|
Title: Al Gore 2008 Post by: qwerty on December 20, 2004, 10:37:03 AM Does he have a shot?
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: A18 on December 20, 2004, 11:03:55 AM I don't think he'll pull a Nixon.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 20, 2004, 11:05:15 AM I don't think he'll pull a Nixon. I agree - besides the Democrats need a new standard bearer Dave Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 20, 2004, 11:17:55 AM If he swings back to the old Al Gore, maybe. I wouldn't mind the idea of a President called Al :-)
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: YRABNNRM on December 20, 2004, 11:43:33 AM I don't think he'll pull a Nixon. I think he may. I don't think he'll win but I think he'll run... Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: TheBulldog on December 20, 2004, 12:10:11 PM No.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Reaganfan on December 20, 2004, 12:31:09 PM He would lose bad.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Keystone Phil on December 20, 2004, 03:16:04 PM I would love to see him run again. He is the person I dislike the most in politics. It would be great to see him lose...again.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: True Democrat on December 20, 2004, 03:41:31 PM He would have a better shot than 2004. He's redefined himself as a liberal since 2000 by endorsing Dean and speaking on global warming. He would still lose big though. I think he should run for senator in a moderate northern state like Michigan.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Hitchabrut on December 20, 2004, 03:57:20 PM He would've won this year if he ran.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Cashcow on December 20, 2004, 04:10:59 PM I wish Al Gore would do something, for God's sake. I really, really like the guy, and that's saying a lot because I hate most politicians (including Democrats).
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: PBrunsel on December 20, 2004, 04:23:08 PM I think he would do well, but he would need to run like the Gore of 1988.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: 7,052,770 on December 20, 2004, 05:03:27 PM right now I'd say no, but a lot can happen in 4 years, so I'd say he's definitely a possibility
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: MaC on December 20, 2004, 05:17:46 PM No chance at all. Can't even win his own state.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: ian on December 20, 2004, 05:26:46 PM I seriously hope not. Of all the politicians, I hate Gore the worst.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Rob on December 20, 2004, 05:54:30 PM I don't think he'll run again, but if he did, he'd do better than in '00.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: YRABNNRM on December 20, 2004, 07:07:46 PM I don't think he'll run again, but if he did, he'd do better than in '00. ....Meaning he'd win? Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Rob on December 20, 2004, 09:21:00 PM It's quite possible. Nixon pulled it off.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Defarge on December 20, 2004, 09:23:07 PM No. Go Bayh
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Alcon on December 20, 2004, 09:24:02 PM No, no, no. Back away from the Al Gore. Step away from the Al Gore.
Bayh all the way. Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 21, 2004, 11:29:25 PM What's so great about Bayh? The fact that his daddy was a good politician isn't going to get him much support. Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Alcon on December 22, 2004, 12:20:43 AM What's so great about Bayh? The fact that his daddy was a good politician isn't going to get him much support. Let's see: - He is midwestern. - He pulled a huge number of Republicans. - He received nearly half of the evangelical vote (side note: there are evangelical Democrats?) - He is a moderate, but does not sway with the political wind. - He has had no scandals that I am aware of. - He seems like a nice guy. - He's got the groove. DH put it well: Bayh was elected Indiana Secretary of State in 1986 and governor in 1988 in close contests - but his re-election as governor and both Senate contests have seen him averaging around 63% of the vote Bayh enjoys the support of around 35% of Indiana's Republicans and 45% of her evangelical Christians; percentages most Democrats could only dream of! In sum, I think Bayh is electable as President. However, some would say he's not too charismatic but he's certainly telegenic Ideologically, Bayh is pretty close to the centre - a man capable of reaching out to moderate conservatives (and 'Main Street' values) without alienating liberals In 2008, should he seek and obtain the Democratic nomination and face a conservative Republican, I reckon Bayh would win comfortably The only downer is that sitting senators don't tend to be elected President; however, Bayh was a two-term governor with a sound executive record. A criticism is that he never really used his political capital in Indiana; however, I believe governing in a cautious, as opposed to risky, fashion is a positive attribute. Besides, after eight years of Bush ruling from the ideological right, America will be ready for more moderate and steady pair of hands come 2008 Bayh is one of the best prospects that Democrats have to be elected President. Because he's a moderate, he has the capacity to be a uniter and not a divider in that he has strong bi-partisan appeal I guess he could secure over 90% of the Democratic vote, 60% of independent vote and 15% of the Republican vote; as well as most liberals, most moderates and a significant number of conservatives He's a strong Democrat from the "red" state of Indiana. His vote actually topped that of Bush (by around 18,000) when he was re-elected to the Senate Dave Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck on December 22, 2004, 06:56:08 PM No chance at all. Can't even win his own state. He carried Washington DC ; P Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Colin on December 22, 2004, 07:05:51 PM Ah so you would want the Democrats to nominate a man who is far from the party mainstream just so you can appeal to the masses. That is when I know the party system has failed. I wish both parties would just nominate people who support the views of their party not some moderate who has the best chance of winning.
