Letters to the Editor
-
Gore/Obama
That's what I'm predicting. Obama is running for the VP spot and too many people don't like Clinton. Gore will jump in after he's enjoyed the summer.
-
edwards/Obama
I'm serious, this guy's got what it takes, and I've always believed Obama is the guy running for a Veep post, to get the experience to run for the big show later.
I think those two...un stoppable.
-
Oh pul-eeze
Every time I hear menton of Gore `08 I feel obliged to throw a bucket of ice water on the discussion as a therapeutic measure.
Look, I know Al Gore has grown over the years, but I also remember that he ran in 1988 and went nowhere against Michael Dukakis (maybe the memory of Tipper on the rock-n'-roll star chamber was too fresh). He ran in 1992 and had to settle for veep. In 2000 he had the nomination handed to him. He turned in a lame performance in the presidential debates (when Bush claimed that all three men who murdered a black man in Jasper TX were going to be executed, Gore could have easily pointed out that the Governor of Texas was mistaken, only two of them had been sentenced to death).
Personally, I think what lost Florida for him was when he came to Miami and claimed Elian Gonzalez should be separated from his Cuban father and be left with his manipulative fruitcake realtives in Miami. In doing so, he alienated 95% of Floridians who were appalled by the spectacle in order to try to win a few votes from the same voting bloc who supplied us with the Watergate burglars and who regularly vote somewhere to the right of G. Gordon Liddy.
Finally, I think there's a percetion among many voters that after a guy runs unsuccessfully a few times, he becomes another Harold Stassen. I see that at local levels, and we've seen in national elections that the candidates who drop out the soonest are the ones who have run the most times. Jimmy Carter got elected in 1976 because he was running against a field of Democrats who had run in 1964, 1968 and 1972 and were running again in 1976.
It's time for more new talent.
-
I Don't Buy It
I think no matter who the democratic candidate is (even Hillary), they're in. No way anyone with any intelligence (well, I guess there's the rub) will vote republican except the hard core neo's.
-
Did the author read the Time survey?
The percentages for Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, and McCain actually fluctuated over the weeks that the survey was taken. At different points, the Democrats led the Republicans, and vice versa. Statisticaly the differences are insignificant.
Only in the last week did Guiliani go ahead of Hillary by 9 points and - let's be real - Guiliani is more likely to be headed for jail - along with his cohort Bernie Kerik - than the White House. Hillary beat him before in New York and can do it again.
Note also that 33% of the respondents approve of the job Bush is doing, revealing them to be more pro-Republican than most Americans.
-
Nearly 2 years
This election is not for another year and eight months. Can we just give it a rest. Please?
-
name recognition
These polls are mostly name recognition... which is why Romney is trounced. Of course, Clinton's name should be quite recognizable so her numbers should be somewhat more worrisome. My guess is outside political junkies, not that many know much about Obama.
I would like to see Gore in the race. Memo to the other writer: Gore did not run in 1992. Also, it's worthing pointing out that he WON in 2000. By half a million votes. Did he run the greatest campaign? No. Would he have won in a walk if Clinton had managed to not fool around in the White House? Probably.
But, I wouldn't get too worked about a poll 20 months before the election. Besides, neither Giulliani nor McCain is going to get the nomation. McCain's whole appeal in 2000 was with moderates and democrats and he's lost all those due to the war. Conservatives still don't feel he's one of them. The GOP has a remarkable aptitude to believe that the country really wants some right wing purist. I'd not be shocked if they nominated Gingrich or some other wholly unelectable candidate.
-
Real - generic gap
I continue to be puzzled by the gap between people's general affinity for democratic policies, and their aversion to particular democrats. This is a gap that goes back a long way, not just a feature of the current slew of candidates. How is this gap manufactured? Clearly, the opposite phenomenon occurs for republicans (people dislike republican policies, but like the republican candidates). Is it the MSM? Are they just better politicians? Is it a psycological abnormality of the public (like people who are continually attracted to partners they know will abuse them)?
-
I hear you, jlaforest
We know less about who has a chance in November 4, 2008 than we know about the weather that day. I don't see the point in getting worked up about poll stats at this point.
-
Well? Did you read the survey?
Take for example Obama/Giuliani on page six. This week Obama received 44% and Giuliani received 45%. This week's percentages are based on 1264 adults. Only somebody who doesn't understand statistics would turn this into a "bad news for Democrats" story based on these numbers.
Giuliani and Obama in this poll are in a statistical dead-heat. At best this poll indicates a 95% probability that its results are within +/- ~3% of the 'true' opinion of the American people. Additionally, there is a 5% probability (5 out of a 100 polls, think about it) that this poll is completely wrong and is only serving to muddy up the forecasting waters.
Note that in the previous survey, 3/9/07-3/12/07, Obama received 44% and Giuliani received 43%. Mr. Grieve's understanding of statistics - or at least his portrayal of them in his news stories - leads me to believe that if he were to write about these two survey he would claim that "Obama is losing ground to Giuliani." He would have a dynamic story. But he would be wrong. Time's survey from last week shows the same result as this week.
-
Some good points Mav
But you did get a couple of things wrong, Gore didn't run for president in 1992, Clinton picked him for veep off the strength of his 88 run, which Gore actually did pretty well in for someone that was so young, and wasn't very well known at the time.
Also, while there are people that run several times that become a joke, (Jerry Brown, Lamar Alexander)there are others that go on to win, (Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon).
I agree that Gore was an overly cautious politician in 2000, and blew the debates, at least as far as the likeability factor goes (all that sighing and weird orange makeup), but even with all the things he got wrong, he still won the popular vote, and I think, probably the electoral college as well, but Bush's daddy just had too many friends on the supreme court.
For now I'm supporting John Edwards, but if Gore announced, I would have to at least think about switching, hell, I'd like to see Gore win just for the image of him being sworn in with Bush standing behind him with that odd grimace of his.