Gore/Kerry ?? Has It Ever Worked?

[demwing]

Can anyone tell us whether such a ticket has ever worked? Gore/Kerry was the ticket I hoped for in 2000, and I've heard it tossed around here on DU a bit, but is there any precedent for the two "non-winning" candidates from the past two elections to band together and make it to the White House?

I know Reagan ran several times before winning, but he never made it to a general election until 1980. Nixon lost to Kennedy and came back, but Agnew had never run for a national office prior to 1968.

I don't think that any party has ever taken their last two defeats (yes, I'm aware of the reality of the vote, but am discussing outward appearances only here), paired them, and won.

Am I wrong? More importantly, does it matter if it's never been done?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

3. I would agree, except those guys did win... eom

[William769]

24. Gore did win! Thank you very much.

[rosesaylavee]

10. They won... both times.

The votes were stolen.

[CJCRANE]

2. I was going to say

Gore/Clinton would be better for nostalgia's sake...but I don't know if Al and Bill & Hill are getting on these days.

[MADem]

5. Heh, heh...how about Al Gore and BILL Clinton??

Now there's a shoo-in!!!

Bill can't RUN for President again, but he could run for VP....!!!

[demwing]

13. This was discussed in 2000

Clinton is unable to run for Pres, but is eligible to hold that office (or else he never would have held it in the first place). Therefore, he is constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as the VP.

Would he? No way.

Should he? I think not.

[MADem]

18. Well, I wasn't being serious in making that suggestion

Clinton likely wouldn't like the job--he's far too accustomed to being the lead dog...but then again, who knows how much he's mellowed in his old age? It's sort of like a part time gig, VP, for someone like Bill.

I'd like to see him running the UN, myself ... just to watch the wingnuts' heads explode at the prospect of Secretary General Clinton. Of course, we'll have to wait until the newly-chosen Korean dude finishes up his tour for that to ever happen...and they'd need to do a bit of finagling as well. A year or so ago, there was some buzz about this possibility:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=8208

[demwing]

22. Too bad Clinton can't

Because I'd bet my last buck he would jump at the chance. UN leaders cannot come from any nations that are permanent members of the Security Council.

[MADem]

26. Apparently, per the article I cited, that is not a hard and fast rule

It's more like a 'convention' rather than an outright prohibition. It could be worked around if there was sufficient motivation to overturn that quaint habit...!

[Bucky]

31. That said, it would be a bad idea. Cute to think about, but unworkable.

Plus I'm sure that Mr. Clinton has ideas of who he would support already.

[demwing]

35. And all it would take is for Bolton to use his veto

which would kill the idea reagrdless.

[MADem]

38. Not if George told him to give it the thumbs up

But that's all moot anyway. The replacement, from SK, has been named. Bill's next shot would be at the end of that guy's tour, and with luck there will be a Democrat in the WH then.

[MADem]

37. Clinton himself refused to rule it out when asked. He's too late for

this SG slot, but when a Democrat is in the WH, who knows?

[demwing]

33. Like the Pirates Code?

more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules

[MADem]

36. Heh, heh!! NT

[Tunkamerica]

6. Would Gore settle for VP again?

Would Hillary?

[demwing]

14. Has anyone ever been VP under different presidents?

That would be just weird.

[MADem]

19. Well, when the Prez goes, the VP moves up, so such a scenario

would have to happen nonconsecutively.

[demwing]

20. Right, but not my question

but I just found the answer on Wikipedia:

Two men have served as VP under different presidents:

George Clinton served as VP under Thomas Jefferson and under James Madison, and John C. Calhoun served as VP under John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson.

That's it.

[9119495]

27. But the p-funk is something a prez. just gots to have round, dig?

(If you're not familiar with George Clinton, that won't make any sense)

[demwing]

28. I got introduced to GC through the Chili Peppers

[demwing]

9. Actually, I have no idea who my ideal candidate is right now

But here's a list of current Dem govs. Govs are my first choice, but I prefer former VPs or cabinet members over Senators.

Janet Napolitano / Arizona
Ruth Ann Minner / Delaware
Rod R. Blagojevich / Illinois
Tom Vilsack / Iowa
Kathleen Sebelius / Kansas
Kathleen Blanco / Louisiana
John Elias Baldacci / Maine
Jennifer M. Granholm / Michigan
Brian Schweitzer / Montana
John Lynch / New Hampshire
Jon Corzine / New Jersey
Bill Richardson / New Mexico
Mike Easley / North Carolina
Brad Henry / Oklahoma
Ted Kulongoski / Oregon
Ed Rendell / Pennsylvania
Phil Bredesen / Tennessee
Timothy M. Kaine / Virginia
Christine Gregoire / Washington
Joe Manchin III / West Virginia
Jim Doyle / Wisconsin
Dave Freudenthal / Wyoming

[blm]

4. Doesn't matter if it's ever been done, or what history sez - GOP never

controlled most broadcast media in past decades they way they have the last ten years.

That said - Katrina blew the blanket of protection off the GOP that they can't gain back as easily, so ANY Dem would have a great opportunity to finally be heard.

Gore/Kerry would certainly cover the environmental Dems, the foreign policy Dems, and the anti-corruption Democrats. I would hope that Gore pledges open government so no more BushInc's could ever grow again.

[jwirr]

7. Did not win? Better read some of the items on voter fraud. I for

one have great respect for these two men. They are experts in the issues that face us in the world today: Constitutional crises, global warming/environment and the world wide criminal corporations (BCCI). They also have name recognition. When you are talking about just everyday dems some of the people we follow on this board are known only in their own areas.

[demwing]

12. You and I, and DUers know the truth

but as I said, I'm discussing outward appearances only.

