If the "New Nixon: Tanned, Rested, and Ready!" Could Win - Gore Can Win

[Dunvegan]

In 1968 Nixon looked like a strong former vice president who'd sidestepped the frey of Vietnam since the campaign against Kennedy.

Nixon was seen as "wooden and unlikeable" (not a guy you'd want to have a beer with) in his run against Kennedy in 1960. By 1968 no one cared about his "wooden personality"...they just wanted someone with an entirely different direction and plan than the Johnson administration. Plus they sold Nixon as "The New Nixon: Tanned, Rested, and Ready."

Nixon was viable because he'd lost by the smallest margin (until the Gore/Bush election) in history. Many were now ready to try his solutions, and he'd already shown he could pick up almost enough votes against a popular Kennedy, who'd had a formidable machine at his disposal (the unions.) If the Bush Republican machine falls apart (the Religious Right base) it allows for a similar scenario.

Nixon was an incumbent VP who ran against a non-incumbent Kennedy in 1960 and lost by a narrow margin. His second run eight years later was against an incumbent VP, and Nixon won.

Nixon ran on the platform "Peace with Honor" because Americans were sick of the mess and mire Vietnam had become, and wanted someone to lead them out of the woods.

Anything Nixon could do, Gore can do better.

Especially with a dynamic running-mate this time like Clark (my choice) or one of our younger Democratic firebrands.

[AX10]

1. Gore is most certainly a viable candidate.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I'm a Feingold guy but I really don't think, in my heart of hearts,

that Russ will make it past the primaries. Gore is my second choice. Especially if Russ goes out early, I'll work for Gore. I do feel ideologically much closer to him than to Kerry, because of environmental issues and because of the war. If he can put forth a decent health care plan, he'll hit the Trifecta.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I agree

I have yet to support anyone, because it's way too early, I think Gore should give it another go.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Excellent parallel.

[bowens43]

4. Gore lost to the idiot.

Nixon lost to JFK. Comparing the two situations is ridiculous.

And then you want to toss in Clark? Didn't you pay attention to the 2004 primaries? Democrats hate Clark. The only place Clark has support is here at DU.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Gore lost? News to me.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. And would lose again

Despite Nixon, IMO you only get one shot at it. Clinton/Kerry/Edwards/Gore all had their day. Rightly or wrongly, a new face is required to win. Not saying that is right, but it is what the sheeple expect

[Jackpine Radical]

11. However, in the few historical cases where a candidate won

the popular vote while losing the electoral vote, there is a good record for those candidates coming back to win the Presidency on a second run.

Also, as in the Nixon case, Gore will not be running against a sitting President. A lot will depend on who/what the Puggies run in 2008. I think Gore could win against McCain, and if they run Jebby, it should be easy to tar him as just a rerun of 29% George.

[Dunvegan]

9. I believe Gore lost to the Republican Machine.

There is much evidence to draw the parallel of the Kennedy machine (which included the bloc vote delivered by the unions in 1960) and the Republican machine that delivered the Religious Right bloc for Bush.

If a bloc could deliver the presidency to a Roman Catholic in 1960, do not underestimate the power of the Religious Right bloc votes delivering the presidency to Bush in 2000. Obviously, John McCain isn't underestimating the power of that bloc, considering his recent cloying cozying up to Fallwell.

And the other kicker was that Nixon in his first run was seen as "wooden" and "not as likable" as Kennedy. I think Gore has done a finer transformation to "likability" than Nixon achieved by his second run.

Gore is working his own bloc methodically and carefully now: the Grassroots. And, Gore is perceived by some swing voters as strong, reliable, and somewhat quietly conservative. And he's a very apparently "family values" kind of guy. Not to mention he's seen as being quite clean of corruption.

Not to mention, he's even addressing the vicious bias of the media by creating his own media outlet: Current TV.

Gore is viable. I'd like to see him run in the primaries to get the temperature of America's take on Gore 2008.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Well-sure, but first we gotta deal with corrupt voting practices.

On a level playing field, Gore is a shoo-in. He can probably win even against a moderately hostile press, given that he already won against an EXTREMELY hostile press in 2000. But he can't win against loaded dice in the polling places. All the old tricks will be in the game. Felons lists, BBV, vote suppression, and--failing all else, maybe Wellstoning.

[Dunvegan]

10. I agree...the level playing field of paper ballots is our highest priority

...if we want to "import" democracy back to America.

No Democrat, none, stands a chance against a crooked black box.

This is a given, and we need to work every waking free moment until the nomination, and before the vote in 2008 to have accountability at the ballot box.

Accountable voting practices is "Job One."

[janx]

12. We don't get to pick the running mate, unfortunately,

but I'm ready to push for that man to run again.

Even if you discounted his brain entirely--which is pretty hard to do--his experience alone makes him more than qualified. How many years in the House? How many in the Senate? And eight years as vice president?

Who else among potential candidates can even come CLOSE to that?