NEW STUDY: GORE WOULD WIN IN A "LANDSLIDE VICTORY"

[kpete]

Study Says Gore Would Win

A new "Affective Encryption Analysis" study conducted by Media Psychology Affiliates is predicting with "93% accuracy" that "a landslide victory for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the 2008 presidential election. However, should Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination, any potential Republican challenger will win the presidency."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/01/study_says_gore_would_win.html

New Research Tool Predicts Landslide for Gore in 2008, Defeat for Clinton

A new behavior prediction tool is forecasting a landslide victory for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the 2008 presidential election. However, should Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination, any potential Republican challenger will win the presidency.

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) May 29, 2006 -- A new behavior prediction tool is forecasting a landslide victory for former Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the 2008 presidential election. However, should Hillary Clinton gain the Democratic nomination, any potential Republican challenger will win the presidency.

These are among the surprising findings reported by Dr. James N. Herndon, a media psychologist with Media Psychology Affiliates. Using a new research tool called Affective Encryption Analysis, Dr. Herndon led an investigation into the likely outcome of the 2008 Presidential election.

“Affective Encryption Analysis is a new behavior forecasting tool that looks at how our feelings and emotions can influence our long-term actions,” explains Dr. Herndon. “Traditional survey techniques are not very good at predicting trends. Affective Encryption Analysis was developed to dig deeper into the emotional factors that control our future behaviors.”

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb391395.htm

[ronnykmarshall]

1. I loves me some Hillary ...

but I really don't want her to run.

[corkhead]

54. I don't have an axe to grind, but she's obviously Faux "news"'s candidate

The repuke knob twirlers would love to see her nominated
the repuke sheeple would see her being elected as a certain sign of the Apocalypse

edit for spelling

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

104. literally

she bought and paid ofr by murdoch. the only 'democrats' who want her are the susan estrich and alan colmes types

[robbedvoter]

2. Ya mean, like he did in 2000? And chicken soup is good for ya

And just to make it clear, I am quite sure it was a landslide win in 2000 - as we know of 6 million votes uncounted nationwide 9that we know of)

[Generic Other]

3. He is the restoration candidate

The only viable candidate IMO.

[halobeam]

6. I think so too. May he is realizing he could quite actually SAVE

this country. Now, THAT'S the weight of the world on your shoulders, isn't it. Truthfully, I almost feel sorry for him, what a mess we are in.

[madmunchie]

123. I love the guy - he isn't in the Bill Clinton, Bush (both) and Kerry Club

He is as much of an outsider as we could hope for --with a whole lot more to offer

[malaise]

10. 100% correct n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HeeBGBz]

35. He's my choice

Hope it happens. Run Al Run!

[NNadir]

122. "Restoration candidate."

That is an excellent locution.

It's a keeper. Can I steal this term for my own use?

[Generic Other]

130. Certainly

Restoring Democracy is a big job.

[npincus]

4. I believe MANY would vote for Gore as a kind of self-correction

for their BIG mistake, voting for the Simian-King, in 2000. I believe Gore can win BIG this time, outside the margin of stolen votes.

Will he run? I'm thinking that he won't in the end, but believe he is wieghing it now. I hope I'm wrong.

[Clark2008]

No, they wouldn't

Gosh - for a political board, there's a lot of people here who really don't understand the country as a whole.

I'll preface this by saying that I LOVE Al Gore. He was my first political crush, BUT... he's seen as a loser by 70 percent of the voting population. He has only a 28 percent approval rating (if you believe polls - and they're no more or no less valid that the "poll" the OP posted) - how is it that so many here think he's the ONLY viable candidate?

I would vote for him, of course, and be proud to do it - just like I was in 2000. I just don't think, politically, he is seen by enough people as being a winner.

It's sad when our media is so bad that we have to think in these terms, but we do.

[npincus]

20. respectfully, that is your opinion

and I wouldn't go so far as to say that your opinion means you "don't uderstand the country as a whole".

Americans view themselves as compassionate, charitable, generous and love to raise up the underdog and reward him/her with deserved success. Having won the popular vote but lost the presidency, there is no bigger loser than Gore. That's an incredible and appealing narrative: the most humiliated man in America given a second chance, to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of the greatest political defeat in modern times. You bet many Americans would ask themselves "what if...?"

Gore has the experience and is not a dove. His view of Iraq is supported by a majority in this country- unlike Hillary who has yet to say her vote on the war resolution was a mistake. His message on the environment is resonating now, post-Katrina, and his earlier warnings and emphasis on global warming is looking predictive and visionary.

The big IF for me is whether he can apply the lessons learned and run a better campaign (less reliance on consultants).

2008 is a long way off, a lot can and will change. This week's New York magazine has a compeling article about him.

I really believe he can win, and he is the right leader for this time.

[Clark2008]

30. I live in a red state.

My opinion is based on what I hear in STATES WE NEED TO WIN.

My state, btw, is Gore's HOME state - the state he LOST in 2000.

I guess I DO know what I'm talking about afterall.

[npincus]

31. OK- I respect your opinion.

I didn't say you didn't know what you were talking about. (???)

I'll gladly take Clark- your guy. I don't know if I can vote for anyone who has ever expressed any support in any way for the bloody, vile Iraq Debacle.

[Clark2008]

33. I'm not trying to be mean or bitchy.

But, it's a fact, that while Bush has a 29 or 30 percent approval rate, Gore's most recent approval rating was 28 percent in the CBS/NT Times poll.

It may have gone up slightly after the SNL skit and his movie, but that's still awfully low.

Like I said, I LOVE the guy - I loved interviewing him, I loved talking with him, I loved the practical jokes he used to play on his staff... but I can also read and comprehend what a 28 percent approval rating means.

:(

[ms liberty]

71. I agree with npincus and I'm in NC - your red state neighbor...

And while I see exactly where you're coming from and respect your opinion on this, I'm beginning to think he might be able to pull it off in some of our southern red states too. People are really getting disgusted. The job market sucks, we're still in this war, everything's more expensive - especially gas, which is important in an area where you probably drive 20-25 miles each way to work.I'm seeing it even here in my (very) rural county in the foothills. My county might not go blue, but my state very well could with the right nominee.

And I believe Al Gore is the one to do it, for many of the reasons discussed here. There are some replies above that are far more eloquent than I (that Phoenix rising from the ashes imagery comes to mind!)so I'll leave those to add one I've not seen here as yet; that most people do believe that Al Gore actually won in 2000. The whole issue is still not as well know as it should be, but it has become more acceptable now. And even the MSM acknowledges he won the popular vote in '00; in surveys I've read about over the years abolishing the electoral college and election by popular vote are usually favored.

