The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket

There are super-delegates out there talking about a different candidate, from U.S. Rep. Tim Mahoney:

"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.

A compromise candidate could be someone such as former vice president Al Gore, Mahoney said last week during a meeting with this news organization's editorial board.

If either Clinton or Obama suggested to a deadlocked convention a ticket of Gore-Clinton or Gore-Obama, the Democratic Party would accept it, Mahoney said.

...Mahoney said he had intended to skip the convention because "I have better things to do in my district" than attend what recently has become a glorified pep rally. He will stay away if his superdelegate vote isn't needed. Meanwhile, he's lobbying to get the results of the Jan. 29 Florida primary vote to count.


And on that Florida vote:
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. Also, 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.


Who knows how many super-delegates like Mahoney's that there are out there, who if they have to go to the floor, will opt for another candidate, possibly Gore, for the nomination. It's too early right now, there's still a possibility for either Clinton or Obama to become the perceived nominee. For Clinton, the path goes through nearly sweeping all the remaining 10 contests. For Obama, it's winning enough of them, probably 6, to ride it out. Of course, in either of those scenarios, the FL and MI problem remains unresolved.



Display:


Clintons Would Call Gore "Judas" (2.00 / 1)

Maybe this is what's driving Carville


by bernardpliers on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:35:24 AM EST

Wow, that's a terrible idea (1.92 / 13)

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.


by tjekanefir on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:43:15 AM EST

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (none / 0)

bump


by Timetheos on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:45:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (2.00 / 2)

They're both extremely popular, but one side doesn't acknowledge the supporters on the other side. All the "Obama/Clinton supporters are idiots" comments and attitudes are what's dividing the party.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:00:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

While that's prevalent on the intartubes (none / 0)

it's not that prevalent in the real world.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:01:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow That's A Terrible Idea! (none / 0)

I would have loved Gore to run. Drafting Gore is exactly the kind of thing that happened all the time in the 19th century and early 20th century. In those days there were no primaries, and delegates came into the convention and fought it out for ballot after ballot.

Then, sometime around the 14th ballot or something, a  consensus candidate would emerge --- usually neither of the front runners.

That sort of thing is impossible now. Millions have voted for either Hillary or Obama and both have been introduced to the American people. Democrats might be closely divided between them, but Al Gore had his chance to run and didn't.

Substituting a new candidate in September nobody has voted for would only ensure defeat. Remember when Minn. Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash and they brought in former Vice President Walter Mondale?

Mondale was widely regarded and well beloved in Minnesota but people just didn't vote for him and he was crushed.

You just can't bring in a substitute candidate at the last minute and expect him to win.

As bad as a convention fight in September would be, nominating somebody other than Hillary or Obama would be worse. It would doom not only the presidential bid, but downballot candidates as well.

Even if Obama loses the election, congressional Democrats are virtually certain to pick up seats. However, putting Al Gore on the ballot would doom that.


by Cugel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (2.00 / 2)

I wouldn't go as far as saying they're both extremely popular, especially after the last few weeks.

The only way I see Gore jumping in is if Obama and Hillary continue to hammer each other to the point where they are seen as virtually unelectable against McCain.  Right now, they're both 5-8 points behind McCain...if that trend continues, I expect Gore's name to surface more and more.

And let's not talk about what's "fair" in politics.  For one, politics isn't about being fair, it's about winning, and that's the Democrats' number one priority.  Second, nothing is fair about the fact that Gore should've been President the past seven years.


Netroots for Gore
by NYPopulist on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:02:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's team has done a good job (2.00 / 2)

destroying Clinton, and destroying himself in the process.


by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Comedy. (2.00 / 1)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's team has done a good job (2.00 / 2)

You had a typo in there....

Hillary's team has done a good job (none / 0)

destroying Obama, and destroying herself in the process.

There... now, it's fixed!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:03:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's team has done a good job (2.00 / 2)

hmmph, supporters on either side would have to be dishonest or stupid to not see that the intention to harm is there in both Obama and Clinton camps on ALL levels: in the campaigns at the top, and extending out to official surrogates, as well as out in the blog lands.

Any statement that doesn't recognize the truth of this is wrong, whether intentionally or unintentionally so, according to the motives of the speaker/writer.

Both Clinton and Obama are politicians and will do nearly anything to win. They each put themselves above the good of the party. They are each willing to damage each other. They each deny that's what the game is, and that's part of the game too.

Those of us watching this, or participating at the fringes, should admit this is so and stop pretending that OUR candidates hands are clean.

Calling out some tactics as crossing "the line" is legitimate however.  But it's all judgement and gray area.  Just as the Superdelegates job is about judging the election terrain as things evolve.

I'm so tired of claims of goodness or evil about either side. Politics is not pretty, and high flying rhetoric don't make it so.


by sarany on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:22:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's team has done a good job (2.00 / 2)

Reverse that and you have the truth.  CLinton has done nothing but lie and attack for all of 2008.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:28:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is clear that one candidate (2.00 / 2)

is absolutely perfect and wonderful and the other is evil and bad, but y'all can't make up your minds which is which.

The personality cults and hatred created by politics just shows how empire has corrupted America.


by TomP on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (2.00 / 1)

that is how we screw ourselves, trying to be so damn fair all the time.  The whole process, from gerrymandered congressional districts, to arcane rules for apportioning delegates, to the Electoral College, is not a fair process.

We can either change the system, or quit pretending that it is a fair system.  Maybe learn to play the game as it is, as the Republicans have done.


by WolfmanJack on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (2.00 / 1)

watch Obama win the popular vote but lose the Electoral Vote (largely owing to Florida and Michigan) then they will be crying about "unfair".  And they will be rightly portrayed as a bunch of whiners.


by WolfmanJack on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (none / 0)

Our problem is that our own party set up this crazy primary process, with the delegate rules and we set up most of the gerrymandered districts too.  Our own rules stink!  They've made this a huge mess that could cost us the election.  


by SueBee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:15:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore or Warner (2.00 / 2)

Flipping a coin would be better than throwing them both out after all this.

Speaking only for myself here, I disagree.  Last fall, I made up my mind to vote for Hillary, but at the time, I still liked a lot about Obama.  

I still think Obama does have some admirable leadership qualities, but since then, I've studied his views further, and I've increasingly come to see him as just not ready for the presidency.  It's not just the Rev. Wright controversy, but other things as well.

Hillary is still my top choice - I've really grown to admire her.  But Gore would still be almost as good.  He'd make an excellent president, he's well respected by all factions within the party, and he'd be simultaneously able to heal all divisions within the party and campaign on a vigorous, exciting platform in the fall.

The same is true of Mark Warner, who I think would make an even better president than Hillary.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:10:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore or Warner (none / 0)

Um Warner hasn't had any vetting really and has as little experience as Clinton or Obama does.  The ONLY reason he is in this conversation is the Southern Governor issue, which really only helps the GOP (meaning THEY benefit from a southern governor more than us).


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore or Warner (2.00 / 1)

Agree, Obama is not ready to be POTUS.  Eight years of Bush/GOP rule has left so much of our government in disarray, its going to take someone with experience and connections to fix it.

Obama is not even close to being ready.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore or Warner (none / 0)

Agree.  I used to like Obama, back when I didn't know anything about him.  He gives such great speeches.  But he really isn't ready to be President.  He just isn't.  

Mark Warner has problems too.  There's a reason that he so abruptly dropped out of the race for President.  There's a reason why he supports Obama and can't stand the Clintons.  He also has baggage from when he left the VA Governor's job.  I like him, but he's not ready either.  Too many skeletons in that closet.  


by SueBee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 12:19:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (2.00 / 1)

No, it's not terrible -- it's absolutely brilliant!  As our wonderful party careens towards seriously pissing off fifty, plus or minus a few, percent of primary season voters, the Democratic Party can find a way to alienate and disenfranchise all of them!

Seriously, why would I want a slow-talking, election-losing nominee?  He'd be far better as the first Secretary of the newly-minted Homeworld Security department (or whatever).  Awarding Gore the nomination would be akin to resolving a nasty child custody battle by awarding the kid to the couple down the block (who happen to be wonderful parents!).


by Twin Planets on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:03:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow, that's a terrible idea (none / 0)

Another way to settle the 2008 Democratic Nomination is a game called
"Rocks Paper Scissor" I learned that in College.
by nkpolitics on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I would take Gore over both Clinton/Obama (none / 0)

in a heart beat.  Instantly, without any hesitation.  I think there are a great many democrats that would do the same.  He could have Obama as his VP and Clinton could pickup the reins where Reid dropped them about a year and a half ago.

And that, from a very strong Clinton supporter-


by linc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:49:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The likelihood of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 2)

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


The Wages of Sin is about $5.15 an Hour.
by hz on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:56:02 AM EST

Funny... (2.00 / 0)

... because I was just about to say that a Gore-led ticket is more likely than a Clinton ticket.


by kraant on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 0)


"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.


by Fred in Vermont on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:57:51 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

Figures that Brazile would be boosting the 1980 comparison. Kennedy was almost 1,000 delegates behind and over 13 points behind in the popular vote. Neither Obama nor Clinton are in that position.


by souvarine on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:41:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uncertainty helps Clinton (1.00 / 2)

Thus, Jerome's diary.

Anything to obscure the obvious trajectory of the race.


by Grady on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM EST

Re: Uncertainty helps Clinton (none / 0)

Very true.

I particularly love how Jerome tries to gain credibility by claiming that Clinton will need to sweep nearly all of the states to become the perceived nominee, and then says Obama needs to win six of them to become the perceived nominee.

So really, then, if Clinton wins five of the upcoming contests, then he is not the nominee. Thus we move to a floor fight at the convention.

I just hope Hillary has enough maturity not to follow that trajectory.


I just flipped off President George, I'm going to Disneyland
by alvernon on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:07:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 2)

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.
by He Who Must Not Be Named on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:01:37 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you wholeheartedly!  And perhaps if the idea is seriously floated now, folks will have time to think about the advantages of going for a compromise candidate over the possibility of dividing the party so badly that we just usher in McCain on a (blood) red carpet.  I believe the duty of the superdelegates, first of all, is to preserve the party's existence.  The way we're going now the Democratic party is bound to implode. The secondary function of the superdelegates is to ensure that an electable Democrat is nominated at the national convention.  With the party so split right now who can guarantee that either Obama or Clinton is electable? It is so vital to the country that we elect a Democratic President.  We can't afford whether in terms of lives or cost to continue this war ad nauseum.  We have to develop an energy policy that doesn't beholden us to terrorists, dictators or greedy corporate interests.  We all need access to health care that won't impoverish or bankrupt us.  Can't we Democrats rethink our priorities here so that we elect a president who will work to untangle the mess Bush is leaving us with rather than one who will only extend his legacy for another 4-8 years?!?  Superdelegates, please realize it is now up to you to save the party, save the election, and save the people!


always analyzing
by nittakluc on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

Agree, experience should be the top priority.  Many Clinton supporters are saying they won't support Obama, not because of personal identification but because he is not ready to serve due to lack of experience.  Even more bothersome is his inability to address it.   Ego alone does not make a good president.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:15:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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.


by He Who Must Not Be Named on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:03:08 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 1)

So what?

Piss 'em both off?

This idea is as nutty as Opus' idea for the 1988 Meadow Party Ticket -- upon being told that nominating Jesse Jackson was a bad idea because he'd alienate half the nation... and Jesse Helms was also a bad idea because he'd alienate the other half -- Opus suggest a Jesse + Jesse ticket to alienate ALL of America.

MyDD has become a comic strip.


