The Candidates
Featured Archives
Merely three days after Bill Clinton said his veep might run, the London Telegraph offers a tantalizing follow up:
Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.
Two members of Mr Gore’s staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.
Mr Gore, President Bill Clinton’s deputy, has said he wants to concentrate on publicising the need to combat climate change, a case made in his film, An Inconvenient Truth, which won him an Oscar this year.
But, aware that he may step into the wide open race for the White House, former strategists are sounding out a shadow team that could run his campaign at short notice. In approaching former campaign staff, including political strategists and communications officials, they are making clear they are not acting on formal instructions from Mr Gore, 59, but have not been asked to stop.
His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of “no plans” or “no intention” – politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.
One of his former campaign team said: “I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast.
“He hasn’t asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to.”
In an interview on Thursday, which touched on the prospects for next year’s presidential election, Mr Clinton commented: “You’ve got the prospect that Vice-President Gore might run.”
The most recent opinion polls show Mr Gore as third favourite to take the Democratic nomination, on about 17 per cent support, only a whisker behind Barack Obama, 45, who is aiming to become the first black US president, and ahead of John Edwards, 53, the senator whose wife was recently diagnosed with cancer.
I’ve long thought that Gore would run if Obama or Edwards failed to challenge Hillary strong enough. He fills a void there much the same way that Fred Thompson fills the void on the Right. If Gore does jump in the race, it will shake up the entire field. Unlike Obama, Gore has a ton of executive experience and policy gravitas. And much like the fact that a Thompson candidacy might prove fatal to Romney, Gore could very well end Obama’s or Edwards’s White House ambitions as well. After all, how would Obama differentiate himself from Gore? Sure, he could claim to be the energetic post-partisan candidate, but Gore’s Nixonian return would be a bigger story. Gore has a specific direction he wants to take the country in, whereas Obama might well end up drowning in platitudes. Not to mention that he could lay claim to a lot of voters who have buyers remorse over picking Bush. Plus, a Hillary vs. Gore primary battle would make the already historic 2008 race into a once in a lifetime grudge match.
With all the media hype he’s received over An Inconvenient Truth, plus the particularly convenient fact that his next book will be released at the end of next month, he wouldn’t even need to campaign at first and could quietly build steam.
The problem, of course, is that Gore isn’t a very good politician. He works feverishly for issues that he cares about (global warming), but retail politics isn’t his thing. This is why a late launch would have the most benefits, but also the most risks. He can let Obama and Edwards weaken Hillary over the summer and then jump in right before Iowa and go for her jugular. But then again, Hillary could withstand the assault and re-establish an aura of invincibility. Were Gore to run, he would have to win. I don’t think he could handle another loss.
As a side note, this also brings my dream of a Gore vs. McCain general election match up closer to fruition. The two men that were defeated by Bush in 2000 battling it out to succeed him.
Question: If Gore runs and there’s a conservative third party bid as well, does that officially make the 2008 race the opposite of the 1968 race?
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Please Gore..Run and Run hard. We can beat Gore, he is sore and is a do nothing as a politician.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:48 am
“much like fact…”? LJ, why this obsession that Fred Thompson would dethrone Mitt Romney? There is an article here merely 2 posts ago that shows the impact that Fred would have on top tier candidates if he does jump in (http://race42008.com/2007/04/21/the-giulianithompson-overlap/) You would see that it only hurt Mitt by 10%, as opposite to 37% for Rudy and 22% for McCain. Also, all polls so far that has Fred, what I have seen, does not show as much of decrease in Romney’s as it has been for Rudy and McCain. So, sorry, this is not the “fact” that you very much despire for. Mitt is here to stay until the end of this nomination stage, if not beyond. Please desist with this assumption.
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
What I think LJ is saying SGS, is that Thompson entering the race could take the sails out of the Romney momentum. I support FDT, but when analyzing it from an objective point, FDT could plausibly take control of the conservative wing, with which Romney now seems to gather support from. FDT’s take on gun control and his meeting on Capitol Hill, which came after the most recent polls, seems to have excited the NRA supporters, if their blogs are any indication.
