Gore 2000 and 2008?
By AviShalom
Co-blogger Creature had a post yesterday wondering if Gore might be about to get in the race because of concerns about Cltinton's electability, to which co-blogger Edward (in a comment) suggested that Gore is still "the man who lost an election he won through his own attempt at cleverness, thought Censorin' Joe Lieberman would make a fine vice president..."
Well, I want to join in the co-bloggers' fun on this! This is just one political scientist's/blogger's opinion, but for what it is worth...
It is getting awfully late for someone to enter either party's race--whether you are Fred Thompson or Al Gore. It is possible Gore could wait longer, but it is hard to overstate how hard it would be for him to put together fundraising this late--unless there was a wholesale ditching of Clinton and other candidates. Which seems like pure fantasy to me.
Now, on Gore's 2000 campaign choices, I am going to argue against the conventional wisdom for neither the first nor the last time. First, Gore's tacking to the "populist" direction and distancing himself from the Clintons (which was presumably part of his "cleverness") is what got him the 2000 popular vote, and also probably what kept him from losing Oregon and Wisconsin. Remember, Bush led the race almost all summer, despite very high aprpoval ratings for then-President Bill Clinton, and Gore needed to ward off losses to Nader while proving he was not just Clinton, Term III. Mission accomplished. Second, Gore's choice of Lieberman is one of the factors that won him Florida (absent the total breakdown of the Florida electoral administration process and the US Supreme Court coup, that is). It produced a massive mobilization of the Jewish vote, which was decisive in Florida (notwithstanding appalling ballot design turning some of that into votes for Buchanan or into "over-votes.") Lieberman also helped with the "I'm different from Clinton" message, given Joe's statement on the Senate floor against Clinton.
Edward is probably quite right about the perception of Gore in most circles. But the analysis is not correct just because it is conventional.
I say all of this as someone who (1) did not vote for Gore in 2000,* (2) would like to see him run in 2008, (3) loathes Joe Lieberman, (4) could never vote for Hillary Clinton, and (5) expects--and fears--that the next president will be another Republican. Just calling them as I see them.
____
* And, no, I most certainly did not vote for the current incumbent, either!
Co-blogger Creature had a post yesterday wondering if Gore might be about to get in the race because of concerns about Cltinton's electability, to which co-blogger Edward (in a comment) suggested that Gore is still "the man who lost an election he won through his own attempt at cleverness, thought Censorin' Joe Lieberman would make a fine vice president..."
Well, I want to join in the co-bloggers' fun on this! This is just one political scientist's/blogger's opinion, but for what it is worth...
It is getting awfully late for someone to enter either party's race--whether you are Fred Thompson or Al Gore. It is possible Gore could wait longer, but it is hard to overstate how hard it would be for him to put together fundraising this late--unless there was a wholesale ditching of Clinton and other candidates. Which seems like pure fantasy to me.
Now, on Gore's 2000 campaign choices, I am going to argue against the conventional wisdom for neither the first nor the last time. First, Gore's tacking to the "populist" direction and distancing himself from the Clintons (which was presumably part of his "cleverness") is what got him the 2000 popular vote, and also probably what kept him from losing Oregon and Wisconsin. Remember, Bush led the race almost all summer, despite very high aprpoval ratings for then-President Bill Clinton, and Gore needed to ward off losses to Nader while proving he was not just Clinton, Term III. Mission accomplished. Second, Gore's choice of Lieberman is one of the factors that won him Florida (absent the total breakdown of the Florida electoral administration process and the US Supreme Court coup, that is). It produced a massive mobilization of the Jewish vote, which was decisive in Florida (notwithstanding appalling ballot design turning some of that into votes for Buchanan or into "over-votes.") Lieberman also helped with the "I'm different from Clinton" message, given Joe's statement on the Senate floor against Clinton.
Edward is probably quite right about the perception of Gore in most circles. But the analysis is not correct just because it is conventional.
I say all of this as someone who (1) did not vote for Gore in 2000,* (2) would like to see him run in 2008, (3) loathes Joe Lieberman, (4) could never vote for Hillary Clinton, and (5) expects--and fears--that the next president will be another Republican. Just calling them as I see them.
____
* And, no, I most certainly did not vote for the current incumbent, either!
posted by MSS at
5:01 PM
7 Comments:
What I mean by Gore's attempt at cleverness was his cherrypicking of which Florida counties to recount, doing the ones that seemed to be in his favor. If he'd called for a statewide recount immediately, things might have played out differently, though that still could have ended up with Dubya winning the electoral votes legitemately. Gore still lost his own home state. The Democrats are in a great position for 2008 because the GOP are the walking wounded and no one has excited their party's voters or probably will excite them. If the Dems went with Hillary or Gore, they might actually win in 2008, but they'd be the easiest to beat and if they did win, they'd be a rallying cry for the GOP to coalesce once again, get past their Dubya days and the Dems risk losing one or both houses of Congress come 2010 and the presidency again in 2012. Also, this insanely front-loaded primary race this year seems to make the appearance of a strong third-party candidate inevitable because no matter who the Dem and GOP nominees are, if voters know who they are by February, they are going to tire of them long before the general election ever happens.
By
Edward Copeland, at 5:28 PM
I'm with you on points 1-3, check. Number 4 - if I have to I will (which is exactly what she is betting on). Number 5 - check.
By
creature, at 7:27 PM
Edward, thanks for clarifying. I see what you mean now by "cleverness" in the recount process. This was a case of the Gore campaign being too committed to the rule of law. Yes, you read that right.
Florida law did not permit a campaign to challenge a result except county-by-county, and with specific evidence presented for each county return being questioned. That was hardly possible to do statewide. But picking a few counties, while absolutely the legally right thing to do, opened them up to charges that they were "cherry-picking" (going where they might "find" votes). And, of course they were.
An immediate call for a statewide recount (or even re-vote) would have seized the moral high ground and put Bush on the defensive. Instead, the strategy played right into the hands of a Bush campaign that knew it would win at the USSC.
I am not sure the strategy we describe would have resulted in a different outcome, though. They were playing with a stacked deck.
By
MSS, at 7:50 PM
Oh, and Creature, why would you "have to" vote for Clinton?
You see, as someone who has devoted much of his professional life to studying strategic voting, I can conclude it makes no sense.
Vote sincerely. I mean, unless you really think the election is coming down to your one little vote.
Voting is your one chance to officially register what you think your country (state, city, etc.) can be. So, don't throw it away on someone you don't like!!
By
MSS, at 7:57 PM
I voted sincerely, and on principle, for Nader in 2000. While I don't necessarily regret my vote--I'm in NY where my vote usually means next to nothing--I have an aftertaste that lingers still today from that vote and the entire Nader effect. I don't want anything Nader-like to happen again, so I would hold my nose and vote Hillary.
As far as the primaries go, I am registered Independent and I unfortunately don't get a say. I still may change my affiliation before the primary.
By
creature, at 9:48 PM
Do it Creature, join the party and you get an extra shot at chosing the next president...or come to Iowa and get an early say at the caucus of your choice with no affiliation required. I did vote for Gore in 2000, ditto AviShalom on 2, ditto AviShalom and Creature on 3, ditto Creature on 4 and fear beyond fear but do not anticipate a GOP victory in 08. You don't really think they could win in 08 do you? Please, tell me you were kidding or I won't be able to sleep nights!
By
cwilcox, at 10:44 PM
Right, Creature, it is all your fault--and mine--that Gore didn't become President!
Again, I mean it quite, well, sincerely, that voting other than sincerely is pointless.
Strategic voting makes sense when it is coordinated by an organization that is making a trade in exchange for delivering its votes.
But for an individual, the vote is only about your expression and satisfaction. So, don't throw it away on someone you are not satisfied with.
If you feel satisfied expressing which undesirable leading candidate you find less undesirable than the other, by all means do it. That's not where I am. And it's not where my study of comparative elections and party politics leads me, either.
By
MSS, at 6:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home