Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => 2000 U.S. Presidential Election Results => Topic started by: Akno21 on July 01, 2004, 09:51:11 AM



Title: Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 01, 2004, 09:51:11 AM
If a bad choice, who should he have picked?


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Bunnybrit on July 01, 2004, 11:53:59 AM
Edwards or Graham, both who where on the final short list with Lieberman, both who I think would have given Gore Florida.
Graham was a former Governor and in the Senate from that state. But I dont suppose Gore realised when he made the decision in August 2000 what an error he was making or how critical Florida woyuld become on election day and beyond.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 01, 2004, 02:09:14 PM
bad. Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone. Much better picks if you want to increase Jewish turnout.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: The Dowager Mod on July 01, 2004, 02:41:37 PM
Bad choice.
it cost him tennessee.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Keystone Phil on July 01, 2004, 02:45:32 PM

No, Gore cost Gore Tennessee.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: © tweed on July 01, 2004, 04:18:10 PM
Good choice.

Florida wouldn't have been all that close without Lieberman.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 01, 2004, 05:20:26 PM
Gore was hurt in Florida more by the butterfly ballot than by his VP pick. Sure, picking Graham would have helped win Florida, but Gore than might not have picked up other swing states he won because of Lieberman. The point of Lieberman was to put a "moral" guy on the ticket to help erase the effects Bill Clinton's "immoral" actions.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: ATFFL on July 01, 2004, 06:25:49 PM
Definite good choice.  Eased fears of Gore pulling the party hard left, provided a moralist contrast to Clinton, could not hurt with Jews, and was not too offensive to any part of the Dem base at the time.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 01, 2004, 07:19:37 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Keystone Phil on July 01, 2004, 07:25:47 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Nation on July 01, 2004, 09:02:29 PM
It was a great choice alongside a great candidate (couldn't say the same for Gore now), but unfortunatley they didn't win.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: © tweed on July 01, 2004, 09:14:54 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

He did cost Gore votes in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Minnesota...but the thing is, Gore won all of those states.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: ilikeverin on July 01, 2004, 09:21:27 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

I agree with you :)

Except about Joe Lieberman being bad.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 01, 2004, 09:28:52 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

Hollywood is traditionally Democratic and is rich. When those two factors combine, good for the Dems. However, if there is one Democrat who doesn't garner support in Hollywood, it is Joe Lieberman. (In 2000 the ratings wer a bigger issue than now)


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on July 01, 2004, 09:34:26 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

He did cost Gore votes in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Minnesota...but the thing is, Gore won all of those states.

and Florida. A different Jew could've won all the votes he did without losing any. Plus with Wellstone or Feingold he wouldn't need to spend as many resources holding Wisconsin or Minnesota.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Nym90 on July 03, 2004, 10:26:31 AM
Overall good...helped distance him from the Lewinsky scandal some, and appealed to moderates. Too bad Lieberman is so boring though...a more charismatic choice could have beaten Cheney in the debate and given the ticket more of a lift, maybe.

Not the best possible choice, but not a bad one by any means. A Southerner probably would have been better.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 03, 2004, 09:20:59 PM
Overall good...helped distance him from the Lewinsky scandal some, and appealed to moderates. Too bad Lieberman is so boring though...a more charismatic choice could have beaten Cheney in the debate and given the ticket more of a lift, maybe.

Not the best possible choice, but not a bad one by any means. A Southerner probably would have been better.

Who, Edwards, who at the time had less than 2 years experience in congress and hadn't gained national recognition. Or Graham, who is just as boring as Lieberman, plus really wierd (Notebook)?


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: MasterJedi on July 07, 2004, 03:25:42 PM
I think it was a good choice. Lieberman is one of the few democrats that I wouldn't really mind winning the White House.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 07, 2004, 04:08:03 PM
I think it was a good choice. Lieberman is one of the few democrats that I wouldn't really mind winning the White House.

He is too Conservative, on some issues. He is almost as bad as Bush in bringing God into the Capitol, except he is Jewish, so he's not really a Christian Fundamentalist.  


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: TeePee4Prez on July 09, 2004, 01:35:35 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

You sound like you're parroting a Catholic school theology/religion teacher a little too much there.  I think poart of America's problem are these right-wing lube jobs like Joe Scarbourough that want to restrict everything.  When that happens your kids will become more socially liberal than possibly myself and will have a greater sense of curiosity which leada to trult immoral behavior.  

You know how I know you go to Catholc school KP...  What public school kid from Northeast Philadelphia would give a crap about what you just said?  


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Keystone Phil on July 09, 2004, 01:48:06 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

You know how I know you go to Catholc school KP...  What public school kid from Northeast Philadelphia would give a crap about what you just said?  

what kid would care? someone with brains. If more kids were religious or had morals, you think kids would be getting in as much trouble as they do these days, Handzus? I'm not understanding your point in saying I know you go to Catholic school. Ok would you like a prize for that? And I'm no parrot of a Catholic teacher. I truely believe in the Catholic faith and its ashame that someone as misguided as you doesn't have faith.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 09, 2004, 03:19:35 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

You know how I know you go to Catholc school KP...  What public school kid from Northeast Philadelphia would give a crap about what you just said?  

what kid would care? someone with brains. If more kids were religious or had morals, you think kids would be getting in as much trouble as they do these days, Handzus? I'm not understanding your point in saying I know you go to Catholic school. Ok would you like a prize for that? And I'm no parrot of a Catholic teacher. I truely believe in the Catholic faith and its ashame that someone as misguided as you doesn't have faith.

Kids being stupid idiots these days has nothing to do with a lack of faith. In fact, minorities and the kids likely to get in trouble wear those great big crosses everywhere they go. It's because there are many single-parent families in which one parent is working from 6AM-8PM or so and there is no one to supervise the kids.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on July 09, 2004, 04:16:32 PM
bad. Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone. Much better picks if you want to increase Jewish turnout.

I agree with these...except for the Jewish turnout part.   But Feingold and Wellstone would have been much better in the Midwest, and could have won Ohio.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 09, 2004, 08:15:42 PM
bad. Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone. Much better picks if you want to increase Jewish turnout.

I agree with these...except for the Jewish turnout part.   But Feingold and Wellstone would have been much better in the Midwest, and could have won Ohio.

Yes, and although both those guys may not be as morally correct as Lieberman (Which was why he was picked) they are still among the least crooked politicians out there. Especially Wellstone. Lieberman may have helped in Florida more than the others would have because he is a Jewish New Englanders. There are a lot of people living in South Florida who are Jewish who came from NYC and the rest of New England.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: TeePee4Prez on July 10, 2004, 12:33:29 AM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

You know how I know you go to Catholc school KP...  What public school kid from Northeast Philadelphia would give a crap about what you just said?  

what kid would care? someone with brains. If more kids were religious or had morals, you think kids would be getting in as much trouble as they do these days, Handzus? I'm not understanding your point in saying I know you go to Catholic school. Ok would you like a prize for that? And I'm no parrot of a Catholic teacher. I truely believe in the Catholic faith and its ashame that someone as misguided as you doesn't have faith.

I'm not saying all of the teachings in Catholic theology class are wrong, but definitely out of touch at times.  They're usually taught by some old guy that lived in a rectory for 50+ years and has no idea.  That's part of the reason I think Catholic priests should get married.  

If anything I think kids are too sheltered and not exposed ENOUGH to learn right from wrong.  For being from Northeast Philadelphia especially at your age you seem to be very well read and straight edge.  You and I both know MANY are not.  The reason for this is not television, but as Akno said there are a lot of single parents or even kids from both parents whose parents could care less.  I went to HS with a lot of these types.  They would be the first to drink and smoke at say age 14.  They were good kids, but man did these types ever lead a lot of others down the wrong path.  I don't know about you, but a lot of us drank in parks especially Juniata and Wissinoming.  I only went a few times, but I knew people that went every weekend even on school nights.  This wasn't until we were say 15 or 16.

Speaking of local issues affecting Northeast Philadelphia, another issue not brought up enough are VERY young kids some as young as 6th grade walking around, acting thuggish, drinking 40s and even smoking marijuana.  And these kids don't care about anything.  They leave their bottles behind A-Plus stores and one even had the nerve to ask me to buy them Phillies blunts.  Hmm, wonder why???  I'm not trying to be racist here, but most of these kids are white.  KP, don't you think it's funny these issues aren't mentioned in the Northeast Times or the News Gleaner not nearly as much as Section 8?  Food for thought.

Conclusion:  Moral decline in youth is not as much from TV as it is from bad parenting.  I find that at times the kids who are more repressed at home tend to find these bad groups very quickly.      


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Akno21 on July 10, 2004, 10:09:30 AM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

You know how I know you go to Catholc school KP...  What public school kid from Northeast Philadelphia would give a crap about what you just said?  

what kid would care? someone with brains. If more kids were religious or had morals, you think kids would be getting in as much trouble as they do these days, Handzus? I'm not understanding your point in saying I know you go to Catholic school. Ok would you like a prize for that? And I'm no parrot of a Catholic teacher. I truely believe in the Catholic faith and its ashame that someone as misguided as you doesn't have faith.

I'm not saying all of the teachings in Catholic theology class are wrong, but definitely out of touch at times.  They're usually taught by some old guy that lived in a rectory for 50+ years and has no idea.  That's part of the reason I think Catholic priests should get married.  

If anything I think kids are too sheltered and not exposed ENOUGH to learn right from wrong.  For being from Northeast Philadelphia especially at your age you seem to be very well read and straight edge.  You and I both know MANY are not.  The reason for this is not television, but as Akno said there are a lot of single parents or even kids from both parents whose parents could care less.  I went to HS with a lot of these types.  They would be the first to drink and smoke at say age 14.  They were good kids, but man did these types ever lead a lot of others down the wrong path.  I don't know about you, but a lot of us drank in parks especially Juniata and Wissinoming.  I only went a few times, but I knew people that went every weekend even on school nights.  This wasn't until we were say 15 or 16.

Speaking of local issues affecting Northeast Philadelphia, another issue not brought up enough are VERY young kids some as young as 6th grade walking around, acting thuggish, drinking 40s and even smoking marijuana.  And these kids don't care about anything.  They leave their bottles behind A-Plus stores and one even had the nerve to ask me to buy them Phillies blunts.  Hmm, wonder why???  I'm not trying to be racist here, but most of these kids are white.  KP, don't you think it's funny these issues aren't mentioned in the Northeast Times or the News Gleaner not nearly as much as Section 8?  Food for thought.

Conclusion:  Moral decline in youth is not as much from TV as it is from bad parenting.  I find that at times the kids who are more repressed at home tend to find these bad groups very quickly.      

It isn't always bad parenting, its just that the parents aren't able to be with their kids enough because they have to work 3 jobs at a time.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Keystone Phil on July 11, 2004, 08:03:37 PM
wrong, it was offensive to us Democrats who don't like moralistic idiots whining about violence in video games and swearing in music.

What is with far-leftists and their extreme dislike for moral people? Sorry that people like Joe Lieberman actually care what kids see on TV and hear in music. Sorry that people want kids to grow up with a sense of what is right and what is wrong. I don't like Joe Lieberman that much because he has some liberal social views but I thank Joe for having morals.

You know how I know you go to Catholc school KP...  What public school kid from Northeast Philadelphia would give a crap about what you just said?  

what kid would care? someone with brains. If more kids were religious or had morals, you think kids would be getting in as much trouble as they do these days, Handzus? I'm not understanding your point in saying I know you go to Catholic school. Ok would you like a prize for that? And I'm no parrot of a Catholic teacher. I truely believe in the Catholic faith and its ashame that someone as misguided as you doesn't have faith.

Speaking of local issues affecting Northeast Philadelphia, another issue not brought up enough are VERY young kids some as young as 6th grade walking around, acting thuggish, drinking 40s and even smoking marijuana.  And these kids don't care about anything.  They leave their bottles behind A-Plus stores and one even had the nerve to ask me to buy them Phillies blunts.  Hmm, wonder why???  I'm not trying to be racist here, but most of these kids are white.  KP, don't you think it's funny these issues aren't mentioned in the Northeast Times or the News Gleaner not nearly as much as Section 8?  Food for thought.

Conclusion:  Moral decline in youth is not as much from TV as it is from bad parenting.  I find that at times the kids who are more repressed at home tend to find these bad groups very quickly.      

Handzus, this is one of those EXTREMELY rare events when I totally agree with you.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: ncjake on July 11, 2004, 10:00:32 PM
He was a good choice because he would have made a good president, but it didn't help Gore in any way.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: ijohn57s on July 13, 2004, 09:30:57 AM
A good choice. Gore would have gotten buried without Lieberman.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: 7,052,770 on July 16, 2004, 11:17:06 PM
A good choice. Gore would have gotten buried without Lieberman.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on July 29, 2004, 05:11:05 AM
Edwards or Graham, both who where on the final short list with Lieberman, both who I think would have given Gore Florida.
Graham was a former Governor and in the Senate from that state. But I dont suppose Gore realised when he made the decision in August 2000 what an error he was making or how critical Florida woyuld become on election day and beyond.


Florida is the only state where Gore outspent Bush. He spent something like 60 hours straight campaigning there before the election. And it paid off, more people clearly went to the polls intending to vote for him.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: lidaker on August 13, 2004, 01:34:16 PM
It was a good choice politically, Gore didn't lose because of Lieberman. Personally, I'm not very fond of Joe Lieberman though, mostly because of his foreign policy views.


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Ben. on August 14, 2004, 07:03:34 AM
Without Lieberman Bush wins Florida by about 3 pionts... however with Edwards Gore could perhaps hold TN or take MO? With Graham I think Gore might take a bad nock in one or two states, say MN and IA, but is able to take FL and again might be able to hold onto AR and TN.  


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: TommyC1776 on August 15, 2004, 03:39:44 PM
Graham


Title: Re:Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Bogart on August 16, 2004, 04:34:50 PM
Neutral. People, by and large, don't vote for vice presidents.


Title: Re: Lieberman in 2000
Post by: True Democrat on October 30, 2004, 01:59:19 PM
he should have picked jean shaheen


Title: Re: Lieberman in 2000
Post by: Wakie on October 30, 2004, 04:07:35 PM
I think VP's do more to hurt and less to help a candidate.  Max Cleeland or Bill Richardson would have helped much more than Leiberman.


Title: Re: Lieberman in 2000
Post by: MaC on February 03, 2005, 12:52:43 AM
though I don't like Lieberman, I thought he was a good choice for Gore.  For one, he needed someone who had the moral thing going to distance himself from Clinton's antics.  Two, Lieberman's further to the right to keep Gore from looking totally liberal and looking out of touch.  Three, Florida was so close, and unless he picked Phil Grahm, he wouldn't get nearly that many votes.