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

That's precisely what would happen.  Both Clinton and Obama supporters would be pissed.  Al Gore is too smart to get caught up in this mess.  It would be far simpler for him to simply align behind one or the other.


by StrangeAnomaly on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:24:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

how about the voters who would be too pissed off to see a non-primary-candidate win it? Like those who worked hard to win an election for either Hillary or Obama.

sorry, my current disdain for Hillary would pale in comparison if Gore led the ticket.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:24:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Only Freeper Trolls will be upset (2.00 / 2)

all those arduous months of vilifying for NOTHING!!!


by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:27:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What most people don't stop to realize (none / 0)

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.


by merbex on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:03:50 AM EST

It's unfortunate that Obama would be Gore's veep (none / 0)

because Clinton is the fireball.  Obama is the ambiance.


by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:11:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What most people don't stop to realize (none / 0)

I think there is zero chance of this not being decided on June 4th, but given a scenario where it does go to the convention, it seems very unlikely to me that it wouldn't be decided on the first ballot.

They just need a bare majority right?  Unless a bunch of superdelegates abstain, Edwards just didn't win enough delegates to force it to a second, third, fourth ballot...


by bawbie on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The nominee is whoever gets to the number (none / 0)

of delegates necessary to secure the nomination not one less, not thisclose, but at that number which now without FLA and MI is at 2024( because of Rep. Lantos' death or it could be 2025).

With FLA and MI the number goes up to 2207 but that's at a full strength delegation for both states. If the credential committee decides to allow FLA and MI but at a reduced number then the number to secure the nomination goes up over 2024 but is not at 2207.

If  a substantial number of undeclared super delegates stay undeclared then it is possible that neither Obama or Clinton will have enough to win going into the Convention and if a substantial number of undeclared super delegates vote "present" or abstain from on the first ballot ( for whatever reason) then the likelihood of numerous ballots ensues culminating in Al Gore's name being placed in nomination only after all the ballots on the previous rounds has yielded no winner then I can envision  that a deadlocked Convention would turn to Al Gore.

I cannot imagine that his name would be placed in nomination until it was clear the Convention was deadlocked.

To say that the scenario I described is a long shot would be apt.....

But it's still possible.


by merbex on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What most people don't stop to realize (none / 0)

Central to this is an idea that the Superdels who haven't yet committed are as crazy about this as we are.

Fact is, enough superdels are waiting to the end PRECISELY because they'll back the candidate with the most dels, pledged or otherwise. And that'll be it, because most superdels want to be REELECTED themselves, and that won't happen with party chaos.

But keep on dreamin!


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:48:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What most people don't stop to realize (none / 0)

Yes


by mikeinsf on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 0)

6 out of 10, Jerome?  Really?  He can win Oregon, North Carolina, Indiana, South Dakota and Montana, and that just won't be enough? She's expected to win Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico, and it would be ridiculous to suggest he needs wins in any of those states. (Obviously, if he were to somehow pull off the upset in PA, this thing would be over immediately.)
 That loss in Guam is really going to wipe him out, I guess.
by megaplayboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:03:51 AM EST

But you fail to realize (2.00 / 1)

A Democrat can't win the White House without the electoral votes of Puerto Rico.  That's why Hillary is the better candidate for the general election.


by TL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

I just pulled 6 out, it really depends on the states, maybe its 5 or even 4, or just 1, Pennsylvania.


by Jerome Armstrong on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:31:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 1)

I'd suggest that if he wins only 1 of PA, IND or NC and doesn't lose the other 2 by wide (20+) margins, it will be over (though it won't end until mid-June).

If he wins 2 of those 3, it ends within days.  


by SKI on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:47:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

I think this analysis is spot-on.


Senator Obama will be formally nominated on August 28, 2008 - the 45th Anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream Speech."
by brimur on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:55:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

Rasmussen now has Obama within 10 in PA, even after Wright and before his bus tour there, so I guess it's remotely plausible he could win there, which would be nice, since it kills Clinton's run and kills this "Obama can't close it out/win big states" meme at the same time.  Clinton could make a gracious concession speech and either preserve her chance of being veep, or work towards becoming majority leader.


by megaplayboy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:08:45 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

She should get behind Obama now, then.  What's stopping her?  The fact that with the media at his back, the support of the DNC and everything going in his favor, he can't close the deal?

Is that what keeps our little Maria from choosing him?


by Sensible on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

She wants to wait for the process to be over.  She's assuming that Obama will be the pledged delegate leader in her argument, but is open to the concept that Clinton could get 70% of the vote in PA as part of a huge game changing landslide.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, she will win (none / 0)


by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually, she will win (2.00 / 1)

She will win what?  The delegate lead?  The popular vote lead?  


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:27:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if clinton gets more than 70% in pennsylvania... (none / 0)

..well...that would probably display that Obama's viability as a candidate is shot.

You really think that is probable?


d
by d on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if clinton gets more than 70% in pennsylvania. (none / 0)

No, I don't think it's probable.  However, I could see people wanting to wait a little just to be sure.

Post IN/NC, there easily could be a situation where Obama would have a bigger pledged lead than the number of remaining delegates to be decided.  I think that's when a lot of movement will happen if it's still in doubt.


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:53:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

Maybe she's not so hot on his racist pastor.


by JFK464 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 06:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 1)

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.


by howardpark on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:09:28 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

the '24 convention required a 2/3 majority as well. I think that complicated things a bit.

a compromise candidate shouldn't be plausible at this juncture. Either Hillary makes the comeback of the century or Obama wins.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

Well the century is only 8 years old and hasn't featured any comebacks yet. So you could be right.

But if you're speaking of the past 100 years you're overstating a bit. It's the closest nomination sinds the revised rules with niether candidates close to the magic number as of yet.

There is currently about a 140 delegate gap. Difficult to close, but a couple of months to go and with 900 delegates still up in the air still to early to call.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:03:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

yes, last 100 years.

the point I'm making is that we need one of these candidates to reach a magic number that doesn't equate to a 2/3 majority which led to the 1924 comprise candidate.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:31:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

I'm sorry but if you seriously think that Sen. Clinton winning this would be even close to the biggest comeback of the last 100 years you let the current contests' historical nature cloud all historical perspective.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd Love Gore. But Clinton is Best (2.00 / 2)

She has impressed the hell out of me, and I think would make a super human president.
Gore/Clinton would be good, but Gore would be under pressure to take the politically correct direction.
by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:09:31 AM EST

Re: I'd Love Gore. But Clinton is Best (none / 0)

Superhuman President?

I knew it. Hillary is Magneto.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:45:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So she stopped the sniper fire with (none / 0)

a thought.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'd Love Gore. But Clinton is Best (none / 0)

That's ONE supernatural character she could be.  I can think of a few more.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh My (none / 0)

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?


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST

It would be a funny trick on you Freeper Trolls! (none / 0)


by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:23:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would be a funny trick on you Freeper Troll (2.00 / 1)

Do you even know what a 'freeper troll' is?

I'm honestly curious because if there's on consistent aspect to my history here -- I've made it clear how much I oppose ANYONE using wingnut citations for evidence... I said so when Obama supporters were trusting Drudge - and I've continued to say so as Hillbots use Debbie Schlussel, NewsMax, Bill Kristol, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, FoxNews, and every other manner of wingnut to support their floundering candidate.

So seriously.... do you know what a 'freeper troll' is?


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:47:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The good news about this diary... (2.00 / 4)

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


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:13:35 AM EST

Re: The good news about this diary... (none / 0)

True, quite true.

Unfortunately, though, everyone moves at a different pace...  Recall that weeks ago, we had Clinton supporters lowering themselves to offering Obama the VP spot.

Unfortunately, many, many relapses...


by zonk on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:19:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The good news about this diary... (none / 0)

Yes, but the anger level here has gone down quite a bit over the last few weeks.  Remember a month ago when 3/4 of the diaries were venom about Rezko?


Beat McCain!
by thezzyzx on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The good news about this diary... (2.00 / 1)

If I could rate this comment higher than 2, I would.  Mojo squared.


by TL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What a bogus poll! (1.80 / 5)

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.

