Will this guy save us from Hillary?

hgc

Penultimate Amazing
hgc
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
15,892
Much has been made over the the chances, or lack thereof, that Hillary Clinton, once nominated by the Democratic party, could be elected president. I have been back-and-forth on this myself.

But guess who's back on the scene, and getting a ton of buzz as the Dem's best candidate in '08? It's Al Gore, of course. One big advantage: He's already proven he can win the popular vote in a presidential election.

Your thoughts?

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/politics/17065/
 
broadening this thread to an international audience....why don't people think Hilary has a chance?
is it the wife of Bill thing,
the being a woman thing,
or the no chance of appealing to red-state voters thing?
or something else?
I've not seen much of her speeches....but i've heard that she's regarded as a bit frosty.....

surely the democrats can do better than Gore can't they? rightly or wrongly, the presidential race is a lot about charisma - and neither Gore nor Kerry have that....
 
The Dems' strongest candidate would be Joseph Lieberman. But his chances of getting nominated would be only slightly better than Al Sharpton's.
 
Hillary or Gore and we will lose yet again. Kerry could have done it if he would have been mindful of facts and respectful of the situation of the people he spoke to when he was campainging in the southwest.
 
BPSCG said:
The Dems' strongest candidate would be Joseph Lieberman. But his chances of getting nominated would be only slightly better than Al Sharpton's.
Click to expand...

Lieberman's very Pro Iraq War, pro censorship, and pro religion. He's a DINO.

Which of course means that you're right, he's perfect.
 
pipelineaudio said:
Hillary or Gore and we will lose yet again. Kerry could have done it if he would have been mindful of facts and respectful of the situation of the people he spoke to when he was campainging in the southwest.
Click to expand...
Not that I agree or disagree with that statement (bolded) at this time, but why do you say Gore would lose? He did win the popular vote in 2000. That's a pretty good track record in running for president.
 
Yes, I like Gore. Moreover, I suspect a good number of people, not necessarily those who would automatically vote Dem, might enjoy and rally behind such a comeback story/candidate.
 
hgc said:
Not that I agree or disagree with that statement (bolded) at this time, but why do you say Gore would lose? He did win the popular vote in 2000. That's a pretty good track record in running for president.
Click to expand...
because in a FPTP system (even one involving an Electoral college) winning the popular vote is not an indicator of electoral success, appealing to the "floating voters" within the key electoral boundaries is.
 
brodski said:
because in a FPTP system (even one involving an Electoral college) winning the popular vote is not an indicator of electoral success, appealing to the "floating voters" within the key electoral boundaries is.
Click to expand...
OK, that's true. But when it comes down to electoral success, we already know that the race was so close in Florida, that this could just as easily tipped the other way. For instance, if Palm Beach County had not used a poorly designed ballot, then Gore might have won Florida without controversy.

The thing that strikes me about Gore's loss were 1) couldn't win his own state of Tennessee and 2) didn't use the hugely popular Bill Clinton to full effect to give him a boost.

The first strikes as a kind of built-in damnation about his electability in the solid south, and the second has to do with his occassional poor judgement. (The "liberal" press treatment of Gore deserves its own thread.)
 
hgc said:
Not that I agree or disagree with that statement (bolded) at this time, but why do you say Gore would lose? He did win the popular vote in 2000. That's a pretty good track record in running for president.
Click to expand...

He has a history of losing. People don't forget losers.

He's been out of politics for a while, but everytime he's in the news, he's hyping global warming. Right now, he sounds single minded.

I'm a Republican. But looking at things from a Democrats' viewpoint, Hillary is a bad idea. Conservatives are disenchanted with Republicans right now.

If Hillary wins the Democratic primary, conservatives will rally to the Republican side to make sure Hillary loses, no matter how semi-conservative she'll try to make herself. Deep down, I bet Republicans want Hillary to be on the Democratic ticket. With Bush's incompetence, it'll take a lightning rod like her to invigorate the party come 2008.
 
andyandy said:
broadening this thread to an international audience....why don't people think Hilary has a chance?
is it the wife of Bill thing,
the being a woman thing,
or the no chance of appealing to red-state voters thing?
or something else?
I've not seen much of her speeches....but i've heard that she's regarded as a bit frosty.....

surely the democrats can do better than Gore can't they? rightly or wrongly, the presidential race is a lot about charisma - and neither Gore nor Kerry have that....
Click to expand...
While I agree with Hillary on a lot of points, she probably lost my vote with the Family Entertainment Protection Act. Plus she voted no on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun related crimes. It would have to be some pretty extenuating circumstances for a lawsuit against the manufacturer to logically make sense.

However, I still prefer Hillary to Gore.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Hype? How is worldwide flooding and global climate change "hype"?
Click to expand...
Crucial point, in terms of Gore's electability. Gore has made environment and global warming his signature issue, even more so than it was in 2000 when Earth in the Balance had already been published. I think that the rate of growing acceptance of the reality of global warming will have direct impact on Gore's electability. The more people that come to believe gee that Gore fellow was right all along about global warming, the better chance he will be elected.
 
hgc said:
Crucial point, in terms of Gore's electability. Gore has made environment and global warming his signature issue, even more so than it was in 2000 when Earth in the Balance had already been published. I think that the rate of growing acceptance of the reality of global warming will have direct impact on Gore's electability. The more people that come to believe gee that Gore fellow was right all along about global warming, the better chance he will be elected.
Click to expand...

Let's assume he is right, exactly what is he going to do about it? When he was in the position to do something (while part of Clinton administration) nothing was done, now all of a sudden it's a huge problem that's been going on for decades! Well gee Al, what did you do in one of those decades?
 
hgc said:
Not that I agree or disagree with that statement (bolded) at this time, but why do you say Gore would lose? He did win the popular vote in 2000. That's a pretty good track record in running for president.
Click to expand...

Against a Bush, a democrat should have won DECISIVELY, there shouldnt even have been an issue

Clinton was smart to keep Mrs Gore way in the background, Im not confident Al would do the same thing.
 
hgc said:
Crucial point, in terms of Gore's electability. Gore has made environment and global warming his signature issue, even more so than it was in 2000 when Earth in the Balance had already been published. I think that the rate of growing acceptance of the reality of global warming will have direct impact on Gore's electability. The more people that come to believe gee that Gore fellow was right all along about global warming, the better chance he will be elected.
Click to expand...

Let's say for the sake of argument, Gore is right about global warming.

As President, what's he going to do about it?
 
BPSCG said:
The Dems' strongest candidate would be Joseph Lieberman. But his chances of getting nominated would be only slightly better than Al Sharpton's.
Click to expand...

Lieberman might be having a hell of a fight to hold onto his Senate seat through the primary this year.
 
Cleon said:
I fixed your post for you.
Click to expand...
Lieberman is a true centrist candidate. There are a lot of Republicans who don't care for the party's social conservatism, but are willing to live with it rather than have a Democrat who's weak on the "WoT" (hate that term...) in the White House. Lieberman would appeal to those people. I know, because I'm one of them.

But the Dems won't nominate him in a thousand years, because the "true believers" who vote in the primaries would probably vote for Barbra Streisand in larger numbers than they would vote for Lieberman.

ETA: If Lieberman were to switch parties, he would, indeed be one of their strongest candidates. He and McCain are the only two guys out there that you hear a significant number of people from the opposite party saying they like.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom