View Full Version : Gore in 2004??
08-06-2001, 09:13 PM
I saw that DC Rock had a Gore04.org web site and it got me thinking. Just curious what ya'll think Gore should be the Demo's man in 2004.
Please select voted for Gore, Bush, or other/didn't in 2000, and whether you think he should be the guy for the Demos in 2004. As for me, I voted for him in 00, but I want a different guy leading the Demo ticket in 04.
08-06-2001, 11:23 PM
No,.....Al Gore is the Devil!
08-07-2001, 12:04 AM
I would love to see Gore run for President again. The contrast between Gore and the Green Party is significant.
I believe the Green Party is the future of American Liberal Politics if the Democrats continue to shift their policies towards the center of the political spectrum. Unlike the Democrats, the Greenies have principles, and they argue with integrity. Gore and the Clintonian Democrats are aethical, and don't stand a chance of regaining the White House.
If Gore runs, the Republicans and GW are sure to win. If the Democrats hold the center, the Greenies will take the extreme Liberal vote that Gore needs to win. If the Democrats move back to the left, then the Republicans will get the moderate vote that the Green Party forced Gore to sacrifice.
Thank you Ralph Nadar, for arguing your politics honorably and truthfully, so the more educated American people can reject modern American Liberalism with confidence.
08-07-2001, 12:57 AM
What stupid republican would not want Gore to run? Bozo the clown could have taken Bush, muchless Gore.
That is a guarentee win.
08-07-2001, 12:51 PM
I voted for Gore in 2000 but I don't want a Gore-Liberman ticket in 2004. I trully believe if Gore didn't allow himself to be castrated in the 2nd debate he would have had a safer margin in popular vote and won the electoral college. Another factor is Gore isn't much of a communicator, he comes off very unauthentic. Liberman playing nice and getting schooled by Cheney in their debate didn't help matters either.
Seeing as I think the #1 priority should be to get the Cheney out of the White House the Demos just need to pull a little more in the South or the Midwest. That means no Gore and no Northeastern demo (Kerry, Hilary, Liberman) leading the ticket. I think an Edwards/Daishal (sp?) ticket would win handily, and I like both of them better than Gore/Liberman anyway.
My 2 cents.
08-07-2001, 01:05 PM
Do yall democrats think Liberman was a bad choice?
08-07-2001, 01:11 PM
I couldn't see Daschle running as V-P, especially now that he's Majority Leader.
I do like the idea of Edwards though. I think an Edwards/Bayh ticket would win. Of course, we have no idea what will happen in the next 3 years. Dubya could kick some serious ass and quit looking like a complete idiot (yeah right) or he could fall flat on his face and the American people would want any Democrat that ran.
It should be interesting though, and I for one, can't wait.
08-07-2001, 01:52 PM
I am a republican and I would LOVE Gore to be on the ticket in 2004! I wouldn't guarantee a victory but I would rather have his crying, butt running again than someone with good ideas.
It would be great if he ran in 2004, just to see how many stories he could invent about people he has met that are collecting cans to pay for their cost of living, or a family he met that are working 37 jobs to support their children, etc. I loved all of his stories which the press showed were all false, or at least he lied quite a bit about. Like how the can collector already made a ton of money and just did it to make etra money.
08-07-2001, 02:31 PM
4chuckie, if you include fibbing or misleading as criteria for politicans you support good luck finding any. It is not like GW didn't mislead on a number of issues as well (for instance, I believe he claimed he lead the patient B of R movement in Texas when he fought it all the way until it was polically unpalitable for him not to sign it). But I agree Gore was embarassing in missing those details and then spending so much time talking about it, he needed to focus on differences in the ways each would govern the country-the same womens, health, and enviromental issues that are sinking Bush in the polls right now. I want a much tougher candidate and much more engaging person than Gore leading the Demo ticket. I think Gore is the best canididate Repubs could hope for, though I could easily see Gore beating Bush in 2004. I would rather have a shoe in.
08-07-2001, 02:38 PM
I hope Gore doesn't run again because I'm afraid he'd win the nomination. And not only do I dislike Gore, but I think he's a bad candidate.
Gore seems to take a poll before deciding what he thinks about an issue. Generally, I think the public will accept disagreements with candidates (well, we know this since voters polled decidedly for Gore on issues but Bush still won). They don't want a candidate who is: 1. cares more about polls than principles, 2. is completely uncharismatic, and 3. seems to want to be President for the prestige rather than an agenda.
Gore is the ultimate "nothing" politician. I worked extensively for the Bradley campaign, and it was frustrating to see our candidate actually mean something, but still lose because Gore raised more money.
I have no idea who the Democrats will nominate in 2004. In the last election cycle, I voted for Nader. I was more in-line with Nader on policy, but would have voted for Bradley, who polled better than Gore against Bush, incidentally.
I know quite a few people who voted for Nader. Most of them would have voted for a moderate candidate... just not someone like Al Gore.
Personally, I think Bush is in quite a bit of trouble. His poll #'s are very low for a President not involved in scandal in his first year of office. A decent candidate would have beaten him; Gore was a very poor one. Heck, polls showed Clinton beating Bush rather badly in a hypothetical race.
08-08-2001, 04:17 AM
I voted yes/Bush in the poll. I want Gore on the ticket so we can have another four years of a republican president in 2004. Gore will never be elected.:p
08-08-2001, 06:57 AM
haven: "Personally, I think Bush is in quite a bit of trouble. His poll #'s are very low for a President not involved in scandal in his first year of office. "
I THINK I JUST FOUND MY NEW SIGNATURE!
RM95: Edwards is slicker than cat sh*# on water. The totality of his experience is being a wealthy trial lawyer and now a brief time as a senator. No wonder he bangs the drums for a Patients Bill of Rights (to Sue). This is one guy who is in it for the glory not the agenda (as someone said).
WATCH YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS GO UP LIKE A HOT AIR BALOON!
08-08-2001, 12:54 PM
Bush's polls are dragging?? Apparently we're not reading the same Houston Chronicle. Are we talking approval ratings?? If so, his ratings after 6 months are higher than Clinton's at that time...I don't remember any scandals within Clinton's first 6 months...and he ultimately was one of the more popular presidents. As for personal confidence, his polls are high as any president ever, remarkable for someone only 6 months in
08-08-2001, 02:00 PM
Bush is well liked personally but his poll numbers on effectiveness and "being in touch with people like you" are low relative to other presidents in their honeymood period. He is also very much perceived in the pocket of big business (energy firms, HMOs) as you can tell by Rich's comments.
But granted it is way, way, too early. A lot is going to depend on the economy and I seriously doubt we will be in a recession through 2003 or so where Bush would be completely sunk then. But Bush or his people (Rove) have not been very smart about a lot things so far, they are making the middle road and independent voters who supported him last time questions themselves when this is the group they need to appeal to for 2002 and 2004.
Speaking of slick, GW claiming he is a uniter, a middle roader on enviro issues, and compassionate, that was slick. Some times you need to get slick to get elected however, or at least have some charisma, and Gore has neither.
About this poll, at leats on this BBS it looks like Gore's main appeal is to democrats though plenty like me don't want to see him return. He also trails in independents (heavily) and republications, and I think the latter who want him there want him there because he would be an easier "out" than others--which seems to be born out in the critical indy appeal. Edwards is my man, sure there have been abuses by trail lawyers, but if it wasn't for them we would have pintos on the road, cigarette machines in our schools, insurance companies declining Houston flood claims, lead in our front yards, TCE in our drinking water, and just about any other consumer protection measure put in place over the last 40 years. They are basically the primary check to keep our citizens' welfare, disability and death in the minds of many instead of solely corporate profits. That is why many business people hate them, because it makes them have to consider more than the bottom line their shareholders are focused on. Yes some trial lawyers are motivated solely by money and have a negative societal effect, but that is no different than a lot of corporations too. And again they serve as the primary check (along with government) to protect citizens who otherwise would stand no chance against corporations that happen to be in a bad mood.
The idea that the only type of company shielded from personal lawsuits is the same one that has the MOST impact on your health, life and well being is absurd. If you want to reduce completely frivolous lawsuits educate the public about it (future jurors) or maybe put in place some serious repercussions for those who pursue multiple such lawsuits, but donít limit all citizens rights to be heard--especially when it might be about whether they can get life saving treatment or not
08-08-2001, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by ROXRAN
No,.....Al Gore is the Devil!
Al Gore is the AntiChrist!
ROXRAN, you are officially my main man.
I'm a republican/Dubya supporter, and I would hate to see Bore in any more debates! He's stupid, clueless, and he talks straight down to the American people! Pretty soon he'll be moving to Harlem with Clinton and they'll both suck up to the blacks. I would have never had to see his smug mug on the news for so many weeks if the Floridians has actually counted the votes right.
08-08-2001, 08:14 PM
According to a CNN poll, if the 2004 election was held today, 49% would vote for Bush, 48% would vote for Gore.
Among Democrats, Gore leads with 34%, Hillary is next with 15%.
08-08-2001, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by finalsbound
they'll both suck up to the blacks
Besides the offensiveness of the comment I wanted to make a different point. I assume it is more redeemable to suck up to the Moral majority and big oil--that is what I want in a leader, yeah right.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.