Al Gore, Peyton Manning & Private Ryan

Great Debates
1

Disclaimer: OBVIOUSLY, it’s very early in the election process, and there’s plenty of time for AL Gore to catch up, surpass, and even TROUNCE George W. Bush come November. I won’t make any predictions just yet.

Still, considering that Al Gore has LOADS of advantages over George W.:

  1. Al is affiliated with an administration that has presided over a VERY strong economy, and has not had any foreign policy disasters.

  2. Al is regarded (wrongly) as an intellectual giant and a man of integrity, whose only flaw is that he’s a little stiff. Meanwhile, George W. has been painted as a moronic coke-head, and is mocked by every cartoonist and talk show host.

  3. Al coasted to his party’s nomination, while George endured a brusing battle with John McCain- a battle that forced Bush to spend much of his vaunted war chest.

  4. At every turn, George W. has been portrayed as the toadie of the NRA and the religious right.

And yet, in every survey, Gore is trailing Bush badly! Now, as much as I’d LOVE to believe it’s because the American people have moved rightward, I have a different theory- and this theory does NOT bode well for Gore.

Gore has the same problem as his fellow Tennessee celeb Peyton Manning, and the masterpiece “Saving Private Ryan” by Gore’s pal Steven Spielberg. Namely: people have short attention spans, they hate foregone conclusions, and they just get BORED!

Peyton Manning nearly won the Heisman Trophy as a junior. WHen he decided to return to college for his Senior year, he was odds-on favorite to win the HEisman Trophy hands down. Well, sure enough, Peyton played magnificently as a senior, and deserved the Heisman. And yet… the sportswriters shunned Peyton and voted for Charles Woodson of Michigan!!

“Saving Private Ryan” was the best film of 1998, and received (almost) universal praise from critics. 1998 was a weak year for movies, and this one stood head and shoulders above the rest. In September of 1998, it seemed safe to say, “This film will win the Oscar- nothing else is likely to come close.” ANd yet, as we know, the Oscar went to “Shakespeare in Love.”

Now, I am NOT criticizing Charles Woodson, who was a GREAT cornerback, and who performed superbly in big games (especially against Ohio State. Nor am I knocking “Shakespeare in Love,” which I enjoyed (though it really was insubstantial fluff). I merely note that, in both cases, the voters turned against the candidates they surely would have selected months earlier. Peyton Manning did everything right, but clealry, sportswriters were LOOKING for somebody, ANYBODY else to vote for! And Hollywood’s voters clearly WANTED to find something to vote for besides “Saving PRivate Ryan.”

Why? I nominate boredom. Where’s the glory in voting for the same movie/athlete/candidate as everyone else? Sportswriters got bored with hearing about Peyton Manning, and were EAGER to vote for someone else (hence their excitement when CHarles Woodson began making highlight reels). Hollywood got bored with Spielberg, and started looking for something else to vote for, something UTTERLY different from the grim, dark “Saving Private Ryan.” So, when a light-hearted romantic fairy tale came along, they rushed to vote for it.

Well, I suspect this is Al Gore’s problem. People have nothing against him- they’re just tired of the Clinton-Gore administration, and are eager to vote for something, ANYTHING different, even if they’re not sure that GEorge W. is statesman material.

Can Gore still win? Yes… but just like George’s father in 1988, AL needs something big. Al needs a “Willie Horton” with which to bash GEorge W. And mark my words, Al has every private eye this side of Alaska looking for that WIllie Horton.

It’ll be interesting to see if he finds one… and what the reaction will be if he does.

2

Why would American voters be more bored with Al Gore than they were with George Bush back in 1988?

As for the Peyton Manning-Charles Woodson analogy, I don’t think that had anything to do with boredom. The Heisman Trophy, like presidential elections, comes down to advertising primarily.

