Maybe this is what's driving Carville

Don't get me wrong, I love Al Gore and he'd be an outstanding president, but something like 25 million Americans have voted for Obama or Hillary. They're both extremely popular; there's been record turnout. If the Democratic party just gets frustrated because the race is so close and sticks in a white man who didn't even run instead, it will be a DISASTER. It has to be one of these two candidates. Flipping a coin would be better than throwing them both out after all this.

is about zero.  I'm happy to be proven wrong, but c'mon.

"If it (the nomination process) goes into the convention, don't be surprised if someone different is at the top of the ticket," Mahoney said.

The problem is that if it goes all the way to the convention and things are still deadlocked after a few days of floor fights over, for example, seating the Florida and Michigan delegation in various ways, it seems likely that by then all would be lost.  There is a very interesting TNR article Slouching Toward Denver by Noam Schreiber that looks at the prospects of a convention in Denver along the lines

When Democrats contemplate the apocalypse these days, they have visions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton slugging it out à la Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter at the 1980 convention. The campaign's current trajectory is, in fact, alarmingly similar to the one that produced that disastrous affair. Back then, Carter had built up a delegate lead with early wins in Iowa, New Hampshire, and several Southern states. But, as the primary season dragged on, Kennedy began pocketing big states and gaining momentum. Once all the voting ended and Kennedy came up short, he eyed the New York convention as a kind of Hail Mary.

Schreiber points out that the idea of a floor fight over delegates could be even more divisive than in 1980

Says former Al Gore campaign manager (and undecided superdelegate) Donna Brazile: "I don't have the 1980 experience, but that was two white men. This is a woman and a black. What's different about this fight is that, when they attack each other, supporters feel like they're attacking them personally."

The good new according to Schreiber is that this prospect is so awful and so preventable it is likely something else will happen in the form of a Super Delegate Powwow  after the last primary in early June that follows the Pelosi doctrine that the Supers should go with the majority of selected delegates.  And in support of this Schreiber says

Just about every superdelegate and party operative I spoke with endorsed Nancy Pelosi's recent suggestion that pledged delegates should matter most.

The bottom line of this prospect is that it is both good news and bad news

The good news is that an ugly convention fight is highly preventable. The one advantage of a scenario that's both completely hair-raising and utterly foreseeable is that everyone has an incentive to stop it. The bad news is what's not preventable: a contest that rolls into June. Even without a messy convention, the current trajectory of the primary campaign could easily destroy the party's White House prospects.

But the idea of going to the convention, fighting on the floor, reaching a deadlock and then needing to bring in Al Gore to pick up the pieces (as well as perhaps Obama as his VP) is that while it would produce a ticket that I, and no doubt lots of other Democrats could feel good about, could only happen after so much damage had been done that it would probably be too late to stop Senator McCain from winning in November.

Thus, Jerome's diary.

Anything to obscure the obvious trajectory of the race.

Look, there is a strong case to be made for a compromise candidate, probably either Gore or Mark Warner.

There are just too many Obama supporters who refuse to vote for Hillary, and too many Hillary supporters who refuse to vote for Obama.

Some of them may come around by Election Day, but given how close the election is likely to be, if even a relatively small percentage of them maintain their stance, McCain will win.

is that Gore's name probably wouldn't be placed into nomination until after 4,5 or 6 ballots where neither Clinton or Obama had reached the number necessary to end the nomination battle.

After say 4,5, or 6 ballots when both sides are entrenched and all anyone can see is more ballots without a nominee then placing Gore's name into nomination makes perefect sense.

Then the fight would be over the 2nd spot : which I think Obama would get in a heart beat.

See my diary today.  Cantwell is pretty vocal that this has to be over by June and she's going to get behind Obama then.

I think it would take a near 1920 type Convention, where there was over 100 ballots at the proceeding, for a compromise candidate to emerge.  In a 2 way race, a deadlock is impossible.

Now if this isn't the silliest thing I've ever seen here.

Tell you what.... I'll give you 1,000,000,000,000 to 1 odds -- let's bet $10.

Whattya say, Jerome?

...is that we're starting to see the bargaining phase.  I'm worried about depression.

A recent statewide poll of registered Democratic voters by the St. Petersburg Times and its television partner showed that the campaigning boycott of Florida had little effect on Democratic voters' choices in the Jan. 29 primary. The poll showed that 56 percent said the lack of campaigning had "no effect at all" on their vote.

The fact is that in most states where Obama's campaigned, especially the early ones, his presence in the state did swing the numbers considerably.  This poll is NOT reason to believe Floridians would somehow have been different.

If for some reason Obama had skipped SC, I bet the SC residents would have answered that question the same way, y'know?

Never happen. They may be spineless but they have enough of a survival instinct to get it resolved before the convention. One of two things could happen.

