I used to have a small amount of respect for Gore when he was a Senator. He was semi-conservative, voted for gun rights, was a veteran, and seemed like a fairly moral person.
And then, in 1992, he sold his soul and teamed up with THE DARK SIDE.
Now he’ll forever be linked to Willie Boy.
BTW, as a conservative(but not a Republican), I would say the Democrats most able to beat Bush are Kerry from Nebraska, or McCain:D
Well, McCain does have one characteristic that Gore can’t claim: he has experience losing to Dubya. Of course, he can’t get nominated as a Democrat (abortion), but it would at least generate some fodder for political cartoonists.
I wouldn’t dismiss Gore just yet. He still has the best name recognition and works well with all of the Democrats most important supporters, including feminists, unions, blacks, Hispanics, and environmentalists. He doesn’t have any serious mistakes to answer for from his years in Congress, and as berdollos demonstrated, those who criticized him are reduced to calling up pointless minor insults like the charity attack.
That would be a lie. He did not win the election. Had he, he’d be the President.
Popular votes do not count in an Electoral Republic, nor do unreadable chads.
I find it hard to justify the “does not interact well with people” charge. Clearly he was able to build a strong enough base to succeed for a long time in politics. What’s always been obvious is that he interacts poorly in front of cameras in a formal speaking role, when he turns into a pedantic, over-enunciating pain-in-the-butt. Turn off the camera lights and he comes across as a human being. He’ll still be a prominent candidate in '04, in part because of a lack of good competition.
And true, his opponents should stick to pointed major insults. Like those related to his “no controlling legal authority” fiasco and his dim environmental record in recent years (while holding a large interest in Occidental Petroleum).
“Corrado’s Law of Party Shifts” states that Gore has no chance of winning the Democratic nomination; the nomination will go to someone on the far left of the Party- Senator John Kerrey of Massachussets being my bet.
My detailed prediction (guaranteed to be wrong, because it’s detailed):
Gore will win New Hampshire. However, his “win” won’t be nearly as large as the media says it should be, therefore, in popular opinion he will have “lost” to near-local John Kerrey. Kerrey gets a big up-swing and seems fresh and interesting- this is helped by being the only real mainstream liberal candidate while Gore and Edwards fight over who is the ‘real’ Southern moderate. Kerrey will be expected to tank on Super Tuesday, but once again does better than expected as Gore and Edwards split the moderates. Kerrey is behind on delegates, but ahead on “big mo”, and walks through the next few primaries, gaining enough delegates to win easily on the first ballot.
Then, in November, W squashes him like a bug.
I’ve been looking thru Presidential results since 1832.
If history is any guide my guess is if Gore wants the nomination and is willing to work for it, he’ll get it. “Close” losers get a second chance, Humphrey being the only exception I notice, if the person went for the nomination.
Humphrey is a bit of a special case too. He entered late in 1972 and agruably might not have gotten the first chance, if Robert Kennedy not be killed.
Jackson, Cleveland and Nixon won after a loss. The other really close losers I don’t believe even tried again. Then Bryan,Dewey and Stevenson were renominated without their first run being a nail biter.
god, this thread is boring. i kept reading hoping something good would come of it, but besides Corrado’s excellant prediction, zip!