did Al Gore rise too quickly?

[freepcrusher]

It seems that he was always rising to the next big office: U.S. House at 28, Senate at 36, Veep at 44 and the presidency at 52. 52 is a fairly young age to be done with politics when you consider that Romney is actually a year older than him. Should he have stayed as a U.S. Senator and ran later (04 or 12)?

[RogueBeaver]

No. You rarely if ever get a second shot, as Obama among many others knows very well.

[bballrox4717]

I'm torn as to whether a Gore campaign in 2004 would have been a mistake or an astounding success. With the weak Democratic field and resentment for the way 2000 ended, he would have sailed through the nomination process easily but I'm not sure how a rematch would be seen in modern politics.

If he ran in 2008, he would have taken away Obama's narrative on the Iraq War but probably would've lost to Clinton. He isn't as talented of a politician as Obama.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It seems that he was always rising to the next big office: U.S. House at 28, Senate at 36, Veep at 44 and the presidency at 52. 52 is a fairly young age to be done with politics when you consider that Romney is actually a year older than him. Should he have stayed as a U.S. Senator and ran later (04 or 12)?

To hold on to his Tennessee seat he'd have to remain a Blue Dog type: not promising with presidential run.

[sentinel]

I don't think so. A series of bad calls and bad luck cost him the Presidency, but it wasn't because he rose too quickly.

The 2004 rematch would have been really interesting to see.

[retromike22]

I think it would have been interesting if he ran in 1992.

[dudeabides]

I'm torn as to whether a Gore campaign in 2004 would have been a mistake or an astounding success. With the weak Democratic field and resentment for the way 2000 ended, he would have sailed through the nomination process easily but I'm not sure how a rematch would be seen in modern politics.

If he ran in 2008, he would have taken away Obama's narrative on the Iraq War but probably would've lost to Clinton. He isn't as talented of a politician as Obama.

President Bush would have won re-election unless Wesley Clark was the democratic nominee. He kept our country safe post 9/11, overthrew a brutal dictator, and the economy was strong.

[Paul Kemp]

I'm torn as to whether a Gore campaign in 2004 would have been a mistake or an astounding success. With the weak Democratic field and resentment for the way 2000 ended, he would have sailed through the nomination process easily but I'm not sure how a rematch would be seen in modern politics.

If he ran in 2008, he would have taken away Obama's narrative on the Iraq War but probably would've lost to Clinton. He isn't as talented of a politician as Obama.

President Bush would have won re-election unless Wesley Clark was the democratic nominee. He kept our country safe post 9/11, overthrew a brutal dictator, and the economy was strong.

No, dude. There's no way of saying that a President who barely won re-election against a weak campaign would be re-elected no matter what.

Wesley Clark would've gotten beat in the general as well.

[Mechaman]

It seems that he was always rising to the next big office: U.S. House at 28, Senate at 36, Veep at 44 and the presidency at 52. 52 is a fairly young age to be done with politics when you consider that Romney is actually a year older than him. Should he have stayed as a U.S. Senator and ran later (04 or 12)?

To hold on to his Tennessee seat he'd have to remain a Blue Dog type: not promising with presidential run.

^^^^
This.

When Gore tested the Presidential Primary waters in 1988 he had to run as pretty much a Joe Manchinesque Democrat.  The response to his campaign?  Extremely underwhelming in a race that involved Michael F***ing Dukakis and Jesse Jackson.

Yeah, that bad.

Being nominated Vice President was the best thing that happened to Al Gore, Jr.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It seems that he was always rising to the next big office: U.S. House at 28, Senate at 36, Veep at 44 and the presidency at 52. 52 is a fairly young age to be done with politics when you consider that Romney is actually a year older than him. Should he have stayed as a U.S. Senator and ran later (04 or 12)?

To hold on to his Tennessee seat he'd have to remain a Blue Dog type: not promising with presidential run.

^^^^
This.

When Gore tested the Presidential Primary waters in 1988 he had to run as pretty much a Joe Manchinesque Democrat.  The response to his campaign?  Extremely underwhelming in a race that involved Michael F***ing Dukakis and Jesse Jackson.

Yeah, that bad.

Being nominated Vice President was the best thing that happened to Al Gore, Jr.

Indeed. Gore hoped to sweep the South in 1988 as the only "southern candidate". He didn't count Jesse Jackson and paid for this. Dukakis rose mostly because the oppostion was divided: Gore and white southerners, Jackson and the Blacks, Gephardt and the unions etc.

Gore real shot, had he remained a Senator, was 1992, where his "centrist southern message" was attractive (changing the party in order to finally win). But his son accident and Bush approvals prompted him to abandon these plans. I think he'd be a favorite had he run, but after 1992, he'd be lucky to remain a Senator.

[hcallega]

No, Gore did not rise too quickly. He did everything needed to cement himself as the top Democrat when the time came to run. A sucessful career in the House in the Senate? Check. An "I told-you-so" campaign in 1988? Check. A role on the winning ticket in 1992? Check. A prominent Vice-Presidency which emphasized his moderate bonafides? Check. The execution of the 2000 campaign was all that held Al Gore back from becoming President of the United States.

1992 would have been another great oppurtunity for Gore. The DLC was becoming a major force in the Democratic Party, and Gore's views fit pretty well with the moderate wing of the party. But before we go crowning him, let's look at the negatives. Namely, Gore's no Clinton. He isn't nearly as charismatic as Bill and lacked the eventual President's strongest trait: Clinton could give the same speech to a crowd of white people as he could to black people (otherwise known as genuine empathy). Gore was much more stiff and tailored. He also lacks Clinton's need to be liked/loved. Gore is a much more privatve and family-oriented man, meaning he doesn't accept criticism very well. Bill did, making him an effective negotiator. I doubt a Gore presidency, if he were to win, would be nearly as sucessful as Clinton's was.

[Mr. Morden]

If you reran the 1992 primaries with Gore as a candidate, I think you could make a case for putting him as the favorite.  He'd then go on to be the favorite against Bush in the general election.

In 1992, Clinton benefited enormously from the primary calendar, namely the fact that Super Tuesday was dominated by southern states where he was strongest.  If Gore had run, and had been seen as the alternative electable southern candidate at the time when the Clinton campaign was reeling over the Gennifer Flowers affair, then Gore, rather than Clinton, might have come in second in New Hampshire.  Once Gore firmly establishes his place in the race ahead of Clinton, then with no Clinton comeback story, Clinton could very well be forced out of the race early.  Gore, rather than Clinton, then goes on to win big on Super Tuesday, and ultimately the nomination.

With Bush so unpopular because of the recession, Gore wins the presidency that November, at age 44.