By now we have heard that former vice-president, failed presidential candidate, and famed eco-warrior Al Gore has agreed to act as a campaign surrogate for Hillary Clinton in an attempt to appeal to millennial voters who are worried about climate change.
Polling shows that third-party candidates like Jill Stein and Gary Johnson could potentially have a disastrous impact on the final results, just as Ralph Nader did in 2000 when Florida was awarded to George W. One poll found that 44 percent of voters 18-34 said that they would vote for one of the two third-party challengers.
I fully understand that Hillary Clinton is no one’s idea of exciting, especially when compared to President Obama. Although, as I think about that, she might be considered off-the-map thrilling when compared to Mr. Gore.
It’s a little bit like your grandparent’s dropping a band name from thirty years ago that no one remembers just to show how “with it” they are when conversing with the grandkids. Yes, I hear that Al Gore is really popular with the young’uns today.
Somewhat less cheekily, as Jeff Stein at Vox writes:
… the millennials most likely to have any personal connection to Gore as a public figure are the young voters already likely to vote for Clinton. Clinton is performing relatively well among “older millennials” — or those roughly ages 26 to 35. It’s the “young millennials,” those ages 18 to 25, who are turning away from the Democratic Party’s nominee.
This second group likely doesn’t have much of a grasp of Gore’s story — after all, most of them were toddlers when the Bill Clinton–Al Gore ticket first ran, in elementary school during the 2000 recount, and in middle school for the 2006 release of An Inconvenient Truth.
Not a bad call to talk up climate change, just maybe not the best messenger.