Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gore won pop. vote by w/ Lieberman on the ticket . That is amazing to me.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
zonkers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 05:48 AM
Original message
Gore won pop. vote by w/ Lieberman on the ticket . That is amazing to me.
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 05:56 AM by zonkers
I guess it was a very different Lieberman. Man, he sure has taken a tumble. With a dynamic vice presidential candidate, Gore is unstoppable. Gore/Edwards?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 05:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Lieberman hadn't fallen in love with himself at that point...
at least not completely. Five years of butt kissing from the DC media illuminati has done a real number on the guy. He, like St. John McCain, actually believe the mythology that the likes of Russert and Broder have created round them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Very true - he actually used a lot of self-effacing humor
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 10:21 AM by karynnj
When first introduced he also used a lot of "Jewish" (Catskillish) humor - likely written for him. I was expecting that wit and the belief system he alluded to in accepting Gore's offer in the debates. With that background, I suspected, at some point he could skewer Cheney with some of his extreme uncaring votes - against Head Start, school lunches, Mandella and thinking the US shouldn't be against Apartheid. He actually made Cheney look nice and grandfatherly. (Gore would have done better with Kerry and possibly even Edwards (who had 1 yr of experience then))

In reality, the selection actually boosted Gore - maybe because it has an historic choice and because it was the first thing to counter the (inaccurate) perception of many of Gore as a standard politician who was the son of a politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. At this point Lieberman is all about himself...
as I've said before, I'd rather lose the seat to the GOP than have him re-elected. He does much more harm providing "Dem" cover for Bush than his often good voting record is worth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
against all enemies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #1
22. Yes he had. If he was the VP, Gov. John Rowland (R-CT, Criminal)
would have appointed a Republican Senator to replace Lieberman. That means Joe would have allowed a Republican Governor the ability to put the Republicans in the majority in the Senate. Screw Joementum, he is only looking out for his own best interests. The Democrats in Connecticut, the people of Connecticut and the people of our nation are only after thoughts to selfish Joe. I look forward to the day he is a footnote in the pages of history. May that chapter be written this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. what is amazing is that Gore chose LieVermin to begin with, with all the
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 06:02 AM by sam sarrha
really Remarkable men available..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I don't think Gore selected Lieberman...
...his (Gore's) actions in the 2004 primary sort of demonstrated that. Lieberman was chosen by a panel of the DLC, career political advisors and "top democratic donors"... And as usual, they were off the mark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. I disagree, but if you were right I could never support Gore
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 11:11 AM by Tom Rinaldo
I am sorry, but Gore ran to be President of the United States, you know, the "leader of the free world". The person who is always within twenty feet of the black box that can blow up the world, the person who sits at Harry Truman's "the Buck stops here" desk. A President of the United States must routinely make the final call on important decisions effecting the future of our nation, and I would have to call determining who will sit within a heartbeat of the Presidency an important decision effecting the future of ur nation. Al Gore was no wet behind the ears machine picked tool being promoted to the White House in 2000 by entrenched power brokers. You must be thinking of George W. Bush.

No, Al Gore was an experienced former Senator, and a sitting VP for the prior 8 years who held significant power within the Clinton Administration by all reports. Gore didn't have to cut secret deals or curry favor with anyone in order to secure the Nomination in 2000, it was handed to him on a silver platter. Bradly was his only real opposition and Bradly ran slightly to Gore's left and never was a major factor. The 2000 Democratic Convention was not a machine brokered Convention, Gore didn't have to please anyone but himself and potential November voters with his Vice Presidential pick.

Are you telling me that Al Gore had less freedom to choose and less spine to insist on his own man than John Kerry did in 2004, when Kerry got to pick who he wanted to run with him for Vice President in 2004? The Al Gore you are painting here, one who lets a panel of DLC career adivisers decide on his running mate for him, is not someone who deserves to be President. If Gore was capable of delegating that type of decision to a team of advisers, and signing off on their choice without believing himself that Lieberman was the right choice, than Gore is not the leader America needs now. No one changes that much in 6 years. Al Gore is accountable for his decision to select Joe Lieberman for his 2000 running mate. Al Gore knew Joe Lieberman, Al Gore was a founder of the DLC, this wasn't a decision forced on Al Gore by advisers, and if somehow you are right and it was, that in my mind disqualifies Al Gore from claiming he can lead America. Al Gore may have gotten bad advice, but he chose what advisers to listen to, and he ratified their advice with his own informed consent.

I can live with that, people make mistakes. People grow, people change, but anyone who wants to be President, like Al Gore did in 2000, has to take important decisions seriously enough to form their own judgment on them. I think Al Gore is THAT type of man, and that is why I can still consider supporting him in 2008, despite his Lieberman choice. If I believed your theory I would have to cross Gore off my list.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
3. I really don't think most people used to pay a LOT of attention to
who the VP was. Since Cheney, I think that might have changed, but prior to that, the last VP that mattered was Lydon Johnson when Jack Kennedy died. That's been sooo long ago, only older voters think about that possibility.

The other thing with Leiberman is that Shrub has MADE Joe his favorite Democrat! It was literally the kiss of death politically!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cmd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:25 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. People still don't pay attention
Outside Connecticut and the Progressive activist world, people still don't know much about Lieberman. Don't get too hung up about it. Some things never change. Be grateful that JL still has a D after his name and still votes with the Dems on monst issues. I'm not a Leiberman supporter, just old and experienced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
6. Gore's Lieberman pick IMHO cost Gore 40,000 to 50,000 votes in Florida
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 07:08 AM by wakeme2008
80% of the 60,000 voting Muslim Americans picked Bush over Gore. Lieberman was part of the reason.

