An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« If the U.S. and Cuba Can Change, Why Not Venezuela?

Gallup Poll: Obama Extends Lead Over Clinton To 10 Percent »

Gore ‘08?

Posted by DENNIS SANDERS in Uncategorized.
Mar 30th, 2008 | Comments

Just when you think this election season can’t get any stranger, well, it does.

Two news publications are floating the idea of former Vice President, former 2000 Presidential candidate, and Nobel Prize winner, Al Gore could become the compromise Democratic nominee.

Joe Klein explains why this doesn’t seem so outlandish:

Let’s say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let’s also assume—and this may be a real stretch—that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they’d have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party—and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate? Of course, Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along.

The Telegraph picks it up from there:

If neither Mr Obama nor Mrs Clinton has the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination, and if both appear unable to beat Mr McCain, under one scenario a group of about 100 party elders – the “super-delegates” – could sit out the first ballot in Denver, preventing either candidate winning outright, and then offer Mr Gore the nomination for the good of the party.

Tim Mahoney, a Democrat congressman from Florida, said last week: “If it goes into the convention, don’t be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket.” This suggests the party would accept a Gore-Clinton or a Gore-Obama pairing.

I have to think that Gore still wants the Presidency, after the mess of 2000. But while some Dems see this as a good idea, I have to wonder how such a thing would play out. In 2000, Gore could have ran on the successess of the Clinton years: an economy that was booming, and government that had a surplus. And yet, he ran away from the Clinton legacy and…well we know how it ended.

To me, that doesn’t show someone who could run against McCain. Of course, I am probably biased being a Republican and a McCain supporter, but unless Gore can run a better campaign than he did in 2000, I just don’t see how he will be able to pull it off.

Like I said, this election year is surely interesting.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

ryan

These sorts of "what if" scenarios are fun to play with to pass the time, but there is absolutely no chance that the party would alienate everyone who voted for Clinton and Obama by offering the nomination to someone else. Provided one candidate ends the primary season with a majority of the delegates and popular vote, the nomination is his/hers. If one candidate wins the delegate count and the other wins the popular vote then it will be a battle between the two for superdelegates, but based on the current numbers that doesn't look likely to happen.

Speculation about paths that could lead to the nomination being offered to Gore or anyone else is fun to contemplate, but the reality is that the process will play out and a clear nominee will emerge. It's taking longer than everyone would like, but the election season is long - it's still over seven months until November, and in another three months the Obama/Clinton battles will be a distant memory, and speculation about Gore getting the nomination will be just a silly afterthought.

kritt11

While I think more of Gore than of the other two nominees, there are several small problems with this---

First --neither of the main contenders will step out of the way for Gore. This would further fragment the party and its supporters.

Second--- Gore has parenthetically insisted that he has no interest in running.

Third--- If he was interested in running, he would not have the necessary time to raise enough money or create a 50-state campaign organization- virtually ensuring a McCain win in '08.

Fourth- His candidacy would energize the comatose GOP base, putting them solidly in McCain's camp. They would suddenly become confident that they could defeat him as they did in 2000. Nader's run would make the situation even worse.

Fifth-- He lacks the charisma of Obama and the ruthless "win at all costs" attitude of the Clintons.

Sixth-He's been out of the loop so long he would make an ill-informed candidate, and would not have time to get back up to speed.

I thought running Hillary for NY Gov was a better idea, and that was totally idiotic.

Ron Chusid

"but unless Gore can run a better campaign than he did in 2000, I just don’t see how he will be able to pull it off."

Definitely true, but seeing the changes in Gore since 2000 I have little doubt that he will run a much better campaign. It will also help that there are more years separating him from the Clinton Administration.

It is certainly more doubtful that he will have this chance. While neither Obama or Clinton will win enough pledged delegates to win, most likely Obama will pick up enough superdelegates to put him over the top. In the event his campaign should stall, then most likely Clinton will win the nomination. There are certainly scenarios in which neither would win the nomination and they would turn to Gore but we would need something quite unusual to happen for neither Obama or Clinton to ultimately win.

The one bit of reality to this scenario is that, should things change so that neither Obama or Clinton can get enough support, Gore is the one person who could come in and win the nomination as a compromise choice.

GeorgeSorwell

Not gonna happen.

kritt11

Ron- I am not trying to put Gore down, but he runs in different circles these days. Everywhere he goes he is treated as visiting royalty. He's just not used to being put under the harsh microscope of a campaign anymore. Even he admits that he does not have the stomach for DC politics, which is why he prefers to advance his cause rather than run again. He has no wish to go through the kind of withdrawel and depression that followed his loss in 2000.

I do agree, however, that the years separating him from the Clinton scandals would help his chances. I believe he knows that he would not be able to fight Hillary for the nomination, however.

zftcg

Every four years, we get ridiculous pundit wank-a-thons about brokered conventions, and of course, it never happens. I suppose this year it seems like it would be more plausible, but that's a mirage. Among the many reasons Gore '08 won't happen, here's the simplest: Right now, uncommitted superdelegates are cowering in their boots at the prospect of having to piss off half the Democratic electorate. Yet we're somehow supposed to believe that these same finger-in-the-winders would be willing to piss off BOTH sides by shunting aside the two top candidates for a man who hasn't received a single vote throughout the entire primary process. And oh yeah, in doing so they would quash the possibility of the first-ever female/African-American nominee and instead choose another white male.

There may be arguments as to why Gore would be a better candidate than the current choices, or could better unify the party (as much as I like Gore, I disagree on both counts, but it's at least a legitimate argument.) But such arguments are irrelevant, because it is simply not going to happen. We might as well be arguing whether a reincarnated FDR could unite the party.

blog comments powered by Disqus