So did Kerry run a good campaign (liberal recrimination time)?

But Karl Rove ran a more emotionally engaging one, to his respective base.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html?th

One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires.

Oh well, maybe next time. (Yeah, right.)

That said, in the last few weeks, I came to think that Kerry's selection of Edwards was a huge, huge blunder. Edwards brought almost nothing to the table except for skin-deep likeability, but he has almost zero political experience and his experience as a trial lawyer almost certainly didn't prepare him well to become President should John Kerry have won the election and died within a month of taking office. Frankly, Edwards is not at all entwined in Washington and that almost certainly would be detrimental in his performance as President. I think this aspect is a subconscious one for many people, but more importantly, reflects poor judgement on Kerry's behalf--his selection of VP is also someone whom he thinks could lead the country.

Turning the Boston DNC into a War Hero Fiesta is going to go down as an enormous blunder unless Kerry wins. This country has been trying to forget about Vietnam for 35 years, and trying to convince citizens that Kerry was a legitimate contender through this avenue (instead of whatever he's done for the past 30 years) never seemed like a good idea.

I wonder if Dean would have picked up a larger youth vote. I doubt it.

It would have been hard to run on the economy more; economic news has been very mixed and selling it as a disaster of any kind never got enough traction in the middle.

And let's remember some other fine candidates, too, and not do them an injustice in saying that they couldn't appeal to the heart of America: Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Gary Hart, Walter Mondale. I remember these guys. There's no reason why any of them shouldn't have been elected president.

And while I agree with Colin's assessment, filtering freedom through a partisan lens is likely as fruitless and a nonstarter.

(previous not-so-paranoid-now ranting)

Not if you adjust it for increased population.

i doubt most of them actually got as far as the New Testament - why bother when they could just wait for the Mel Gibson flick. they love a good corpse.

That chart is much more telling than simply saying turnout was one of the largest ever. Turnout numbers need context, so if anyone has a better depiction of turnout then please link it.

- Is it possible for a northern Democrat to win Southern states?
- Why is Barack Obama only the third African-American EVER elected to the Senate? (Also, does he have two-foot long blades hidden in his forearms that he can extend and use to eviscerate fellow senators?)
- What's the long-term economic damage involved in letting Alaska drill itself silly?

Have you personally grilled the candidates on their positions or so,ething? Most of us don't have that luxury! THEY FAILED. They failed to inform, to be clever, to keep candidates honest. They even failed to have a sense of their own ethics or professionalism when the Swift Boat stuff came up, to name the most egregious example. They talked about "WMDs" as if there were no difference in threat level (and hence appropriate response) between chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. They treated official sources as if they needed no confirmation. They ratfucked us all out of an honest man running our country and didn't even realize it! (They have a teensy-weensy get-out in that they're shackled to the same weird system of campaigning that the candidates are, and so must devote most of their time and energy simply making people aware of the name of the challenger, what he looks like, etc. and so, like the challenger, have very little time (relative to most other democracies) in poring over the details of the candidates' agendas and policies and track records. The candidate appears from nowhere, in a vacuum, and has to do this coast-to-coast blitz saying HAAAAYOOOOOOOOO THIS IS ME rather than people ALREADY KNOWING who he is, so that he can get to work letting people digest his policies and arguments. In the UK for example, the Tories haven't been in power for years but everyone knows who their leader is, and a lot of people even know who would be in charge of health, the economy etc, if they were to win the next election. The issues are always already being debated. Which frees up the campaigns to actually sharpen the debate when the elections roll around.. elections as a natural continuation of politics, rather than an eruption of spin out of the blue every four years.)

Otherwise why would people agree w/Democrats on the issues but vote for a Repub president?

That's one problem. And the second is that they allow themselves to get sidelined by emotional issues that only affect a small percentage of the population. Cases in point: abortion and gay-marriage. Not that their platform should be "we're against it" - but it should be absent from the platform.. The platform should be, "We refuse to be sidelined by those issues when there are many other priorities to focus on that would better serve the country."

Bush won on tax cutting, fear of terror and resolute obfuscation of the truth.

Yes.

Why is Barack Obama only the third African-American EVER elected to the Senate? (Also, does he have two-foot long blades hidden in his forearms that he can extend and use to eviscerate fellow senators?)

How many have run? (and to the second part, I just want him to use the blades to defend himself. Because if he has the audacity I hope he has, he's going to have to watch his back.)

