Did Bill Bradley's Primary Challenge to Gore Have Any Effect on Election 2000?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

I was just reading another post about primary challenges and while Election 2000 featured a 3rd Party challenge from Nader (whose participation is still a subject of rancorous debate in regards to his effect on that election), I also recall that Gore was challenged by Bill Bradley in the Democratic Primary and I was just curious what people thought about whether or not that had any effect on the general election? Gore, of course, wasn't technically the "incumbent" in that race but he was widely perceived as such simply because he was already VP. BTW whatever happened to Bradley? I haven't heard much from/about him since then?

[mdmc]

1. Bradley and Nader caused Gore the election!

[IndianaGreen]

2. Joe Lieberman

People always forget about that POS, and he would have been as much a POS as VP. Lieberman would have been the Democratic nominee in 2008 had Gore been recognized as the legitimate winner of the 2000 election.

[karynnj]

8. True - but would the Democarts likely hold the Presidency for 5 terms

- the only way Lieberman becomes President. I think Lieberman hurt because he was AWFUL in his debate and made Cheney looke like a nice grandfather. Gore should have picked Kerry.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Gore should have picked Kerry

I agree with you 100-percent!

[Hawkowl]

25. Actually Gore should've picked Bradley

I think this probably should be a general rule. Winner picks the runner up. This would minimize hurt feelings and maximize party unity and voter turnout in most cases.

[obxhead]

5. The SC cost Gore the election.

That and rigged voting machines.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. I wasn't trying to suggest that he did

I am just surprised that for all of the talk about Nader's influence on that race, nobody really mentions that Bradley ran against Gore as well or how that might have had an impact on the race. I actually hadn't thought about it for awhile either.

[boppers]

3. Did Tipper's pro-government-censorship stance have any effect?

That actually affected my vote more than Bradley.

[IndianaGreen]

4. I was angry about that!

I didn't care for the government to tell me what to watch on TV, or what video games to play.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

13. I did mine too

I almost didnt vote for Gore because of Tipper and the PMRC. My mother read Tipper Gore's book in 1987 and when I was at school threw out all of my records.

I never forgave Tipper for that.

[Jim Sagle]

6. The news media were out to make sure Gore didn't become president.

So they slammed Gore and hyped Bradley. When Gore crushed Bradley, that just pissed them off even more. His "coverage" during the election was a sick, unfunny joke.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Bradley's challenge sharpened Gore up some but cost a little enthusiasm on the left

I preferred Gore in the primaries but I was not very happy with the way he ran against Bradley (contemptuous centrism?)

A lot of the "both sides are just as bad" crap from a few on the left may have been fueled by resentment from the primaries.

O n the other hand, having a challenge, even a minor one like Bradley, does provide some needed practice/sharpness in campaigning.

So overall, probably a wash.

[karynnj]

9. It was an open seat - the establishment felt Gore had earned it, but he was not an incumbent

President. Bradley had the right to run.

[elleng]

10. Bradley is the author of six non-fiction books,

most recently The New American Story, and hosts a weekly radio show, American Voices, on Sirius Satellite Radio.

Later in 2000, Bradley was offered the chairmanship of the United States Olympic Committee, which he turned down.<61> In September 2002, Bradley turned down a request from New Jersey Democrats to replace Robert Torricelli on the ballot for his old Senate seat, which another former senator, Frank Lautenberg, accepted.<62> Oxford University awarded Bradley an honorary Doctor of Civil Law (DCL) in 2003, with a citation that described him in part as "..an outstandingly distinguished athlete, a weighty pillar of the Senate, and still a powerful advocate of the weak...".<63> An Eagle Scout as a boy,<3> Bradley was awarded the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. This award is given in recognition of community service more than 25 years after a scout first earns the Eagle badge.<64><65>

In January 2004, Bradley and Gore both endorsed Howard Dean for President in the 2004 Democratic primaries.<66> In January 2008, Bradley announced that he was supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary.<67> He campaigned for Obama and appeared on political news shows as a surrogate. Bradley's name was mentioned as a possible replacement for Tom Daschle as nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services in the Obama administration after Daschle withdrew from consideration; the position went to Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius.<68>

He has worked as a corporate consultant and investment banker. He has been a managing director of Allen & Company LLC, since 2001, and is a member of the board of directors of Starbucks and private company Raydiance. Bill Bradley is also a board member of DonorsChoose.org, an online charity that connects individuals to classrooms in need.<69><70><71>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bradley

[krawhitham]

11. Well he lost

[saltpoint]

14. Ok, now you've gone and made me all homesick for

Bill Bradley.

