Skip to main content

View Diary: May/June dKos Straw Poll Results (311 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Is everybody forgetting Nader? (0+ / 0-)

      Nader was probably #1 of the dozen reasons why Gore lost.

      •  In my view, there were there factors (0+ / 0-)

        that were not very controllable on Gore's part, in both chronological and impact order:

        1. Scandal/Impeachment: leading to "Restoring honor and integrity" meme
        1. MSM bias which prepetrated lies about Gore.
        1. Nader effect
        •  I don't think the impeachment hurt Gore (0+ / 0-)

          Clinton was popular at the time of the election (he had over a 60% job rating in every poll at the time, one was as high as 68%).  Now, Clinton's personal favorability ratings were lower, but that shows the dynamic between satisfaction with the state of the country under Clinton's leadership and stains on a dress-the second should not have been transfered to Gore.

          Gore ran away from Clinton (his pick of Lieberman as his VP is a dramatic example of this).  So he ran away from a 60% job rating, which was stupid.  This is an example of bad campaigning by Gore.

          •  Yeah, it was stupid, but (0+ / 0-)

            understandable.  To a large extent I still blame Clinton for not being more honestly contrite.  That it led him to pick Lieberman was the worst example of this.  (I don't recall who else was under consideration at the time -- Gephardt, probably?)

            My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

            by Major Danby on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:11:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Edwards was the other (0+ / 0-)

              one in Gore's final two.

              Bad decision by Gore.

              Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

              by philgoblue on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:14:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Edwards had barely been (0+ / 0-)

                in the senate for 1.5 years by then. Too inexperienced. I doubt if he was number two on Gore's list. Do you have any link that shows/claims that he was?

                •  Widely Known (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Geotpf

                  Suprised you didn't know.

                  When it came time for Gore to choose a Vice-Presidential nominee, his shortlist included Kerry and John Edwards.

                  http://www.newyorker.com/...

                  The hour was late, and Vice President Al Gore had been in meetings since the afternoon, conferring with small groups of advisers who shuttled in and out of his 10th floor suite at the Loew's Vanderbilt Plaza Hotel.

                  With just 36 hours until he was scheduled to parade his running mate before the world, the question was this: Should he pick Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, or Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts?

                  By Sunday night, Kerry had fallen off the radar screen...

                  Then, close to midnight, as Gore and his wife, Tipper, were about to retire to their bedroom, the vice president informed William M. Daley, his campaign chairman; Warren Christopher, the head of his search committee; and Frank Hunger, his brother-in-law, that he wanted Lieberman for his partner on the ticket.

                  Aides to Gore said the vice president hoped to underscore his own New Democrat political philosophy with a Democrat considered to be a centrist and a bridge-builder between the parties. They also said Gore was most comfortable with Lieberman personally and excited about making history by selecting the first Jewish vice presidential candidate....

                  First elected in 1998, Edwards, 47, had ties to many Gore staff members and political consultants. Those people, including campaign consultants Bob Shrum and Tad Devine and the campaign research director, David Ginsberg, all touted Edwards.

                  http://graphics.boston.com/...

                  Another in a string of poor campaign strategies by Al Gore.

                  Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. -- Elizabeth Edwards

                  by philgoblue on Wed May 24, 2006 at 06:33:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  In fact, Kerry and Gore made the same mistake (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            philgoblue

            Not mentioning thier records.  Gore ran away from Clinton, which left a black hole in his past eight years.  Kerry left a black hole during his entire time in the senate, by not mentioning his service there.

            Contrary to what people think, our canidate has to have a list of votes and policies enacted and stuff to back them up-and he has to mention them first, or his (or her) opponent will do so, picking the crap in the closet.

            •  Well, Kerry had only 5 or 7 bills (0+ / 0-)

              that he authored and which got enacted. Too little to talk about.

              Gore's message in 2000 was simple: I will continue with the progress made over the past 8 years, and will improve upon them along the lines of "People not the powerful".

              Unfortunately, that message got lost in all the nonsense they spun in the media over and over.

              •  Four letters: BCCI (0+ / 0-)

                http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/...

