The discussion below got me thinking: just which of these supposed Democratic behemoths would be easier for Republicans to defeat in the ’08 general? So, fellow Republicans, who would you rather face in two years: Madame Hillary or Prince Al?
Just for the record, I’d have to put myself in the Hillary camp. Now, I can appreciate the similarities between Gore and other multiple-time presidential losers like William Jennings Bryan, Tom Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, etc. But there’s a part of me that suspects — and this is based more on a gut feeling than anything — that Hillary would have a hard time winning a lot of the middle-aged, middle-class and working-class men in the upper midwest that went for Gore and Kerry in the last two elections. And given how few votes Republicans need to pick up in states like Michigan and Minnesota to turn them red, and how many electoral votes those states have, I suspect we’d be getting the better deal with a Hillary nomination.
Put more simply, I think Gore starts where he left off in 2000, with about 20 states that he could win against a generic Republican; I think Hillary starts off with far fewer states than that. But I could be wrong.
June 24th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
You are right. Hillary would produce the greatest negative turnout in history. All the remaining unregistered evangelicals and men would register to defeat her, and given the GOP’s turnout machine, she would lose by a landslide. I think most any dem that could be nominated is headed for a McGovern-like defeat.
Plus, even if it were Gore, the 2000 Gore, or Gores, was pre-911 and pre- “he betrayed this country, he played on our fears…” tirade, that exceeded the Dean rant, in my book. The man also will not have the pro-Bill Clinton economy vote.