate. And then by talking up religion, playing the family man by showing off his wife and children at the Democratic convention, and emphasizing the future rather than the Clinton-Gore past. Also, says chief Bush strategist Karl Rove, Gore's kissing his wife after she addressed the Democratic convention "worked...unbelievably."

                So, eight weeks out, the presidential race comes down to a single question: Will Gore's separation from Clinton endure?[b] Bush and his advisers recognize how difficult Gore will be to defeat if he's no longer seen as an extension of Clinton, indeed as the vehicle for a third Clinton term in the White House.[/b] Their goal is, in Rove's words, to "re-link Gore to Clinton." The job won't be easy. Gore has gained spectacularly on the moral issue in the campaign. A month ago, voters who said morality is a top issue preferred Bush by 68 percent to 24 percent, according to pollster John Zogby. But a post-convention survey by Newsweek found Gore leading Bush by 7 percentage points on who can best promote moral values. That poll was skewed by sampling too many Democrats. But a Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week showed Gore, after running 11 points behind before the conventions, has pulled even with Bush on the moral issue.

                Worried, the Bush campaign conducted two focus groups in early September with what it calls "new Gore voters," ones who migrated to the vice president after the conventions. When a White House scandal involving Gore was cited, "there was a lot of nervous laughter," says a Bush aide who observed the sessions. In response, the Gore voters spontaneously began to mention other controversial Gore activity. This was obviously encouraging to the Bush camp. Now, the Bushies expect to raise at least a half-dozen of these embarrassing episodes in ads, Bush speeches, or the debates. These include Gore's alibi that "no controlling legal authority" barred fund-raising calls from the White House, his appearance at a fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple, his none-too-credible insistence it wasn't a fund-raiser, his excuse he was in the men's room when allegedly illegal money-raising tactics were discussed at the White House, and his claim that Clinton will be seen as one of America's "greatest presidents."

                For sure, the Bush campaign will be accused of dwelling on the past, being negative, and focusing on Clinton, who's leaving office. Bush has said he wouldn't attack the president, but he doesn't need to. His task is simply to connect Gore to Clinton and to Clinton-related wrongdoing. True, this would stress the past. But contrary to conventional wisdom, most presidential elections are about the past. In 1960, John F. Kennedy was elected in reaction to the tired Eisenhower administration. Ronald Reagan won in 1980 because the Carter presidency had failed in economic and foreign policy. In 1988, George Bush Sr. won because the Reagan administration had succeeded on those issues. Four years later, Clinton was elected because the Bush administration seemed adrift. And so on.

                The importance of the past makes Gore's feat of disassociating himself from Clinton, for the moment at least, all the more impressive. "Everything Gore's doing is working," says Republican strategist Jeffrey Bell (coiner of the term "Clinton bifurcation"). The architect of this strategy was pollster Stan Greenberg, who worked for Clinton in 1992 but didn't join Gore until early August. Greenberg spent most of the 1990s thinking and writing about how Democrats could attract middle-class voters. Just last month, he wrote in the American Prospect that Democrats should "re-enter the values debate." Voters like candidates who "put the family at the center of political discussion," Greenberg wrote, "and who devote themselves to a policy agenda that will help families meet the myriad challenges they face." This leads to the "middle-class populism" of government aid for college tuition, child care, prescription drugs, and health insurance that Gore proposes.

                But that's not all of it. "Voters are drawn to Democrats who respect the public's religious faith and belief in personal responsibility," Greenberg wrote. "Reading Greenberg's article," says Marshall Wittmann of the Hudson Institute, a Republican, "you can see Greenberg telling Gore, 'You must choose Lieberman as your running mate.'" Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, certainly has delivered the goods, speaking incessantly about religion and morality. Gore "had to have" Lieberman to distance himself from Clinton, argues Wittmann. "No one else would have made it real."

                For his part, Bush has de-emphasized religious faith since the Republican primaries, notably since his appearance at Bob Jones University in South Carolina became controversial. The Bush strategy assumed religious faith was useful politically with GOP voters, but wouldn't help in the general election. This left a void that Gore and Lieberman have filled.

                In one way, touting faith is a cynical ploy. Lieberman didn't yap this much about religion until quite recently. In fact, reporters who covered Lieberman had a tacit agreement not to ask him about religion. No more. The message from Gore and Lieberman is: We're religious, we're moral, we're not like Clinton. Now, it's time for Bush's counter-message.

                http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39bcfc1964c8.htm

                Read the comments as well and you'll see more about the Rep strategy against Gore in 2000 which was basically : portray Gore as a Clinton lapdog.

