What makes people think that Al Gore would win the nomination if he decided to enter the race???

[assclown_bush]

Al is nice enough and is brilliant when it comes to discussing environmental issues, but the guy is still wooden and he failed to energize the Democratic party enough to win in 2000. I know, I know, he was robbed of the presidency by bush and Co. (blah, blah blah), but really, the guy failed to carry his own state of Tennessee. If he had spent more time there, Florida would not have mattered and we would not have had to experience 7 years of hell with the coward from crawford at the helm.
I am angered by the fact that Al failed to fight for the presidency and when the chips were down, he folded. I don't think he has the stamina and fortitude to win if he ran. I would find it difficult (at best) to cast a vote for Gore in '08.

Re~runs are not nearly as exciting as premieres. And Gore wasn't all that exciting to begin with.

[rzemanfl]

1. I think you a going to find yourself in a tiny minority. I'll take

stiff over stupid any day. So did the voters in 2000.

[assclown_bush]

6. Really? Did Tennessee vote for Gore?

Tennessee preferred stupid then. My question is why would any more people vote for him now than in 2000? I think fewer people would support him now.

[rzemanfl]

17. Florida did. n/t

[assclown_bush]

31. Tennessee didn't. n/t

[Name removed]

93. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[last_texas_dem]

20. What does how TN voted in 2000 have to do with

the fact that more Americans overall preferred Gore over * in that election? Yes, TN apparently *did* prefer stupid in that election, as did all the "red" states that voted for *.

[assclown_bush]

22. The unfortunate reality is...

that electoral votes are what counts. Though Gore may have won the popular vote, he failed to win where it mattered the most. Tennessee does matter because it was his home state. He should have done more campaigning and if he had won there the vote in Florida would have been moot. I think he dropped the ball. I don't know why people get so defensive about this point. I would have liked to see him win as much as anyone else. We would not be in the sh*t that we are in if the coward from crawford had not taken office.

[last_texas_dem]

23. I understand that electoral votes are what counts

I'm just not sure why Gore's loss in TN is all that relevant, other than to bring up the favorite Repug talking point of how "Gore couldn't even win his home state, har har har." More Floridians cast votes for Al Gore than George W. Bush, and if all the votes had been included in the final tally without the USSC stepping in to hand the election to their boy, Gore would be the officially certified electoral vote victor by a more significant margin than a victory in TN would have brought him.

Let's say the amount of time Gore spent in the states really did make that signficant of a difference in the final margins. What if he had spent less time in FL and more in TN and managed to genuinely lose FL and not make up enough votes to carry TN? I just don't think the Monday morning quarterbacking on the subject counts for that much.

[ProudDad]

96. "that electoral votes are what counts."

Yep, Al won those too...

[assclown_bush]

106. Really? On what planet? Is he still President of YOUR world?

:crazy:

[ProudDad]

125. This planet...

http://www.slate.com/?id=2058603

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/nyt-s25.shtml


:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

"A consortium of major American news organizations, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal, has decided to withhold the results of its recount of ballots cast in Florida in the 2000 presidential election. The consortium had planned to publish its report this week, and although its decision to suppress its own findings has received virtually no media attention, the reason is made clear in a September 23 column by New York Times Washington bureau chief Richard L. Berke.

In a column that enthusiastically welcomes the dissolution of all political opposition in Washington in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks, Berke writes: “Until September 11, the capital was riding a historically partisan period, with leading Democrats still portraying their president as ‘appointed’ by the Supreme Court. In a move that might have stoked the partisan tensions—but now seems utterly irrelevant—a consortium of new organizations, including The New York Times, had been scheduled this week to release the results of its ambitious undertaking to recount the Florida presidential ballots. (That has been put on hold indefinitely).”

In other words, the Times and its counterparts in the consortium have decided to conceal from the American people facts damaging to the Bush administration’s claims to political legitimacy. They are doing so for the express purpose of suppressing dissent and bolstering the president as he prepares to take the American people into war and makes sweeping attacks on their civil liberties."

[orleans]

108. you need to listen to randi rhodes more often

www.airamericaradio.com

or

www.novamradio.com

and start reading the articles from her website

www.therandirhodesshow.com

play a little catch up and you'll start to understand.

[flaminbats]

126. maybe Gore should run against Alexander this year..

Tennessee does matter because it was his home state. He should have done more campaigning and if he had won there the vote in Florida would have been moot.

even if Gore doesn't run for President, he still has a role to play in politics! "Think Globally, Act Locally" the famous quote from David Brower applies here! if we hope to accomplish anything substantial in the next decade, we need Gore and a bigger majority in Congress. Gore wants to change the world, and he can still influence that process in ways most of us cannot.

[Bake]

66. Don't forget voting "irregularities" in TN in 2000.

But even so, maybe he wouldn't have won TN. So what? A lot folks here would just as soon abandon the South (not me, I think we ought to fight for every vote in every state).

This is not 2000.

Bake

[Uncle Joe]

71. I believe this is the reason Al Gore lost Tennessee

Remember the Titans!

Bill Moyers had several excellent interviews with the late Joseph Campbell telecast on P.B.S. which was also put in to book form titled "The Power Of Myth". In the interviews Campbell speaks of the commonality of all the world's religions and mythologies, even when they are separated by time and distance. He goes on to state that there are many lessons and much wisdom to be learned from myth, they're stories passed down from generation to generation to teach lessons about humanity. Here in Nashville (The Athens of the South), the home of the only full scale replica of The Parthenon of the Acropolis, mythology is never too far away.

What does this have to do with Al Gore? The lesson of what happened to Al Gore has repeated it self throughout history and myth. A hero or leader comes to the aid of the people and the ones in power trash him for it. When I think of Al Gore, I think of Prometheus. Prometheus, the son of the Titan Iapetus who took pity on the misery of mankind, huddling in the cold and dark, so Prometheus stole fire from heaven for their benefit. Zeus (Jupiter), enraged at this loss of power caused Prometheus to be chained to a rock on Mount Caucasus, where a vulture each day devoured his liver, which was made whole again each night, this was supposed to go on for all eternity.

