U.S. News & World Report online 2008 Dem primary poll - - please vote!

[AlGore-08.com]

This is a cross post, I hope the mods will forgive me.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm

[hippiegranny]

1. so, any bets who is actually participating in this?

Hillary is way ahead. Tells me the wingnuts are voting it up.

[mestup]

2. Wish they'd do a 2008 Repub poll. Why not let US pick THEIR cand, too!

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Yay. Tom Delay fer Puggy Nominee.

Him or Harriet Miers after she fails the SC nomination.

[Rowdyboy]

3. So they offer Gore, who's said he won't run, Dean, who's said he won't run

The guy who lost in 2004, and the supposed "front runner". I refuse to dignify idiocy like that by even voting.

[UrbScotty]

5. Same here (nt)

[drummo]

25. Gore didn't say he won't run. He left the door open.

You shouldn't fall to media spin and paraphrase.

[Rowdyboy]

32. He's very strongly indicated he has no interest in running again-ever

and he has excellent reason to feel that way. Should he change his mind, fine. Until then, I wouldn't include his name in any poll of presidential contenders. It simply diverts attention from serious candidates who want the job and gives people false hope.

Sure he could change his mind. And Hillary might not run, and Dean might renege on his pledge and Kerry might be renominated. But I don't really expect any of those things to happen. The Al Gore I've followed for thirty years (I was a huge fan of his father as a teenager) is not a coy, game-playing politician. He's a straight-shooter who doesn't deliberately mislead.

If enough people want to draft Gore and they work hard enough and raise enough cash, maybe he can be persuaded to change his mind. However, he'll immediately be tarred as "wishy-washy" and a "flip-flopper" and today's media will join in the chorus. If you want to run for president, you need to run-not issue denials until the last minute. Remember President Wesley Clark? See how much good waiting for an overwhelming draft does?

[drummo]

42. It was no stronger than what Hillary's comments about a possible

2008 run have been. So far she said she has no plans to run for president. That means if she runs she changed her mind, right?

But of course it is not the way it works.

Before 1992 Gore indicated very strongly that he will not accept that vice presidency and what happened.

Noone who wants to run will say now that he/she has plans to run.
The maximum they will say is that "I don't rule it out". Which is what Gore said.

And you can be sure Gore wants the job as much as anyone. That's not the question. Whether he wants to run for the job is the question.
The two are not one and the same.


He's a straight-shooter who doesn't deliberately mislead.

Yes, he didn't mislead anyone. He said that he does not completely rule it out. That is more than enough at this stage. It's just 2005.
And if he runs it wouldn't be the case that he changed his mind.
If he had said "I will not run" then he would run that would require changing his mind.

And sure it will be seen as a flip-flop is people like you already
misinterpret his words -- just like the media did.

If you want to run for president, you need to run-not issue denials until the last minute.

Bullshit. Noone at this stage stated that he/she will run in 2008. All right? And still there will be people running in 2008.
You don't have to start your campaign 3 years before the election.

Remember President Wesley Clark? See how much good waiting for an overwhelming draft does?

Clark made up his mind during the primaries.
Are there any primaries now in 2005?

[FreedomAngel82]

45. I agree

Gore is a straight shooter and that's one of the many reason's I like him. Hillary is winning the poll by 51%. Gore is next with 30%. I would like Dean to run again but I don't think he would since he made the promise not to run if he got the chairman job.

[drummo]

62. Then if he is a straight shooter and if he didn't say he won't run

then take him at his words and don't paraphrase.

If he had wanted to say "I will not run" he would have said that.

[Zynx]

4. They really cut down that list. There are many other good choices.

[AlGore-08.com]

6. F.Y.I. Those are the four that are currently polling at the top

In state and national polls.

[Zynx]

7. That's not a particularly relevant statistic.

You know who led in 1992? Mario Cuomo. 'Nuff said.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that there is a reason

eom

[drummo]

26. Such as?

[Zynx]

35. Feingold, Warner, Clark, Easley, Richardson...

A whole bunch as a matter of fact.

[drummo]

39. None of these individuals come even close to Gore

when it comes to judgement, foresight, discipline, experience and the
ability to run the federal government.

Richardson is not presidential material. And he supported the war.
Same with Feingold.
Warner has experience in what? He never dealt with national security and counter-terrorism or the federal government. (No more governor! They always screw it up. Remember Clinton's first two years? He didn't know what to do in the federal mess. It was not his "home". No wonder the Reps took over the Congress.)

Michael F. Easley is too right-wing, and a governor. 0 on national security.

Clark couldn't figure out what to say about the IWR. Poor judgement.

[Zynx]

40. If experience was a prerequisite, James Buchanan would have been our

best president. Your analysis is flawed.

[drummo]

43. Except that I didn't only mention experience. I listed other qualities

along with experience.

Experience alone is not enough, for sure. But it's a must.
Just like other qualities which are not there in any other Dem now
other than in Gore.

And please, do you really want to compare a 19th century president to a 21st century president? Experience then and experience now are earth and sky.

[goforit]

9. Freepers/DLCrs voting for Hillary!!!.

She supported this war and damn I refuse to support her!!!
:puke:

[ladjf]

11. I would be very discouraged if Ms. Clinton was the Democratic

nominee.

[Ladyhawk]

51. Me too. :( :( :(

I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her, but damn!

I sometimes wonder if the Dem Party is just a symbolic enemy for the ruling class used to make us think we have an actual choice. Hillary isn't much of a choice.

[johnaries]

10. Wow, did you see this at the bottom of the page?

Best of the Web

Recommendations from Paul Bedard, editor and chief reporter of Washington Whispers.

www.current.tv
Al Gore's new TV network

The top spot!
On the conservative US News and World Report website?!?!?!?!?!?
Now, THAT's a statement!
Go, AL!

[drummo]

21. Yip! No annoying ads on Current's website. That itself makes it best

TV site.

[LittleClarkie]

12. Howard Dean!?

He'd BETTER not. I didn't support him for Chairman so he could run for President. Besides that would be a conflict of interest in my eyes.

[Pirate Smile]

27. He won't. He is one person who I believe has completely taken

himself out of the 2008 race.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The Dems better do better than those four.

Surely, there is going to be an anti-war progressive running.

[MarsThe Cat]

14. if those are the best 4 we can come up with...

get used to saying "President McCain".

[drummo]

24. McCain is a loser. Exuse me. Bush bulldozed him in 2000.

And how old will he be in 2008? 120?

[MarsThe Cat]

33. i still don't see any names on that list of 4...

that would stand a chance to prevail.

maybe we should just get used to having losers for leaders.

[drummo]

44. Then name those who would win

BTW only one of those 4 won a presidential election: Al Gore.

[MarsThe Cat]

59. i can't really think of any off-hand...

BTW- at this point in 1989, how many people considered Bill Clinton the frontrunner, or for that matter- had even heard of him...?

it's WAAAAAY too early to be thinking about candidates for 2008.

[napi21]

15. I didn't vote because I don't think ANY of the choices will be IT!

Personally, I'd love for it ot be Howard Dean! But he said he won't and I believe him.

I still think it will be a Dem Governor who has not yet hit the big time scene yet.

[drummo]

46. NO MORE GOVERNOR! Haven't we seen enough screw ups

by amateurs?

Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr...all of them were lost in the federal maze after they got out of their little governorship.

[MarsThe Cat]

16. At this point in 1989, how many polls would have included Bill Clinton?

it's WAAAAAAAY too early to tell who'll be the front runner.

[acmavm]

17. 56% for Hillary?

.

[drummo]

22. Read the poll question. This is not support for Hillary.

This just the people who think she will get the nomnation.

After all the media support she got it's no wonder most think that she is unstoppable. But that doesn't mean they would vote fore her.

[acmavm]

34. Hey, don't tell me to read the poll. I did read the poll. My surprise was

at how many people think that she'll be the nominee.

My advice to you is to quit jumping to conclusions and trying to read minds. You're not very good at it.