                And Gore didn't just got a bounce. He got it from "moral value" voters who previously thought Gore was too close to Clinton. That was because he separated himself from Clinton in his speech and and presented himself as a family man who had high morals -- not exactly the Clinton formula.
                Can you name any other explanation for 8% jump in the polls after his performance at the convention?
                Certainly it was not because he talked about the previous 8 years and how wonderful Bill Clinton was.

                Finally, you failed to answer my question:

                why should anyone, let alone a majority, automatically support  Al Gore for president just because there was 8 years of peace and prosperity? Where is the logic behind that?
                We know that most voters disagreed with you, but I'd like to know why you think that they should have agreed with you.
                You just keep repeating that peace and prosperity were advantages for Gore but never explained why. You have an advantage in an election only if most voters in enough states to win 270 electors think it is an advantage. Apparently most did not think that otherwise Gore and Clinton wouldn't have been behind Bush during a booming peacetime economy. So why should they have voted for Gore just because there was peace and boom?

      •  He hid the guy because the guy was (none)
        an immoral liar with 40% personal approval rating in 2000 in every red state.
        Even Karl Rove wanted to link Gore to Clinton and Rove knows something about what works for Republicans.

        Your are worng. Polls in the spring of 2000 showed that Bush would have beaten Clinton. You are delusional.

        When Gore separated himself from Clinton in the convention his poll numbers went up and started to lead Bush. That's a fact.
        Why do you think it happened? Why did he get the biggest post-convention boost in history after he said he is his own man and mentioned Clinton's name only once? How do you explane that, huh?

        Face it: Clinton screw up for the Democrats with his blowjob and lies, big time. And not just for Gore but also for the the congressional Dems as well. He played right into the hands of the culture war Reps.

        •  Totally wrong (none)
          I assume the poll you are referring to is the March 2000 Harris poll.   Clinton is behind Bush in that poll, but Clinton was still running better than Robot man.   Clinton's approval ratings were also above 50 percent in more than half the red states.  

          Polls taken in the fall of 2000 (see, i.e. ABC News October 2000 poll) show Clinton beating Bush.  I suppose that Bush's negatives went up, while Clinton's were already known.  In any event, he was still running much better than Gore (as was the case throughout the campaign), and would have won the election without the need for a recount.

          The BJs and the lying did not hurt Clinton.  How could it hurt Gore?

          It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

          by lando on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 11:40:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Totally right (none)
            I assume the poll you are referring to is the March 2000 Harris poll.  

            First you said all the polls showed that Clinton would have buried Bush. Now you admit that there was at least one poll in which Bush beat Clinton. Liar.
            Actually there was more than one poll which showed Bush beating -- or rather burying -- Clinton.

            Clinton is behind Bush in that poll, but Clinton was still running better than Robot man.  

            Gore is not a robot, unfortunately he is all too human. But I sure would vote for a robot over Clinton.

            Anyway, nice try. Here's more about that ABC poll:

            You said Clinton would have beaten Bush with a landslide and that he was running better against Bush than Gore throughout the campaing. Not so fast.

            This is what ABC wrote:

            The comeback kid has done it again: Bill Clinton slightly outpoints George W. Bush in a
            hypothetical test of public preferences for president, after trailing Bush last winter.

            10/1/00 Clinton 45% Bush 40%
            1/26/00 Clintnn 42% Bush 51%

            http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/796a52ClintonvBush.pdf

            1.Slightly is hardly a landslide or "buried" and was the likely result of Clinton not being in the spotlight in the fall of 2000, while Bush was.
            ABC also wrote:
            "Comeback" could be overstating it, since there's been more of a drop in Bush's support
            (down 11 points) than a gain in Clinton's (up three). (More people say they wouldn't vote
            for either one.)

            And you call that pathetic 3 points a "surge".
            Hey! He was the sitting president during peace and prosperity. How is it that he was not getting at least 60% of the votes? Don't tell me people didn't know Clinton by the end of 2000.

            3.ABC also wrote: "the 45-40 percent number is among the general public. Among registered voters it's 44-41 percent."

            Which is within the margin of error. And ABC did not take a "likely voters" Clinton-Bush poll.
            But at the same time Gore and Bush were also in dead heat (within the margin of error) in October. This is one of them:

            ABC News/Washington Post Poll
            10/6-9/00   
            Gore 45%    Bush 48%   

            And according to the final in the Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll before election day, when Clinton-Bush poll was not taken so you don't have any basis for comparison

            11/5-6/00
            Gore 46%    Bush 48%

            http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

            As for your claim that Clinton was always
            running better against Bush than Gore:

            Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll
            2000 Sept 18-20
            Gore 51%    Bush 41%   

            Do you know whether Clinton led Bush among likely voters by 10 points in Sept? I find it very unlikely given the fact that Bush beat him in an Aug Gallup poll, that Clinton's convention speech was less popular than Gore's (see below) and that even in the fall campaign Clinton was only 3 points ahead of Bush in one registered voters poll.
            If you don't know whether Clinton ever led Bush by 10 points like Gore did in September how can you claim that he always run better than Gore?

            4. The final ABC Gore-Bush poll among likely voters showed Bush 48%    Gore 45%, which was also within the margin of error, and we now know was inaccurate since Gore won more votes than Bush.

            So Clinton had 44% among registered voters in October and Gore had 45% among likely voters in November while we know that the Gore-Bush polls turned out to be wrong.  Indeed that proves your argument that Clinton would have won easily against Bush while Gore could not.
            Duh!

            5.The ABC poll says nothing about the electoral college. We now know that Gore in fact should have been ahead of Bush in every poll before election day, since these polls only show the popular vote not the electoral college. But how can you know that Clinton wouldn't have ended up exactly as Gore did? Winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college after a bunch of irregularities for example in Florida? Certainly your ABC poll does not prove that Clinton would have won the electoral college easily so no recount would have been needed. If it shows anything that is that a Clinton-Bush race wouldn't have been a landslide at all, it would have been just as close as the Gore-Bush race meaning that a post-election recount scenario might very well happened if Clinton not Gore had been the Dem candidate.

            Now about your claim that only the Harris poll showed Bush beating Clinton during the campaign.
            Your own ABC example proved that it was not true since Bush beat Clinton easily in 2000 Januar (51% Bush 42% Clinton )
            But there were a bunch of Gallup polls during the summer of 2000 which prove Gore would have been a fool if he had "used" Clinton in his campaign more.
            Clinton was not running better against Bush in Aug, at the time of the convention when Gore declared himself his own man and left Clinton in the cold. Nor was he more popular among the voters than Gore.

            Here's a dose of reality for you:

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 11-12

            If the Democratic nomination for president were still being decided and if Bill Clinton could run again, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Al Gore or Bill Clinton for president?

            Democrats      Gore    48%    Clinton 46%
            Independents   Gore    52%     Clinton 29%
            Republicans    Gore    58%     Clinton 12%

            By Aug 2000 Gore beat Clinton easily among Reps and independents. Even among Democrats. How do you explain that with your "ah Clinton was so much better than Gore" idiocy?

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 11-12

            Please tell me whether you think Al Gore, if elected in November, would do a better job, about the same, or not as good a job as President Clinton in handling the job of president.

            Economy  
            Better        16%        
            Worse         17%      
            Same         60%      

            Moral Leadership
            Better       58%
            Worse        12%
            Same         27%

            Yeah, the BJ and the lies didn't matter for the voters.

            CNN/TIME POLL
            August 9-10 2000
            Is Gore too close to President Clinton?

            1999
            Yes   55%
            No    37%

            2000 Aug
            Yes   49%  
            No    45%      

            No, Gore was not too close to Clinton -- you say.
            Most disagreed, sorry. He should have been even closer according to your brilliant strategy -- you say. That would have helped him a lot. Absolutely.

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 11-12

            Does Vice President Al Gore's ties with President Bill Clinton make you feel more favorably toward Gore or less favorably toward Gore, or do they have no effect on your view of him?

            More favorable     7%
            Less favorable    32%

            Yeah, Gore didn't have to run away from Clinton. His ties to Clinton made him look better in the eyes of a wooping 7% of the voters. And that 32% didn't matter since Gore should have won by a landslide from the beginning just because he was Clinton's veep -- just like Clinton would have "buried" Bush with his 44% share of the vote.

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 4-5 2000

            Bill Clinton   Favorable Rating    42%

            CNN/TIME POLL
            August 9-10 2000

            Al Gore Favorable  Rating     50%

            Yeah Clinton's favorablity was always higher than Gore's.