3

An amusing theory, Astorian, but I don’t think it holds water. Your model stands for the theory that a frontrunner can be surpassed in a popularity contest by an attractive newcomer. I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t think Bush the younger qualifies as a newcomer to the presidential race anymore, given the amount of press he has already received. To use your examples, nobody had really focused on either Charles Woodson or “Shakespeare in Love” at the time when the so-called experts nominated Peyton Manning and “Pvt Ryan” as sure things. Contrast this with GWBush, who was already leading some polls (for what ever there are worth) last year, before he fell behind Gore, and then recently overtook Gore again.

Personally, I’m not crazy about either Gore or Bush, so I’m hoping an attractive newcomer does come around.

4

On the Willie Horton thing, I think Gore should find someone in Texas who was innocent and was still executed. Bush’s statement that “no innocent person in Texas has ever been executed” is going to come back to haunt him either way.

5

Astorian said:

I wouldn’t say that Bush had a “bruising battle.” Yeah, he had a few losses, but he still mostly coasted through. The media made a bigger deal out of it than they probably should have (no, say it ain’t so).

Yeah, and? What’s your point?

What surveys are these?

The latest one I saw made me laugh. The headline was something like, “Bush jumps to huge lead over Gore.” What was the lead? 8% What is the margin of error? Plus or minus 4%. That means it’s a toss-up, not a huge lead.

And, of course, popular polls don’t mean anything anyway, because it’s all based on the electoral college. Gore could win by 1 vote in California and get killed in three other smaller states and still come out ahead.

6

astorian said of Al Gore

With all due respect, after Clinton didn’t inhale, you must have.

  • Somalia, where we got U.S. soldiers killed while playing “We Are The World” someplace our military never should have been.

  • Kosovo, where we tried to fight Milosevic with one hand tied around our crotch, taking public opinion polls to tell our generals what they could do and how that day. Our involvement directly sped up the process of depopulating the region of ethnic Abanians, and intensified the atrocities against them. Now we have soldiers stuck in a region in which there is no clear exit strategy, and in recent months, we almost had to take military action against the ethnic Albanians we supposedly went there to protect.

  • Bombing an aspirin factory in Sudan (one of our allies) in an attempt to get back at Usama Bin Laden, doing nothing more than causing damage to that country’s already troubled economy. No credible evidence of chemical weapon manufacturing was ever found.

  • Ignoring the human rights violations in China (and the wishes of most U.S. citizens) by attempting to give them Most Favored Nation trading status. This after the ridiculous blunder of allowing China to transport technology it in turn used to improve the performance of long-range missiles pointed at us!

  • Obliterating America’s longstanding ability to make a difference in peace negotiations throughout the world. Clinton/Gore have been ineffective in the Israel/Palestinian peace process; a U.S.-brokered agreement for Northern Ireland fell apart in no time, and Clinton’s trip to India and Pakistan was an embarrasing display of his powerlessness.

Just because the comotose American public no longer seems to care about anything Clinton/Gore do, doesn’t mean they haven’t had ‘foreign policy disasters.’

7

Well, you know, it depends on how you define “disaster.” :wink:

8

In 1992, there was a fairly attractive newcomer (not from a physical standpoint, but from a political one) in Perot. Despite his appeal to a not insignificant portion of the population, he still picked up a grand total of zero electoral votes.

As for Clinton foreign policy disasters, you can add on the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia, which, if it weren’t so tragic, was almost comical in its ineptitude.

9

Just throw my .02 in here.

I think the secret for Al Gore will be in finding a running mate who actually inspires people.

To comment to David B: I would disagree that Bush “coasted” to the nomination. Looked like he might lose there for a minute (I was hoping!!!)

To Milossarian: Uh…Sudan is not one of our allies, it has been on our list of terrorist supporting countries for years. Oh and it was BUSH that got Somalia started

PErsonally I agree with almost everything Clinton did during his administration, but I admit I won’t shed a tear when he goes. That “tired of Clinton” phenomenon is what is killing Gore…mind you I would vote for a Walrus before I would vote for Bush. But not every American feels the same way (sadly). :slight_smile:

10

Q. If there were an election that put Dubya against the Democratic donkey, who would you vote for?
A. The jackass.

On the Bush coasting issue:
I agree that the McCain issue was overhyped by the media, who liked him a great deal more than Bush (and deservedly so). They certainly made it look like McCain could pull a great upset. But Bush was much farther ahead in delegates, and that was all that mattered. It did cost him tens of millions to beat McCain though, and that could be an issue. Although according to http://www.politics.com Bush has raised $72 million and Gore has raised only $38 million. Of course, hasn’t Bush spent most of that?