I've always liked Bill Bradley.

I was a Bradley delegate to my state's convention in 2000.

Bill Bradley is a good man.

[Ter]

15. It wasn't a primary challenge

He didn't challenge a sitting incumbent, both were running for president. In 236 years, has anyone ever ran with so little challenge as Gore? Only one choice in the Democratic primaries? That's not a clear choice.

[Ken Burch]

16. It wasn't a primary challenge in the same sense

Gore was a frontrunner, not an incumbent president.

And Bradley's campaign never really went anywhere that year, largely because he came off as cold, dry, and passionless in his persona.

There wasn't time for Bradley's presence in the race to generate deep bitterness or hard feelings.

[JI7]

17. Bradley never got any support and was seen as more boring than Gore

anything people said about Gore that was negative was something people saw Bradley as being also but even more so.

[phleshdef]

18. Gore was not an incumbent President so its fairly irrelevant.

[SidDithers]

24. Absolutely irrelevant...

no "fairly" about it :hi:

Sid

[Ross K]

19. No.

Next!

[bornskeptic]

20. George H W Bush is the only sitting VP elected president in the last 174 years.

There's no reason whatsoever that a sitting VP should be considered to be somehow entitled to the nomination.

[Jennicut]

22. Gore was the sitting President in 2000?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

32. No. But he was the natural frontrunner and the sitting VP at the time

and he was challenged in the primary for the nomination and I'm not sure that anybody expected him to have to face a primary challenge. I'm not judging Bradley's choice to run but I was wondering what the long term impact (if any) his primary challenge had to the Gore GE campaign.

[DCBob]

23. The difference, obviously is that Obama is the sitting President.. Gore was not..

A challenge to Obama would essentially amount to an insurrection against the party. Gore was just one of many candidates in the Democratic presidential primary. Surely even you can see the difference.

[Arkana]

26. No, but Al Gore was not the incumbent President. Apples and oranges.

[Radical Activist]

27. Of course it did.

It forced Gore to spend limited campaign time and money on the primary. It could have been better targeted elsewhere.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

28. So, should we just accept whomever the party ordains?

No primary choices?

[Radical Activist]

29. Those are the facts of a primary race.

You drew your own conclusions.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

30. The FACT is: A primary contest is a vital part of

the Democratic process. It allows voters a voice, and an opportunity to check the arrogance of the party elite. It may remind them that some Dems have actual expectations about advancing long-recognized Democratic platform ideals.

[Radical Activist]

31. And sometimes making a symbolic statement causes the nominee to lose the general election.

It's always a possibility. It happens. Everyone has to decide if taking that risk is worth the potential consequence.

In the case of a conservative like Blanch Lincoln I believe the risk was worth it. We don't lose much by replacing her with a conservative of another party. By contrast, I don't believe there's any Democrat who will be able to achieve more progressive results than Obama if they were elected President. The Senate is the problem, not Obama, and getting a more liberal President isn't going to get more legislation through the Senate. Obama is already pushing for an agenda well to the left of what the Senate will pass.

So...running a progressive primary challenge to Obama presents great risks with little or no potential benefit other than a masturbatory symbolic gesture.

[suzie]

34. +1

[JoePhilly]

33. Short answer is no.

Bradly's hat went into the ring, and was kicked out rather quickly.

VP's running do not get the same respect as a sitting Prez .... take this ... G.H.W. Bush had 3 primary opponents ... Pat Buchanan, Bob Dole, and Jack Kemp. All three were swept away by super Tuesday. A non-event.

Same was true for the 2000 Dem primary. No real impact. Gore lost for 2 reasons ... (1) he did not use Clinton and he should have, (2) Nader, the ground hog of politics sucked off enough votes to make the election close.

For those who picked the green Nadar over Gore ... it must seem ironic that Gore spent the last 10 years on global warming and Nader has been, ummm, well, let's see ... what's he doing now?? He creating PACs for green candidates? No ... ummm ... where is he?? Waiting for 2012??