[LostinVA]

83. My very conservative Dad whom lives in NC

Would vote for Gore against ANY GOP candidate.

[cally]

39. I don't agree with you

I respect your opinion but I have a different opinion. Democrats have a tendency to shun any candidate who didn't win the first time. I think it's a huge weakness in our party. Americans tend to like comeback stories and learning from adversity. I think those aspects of Gore's story would appeal to all. His story is just getting out so what the common voter who has not been paying much attention yet thinks is not the whole story. I'd like to see the polling in six months or so after all the media coverage of Gore. I don't think any of us can predict fully what the average voter will think until then.

[npincus]

48. that's what I think.

and "comeback" was the word I was trying to think of.

[Clark2008]

62. Well, I don't agree with you

Go take a poll on the street or in your office... go do it.

I guarantee you if you ask people what they think of Gore, they will generally say, "boring," or "stiff." Unless they're right-wingers and then they'll say worse.

I just did - and my office isn't overly right-wing. Those are the responses I got - and two of them are staunch Democrats.

(Psst... they like Hillary even less. "Bitch" is the predominant term for her.)

[janx]

67. Taking a "poll" on the street or in your office in Arkansas is not exactly

going to yield much that's credible. What you're talking about here is called anecdotal evidence. Just because it's your microcosm, you're assuming that it's the same way everywhere else.

It isn't.

[Clark2008]

69. That's why I asked the other poster to do it and see what (s)he got.

But, anecdotal or not, Gore still only polled at 28 percent last month - so I'm obviously NOT too far off in my assessment.

PS - I'm sure his poll numbers have risen since that poll was taken because of the movie and the SNL skit, but those probably won't stay up. After this initial blitz, they'll fall again - maybe not as low as 28 percent - but not in the 40 percent range either.

[janx]

73. But Clark2008, you don't know that. None of us does.

This is your opinion, and while I respect it, it's not arguable.

Gore is by far the popular Dem we have right now. He is the most experienced and knowledgeable. He has eight years of experience in the House, eight in the Senate, and eight as vice president. We have no way of knowing what his poll numbers will be. The documentary hasn't been released in most of the country yet.

I say we wait and see.

You have motivated me to look around at some polls though, and I appreciate that. :hi:

[janx]

82. Where is the poll that had him at 28%? Can you provide a link?

A recent straw poll at KOS had him at 68%:

A recent straw poll in the liberal blog Daily Kos gave Gore an astonishing 68 percent of the vote, beating his closest challenger by more than 50 points.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_3884826

[rinsd]

105. I think that number is from an NYT article

The main thrust of the article is Bush's continuing toilet swirl but at the end they added a couple of things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09cnd-poll.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=18e5d74f32418c45&ex=1304827200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

"And just 28 percent said they had a favorable view of Al Gore, one of Mr. Bush's more vocal critics."

The nationwide telephone poll, of 1,241 adults, was conducted from May 4 to May 8. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

People are upset with Bush and Republicans, do not like the direction of the country and trust Democrats more than Republicans to make things better and yet amongst these polled people Al Gore couldn't even get 30% approval. Its still WAAAAAAYYYY early but this gives me the impression that its going to take a fresh dynamic face to win in 2008.

[karynnj]

120. Look at the full data, if it's still there

The interview question had a lot of undecided for all the Democrats. this likely reflects democrats saying undecided to all but their favorite. Gore had 28% approve and 39% disaprove - as you can see many people aren't accounted for. A same time Newsweek poll had Gore at 49% approval - probably because they nudged the undecideds to choose.

[karynnj]

119. Kos is an internet poll

which has no statistical validity - what is significant is that among roughly the same people who vote there Gore went from nothing to 68%. That is truely impressive, but it can't be extrapolated to the population at large. The 28% was from a strange NYT poll. The question was approve/disaprove/undecided/don't know. For Bush it was 29 % approval and 55% disapproval, for all the Democrats the approval ratings were low BUT the disapproval ratings were 35% Clinton, 38% Kerry and 39% Gore. The NYT in its Adam Nougourney story used a comparison of the approval ratings only, which misses how truely different the President's approval was toany of the Democrats. (The undecided/don't know are likely people who if pushed would agree there was more good than bad - but they prefer another Democrat. Bush as the President doesn't have that dynamic.

There was a Newsweek poll that had Gore as having a 49% approval rating - nearly the same as every Democrat measured.

[calmblueocean]

138. You put too much faith in these early poll numbers.

See where Gore is in a year or so. His re-emergence in the public eye is shaping a new narrative about him. He's had an enormous amount of press coverage, and it will continue as the movie is released on DVD. Press coverage is what shapes these kinds of polls, and they're much more malleable than you seem to think.

[gaspee]

81. Of course it is

"---(Psst... they like Hillary even less. "Bitch" is the predominant term for her.)---"


I am sick and tired of being sick and tired. Nothing worse than an uppity woman, huh?

[Uncle Joe]

84. I believe Al will win Tennessee in 2008.

He won every race in Tennessee prior to 2000 and is the only person in history that I am aware of that won all 95 counties in a senatorial bid.

Living here in Nashville, blue city in a red state, I believe many Tennesseans were brainwashed by the MSM's slanders against him, however I do not think they will be fooled again in 2008. The poll numbers you cite in an above poll are a direct reflection of the MSM's relentless war against Gore's credibility beginning in March of 1999. They knew integrity would be a central issue in the 2000 race after the Lewinsky scandal and Clinton impeachment. I believe a large reason they did this to Al is because he empowered us when he championed the internet and this threatened their monopoly on information and information is power.

The environment both literally and politically speaking will be different in 2008 as opposed to 2000. Today the MSM's own credibility is in tatters after their treatment of Al has become more apparent and many of these same pseudo journalists, millionaire pundits, or whatever you want to call them would go on to enable Bush to lie and deceive the American People in to a war in Iraq. Al's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" will also be a compelling reminder of the stark differences between the real Al Gore and the fraudulent caricature projected by our so called fourth estate on to the American People.

[Raksha]

112. Al Gore is NOT "seen as a loser."

"I'll preface this by saying that I LOVE Al Gore. He was my first political crush, BUT... he's seen as a loser by 70 percent of the voting population."

WE are "the voting population," dammit, and it's about time we started acting like it and--most important--BELIEVING it! The whole point of "conventional wisdom" psy-ops is to destroy our confidence in our own intuitive judgment. It's all a big scam try to make us support (again) the candidate we believe OTHER PEOPLE are most likely to vote for. And, of course, "other people" are being brainwashed in the exact same way. Been there, done that, NOT falling for that one again.

[madmunchie]

133. Sorry, but yes, MANY would. Gore won the popular vote

when many people thought that Bush was a viable option. Since then, with our country being run by Republicans, in all three branches, people are overtly remembering the "good old days" with Clinton and others secretly wishing they could turn the clock back to pre 2000.

There are always going to be idiots out there I just ran into a few of them myself last week, BUT far more people realize how much they got took and how much better things were with Clinton/Gore.

How hard is it to understand that Gore won in 2000, when so many thought Bush was the 2nd coming? Now it would be a landslide. Especially since the fact that 2000 being stolen gets more and more airtime and people realize that things didn't have to be this way if Gore had been our President.

[StellaBlue]

91. I'm in Texas and I say "YES HE WOULD!"

Gore is the grassroots man. He's all the buzz. Nobody here likes Hillary, is excited about Hillary, thinks Hillary deserves the nomination, or thinks Hillary can win.

Even my father, who has voted Republican in every presidential election since he could vote (that's Nixon, folks), said to me the other week that he would consider voting for Gore because "it's his time".

Screw Tennessee. They don't have enough electoral votes to matter. :hide:

[depakid]

5. You don't really need much analysis to figure that out

Hillary's negatives are so high that she wouldn't have a chance-

Gore on the other hand- represents what might have been, and he's not associated with the cowards and Republican enablers among the current Democratic "leadership."

[madokie]

7. Al Gore and Russ Feingold is a winning ticket

[halobeam]

8. or Gore/Clark

[Laura PourMeADrink]

23. Yes ! With this team, you have all bases covered. You

have:

-Executive Branch experience
-Balanced Budget/Surplus history
-Environmental issues covered
-Military background and plan for future

The ticket't not balanced geographically, but so what. The blue north would support it and you may pick up TN and AR. Hopefully, Gore could win his own state....

[Quixote1818]

42. I agree with your assessment Gore/Clark would be hard to beat

Or Clark/Gore but I doubt if Gore wants to be VP again.

Either way it's a dream team.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. I love Russ, but I would love to see us nominate Clark in some

capacity. We could win Arkansas, and I think he would add so much to the ticket with his vast military experience and plans for success in the ME. People will be more than ready to listen to someone with a sober solution to fixing George Bush's mess over there.

[halobeam]

12. Excellent point.

The best guys for the biggest issues. War and global warming. It's on EVERYONE'S MIND.

[Pab Sungenis]

14. Clark is a better Secretary of Defense or DNS.

He'd probably be a good VP, too, but his talents are probably best used elsewhere.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Maybe you are right, but every poll I see shows Mess-opotmia

as everyone's biggest concern. And it will be our biggest challenge, by far. Clark could elevate the issue from the very top, be it P or VP during the election. And, he could debate everyone under the table on the topic. We need every single advantage we can muster to offset likely election fraud. We have got to build a lead so huge that no one would believe fake results.

[Clark2008]

29. Except he can't be Secretary of Defense.

The law requires the Def. Sec. be OUT of active duty military for 10 years. Clark only will be out eight years in 2008.

WHOOPS.

Let's just make him president and cut the BS.

[trogdor]

49. Put him back in uniform...

...and put him in charge of the Joint Chiefs.

[Clark2008]

64. Why would he want to do that?

Besides, he's already served as the director for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Cheifs... been there, done that.

[janx]

66. It's been done before.

There are ways around that.

[Quixote1818]

43. As VP Clark could still oversee many Military decisions and his integrity

and diplomacy skills would help heal the deep wounds of perceptions of the US overseas.

[madokie]

63. Thats what this has to be, a team effort, no place or time for individuals

[goddess40]

21. I'm with you!

I'd love a Gore/Feingold ticket, but I'd hate to lose Russ as a Senator.

[madokie]

60. but you have to give up something for the good of all

I wish we here in OK had someone to offer but sorry we don't
peace
I don't want to lose Russ as a Senator either but you know. He is the most consistent voter of my values in the senate

[RethugAssKicker]

34. Now thats a fine team !!!

[madokie]

99. bring in Wes Clark for SOD

John Conyers as the Attorney General, if that is possible. Hell, there are so many good Democratic members to fill the spaces vacated by this band of crooks I can't name them all

[BeFree]

17. Hehehehe...

..Gore is the Outsider, eh?

People will say, yeah, he was robbed in 2000, so he deserves a second chance. That is the emotional issue that will carry Al over and beyond the 10% vote stealing apparatus.

Al, ya listening? Get your act together, son. America needs you now, more than ever.

[rman]

13. I suppose this tool does not take into account the behaviour of

Republicans regarding election fraud.

[Clark2008]

32. It doesn't take into consideration the lack of alternative

media in the Heartland (the South and mid-West) either.

[rman]

41. "alternative media" in south and mid-west..

You mean local RW hate radio?

[Clark2008]

65. No - I meant that all we have in the South and mid-West

is Reich-wing talk radio and right-leaning newspapers and television stations.

By alternative media, I meant that we don't have any easy choices if we don't want to hear the right's spin. Many people simply do not have the time to go looking for good news reporting - so they rely on the corporate media, which sucks.

[gaspee]

46. I hate that term, "Heartland"

It's awfully smug and self-congratulatory. It's almost shorthand for the smears against the coat the RW ran against Dean. What did they call him? I latte drinking, volvo driving... blah blah blah. Basically calling all East Coast, and specifically New Englanders as elitist, out of touch, less American than the "Heartland." I hate to break it to those in the so-called Heartland that New England is where it all started, and New England has had the largest blue collar, lower middle class percentage of population for a couple of *hundred* years. The center of the country is no more the "Heart" of the country than anywhere else.

As a far lefty, I don't want Clark as Prez, but if he got the nomination, I'd vote for him. I'm not willing to waste my vote on a third party, and there's no way in hell I'd vote for any republican.

My personal choice is Gore/Reed (and yes, that's Reed with two EE's.) Jack Reed has been consistantly on the right side of EVERY issue since he first became a senator. And he's a West Pointer with extensive military experience. And very, very liberal.

The one thing I like about Clark is he doesn't seem bought and sold by the corporate oligarchy, but I haven't done much research into his business dealings.