First of all, how do the voters know how something that they didn't experience might or might not have affected them?  That's silly.

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?


by RT on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:14:07 AM EST

hahaha (none / 0)

That's really funny!


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:04:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What a bogus poll! (none / 0)

I had exactly the same thought when I read that.  Polling about whether something that did not exists did not have an impact?


by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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%.


by hankg on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:20:40 AM EST

Thinking about this 2 seconds more (2.00 / 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.


by Bill Keaton on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST

Re: Thinking about this 2 seconds more (none / 0)

In that case, Bill, I hope you enjoy President McCain's fight to extend the Bush tax cuts - and to make them even more favorable to the wealthy.  The saber-rattling in the Middle East and 100 years in Iraq should be a hoot, too.

Because, you know, Obama is the antichrist.


by TL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking about this 2 seconds more (2.00 / 1)

No one deserves the presidency.

Unless they win.

Thus, Gore deserved the presidency. And Sam Tilden. Not Hillary. Not Obama. Yet.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking about this 2 seconds more (none / 0)

Not saying Obama "deserves" the presidency.  

The comment Bill made was that if Obama is the nominee he won't vote for Obama.  And I'm pointing out that if the Dem nominee isn't elected, McCain will be.

Which is why - even though I'm an Obama supporter and get angry when the Clinton campaign attacks him - if HRC is the nominee I will put aside personal feelings and vote for her.


by TL on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:59:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking about this 2 seconds more (none / 0)

i'm convinced that Clinton tried to use race to pull people away from Obama. There is no other reason why to link Obama's victory in S.Carolina to Jesse Jackson "also winning it".

while he may not be the worst type of racist, he still engaged in some pretty nasty behaviour.

and please don't bring up the idea that it was Obama that labeled the Clinton's as a racist as if were fact. Obama has been better suited to skirt the race issue up until the Wright controversy (this country is never ready for grown up race discussion it seems). Instead, you can thank the media for reporting certain events that showed a pattern in Clinton's campaign structure.

I for one was an edwards supporter who thought to sit on the sidelines as this primary played out after his departure. After bill's comments, it was clear to me that Obama would have my backing moving forward.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thinking about this 2 seconds more (none / 0)

That comment almost never happened. It was an innocent comeback by Clinton after he was bated by a reporter as he was walking away. The reporter said "Is Obama so good that it takes the both of you to beat him?"

Obama's campaign already decided to use the race card against the Clinton's long before that. It was right after Hillary won New Hampshire.

Jesse Jackson Jr. made his comment that Hillary didn't cry for Katrina. They went after Hillary for supposedly dissing MLK which is totally absurd. Then they went after Bill.

The Clinton's had nothing to gain from playing the race card in a Democratic primary. Obama is the one who benefited (in the short run). His support went to 92% instead of the 65-80% he would have gotten.

But, once you cry wolf people stop listening to you. Most voters don't want to hear Obama talk about race now. He has lost much of the working-class white vote and hispanics.

Hispanics might be the biggest reason why Obama will not be president. 55% of them say they will cross party lines and vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. The love the Clintons. They like McCain too. Obama has no chance of winning the presidency unless he makes amends with the Clintons.

In fact, I don't see any realistic way he wins at the top of the ticket. His best bet is with Hillary as his VP but even that will be difficult.

By winning, Obama loses. Unless he's the VP first, I don't think the American people will ever elect Obama to the presidency. Can Obama win by losing first?

Hillary is doing the best she can to see that it happens. Obama is his own worst enemy and Hillary is his best political friend. If only the Obamabots knew the truth.


by mmorang on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:50:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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.


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:32:17 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:42:01 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 2)

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.


Fight the Smears!
by Lettuce on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST

Apparently you aren't familiar with the term... (2.00 / 1)

..."Dark Horse Candidate."

Under the rules of the Convention, you don't have to compete in the primaries and/or caucuses to gain the Democratic nomination for the office of President.


by andrewalker08 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Under the rules, yes (none / 0)

But there's theory and then there's the real world.

It ain't gonna happen in the real world.  In the real world, either Obama or Clinton (almost certainly Obama) will get enough SDs to win on the first ballot.


by jrooth on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Under the rules, yes (none / 0)

Only because it's a two way race. It's difficult to deadlock a convention with only 2 candidates.

Had Edwards stayed in the race and done well enough on super tuesday it wouldn't have been theory.

We dodged a bullet there.

consensus candidates are unlikely, not theoretical


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apparently you aren't familiar with the term.. (none / 0)

True, but if it happened then Clintona nd Obama would both be damaged for future races and Gore would probably take a big hit as well.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:37:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Winning is important (2.00 / 2)

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.


by harmony94 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:50:08 AM EST

Re: The Rebellion of the SuperDelegates (none / 0)

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


Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
by stan81747 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM EST

Re: The Rebellion of the SuperDelegates (none / 0)

we're still laughing!

just not at you.  :)


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Rebellion of the SuperDelegates (none / 0)

Gore/Clark '08!!!


by WolfmanJack on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

although i would strongly prefer Gore (none / 0)

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


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST

Re: although i would strongly prefer Gore (none / 0)

Given the growing negative ratings of both candidates, I don't think the average voter is that emotionally invested in either Obama or Clinton.  

A Gore candidacy might come as a big relief.


by Betsy McCall on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: although i would strongly prefer Gore (none / 0)

They'd be saying, 50% want this one, 50% want the other one, people are saying they will vote for the Republican or stay home if their choice doesn't triumph, entire states of people are left out of the process because of poor decisions including the top of the party while other states are counted, with some claiming foul play at poorly attended caucuses...

In essence, what a mess.  The party is about to lose what would have been a sure fire win in November.  So what to do?

Bring in someone everyone can live with - Al Gore.

Sounds pretty wise to me.


by Larissa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:16:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah that'll go over well. (none / 0)


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:00:16 AM EST

a fantasy idea... (none / 0)

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.


by mikelow1885 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:06:54 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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!


It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)
by LordMike on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST

so...enough superdelegates... (none / 0)

...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.


d
by d on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:09:11 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (none / 0)

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.


!
by alex100 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:12:23 AM EST

Superhero (none / 0)

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.


by mady on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM EST

Re: Superhero (none / 0)

Hear Hear
How insulting on so many different levels.
Ida B. The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.-Mark Twain
by Ida B on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore-Clinton? (none / 0)

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


by zt155 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:23:46 AM EST

Re: The possiblility of a Gore-led ticket (2.00 / 1)

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


by Piuma on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST

They want to put the nomination in a lock box. (none / 0)


by Al Depansu on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:39:06 AM EST

You're out of your mind if you think (none / 0)

...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.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM EST

Re: You're out of your mind if you think (none / 0)

How are the Obamatons going to feel if Obama loses in a landslide and vital programs for the needy are cut further?

Well, many in the AA community might feel a lot different then the upper-scale liberals who supported Obama. Their economic well being isn't necessarily at stake.

This whole Wright story should have come out sooner. The media didn't do its job and now its become clear that Obama can't win the general election.

He will be lucky to get 37% of the white vote. He will need about 70% of the hispanic vote. That won't happen.

He has about one years experience at the national level. Gore didn't even pick Edwards in 2000 because of that reason. The truth is that Obama would be lucky to be someone's VP. He's smart but still wet behind the ears.

Hillary better figure out a way to win this thing or the Democrats have no chance. She would put Obama on the ticket, the Democrats would win and Obama could then become president. Everyone wins.


by mmorang on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What the ...??? (none / 0)

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.


by zadura on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST

Obama is not Electable, and (none / 0)

the Senate Geezers can't stand the idea of Hillary Clinton in the whitehouse. Plus Obama has turned blacks against Clinton. I think the MSM disbalance has hurt us in the long run.


by internetstar on