How Come Gore Didn't Pick a Female VP in 2000?

[Bo]

I was always wondering about that, since I think such a move would have likely given Gore the election. Instead, Gore picks Lieberman, who added absolutely nothing to the ticket and even took away many Arab and Muslim votes. What are your thoughts on this?

[Bo]

Who was available that wouldn't have been seen as a pander for the woman's vote as Ferraro and Palin were?  It's not enough to pick a woman, it has to be a credible woman who can legitimately be seen as a possible president.  Selecting a woman who's only obvious qualification to be on the ticket was her gender would have hurt Gore, not helped.  The only woman to make Gore's shortlist, Gov. Shaheen of New Hampshire asked to not be considered.

Other than Shaheen, Dianne Feinstein and Patty Murray would have been relatively good female contenders for the VP Position. I think that those three women were the only ones prominent enough in 2000 to be good VPs. Both Feinstein and Murray were pretty experienced, and both had some appeal beyond the female vote (Feinstein with moderates, Murray with the base and Nader voters). Also neither of them were prone to making gaffes like Sarah Palin. You got to remember that Palin initially helped McCain before people found out how stupid she was. I don't think Feinstein and Murray would have done that. I don't think there were any other prominent enough women in 2000 (other than Hillary, who doesn't count) to be serious considered as potential Presidents or VPs. I read that Gore picked Lieberman in order to win the Jewish vote in FL. If so, that was an extremely stupid move. He should have picked Feinstein in that case, who would have helped Gore with Jews, moderates, and women simaultanously, which Liebemran was unable to do.

[Bo]

Who was available that wouldn't have been seen as a pander for the woman's vote as Ferraro and Palin were?  It's not enough to pick a woman, it has to be a credible woman who can legitimately be seen as a possible president.  Selecting a woman who's only obvious qualification to be on the ticket was her gender would have hurt Gore, not helped.  The only woman to make Gore's shortlist, Gov. Shaheen of New Hampshire asked to not be considered.

Other than Shaheen, Dianne Feinstein and Patty Murray would have been relatively good female contenders for the VP Position. I think that those three women were the only ones prominent enough in 2000 to be good VPs. Both Feinstein and Murray were pretty experienced, and both had some appeal beyond the female vote (Feinstein with moderates, Murray with the base and Nader voters). Also neither of them were prone to making gaffes like Sarah Palin. You got to remember that Palin initially helped McCain before people found out how stupid she was. I don't think Feinstein and Murray would have done that. I don't think there were any other prominent enough women in 2000 (other than Hillary, who doesn't count) to be serious considered as potential Presidents or VPs. I read that Gore picked Lieberman in order to win the Jewish vote in FL. If so, that was an extremely stupid move. He should have picked Feinstein in that case, who would have helped Gore with Jews, moderates, and women simaultanously, which Liebemran was unable to do.

The most superior Jewish VP was Feingold.

Stops the excess Nader bleeding, though gives up independents. Overall would help Gore.

I think Feinstein was the best Jewish VP.

[Bo]

A lot of sexism really only emerged during the Bush years.

What?

[Bo]

Who was available that wouldn't have been seen as a pander for the woman's vote as Ferraro and Palin were?  It's not enough to pick a woman, it has to be a credible woman who can legitimately be seen as a possible president.  Selecting a woman who's only obvious qualification to be on the ticket was her gender would have hurt Gore, not helped.  The only woman to make Gore's shortlist, Gov. Shaheen of New Hampshire asked to not be considered.

Other than Shaheen, Dianne Feinstein and Patty Murray would have been relatively good female contenders for the VP Position. I think that those three women were the only ones prominent enough in 2000 to be good VPs. Both Feinstein and Murray were pretty experienced, and both had some appeal beyond the female vote (Feinstein with moderates, Murray with the base and Nader voters). Also neither of them were prone to making gaffes like Sarah Palin. You got to remember that Palin initially helped McCain before people found out how stupid she was. I don't think Feinstein and Murray would have done that. I don't think there were any other prominent enough women in 2000 (other than Hillary, who doesn't count) to be serious considered as potential Presidents or VPs. I read that Gore picked Lieberman in order to win the Jewish vote in FL. If so, that was an extremely stupid move. He should have picked Feinstein in that case, who would have helped Gore with Jews, moderates, and women simaultanously, which Liebemran was unable to do.

The most superior Jewish VP was Feingold.

Stops the excess Nader bleeding, though gives up independents. Overall would help Gore.

I think Feinstein was the best Jewish VP.

No, Feingold is definitely superior to Feinstein the statist.

I probably would have voted for Gore, if Feingold was on the ticket.

I think Feinstein would have helped with women much more than Feingold would have and would have the same impact on energizing the Jewish vote.

[Bo]

Who was available that wouldn't have been seen as a pander for the woman's vote as Ferraro and Palin were?  It's not enough to pick a woman, it has to be a credible woman who can legitimately be seen as a possible president.  Selecting a woman who's only obvious qualification to be on the ticket was her gender would have hurt Gore, not helped.  The only woman to make Gore's shortlist, Gov. Shaheen of New Hampshire asked to not be considered.

Other than Shaheen, Dianne Feinstein and Patty Murray would have been relatively good female contenders for the VP Position. I think that those three women were the only ones prominent enough in 2000 to be good VPs. Both Feinstein and Murray were pretty experienced, and both had some appeal beyond the female vote (Feinstein with moderates, Murray with the base and Nader voters). Also neither of them were prone to making gaffes like Sarah Palin. You got to remember that Palin initially helped McCain before people found out how stupid she was. I don't think Feinstein and Murray would have done that. I don't think there were any other prominent enough women in 2000 (other than Hillary, who doesn't count) to be serious considered as potential Presidents or VPs. I read that Gore picked Lieberman in order to win the Jewish vote in FL. If so, that was an extremely stupid move. He should have picked Feinstein in that case, who would have helped Gore with Jews, moderates, and women simaultanously, which Liebemran was unable to do.

The most superior Jewish VP was Feingold.

Stops the excess Nader bleeding, though gives up independents. Overall would help Gore.

I think Feinstein was the best Jewish VP.

No, Feingold is definitely superior to Feinstein the statist.

I probably would have voted for Gore, if Feingold was on the ticket.

I think Feinstein would have helped with women much more than Feingold would have and would have the same impact on energizing the Jewish vote.

Yes. But Feingold would have caused less bleeding of the Nader vote.

The female support that Feinstein would have delivered might have very well compenstaed for the loss of Nader voters. Besides, many Nader voters were progressives, and voting for a female VP is pretty progressive, so Feinstein might have also helped with the Nader voters.

[Bo]

There's also the question of whether either Feinstein or Murray would have wanted to trade a Senate seat for the Vice-Presidency.

They might have. Murray's seat was not up for election in 2000, I believe, so she had nothing to lose. Maybe one of them (and/or Shaheen) would have agreed to run for VP (and sacrifice their current office) if Gore promised them that he would also campaign with Clinton (thus almost guranteeing a Gore win) and that he would support them if they ever ran for President themselves. I think that if someone was offered the Vice Presidency or a position in the Senate, most people would have picked the Vice Presidency, especially considering that they could return to the Senate after their Vice Presidential term(s) is/are over.

[Bo]

There's also the question of whether either Feinstein or Murray would have wanted to trade a Senate seat for the Vice-Presidency.

They might have. Murray's seat was not up for election in 2000, I believe, so she had nothing to lose. Maybe one of them (and/or Shaheen) would have agreed to run for VP (and sacrifice their current office) if Gore promised them that he would also campaign with Clinton (thus almost guranteeing a Gore win) and that he would support them if they ever ran for President themselves. I think that if someone was offered the Vice Presidency or a position in the Senate, most people would have picked the Vice Presidency, especially considering that they could return to the Senate after their Vice Presidential term(s) is/are over.

Why would that be relevant?

He asked a question, and I simply responded to it.

[Bo]

They might have. Murray's seat was not up for election in 2000, I believe, so she had nothing to lose. Maybe one of them (and/or Shaheen) would have agreed to run for VP (and sacrifice their current office) if Gore promised them that he would also campaign with Clinton (thus almost guaranteeing a Gore win) and that he would support them if they ever ran for President themselves. I think that if someone was offered the Vice Presidency or a position in the Senate, most people would have picked the Vice Presidency, especially considering that they could return to the Senate after their Vice Presidential term(s) is/are over.

Even if Gore had won in 2000, the chances of the Democrats holding onto the White House in both 2004 and 2008 would be extremely small.  Being Gore's running mate was not a smart move for someone seeking the Presidency.  Nor would returning to the Senate later have been a sure thing.  More often than not ex-Vice Presidents seeking elective office afterward have failed.

At least former VPs can go to universities and deliver lectures at a price of $50,000-200,000 (I'm guessing) per lecture. That's some pretty nice money right there. Just deliver several lectures and you already have at least several hundred thousand dollars (or possibly even more than a million dollars). The easy money that can be made by being a former VP is not very easy to turn down. I'm sure Joe Lieberman would have enjoyed making that kind of money right now instead of being stuck in the Senate. BTW, do you think Gore would have been reelected?

[Bo]

Potential Dianne Feinstein problem - she's old enough to be Al Gore's mother and actually looks like she could be his grandmother.

Potential Patty Murray problem - widely considered one of the dumbest people in Congress.

Potential Russ Feingold problem - not really all that well known in 2000, remember this was before McCain-Feingold bill and him voting against Patriot Act, two things that made him famous.