On Gore:
I think Gore’s an okay politician. I liked Bradley better, though. Problem with Bradley was that he was a terrible speaker. Great ideas, just…so…darn…boring…

From The New Republic, 5-8-00:

That article’s a good read on what makes a President. Here’s the link if anyone wants it: http://www.tnr.com/050800/trb050800.html

11

Personally I like Ralph Nader, a man of his principles, champion of the average American (rather than big business…and yes I can’t wait for someone to post a reply saying big business is the average man’s friend to which I say “Uh-huh”). Also a big environmentalist. Too bad he does not have wide exposure.

12

Wow, another Nader fan. I like Jello Biafra (hence the name) but I think Nader is a lot more practical. In * this * week’s edition of The New Republic, there’s an article about how Ralph Nader is “betraying” the left by speaking out against Gore.

BTW, if you think Jello Biafra’s a loony from reading that article, you probably should read more of his platform at the Green party website. It makes more sense when he explains it in detail. He’s still kind of a crank, but oh well.

13

I wouldn’t vote for AL Gore under any circumstances (Well, okay, maybe if David Duke were the alternative), but it’s not my dislike of Gore )or of liberals in general) which pormpted my original post. Fact is, the “boredom” phneomenon does not follow party l;ines, and it can kill Republican contenders just as it does liberal Democrats.

George W.'s father faced the IDENTICAL problem in 1988. Indeed, in many ways, this year is almost EXACTLY like 1988. Consider:

  1. George Herbert Walker Bush and Al Gore are both rich WASPs, and the sons of prominent U.S. Senators.

  2. Both attempted to become President, but were rejected by the voters, who saw them as stiff, arrogant, elitist and out of touch with the common man.

  3. Both served as VP for 8 years under charming, personable, well-liked Presidents. Those presidents survived scandal after scandal, but remained popular (indeed, the people who tried to hold them accountable for their crimes and scandals usually came off looking petty, mean and vindictive).

  4. At the end of those 8 years, the economy was very strong. Now, you’d THINK that the veep of a popular president would be a shoe-in, especially when the economy was strong… but George Bush was in the same spot in 1988 as Al Gore is in now! People were bored, and wanted SOME kind of a change. ANY kind. They didn’t hate Bush (just as they don’t hate Gore now), but they never really warmed up to him. And you know what? Unlike me (and most regular posters here) MOST Americans have no real ideology, and no real, firm political principles. MOST of them vote for the candidate they LIKE! Sometimes that works to the advantage of the Dems (JFK, Bill Clinton), sometimes it works to the advantage of the GOP (Ike, Reagan). But whether you’re a lefty or a righty, don’t EVER delude yourself that a given election proves that “the American People” are on YOUR side. The American People are mighty fickle, and often base their vote on MIGHTY flimsy reasons.

Now, as we know, George Bush DID win in 1988, but to do so, he had to TRASH his opponent. There was no way Bush could become more charming or likable (just as Al Gore can’t now). All he could do was dig for scandal, and get nasty. Rest assured, that’s EXACTLY what Al Gore will do now.

WIll it work? It certainly might- it worked in 1988.

14

I meant to add this to the previous post. At the time of the Republican Convention in 1988, every survey I saw showed Michael Dukakis winning handily.

It’s precisely for that reason that George Bush went on the offensive, with Willie Horton and the Pleadge of Allegiance.

15

BobT wrote:

Now now, that was the CIA’s fault. They had an out-of-date map.

And don’t forget that we accidentally bombed a baby milk plant in Operation Desert Storm.