Not to say that this will be the case in the end, but could see it happen, as I could see a number of possible outcomes. It’s only one of many takes and theories that we’ll all just have to wait on. By the way, I’m not positive, but if memory serves, LJ is not a FDT supporter, but a McCain supporter (I could be wrong though).
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:26 pm
notice is his post that LJ said “might take support”. In other words, it could be possible, just like it could possibly happen the other way around.
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I often wonder how much validity there is to speculation about Gore entering the race – as he seem’s contented with his current role as a Global Warming fearmonger. However, I remember hearing a few months ago that he was considering mounting a 3rd party run (knowing that he couldn’t beat Hillary in the primaries)…I would LOVE to see that happen – it would split the votes enough that ANY Republican could win.
April 22nd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Gore’s still mad about 2000. Deep down he reaallllyy wants to run, and run hard. Don’t know if he actually will, though. It depends on the DNC establishment support, and I think there are some bad feelings between them. I’d love to see Gore run. If Gore gets the Democratic nod, can we ppppppplllllleeeeeeaaaaaassssssseeeee nominate FDt? That would be sweeter than Bush taking TN from Gore in 2000. Gore would maybe end up with 25% in his own home state. That I could then die a happy man.
April 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Tommy, how about we nominate the best Republican, independent of what the Democrats do?
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I’m all for that, but it would just be so much fun here to see that one. Good Lord, it would be hilarious.
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I disagree with JL (in #1) and Tommy (in #6). I think Al Gore would be an extremely tough Democrat nominee for Republicans to try and topple in November of 2008. I think many in the middle of the political spectrum would give him the benefit of the doubt, given the disastrous way the Bush II administration is finishing up, and give him a chance a second time around. And because of the sympathy that maybe he would have been a better choice than Bush in 2000 in hindsight (again, speaking about voters in the middle as to how they might look at it) and that he came so close (actually winning the popular vote), I am not sure the previous (and legitimate, in my mind) negative attacks on Gore would work this time; he might well be insulated from criticism a second go round. Certainly he is much more experienced and has much more gravitas than Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.
I do agree with those who believe Gore has not lost his desire for the office. As former Congressman Jim Rogan liked to say, the only antidote for Potomac Fever is embalming fluid. Gore spent his whole life positioning himself to be president, and I don’t think even an Oscar and fame as the leading global warming advocate is going to satiate him. I do think, however, he is a very pragmatic sort, and if he believes Hillary and Obama have too much of a fundraising lead this could dissuade him for running this time around – which won’t be his last shot.
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Republius, Never said Algore wouldn’t be tough, but only that he’d get slaughtered here in Tennessee. I think he’d be the toughest candidate to beat, with all the bad feelings built up on the other side over his defeat in 2000.
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
get slaughtered in Tennessee by Thompson, at least. I think he’d be a lot tougher for the other candidatees here, which I also believe about Edwards.
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
So Tommy, What you basically are hoping for is a situation where Gore may well win the Presidency, but lose his home state.
That would make you deliriously happy.
I like your way of thinking!
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I agree with Republius #9 that beating Al Gore would be much more difficult. Essentially all the Democrats currently in contention are senators with less than 8 years in the Senate. There is a broad experience gap that leaves Hillary, Obama or Edwards with an Achilles heel.
Al Gore has weaknesses but they aren’t a lack of experience. For us beating Al Gore means keeping the South which would be harder in 2008 than it was in 2000 and winning enough states outside the South. On the face of it I think an articulate tough blue collar Southerner would probably be our strongest candidate against Gore. If he doesn’t enter we face a much different dynamic with the inexperienced Democratic Senators.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Don’t forget that Al Gore invented the internet, so it will be easy for him to whip up some new technology to dwarf the online fundraising efforts of the other candidates.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
good point, JF, and if all else fails he could pick Brian Boitano as his running mate.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Tano, calm down. I was joking about the whole Algore thing.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Econ grad stud hit the nail right on the head
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Tommy, ahh, I think I know what you are saying. It is not that Romney would find himself falling all the way to the bottom, but rather where his movement may slow-down and stall. I must admit that this is possible.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Sorry for another post, but I did want to say that I think it will be wonderful if Fred does jump in the race, and I do think Fred will have much he need to prove why he is the best man for this job. I do like him, but like a few concerned who have voiced here on the site, I am not convinced that he has the skills, experiences, and passions to pull our country out of the direction that it is sliding toward. I believe our country is right now spiraling out of control, and we will hit the rocks, unless we have someone to get our country under control (and no, I don’t think the world is the cause of our getting out of control, but rather, the corroding of our inner values and sense of who we are).