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Alcon on December 22, 2004, 07:10:20 PM Ah so you would want the Democrats to nominate a man who is far from the party mainstream just so you can appeal to the masses. That is when I know the party system has failed. I wish both parties would just nominate people who support the views of their party not some moderate who has the best chance of winning. I do not think that is healthy. I think we need cooperation. Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Colin on December 22, 2004, 07:12:15 PM Ah so you would want the Democrats to nominate a man who is far from the party mainstream just so you can appeal to the masses. That is when I know the party system has failed. I wish both parties would just nominate people who support the views of their party not some moderate who has the best chance of winning. I do not think that is healthy. I think we need cooperation. Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 22, 2004, 07:50:22 PM - He received nearly half of the evangelical vote (side note: there are evangelical Democrats?) Gore got 39% of the evangelical Christian vote in 2000, I don't know about Kerry yet, of course it does need to be asked how many of those are black and Hispanic... Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 23, 2004, 09:04:24 AM Ah so you would want the Democrats to nominate a man who is far from the party mainstream just so you can appeal to the masses. That is when I know the party system has failed. I wish both parties would just nominate people who support the views of their party not some moderate who has the best chance of winning. I dare say Democratic voters, as a whole, are moderate rather than liberal, which makes Bayh more representative of the Democratic electorate than many prominent liberals within the Democratic Party (hence Bayh is mainstream) Even Hillary is running to the centre, but Bayh's the more genuine article. Moderates are the single largest plurality of the US electorate. The future of the Democratic Party lies in the ideological centre. My vision in one where a moderate majority governs in the interests of all Americans and not merely the left and the right Dave Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: PBrunsel on December 23, 2004, 01:04:14 PM I get so sick of the idea of a "political moderate."
Evan Bayh is a liberal. John McCain is a conservative. John Edwards is a far left Democrat. I have no problem with liberals, just as long as they have the guts to admit they are one. There are no moderates, ever in U.S. history. Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: Democratic Hawk on December 23, 2004, 01:41:45 PM I get so sick of the idea of a "political moderate." Evan Bayh is a liberal. John McCain is a conservative. John Edwards is a far left Democrat. I have no problem with liberals, just as long as they have the guts to admit they are one. There are no moderates, ever in U.S. history. Funny, 45% of the electorate define themselves as ideological moderates. If there are no "moderates" then are you saying they must be moderately liberal or moderately conservative or are they merely suffering from some kind of 'false ideological consciousness'? Ideology often flies contrary to common sense. When people speak of an the ideological centre its not a figment of their imagination Politics is politics. There's is nothing black and white about it - just an infinite number of shades of grey Dave Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: zorkpolitics on December 23, 2004, 06:06:00 PM For a Democrat Bayh is moderately liberal. The 107th Senate was ranked based on 498 roll calls, Feingold ranked as the #1 Liberal and Bayh ranked 42nd most liberal. (Hillary was 22nd, Zell Miller 52nd).
Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 23, 2004, 06:09:42 PM I get so sick of the idea of a "political moderate." Evan Bayh is a liberal. John McCain is a conservative. John Edwards is a far left Democrat. I have no problem with liberals, just as long as they have the guts to admit they are one. There are no moderates, ever in U.S. history. Evan Bayh is a liberal? What sort of drugs are you on? Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on December 23, 2004, 06:10:38 PM For a Democrat Bayh is moderately liberal. The 107th Senate was ranked based on 498 roll calls, Feingold ranked as the #1 Liberal and Bayh ranked 42nd most liberal. (Hillary was 22nd, Zell Miller 52nd). In 1993, that would have put him more like 60th most liberal. Title: Re: Al Gore 2008 Post by: George W. Hobbes on December 23, 2004, 07:03:09 PM Bayh would do a solid competent job of running the country, and would be my biggest fear in a Democratic opponent.
But Gore...I just don't see it. |