Is Gore underrated?

[jokerman]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote an out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

[jokerman]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote a out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

He should have done more to counter the republican accusations then.  And no one can deny he made a clear shift to a pro-choice position from his previous pro-life beliefs.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote a out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

He should have done more to counter the republican accusations then.  And no one can deny he made a clear shift to a pro-choice position from his previous pro-life beliefs.

Perhaps he should have done more to counter what the Republicans said, but your comment was that his social strategy was out of the mainstream. Being pro-choice is in no way out of the mainstream. Isn't it enough that Republicans distort the Dem record? Do we have to do it to ourselves?

[jokerman]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote a out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

He should have done more to counter the republican accusations then.  And no one can deny he made a clear shift to a pro-choice position from his previous pro-life beliefs.

Perhaps he should have done more to counter what the Republicans said, but your comment was that his social strategy was out of the mainstream. Being pro-choice is in no way out of the mainstream. Isn't it enough that Republicans distort the Dem record? Do we have to do it to ourselves?

Being pro-choice, in the context that some take it, is way out of mainstream.  Most Americans don't know much about Roe v Wade, or terms like Pro choice or Pro Life, but most polls do show a majority of them believing that abortion should only be legal in case of rape, incest, or life of mother.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote a out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

He should have done more to counter the republican accusations then.  And no one can deny he made a clear shift to a pro-choice position from his previous pro-life beliefs.

Who cares? Ted Kennedy was once anti-abortion, too. 65% of Americans support Roe v. Wade.

[jokerman]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote a out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

He should have done more to counter the republican accusations then.  And no one can deny he made a clear shift to a pro-choice position from his previous pro-life beliefs.

Who cares? Ted Kennedy was once anti-abortion, too. 65% of Americans support Roe v. Wade.

Look at my above post.  When an American says they support Roe v Wade it doesn't mean sh**t.

[Pictor Ignotus]

I think you insult the average American's intelligence. Nonetheless:

"On the issue of abortion, would you say you are more pro-life or more pro-choice?"
      .
 
Pro-life 41
Pro-choice 49
Both/Mix 7
Unsure  3

Here's another:
Which comes closest to your opinion on abortion? Abortion should be . . . ."

Legal in All Cases  19
Legal in Most Cases 32
Illegal in Most Cases 27
Illegal in All Cases 16
Unsure 6


66% say Roe should not be overturned.

58-59% say South Dakota's ban is too strict.

56% oppose "making it tougher for a woman to get an abortion."

So, when you say most polls say people want it more strict, where are they?

Preston, maybe you want to restrict women from having abortions, but that's quite different from the national mainstream.

[Akno21]

Gore would be a tremendous president. It's too bad he played it so safe in 2000 and 5% of people went with Ralph Nader instead.

I don't expect him to run in 2008, though.

Played it too safe on economics, perhaps, but his divisive out-of-mainstream social strategy cost him in the south and midwest, where he embarassingly lost his home state in addition to WV, MO, and AR, states where he should have also easily won.

He played to economics and also populist rhetoric "people vs. powerful" that independents generally like. He did not actively promote a out of the mainstream social policy, unless you believed it when the Republicans said he'd take your guns. But he said no such thing, not even close.

He should have done more to counter the republican accusations then.  And no one can deny he made a clear shift to a pro-choice position from his previous pro-life beliefs.

Perhaps he should have done more to counter what the Republicans said, but your comment was that his social strategy was out of the mainstream. Being pro-choice is in no way out of the mainstream. Isn't it enough that Republicans distort the Dem record? Do we have to do it to ourselves?

Being pro-choice, in the context that some take it, is way out of mainstream.  Most Americans don't know much about Roe v Wade, or terms like Pro choice or Pro Life, but most polls do show a majority of them believing that abortion should only be legal in case of rape, incest, or life of mother.

Bill Clinton was pro-choice, but that didn't stop him from taking two elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bill Clinton was pro-choice, but that didn't stop him from taking two elections.

Give Preston a break, they never heard of this guy named Clinton down in Arkansas.

