Here is what is wrong with these numbers (Links: Gore, Hillary).

1. First, they are dated. The latest from 21 months ago, and the oldest from 27 months. But I do give you credit for finding the most recent out there. So, this is not a major quibble for me, as such.

2. But, a very significant omission from this is that, you DID not mention the "unsures" along with "favs" and "unfavs", which you needed to have, IMO. Let me present a fuller set of data to paint a more complete picture:

(corresponding numbers for HRC can't be found for CBS' 12/03 poll)

Some observations that one could make from these numbers:

• CBS' 12/03 poll had 23% unsures for Gore (and hence your not mentioning this fact paints an incomplete and thus an inaccurate picture).

• HRC and AAG had the exact same favs/unfavs/unsures in FNOD's 1/04 poll.

• in the 6/03 Gallup poll, HRC's unfavs were only 1% better than Gore's, and her favs were only 3% better than Gore, both below the margin or error.

• the noticeably different numbers in FNOD 4/05 and 6/05 should be averaged.

• all in all, Hillary's favs are in the low fifties. Excluding CBS's poll since it had too many "undecideds", Gore's favs were in the high 40s, the most recent time that the data was collected. The difference between 48 and 53 is only 5 points, well within a striking distance, and within a 2x factor of the MOE.

• she has been in the limelight,
  
• has lately been getting better coverage,
  
• Gore has been out of the picture, and
  
• some 20 million new voters voted in 2004 (hence making around 10-20% of the population more politically active/aware, compared to 2000),
  

My most critical point about you post is that you failed to report CBS's "unsures" for Gore, which were a massive 23%. Obviously without mentioning this fact, Gore's number looked really poor in that poll.

First, I'd use some averages (and ignore CBS since it has a large number of "unsures").

Finding: Hillary's favs from 2005 are 3.7% better, and unfavs are 3.3% better than Gore's numbers from 2003-2004. Both very close to MOE. So, a very marginal advantage.

You need to halve these last four numbers (since the base is 200 here, as I explain in my comment B2). So a more accurate statement is: Gore performed 8.5% and 6% points worse than Clinton, and 5% and 3.5% worse than Kerry in the recent FNOD's poll.

Not true:

1. Gore has been out of public view since early 2001. And people's memories and impressions tend to fade.
   
2. Kerry recently was a part of a highly charged pres. campaign.
   
3. There were some 20 million new voters in 2004. Presumably these people were not paying much attention in 2000 and hence to Gore back then.
   
4. So, no, Gore doesn't have the same "active" name ID as Hillary/Kerry.

An unsupported claim, since the numbers from matchups cannot be used to deduce individual favorables reliably.

-->"They are probably even lower than they were two to three years ago."

There is no direct evidence to support this, and hence this is essentially speculation.
Therefore, we will need to use only the latest real data that we have for Gore's favs/unfavs, and those are (in our case):

For comparison, Bush averaged about 48/45 favs/unfavs during 10/04, leading into the election among reg. voters as polled by FNOD, and he won the popular vote by about 2-3% margin on election day (Gallup's likely voter poll averaged around: 53/46). These Bush numbers are almost the same as Gore's RV numbers above.

-->"Now, not long ago, in early 2003, Hillary Clinton's favorables were roughly the same as Gore's probably are now, and she clearly has recovered."

Not by much. Only by 3-5% points in each of the fav and unfav categories. (if you use fav-unfav differences, and then take their difference, then you'll need to halve the result, as I explain in B2 linked above).

-->"However, she holds a strong advantage that Gore currently does not: she has consistently remained a national figure."

True., but Gore is increasingly emerging as a powerful voice on both national and international stages.

-->"Moving national opinion on a well-known topic or personality is possible, but very difficult."

A few fair and balanced interviews over a 3-4 month period, and a few widely watched speeches could perhaps easily help Gore make up that 3-5% edge that HRC currently has. In fact, I suspect that he would surge past Hillary in that event. Here is why: as you have written in the recent months, a substantial majority of the Democrats and Independents are seeking and clamoring for a strong, strident, and just voice, and not some kind of triangulation or appeasement. This graphic posted by you illustrates that point vividly:

And, do we remember who oppose the war in vehement and eloquent way since the beginning, and who voted for it, and still seems to standby that vote? Here is a reminder: Gore's pre-Iraq war speech, and its audio is here.

-->"It would appear that Gore has not been able to recover while Hillary has, largely because the media only seems to talk about Gore when they want to slime him, ala the above quote."

Again, with known data, Gore is within 1 or 2 times MOE of Hillary. You're correct in that the "MSM-cronies" seem to trash Gore more easily, but that can potentially be dealt with by careful monitoring and some sort of a feedback mechanism from people, and doing that across the board should be one of our netroots' main goals, in order to restore some degree of decency and balance to the media.

Also, once Goe and Gore's team start aggressively rebutting to spin, the MSM-spinners may start backing off of him.

-->"This means that from day one, any Gore campaign would be facing an uphill battle to restore a positive public image, and thus would start at a tremendous disadvantage even tot he candidates who will not be national figures before the primaries begin."

While I somewhat agree with the disadvantageous position, are you telling us that this nice pleasant ride with the media will stay that way for Hillary after the 2006 re-election (or any serious contender for the presidency)? They will likely come hounding and pounding after her as well. In fact, how do we know what Rove etal's (and consequently their presumable cronies in the MSM) Hillary game plan is? Indeed, I have recently read some wingnut's article talking about Hillary's potential anathema: saying that she won't run in 2008 while running for senate in 2006, and then having to shift gears shortly thereafter.

-->"They will simply have to define themselves. Gore would have to re-fine himself, which is much more difficult."

1. Hillary seems to have "re-fined" herself (somewhat), in your analysis above. Why can't Gore?

2. A more accurate, and fair wording is "re-define" here. Gore will need to do that to some degree with his present support and in fact, freshly "define" himself to the 10-20% newly active voters. To me, that's a more accurate picture.

So have both Hillary and Kerry been.

-->"and as of yet not only has he not recovered,"

He hasn't had the opportunity yet to recover. You need to be in the limelight for doing that.

-->"he might even be sinking further."

Pure speculation here.

-->"Like many others before him, he was slimed in a completely unfair manner, and mostly for telling the truth."

Yes, we in the netroots need to embrace and stand up for our heroes. Should not instead be trying to undermine them using what has been unfairly dealt to them by the other side.

Let us start showing the backbone that we are demanding of our leaders.

-->"However, that does not change the fact that any Gore run would be extremely difficult right now,"

As as I showed, he has a slight 1-2x MOE disadvantage compared to Hillary, but that can be overcome.

-->"and that nay poll where he trails is not exaggerated by the Incumbent Rule or anything else. In fact, because he has 100% name ID, "

Nope. As I discussed above, due to memory-fading and the 10-20% infusion of newly active voters, Gore's name ID should be considered to be about 80%, to put a number on it, of that of Hillary and Kerry.

-->"if anything, his deficits in current poll would be exaggerated."

I don't see the logic here, short of which, it looks like speculation to me.

-->"It is really too bad. I wish we had been around at the time to defend him. We might have helped introduce the term "Noise Machine" into the national political discourse, and created a real national discussion on the issue."

And so, you prescribe surrender now? Comeon, Chris!

-->"I also like a lot of what he has said since 2001, and think he would be an outstanding president."

Then, standup and fight with and for Gore.

-->"However, when looking at a possible Gore candidacy, his near-total denials on the subject are not the only hindering factor."

I suspect that you're talking about his statement regarding a 2008 run. Chris, this is still only 2005, and he can still decide to run at anytime over the next 2 years, if he wants to.

For comparative, albeit techinical, purposes, let us look at what Hillary said about a 2008 run. From this link,

Sure that's from 2003, but I doubt that she has said anything different since then because that would put her in jeopardy of losing her senate re-election bid. (Sorry Hillary fans, CNN chose to use that not so flattering picture of Hill with that story, not I. Did I mention that I once used to be an ardent supporter of the Clintons?)

Let us compare to what Gore said yesterday (media link)

"I have absolutely no plans and no expectations of ever being a candidate again," Gore told reporters after giving a speech at an economic forum in Sweden.(...)

Gore, who now runs a cable TV channel and is the chairman of an investment company, did not completely shut the door to future political endeavors.

"I don't completely rule out some future interest, but I don't expect to have that," Gore said.

Linguistically speaking, while "absolutely" and "ever" are suggestive of lack of interest, they are to be offset by the "don't rule some future interest" phrase.

I'd say that, purely looking at what is stated and not divining ulterior thoughts, on a scale of 1 to 10, Hillary's denial would be a degree 3 denial and Gore's would be a 5, IMO.

Another key point from HRC's statement is her response to 2004: "Asked what she would say if Democrats asked her to run in 2004, she said, "Absolutely, I would say no.""

Now, that's a clear denial of degree 10!

What Gore said has left plenty of leeway for him to pick up the baton at anytime till late 2007, and run.

-->"Like Howard Dean before him, simply telling the truth to the media's face may have made him unelectable."

IMO, this is an absolutely flat-out spin where you were trying to actually manufacture a new opinion, by extremely flimsy arguments, as I have addressed in detail above, and in fact trying use the "nukular" "U" word. Just how could you?.

As for Dean, his scream, coupled with its exaggerated coverage in the media, did make Dean look extremely "unpresidential" and hence essentially rendered his chances of winning in 2004 miniscule, but one cannot claim that its effect cannot wear off, and/or countered in some fashion in potential future elections. So, even with Dean, I vehemently disagree with your use of the spin-ladden "U" mantra.

And in the case of Gore, this is actually an outrageous claim. Especially since you yourself have always projected the potential power of the netroots in a "CAN DO" type of fashion in many of your posts. If you truly believe in your own writings, the fact that Gore enjoys an overwhelming support among the netroots, as witnessed in the 9/22 straw poll at dKos should imply that Gore could do well, if he manages to leverage his netroots' following effectively. Again, the results from that straw poll are:

To summarize my view of your post: you did use real numbers, but you were selective in that usage, and your backward deductions of missing data is highly questionable, used some relative figures that should have been halved, and most importantly, your wording and the thrust is for the most part inaccurate and seemingly biased towards handicapping a potential Gore run in 2008.

I have always held quite a bit of respect for your work, especially of the activism variety, and I will continue to appreciate and support where I can, your future efforts towards our common progressive causes. But, unfortunately, this post by you was an utter disappoinment.

Yes, indeed, given an aggressive and strategically sound campaign, Gore can absolutely win, all over again!