It becomes clear after PA that Obama has survived Wright and the kitchen sink and there is no chance for Hillary to pass Obama on even the popular vote at which point the supers line up behind Obama or Obama's campaign collapses after a crushing defeat in PA and an unexpected loss in NC and the super delegates give it to Hillary.

Based on the above I'd say Hillary has a 5% chance of getting the nomination. The odds of it going to the convention and it going to Gore, 1%.

Gore probably should be the candidate.
I think that HRC would accomplish more, but Obama and Republican Trolls have effectively decimated the Clintons.
They have the black community convinced that Bill, who has spent 90% of his post presidency, working for black interests, is racist.

I would vote for Gore in the GE, and I would never, ever vote for Obama.

The bitter trade-off is that B.O. would end up Veep.  And Clinton does deserve the presidency IMHO.

But Gore hasn't been Oba-Smeared.  Yet.  So I think this is the only way that we can beat McCain.

I would be much happier with a Gore/Obama ticket then any Hillary ticket.  However this will never happen and Jerome is just trying to continue his downplaying of Obama's lead.

gore at the top won't happen nor should the electorate stand for it (no matter how much respect you might have for Gore).

It seems to me that the Democratic Party way of doing things keeps falling further away from, well, a democratic process.

and you can bet a $1million that the 1/5 threshold of folks who won't vote in the general if their primary vote isn't counted will never be reached. It's just venom coming out of of the electorate so as to be heard. Either they'll vote for Hillary again in the general or for one of the other guys. Very few will sit home.

Okay, Jerome is apoplectic about the idea that MI and FL might not get their legally disqualified delegates seated and somehow thinks that having ALL 50 STATES delegates disqualified is in some way a campaign winner, or even a campaign plausability?

This ain't Hollywood. An 3rd candidate who was never on the ballot will only happen if the other two are in jail, in space, or in heaven. This is silly, and I have to agree with someone up there that said thoughts like these only exist to sow confusion -- which is a a major instrument in the Hillary toolbox for a Denver victory omlette.

What everyone has to remember is that winning in November is a must. There is too much at stake in this election. The war in Iraq, the economy, the Supreme Court, fighting global warming, poverty, etc. If Clinton and Obama are unelectable by the time the Convention comes around, then a compromise candidate is a good idea. Yes it would be nice to have the first viable African-American or woman as the nominee but not at the risk of President McCain. McCain is Bush on steroids. Do we really want to nominate Clinton or Obama knowing that a McCain presidency is all but certain? You do know that McCain wants to bomb bomb Iran, wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, will nominate right wing conservative judges to the Supreme Court, and knows nothing about the economy right. We can't risk it. Especially the Supreme Court because it could put us backwards for atleast 20 years. If by the time the convention comes around and polls showObama and Clinton loses to McCain but Gore wins, then I hope the Superdelegates and delegates go with Gore. This election is about saving America from 4 more years of Bush on Steroids.

And you guys laughed at me when I said that Gore or Wes Clark might emerge!  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/20/2029 52/075

to either Clinton or Obama, I can't see how this scenario could possibly play out. There would be a voter revolt.

Mahoney will be gone after November anyway...I'd like to see Gore, but we can't throw nearly 30 million primary votes under the bus.

He's from Florida... sounds like simple sour grapes to me...  I doubt that many other supers share his enthusiasm for a candidate that no one has voted for...

...like one commenter said, I can see it happening on the 10th ballot, but not before...  even then, we will be at an EXTREME disadvantage in November!

...at the convention are going to not vote for either Hillary or Barack in order to not have a winner on the first round of voting?

Do I understand this argument correctly?

This sounds silly to me.

And a certain amount of grasping at any way to deny Obama the nomination.

I assume that if Hillary was in the lead with pledged delegates that this line of reasoning would not even be occurring.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/p olitics/blog/2008/03/clintons_landing_un der_sniper.html

maybe the "sniper-fire" were the cameras flashing.

Hillary can sure tell a good story.

Let me get this straight; you now have a historic election cycle where you are seeing all kinds of latent and not so latent issues of race and gender flying around as folks advocate for their candidate of choice, passionately, and this chaos is going to be solved by a white male candidate stepping into the fray and rescuing the party?  I love Al Gore and would have been happy if he had run, but I don't think so.  It needs to play itself out and we all need to support the winner.

Al Gore will join a ticket with Katherine Harris before that happens.

Every time I see Joe Lieberman whispering in John McCain's ear I think what the hell was Al Gore thinking?

...that the poobahs could replace Obama with a white man (any white man) and not lose the black vote.

It would be a direct slap in the face to the black community.

THINK: The Obamatons were whining about pushing Hillary 1 or 2 points up to take the nomination...how would they react to pushing Gore 100 points up?

The country would explode.

Disenfranchisement, indeed.

How is it possible that people that are up in arms about the disenfranchisement of FL and MI would suggest an alternative, which would be to disenfranchise all 50 states?  

This is not a smart idea and if we let ourselves get suckered into that bet, rest assured that I and many other people will leave the party.

this is exactly what we should do.  Neither Obama nor Clinton will be electable once this is over, especially against McCain.  When the process started we thought we would be running against Giuliani or Romney. McCain actually has a good chance of winning.

Draft Gore!

I don't understand this diary.  One super delegate floats this idea and it's a front pager?  

We're having enough problems deciding between to candidates.  Now you want to throw Gore into the mix.

Are you really a Democrat?  Do you have any idea what this would do to the party?  Nominating someone NO ONE voted for?

The last several weeks every other diary here is about disenfranchising the millions of voters in FL and MI, and now you want to disenfranchise $25 Million?

Democrats aren't smart enough to win elections because they won't do what it takes to win.  "Fairness" trumps winning in the Democratic Party.

All due respect to Al Gore, but does anyone remember that he lost the election to Bush? He lost to George Bush. That's like losing a foot race to a crippled person.

Yes, FL was pure robbery. But Gore should have beat Bush without the need for FL.

Like every other Dem, I've got nothing but love for Gore. But what has he done since that would tell the party that he would run a better campaign a second time?

I love Al Gore, but this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard.  What in the hell has he done to deserve the nomination at this point?  Just give it to him?  Puh-leeeeze.  Can we get back to the regularly scheduled campaign battle now?

I thought the stake had finally been driven into the heart of the "Gore4Prez" thing.

Talk about delegates overpowering the will of the voters!

I don't care how much Gore is worshipped by the netroots, people expect Obama or Clinton to be the nominee, and a bait and switch like that might have worked in olden days... but not now.

It's not like I don't think Gore would be a great president... but man, come ON.

This is more throwing dirt up to obscure the game.

Polls? Really people? You are giving up already on the Dem vs. McCain because of some polls? Sure some polls say +9 McCain but the average is only around +1.5 with many polls just as strongly in favor of Obama or Clinton. Don't cherry pick the worst result. And also, this comes right on the heels of Wright which will fade over time and likely things will regress to the mean of an Obama or Clinton lead. Also, it's March!

Has anyone looked at Rasmussen Markets, a predicition market for the election? Obama has around an 85% chance of winning the white house. I tend to look to these markets more than polls because polls don't always make a good proxy for odds of winning. Case in point: the same polls that show McCain leading also show Hillary leading Obama. Everyone knows that Clinton's chances of winning the nomination are very slim at this point but if you read only the polls it looks like she has a 50+% chance. Last time I checked that wasn't the case. The markets say she as about a 13% chance of winning the White House. The eventual Dem candidate is at about 65% vs. McCain.

Don't get so pessimistic.

...who would not run anyway, is a concerted push by party elders to get the supers in line behind Obama.  This is a way to create a presumptive nominee before PA without hopelessly tarnishing the process.  Already, Pelosi and Reid have made whispers in that direction.

This idle speculation about Gore is a waste of time.  He's in the process of closing a $5B private equity fund in the next few weeks.  He's got a complex network of other business dealings.  He's up to his neck in the global warming work.  He's receiving a steady stream of awards and positive press.  No way in hell is he is going to put all this on hold (assuminhg that's even possible) so that the Republicans can take pot shots at him for 8 years.  The American electorate had its chance in 2000 and blew it.

What Florida and Michigan problem?  The rules were made known in advance, Florida and Michigan decided to break them anyway, and they were punished severely (probably too severely, but what's done is done.)

Al Gore on the top of the ticket?  That would be comical, and make the Democratic Party a joke.  No disrespect for Gore, but a dark horse convention candidate is for when there aren't any strong candidates already in the race, and the Democrats have two already.

Sure, let the superdelegates choose a candidate that none of its party's primary voters voted for.  That'll go over really well.

I'd vote for Gore in a heartbeat - he should have been president the past 8 years anyway.  It would restore my faith in the party if they did something bold like this.

This is big, and what a lot of us have been saying - nice to see it here:

"77 percent of the people polled said that it is "very important" to them that the results of the Jan. 29 primary count... The St. Petersburg Times poll showed that one in four state Democrats might not vote for the party's nominee if Florida delegates aren't given a full say in the presidential nomination."

Democrats across the country would cheer a Gore nomination! He should have been the candidate anyway. Not only does he possess more experience to be President than Clinton, Obama AND McCain but he also represents the change in policies that this country desperatley needs!!!

Gore all the way! He should have been President anyway, what a great way to restore America at the end of the Bush era

I, Albert Gore Jr.,....

The winner of the pledged delegates will be the nominee.  Barring an unprecedented collapse, the winner will be Obama.

While in theory the superdelegates could pick someone else, the supers are already moving to Obama.

Absent the proverbial dead girl or live boy, Obama will be the nominee.  Those who object to this will have to decide, then, if they prefer McCain to Obama.

Sorry, but that's just how it is.

Why has the leading advocate of Crashing the Gate become the leading advocate of Closing the Gate?   This website seems to have lost all meaning and purpose.