No Gore

This is somewhat dissapointing, but not surprising. I think it's a good decision for him and a bad one for Dems. Now we'll have to wait for the GOP to start talking about who is a really weak opponent to figure out who they are most afraid of facing.
______________________________

Gore Says He Won't Run in 2004


By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 15, 2002; 7:07 PM


Former vice president Al Gore, who won the popular vote but lost the presidency in 2000, has decided not to seek the White House in 2004.

Gore made his announcement tonight in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," saying, "I personally have the energy and drive and ambition to make another campaign but I don't think that it's the right thing for me to do."

Although some associates suspected Gore would not run again, the timing of his announcement caught even close friends and advisers by surprise. He was at the end of a month-long tour promoting two books published with his wife Tipper and a series of media interviews that marked his reemergence after nearly two years of invisibility.

Gore's decision likely marks the end of his career as a political candidate and turns the battle for the 2004 Democratic nomination into a wide-open race, with perhaps half a dozen candidates running to challenge President Bush.

Gore's decision now frees Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), who was the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee, to seek the nomination. He had pledged not to run if Gore did but has been energetically preparing for a campaign.

Two Democrats already have announced their candidacies: Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Senate Democratic Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) are actively exploring whether to run.

Gore came within a whisker of being elected president two years ago, losing the race after a bitter recount in Florida and a Supreme Court decision that effectively closed off any avenues for further counting.

After the loss, Gore went into political hiberation, in part he said to give Bush the room to establish his presidency after a divisive election. But Gore also spent months nursing his wounds. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 further complicated plans for a possible comeback, as the country rallied behind Bush and even Gore declared that his one-time rival was "my commander-in-chief."

This fall, Gore began to speak out again. He was among the first prominent Democrats to oppose Bush's efforts to get congressional authorization to go to war against Iraq, arguing that the war on terrorism against Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network should have a higher priority.

Last week, Gore sharply criticized Senate Republican leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), calling his remarks at a 100th birthday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.) a "racist statement."

The former vice president also was highly critical of Bush's record on the economy and said a week ago he would issue his own economic plan early next year, which some Democrats interpreted as a sign that he might be running.

But there were other signs that his interest in another presidential campaign was flagging. He was discouraged by the weak sales of his book, "Joined at the Heart," about the changing family in America. His fundraising operation was sluggish throughout the year. Many former aides had decided they would not work for him, even if he decided to run.

Beyond that, according to friends, Gore was finding life as a private citizen both lucrative and enjoyable. He joined an investment firm earlier this year, and he and his wife Tipper recently moved into a new home in one of Nashville's nicest neighborhoods.

Polls showed that Gore would have been the front-runner if he had decided to run, but according to friends who have talked to him, he knew that the race for the nomination would have been difficult and a rerun against Bush even more challenging. "This was going to be very difficult," said one friend. "His atittude was, why should I put up with this. I've got a nice life. I'll help the party but I don't want to go through this hassle."

The White House issued no official comment. Considering the glee with which Bush's closest aides had contemplated a runoff with Gore, the silence was reminiscent of the gloating ban that Bush imposed the day after the Republican midterm victories.

"Gore wants to keep his position in history as the guy who should've been president," a senior Republican offiicial said. "To run again and get trounced would diminish that."

Another senior Republican official said Gore "looked at the field and decided the Democratic nomination, which he would have won, wasn't a prize worth having. He doesn't want to be the Adlai Stevenson of the 21st century," a reference to the the dliplomat's 1952 and 1956 defeats by Dwight D. Eisenhower.

The official said Gore would have made a weak opponent because he "was very defined in his views, and one of those definitions was the fact that he kept changing those views."

"The contrast between the president's firm convictions and the perception that Gore would say or do anything to win was a pretty good contrast for us," the official said.

 

Not that simple TJ. Here's the analysis from The Center for Voting and Democracy...

In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton defeated Republican incumbent George Bush, with a comfortable Electoral College victory of 370 to 168. The size of that margin masked the overall closeness of the race, however. After polling above 50% in the summer, Clinton’s winning percentage was reduced to 43%. Independent candidate Ross Perot won a full 19% of the vote, a larger margin than had been won by a non-major party candidate since popular former president Teddy Roosevelt’s “Bull Moose” Progressive Party challenge in 1912.

