Ezra Klein: How Al Gore Works It

« Who do we talk to about getting Lake Superior back? | Main | The End of The Non-Proliferation Treaty »

October 14, 2007

How Al Gore Works It

I'd link it if I could find it, but the best analysis of why Al Gore hasn't -- and almost certainly won't -- run for president this year came from Ezra a while ago. It goes like this: As long as Gore stays out of the race, all the other Democratic candidates know that his blessing would provide a dramatic boost to their campaigns, while his curse could break them. So they'll make sure to do right by him, proposing ambitious plans to fight global warming. But if he gets into the race, there's no gain for the other candidates in being really progressive on environmental issues, because all the environmentalist support will go to Gore anyway. The strategic calculus then favors finding some way to undercut Gore's favored proposals. In the end, the best way for Gore to shape the race is to stay out of it.

In keeping with some of the things that Matt says, I don't think it's especially likely that Gore will endorse before the first primary. But if we get a post-Iowa situation where the field has been narrowed down to either Obama or Edwards against Hillary Clinton, a Gore endorsement two or three days before a major primary could decide the race. (The recent Friends of the Earth endorsement for Edwards makes me optimistic that he might be the one to receive Gore's blessing.)

October 14, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

Boy, this attributes a LOT of influence to Gore. I realize he's on a roll and everything, but it might be a bit much to suppose that he has it within his power to determine who wins the nomination.

Posted by: Jason C. | Oct 14, 2007 4:18:32 PM

Well, it depends on where the race is. Certainly if Hillary's running away with it, his endorsement won't turn that around. But if some contender has pulled close to even with her after a bunch of primary victories, I could easily see the Gore endorsement making the difference.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 14, 2007 4:43:20 PM

Gore will not be able to influence American policy on global warming unless he is president.

If Hillary gets elected, she'll freeze Gore out. He's too dangerous as a rival in 2012. She cannot afford to look like she's following Gore on climate change. His advice will not be heeded.

She'll coopt the issue by putting forward her own set of convoluted half-measures that enrich corporations but accomplish very little. And that will be that.

Edwards and Obama aren't even close to Hillary in the polls. Endorsement or no endorsement, they're not getting the nomination this time. The only person who has a shot at beating Hillary is Gore himself. Whether he will choose to enter the race or not is yet to be decided.

Posted by: Steve K | Oct 14, 2007 5:03:25 PM

Edwards and Obama aren't even close to Hillary in the polls. Endorsement or no endorsement, they're not getting the nomination this time.

Gore's endorsement, if it comes, is unlikely to have much effect, even with his string of recent triumphs. The only endorsement that would really shake things up would be Bill Clinton endorsing someone other than his wife. This too is unlikely. However, to blithely assume that, because Edwards and Obama aren't close to HRC in the national polls at the moment, neither of them can possibly win the nomination is very foolish. Just ask President Dean. I know that situation was very, very different, but still. National polls tend to be lagging indicators in primary races. HRC currently has a narrow lead in Iowa, but Edwards has yet to spend any money on TV ads there. An Edwards win in the Iowa caucuses, which I think is actually very likely, will make Hillary look a whole lot less inevitable. Then maybe we can have a good president, which is the important thing. I cannot even begin to imagine Hillary Clinton being a good president.

Posted by: Herschel | Oct 14, 2007 5:32:40 PM

People always compare Mrs. Clinton to Dean at a comparable time in the election cycle. But Dean had not built the huge machine the Clintons have -- a large disparate group of people bound to the Clintons by patronage, money, flattery and threats. The proof of the power of this machine will come when Gore either endorses her, despite the chronicled mistreatment of him by both Clintons, or at least fails to endorse another candidate.

Posted by: klein's normal nut | Oct 14, 2007 6:07:10 PM

"People always compare Mrs. Clinton to Dean at a comparable time in the election cycle. But Dean had not built the huge machine the Clintons have -- a large disparate group of people bound to the Clintons by patronage, money, flattery and threats."

