What does it mean to be "stupid"

[peptoabysmal]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A.

(Yes I am lampooning some of those other threads)

Seriously, though, do you think he has a chance?

 

[AWPrime]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Exhibit A.

(Yes I am lampooning some of those other threads)

Seriously, though, do you think he has a chance?

It borders Wooness

 

[JamesDillon]

A former Vice President with an established record as an able lawmaker and excellent public speaker, with a serious interest in public policy, a longstanding dedication to service, an understanding of and appreciation for science and the necessity for sacrifice for the collective good?

He hasn't got a chance in hell, though I wish it were otherwise.

 

[hgc]

Don't forget, he's also the one that got more votes than the guy he lost to. That means that the voters have already, by and large, expressed a preference for him to be president. Not so crazy as it may seem.

 

[KelvinG]

The real question is, what are the better options in the Democratic party?
Hilary?

[bushbash]And how can anyone laugh at Gore's bid to run for office when you consider the bozo who's in there now.[/bushbash]

 

[peptoabysmal]

Dang it. This thread was supposed to link to this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1730101#post1730101
Which gave me the idea for the thread. But, hey, I guess a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it.

I suppose it's a bit premature to be comparing Gore. We don't know who he would be running against if he gets the nomination. I don't really see any bright stars emerging in either party for 2008 yet.

Hypothetical; let's say Gore vs McCain. As a conservative, I am not sure who I would vote for in that case. Gore can be a brilliant speaker when he isn't wigging out. McCain isn't much of a conservative, if at all, so what's in it for me?

 

[peptoabysmal]

The real question is, what are the better options in the Democratic party?
Hilary?

[bushbash]And how can anyone laugh at Gore's bid to run for office when you consider the bozo who's in there now.[/bushbash]

Ironic when you consider that he lost to Bozo. Sorry, but popular vote doesn't mean Jack. The election is won by electoral votes. A candidate must adjust his/her strategy to this reality if they want to win.

 

[Katana]

Ironic when you consider that he lost to Bozo. Sorry, but popular vote doesn't mean Jack. The election is won by electoral votes. A candidate must adjust his/her strategy to this reality if they want to win.

So this is a system that really must change. Doesn't what happened to Gore demonstrate that? Bottom line: every vote does not count as it stands today. He got the popular vote, so he should be in office. Let's change the process. We can do that. But is anyone willing?

 

[peptoabysmal]

So this is a system that really must change. Doesn't what happened to Gore demonstrate that? Bottom line: every vote does not count as it stands today. He got the popular vote, so he should be in office. Let's change the process. We can do that. But is anyone willing?

It is part of the constitution, so not so easy to change. And the justification for keeping it in place is that a popular vote biases the results toward densely populated areas. Issues important to more rural states would be ignored.

United States Electoral College

It's like the flat tax, you can produce a good argument both ways. A flat tax would increase the amount that poor have to pay and the rich would be paying millions and billions compared to the several thousand payed by the middle class, so the middle class gets the shaft in order to make it "fair."

 

[Cleon]

It is part of the constitution, so not so easy to change. And the justification for keeping it in place is that a popular vote biases the results toward densely populated areas. Issues important to more rural states would be ignored.

Yeah, but how is that different from the current situation? Look at the attention paid to the densely populated states, which have more electoral votes--California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. When was the last time a presidential candidate visited, say, Alaska?

 

[Katana]

It is part of the constitution, so not so easy to change. And the justification for keeping it in place is that a popular vote biases the results toward densely populated areas. Issues important to more rural states would be ignored.

I don't dispute that it would be difficult to change and I agree with the premise that it should protect against undue influence by densely-populated areas. Although, if the number of electoral votes granted to a state is a function of the population, how does it do that? This also depends on voting being state by state, doesn't it? Why can't we get away from that and make the presidential election truly a popular vote where every person's vote counts? I realize that that is idealistic and might make too much sense for American politics, but one can hope, no?

 

[Katana]

Oops! Didn't mean to repeat what you said, Cleon.

 

[hgc]

Ironic when you consider that he lost to Bozo. Sorry, but popular vote doesn't mean Jack. The election is won by electoral votes. A candidate must adjust his/her strategy to this reality if they want to win.

Quite right. That Gore couldn't win Tennessee is the biggest indictment against his electability I can think of. Even so, his candidacy would not be within the realm of the ridiculous either.

 

[KelvinG]

Ironic when you consider that he lost to Bozo. Sorry, but popular vote doesn't mean Jack. The election is won by electoral votes. A candidate must adjust his/her strategy to this reality if they want to win.

Yes, but I believe the point hgc was making was that Gore was very close to being elected president. He was a worthy candidate and nearly pulled it off.
So, why should the idea of him running in 2008 seem ridiculous? And when you have a current president with such low approval ratings, I can't see how a Gore presidency would be anything but an improvement.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Quite right. That Gore couldn't win Tennessee is the biggest indictment against his electability I can think of. Even so, his candidacy would not be within the realm of the ridiculous either.

He tried it in 2004 and hasn't changed his message or tactics one bit. I think his career has reached the same dead-end as Kerry. What lobby group wants to bankroll a two time loser? Gore comes across to the fly-over states as a "Deaniac copy" after his bid in 2004.

(above link auto-redirects to Gore 2008 after a short time)

What's new that would attract voters to his platform? His Moore-like "crockumentary", "An Inconvenient Truth?" (consider that the number one movie playing at the same time is Cars!) That he is accusing the current president of being a criminal, but is unwilling to actually start a process to bring any charges? What is his platform, BTW? Has he been too busy lately saving the world to come up with one?

Well, if he's going to run, he better get with some sort of positive message soon and start kissing babies and so forth. The negative message isn't working for the Dems, when will they get it?

 

[slingblade]

Hypothetical; let's say Gore vs McCain. As a conservative, I am not sure who I would vote for in that case. Gore can be a brilliant speaker when he isn't wigging out. McCain isn't much of a conservative, if at all, so what's in it for me?

I used to consider myself Democrat (now I just say Independent--thanks again, Tony!), but if McCain were to run, I'd vote for him in a hot minute.

Other than him, my only purpose in voting during the upcoming Presidential election is so that when the country elects another moron, I can say "It's not my fault; I didn't vote for him."

At this point, McCain is the only pol from any party whom I can stomach.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I don't dispute that it would be difficult to change and I agree with the premise that it should protect against undue influence by densely-populated areas. Although, if the number of electoral votes granted to a state is a function of the population, how does it do that? This also depends on voting being state by state, doesn't it? Why can't we get away from that and make the presidential election truly a popular vote where every person's vote counts? I realize that that is idealistic and might make too much sense for American politics, but one can hope, no?

Nixon almost succeeded in abolishing the Electoral College but was stopped by this:

Eastland and Thurmond relented, and the bill, after passing the committee by a vote of 11 to 6, reached the Senate floor in early September 1970 -- nearly a year after the momentum for reform had crested. Senators Bayh, Baker, and others spoke eloquently about the shortcomings of the Electoral College and the virtues of popular election. But they were greeted by a prolonged filibuster led by Sam Ervin of North Carolina, another opponent of civil rights and the Voting Rights Act. For several weeks, Ervin, Thurmond, and their allies took the floor to criticize the measure, arguing that it would undercut states' rights, harm the small states, destroy the two-party system, and encourage splinter parties, fraud, and intrusive national voting requirements. They also stalled relentlessly, even reading into the record the name of every prime minister of France since 1800, as evidence that direct elections produced instability.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/10/17/peculiar_institution?pg=4

Nixon's loss to JFK in 1960 was similar to Gore's loss in 2000, so he had a personal stake in the outcome.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I used to consider myself Democrat (now I just say Independent--thanks again, Tony!), but if McCain were to run, I'd vote for him in a hot minute.

Other than him, my only purpose in voting during the upcoming Presidential election is so that when the country elects another moron, I can say "It's not my fault; I didn't vote for him."

At this point, McCain is the only pol from any party whom I can stomach.

Interesting. I come from a family that has voted Democrat since I dunno when. I am about the only one who (usually) votes Republican now. I like to leave my options open, I will vote for anyone that I feel will do the best job.

Anyway, my family's sentiment is similar, lifetime Democrats who would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. What's up with that? I honestly don't get it...

 

[Cleon]

He tried it in 2004 and hasn't changed his message or tactics one bit.

Gore did not run in 2004. That's not his site, that's a group that tried to draft him into running (and apparently will try again in 08).

I think his career has reached the same dead-end as Kerry. What lobby group wants to bankroll a two time loser?

John Kerry has been in the Senate for over 20 years. How is that a "dead-end" career?

Gore comes across to the fly-over states as a "Deaniac copy" after his bid in 2004.

Gore did not run in 2004.

What's new that would attract voters to his platform? His Moore-like "crockumentary", "An Inconvenient Truth?"

I guess "Moore-like" and "crockumentary" is conservo-speak for "it said things I didn't like."

As it happens, even climate change "skeptics" have admitted the film got the science right.

(consider that the number one movie playing at the same time is Cars!) That he is accusing the current president of being a criminal, but is unwilling to actually start a process to bring any charges?

Al Gore is no longer actively serving in Congress. Only Congress can start impeachment proceedings.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gore can be a brilliant speaker when he isn't wigging out.

Gore doesn't stand a chance in a general election, for precisely this reason. He's already given his wigged-out, shouting at the top of his lungs speech. He never gave any speeches like that before his 2000 run, but he cannot take it back now. People might like that kind of behavior in their talk-show hosts, but they won't vote for a potential President who does the whole angry-throbbing-forhead-vein thing. He might be an effective campaigner for some other candidate, but he's lost his shot at the oval office.