Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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%

    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
    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

    Gore 46%    Bush 48%

    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.

    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:

    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?

    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.

    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.

    August 9-10 2000
    Is Gore too close to President Clinton?

    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.

    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.

    August 4-5 2000

    Bill Clinton   Favorable Rating    42%

    August 9-10 2000

    Al Gore Favorable  Rating     50%

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


    Pre-convention 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%

    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.

    August 7 2000
    Lieberman's Criticism of Bill Clinton
    More favorable    26%
    Less favorable    21%


    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:

    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:

    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

    August 4-5 2000
    Whose Opinions Do You Respect More?
    Former President Bush    61%
    Bill Clinton             34%

    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:

    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%

    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.


        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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site