[Clark2008]

68. First... it's called the "Heartland" because it's in the

MIDDLE (or HEART) of the country - it's not on either coast. There's nothing smug about that - it's a geographical fact.

Secondly, why would you, as a far lefty, not like Clark? He's the ONLY candidate in 2004 who went on national television and declared himself a liberal. And, if you'll read his proposed policies, you'll see why.

BUT, the reason, I assume, you don't think he is a liberal is because he was in a uniform for 34 years and that's a PLUS in a general election.

Look, my three favorite candidates - and the only ones I give any consideration to - are Clark, Gore and Feingold.

My comments here are to point out that just because Gore (or Feingold) is the DU Candidate du jour, doesn't mean the country outside our bubble agrees. I think when DU, the collective, starts rolling on one particular candidate (it was Feingold in March), it tends NOT to look at how the real world views said candidate.

I pointed out in March that Feingold, for example, would not flip any red/purple states for the sheer fact that he's had two divorces and, unfortunately, because of his last name. He's also not very well known outside of this circle (which is also Clark's biggest negative).

If Gore is the nominee, I will work hard to support him, but we have to think realistically about each candidate and stop just picking a candidate du jour and running ad nauseum with them.

[gaspee]

79. I don't buy it

And never have. I mean the reason for heartland. Though I do agree it really depends on who is saying it. Watch any schamltzy, pandering pundit talk about the "heartland" and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. Or those stupid car commercials.

I wanted Gore to run again in '04, so he's not really my candidate du jour, but I totally agree with your critique of the bandwagon people seem to jump on.

I've never been for Feingold. He voted for the (insert 15 minutes of profanity _here_) bankruptcy bill and I will stay away from the polls before I cast a vote for *anyone* who voted for that travesty of justice that set hundreds, if not a thousand, years of common law on it's head.

Those detention centers being built? Those aren't for liberals, those are the new debtors prisons. OK, OK, hyperbole, but only a little.

As for Clark, it has nothing to do with him having been in the military. Like I said in my post, my choice for veep is an ex-military guy.

It always interests me when people say you don't need a balanced ticket to win. You can win with two southerners, or a westerner and a southerner, or two westerners, but you'll never win with two east-coasters or New Englanders. Could that be that those in the Norhteast will vote for someone not exactly like them. I think it's interesting from a sociological standpoint.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. It's in the middle of the country, hence they call it the heartland

Nothing more to it than that. I am in KC. Our city's motto is "Heart of America".

[gaspee]

80. Like I said,

I don't buy it. Slogans can have more than one meaning.

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. LOL I have lived here all my life; it has been a nickname for as long as I

can remember. It means middle of the country. You are making way too much out of this.

[gaspee]

94. LOL

If it's the middle, then shouldn't it be called, like, the bowels or something? *G*

[proud2BlibKansan]

100. And New England should be called the armpit?

:)

[rinsd]

109. Hey I won't let you steal Jersey's rightful legacy!

Proud to be from America's Armpit!



Besides, it could be worse. One could be from Florida, "America's Wang"

[karynnj]

118. Are you graphicly challanged? New England is clearly the head.

which actually works as it's steretype is that it has a lot of intellectuals and extremely smart people- including a certain tall Senator.

[janx]

93. A sense of chronology might be in order here.

I grew up in the midwest, in the "heartland," and it was referred to as that, but not all the time. What you may be objecting to is the way in which that term is milked for all it's worth when it comes to politics, marketing, etc.

I know exactly what you mean, but the term has actually been around for a long, long time before it was so abused by the sloganeers.

[gaspee]

95. Exactly (N/T)

[janx]

97. Hey, you know what's just as bad or worse?

"Flyover Country." :rofl:

[madmunchie]

134. Where is the heart on the human body? Don't make it into something

that it isn't. It's just a term.

[pointblank]

15. I would definitely

be behind Gore 100%....I say either him or Clark in '08. There is no way Hilary has a prayer...I hate to say it, but I dont think this country is ready for a woman or a minority pres. yet unfortunately...and Hilary has too much scandal in her past...not her fault, but the sheeple in this country tend to listen to the talking heads come election time.

The only problem I have with Gore is his wife,Tipper...If I remember correctly she was a real thorn in the side of the first amendment some years back....Oh well, I still like him.

[radwriter0555]

16. Got Diebold?

That's all I'm saying.

Diebold now owns California.

Bill Frist is your next president unless he's incarcerated.

[Peace Patriot]

50. Re: Diebold/Calif. Yeah, but we have one hell of a woman running for

Sec of State, Debra Bowen. She won 80% of the votes of rank and file Dems at the state convention. She is smart as a whip, and will tie Schwarz appointed Sec of State Bruce McPherson's intestines in a knot around his neck, on the matter of electronic voting and his illegal re-certification of Diebold touchscreens. Yeah, she's running with a 5% to 10% Diebold/ES&S "thumb on the scales" handicap, but, a) she can beat that; and b) they have to be more careful with their rigging in this overwhelmingly Dem and progressive state than they have to be, say, in Ohio, or North Carolina. And if she loses to rigged machines, she will SAY SO; she will raise one hell of a stink, and we will eventually be able to get rid of the machines. Half of Calif is now voting by absentee ballot, as it is--because people DON'T TRUST the machines.

(Note: With Diebold/ES&S, but WITHOUT the touchscreens--which had been banned by Kevin Shelley--Kerry won Calif by a 10% margin. Now we have the touchscreens, so figure it'll cut the Dems' margins down, but they can't turn the state "red" yet, without facing serious civil unrest. Schwarz's recall was an anomaly, with 125 candidates on the ballot--which made distributive, randomized vote shifting in the central tabulators very easy. That, and Time mag putting him on the cover, and Larry King giving him millions of dollars worth of free air time--to a candidate who was already well-known to everybody--during the short six-week ram-through campaign--are how we got this weirdest of all Bushites as governor. In a normal election, even WITH Diebold/ES&S optiscans and central tabulators, he would've had no chance. No other Repug has been able to win statewide office in Calif in recent years. Schwarz's approval is now not much better than Bush's, and for the same reason. Neither one of them represents the majority, and neither was elected. And, at this point--a lot of water under the bridge--these fascists can win only with Diebold/ES&S touchscreens in place. These machines will surely affect '06 and '08 elections--which is why I think we need a Restoration Ticket--Gore/Kerry '08--to overcome the 5%-10% handicap. I think a Gore/Kerry ticket would blow the machines away. See below.)

[elehhhhna]

18. goddamn it he already DID in 2000

[Laura PourMeADrink]

22. Exactly ! Plus, it would be very difficult to portray him as having

his head in the clouds (about environmental issues) since everything he warned about in 00, has come to pass. The other huge advantage to having Gore, IMHO, is that the whole argument that Dems are big spenders can be immediately diffused since Gore and Clinton balanced the budget and created a surplus. I really don't see anything that they could use against Gore - major negative themes, anyway...

[bowens43]

25. No, he didn't.

In case you haven't noticed, Bush has been the president since 2001.

[elehhhhna]

26. You believe what you want to believe. Bush didn't "win" a landslide.

[bowens43]

24. Complete bullshit

Without knowing who his opponent would be and the state of the uniojn in 2008, there is no way to predict anything. Gore couldn't beat the idiot, I doubt there will be a landslide victory no matter who his opponent would be.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dpbrown]

44. Gore beat the idiot

The Supreme Court appointed Bush president anyway.

[proud2BlibKansan]

78. Gore did beat the idiot

[wordpix2]

85. Gore did beat the idiot & Fixer Baker arranged for the SCOTUS *selection

[Scoody Boo]

28. A few months ago...

I would have thought he had a chance to squeeze by for a win, not tht he is concentrating so much on Global Warming issues, I don't think he has a shot at all.

[paparush]

36. The election will not be honest...the results will not mean sh*t. The

repugs control the machines, the companies, the counters...etc...its time to find a new way to put leaders into power.

[Peace Patriot]

37. Gore/Kerry '08. The Restoration ticket. Restore democracy. Restore

order. Restore the choices of the American people; Gore, provably so; Kerry, by overwhelming inference of the available evidence, in highly non-transparent conditions.

Politically, I'd prefer Feingold, Gore/Feingold, or Feingold/anybody. But that's me, in a 'politics as usual' world. 'Politics as usual' is over. Or, in any case, it doesn't pertain to the current situation, which is a matter of JUSTICE.

Gore won first. He has 8 years of experience in the executive branch. Kerry won second, has good experience in gov't, but none in the executive branch. So that's the proper order of the ticket.

What I want most to see is RESPECT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY. Give them back their power, re-enfranchise them, make them the sovereigns of this land once again, and THEY will solve the enormous disaster that the Bush junta has become.

I think it is not just Gore alone, but Gore seconded by Kerry that will blow the Bushite election theft machines all to hell. Gore has a better chance than anyone else. But Gore/Kerry '08 has a magic to it that no other combo, or no single individual, has. It is THE Restoration Ticket. It is FULL Poetic Justice. It represents the restoration of order, fairness and good government. And it speaks to the gnawing certainty that I think most Americans feel that 2004 had the wrong outcome. They may not know the details--because it's been black-holed in the news--but they SENSE it. Gore/Kerry would be pushback. It would be the good ship "Defiance." It would rouse the population. The whole nation--and the whole world--would cheer! Yes, we CAN turn these bastards out and restore rightful rule!

I'm not saying it's the ONLY ticket that can overcome the 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" that these election theft machines are giving to Bushites. I'm just saying it's got a special magic and message to it. It's more of a guarantee. And if the Bushites rig the election that badly--to prevent what I think will be a 20% margin of victory or better--then there WILL be a revolution, peaceful or not peaceful. The corporate fascists will not survive that rigging.

This is what I'm saying: Feingold, Clark, H. Clinton, or Gore alone, or Kerry alone--or anyone else--they can say Americans hated brown people so much that they went for more war and more tax cuts for the rich. They can EXPLAIN it away. Maybe not Gore so much, but anyone else. The pre-written narrative will seem kind of, smearily, blearily, feasible. But Gore/Kerry is a CHALLENGE to all that--to the pre-written "taking points" and the "pod people" memes. It is DEFIANT. It says "rigged elections" by its very nature, without speaking a word about it. And it will rally people in such numbers, and with such passion, that it CANNOT lose, except by huge, blatant, obvious rigging. The secret will be out.

People have problems with Kerry because of the war and his early concession. *I* have problems with Kerry. But those problems will be subsumed in the energy and magic of a Restoration Ticket. He's a very intelligent guy, with extensive experience. Gore will use him well. (Can you just imagine the team they would put together!). But, aside from all that--aside from the pro's and con's of Kerry, as Kerry--HE WAS ELECTED. He brings that other magical element to the Ticket. I think it's the combination that is so powerful. Gore has some of the magic. Add Kerry, and you get a "Wow!" reaction from people. People KNOW. They know 2004 was stolen.

Further, Kerry won almost in spite of himself (and certainly in spite of the Dem Party establishment of that period). It was the HUGE GRASS ROOTS movement to oust Bush that won! They--we--blew the Bushites away in new voter reg in 2004, nearly 60/40! People were dragging their non-voting family members and co-workers to the polls. We had the numbers. We kept Kerry competitive with the Bush Cartel money machine, with small donations. We got out the vote. The Bushites did not (there is no evidence that they did--none.) 20 million more people voted in 2004 than in 2000. And most of them did not surge to the polling place to retain the Bush junta. The great majority of new voters voted for Kerry. The great majority of independent voters voted for Kerry. The great majority of former Nader voters voted for Kerry. We did it! WE won. Not just Kerry. We, the people. And that tremendous grass roots revolution needs and deserves Round 2: the UNDOING of the stolen election.

[dysfunctional press]

53. i could be persuaded to vote for Gore...

but john kerry will NEVER get another vote from me for ANY office.

[New Earth]

55. you have no idea

how much i agree with this. i really hope they run together.

[dpbrown]

70. I'd rather see Gore/Feingold

I think that Russ would make a very clean VP candidate.

[wordpix2]

88. I agree but name recognition is important to the sheeple & Kerry has more

[dpbrown]

108. People don't elect Presidents based on the VP recognition

And even if they did, Kerry's recognition as a previous Presidential candidate would not necessarily translate to a VP position - representing as it would a "step down" from his previous aspirations.

And even if he would accept the demotion, he had already been considered as a VP partner with Gore in 2000 and rejected at that time, so Gore wouldn't necessarily want him any more this time around.

Feingold goes well with the ideas of 1) A fresh start, 2) a rejection of Bush complicity, and 3) governmental reform.

Feingold would be a much better VP candidate than Kerry.

[wordpix2]

86. Gore/Kerry is a great ticket. Kerry has a lot of experience in investiga

tions. Hmm, we might need someone with a good handle on that. :evilgrin:

[dpbrown]

38. This sounds damn good to me

We need Al Gore more than ever.

[Quixote1818]

40. My intuition tells me this is probably a good prediction

I am a Clark person but I can just feel Gores momentum and Hillary's decline. I also think the Country is having big time byers remorse with Bush and Gore seems very nostalgic right now. The analysis seems to make sense to me.

[dpbrown]

45. Kicked and Recommended!

:kick:

[silvershadow]

47. this is why all the media talking heads are talking about Hillary

instead of Al. Just keep watching. They are so afraid of Gore they will be pushing Hillary any way they can. Makes me ill. Don't get me wrong I will vote for her if it comes to that. I just don't want it to come to that, because I fear we will lose.

[goddess40]

52. I agree - if Hillary is our candidate it's because the reps set it up

we let them set the agenda time after time.

[choie]

51. I love the results too guys, but ...

Maybe we should have a little skepticism, even when a poll goes our way? :)

I've been shilling a Gore ticket since 2004, and haven't stopped hoping to see Gore/Clark '08. I think he's the best man for the job and would kick total ass in a (fair) election.

But. Anyone wondering ... just who in the hell is this "Media Psychology Affiliates" group?

Do a google search. I did, yesterday. And there's nothing. NOTHING. Dang, I've never seen so much nothing on a search.

Now do a google search for this Dr. James N. Herndon's name. What comes up? A few links to the man's work as a depression specialist, including two self-published books.

Finally, visit the website link in this Press Release. Almost nothing's there, except a sappy Flash tour of Germany and this Herndon dude, softly telling us how facts and reality don't matter, only feelings do. (I bet Stephen Colbert would looove to get his hands on him for stealing his satire!) Apparently this company is a media consultancy group that created this alleged "Affective Encryption Analysis" (read: "feeling analyzer") and is trying to sell his services to corporations. It's almost amusing, like a bad SNL sketch taking on an infomercial.

So here's my cynical guess: Dr. Feelgood has "sensed" the GoreFever out here and is using it to ride a wave of media coverage to profitability for this brand-new company.

Maybe he really did some polling. But this ridiculously overblown, breathless announcement smacks of PR and, well, "truthiness." Enjoy it, grin as you see the words "Gore wins in a landslide" (God knows I do!!!), but for the love of all that's holy, do NOT use it as proof of anything in an argument outside DU. Because buying into this guy's PR trip just 'cause we like what he's saying is only gonna make us look awfully gullible.

That said ... Gore would win in a landslide. :) :) :):toast: :patriot: Damn straight buddy!

[Bucky]

127. Choie, I vote for you as BEST REPLY IN THREAD. Good net-detective work

However, in Dr. Herndon's defense, a depression specialist may be the best person qualified to understand what's happening to this country.

[choie]

131. LOL! And thank you...

You got that right re: the depression specialist. My own meds are barely enough to sustain me through these dark times.

Oh how I would looooove for this analysis to be correct! And I suspect Gore really would (will! I hope!!!!) do immensely well. It's too soon to make such a ridiculously sweeping prediction ... and again, this Herndon guy's operation come across as little better than Dan Ackroyd shilling the Super Bass-o-matic.

(I like a good glass of liquified bass just like everyone else. But darn it, it's gotta be real liquified bass!)

[hopeisaplace]

56. Which IMO is why MSM is promoting Hillary as the candidate...

all I hear (when I flip on the TV)...is McCain and Hillary,
others rarely mentioned if ever. I roll my eyes at the TV,
and usually turn it off at that point. Their tricks are becoming
a little to obvious :eyes:

[RedStateShame]

57. Gore WILL win in a landslide victory

Maybe the slogan can be "Do Over."

[katty]

58. or Take Two: The Real Election-he would win

[Sammy Pepys]

59. This reeks of "the Lovenstein Institute".....n/t

....

[meow2u3]

61. Too much misogyny in this country to elect a woman

I don't think Kindasleazy Rice would be elected either.

[wordpix2]

90. Bingo! Why do so many hate Hil? She's a female legislator-politician!

[mike_c]

115. please, that's a chauvinistic statement if I've ever heard one....

Many of us don't like Hillary Clinton because we don't like her politics. I would oppose Hillary without reservation, but I'd support numerous other women candidates, like Barbara Boxer, 100 percent.

[whopis01]

111. what???

You don't think that a black woman would be elected president as a GOP candidate? Oh, wait...

[ThomWV]

72. This Repeats Something Everyone Here Already Knows

The only people in the world that think Hillary will be the Democratic nominee are Republicans. In fact the only people that want her to run are Republicans. They know full well she can be beat by virtually any candidate they decide to run.

[janx]

75. But they love beating up on her.

It's a kind of sport in the right-wing media.

[TheWraith]

107. Actually, that's not really true.

There's lots of people who want Hillary to run. DU is loaded with them--they're just outnumbered by the Clinton-haters. And I don't think that she would be as easy to beat as all that. She doesn't have the massive charisma and political skill that Bill does, but she's not exactly a pushover either. She won the senate seat in 2000 against strong opposition, and is expected to win reelection in a landslide this year despite all the money they're going to throw against her.

Realistically, I think she would be more likely to lose a primary than a general election. There are too many other Dem presidential contenders to make it easy, and rarely does the person with the biggest name end up getting the nod. Dean had the media buzz and the money going into 2004, but he still ended up getting pistol-whipped by Kerry starting with Iowa.

[Bucky]

129. Hillary SKEPTICS far far outnumber Hillary haters. Few hate her, per se

I admit that the bashers and screechers post more and that name calling is more memorable than thoughtful critiques of why Hillary would get the stuffing beaten out of her in a general election. But I think you'll find the skeptics outnumber the name callers. Most people say they'll vote for her if she's nomiated. They just understand she's the candidate most likely to lose to Bush's annointed successor.

[Peace Patriot]

74. One fact I just learned in Hillary's favor, that surprised the hell out of

me: In 2002, when the Anthrax Congress passed the "Help America Vote for Bush Act" (ahem...officially known as the "Help America Vote Act")--the bill that destroyed our election system with nearly $4 billion in boondoggle funding for Bushite-controlled electronic voting corporations, engineered by the two biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney (abetted by Bilderberg 'Democrat' Christopher Dodd)--only TWO U.S. Senators voted AGAINST it, and they are...

drum roll.....

the envelope, please...

Hillary Clinton!

and

Charles Schumer.

