Replies

You are correct. The Democrats are unlikely to run someone who has already lost to Bush again. Even if Bush commits some catastrophic error and ruins the country somehow, there is NO advantage to the Dems to put Gore up against him. The obligation to run the VP as if he were a reasonable person to be president (out of party loyalty) is no longer there. There is no way a non-flaky candidate would have lost to Bush--Bush was marginalised by the press as a moron and Gore was championed the media as the obvious winner.

Gore, had he been a half-normal candidate, should have won two to one over Bush. Though Gore seems to have had more popular votes, there is NO WAY he would have covered a reasonable point spread. He had EVERY advantage, his sole weak spot was himself. A large number of people voted for Ralph Nader INSTEAD of Gore. What kind of person loses significant numbers votes to NADER?

The democrats have other candidates that, come next year, are going to be much more viable than Gore, even if they can't win either. I worry that Hillary may be one of them.