Should the DEMS have run Gore, Again?

from JoeUser Forums



I'm thinking, the Democrats sent the wrong guy to run for President. I've been thinking this for some time. But now I've come up with a different perspective.
Who might of been the, right guy?
Were the DEMS, armed with a, right guy?

Maybe they should have run V.P. Gore for President again.
I mean, Gore's stump speach could be, "well you know what I stand for and what my values are."
"I haven't changed a whole, helluva lot, since the last time I was here."
"Yes, I've gained a pound or two, but it's still me."

Then he could hammer Bush on every mis-step he's made since becoming President.

Or........he could merely say, "you've had Bush for 4 years, are some of you just a little dissatisfied and want to try my way now?"

Now this is just a topic for discussion, with a bit of tongue, planted in the cheek, so please don't go crazy.

He won the popular vote last time, right?
He lost Florida by what, 764 votes, or there abouts?
Ergo, by losing Florida, he in essence, lost the election, correct?

Can most of us agree on this much so far?
OK!

Now, by the Democrats running him for the second time, in this election, he should get back nearly everybody that voted for him the last time.
Yes? No? Maybe?

Se therefore, he wins the popular vote again, right?

Now some folks that voted for Bush in the last election have stated that they are not voting for him this time around. It's public knowledge.
Now these votes would go to Gore.
Some of the states that were won by Bush in the last election, have become swing states, ie. New Mexico for one.
These states might end up voting for Gore, plus Gore keeps all the states that he had last time because, what the hell, he's the same guy they liked the last time, right?
And besides, he's done them no harm in the meantime. So that should be a given.

So Gore, maybe picks up one or two of Bush's states from the last election
...........and the Grand Prize is,


WE CAN SEE HOW FLORIDA, REALLY WANTED TO VOTE THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

Is this cool or what?

The Democrats may have went, and out-foxed themselves on this one.

Dang! I should of been a campaign manager.
I wonder if there's any money in that?
politics
5,086 views 5 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Myrrander

You've made an interesting point! So how did 9/11 change the landscape for Gore?

little-whip

Billary?????
Never heard that one before.
So the "Dems" were willing to waste 4 more years, so Ms. Clinton could run in 2008

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
After 9/11, the already anti-Gore media pretty much said over and over "Thank God Gore wasn't president." This became part of the national conscious. Without 9/11, Gore would have been better able to point at Bush's record and compare it to the Clinton Years. 9/11 changed things, because the answer would always be "Yeah, but that was before 9/11."
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Without 9/11, Gore would have been better able to point at Bush's record and compare it to the Clinton Years. 9/11 changed things, because the answer would always be "Yeah, but that was before 9/11


Hate to clue you but Gore would not have been able to point to spit since the election came waaaaay before 9-11.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Myrrander

Yes, I can remember that being said about Gore. Didn't understand exactly what was meant by it though. But I can appreciate that perspective.