BrendanLoy.com: Homepage | Photoblog | Weatherblog | Photos | Old blog archives

About me


I'm Brendan Loy, a 26-year-old graduate of USC and Notre Dame now living and working in Knoxville, Tennessee. My wife Becky and I are brand-new parents of a beautiful baby girl, born on New Year's Eve.

I'm a big-time sports fan, a politics, media & law junkie, an astronomy buff, a weather nerd, an Apple aficionado, a Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter fanatic, and an all-around dork. My blog is best-known for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, but I blog about anything and everything that interests me.

You can contact me at irishtrojan [at] gmail.com, or donate to my "tip jar" by clicking the link below:

June 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member

« One ballsy tie | Main | Davidson, the last anti-chalk hope? »

Al Gore for President?

The Goreacle Option picks up steam.

(Hat tip: InstaPundit.)

The idea of rejecting Clinton and Obama, and turning to Gore instead, entered the mainstream conversation with some intriguing comments by a Florida congressman on Monday, and this Joe Klein piece on Wednesday.

Cue some Rovian snark: "You know you got a problem if the answer is Al Gore."

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/38891/27592288

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Al Gore for President?:

Comments

If you check the archives, I predicted this long ago.

Back in 2000 I voted for Gore with a marked lack of enthusiasm. But that was before I really understood just how dismal the alternatives could be. Today I'd happily support him. Gore-Obama would be a fine ticket.

When I say "a fine ticket," I mean substantively. I've given up trying to predict electability. I suspect it's mostly a mug's game anyway...

...though if Gore did end up as the nominee, it would help if this time around someone kept Maureen Dowd from just making shit up about him.

sorry gore fans but obama will almost certainly be your democratic nominee and more likely than not will be president.

Perhaps al-Gore could have MAN-BEAR-PIG as his running mate. Half man, half bear, half pig (and 100% losing to McCain).

Yea, Yea.

First, Maureen Dowd doesn't need to make anything up. Telling the truth about BigWoodenAl has always been enough. In this business about Hillary 'mispeaking' Gore's 'embellishments' have been forgotten (I assume since he's not a declared candidate). And that says nothing at all about the whoppers he tells about AGW. Those whoppers, however, have at least allowed him to garner millions if not get him elected.

Perhaps he should stick with what he does best: scaring the pants off the credulous and making big bucks by helping salve their CO2 'consciences'.

John Derbyshire at National Review has been predicting this for months.

Strikes me as wishful thinking, which seems to go pretty far in politics these days, especially with Democrats.

anAL GOREtentive

If you're the federal prosecutor in the Rezko trial, when do you unseal the Obama indictment?

Gore?!! ROTFLOL.

You gotta love the Democrats:

If we nominate Obama, we will alienate women.

If we nominate Clinton we will alienate African-Americans and young people.

So, the solution to our problem is to nominate Gore and alienate women, African-Americans, and young people.

anAL GOREtentive

Frankly, I'd rather gore Hillary than Obama.

"Gore-Hillary," that is... or was it? ;)

The more defined HRC and BO become the less viable they are as candidates. I'm not sure Gore is the countermeasure for this as he is too well defined himself. The Dems need a candidate who is completely undefined like BO was a year ago, then spring the guy on us a few months before the election.

Ya gotta love the Democrats. After a long a vicious battle they are reduced to a choice between a member of a racist cult or a women who wouldn't know the truth if it bit her. So the solution is a member of a cult that does its upmost to suppress the truth?

Neither the Clinton machine nor the Obamessiah movement will accept Gore. If anyone can make McCain look good it's the Democrats.

Obama is a Black Power cultist, MzBill a sociopathic harridan-- equal opportunity melanin vs. estrogen, your call.

Why not encourage this party of fatuous poseurs to dig deep, reaching the bottom of their barrel: A vote-getter from 1964, heir to a cult tradition; a raging big-government, tax-and-spend, open-borders wacko Warmist. All hail Edward "the Swimmer" Kennedy, with Michelle Obama as Mrs. Wright.

Assad's promised no hits 'til Spring 2009. Thereafter we'll lose two cities to Iran at minimum. Go, Teddy!


Obama is a Black Power cultist, MzBill a sociopathic harridan-- equal opportunity melanin vs. estrogen, your call.