[drummo]

47. Who believes you?

[McLuhan]

18. Why isn't Clark

on that list? Typical trick from the Repuke media,eh. They don't want to recognize the candidate that could pull most of the independent vote! Whores...

[newyawker99]

23. Hi McLuhan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[McLuhan]

36. Thanks. I have

been lurking here for years.

[skipos]

37. Haven't ya heard? He voted for Reagan!!!

Democrats would rather have a candidate who can't get elected than a candidate who actually voted for a Republican a couple of decades a go. That candidate might actually connect with independents, and we don't want that. And a General!?! Why would we want one of those when everyone is so worried about terror? We also hope to have a Democratic candidate who come from really blue state like MA or NY or something. That way we will definitely continue to only win the northeast and west coast. Don't you know our strategy? :silly:

Welcome to DU! :toast:

[drummo]

49. Clark may be a former general but he knows very little about

transnational terrorism and Sunni extremism or the Middle East or Central/South Asia for that matter.

He was never involved in counter-terrorism.
And Clark had training in traditional warfare but not in assymetrical warfare -- which is what we are facing today.

The key to effective counter-terrorism in intelligence collection and analysis. That has nothing to do with being a general. In fact not a single general have been doing that.

BTW as far as I know Clark was a loser in 2004. Unlike Gore in 2000.

[high density]

53. yeah he's really dumb!

And would never be able to comprehend or be aware of any of those issues.

:eyes:

FYI, Gore ultimately lost in 2000 as well, at least that's how it played out in the reality that I seem to be in.

[drummo]

63. I didn't say he is dumb. Vint Cerf is a genius but he doesn't know

much about counter-terrorism, either.

Clark knows a lot about many things but not assymetric warfare and not counter-terrorism. Anyone who has been in that business -- like Dick Clarke -- would admit that you don't get that expertise out of nothing.
John O'Neil who was obsessed with al Qaeda after 1995 still was fustrated in 2000 that he didn't know enough.
And Clark is no John O'Neil.
Counter-terrorism is a very tricky business. You have to have long years of experience on that field to be really capable of "understanding the enemy."

FYI, Gore ultimately lost in 2000 as well, at least that's how it played out in the reality that I seem to be in.

Sure and Mugabe won. That's how it played out in the reality.
Except that he didn't win the election.

Bush didn't win it either. Gore won it.

Losing the election and losing the presidency are two different things. Clark however both lost the election and lost the presidency as a result.

[skipos]

55. Oh, so THAT'S why most voters thought Bush would be better

than Kerry in handling terrorism. Bush must know a LOT about transnational terrorism and Sunni extremism and the Middle East and Central/South Asia, assymetrical warfare etc. :eyes:

"Clark was a loser" eh? Could Gore beat him up too?

So who was the "winner" of 2004? Kerry? All the Democrats who nominated a millionaire, windsurfing, New England senator and wondered why many millions of middle and lower class Americans still voted for Bush?

By the way, I'll vote for any Democrat over a Republican, Gore and Kerry included. I just hope we nominate the most progressive candidate that has the best chance of winning the general election.

[drummo]

64. No. Bush knows almost nothing about these subjects.

but in 2000 counter-terrorism was a non-issue and in 2004 Bush was running during a war + he had taht insane gay marriage stuff helping him with among the fundies.

"Clark was a loser" eh? Could Gore beat him up too?

Yes he can. Gore was robbed. Clark was not. He lost fair and square because he failed to convince more voters than his opponent did.
Gore convinced more voters than his opponent did and if it hadn't been for fraud and technical problems Gore would have become president. And it wouldn't have been that close, either. Gore would have won 292 electoral votes and than 500,000+ more votes nationwide than Bush.

So who was the "winner" of 2004? Kerry?

No Kerry lost to Bush.

All the Democrats who nominated a millionaire, windsurfing, New England senator and wondered why many millions of middle and lower class Americans still voted for Bush?

I didn't vote for Kerry in the primaries.

[drummo]

48. Why do you think he would pull the most indy votes?

Clark was a very poor candidate. That is what most people remember.
Which is a shame but it's true.

