Mark Penn's analysis of why Gore lost in 2000. From 2001.

[madfloridian]

In 2001 Mark Penn used the theme that Gore lost because he was not centrist enough and that he played to the populist base near the end.

Penn analyzes Gore's loss in a 2001 post at the DLC website

Instead of running as a New Economy Democrat, Al Gore used an old-style populism that reduced his appeal rather than expanded it. The message prevented him from reaching the swing voters who could have pushed him over the top. Gore narrowly won the popular vote with this message by piling up large wins in states like California, where extra votes fail to count. But the message sent him tumbling backward in key border states, in his home state and, finally, in the electoral college. Liberal positions on social issues along with populism and big government positions took what could have been a substantial win and turned it into a draw. Had Gore combined his positions of conscience on social issues with a new vision of the role of government, he would have carried a larger percentage of upwardly mobile, socially tolerant suburban men that would have helped him win.

500,000 votes is hardly a narrow win. And there Penn goes with the put down of populism...a favorite taunt from that group. Oh, and what new role of government, Mr. Penn?

This next paragraph is pretty outrageous from the man who is leading the frontrunner's careful cautious campaign. It is shocking in fact.

Now the tables are turned, and it is Bush who must reach out to Gore's voters to build a new coalition of support or he will fail in governing. Bush must now put together a coalition greater than the 48 percent he received. The voters Bush needs to reach are the DLC Democrats -- concerned about the size of government, but firmly committed to progress on major issues like health care, education, family, and crime. They want government that will give people the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. They are looking for a president and Congress that will continue the job started by President Clinton.

He so badly misjudged Bush's capability to reach out to anyone at all.

Mark Penn also earlier this year delivered a real slapdown to Gore and Kerry. He went after the other candidates but these seemed to be his targets. The article is archived, but I have enough of it posted in this journal to show his attitude toward both men.

Hillary's pollster, Mark Penn, suggests Kerry and Gore not run

He then set his sights on Sen. John Kerry and former Vice President Al Gore, who also might run in 2008. "The last two Democratic presidential candidates started out with high favorable ratings and ended up on Election Day - and today - far more polarizing and disliked nationally," said the pollster, who cut his teeth on President Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign.

Outrageous statements.

And one more from the DLC post by Penn. He just misinterprets stuff and tosses it out as truth. He was speaking of Bush and Gore.

Both candidates failed to occupy the decisive center of the American electorate. This is not surprising given the failure of either candidate to break 50 percent. Voters see Gore as substantially left of center and Bush as right of center. By running as a social and big government liberal, Gore was perceived as being to the left of the Democratic Party. In contrast, Bush was viewed as being more to the center than the Republican Party; that was perhaps the single most important element of his success.
Penn on Gore's loss

And we wonder why the candidate he works for is running to the right. The stance she took on Iraq this week really bothers me. Yet it is in character if she follows Penn's advice.

[Cha]

1. My opinion is ..I think

mark penn is trying to rewrite history in the only way he knows how..the dlc/3rd way is the only way and by gum all the dems better toe the mark or he's going to send the big bad al from after you.. :scared: :scared:

Furthermore, Dean doesn't know what he's doing and the country does NOT love the more evolved Al Gore now!

And Global Climate Change is just a figment of ya'll's imagination!

[illinoisprogressive]

2. Amazing how Penn is so like Rove and Hillary so like Bush....

[Carrieyazel]

3. Sorry, Mark, we're talking about Hillary here. Gore's 48% in 2000 would barely be reached.

The Repukes and many Indeps do not give Hillary ANY benefit of the doubt even when she votes their way repeatedly. To them, its always: "she's doing that because she's pandering", or "she's shamelessly masquerading as a moderate". It's almost unfair to Hillary, but that's the reality. That's what she has to face in a general election. Their hatred for her is deep. Whatever she does makes no difference to these people.

[AtomicKitten]

4. The only thing Al Gore lost was a 5:4 Supreme Court coup d'etat.

Mark Penn is a douchebag.

[madfloridian]

21. Agreed on both.

:hi:

[McCamy Taylor]

38. First, he lost the corporate media, which campaigned for Bush with "Gore is a liar"

and which shamelessly ignored all of W.'s many lies and gaffes and idiocies and which promoted the Ralph Nadar lie "W. and Gore are the same, so vote for me."

