Al Gore and wife Tipper the day that his Nobel Peace Prize was announced. Photo by Dai Sugano/San Jose Mercury News/MCT
by Mark Silva
Al Gore's Nobel Prize has somewhat boosted the American public's perception of him -- with the public holding a more favorable view of Gore than at any time since the fall of 2000 -- a new Gallup Poll shows.
Yet the survey reveals only limited support for any White House bid by Gore -- just 41 percent of Americans surveyed say they'd like to see him run for president again, .
A USA Today/Gallup survey run over the weekend, following the announcement that Gore will share the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, found only "a slight bump'' in Gore's favorable rating, Gallup's Jeffrey Jones reports. It's a considerable bump nonetheless.
Yet "there had not been a large groundswell of support for him to run for president prior to last week, and that remains the case,'' Jones writes. "Gore's standing in Gallup's Democratic nomination trial heats is little improved following last week's Nobel Prize announcement -- he remains in third place and his support is no better know than it has been throughout much of this year.
However, Gallup notes: "Americans are more inclined to say Gore deserved to win the Nobel Peace Prize than to say he did not deserve to win it.''
Gore's spokesmen and women, of course, continue to say that the former vice president and Democratic nominee for president in 2000 has no interest in waging a 2008 campaign.
Gallup reports:
"The most visible effect of Gore's win is in the public's overall opinions of him. The Oct. 12-14 poll finds 58 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable view of Gore, up from 50 percent in the prior reading taken in August. That is Gore's high favorable rating for the year, and his best in any Gallup Poll since September 2000. Gore's favorable rating had been around 50 percent most of the year, aside from a brief period in the mid-50 percent range following his Academy Award victory.
"Gallup has tracked opinions of Gore since 1992, and his favorable rating peaked at 64 percent on two occasions -- immediately following the Democratic National Conventions in 2000 (at which he was nominated for president) and 1992 (at which he was nominated for vice president). Gore's highest unfavorable rating was 52 percent in December 2000, when he was challenging the Florida presidential election results in the courts.
"Democrats have very positive views of Gore, and these views are improved following his Nobel Peace Prize award. Seventy-nine percent of Democrats now have a positive opinion of Gore, compared with 73 percent in the August survey.
"Even with the improvement, Gore's favorable rating among Democrats is no better than that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, for whom 84 percent of Democrats have a favorable opinion. But Gore now has a better favorable rating than Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, who were viewed similarly to Gore by Democrats prior to last week.
"Americans' opinions about Gore as a presidential candidate were changed little by his recent victory, both in terms of the desire to see him enter the race and in Democrats' support for him for the party's 2008 presidential nomination.
"Just 41 percent of Americans say they would like to see Gore run for president, with the majority, 54 percent, opposed to a Gore candidacy. That is essentially the same result that Gallup found in March, when 38 percent expressed a desire for a Gore presidential bid. Even Democrats seem tepid to the idea of Gore running for president -- just 48 percntfavor such a move while 43 percent are opposed. As one would expect, Republicans (24 percent in favor) and independents (43 percent are mostly opposed to Gore running for president.
Preference for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination, With Al Gore Included in the Race
Among National Democrats and Democratic-Leaning Independents:
Pre-prize: Oct 4-7:
Hillary Clinton: 43 percent
Barack Obama: 24 percent
Al Gore: 10 percent
John Edwards: 10 percent
Post-prize: Oct 12-14:
Clinton 44 percent
Obama: 19 percent
Gore: 14 percent
Edwards: 10 percent
"Some critics have questioned the Nobel Committee's selection of Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize,'' Gallup notes, with people "unclear how his campaign to raise awareness of climate change is deserving of a prize usually given in recognition of humanitarian or diplomatic work. Most Americans do not share that skepticism -- 43 percent say Gore deserved the award, while 26 percent say he did not and 31 percent did not have an opinion either way.
The survey is based on telephone interviews with a randomly selected national sample of 1,009 adults conducted Oct. 12-14. The possible margin of error is plus or minus three points.
For more, see the Gallup Poll report.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"Most Americans do not share that skepticism -- 43 percent say Gore deserved the award, while 26 percent say he did not and 31 percent did not have an opinion either way."