[skipos]

56. Personally

I don't think many people remember Clark because most of the public barely paid attention before the Iowa caucus. Once Kerry stole the show from Dean in Iowa, ABB fever lead many people to nominate him without even thinking if he was the BEST candidate to beat Bush. I really, really, doubt that if Dean won Iowa, Kerry would have still swept the rest of the primaries the way he did.

I think Clark would have pulled many more indy votes because he
1. is not a politician. 20 million people voted for Ross Perot, and the guy had never been elected to anything. Why? Because millions of people think almost ALL politicians, Dem and Rep are the same, sucking off the teat of big business. Hell, isn't that what Nader thinks? I personally know a few people who didn't think Kerry and Bush were very different (stupid, I know) so they didn't vote. I think that there are millions of people like that who would find a non-politician like Clark refreshing.

2. was a General. Millions of Bush voted for Bush even though he is bad for them economically or socially, just because he made them feel safer from terrorism. It had nothing to do with what Bush DID, it had everything to do with how Bush made them FEEL. I think a General would make those people feel safe enough to earn their vote.

3. was not a millionaire from New England. That kind of person is going to have trouble connecting with a lot of voters who don't vote for Democrats anymore because they think all Dems are limousine liberals, out of touch with the common man. I think the way Clark speaks, as well as where he is from, would connect with most of America better than a New Englander.

4. was not senator. Senators have trouble getting elected because it is easy to pick apart their voting record and make it look like shit even if it isn't.

Those are some of my opinions. I think Clark's biggest challenge is getting the nomination because he voted for Reagan and lack of holding a elected office. While that matters to many DU types, it won't matter to your average voter. Rememeber Perot's 20 million votes.

A lot can happen between now and 2008, so maybe I will change my tune. As I have said before, I'll vote and work for whoever the Dem nominee is, I just hope that it is someone who is progressive and undeniable ELECTABLE. One thing I am sure of, it ain't Hillary.

[drummo]

57. Re:Personally

I don't think many people remember Clark because most of the public barely paid attention before the Iowa caucus.

That's right. But what do you think those who paid attention remember?


Once Kerry stole the show from Dean in Iowa, ABB fever lead many people to nominate him without even thinking if he was the BEST candidate to beat Bush.

Absolutely agree. Which proves that not only Rep voters can be immersely stupid.

I think Clark would have pulled many more indy votes because he
1. is not a politician. 20 million people voted for Ross Perot, and the guy had never been elected to anything. Why? Because millions of people think almost ALL politicians, Dem and Rep are the same, sucking off the teat of big business. Hell, isn't that what Nader thinks? I personally know a few people who didn't think Kerry and Bush were very different (stupid, I know) so they didn't vote. I think that there are millions of people like that who would find a non-politician like Clark refreshing.

Once you get into politics you are a politician. Clark was a prez candidate just like Perot. Once you do that you become a politician even if you don't have record in public office.
Perot could get those votes because the economy was down and many didn't like Clinton for all kind of reasons: immoral, too young, liar, too liberal, draft dodger etc.

2. was a General. Millions of Bush voted for Bush even though he is bad for them economically or socially, just because he made them feel safer from terrorism.

What makes you think that just because you are a former general you are credible in the eyes of most Americans when it comes to counter-terrorirm? There have been many high ranking officers bashing Bush for screwing up the 'war on terra'. So what? Those who are fooled by Bush's image don't give a shit what those people say -- general or not.

It had nothing to do with what Bush DID, it had everything to do with how Bush made them FEEL. I think a General would make those people feel safe enough to earn their vote.

I doubt that based on what the voters did with Vietnam veterans.
They don't care about your credentials. They only care about the "image". And Clark doesn't have the image of a so-called "strong leader". (trust me I can't stand that phrase)
The Reps would do the same to him as they did to Kerry or Max Cleland.

3. was not a millionaire from New England. That kind of person is going to have trouble connecting with a lot of voters who don't vote for Democrats anymore because they think all Dems are limousine liberals, out of touch with the common man. I think the way Clark speaks, as well as where he is from, would connect with most of America better than a New Englander.

Gore was not a New Englander and was not a millionare. Did the South care? No.
Because Gore was too liberal for them (abortion, guns, church and state, gays) and because he was way too articulate and cosmopolitan.
I don't see how Clark could sell himself as a dumbass -- which is what the rednecks like.

4. was not senator. Senators have trouble getting elected because it is easy to pick apart their voting record and make it look like shit even if it isn't.

That's true but he doesn't have any kind of government experience either.

Those are some of my opinions. I think Clark's biggest challenge is getting the nomination because he voted for Reagan and lack of holding a elected office. While that matters to many DU types, it won't matter to your average voter. Rememeber Perot's 20 million votes.

I remember but Perot lost.

A lot can happen between now and 2008, so maybe I will change my tune. As I have said before, I'll vote and work for whoever the Dem nominee is, I just hope that it is someone who is progressive and undeniable ELECTABLE. One thing I am sure of, it ain't Hillary.

Agree with the Hillary is not electable part.
Although who knows? In this country everyone can be elected if he/she is packaged in a particular way (i.e. if she can fool enough people into believing things about her which are not true but sound and look good)

[skipos]

58. response

>That's right. But what do you think those who paid attention remember?

Of the people who paid attention (and there are very few of them) the most negative things I have heard were from people who didn't believe he was a real Democrat or real politican. Stuff that doesn't matter to most voters. I think some found him a little green, and I won't argue against that. But he is still active and out there and getting more comfortable on screen. He did well on O'Reilly recently, and many Dems don't. My family and friends don't agree on much, and everyone but my mom wanted Clark. It seems like most on DU wanted Clark too. I am not sure what you want me to say, what do you think makes Clark so unelectable, escpecially compared to a Kerry or Hillary?


>Once you get into politics you are a politician. Clark was a prez candidate just like Perot. Once you do that you become a politician even if you don't have record in public office.

Sure, technically. But to many voters, there are people who seem like non-politicians, even if they are technically politicians. I think Jimmy Carter had a pleasing non-politician vibe to many who voted for him in 1976.

>Perot could get those votes because the economy was down and many didn't like Clinton for all kind of reasons: immoral, too young, liar, too liberal, draft dodger etc.

My only point is that 20 million people voted for a guy with no experience. I know some of those people voted for him BECAUSE he had no experience.

>What makes you think that just because you are a former general you are credible in the eyes of most Americans when it comes to counter-terrorirm?

Because when you pull some brush, act tough and simply SAY that you are tough on terrorism like Bush did, that is credible enough in the eyes of most Americans. If Bush started windsurfing and downhill skiing in pastel outfits while Kerry pulled brush on his ranch, I really think many people would have trusted Kerry to be tougher on terror.


>I doubt that based on what the voters did with Vietnam veterans.

If the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" didn't exist, or if Kerry would have handled it better, I think Kerry would have won more votes.


>They don't care about your credentials. They only care about the "image". And Clark doesn't have the image of a so-called "strong leader".

I agree, image matters. And I think Clark would have that image as average voters got to know him.

>The Reps would do the same to him as they did to Kerry or Max Cleland.

They would. Just as Dems and Reps cried "draft dodger" about Bush and Clinton. They still got elected because nothing was as extreme as the SBVT. Are there skeletons in Clark's closet as bad as the SBVT? Not that I know of.

>Gore was not a New Englander and was not a millionare. Did the South care? No.
Because Gore was too liberal for them (abortion, guns, church and state, gays) and because he was way too articulate and cosmopolitan.

Gore made the mistake of barely campaigning in his home state. I think if he would have work hard there, he probably could have won it. He should have worked hard and won New Hampshire too. Nader voters shouldn't have split the ticket (I think they learned that lesson). I think Gore was a bit stiff. Dems got lazy after 8 years of Clinton, and weren't fired up to come out and vote for Gore in droves.

>I don't see how Clark could sell himself as a dumbass -- which is what the rednecks like.

I am not hoping for a candidate to appeal to everyone, just swing a few middle of the road types. People who aren't DUers or Freepers or people who even think that hard before voting. That's all we need.

>I remember but Perot lost.

And so did Gore in most people's eyes. So what? 20 million Perot votes are worth considering. 50 million Gore votes are worth considering too.


>Agree with the Hillary is not electable part.
Although who knows? In this country everyone can be elected if he/she is packaged in a particular way

Exactly. I just hope more Dems will consider the "package" (homestate, likeability, etc) and not just their voting record.

[drummo]

60. Response

I am not sure what you want me to say, what do you think makes Clark so unelectable, escpecially compared to a Kerry or Hillary?

No I don't say that he is unelectable, not the least becuse it's impossible to tell what the plebs will want in 2008.
I just wanted to know what makes you think that Clark would run so well among indies.

Sure, technically. But to many voters, there are people who seem like non-politicians, even if they are technically politicians. I think Jimmy Carter had a pleasing non-politician vibe to many who voted for him in 1976.

I understand. But after Clark's dance around the IWR ("I probably would have voted for it" then "I would have voted no on that resolution") he lost that non-politician aura.

My only point is that 20 million people voted for a guy with no experience. I know some of those people voted for him BECAUSE he had no experience.

Yes but 20 million votes are not enough to win the election.

Because when you pull some brush, act tough and simply SAY that you are tough on terrorism like Bush did, that is credible enough in the eyes of most Americans.

It's not that simply.
1.Bush was a Rep. For most idiots in the country that alone made him more credible on nas.sec.
than if he had been a Dem. It was clear during the 2000 campaign, as well.

2.Bush mixed his war on terra heavily with religion, racism and nationalism. The unspoken message was: I am pro-white, anti-Islam and a bigger-than-you patriot.
Most people would never admit that that's what they were seeking after 9/11.
But they are liars. It was all about those three things.
Clark is not perceived as anti-Muslim or pro-white. And he is not nationalist. And for that reason he would not be perceived as someone who would "kick the ass of those Muslim radicals".

3.9/11 happened on Bush's watch. Therefore he and only he had the opportunity to build a "tough on terra" image -- not the least by using 9/11 over and over again as a justification for his actions and words.

If Bush started windsurfing and downhill skiing in pastel outfits while Kerry pulled brush on his ranch, I really think many people would have trusted Kerry to be tougher on terror.

No way.

If the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth" didn't exist, or if Kerry would have handled it better, I think Kerry would have won more votes.

But they existed and they convinced a lot of people that Kerry was full of crap.
That was my point. Over and over again the Reps destroyed Vietnam veterans and the plebs bought their story. McCain, Gore, Cleland, Kerry.

I agree, image matters. And I think Clark would have that image as average voters got to know him.

I think you overestimate the intelligence of the average voter.
Clark comes across as soft and tolerant. The plebs want someone tough and intolerant.
Now maybe that's changing and will change even more by 2008.
But today someone who doesn't come across as an agressive hateful religious dumbass
cannot expect to be seen as a "tough on terrorism" guy.
Except Giuliani -- but that's because of 9/11. And McCain because he
is perceived as a sort of legendary figure (a total bullshit but people are stupid). And because they are Reps.

They would. Just as Dems and Reps cried "draft dodger" about Bush and Clinton. They still got elected because nothing was as extreme as the SBVT. Are there skeletons in Clark's closet as bad as the SBVT? Not that I know of.

Clinton was elected under very special circumstances : economy down in the toilet + Perot + Rep screw up at their convention
Bush was not elected in 2000 and he was elected in 2004 because of the "war on terra" and the gay marriage paranoia.

Gore made the mistake of barely campaigning in his home state.

No, he made a mistake to waste the time and money he wasted there.
TN was a lost cause from the beginning. It had a Rep governor and two Rep Senators.
Like in Utah or Wyoming. It had become the ultimate Clinton hater state full of fundamentalists.
Gore could not afford to spend more time and money there, anyway. Remember he was outspent by Bush 2-1. Gore needed the money in states where he had a chance to win.
And it's not really his homestate, anyway.

He should have worked hard and won New Hampshire too. Nader voters shouldn't have split the ticket (I think they learned that lesson).