- What's the long-term economic damage involved in letting Alaska drill itself silly?

None.

I don't know how many African-Americans have run for the Senate; I have not been using my Google powers today. It just seems shocking to me that so few would haave been elected in these allegedly enlightened times.

Most of the political analysts I saw last night said the drilling thing was the primary reason why Alaska is a Republican state. How true is that?

Totally false. I'm pretty most of Alaska has a fairly conservationist bent.

http://www.alaskachamber.com/artman/publish/tourism.html

haha in 1979 Alaskans burned Carter in effigy; now he's a state hero due to the windfall in tourism.

"The growth of what is excellent is slow"

Not sure what it has to do with this thread specifically, but it might be something to think about as the Democrats regroup. Also, I do think the idea of a Christian Left movement in the US is a great idea, if it could be done: Britain's Labour Party, trade unionism, and the spirit of our left altogether was fashioned by men and women who believed the values of equality, justice, compassion etc. were the qualities of Jesus.

re: Christian Left, this is the SOCIAL GOSPEL everyone! Building The Kingdom Of God On Earth. See Canada's CCF, esp. J.S. Woodsworth(Methodist minister) and Tommy Douglas(Baptist preacher) for its best expression.

Here's something that Paul Wells, Canada's best political journalist, had to say:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The majestic Howard Dean coalition — youth, new voters, the "wired," the "disenfranchised" — remains the France of electoral coalition-building: genuinely useful, if only it would freaking show up for the freaking fight. Sorry, but I'm a bit bitter about this. Participation soared across every demographic, including the underestimated People Michael Moore Likes to Make Fun Of. But the young-new-"disenfranchised" set sat around and played Halo 2 on the X-box instead of, you know, freaking voting. These are the same people who couldn't be arsed to pick up the phones at Dean headquarters in South Carolina when I was there in January. (Fun Canadian fact: the Canadian leader who has put all of his hopes — and I mean all his hopes — on the Howard Dean coalition of non-voting non-voters is Jack Layton. Explains a lot, really.)

