Gore to Endorse Dean

[© tweed]

From CNN.com:

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Former Vice President Al Gore -- the Democratic party's presidential candidate in 2000 -- has decided to endorse former Vermont Governor Howard Dean for the party's 2004 presidential nomination, Democratic sources told CNN Monday.

Events are being planned for Tuesday in New York and Iowa -- and the dramatic endorsement is likely to cement Dean's status as the leading Democratic candidate heading into the kickoff contests now just weeks away in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Dean's campaign declined public comment. But a source close to the former vice president told CNN that Gore decided to endorse Dean.

Another source said the endorsement would occur at 8 a.m. Tuesday in Harlem, and that the two would then travel together to Iowa.

Reacting to the news, Erik Smith, a campaign press secretary for Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, said, "Dick Gephardt fought side-by-side with Al Gore to pass the Clinton economic plan, pass the assault weapons ban and defend against Republican attacks on Medicare and affirmative action. On each of these issues, Howard Dean was on the wrong side."

Dean and Gephardt are the top two candidates in Iowa.

Underdog candidate Al Sharpton said endorsements don't carry the weight they once did. "Gore can support who he wants," Sharpton told CNN.

Paul Begala, a political adviser for President Clinton and now a host of CNN's "Crossfire," called the endorsement an "enormous boost" that would clearly give Dean momentum going into Iowa and New Hampshire.

"It's very good for him," Begala said, adding, "I wouldn't go so far as to say it locks anything up though, because people want to make up their own minds."

GO dean GO!!

[John]

Gore Has Made a Desicon that will cost Dean the Election in 04

[TomC]

Gore Has Made a Desicon that will cost Dean the Election in 04

Well, if Kerry drops out by Feb 10 (when I  vote), Gore's endorsement has gotten Dean my vote. Say what you will about Gore, no Democrat has received more votes and no candidate has received more votes except Reagan in 1984. He has his goofy moments that right wingers just love to relive ad nauseum, but a lot of people value his opinion. I'm currently a Kerry supporter and like Clark too, but I see the writing on the wall now. Dean will be the nominee; this closes the deal.

[agcatter]

Indeed it does close the deal.  The Dems have indeed self destructed.  Pure anger makes people do really stupid things.  Karl Rove is really happy tonight.

[Nym90]

Well, time will tell. Carter's people were also quite giddy at this time 24 years ago for much the same reasons.

[StevenNick]

What is Gore thinking?  This is a really stupid move on his part.

Gore is the embodiment of all that's wrong with the Democratic party today and all the reasons they're not going to win in 2004.  They've gone NUTS!  Gore was a serious player in the Democratic party--a former senator, vice-president, and a presidential candidate who actually drew more votes than GWB.  Now he's mired in the bog of the extreme left of the mainstream Democratic party.  He's given a few speeches lately that were filled with all kinds of conspiracy theorizing and general weirdness of the like.  That Gore has now affiliated himself with Dean simply confirms the fact that Gore, like many other formerly mainstream Democrats, have been driven off the cliff by their hatred of George W. Bush.

Gore has badly damaged his credibility as a potential future Presidential candidate by affiliating himself with a loser like Dean.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<Say what you will about Gore, no Democrat has received more votes and no candidate has received more votes except Reagan in 1984.>>

Huh?!  What?!  Are we suppose to be impressed by someone's "vote total" while only getting 48% of the popular vote in 2000 and then try to compare it to Reagan's 59% in 1984 when the population was smaller?

48% if FAR from impressive.  This guy couldn't even carry his own state, which voted Dem in 92 and 96 while Clinton was receiving only 43% and 49%.  Not to mention that Gore only won 40% of the states and less than a majority in the electoral college.

Gore having the 2nd highest "total vote" count has more to do with the population having sex than anything having to do with Gore.

Gore also received 80 times more "total votes" than Andrew Jackson in 1828, but which one went on to serve two terms as president?  (Hint: It wasn't Gore!)

[jravnsbo]

Dean is not a Jimmy Carter.  Everyone l;iked Jimmy and his down home nice guy demeanor.  For that matter a lot of GOP members even still like Jimmy for his calm demeanor.  I just don't get that when Dean talks.

Plus I'd love to compare the Carter Presidency to any President.

Well, time will tell. Carter's people were also quite giddy at this time 24 years ago for much the same reasons.

[Nym90]

I was actually comparing Dean to Reagan, not Carter, in as much as Democrats were giddy about the possibility of a Reagan nomination in 1980 because he was so far to the right that he'd drive the party off the cliff and the moderate incumbent Carter would win reelection in a cakewalk.

[DarthKosh]

I love watching the Democratic Party self-destruct.

[JNB]

 If Dean is the nominee and can not move to t he center after the nomination, he will take many other Democrats down with him. The Democratic party allready has made it difficult for house Democrats in conservative leaning rural districts by having Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the house leader(and trust me, she will be a household name by Nov of next year), and now with Dean, if he is the Democratic nominee, will make if even more difficult for Democrats in rural and conservative leaning areas.

  While I do not expect a blowout on the level of 72 and 84, a national result of 53-45-2 would do a large amount of damage to Democrats down the ballot.

[© tweed]

JNB, I see your Independent Avatar...
Who would you support, GWB or Dean?

