asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Blind Bio Poll Reveals Gore As Frontrunner!
Posted October 31st, 2007 by Dylan
in
A new Zogby International “blind bio” poll commissioned by AlGore.org shows that former Vice President Al Gore is strongly favored over the current Democratic frontrunners by likely Democratic voters nationwide – particularly among liberal Democrats. The poll also shows a strong undercurrent of discontent with the current candidate's positions on issues like the Iraq War and the climate crisis.
When voters were given brief biographical descriptions of the top three Democratic candidates – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards – along with the biography of Gore, the former Vice President won 35% support, while Clinton won 24%, Obama won 22% and Edwards trailed with 10% support. Gore’s bio was the top choice of both men (39%) and women (31%), and also most favored by younger voters. Self-described liberal Democrats strongly favored Gore’s bio (43%) over Clinton (21%), Edwards (17%) and Obama (12%). The bio selections of moderate Democrats closely mirrors the choices of likely Democratic voters overall, with 36% giving the greatest preference to Gore’s bio.
In a blind bio poll, the names of the candidates are not used, but are replaced with a brief description of each candidate’s biographies. The telephone survey was conducted October 24-27, 2007, included 527 likely Democratic voters nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.
A separate Zogby Interactive survey also conducted last week shows Gore’s overwhelming favorability among Democrats – 92% give Gore a positive rating, with 67% who have a very favorable view of the former Vice President. This nationwide poll of adults finds the vast majority of progressives (97%) and liberals (98%) view Gore favorably, with more than two in three moderates (67%) who also view Gore positively.
This latest telephone survey shows 35% of likely Democratic voters are very satisfied with the current field of declared Democratic Party candidates regarding their position on the Iraq war and plan to vote for one of the current candidates. But three in five (60%) would at least consider voting for someone new based on this issue, with 7% who are somewhat dissatisfied and would prefer a new candidate and 12% who said they are very dissatisfied and are strongly hoping for a new candidate. Nearly two in three (65%) said they would support a Presidential candidate who has always opposed the war in Iraq and 68% would support a candidate who initially supported the Iraq war but now opposes it. The vast majority (89%) want U.S. troops to be brought back from Iraq as soon as possible.
When asked about the current field of candidates and their position on global climate change, 29% said they are very satisfied and plan to vote for one of the current candidates, but 65% said they would be open to supporting a new candidate based on this issue. Nearly half (47%) said they are somewhat satisfied with the current field’s position on global climate change, but would consider supporting someone new, while 9% are somewhat dissatisfied and would prefer a new candidate – 8% are very dissatisfied with the current candidates’ stances on global climate change and are strongly hoping for a new candidate. Eighty-four percent believe global warming should be a top priority of the next administration.
Other findings from the survey include:
79% believe Presidential candidates should not accept campaign donations from lobbyists. 70% prefer a Presidential candidate with more experience to a candidate with less experience. 62% believe American need a government run health care system that pays all costs for all Americans.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Poll_Animation.flv | 187.45 KB |
| poll_chart.jpg | 17.39 KB |
- Dylan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
If the folks for global
If the folks for global warming wouldn't take so much pleasure in the hope that America would no longer exist, then maybe more attention would be brought to the subject. Americans are by nature the people who have the most empathy for the underdog, (American people and military being the main reason Hitler and Stalin and the Japan empire no longer exist to the betterment of the world) and the victims of natural disasters would attest to that. If, and thats a big if, humans can stop global warming (and as far as I have read there has been numerous ice ages and the corresponding warming of the earth between them, without the benefit of humans) by the actions of humans, then wouldn't it behoove the rest of the world to work with America with all of its tech to fix the problem?
Oh, and where is India and China in this discussion? Those two countries combined will, in the not too distant future, produce double if not triple the carbon emissions of the rest of the world. Without those two countries on board, anything the rest of the world does will have no effect in my judgment.
By the way, there is just as much credible science that says the earth will continue to get much warmer until the time the pendulum will swing so far, nature will adjust and come back to a cooling phase.
Or, and nature (or God) just might decide to do away with the human experiment. Have a nice day.
When This Whole Mess the Human Race is in Began
Hi everybody,
Check out this Controversial figure on Youtube:
"trickertricks"
has posted a sequence of videos titled
'When This Whole Mess the Human Race is in Began part 1, 2, 3 and 4.'
Check it out!
New Way To Get Al Gore To Run For President
Turn up your volume and watch this!
If anyone knows how to get this to Al Gore... please do!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHBDpwlXITg
We have to make a second option
the end
Posted November 20th, 2007 by gorewon2000 in Al Gore Politics
Al Gore's office has contacted the staff at AlGore.org and instructed them to cease with petition efforts to get Gore onto the state primary ballots. Attached below is the message that was sent out to organizers in response to this communication.
So where does this leave us?
Unfortunately, it looks like this is closing the door. Without Gore's name being on the ballot in the primary, the chance of him becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 is just about zero. Some in the draft movement are still talking about the possibility of having a deadlocked convention, with voters being split between the candidates and none receiving a majority of delegates and so winning the nomination outright. In that event, it's possible that delegates could choose Gore as a unity candidate, and apparently Gore has kept open the possibility of running as the nominee after being so chosen.
That option, however, does not present any obvious volunteer actions to take on behalf of a Gore candidacy. The primary will either deadlock or it won't.
Others are talking about supporting a write-in campaign. I will be writing him in on mine.
For this group, though, this is pretty much the end.
We can take heart that the Suburban group gathered over 600 signatures to place Al Gore's name on the Illinois ballot, and over 400 to have my name listed as a Gore delegate. We helped swell the ranks of people in attendance at Gore's book signing at Border's, and helped get 200 lapel stickers onto attendees of that event. We collected more than 200 signatures on petitions asking Gore to run.
Keep that fighting spirit. We still have work to do as activists, even without Gore as our nominee for president. Aragorn has refused to take his rightful throne in the White City, but the battle goes on. This setback may make our efforts seem hopeless, but sometimes it's the hopeless causes that most need us to fight for them.
After all, there never was much hope... just a fool's hope.
Stand strong.
Benjamin Iglar-Mobley
* * *
Ending the petition drives to get Gore on the ballot
Date : Mon, Nov 12, 2007 11:04 PM
Dear Organizers:
We have received a communication from a member of Al Gore's staff discouraging our efforts to put Al Gore's name on any primary ballots. This includes California, New York, Massachusetts, and the write-in effort in New Hampshire, as well as any other states that are working to get him on the ballot. Accordingly, effective immediately, we are recommending that all groups cease their signature collection and related fund-raising activities.
Some of you may wonder about the discrepancy between this message and the one sent out last week. We have attempted to bring you information as we receive it, and only information that is credible, and last week's information came from credible sources, but not sources from within Gore's office. Unfortunately, today's communication comes from Gore's staff and trumps the information we received last week.
We're all reeling and in a bit of a state of shock, and our main objective right now is to get people to stop working for something we've been discouraged from pursuing. Beyond that, we recognize that for many this will feel like getting hit by a Mack truck. It's impossible to convey the deep disappointment we all feel, but we've been to hell and back again with this, and just as we hung together in the past, we'll grieve together and get support from the community we built. Regardless of how we attempt to deal with this blow, we should at least now be able to turn our attention back to family, friends, and jobs that have been neglected over these long months of hard work. We built a community of support and supporters, and I believe our lives were enriched for having known each other and worked together for this cause we believe in so strongly. Many of us have formed permanent bonds with people in this movement that transcend the political ideology that brought us together in the first place. These are ties that will last a lifetime.
We'll be putting out more communications in the days ahead, but for now we felt it was urgent to get this information out to people so they wouldn't put any more time or money into the effort. I hope we can turn our grief and disappointment into something more positive and productive in the future.
There are no words to express our sorrow at having to deliver this news, but I'm afraid it is real, and the request needs to be heeded.
With deepest regrets,
--Karen
Karen Wunderman
Chief of Staff, Volunteer Division
AlGore.org
I have been away too long
After a five month struggle, my husband just died from lung cancer at home, and it has been the saddest thing I have ever endured. I didn't think I could endure it. That is what kept me away. I am sorry to return to such news... another sadness.
However, what is to be made of the talk about New York's Mayor Bloomberg getting into the Presidential race perhaps in the near future? Is he doing the petition drive to get on the ballot? Or does he have to just register to run? The petition drive was to put Gore on the ballot without his prior permission. Might there be time for him to consider still the idea of running in the same way that Bloomberg has in mind?
And, the little spare time I had went to trying to convince John Kerry to count Ohio's ballots which were supposed to be protected by court order, but as it turns out, were not.
I felt like a traitor to Al Gore whom I prefer. But, John Kerry could have broken the grip of the No Evidence Voting machines and the Hidden Evidence Scanning machines which so disserved our Democracy and Gore and Kerry. I asked Kerry to get with Gore and Edwards and save our Democracy before 2008, as soon as possible, or nothing would change--we would again win, but not assume office. I thought a Kerry/Gore or Gore/Kerry administration before 2008 or at the latest a run as a ticket for 2008 could save Democracy and our planet, by making an issue of getting rid of those hackable voting machines which GOP felons Abramoff and Ney connived to put in place.
Just days ago I started looking around again to try to help with the Gore's petition. I am so sorry to be so late and sidetracked.
Unless we get our Democracy back, elites will anoint their preferred candidates who will not solve the big problems facing us all.
See: Naomi Klein's new book, "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism."
from Democracy Now,
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/4/2/the_worse_things_get_in_iraq
Naomi Klein: The only way to combat an economy that has eliminated the peace incentive, of course, is to take away their opportunities for growth. And their opportunities for growth are ongoing climate instability and ongoing geopolitical instability. Their threats—the only thing that can challenge their economy is relative geopolitical and climatic peace and stability, so I suppose we have our work cut out for us to fight the war profiteers.
And, to help with our Democracy:
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com/
http://electiondefensealliance.org/
do we know each other?
All you need is love...
Are you the Dylan that had to move away? It's amazing what a trip to Europe can do for a young man. We miss your family so much.
Check out my blog about Gore in 2008. I think Gore wants to be the VP instead-he is quite busy trying to save the world, too.
Obama/Gore in '08
Now that would be great!
Much Love
proevo
a.k.a.
Paul, Karen, Gord, et al
What did the bios say?
I fully support Gore and hate to be a wet blanket but I want to know what the bios actually said. Reason one, to know if they were unduly slanted (not good for Gore). Reason two, to know whether an average person could figure out who each bio referred to (good for Gore).
For the sake of the economy consider someone else....
.......Prior to the environmental stand that Gore has taken in recent years, I would have thought him to be a worthy Presidential candidate. However, considering the his move for a "moratorium" on building any new coal-fired power plants, as the leader of the free world he would put our nation's economy at serious risk. As a nation we are dealing with the skyrockting price of oil, which has contributed to $3+ per gallon prices for gasoline, something that could be viewed as a regressive tax. Moreover, the sustained high price for natural gas, an alternative to coal for utilities, has made that fuel less economically viable. When measured on a like-for-like energy output basis, at current prices oil is 6 times as expensive as coal. Natural gas is over 3 times as expensive at current prices. What does it mean? If municipalities that rely on coal-fired power made a switch over to natural gas, in theory utility bills triple. That's right, triple. Most heating bills will reach records this winter and environmentalists would push to reduce this country's reliance on the cheapest form of energy that exists. To me this is absolutely irresponsible. The richest of Americans can push to save the environment, but the average American family, already struggling with rising food and fuel prices does not have that luxury. There are less economically threatening candidates vying for the Democratic nomination in '08. I would urge anyone supporting Gore to consider the economic damage that would occur by placing the environment ahead of the financial and economic well being of American citizens.
For YOUR consideration...
