So based on the polling data you come to the conclusion that the people who donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Clinton/Obama would just shrug and go "O boy, Gore is now the candidate"? That there wouldn't be any identity politics groups in the democratic party who might ask "Why is there a white male as the candidate"? No by golly, you have an honest to goodness poll showing Gore is popular so if he suddenly became the candidate the democrats would sweep to victory.

Like I said Tlaloc, I hope the democratic strategists are people just like you. Why consider issues that are not in the poll when you have a poll.

Because he isn’t running. Fred Thompson had this whole election in the bag until he actually kicked off his campaign.

I don't agree. While I wouldn't compare his favorables to Obama's or Hillary's directly (because they are running and he isn't) it seems perfectly fare to gauge the public's regard for Gore by looking at how his favorables changed over time (comparing him to himself, as it were). By that measure they regard him better now than ever in the past, including when he garnered 266 EVs and 48.4% of the popular vote (the plurality)in 2000.

More and more scientists are seeing how politics has played into the global warming hype and more scientists are debunking the poor science used to support the theories.

In order to say that we are not responsible for some portion of Global Warming, you must either prove that we are not dumping extra CO2 into the atmosphere, or prove that CO2 is not a heat-trapping gas, or show some mechanism where by increasing the amount of a heat-trapping gas doesn't cause an increase in the amount of heat trapped.

Presumable you're sane enough not to try for the first 2 options, so you must think there is some reason why all that extra CO2 isn't trapping extra heat, and the scientific community would love to hear it.

Really? Then why are his polling numbers better than ever?

Because he isn't running. Fred Thompson had this whole election in the bag until he actually kicked off his campaign.

I’m proposing Gore for the Green ticket. But I have to admit, it wouldn’t be bad for him to be on the Dem ticket. He lost in 2000. He’s been like Carter and getting nuttier as he is out of office.

Really? Then why are his polling numbers better than ever?

Look here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/G.htm#Favorability

Plus at this stage, he would turn off so many Clinton/Obama supporters that November would be a walk.

And your support for that statement is...?

Seems like your views are based on wishful thinking on your part, while mine are based on the available evidence... which goes a long ways towards explaining our political alignments in the first place, actually.

While Al Gore does possess a couple of undeserved awards the foundation for those awards is crumbling daily. More and more scientists are seeing how politics has played into the global warming hype and more scientists are debunking the poor science used to support the theories. There is much work to be done but Al Gore would have none of it since “the science is settled”. Science is never settled, ask a scientist.

Steve, I am a scientist. Some sciene is for all intents and purposes settled.

Notice how science is not still debating the shape of the earth. Nor that the earth moves round the sun. Nor that diseases are caused by bacteria or virii in the body.

There *are* kooks who dispute all those things, but they are, well, kooks. Similarly there are kooks who argue global warming isn't happeneing or that humans have nothing to do with it if it is, they too are kooks. The science is in fact settled as far as the question of if it happens and if we play a role.

Now "how large a role precisely" is still an open question, as is "what can we do about it."

I'm proposing Gore for the Green ticket. But I have to admit, it wouldn't be bad for him to be on the Dem ticket. He lost in 2000. He's been like Carter and getting nuttier as he is out of office. If Ohio is worried about NAFTA, wait until someone explains what the Kyoto treaty would do. Plus at this stage, he would turn off so many Clinton/Obama supporters that November would be a walk.

Having him on the Green ticket would be the only way to more completely split the democratic party. They could carry DC and that would be it.

I think McCain summed it up best. "If Gore is the answer, you are asking the wrong question."

Let's not forget he is a wooden speaker and his charisma puts many to sleep. I expect his name was floated merely from a general dissatisfaction with the remaining two candidates and the skeletons in their closets.

Tlaloc,
People on the left with your political astuteness are the reason I want Gore to head the Green ticket.

YAJ,
So you agree that Gore as the dem candidate would wipe the floor with the GOP, and hence you want him as third party? Good to know.

McCain will then prove to have an enormously effective campaign until there's some horrible accident involving a policy he had a direct influence on, whereupon his poll numbers will drop like a rock. Then Joe Biden will die of a heart attack, increasing Obama's sympathy vote. The whole election will come down to Nevada, where Obama will narrowly win while McCain decides not to contest. Obama will then pick McCain as his Secretary of State.

Gore as kingmaker -- endorsing and campaigning for either Obama or Hillary -- might well be decisive.

People on the left with your political astuteness are the reason I want Gore to head the Green ticket.