It's still way too early to handicap the 2004 race or even make predictions as to who will run or how Al Gore would do. I mean, who was thinking Bill Clinton in 1990? (For that matter, who thought that the 1992 Democratic candidate was going to be anything but a sacrificial lamb in 1990? A lot can change between now and when the election gets cranking). Personally, If I were a Democrat, I'd like to see someone youngish and from outside the beltway. Someone not unlike Clinton. Of course, I don't know who that would be. There are certainly fewer Democratic Governors to fill that call than there was in 1990. (Just looking at his bio, that Governor of New Jersey has some of the qualities I would seek. He's young, he's got some skins on the wall, including some that relate to some key issues that Americans are concerned about, i.e. Health Care, including women's health care issues, as well as Education (the guy has a Masters from Harvard in Education, etc) and pollution prevention. Of course, I don't know how dynamic a candidate he would be, AND he's only been NJ Governor since 2001. Plus, no telling whether he'd even want to be President, or if he could get through the Democratic apparatus to get a shot. Not to mention that he might have things about him that wouldn't make a good candidate. Reading his bio doesn't exactly give one a balanced perspective). Now I'm just rambling.
Hell, why wait until 2004? In the immortal words of Bluto Blutarski... "LET'S DOOOOOOO ITTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!"
"Remeber when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor???!!!" "The Germans" "Forget about it...he's rolling."
The gap's closing pretty fast. The latest poll off of pollingreport.com has Bush at 53%, and Gore at 41%, compared to 64% to 27% back in January, and 56% to 32% in June. The further we get from 9-11 and the longer the economy stays the way it is, the closer this rate will get. I'm not saying that he'll win... it's too early to make judgment. But, based on the data, it's also way too early to say he doesn't have a chance. By the way, anyone saying that he won't get the party nomination (if he decides to run) want to make a little bet? Sure things don't come around that often...
Cat's right on all counts. And unless someone comes from nowhere the nomination's his to lose. As for everyone saying he doesn't have a chance, that he's a fool or that he's a dick (whatever), all that may be true. But please remember he received more votes than Bush in 2000. The Republicans (and you guys) are welcome to blow him off, but they'd do so at their peril.
I wish I could find the story again, but I just read a column this morning about how bad the polling was ahead of the last election (in that it was very inaccurate). Sadly, I apparently read too many websites during the day, and now I can't find the story again. The gist of it was that the polls were not only wrong, but very wrong even very close to the election itself. In several races, the polls taken right before the election were off as many as 14 points from the eventual election outcome. That's not to say that polling doesn't have its place, but I think with the potential sample getting smaller and determining who is a "likely voter" getting tougher, polls are going to increasingly be more and more inaccurate (Of course, poll taken two years before an election is very unlikely to be accurate in terms of the outome two years from now anyway. But you weren't trying to say that. I was just making a general comment about polls, not about your poll in particular).
I find it amusing to hear the Dems claiming that Gore got more votes in 2000. Presidential campaigns are centered around winning the most *electoral* votes, not the popular vote. States that lean heavily towards Democrats are given less attention by Republicans. States that lean heavily towards Republicans are given less attention by Democrats. No one knows for sure what the outcome would have looked like had Bush tailored his campaign to win the meaningless popular vote. He would have spent more time in TX, NY, and CA -- that's for sure. For an example of the power his personal appearances have on voters -- I refer you to last week's decisive victories in the Congressional elections. FACT: George Bush won more electoral votes than algore FACT: Every single recount done in Florida, including independent recounts done by newspapers after the fact, had Bush with more votes than algore I'm blowing off algore RIGHT NOW as a waste of a Democratic candidate in 2004. He is *not* the man Americans want running a campaign against terror. He is weak, indecisive, and lacks the spine to stand up to our opposition. CASE CLOSED
From Jeffrey Toobin's Too Close to Call: "A... USA Today, Miami Herald, and Knight Ridder review of 176,000 ballots including 111,000 overvotes... helps to answer the second question: What if there had been a true statewide recount?... Under the lenient standard for a statewide recount, Gore won by 393 votes; under a Palm Beach approach, Gore won by 299; under a two-corner rule, Bush was the winner by 352; under the strict test, Bush won by 97."
Gore DID get more votes. It's not a claim. It's a fact. The fact that we're in an electoral system doesn't change that. I'm not saying the rules should be changed retroactively. I'm saying it's a mistake to blow off a guy as an "unelectable fool," when more people pulled the lever for him than did for Bush. And T_J, you don't wanna go down that road, re: Bush spending more time in populous states. Bush blew off NY, but he spent plenty of time in CA and he got stomped there. Yes, Bush would have gotten better results in TX but Gore would have done better in CA and NY (and I'm almost sure he won Houston, which is the largest city in Texas -- if the election was determined by popular vote he would have picked up a few more here as well). Also, if it were a popular vote, Nader wouldn't have done as well. He got a lot of votes here in Texas, and in other Bush states, because having conceded states to Bush there was no reason not to register a symbolic vote for Nader. As for Florida, we'll agree to disagree. I don't have any problem admitting that the recount studies all favored Bush, but none of those studies factors in butterfly ballots or black voters turned away at the polls. We will never know how Florida would have gone because we are apparently still incapable of allowing all eligible voters to vote and succeeding in counting each of those votes. But so what all that above. If Gore is such an incredible ass clown, Bush is (according to the American people) either even more of one (by popular vote) or just barely not as much of one (according to the disputed electoral results). Either way, I'd be happy with a rematch and even happier with a superior candidate beating Gore out fair and square for the nomination. At this time in the senior Bush's one term, his numbers were higher than his son's. And he had a Democratic Congress to blame for whatever wasn't working. His son no longer has that excuse. Food for thought.
because we are apparently still incapable of allowing all eligible voters to vote and succeeding in counting each of those votes. Sad, but true.
If Gore is the Democratic nominee in '04... then it will look like the '02 election day all over again. People are tired of ANY politician running on old news, beaten ideas, and whining. I should hope there is a better Democratic candidate... just so G-Dub can show them up too! Either way G-Dub wins. Not because of G-Dub, because the Democrats are the self defeatism champions of the world. They can't unite within themselves enough to send a clear message of what they stand on... except for old arguements, that quite frankly Clinton did not achieve... BTW- Enron, WorldCom, and the plethora of other corporate scandals were thriving during Slick Willie's presidency... most likely due to the focus on his own scandal... those scandals have been exposed under G-Dub's term, primarily because the only job he gets done is his own. Unlike Slick Willie who had other jobs done for and to him. Gore in '04!!! Go, Robots, Go!!! Viva la robo-revolution!!! That's like the Elephants running Quayle. Stupid.
yeah...if gore could count votes in the one way he wanted to count votes....he still would have lost.
Bush won Harris County by about 12%. I suspect that would translate into Bush winning Houston. RACE NAME PARTY CANVASS VOTES PERCENT President/Vice-President George W. Bush /Dick Cheney REP 529,159 54.28% Al Gore /Joe Lieberman DEM 418,267 42.90% Harry Browne /Art Olivier LIB 2,643 0.27% Ralph Nader /Winona LaDuke GRN 22,994 2.35% Pat Buchanan /Ezola Foster IND 1,694 0.17% Howard Phillips /J. Curtis Frazier W-I 40 0.00% James "Jim" Wright /Leonard L. Foster W-I 10 0.00% David McReynolds /Mary Cal Hollis W-I 15 0.00% ----------- Race Total 974,822
J. Curtis Frazier was robbed!!! Keep counting votes, boys...keep counting till they tell you to count no more!
Freak, you're right technically. But the popular vote proper wasn't nearly as close as it was in Florida. Even in the nearly impossible scenario that Bush somehow did get one or two more popular votes than Gore (which he didn't), it's still stupid to call Gore unelectable. Max, you're right that the way Gore wanted to recount wouldn't have worked for him. He wasn't allowed to ask for the re-enfranchisement of disenfranchised voters or to allow those poor old Jewish voters to resubmit their votes as they'd intended them. And like rimrocker, I wholeheartedly agree with Gore's second graf above. You're also right that Bush's stock has risen dramatically. We'll see how that goes over the next two years. His dad's rose to 91% during the Gulf War and he still lost. But while Bush's stock may have risen there is nothing to indicate that Gore's has fallen. I just think it's hilarious for Republicans to get all excited about a guy that couldn't be beaten by the great George W. without the aid of the Supreme Court. Be careful what you wish for. He is a formidable candidate. If he gets the nomination, he will mount a strong challenge. If he doesn't, it'll be because someone else will mount a stronger one. The people here who laugh and blow him off only show their ignorance.