            And:

            Pre-convention poll
            CNN/TIME POLL
            August 9-10

            Bush       53%    
            Gore       39%      

            Post-convention poll

            The CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted August 18-19, 2000,
            Now    Aug. 11-12

            Gore        47%      
            Bush        46%    

            http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/06/cnn.time.poll/index.html

            http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/13/cnn.poll/

            He got a heck of a bounce, didn't he? (Bush got only 4% after his convetion.)
            But sure not because he was presenting himself as Clinton's lapdog -- as you would have demanded. In July 2000, voters who said morality is a top issue preferred Bush by 68 percent to 24 percent, according to Zogby. But a post-convention survey by Newsweek found Gore leading Bush by 7 percentage points on who can best promote moral values. That poll was skewed by sampling too many Democrats. But a Washington Post/ABC News poll released last week showed Gore, after running 11 points behind before the conventions, has pulled even with Bush on the moral issue. Gore's bounce was largely from "moral value" voters. And you tell me he would have got that even if he had talked about Clinton this Clinton that, right?

            And Lieberman was a tactical blunder, as well -- in your fantasyland. So much that Gore gained 8% in the polls after picking him and more people regarded Joe favorable for his criticism of Clinton than less favorably.

            http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/07/cnn.poll/index.html

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 7 2000
            Lieberman's Criticism of Bill Clinton
            More favorable    26%
            Less favorable    21%

            And

            Registered Voters' Choice for President
            Before selection Joe
            Aug. 4-5
            Gore          38%  
            After selection Joe
            August 7  
            Gore          46%        

            More people liked Gore's convention speech in which he talked about the future and mentioned Clinton only once than Clinton's speech in which he praised himself -- as he always does -- and talked about the record i.e. the past:

            http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/21/cnn.poll/

            Rating the speeches at the Democratic convention:

            Excellent/good   Gore  52%    Clinton   44%
            Just okay        Gore   18%    Clinton   16%
            Poor/terrible    Gore    6%    Clinton  13%

            Clinton's approval ratings were also above 50 percent in more than half the red states.  

            Have you ever heard the phrase Clinton bifurcation?
            It was coined by a  Republican strategist Jeffrey Bell and it meant the strange phenomenon which is shown in these polls:

            CNN/TIME POLL
            August 9-10 2000
            In your view, has Bill Clinton been as success or failure since he took office?
            Success      60%
            Failure      34%

            and still

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 4-5 2000
            Whose Opinions Do You Respect More?
            Former President Bush    61%
            Bill Clinton             34%

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            August 4-5 2000
            Who Would You Vote For?
            Former President Bush    53%
            Bill Clinton             42%

            Remember the economy under Bush Sr? It was not a success for sure. Still in 2000 more people would have voted for him than for Clinton despite that 60% thought Clinton's tenure was a success. You could say that people were crazy. But it was all about the BJ and the lies and character.

            Voters still liked Clinton's performance as president but they don't want him around.
            And so in the 2000 election, voters wanted a new president who's the opposite of him personally;and especially morally;but not a strong critic of his policies.

            You could understand that if you would take your head out of the sand.

            In addition to that Harris poll in which both McCain and Bush beat Clinton by 5% there was a Gallup poll in Aug 2000 where George W. Bush beat Clinton by 6 points.( 51 percent to 45 percent)
            But you say every poll showed during the campaign that Clinton would have defeated Bush. Stop lying.

            And stop referring to job approval rating as if they were evidence that people wanted a third Clinton term and therefore Gore should have embraced him.
            Job approval rating was irrelevant. First, it was about Clinton's job not Gore's job, second Clinton was judged not merely based on his policies but based on his personal qualities. And on that one he was below 40% on election day. Including in his home state.
            If job approval rating would be any indicator as to who would get elected Clinton wouldn't have been behind Bush in any poll since his job approval rating was always well above 50% in 2000.

            And this is how much people wanted a third Clinton term:

            CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
            January 5-7
            Which comes closer to your view of Bill Clinton as he prepares to leave the White House -- I'm glad he is leaving, or I'll miss him when he is gone?

            Glad he is leaving    51%   
            Will miss him    45%

            http://edition.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/10/cnn.poll.clinton/index.html

            The BJs and the lying did not hurt Clinton.  How could it hurt Gore?

            Of course it hurt him. Otherwise he wouldn't have had only 37% personal approval rating and most people wouldn't have been glad he was leaving office. He wouldn't have been behind Bush ever and he wouldn't have been in a statistical dead heat with him in Oct. Based on his job numbers he should have beaten Bush by 60% as that other Clinton-maniac asshole in the thread said Gore should have done it.