Go figure. 63 House Dems voted against it, and EVERYBODY ELSE voted FOR it--for "trade secret," proprietary, Bushite-controlled vote 'tabulation,' for no paper trail, for partisan vendors, for no controls on lavish lobbying, for draconian deadlines to force state purchase of these crapass, hackable voting systems.

Long ago, I figured Hillary had made a pact with the Dark Lords to be Diebold/ES&S-ed into office in '08. I just hoped she knew what she was getting into (--blaming Hillary and the Dems for all the disasters Bush is setting up; on Day One of the H. Clinton administration, it will begin. Tear the country to shreds; install Hitler II in '12.)

And I was hoping against hope that we could appeal to Hillary's lip service on good government and progressive values, to get rid of the machines and restore TRANSPARENT elections (AFTER she was in the White House, so that it might only directly affect her second term, and might even affect it positively, because, if the Corporate Fascists have such a scheme--installing a War/Corporate Dem in the interim--they certainly have no intention of giving that Prez a 2nd term).

Now--having happened upon this almost lone vote of Hillary's against HAVA--I have a renewed hope that this is how it will go: Some combo of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies and Diebold/ES&S primary tweaking will destroy any genuine Left (i.e., mainstream) Dem candidate who actually represents the majority of Americans (anti-Iraq war, anti-torture, pro-justice, pro-fairness, pro-Constitution, generally progressive) --(these days, to be for the Constitution is leftist radical; that's how wrong things have gotten). We will then have no choice but to "vote" for Hillary--with the alternative being Condoleeza Rice or Jeb Bush (wouldn't THEY make a cute ticket!). Diebold/ES&S will do their thing; Hillary will be "elected." She may not use the precedents Bush has set for extra-legal powers--torture, domestic spying, Prez re-writing the laws--or may not use them as much--but she will not disavow them, and will most certainly help the corporate fascists consolidate their enormous gains, on tax cuts, de-regulation, and keeping the country on war profiteer footing. HOWEVER, she will ALSO get an election reform bill through Congress, at the very least ridding us of "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation, in the hands of Bushite corporations, and requiring TRANSPARENCY. And, with TRANSPARENT elections, we will be able to PREVENT a WORSE regime in DC (worse than Bush II), and will be able to gradually get our country back.

The Hillary/Dark Lords scenario is bolstered by the curious closeness, of late, between Bill Clinton and both Bush Sr. and Jr. But who knows? Discovering Hillary's vote against the "Hack America's Vote Act" (...ahem, officially known as the "Help Americans Not to Vote Act") gives the Hillary/Dark Lords scenario some hope of coming out good, in the end.

This is scenario-writing, to be sure. There are a lot of unknowns. One of them is the possibility of a Gore/Kerry Restoration Ticket taking the nation by storm. What Hillary, the Dark Lords or anyone else might be planning may not be what happens.

[monarch]

135. I like the way you think!! -- and your strong stomach

While you're at, try to find how many pro-Lieberman posts you find on those sites.

Thanks,

monarch (CT voter and Lamont supporter)

ps. All you CT registered independents--switch your registration to Dem and vote for Lamont. Get an absentee ballot if necessary.

[noonwitch]

77. I don't believe any of this bs

Hillary can win. She just can't beat McCain or Rudy. What are the odds that either one of them will get the GOP nomination? The conservative base will never let pro-choice Rudy on the ticket. The Bushes will find another way to stick it to McCain-he's deluding himself if he thinks they will ultimately support him.

Only conservatives know who George Allen or Michael Pence are. I only know who they are because I surf Free Republic. Everyone knows who Hillary is, everyone knows the scandals and "baggage" she allegedly carries, so there won't be any surprises with her. She can't be "swiftboated", unlike everyone else the dems come up with, because:

1. She and her hubby are politically smart enough to ensure that doesn't happen.
2. The public knows all about her that there is to know that can be proved. All the stuff the freepers talk about is unprovable and old news to the general voting public, who get sick of that crap (evidenced by Bill's approval ratings the day of his impeachment).


I like Al Gore and will vote for him again if he is the nominee-I have concerns about his image and how the media pokes fun at him. He's not in control of his public image (neither was Kerry). Hillary is in control of hers, at least at this time.

[stop the bleeding]

87. Nope - sorry this is bullshit

the machines are rigged, repeat after me the machines are rigged.

sorry I do not have any hope left anymore for our Country or it's processes

[Peace Patriot]

136. Hey, Stop the Bleeding! Me, too, on my off days, and in my off hours, BUT

I also see that that demoralization and disempowerment is very much part of the Matrix program they're running, and it is important to resist such thoughts. There is ALWAYS a way. Our country and its "processes" may be totally fucked up; that doesn't mean there is no way. Look at South America today, as compared to even 10 years ago, even 5. Peaceful, democratic, leftist revolution sweeping the continent, based on TRANSPARENT elections (lot of hard went into that). Think what South America has recovered from!!!! Utter brutally and oppression for decades, for centuries. Buck up, Stop the Bleeding! It's going to be a long hard struggle, very likely, but we have a far more solid tradition of democracy than any given L/A country. If they can do it, so can we. The fascists haven't convinced the American people of anything, policy-wise--just the opposite, more and more opposition. They're on very thin ice. They will lose. The only thing they've been successful at is DEMORALIZING people. So don't give in to it! That's the key. Tens of thousands of So. Americans 'disappeared,' tortured. But their families and friends and the tortured themselves didn't give up. And recently Michele Batchelet--who was tortured by Pinochet--was elected the first woman president of Chile! If the machines are rigged, we can un-rig them. We can throw them into 'Boston Harbor.' Don't repeat bad mantras ("the machines are rigged...the machines are rigged"). Gather evidence. Pressure local/state officials. Look for openings. Educate. Mobilize. Urge Absentee Ballot voting--paper record check against the machines (and if enough people do it--and lots are--the machines will be made obsolete). Etc. Etc. Always look for the openings back to democracy! Democracy will never be dead until we, the people, permit it to be, and until that last hope of it has died in the heart of the last patriot. Do not contribute to that happening, by despairing and urging others to despair.

[savemefromdumbya]

89. Gore should just be able to walk in and become President

ie. no election needed. Gore getting his own back?

[IronLionZion]

96. Gore/Clark will be the ultimate blue landslide

and we wouldn't lose any good Senators. Feingold, Kerry, and I suppose Hillary too are just fine, but let's keep them in the Senate. People associate the Senate with talk. Gore and Clark are Washington outsiders as of late, southerners, have broad support, great experience/qualifications, and have very sensible ideas.

[mike_c]

106. I'll vote for Gore in a heartbeat UNLESS Clark is on the ticket.....

I will work against ANY ticket that includes an ex-general. I know that Clark supporters are adament that "he's different," but I'm just as adament in my belief that the autocratic leadership style fostered during a lifelong military career is not appropriate in civilian gov't. One of the major faults of the Bush administration is that it attempts to govern as a junta, by giving orders-- in good civilian gov't the buck might stop at the top, but it needs to be widely invested in before it gets there. The ONLY exception I'd be willing to make is in the case of an ex-general who proves himself or herself first in a governorship, or in the Senate, or some other political leadership role that's less risky than POTUS or VP.

I will be the first to admit that I'm dogmatic on this point, but there it is. I don't think I'm alone, however.

on edit: I would happily support Clark taking a cabinet role in the Gore WH, on the other hand.

[IronLionZion]

117. Bush and Cheney never served

and look how badly they fucked up. I have similar concerns as you, but I would gladly support Clark as VP with someone else as the President.

[mike_c]

125. just for the record, I'm NOT talking about military service....

I'm talking about a military career. The full deal professional soldier. That's the real issue for me, not whether or not a candidate "served." The service issue is a red herring, IMO.

[johnaries]

98. Although I think Gore COULD win a landslide in 08,

Affective Encryption Analysis sounds an awful lot like PsychoHistory (calling all Asimov fans!). and even Hari Seldon admitted that the mathematics of PsychoHistory only works with extremely large populations in the Billions or Trillions.

[TheWraith]

101. There's no way in hell that this could ever be accurate.

Sorry, but it's the truth. There's absolutely NO scientific way to predict an election this far in advance. Period. No matter how you play with the numbers, in the end all you're doing is abstract math. There's no mathematical model for human behavior, and it's doubtful that there ever will be. In the absence of that, things like this are very grandiose PR stunts with no more real world meaning than cutting cards.

[mike_c]

114. this isn't predicting an election per se....

It's modeling an election based on a set of assumed (or measured) parameters. Lots of folks don't understand the difference, including-- I presume-- the authors of this news story. What one can say about this study is "if the model makes the correct assumptions about relationships between peoples' emotional state and their likely behavior at the polls, and if those emotional states are accurately described, then a simulated election under the modeled conditions yields a Gore landslide." No one can accurately assess the predictive power of that statement without examining the model and its assumptions, something this article does not do. So all we can do is accept the report for what it is, and not judge the likelihood of its conclusions-- we don't have the information necessary to do that.

[TheWraith]

116. It's still trying to predict human behavior

Which is practically impossible on a mathematical level, because you can't assign set values to psychological responses. I still think this thing is really little better than throwing darts at a map of DC.

[mike_c]

121. I'm going to respectfully disagree....

There is nothing inherently "impossible" about modeling human behavior quantitatively-- probability models are likely the best starting point (no pun intended). Accurate models are probably complex-- it's an area that we still can't express many certainties about--but models reduce complexity by their very nature. They make assumptions.

I'd think that the really tough part is fitting the parameters to the model. To illustrate (forgive me if you know all this) one might say that uncertainty about the future and anger about the present both interact multiplicatively to increase the likelihood that a politician with certain characteristics-- say, dissociation from the policies of the incumbant-- will be elected. The basic predictive relationship might be tested against past events with known outcomes. The problem then becomes how do you measure the parameters, uncertainty about the future and anger about the present, for modeling future events? There is a whole burgeoning research field devoted to doing just that sort of thing.

Note too the standard disclaimer-- this is not deterministic in the sense of predicting how YOU will behave. Each agent in the probability space is independent, but at some point you can make rather accurate, discrete statements about their collective actions, and assign probabilities to all of them.

[mike_c]

102. Al Gore is one of the few potential democrat candidates...

...that I wouldn't have to think twice about-- in a positive way. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat, and MUCH more enthusiastically than I did in 2000. Partly that's because he's shown fire that he concealed during the 2000 race, partly because Lieberman is no longer part of the deal, and in big measure it's because Al Gore represents the alternative path not taken in 2000, a path that I believe MANY Americans now regret not taking. That symbolism would sweep him into the White House, IMO. It would also give him the broad support he'll need to clean up the mess Bush will leave behind-- that's the biggest challenge that will face whomever is elected, and only someone who can brng Gore's political capital to the task stands much chance. The republicans will start sniping at anyone else immediately.

I think it's wildly optomistic to think that Hillary Clinton would have a chance in hell of being elected president in 2008. Half the progressive wing of the dem party won't vote for her, or for nearly anyone who has supported the war against Irag, the Bush police state, the WOT, etc. Al is not the perfect candidate, but he's the best candidate for 2008, IMO. I've opposed his return to politics in the past, but I was wrong.

Reelect President Gore in 2008.

[Joe Chi Minh]

103. Kerry did win a landslide victory, didn't he?

[countingbluecars]

110. Electing Gore in 2008

would repair our reputation with the rest of the world. It would be like admitting that Bush was a big mistake. One doesn't often get a chance at a do-over like that.

[Kurovski]

113. Of course he would.

But tell that to Republican vote-machine companies Diebold, ES&S, and Seqouia. Tell that to the thousands of Republican goons and operatives who steal elections.

And they'll just smile.

[lonestarnot]

124. Sheet! Now if we can just get him to run!

Ewwww! He would kick some ass!

[shadowknows69]

126. People love a comeback kid

almost as much as "a guy you could have a beer with". With corruption and shadowy dealings going on in both parties I think Gore would be very favorably viewed as someone who unhitched himself from his former offices and the corrupt "game" of politicians and would provide some new thinking into the direction this country has gone. I think voters on both sides are ready for something outside the status quo,Perhaps even radically, at least 70% of us anyway.

[Placebo]

128. So are we going to let "research tools" pick our candidates now?

I don't know who the hell the democratic candidate is going to end up being in 2008. If Al Gore doesn't decide to run, Hillary is the obvious front runner. Whoever it is, I'm confident they can offer a better vision for America than any of the potential republicans can.

Some people keep saying, "I don't want Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton!"

How about 4 or 8 more years of a republican idiot like GWB who the mainstream media labels "authentic"?

[goodhue]

132. Go Gore!

[shadowknows69]

137. Someone needs to do a study

proving that Hilary WOULD NOT win by a landslide. Do we really want to take that chance with Deibold in the mix? I wan't our guy/gal to have a 30 point lead going in.