Indeed. The better comparison to Clinton is Walter Mondale in 1984.

Although Mondale ended up winning the nomination, he was far more vulnerable than folks were assuming in the months prior to Iowa and New Hampshire.

In fact, the only thing that saved Mondale was the way the spread out calendar allowed his machine to re-mobilize after his initial defeats. If the 1984 election had played out with the 2008 primary calendar, Mondale would have lost the nomination to Hart.

Unlike Dean, but like Mondale, Clinton is running with no rationale other than inevitability. When the inevitability rationale collapses, a campaign supported by it can collapse very rapidly, for reasons that should be apparent.

-----

"But if some contender has pulled close to even with her after a bunch of primary victories, I could easily see the Gore endorsement making the difference."

Yup.

I still think a pre-Iowa endorsement is possible, both for Edwards and for Obama.

But Gore's best shot at influence would be to endorse in the period between Iowa and 2/5, assuming Hillary shows vulnerability.

Assuming Edwards has success in the early states, the focus will turn to a contemplating Edwards as President. The Clinton campaign will attempt to tear Edwards down, and a Gore endorsement at that point could provide incredible benefits in validating Edwards to the primary audience as a potential President.

Posted by: Petey | Oct 14, 2007 6:37:36 PM

But isn't the point here that what the race lacks is a Dean, or a Dean-like object? A Gore endorsement of Edwards or Obama (if it's coming, which I think is itself a bit debatable) won't carry the element of surprise and daring that made the Dean endorsement so momentous; indeed, Washington insider reporters are bound to likely cast it as another "Gores vs. Clintons" moment played mainly as soap opera. But, too, this also speaks volumes to what's not exactly happening in our primary cycle: what Clinton needs most as a challenger, I think, is a Dean - someone who really comes from outside the Washington structures, really taps into the energy of the Netroots and others, and challenges the Party (and its insider leaders) to be more responsive and immediate - and we don't really have that in Edwards or Obama. I don't want Clinton, but I don't think Obama or Edwards quite fill that role. I don't think she could beat a Dean, or a Dean-like object. I do think she can beat Edwards and Obama. The idea that Gore, or a Gore endorsement, alone can do the trick to change that is as wishful as a lot of scenarios right now that sort of envision some anti-Clinton Deus ex Machina to stop her. We need more than that - and more than Gore - to stop her.

Posted by: weboy | Oct 14, 2007 7:17:29 PM

"The idea that Gore, or a Gore endorsement, alone can do the trick to change that is as wishful as a lot of scenarios right now that sort of envision some anti-Clinton Deus ex Machina to stop her."

The deus ex machina is not Gore. The deus ex machina is defeating Clinton in early state contests.

Since the prime rationale of the Clinton campaign for voters is her inevitability, Clinton electoral defeats would recast the race dramatically.

The most effective role Gore could play would come at that point. With inevitability gone, Team Clinton will fall back onto its massive accumulation of Party insiders to try to cast doubts on her challenger and convince voters that she is still the consensus choice of the Party. A Gore endorsement at that point would be a dagger in the heart of the Clinton fall back strategy of Party consensus.

Posted by: Petey | Oct 14, 2007 8:04:48 PM

All of this horse-race discussion is so depressing. Hillary Clinton would be a dreadful president. John Edwards would probably be a good president. At least he seems to believe in some things that I believe in. Does Al Gore really have any role to play in this, unless he decides to run himself? I don't think so. So wouldn't those of us who care a little bit about the future of our country better spend our psychic energy trying to make John Edwards president than trying to get Al Gore to endorse somebody, or trying to figure out the impact of a Gore endorsement? What is the bloody point?

Posted by: Herschel | Oct 14, 2007 8:45:48 PM

"All of this horse-race discussion is so depressing ... So wouldn't those of us who care a little bit about the future of our country better spend our psychic energy trying to make John Edwards president than trying to get Al Gore to endorse somebody, or trying to figure out the impact of a Gore endorsement? What is the bloody point?"

Sure. Send $25 to John Edwards via Neil's donation page to help the campaign buy more TV time to reach voters in IA, NH, NV, and SC, if you want to do something productive.

But beyond that, the bloody point of talking strategy is the assumption that a progressive community that better understands the playing field is a more effective progressive community.

Ignorance is the Clinton campaign's best friend. Enlightenment is its worst enemy.

Posted by: Petey | Oct 14, 2007 8:54:05 PM

But noone is running negative ads yet. Where can i send my 25$ to make sure it gets into an anti-clinton 527 ad?

Posted by: yoyo | Oct 14, 2007 10:14:10 PM

the bloody point of talking strategy is the assumption that a progressive community that better understands the playing field is a more effective progressive community.

Talking strategy? Is that what anyone was doing? I hadn't noticed. I noticed people speculating about the possible effects of a hypothetical endorsement by Al Gore. That's talking strategy? That's playing Chris Matthews. "Hardball" does so much for the progressive community.

Posted by: Herschel | Oct 14, 2007 10:30:32 PM

Oh, and how can we make sure that Ezra gets an important job in the next adminstration so he stops going on "Hardball"?

Posted by: Herschel | Oct 14, 2007 10:32:01 PM

"But noone is running negative ads yet. Where can i send my 25$ to make sure it gets into an anti-clinton 527 ad?"

Heh. That would be fun, wouldn't it?

But given the lack of a donation destination like that, giving directly to the non-Clinton candidate of your choice seems like the best bet.

Posted by: Petey | Oct 14, 2007 10:41:19 PM

I'd like to see the anti-Hillary 527 myself, but I'm guessing that we'll have to wait until the end of the primaries to pour money into a 527 on Edwards' behalf.

I'm hoping that in the next couple months, we see much more of our people attacking Hillary from the left. Not just because it's how you stop her from winning the primaries, but because the mainstreaming of the idea that Hillary isn't so liberal would be useful if she wins the general.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 15, 2007 12:44:14 AM

Urp. That should be -- if she gets to the general.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 15, 2007 12:44:35 AM

Yes, but if primary voters reject Hillary as insufficiently liberal on account of your attacks, and one of her more liberal opponents gets to the general instead, that just harms your chances of winning the general. This is the basic problem for both parties. You have to make your candidate seem like one thing to your primary voters and another to general election voters.

Posted by: JasonR | Oct 15, 2007 1:13:07 AM

Fair enough, Jason, but since I see Clinton having the greatest electability problems, I'm more concerned with getting her in good shape than the other two.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 15, 2007 1:18:33 AM

I like Al Gore. A lot!

That said, his endorsement ain't worth nothing!

In addition to having endorsed Iowa-losing Dean in 2004, a poll taken after his Nobel win shows little support for a Gore candidacy.

The InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll, which was conducted nationwide Friday evening after Gore was named a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, shows Gore taking heavily from undecided voters and the other candidates – not Clinton.

Clinton registers 43 percent in the Gore-inclusive poll, which is a similar number to her take in polls without Gore. And her 20-30 point lead holds steady, as Gore takes second place with 15 percent, while Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) take 13 percent and 10 percent, respectively.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/poll-shows-gore-entry-might-help-clinton-2007-10-13.html

Posted by: JoeCHI | Oct 15, 2007 8:20:03 AM

Don't worry about Ezra getting a job in the next admin. He's betting on Mrs. Clinton and furiously peddling her healthcare "plan." For the candidate bold enough to really launch an attack on her, there is much evidence of corruption lying around, right in the public domain, from her first lady days. From the selling of pardons, the bribe from Tysons food disguised as a commodities trade, etc. No one, so far, dares confront her on who she is personally, as opposed to merely arguing her plans and positions. To the person bold enough to cut through the cries of protest of her worshipers (old news!old news!) might go victory.

Posted by: klein's normal nut | Oct 15, 2007 9:15:04 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