            Clinton could thank his poor showing against Bush to his uncontrolled zipper.
            But ironically   his actions hurt Gore more because he, not being an incumbent president, got little credit for the good things (as veeps usually don't get credit for administration successes no matter what they do, go and study the Nixon-Kennedy race or ask Bush Sr how much credit he got for Reagan's success, he would have lost to Dukakis had it not been for Willie Horton and death penalty and the other far-left smear) and the political climate Clinton created with his lies made the media's character assassination against Gore so damn effective that by the end of the campaign 80% of voters who thought character was the most important issue voted for Bush. 80%! And you think that has nothing to do with BJ and lies. According to exit polls character was the most important issue in every state but particularly in red states.
            As one of Gore's aide said if not for the Clinton scandal the press would have treated those "gaffes" as just gaffes and not as if they were proof that Gore was a pathological liar, dishonest, serial exaggerator etc. (Of course many of those gaffes were merely misquotes)

            It seems to me that you are fooled by articles like 'As Term Wanes, 'Clinton Fatigue' Yields to Nostalgia' by John F. Harris in the WaPo in May 2000. But May 2000 was long before election day, before the conventions and even Harris admitted that  "among some independent voters, polling suggests that disdain for Clinton and his scandals may influence voting patterns this fall."

            The bottom line: no actual data proves that Clinton would have beaten Bush let alone buried him or win by 60% of the vote or that Gore would have got more votes had he not rejected Clinton early and often. But there is data which shows Gore couldn't have come up in the polls had he not distanced himself from Clinton.

            •  A for effort (none)
              You put a lot of work into that.

              The big problem with the whole question is that Clinton wasn't actually running for president, so there isn't consistent polling on his head to head numbers against Bush.  

              Here is what I know:

              1. the last Clinton-Bush poll in 2000 showed that Clinton would beat Bush.
              2. most or all of the immediate pre-election polls in 2000 showed Gore behind Bush.
              3. Clinton got the BJ, not Gore.

              Your analysis about why Gore went up and down in the polls or what Clinton did to the political climate is wildly speculative.  Essentially your thesis is:  Gore got no credit for the good things about Clinton, which he was actually involved in, but got the blame for the bad things, which he had absolutely nothing to do with.  The original point of the thread was whether Gore was a viable presidential candidate in 2008.  If a guy loses an election because someone else got a blowjob, then I definitely think the answer is no.  

              It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

              by lando on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 02:49:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: A for effort (none)
                The big problem with the whole question is that Clinton wasn't actually running for president,

                Yeah he was JUST a two-term president. He was running for 8 years. Nonstop. Gimme a break. That's what the guy always did. Even if he did not campaign officially he still campaigned. He had the bully pulpit and the fanfare in 2000 just like in every other year. State of the Union, interviews, fundraisers. He never get out of the spotlight until the fall of 2000, when accidentally his poll numbers went up slightly (what a coincidence, the less people saw him to more likely they would have voted for him?).
                Name one man in the US who didn't know who he was or what he did or what he would like to do. What would he have done during what you would call the "Clinton campaign"? Reintroduce himself? Go after Bush? He did. He ridiculed the Reps and Bush during the campaign. What was his convention speech all about? Himself and how the Reps screwed up and would screw it up. Didn't work. He was still behind Bush in Aug. The press covered everything he did. And did that help him or Gore? Hardly.
                If you think that Clinton would have had some kind of silver bullet against Bush name it and prove it that it would have indeed worked and produce the "easy landslide win" you think Gore squandered with all his supposed advantage.


                1.the last Clinton-Bush poll in 2000 showed that Clinton would beat Bush.

                2.most or all of the immediate pre-election polls in 2000 showed Gore behind Bush.

                3.Clinton got the BJ, not Gore.

                This is a fallacious argument.

                1.You said Clinton would have won easily without a recount. Even if that ABC poll would be totally accurate you call 44-41 an easy win??? Polls with the same margin were followed
                by the Florida mess. How can you say that Clinton wouldn't have ended up in a similar situation?

                2.You said Clinton would have easily won and Gore blew it by being a piss-poor candidate.
                But Gore won the popular vote and you cannot possible know based on that one poll in October whether Clinton would have won the electoral college or not. That ABC poll does not say anything about it. So your claim is nothing but baseless specualtion.

                3.The last Clinton-Bush poll was taken in October and showed Clinton and Bush in a statistical dead heat among registered voters which doesn't really matter since a lot of registered voters do not go and vote. The last Gore-Bush poll in November among likely voters showed them in a statistical dead heat. We now know that they were wrong since Gore in fact had more voters. How can you then claim that the October Clinton-Bush poll is proof that more voters would have voted for Clinton in a Bush-Clinton race that voted for Gore in the Gore-Bush race, and how can you possibly know whether those voters would have been in the "right" states to deliver 270 electors for Clinton? You cannot possibly know it so again,  your claim is nothing but baseless speculation.

