General Discussion

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)

55. You're speaking through hindsight.

Wed May 11, 2016, 04:01 PM

May 2016

Gore ran to the right of Clinton. He did so very poorly because Clinton is actually to the right of Gore. But "for the party" gore leaped away from Clinton, tried to paint himself up like Bush, took a nutjob right-wing running mate, and basically did everything he could to play "hey look I can Republican too!"

Now we could talk about WHY he did this - a combination of Clinton's scandals, and the inherent difficulty of getting a third term with one party seem likely - but the fact is that he did.

The meme that Gore and Bush were the same originates from the way Gore ran his campaign. All the way down to the contested results, where Gore couldn't seem to decide if he wanted to win or not.

I think that maybe instead of just dismissing Gore's loss as "BECAUSE LIBERALS" as you and so many others do, you might want to examine hte flaws and failings of Gore's campaign. Learn from it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

114 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is anyone else sick to death of the "Liberal Smugness" snarl that's going around lately? [View all] HughBeaumont May 2016 OP

Party purity is destroying the Republicans but some want liberal purity for the Democrats LonePirate May 2016 #1

And there are different standards of purity Orrex May 2016 #2

I can really tell purity is destroying the Republicans . . . . HughBeaumont May 2016 #6

Is that because of the success of Republicans? zeemike May 2016 #30

Why are WE expected to play by a set of unspoken rules . . . HughBeaumont May 2016 #33

So you realize it is OUR failure...that is the first step. zeemike May 2016 #36

"hating on your opponent shows weakness whether you know it or not" HughBeaumont May 2016 #39

It works for them because we are not assertive zeemike May 2016 #40

Gandhi and MLK both got assassinated for their efforts. And we're not winning. HughBeaumont May 2016 #41

Well if you are afraid of being assertive step aside zeemike May 2016 #43

This is just giving me a headache. HughBeaumont May 2016 #52

And we respond with... zeemike May 2016 #64

Republican Lite SusanLarson May 2016 #74

If I'm not mistaken... ReRe May 2016 #85

No "Shipp", but yeah. He loved Big Brother May 2016 #110

Wrong... ReRe May 2016 #111

Incorrect about the name, not the spelling. He loved Big Brother May 2016 #112

I'll take your word for it... ReRe May 2016 #113

Yeah, it is pretty discouraging quakerboy May 2016 #9

How many of THEM are going to stay home if she is not the nominee? Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #16

How many of them have been encouraged to do so quakerboy May 2016 #69

Kissinger. Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #71

*snort* Hiraeth May 2016 #76

Ha! Bangbangdem May 2016 #80

And they could call themselves by an exotic cat name? A Simple Game May 2016 #96

saw a poll today SusanLarson May 2016 #114

Not nearly as many as Sanders supporters who want to purge the party/this site if he wins. LonePirate May 2016 #35

Lol quakerboy May 2016 #68

She's not my candidate. I did not vote for her. I'm simply stating facts with no candidate bias. LonePirate May 2016 #70

Man Bangbangdem May 2016 #81

If Bush bribers...errr I mean donors are part of that tent Promethean May 2016 #84

not electing trump is all that matters War Pigs May 2016 #92

No, the survival of the country and the world are what matters quakerboy May 2016 #106

I think you are making things up quakerboy May 2016 #105

Got some links to back that up? Andy823 May 2016 #75

Maybe it's not about purity but rather about strength of conviction. JDPriestly May 2016 #11

Character is merely the excuse given to dislike Hillary, especially when she agrees with Bernie. LonePirate May 2016 #34

No. It's about character. JDPriestly May 2016 #48

The far left element want a purity test too, we see it every day and sanders beachbumbob May 2016 #31

"...socialistic agenda..." greiner3 May 2016 #46

McCarthyism... Or reality GulfCoast66 May 2016 #77

And on top of that, they're wrong. Every accusation they make is refuted by evidence. nt stevenleser May 2016 #62

low post count and parrotting RW talking points and phrases ie: "socialist agenda" Triana May 2016 #97

I'm not sure you actually have any idea of what you're talking about Scootaloo May 2016 #53

The only people who think the party is drifting right are those on the extreme left. LonePirate May 2016 #56

Or people who understand the political spectrum Scootaloo May 2016 #58

Nonsense. Give the Dems control of Congress and the Presidency and see how leftward the party moves. LonePirate May 2016 #65

The trick is, Democrats keep running to the right, and losing their election bids Scootaloo May 2016 #100

Question: ReRe May 2016 #86

Agreed... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #88

ideological 'purity' is most often a dangerous concept Albertoo May 2016 #79

Al Gore was republican lite? FLPanhandle May 2016 #3

He sure campaigned as one. HughBeaumont May 2016 #4

Just knowing that this is what some folks called him shows where those folks are at. stevenleser May 2016 #5

Yes, insults will surely make your case stronger. HughBeaumont May 2016 #7

One word. Lieberman! mountain grammy May 2016 #10

Lieberman??! G_j May 2016 #14

Democrats who are only interested in the social issues like Gore and Hillary. JDPriestly May 2016 #49

It just gets more hilarious. Here was Gore's 2000 plan for Prosperity for America�s Families stevenleser May 2016 #51

Nothing about the cost of college or healthcare. JDPriestly May 2016 #54

You think so because you refuse to research. Its in the full 192 page plan I talked about stevenleser May 2016 #59

Gore favored privatization at a time when we had already privatized enough. JDPriestly May 2016 #12

Nixon changed it. WhiteTara May 2016 #101

When Clinton picked Gore for VP the base howled about him being too conservative.... Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #15

You're speaking through hindsight. Scootaloo May 2016 #55

brilliant...! Blue_Tires May 2016 #8

Why is it so inconceivable to admit Reagan was a disaster and to reverse his crap? Spitfire of ATJ May 2016 #13

yep, and that buying into the saint reagan myth is what's wrong with so many dems just4lulzidk May 2016 #20

Well, because that'd be admitting error. HughBeaumont May 2016 #22

liberal smugness exists in the same way that the liberal media exists (hint: it's nonexistent) just4lulzidk May 2016 #17

There's no debating a person who's abandoned reason. HughBeaumont May 2016 #29

bingo just4lulzidk May 2016 #32

Good post, Just4lulzidk. Most of my adult life right-wing Hortensis May 2016 #93

This goes hand-in-hand with the "lesser of two evils" strategy. Maedhros May 2016 #18

This despite Bernie getting killer crowds everywhere. HughBeaumont May 2016 #26

What it means is that the Democratic Party is obsolete from a progressive point of view. Maedhros May 2016 #38

+1,000,000 ... Trajan May 2016 #102

Huge +1! Enthusiast May 2016 #87

as absurd as 'liberal media' spanone May 2016 #19

Yeah, a lot of the conserves I know got positively smug about it... Wounded Bear May 2016 #21

Damned right I'm smug. sofa king May 2016 #23

Re the first reading: I was a grown-ass reading, thinking, liberal feminist woman of the 90�s. ancianita May 2016 #24

K&R, conservatives deserve no quarter, or respect. You're spot on. n/t CRH May 2016 #25

Sorta crazy-like rant, but I tend to agree with it. tonyt53 May 2016 #27

Yeah, they're saying that pointing out Republicans are nominating a loony for president muriel_volestrangler May 2016 #28

I've long been sick of the smugness itself hfojvt May 2016 #37

IT IS UNTRUE. I reserve my right to be harsh to people WHO ARE WRONG. HughBeaumont May 2016 #44

you know I thought I was wrong once hfojvt May 2016 #47

I see. So you're in the camp that thinks Nader had absolutely no RIGHT to run. HughBeaumont May 2016 #67

I never said any such thing hfojvt May 2016 #83

Beautifully put. CBHagman May 2016 #99

statistics and probability War Pigs May 2016 #94

Huge +1! Enthusiast May 2016 #89

Oh you think you're smart because you know stuff and stuff? gratuitous May 2016 #42

Heh heh heh . . . HughBeaumont May 2016 #45

is there anything you feel positively about? La Lioness Priyanka May 2016 #50

I'll answer that on November 9th. HughBeaumont May 2016 #57

I got nothing. Rex May 2016 #61

I find a lot of these things disappointing as well La Lioness Priyanka May 2016 #66

That's one big reason we are in this stinking mess. bullsnarfle May 2016 #107

lol La Lioness Priyanka May 2016 #108

It is only hayseed hicks that call liberals smug. AngryAmish May 2016 #60

What are your objectives? Donald Ian Rankin May 2016 #63

I dont know you, but Dark n Stormy Knight May 2016 #72

that civility is way overrated and more an impediment than helpful stupidicus May 2016 #73

Confidence looks like smugness to psychologically projecting dismissively smug RWingers. Festivito May 2016 #78

If I understand you correctly... Beartracks May 2016 #82

Spot on madokie May 2016 #90

who is calling libs smug here? nt retrowire May 2016 #91

Not so much HERE . . . HughBeaumont May 2016 #95

Hillary's trying to be Gore 2.0 (not a great model to begin with), but she's probably Carter in 1980 Vote2016 May 2016 #98

There ARE a lot of smug, "New Democrat" Liberals... NewImproved Deal May 2016 #103

Critical thought... deathrind May 2016 #104

The point I took away is actually going to make me a better liberal. He loved Big Brother May 2016 #109