Was Gore a better candidate than Kerry?
- Thread starter SickBoy
- Start date
- Status
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
something about kerry really scares me.. but i cant seem to put my finger on it.
Baron Aloha
A Shining Example
IMO, Gore was a better candidate but he blew it when he picked his VP.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Just curious...why is a candidate that is either ahead or pretty close to bush in polls considered "Done"?
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
When did JC argue about Florida? I agree btw, Libermann was the worst possible choice he could have made. What the hell was he thinking!!?!
Chesapeake Silt
Member
Doc Holliday said:
I don't understand this comment either. Not only are the polls a dead heat, but Bush's money advantage is evaporating, and Kerry can still boost his popularity by picking a proper VP (while GWB will remain saddled with Cheney). There's a long way to go before anybody is 'done'. It's going to be a horse race well into the Fall.
OK, I kind of exaggerated.Doc Holliday said:
But the poll trends have been in Bush's favor the last few months. Yes it's close, but overall our economy is getting better and the reports of American's dying in Iraq are less frequent, and as long as this continues, Kerry's done. I'm not a fan of either, I didn't say I was happy, I just think Kerry's hope is slimming away. Hey, I could be wrong though.Yeah, that definitely had a hand in it.JC10001 said:
I think one of the main reasons Gore was better was simply because he had the Clinton legacy to back him up. Clinton at that point had been pretty well hounded for the Lewinsky thing, but there was also 44 million new jobs and a booming economy to speak of.
Fragamemnon
Member
Liar. There was a bit of the Reagan bounce over the last week or so, but Bush's approval ratings, nationwide poll raitings, battleground state poll ratings, and have been in decline for months. Right now, if polling was accurate, he'd almost assuredly lose the election.
CNN compared poll results among registered voters from March to May and Bush was more favorable in May. I thought I saw this before the Reagan death, but maybe you're right.Fragamemnon said:
You bring up an interesting point, how long do you think the Reagan effect will help Bush?
Fragamemnon
Member
Yeah, I'm referring to polling from Zogby, Rasmussen, et. al. Most of which have had Bush in a freefall over the past couple of months, though he has gotten some recent help from Reagan and some good PR by making compromises with the UN and some good economic numbers (finally). My point was that Bush's rebound is not some long-progressing trend but a recent hop. Which is in agreement with almost all of the polls I've seen (and I see a lot since I'm a wonk).
I think the Reagan boost is probably about over, at least until the GOP convention where the planners-who have had more time to think about how to spin Reagan for their campaign-will be able to bring up the issue again. It will be a part of the usual post-convention bounce, however I believe that the conventions will not be as influential in public opinion as they have in the past. I think the debates will easily shape public opinion more than the conventions will.
Edit: Gore had some heavy baggage going into this campaign season. His decision not to run, and to endorse Howard Dean, was a wise one for the party. As shown, he can be a quality orator and an asset on the campaign trail (as can President Clinton) for Kerry. Their engagement in the Kerry campaign is essential for getting the base to come out and vote.
I think the Reagan boost is probably about over, at least until the GOP convention where the planners-who have had more time to think about how to spin Reagan for their campaign-will be able to bring up the issue again. It will be a part of the usual post-convention bounce, however I believe that the conventions will not be as influential in public opinion as they have in the past. I think the debates will easily shape public opinion more than the conventions will.
Edit: Gore had some heavy baggage going into this campaign season. His decision not to run, and to endorse Howard Dean, was a wise one for the party. As shown, he can be a quality orator and an asset on the campaign trail (as can President Clinton) for Kerry. Their engagement in the Kerry campaign is essential for getting the base to come out and vote.
Fragamemnon
Member
Have you heard Kerry speak? He's really not as tepid and milquetoasty as you might think.
Fragamemnon
Member
I doubt it will have much effect, to be honest. He's out to sign books and talk with Americans, not stump and campaign. He's not raising cash for Kerry or anything while he's doing it, too.
I am worried about the media distortions regarding Clinton, especially in the NY Times, because I feel Clinton is a key part to an overall Democratic strategy in this campaign, especially at a congressional/senatorial level. But I don't see Americans having much opinion at all about Kerry from Clinton's increased media exposure on his book tour-with the fringe exception of how much better of a President Clinton was than Dubya, which really isn't worth mentioning anyway in terms of electorial impact.
IMO of course.
I am worried about the media distortions regarding Clinton, especially in the NY Times, because I feel Clinton is a key part to an overall Democratic strategy in this campaign, especially at a congressional/senatorial level. But I don't see Americans having much opinion at all about Kerry from Clinton's increased media exposure on his book tour-with the fringe exception of how much better of a President Clinton was than Dubya, which really isn't worth mentioning anyway in terms of electorial impact.
IMO of course.
Mr. Blonde
Member
I think Kerry's going to beat GW but I think Edwards would have been a better pick than both Kerry and Gore and would win by a lot.
- Status