Al Gore, the son of Tennessee Titan Al Gore Sr. took pity on the American People as they were fed scraps of information on the vital issues of the day. Al, while he was in congress believed the people should have equal access to the same information as the rich and the powerful. Al Gore recognized ahead of the curve (as he usually does) that for democracy to flourish, the people should have control over the flow of information that will ultimately control their lives. Information is power, influence and money so Al decided to become the primary champion of the relatively new technology (now known as the Internet) controlled by the defense dept. and some universities and to open it up for everyone. CNN recently held a poll as to the most revolutionary creation of the 20th century and the Internet won hands down. So one might expect praise for such vision, service and dedication to the people, however that would be forgetting the lessons of Prometheus.

The Mass Corporate Media were enraged at this loss of power, how dare he! They wanted to remain the sole gatekeepers to the truth so that they could regale us with great stories of O.J. Simpson’s trial, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Brittany Spears, Paris Hilton, runaway brides, missing pretty white women, shark attacks and various other lurid tales, etc. they could continue to do this for all perpetuity. The MCM wanted to create a fictitious bubble or Matrix for the American People to live in and Al Gore had endangered their project.

Why would "American Journalism" want to do this to the American People? Because if you’re ignorant, you are more easily controlled, and this is all about power. So Al had to be punished for empowering the American People. The MCM had no taste for liver with the possible exception of pate de fois gras (goose liver), so they decided to slander, trash, ignore and demean him in every way possible. It still goes on to this day to some degree.

The trashing of Al started in earnest in 1999, although I believe that the witch hunt against Clinton was in truth a back door way for them to hurt Al's chances of coming to power. The “War Against Gore” began in 1999 with a Wolf Blitzer interview; in it Blitzer asks Al what separates him from Bill Bradley? Blitzer asking Al of and Al is speaking of his record in congress. As anyone would do in a job interview, Al speaks of his achievements, primarily in helping to bring about the creation of the Internet as we know it today, which in fact is the truth; nothing is said by Blitzer at the time because he knows this is the truth.

One or two days later Dick Armey begins spouting his Republican Talking Points slamming Al for his hubris, and the MCM begin goose stepping in unison and take up where Dick left off. The MCM says that "Al Gore claims to have invented the Internet" which of course is a lie, and it does not end there. "Al Gore claims to have discovered Love Canal" another lie, although he held hearings on toxic waste in Toone, Tennessee which expanded to include Love Canal. The MCM said that Al Gore was wearing earth tones, so he must be a fake, that he wasn't his own man because he hired a capable woman; Naomi Wolf as an adviser, besides being stiff and boring, etc. etc. Al Gore has led a remarkable life and sometimes it reads like fiction such as being an inspiration (along with Tommy Lee Jones) for the lead character in the book "Love Story" but it’s the truth. The MCM even did a 180 after the 2000 debates overruling their own focus groups and changing their reporting as to who won those debates over night, someone had apparently heard him sigh (I did not). The only time terrorism was ever brought up during those debates was when Al mentioned it. With the MCM, the vital issue of the day (and keep in mind this was after Osama had declared war against us attacking two of our embassies in Africa, was who would you rather have in your home for a beer? The nation has been drunk ever since.

The result of all this slander, demeaning and trashing of our best and brightest is the Pottersville that we’re currently living in today. But think how much more difficult it would have been for us to get the truth out regarding the Iraq War, the Downing Street Memos, Gannon/Guckert, supporting Cindy Sheehan and or the peace movement, keeping in touch with your family or friends stationed in Iraq/Afghanistan, aiding the victims of Katrina, getting the truth out regarding Bush/Cheney's policy of wiretapping the American People with out judicial approval, or Bush/Cheney’s policy of enabling torture, and the current administration’s overall corruption and incompetence etc. without the internet. Think how much more difficult it would be for you to put your opinions out for the masses or praise your favorite leader’s virtues if we didn't have the Internet. Even the Freepers and Bush owe Al; they’re just too clueless to know it. It’s for these reasons and many more that I will always support Al Gore for President.

P.S. For a historical refresher, click on link below and Google “War against Gore” or “2000 debates”

http://dailyhowler.com /

Update, for anyone believing the MCM has changed after 6+ years of catastrophic, corrupt, incompetent Bush/Cheney rule, I submit the following small samples of the current state of American Journalism.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705010003?f=h_side

Summary: On his radio program, Glenn Beck stated that Al Gore is using "the same tactic" in his efforts to fight global warming that Adolf Hitler used to vilify Jews in Nazi Germany, but Beck said that Gore's "goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal."
<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7052402685...

Al Gore possesses a skill that no other American politician can match -- or would want to. He has a consistent ability to express fundamentally reasonable sentiments -- often important ones -- in ways that annoy the maximum possible number of people.

<snip>


Here’s a nice column about the mass corporate media misconduct which would empower Bush to the White House.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/060507.html

<snip>

Though U.S. history was at a crucial juncture in 2000, the Washington press – led by print reporters more than their TV counterparts – transformed Gore into an unappealing caricature as a lying braggart. Simultaneously, most journalists depicted George W. Bush sympathetically as a natural leader and a straight shooter, albeit a bit inarticulate.
Without this pervasive media hostility toward Gore and fondness for Bush, it’s hard to imagine that Bush could have crept so close in the election that his powerful allies could award him the White House despite Gore winning the national popular vote.

<snip>

[Trajan]

130. Pooing on Gore ...

to support Hillary seems a bit too ....

A bit too DU ....

Ah .. I've identified a new application of the term 'DU' ....

You are 'DU'ing Gore .....

I wonder : Do DU candidate partisans have to get in line to sharpen their swords ? ... Is the wait long ?

Gore is a wonderful man, and deserves better than this .....

[SaveElmer]

2. Faith I guess...

Polling info says otherwise...

[Jai4WKC08]

35. Oh, so it's the same thing as the Clintonistas?

Polling data gives her about the same unfavorable ratings as Al Gore.... maybe a shade worse, last time I looked. Average don't-pay-attention-much voters may think Gore is a liar and a little bit nuts, but they think Clinton is evil personified.

Neither one is likely to win the general election imo.

[glowing]

3. I personally think he can do more as a private person than he can

as a president with the environment. I love what Angelina Jolie does, but I don't think that I would elect her President. She brings compassion and a face to people who need love and care. But its one issue, and Al is doing better pushing back the envelope on environmental issues. He will be distracted with a clean-up project and the environment will become pushed asside to deal with the mess bush has made.

[SoonerPride]

4. He might not.

I'd like to see.

I think if the same wooden Al Gore from 2000 ran, he wouldn't.
If the looser, more real Gore was on the campaign trail, he'd win not only the nomination bu the election in a landslide.

[MasonJar]

5. Let's see! Firstly Al did win despite cheating on multiple levels and in

multiple sites. As to Tennessee, Bill "cat killer" Frist was in charge of the Bushistas and he pulled the same thing in Tenn. that Jeb and Catherine did in Florida. He sent out info using the incorrect date, threatening arrest; he arranged blockades in "special" areas. Secondly Al Gore did not fold; he fought until the Supreme 5 denied him the chance to continue. At that point he was too patriotic to fight the Constitution. Dems should have been there fighting, just as the ugly little pugs were. As to charisma, that is in the eye of the beholder. I think that W is the most feeble-minded looking man of this generation. I always did. He has those squinty little eyes that are way too close together. He looks like the result of inbreeding to me. Thirdly and most importantly, the country, the world and the earth need a man of substance as the US president. We need a man or woman of statesman status, not some failure with a dope head for brains. We need a man/woman of character and brilliance. There is a lot of ground to make up. I for one have admired Gore since he first ran in the 80s. It was clear even then that this was a person of incredible stature. Al Gore is the person for the job; if he runs, he must win.

[assclown_bush]

7. If he runs, I doubt that he will win the Democratic nomination,

to say nothing of the '08 election.

[movonne]

12. Maybe he will take it away for hillary...that would be good...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. hear! hear!

:applause:

[nevergiveup]

8. He might win the nomination

but he won't be getting many votes from the Democrats I know and I know many. Most are either in the Obama or Hillary camp and a Gore announcement is not going to move them. He is much respected but the prospect of him being the nominee doesn't set a fire under anyone I know.

[amitten]

10. My friends say exactly the opposite. Will drop their current

choices like hot potatoes for Gore.

Very fired up.

[SoonerPride]

11. I'd do more than drop Obama. I'd drop everything else.

Work day and night to get him elected.

[rainy]

38. This is exactly how my friends feel plus I know some republicans who

would vote for Al.

[frogcycle]

9. read The Assault on Reason

and then reconsider

[assclown_bush]

13. I did read The Assault on Reason...

I thought it was insightful and relevant but it does not change my perception as to his chances for winning.

[left is right]

14. it has already been claimed that you are in a tiny minority

and so am I; we would have been so much better off if Gore had actually attained the Presidency that he had actually won. I doubt that 9-11 would have happened during his watch--I know that it would have lead to the Iraq occupation that we now have. That being said, Gore is perceived by many to be a looser and the press will eat him alive-again. They would have to because doing anything else would be tantamount to admitting that they set out to destroy him in 2000. He has since become an elder statesmen and appears to be above all the fracas. I would like to see him retain that role instead of seeing him pulled down to the level where he is once again accused of lying every time he says anything.

[wtmusic]

16. Because he already won once

add that to the guilt vote of a percentage of moderate Republicans

[rzemanfl]

18. See poll:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3336157&mesg_id=3336157

[assclown_bush]

30. Thank god for that Poll...

Now that I have been able to study it, I see the error of my ways and realize that Gore is the hands down best candidate ever to have run for president. Where can I sign up to devote the rest of my life to serving him and his cause?

[sandrakae]

19. Because the experience of the other 2 front runners don't add up to a hill of beans.

[last_texas_dem]

21. I don't think it's guaranteed

that Al Gore would win the Democratic nomination if he chose to enter the race, but he would be the first choice of myself and undoubtedly many other Democrats. He especially seems to be favored by Democrats who are very involved in politics, who would work very hard to see him get the nomination.

As for the rest of your post, I've personally never seen Al Gore as "wooden" and I think of that as mostly a talking point of the MSM and the Repugs; I don't think contesting an election for thirty-six days counts as "folding", and the theft of the '00 election is nothing to "blah, blah, blah" about and pass over.

[saltpoint]

24. I predict Al Gore will enter the 2008 race and if he is

the nominee I predict he will be the next president.

The Republican field is cretinous and macabre and all of our people would beat any of theirs.

Including Gore.

The race for the nomination in Denver will be fierce on our side because the odds strongly favor a Democratic White House in 2008, no matter which of our candidates is nominated.

[Alexander]

25. Um, the fact that he's already TIED with Obama?

The fact that over 40% of Iowa voters said "Yes, we'd like to see Al Gore enter the race"?

The fact that he was the most popular candidate in 2000?

Try those for starters. :eyes:

[assclown_bush]

32. Most popular candidate in 2000? THAT and a dollar will get you a cup of java...

What is the source of your "fact that over 40% of Iowa voters said "Yes, we'd like to see Al Gore enter the race"???


