GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
This poll convinces me more than ever that Al Gore is Hillary Rodham’s only credible threat regarding the Democratic nomination:
A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.
Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent.
Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.
This has been my instinct for months. Neither Obama nor Edwards have what it takes to give Hillary a real run for her money. Edwards is largely a retread from 2004 whose name recognition and presence in Iowa have kept him in the game. Obama is interesting, but the combination of inexperience and latent racism among older Democratic primary voters ensures that he has a very low ceiling, despite the attempts of the MSM to lionize him. Hillary remains the frontrunner by default, but her negatives are high and she is disliked by many liberals and Democrats, who fear she is too moderate or unelectable.
Enter Al Gore. The former veep brings with him the same nostalgia for the Clinton years as Hillary, but none of the baggage. He’s also as liberal as Obama or Edwards, leaving little room for them to compete. It’s too late in the game for Gore to win Iowa, but he could put everything into New Hampshire, hoping to beat Hillary there and prove to Democrats that they don’t have to settle for Ms. Clinton.
As a general election nominee, I find Mr. Gore terrifying. The reason is that unlike Hillary, I don’t see how any Republican can amass 270 electoral votes against Gore except for one: Rudy Giuliani. While I think Hillary would be a formidable force in the general election, truth be told, her negatives are high enough that any of our guys would at least have a fighting chance against her. Rudy could beat her in some northeastern states, Thompson could win a Great Lakes state or two against her, and so forth. And her margin of victory would be so tight that a few blue electoral votes is all any of our guys need to beat her.
Gore, though, is a different story. Call it midwesterners’ intuition, but even though I don’t currently have the data to back it up, I can’t imagine Gore losing any of the Great Lakes states to anyone. Even Rudy would lose to Gore in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Iowa. Indiana, of course, would vote Republican, because it always does. But that wouldn’t matter. Absent a win in one of those states, the GOP ticket cannot get to 270, even if it holds every southern state and every state in the plains and mountain west. The GOP’s only path to victory at that point is to win either a) a state on the west coast, b) Hawaii, or c) a northeastern state. Only Rudy could accomplish that task.
Why would Gore do so well in the Midwest? Part of it is buyers’ remorse regarding the Bush years. Midwesterners are very isolationist, great believers in clean government, and not particularly big on either government waste or religion in government. Bush and the GOP establishment have failed them on all counts over the last few years. That’s why they went from purple states in 2000 and 2004 to deep blue states in 2006. Many Midwesterners will feel that if they had just voted for Gore in 2000, they wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years. Hillary runs into natural opposition there due to the more traditional slant of the Midwest, which won’t take kindly to a former collegiate feminist who now reminds every middle-aged, Midwestern man of his ex-wife. But Gore comes across as a relatively normal fellow, complete with a normal wife and a normal, if privileged, background. He’ll win all of the Kerry voters in the Midwest, and a few more. “A few more” means he wins Ohio and Iowa. That gives him 279 electoral votes. The GOP candidate will have to flip a blue state — not a purple state, a blue state — in order to beat Gore.
Only Gore can beat Hillary. And only Rudy can beat Gore.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
That poll was thoroughly debunked. Gore gets approximately 12 percent in NH, split between very low- and relatively high-information voters.
Republicans who don’t think Obama is a credible threat to Hillary need to wake the hell up. He has 260,000 donors, people. That’s quite possibly more than the entire GOP field. Do you understand what that means?
Mathematically, I don’t see how Obama outraises Hillary by less than $10 million this quarter in primary cash (HRC raised $21 million).
June 30th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Alex,
If money was all that mattered, Ross Perot would’ve had two terms in the White House.