The corporate media wanted media mergers and less federal regulation, something Karl Rove promised them. They were biased. Their bias made the election as close as it was.

The fraud made it closer.

The SCOTUS drove the nails in the coffin.

Anyone who tried to blame Gore for any of this is a partisan who is promoting a rival candidate and is afraid to see Big Al run. Period.

[Totally Committed]

39. You go, girlfriend!

Amen to that! :applause:

TC

[Canuckistanian]

66. Good point

Gore WON the election. He LOST the presidency.

[calteacherguy]

5. I don't think the comments are outrageous; I think they are insightful.

For example, if Gore had run on a less "big government" platform, we might be enjoying today a great energy and environmental policy in a "new economy" of technological innovation and clean energy. Unfortunately, he came across as a stiff, big government liberal. That left many voters uneasy with electing another Democratic President. Americans are a pragmatic people, they are not conservatives and liberals so much as they are Americans with a sense of fairness, decency, goodwill, and independence. They despise partisan politics; they want common sense, not partisanship.

He gets it, and so does Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, common sense is on our side, not the side of neocons, Christian fundamentalists, and the like. We are going to win this time. The tide is with us, as long as we keep our wits about us, play smart, and don't get too carried away.

[Colobo]

6. And you think we are not running on a so-called "big government" platform?

Cal, you are more intelligent than that.

[calteacherguy]

8. There are clear philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Most Americans want a balance. For example, the health care proposals being put out by Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are very much alike. But they are a far cry from what Hillary was proposing in the 90s. She reached too far back then, and she's learned from the experience that political is the art of the possible. Progress may not always go as fast as we like, but it is still progress.

[madfloridian]

9. And that, my friend, is why they are passing secret bills...

threatening Iran, ignoring us when we say fair not fre trade, ignoring us when we say stop the surveillance on our citizens..

ignoring us about impeachment, about getting out of Iraq.

Because they don't want to upset Bush's base!!

So we agree, they are playing to the Republicans and their own base be damned.

[calteacherguy]

10. What's your definition of "base?"

A DU Demographic or the majority of Democrats?

[madfloridian]

14. They are the same.

Most Americans are pretty much like a cross section of those of us here and at other democratic forums.

I am tired of being told the country wants the sensible center while that same center is ready to start a war with Iran.

[jaybeat]

68. Bullshit!

I don't have the poll #s in front of me, but it is something like:

60+% of Americans want us OUT of Iraq COMPLETELY within 12 months

70+% of Americans want a SINGLE PAYER health-care system (AKA "Government-run health care")

80+% of Americans want Bush's tax cuts REPEALED, at least on the richest 1%

80+% of Americans would PAY MORE TAXES to protect the environment and seriously address climate change

These are not "far left" positions; they are MAINSTREAM.

There is one and only one reason you and others think they are "outside" the mainstream, and repeat the lie that they don't represent the opinions of the majority of Americans:

Corporations don't like these ideas, and corporations control the media AND fund the campaigns that elect the members of our government.

Hillary didn't "reach too far back then" (actually, the entire plan was Bill's ideas, he just put her at the head of the spear to lead the charge, and then let her take the fall when it died). What happened was that corporate money did what corporate money does--invests in the places it needs to get the greatest return--in this case, doing a PR snow-job and lobbying the shit out of Congress. That "investment" has paid off in spades--shit, look where we are now! Most of the "moderate" health-care proposals from Dems are WELFARE FOR INSURANCE COMPANIES!!! "You must by private insurance! And if you can't, here's some TAX MONEY to help pay for it!" OH MY FREAKING GOD!

"Balance"? Between what? What the vast majority of Americans want and what corporations and the richest 1% want? Between corporatism with a conscience (on good days) and a headlong rush to unrestrained corporate fascism?

I'm sorry, but most Americans want nothing to do with that so-called "balance." They want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They want a decent chance to earn a decent living. They don't want a life that's "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" for all but the ruling class. They don't want to be lied to. They don't want to be manipulated. They don't want their well being to be for sale to the highest bidder.

THAT'S "mainstream." But you'd never know it, listening to 90% of our politicians or media.

[madfloridian]

7. Well.....okey dokey.

:think:

[Capn Sunshine]

12. Exactly 180 degrees wrong

It was Gore's handling and campaign organization that lost that race. Nothing more. The same guys (DLC to a man) who foisted Lieberman on him. The same guys who advised him not to fight the Supreme Court even though it was an avenue open to him. Same guys who restrained him on the campaign trail,leading to comments that he was "wooden" Same guys that took Gores message and watered it down "because the centrists win the race" Same guys who did the same thing to Kerry. Now Penn works with them ; the same guys advising Hillary's organization.

Much like neocons, guys like Penn who write for Blueprint Magazine often state things as fact and truth.

Now the post I'm responding to repeats these twisted myths as reality, even though what lost Gore the Race was the organization constraining him from differentiating himself from Bush, leading many to express the sentiment "it doesn't matter who you vote for , they are both the same"

Fast forward to 06. The exact opposite strategy was used. Democrats were defined and took stands. They proudly defined their core values nd how different they were from Republican rule. They REPRESENTED IN 50 STATES, Howard Dean's strategy which Hillary's advisors fought tooth and nail.. Many were backed by populist "insurgents" ( to quote the DLC) and funded by individual donations from across the country.

Contrary to the view expressed above, the American voters want someone who will stand up and actually state why they are different and why we should give them a chance. This is often debased by the beltway crowd as "partisanism" and yet did you ever notice the Republicans aren't afraid of this?

So it all depends on what you buy into. The only hope for neocon victory , the ONLY thing that will repair the fractured base that refused to come out in '06 would be Hillary Clinton, who they have spend billions of dollars demonizing for 15 years, in case of just such an eventuality.

[papau]

13. I was with you until the last sentence - polls indicate Hillary would both win and is the person

with the fewest "I'll never vote for them" folks in the current population (yes - that was a surprise - at least to me because I had bought the GOP has already set the stage for Hillary idea - turns out the more people see her the more they like her).

[madfloridian]

17. I don't trust polling much this time around.

Too many power pollsters working for candidates. Mark Penn and Vinod Gupta to mention only two.

One example from First Read.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/20/280196.aspx?p=1

[Armstead]

30. But the question is "Whose common sense?"

Ask the average (non-wingnut) voter whether he or she thinks it's a good thing that almost everything we buy today comes from sweatshops in China, India or some other exploited colony at the expense of American jobs.

While the "free traders" keep repeating their mantra of "just give it more time" the common sense of a growing share of the population knows that what we've been doing for the last 20 years is leading our broadly-based middle class economy into the toilet.

Ask the average person "How's this corporate health insurance system working for ya?" and the average common sense answqer is going to be "It sucks. My premiums keep going up, but I qualify for less and less care. Something has to be done."

The so-called "common sense" of people like Mark Penn don't trust the fundamental liberal instincts of people, because Penn supports the same "all business good, all government bad" mindset as the Republicans.

[maximusveritas]

11. His analysis matches that of his fellow DLCer Joe Lieberman

http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/08/06/gore/index.html
Lieberman criticized Gore's "people vs. the powerful" campaign message at a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council in New York last week, saying, "That kind of rhetoric which suggests class conflict" cost the campaign support from "middle-class people who don't see America as the people vs. the powerful." He also opened the door to a possible presidential run in 2004, even if Gore runs again, if the Democratic field strayed too far from business-friendly positions.

It also sounds kind of similar to the rhetoric from Joe Biden toward Obama and Edwards, but that's a different story.

[baldguy]

15. *G O R E* *D I D N "T* *L O S E*!!!

Never trust anyone spouting neocon talking points.

[retread]

16. This kind of advice worked wonders for Kerry last time didn't it? n/t

[LWolf]

18. He wasn't DLC enough.

:puke:

Considering that, even with the selection, he got the popular vote, and that if the vote counts had been accurate, and the voter rolls accurate as well, he would have had all the electoral votes he needed, I'd say that Penn is a corrupt, lying piece of garbage, myself.

It makes me hope that Gore enters the race and wipes the floor with Penn and HRC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Debates Hurt Gore

He was destroying Bush* in the debates, especially the first one... But then he started to patronize him...Nobody wants to be patronized and nobody wants to see another person patronized...

But who know?

Kerry destroyed Bush* in the debates without patronizing him and still lost...

