Gore Wont Be The Next President

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/15/...gore/index.html

"Many Democrats were disappointed with his behavior as a candidate in 2000 and feel other candidates may have a better shot at winning bipartisan support in an election."

potential Democrats....

Sen. Tom Daschle, South Dakota
Gov. Howard Dean, Vermont
Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina
Rep. Richard Gephardt, Missouri
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut

who will it be? there should be an Oprano "Democratic Presidential candidate pickem".

the winner should get free porn for 4 years (assuming that would still be legal at the time of the elections).

[Mike AI]

Gore is not as stupid as I thought. He knows he cannot beat Bush in '04 ( probably not Dem could) - if he ran again he would be finished forever in National Politics.

So he sits it out, plays on sidelines - hope Bush wins, then in 2008 run....

Of course I hope that he is finished forever. Gore is a loser!

[MikeW]

"Gore Wont Be The Next President, "
-------------------

Boo fuckin' Hoo ... POOR HIM!

;-))))

[ulfie]

He announced on 60 minutes he won't be running in 2004. More than likely he was told he wasn't going to running, that's the way the parties work. I think he could make a good living doing the voice for automated call systems. Press 1 for customer service, press 2 for billing support.... Imagine his monotone voice and I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

[RawAlex]

Credit to Gore for seeing what is coming down the road: Voters are not going to be any more definitive the next time out in a Bush-Gore battle, it would be very expensive, and would probably get about the same result, maybe with a bit of a swing to Bush as the incumbant...

More importantly, Bush and Gore are about the same, in many ways, and the last presidential election, except for the whole Florida issue, was actually quite boring. Bush coming off smug and distant, and Gore coming off smart but aloof... neither of them very engaging people the last time. out. Bush has certainly improved his "personal" skills, and I think that is part of the reason Gore won't run - the differences are so small that any improvement on Bush's behalf is enough to tip the scales.

The Democrats not doing well at the midterm elections is also a certain key - not because anyone voted against Gore, but because the Democrats will have to come out swinging with some new things to get people's attention for 2004.

Gore was Bush's assurance of being more of a President than his daddy... new blood on the other side might change that yet.

Alex

i really think these next elections are going to be interesting. people often said that in the last presidential elections, more people voted against the other candidate than for their own.

i think that people will really want to vote against Bush next time around. i think doubly so because of the total Republican majority in government. but i am not really sure that the Democrats have someone that can go the distance either.

considering what has happened to date and that Democrats have pretty much already thrown everything but the kitchen sink at Bush and it did not dent his ratings, i am more prone to believe that very little will happen between now and election time that will change that. additionally, the economy is recovering, Saddam is bowing to the pressure, the stock scandals are long forgotten etc etc.

i think Democrats will really need to start shifting into high gear soon with a focused "plan" to make the world a better place that they can sell, or they wont stand a chance.

[SykkBoy]

Maybe Al Gore has a future in comedy. He handled himself quite well on Saturday Night Live last night...the Willie Wonka and potsmoker's webcam sketches had me cracking up...

I've always liked Al Gore, despite be married to a woman I loathed all through the mid to late 80's.....I even voted for him in '88


Yeah, Al Gore the loser...who won the popular vote....

Bush actually has Ralph Nader to thank...most who voted for Nader would have voted Gore as their second choice...and of coyrse the State of Florida and a bunch of senile people who probably shouldn't have been voting in the first place ;)))

[Ironhorse]

It's largely irrelevant who runs against Bush because we have a choice of wars on the table and between those conflicts and the Osama hunt, nobody will want to change presidents in the middle of this.

[Torone]

Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also the fact that their oldest member, Robert Byrd, was a KKK'er, and that Clinton's hero was William Fulbright, a strong Segregationist...

As for the popular vote, that does not elect the President. It elects the electors. Otherwise, the people who feed this country (the farmers, ranchers, etc.) would have no voice. The election would be decided in the population centers.

Originally posted by Torone@Dec 16 2002, 09:28 AM
Add in the fact that the Trent Lott thing has a lot of Democrat angles, including the fact that Gore's father was a racist who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

what does Gores father have to do with anything?

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Ironhorse@Dec 16 2002, 12:09 AM
It's largely irrelevant who runs against Bush because we have a choice of wars on the table and between those conflicts and the Osama hunt, nobody will want to change presidents in the middle of this.

Actually, Bush runs the risk of "vietnam"... he has almost two years left to run, and unless the war on terrorism moves forward soon, it is going to start looking like a real problem. I suspect that, sadly, less and less news is going to have to do with terrorists being caught in Afganistan, and more and more to do with US soldiers dying in accidents and ambushes. Nobody likes a President who let's the boys die for no reason.

The Iraq thing won't last long, no matter what. Sort of like Afganistan without the follow up. It will be long over before the next election, but the war on terrorism will certainly be dragging it's feet along.

Bush has already had as good a rating as he is going to get, things peaked early, and there isn't anything in the future that is going to be a slam dunk positive thing to boost his popularity back up. If anything, the details of it all are going to catch up to him like it has to many other Presidents before him.

How he handles the details day to day, how he manages a government that isn't "at war" will certainly shape the runup to the election, and I am not sure how he will do. He wasn't having that good a time of it before 9/11, and once things get back to more normal, he will once again be back to politics as usual... then who knows?

Alex

[Torone]

Originally posted by -= JR =-+Dec 16 2002, 09:34 AM-->