Gore picks a different runningmate

JoeMulk

Banned
What if Gore had picked a better runningmate then Lieberman in 2000, maybe one that actually had some geographic strength or had appealed to the left in order to cut down on Nader support? Like maybe a Gore/Wellstone ticket
 
wellstone or feinstein would both be better picks IMO. it was such a narrow race that any change could cause Gore to win, or if the DUI thing dosen't come out a wider Bush win.
 
Mikulski, Boxer or Feinstein could be choices. Also Pelosi. I feel like a liberal woman would have been a good balance to Gore.
 
Pelosi was too obscure and only a congresswoman then, not in leadership. Feinstein, a New Democrat like Gore, would be too old and Boxer is just as polarizing as Pelosi. Gore wanted someone more conservative than him, hence Lieberman. Other choices were Kerry or Edwards, but Kerry, being more experienced, would be the other choice- also a very liberal and polarizing figure.
 
Probably the easiest road, if you want a Gore victory, is to choose Bob Graham -- as an experienced moderate he probably doesn't lose any votes Lieberman brought in, except maybe some Jewish votes: but he'll make up for that by being from Florida.
 
Probably the easiest road, if you want a Gore victory, is to choose Bob Graham -- as an experienced moderate he probably doesn't lose any votes Lieberman brought in, except maybe some Jewish votes: but he'll make up for that by being from Florida.

Agreement here. Bob Graham would have been the best pick with hindsight. Without.............that is a different story.
 
Any overtly left wing running mate would have made Bush's win all that more decisive.

Actually a more left-wing running mate like Paul Wellstone would have deflated any appeal Ralph Nader had with disaffected Progressive Democrats. This may have made all the difference in states like New Hampshire and Florida. Though I do understand the rationality behind your concerns.

In this context, the best running mates for Gore probably would have been either Russ Feingold or Dick Gephardt
 
Actually a more left-wing running mate like Paul Wellstone would have deflated any appeal Ralph Nader had with disaffected Progressive Democrats. This may have made all the difference in states like New Hampshire and Florida. Though I do understand the rationality behind your concerns.

In this context, the best running mates for Gore probably would have been either Russ Feingold or Dick Gephardt

Gephardt--maybe. Feingold would have scared too many people.
 

Technocrat

Banned
How are people whose main issues are civil liberty rather than say socialism or even internationalism/peace scary?

Civil libertarians are a small segment of professional politics due to practical considerations, but I don't see how that qualifies someone as being "more Left" in this day and age. Civil libertarianism was hardly the main excuse for calling people bombthrowers back in the sixties, people tied internationalism, pacifism, and the desire for detente with the Soviets/an end to red scare tactics with communism and radical leftism in general.

Russ Feingold, as primarily a civil libertarian rather than an agitator for disarmament or social welfare, would be a pretty safe pick as far as non Roosevelt and non Johnson go.
 
Given Lieberman's conduct and contributions to the campaign, its not an exageration to say that choosing a block of wood as a running mate would be a better choice.

Lieberman as a campaigner was a complete disaster from start to finish. Simply by insisting on running both as VP and for the Senate, he expressly demonstrated a nationally visible lack of faith in Gore's campaign, while transparently hedging his bets. Gore's acceptance of this made him seem weak and vacillating. Lieberman seemed to revel in attacking Democratic constituencies, yet had no traction at all on the right wing. In particular, his 'culture war' attempted campaign effort against moral decay in Hollywood fell flat with an embarrassing thud. He alienated Democrats, without neutralizing or enlisting undecideds or right wingers. I don't think he did much in any significant way to attract or maintain jewish support, which was predominantly Democrat in any event. Outside of his own senate constituency, he had no particular following or broadbased constituency, spoke to no one about anything. So the question is clearly, who was he supposed to appeal to. His performance in the debates with Dick Cheney was spectacularly cringeworthy, at times he seemed to simper. His selection was a vicious and overt slap in the face to Clinton supporters and seemed calculated to repudiate that support. He was probably one of Nader's biggest recruiters by default. In the controversies that followed the election, Lieberman repeatedly sabotaged the Gore position, and seemed perpetually willing to surrender.

It's really difficult to imagine Gore doing worse than Lieberman. Almost any pick would have been dramatically better.