Maybe it was the Bush* brand name or mold... After 08 I suspect that mold is one mold the Pugs throw away...

[marlakay]

20. Gore won despite a lot of crap

Just think if the media had been fair, if Bill had helped him, if Hillary had helped instead of being selfish and caring only about her senate race, if the courts had been fair...I know in my dreams but he would have won by landslide then and not the way he did.

[question everything]

22. I think that his comment about Bush was correct

at that time.

He was considered a moderate governor who reached across the aisle - at least, these were the reports then.

He thought that being a President would be a nice time to pass. After all Clinton did with one hand tied behind his back most of the time.

No one could predict that 9/11 would turn the neocons and Cheney and PNAC loose to make things different. Of course, after 9/11 we were united, we did have the support of the whole world. And except on DU, the invasion of Afghanistan was supported by most. And, I think, had we left Iraq after the capture of Saddam Hussein, he may still have had the support of most Americans.

I think that even now most Americas still hope for some kind of a decent way to leave Iraq, not to just clear everything in one move.

[cobalt1999]

23. One name: Bob Graham

He was thinking about it, and had he chosen Graham, Florida wouldn't have been close. He would have carried the state big.

[wyldwolf]

31. Another Bob - Bob Shrum

Need I say more?

[donsu]

24. Gore didn't lose!! Gore won, the count was rigged, the Supremes

became traitors.

and Hillary is nuts to keep Penn.

Penn just earned his under the table money

[rinsd]

25. Those comments are outrageous?

In the first he advocates that had Gore run as the New Democrat he was he would have won.

That is debatable but hardly outrageous.

The 2nd is very true and an example of the power ot the GOP hate machine.


The 3rd is also debateable but Bush did run as a warm and fuzzy Republican. I think Gore had some populist runs in his campaign but on the whole it was more centrist than leftist.

[SOS]

26. Penn is wrong

Gore's convention speech put him ahead of Bush in the polls.
It was the retreat from his populist message (plus Asshat Lieberman as a running mate) that cost him.

[wyldwolf]

27. Author Drew Westen (The Political Brain), admired by Howard Dean, said the same thing

Al Gore hired Bob Shrum, fell back on the populist rhetoric that has never won anything, and lost because of it."

Sometimes I think "progressives" don't really doubt this, they're just outraged someone says it.

[madfloridian]

28. What a convoluted argument. I never mentioned Dean.

Drew Westen scans brains, Dean made nice ommnents about his work, Westen once commented about Gore, thus Dean-admired Westen is right??

Quite frankly, Gore turned back at the end to not standing for what he believed.

I do not believe how you managed to twist this.

[wyldwolf]

29. Did I say you mentioned Dean?

:shrug:

Westen is just one more professional who sees the 2000 election, at least Gore's role, for what it was.

How's this for a convoluted argument: Bill Clinton had the greatest economic expansion in history and boats from all economic classes rose. He left office with an approval rate of 68%. Al Gore ran from that record and the approval rate and instead talked about evil rich people. People heard that and said, "nah, I'll pass."

Wait! That's exactly how it happened!

[madfloridian]

37. Whatever you say, wyldwolf. At least we will have a candidate now who..

will never back down from being "centrist" "sensible center", whatever the words are now. In fact as I said in another post, an attack on Iran is already on the table so we can sound "tough and smart"...I hate those words. I hate them when I see them at the Third Way website. I hate them when Dean used them on TV.

They are all spouting right wing fear and terror nonsense, and we will bomb Iran before it's over. It is called fear of the right wing.

[wyldwolf]

40. ha ha. Do you really believe what you write or is it an act?

[madfloridian]

41. Do you ridicule everyone or just me?

Just wondering.

[wyldwolf]

42. where was the ridicule?

[Forkboy]

78. Everyone.He has personality like a fried lobster.

:)

[madfloridian]

48. Yes, to answer you. I believe we will allow an attack on Iran

rather than be called soft on terror or national security.

I think we need to face that.

[knight_of_the_star]

59. You sir, need to shut your fat arrogant patronizing face

Since you seem to lack even basic civility, decency, and manners you really should sit down, shut your face, and learn how to actually treat others like human beings.

And yes I could just ignore you, but ignoring a lie doesn't make it go away.

[Larkspur]

49. Al Gore did not run from the economic success

It was Billy Boy Clinton's sexcapades that put a dark cloud over Gore's Prez chances.

[madfloridian]

50. Thanks for saying it so I didn't have to.

:applause:

[wyldwolf]

51. lakespur vs. everyone else.

[Larkspur]

52. wrongwolf screws up again

There are other posters on this thread that dispute yours and Mark "Blackwater" Penn's erroneous assumptions about why Gore did not get into the White House.

It's interesting that you Clintonistas always conveniently forget Billy Boy Clinton's sexcapades, which was a major deal for voters back then.

[rinsd]

54. Yes they were such a big deal Gore had to maul his wife on TV

Ya know.....to keep pace with "Billy Boy"

[Larkspur]

60. Well, Gore LOVES his wife and has been FAITHFUL to her

whereas, Billy Boy Clinton loves those young interns. Hillary must be frigid in bed.

[wyldwolf]

55. sorry, halfbakedspur, you need to check my reply down thread

[Larkspur]

57. you misspell my name, I'll misspell yours

[wyldwolf]

62. mine was an honest mistake

[Larkspur]

76. You've done it twice in a row

Once is a mistake. Twice is starting to become a pattern.

[Larkspur]

58. Clintonistas always twist the truth. It's called triangulation

[Armstead]

32. Never won anything?

Tell that to the voters of Vermont (yes it is a fairly mainstream state) who keep returning Bernie Sanders to office and just gave him a promotion to the Senate.

Tell that to the many other liberal and progressive Democrats who keep winning in their districts over and over.

[wyldwolf]

34. Well, we are talking on a presidential level, but ok...

"progressives" have put ONE US Senator in office (not a Democrat) and a handful of house seats. Now, show me (aside from Sanders) where they won on the populist platform.

[Oak2004]

64. Another example from Vermont:

The most conservative part of the state (yep, Vermont has conservative areas just like every other state) had as its state representative an arch-conservative, "family values", wingnut-- the most right wing rep in the state house.

But no more. She was soundly defeated, not by a "moderate" Democrat, but by a socialist Progressive Party candidate.

People respond well to populism.

That is, everyone other than corporate people.

[Larkspur]

44. Lying again, typicaly Clintonista trait

Gore rose in the polls when he reverted to his progressive rhetoric. Gore was 15-20 pts behind Bush in March 1999, when Gore officially announce he was running for Prez, and was 9pts behind Bush prior to the Dem Convention. After the Dem convention, where Gore gave a strong populist speech, Gore took the lead over Bush for the first time -- going up 9pts.

It was the 32 days after the Dem Convention that hurt Gore. Gore chose matching funds and could not campaign until after the Repuke convention. That monthly long silence allowed Bush and the Repuke machine to lie constantly about Gore with impunity. That is why Dem Prez candidates in 2004 had to find a way to raise funds to avoid taking matching funds and remaining silent on the campaign trail for a month. It was known that Bush would opt out of matching funds. As we all know, it was Howard Dean who found that way. Not Kerry and not Edwards and not even Kucinich.

Once Gore could campaign again, the leads changed often. When Gore went populst, he went UP in the polls. When he went "centrist" he went DOWN in the polls.

Also Bill Clinton's blowjob hurt Gore. Polls showed that if Gore did use Bill on the campaign trail, white Independents would not vote for Gore. The Gore campaign did use Bill. They sent Bill to the African American community.

[madfloridian]

46. Thank you for saying that. Yes, Clinton's "affair" did hurt Gore.

In our area here in Southern Baptist land, one dared not say kind words in public about a president who had a blow job. Gore knew that.

I once tried to speak up for Clinton at a teacher's gathering here, saying I did not think it was an impeachment offense.

I learned my lesson well, to people here it was that bad.

Candidates who speak loudly and clearly do very well, but then their own party hushes them.

And they pretty much remain hushed if they want to play with the big boys like Penn.

[rinsd]

47. Ever heard of a convention bounce?

And while some polling had Bush with a double digit lead going into the convention others had it closer.

Gore went from being down a few points (an avg of 5 in the polls) to being up a few points (an avg of 3 in the polls)

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2genT.htm

"Polls showed that if Gore did use Bill on the campaign trail, white Independents would not vote for Gore. "

Maybe Gore shouldn't have fired Mark Penn and hired an incompetent pollster then.

[wyldwolf]

53. LOL! Really? OK, let's go to the scorecard

Democratic candidate and Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore wanted to run as his "own man," free of the negatives associated with Clinton’s tenure as president. So he ran a distinctly Clinton-free campaign with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman at his side.

Negatives?

In a late October 2000 Gallup Poll, 57% of the respondents approved of the job Clinton was doing as president. By comparison, in a mid-October 1960 Gallup Poll, Dwight Eisenhower received a 58% positive job approval rating, and in a mid-October 1988 Gallup Poll, 51% gave Ronald Reagan a positive job rating. Voter News Service exit polls taken at polling places on Election Day 2000 indicated Clinton’s positive job performance rating nationally among actual voters was also 57%.

Gore won 17 of the 18 states (including D.C.) where Clinton’s job rating was at or above the national average of 57%. Which state didn’t fit this pattern? No surprise. Florida (where Clinton’s positive rating was 58%) was the one state that Gore didn’t "carry" when the rating of Clinton’s job performance was at or above the national 57% average.

Another way to view how Clinton’s job approval ratings and the election results interplayed is that every state with Clinton ratings of 60% or more went to Gore. Every state with Clinton job ratings 51% or lower went to Bush. The election was decided in states where Clinton’s job ratings ranged from 52% to 58%. These 18 states split, with 11 going to Bush and seven going to Gore.

Had Gore called upon Clinton to campaign for the Democratic ticket in some of these states, the results might have been different. Remember that it would have taken only one of the Bush states to go for Gore to change the results of the 2000 election.

http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm

[Larkspur]

61. Polling Report is only one outfit

There were lots of polls taken in 1999 thru 2000 that showed Gore down by 15 pts in March 1999, down by 9 just before the 2000 convention and up by 9 after the convention.

[wyldwolf]

63. no, dear. pollingreport merely lists other's polls

Convention bounce.

[rinsd]

65. Polling report is a poll clearinghouse for most of the polls.

Click the link, you'll see.

Or better yet provide a link of your own to the polling data you cite.

[Larkspur]

77. Most polls does not mean all

And the 2000 election polls are mostly offline now.

[oasis]

33. More Bill Clinton=more votes. Hillary gets it, Gore didn't. (eom)

[Apollo11]

35. As much as I hate what Penn says, he has facts to back it up.

For example, Penn says that in 2000, only 60% of the voters who thought that the country was on the right track voted for Al Gore. This statistic backs-up Penn's theory that Gore should have tried harder to associate himself with the positive economic record of the Clinton-Gore Administration.



But of course I agree that the dude is an pro-war anti-liberal douchebag! ;-)

GORE-OBAMA 2008 :patriot:
www.draftgore.com

[madfloridian]

36. Well, at least we don't need to worry...

about his centrist worries now. We will attack Iran to be centrist and strong on national security. We will never ever back down from terror or never ever sound less than macho.

So Penn wins it either way. Gore lost, he says it is because he went populist. And Penn always always has data. Data data data.

[Larkspur]

43. Penn is wrong

When Gore reverted to his populist rhetoric, like he did with his nomination acceptance speech, his poll numbers went up. When Gore went the "Centrist" route, his poll numbers dipped.

Remember, back in March 1999, when Gore formly announced he was running for Prez, he was 15-20 pts behind Gov. Bush. That deficit was largely due to the dark cloud created by Bill Clinton's blowjob and the Impeachment proceedings. Heading into the Dem Primary, Gore was 9 pts behind Bush. Right after the last day of the Dem Convention, Gore was 9pts ahead of Bush. That was the first time Gore took the lead over Bush.

What really hurt Gore was the 32 days after the Dem Convention when he could not campaign because of campaign finance reform. This month long silence had Gore dropping in the polls again. Gore chose matching funds and the rules said he could not campaign until after the Repuke Convention. That is why for 2004, Dem candidates had to find a way to raise funds so that they did could opt out of matching funds. Howard Dean found the way and all the others have followed.

[hedgehog]

45. It seems to me that for every election from 1968 on, the Democratic

nominee was behind as long as he ran to the center. Time after time, the candidate would throw caution to the wind and run to the left the last few weeks and see his numbers climb precipitiously. I just wish just once one of them would start left and take a landslide!

