Democrats: Al Gore lost because he was a raving lefty.
January 24, 2001 2:21 PM   Subscribe

Democrats: Al Gore lost because he was a raving lefty. *sigh* I guess the dems will run an even more conservative candidate next time. At least they've stopped blaming Ralph Nader.
posted by snakey (19 comments total)
I cannot understand why so many presumably intelligent commentators are going on and on about how Gore "lost", as though he didn't get enough votes or something. Hello? Gore didn't lose to a majority of voters but to racism, machinery, and political machinery. Even Republicans (casual, not professional) know that a fair vote in FL would have elected Gore. And please if you're going to post about how you're sick of discussing the election or politics in general on MetaFilter do us a favor and contribute constructively to some other discussion instead.

posted by sudama at 2:32 PM on January 24, 2001

Those that do not learn from past mistakes are doomed to repeat them. IMHO, Gore wasn't "left" enough...
posted by black8 at 2:47 PM on January 24, 2001

I have just about given up any hope for the Democratic party when they say such nonsense. If Gore (he won the damned election!) had moved further to the Right, then those who suggested to Naderites that was a difference would not be able to say this. Bush, repeating over and over the GOP mantra about states and their rightsw and too much govt now proposes that the Federal govt will use money to close down schools that don't meet a federal standard and give vouchers to the students so that they can attend a private (ie, religious) school instead.
When will theDemocrat leadership start playing offensive ball and stop trying to occupy GOP territory? TYhe voters indicated by half a millionvotes that they liked what Gore stood for and what the Clinton administration had done.
If I were in the GOP camp, I would then say "we" had to move further to the Right to distinguish ourselves from the Democrats. But once you move that far to the right you are off the map.
posted by Postroad at 2:49 PM on January 24, 2001

Gore too far left, ha. Someone tell Bill Bradley.
posted by mathowie at 2:58 PM on January 24, 2001

"Democrats need to have a broad coalition to win," From said. "We need to expand beyond our Democratic base."

Translation: “We need to keep moving to the right.”

"America is changing. It's becoming more affluent, more educated, more suburban, more wired, more moderate and more diverse," From said. "To put together a majority, you have to talk to the country as it is."

And that is why third parties remain a key force in American politics. This country most definitly is not becoming “more affluent.” The voters the Dem/Reps want to reach, however, are affluent.

Nader: “If the Democrats stood in a cold shower for eight years, maybe they’d be able do or say something the Republicans haven’t already done or said.”
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:21 PM on January 24, 2001

Gore's support among the party's base was pretty weak before his populist convention speech. I think he ran a pretty good campaign, aside from the three weeks of the debates, where the low expectations of Bush and a media onslaught about his performances really hurt him.
posted by rcade at 3:27 PM on January 24, 2001

See, the American mission statement doesn't permit the major parties to say "the Greatest Nation on Earth is actually quite shit". We don't have this problem. The Dems should really send a few staffers over to the UK for the next election, as the greatest challenge to NewLabour will come from the left.
posted by holgate at 3:29 PM on January 24, 2001

But Gore did lose. The election was essentially a tie, and Bush won because he had the elements to pull through the tie-- all the things Sudama mentioned.

But when you're the VP during one of the most prosperous periods in your country's history, you run against someone who has no discernable advantages and you "don't win" then that's a loss. Gore may have gotten more slightly more votes, but to "win" you need a lot more than that.

Given the circumstances and potential advantages he should have enjoyed, Gore really did lose, and badly.
posted by cell divide at 3:45 PM on January 24, 2001

Wait, I thought Gore lost because he wasn't STUPID enough?
posted by Doug at 3:45 PM on January 24, 2001

Sure, the country was doing fine under Clinton, but I think Gore aggressively went with the "I'm my own man" strategy (or strategery) to avoid the scandals and ended up not taking credit for anything he did in the last 8 years.

America equates prosperity with Clinton and boring speeches with Gore, unfortunately.

Add on the erosive effect of Nader, factor the issues in Florida, acknowledge the fact that he won the popular vote ...

He actually did well considering the major hurdles he faced.
posted by jragon at 4:00 PM on January 24, 2001

Can someone tell me why Gore felt the need to distance himself from the most popular president for decades?
posted by fullerine at 4:46 PM on January 24, 2001

fullerine: the blowjob thing.

The paradox, of course, is that Gore distanced himself from the "human foibles" that were deemed to have brought the Clinton presidency into disrepute, only to be himself cast as an all-too-smart robot, not "human enough" in comparison with the quasi-literate recovering alkie who's currently "bringing honour and dignity" back to the White House.
posted by holgate at 5:01 PM on January 24, 2001

Gore ended up with a few more votes? half a million is a few? Gore lost because Jeb, Harris, the Supreme Court, and the brown shirts that hooted and closed counting places conspired to deprive America of the guy it wanted. And we have no idea as yet how many were deprived of votes in Florida.
Simply put: Gore won. One can badmouth him all day long. But he won. Ah, the electoral college? Well that is based on the voting that never got done in Florida. Not by chance that Sec of State was cheered at GOP as a saint.
posted by Postroad at 5:08 PM on January 24, 2001

Who cared about the blowjobs? Right Wing Republicans

Generally regarded as a weak market for the Democrats
posted by fullerine at 5:09 PM on January 24, 2001

Gore ended up with a few more votes? half a million is a few?

Um. Yes, it's about half of 1% of the number of voters. Depending on the methods used to tabulate votes and their distribution it may well be within the margin of error. In short, too close to call.

Mind you, I still wouldn't want all 500,000 sleeping on my sofa.
posted by kindall at 5:42 PM on January 24, 2001

Who cared about the blowjobs? Right Wing Republicans

Generally regarded as a weak market for the Democrats

I didn't say it was a smart approach. In fact, as the Eye reported, the Labour wonks' conclusions from the US: "If you've got a past to boast about, boast."
posted by holgate at 6:30 PM on January 24, 2001

Who's stopped blaming Nader?
posted by shylock at 7:25 PM on January 24, 2001

Heh. I haven't. It will be interesting to see his role in 2004. I'd imagine he'd step up the campaigning, but I don't think America will care anymore. His % of votes will proably go down, not up.
posted by jragon at 6:58 AM on January 25, 2001

Nader's support going up or down would depend on which idiot the democrats run next time.
posted by snakey at 8:11 AM on January 25, 2001

« Older Google Editorializing?   |   Oh, hell. Now all of that tanker... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments