Would a Gore/Kerry Ticket Have Won in 2000?

[liberalpragmatist]

Please note that I don't want this to become a Lieberman-bashing thread (and I'm someone who rolls my eyes at the guy) - there are obviously other threads for that.

But I'm honestly curious. Kerry was nearly picked in 2000. Edwards, too. Would Kerry, or actually, would EITHER of them have brought Gore victory? I think it's possible Kerry could have moved NH to Gore, although I think Lieberman may have helped make Florida competitive. Edwards could've played well in Florida too though, perhaps in Tennessee and Arkansas also. Either one of them would've done FAR better in the VP debate too, but I don't think that probably had a big impact in the final result.

I also wonder if a Gore-Edwards ticket would've hurt Gore's ability to make the "inexperience" charge against Bush, given that Edwards at that point had less than 2 years of govt. experience.

So I don't know. What do you guys think?

ON EDIT: Okay, so someone pointed out that Gore/Lieberman 2000 WON. Okay, that's true. Even so, it wasn't a true win, because it was close enough and disputed enough that Bush would up as President. So what I mean with this thread is obvious. Would Gore be President today with Edwards or Kerry as Vice President.

As for those asking why am I asking this question - I ask, why not? Firstly, it's a fun game to play. Also, it's true that you can't live in the past endlessly playing out hypotheticals. But even so, alternate history is fun, and it can be a valuable game - by examining the past and playing what if games, one can determine what went wrong and what can be done in the future to avoid those same problems.

[Eric J in MN]

1. Yes. Gore should have picked John Kerry or John Edwards (nt)

nt

[flyingfysh]

2. Gore/Kerry would have done better

Consider the Cheney/Lieberman debate. Lieberman was pretty useless in that one.

[liberalpragmatist]

5. I agree about the debate. But would it have mattered?

I mean, I doubt VP debates really swing many people. Although I suppose that with the election decided by a theadbare margin, maybe a few thousand votes here or there MIGHT have changed with a more forceful VP debate. But I'm skeptical on that one. So my question really is more directed towards campaign strategy and how such a pick would've influenced state voting trends in certain swing states.

One problem I can see with an Edwards nod is that it would've hurt Gore's ability to make the inexperience case against Bush. I mean, at that point, Edwards had less than 2 years of govt. experience. That wouldn't have happened with Kerry.

[movonne]

3. I think either one of them could have helped Gore win higher than

he did so that they probably could not of stole it...

[The Chronicler]

4. I think he should have picked Bob Graham (nm)

[JohnKleeb]

6. Yeah he would have

The thing is Kerry wasn't chosen by both Clinton and Gore because of being too liberal, yes he was vented by Clinton too I've heard but wasn't picked because he voted against the Gulf War Resolution and by Gore because he didn't give Clinton hell during the impeachment hearings.

[TwentyFive]

7. Kerry would have overshadowed Gore

I like Al Gore - and have respect for him - but John Kerry is a much stronger contender.

I think voters would look at a Gore/Kerry ticket and determine the wrong guy was at the top.

[dansolo]

28. No he wouldn't

Kerry's profile would have been basically the same as Edwards' has been this year.

[hippiechick]

8. Gore/Lieberman WON in 2000 ....

or have you forgotten ? :shrug:



:hippie:

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. I haven't!

:grr:

[MazeRat7]

9. What difference does it make ?

That was then and this is now. Things are as they are..... nufff said.

MZr7

[Fed Up]

10. Joe Lieberman was about the worst running mate Gore coulda picked.

For all the smarts of Al Gore, picking this loser from Connecticut just because he was one of the few guys who decried Bill Clinton's sexual impropriety defies the imagination.

I agree, Bob Graham would have put the nail in the GOP coffin, and this day we'd have re-elect Gore/Graham signs in front of our homes and the world would be a better place.

[naufragus]

11. I hated having to also vote for Lieberman

[sandnsea]

12. More exciting ticket

I know some people love Gore around here. I respect him, but he just never had any oomph. And Lieberman, ugh, drug the ticket down as far as I was concerned. It's hard to say if we would have won, all things being equal. Neither would have offset the Nader vote. Between that and voter fraud, I'm not sure a different VP choice would have made a difference. And then we wouldn't have this great ticket to run this year either.

[kokomo]

15. I was ready to go for McCain in 2000. Seen his true colors of late.

I was a Bradley backer, was lukewarm about Gore, and disliked Lieberman, so if McCain could have gained the Republican nomination, I was ready to vote for my first Republican since Goldwater in 1964.

[sandnsea]

20. Bradley to McCain

Okay, just how in the hell do you go from Bradley to McCain? That's like a voter I talked to yesterday who is voting for all Republicans except one. DeFazio, one of the most liberal Congressmen in D.C. Of course, I didn't tell the guy that, DeFazio needs votes too. Bradley to McCain seems just as weird to me.

[kokomo]

22. A protest vote against Gore/Lieberman and I can't stand Nader.

I live in a "red" state so thanks to our antiquated electoral college, my vote doesn't matter much one way or the other. The Presidential race least motivates me to get to the polls in my state.
I show up to vote for local and state offices. The electoral
college is increasingly disenfranchising millions of Americans.

I voted for Goldwater in 1964 before switching parties and voting for Eugene McCarthy in the 1968 primary. I didn't vote for Carter in 1980 as I lived in California and heard on the way to my precinct that Reagan had already won back East, so I voted for John Anderson just so I could help him get matching federal funds....he did!