Sorry, arose, but you have failed to take into account the negative costs of less environmentally friendly sources of power. Too often, when the "price" of this fuel vs. that fuel is discussed, it is common to list only the monetary costs of an initial purchase. You are right - coal is cheap in relation to other sources of fuel. But the cost of production, the cost to the environment in the form of pollutants released, mountains destroyed, the cost of the subsequent disposal of toxic wastes, the cost paid by the communities destroyed by the production of coal, the cost of human lives, etc, etc, are too frequently overlooked. They must be included in the equation! To look only at the "pros" of a situation, while pretending there are no "cons" is irresponsible.
Changing our global perspectives and directing our focus toward cleaner sources of power can change this country and the world. Think, for example, of the multitude of jobs that could be created if the United States takes the reigns of sustainable energy and becomes the driving force in creating a healthier, safer planet.
Wars over fossil fuels are so 20th century. It's time to move on.
Change may be difficult, but not changing will be much more difficult.
Certainly your "cons" are
Certainly your "cons" are real and not in any way being denied. America has in the past taken the reigns on being an envirnomental leader. That being said, which countries in the next 10 years do you think will need the biggest increases in electricity output? You probably already know it's the Chinese and Indians. They have asolutely no interest in slowing their respective economies due to environmental concerns. Some of the most polluted cities in the world are in China. I think there is a time to worry about the environment, however that time is in a much economically friendlier future. If you think I'm off based on the economic danger this country is facing, I would urge you to investigate the mounting loses (and declining stock prices) of many financial institutions. In times of recession, you must place priorities on tangible costs. Hopefully, technological advances can solve environmental concerns in the future, but to sacrifice further damage to the American economy, like I said, is irresponsible.
What will be the cost...
What will be the cost to recover from the damage we do over the next decade? Do you really think we'll be in a better position after another 10 years of decay? I'm afraid you're just wrong about waiting for an "economically friendlier future." It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that the future is certainly becoming less certain. You seem to have a Scarlet O'Hara attitude about this problem - "Fiddle-dee-dee. I can't worry about that now. I'll worry about that tomorrow". To hope that technological advances in the future will be able to make up for the devastation incurred is an irresponsible pipe dream.
I have been to China - I have breathed the filth from their coal burning.
The "developing" countries have been left with no choice but to continue the raping of our natural resources, as no other viable option has ever really been made available. Thank the oil conglomerates for that - They have pushed their greedy agenda for way too many years. Where would the technological advances be now if they had been nurtured for the last 30 years, instead of denigrated? Do you really think that they would pollute and ravage their countries if there was any other way to survive, to live? We have created a monster - an entire world that "wants what we've got", but at what cost to the planet, at what cost to our children's world?
My concern is not the economic danger being faced by this country - my focus is the state of the planet and everything on it. To look narrowly at only the economic state of the US as the priority is naive. Failing to acquire a global perspective and to acknowledge that all of our (man's) actions have global consequences, that is irresponsible! If we fail to change our ways now, the global repercussions will be magnified. Waiting makes everything worse. Hiding our heads in the sand to wait for a better day - not an option. It won't matter how the economy of the US is doing, because it will all be for naught, it will be too late.
I instead would urge you to investigate the global ramifications of inaction. We can see already, on a small scale, in just the last few days, the global ripple-effects of our dependence on fossil fuels and the general instability of the world, economically and politically. Without a complete change of perspective, a reversal of priorities and attitudes, and an overhaul of our Standard Operating Procedures, your hope for technological advances will be all you have to hang on to. Our inability to "sacrifice" is a large part of the problem. What sacrifices did our forefathers make in the name of progress and technological advances? Are we really that comfortable now? How uncomfortable is too uncomfortable? Where is your tipping point?
"....taken the reigns on being an environmental leader " ???
If we are now living in a globalised economy it might be a bit short-sighted (& maybe arrogant ?) to view this in terms of protecting the interests of individual countries . To say that the United States isn't obliged to take some kind of initiative in combatting climate change because of conditions in India & China sounds alot like moral relativism & if their people are working 15+ hours a day in sweatshops breathing in air-pollution all day it's so that you can buy cheap crap in Walmart . If , as most of the scientific information out there appears to indicate , the Earth's climate is reaching some kind of tipping point - it's a bit crazy under these circumstances to be talking about how well the American economy is performing . If you were diagnosed as having a serious illness would your immediate priority be seeking treatment or being concerned over how much money you had in the bank ?
I'm not sure that using the
I'm not sure that using the term "tipping point" would be an accurate depiction of the Earth's climate over an extremely short period of geologic time (which would be an accurate depiction of time between economic cycles.) Economic cycles take place in a 7 to 11 year time frame, which might equate to the snap of a finger in geolgic time. I'm not advocating a "let's do nothing until overpopulated Asian countries do." Only that 2008-2012 is not the period of time to place an extra burden on the American economy by way of restricting emissions from the cheapest form of energy (at current prices). If policiticians were unaware of just how fragile the U.S. economy might be they are no longer, after hearing today's Bernanke testimony. I could be wrong and maybe the polar ice caps will melt within the next decade, but I wouldn't bet on it. What I would bet on is technological advancements that might lesson the damage done to the environment. This damage is growing as the world population increases, which is in no small part due to excessive populations in both India and China. And as far as I can tell, there is nothing the U.S. can do about that problem.
If , as you appear to be saying ,
the performance of the United States economy should take precedence over issues like climate change & pollution caused by industry etc. - doesn't this represent the kind of thinking that lies at the heart of the problem here ? SUV's may be great for the Auto industry & it's nice to have that extra height when you're driving but given their environmental impact & status as desirable consumer products then a sense of perspective might be helpful . I don't know if the U.S government or FEMA are prepared for a repeat of what happened to New Orleans but the 1st time around wasn't that pretty , although I do suppose they'll have the martial law thing better organised next time .
you're pretty smart for a bomber
All you need is love...
Check out my latest comments about Gore in 2008.
Much Love
proevo
Get the Ball Rolling.
Now, all we need is Al Gore to say that he is considering our plea for him to run for president to get the ball rolling. Then, watch the numbers grow even larger.
Smash Mouth Football
Something totally out of the blue!!
Hi there!
Once again greetings from overseas.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis Stonefeather.
But I agree to disagree. No hard feelings.
But now something totally out of the blue. Something I have
heard so many times in our newsrooms. Around the coffeetable.
Rumors, whispers, and buzzing which I cant ignore anymore.
look: http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2007/11/rumor-mill-hill.html
So here it goes. Something unbelievable may or may not happen in the next couple of days, possible weeks. Something which can transform the entire 08’ presidential election nomination process. And my prediction is that it is a twister!!!
Benjamin
DFA PULSE POLL
Hi all.
The DFA pulse poll ends tomorrow at midnight. Currently Al's in 2nd place some 5,000 votes behind Kucinich. Dennis has 3 links to this poll on his front page, so naturally, his people are voting pretty constantly. No other candidate has placed links at there web sites. Hillary seems to be ignoring DFA completely. Nothing new there. 34,000+ out of 127,000+ people have voted for Al. I consider this a very good thing even if Al doesn't end in first place.
I have been an active member of DFA going back to the summer of 2003. There is a lot of support for a Gore presidency among our members. I'd like to make a challenge to all of you to push Al's vote over 40,000 by the end of tomorrow. I think we can do this.
Thanks for all that you do dear patriots!
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/
Tenacious D
Hello Dylan!
Here it is November and we're still alive. We need to start collecting signatures to make sure Al Gore is on the Washington State primary ballot.
Hi Wayne
I have no desire to elect anyone but Al Gore. Why should I go for second rate when I can have the best? Hillary has her staunch supporters but there are more who are equally staunch against her nomination. I cannot believe that I haven't heard more concern over the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton legacy. Like, does that scenario sound remotely American to anyone? But perhaps my biggest concern is that a majority of Democratic voters do not want Hillary and when it comes down to the election THIS COUNTRY CANNOT SURVIVE a Guiliani reign. I keep begging Al Gore to carefully consider the fate of this country. A Guiliani administration is truly an embarrassment to the respect and quality of our beautiful country. I have down loaded the petitions. Time to get going!
Get him on the ballot!
I think if we can get Gore on the ballot for the democratic primaries, people will vote for him. If he starts winning primaries, I doubt seriously that he won't run. So how do we do it?
Time not on our side
Attn: alliep@verizon.net
I know you mean well, but time is not on our side to get Al Gore to run for the Presidency. We appear to be running around every which way to no avail so far and the other Democratic candidates are leaving us in the dust. It may very well be that Al Gore simply does not want to run and there is our problem. What do we do as our second option, if we have problems with Hillary?
I sure hope some of the people that are close to Gore on AlGore.org can immediately tell us what our plan is cause we are painting ourselves into the corner with not many options available.
Thank you.
Poll/Media
I've just sent this to Steve Highsmith NBC 10 News in Philadelphia and also to Robert Smith NPR..Dylan I hope you sent it to Robert too:)
Poll
Excellent!
Good show Dylan!:)
Great news
How do we get this released to the MSM? We have got to get this information out to the general population as quickly as possible. With this a the draftgore ads, it's like a one-two punch to force Gore's hand. He has to do it now!
Paula
When is the tipping point?
When is the tipping point for us to make a decision on what we are going to do, if Al Gore absolutely does not run? I for one, have continually backed Gore from 2000. But we have to have our horse, in the game, if we are going to win. I just wished those that have better access to Al Gore, a more inner circle if you will, would actually set down with Al Gore and ask him if he has any intention of running for President. We can do poll after poll without Al Gore running and we still would not be any closer to what we want , and that is Al Gore actually running for the President of the United States. We are all guessing and those frontrunners in the Democratic Presidential race are getting the much needed financial contributions necessary for a good run.
My opinion on this is that Hillary Clinton would not be able to win the Presidency because White America is not ready for a woman in the White House, especially Hillary Clinton. So my question to, Dylan and all the other on here, is when do we make a decision as to what we are going to do as Democrats if Al Gore does not run for the Presidency? Please don't feel threatened by that question, as it is a legitimate question based on the limited amount of time we have to make decisions on the White House.
Thank you all for your continued support for searching for the right Democratic Presidential candidate that can win the White House. I am wanbligi.
It's a Doggone Shame
He's no going to run. And I tell you, it pi**es me off.
Bottom line, nominating Hilary will be a disaster for the Democratic Party, especially for folks like us here in Texas. This year it looks like we're makng some gains, and might be able to take back the courts here in Houston and maybe the House. But not if Hilary is the nominee. Every discouraged Republican or conservative (that might vote for a 3rd party guy) will definitely vote Republican for the "down" ticket races. And that will kill us.
Al really does have a responsibilty to run, and he's duckingit, plain and simple. Maybe he's not the right guy after all.
I agree Hillary can't win
Rosemond, I agree with you in that Hillary Clinton would not be able to win the Presidency of the United States. White America has not grown enough to allow a woman as President of the United States. Women didn't have the right to vote in America until 1920. It is not time yet for a woman President in the U.S. Possibly in 8, 12 or 16 years there may be a woman President and it sure will not be Hillary in 2008. Thank you. I am wanbligi.
It Has NOTHING to Do with Hilary Clinton Being a Woman
She is NOT the right person to become President. Both politically, and for the good of the country, we need someone a clear majority of Americans can rally behind. She is NOT that person. She will win by a plurality at best, and that is only if the reactionary right fields a 3rd Party candidate.
It's not the woman issue
It's not the woman issue, the problem is bringing back the Clinton's into the White house. It will bother a lot of voters who will believe that it is wrong for the wife of a former president to run, it smacks of nepotism and power greed, similar to the son of a president becoming president. It's doesn't look fair. It's not about a woman in the White house. Also the Republicans are silently waiting to bring up Bill's infidelity again and Americans don't want to hear it and will be turned off. Al Gore need to recognize this and run.
America has not grown enough to elect a woman President
America has not grown enough to allow a woman to be President of the Untied States. Another detriment for Hillary is she is too polarizing to voters. This time around Hillary will not be elected President of the United States, that is where we as Democrats have to make a decision on our second option, since it appears Al Gore is not running. Who besides Hillary will be able to carry the ball for us to the Presidency?
I agree to disagree
I have to disagree with you wanbligi, I think America is certainly capable of electing a woman President. I'm just not sure America would ever be willing to elect Hillary Clinton.
Why do the Republicans and the right-controlled media seem to WANT her to be the nominee. I think it is because they know they've got the swift boats ready and armed with just what they need to destroy her. They've been preparing for this for so long, if someone else wins the nomination they will really have to scramble.
What have they got on Edwards? Haircuts? That's just plain silly. I have problems with Edwards, who is currently my 2nd choice to Gore.
I'd choose Obama, but --- has America grown enough to elect a man of color? And can Obama overcome the charge that he doesn't have enough experience? (Even though, as a first-term senator, he has exactly the same experience as Edwards, and about the same as Clinton.)
Are ANY of these people electable, once the GOP/MSM machine gets done with them?
An other possibility...
Greetings from overseas!
By the way a loved your comment GOPstopper, you captured it nicely.
I can’t vote for that matter, but I also agree in that Hillary is unelectable.
A second grade child can see that!
Look more closely: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/200...
But now something different. Have you dear fellow Gore supporters thought of the following scenarios?
1. Gore gets by some miracle in the race. He looses against Hillary in the nomination process. But the same Hillary looses the election. Whose fault will be than the defeat? (Psst! Al Gore’s)
2. Gore gets in the race. He wins over Hillary, but looses once more the election. Who is than to blame again? Well, Al Gore of course!
3. Gore gets in the race. Hillary defeats him and she wins the election as well. But by now Al Gores entire possibility for influence is gone. He is truly finished beyond any redemption.
4. Gore gets in the race. He defeats Hillary and he finally gets re-elected.
Al has a 1:4 chance to prevail. With his current status he simply has too much to loose. I can understand the man for not running. His odds are simply to low and he doesn’t want to commit a political suicide.
But seriously how about a vice-presidential bid? Let us aim a little bit lower..
And prevail.
Benjamin
Nothing is centain, but...
It is highly likely that a lot of Hillary Clinton's support in the polls represent those who are simply settling for the candidate, among those announced, that they perceive as most electable in November -- this due to her thicker resume (and high name recognition), as compared to the light resumes (and relative obscurity) of Obama and Edwards. One recent poll indicates that only a third of her present support is absolutely locked in. On the other hand, many Obama and Edwards supporters certainly recognize the reasons for this, but just don't want Hillary, because of her right-leaning politics and Bush-enabling history .
Gore will pull a lot of this halfhearted support in both pro- and anti-Hillary camps, due to his being both extremely electable in both the primaries and the general election (due to his recently enhanced stature and his newfound boldness and charisma) and because of his early, principled, thoughtful and well-articulated stands on the war, global warming and the shredding of our constitution. He will draw votes from all other candidates and quickly become the default non-Clinton candidate in the race.
At the convention, it is much more likely that no one will get the nomination on the first ballot if Gore runs, which Hillary might otherwise be able to achieve. Then it becomes a matter of which candidates are willing (for VP or cabinet slots) to direct their delegates to vote for someone else. How that goes down is not in any way a sure thing. Gore might even be one of these, yielding to Obama, for instance (though the smarter approach would be for Obama to get more exposure and experience in executive branch government as VP under Gore and set his sights on 2016). However it works out though, we have a much better chance of avoiding a Clinton nomination with Gore in the race than otherwise.
This speaks to your item #1. As far as beating Clinton goes, #1 has far less weight ,in terms of likelihood, than an absolute 1:4, because Obama and Edwards have less chance of taking down Clinton alone than with Gore in the race, because he will actually strengthen, rather than dilute, the anti-Hillary field. So your conclusion that it would be Gore's fault if she is nominated is just wrong. If she got the nomination, it would be despite Gore, not because of him.
On to item #2. Gore is FAR more electable than Clinton. He already beat Bush once, though the manner by which Jeb stole Florida was not revealed until well after the election was decided against him.
As we all know, Republicans LOVE to hate Hillary. As disillusioned and disspirited as they are right now with the Bush regime, there is nothing in the world that would make them rebound like a Clinton nomination. This could not only cost us the White House, but Congress as well, due to increased GOP turnout. But unlike Hillary, Al gore's coattails will be a help, not a hindrance, in congressional races.
There is also a sense in the country at large that Al Gore deserved to win in 2000, and that we'd be a hell of a lot better off, as compared with what we got under Bush. Democrats would come out in force: payback time!
Al has also learned a lot since 2000. He will not now allow himself to be "handled" by campaign staff, and will be unapologetically progressive in his stands. This is because his goal would not be simply to wield power, but to accomplish certain ends, which require that he lead America, not just rule her. At this point in our history, when our nation needs a leader who will lead us away from our present march toward out-and-out fascism and empire, we don't need a mere politician, which might suffice under normal circumstances. We need a leader the stature of a Lincoln or an FDR. Al Gore can be that. No one else can.
This will tend to change the very nature of the election. Is it a risk? Yes. But less so, given what is at stake, than the usual timid, political soundbyte and photo-op posturing that has been sucking the soul out of the Democratic Party for decades. People recognize that for what it is, and it turns them off to politics generally and our party in particular.
Your item #2 is another straw man. Better we risk all for something than risk nothing for nothing.
Item #3 is just wrong. Al Gore will always have influence, as long as he remains true to his principles. But he will have more influence here at home with any Democrat in the White House than not. But as President Gore, he will not just influence the country, he will lead it. Even the best of the alternatives will just be paying more or less lip service to reversing global warming, but in fact it will be on the (are you ready for the unavoidable pun?) back burner. Al needs to realize that if you want something done right, you've got to do it yourself.
In other matters, such as a sane foreign policy, single-payer health care and restoring Constitutional checks and balances, only he has the combination of wisdom, will and gravitas, to make a real (and hopefully permanent) difference.
This 1:4 ratio you give, Benjamin, is obviously something you've put a lot of thought into, but you fail to see that the factors are not of equal weight, in terms of likelihood, and that at least some of the first three have less weight in that regard than they would if another name takes the place of Al Gore.
Hillary's resume is illusory
All very good points, but people have not come to recognize that Hillary's "thicker resume" is an illusion. Her big experience is as "First Lady" and even for that, she won't allow her communications with Bill to be released (she hides behind him on this one). (The only thing thicker about Hillary are her ankles -- hehe, excuse the personal attack, I couldn't resist.)
There are two people in the race upon whom "frontrunner" status is being bestowed by the media, and merely reflected in the polls. Hillary and Rudy. Interesting to note, the media has chosen these two candidates to be identifiable by first name only. These two are preferred by the media, and the conservative establishment that controls it, specifically because these two candidates are most willing to be under that same control once elected.
We have big problems on the horizon.
Game, Set, Match
Stonefeather, you hit the nail on the head. My biggest concern is that here in Texas, we Democrats are actually starting to make some gains. Dallas, the 9th largest metro area in the U.S. went blue in '06. And here in Houston (4th largest) we are making strides and TRENDING like Dallas. A Clinton nomination would be a disaster for us, and all of the down-ticket races.
This stuff is not just all high-minded idealism. Aside from needing Gore in the worst way, we need NOT to have Clinton as the nominee even more.
But bottom line, Al is not stepping up. And for that, I am disappointed -- not the least of which, in him. How can he go on and on about Crisis this, and save the Constitution that, and when push come to shove, he "has no plans" to do anything concrete about it, but yet lets saps like us waste our time on this campaign?
Perhaps he is not the leader we really need.
Edwards is looking better and better.