Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Early Opinion Polls Look Bad for Gore [NYT, USA Today, CNN, Gallup, FOX, Bloomberg]
The NY Times - Political Round-up / Politics Section | Dec. 23, 2001 | NYT staff

Posted on 12/23/2001 1:47:52 PM PST by summer

Early Opinion Polls Look Bad for Gore

Al Gore keeps saying he has not decided whether to run for president again in 2004.

But a lot of Democratic voters have reached a decision on that matter, if a new CNN/USAToday/Gallup Poll has it right.

Asked whether the party's 2004 standard-bearer should again be Mr. Gore or "someone else," 66 percent of poll respondents said "someone else."

And there is more.

Two other new polls — by Bloomberg and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics — indicate that even if Mr. Gore should be renominated, he would lose again, by a ratio of more than two to one, if President Bush should again be the Republican nominee.


TOPICS: Announcements; Extended News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last
I have to admit, the NYT seems determined not to encourage Al Gore in any way whatsoever for 2004.
1 posted on 12/23/2001 1:47:52 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: summer
Who do they suggest should be the nominee instead?
2 posted on 12/23/2001 1:49:43 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marajade
I don't know. Sometimes the posters at DU talk about John Kerry, but there is no one candidate who is favored. The big issue still seems to be the identity of the party -- are they going to move toward a more progressive agenda or not?
3 posted on 12/23/2001 1:51:11 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: summer
I'm betting when all is said and done, the NYT will come down hard in support for liberal senator John Kerry from Massacusetts.
4 posted on 12/23/2001 1:51:59 PM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Come on. It's Hilliary.
5 posted on 12/23/2001 1:52:45 PM PST by Whispering Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I can't think of who else has a military background, off the top of my head. I think the nominee will be required somehow to have a military background, or else, forget it.
6 posted on 12/23/2001 1:53:18 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
I meant: liberal, multi-millionaire-by-marriage, elitist senator from Massachusetts John Kerry
7 posted on 12/23/2001 1:53:21 PM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Whispering Smith
No, not until 2008, after whatever Dem loses to GW.
8 posted on 12/23/2001 1:53:56 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking of. LOL...
9 posted on 12/23/2001 1:54:29 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: summer
My money -

ROY BARNES


10 posted on 12/23/2001 1:55:29 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Whispering Smith
I wouldn't mind if that bitch ran so W could beat her soundly. I cannot see labor going for her whatsoever.
12 posted on 12/23/2001 1:57:11 PM PST by irish_lad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: summer
If I had to bet I'd go with John Edwards, of North Carolina. The dems need a southern state to win and he's "electable". I'd also bet on a Edwards/Clinton ticket. That way if she loses, she's not the loser. If they win, (God forbid), it gives her a clear shot at the #1 spot eight years later.
13 posted on 12/23/2001 1:57:26 PM PST by terilyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Now, what makes you say that, Dan? Just curious...
14 posted on 12/23/2001 1:57:30 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: summer
Well if its Kerry they would.
15 posted on 12/23/2001 1:58:22 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Whispering Smith
I would love for it to be Hillary. I just don't see her being able to win except for the very liberal states in the union.
16 posted on 12/23/2001 1:59:16 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: summer
John Edwards of NC seems to be intent on running in 2004. We can only hope that Bush cleans the floor with him enough that he never runs for office again after that.
17 posted on 12/23/2001 1:59:29 PM PST by OK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marajade
I think you're right about that. But, then you have Bill Clinton, hammering away now at his Centrist position -- it seems they can not really move anywhere unless he keeps his mouth shut or moves with them, both of which seem unlikely.
18 posted on 12/23/2001 2:00:25 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Has the guy shown the slightest interest in running? Have you seen him on TV? Does he have the right stuff, ie some depth of knowledge of national issues, and an ability to exude some smarts and confidence and nuance?
19 posted on 12/23/2001 2:01:17 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OK
What I think is funny is how the Dems questioned Bush's experience for Pres and now they might run Edwards who has even less.
20 posted on 12/23/2001 2:01:39 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
If they win, (God forbid), it gives her a clear shot at the #1 spot eight years later.

Eight years? More like eight minutes. And no one will have seen a thing. No suspects, no witnesses, he's gone, just like that. Osama did it.