The most problematic thing about Lieberman's selection was whether he was distancing himself from Clinton too much. At that time Bubba's job approval was high but his human being approval was kind of low. Overall, I think Lieberman was a solid pick at the time as someone who was willing to criticise Clinton on his personal excesses but also someone who was generally supportive of his political agenda that was still quite popular. Lieberman definitely helped Gore at least a little bit with Jewish voters and maybe some hawkish Independents. If 270 voters in Florida changed their minds, this would probably be lauded as the greatest VP pick since LBJ stole Texas for JFK.  

I think many Democrats overstate the mistakes of Gore and Kerry campaigns and fall in the trap of "only if someone else was the nominee" or "only if someone else was his running mate" arguments. Truth is that both Gore and Kerry ran very competitive and tough races that weren't all that favorable for them by conventional political wisdom.

I never heard that Patty Murray was one of the dumbest people in Congress before? Where did you find that info? Do you think Shaheen would have been a good pick? I mean, other than her experience, she didn't have much flaws. As for Feinstein, if her only flaw is being old, than I seriously doubt she would have been a bad VP pick. She was 67 in 2000, only one year older than Biden was in 2008 and four years younger than Alben Barkley was when he was elected VP back in 1948. If the media would have made a big deal out of her age despite the fact that she was qualified for the job, then I think it would have backfired and many women would have ended up voting for Gore and her. If Gore picked Lieberman to get more of the Jewish vote (and I'm not sure if Lieberman even helped with that, since Jews typically vote solidly Democratic and there was no reason for them not to do so again in 2000 without Lieberman). Feinstein would have also helped with Jewish voters (she is Jewish, just like Holy Joe) and would have also helped with women, moderates, and the Democratic base (many of whom would want to show how progressive they were by voting for a woman as VP). Lieberman only helped with Jews, and even the extent of that is debatable. Also, if Gore wanted to distance himself from Clinton's scandals, all he should have done was say "I strongly disapprove of Clinton's personal behavior and I will never conduct myself in such a manner, but I strongly support Clinton's economic policies (and foreign policy) and will pledge to continue them if the American people do me the great honor of electing me President." It was very stupid of Gore to pick Lieberman as VP for this purpose.

[Bo]

"He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." - Senator Patty Murray

I rest my case on Murray.

OK, she isn't very bright. But she said that way after 2000, and if Gore would have picked her and trained her not to say any stupid things, it might have paid off. However, based on the info that you jut told me, I think that Feinstein and Shaheen (but especially Feinstein) would have been better female VP picks for Gore in 2000.

[Bo]

BTW, do you think Gore would have been reelected?

Possibly, but a lot would have depended on how 9/11and the response to it was (mis)handled. If he had, then after 16 years of one party in control of the White House, the public would have been antsy for change, so any Democrat would have an extremely rough time in 2008 even without an economic downturn.  Even a mild version of the housing bubble bursting in 2008 would have doomed a 16-year incumbent party regardless of which party it was.

Yeah, but don't you think that Republicans would have used Gore's extremely low job creation numbers and sluggish economic record against him in 2004 when Gore would have ran for reelection? I think that someone like McCain could hammer Gore well enough on those points without alienating moderate voters to defeat Gore in 2004. I think foreign policy would not have mattered too much in 2004 if Gore was President, since the economy was still sluggish and people would thus be mainly worried about domestic concerns, similar to 1992. Even though I agree about 2008 being a Republican landslide if Gore would have served two terms.

[Bo]

Yeah, but don't you think that Republicans would have used Gore's extremely low job creation numbers and sluggish economic record against him in 2004 when Gore would have ran for reelection? I think that someone like McCain could hammer Gore well enough on those points without alienating moderate voters to defeat Gore in 2004. I think foreign policy would not have mattered too much in 2004 if Gore was President, since the economy was still sluggish and people would thus be mainly worried about domestic concerns, similar to 1992. Even though I agree about 2008 being a Republican landslide if Gore would have served two terms.

Doubtful that economic history would have exactly the same, but even if it had, I think Gore would have a good chance of running against a do-nothing Republican Congress a la Truman to gain reelection.  The only way Gore would be at a significant disadvantage going into 2004 would have been if the Democrats retained the Senate and retook the House, which while possible would have unlikely.

Too many variables concerning what the effects of a Gore presidency would have been on foreign and economic outcomes to say for certain what the political landscape would have been in 2004.

What would Gore have done differently than Bush in regards to the economy, though? I don't see much that he would have done differently. BTW, Truman only won in 1948 because Dewey ran a very poor campaign. I seriously doubt McCain (the most likely 2004 GOP nominee, in my opinion) would have repeated Dewey's mistakes. Typically if the economy is in a recession (or just came out of one), the President would get blamed, rather than Congress. Also, the Republicans are much better at smear tactics than the Democrats, and thus they would have probably attacked and smeared Gore very aggressively in regards to his poor economic record and low job creation numbers. Thus I think McCain would have defeated Gore in 2004. BTW, who do you think the GOP would have nominated against Gore in 2004?