Again, don't forget Gore had a limited budget and limited time.
He was campaiging around the clock, he was not spleeping for 4 days before election day. (No kidding.)
But he had to go to places where he had the most chance to win. Remember that Iowa, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Oregon were extermely close,as well. If Gore had gone to NH more often he couldn't have gone to those other states. And then even if he had won NH he might very well have lost NM or Iowa and then he would have lost without Florida.

Nader gave NH to Bush. Look at the 2000 and 2004 results. Kerry could win NH because Naderites changed their mind and voter for the Dem after 4 years of Bush's nightmare.


I think Gore was a bit stiff.

So what? What does being stiff have to do with the presidency?

Dems got lazy after 8 years of Clinton, and weren't fired up to come out and vote for Gore in droves.

I agree with that.

I am not hoping for a candidate to appeal to everyone, just swing a few middle of the road types. People who aren't DUers or Freepers or people who even think that hard before voting. That's all we need.

That's true but the question is whether those "in the middle" are less insane than the Freepers.
Based on the last election result I have doubts.

And so did Gore in most people's eyes.

Actually the last poll I saw on this issue showed that about 50% believed Bush "won" only because of technicalities. That's hardly proof that most think Gore lost the election fair and square. But certainly everyone think that Perot lost fair and square.

But I mentioned Perot because he really lost despite being an non-politician. So you can hardly use his example to prove that Clark would win.

I just hope more Dems will consider the "package" (homestate, likeability, etc) and not just their voting record.

Actually I think we and the pols should change that trend instead of caputilating.
The "package" has nothing to do with the job at stake. Every reasonable person knows that.
But it has been legitimized over the last few decades by pols, the media and voters alike.
Someone should run a campaign which emphasizes that the "package" is good for nothing and sloves nothing. We should have someone running who challenges this trend not someone who caves in, again, like Bill Clinton did.

BTW likability is a totally subjective thing, so noone can give an accurate assessment of how it plays in an election, anyway.

[skipos]

61. Dang, so what do you want to do?

Some responses to specifics in your post...

I was under the impression that Gore didn't campaign much and everyone expected him to win his state. The pre-election polls that I saw (which weren't many) predicted him to win TN.

I mention the Gore stiffness not because I care, but because many voters care.

You state your case well, but I guess I don't know what your conclusion is. Who is a candidate that has what you want? Do they even exist in the world of politics? What should Gore have done differently 00? Or Kerry in 04? I see the "plebs" as people who can be steered to voting for the right candidate, but you make it seem pretty hopeless.

In my opinion, 50-60 million votes for Bush has confirmed that if you market a turd well enough, people will vote for it. Personally, I think Dems can find a good candidate if they market him right, win. I wish we didn't have to market a candidate, but that's the way it is and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

All in all, I'd like to hear what you think Dems should do and why it would work.

[AlGore-08.com]

19. Kicking it up for the afternoon crowd

:kick:

[drummo]

20. Actually this poll is not about who you would support

but who do you think will win the nomination

Most people today indeed believe that Hillary is somehow inevitable,
(thanks to the insane media buzz) moreover Gore's words had been span that he would not run (he actually didn't say that).

But it's one thing what most people think about the Dem primary result it's another what the voters who can actually vote in the Dem primaries will do.

[Raksha]

28. I understand that it's about perceptions about who will win the primary

but I voted for Al Gore anyway. That will help get it through their heads that not everyone is buying the spin. It must be working too, because Al Gore is the runner-up behind Hillary (53% to Gore's 29%).

[mod mom]

29. the DLCers are out in force!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Leave it. Online polls are junk, 2008 is junk until 2006. You know it.

[AlGore-08.com]

38. Kicking it up for the evening crowd

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

41. WTF is this poll?

[Ladyhawk]

50. I don't understand why people want Hillary?

If we choose her, I think we're fucked.

[tomg]

54. Couldn't agree more, and she is my senator nt

[high density]

52. That's a BS poll

Gore, Hillary, and Dean aren't even going to run. That leaves Kerry and we already know how well he'll run an election campaign.