The MSM has done everything it can to suggest Obama constitutes the Second Coming, yet he can’t even convince more than a quarter of Democrats to vote for him. Charisma and the novelty of being the first African-American nominee will only take you so far. At the end of the day, the old racist Democrats aren’t going to support him, the blue collar Democrats won’t connect with his urban academic schtick, and the Democrats who want actual experience in their candidate will be moved to select another.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
You do know that Lieberman led the Democratic race in 2003 until mid-July to early August, right? (At which point Dean surged into the lead)
Also, the media turned on Obama in a significant way after Obama blamed them for everything. Their love affair with Obama ended a long time ago.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article barack obama Gore Ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire » Posted at race42008.com [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Dave,
I am not sure who would be the best nominee against Gore. I’m not going to come on here and say Thompson, because I don’t know. There is one weakness that Rudy would have that tends to get overlooked when up against Gore. Gore would put Rudy on the defensive in the south. If Gore runs, I can guarentee you, no matter what the polls say now, that Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, and Louisiana would be turned. Gore would not make the same mistake of ignoring the south twice, especially Tennessee. The Democrats in Florida would be united and angrier than at any point in American electoral history. Against Gore, any of our candidates could very well end up looking like Katherine Harris on a bad makeup day during her senate campaign.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that Thompson would be competitive with Gore, at this point, but I’m not so sure about Rudy either. I’m afraid Mitt would have a very tough time against Gore V2008.
But…. I think there are only two scenarios where he gets in.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
would be turned.
I meant turned from solid GOP to up in the air, not a guarenteed loss, except TN and probably Florida
June 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Gore would win TN, AR, FL and post-Katrina Louisiana? Are you kidding me?
June 30th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Alex,
Tennessee. Yes, that is where i live, and Gore has rehabilitated his image here somewhat. Arkansas has a democratic governor, and two democratic senators, and has tended to vote democratic on occasion. Do you realise how close Florida has been in the last two elections? They would be resurecting dead demmys to vote in that one after the shaft they percieved they got. Bush barely beat Kerry in Florida in 04, and you think that we’re going to just walk away with it?
June 30th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
And why is Florida so close? Largely because of retired NY Expatriates, who will vote for Rudy in much higher numbers than we would any other Republican nominee. And without big margins among the ex-pats, Gore isn’t going to get close enough in Florida to overcome Rudy’s (real but exaggerated) relative weakness among southerners. Tennessee, I could see flipping for Gore, though, mainly because he won’t take the state for granted this time.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
In 2004, Bush won Florida 52-47; it wasn’t that close. Florida’s Democrats tilt very heavily old, and have been slowly dying off.
TN is still pretty much GOP-owned, and Bredesen is Dem in name only. Bush won it about 58-41 in 2004.
Bush won Louisiana about 57-42, I think. That was before Katrina destroyed a large chunk of the Dem base there.
AR was about 9 points, and I see it as closer than that. Your point about its state government being Democrat-owned isn’t really relevant for presidential elections, as southern history has shown time and time again.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Alex,
Gore would not lose his home state again. Bush’s ratings were through the roof here in 2000, and Gore ignored the state. He is not dumb enough to make the same mistake twice. I can guarentee you that Gore would win it against Rudy in 2008. Harold Ford, came within three points of beating Corker in 2006. If McWhorter’s son runs against Alexander in 2008, he will likely be favored. I spend most of my time now working this exact state. Trust me on this. Yes, we love Bredeson. Heck, I voted for him twice, and I’m conservative.
You will be running a northerner against somebody from Tennessee. That’s a lot different than Bush, who was widely popular here, and always the frontrunner. Giuliani, in the last actual poll conducted here, was close to forty points behind Thompson, and that was right after he only mentioned running.
5 points is not a very big margin. Don’t kid yourselves, and he was running against John Kerry, not Al Gore. Gore has had the ultimate makeover in the last seven years. He is now more popular than he ever thought he would be in 2000.
I’m not saying Thompson is the guy to beat Gore, but honestly, I don’t know if any of our candidates could.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Uh. Fred Thompson … Tennessee … home state … ??
June 30th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Tommy: In a Rudy/Gore race, I see Gore flipping OH, IA, and NM, while Rudy flips PA. That would give Rudy a 275-263 EV lead over Gore, and then it becomes a race to see who can win more of the other guy’s territory, with Gore going after the peripheral south and Rudy trying to win CT, NJ, RI, NH, and ME. Ultimately, the race would be very close, but I still think Rudy’s the best bet against Gore, as it’s hard to see anyone else beating Gore in the north.
Alex: You seem to be bullish on Obama. How do you think he’d fare in a general election?
June 30th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I think Obama would fare ridiculously better than Hillary.
Obama would hold traditional blue territory easily, and also be very strong in the Midwest. He would put black turnout on steroids as Harold Ford did in TN. Any marginal state with a substantial black population would be that much more in play.
And don’t underestimate Obama’s white crossover Republican support, either. On that note he blows away HRC, and if Gore blundered into this race (not likely after q2 numbers) he would fade hard after the initial fanfare.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
If Gore blundered into the race, _Gore_ would fade hard, that is.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Sean P (#9), unfortunately Rudy won’t do well among NY people who live FL. First, there have been a few polls done for the state of New York. Out of all regions in the state, NYC is his worst. Most of the people who migrated to FL are from NYC. And second, almost all of those migrated people are Democrats. They won’t help Rudy much, especially when it come down to Gore.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
DaveG (#13), I am not sure Rudy can win Maine. I grew up there, and before saving environment is all hot around the world, people there in Maine already are freaky about it. It is definitely one of their top issues, if not the top. I won’t be surprised if many of them would consider Gore almost a savior after all of his Green efforts. NH is a completely different world! I would say RI has the mentality similar to Boston Metro. The rest, I dunno.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Alex,
Harold Ford got the rural vote in Tennessee. I should know, he is one of two democrats I ever voted for. If you check the county by county electoral returns, Corker won in metropolitan areas, and the counties around Knoxville. Ford won in just about everywhere else. The reason Ford lost the election was because he couldn’t get the black vote out in Memphis, or at least enough of it to make a difference, because of his questionable family ties in the area and the negative publicity they recieved. The overall map looks like the last two presidential races in reverse.
DaveG,
Gore would flip Tennessee. This is not John Kerry, and Rudy, as highly thought of as he is, is not as popular here as Bush was in 2000. I am not saying that Thompson would be a better matchup at this point against Gore, but I’m not sure if any of our candidates match up well. There would be no Nader effect with Gore in the race, and the left would be fired up more than ever to win.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Tommy,
How did Corker get the metros to vote for him?
June 30th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Alex,
Thompson would kill Gore in Tennessee. I’m a Thompson supporter, but I admit that he would be tough nationally. That’s why I’m saying that I don’t know who our best candidate would be against Gore. Thompson would hold the south, but would have to be able to flip other states against Gore. Rudy would have a shot if he could flip enough blue states, but he would not be as strong as Fred here, to the point of having to defend red states. So I’m not sure what would be the best way to beat UberGore. 2000 Gore wouldn’t be bad, but this is Algore version 2008, uber-al.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
First, as a declaration: Gore is the world’s biggest liar. I am amazed daily on how people would flock toward him. He absolutely have done nothing that benefit the human race the past few years! Now that it is out.
It looks like the only way we could beat Gore, if he does jump in, is to have a powerful duo. I do not think any candidate can beat him on his own. Now, to be honest with you all, Rudy has campaigned up to this point as a tough person who would stand up against anything. There is no vib from him that he could do well in tag-team. Yes, he may have the best chance to win more states than other, but every single vote count. If you could dream up the ticket. Who would it be? For me, it’s still Fred/Mitt, either one at top.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
DaveG,
One word: $$$$$
Also, Thompson and Alexander saved his campaign in the last week in the suburbs by getting involved. Corker started running ads with Thompson and Alexander sent his chief of staff down to take over the campaign.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
It was really strange. Tennessee has a large and powerful suburbs. Ford beat Corker in Chattanooga, where Corker was mayor!
June 30th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Fair enough, but what I’m really interested in is how Corker tapped into the suburban vote that GOPers like Bush have been losing in recent years. Sounds like Corker won “blue” areas.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
There are lots of Democrats, and especially Republicans, who would never vote for Gore. I don’t understand your obsession with him. I have watched him on TV in front of friendly audiences (the Daily Show), and he is basically his same pedantic, boring, wooden self. 48.5 percent of the country already voted against him once.
If you look at the most recent CBS poll, for example, Gore has some of the worst pos/neg ratings among both Democratic primary voters (55/20) and general election voters (can’t remember, but they’re negative).
June 30th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
For the record, the latest Q poll which we posted last week showed Rudy beating Gore by 9 in FL, by 2 in PA, and losing to Gore by 1 in OH. Rudy beat Hillary by 6 in FL, and the two were tied in PA and OH.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Dave,
Tennessee is backwards in many different ways. Corker spent the most money on a senatorial campaign in history, adn don’t forget “Harold, call me” stuff that really hit home with the suburbs with the upper to middle class, and turned off the rural voters. It effectively did exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to do. Corker was actually able to maintain enough of the black voters because their community is alot more suspicious of the Ford family than the white families. Ford won the black vote, but not by a large enough margin to win the election. While Corker won the white vote, but not by normal GOP margins.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Alex,
The problem is that compared to Hillary’s, that’s pretty good. Remember, we are not going into this election on equal footing. We are already at a disadvantage since we have a sitting two term president with approval ratings in the 20’s/
June 30th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Not to mention that the sitting President stole the election from Gore, according to the Democrats.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article al gore Gore Ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire » Posted at race42008.com on [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article bill richardson Gore Ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire » Posted at [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article john edwards Gore Ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire » Posted at race42008.com [...]
June 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I’m just curious as to why you all are putting so much faith in these polls when they have been all over the place?
July 1st, 2007 at 12:02 am
I agree with most here that Gore would be a tough candidate to beat. I’m not going to pretend I see a clear path for anyone in that endeavor, let alone Mitt. I tend to think he’d be slightly tougher then Edwards, due to Edwards’ efforts to run obscenely left, and his general idiocy. Either way, he’s a tougher candidate then either Hillary or Obama. If I had to make a prediction, it’d be that Thompson would be Gore’s strongest opponent, while Mitt his weakest (with Rudy close behind).
Thompson, due to his strength in the South, would be able to possibly attempt a red-state strategy. Romney would be weakest because Gore’s environmental reputation would likely be sufficient to neutralize whatever chance Mitt had of flipping various upper-midwestern states (Michigan in particular), and he’d likely turn at least a few red states. But, even for Thompson’s, it’s not clear that he’d be able to hold together 270. Indeed, it’s not clear that he’d be able to hold together 270 against anyone. He seems to have the highest floor of electoral votes, which gives him certain advantages, but the lowest ceiling. This makes him, alternatively, strongest against candidates with high electoral ceilings, and weakest against candidates with low electoral ceilings (and high floors as well).
I’d say against Hillary, he’s the weakest candidate, due to his inexperience, and lack of potential to flip states. Romney and Rudy would have excellent prospects against Hillary in contrast. I’d suspect that Thompson might well be the strongest against Obama as well (though by a fairly small margin), due to Obama’s inordinately high polling in the blue states (thus making Repubs relying on flipping states for their electoral math weaker, comparatively), and fairly low polling in red states. I’d say against Edwards, Thompson’s stock drops (due to his inability to exploit, relatively speaking, one of Edward’s principle weaknesses, inexperience), while Rudy and Romney could potentially defeat him (with Rudy coming out a little ahead). Just my guesses.
July 1st, 2007 at 1:12 am
Ok Tommy I have to ask…I have family from Tennessee, so I was marginally pay attention to your Senate race. Your conservative but voted for Ford? Granted I know hes not a left wing wacko? Just curious if you don’t mind me asking.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:26 am
Matt,
I’m not from the Midwest, but how does being a raging environmentalist help there? Those moderate Reagan Democrats are going to be turned off by a candidate who wants to kill the automotive industry. Gore’s extreme environmental positions don’t take into consideration the economic havoc they would create. That is going to make him really unpopular because those people know that increased environmental regulation will mean a decrease in jobs in the Midwest/Great Lakes region.
July 1st, 2007 at 2:53 am
Before we annoint VP Gore as unbeatable in the general election, we should note that he was driven insane by the 2000 election. I don’t tend to think that crazy people make for good candidates.
