If he chooses a new running mate this time, maybe. I don’t like the idea of Vice President Palpatine.
If you count those who lost a primary, you could include G.H.W. Bush (who ran against Reagan) and Reagan (who ran against Ford). But if you mean those who, after winning their party’s nomination, lost the general election in one year but then went on to win it in another, Nixon’s the only recent example I know of (compared to people like Adlai Stevenson and William Jennings Bryan who ran and lost repeatedly).
As for the OP’s question, I would like to see Gore run in 2008. Knowing what I know now, I don’t have any serious qualms about voting for him, and I think he has the possibility of winning. He could very well pick up the “I should have voted for him in 2000 instead of voting for Bush (or voting for Nader, or staying home)—well, now I can!” vote.
Lieberman is going to face a tough challenge in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Add that to his getting embarrassed in the 2004 primaries and there’s no way he’ll get another shot at VP.
I would be very happy to see Gore run again. I believe there is a pool of voters out there who regret their choice in 2000.
Of course, the electorate is not static. A lot of old yellow dog Democrats have died since 2000 (several in my family), so I imagine the South is even more solidly Republican than 8 years ago. Who knows which way new voters will go?
I’m guessing Gore might take Florida this time, though, and maybe Tennessee.
Oh, but count me among those who would like to see a different running mate if Gore tosses his hat in the ring. Warner or Edwards or Bayh maybe. Don’t know too much about Richardson, but that imaginary baseball career doesn’t help him.
I can’t see Gore picking HRC as a running mate (should he prevail in the primaries).
Gladly.
He wanted to disqualify ballots cast after Election Day. Why would you think those should count?
Bush wanted to *avoid * counting ballots that *had * been legally cast according to the rules. See the difference?
OK, I was pretty sure I was correct, so sure that I now challenge your correction:
from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1061
It issue is not that they were cast after election day, the issue is that there is no postmark on oversees millitart mail. They have ALWAYS been accepted int he past - why would Al Gore want to chalange this unless he was hell bent to win at all costs.
Like it or not Bush followed election precident, Al Gore did not. I would like to leave Bush out of this however since he won and we don’t have the opportunity to see if he is a sore looser and crybaby. If Al Gore wanted to make sure every vote was counted he would have requested a recount in EVERY DISTRICT IN EVERY CLOSE STATE - INCLUDING THE STATES THAT WENT TO AL GORE!!!.
He did not do that, he only requested recounts in areas that were more likely to vote for him.
Back to that above cite:
This shows again that he was never interested in having every vote count, just every vote for him count.
Anotehr interesting sum up of the lingering stink of Al Gore, which
From http://www.brookesnews.com/041810cameron.html
Al Gore is clearly willing to cheat to win, is this type of person the one you want to be our President?
Horseshit indeed BrainGlutton
Not much interested in facts, are you? If you’d look at facts instead of quoting some partisn hothead commentary, it would help you tremendously.
False.
False.
Just as Bush did in New Mexico, right? 
You did know about that, right? No?
When come back, bring facts.
I’ve come to accept that it’s more or less inevitable. There is so much money and reputation at stake that, while I can’t condone it, I can understand it.
Push-polling, deliberate mischaracterization and misrepresentation are just the more common methods of cheating and dirty play. If you’ve got a brain you can work around it.
You know, if this “sore loser” whine is the best his opponents can dredge up to smear Gore, I’d say he’s in pretty good shape.
ElvisL1ves Like it or not, you prove my point. First you have no facts, just your own partian hothead commentary. Second, even if they were not true, the stink remains, the stink of sore looser is the issue, - the stink is not dependant on facts, just the belief that the ‘facts’ are true.
Actually I did not know about that, what do you want me to say besides I won’t be voting for electors for W either next presidential election.
Same back at ya!
You want to back that up with some cites, Elvis? You parroting “False” doesn’t mean jack. If kanicbird’s cites are biased, show some unbiased ones that prove k wrong. Good luck.
Horse, meet water. Just because the facts are inconvenient to your desired conclusion doesn’t make them not facts, kiddo. Look up “truthiness” sometime.
So all that matters is that you simply hate the guy, no matter the facts. :rolleyes:
What it would be nice to see you say is that you’ll try to be at least *minimally * informed before doing something as important as voting in the future. You’ve just admitted that you are not, and that’s a good first step.
From the conventional media the (Liberal) NY Times
I would think it’s a high negative, but it goes beyond it, it’s his win at any cost even if he has to cheat - basically willing to commit election fraud just so he can win. Yes, except for possiable fellons voting, what he did appears to be legal, but it is an unquestionable attempt to negate the free election process of the US for his own gain.
Nice way to bring up the 2000 election as a red herring. If you want to argue that topic, there are plenty of threads. We discussing 2008, not 2000 now.
A Bush supporter disparaging Gore for a “win at any cost” approach to elections is a bit like Bobby Bonds complaining that steroids tainted Freddie Patek’s home run records.
Arrrgh. Make that Barry Bonds. I’m showing my age.
First I resent your stating that I hate him - I don’t hate him, second the ‘facts’ presented here (and other places) indicate to me that Al Gore is does not have a honerable character and I don’t think he is a good choice for a presidential canidate and not worthy of my trust. I think many people feel the same way.
Well it was brought up (not by me) that the ‘stink’ of his loss remains - I expanded it to the stink of him being a sore loosed, and finally that the stink of ‘cheating’ at the election remains. Also I think past actions in a election is a good indication on how he would act given a simular circumstance.
Again the issue is not Bush, he won’t be running. The dems have never won by the ‘I’m not Bush’ platform’, I don’t expect it to work after W leaves office either, but only time will tell.
'Sawright. Bobby Bonds was a bit of a prick himself.