Gore x2
OK, so when I asked if people thought Al Gore could win the presidency in 08, I got 2 solid NOs and a question. (everyone else: I see the hits for this site and I know more of you read and did not respond, boooo)
First, the question: do you think Gore could defeat Rudy?
My response: probably. I guess a better response would be why the devil would anyone want Rudy Giuliani to be President? I don't know much about him, to be honest. Who are his supporters?
As for the two NOs: thanks for y'all's thoughts. I was kind of surprised, which means it was good for me to hear your responses. I know a lot of culturally astute and intelligent people who don't really like Gore or don't think he could ever win, and it's good to remember that before I run off and jump on the idealist train full-speed ahead. But... why don't you like him? Who would you support, and who could actually win?
[Really, I see it as Gore, Shillary, or Obama. No one else has the, uh, personality. Or vision.)
Also I just read this piece in SFGate about the case for Al Gore and it got me all excited again. He has the historical precedent on his side, among other things.
And as much as it pains me to say this, you can win the presidency without tons of support from the rural conservative white vote, which is certainly where Gore would have a tough time overcoming his image. Take Tester, in Montana - Burns (R) took 44 counties, Tester (D) took 15. Most of those were the more densely populated (and liberal) parts of the state, and he got just enough of the rural places to squeak by. Totally doable. Ditto for McCaskill (D) in Missouri and Kulongoski (D-Gov) in Oregon.
Here's an interesting piece in New West on how Tester was able to make Montana blue not by winning the rural counties but by simply cutting his losses there, losing the overall vote but by slim enough margins that the endcount put him ahead: Rural Montana Voters Carried Jon Tester’s Victory
Comments
The reason I think Gore can't win is the same reason the Chron apparently thinks he can: History. I think Gore would get the Howard-Dean-January-2004 treatment: You would never hear or see his candidacy mentioned without "I invented the Internet," "lockbox" and footage of him looking incredibly uncomfortable on the stump. Great guy, would have made a great leader, but he's tainted meat. Maybe he could be a Veep again, but I doubt he wants to.
Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia had looked really good for a while -- Southern state, moderate image, consensus builder. We need someone like Tester who will cut his losses, and maybe (just a little) present himself as all things to all people. Does Hillary have that? I doubt it, people have been eating out on how evil she is for years. Does Obama? There was a great item in the TIME letters section saying hell would freeze over before hard-right Southerners would vote for him. (By hard-right, the letter writer meant: People who still think interracial marriage is wrong.) Who has it? I have no answers.
I agree with you re. Rudy. Giuliani is the dark horse favorite right now BECAUSE, I think, people know so little about him. 9/11 made him look good, New Yorkers grudgingly love him, but it's hard to put him on a national platform except as some kind of glorified mascot. The Republicans might not be so eager to reach for him now that the president's "Terrorists love Democrats" pitch didn't work in midterms.
Posted by: Ellen | November 17, 2006 2:53 PM
As someone a bit closer to New York, I'd say that "grudgingly" doesn't always apply. I think as you learn more about him you may soften up on Rudy...he's a republican without being too conservative, at least for my tastes. I agree with Ellen's assesment of Gore as "tainted meat," and too many people fear Hillary to vote for her. I actually see the inter-racial marriage set coming around before we have a female president.
Posted by: Heidi | November 17, 2006 8:17 PM