08/15/2002 Archived Entry: "2004: Gore... Others (including Sharpton)"
We Love You, You're Perfect, Goodbye, is a schizo debate that some Democratic supporters have amongst themselves. I see portions of this debate all the time on DU, but what caught my eye was this refrain from the Gore supporting side of the authors internal debate between his head and his gut:
So what's the alternative? John Kerry, the ersatz J.F.K., who fancies himself a global strategist because 30 years ago he faced down a Vietcong ambush? (And, by the way, with all due respect for his exploit, how utterly weird is it that he then took out his handy 8-millimeter camera and re-enacted his heroism on film?) Surely not Joe Lieberman, Al Gore's sad-eyed second banana, who got out-debated by Dick Cheney? Dick Gephardt is too partisan, too Old Democrat, to win moderates and independents. And John Edwards, the newbie heartthrob, is untested in a year when untested will be a very, very hard sell. (Sadly for Mr. Gore, the year for untested was 2000.) Howard Dean, the appealing governor of Vermont, wins the Bruce Babbitt/Paul Tsongas prize; he'll get the pundit vote.
Now, put this aside the new Zogby Poll numbers for 2004 that show:
Gore is way ahead, at 41 percent, and no one else hits double digits in the battle for the 2004 nomination to challenge George W. Bush.... Al Sharpton, House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and 2000 contender Bill Bradley - all at 5 percent - and just 1 point behind Gore's 2000 running mate, Joe Lieberman, at 6.... Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota (3 percent) and the pundits' favorite, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who drew just 2 percent in the Zogby International poll of likely Democratic primary voters nationwide.
And now back to our story:
Here's an idea. Why not let them sharpen their teeth on Al Gore in the primaries? As Joe Klein put it in Slate (Run, Al, Run: Why another Gore campaign would be good for the Democrats), one of two good things could happen if Mr. Gore runs: either "another new Gore will materialize — a looser, more gracious Gore, one with the courage of his intelligence," or an alternative candidate will prevail, and go on to the general election fortified by his reputation as a giant-killer... says the head, and the gut responds: Don't bet on it. A likelier outcome is that Al Gore wins the nomination — thanks to name recognition, the front-loading of the primary schedule and the knee-jerk reflexes of the party machinery — without becoming a more appealing candidate in the process.
So, what to make of it all?
First, I do believe that Sharpton is going to run, and the Democrats best not make the same mistake they did with Nadar in 1992, when they excluded him from the debates, even though he was polling higher (3% in NH) than other Democratic candidates that were able to debate. More than the Green's, the Democrats themselves created Nadar by ostracizing him and his supporters. I doubt it will happen against Sharpton, though I'm sure there are some Democrats who would be inclined to exclude him. If the Republicans can allow Pat Buchanan and Alan Keyes into their debates, the Democrats should be big enough to allow Ralph Nadar and Al Sharpton... it remains to be seen.
Second, someone's going to step-up from the sub-10% group to challenge Gore. We can more or less consider him the incumbent Democratic nominee, and he's polling below 50 percent. Sure, 41% are for him, but that means 59% are for someone else. It may take a few 2004 primaries of winnowing out the field for the true alternate to emerge.
Third, at some point next year, Gore is going to have to step foot in Iowa and New Hampshire and make his case. That will be a telling point in time, perhaps showing Gore to be a paper tiger. He may fold, and if so, it's wide-open.
Replies: 7 comments
Gore was an exceptionally poor candidate in 2000, although in reality he won the election only to have it stolen from him by a partisan 5-4 Supreme Court majority.
That being said, the incumbent vice president in the administration of a popular president, running against a mediocre Republican opponent in a time of peace and prosperity, should have woneasily in 2000. Although Democratic partisans like to blame Ralph Nader and the Greens, Gore lost the election all on his own, especially when he couldn't even carry Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia.
Gore is yesterday's man. Unfortunately for the Dems they really have no alternative, which is an indication of the vacuity of the party's "leadership." The situation reminds one of the 1950s when a new breed of Democrats, characterized by JFK, was in the wings but not yet ready to become national figures. The real time of change in the party may occur in 2008 with someone we haven't even heard of today.
Bush in 2004 will be a weakened president due to the economy, scandal and war. The Dems, as is their wont, will likely muff the chance to knock off the nebbish-in-chief by running Gore or some other DLC-favored candidate.
Ralph Nader will get over 5% in 2004 and give the mediocrities at the DNC and on the Hill yet another excuse for failure.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/15/2002 04:38 PM PST
Ralph Nader is yesterdays news. The Democrats are NOT responsible for the Greens. Most of them are people who came in from outside the system. Some of there issues should be examined.
But I have never seen a prominent Green Party person who was ever an active Democrat.
The Greens running a candidate against Paul Wellstone is proof positive that the Greens are nothing more than a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP.
Posted by TOM @ 08/16/2002 12:03 PM PST
In a free soceity no one "owes" a vote to any party or candidate. Votes must be earned, not inherited.
Ralph Nader often comes across as a scold. He rarely cracks a smile. He probably wouldn't be the type of guy you'd invite over to your house to watch a baseball game and have a cold one. But, on issues like corporate crime, corruption of the political process, conservation, consumer protection and foreign affairs he's been on the right side, at least from my perspective.
Ralph Nader will never be president, but he will help establish a new political climate in the United States. The Democrats may grouse and fume, but the Greens are for real, especially in New England, the upper midwest and parts of the west. The only way to stop the Greens is to coopt their platform, bringing fresh blood into the party and moving away from the corporate philosophy of the DLC variety of Democrats.
I won't hold my breath.
Posted by Colorado Pundit @ 08/16/2002 03:29 PM PST
I think that everyone has fallen into line with what the press wants you to think about Al Gore. He's a snore, he's boring, he's wearing earth toned suits etc. The problem with all this is that everyone of the people that are starting to campaign for the Democratic nomination the press is already making negative comments about: John Kerry---too serious, John Edwards---too wet behind the ears, Howard Dean---promotes the gay agenda, Joe Lieberman--too honest, Dick Gephardt--too Old Democrat. So you see, if everybody buys into this garbage the pundits put out GWB will be reelected no matter what. The most important thing, I think, is that whoever it is better play hardball and rip GWB to shreds and play up all his mistakes.
Posted by GA6thDem @ 08/16/2002 06:23 PM PST
Maybe whoever the Dem nominee is should give the press nicknames.
Posted by RParker @ 08/16/2002 07:51 PM PST
Gore does not need little New Hampshire OR Iowa although only Gephardt could even begin to challenge him in Iowa. Gore needs to bypass New Hampshire altoghether and focus on the South and the big states like New York, California and Texas in the primaries and oh yea Florida :) Screw New Hampshire its just a set up against frontrunners anyway. Let Kerry and Dean tear each other apart in little New Hampshire while Gore takes his campaign where most people live
Posted by GaDem @ 08/17/2002 11:41 AM PST
<>
LOL, I got a kick out of that.
Posted by Kobe @ 08/17/2002 03:12 PM PST