[jokerman]

Number one, legal in all cases, which receives only 19% support, is the position too often adopted by Democrats in it's what Gore was perceived as supporting.

Number two, Americans don't know anything about what constitutes "most" abortion cases.  Here's data that backs up my argument:

CBS News Poll
Abortion Permitted:
All Cases: 29%
With greater restrictions than currently exist: 17%
Rape, Incest, Woman's Health: 33%
Woman's Health 14%
Never 4%

That 51% of Americans supporting no abortions except for
Rape, Incest, Woman's Health, and, this is why Democrats lose on the issue, 67% Supporting Greater Abortion Restrictions

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Number one, legal in all cases, which receives only 19% support, is the position too often adopted by Democrats in it's what Gore was perceived as supporting.

Number two, Americans don't know anything about what constitutes "most" abortion cases.  Here's data that backs up my argument:

CBS News Poll
Abortion Permitted:
All Cases: 29%
With greater restrictions than currently exist: 17%
Rape, Incest, Woman's Health: 33%
Woman's Health 14%
Never 4%

That 51% of Americans supporting no abortions except for
Rape, Incest, Woman's Health, and, this is why Democrats lose on the issue, 67% Supporting Greater Abortion Restrictions

Here in California, a MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS voted against PARENTAL NOTIFICATION WHEN A MINOR HAS AN ABORTION.

[Pictor Ignotus]

Number one, legal in all cases, which receives only 19% support, is the position too often adopted by Democrats in it's what Gore was perceived as supporting.

Number two, Americans don't know anything about what constitutes "most" abortion cases.  Here's data that backs up my argument:

CBS News Poll
Abortion Permitted:
All Cases: 29%
With greater restrictions than currently exist: 17%
Rape, Incest, Woman's Health: 33%
Woman's Health 14%
Never 4%

That 51% of Americans supporting no abortions except for
Rape, Incest, Woman's Health, and, this is why Democrats lose on the issue, 67% Supporting Greater Abortion Restrictions

Well, when you use a big font like that, what's a prochoice guy to do?

I gave you 5 polls, you countered with one.

Here's my sixth:

"In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?"

Yes- 49
No-47

Seventh:

OK, I'll take the extreme positions, since you brought up the 19% favoring it in all cases:

Always legal- 26%
Always illegal- 16%

And eight:
"Which of these things, if any, had a major influence on your vote for president today?..."   Up to three responses accepted.
                                                     (All voters- Gore voters- Bush voters)
 "Gore will continue the policies of Clinton" 40 50 31 
 "Bush's record in Texas" 30 26 36 
 "Confidence in my candidate to deal wisely with international crises" 26 31 22 
 "Supreme Court appointments" 23 26 20 
 "Candidate’s position on gun control" 17 16 19 
 "Disapproval of Clinton’s personal behavior" 15 3 30 
 "Other candidate is too liberal" 14 3 27 
 "The broadcast debates" 11 11 10 
 "Other candidate is too conservative" 10 16 3 
 "Negative campaigning by the candidates" 8 6 8 
 "Candidate’s proposal to reduce dependency on foreign oil" 6 5 7 
 None of the above 8 8 6

It doesn't even mention abortion. It does mention Supreme Court appointments, but more people were influemced to vote for Gore when it came to concern about Supreme Court appointments.

My problem with what you said is that Gore lost because his positions were out of the mainstream. I do not believe they were, nor do I believe he lost because of them. If anything he lost because he sighed at the debates, or that Clinton got a blowjob (which has zero to do with Gore's social policy), or because we usually switch parties after eight years. Abortion did not cause Gore's loss.

[ATFFL]

The electorate is all over the map on this issue.  Both sides can pull out polls showing their position is supported by 50-65% of the electorate.  heck, sometimes both sides can pull that from the same poll.  Poll results can also swing radically based on a few words in the question.

From looking at all the polls I have seen, the general position of the American People is that abortion should be legal and restricted and should not be looked at as a method of birth control.

If we restricted them to the first trimester and rape, incest and health issues after that, the debate would largely die down other than the extremists on both sides.