26 percent?? Sounds like about the same number that approve of Bush's job performance.
Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by: BobinATL | October 16, 2007 10:27 AM
Sure, he only had a slight bump by winning the Nobel Peace Prize, but what kind of a bump will he get when he announces his candidacy? A pretty big one I would guess.
Gore/Obama 08. I defy anyone to name a combination of any two other candidates (on either side) that can touch it?
Look how the right is reacting to Al Gore lately - he terrifies them. Why? Because they know that if he enters the 08 race, he wins.
Go here:
http://current.com/people/algore
Watch the videos. Register. Comment.
Posted by: Dpmn | October 16, 2007 10:32 AM
Yes, Bobin, Gore did not deserve the Nobel Peace prize. What exactly has he done to deserve it? His movie is largely lies and distortions and he doesn't practice what he preaches. Makes him a good, liberal Democrat, just not someone deserving of any award.
Again, this planet has been warming since the last ice age. Mars also is warming, according to NASA. Increased sunspot activity is said to be the cause. If so, there isn't a darn thing we can do about it. Just as if this planet was heading toward another ice age (pssst, that was the "science" in the 1970s), there wouldn't be anything we could do.
And, oh, I thought this year was to be another Hurricane Blockbuster year??? 2007 hurricane season was another dud just like 2005. It got so bad that they began naming subtropical storms (meaning storm systems with a cold top and not formed in the tropics as opposed to a warm-topped storm formed in the tropics, which hurricanes, typhoons, etc. are) in an effort to meet the hurricane prediction this year.
Anyway, how about if we all just agree that the U.S., mankind and this planet would be better off if we moved away from most fossil fuels (oil in particular), work towards a cleaner environment and away from foreign dependence on foreign oil. I am all for that, without adding the hysteria of "man-made" global warming.
Posted by: John D | October 16, 2007 10:39 AM
I agree with you John - we do need to move away from our dependence on oil.
The problem is that we have wasted the past 6 years on inaction. Unfortunately, we have a Congress (on both sides) that have fed from the well of money that the oil companies throw at them that nothing gets done, and the money that the car companies and the unions throw at them to stop from raising CAFE standards.
Nice to see that we can agree on somethings without the usual name calling.
Posted by: BobinATL | October 16, 2007 11:02 AM
Dear media, Gore is not going to run, Gore is not going to run, Gore is not going to run, Gore is not going to run.....
Repeat that 1,000 times and you may get the message so you can stop beating a dead horse.
Posted by: GW | October 16, 2007 11:46 AM
Gore/Obama 08. I defy anyone to name a combination of any two other candidates (on either side) that can touch it?
Beavis/Butthead, Cartman/Kenny, oh so many to choose from. The Obama part is not all bad, but Gore?! HE is as close as it comes to making it difficult to say hillary is the worst.
Posted by: Rob S | October 16, 2007 12:24 PM
I think getting the Nobel makes it less likely Gore will run. He's found a way to do some good w/o having to put himself through the campaign grinder.
Posted by: Cheryl | October 16, 2007 12:47 PM
Posted by: John D | October 16, 2007 10:39 AM
Yes, Gore MUST be demonized for his views. No, that isn't severe enough! He should be imprisoned.
See the last time when conservatives hated the Nobel Prize.
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/conservatives_and_al_gores_nobel
Posted by: chimpymcflightsuit'snavigator | October 16, 2007 12:54 PM
Or how the polls based on a "randowm sampling" manufacture consensus. How does this square with polls broadcasted from the rooftops?:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jsfQQ10jYLzMDHCfThqcC50k_AOw
Posted by: RdV | October 16, 2007 1:48 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/opinion/15krugman.html
Posted by: crafty bernardo | October 16, 2007 2:27 PM
As a Canadian living in Thailand for the past 5 years I been travelling around the world and Gore is loved by alot around the WORLD compare that to BUSH...(Big No NO)I am glad to say i am not american.I am ask every where if i am American i get a smile when i say i am not ... Make them smile again for your sake.Simply because of this fight against Global Warming he does deserve to share The Nobel prize. And open up your eyes America and smell the polution around you.Over here the comon car is a 3 Cylinders Engine still nice and SMART...
Posted by: Kevin | October 16, 2007 3:23 PM
While everyone can have an opinion regarding Gore "deserving" the Nobel, the only opinion that really counts, is the group that awarded it. They are the only people who decide based on their criteria. That makes him deserving.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | October 16, 2007 4:21 PM
Wait a second ... "JUST 41 percent" would like to see him run. Assuming theres "approximately" a 50/50 democrat/republican split, isnt 41 percent of americans a prtty big number.
Posted by: Karim | October 16, 2007 4:25 PM
Kevin, your anti-American rhetoric is funny. It would not be funny if you were not Canadian. But since most American's simply view Canada as the 51st state...it is funny. You are an American. A resident of that 51st state. Canada's livelihood is based wholesale on the U.S. Don't forget that...
Posted by: American! | October 16, 2007 4:45 PM
Gore is at 14 percent when he is not running and he has no chance? Baloney! He's ahead of Edwards who has been running for months and spending big bucks. He would win and it would drive the right wing loonies crazy.
According to the Nobel committee the war is Darfur is the first of the climate wars, hence his selection.
John D tells us that the earth has been warming since the ice age. Then he complains that there were not enough killer hurricanes THIS year? What an amazing scientific analysis. Maybe he owns stock in oil companies. Using less oil would actually punish those who attacked us on 9/11. Take away their funding, clean the air... What's the downside to using oil more efficiently and replacing it with clean sustainable alternatives?
Posted by: johnrf | October 16, 2007 4:56 PM
Kevin, your anti-American rhetoric is funny. It would not be funny if you were not Canadian. But since most American's simply view Canada as the 51st state...it is funny. You are an American. A resident of that 51st state. Canada's livelihood is based wholesale on the U.S. Don't forget that...
No wonder people hate us Americans. American!, can you now explain why the Canadian dollar is now worth an American dollar? Perhaps its because our fine neighbors to the north aren't spending every penny they have on an illegal war and an addiction to foreign oil.
They DO have national health care, something the Republicrites in DC are talking about now...
“Republicans are working on a plan that will provide access to all Americans to high quality health insurance, make sure that we increase the quality of insurance that we have in American, and we want to foster a sprit of innovation,” said Boehner on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is a plan we’ll see over the next coming months where we put the patients in charge of their health care.”
Guess the Canucks are ahead of us in that department too!
Kevin, I'd like to apologize to you on behalf of all Americans on behalf of Amerikan!'s rude, injuducious, crude comments. Please don't assume we are all Neanderthals.
Posted by: snitramc | October 16, 2007 5:15 PM
American!
The fact that your entire comment screams ignorant, arrogant American makes my point for me.
Posted by: Susie | October 16, 2007 5:28 PM
Al Gore Pl run for 08. Hillary is Bushlite and a hypocrite. You are the only candidate with integrity, ability, knowledge and wisdom to run for 08. The world needs a US president who can be trusted and has the maturity to mend fences in these tumultous times. Pl announce your candidacy ASAP. The country is worn out after 2 terms of Bush.
Posted by: John Hess | October 16, 2007 7:30 PM
John D.
The argument that sun-spots are to blame for global warming is a popular theory spread by global warming skeptics and deserves a response.
The climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and research scientists actually already incorporate the variable role of the sunspots in impacting global warming however they may have actually overstating their impact. Recent research suggests that the impact is smaller than previously assumed, so the models may actually be conservative in their predictions.
A paper last year in Nature concluded that sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present.
This may explain why the number of sunspots have been fairly constant the past 20 years, but the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase.
Regardless there is considerable certainty that human-produced greenhouse gases are causing climate change.
Trevor Stewart
Posted by: Trevor Stewart | October 17, 2007 1:03 AM
Forget what the politicians and businessmen say, they have their own vested interests.
Listen to the scientists who collect and analyze data: they say global warming is real, its man made, like nothing in the past, and we need to act.
Posted by: Jo Miller | October 17, 2007 4:39 AM
Hilary Clinton at 84% - is that real???
We are in big trouble.
Run Al Run! Sign the petition:
www.draftgore.com
Posted by: Deb Scisco | October 17, 2007 9:55 AM