It didn’t hurt W on 04 becasue he won in 04, but it most likely cost W votes then. There were even some people who had bumperstickers that had phrases like ‘lets not elect W again in 04 also’. The appearence of cheating did influence some in 04. But Bush had a lot going for him, and his competition was lacking (real or manufactured)… Remember that W had the resuorces of the presidency to help out. Remember when Chaney took a trip to Hawaii, forcing Kerry to do the same - which one do you think wasted more time on that trip, and which one had access to a hypersonic military aircraft?
Also look at the image, Bush came off as one who was willing to accept the recounts of Gore till it got rediculious and he put a stop to it. Gore came off as the one who lost but just couldn’t admit it. Because Bush one and Gore lost just reinforces it.
Because how he didn’t win the presidency affects how he is perceived now. Nobody’s disputing the outcome per se, just how it affects Gore’s standing and viability.
In 2000 he seemed eager to establish his own legacy, independent of the Clintons. I don’t think that has changed. He would need a non-Clinton VP to clearly signal that he is the one in charge.
(That, plus he is smart enough not to want HRC’s high negatives dragging him down.)
Sorry, Brain. I know you are a Hillary fan, but I do not share your enthusiasm and I doubt Gore does.
None of it works for me. Wherever Bush goes, Rove goes. Rove is known as the dirty tricks guy, the attack dog. It’s no secret. So I have to say to myself, if Bush or any Republican fails to dump Rove, it must be because they think Rove’s tricks will work (and they do). So, since Rove is still their go to guy, the Brain, they assume guilt because they allowed it to happen (over and over and over). Plausible deniability (in theory) has a limited shelf life.
Gore and Hillary on one ticket? No way. I think there was enough bad blood between the Clinton and Gore people during the 2000 campaign that such a reconciliation ain’t gonna happen.
W not on ballot in 2008? Yes, but the Dems will run against him anyway. Recall that the Republicans ran against Carter in 1980. And 1984. And 1988.
Regarding Gore’s 2000 conduct: I wish he had been more aggressive in contesting the result. I don’t think he understood the full depth of the Florida election fraud or he was patriotic enough to refuse to believe it. I believe that he now understands just how badly he got screwed in 2000 and I hope he comes back and reclaims his rightful place in the Oval Office. Gore more years!
Like many erstwhile ‘centrist Dems’, I think you misanalyze the divide in the party.
Other than Iraq, there’s no division ideologically that I can discern. The ‘lefty’ netroots simply want the Dems in Congress to stand up for the things that Dems have been claiming to believe in all along: preservation and expansion of the safety net, a decent life for those who ‘work hard and play by the rules’, educational opportunity, protection of the environment, abortion and contraception rights, a reasonably expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and so forth.
That’s traditional Democracy, and it’s what the Kossacks want: pols who’ll stand up for stuff like that, rather than rolling over at every turn.
Odd, isn’t it, that the GOP partisans who condemn Gore’s conduct in 2000 applaud Nixon’s in 1960, but without being able to explain the difference. I don’t think their views need to be considered seriously.
Becuase it would be a boneheaded move.
[ol]
[li]Gore/Clinton is just too cutesy and transparent a “remember how miuch better things were?” strategy. [/li][li]New York is already a foregone conclusion to go Democratic[/li][li]Hillary would appear to make the ticket swing left, which is a bad thing after the primaries are over.[/li][/ol] Gore would go for a Southerner or Midwesterner with solid centrist/near-right cred. Warner or Bayh. The only reason he’d choose Hillary would be as a desparation measure if the GOP chooses a woman first and he’s afraid of losing the female vote.