[renoray]

17. I voted for Nader because of Lieberman

When combined with Tipper, that was a very pro censorship ticket imo. I might have voted for Gore if I lived in a state where my vote appeared to matter, but I do think Lieberman pushed people on the left to Nader and may have influenced others to stay home.

I think Gore might have picked up votes in FL with a different VP, but I don't think that the number of votes counted in FL and we will never know the actual count there and that wouldn't have changed if Al Gore got 500 or 5000 more votes. The fix was in. Maybe someone stronger and less in bed with the Republicans would have fought for the recount and put some spine into the ticket and helped with the public relations aspect, and that might have made a difference. Lieberman seemed like he gave up and went home before the vote count controversy was over.

[sandnsea]

21. Jewish vote

Whatever he might have picked up, don't you think he might have lost as many Jewish votes? Or are they solid Dem in Florida, regardless, I don't really know.

And yes, Tipper & Lieberman made the whole censorship thing very annoying. The Democrats have ran off alot of voters by being intimidated by the right wing fundies.

[w4rma]

13. No. I don't think so. The circumstances and the spin at that time

set up an environment where Sen. Lieberman was the best choice for the candidate for Vice President. Sen. Lieberman boosted the Gore in the polls with alot of very good coverage that Vice President Gore just wasn't getting. Choosing Sen. Lieberman prompted folks to take a second look at Vice President Gore and probably prompted them to watch is historical acceptance speech at the DNC which boosted his poll numbers past Bush.

[SoCalDemocrat]

14. We would of still won and the Court would of still made Bush Prez

Supreme Court would of still handed it to Bush.

[troublemaker]

16. Gore/Kerry would have lost Florida (for real) but would have won NH

So Gore would have won... more.

[Leilani]

18. On paper it was a good choice

& was greeted very favorably at the time.

It was a surprise & unexpected. Lieberman was the first Jewish person to be on a national ticket, & that showed outreach & inclusion. And I am sure Joe helped in Florida.

He was very experienced, well respected on both sides, & I don t think it was a mistake to choose him.

My disappointment came during the campaign. Joe was too willing to agree with the other side, as seen in the debate.

I don t think Kerry, & especially Edwards with 2 years experience, would have helped at all.

Gore s big mistake was not using Clinton in certain places, & completely distancing himself from him & the good things they had done. Clinton could have helped in certain states, & also driven up the vote higher than it was.

[bukk]

19. I doubt it would have changed much

In the end, the VP candidate doesn't do much one way or the other. I think Edwards is belying that a little this election, perhaps, but for the most part, I think the election was going to go the way it went no matter who the VP candidate was.

Ultimately, I think Gore lost (i.e. didn't win decisively enough to overcome James Baker in Florida) because of Clinton weariness. I know a lot of otherwise progressive people who actually would have voted for McCain over Gore, but ultimately either stayed away from the polls or voted Nader over Bush or Gore.

People were weary in 2000. As staunch Democrat going back a couple of decades, I know I was. I actually gave money to McCain in 2000, and might have voted for him myself. Now, I like Gore, especially the Gore 1992 and the later Gore of 2003-2004, but Gore in 2000 was a magnet for all the bad shit we had to deal with for 8 years with Clinton. A moderate Republican was looking pretty good right then.

Liebermann, of course, is useless. He was a waste against Cheney in the debate, and pushed the ticket too far right. I think he probably bought Nader a few votes without costing Bush as many. Yet even so, I don't think he was that big of a factor.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. I think that in retrospect Gore/Wellstone would've been a good idea

Considering the 3% defection to Nader, I think that Wellstone on the ticket would've kept most of them in the party with the prospect of Wellstone becoming president one day.

[LVdem]

25. Why discuss this now...

We have the biggest election of our lives coming up and to waste any of it on opinions concerning phantom dem tickets seems to me to be a waste of time and brain function.

We can discuss this after the election and John Kery is the president elect.

That's my two cents.

[shane7726]

26. No way !!!!

Gore lost this one on his own and alot of America, rightly or wrongly, were hurt by the Clinton scandal and I think Gore suffered for it. No VP candidate will ever win or lose an election for the Presidential nominee. A VP candidate is normally selected to do two things:

1. Deliver their home state
2. Be "Clean" enough not to have a base motivated against your party.

This is exactly why Kennedy selected LBJ. History has shown that they didn't see eye-to-eye on politics but JFK needed Texas and LBJ delivered it.

The problem is that Edwards can't do either of the things that VP's are selected for. He won't come anywhere near delivering North Carolina. Many have even speculated that accepting the VP nomination was his only shot at staying in politics because he would have lost his Senate seat if he sought reelection

The second problem is that the selection of Edwards has motivated doctors and business owners against the ticket. Nothing scares them more.

This is why I have always questioned the selection of Edwards.

[newyawker99]

30. Hi shane7726!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[andym]

27. No difference

It's the top of the ticket that counts.

[intheflow]

29. I doubt it

I mean, considering how close it was on election day.

And the reason it was so close was because the Democrats had forgotten their true base last election, and played too far to the right. (Or, as they were euphemistically calling it, the "middle.") I do believe that's why they lost voters to Nader.

Gore-Kerry would have been no different. What's changed for the Democrats is that their true progessive base has been energized and been able to mobilize around Bush's failed policies and immoral behavior towards US citizens and the world. John Kerry is be influenced left by that energized base.