Next.:hi:

[Alexander]

43. Can you dispute anything I said? Nope.

"Iowa Democrats Want Al Gore to Run

May 19 -- A poll published in the Des Moines Register indicates that contrary to what the mainstream media suggests, Democrats are not satisfied with the current field of candidates, and 44% of those polled want Al Gore to run. By contrast, only 23% would like Kerry to join the race, and 20% Wesley Clark. (Polls in Iowa show John Edwards in the lead, with Hillary Clinton in third place, with all polling under 30%.)"

Here's the poll itself.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/NEWS/70519030/1001

And here's the official 2000 results:

Al Gore - 51,003,926 votes

George W. Bush - 50,460,110 votes

So, maybe you'd like to rephrase your question? :eyes:

[assclown_bush]

45. Electoral votes: bUsh~271, Gore~266

I know we would ALL like to believe that the 'popular' vote is the one that should matter...but it is not. Sad fact of life. Deal. With. It.

Regarding the desmoinesregister poll: it does not make ANY sense at all. You quote it (and it appears to read) that 44% want Gore to run as a Democratic candidate for President...23% want Kerry to run...20% want Clark to run...6% want Sharpton to run...and finally 41% want NONE of these/not sure. I don't know if you realize this, but that adds up to 134%. Does this make sense to you? How is this logical? The numbers for the repubs who want new names to jump into the race also defy logic. 50% of the people polled in YOUR reference want Condi Rice to run (does that mean that Rice will beat ANYONE for president)!? 48% of repubs want Gingrich, 45% want Thompson and 6% want Hagel to throw their hats into the rink (with a final 17% yearning for "none of these/not sure" to make their day). On the repub side the numbers tumble in at a whopping 166%! AMAZING!!! A BIGGER PERCENTAGE THAN WAS QUERIED!!! Call Ripley's! Text message Rene Decartes: this is one for the books.

:rofl:

I suggest you study polls before you jump to conclusions. Polls are useful tools but they must make sense (if they don't add up~~~discard them).

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[assclown_bush]

53. Don't you understand that it is NOT possible to poll 134% of ANY group?

Is it incomprehensible to you that if polling numbers add up to MORE than 100% they are ILLOGICAL ("does not make sense" to those of you who do not read English). Do you realize that if you poll 400 people and you end up with 134% you have fucked up? It is NOT possible to do that unless you have fucked up. Do the math. It is not THAT difficult.

Do you know how to add?

Besides, as I wrote in my previous post, "popularity" is worth (far less than) a hill of beans. So Gore was more popular in the WHOLE friggin country, BIG DEAL...he failed to get the votes where and when it mattered: in pivotal states. He failed because he was not able to motivate the electorate and get them to the polls.

P.S.

I realize that math is hard...but put your "thinking cap" on...you might be able to pick this up by osmosis*.




*Osmosis:

Osmosis |äzˈmōsis; äs-| noun Biology & Chemistry a process by which molecules of a solvent tend to pass through a semipermeable membrane from a less concentrated solution into a more concentrated one, thus equalizing the concentrations on each side of the membrane. • figurative the process of gradual or unconscious assimilation of ideas, knowledge, etc. : what she knows of the blue-blood set she learned not through birthright, not even through wealth, but through osmosis. DERIVATIVES osmotic |-mätik| adjective osmotically |-ˈmädik(ə)lē| adverb ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: Latinized form of earlier osmose, from Greek ōsmos ‘a push.’

[MonkeyFunk]

57. it's not illogical at all

when the choices aren't mutually exclusive.

80% of the people like pie.

85% of the people like cake.

Is that illogical? It adds up to 165%!

[assclown_bush]

58. Speaking of "pie"...

why don't you prove the Des Moines Register Poll with a "pie" chart. I want to see a "pie" that is 134%.

Any "pie" larger than 100% is one pie PLUS an additional slice from ANOTHER "pie". When you go to the bakery and you purchase a pie and then proceed to take it home and eat it, if you were to eat half the pie you would have ingested 50% of it. If you ate the entire pie (100%) you would have no pie left. There is no possible way for you to eat 134% of the pie you purchased (more pie than was there originally).

[MonkeyFunk]

60. it's easy to understand

the choices aren't mutually exclusive.

Somebody could want Gore to run, AND want Clark, for exampe, to run.

Very simply, it appears people were able to give multiple answers.

[Alexander]

72. Easy for you and me, maybe...

Apparently the OP can't grasp this concept, and would instead rather insult people. :eyes:

[Alexander]

73. The choices weren't mutually exclusive. The problem is on your end...

Since you apparently can't tell what "mutually exclusive" actually means.

Neither could you dispute my assertion that Gore was the most popular presidential candidate in 2000.

So I will take your "analysis" for what it's worth....absolutely nothing. :eyes:

[assclown_bush]

75. The Des Moines Register Poll makes no claim as to exclusivity or non-exclusivity

but if the poll is NOT mutually exclusive, what purpose does it serve? None. What is the value of information if people are allowed to answer a poll with "I want person A to enter the race", and that same person also states "I want person B to enter the race", and then that same person states, "I want neither person A nor B to enter the race". What you have is a poll made up of people like you who don't make any sense whatsoever. According to the poll you are relying on, Condi Rice is the more popular person, does that mean that you will be writing her and asking her to enter the race so you can vote for her?

Furthermore, why in the world would I dispute your assertion that "Gore was the most popular presidential candidate in 2000"? A lot of good the added few popular votes did him. Instead of trying to be "popular" Gore should have paid more time to his campaign and made a better attempt at connecting with people in pivotal states. I don't know why you are fixated on his (alleged) "popularity" back then (since he failed to win his own state of Tennessee I really doubt that he was as "popular" as you would have us suppose). Ultimately, he failed to garner the electoral votes. No matter how many times you click your heels and wish and hope and pray that "popular" votes should count over electoral ones, it will not change ONE thing: They don't!

He lost. Get over it.:hi:

[Alexander]

77. "He lost. Get over it." I've heard that one before...

Only I usually hear it from right-wing Republicans who try to whitewash the corrupted 2000 Florida vote count.

So I must say, your decision to use that phrase about Gore strikes me as very odd.

"but if the poll is NOT mutually exclusive, what purpose does it serve? None."

Not true at all. There are polls here at DU all the time akin to "Who are your top 3 choices?" that aren't mutually exclusive, and serve a purpose.

"What is the value of information if people are allowed to answer a poll with "I want person A to enter the race", and that same person also states "I want person B to enter the race", and then that same person states, "I want neither person A nor B to enter the race"."

Did you read my previous posts? Someone can easily answer "I'm not sure, but I like Gore" or "I'm leaning towards Rice". Many pollsters differ on how to count such an answer.

"What you have is a poll made up of people like you who don't make any sense whatsoever."

If you don't like the poll, take it up with the Des Moines Register. No need for all the hostility.

"According to the poll you are relying on, Condi Rice is the more popular person, does that mean that you will be writing her and asking her to enter the race so you can vote for her?"

No, because I'm not a Republican. I don't spout Republican talking points like "He lost. Get over it.", and I don't support Republican candidates.

So you don't trust that poll. What about this one, for Pennsylvania? It shows Gore beating the current front-runner (Giuliani). Not so for Clinton and Obama.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1327.xml?ReleaseId=1070&ss=print

"May 31, 2007 - Gore Moving Up In Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Leads Obama Among Dems, Runs Best Against Giuliani

Former Vice President Al Gore, who has not declared his candidacy for the 2008 presidential nomination, runs better in Pennsylvania than any Democrat against the Republican front runner, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani: Gore has 45 percent to Giuliani's 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Giuliani leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 47 - 43 percent and tops Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 45 - 40 percent, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN uh-pe-ack) University poll finds."

Or this one, showing Gore with far better favorable numbers than anyone else?



http://www.galluppoll.com/content/Default.aspx?ci=27019&VERSION=p

"Even though Clinton is the clear front-runner, one set of numbers does not work in her favor. In the latest poll, more Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents rate Gore (84%) favorably than Clinton (74%). Edwards' favorable rating is 70% among Democrats and Obama's is 65%. Obama's lower rating is attributable to the fact he is less well known, as 21% of Democrats are not familiar enough with him to rate him. That compares with 4% having no opinion of Clinton, 5% of Gore, and 20% of Edwards."

"Furthermore, why in the world would I dispute your assertion that "Gore was the most popular presidential candidate in 2000"? A lot of good the added few popular votes did him. Instead of trying to be "popular" Gore should have paid more time to his campaign and made a better attempt at connecting with people in pivotal states."

Are you really unfamiliar with the rampant corruption in Florida? Do you really need a lesson on how Gore would have won had all the votes been fairly counted?

"I don't know why you are fixated on his (alleged) "popularity" back then (since he failed to win his own state of Tennessee I really doubt that he was as "popular" as you would have us suppose)."

"Alleged" popularity? The numbers are there for all to see. He got at least 51,003,926 votes - more than Bush or anyone else. If you're not disputing this, why say it's "alleged" and that you "doubt" he was popular? You are contradicting yourself.

"Ultimately, he failed to garner the electoral votes. No matter how many times you click your heels and wish and hope and pray that "popular" votes should count over electoral ones, it will not change ONE thing: They don't!"

No, but a fair count of the existing votes does count. And no matter how many times you say you can't stand Gore, the truth about the theft of the 2000 election in Florida is there for all to see.

Your post is really astounding to read, and strongly resembles Republican talking points.

Gore's popular. Get over it! :hi:

[dansolo]

80. Are you intentionally being obtuse?

Iowa is a caucus state. People's second choices are very important. You might want to look up how the Iowa caucuses work before spouting off about the illogic of their poll.

[conscious evolution]

87. He failed because

WrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongvWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrongWrong

He did not fail to get out the vote.
The election was stolen.
No ifs ands or buts about it.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

26. All true.

He ran a poor campaign and he's just as boring as he ever was. If Gore was everything some people think he is then he would be leading the polls.

[assclown_bush]

47. Wow! It took a fan of el Che to agree with me on this point...

I thank you for your post, Radical Activist.

[ElizabethDC]

27. I agree, at least somewhat

I like Al a lot, but I was never that crazy about him is a candidate. I remember being underwhelmed by him in 2000 - I just don't connect with him. I really don't get what all the excitement is about. I would certainly vote for him if he were to get the nomination in '08, but he won't be getting my vote in the primary.

[AtomicKitten]

28. no wonder your premise doesn't hold water

I am angered by the fact that Al failed to fight for the presidency and when the chips were down, he folded.

wrong, wrong, wrong

Gore fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. The only thing Al Gore lost in 2000 was a 5:4 Supreme Court decision that was nothing short of a judicial coup d'etat. Beyond that it was yielding or anarchy, and Al Gore showed his leadership by choosing the former.

Failing to acknowledge that is proof-positive that there is a faction of those that loosely associate themselves with the Democratic Party that couldn't find their ass with a flashlight and a map.

[assclown_bush]

29. Funny, I found YOU here and with neither a flashlight nor a map...

He folded, caved and LOST. If he had been as dynamic as you want others to believe he was, he would have been in the White House. He was lackluster then, and time has not changed that fact.

[AtomicKitten]

40. I'm not the one with "assclown" in my chosen screen name.

Your ignorance of history explains a lot.

[assclown_bush]

41. "ignorance of history"??? How so? Would you like to elaborate?

Or would you prefer to attack me on a personal level?

[Alexander]

52. How did Gore "fold" and "cave" exactly?

I mean, should he have stolen a tank after the SCOTUS decision, or what?

Funny how the people who said Gore "caved" never offer a viable alternative. :eyes:

[xxqqqzme]

33. '...I am angered by the fact that Al

failed to fight for the presidency...' He sued for a Florida recount and WON!!! It was dimson that took it to the supremes. After the supremes DECIDED little georgie would be harmed if the FLorida recount happened - WHAT was Gore supposed to do???? Do a Rambo & kill all of them??