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
I actually think Gore could be tough to beat. His only weakness, as far as I can see, is that there might be a percepton that he would institute invasive enviromental bills. Big Business would work hard to keep him out.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Econ, I agree the dems achilles heel is a lack of experience. I think the biggest complaint most moderates have with Bush is not his ideology, it has been is atrocious management of Iraq especially but also Katrina. Conservatives are the ones who have been unhappy with his policies. (Immigration, Medicare part D, etc.)
We should take advantage of the Dems weakness in this area by nominating someone with major executive experience. That certainly isn’t Thompson. I think a Romney/Thompson ticket would be our best chance to win against any Dem ticket, including either Gore or Edwards because Thompson could hold the South. Rudy I think would lose too many southern states since it is almost certain that either Obama or Edwards/Gore will be on the Dem ticket.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
New site for those concerned with Thompson’s policy experience, though it’s still a work in progress:
http://www.fredthompsonpresidency.blogspot.com
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Dskinner11, what does Thompson add on any ticket? Where’s the proof that he can hold the south (and that no other candidate can)?
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Gore would be a great President. The country would be likely to vote with him after 8 years of a lousy Bush 43 Presidency. People are bored of the attacks (partiucalarly the “I invented the internet” one, which is just a straight out lie from the ‘SwiftBoaters’).
He has great executive experience, and in the last few years he has business experience & global experience to lean on. If Americans want to restore their international credibility, Gore is certainly a good choice.
However, he’s not a very good politician, is he? Could he run & run well? Obama & Edwards are much more natural than he is. If politics is more substantive in 2008, then Gore has a good shot. If its a glorified version of American Idol, Gore doesn’t have a hope.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
JayPe, why hang on to Gore when he’s so damaged? You have plenty of other Dhimmicrats to chose from.
We debated the Gore-Internet issue in the other thread, so I can quickly dispatch you on this one again. Gore, 3/9/99 on CNN: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet.” The WWW is not the same as the Internet. That’s it. Gore had zero involvement in creating the internet, but since you Democrats live in a fantasy world, you can live with that dream. We don’t have to.
As for Gore’s second round, he will be absolutely destroyed by the Generation Investment Management controversy. The electorate won’t tolerate that kind of corruption.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
JayPe,
I highly doubt Gore would be a “great” president. I think it’s likely he’d be something Bush hasn’t been: a competent president. And leaving aside the Supreme Court nominations, I’d probably be willing to concede that Gore would have been a “better” overall president then Bush, but that doesn’t say much. Gore’s ideology is so radically liberal, with even the few sane vestiges of economic moderation having been stripped away, that I find it difficult for anyone with a hint of conservative instincts to believe Gore would be anything other then an average or mediocre president. I would say, however, that of the 4 major Democratic contenders, I’d feel the most comfortable leaving the country in Gore’s care (though I think Hillary would be slightly less awful on foreign policy). I think any other evaluation of Gore is revisionism of the worst kind.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:15 pm
JF (#25) I have never voted Democrat in my life. And I don’t see myself as living in a fantasy world. So cut out the personal insults.
Regarding Great Vs Competent, I think the current President illustrates the importance of the latter. I would say Competent = Great. We often fall into the trap of looking for the next best thing (”Obama has the potential to be great, rah rah rah”) rather than accepting that the available choice is very good. Carter had the potential to be great, and bombed massively. the Dems (and the country in the general election) should have settled for competence.
Anyway, on the Dem side I’m hoping Richardson & Gore battle it out, as they are substantive politicians with real experience. Hopefully we can pick someone substantive too, and have a good battle for what is looking to be an upHill battle in 2008.
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Jaype,
I don’t think great necessarily means competent. Hitler was wonderfully competent. The economy rebounded, the trains ran on time, the military functioned quite efficiently. Indeed, some of the worst ideological lunatics and cowards of all-time have been “competent” (Saddam certainly was in his way). If Gore competently implements radical socialism, or if he competently puts in place a “global warming” plan which leaves our economy at a massive standstill, I suppose he deserves some credit for his abilities, but that doesn’t mean he’s done “well”. I’d agree that competence is vastly underrated. And I think if you’re competent, and essentially an ideological cipher (similar to Clinton), or just generally lack deep convictions, then most people will view your administration as at least harmless. But competence, when combined with strong ideology (which Gore certainly has), is hardly less dangerous then incompetence with a strong ideology. It cuts deep, if you disagree with the convictions being expressed.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:13 pm
JF, Thompson would have a much easier time winning the south, especially against Gore or Edwards. Look how poorly our candidates are raising money in the south, compared to the democrats. We’ve got different results on different sites, but one thing is clear, and that is that the dems have no business being competitive with us in the south when it comes to fundraising. A LOT of big money is holding out for Thompson down here. You can google it and check. Straw polls look great, but those don’t compare dems vs. us. Right now, in the state polls I’ve seen from TN, GA, and source (unconfirmed) news from OK, and KY have Thompson with out front. In the other states, when polled for general, Dems are competitive. No matter how much campaigning is done now, southerners trend towards conservative southerners in national elections over the last 25-30 years. Reagan was the exception, and he was facing an ineffective President who seemed alienated from his base. Bush 1 ran against a liberal from MA. Clinton won in the south. Bush and Gore were both “southern” candidates, and Bush was able to portray Gore as an elitist from Washington, while appealing to the southern sensibilities. And in 2004, career was the epitome of northern elitist. There are quite a few recent books even written on this exact topic by professors and scholars, and books about the way to win the southern electorate.
Granted, it’s not impossible for Giuliani, and Romney to carry the south, but they will have a much tougher time than Thompson would. McCain would probably have an easier time than the first two, because of his demeanor and war hero status. Another reason is that, sadly, gun control is likely to become a large issue over the campaign. Thompson has always been an NRA poster boy. Read the pro-gun reactions to his radio and newspaper editorials this week. It’s an issue that he has always gotten a lot of support and backing from.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Kerry- not career in 2004
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Tommy,
I know Thompson could carry the South, but what about the rest of the country.
Quite frankly, I am getting extremely sick of all of the hand-wringing over who can carry the South…just about any Republican could carry the South against anyone but Edwards (who has a smnowball’s chance in hell of winning the Dem nomination anyway).
The battlegrounds in this election are going to be places like Colorado, Ohio, Montana, New Mexico, and other Westen and Midwestern “purple states”….NOT MISSISSIPI OR GEORGIA!!!!!
Can we PLEEEASE stop talking about the South and start focussing on a candidate who can win ALL OF AMERICA? To be frank, I am sick and tired of the assumption that the South has to be constantly focussed on at the expense of the rest of the country. It is an insult to any non-Southerner to say that the fact that they don’t have an accent disqulifies them from the Presidency, and it is an isult to Southerners to assume that they are so stupid as to judge political candidates by the place of their birth rather than their platform.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Note: Tommy, not all of the ranting in the previous post was adressed at you…just the first two lines.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Actually, it’s gone on longer than that. Remember, in the late fifties and early sixties Thurmond and Wallace took lots of support away from candidates by running on third party tickets in the south. Lyndon Johnson won the south, and he was southern. In 1992, we lost the south because Clinton solidified southern democrat/moderate support and Perot split the conservative support with Bush I. It’s really been this was since Truman, when the south was still a democrat stronghold, and then splintered to conservative support.
gone to bed- will reply in the morning
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Palin, just a quick response before I go for the night. We can’t worry about battleground states if we don’t carry the states we are supposed to carry in the first place. Right now, Edwards and Hellery are really courting the rural vote. It might not work (in Hillary’s case), but you are talking about the highest poverty rate, suicide rate, highschool dropout rate, and earliest death rate by regional comparison in the country. These are not issues that we want to let the dems take the platform on. Southerners, in general, could give a hoot about who affects Wall Street. I spent a lot of my time in college studying the voting tendencies of the south. I have a pretty good understanding of the subject, being also that I have lived my whole life here, and worked for some regional campaigns. If you haven’t spent your life here, it’s a lot harder to understand. Just like it would be hard for me to understand issues of importance in other regions. The south is a different world alltogether. Nominate whoever is best, but I promise you, you can’t take the voting trends of the south for granted. Remember, Bill Clinton would’ve carried the south again if he could’ve run again. There were polls at the time that agreed.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Tommy, I have to agree with Palin for VP in #31. I’m sure there are many rumors of money holding out for FDT, but until we see something change, they’re just rumors. I also agree that it is the Midwest and West that are the critical states in this cycle, not the south. LBJ won the south because he was already serving as president after JFK and proved he had the spine to escalate the conflict in Vietnam, so re-election was a slam dunk (especially after pioneering the smear campaign using the Daisy Ad against Goldwater). If we have another third party run, I’m sure that the southern vote will be split again, and even FDT wouldn’t be able to stop that.
The fact is, sure, Southerners may be biased in favor of other Southerners, but that doesn’t mean they won’t elect a non-Southerner. And while I’m not a Southerner, I don’t think that Southern voters would value kindship over experience, vision, and competence.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Some statistics from this mornings Chattanooga Times Free Press:
In the south:
56 million rural voters
the average household earns 27 percent less than metropolitan areas
poverty rate is 21 percent higher than metropolitan areas
Suicide rate for young adults is 80 percent higher
Meth addiction is 104 percent higher
Crack/Cocaine addiction is 84 percent higher
see ya in the morning.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Tommy, I don’t follow. Are you saying that Southerners will not trust a non-Southern politician to address those issues? Then the only Dem we have to worry about is Edwards, and I don’t think he’s going to make it. We wouldn’t need FDT’s dubious ability to hold the South, then.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Experience is right, though not from the same angle. Southerners tend not to vote for the candidates that don’t come from this kind of upbringing. It is another world, that they don’t trust the city politicians to understand. Ten years out of high school, I’d already lost eleven friends. The rural south is a lot more fundementalist/southern baptist/revivalist because southerners die young at a much higher rate than the rest of the country. It’s not just about “ideas.” High school dropout rate is at least 40 percent higher. These people aren’t thinking about vision. They are thinking about who’s going to Iraq, whose going to die there. High school kids that don’t go to college far exceed the number of kids that do. You guys think that these people will be inclined to vote for the candidate with the clearest vision of the future? No way. More and more, they vote for the candidate who comes from a similar background, who might understand their fears and desires.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Look I don’t sit here and bash your candidate. I only question whether he will fit the criteria to win. I would aappreciate it if you quit bashing mine. It makes me a lot less inclined to vote for him if FDT doesn’t hold on, or doesn’t win. Fred’s support comes from a whole bunch of people who feel a lot like I do, and you guys going around putting him down only will hurt Mitt in the end.
good night (this time for real) will reply in the morning.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Tommy, I have to admit I’m disturbed to hear this. Southerners have a twisted view of the rest of the country. The vast majority of people are not college educated (only about a third nationwide have a college degree). According to the Census Bureau, 83% of Southerners have a high school diploma.
If this is all about Iraq, then there is nothing FDT can do to address that, and neither can any of the other candidates; the GOP is lost in that scenario.
However, if this is about regional loyalties, your comment about taking the Southern vote for granted really comes across the wrong way, as each region has its grievances. For example, take a look at this table:
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
Do you see how disproportionate the South’s consumption of Federal resources is compared to their tax burden? The South is pandered to far more than any other region of the country, so don’t think you’ve been ignored. As we say in the stock market, there is room for bears and bulls, but not pigs. The South can take the rest of the country for granted for only so long, and I think most Southern voters know this, and will not reject a qualified non-Southern candidate. Reagan was not a Southerner, please keep that in mind.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Tommy,
I’m glad to have your perspective on the South. I think we certainly make a serious mistake if we take the South for granted. There are too many states that have irregular voting patterns down there. Louisiana for insatnce, is truly mind-boggling when studied by someone from the North (like me). Large numbers of registered Democrats, politicians switching parties from election to election, an almost iron wall historically to electing Republican senators (Vitter was the first ever I believe), voted for Clinton twice. I mean, I agree that against a non-Northeastern democratic nominee, a Republican ticket with a serious representative from the south could lose a few states like Louisiana. And I think you’re absolutely right about Fred Thompson’s ability to hold the south. He’s just about the only candidate I’d expect to without question hold any southern state we won by more then 5 percentage points the last election (and that includes Florida). But, at least with Thompson heading the ticket, I don’t see any reason to believe Thompson could hold the west coast light red states (Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona), Ohio, or put any blue states whatsoever into play. I think Thompson has a very high floor electorally (240 or so), but a very low ceiling (mid 260’s). You’re dead on about the south, and cultural connection, but you’re missing the fact that the same thing applies to the rest of the country. Just as Fred Thomspon is able to connect to Southerners culturally, blue staters are able to connect to other blue staters culturally. Bill Clinton did well in the South, but Ronald Reagan certainly did pretty well in the west and the east. And I simply think it makes alot more sense to attempt to attack with the top of the ticket, and defend with the bottom (with a strong southerner).
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Mat (#28) some good points there, I see what you mean re competence idealogically driven. There’s no question that we agree competence is vastly underrated. I guess Romney is hoping that changes this election.
The South is overrated in my view, the MidWest is the battleground. The key battleground states are the likes of Colorado, New Mexico. No Democrat would carry Texas or Georgia. No Repub could carry Massachusetts (including Romney).
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 am
Lookit, Democrats could carry Arkansas, Louisiana, Florida, West Virginia, Virginia and Kentucky.
That’s 68 electoral votes that only Republicans can’t take for granted.
Claiming the South is Republican is ridiculous. There are solid Republican states in the South as in the West and Midwest.
There’s about 105 EVs in the South that are solid.
There are about 28 EVs in the Midwest that are solid.
There are 25 EVs in the West that are solid.
So a Republican has to win another 112 EVs to be elected.
There are 26 competitive EVs in the West.
There are 68 competitive EVs in the South.
There are 85 competitive EVs in the West.
Quickly it becomes clear that victory for a Republican hinges on holding the South and winning the Midwest. A winning coalition that doesn’t carry the whole South is a fantasy.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 am
That should be “There are 85 competitive EVs in the Midwest”.
The point still holds a Republican victory requires holding the South and winning Midwest states. There just aren’t enough competitive EVs up for grabs in other regions to make up losses in the South or Midwest.
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:05 am
I think that Matt and Econ are both right. We have to hold the entire South and win some non-Bush states in the Midwest. (Assuming we lose Ohio) I think that Thompson or another eloquent southerner can help hold the South in the VP slot. The way to win non-Bush states is on the top of the ticket and I don’t think Thompson or McCain give us any non-Bush states.
I think Rudy would turn-off too many traditional conservatives in the South who would decide not to vote and we would risk losing too many southern electoral votes to make up in the NE. (I may be biased because even though President Giuliani beats any Dem winning, he is too moderate for my taste.)
Even though the SC straw polls don’t mean much, they do show that southern evangelicals will support Mitt. I think that with Thompson or Haley Barbour or someone similar as VP, Romney could hold the entire South. In addition he would probably win Michigan which would make up for the almost inevitable loss of Ohio. I also think his resume as a “turnaround specialist outsider” along with his popular message and delivery put way more Midwest moderates in play than Thompson.