21 posted on 12/23/2001 2:01:53 PM PST by Nick Danger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: summer
Bill Clinton may be able to sell himself as a Dem in the middle but Hillary would never get away with it.
22 posted on 12/23/2001 2:02:20 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Torie, Dan from Michigan
PS to Torie's post #19 -- Or, can he at least fake those things?
23 posted on 12/23/2001 2:02:47 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: summer
Has anyone but the google search engine even heard of him?
24 posted on 12/23/2001 2:03:57 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: summer
John Kerry can. I think he would be a formidable candidate if Bush is wounded. But so far Bush has been a total hunk.
25 posted on 12/23/2001 2:04:12 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I don't know, Torie. I think MA as the home state of a presidential candidate, and all my mind can come up with is: MA=LOSER
26 posted on 12/23/2001 2:05:22 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: summer
Kerry served in Vietnam.
27 posted on 12/23/2001 2:05:48 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Right about Kerry -- now, did John Edwards from NC serve anywhere?
28 posted on 12/23/2001 2:06:39 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: summer
Well Dukakis got 47% of the two party vote with all kinds of liabilities, and Kerry is a much better politician than Dukakis, and more flexible and appealing.
29 posted on 12/23/2001 2:07:26 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: summer
Isn't Edwards too young to have served except maybe in a volunteer capacity?
30 posted on 12/23/2001 2:08:00 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: summer
I can't think of who else has a military background, off the top of my head. I think the nominee will be required somehow to have a military background, or else, forget it.

Dude, Hillary! She has the thighs of a miltary man! Plus she knows it all!

31 posted on 12/23/2001 2:11:20 PM PST by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marajade
They want Queen Commie Hitlery I am sure.
32 posted on 12/23/2001 2:13:56 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marajade
John Edwards did not serve.

All you need to know about John Edwards: plaintiff attorney.

After the farces when John Walker is tried and the whining "victims" of WTC go to court, this country will be SICK of trial attorneys.

33 posted on 12/23/2001 2:14:15 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: summer
Hillary TRIED to join the marines YEARS ago to have this very edge.
34 posted on 12/23/2001 2:15:05 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: terilyn
If they win, (God forbid), it gives her a clear shot at the #1 spot eight years later.

She'll be 60 years old by then.

35 posted on 12/23/2001 2:15:37 PM PST by Grim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
I really don't think she will run in 2004, but I think she will in 2008. Although, maybe she would run in the VP slot in 2004.
36 posted on 12/23/2001 2:16:51 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Thanks... Wasn't sure about Edwards.
37 posted on 12/23/2001 2:17:14 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Grim
She'll be 60 years old by then.

So? Reagan was in his seventies wasn't he?

38 posted on 12/23/2001 2:17:59 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Re your post #29 -- Gee, I didn't even remember Dukasis getting that much of the vote. All I remember is that he seemed to lose every state save one or two.
39 posted on 12/23/2001 2:18:06 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Dukasis = Dukakis
40 posted on 12/23/2001 2:18:43 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: summer
I don't know if the Democrat Powers That Be, which certainly include the publisher and editors of the Times, have decided who will get the nod. But they've obviously decided that Gore is a loser, and that this is a good time to show him the door.
41 posted on 12/23/2001 2:18:55 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: summer
--Gore is as done as a candidate as Harold Stassen--
42 posted on 12/23/2001 2:19:32 PM PST by rellimpank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Did you see the stupid questions he was asking Ashcroft during the recent hearings? Don't remember specifically but I do remember they were stupid considering his schooling.
43 posted on 12/23/2001 2:19:43 PM PST by sabe@q.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Eight years? More like eight minutes. And no one will have seen a thing. No suspects, no witnesses, he's gone, just like that. Osama did it.

Thats frightening.I believe she would do it.Well,she would order it done.

44 posted on 12/23/2001 2:20:17 PM PST by cardinal4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: irish_lad
I cannot see labor going for her whatsoever.

I guess that al depends on how much money the DNC and the like throw at the union bosses, who have been known to extort certain behaviour from its members.

45 posted on 12/23/2001 2:21:21 PM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: summer
nyt want's hillary, she owns all the liberal media.
46 posted on 12/23/2001 2:21:53 PM PST by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Whispering Smith
Come on. It's Hilliary

Who in their right mind would run with her?

Richard W.

47 posted on 12/23/2001 2:22:33 PM PST by arete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: summer
Dukakis particulars. I was off by a percent of so.
48 posted on 12/23/2001 2:23:07 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Actually, I'm not sure Edwards can win N.C.; a LOT of people are mad with him because he wouldn't meet with them about the nulcear power plant below Raleigh.

