Gore in 04
 

Al Gore has decided not to run for president in 2004.
Discuss.

He'd actually probably win if he ran. The Democrats could run a monkey and beat Bush this time. A lot of people want GWB out of office because he's a traitor to America who violates the constitution every chance he gets. Others want him out because he's a war mongering imperialist. Some don't want him in office because he's clearly inept and stupid with his decision regarding the environment, foreign policy, economic policy, and many other things.

And historically people who run for the presdency after losing once have a great shot at winning.

Read This

Bush IMHO will be re-elected. Not only is he the incumbent in a 'time of war' but he has a very high approval rating.

Exactly. I sincerely hope that Bush is not re-elected, bu fear that he may very well be. He's got this war behind him, all this Homeland Security crap is still in effect, and he just fired the Cheif Economic Advisor - if he turns around the economy, I'd say he's in for 2004.

The approval rating of presidents is artificially inflated during times of war. And even with this inflation his approval ratings are only as high as Clinton's were at his lowest during his impeachment.

You can rest assured if Gore ran again, all the greens who voted for Nader would vote for Gore, and an unprecented number of people would register and vote so there would be no mistakes as there were in 2000. Not only that Gore seems more human these days and less robotic. Not that I like the guy, but in my opinion a random homeless stranger on crack would be a better president than GWB.

So many people are disgusted with GWB I think it would be better for his health if he didn't run for re-election. Winning might be deadly for him. An actual patriotic American might take matters into his or her own hands and eliminate that enemy of America. I wouldn't be the one, but I would be pretty happy if it happened.

Did you check out the link I gave you? According to that site, his odds of winning aren't too bad.

Well, despite all that's happened, I still plan to vote Green in the next presidential election. I can only speak for myself, though.

I don't believe that theory, I actually would expect a drop off becuase of the mistakes. People tend to quit believing in democracy when it doesn't work right. But I could easily be wrong, just what I think

I'm personally glad Gore is not running, though I do believe he was screwed (and screwed himself) in 2000. He seems like a decent enough guy, but I question how "tough" he can really be. Not to mention, his wife scares the shit out of me.

Hmmm...2004: At this point, I'd say I'm leaning towards John Kerry or Al Sharpton. I'd really have to take a harder look at both candidates though. And I won't support the Greens...too anti-business for my liking.

The last poll I saw had Bush at 67% approval...that was a few weeks ago, IIRC. Not bad, but well below the 90% from post-9/11.

In the end, I do think it will be the economy, stupid. If it doesn't show solid improvement in the next 6-12 months, it will become a greater liability for him. What the GOP does in Congress in the next 2 years could also prove vital.

I already know I don't agree with either of these men. They are both liberals. Al Sharpton isn't even a consideration as far as I am concerned. From what I have seen, hes only interested in black issues. We're not all black in this country. Whites are still the<a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html"> majority in every state by a hefty margin.</a> So, I don't think Al has a snowballs chance.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is likeable guy and has a much greater chance at winning. I already know I hate his politics, but I wouldn't start sharpening knives if he were to be elected.

With all due respect slang, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Baltimore (pop. 635,000) is 64% black, yet they have a white mayor. San Francisco's population (770,000) is only 8% black, yet they have a black mayor.

If someone is charismatic enough, intelligent enough, can raise enough money, etc., then they certainly have a shot at making the presidency, no matter what their skin color. I don't think Sharpton can actually do this, but there is bound to be someone, sometime that can.

My impression of Sharpton is that he is only for black issues. Am I wrong? If he can get the votes, fine. I dont think he has a snowballs chance though, he's only for black issues.


If the ideology is what I agree with, I would vote for a black man/woman. Walter Williams and Alan Keys would get my vote and yes, they are black. They are in the extreme minority though.

These are examples of cities voting for mayors that closely represent thier beliefs. In cities and even states, this has been done. Unfortunately Jackson and Sharpton only serve a very small group and if they ran for president, they would need a substancial amount of white votes. White voters that understand that these 2 clearly are for blacks only, and more specifically, for themselves.

How can anyone be 'just' for blacks? Surely these men have views on a wide variety of issues?

I'll be happy when i see a black lesbian rastafarian president.
:thumb:

Here is a test. Do a Google search on keywords Al Sharpton. Look through the articles for anything in the search results that doesn't have something to do with some racist lawsuit Sharpton is filing or alleging. He's a one trick pony. His trick is to twist everything that ever happens into a white man being a racist. It's as simple as that. He's for blacks only. Period. Sharpton doesn't have any proposals that will help the country as a whole, his whole life and life's work is about perpetuating slavery and racism as political issues.

Am I wrong? I could be, but I doubt it. I think I got this guy nailed.