Don't you think Joe Lieberman was a terrible choice for VP and cost Gore millions of votes?
2007-08-07 08:26:54 · 17 answers · asked by TJTB 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Andy C, I can't fathom why you'd bring his religion into the equation. If you remember he wasn't running for Pope, just the VP.
My question is more in terms of the possibility that he alienated his core supporters with Lieberman, who was as much a democrat as Rudy is a republican.
2007-08-07 09:00:57 · update #1
Al Gore lost because :
1. The election in Florida was rigged by Kathleen Harris and Jeb Bush. Gore actually won Florida but lost it's electoral votes after the HW Bush appointed members of the Supreme Court stopped the recount of Florida.
2. The Green Party candidacy of Ralph Nader split the liberal vote. While Gore won the popular vote as it was the combined votes of Gore and Nader would have been overwhelming. If he would have gotten all these votes he would have carried enough states that Florida wouldn't have made a difference. He may have even carried Florida too in spite of Jeb and Kathleen. Lieberman may have been a factor here. It's really hard to say how many voted for Nader because of Lieberman,
2007-08-07 09:03:59 · answer #1 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Gore lost the election for Gore. He is an elitist snob who talks down to people. Same problem that Obama has. They both (might as well throw in Kerry) think they are smarter and better than the average American voter and it shows. Joe Lieberman has never had any trouble with non-Jewish voters because he's right up front with it and has never made any excuses for it. There are quite a number of Jewish politicians who get elected easily because they are at peace with their faith and practice it comfortably. Lieberman is one of them. This is Gore finding another reason to blame somebody - anybody - other than himself. He could have run with Jesus and it would have reflected badly on Jesus. Gore is a loser.
2016-05-21 00:37:37 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I believe the prevailing wisdom is that the surprisingly good showing that Nader put in may have cost Gore the election. IMHO, his 'distancing' himself from Clinton didn't help much, either. I suspect the same sort of phenomena might play out to the detriment of the Republicans in '08.
2007-08-07 11:41:15 · answer #3 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Gore lost the 2000 election for two reasons. He ran away from Bill Clinton (and his 60% approval rating) and the Supreme Court decision supporting the fraudulent Florida Presidential election results.
2007-08-07 08:43:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
No. I very much like Joe Lieberman and voted for Gore because of him. Had Gore chosen and hard liberal I would have voted for Bush. I honestly think that Bill Clinton cost Al Gore the election. Clinton's popularity was at an all time low in 2000 and his 2nd term was hampered by the Lewinsky scandal. He is much more popular today than he was in 2000. Gore ran a bland campaign and was one of the very few candidates who won the popular vote, but lost in the electoral college, but I voted for him because of Joe. In 2004 both candidates were too liberal for me and I voted for Bush. There are still more of us moderate Democrats out there than most people realize and we are pretty independent in our voting.
2007-08-07 08:42:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Al Gore lost his home State of Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia, heck, he basically lost the entire South (which has traditionally voted Democrat).
Bush won the election with 271 Electoral votes to Gore's 266. Had he carried his home State of Tennessee (11 electoral votes), Bush would have had 260 Electoral votes to Gore's 277, the fracas in Florida wouldn't have mattered, and we would have been calling him President Gore.
The fact that a Presidential candidate can't even carry his home State should speak volumes to any voter about the quality of the candidate.
The voters in the South figured out that he was a liar, and a Socialist. So to answer your question, no, Joe Liebermann didn't cost Gore the Presidency; he did that all to himself.
2007-08-07 08:52:47 · answer #6 · answered by Barney Fife 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Lieb didn't help much at the debate with Chain Gang Cheney by practically licking his boots to put the Gore margin of victory beyond theft. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2007-08-07 08:34:36 · answer #7 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
lieberman is the one respectable person i can think of in the dems party but they allowed the far left nuts take over the dnc. are you trying to say gore would have won with a non-jew?
2007-08-07 08:38:53 · answer #8 · answered by andy c 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
People that I know who were in the Military advised me that they were not told who to vote for President but if they wanted a pay raise and a quick end to the war, "They know who they should vote for". And Bush won by a small margin.
2007-08-07 08:33:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, Ralph Nader cost him the election. Nader ran on a liberal fiscal platform and ended up sucking votes away from gore and just enough votes for him to lose the election.
2007-08-07 08:32:34 · answer #10 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