Should the Democrats "draft" Al Gore for '04, and would he be their best shot for Prez?

[glenn1]

Way i see it, Gore is the only person on the Democratic side with a legitimate shot at it. Lieberman would be the next closest, but i can't see him pulling it off unless things really hit the fan. Everyone else is pretty much hopeless. So, presuming he could be talked into it, would/should the Dems draft Gore for '04?

 

[Martin]

the only way I see Bush loosing is if the Iraq situation gets really really messy...something like popular resistance, guerilla warfare and several US casualties a day. The way its going right now, that looks like a real possiblity.

Btw, about your sig, was CS Lewis Iraqi?

 

[sMiLeYz]

I disagree there are many Democratic canadiates that have a decent shot at winning the presidency. Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kusinich... Bush is his own worst enemy, he is very polarizing politically. ANY and EVERY democrat or liberal would rather back a deaf blind monkey for president than Bush.

It is the moderates in the country which could swing that election either way, I think Americans are getting weary of the casualties of the Iraq War, the unsucessful attempts at killing either Saddam or Bin Laden, not to mention a downward economy and ineffectual tax cuts.

 

[KenGr]

Al Gore = LOSER

The only chance the Democrats have is to find a viable candidate who can be credible on fiscal restraint. The only area where Bush is really vulnerable is his unwillingness to restrain spending to go with the tax cuts. Unfortunately, finding a high profile Democrat with any decent record on spending restraint is going to be difficult.

However, the only way for a Democrat to be successful in 2004 is to attack an area where Bush is vulnerable. And, except with a hard core minority who would never vote for a Republican anyway, he is not vulnerable on foreign policy, tax policy or domestic issues other than the uncontrolled spending of the last two years.

 

[zantac]

Gore wouldn't have a chance. Same goes for Lieberman, but because he is far too conservative and most democrats dont even like him. America needs someone new.

I say throw in a real democrat. Picture Bush debating with some liberal like Kucinich. Bush wouldnt have a chance, he can't think on his feet.

Everyone said Clinton didnt have a chance....

 

[rockyct]

I really respect Gore for what he did. He wasn't being a politican after power because he did what he believed was right. Frankly, I wish we could have someone like him in office but I don't think he is holding back just because he wants the Democrats to beg him to enter the race. Would I want Gore as a candidate over any other Dem? Yes. Do I think he would have the best chance for a Dem to win? Yes. However, I have to respect him for bowing out like that because not too many politicians could do that.

I think Bush is more vulnerable than people realize though. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Iraq issue backfired on him because they couldn't find any WMDs. Also, if the tax cuts don't help the economy, that will become a very key issue for the Democrats to use against him.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: rockyct
I really respect Gore for what he did. He wasn't being a politican after power because he did what he believed was right. Frankly, I wish we could have someone like him in office but I don't think he is holding back just because he wants the Democrats to beg him to enter the race. Would I want Gore as a candidate over any other Dem? Yes. Do I think he would have the best chance for a Dem to win? Yes. However, I have to respect him for bowing out like that because not too many politicians could do that.

I think Bush is more vulnerable than people realize though. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Iraq issue backfired on him because they couldn't find any WMDs. Also, if the tax cuts don't help the economy, that will become a very key issue for the Democrats to use against him.

So you admit that the Dems want/need a bad economy and more kids killed(in Iraq) to get elected?

BTW - Gore wouldn't stand a chance

CkG

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: KenGr
Al Gore = LOSER

The only chance the Democrats have is to find a viable candidate who can be credible on fiscal restraint. The only area where Bush is really vulnerable is his unwillingness to restrain spending to go with the tax cuts. Unfortunately, finding a high profile Democrat with any decent record on spending restraint is going to be difficult.

However, the only way for a Democrat to be successful in 2004 is to attack an area where Bush is vulnerable. And, except with a hard core minority who would never vote for a Republican anyway, he is not vulnerable on foreign policy, tax policy or domestic issues other than the uncontrolled spending of the last two years.

Dean

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: rockyct
I really respect Gore for what he did. He wasn't being a politican after power because he did what he believed was right. Frankly, I wish we could have someone like him in office but I don't think he is holding back just because he wants the Democrats to beg him to enter the race. Would I want Gore as a candidate over any other Dem? Yes. Do I think he would have the best chance for a Dem to win? Yes. However, I have to respect him for bowing out like that because not too many politicians could do that.

