Why didn't Al Gore run for president again in 2004?

Because he wanted out of politics, had his new eco gig, and plainly lost the itch for politics. He would have to compete with Hillary and Obama. Gore would split the regular and conservative Dems with Hillary, and Obama would sneak up the middle while drawing from both. That is if Obama runs. Obama is a regular, but more attractive (until recently, ex DADT) to the Dem left than Hillary. Gore is a SoDem, almost Blue Dog. Don't think the militantes are crazy about them.
 
About the subject of the 2004 election. Would Democrats complain if Gore was declared the winner in '00 and the 2004 election under OTL circumstances? More importantly, would that author object and write an article making those claims? I think not. He is as objective on George Bush as Rush Limbaugh is on Barack Obama. When either of them regain a semblance of objectivity, then I will respect their views. That's as likely as Barack Obama resigning tomorrow. RFK Jr. is a wasted talent because he outflanks Mrs. Pelosi on the left and other reasons which have to do with the law. To be perfectly honest, he and Sarah Palin feed on each other's ideological militancy. As you know, I am a reasonable Republican.
It's GOOD to See Such a Thing Still Exists, But I'm Afraid that Category Solely Includes you and Senator Graham ...

Personally, I do Believe The 2000 Election was Stolen from its Rightful Winner; Plus that Kerry could've Won in 2004 if Only Biden had been on his Ticket!

But what I Think in this Case, Simply doesn't Matter ...

'Cause Occasionally in a True Representative Democracy, who Actually Wins an Election Pales in Importance, to who is PERCEIVED to have Won it; To Folks on Both Sides, isn't it Indeed Possible that The Election of 2000 is Just One of Those Times?
 
Thank you for the compliment. 2000 was questionable, though all but one (the most generous) recount scenario conducted by the Miami Herald showed a Bush win. Ironically, under the Gore rules, Bush would've won and vice versa. Now for 2004, that was clean. I do not believe 1960 was stolen either, for Daley's methods were SOP for the period, and TX was legit by the period standards.
 
Thank you for the compliment. 2000 was questionable, though all but one (the most generous) recount scenario conducted by the Miami Herald showed a Bush win. Ironically, under the Gore rules, Bush would've won and vice versa. Now for 2004, that was clean. I do not believe 1960 was stolen either, for Daley's methods were SOP for the period, and TX was legit by the period standards.
You're VERY Welcome, I Just Wish there were More of you ...

The Election of 2000 was about as Ugly as Such Things get, But my Complaints about The Election of 2004 are More Directed Against The Kerry Campaign for Not Choosing a Better Running-Mate ...

As for The Election of 1960, Quite Frankly, The Better Cheater Won it and Any and All Protestations to The Contrary, By Either Side, Merely Guarantee we'll Wind up with More Leaders Exactly Like them!

:mad:
 
Duly noted, but in terms of probability, plausibility and likelyhood Gore is going to do at least slighly worse than he did 4 years previously - In other words - he loses to Bush electorally and in the popular vote.

Why though? The three things that Gore was good at in campaigns were mastering a brief, particularly in foreign affairs, debating (everyone was hugely surprised when he ballsed up against Bush in 2000, in fact, amusingly, people had to ret-con their opinions a few days after the first debate when the audience polls came in) and savaging his opponent. None of that worked in 2000, because it didn't fit the climate; All of that seems perfect to me for 2004. Bush wouldn't be able to walk all over Gore like he did Kerry, in fact Gore will probably do a lot of walking over Bush. Gore will have learned his mistakes from 2000.

Whether it'd work - well, who knows. I doubt it. But Gore would run an extremely active and pugnacious campaign. Think OTLs 2004 with the partisan temperature even higher.

I agree, but this does does beg the question or perhaps a new thread, Why didn't Gore take a page from Nixon's playbook and run in 08?

As I say, I think Gore pretty much decided to throw in the towel politically after 2000. He wasn't as driven as Nixon.
 
Last edited:
Why though? The three things that Gore was good at in campaigns were mastering a brief, particularly in foreign affairs, debating (everyone was hugely surprised when he ballsed up against Bush in 2000, in fact, amusingly, people had to ret-con their opinions a few days after the first debate when the audience polls came in) and savaging his opponent. None of that worked in 2000, because it didn't fit the climate; All of that seems perfect to me for 2004. Bush wouldn't be able to walk all over Gore like he did Kerry, in fact Gore will probably do a lot of walking over Bush. Gore will have learned his mistakes from 2000.

Whether it'd work - well, who knows. I doubt it. But Gore would run an extremely active and pugnacious campaign. Think OTLs 2004 with the partisan temperature even higher.



As I say, I think Gore pretty much decided to throw in the towel politically after 2000. He wasn't as driven as Nixon.

Perhpaps I should be asking you why do you think Gore would do better against the same oppenent 4 years later, or that matter, do better than Kerry did, considering the fact that Gore clearly did not run a good campaign in 2000? What do you base that on? I base on my conclusion on probability, Plausibility, likelyhood, crunching the #'s and running models, and I have come to the conclusion that the odds would clearly be staked against him in a rematch against Bush in 04. If anything I think it's more Gore would lose the nomination to either Dean or Kerry.
 
Perhpaps I should be asking you why do you think Gore would do better against the same oppenent 4 years later, or that matter, do better than Kerry did, considering the fact that Gore clearly did not run a good campaign in 2000?

It kind of helps debate if you're not running two posts behind mine. Incidentally, I didn't say he would do better, I said I think there are persuasive reasons for believing he could have done better than Kerry in the general.

I base on my conclusion on probability, Plausibility, likelyhood,

Probability based on what? You have to demonstrate your reasoning. Probability of winning can only be based on a reasoned weighing up of the strengths and weaknesses of a certain candidate in relation to their opponent. All you've said so as far as that goes is, indirectly, 'Gore lost in 2000 therefore he must lose in 2004.'
 
Last edited:

oberdada

Gone Fishin'
I think it is time for an obscure conspirancy theory:

Bush and Kerry briebed him with the Nobel Peace Price
 
It kind of helps debate if you're not running two posts behind mine. Incidentally, I didn't say he would do better, I said I think there are persuasive reasons for believing he could have done better than Kerry in the general.

I missunderstood you, my bad. Are there persuasive reasons that Gore could've done better than Gore? Sure, if there were another terrorist attack inside the US after 9-11 and if the economy really went sour by fall of 2004.

Probability based on what? You have to demonstrate your reasoning. Probability of winning can only be based on a reasoned weighing up of the strengths and weaknesses of a certain candidate in relation to their opponent. All you've said so as far as that goes is, indirectly, 'Gore lost in 2000 therefore he must lose in 2004.'

One of the primary reasons I base it on is the fact that in over the past one hundred years there have been two presidential rematches (1900 & 1956) and in both cases the incumbent won.
 
Top