Florida then Senator Graham was loved by the moderates and Independents in Florida.

While IMHO Gore won Florida and Bush was saved only by vote counting fraud in Jacksonville and other places, Having the extra say 40,000 votes in his pocket would have won the day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. OTOH, Florida's Jewish voters loved Joe
so I think there was a balance struck. Remember the fiasco with the chads and all resulting in a lot of elderly Jews voting for Pat Buchanen by mistake?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Not a single Jewish voter change from supporting Bush to Gore
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 09:00 AM by wakeme2008
because Gore picked Lieberman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Pretty sweeping statement, if you ask me
It may be true, but it is hard to back that up, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. the chads
it wasn't the chads

it was the butterfly ballot

if those people had bothered to actually spend more than a nanosecond looking at the ballot, buchanan would not have gotten all those (presumably) gore votes

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. A ballot isn't supposed to look like that.
A ballot isn't a puzzle.

And it didn't even line up like it should have if one accepts the idead of butterfly ballots.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sgxnk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. i think the butterfly ballot
was a poorly designed mess

but i was making the clarification that it was the BB not the chads that got buchanan his (lol) heavily jewish vote in FLA

iirc, the butterfly ballot was a classic example of poor design. it also was not a repub plot. it was unfortunate for gore, that much is clear

so were nader voters

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. The fallacy there is that the Jeshish vote is already very Democratic
With Lieberman, Gore got 79% of the Jewish vote in the exit polls. Kerry got 77%. (nationwide)

Part of that difference is that there are some Jews that followed Bush because of the mistaken idea that the Iraq invasion would help Israel. I wasn't aware of the large Arab population in Florida and I don't know how realistic the estimate of votes lost by Lieberman was.

At any rate - just adding back in the 90% of Jacksonville inner-city that spoiled their ballots and the Palm beach area and the felons list - and it is very clear Gore won.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TSIAS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. As much as I dislike Joe
I believe you are correct. I live in South Florida and Lieberman is very popular down here.

If not for the ballots, the state would have gone to Gore without doubt.

Of course, had he picked Bob Graham I suspect FL would have gone even wider for the ticket.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Right, he should have gambled on Graham
Very tough to argue Gore wouldn't have won the presidency with Graham at VP. A favorite son as VP is typically worth 3-3.5 points. I'm not sure there was quite that much room in Florida, considering the GOP's base number, but even a fraction of that would have been plenty, and made the punch cards and butterflys sheer trivia. I'm not even sure we would have HAVA or prevalent DREs.

I know all about Graham's so-called idiosyncracies. Insanely overplayed. He comes across informed and well reasoned. The press coverage is generally very positive. A few weeks on the campaign trail would have thwarted the impact of any GOP attacks in that regard. Especially since we're talking primarily about impact in the home state, where Graham served as both governor and senator. It's not like you're going to scare them away after they've known Graham for two decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. By the way
there are three-quarters of a million Jewish voters in Florida, to go with those 60,000 Muslims....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vjw/florida.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
7. I think in 2000, Gore would have done very well w/ Edwards or Kerry
Who were both being considered alongside Lieberman if I'm not mistaken. I also think running away from Clinton was a huge mistake. For that I blame Brazille. Clinton still had (and has today) enormous popularity and would have been an asset to the Gore campaign. Clinton fatigue was just a GOP myth to keep Clinton out of the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Kerry, yes Edwards, probably not
Edwards had only a year in office. In 2004, he broke even with Cheney in the debate - in 2000, he would have been less experienced and looked younger.

Kerry likely could have helped get NH which would have been enough - his energy could have been focused to bring out young people (I know this sounds strange in 2006 - but in 2000, lots of young people thought of Gore and saw Tipper's warning labels on their music and adding Lieberman reinforced that. Adding Kerry and Teresa, might have emphasized their (Gore and Kerry) shared committment to the environment instead - an issue that got lost in 2000.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
9. At the time, Lieberman was an excellent choice
it was a good ticket and the popular vote proves that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. bad choice for Florida
80% of the 60,000 Muslim Americans voted for Bush and Joe's religion played a big part in their reason for supporting Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. In Florida too many liberals voted for Nader
Edited on Sat Jul-29-06 12:57 PM by Gman
If Nader hadn't been on the ballot or just simply if the liberals that voted for Nader had the commen sense to vote for Gore, the Great Conservative Revolution of 2000 would have never happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wakeme2008 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. strawman that does not answer the question...
Liberals did not vote for nader because of Lieberman, but Muslim-Americans did vote for Bush because of Lieberman...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. Got me!
Just thought I'd rant about Nader! :-)

I don't know one way or the other how American Muslims voted in 2000 or why. My understanding has always been they tend to vote Dem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. So does that mean
we should never nominate a Jew because it will alienate anti Semites? And I think those that voted for Bush because of that were fuckin idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
25. Not merely that, but Lieberman brought in an awful lot of votes.

His selection as vice-presidential nominee by Gore was very widely hailed as a stroke of tactical genius, and the polls reflected that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. Lieberman hadn't turned to the dark side then.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skeeters2525 Donating Member (159 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-29-06 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
31. Wow
You really need a life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC