Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Gore Tops Democrats

Critics argue that Al Gore's prospects for a return to politics are hindered by the assumption that he has moved out of the American mainstream. Gore can't win, Gore is too left, Gore isn't credible, despite the hype. The other day I posted a poll of Florida that showed Gore was quite competitive, in comparison to the other Democrat contenders. Another Quinnipiac poll, in another critical state, Pennsylvania, gives more credence to the view that Gore may be the Democrats best hope:
"Gore is Best Democrat in Pennsylvania"

Many adults in the Keystone State would back Democrat Al Gore in the 2008 United States presidential election, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. At least 44 per cent of respondents in Pennsylvania would vote for the former U.S. vice-president.

Gore holds a three-point lead over Republican Arizona senator John McCain, a 14-point advantage over actor and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, and is tied with former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

In other match-ups, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton trails both Giuliani and McCain, and leads Thompson. Illinois senator Barack Obama is ahead of both McCain and Thompson, but trails Giuliani by four points.

Results such as the above will do nothing but intensify the draft Gore movement. Two key states, two impressive results, the drum beat grows louder in my mind.

10 comments:

Miles Lunn said...

Certainly Pennsylvania is a key state to watch. Although this is more one the Democrats must hold rather than one they should try to pick up as if they lose Pennsylvania they can forget about winning the election.

That being said the Republicans have a bit of a dilemma in Pennsylvania. The central part of the state is very religious and very socially conservative so appealing to the religious right could increase turnout here to help cancel out the strong Democrat showing in Pittsburugh and Philadelphia. The danger here is the Philadelphia suburbs were traditionally Republican strongholds, but in the last four presidential elections have gone for the Democrats and by increasing margins each time so pandering to the religious right will only solidify the Democrats dominance of the Philadelphia suburbs. A moderate Republican like Guiliani on the other hand could win the Philadelphia suburbs. Pittsburgh suburbs seem to split no matter who is chosen.

Olaf said...

Steve,

Voters always like movie stars, they can't help themselves.

Steve V said...

"Voters always like movie stars, they can't help themselves."

They do. As an added bonus, Gore has already won the Presidency once before, when he was just boring ;)

knb said...

I find these results you are posting really interesting.

He's become a bit of a one trick pony lately though, and he's still getting those numbers.

That is what has me curious. What is it that is driving those numbers? The President we should have had, the President we could have had? I don't know. What it says to me is the American people are looking for comfort and Dubya does not give them that. He provides fear, as do most in the race, rep or dem. They are in that little box, Gore is not.

He's outside of all the junk, speaking to real things and the rest are speaking to what Bush, etal created.

Steve V said...

Actually, I think it says alot about the other candidates, more than anything. Hillary is a lightning rod, and Obama is unproven, although he still has lots of room. There might be a bit of a vacuum that Gore can fill.

He is a one trick pony lately, but some of his Iraq speeches over the years were fantastic. That angle, which rank and file Democrats remember well from 04 and beyond, might be Gore's ace if he he were to jump in. Hillary has obvious problems with the base, while Gore has been the consistent opponent from the outset.

Miles Lunn said...

Certainly Hilary Clinton has her problems, although I think Obama, although unproven, might do well as many people are tired of the status quo and want something different, which he represents. John Edwards is also another possibility and never mind the fact if the Democrats want to win the White House, they would be best to choose someone not from the Northeast as too many elsewere in the United States are uncomfortable with a Democrat from the Northeast. John Edwards coming from the South could help him gain votes in areas that don't traditionally go Democrat.

That is not to say Americans are against a president from the Northeast, but if anything it is the Republicans not the Democrats who need to choose a leader from the Northeast. The reason for this is the Democrats in the Northeast tend to be more liberal than elsewhere while the Republicans from this region are more moderate so naturally Americans are most comfortable with those seen as moderate rather than liberal or conservative.

Steve V said...

That's why Guiliani would be a formidable Republican choice, the only problem, being a moderate from the northeast isn't exactly a plus with the Republican base.

Miles Lunn said...

Steve V - I agree that is a dilemma the Republicans like Guiliani face. The hard right ones who are popular with their base are the least electable, while the most moderate ones who are most electable are the least popular with the base.

The Republicans cannot win the next election by only winning the South or only winning in rural areas. They don't need the Northeast and West Coast, but they do need the Midwest and Mountain West and someone on the hard right could find some trouble in these regions. Likewise they need to win in the suburbs too and the suburbs lean Republican but are moderate ones, not hardline ones. In fact many traditional Republican suburbs such as Long Island, northwestern section of Cook County, Illinois, Philadelphia suburbs, East side of King County, Washington now vote Democrat in national elections despite the fact they still go Republican at all other levels (and the Republicans statewide and locally are more moderate).

Steve V said...

miles

What I find particular interesting this time around is McCain's courtship of the religious right. Who would have thought after the viciousness of 2000 that you would see McCain arm in arm with the likes of Jerry Falwell. That fact speaks volumes about the Republican primary voter.

Miles Lunn said...

Steve V - You are absolutely right. McCain was quite popular due to the fact he distanced himself from the hard right and ever since he started pandering to them his numbers have fallen. A year ago, polls showed he could have carried Vermont, while now he cannot even carry Ohio. This is the problem with the Republican base is the moderate Republicans have largely left the party, at least at the federal level.