Would Gore/Dean have gotten more votes in 2000?

[elperromagico]

I've heard this comment a couple of times: In 2000, Gore picked Lieberman as his running mate. He was in effect saying that of all of the available VP contenders, Lieberman was the most qualified to take over in the event of President Gore's death or resignation. Now, despite Lieberman's candidacy, Gore has endorsed Dean, so we must assume that Gore now feels Dean is the most qualified.

So back to my question: Would a Gore/Dean ticket have done better in 2000 than a Gore/Lieberman ticket? To my knowledge, a Gore/Dean ticket was not even considered in 2000.

Furthermore, would these tickets (which were considered in 2000) have performed better than Gore/Lieberman?

Gore/Kerry
Gore/Edwards

or your own personal preference:

Gore/VP candidate name here

I'm not talking merely about ideology; I'm talking about Electoral College strategery.

[ALago1]

1. Well

Dean wouldn't have helped Gore because he wouldn't have been able to generate nearly as much excitement and grassroots activism as he has now. Plus, he was virtually unknown at the time.

Gore Kerry and Gore Edwards would have been better choices in my opinion.

[elperromagico]

2. An Addendum.

Does anyone know of any states that Gore won in 2000 that he might not have won without Lieberman on the ticket?

Any states that we didn't win that we might have won without Lieberman on the ticket?

[Bombtrack]

3. probably not

"we must assume that Gore now feels Dean is the most qualified."

First of all, Gore didn't just give his capital away. He wants to be president. Many people, including myself, think that Gore believes that Dean is a likely loser against Bush, which would give him an open primary in 08. Many people also beleive that know matter if Gore beleives in Dean or not, he knows that in the event he does run, he'll get Deans supporters on his side

And about Lieberman, despite what his haters say, he was one of the biggest reasons Gore got as close as he did in Florida. The moron-naderites were anti-Clinton/Gore, not Lieberman

[SheilaT]

8. So, Gore has endorsed

someone he thinks will lose only so he, Gore, can run again in 08? That's beyond ridiculous.

[_Jumper_]

13. Why?

Do you think he doesn't want to be president? If he does do you think he can wait until 2012?

[elperromagico]

15. That is assuming

that the Democratic President's VP does not wish to run in '12. A two-term VP is in prime position for the nomination. That would set Gore back until 2016 or 2020.

Is it even remotely possible that Gore has lost the "itch"?

[bitchkitty]

11. You kill me!

Gore believes that Dean is a likely loser against Bush

Spin, ballerina, spin!

[pansypoo53219]

17. puleeze

Gore wants the DEMOCRAT to win because he KNOWS america cannot survive as we know t another 4 years. all this what if bullshit coming from the MWs is melting people brains. THIS IS NOT SURVIVER!

[fabius]

4. Probably not.

Nobody knew anything about Dean at that time.

Nobody know that Bush* was such a chimp. Not really.

[frustrated_lefty]

5. They were both younger then

what;s happened in the time between is a wake-up call. There is no comparison.

[Frances]

6. Lieberman helped Gore

by campaigning hard in Florida. If it had not been for the butterfly votes, Gore and Lieberman would be in the White House at the moment.
There would be no war in Iraq. There would be a surplus instead of a deficit.

Lieberman is my last choice as a Democratic presidential candidate today, but I think he helped get crucial votes for Gore in 2000.

Today, Gore and Dean have very similar positions on important issues and I think Gore has the right to endorse the man he thinks will best serve the country.

I think Dean would make a very good president. I feel the same way about Clark and Edwards and Kerry and Kucinich (although I have a hard time spelling his name) and Braun and other Democrats.

[Cheswick2.0]

23. of course you are right

people love to rewrite history and forget Gore/Lieberman got more votes than any democratic team. They didn't need more votes, they need to have the votes counted and they needed Nader to stay out swing states the way he said he would. If he had kept his promise in either NH or Florida everything would be different now.

[andym]

7. No, but Dean/Gore might have won

Gore's biggest problem/strength is that he is policy guy, not a good politician. He has reasonably poor tactical judgement in politics and can come across as arrogant and unsympathetic (1st debate).

Dean is a great tactical politician. With Trippi he could have beaten *. Too bad he didn't run. Dean shares one flaw with Gore, he is very self-confident/knowledgeable in a way that may appear arrogant to some voters. But his charisma balances this to a degree.

[MidwestTransplant]

9. You are dreaming

Nobody knew who Dean was and plus he had no over arching issue. Let's face it, if Kerry had come out against the war, he would be the front runner.

[MR. ELECTABLE]

24. I'm not so sure about that...

As much as I tried to get excited about Kerry, there's just something about the guy that doesn't connect with a lot of people. Maybe it's the "wordy" speaking or what some people in the press describe as "aloofness" (whatever that means). I felt the same way about Al Gore in 2000. I wasn't supporting Gore as much as I was opposing the oncoming Bush trainwreck. An uncharismatic candidate didn't work against Bush last time, and I'm not so sure it would work this time either. At least with Dean we get an opponent that I think most people will actually *LIKE*.

If all the candidates had come out against the war and voted against the resolution, my best guess is the front runner would have been Edwards. He's another likeable candidate. I don't think Clark would have been drafted by the DLC as the Dean situation would not have existed.

[andym]

14. I think Dean would have done the correct tactical moves

For example, a good politician, like Dean, would not have run away from Clinton but embraced him. He would have visited Ohio, etc etc...

Bradley made a good initial run at Gore, I suspect Dean would have done better. Bradley is not charismatic at all.

Dean is good at creating a name for himself. I'm not sure what issue he would have chosen, perhaps he would have used the partisan attacks against Clinton as ammunition. OTOH, you may be right, without a defining issue he might not have been able to get traction.

[Cheswick2.0]

22. really? because when I watched the endorsement

it looked like Gore was introducing his new JR associate.

[elperromagico]

10. Okay, now what about the others?

Gore/Edwards,
Gore/Kerry

Yes, Lieberman helped Gore in Florida, but Florida (wrong or wrong) wound up in the Republican column.

The electoral vote was 271-267; would Edwards or Kerry on the ticket have given Gore the extra three electoral votes necessary to put him over the top?

Would Kerry's presence on the ticket have assured us New Hampshire's four electoral votes? Would Edwards' presence on the ticket have helped us make inroads in the South?

I see 2000 as the turning point, our best opportunity to turn back the Bush machine before damage was done. I'm an analytical person; I like to go back to the "game tapes" and see where we fumbled.

[dansolo]

12. GORE/anybody would have gotten more votes

Picking Joe Lieberman was the worst mistake he made.

[pansypoo53219]

16. hell yes

leiberputz was way to wimpy.

[CalebHayes]

18. No... But Gore/Edwards?

[cigarstore]

19. Let's build a time machine and find out.

Jeez.

[kvnf]

20. Remember the Lieberman-Cheney debate?

As much as I trash talk about Lieberman, that debate was infinitely better than the Gore-Bush debates.

Lieberman did help a lot in Florida, but I think that's the only place he helped. I think Bob Graham would've had the same effect, maybe better, and helped elsewhere as well.

I still think he'd be a decent VP pick for '04. He's gotta be the most popular democract in Florida, and has been for some time.

[mazzarro]

21. Puhleeeeze! "Lieberman-Cheney debate" was worse than any

of the Gore bad performance IMO. Lieberman was absolutely wimpy and noncombative in that debate. He practically allowed Cheney to walk all over hima and get away with major inaccuracies.
Lieberman, for sure, lost that election IMHO.