• So the next time some candidate enjoys a surge of popularity among Hitherto Disenfranchised Urban Youth — especially if he claims an advantage among cell-phone users and bloggers — bet heavy against him. He's dooooooooooomed.
~~~~~~~~
He's a bit kneejerk, but I do think he's correct. It's James Carville's line, I think: Q. What do you call a candidate who counts on 'new voters' to win? A. a loser!

I really hope the parallels to 1972 hold true, and ALL the shit hits the fan, forcing first Cheney out and then Bush to quit before he's impeached, sticking, I don't know, Frist or Romney or some other dullard into the 2008 election to get creamed a la Gerald Ford. It'd be sweet revenge: they win big, only to see it all unravel before their crooked little eyes. So, what's Bush's Watergate going to be?

that said, maybe colin is right -- w/ such a large, intractable anti-Democratic-anyone, maybe the NEXT candidate should just be hellbent for leather take-no-prisoners. but i may come to regret saying that.

um, they kinda DO have some policies that stand in stark contrast to bushco. if i were whoever the senate majority leader is, though, i'd take a lesson from LBJ's bio and start learning every arcane senate procedure there is to snag as much bushshit as possible.

dave225, yesterday I would have thought that was way too cynical; today unfortunately I can't help but agree. Dems run on issues, reasoning that, deep down inside, the decency of the American public will manifest on election day. Maybe that decency just isn't there to begin with. Faulty education or theoneocon mindwarping or cultural rot caused by flight to the coast or whatever, whatever it is, it's working, and the Democrats need to figure out a discourse to compete in Flyoverland.

we could also admit to mexico that, um, hey, they were right we were a bunch of imperialist assholes back in the 1840s you want texas, oklahoma, arizona, and colorado back? for FREE?!?

seriously ever politician should take lessons from LBJ, the good and the bad. he had the career or careers.

i should've said "senate MINORITY leader." and let's hope that it's a junkyard dog like Durbin and not another Daschle (i.e., Reid).

Democratic Values
How to start winning the red states.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2004, at 1:15 PM PT

John Edwards

John Edwards
Hey, Democrats!

One silver lining in last night's debacle is that for another 24 hours or so, you might be open to rethinking what your party stands for. So, while I have your attention, here's an idea.

Go back to being the party of responsibility.

I'm not talking about scolding people. I'm talking about rewarding them. Be the party that rewards ordinary people who do what they're supposed to do—and protects them from those who don't.

If you think this kind of moral talk is anathema, you're the sort of person Karl Rove wants to be running the Democratic Party. Get out, or get a new attitude. Nearly 60 million people came out to vote for George W. Bush yesterday because they think that he represents their values and that you don't. Prove them wrong and you'll be the majority party again.

How? Start by changing the way you talk about pocketbook issues. Remember Bill Clinton's commitment to help people who "work hard and play by the rules"? Your positions on taxes and labor would be assets instead of liabilities if you explained them in moral terms. The minimum wage rewards work. Repealing the estate tax helps rich people get richer without risk or effort. Lax corporate oversight allows big businesses to evade taxes, deceive small investors, and raid pension funds.

Yes, Republicans will accuse you of waging a class war. I can see you cringing already. Get off your knees and fight. It is a war, but it isn't a class war. It's a culture war, and if you talk about it that way, you'll win it.

Some of you are dismayed by the emergence of a huge voting bloc of churchgoers. Stop viewing this as a threat, and start viewing it as an opportunity. Socially conservative blue-collar workers don't believe in the free market. They believe in the work ethic. Bush wins their votes by equating the free market with the work ethic. Show them where the free market betrays the work ethic, and they'll vote for the party of the work ethic—you—against the party of the free market.

What's your strongest issue among these voters? Outsourcing. Why? Because it's the issue on which you talk most naturally about right and wrong. It's also the issue on which you're most comfortable appealing to nationalism. That's another lesson you need to learn. People are voting Republican because they think you're weak. And, let's face it, you are weak. You say you'll defend this country, but then you go on about consulting other governments, cultivating goodwill, and playing well with others. You make a world full of terrorists sound like kindergarten.

Democrats in the Roosevelt-Truman years didn't have this problem. They called tyrants by their name, and they didn't sound like they were faking it. A party that believes in right and wrong at home must be assertive about right and wrong abroad. You need a serious antiterrorist agenda. Otherwise, when you object to a war like Iraq, you sound like the peace party.

I'm not asking you to act like you care about this stuff. I'm asking you to care about it for real, and not just at election time. When a Republican president runs a TV ad accusing you of failing to protect us from wolves, you should be able to point out that he's the one who emptied our shotgun into a fox, leaving us helpless against the wolves. And you should sound credible saying it.

Once you eliminate the sincerity gap between you and the Republicans on national security, you can exploit the reverse sincerity gap between you and them on responsibility. Think about the values of our armed forces: shared risk, shared sacrifice, and reciprocal duty between officers and soldiers, regardless of race or class. Those are your values.

When leaders betray troops through bad planning and false pretenses for war, that should be your issue. When Republicans cut taxes for the rich while the nation is at war and the Treasury is empty, that should be your issue. When soldiers from poor families die while corporations skim from the war budget, that should be your issue. I've heard John Kerry talk about each of these issues separately, but each time, he sounded opportunistic. To be powerful, they must flow from a common message. That message is responsibility.

All the issues Democrats like to run on—education, the environment, the deficit, energy independence—would be vastly more powerful if united under a single theme. Clean up your mess. Take care of your children. Pay your debts. Stand on your own two feet. It all comes down to responsibility.

The Democrat who talks this way most naturally is John Edwards. (I know, I've got to stop advertising for him.) He's the one who frames every issue in terms of values. He's the one who argued during the presidential primaries that Republicans were favoring unearned wealth over work. He's the one who connected Republican tax policies to make the point. You don't have to teach him the language, because he learned it growing up in one of those red states.

So, there's your candidate, and there's your message. Now go and live it, so you won't have to fake it.

William Saletan is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

i can't even narrow down my options on a joke for this...

I think religion DEFINITELY needs to become a part of the democratic party's attempts to gain votes.

Church is a major social event for the vast majority of this country's citizens. We should take advantage of that - not the same way republicans do (and certainly not by heading towards conservatism) but the way that dems do w/ african american communities.

I think the blame for the failure of the campaign lies with bad people on the opposite side.

I have been thinking of writing to him and thanking him for his effort.

thanks i'm here all week

Tracer, you can't possibly compare the election of a leader via a Britain-style parliamentary democracy with the election of an American president.

But I just did!