As far as McCain, I think unless the Iraq surge is an undeniable success, (Is that even possible with the MSM and a moveon.org dominated Democratic party?) McCain will be unelectable because the war will only become less popular and more of a drag on the GOP.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:08 am
Gore couldn’t handle another loss?? What?? What would happen??? Would he commit suicide or something???
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
Thank you guys for listening to my ideas. I’m not trying to make people change their minds about their cnandidates they’re supporting, just to understand that it will be a lot more difficult for the others to waltz in and win in the south. JF completely misread my statistics that I posted last night. The statistics I gave were comparing rural to metropolitan area populations in the south.
JF: statistics that he came back with were the of the south in geneal. There is a huge difference. Most southern metropolitan areas are clean, nice places to live, and give the impression of a nice quiet relaxing place to live. He says the rest of the nation has been pandering to the south, but also forgets that they have to when we are the ones hit by hurricanes every single year. So of course, more aid goes to the south. They have to “pander” to the south, or the gulf coast of Louisiana and Florida would be homeless. When the storms hit, where do these people go? Who takes care of them? If you are insinuating that you don’t support funding for aid to Katrina, Nino, Anddre, and all the other natural disasters that hit the region yearly, then I wouldn’t want to live in your little world, but I don’t think that is what you’re saying. Have you ever been to the delta region JF? I think it might do you some good to visit there sometime, or at least look it up and read about it. Have you ever been through rural Arkansas? I live within a 45 minute drive of where “Deliverance” was filmed. Hell, this is the reconstruction zone.
Back to my point: I don’t think that it’s impossible to win the south for any other candidates. But thee are states outside of the region that Thompson would do quite well in. OK, KS, NE all have Thompson polling ahead. Thompson would more than likely carry Indiana and Iowa, and keep the base support in other states. I mean I doubt he would be very competitive in Massachusetts, New York, California, or Oregon, but I think he would do allright.
Mitt is a big question mark in the south. Mitt’s going to have a tough time when he hits the rural deep south-heartland. It does have to do with regional stereotypes as well. Look at it from the perspective of a rural southerner. Mitt is from a wealthy family, worth a lot of money, comes from the northeast, and hasn’t been stable when it comes to positions. That doesn’t play well in the south. Most people down here will look at that and think that “he doesn’t know what us.” THAT is where Romney has to appeal down here. He can go into the cities and drum up the support from the local arms of the GOP, but that’s don’t going to do him a bit of good with the rural vote. Edwards right now is campaigning specifically on the rural vote, and even has a “Rural Recovery Act” that he’s pushing. If Romney could come up with something like that, it would probably help him tremendously, and get him some traction.
He’s gonna really have to work for it though, if he pulls out the nomination. And you know, some on here think that people won’t vote for others like them, but only for issues. That’s a pretty blind assessment of the general population. People vote for people that come from similar backgrounds. A lot of Mormans who might not usually get involved are undoubtedly excited about Romney running, and you know, that’s great. A lot of southerners were not excited by our candidates until Thompson got in the race. He’s one of us, as they say. I like Romney, and think he’s a decent man. He’s just going to have a harder time with the south. I do think he would be wise to take on a southern VP if he does get the nomination, so he’ll have someone to appeal.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Tommy, I apologize if my post came across as overly hostile. The statistics you posted along with your comment, “High school kids that don’t go to college far exceed the number of kids that do. You guys think that these people will be inclined to vote for the candidate with the clearest vision of the future? No way. More and more, they vote for the candidate who comes from a similar background, who might understand their fears and desires” left me cold. FDT has a law degree and probably a millionaire, so he’s hardly like the impoverished rural Southern straw man voter that you put forward. John Edwards is about as different as they come, living like a prince on his vast estate, but he still polls relatively well in the South. In other words, this has nothing to do with rural vs. urban, this has to do with your claim that Southerners only trust other Southerners. If that’s true, then I agree with you, FDT is the only Republican with the chance of winning. But I contend that your statement is not true.
As for the reconstruction aid, I don’t resent that whatsoever. What I resent is the corrupt politicians misusing the aid and then blaming Washington, D.C., and by extension the rest of the country, for not helping. Are you even aware of how much aid has been sent in the wake of the Katrina disaster? Over $100bn. To put that in perspective, the GDP of Louisiana and Mississippi combined is only about $300bn. We have done our part to help our fellow Americans in the South, and it makes my blood boil to hear that we haven’t done enough. I haven’t even gone into the amount of money spent on rural areas across the country compared to the tax dollars they pay, and yet you’re telling me that Edwards’ plan to blow away any semblance of fiscal conservatism is the only hope for a non-Southern GOP candidate? No thanks.
I guess I haven’t been explicit, but my fellow commenters have done a good job: FDT may win the South, but he hasn’t done anything in order to win the North, Midwest, or West. It may be enough for him to be Southern in order to win the South, but he is going to have to put some serious policy proposals on the table to get a look in other areas of the country. My criticisms come from that perspective. Best of luck to him, though.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:16 am
Well if Gore runs, he can play the role of Walter Mondale and Obama can be Ferraro.
It would be a Fred Thompson/Anybody landslide in 2008.
Imagine Thompson debating “Baby Huey”!
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 am
JF,
I can see where your coming from on the funds, and respect your opinion. I’m not saying that Edwards will blow away anybody else in the south. I’m saying that he could make it a lot tougher if he’s the nominee.
FDT came up from nothing. He lived in public housing in his younger days. He paid his own way through college by working. He turned down Law scholarships to go to law school at Vanderbiilt, where he and his wife worked two shifts to pay through that. He made himself into who he is today. Thompson comes from rural folk. Got married when he was 17 years old, and had a family to support as well. That endears him to the working class south. Thompson didn’t have the parents to fall back on. No political tradition. That endears him to rural values in the greatest sense.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
and there is nothing that gives us more pride than one of our own making good.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:50 am
Tommy,
I do appreciate your input on the South, and I respect your support for Mr. Thompson. However, I’m going to stand by my position in my earlier post…especially when it comes to FDT.
Thompson could probably carry the South, but I really don’t know if he could carry the rest of the country. And While I have nothing against courting the Southern vote, as a Westerner who lives in a major battlground state (Colorado), I have to say that I feel a little shafted by the insistence of some (and I don’t mean you, Tommy) that my interests should be lower on the totem poll because I’m not in the South.
I think that 2008 is going to be a nationally faought election, with major battlegrounds in every region (Colorado, Pennsylavania, Louisiana, Ohio) and we need to focus a candidate who was not nominated just to carry one region. Personally, I think Giuliani has as good of a life story as FDT, having not been born in privelege and enduring a tough middle class childhood in Brooklyn. And personally, I think that will resonate with America more than FDT (especially since every president since 1988 has been from a Southern state, meaning that a New Yorker would be seen as a fresh choice).
Personally, I thnk that Giuliani, paired with a gun-toting, pro-life Western governor as his VP (SARAH PALIN!) would play very well in the South AND be able to pick up a lot of other states in the North, West, and Midwest. Personally, I just don’t see Thompson being able to do that.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Does Alaska count as a Western state? Can’t see Washington/Oregon saying “wahoo, an Alaskan governor is on the ticket, lets vote for a fellow Westie”
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Personally, I don’t know how much of a chance the GOP has of of carrying the Pacific Northwest anywasy. However, I do think that (in theory) putting an Alaskan on the ticket could resonate in places like Montana, Colorado, the Dakotas, an Minnesota. That said, I think the VP slot is more about finding someone who fills in the potential gaps in the Presidential candidiates experience. So, I’m pushing Palin because her experience with rural issues Alaska would balance out Rudy’s urban credentials. Palin is also a lifetime NRA member (which would play VERY well in the South) and a solid prolifer.
If you really want all of the reasons I beleive in Sarah Palin, they’re all on my website.