And he sponsored a bill in the Senate to give financial help to the people of eastern N.C. after Hurricane Floyd; however, he did not vote for his OWN bill because Dick Gephardt didn't want to give the "win" to the Republicans and told him not to vote for it.

49 posted on 12/23/2001 2:23:18 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: marajade
BTW, here's what I mean about Bill Clinton, as I think he and the entire party -- including Al Gore and for that matter, Janet Reno -- all need to part ways with Dem voters, if the Dems really want to anywhere:

December 23, 2001

A Fresh Legacy for Bill Clinton?

To the Editor:

Re "Clinton and Aides Lay Plans to Repair a Battered Image" (front page, Dec. 21):

Bill Clinton is determined to use his post-presidency constructively to further causes in which he believes. One of those is to build the idea-based political movement known as New Democrat in this country and "the third way" around the world — the movement to modernize progressivism for the information age.

I began working with Mr. Clinton to build the New Democrat movement in 1985 when we founded the Democratic Leadership Council. He was governor of Arkansas at the time. He's been a leader of the movement ever since, and during his presidency, New Democrat ideas — fiscal discipline, welfare reform, national service and community policing — made America a better, safer, more prosperous country.

The "third way" movement will continue to grow whether or not Mr. Clinton participates in the future. But it will be stronger because, as a former president, he will help shape the next generation of progressive ideas and mentor the next generation of New Democrat leaders.


AL FROM
Washington, Dec. 21, 2001
The writer is chief executive of the Democratic Leadership Council.


• To the Editor:

Re "Clinton and Aides Lay Plans to Repair a Battered Image" (front page, Dec. 21): Bill Clinton presided over an eight-year period of mostly peace and prosperity for America. It is unlikely that this will soon be forgotten. But the ongoing vanity of the man, and his campaign for a favored place in history, grow tiresome.

It will always be appropriate for Mr. Clinton and his supporters to work for the issues they believe in. And for Mr. Clinton to do good works, like Jimmy Carter. But his own era is past.


DONALD J. ISLER
Irvington, N.Y., Dec. 21, 2001 •

To the Editor:

As one who voted for Bill Clinton and contributed modestly to his impeachment defense fund, I have a suggestion for enhancing his legacy ("Clinton and Aides Lay Plans to Repair a Battered Image," front page, Dec. 21). Rather than spending his days fretting about his image, why doesn't he take on some unfinished business of his administration?

Specifically, he could help repair the damage caused by welfare reform, which he promised to do when he signed the bill. Tens of thousands of welfare children will become destitute unless real jobs at decent wages are created for their parents. He could also lead efforts to save Social Security from the privatizers and to add to the rental housing supply for low-income families.

Mr. Clinton is still relatively young; he can add to his legacy by deeds, not by public relations.


MORTON J. SCHUSSHEIM
Washington, Dec. 21, 2001 •

To the Editor:

Re "Clinton and Aides Lay Plans to Repair a Battered Image" (front page, Dec. 21):

It's reassuring to know that Bill Clinton's "permanent campaign" will never end. His continued obsession over his policies, perception and performance will no doubt aid historians in analyzing eight years of unrivaled prosperity and missed opportunities.

RONEN SARRAF
New York, Dec. 21, 2001 •

To the Editor:

Re "Clinton and Aides Lay Plans to Repair a Battered Image" (front page, Dec. 21):

I do not object to Bill Clinton's effort to "defend his legacy," but I hope that he will not succeed in another objective mentioned in the article: playing "a central role in setting an issue agenda for the Democrats." I am one Democrat who is looking for a new cast of leaders willing to move beyond Mr. Clinton's characteristic timidity about pushing a progressive agenda.

JACK JUSTICE


Santa Fe, N.M., Dec. 21, 2001 • To the Editor:

Re "Clinton and Aides Lay Plans to Repair a Battered Image" (front page, Dec. 21): Bill Clinton should realize that legacies are not determined by spinmeisters, but by future historians, who will analyze his presidency 50 or 100 years from now.

Spin may temporarily improve his reputation among today's print editors, and even historians, but this will have little lasting significance. Future scholars will be immune to the spin.

EDWARD M. STAUB
Fairfield, Conn., Dec. 21, 2001

50 posted on 12/23/2001 2:27:03 PM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-142 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson