If Al Gore was president....

[UGAalum94]

Hillary's rhetoric is less of a complete turn off to them than you think. I don't know if they hate her enough to vote for a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage candidate just to vote against her.


I think Hillary's actual positions would turn them off that much, but she and Bill both have the gift of saying things that make them seem more moderate than maybe they are.

[shinerbock]

Less than I think? No offense, but I don't think you're gonna provide me with any new insight into the minds of evangelical voters. I guess we'll have to wait until 08, but I'd be happy to examine how much of that vote Hillary got when its over...

[UGAalum94]

Sorry, I'm bad about judging how a comment is going to seem. I didn't mean to seem like I was schooling you in evangelicals. I think were in the same area of the country. Our frame of reference is pretty similar, I suspect.

I don't think they will vote FOR Hillary. I think they won't vote at all if they think the GOP fails to respond to their issues.

Imagine Rudy is the GOP candidate. I don't think there a single social issue that he will take the evangelical position on. They won't be jonesing to vote for him.

I think that it's possible or even likely, that Hillary, if running against him, would keep her rhetoric moderate enough that it doesn't piss them off enough to go and vote AGAINST her. I agree that it's unlikely that they will vote FOR her.

If the rhetoric of the candidates is the same on the issues, AND the GOP's position seems to reflect having pushed the evagelicals out, I think they might stay home.

[UGAalum94]

Double post, whatever.

I wanted to note that I suspect that if Rudy were the GOP guy, then the party will pick up votes from social liberals who want lower taxes and less government expansion than I suspect we're going to get in the next two years. So I'm not saying that without pandering to evangelicals the GOP will lose.

I don't know. I just think the GOP will face the same kind of internal issues that the Democrats will. Dems issue: netroots/moveon left vs. center. GOP issue: evangelical right vs. center.

I think that if both parties go toward the center, the GOP runs more of a risk of alienating a core group. (But maybe they'll throw some provocative initiates on the state ballots in fall of 2008 to get them to the polls.)

[ASUADPi]

Now I know there are other Dem hopefuls but I find it interesting that Hillary wants to be the first 'female president'; Obama wants to be the first 'African-American' (although I just learned today that his mom is white and dad was african american, totally didn't know that). And what's his name from New Mexico wants to be the first "hispanic" president.

Can I seriously just have a president who doesn't want to be a "first" and actually, I don't know, be good?!?

I guess I'm asking for too much. LOL.

[shinerbock]

Don't worry about it, and seeing as i go to your alma mater, we probably are in the same part of the country. What I think you're underestimating is how much many evangelicals hate Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty conservative, but I don't abhor her like many do. Now, I think there is a legitimate chance that a weaker GOP candidate could result in less motivation among the base, but I still have a hard time imagining it would be a swing big enough to allow Hillary to win. She's done a good job at shaking off some of her brash image, but people still remember her, and all those quotes are gonna come back over the next year. This is why I think the only real shot the Democrats have is to run a moderate-feel-good candidate. Obama will be that guy in the future, but he's not there yet. I think there's two ways to draw weak republicans or weak dems over to the other side. The first is that you run a moderate candidate, and your more intense faction wants to look elsewhere. I don't see that happening here, because even if Rudy is the GOP nominee, theres not going to be a Democratic candidate who can get those votes. Likewise, it won't happen with democrats switching to the GOP. On the other hand, I think sometimes you'll get crossover when the opposing candidate is a little more moderate and optimistic while your party's candidate is a little father out than the general party. Again, I don't see this being an issue for the GOP because whoever gets the nomination will be quite a change from W. All of the big 3 GOP guys are going to be more moderate, and all have better leadership potential off the bat. On the other hand, say Hillary is the nominee with McCain. I think theres a chance that centrist dems would cross over, because despite her efforts to reign in her image, Hillary is still somebody that is very polarizing, even within her own party. Of course, things happen, there could be a third candidate which messes up the voting, but as it stands I think the only person Hillary could beat would be Mitt Romney, and I think that will change once the country really starts finding out about him. In my opinion he is probably the most presidential of the three, and as displayed by early fund raising he has by far the most momentum among GOP candidates. It'll be interesting, I'm excited about seeing it play out.

[UGAalum94]

I thought you were an Auburn guy.

Anyway, not that any of this reflects my personal positions, but I can see that there are a lot of people out there who want to believe. They want optimism and hope. They've lost faith in the political process and politics as usual. Being an outsider or a national political novice could count in Obama's favor. Being multi-racial, too, can count in his favor because people like to be self-congratulatory when it comes to issues of race. Don't undercount the number of people who would love to be able to self-righteously tell everybody: look at me; I support the multi-racial guy.

I understand it when you say that you don't think he's there yet, but I think this could be a Jimmy Carter election kind of election (not that that was a good thing, either, in 1976). His not being ready is part of what makes him attractive because he's unsullied.

Hillary. I agree that she's polarizing. But on some level she really would compliment Obama's weaknesses. A ticket that had both of them might be strong in the general election because there's of course no way they can both come out of the primaries. I don't know if her ego could take it though.

I have no idea what will happen with the GOP.

[shinerbock]

As a republican I hope they run together. I just don't think she can win, regardless of who is with her. I think you're right to a degree about Obama, he's refreshing. However, I think his issue stances will preclude many people from crossing over and voting for him. I also think the racial thing will likely not work in his favor. There are a lot of people who would vote for him because of that, but there is probably an equal faction who would be hesitant because of it. I also think what people say and what people will do in a voting booth can be quite different. We'll see how it pans out. I am an Auburn guy, but i'm here for grad school.

[shinerbock]

Coulters earlier article about global warming from like 2 weeks ago was much better than that one.

[ann.coulter2]

Late Friday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) tried to get Senate Republicans to allow former Vice President Al Gore to stage a global warming concert on Capitol grounds. But Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) objected to Reid's request, and the resolution authorizing the concert, for now, remains stuck in the Rules and Administration Committee.

[ASUADPi]

The teacher in me wonders if Gore were president would I be putting up with the craptastic law called NCLB?

Methinks not.

[RU OX Alum]

no one who thinks that capitol building would be a good place for a concert should be president

he might try to have the afterparty at a library or something, god, how boring. He finally comes up with something cool (concerts are cooler than documentaries....they just are) and lames it up by wanting it to happen at congress.

But I don't know, maybe someone boring should be president.

[shinerbock]

Al Gore is nuts. He took that whole losing thing pretty hard.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

The teacher in me wonders if Gore were president would I be putting up with the craptastic law called NCLB?

Methinks not.

I don't know. We had a Democratic governor in Georgia whose educational reforms were as intense: end of course test in every class in high school, teacher evaluation based on student performance, the end of tenure.*

He lost his re-election bid to a Republican guy who while he hasn't increased funding as much as some folks want and wasn't able to give teachers a raise a few years when state revenue was down, has pushed for small raises two years in a row, created a Master teacher distinction with a 10% incentive, and for two years now pushed for each teacher to get a $100 gift card that we could decide how to spend. $100 bucks isn't much, but it's more than anyone has ever given us before.

I don't think Al would have been especially bad, but I don't know that you can assume that he wouldn't have screwed around with education reform just because of party affiliation. (Forgive me for that assumption if your comment was based on considerably more than that.)


*Some of these "reforms" don't bother me, and some of the problems with NCLB are what the states and local systems did trying to comply with the law itself.

[ASUADPi]

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

I don't know. We had a Democratic governor in Georgia whose educational reforms were as intense: end of course test in every class in high school, teacher evaluation based on student performance, the end of tenure.*

He lost his re-election bid to a Republican guy who while he hasn't increased funding as much as some folks want and wasn't able to give teachers a raise a few years when state revenue was down, has pushed for small raises two years in a row, created a Master teacher distinction with a 10% incentive, and for two years now pushed for each teacher to get a $100 gift card that we could decide how to spend. $100 bucks isn't much, but it's more than anyone has ever given us before.

I don't think Al would have been especially bad, but I don't know that you can assume that he wouldn't have screwed around with education reform just because of party affiliation. (Forgive me for that assumption if your comment was based on considerably more than that.)


*Some of these "reforms" don't bother me, and some of the problems with NCLB are what the states and local systems did trying to comply with the law itself.

Oh totally fine

I definately agree that he probably would have screwed with education reform, I just have a feeling NCLB wouldn't have come to play with Gore as president. But who knows. Unfortunately we are stuck with it and I don't see it going away anytime soon (as much as I would love for it to go the way of the dinosaur but that is a WHOLE other thread )