Demote SP Alfredo Perez from MLB to A
Recall RP Luke Bone from AAA to MLB

New Lineup v. LHP and RHP w/DH

1. BJ Upton DH
2. Stephen Drew SS
3. Samuel Aguiar CF
4. Joel Guzman 3B
5. Chao-Kuan Wu C
6. Don Sutton 1B
7. James Bourg 2B
8. Cesar Solorzano RF
9. Lizahio Baez LF

New Rotation

1. JD Durbin
2. Ronald Garnica
3. CC Sabathia
4. Thomas Fox
5. Amos Diez

Put Bone in Diez' middle relief spot

[JNB]

    Neither. On economic issues, I am close to Gephardt, on social issues I am very conservative. I am almost a Buchananite, though I do not care for his anti military views, As for the election, I plan to vote for whoever the Constituionalist party nominates because I, who used to be a Republican, have realise dthat Neo-Conservatives are just as bad as progressives.

[jravnsbo]

followed you completely but 53-45 and 2 ! don't follow the 2 , Jumping jim Jeffords and?  

Good analysis though.

 If Dean is the nominee and can not move to t he center after the nomination, he will take many other Democrats down with him. The Democratic party allready has made it difficult for house Democrats in conservative leaning rural districts by having Rep. Nancy Pelosi as the house leader(and trust me, she will be a household name by Nov of next year), and now with Dean, if he is the Democratic nominee, will make if even more difficult for Democrats in rural and conservative leaning areas.

  While I do not expect a blowout on the level of 72 and 84, a national result of 53-45-2 would do a large amount of damage to Democrats down the ballot.

[Nym90]

I don't think that an 8 point defeat by Dean would do the Dems serious harm further down ballot. Dukakis and Dole both lost by similar margins, and neither did any damage at all to their party in Congressional races. Why would Dean have a much worse effect if he ran as well as those 2 did?
That being said, laugh all you want right now, Republicans. We'll see what happens in the primaries and in the general election next year. Democrats were pretty giddy about the GOP's self destruction in 1980 as well. I know I keep bringing it up, but it is solid proof that elections are about competence, not ideology. The key question now is: what will Dean's reponse be to the blistering attacks that are forthcoming on him? I sure hope his people are getting ready for it now, because it is going to be a downright dirty, nasty, mudslinging campaign.

[DarthKosh]

I don't think that an 8 point defeat by Dean would do the Dems serious harm further down ballot. Dukakis and Dole both lost by similar margins, and neither did any damage at all to their party in Congressional races. Why would Dean have a much worse effect if he ran as well as those 2 did?
That being said, laugh all you want right now, Republicans. We'll see what happens in the primaries and in the general election next year. Democrats were pretty giddy about the GOP's self destruction in 1980 as well. I know I keep bringing it up, but it is solid proof that elections are about competence, not ideology. The key question now is: what will Dean's reponse be to the blistering attacks that are forthcoming on him? I sure hope his people are getting ready for it now, because it is going to be a downright dirty, nasty, mudslinging campaign.

Four or Five southern senate seats.  Conservative rural Dems.  If Dean crashes by eight percent is would be a blood bath for the Dems.

[JNB]

  It is a dramatically different political world now compared to the way it was in 88. In 88, the power of the post watergate Democrats in congress wa sat its peak. Former speaker of the house Tip O Neil and California Rep. Tony Chello helped build up a amazing machine that enabled Democrats, often ones with quite liberal voting records, to be competitive and even win in districts that voted in many cases by a 20 point margin for Bush 41.  The Democrats completely dominated fundraising by PACs and held a wide lead over the GOP in fundrasing for congressional seats.  This era is now gone, and the fact Democrats are no longer dominant in terms of fundraising, combined with the fact that voters in general split their tickets lesss often combined with the fact that the GOP is now a fully viable party on the local level in most Southren states(LA and AR are the only hold outs) would make a Dukakis style defeat that much more painful for Democrats. As for the 96 election, remeber Clinton only had 49% of the vote, and most Perot voters voted for the GOP down the ballot.

  Another thing that people have to keep in mind if Bush does win in a similar matter that his father did, the distribution of the votes will be different. In 88, the GOP was competitive in most New England states, in fact, they only lost NY by 4 points, RI and MASS, they won the rest of the Northeastren Corridor, in this scenario, I think the GOP may win NH and possibly ME, and a outside shot at DE, but thats it. On the others hand, the GOP will be in a far better position in the upper midwest(except for IL), than they were in 88.

  If Bush margins next year are the same his fathers were in the South in 88, then the Democrats can kiss the senate seats of GA, SC, NC and even FL seats goodbye, and possibly even LA. It will also put many Democratic housmembers in rural districts in a sensitive postion trying to defend their vote for Pelosi and their support for Howard Dean. If a Dukakis style defeat does take place, then a GOP gain in the senat of 3 seats and in the house of 10-14 seats is not out of the question, and in fact, the numbers may even be considerd somwhat conservative.

[Ryan]

I was actually comparing Dean to Reagan, not Carter, in as much as Democrats were giddy about the possibility of a Reagan nomination in 1980 because he was so far to the right that he'd drive the party off the cliff and the moderate incumbent Carter would win reelection in a cakewalk.

True........its not the supposed extremism of a candidate that counts but how he is perceived. In politics as in Marketing "Perception is Reality" and most swing voters have not yet formed an opinion of Dean.

[CHRISTOPHER MICHAE]

I was actually comparing Dean to Reagan, not Carter, in as much as Democrats were giddy about the possibility of a Reagan nomination in 1980 because he was so far to the right that he'd drive the party off the cliff and the moderate incumbent Carter would win reelection in a cakewalk.

True........its not the supposed extremism of a candidate that counts but how he is perceived. In politics as in Marketing "Perception is Reality" and most swing voters have not yet formed an opinion of Dean.

This swing voter [I have voted Republican, and still do when I have strong misgivings of the DEM Candidates] is not sure, you're right, of a 'Nominee Dean', and if I still have any doubts about Dean come election day, I will not hesitate to hide my Democratic Candle under the Bush!