[Mass]

8. That would be my dream ticket (any order)

I think it would be a great ticket, but I just do not think it will happen.

[Quakerfriend]

21. ditto that.

:toast:

[rox63]

11. No one knows better than those two what the * machine can do

They lived through it, and they've both learned from it. Any combination of those two would be wonderful.

[demwing]

15. Seems there's some support here, but what of the history?

Has it ever been attempted?

[CJCRANE]

16. There's an embarassment of riches

with the Democrats. There are at least half a dozen decent candidates (compared to the Republicans). It all depends on what works with the MSM.

[demwing]

23. What candidates are you describing?

Seems we have an embarrassing lack of candidates, but maybe I'm wrong.

[CJCRANE]

25. Trouble is

we're in an upside-down post-Rovian world.

In the Real World of achievement people like Clark, Gore, Kerry are traditional American heroes - men of action and intelligence. But maybe that America (or the MSM version of it) don't exist anymore...

[frogcycle]

29. I would happily

say Sir, yes Sir! to any of the three.

After them, I am where I was in 2004 with Kerry during primaries - need to be sold, but willing.

What the media and the sesame-street-mentality crowd don't get is that what you need most is someone who knows how to lead, and draw upon legitimate experts for advice. Hell, I would trust Edwards. Feingold, maybe Hilary to do that, as long as (s)he had those other three (and Bill!) as part of his/her inner circle. The damned beauty-contest war-of-attrition election process we've allowed the country to sink to pretty much guarantees a brainless smiley-face as president (reagan, w). If 41 had not had the ecomomy tank he'd have been reelected, and the shit we've lived with these 6 years would have started then. As it is that little misstep just got them to spend 8 years honing their machinery to a damned-near invincible state.

But maybe justice will prevail, and clintons wayward weenie will be eclipsed by ten or fifteen republican wayward weenies, and clintons (bogus) hints of financial issues will be eclipsed by a preponderance of evidence of republican corruption.

[demwing]

30. If none of those three end up our candidate

then we should see them in these roles - Sec of State (Clark), Sec of Def (Kerry) and Sec of Interior (Gore)

[CJCRANE]

42. Agreed.

These guys need to be front and centre, even if it's a Hillary or John Edwards administration.

[jobycom]

17. There have been 43 presidents. Not enough to worry about whether

it's ever been done before. Before Reagan no president had been divorced. Before Kennedy, Catholic.

Gore/Kerry (that's what I wanted to see in 2000, too) would have some strength to it, as a statement by the Dems that Bush was a bad choice, that we need to undue it. It would also have strength because both candidates have faced the Republican slander machine (ie, the media), and therefore would be better prepared to fight it. There would be no "surprise revelations," in other words. People already know them. And both have faced it before, and would have a better idea of how to handle it.

It would also have weaknesses. Both men have failed in the past to capture the American imagination. Kerry was never popular (nor really unpopular), but was seen as the alternative to a hated president. They'd have to overcome that.

Nice ticket. Have to see if Gore even runs, though. I doubt he'd take second billing.

[Radical Activist]

32. Andrew Jackson

He had ran and lost before. That comparison applies to Gore well since they both won the popular vote while losing the electoral college. Jackson's VP was Calhoun, who I believe had been a candidate himself, or else he would later become one. I can't think of a more recent example.

[demwing]

34. Yep, Calhoun ran against both men he served under as VP

Adams and Jackson, and according to the history books, Calhoun was an ass. Sold his EC votes to Adams for the VP spot, then later jumped ship and did the same for Jackson. Then, the ingrate tried to get Jackson court marshalled, and went back to South Carolina where he convinced the state legislature to pass a bill of nullification in which they refused to pay federal tariffs. All while acting as VP.

Jackson threatened to invade SC and lock up Calhoun, so Calhoun quit his VP job and backed off.

Wow, thats quite a legacy.

[karynnj]

39. Why ask if it ever worked with random other candidates?

This is not something statistics can shed any light on. You should, first consider only modern time - defing that is tough - then it's obvious that you don't have enough data.

Instead, look at what they have to offer. You have two leaders of undeniable stature - both were chosen by their party to lead and both made dignified intelligent runs. They both have enormous strengths in areas of need and the needs are so great, that a VP may be asked to do things that are not commonly the VP job. (Consisder just to start: there is an enormous amount of diplomacy needed, global warming is a crisis and we need a President to tell us the truth. (likely that having an earth to live on has to be given weight in econmomic decisons)

As to would this be a strong ticket? Consider that you have 2 men of enormous gravitas. Gore/Kerry (or Kerry/Gore - though that gives Al nothing new) would be far stronger than Kerry/Edwards or Gore/Lieberman.

[demwing]

40. Of course it would be a strong ticket

But my real question was about historical precedent, not statistical success. The reason I ask is simple. I try to see this ticket in the way that others--who are not favorable--might see it.

I am sure that the first thing that the MSM would do would be to question the sense behind running two men who had "lost" the last two elections. There will be propaganda brought forward stating that the Dems don't have any new ideas, just tired, previously failed, non-solutions. IMO, one way to counter that meme is by showing a little historic precedent.

So, I bring the topic up here, hoping that an open discussion might shed some light on the subject.

[karynnj]

43. Ok - then it hasn't happened in modern times

especially if you phrase it as 2 ex-Presidential nominees in close (note ambiguity - doesn't say lost) elections. Then I think it Never happened ever. These could be a combo anti-Hillary, having between them and tyheir spouses less baggage than Hillary and Bill alone. This combo would blow Edwards out of the water. (Wonder if either would consider it.)

[greenbriar]

41. POETIC JUSTICE...THE TWO MEN WE SHOULD HAVE HAD

THEY BOTH WON