                4.The Clinton-Bush poll is within the margin of error just like the Gore-Bush polls. Therefore they are not evidence that indeed more people would have voted for either guy. But you stated it as just that. Bulletproof evidence that Gore was a pissy poor candidate who squandered a big advatange which Clinton would have easily exploited and win by a landslide. That's  intellectually dishonest.

                5.You know that all Gore-Bush polls were wrong. So what do they prove, actually?
                And how can you know that the ABC poll was not just as wrong? Since it included registered voters it means nothing. Show me a likely voter Clinton-Bush poll  from a day before election in which Clinton leads beyond the margin of error then you will have the basis to say that Clinton would have performed better against Bush than Gore did. But not even then can you claim it would have been an easy win unless the margin is at least 6%. Do you have such a poll?

                6.The Clinton-Bush polls, not just this one, but the others as well actually show that the public pretty much would have punished Clinton similarly as they punished Gore. If they had not Clinton would have never been behind Bush, being an incumbent brilliant charming president during peacetime prosperity. Unlike Gore he got some credit for the economy because he was president. For him it would have been an advatage. The fact that despite that he was losing to Bush, or at best were in a statistical dead heat with Bush  is a clear sign that people were not really moved by his job performace when they thought about whether he should stay in the White House or not.

                Your analysis about why Gore went up and down in the polls or what Clinton did to the political climate is wildly speculative.  Essentially your thesis is:  Gore got no credit for the good things about Clinton, which he was actually involved in, but got the blame for the bad things, which he had absolutely nothing to do with.

                It's not just speculation. And certainly not more than your claim that Clinton would have won easily when in fact there is no evidence for that whatsoever.
                But there is evidence that Gore was doomed if he did and doomed he if didn't thanks to Clinton's lack of discipline. I showed data which shows that Gore was thought to be too close to Clinton by most people and he could not make a breakthrough without convincing enough "moral values" voters that he is not like Clinton.

                Roger Simon's book Divided we Stand documents very well what was going on in 2000:

                Critics keep writing that Gore is failing to get credit, but nobody is writing about how he manage this. Surveys are showing that few citizens see any connection between Gore and the boom times.
                It is what keeps smiling down in Austin. "Current prosperity is considered a force of nature" Air Fleischer, Bush's spokesman says. "People give more credit to the private sector. He [Gore] is just vice president. He really has the worst of both worlds: He's not getting credit for the good things and the bad things seems to stick to him"
                ...
                Unfortunately for Gore, his private polls and focus groups show the same attitude. "When Gore stood up and said, "We created 21 million jobs, we did this we did that,' people just went off the charts with anger," Daley tells me. "People said, 'Oh bullshit.' Gore would run an ad stressing prosperity, and people would say, 'Fuck him! He doesn't know what he is talking about'.
                Great. OK. So the problem was, how can we take credit for the economy? And so some people told us, 'Well, get Clinton out there more and have him do commercials.'
                The trouble was, however, that even though Clinton's job approval was now around 60 percent, his personal approval rating was around 27 percent. And in swing states, especially with white voters, Clinton's numbers were far worse.
                ...
                Gore's polling showed the same thing: Clinton was a loser. Use him and lose. Move close to him and lose big.
                ...
                And it's not like the media hadn't noticed the phenomenon. A story by Katharine Q Seelye in the New York Times on Septemebr 4, 2000 noted: "The central concern is that while voters appreciate the good times, there is a lingering resentment toward Mr. Clinton over his personal behavior, creating a complex web of emotion that still seems to ensnare Mr. Gore."
                Allan J. Lichtman, a political analyst at American University, said: "The fundamentals are in Gore's favor. Peace, prosperity, tranqullity at home and a united incumbent party. Why has the race even been close? The Clinton scandals".
                Daley understood this perfectly. "And it was tough for me because I like Clinton so much and for me to be in that position and to say to Tom Harkin when he's yelling at me to send Clinton to Iowa, 'Tom, the people in Iowa who are swing voters, who we need to get this ball over the line, it's not going to mean shit to them. If anything, it may work as a negative'. And Clinton understood that. He didn't like to hear it. You wouldn't like to hear it either. But he understood it."

                The original point of the thread was whether Gore was a viable presidential candidate in 2008.  If a guy loses an election because someone else got a blowjob, then I definitely think the answer is no.  

                This is really over the top. You basically say that Gore shoudl'n run in 2008 becayse he was a horrible candidate in 2000 because he "lost" thanks to Clinton's BJ. And you suggest that while you have no evidence that Clinton himself wouldn't have "lost" to Bush for the same reason and while you obviously wouldn't call Clinton a horrible candidate and would support him if he had the chance to run in 2008.
                Certainly a single registered voter poll in October which was within the margin of error does not prove anything. And you claimed all along: Clinton is a great candidate who would have won easily and Gore is a poor candidate who blew his enourmeous chance. That just doesn't add up and you keep changing your story.

                Furthermore,

                1.It was not just the BJ. It was about his lies. That created that surreal climate in which the press could do to Gore what they did to him, basically morphing him into a pathological liar in the eyes of millions. That wouldn't have happened without Clinton's lies because character wouldn't have been a decisive issue during the campaign.

                2.In 2008 there will not be BJ and Clinton lies. The world has changed dramatically over the last 5 years and the Clinton scandals are old story. It's very unlikely that character will be the main subject of the 2008 campaign. It will be competence, war,economy, energy and even the environment. If such subjects had dominated the minds of the voters in 2000 Gore would indeed have easily won. Nobody ever questioned his competence, he was right about the war all along, he knows more about energy and enviromental issue than any other potentional Dem candidate.

              •  Ok you win (none)
                I'll vote for Gore in 2008.  

                It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                by lando on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 07:47:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Are you serious or just want to get rid of me? (none)
              •  A little of both (none)
                I don't agree with everything you say but you have bested me on at least some of your points.  You are exactly right about the poll showing Clinton beating Bush being within the margin for error, and therefore being inconclusive.  I harp on people all the time for claiming vote fraud based on Zogby exit polling, when Zogby himself points to the sampling error as a problem in polling close races.  (not to say that wasn't vote fraud, or voter suppression, just that the exit polls don't prove it)  

                The election is three years away and I can't promise support for Gore, but I will cease my Gore-bashing.  Fair enough?

                It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

                by lando on Fri Sep 30, 2005 at 02:06:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  What massive positives are you a talking about? (none)
    There were very little positives for someone who was Clinton's vice president. But there were massive negatives.
    •  Be Honest (none)
      I've mentioned the positives throughout this thread.
      Clinton 65% favorability.
      Boombing economy.
      Peace.
      Camprende?

      Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

      by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:43:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Since when is peace (none)
        political capital in this country?
        War means political capital not peace.
        Just ask Bush about that. And it takes a lot of casualties before the public turns against the incumbent administration during a war.
        Just ask Nixon about that. Oops, actually  you can't ask him but sure you can study history. He was re-elected with a landslide in the middle of a bloody war -- despite that in 1968 he promised he would finish the war. But Nixon lost when he was running during during peacetime as Eisenhower's vice president. How could that be if your theory is true?

        And since when do vice presidents get credit for peace?
        There was peace under Reagan. His job approval in 1988 was above 60%. Still when voters were asked in early 1988 whom they would vote for Dukakis beat Bush by double-digit.
        The only reason why Bush Sr won because using the Willie Horton-case he managed to portray Dukakis as a far-left liberal. Otherwise he did not embrace Reagan and did not run on Reagan's record.
        So how can you explain that phenomenon if your theory that vice presidents who are running for president during peacetime have an automatic advantage?

        ECONOMY:

        1.Since when do vice presidents get credit for the economy? Alan Greenspan, Bill Gates got the most credit not even Clinton let alone Gore.
        Bush Sr didn't got credit for the good economy under Reagan, either. Nixon didn't get credit for the good economy udner Eisenhower, either. How could that be if your theory is true?

        2.The economy and the stock market started down in March 2000? Do you think nobody noticed? It was no longer a booming economy but a slowing economy. Check out the economic data after March 2000.

        CLINTON'S JOB APPROVAL

        1.There is no historical evidence that people vote for a vice president just because the president has high job approval ratings. Nada. It doesn't work that way simply because the vice president IS NOT the president. Get it?

        2.While Clinton had high job rating he had very low personal approval ratings. Again, check out the exit polls and see it yourself.
        People didn't want a third-Clinton term. They wanted the policies but not the person because he was perceived as an immoral liar.
        After the election a CNN/Gallup poll asked: Are you happy that Clinton left office? Over 55% said yes.
        Another poll asked what people thought Clinton would be remembered in history for, the scandals or his achievments? More than 65% said the scandals.

        Why do you think Rove wanted to link Gore to Clinton so desperately? Why do you think Bush used "honor and dignity" as his main campaign theme? Because he knew when people thought Gore would be just like Clinton his poll numbers went down. When they saw Gore would be a fresh start his numbers went up.

        Camprende?

        •  Clinton (none)
          I remember a quote from the Clinton years that was something like I wouldn't trust him with my daughter, but I do trust him with my job.  That is the essense of the split between job approval and personal approval ratings.  The last pre-election polling information regarding Clinton vs. Bush showed that Clinton ran well ahead of Gore and would have won.  

          It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

          by lando on Thu Sep 29, 2005 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Stop lying. (none)
        2000 national exit polls:

        Do you approve or disapprove of the way Clinton is handling the Presidency?       
        57% Approve       
        40% Disapprove   

        Is your opinion of Bill Clinton as a person       

        37% Favorable   
        60% Unfavorable   

        Camprende? Just 37%. Not 65% as you say.
        These were the 2000 national exist polls you want to deny it's accuracy?
        You can defende Clinton as much as you want it will not change the facts.

        Do you want to see Clinton's numbers in red states or this is enough to convince you that you are dead wrong about Clinton's supposed 2000 popularity?

        Moreover, to discredit your stupid assumption, that because a president has high job approval ratings people will automatically vote for his vice president:
        only 77% of those who approved Clinton's job voted fore Gore. But 87% of those who disapproved Clinton's job performace voted for Bush. Can you explain that?

        Check it out:
        http://www.lsu.edu/faculty/fweil/VNS2000National.html

  •  Who won (none)
    The Republicans cheated in Florida in 2000.  They cheated in Ohio in 2004.  They have probably cheated in a lot of other places, and we can't do a damn thing about it because they control the government.  Deal with it.  To win, you can't "win" by 500 votes in Florida or a half million votes nationally.  You need to win by a big enough margin to overcome the cheating.  Clinton did that twice, and would have done it again.  Gore did not do it, despite having every advantage.  Don't give me the Monica scandal bullshit -- that didn't hurt Clinton, why should it hurt Gore.  Gore just plain pissed it away.  

    It takes a second to wreck it. It takes time to build.

    by lando on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 07:10:13 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  What do you call "every advantage"? (none)
      Name one advantage that Gore had. And then explain why was he behind Bush by 20 points even BEFORE he started campaiging? How can you call that an advantage is beyond me.

      And stop pretending that an incumbent President is the same as an incumbent vice president.

      Veeps are treated as second bananas. Those who do not run the show. It's a humiliating position to begin with. That's why historically it has been so hard for sitting veeps to win the presidency.

      •  Yea (none)
        cause Bush Sr. had a real tough time winning Reagan's third term.

        Everybody talks about John Edwards' energy, intellect and charisma -- Bill Clinton

        by philgoblue on Mon Sep 26, 2005 at 08:42:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You ignore the actual data as you always do (none)
          Yes Bush SR had a tough time to win because initially Dukakis was leading him in the polls by as much as 20 points. That's couldn't have been the case if your theory is true that veeps automatically benefit from the president's high job approval rating.

          The only reason why Bush Sr was able to overcome his disadvantage was that Dukakis was portrayed as a far-left liberal with Willie Horton and his opposition to the death penalty.

          The Horton campaign was so dirty that Lee Atwater appologized for it short before he died.

          Bush Sr didn't win because he used Reagan. He didn't use him , he, just like Gore wanted to define himself to the voters. But most of all he focused on Dukakis supposed extreme liberal positions. Since the media did nothing to discredit Bush it worked as hell thanks to the strong racist overtone.

          But that couldn't have been done to Bush because he was very careful from the beginning to portray himself as a middle-of-the-road guy. The extreme right, unlike in 1992, shut up during the convention, because they wanted to win and they knew from the experinces in 1988 and in 1992 that
          extremity was not selling well.

          If you think that Bush Sr won because he got credit for the Reagan ecnomy you know nothing about that campaign.

  •  Notice that Gore isn't on that list? (4.00)
    Name recognition is the game in that poll.

    If Hillary gets the nomination, we're shut out again for another four years.  And, I'm figuring the DLC is looking to pair Hillary with Wes.

    Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

    by bronte17 on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 08:17:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I agree (4.00)
      Because she voted for the war, she has lost the support of the 87% of democrats who disagree with the war..

      Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom.... Tao de Ching

      by MyName on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 10:48:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  wow (none)
    i'm really surprised to see that gore vs. dean margin!

    what would joe rauh do?

    by nbutter on Sun Sep 25, 2005 at 06:38:25 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

  • Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site