The political advantage of Gore's endorsement for all Democrats

[abcdan]

Gore's endoresement may help Dean win the nomination, but more importantly, it will help him beat Bush if he does.

Gore's endorsement matters. It energizes a candidacy and increases a candidate's star quality. Waiting to give support until after a nomination would nullify this effect.

He took a risk choosing one candidate over the others, but I think the potential benefit outweighs the potential harm.

[phillybri]

1. Good call...Gore won the Popular vote in 2000...

He's got pull, and it begins the process of possibly uniting the party...

[TexasSissy]

3. I DISAGREE TOTALLY

I believe that this too-early endorsement will divide the DNC, which is already is big trouble. It will cause supporters of the other Dems. to dig in their heels big time, and even consider voting for a Nader or other Independent, should an Independent run. It will NOT (no way, no how) rally Democrats behind Dean before there's even one vote in one primary. Before the supporters of Lieberman or Clark or Kerry see that the votes are probably not there for their guys. Another few weeks....a rally behind Dean with this endorsement might have been possible. But this early? No way, no how. This is now war, in some views.

An endorsement that is too early will cause the others' supporters to froth at the mouth at the indignity of it, backed up by Gore's insensitivity in not tipping off Lieberman and Kerry & Gephardt beforehand (all friends of Gore's).

Gore's endorsement WILL cause some to vote for Dean as the nominee, no doubt. But it will NOT cause anyone to vote for Dean over Bush. And it will have NO effect on how the southern states will vote for Dean (they won't). Gore did not do well with the southern states, losing even his own home state of Tennessee. Dean has trouble with these same states, so Gore's endorsement won't mean much there. It WILL have pull in Iowa and NH, IMO.

You'll see. The Democrats are now divided more than ever because of t his too-early endorsement. And if we're divided, we cannot win over Bush. Dean was probably going to win IA and NY, anyway. If Gore had waited until after those primaries, it wouldn't have alienated as many Democrats. And Lieberman and Kerry may have dropped out, anyway. There were other, better ways to endorse Dean than THIS way. But I guess that's why Gore lost in 2000. He doesn't always do or say the smart thing, and his timing is sometimes off.

[La_Serpiente]

5. By the way

welcome to DU :hi:

[arendt]

6. Now is the perfect time to lance the DLC boil

I think this is a good move by Gore.

Sooner or later, the populist vs Washington insider
fight inside the Democratic Party has to be settled.

Gore is saying, let's get it over with early, and I think
its very smart. Especially since it seems to have caught
the insiders flat-footed - especially Holy Joe, the piece
of excrement.

The DLC could be out the door before they know what
hit them.

This forces Clinton's hand. Its no accident this announcement
is in NYC. Just what does Charlie Rangel's presence mean?
He's Clinton's guy. What is the Big Dog going to do? Blow
off the most energetic candidate the Dems have, or be the
smart politician that he is and get on the bandwagon?

The calculation for him is simple. He wants Hil to run in 2008,
that means he is in a quandry. Why? Because if Bush wins
in 2004, there won't be elections in 2008. (I mean Diebold
machines plus GOP apartheid gerrymandering is not an
election, its a joke.) He's stuck. So he will cut a deal, and
his boy Wes Clark will be VP. Which is the best ticket the
Dems can run.

I'll let Wes and Hil sort it out later.

arendt

[nomaco-10]

2. Gore's endorsement of Dean is HUGE....

and shouldn't be marginalized by anyone. I will say this, Gore's got guts, the fallout is almost as big as the endorsement itself.

[MariaS]

4. I posted this earlier

but I will repeat myself:

I honestly don't see what the big deal is with the Gore endorsement. I really can't envision hoards of voters forgoing support of their own candidates and sprinting to the Dean camp simply because Gore throws his support to Gov Dean. Not all Democrats are fans of Al Gore. I didn't hear him in 2000 and I voted Nader. I don't hear Gore anymore today than I did then. Also I can't conceive of the Republicans and others that didn't voted for Gore in 2000 lining up behind Dean just because of Gore's support no matter how sick they are of Bush's Bull. If anything this could work out well for General Clark. Couldn't this help lean some undecided non-Dem, non-Gore fans towards Clark? I don't intend this to be a slam against Dean or to lessen the importance that Dean supporters place on this endorsement. I would feel the same way if Gore had endorsed Clark. I would think of it as a slight boost for Dean. Just my take on it.

[LTR]

7. The only positive

It brings attention to the Dems. Not only Dean, but all the candidates. This is big.

I do think it is a little soon, though.

[Moderator]

8. Consolidating threads.......

Please continue the discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=856512


Thank you.

DU Moderator