I think Bush is more vulnerable than people realize though. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Iraq issue backfired on him because they couldn't find any WMDs. Also, if the tax cuts don't help the economy, that will become a very key issue for the Democrats to use against him.

So you admit that the Dems want/need a bad economy and more kids killed(in Iraq) to get elected?

BTW - Gore wouldn't stand a chance

CkG

Nice way to spin his opinion, you should work for Fascist... i mean FoxNews. NO ONE WANTS A BAD ECONOMY OR KIDS KILLED IN IRAQ... of course except fanatical conservatives that continue to support Bush like yourself.

BTW... Gore certainly doesnt stand a chance against Clarence Thomas.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: zantac
Gore wouldn't have a chance. Same goes for Lieberman, but because he is far too conservative and most democrats dont even like him. America needs someone new.

I say throw in a real democrat. Picture Bush debating with some liberal like Kucinich. Bush wouldnt have a chance, he can't think on his feet.

Everyone said Clinton didnt have a chance....

The only reason why he was ever elected was because Perot ran. My gf at the time voted for Perot as well.

 

[sMiLeYz]

This whole thing reminds me of the last president Bush in 1991, who won the Gulf War... enjoyed high approval ratings in the polls, what happened to him? I dont know.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: zantac
Gore wouldn't have a chance. Same goes for Lieberman, but because he is far too conservative and most democrats dont even like him. America needs someone new.

I say throw in a real democrat. Picture Bush debating with some liberal like Kucinich. Bush wouldnt have a chance, he can't think on his feet.

Everyone said Clinton didnt have a chance....

The only reason why he was ever elected was because Perot ran. My gf at the time voted for Perot as well.

You can say the same damn thing about Ralph Nader running, but... oh nevermind Gore still won.

 

[Regs]

I think the Democrats did want Al Gore to run again but Al Gore rejected the idea of running for president again.

 

[Alistar7]

it would be the only entertaining election, especially in fla......

Are they still allowed to vote for Pres there or did we wise up and pull their voting rights?
Old people can't drive or vote apparently.....

 

[BoberFett]

Keep in mind, that this is coming from ME, a person who has NEVER voted for a Democrat. I've always voted Libertarian when possible, and when there was no Libertarian candidate I voted for the Republican:

I think if Kucinich were running for president, I'd vote for him.

Unfortunately, the American political machine won't let a sensible canidate like Kucinich actually run for president. He'll be weeded out of the process for someone that's a high profile buffoon. Then it'll be the Democrat buffoon against the Republican buffoon, and we'll all be screwed no matter who's in office yet again.

 

[Ferocious]

Democrats have ZERO chance of winning in 2004.

They are so divided....it's quite laughable actually.

One of the few mistakes by the Republicans was picking Cheney as VP. He'd have little chance of ever getting elected.....so I see Democrats having a shot in 2008.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Keep in mind, that this is coming from ME, a person who has NEVER voted for a Democrat. I've always voted Libertarian when possible, and when there was no Libertarian candidate I voted for the Republican:

I think if Kucinich were running for president, I'd vote for him.

Unfortunately, the American political machine won't let a sensible canidate like Kucinich actually run for president. He'll be weeded out of the process for someone that's a high profile buffoon. Then it'll be the Democrat buffoon against the Republican buffoon, and we'll all be screwed no matter who's in office yet again.

If you lived your whole life in Ohio as I had until last year you wouldn't vote for him....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
Democrats have ZERO chance of winning in 2004.

They are so divided....it's quite laughable actually.

One of the few mistakes by the Republicans was picking Cheney as VP. He'd have little chance of ever getting elected.....so I see Democrats having a shot in 2008.

Think Cheney will bow down for this reason in 2004, to help set the GOP up for 2008?
Who would George pick, Rice, Powell?

 

[Ryan]

I wish that Cheney would step down and Rice would step up That would set the tables for Rice to run in 2008

 

[JellyBaby]

It's a sad day when the only discussion is who can win and who can't.

Old dusty books record a time when it was more about placing a decent, honest, well-qualified person on the throne, along with his party platform (which actually stood for something). These tomes mentioned something about "fulfilling campaign promises", "doing what's right for the citizens of the nation", "honoring the office" and "swearing to uphold the Constitution" among other things.

Today it's about which candidate is electable, who has the most money/connections and who looks best on camera.

Our standards now seem to be so very, very low.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: zantac
Gore wouldn't have a chance. Same goes for Lieberman, but because he is far too conservative and most democrats dont even like him. America needs someone new.

I say throw in a real democrat. Picture Bush debating with some liberal like Kucinich. Bush wouldnt have a chance, he can't think on his feet.

Everyone said Clinton didnt have a chance....

The only reason why he was ever elected was because Perot ran. My gf at the time voted for Perot as well.

Not quite true. Perot drew almost evenly from Bush senior and Clinton. He did overall draw more votes from Bush than Clinton. I thnk that the anti-incumbent voters would have voted for Clinton or stayed home while the more fiscally conservative voters would have voted for Bush. Still, I would say that had Perot not ran, Clinton would have still won (as Clinton carried a few southern states).
The same cannot be said about Gore/GWB/Nader. Nader received over 90,000 votes in Florida. If even ten percent of that went to Gore, Gore would have won Florida.

I repect Gore's decision not to run. The other previous candidates who won the popular vote but lost the electoral college vote waited another 8 years before running (i.e. Andrew Jackson).

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: glenn1
Way i see it, Gore is the only person on the Democratic side with a legitimate shot at it. Lieberman would be the next closest, but i can't see him pulling it off unless things really hit the fan. Everyone else is pretty much hopeless. So, presuming he could be talked into it, would/should the Dems draft Gore for '04?

People know who Gore is which is a big advantage over everyone else in the Democratic race.
The election is going to hinge on the state of the economy. If it sucks, bye, bye GWB. If the economy is growing, we will have four more years of "compassionate conservatism".

There would probably have to be riots and blood in the streets over the war before it becomes an election determining issue.

Is Gore a loser? I think he did the best possible in 2000. Considering how he inherited the Clinton mess he came very close to winning the election. To win in 2000 all the republicans had to do was field a candidate who did not alienate or frighten the moderate voter. They chose GWB and came up with the compassionate conservatism BS.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: rockyct
I think Bush is more vulnerable than people realize though. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Iraq issue backfired on him because they couldn't find any WMDs. Also, if the tax cuts don't help the economy, that will become a very key issue for the Democrats to use against him.

So you admit that the Dems want/need a bad economy and more kids killed(in Iraq) to get elected?

BTW - Gore wouldn't stand a chance

CkG

By that same logic, GWB loves what happened on Sept. 11th because after that his popularity went way up. I may be liberal but somehow I don't think that true.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
It's a sad day when the only discussion is who can win and who can't.

Old dusty books record a time when it was more about placing a decent, honest, well-qualified person on the throne, along with his party platform (which actually stood for something). These tomes mentioned something about "fulfilling campaign promises", "doing what's right for the citizens of the nation", "honoring the office" and "swearing to uphold the Constitution" among other things.

Today it's about which candidate is electable, who has the most money/connections and who looks best on camera.

Our standards now seem to be so very, very low.

When our populace is as spoiled and arrogant as ours, a loss of perspective and of truth is easy.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: KenGr
Al Gore = LOSER

The only chance the Democrats have is to find a viable candidate who can be credible on fiscal restraint. The only area where Bush is really vulnerable is his unwillingness to restrain spending to go with the tax cuts. Unfortunately, finding a high profile Democrat with any decent record on spending restraint is going to be difficult.

However, the only way for a Democrat to be successful in 2004 is to attack an area where Bush is vulnerable. And, except with a hard core minority who would never vote for a Republican anyway, he is not vulnerable on foreign policy, tax policy or domestic issues other than the uncontrolled spending of the last two years.

Seems to me he is quite vulnerable on foreign policy. Are you saying he has done a stellar job so far? Let's see...we pissed off half the world, and invaded a country for the tons and tons of extremely dangerous WMD's they had, and now that we have had control of the country for months, we can't seem to find anything....at all. Yep..he seems solid to me...