July 1st, 2007 at 3:30 am
I am also curious why Tommy not just voted for but WORKED for Ford.
Once in a blue moon there is a race where I might prefer the Democrat, but I NEVER vote for him, let alone WORK for him. Why? Having a GOP majority in Congress is CRUCIAL to enacting our agenda.
I cannot see how any GOP activist can justify WORKING to take away a vote from the GOP caucus and to add one to the Dem caucus.
July 1st, 2007 at 4:00 am
Just to note on Florida:
President Bush won the state by a pretty solid 5% in 2004 and we elected a Republican governor easily in the very toxic 2006 election. Almost all our statewide officials are also Republicans. Florida isn’t bright red, but it is certainly leaning that way.
July 1st, 2007 at 9:57 am
Dskinner is correct. The midwest is heavily union, and to the extent that automotive and manufacturing have survived here, they will be allergic to Gore’s Church of Climatology.
Besides the ludicrous assertion that Gore will be competitive in the South, the idea that state polling has any meaning right now is simply absurd. (outside of IA/NH/SC that is).
Maybe I am just too misanthropic, but I see Gore v. 2008 as the exact same craptastic 2000 candidate, except with a somewhat more popular personal faith (global warming) that is being undermined in the scientific community as quickly as it adds Climatology rank and file believers…
July 1st, 2007 at 11:29 am
To everyone in question,
I had personal personal with Corker. I would refer you to an argument I had with Billy Valentine ago here that got rather ugly. Corker and I don’t get along, to put it nicely, although I have been pleasantly surprised wiwth the job he’s doing.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:31 am
Tommy, why would you take a personal vendetta and WORK to deny us a GOP majority? That makes it even WORSE.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:38 am
I’m not going to call DaveG’s final statements - “Only Gore can beat Hillary. And only Rudy can beat Gore.” - a lie, though apparently by some standards in these parts, if I disagree with them, then I should be allowed to do so.
I agree with those who doubt Gore would be such an astoundingly formidable candidate. I think he’d be as beatable as the other Dems, maybe even more so because he’s still Al Gore, with a long trail of contradictory statements and politically convenient reversals and omissions. I also think it would be very useful for him to run, and to put both his beliefs about global warming and his proposed solutions to a real test. The former are quite arguable, the latter even more so.
That said, I don’t believe he’s going to run, I wouldn’t be so sure that his numbers (presuming they’re accurate) would hold up, and I also wouldn’t be too confident that the Gore who emerged, if he emerged, from a fight to the death with Hillary would be the same figure some of you are building him up to be.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Dude David give him a break. We all have to do whats right in our own minds sometimes. I would rather he stay true to himself than vote begrudgingly for the GOP. The cult like march step of a certain segment of the GOP is part of the problem with the party.
July 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pm
UGADawg is right. That what was right in my mind, is what I did. I’m a conservative, but not a loyalist to the party.
Let me go into a little further detail without revealing anything that will get me in trouble. I worked at the High School where a candidate’s children attended. If you knew what I knew, you would understand.
July 2nd, 2007 at 12:12 pm
SGS (#16):
I don’t follow your logic. Florida’s NY expatriates are going to vote in 2008 whether Rudy is the nominee or he isn’t. The key isn’t which candidate the majority of NYers vote, but the MOVEMENT from one candidate to the other. In most polls of NYC voters Rudy gets a bit more than a third of the vote in a general election. That’s almost twice as good as any other Republican can hope to get.
Plus, Rudy was always more popular among the commuters to NYC than actual NYC residents. This was a class issue, NYCers are predominately either super wealthy or very poor, where Rudy’s appeal was strongest among the middle class. I haven’t seen polls specifically among Florida’s expats, but I would guess they fall more into the middle class group, and would be more receptive to Rudy. And even if they aren’t they will still be more receptive to Rudy than they would Thompson or any other Republican nominee.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Sean P…very sensible analogy on Rudy…. MRS….
GORE would be the most formidable candidate, against anybody. its that plain and simple.
July 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
oops, MRA…(Moving Right Along)