                CASE AGAINST SHRUM #273... I've never understood why the Kerry campaign hasn't made more of the candidate's record in the Senate of holding tough, thankless, let-the-chips-fall-as-they-may investigations of the rich and powerful. Especially impressive was his pursuit of BCCI, the Arab-owned international bank which turned out to be a massive criminal enterprise that enabled terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, to finance their activities--until it was shut down, largely thanks to Kerry's relentless efforts. The campaign's weird refusal to talk about achievements like the BCCI hearings has allowed Bush to paint Kerry as a do-nothing legislator with no record of achievement during 20 years in the Senate.

                But now, thanks to Newsweek, we have an explanation for the Kerry campaign's insane strategy. It seems that Bob Shrum thinks the American people are too stupid to understand what it means that Kerry shut down BCCI. "You can't talk about that because people think you're talking about the BBC," Bob Shrum, Kerry's top adviser, told one senior staffer. "Why were you investigating British TV?"

                Should we string up Shrum after Kerry loses, or beat the rush and do it now?

                This article was posted on October 19, 2004.

                DIE SHRUM DIE IN A BALL OF FIRE ARRRGHHHHHHGREFDUIPO 7890TE9086RYE0978976758^%^(&&^^&89Y5

          •  Clinton's personal favorables were around 30% (0+ / 0-)

            one would have to be crazy to put Clinton front and center. There are whole lot polls that show that Clinton's scandal hurt Gore badly. Here is one good collection.

            The Rove trick was to project Clinton's personal unfavs onto Gore with his "Restoring honor and integrity" meme. That WAS the essence of their stragey, coupld with trying to frame Gore as some kind of a liar. There was evene BBC documentary on this subject. that was never aired in the USA.

            Nope, contrary to what you thinking, polls before and after (exit polls) the election showed Lieberman helped Gore with the numbers.

            Now I don't like Lieberman for what he did after 2001, such as war-mongering in Iraq and neither did Gore, and hence he endorsed Dean in 2004.

      •  Yeah, forget Nader (0+ / 0-)

        IMFO, Gore was #1 of the reasons why Gore lost. Unless it was his campaign staff, maybe they tie for #1. Lousy campaign, and surrendering the vote count. Yup. Lost. Shoulda been easy. Pathetic.

        and it was never Nader, it was the election system that allows for spoiler results. There's no need for such a system, we can do better.

        If Gore and friends can put on a better show for 2008, great, but they have a high burden of proof with me after that failure in 2000.

      •  Nader (0+ / 0-)

        Nader appealed to people on both sides. Plus, many of the younger college crowd that voted for him wouldn't have voted at all otherwise. I think the Nader effect, while more than zero, is vastly overstated. If Al Gore's campaign was so bad that Nader could swing it, then there were other factors at work long before the ballots were cast.

        "Murrow had a child. The damn thing went wild." -- Fleetwood Mac
        (-8.63), (-7.03)

        by Perdition on Wed May 24, 2006 at 08:19:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

          Nader voters in 2000 would have split like this: 45% Gore, 25% Bush, and 30% stay home (nationwide). More info on this later.

          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

            So if the Steal was 2.5% for Nader, that's just over 1% from Gore. If 1% is enough to swing the election, then Gore and/or his advisors had already screwed up royally...and I think we all agree on that. I'm not a Naderite, but I think people get way too vitriolic about him. He's human, he makes mistakes (and has an ego that won't stop) but he also does some good things.

            "Murrow had a child. The damn thing went wild." -- Fleetwood Mac
            (-8.63), (-7.03)

            by Perdition on Wed May 24, 2006 at 08:51:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No (0+ / 0-)

              the election was close because of Clinton scandal/impeachment and MSM spinning Rove's lies about Gore. It was close enough then for Nader to impact the election. Most importanly, it became a scramble for Gore to allocate resources towards the end because of Nader (BTW, Bush outspent Gore 2 to 1 in 2000).

              For his own part, I don't blame Nader for running. But I do disapprove his lies like "there isn't much difference between Bush and Gore", which was a serious mischaracterization even back then, but is so starkly stupid as things panned out.

              I do however consider Nader's 2004 run to be a dumbass and even ill-intentioned (to undermine the Dem. party). After that, I am highly unfavorable towards Nader.

              I however do acknowledge Nader's good work in the 60s and 80s, notwithstanding everything that happened in 2000 and 2004.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site