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]

OK, Torie, so now your link has made my mind come up with this: MA=loser

[summer]

Re your post #57 -- Here's the entire page. Maybe the NYT likes John Kerry:

December 23, 2001

POLITICAL BRIEFING

Michigan to Curb Gifts From Outside PAC's

By B. DRUMMOND AYRES JR.

Emily's List, a national organization that supports candidates who are women and favor abortion rights, played a major role in last year's Senate race in Michigan. It raised more than $1 million for Debbie Stabenow, the Democrat who unseated the Republican incumbent, Spencer Abraham.

In next year's race for governor in Michigan, Emily's List plans to support state Attorney General Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat.

But Ms. Granholm need not expect to get $1 million, or any amount close to that. In fact, all she can expect is a relatively paltry $34,000.

That is the new cap the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature imposed on such gifts a few days ago, saying that outside political action committees were gaining too much influence in Michigan politics, particularly those committees that raise money for specific candidates and causes. Gov. John Engler, a Republican, has promised to sign the measure, which is being studied by legislators in other states who are concerned about the campaign finance tactics of outside groups.

Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily's List, calls the new cap "one of the most blatant power plays seen in a long time" and contends that "Republicans have made a tremendous miscalculation." She has suggested that donors who originally planned to funnel money to Ms. Granholm through Emily's List instead send their gifts directly to Ms. Granholm.

Democrats are given a reasonable shot at reclaiming the Michigan governor's chair next year. But first, they must sort themselves out in a primary, which polls indicate could be a bruiser.

In Reversal, Kerry Is Forming a PAC

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts is a big supporter of campaign fund-raising caps like the one just passed in Michigan. Mr. Kerry, a Democrat, has won three terms without accepting a penny from political action committees.

But a few days ago he announced that he was forming his own PAC, the Citizen Soldier Fund — not to raise campaign cash for himself, understand, but to raise cash for fellow Democrats he would like to see elected or re-elected.

Still, a PAC is a PAC, and cynics were quick to point out that Mr. Kerry was seriously considering a run for president in 2004, a difficult undertaking without a PAC in the current campaign finance climate.

As leader of the PAC, they noted, he will be able to crisscross the country raising and distributing money, and in the process will be able to raise his own profile and engender considerable political good will for himself.

Mr. Kerry did not see it that way. He insisted that cold political reality forced him to establish a PAC.

"I've come to acknowledge the unpleasant and unfortunate truth," he said, "that campaign finance and other critical reforms will remain stymied in Congress until Democrats obtain real working majorities in Washington and in state legislatures across the nation. It has become necessary for every leader of this party to employ all legal and appropriate means to assist Democratic candidacies at all political levels."

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.

Sniping in 2001 With an Eye on 2002

Early this month, when holiday decorations began showing up in the Arizona attorney general's office building in Phoenix, senior office managers looked around at all the Santa Clauses, blinking strings of lights, nativity scenes and menorahs and issued a memo.

It was permissible, they said, to put up "reasonable decorations" in private offices and cubicles. But in public spaces, like lobbies, hallways and conferences rooms, care should be taken not to display decorations with "a religious significance" because some state workers or members of the public might find them "offensive."

That was too much for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a conservative watchdog group based in New York. Last Monday, it sent a letter to Arizona's attorney general, Janet Napolitano, accusing her senior managers of "political correctness gone crazy" and of trying to "cleanse the workplace of all religious expression."

Ms. Napolitano, the leading Democratic candidate in next year's nip- and-tuck governor's race in Arizona, countered that her managers were simply trying to capture "the right balance" in holiday decorating.

Not good enough, declared Matt Salmon, a former congressman who is the leading Republican candidate in the governor's race. On Tuesday, he accused Ms. Napolitano of issuing a "Soviet-style directive" and promised that should he become governor he would "protect Christmas from wacky liberal ideas."

[JoeSchem]

Come on. It's Hilliary.

'Fraid you're right. Maybe 2004 will be like 1992, when all the major Democrats stayed out of the presidential primary, figuring that Bush 1 was unbeatable, thereby paving the way for a certain second-tier candidate from Arkansas.

At least this time the Little General can't run as a spoiler. Hillary will have to run on her own charm.

[summer]

No way will she be at the top of the 2004 ticket.

[Teacher317]

The big issue still seems to be the identity of the party -- are they going to move toward a more progressive agenda or not?

MORE progressive?!?!? Lord help us all!

[Winfield]

"She'll be 60 years old by then." ....and we will run Candaleeza Rice against her. Bye,bye Hillary!

[MoodyBlu]

Who do they suggest should be the nominee instead?

As much as I want them to do it, the dumbass rats will not nominate an eastern liberal. Just recall Dukakis. Kerry won't get it. Look for someone from the south or west, my guess being that cadaver from CA.

[DNA Rules]

It looks like Kerry is the front-runner. If Gore goes for the nomination, he may deflate Kerry's campaign headed into the general election, which would help.

[Dan from Michigan]

A Southern governor with a record in a conservative state. I do not know if he is running or not, and I have only seen him on TV once or twice, a long time ago. I have seen his name mentioned among political junkies, but that's it.

I know that the dems want to go back to the South in 2004. Edwards can do it, but experience IMO stops him in the end among swing voters, unless Bush really screws up. Hillary won't sell in the midwest AT ALL. Blue collar guys hate her guts. John Kerry can win, but is a long shot IMO. Massachusetts is an albatross for liberals, more so than Texas is on the GOP end.

I keep coming back to three things.

1. Governors become presidents, not senators.
2. The dems keep saying they aren't giving up on the South. The next dem nominee will be probably from the south or midwest.
3. Whoever runs must sell in the Midwest - especially the toss ups of Missouri, Michigan, and Ohio. Penn isn't really midwest, but that could be thrown in here as well since it is closer to the midwest than Mid Atlantic politically.

[RobFromGa]

Edwards isn't up for re-election til 2004. Dole is running for Helms' seat in 2002 againt a TBD Dem.

Edwards is photogenic, but does not have the experience to run strong against Bush in 2004. At this point in time, 2004 looks like the best Dem strategerie is to put up a whipping boy to lose against Bush. They have no one capable of winning. (Gore would be a good choice because he has no future in politics).

DanFromMichigan-- King Roy Barnes is a relative unknown even here in GA, and the only reason he has gotten anything done is because of our shameful Dem-controlled State legislature. He has no charisma, no vision, and no chance on the National Stage, but he would make a good loser in 2004 because of those traits. IMHO, Edwards can't afford to give up his Senate seat to run. I agree that it will likely be a governor, the more moderate the better.

[MississippiMan]

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

Of course not. Hillary is their darling for '04 and will be so for each and every liberal media entity. Write it down. We only think we've seen biased media coverage until now. The media will be orgasmic at the thought of her in the White House as President and they will do everything possible to put her there.

MM

[thucydides]

The problem for the democrats is that the outbreak of terrorism restores us to the situation that prevailed during the Cold War, when the voting public came to think that it was unsafe to have a democrat as president. After Johnson, only Carter got elected, and that was by posing as a complete political outsider and a former Navy submarine commander. He proved incompetent in a dangerous world, and was dumped after one term. When the Cold War ended, the nation took a flyer with Clinton, a man who is now suspected of having laid the foundation for 9/11 (witness the frantic spinning efforts of the democrats against this conclusion). After Clinton, the democrats will have a very difficult time convincing Americans to go with a left-leaning liberal. Even democrats are now thanking their lucky stars that their candidate was not elected last year.

[okie01]

"If they win, (God forbid), it gives her [Hillary] a clear shot at the #1 spot eight years later."

If "they" should win, Hillary would become President within ninety days or as soon as Edwards suffered a fatal accident.

Whichever comes first...

[Standing Wolf]

Eat your empty heart out, Liar Gore!

It'll be a snowy Independence day in Miami Beach before I forget the hell you put our nation through, you leftist parasite!

[OK]

Edwards won't be running against Dole. The election is to replace Helms.

[Dan from Michigan]

I defer to you on Barnes.

Who else is down South? Siegelman? Jim Hunt(How old is he)? Musgrove? I'd go with Mark Warner, but he's too much of a political newbie. I can see Warner going for it in 2008.

I keep remembering that King Clinton was supposed to be a loser as well.

As for Hillary, I do not see it at all. No blue collar appeal whatsoever.

[Sonny M]

Has anyone here considered the possibility of say Senator Dashle or Rep. Dick Gephardt running for prez? Dashle could play obstructionist for 4 years, then claim nothing got done, and run. Gephardt would like to do that, but since he's the house, he don't mean a goddamn thing.

[Dan from Michigan]

Bwhahahahahha. I already called my state senator about Emily's list, and thanked him for that slap.

I can not stand Granholm. She's a crook.

[Dan from Michigan]

I missed an obvious choice.

BOB GRAHAM

He's a senator, but also an ex-governor. He carried Florida as well. Seniors love him.