At times, it seemed Gore was working hard to lose the election, and certainly the media never withheld their contempt for him. But Lieberman was the nadir.
 
One thing everyone seems to be disregarding: how many middle-of-the-road/slightly conservative votes would the ticket lose if the VP choice were more left-wing? I'd bet that Lieberman, despite his lack of campaign charisma, drew votes based on his stances on values from old-line Democrats who might have been on the fence (e.g., trade union types) otherwise. And don't forget that really strident left-wing types tend to be turnoffs for the public, as a rule.

Thus, I suggest that a more liberal running mate would have resulted in no improvement for Gore, and may well have yielded a worse outcome.
 
To be fair to Lieberman (my only least favorite US politician who's not a Democrat or Republican), a lot of the American people (me included) did see his debate performance as being better than Gore's. The same also applies for (*gasp!*) Dick Cheney in regards to Bush. Of course, in my case, it wouldn't have helped me vote for either of them... My mind was already made up.
 
One thing everyone seems to be disregarding: how many middle-of-the-road/slightly conservative votes would the ticket lose if the VP choice were more left-wing? I'd bet that Lieberman, despite his lack of campaign charisma, drew votes based on his stances on values from old-line Democrats who might have been on the fence (e.g., trade union types) otherwise. And don't forget that really strident left-wing types tend to be turnoffs for the public, as a rule.

Thus, I suggest that a more liberal running mate would have resulted in no improvement for Gore, and may well have yielded a worse outcome.

I'm really skeptical of the notion that Lieberman drew any votes at all. He certainly lost many for Gore.

Would a more liberal running mate have alienated some votes, possibly. But at the same time, he'd probably make genuine inroads into alienated liberal voters or Nader voters. I have a hard time not seeing a better outcome.
 
Lieberman did probably reinforce the Jewish vote for Gore, but with the butterfly ballots in Miami-Dade it probably didn't make much of a difference!

I actually think that Feinstein is still the ideal pick here. Women would have given more support to Gore, plus she's a centrist (to an extent) and isn't too old.
 
One thing everyone seems to be disregarding: how many middle-of-the-road/slightly conservative votes would the ticket lose if the VP choice were more left-wing? I'd bet that Lieberman, despite his lack of campaign charisma, drew votes based on his stances on values from old-line Democrats who might have been on the fence (e.g., trade union types) otherwise. And don't forget that really strident left-wing types tend to be turnoffs for the public, as a rule.

Thus, I suggest that a more liberal running mate would have resulted in no improvement for Gore, and may well have yielded a worse outcome.

I really disagree. These rules may apply now but you have to realize the world was on a very different course at the time. They were coming off of High Clinton Momentum. (He retained popularity even after his "I didn't have relations with that women) This was before 911 and before Republicans were able to play the War/defense card

drew votes based on his stances on values from old-line Democrats who might have been on the fence

Yet polls nationwide even now show individual issues either sway to the left or divide evenly nationwide. Other factors are in play

And don't forget that really strident left-wing types tend to be turnoffs for the public

When did this become a rule? I know this has been widely believed since 1972 even within the Democratic party but there is no evidence no real suggest this. Liberals do rather well in places they "shouldn't" so I'm not convinced,
 
Lieberman did probably reinforce the Jewish vote for Gore, but with the butterfly ballots in Miami-Dade it probably didn't make much of a difference!

I actually think that Feinstein is still the ideal pick here. Women would have given more support to Gore, plus she's a centrist (to an extent) and isn't too old.

She might be a centrist, but the fact that she's from San Francisco would have resulted in her being portrayed by Republicans as the second coming of Trotsky at worst and as a "San Francisco liberal" at best. Moreover, she's offensive to the left, which would exascerbate the Naderite problem. Worst of both worlds there. Feingold and Wellstone, while further to the left than Feinstein, at least had the advantage of being from, and knowing how to win in, the Midwest. The other issue with Feinstein is the wealth of her and her husband. As Ferrraro showed, that can open a whole can of worms.
 
Only someone like Bob Graham was going to help Gore. Realistically, there were only a few areas where Gore could have done better, and in most going left with his choice of a running mate was not going to help.
 
Top