http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Election%2...0Candidates.htm

Which of the following would be the strongest candidate for the Democrats in 2008..

(Responses from Democrats)
Hillary Clinton 42%
John Kerry 16%
John Edwards 13%
Al Gore 9%
Evan Bayh 4%
Bill Richardson 3%
Mark Warner 1%

I want to see PRESIDENT AL GORE get 75% or higher. Not at all interested in the other six listed, for 2008, they may be better than evil little Jebby, the gropinator or Rudy, but that's about it. I'm finally getting through to some people about how much we need AL GORE in 2008, and they are actually listening. I'm not giving up.

Why does Hillary keep pulling in such high numbers? :mad:

But if you read through this report, there's some encouraging info, too:

Last time I checked, Gore was considered to be a more centrist candidate.

I can't believe that the average Democrat thinks Hillary would have a better chance of winning than Gore. What are they, crazy or something?

Hillary keeps getting these high numbers because that's all the media and everyone else has been talking about...even prior to the last Democratic primaries. I'm a little annoyed by it, because I think she could get clobbered pretty good.

Having said that, Gore/Clinton sounds pretty interesting!

From what I understand of Al and Hillary's relationship through the Clinton presidency, it could never happen. But it would be an interesting ticket, wouldn't it?

Was there friction between the two? Oh well, I don't think Kennedy and Johnson really got along that well either.

I don't think I ever heard any "hard news" or anything about Hillary and Al, but I heard a lot over the years about how the two of them didn't get along well. I think it was in the vein of Hillary being rather strong-willed and perhaps not allowing Al to be as autonomous as he would've liked, and also as an off-shoot of the tension that developed between Bill and Al in later years.

Perhaps they could mend fences; I think Bill and Al have done that to a certain extent. But still, Hillary on the ticket in any capacity (I agree better as veep than president) would be more of a liability than an advantage, despite what these polls show. She's simply too polarizing, too divisive, and she's a Clinton, which for many people doesn't sit well.

I heard, but don't rememeber where or when that Hillary treated PRESIDENT AL GORE like dirt. And if that is true, I have no use for Hillary or anyone that treats my president with disrespect. No tolerance for it whatsoever.

Yea and we saw what happened to JFK and we have heard about LBJ's actions.

Wow, I think 9 is great, a few days he was 4%, and now he is 4ht in line. Why this is so important in that he is the only one in that group that everyone knows he is not running or have aspirations at the moment, and still he is getting a noticeable number IT IS FANTASTIC :clap: :clap: :clap:

Wait a minute, who said PRESIDENT AL GORE is not running??? It is too early to know that. I do have hope that he will, if he knows how much he is needed, so we cannot give up. He is my first choice now and that will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER change.

I believe Gore will run if we build a visible, successful grassroots movement and we have an excellent opportunity to do just that. We learned so much last time under tougher conditions. This time we have a tail wind--- the war. The Dean phenomenon was a direct result of the war. This time we must get out in front and claim the war issue as our own.

The press will cover Hillary extensively and positively as long as they can. We will have to change that by building numbers. We have years, not months, to do that this time.

You can't compare these two numbers because they're from totally different polls, with different questions, asked by different pollsters. Like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. But what's important is that his name is coming up at all in these polls. The Admiral is right (I salute you, Admiral!). We need to build this movement from the ground up and let Gore and everyone else know that we want him as our candidate. But we need to get organized. If Gore stays in the public eye, making speeches, etc., he won't fade into oblivion. And we have to make it known to EVERYONE that Al Gore is still a viable candidate who can win back the White House for the Democratic Party.

GO AL! :clap:

Right back atya, Earthmother!

;)

I wonder how Nixon did in polls taken right after the 1964 election.

That's an interesting question. Wonder if there's any way to get that info. Maybe I'll have a look . . .

I would imagine Goldwater, Cabot Lodge Jr., and maybe one more person would have been ahead after the '64 election.

Here is an intersting story from 1968 about Nixon's return:

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/an...k.time/9608/19/

If I recall correctly, Nixon used the "out years" to campaign vigorously for Republican congressional and statehouse candidates nationwide. It had a two-fold effect in keeping his name before the voters and also garnering precious political IOUs.

To duplicate a Nixonian return, President Gore has to want the job and be thinking ahead to 2008 during the mid-term cycle of 2006 which would leave about 12 months of soul-searching between now and then.

Much will depend upon the direction, right or wrong that the party takes following the DNC chair selection and the activity of the Clintonites. Whether Democrats like it or not, President Clinton is now the titular head of the party in terms of resources, allegiances, and the like. He is what Eleanor Roosevelt was to the party during President Kennedy's successful election cycle. Basically, I think Hillary's decision to run or not will shape the 2008 primary.

If the party decides to front load the primaries as it did the previous cycle, credibility and name recognition will most likely trump a fresh face or gifted campaigner. This decision will probably be the determiner as to whether Hillary, John Kerry, or President Gore will most likely enter the race.

Just some thought from here in the desert. I guess what I am saying is I hope to see some sign that President Gore is giving some thought to 2008. As of yet, I have not seen the smoke signals.

God I hope John Kerry doesn't even consider running again. This time he was just a bargain candidate that no one really loved. Al Gore actually has lifetime backers who have stuck with him for years now.

A very good post, Nicholus. :good:

I agree that Gore has to keep his name and face out in front of everybody, for a lot of reasons. I think he's been doing that with the speeches he's been making, etc. He's hardly turned into a recluse. I doubt we'll be seeing any smoke signals though before 2006, which is going to be really difficult for us Gore loyalists, but I think we just have to hang in there and try to let him know how much support he'd have if he did decide to run. It's going to be a terribly long wait, and I only hope that this time we're not disappointed like we were last time.

Boy, I'm with you on that one, Chris.

Here's another poll showing Gore at the bottom. But I think a lot of that is explained by the fact that people assume he won't run again because he didn't run in 2004. At least I'm hoping that's the explanation. . . :Y:

And it really burns me up that Hillary is always way out in front! :mad:

www.thepollingreport.com

Gallup Poll. Nov. 7-10, 2004. Nationwide.

"Looking ahead to four years from now, who do you want to be the Democratic Party presidential nominee in 2008, if you had to choose today?" Open-ended. N=465 Democrats and Democratic leaners, MoE ± 5.

%
Hillary Clinton 25
John Kerry 15
John Edwards 7
Bill Clinton 3
Barack Obama 3
Al Gore 2
None 3
Other 9
Unsure 33

That completely SUCKS big time, I wish I didn't see that, it ruined my day. I'm liking snob Hillary less and less. The rest of the people on that list must be a joke and isn't Obama to young???

The only reason that Hillary is the frontrunner is that the media keeps flogging her as such. In the late '80s and then again in the early '90s the media did the same with Mario Cuomo. But then he never ran. Sometimes I think he didn't just to prove the media wrong.

AGIML--Don't let these polls get to you, especially not this far out from the '08 campaign season. I just posted this one because I think it's important for us to know who people are thinking about as possible candidates for '08. Remember that a lot of this has to do with name recognition, or in this case, because it was an open-ended poll (no names were given as suggestions), most people give their answer based on what they've heard, not based on a considered survey of the possibilities. Most people assume that, since Gore didn't run in '04, he won't be running in '08. Also, most people aren't aware of all the speeches he's made in the last year or so because they haven't been covered by the major broadcast and cable networks. So Gore will have some work to do to get back in the public eye if he intends to run.

As for Hillary, as James said, she's being pushed by the media right now. She's very high profile anyway because of being a Senator and because of being our last First Lady. Kerry is an obvious choice for people because he just ran, and it was a close election. Same with Edwards. Obama is on people's minds because he made a big splash at the convention and because he just won the distinction of being the only black in the Senate. He's also been appearing on talk shows (I just saw him on David Letterman a week or so ago).

So don't get too depressed about these numbers. As I see it, the fact that anyone is mentioning Gore in an open-ended poll is a good sign. He can easily build momentum when the time is right, if that's what he chooses to do.

We need to figure out a way to make Al Gore the viable Southern candidate.

I think Edwards is a no way is he going to get any serious consideration.
Right now, much like the vice president polls, people remember his name.
As the years go on, and he does more of the same nothing he did before, he will drop faster than you can say Joe Leiberman. And we need to help that along.

I know from the other board-the commonsense one...the vast majority of people posting are anti-woman, minority and Hillary especially.

They use code words---well, we need someone in the South...

I have set the seed over there and keep bringing Al Gore's name up, and finally have a few people who are starting to see the merit of it.

No one is more qualified. Maybe some of you should occasionally go over there and promote Al in the General section of their forum.

It is very interesting though, how one can lead into a Pro-Gore thing, by saying one likes Hillary, waiting for the other answers to arrive, and then bingo-saying
ahh haa, well, how about Al...

and if comparing Al Gore Vs. Hillary-there is no comparrsion.
Comparring Hillary vs. the others, and she comes out way ahead.
So if the focus is on the 2...Al looks better.

I think too if Dean is really serious as DNC head, wouldn't it make sense that that would benefit Al Gore? After all, he was the only person established who backed Dean (at the time, what a genius move, seriously it was. He would have been a major player in any Dean adminisitration with that move.)

But Hillary will be a formidable candidate. She has the party in her pocket, and if she goes, it will be tough for anyone else.

Boy I sure wish in 1992, it had been Al at the head of the ticket...

btw-Obama is not too young. He is in his 40s. It was Harold Ford who was too young in 2004.

A Gore/Obama ticket would be beautiful.

I think it's great that you're promoting Gore on that site. Some of us really should go there and get to work on that. And I agree--If it's Al vs. Hillary, Al comes out hands down. But I don't agree that Hillary comes out on top vs. the other candidates in these polls. What's she done besides be First Lady and a one-term Senator? I'd take Kerry and his experience over Hillary any day. But of course, Gore is the one with the most intelligence, most experience, and best policies, to say nothing of the courage to speak out against the war in Iraq when no one else (including Hillary) would.

As for Obama, I don't think he's too young, but I do think he's too inexperienced. Again, by the time '08 rolls around, he will have been a one-term Senator. I'd like to see someone more experienced than that in the veep position, although I think he has such presence and charisma and intelligence that I'd go for it if that's what Gore chose. And of course, it would certainly help with the black vote, which Dems. have been losing in recent elections. But even if Obama isn't a player in '08, he has a HUGE future ahead of him, possibly as the first black veep and even president. He's terrific!

Yeah, it's interesting. One has to be a little careful still, but it is looser than a few weeks ago.

The odd thing there is how many republicans who are supposedly moderate are over there...where were all these people in 2000 when we could have used them?

Seems like none of them voted for Al, yet loved Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot understand that.

Well, less than 3 years 11 months to go and counting :D

I'm surprised so many people appear to be anti-Gore. I mean, he did win the popular vote in 2000, and I don't think that was just because people were voting for their party. I think they were voting for Gore, unlike this time with Kerry, where I think people weren't wild about Kerry but wanted Bush out so badly they voted for him. Gore, as we know, has suffered a lot at the hands of the media. Unfortunately those impressions are hard to break. But I hope you'll continue to chip away at people's bad attitudes over at that board, and keep coming back here where we'll all support you and give you renewed energy to go back out there and fight. :good:

I don't understand how anyone could be against PRESIDENT AL GORE, it never has and doesn't now make any sense. He is by far the better choice than Hillary or any of the others. Integrity, experience, intelligence, honesty what's there to be against??? He won 2000 and should have been re-elected in 2004. Everything that has gone wrong for AL over the past four years is not one bit his fault, it's the republicans and some back-stabbing democrats constantly plotting against him and trying to sabotage everything he does since stolen election 2000. I wish people would wake up, AL GORE is the best choice for president in 2008 and he wouldn't just be a good one, he would be by far the best ever. Screw the media, intelligent people don't listen to their bull, I hope.

I think intelligent people don't listen to the media's bull, but that's why I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of Americans are idiots, just like the one they put in the White House as their Idiot in Chief. <_<

"Idiot in Chief," I like that, sounds as accurate as Commander in THIEF. You know how we wondered if PRESIDENT AL GORE visits here, well I also wonder if THIEF BUSH does. That's if he really knows how to read, that is.