[Bo]

What would Gore have done differently than Bush in regards to the economy, though? I don't see much that he would have done differently.

The lack of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts would have had a significant effect on the economy, both for good and for ill. Though there probably would have been a milder, more sustainable tax cut passed in 2001 without the sunset gimmick the Bush taxcuts used to avoid running afoul of the PAYGO provisions. (No cut in inheritance taxes, or those on capital gains and dividends, while cuts in the income tax rates would have been skewed more to the lower end of the income spectrum.

With no War in Iraq to pay for, the budget would have been in much better shape both in the short and long term, which would have been a significant benefit to the economy.

BTW, Truman only won in 1948 because Dewey ran a very poor campaign. I seriously doubt McCain (the most likely 2004 GOP nominee, in my opinion) would have repeated Dewey's mistakes.

Given McCain's performance in the 2008 campaign, I can't see him as running a good campaign if the primary issue in the minds of the voters is the economy.

Typically if the economy is in a recession (or just came out of one), the President would get blamed, rather than Congress.

Doubtful under any President that there would have been a recession in 2003-4.  At worst for Gore, the recession of 2001 would have extended into 2002, impacting the off-year elections negatively for the Democrats.

Also, the Republicans are much better at smear tactics than the Democrats, and thus they would have probably attacked and smeared Gore very aggressively in regards to his poor economic record and low job creation numbers. Thus I think McCain would have defeated Gore in 2004. BTW, who do you think the GOP would have nominated against Gore in 2004?

McCain would have been a possibility, but not a lock.  Without being able to position himself as the anti-Bush of the GOP, I can't see McCain as being more than one of several contenders. Giuliani would have better able to take advantage of 9/11 in 2004 than he did in 2008. Huckabee and Tommy Thompson would also likely have run.  Probably some Republicans who declined to run in 2008 would have sought the Presidency in 2004, while neither Romney nor Fred Thompson would have run in 2004.  It's even possible that Dubya would have tried to set up a rematch with Gore.

First of all, many voters consider a recession to be over only once there is long-term positive job creation and once the unemployment rate (%) begins decreasing. Job losses continued until late 2003 in RL, and the unemployment rate continued increasing until mid-late 2003. Even though the recession was officially over by then, many people still thought the U.S. was in one. This is similar to how the recession was officially over by 1992, but many people thought that it was still ongoing.  Thus, I could definietely see McCain aggressively attacking Gore for his poor economic record and lack of job creation. Also, McCain was either about even or ahead in most polls in 2008 before the finanicl crisis occured, despite the fact that the U.S. was already in a recession and the GOP was blamed for it since Bush was the incumbent President. If Gore was President in 2004, he would get the blame for the poor economy during most of his Presidency rather than the GOP and I think that would definietely help McCain. In regards to a balanced budget, I agree that Gore would have been more fiscally responsible (for the reasons you mentioned), but I don't think the budget has a large impact on short-term economic and job growth. The economy was booming in the 1960s and 1980s despite the fact that the U.S. had budget deficits (often large ones) for all but one year in those two decades. In contrast, the U.S. had many balanced budgets in the 1940s and 1950s but recessions in those two decades were much more freqeunt than in the 1960s or 1980s. Finally, I think there would be a good chance that McCain would be the 2004 GOP nominee because the GOP historically likes to nominate runner-ups (Dewey, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Dole, and McCain all come to mind) and because McCain could make a great argument for his electability by saying "We nominated conservative in 1992, 1996, and 2000 and lost each time. We need someone with a more moderate reputation who adheres to conservative principles in order to win back the voters that we lost after Reagan. I am that candidate." I don't think Giuliani or Tommy Thompson would be able to win because Giuliani would be too liberal for the GOP base, and I also think that 9/11 might be slightly less of a big deal than it was in RL because Bush made a huge deal out of it and I'm not sure Gore would have done that. As for Thompson, I just don't think he'd be well-known enough to win the nomination. He only got really famous after he served in Bush's cabinet, I believe.

[Bo]

Gore probably would have lost in 2004 due in large part to the War on Terror and the economy. As we are seeing with Obama, no matter what a liberal does he will get hammered on foreign policy. Also the economy wouldn't have been so great, as we had relatively high unemployment in  03-04. Gore was a terrible campaigner and I believe would have lost to a half-decent McCain effort. If he passed a tax cut maybe the economy would be in better shape, but if not than it's doubtfull.

Bush passed two tax cuts in his first term and the economy was still not too great in 2003 and 2004. I don't think Gore would have done any better with one tax cut (I seriously doubt he would have passed a second one).