Well, will he? I mean, if he doesn’t win this election?
I’d say there’s a good chance he will.
If the economy takes a downturn (which I think it will, no matter who is president), Gore can come back next time and say, “See, I told you so. And not only did I tell you so, but more of you actually wanted me to be president!”
I have promised myself not to make any more specific predictions.
That being said, right now it still seems up in the air as to who will win the polupar vote, and who will win the electoral college. I think either candidate would be testing the political waters if they lost this race in the electoral college.
I don’t think so, mainly because people just don’t seem to like Gore very much despite considerable support for his policies. I mean, if he couldn’t make the case for himself after his VP experience and the economy the way it is, I don’t see how he could ever make the case. He had all sorts of advantages and failed. Just look at the EC map. He took, what, 18 out of 50 states? Even if there was a move to abandon the EC system, I don’t think it would take hold quickly enough for Gore 2004.
Gore would have done better in his campaign if he had just stayed in Washington and acted presidential. Getting out in front of people and the TV limelight did him little good in the likeability factor. He’s like one of those guys at the party that corners you and talks about his financial portfolio for 45 minutes. You just want to get away.
Now, Hillary 2004 I can see.
I don’t think Hillary will run in 2004, and although I do like her, I don’t think she’s the most viable Democratic female candidate (although I couldn’t say right now who is).
Will Al run? I think he’ll make a bid for it, but I don’t think he’ll get it.
But if not him… who?
(Yes, I’m still pulling for Ed Rendell, but it’s not going to happen. :()
Esprix
I think he would. For the next 4 years, he’d be a sort of “shadow President”, with everyone knowing HE won the popular vote and WOULD have been President if not for some shenanigans. Meanwhile, he’d be able to look good every time Bush made a screwup, or if the economy went sour, or GOP partisanship stayed intense, and so forth. By 2004, the Clinton/Gore record would look pretty damn good, and Gore could get a landslide.
I can’t see Hillary running before 2008 at the earliest. Either the above happens, or Gore will be running for re-election. I don’t seriously think Bush will look very good as President except to GOP diehards.
He’ll run.
He’ll win.
(If he concedes to Bush without raising a big stink. Assuming Bush wins the recount.)
Elvis, you are wrong about Gore being seen as a “shadow president”. He will have no political office, he will have no constituency, he will have no power, he will have no press exposure. How is he going to keep in the public eye all this time? No, if Gore loses this election he’s probably finished although Nixon managed to come back from a similar defeat.
And all you people thinking he’d win big time if he ran: That assumes that Bush will be a disaster. He may very well be a disaster, but it’s a little to early to predict that.
Oh, btw. Hillary has exactly zero chance of ever becoming President. Do you people realize exactly how unpopular this woman is outside of Democratic strongholds?
The three things Gore has on his side this election, the economy, the incumbency, and scare tactics will all be invalid in four years. However, he will no longer have to contend with the legacy of Lewinsky.
I think he might run again but his reasons for doing so will no longer be valid. I think Lieberman is a much more likely candidate.
The Gorebot will run, but, IMO, he has little chance of winning.
Face the facts, Gore was running in a time of peace and prosperity, there are no big scandals associated with his name beyond the assumption that he frequently lies – hardly a breathtaking accusation against a politician – and the unions made a helluva push behind him, doing everything they could to get out the Democratic vote in Michigan and Pennsylvania and spending $56 million on the election if an NPR report I heard today is correct.
Yet he barely beat a mediocre Republican candidate in the popular vote, even if you count all the disputed votes.
I don’t think the rest of the Democratic Party leadership wants to take another chance on the Gorebot.
divemaster said:
Er, almost 50% of the people voted for him…
Simple – as I explained above, he makes the case because Bush will be in office and things will go haywire (as I said, I think the economy will go down no matter who is in office). Gore will make the claim that he was right all along and Bush was wrong.
puddleglum said:
And instead he’ll have the economy (which, mark my words, will be worse in 4 years than it is now), the emotions running against the incumbent Bush, and scare tactics that have borne fruit.
The Peyote Coyote said:
I guess you missed the fundraising scandal that the Republicans kept bringing up…
Yeah! Who’d want to take a chance on a guy who won the popular vote against a popular opponent who will, if my predictions are right, be in a worse position next time?
Actually, David B, I am aware of the fund-raising allegations, but that does not seem to have made much of a blip on the national consciousness.
As for the Gorebot winning the popular vote, get real. Being ahead by less than 1 percent of the population (at this point in time) hardly constitutes a major triumph. Gore had a mediocre opponent, a strong economy, a nation at peace and tremendous support by the unions on his plus side, and yet he barely beat Shrub in the popular vote. I stand by my statement: The Democratic leadership is going to want another candidate.
Hey, you can stand by it all you want. It’s not uncommon for folks to post incorrect things around here. 
Since 2004 is four years away, David, don’t you think you are a little premature to tell me that I’m wrong?
Nope.
Another factor:
I’ll bet a lot of the nice folks in Florida who voted for Nader this time won’t make the same mistake in '04. Ditto Oregon.
Furthermore, over the next few years (if Bush wins the recount), voters will get a clear demonstration of the difference between Clinton/Gore and Bush on environmental issues. That may change the minds of a few Nader voters as well.
Last week, I predicted that whoever LOST this election would quickly follow Michael Dukakis down the road to well-earned obscurity.
This week… well, I’m STILL certain that, if George W. Bush loses, he has no chance of becoming President in the future, and he won’t even try again. His brother Jeb might try, but he wouldn’t create much excitement among Republicans, in the wake of his dad and brother crashing and burning.
IF Al Gore loses, I have no doubt he’ll try to run again in 4 years. But I don’t see any likelihood that he’d get the Democratic nomination. If he couldn’t win by a landslide this time out, as a well-financed incumbent with a vibrant economy, why would the Democrats give him another chance in 2004? Especially when he couldn’t even deliver his own home state?
Moreover, Al Gore had it easy this time. As the heir apparent to Clinton, he faced only token opposition for the Democratic nomination. ALL the major constituent groups of the Democrats (feminists, African-Americans, Jews, unions, etc.) fell right into line behind him. That would NOT be the case in 2004. Al would have to fight vigorously to recapture their support, and he’d have a lot of formidable competition within his own party.
In 2004, I think the Democratic frontrunner will definitely be Gray Davis, governor of California. A popular governor, sitting on a HUGE pile of money, who’d enter any campaign with California’s 54 electoral votes in his hip pocket… he’d probably crush any other contender in 2004 (IF, that is, Gore loses this one… and nobody is ready to concede that yet).