I get so achingly tired of people saying Gore didn't do anything - WTF was he supposed to do? Where was he supposed to go after the supremes? What higher authority would have granted him the presidency - that he won by popular vote anyway and yes, I know he won Florida too. Unless you can suggest something Al Gore could have actually done, I'm finished w/ that tired 'Al didn't fight for it' crap.

[Dinger]

34. I've Heard Those Comments Before

Guess where?

[assclown_bush]

48. Here on DU?

In the still of the night? In the back of your head?:shrug:

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lojasmo]

124. Every republican you debate on the internet?

That's what I'm hearing from the OP....every anti-gore argument from every republican I debate about with over 2000.

[johnaries]

36. I am sick and tired of people who spread the lie "Gore folded".

Gore took it to the highest level possible, the SCOTUS. As he has said himself, the only thing beyond that is revolution.
GORE FOUGHT. He did not fold. To say he did is a bald-faced lie.

[assclown_bush]

46. Gore was lackluster as a candidate and YES, he folded....

I don't think he had the stamina, the guts or the balls to win. People who think he did are deluding themselves.

[johnaries]

56. OK, what SHOULD he have done?

Should he have started a revolution?

Put your money where your mouth is, what would YOU have done?

[Larkspur]

63. You're confusing John Kerry with Al Gore

Gore fought for 36 days to get the votes counted in Florida but SCOTUS slammed the door on him and us. Gore's only other option was armed revolution, which was not feasible. John Kerry folded on challenging Ohio.

And do you remember when Gore was down 15-20 points in March 1999, when Gore formally announced he was running for Prez? Bill Clinton's sexcapades hurt Gore a LOT!!!!.

[ClassWarfare2008]

64. Who was he supposed to appeal to after the Supreme Court ruled for Chucklenuts??

Who's higher than the Supreme Court?

God??

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[assclown_bush]

102. Troll? Perhaps you are just projecting.

n/t

[Alexander]

111. Nah. Some DUers know me in person. Nice try, though.

I have a long history with the Democratic Party and DU, and would gladly take any of the Democratic candidates in 2008.

You?

[assclown_bush]

99. When a simpleton has nothing else to say he accuses others of being "troll"

And I really don't care what YOU think...

[Alexander]

101. Well, you had nothing to say to begin with.

Your assertions that Gore is somehow an unpopular figure are laughable and can be easily refuted.

And you use Republican talking points.

If it walks like a duck, etc... :eyes:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

112. Yeah, I'm seeing your posts!

"I don't know why you are fixated on his (alleged) "popularity" back then (since he failed to win his own state of Tennessee I really doubt that he was as "popular" as you would have us suppose)."

Gee, could I have gotten the idea that you said Gore wasn't popular? Maybe from the original post, and little gems like these? :eyes:

"Is alcohol to blame for your posts?"

Can't say I drink much, sorry. Although I know how you like to project. Lay off the Jack! :rofl:

"Or are you this pathetic ALL the time?"

At least I can remember what I typed a few hours ago. :eyes:

[rainy]

37. Al is a different man. He did win against a media that was stacked against him

But now he has a big force behind him. He has the energy of an electric populace that is ready to fight HARD for him. We would come out in numbers, old and young and take over the whole election form website to website. The mainstream media would become irrelevant as we would win without them. We would set the world on fire figuratively.

Al Gore can change the world. We need him now more than ever. Sadly we had to go through the neo-con rule to realize how bad we need Al. Now is the time for Al Gore.

[AwakeAtLast]

127. And this is a much different country

At least I hope it is. I think it is.

I totally agree with you! :bounce:

[Marrah_G]

39. Thank you for your concern (blah blah blah) n/t

[assclown_bush]

50. WHATEVER!!! (blah blah blah)

n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

42. Because he has learned.

Al had taken the path of least resistance (much like most of our current candidates have done when their back is to the wall), which is why many democrats wouldn't vote for Hilary, Edwards or any of the other enablers.

Gore has shed that image and now proven that he is willing to take risks, say what isn't popular when he knows it is right. Further, people (those who didn't vote for him) see that he was proven right every step of the way.

All the current democratic candidates come with a HUGE amount of baggage... Clinton, Edwards won't get a large part of the democratic party vote, as people won't support these war enablers. Obama has the experience problem and now what has been seen as hypocricy in his campaign style and tactics.

Gore has proven that he now speaks his mind and does what he says and people find that attractive. Gore has learned the lessons of the past and isn't going to allow idiotic attacks to go unanswered and doesn't come with idiotic baggage such as voting for the war, or co-authoring the IWR.

Go with Clinton or Edwards and you will get a 3rd party candidate, who will probably wind up winning. With Gore, those who would bolt for a third party will stay with the Dems, because they will have a candidate who they can believe in.

THAT is why he would win the nomination and the presidency.

[calteacherguy]

44. I don't think he would win the nomination.

He'd definitely be in the top tier, but I think people want someone new.

[rainy]

54. New like Clinton?

[calteacherguy]

98. This is the first time Hillary Clinton has run for President.

It certainly would be a "new" day in America if a woman were POTUS.

Please note I do not support Hillary Clinton for the nomination, nor do I think she is likely to win the general election should she be nominated...her negatives are too high.

[HughBeaumont]

61. Bush (VP) Bush (VP), Bush (P), Clinton (P), Clinton (P), *,*, (Clinton)?

Whole lotta new there . . .

[Prophet 451]

51. We're desperate

Thing is, the political system is FUBARed. It doesn't work for the interests of the majority and hasn't for years, the whole system is run by money, making it, spending it and a lot of us are kind of disenchanted with a batch of politicians who show no real promise of changing that. A Hillary reign would probably be a re-run of Bill (which isn't necessarily a bad thing but doesn't bring the massive changes so desperatly needed), Obama's pretty much an unknown quantity, Edward's talks like a populist but looks like a game show host, Kucinich (the only one offering the kind of radical change needed) has been pretty much written off and who's left?

