Early Opinion Polls Look Bad for Gore [NYT, USA Today, CNN, Gallup, FOX, Bloomberg]

The NY Times - Political Round-up / Politics Section | Dec. 23, 2001 | NYT staff

[summer]

Early Opinion Polls Look Bad for Gore

Al Gore keeps saying he has not decided whether to run for president again in 2004.

But a lot of Democratic voters have reached a decision on that matter, if a new CNN/USAToday/Gallup Poll has it right.

Asked whether the party's 2004 standard-bearer should again be Mr. Gore or "someone else," 66 percent of poll respondents said "someone else."

And there is more.

Two other new polls — by Bloomberg and Fox News/Opinion Dynamics — indicate that even if Mr. Gore should be renominated, he would lose again, by a ratio of more than two to one, if President Bush should again be the Republican nominee.

[summer]

I have to admit, the NYT seems determined not to encourage Al Gore in any way whatsoever for 2004.

[marajade]

Who do they suggest should be the nominee instead?

[summer]

I don't know. Sometimes the posters at DU talk about John Kerry, but there is no one candidate who is favored. The big issue still seems to be the identity of the party -- are they going to move toward a more progressive agenda or not?

[Maceman]

I'm betting when all is said and done, the NYT will come down hard in support for liberal senator John Kerry from Massacusetts.

[Whispering Smith]

Come on. It's Hilliary.

[summer]

I can't think of who else has a military background, off the top of my head. I think the nominee will be required somehow to have a military background, or else, forget it.

[Maceman]

I meant: liberal, multi-millionaire-by-marriage, elitist senator from Massachusetts John Kerry

[summer]

No, not until 2008, after whatever Dem loses to GW.

[summer]

Yeah, that's the one I'm thinking of. LOL...

[Dan from Michigan]

My money -

ROY BARNES

[irish_lad]

I wouldn't mind if that bitch ran so W could beat her soundly. I cannot see labor going for her whatsoever.

[terilyn]

If I had to bet I'd go with John Edwards, of North Carolina. The dems need a southern state to win and he's "electable". I'd also bet on a Edwards/Clinton ticket. That way if she loses, she's not the loser. If they win, (God forbid), it gives her a clear shot at the #1 spot eight years later.

[summer]

Now, what makes you say that, Dan? Just curious...

[marajade]

Well if its Kerry they would.

[marajade]

I would love for it to be Hillary. I just don't see her being able to win except for the very liberal states in the union.

[OK]

John Edwards of NC seems to be intent on running in 2004. We can only hope that Bush cleans the floor with him enough that he never runs for office again after that.

[summer]

I think you're right about that. But, then you have Bill Clinton, hammering away now at his Centrist position -- it seems they can not really move anywhere unless he keeps his mouth shut or moves with them, both of which seem unlikely.

[Torie]

Has the guy shown the slightest interest in running? Have you seen him on TV? Does he have the right stuff, ie some depth of knowledge of national issues, and an ability to exude some smarts and confidence and nuance?

[marajade]

What I think is funny is how the Dems questioned Bush's experience for Pres and now they might run Edwards who has even less.