Putting the stupid thing into the right perspective, the situation is not being against Al Gore "the person", the situation is very complex. There are many special interest (mafias, what ever you want to call them) against "what" Al Gore represents, and they don't want to let go, in the contrary the frenzyness for unlimited profits, now have turned into an embolden and supreme controlling power and this have nothing stupid about. I used to call the B… stupid too until my husband once told me “he is not and stupid, implying that he uses that image for his benefit.” Then, is when I saw the real guy, see how his “nice fellow average image” and “re born again Christian” had cashed in…meanwhile he and all the special interests that support him have done away with this democracy. The utmost hypocrisy is that he could be a neo fascist portraying himself as a religious guy. I just pray that this guy is not the antichrist. I am so appalled, how people are blind to what this guy is really doing; is like Germany all over again… which remind me that I am very proud right now for what the people in Ukraine is doing, good for them.
This election really was a lost cause, even I, didn’t want to admit this, and Gore was so smart to recognized that and accept the current circumstances as hard that action must have been, and like a good chess player, he knew he have to wait for his next move. In addition the extreme lack of support all the wanabes presidents, thinking they were better (ha). I don’t know… I am seeing the latest under a different perspective now, (please don’t kill me for what I’m going to say is just a thought) maybe they all knew this, or maybe not even conscious of it, but their actions maybe helped Al Gore not to loose face, because in reality they acknowledge how the people and the country itself are not ready at this moment to appreciate the kind of president Al Gore is. There is not doubt in my mind the people here had made a choice based on fear and only the people will have to work out by the consequences caused by that choice with the suffering from that action, learn to see were is the truth, and real meaning and values. I will not rest until I see Al Gore as our president; he is the kind of president for a better humanity and world in general!

You're absolutely right, libekunz, that Bush and his minions aren't stupid. I think it's hard for many of us to admit that, and it's fun to call him a stupid idiot because we despise him so much and because so much of what he does seems not to be based in rational, considered, intelligent thought. And much of it isn't. Much of it is knee-jerk neo-conservatism. But he's not as stupid as he appears. No, he's not smart like Gore is smart. He still doesn't know or can't pronounce most of the names of foreign countries and their heads of state. He doesn't know his history and can't rattle off treaties and names and dates and facts the way Gore or Clinton could. He doesn't have the international perspective needed to make intelligent decisions about foreign policy. But he's smart where it counts, at least for politics. He knows how to play on people's fears, knows how to make people like him (although it sure doesn't work on me), knows how to lie, cheat, and steal without looking as if he's doing anything wrong. He knows how to get elected. It's a scary kind of smart, not one you want in the leader of the free world. He's crafty, sneaky, and disingenuous. And I still call him an idiot.

Gore/Obama

How about a Gore - Obama ticket in 2008? That will give us not only a moderate southerner, but also Illinois...

Sounds good if Obama will be old enough, but might not have enough experience.

As for THIEF BUSH, you got that right, he's not stupid when in comes to lying stealing, cheating, killing, oppressing, and his intelligence for doing evil and being evil is far better that most. He's an expert without a conscience, master of pure evil without a doubt. What scares me, he has these evil little sh**s doing his dirty work, like rigging elections and fighting his dirty wars. Damn how evil helps evil and they call themselves Christians, it's sickening.

Obama's definitely old enough--he's in his early 40s. And I think he'd have enough experience to be able to handle the vice presidency because he's so intelligent--I just don't think other people (the average voter) will agree with that. The problem comes in the fact that he's a heartbeat away from the presidency, as they say. If, god forbid, anything were to happen to Gore (assuming this scenario played out--oh, please!), Obama would become president. Personally, I think he'd do fine at the job, but I don't know how others would perceive him. Also, do you think the average American is ready to accept a black veep, let alone president? I think it'd be great, and the guy is truly wonderful. I suppose most Democrats would be fine with it. I just don't know if the rest of the country is ready for it.

Personally, I'd like Obama in the Senate for a bit. He can be a huge asset.

Richardson, Clark, maybe Biden.

A VP with a lot of Experience, great character, and a lot of energy would be perfect.