Why not encourage this party of fatuous poseurs to dig deep, reaching the bottom of their barrel: A vote-getter from 1964, heir to a cult tradition; a raging big-government, tax-and-spend, open-borders wacko Warmist. All hail Edward "the Swimmer" Kennedy, with Michelle Obama as Mrs. Wright.

Assad's promised no hits 'til Spring 2009. Thereafter we'll lose two cities to Iran at minimum. Go, Teddy!


Two stupid posts for the price of one. Thanks John. Any more pearls?

Hey Gore won the election once before, surely he can do it again, and this time without Rove or Cheney involved he'll actually get elected ;-)

I can't think of anything more "smoke-filled back room" than the DNC cutting a deal to give the nomination to a guy who isn't even running.

Joe Klein is an ill-advised, self-important ass. He, Chris Mathews and Bill O'Reilly should be put into a Hummer and pushed off a fucking cliff.

Hey, you know I heard on the interwebs that Obama is in some sort of Black power cult. Must be true!

It must be fun to start complete bullshit rumors...I should try it.

Hey, did you hear that John McCain ate a baby panda to celebrate the Zoroastrian new year? Do we really want this heathen sicko to be president?

Scientizzle,

It's just the utterly predictable result of an Instapundit link. I assume there was once a time when an Instalanche would bring in visitors with an interesting variety of political viewpoints and attitudes. Those days are long past.

Max:

Switch out Matthews for Olbermann and i'm with you......Or better yet...just tie Olbermann to the hood...

"Count all the votes" -- wasn't that something of slogan of Mr Gore's (campaign) in 2000?

Contrast that with 2008 -- exactly how many caucuses and primaries have sent votes towards Mr. Gore? Would it be too much to ask for a complete counting of the popular vote for Mr. Gore at the ballot box so far in 2008? Count them up, and then let him be the nominee if he is indeed the victor. It's only fair and consistent.

The upward question is how does selecting Gore help the Super Delegates out? If the Obama contingent would walk out in disgust if Hillary got it then they would have even more angst against somebody who is not even running. So the still leaves the SD's in the same problem they had before.

But a Gore-a-rama pushes forward another problem for the Dims. They select Gore and forever more they will be know as the party that is 'Every vote counts! But we prefer to ignore it!'

I know. How about the Democrats stop nominating people who are so far to the left they make McCain look like a real Republican. They might actually win an election for a change.

If not for Mr. H. Ross Perot, there's a good chance Hillary's not even a blip on the current Presidential radar.

"If not for Mr. H. Ross Perot, there's a good chance Hillary's not even a blip on the current Presidential radar."

And if Ronald Reagan doesn't pick George H.W. Bush to be his runningmate in 1980, George W. Bush never even becomes Governor of Texas, let alone President of the United States.

Hooray for nepotism and dynasticism! God bless America! :)

Oh, I have an even better counterfactual, more directly on point with yours.

If not for Ralph Nader, there's an excellent chance President Al Gore is finishing up his second term, and the Democratic nominee for president is... Joe Lieberman!!! LOL!!!

Or how about this one...Nixon beats JFK in 1960 due to an honest vote count in Illinois and Texas,serves 2 terms,never gets us involved in a protracted war in Viet Nam,and as a result the hippy dippy left never gets control of the Democratic party and nobody ever hears of George McGovern,or Jimma Cawtah,or any other socialist/pacifist Democrat who aspires to be President

Ah yes, hearing the terms Nixon and honest in the same sentence, how utterly ironic...

Or Samuel Tilden beats Rutherford B. Hayes due to an honest count in Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina in 1876, there is no "corrupt bargain" that prematurely ends Reconstruction, so... er, I'm not sure where the scenario goes from there, but certainly stuff would have been different. :)

Anyone who thinks that Obama is going to win the primary process then step aside and run as VP to Gore is riding the crazy train.

Or Samuel Tilden beats Rutherford B. Hayes due to an honest count in Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina in 1876, there is no "corrupt bargain" that prematurely ends Reconstruction, so... er, I'm not sure where the scenario goes from there, but certainly stuff would have been different. :)

Touche. LOL.

Al Gore didn't win jack shit in 2000, as every single recount showed.

Not true. First of all, Gore probably* won the national popular vote, which, while constitutionally meaningless, is more than "jack shit."

Secondly, the Florida recounts clearly showed that if you counted the "overvotes" (including, e.g., people who voted for Gore and also checked off the write-in box and wrote Gore's name there), Gore "won," albeit by a margin similarly tiny to Bush's margin of "victory." (As I'll discuss momentarily, Florida was actually a statistical tie; hence my use of scare quotes around terms like "win" and "victory.")

The problem is, Gore never requested that the "overvotes" be counted, which is odd, because the intent of those voters is much clearer than the intent of the "undervote" voters who left a dimpled or two-corner chad on Gore's spot. But his advisers apparently never considered the overvote, so they never asked that it be counted. On the other hand, if SCOTUS hadn't stopped the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, it's not at all clear that the overvotes wouldn't have been counted. We just don't know.

Here are six things we do know:

1) Florida was a statistical tie. We'll never know who actually "won" it. In fact, as I learned while researching my paper advocating the Electoral College's retention, Florida was, percentage-wise, the closest state election for President of the United States in the nation's history. Not just the closest nationally decisive state election, but the closest state election, period. Anyway, as I argue in my paper, elections are measurements of the popular will -- they are not the popular will itself -- and, like all measurements, they have margins of error. Florida's margin was well within the margin of error. It was a statistical tie.

2) That said, the media recount showed that, under all plausible vote-counting standards, Bush would have "won" a recount of the "undervote," which is all Gore initially asked for.

3) Conversely, the media recount showed that Gore would have "won" if you counted the "overvote," which Gore never asked for, but which logically should be counted in a recount that's designed to count all votes where the voter's intent was clear on the face of ballot but unreadable by the ballot-counting machines.

4) If SCOTUS hadn't intervened and the statewide recount had gone forward, and if Gore had somehow come out ahead, Bush would have become president anyway, because the best-case scenario for Gore (within the realm of plausibility) was a disputed electoral slate, leading to a contingency House election, which Bush would have won, because the GOP controlled the majority of the House delegations. Ergo, although the U.S. Supreme Court should not have intervened, nevertheless they did not "steal the election" for Bush. He was going to win anyway. (Note: "the U.S. Supreme Court should not have intervened" is a true statement regardless of whether the Florida Supreme Court acted properly. Under the Constitution, the dispute should have been settled by Congress, not the Court.)

5) If the voters in Palm Beach County who were confused by the butterfly ballot's design (which, I note pre-emptively, was created by a lifelong Democrat) had correctly registered their intent, Gore would have won. However, there's nothing that can be done to correct this unfortunate error. When a voter commits error such that his intent cannot be discerned from his ballot -- even though it's statistically and demographically obvious what happened -- no recount or litigation can "fix" the problem. The problem is unfixable. Nevertheless, there is no serious, plausible doubt that thousands of ballots intended for Gore were inadvertently spoiled in Palm Beach County, and that those ballots were enough to make the difference statewide. The only debate is over whether to blame the voters or blame the ballot (or some combination of those stances), but whoever gets the blame, the statistical fact of the result cannot be denied.

6) If Nader hadn't been running, a sufficient percentage of his 97,488 votes would have accrued in Gore's favor that it would have easily overcome Bush's 537-vote margin. This doesn't mean it's "Nader's fault" that Bush won. Frankly, it's Gore's fault that Bush won; Gore ran a terrible campaign. However, as with the Palm Beach County thing, it is an undeniable statistical fact that Nader's presence on the ballot changed the outcome of the election. Even if 95% of Nader's voters stayed home (or voted for a different third-party candidate), and the 5% who voted for Bush or Gore only broke ~55% to 45% in Gore's favor -- both of which are ridiculously conservative assumptions -- it would have been enough to make the difference.

*I say Gore "probably" won the popular vote because there was, of course, no national popular-vote recount, and thus, as I argue in my paper, we can't be 100 precent sure that his 0.5% margin would have held up if it were actually decisive of the outcome. But, just mathematically, it's highly unlikely it would have been reversed.

Brendan, you've written about this before, but I just want to say again that this is an excellent summation of the relevant facts. Well done.

And I'm also constantly impressed by your patience with people like the previous anonymous commenter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Friends & family