[Bucky]

56. I agree with much of what you say, except "500,000 votes is hardly a narrow win"

500,000 out of over 100 million votes cast is absolutely a narrow win. It's less than one half of one percent. It's one of the narrowest margins in presidential history.

[CreekDog]

67. The premise is that Gore "lost" which tells you all you need to know

About the conclusion.

It's crap, I read it before.

[Rhythm and Blue]

69. Some of what he said was right.

500,000 votes is a narrow win indeed.

Now the tables are turned, and it is Bush who must reach out to Gore's voters to build a new coalition of support or he will fail in governing. Bush must now put together a coalition greater than the 48 percent he received. The voters Bush needs to reach are the DLC Democrats -- concerned about the size of government, but firmly committed to progress on major issues like health care, education, family, and crime. They want government that will give people the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century. They are looking for a president and Congress that will continue the job started by President Clinton.

is all completely true. He needed to reach out to centrist Democrats in order to govern effectively. He didn't. He also is now generally regarded as one of the worst presidents of all time. He didn't say Bush *will*, or even that Bush *could,* but rather that Bush *had to.* I don't think that's wrong.

"The last two Democratic presidential candidates started out with high favorable ratings and ended up on Election Day - and today - far more polarizing and disliked nationally,"
is completely true. On election day, both Kerry and Gore had lower nationwide favorable ratings than they did the day they won the nomination.

Both candidates failed to occupy the decisive center of the American electorate. This is not surprising given the failure of either candidate to break 50 percent. Voters see Gore as substantially left of center and Bush as right of center. By running as a social and big government liberal, Gore was perceived as being to the left of the Democratic Party. In contrast, Bush was viewed as being more to the center than the Republican Party; that was perhaps the single most important element of his success.
is largely true as well. In general opinion polls, Bush was viewed by most voters as being a bit more centrist than Gore, though I don't recall Gore being considered more liberal than most. He's not saying Bush was centrist, just that people thought he was.

[AX10]

70. Hillary better distance her from Mark Penn.

He's a loser and could assist her and us in losing the Presidency to the GOP next year.

[diane in sf]

71. I question the awareness of anyone who says Bush won either time. If Penn and

any other Democratic operative or politician are too ignorant to know the presidential election was thrown both times as well as a number of the congressional elections, then I don't want them representing me. It means they have fallen into a corporate media/Republican/corporate funding framing stupor that does not bode well for the restoration of our constitution.

[madrchsod]

72. he gets paid for ignoring history?

wow! now that`s quite a job...

"qualifications?"

"yes i am an expert in ignoring history to validate my position"

"when can you start?"

[mistertrickster]

73. Of course, Penn couldn't tell the real story of why Gore didn't win bigger (than he did win)--

revulsion of Americans to BILL CLINTON's illicit sex right in the Oval Office and the even more disgraceful lying about it.

Why did worst. president. ever. keep repeating the poll-tested line that he would "restore honor and dignity to office of the Presidency" every chance he got--it was a direct jab to Clinton's arrogant reckless behavior that hurt us Progressive Dems more than it seemed to hurt the Clintons'.

Gore had to distance himself from all the achievements he and Clinton had made after Clinton had disgraced himself.

The Clintons already gave us a horrible Republican president once. Why are we going to stab ourselves and our country in the back by nominating ONE OF THEM again . . .

[Apollo11]

75. I agree with the main thrust of your analysis

Amazingly there are many here on DU who defend Bill's misbehavior as "just sex", and even consider it a compliment to refer to the former President as "Big Dog".

But I don't think it's fair to imply that Hillary is as bad as Bill in this regard.

I think it is OK to ask if Hillary has good political judgement, for example on foreign policy.

But I don't think she is the type to have private parties with interns in the Oval Office.

At least - not those kind of parties ... ;-)

[LittleClarkie]

74. He should talk about polarizing

Hillary's the most polarizing of all.

And does he not see a trend. The last two men who ran for president are disliked and polarizing. Gee, what do they have in common? They both ran for president. What else? The media invented a false personae for each that turned out not to be the case once people got to know them.

They're polarizing as a result of running for president. It did not come from them, it came from the media. And thus, if it is allowed, it will happen to the next nominee.

Not sure how that would work with Hillary, since she's already so damned polarizing.