So we pin our hopes on Gore. He's become a kind of talisman that we fill up with our hopes. Gore the man is kinda wooden, not very charismatic and seems to be completely lacking a sense of humour but the movement to put him in the race lets us believe we can actually change things.

[wyldwolf]

55. the very same reasons applied to Hillary "proving" she can't win can be applied to Gore, too.

[Jai4WKC08]

78. Exactly right

That's why neither one of them is a good choice for the nomination.

[Alexander]

103. Did Hillary already win a presidential race?

I don't think so.

Gore did.

[chaska]

59. It's Gore or nobody for me. I can't vote for Hillary and the rest don't have a...

prayer in my state.

[ClassWarfare2008]

62. Gore is simply the best qualified candidate for the job.

He has served in both houses of Congress and 8 years in the executive branch as Vice President. And he already won the 2000 Presidential Election, even with a campaign weakened by the DLC consultants, pushing the "stiff wooden" image.

And with all but the most criminally ignorant waking up to the reality of global warming, Al Gore is the best qualified among the candidates to speak about this reality, as he has done, but better yet from the White House where he has the authority to act on it. And he's also the most likely to pick up where Jimmy Carter left off in starting this country down the road to energy independence.

Re-elect Gore 2008!!

[niyad]

65. if you think al is wooden these days, you have not been paying attention. you DO understand what

happened in florida and around the country, do you not?

[treestar]

67. Why does the President have to be an "exciting" person?

Haven't we had enough of that, and of a President who wants to be the center of drama?

This country prospered most under the most boring Presidents.

Let's get off the shallow, drama queen thing and pick somebody smart, who will just do that job, rather than create a bunch of drama and try posing as a "war president" because that sounds so cool.

[Bake]

68. The Al Gore of 2007 is NOT the same as Al 2000

Wooden? Stiff? Boring? I find him electrifying! Refreshingly HONEST. He'll say what's on his mind. I've seen on many occasions this year and he's definitely NOT boring.

This is 2007. Not 2000. Al's a changed man. Al's THE Man. And he's the only candidate (or "non-candidate" ... ahem) that would inspire me to open up my checkbook and my free time to work for him.

Bake

[BeyondGeography]

69. There you are with your HRC avatar ripping Gore's 2000 campaign

without acknowledging in the least that he was compromised by Clinton's appalling indiscretions in his second term. Instead of bragging about the accomplishments of the prior 8 years, he had to play defense. And if you think that was just a blunder by Gore, ask yourself why no Democratic candidates wanted to be seen with Clinton in the fall of 2000.

Clinton's defenders here will say his approval ratings were in the 60's and Gore and everyone else were wrong to run away from the record. But that ignores the entire dynamic of 2000, when you had the Republicans basing a large part of their campaign on restoring honor and integrity to Washington and getting away with it because Clinton fucked around with an intern and lied about it.

[assclown_bush]

81. His mistake was in not embracing all the benefits of the Clinton years...

he chose to distance himself from Bill Clinton and decided to play the repub's game: Gore was on the defensive. That WAS his biggest mistake. So Bill got a blow job from an intern~~~the only one's who cared about that were the repubs. They weren't going to vote for Gore so he was wrong to play their game. If Gore had had Bill Clinton campaign for him he would not have lost the election.

[BeyondGeography]

83. Wrong, wrong, wrong

<The latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup tracking poll indicates 58 percent of Americans approve of the job Clinton is doing as president. But after surviving impeachment more than a year ago, Clinton trails Gore in the number of people who view him favorably.

Overall, 17 percent of all voters say they would be more likely to vote for Gore if Clinton were to campaign for the vice president. But 40 percent said they were less likely to vote for Gore with Clinton stumping for him, and 40 percent said that would have no effect.

Among independent voters, the net loss for Gore could be far greater: Gallup's survey indicated that 45 percent of independents would be less likely to vote for the vice president if Clinton were to campaign for him, while only 10 percent said they would be more likely to support Gore. Another 37 percent of independents said Clinton's efforts would make no difference.>

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/10/24/clinton.factor/

[Tellurian]

89. Yes, you're absolutely right!!!

Al's biggest flaw at the time, he isn't an attorney. There was no way for him to gain control or direction of what was going on around him. With Lieberman whispering in his ear, "there will be blood in the streets.." he was as a fish out of water, listening to the Judas that would hang him high in the end. Laurence Tribe, another Judas, was playing with words, playing to the court. David Boisse, life and family threatened if he engineered a plan for Gore to win, bailed on Gore when he needed him most. Sir Charles Ruff, (whom I adored) the brilliant, removed by an untimely death and could not be of help any longer.

The cards and court were stacked against Gore. He had ONE chance, I believe David Boisse knew it, when Jeb interfered with the electors, threatening to replace them (if they refused to cast their electoral votes for Bush), causing a Constitutional crisis. Had Jeb been allowed to go forward, the state supreme court would have taken over the Constitutionality of Jeb's actions and thrown the whole damn thing out.. Gore wasn't aware of this window because his attorneys had been compromised.

All of the above could never have happened if Gore had accepted the gracious help of the Clintons. Of that I am sure!

[churchofreality]

70. Progressives love him, but that's it

No one likes rehashed candidates. He comes across as condescending to many. I love the guy, but he wouldn't win. He could use to lose a few pounds too.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Alexander]

113. "No one likes rehashed candidates"? Like Nixon?

:eyes:

[Radical Activist]

120. Which is kind of funny

considering how little he talked about progressive issues in 2000 and how little he got done on so many progressive issues as VP. Its like people are forgetting everything about the man that happened before his MoveOn speeches.

[rucky]

74. He's got vision, sincerity and charisma.

things I didn't see in his 2000 bid are shining through now.

It's amazing what not having "handlers" can do for one's image.

[flaminbats]

76. some think HRC and Richardson might drop out..

I think Gore would only enter the race if Hillary dropped out before the primaries, then you would probably see Richardson and Edwards drop out. the irony..I think Hillary might drop out before the primaries, but only after Gore decided to run.

[assclown_bush]

82. Who are these people who think HRC will drop out?

Are they imaginary playmates?:rofl:

[flaminbats]

84. nice..thanks for the constructive input!

I attend the monthly meetings of my local party, along with regularly reading the opinions of Democrats who post on this website. first of all, most Democrats I talk to don't believe Hillary will drop out..unless she is defeated in the primaries. Secondly, few have disagreed with me whenever I pointed out that Al Gore will probably not run unless Clinton drops out before the primary process begins.

if you don't like reading what have heard from others, then why respond? I view Al Gore as the Mario Cuomo of this race, plenty want him to run..but IMO he never will.

[assclown_bush]

100. Why respond?

I started the thread. That's why.

[flaminbats]

123. remember the question you posted?

"What makes people think that Al Gore would win the nomination if he decided to enter the race???"

I tried to answer it..these people think Gore would only enter the race if Hillary dropped out. this would probably make him the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, don't you agree?

[ClassWarfare2008]

129. Eternal optimists, maybe?

Though they're probably mistaken in this case, unfortunately.

[WinkyDink]

79. Half-million popular-vote margin. Stolen/uncounted other votes. Repressed votes.

How do we KNOW he truly lost Tennessee?

[YvonneCa]

85. Read "Assault on Reason". n/t

[flaminbats]

86. I'm reading Chapter 5 tonight..

so far..I have enjoyed reading this as much as I loved reading Bill Bradley's "The New American Story".

next I'm planning to read Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope".

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

88. "the guy is still wooden and he failed to energize the Democratic party enough " Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hillary Clinton isn't exactly Gene McCarthy.

[Skittles]

92. HE ALREADY WON A PRESIDENTIAL RACE

ENOUGH SAID

[assclown_bush]

107. ON WHAT PLANET???? IS HE STILL PRESIDENT OF YOUR WORLD???

:crazy:

[Skittles]

109. the election was STOLEN and ANYONE WITH A BRAIN KNOWS IT

and BY THE WAY - I have NEVER accepted that lying, thieving incompetent bastard bush as my president - he is g.d SQUATTER

[orleans]

110. you seem to like that expression.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[last_texas_dem]

131. Winning a Presidential race does not equal

being inaugurated as President. Did you sleep through the 2000 election and its aftermath?

[Sgent]

116. Its a different party

but Ronald Reagan was a repeat (lost the primary in '76).

From a freeper perspective he is a god -- hopefully Gore will be that good for our team.

[Bucky]

117. Love the irony of a Clinton supporter lecturing me that "Re-runs are not exciting"

I really do like Senator Clinton. But she will be fucking skewered in the fall campaign.
It will break my heart but it will happen.

[Lindsey]

118. I'd like to bring some rational thought an civility to this post...

I read "None Dare Call it Treason" by Vincent Bugelosi" who outlines in detail that what the SCOTUS did was criminal. Al Gore did EVERYTHING he possibly could. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in his favor. The SCOTUS overruled The Florida Supreme Court and GAVE Bush the Presidency. Then, Katherine Harris (who was Bush's Campaign Manager in Florida)as the Florida Secretary of State, authorized the votes which sealed the deal when they were ordered to stop counting the votes in the counties in question. This is common knowledge. I'm suprised you don't know this. Regardless of what you think about the man, this is simply a fact. My question to you is (since you say he "caved") is: "What would you have had him do?" Seriously, once the SCOTUS makes a decision, where does one go then? I didn't think there was another course of action to take. I know that there were members of The House that did not want to accept the nomination but not ONE member of The Senate would step in (I saw this live on CSPAN and it's also the first scene in Farenheit 911). So, once again, is there something you know that I don't know in terms of what else he could have done? As far as my feelings about him running, I mailed a letter to him today BEGGING.....

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LanternWaste]

121. Well..

First off, I think over the past few years, having a president that's "exciting" or "would be fun to have a beer with" has been exposed as so many empty words, a de-facto apology for preexisting incompetence. Ever set your best friend up on a blind date and were pressured to sat, "well, she has a good personality" to deflect attention from the actual focus is? Kind of the same thing, I think.

Now on the meat of the question--

Gore is intelligent with a commanding knowledge of the world in which he and so many of us live. He's diplomatic, meaning he's not prone to shoot off his mouth before he actually speaks. He knows the system and the players. He has support of the moderates and the progressives.

Maybe your opinion of him is "wooden". Big fat hairy deal. Why do I need a actor as President? May be important to you if you're focused on surface qualities, but I'm not.

He did fight for the Presidency. I don't know where you got the impression that he didn't... unless you demand of him that he call everyone to arms to start a revolution.


And to use your analogy, most critics acknowledge that Godfather II was superior in every way to the original Godfather... :shrug:

[jenmarie]

128. Gore is the only "potential"candidate

I would donate to, work for and be excited about besides Wes Clark. And I think he would probably win the nomination. I'm not convinced or confident he'd win the GE though. He is somewhat stiff, and has a style of speaking that sounds as though he's talking down to people. I don't think he'd pull in moderate Republics and Independents which is the only way we're going to win.

I do believe he won 2000 and no one can dispute there were all kinds of Republic shenanigans pulled from disenfranchisement of Dem voters, to hackable vote tabulators. I think we can be fairly certain that if a Dem wins the WH it will have to be a landslide. That's why I'm waiting for Clark.

[venable]

132. he wd be a a good pres, but a crushing disappointment as a candidate

why don't people remember 2000

ouch