Political scientists and practioners have vigorously debated the role of Ross Perot in Clinton’s victory. Exit polls showed that Perot’s voters apparently split their preferences between Clinton and Bush nearly equally, although approximately a third of them likely would not have voted without him on the ballot. Yet the very fact of the Perot candidacy might have changed the nature of which major party candidate Perot supporters were likely to support. Furthermore, the Perot vote didn't split equally in every state. Perot’s impact in particular states was clear – and almost certain to have been to the detriment of George Bush. In the 1976 presidential race, for example, another weakened Republican incumbent, Gerald Ford, nearly came back to defeat another Democratic governor of a southern state. Without Perot, it seems likely that the 1992 race would also have been closer.

A state-by-state analysis that compares the 1992 results with those from 1988 and 1996 provides support to this analysis. Clinton won 22 states that Bush had carried in 1988. Among these were some states that Clinton probably won only because of the Perot candidacy. With a total of 40 electoral votes, these states are:

Colorado, 8 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won Colorado by approximately his national average – 53% to 45%. In 1996, Bob Dole won 46% to 44%, with Perot taking 7% of the vote. But in 1992, Perot won 23% of the vote, and Clinton carried the state with 40% to Bush’s 36%.

Georgia, 13 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won an easy 60% to 39% victory in Georgia, while in 1996 Dole won Georgia 47% to 46%. In 1992, however, Clinton won by an eyelash, with both candidates taking 43%. Perot won 13% of the vote.

Kentucky, 8 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won by 56% to 44% in Kentucky. In 1996, Clinton barely defeated Dole, 45% to 44%, with Perot taking 8%. In 1992, Clinton defeated Bush 45% to 41%, with Perot taking 14%. The 1992 and 1996 results would indicate that a significant portion of the Perot vote was coming from Republicans. Republicans currently hold both U.S. Senate seats and five of six U.S. House seats in Kentucky.

Montana, 3 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 52% to 46%, while in 1996, Dole defeated Clinton by 44% to 41%, with Perot picking up 14% of the vote. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly edged Bush by 38% to 35%, with Perot collecting 26% of the vote.

New Hampshire, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush crushed Dukakis by 63% to 36%. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly defeated Bush, 39% to 38%, with Perot taking 23% of the vote. By 1996, New Hampshire was more securely Democratic, but for Clinton to win the state in 1992, it likely required the Perot candidacy to keep traditional Republican voters from supporting Bush.

Nevada, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 59% to 38% in Nevada. In 1992, Clinton edged Bush 37% to 35%, with Perot picking up 26% of the vote. Clinton won Nevada again in 1996 by 1%, with a much lower turnout.

Here are four states that Perot’s candidacy possibly allowed Clinton to win, although it is less persuasive. The total electoral vote in these states was 49. They are:

Louisiana, 9 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 54% to 44%. In 1992, Clinton won 46% to 41%, with Perot taking 12% of the vote. The Perot vote would have needed to break three to one for Bush over Clinton to change the result – unlikely, but possible.

Maine, 4 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won Maine by 55% to 44%. In 1992, Clinton won 39% to 30%, with Perot taking fully 30% of the vote. By 1996, Maine was solidly in Clinton’s camp, but Perot provided a gateway for traditional Republican voters to shift to Democrats. There is a chance that without Perot in 1992, a good number of these voters might not have been ready to shift to Clinton over Bush.

New Jersey, 15 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush won New Jersey by 56% to 42%. In 1992, Clinton edged Bush, 43% to 41%, with Perot taking 16% of the vote. Given the anti-tax spirit of many in New Jersey at that time, given the unpopularity of Gov. Jim Florio’s tax increase, it is possible that the Perot vote would have broken toward Bush. By 1996, the state had become more firmly Democratic in federal elections – Clinton won by 18%.

Ohio, 21 electoral votes: In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis 55% to 44%. In 1992, however, Clinton narrowly defeated him, 40% to 38%, with Perot taking 21% of the vote. If that Perot vote had split 12% to 9% in favor of Bush as a second choice, he would have won the state – a plausible assumption, although not a definite one.

Analysis: Perot’s vote totals in themselves likely did not cause Clinton to win. Even if all of these states had shifted to Bush and none of Bush’s victories had been reversed (as seems plausible, in fact, as Bush won by less than 5% only in states that a Republican in a close election could expect to carry, particularly before some of the partisan shifts that took place later in the 1990s – Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Dakota and Virginia), Clinton still would have won the electoral college vote by 281 to 257. But such a result obviously would have made the race a good deal closer.

 

I think it was mentioned somewhere that he might become Chair of the DNC post-McAuliffe. If he does this, he stays close to the money and the party connections. Anything less probably precludes him from running again.

My wife thinks this is a shrewd move on Gore's part... bow out and later when all the Mickey Mouse candidates are found lacking, nobly answer the call of your party and ride to the rescue without having gone through 18 months of vilification on the radio shows, Fox News, etc. I don't think this will happen, but I do think Gore is the strongest candidate Dems could throw at Bush and you can bet that despite the pronouncements to the contrary coming from the White House, they are overjoyed Gore is not running. Looks like Bush's dumb luck continues.

 

The pundits react...
_______________
. . . From the New Gore


By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, December 17, 2002; Page A33


KEY WEST, Fla. -- Good for Al Gore. He made a decision that will help his country, his party -- and himself. And he was smart enough to know that lots of people would write sentences like the one you just read as soon as he announced that he would not run for president in 2004.

Absent Gore's non-candidacy statement Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes," every move he made, every step he took, every word he spoke would have been analyzed in crass political terms for its political implications.

Oddly, Gore becomes a stronger and more important Democratic spokesman for not running. While other Democrats scramble for advantage in the 2004 nomination contest, Gore can make arguments -- for national health insurance, for fiscal responsibility, for social justice, for a foreign policy that wins rather than loses allies -- without anyone saying he's fermenting sour grapes. Gore is free as no Democratic candidate for president will be free.

Some of Gore's close friends had urged him to ponder how Richard Nixon orchestrated his comeback. It was not a comparison Gore much liked, but it was shrewd nonetheless. Recall that Nixon lost the 1960 election very narrowly, and many Republicans thought -- not irrationally -- that his defeat was the product of Democratic vote fraud in Illinois and Texas. Nixon let his party fight out its differences in the 1964 Republican primaries and came back four years later as the man who could pull the party together.

Having eight years instead of four, Nixon was able to establish a different public image. It's easy now to joke about how many "New Nixons" were offered up. But it takes a lot of work and a lot of time for a politician to adjust his public image, to correct for past failures. Gore, of course, may never get the opportunity Nixon did. He has at least bought himself time and a lot of goodwill in a party that, predominantly, wasn't crazy about seeing him run again.

For a politician so often said to be out of touch, his statements on Sunday suggest that he fully understands how his party feels. "I think that a campaign that would be a rematch between myself and President Bush," he said, "would inevitably involve a focus on the past that would in some measure distract from the focus on the future that I think all campaigns have to be about." True -- and not easy to say.

Last April I gathered a group of New Hampshire Democratic activists to talk about 2004 Democratic presidential possibilities. The most striking comment about Gore came from Arnie Arneson, a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate. "The thought of his coming back again," Arneson said, "is exhausting."

It says a lot in Gore's favor that he understood exactly what Arneson was talking about. "The last campaign was an extremely difficult one," Gore said on Sunday, "and while I have the energy and drive to go out there and do it again, I think that there are a lot of people within the Democratic Party who felt exhausted by that -- who felt like, 'Okay, I don't want to go through that again.' And I'm, frankly, sensitive to that -- to that feeling."

Gore pulled himself out of contention at a moment when his standing in his party was rising. Before November's Democratic debacle, he -- unlike many in his party -- had no problem in taking on President Bush directly. Unlike other white Democrats, he grasped instantly that there was something terribly wrong about Senate Republican leader Trent Lott's nostalgia for Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential campaign in 1948. Gore leaves the scene at the very moment when many Democrats, to their surprise, want to hear more from him.

It was odd to be in Florida when Gore broke the news. I am one of millions of Americans who still insist that all the evidence of the 2000 election, honestly read, shows that a plurality of Florida's residents thought they had voted for Al Gore -- meaning that absent ballot snafus, he should have won this state's electoral votes and the presidency. I still believe that the Supreme Court of the United States had no business shutting down Florida's efforts to recount ballots.

Gore has every right to remain enraged by all this, and he could have run a campaign in 2004 inspired by revenge. That he has chosen not to suggests clarity, self-knowledge and a sense of responsibility his adversaries have never conceded him. Already, you can see the rise of a New Gore who has a political future if he wants it and who will have a strong public voice even if he never runs again.