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

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
He got in excess of 2.5 million votes more than did any prior Presidential candidate with the exception of Reagan 84 (800K more). But it wasn't enough to overcome the crazies (and the fraud?).

The swift-boat response seems to have been a clear mistake.

And I think Edwards was the wrong choice, but I assume Sam Nunn would have agreed to be Veep. Graham and a number of others might also have been better.

Overall, the make-no-mistakes and be-acceptable and win-in-the-debates strategy was probably pretty good, but it was perhaps too risky in that it allowed too much attention to the mistakes when they came.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 13:30 (twenty years ago)

it feels so... moot. as if the bush strategies would've been just as effective against any other canditate, regardless of response time and debates and paper endoresements etc etc. being a sitting wartime president and all.

m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 13:34 (twenty years ago)

Yes.

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

Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 13:35 (twenty years ago)

I posted this on another thread, but I think it's pretty realistic:

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.

dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 13:35 (twenty years ago)

With all the "moral values" garbage being reported as the most important factori n the exit polls...

Vic (Vic), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 13:36 (twenty years ago)

kerry aloud Bush to set the agenda. Her was never going to win on terror, so should have focussed first and fromost on economic issues, and had Bush's failures with regards the war on terror to puncuate his argument. He also went for the everyman thing too much, and always looked stiff, I mean whats with wearing that tan jacket all the time? Undignified, thats what, Bush just does that common people thing a bit better. Fucking Bollocks, I am depressed.

lukey (Lukey G), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:19 (twenty years ago)

Y'all know what I'm gonna say.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:25 (twenty years ago)

democrats should have run al sharpton

amateur!!st, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:28 (twenty years ago)

The democrats should've run Daft Punk.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:29 (twenty years ago)

democrats should have run al sharpton with daft punk as veep

amateur!!st, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:29 (twenty years ago)

The Democrats should've just plain run.

Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:30 (twenty years ago)

jose bove and roberto benigni as campaign spokesmen

amateur!!st, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:30 (twenty years ago)

The Democrats should have run a fucking Democrat who TALKS like a fucking Democrat and who'd be willing to say, loudly and clearly, that American IS in a fucking moral crisis -- AND THAT THE CRISIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GAY MARRIAGE AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SELLING OUR LIBERTY TO THE HIGHEST FUCKING BIDDER.

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

Colin Meeder (Mert), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:32 (twenty years ago)

Quite frankly, yes, if we've gonna lose anyway, why not go down swinging?

Girolamo Savonarola, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:37 (twenty years ago)

2008 election: Daft Punk vs Arnold Schwarzenegger

ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:41 (twenty years ago)

I'm not really convinced that Kerry could have run a better campaign given a) who he is b) who he was up against and c) given the election year circumstances.

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.

don carville weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:43 (twenty years ago)

kerry didn't lose because of edwards, he lost because people have a thing about "the homosexuals"* as per my other thread (*and other such issues)

amateur!!st, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:44 (twenty years ago)

actually i have no idea, but i think edwards's impact on this race (like cheney's) was trivial

amateur!!st, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:45 (twenty years ago)

Kerry won, man! Just wait!

redfez, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:45 (twenty years ago)

both gabbneb and don in agreement on Edwards being a poor choice. dons said why, why do you he was bad gabbneb. what do others think about edwards role? is he a realistic contender for 08?

*@*.* (gareth), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:46 (twenty years ago)

i thought Edwards sealed the deal for many who weren't so sure on Kerry tho.

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:52 (twenty years ago)

I agree that the point is moot. I just heard someone on talk radio talking about how the Democrats need to "appeal to the heart as well as the mind." This lady said they need someone like Bobby Kennedy or Martin Luther King. What a bunch of crap. Kerry was fine as a candidate--he just didn't have a prayer.

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.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:54 (twenty years ago)

Colin OTM.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:57 (twenty years ago)

(Having said that, I had no real problems with KErry's campaign as run.)

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 14:57 (twenty years ago)

the idea of Bush appealing to anyone's heart...

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:01 (twenty years ago)

...is not at all surprising if you live in the US.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:02 (twenty years ago)

'heart', 'mind'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:03 (twenty years ago)

Cold-blooded analyis is a good thing, but right at this moment I refuse to blame Kerry. Yeah sure, he needn't have gone goose-hunting. He could have gone for Bush's jugular more. He needn't have pandered to the whole faith-in-politics thing. Fact is, he gave plenty to the moderate center to chew on; he fought nobly and articulately in the debates; but guess what: the whole country's swung to the right, and it's become stupider, more fearful, hateful and narrow-minded than it was even in 2000. Any liberal partisan obviously wants a politician who can shift the terms of the culture, who can succesfully recapture "values" from the Christian right. Kerry tried in his own nuanced way to do this, but he's not an orator and has no rapport with middle America. I don't hold that against him. He is who he is, and he did what he fucking could. Question is, what do I, what do WE, do now?

Collardio Gelatinous (collardio), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:03 (twenty years ago)

I sorta blame the sudden rush to gay marriage. Why THERE and why THEN?

Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:05 (twenty years ago)

I don't blame anyone or anything, actually. It's late tho.

Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:06 (twenty years ago)

It is very difficult for the US electorate to fire a President. Americans are averse to change in that way, and as I have said so many times over the past couple of years, it's going to take an economic disaster for Americans to give Bush the boot. Bushco's Reign of Terror has not been an objective economic disaster--though history may prove otherwise, the economy through partisan eyes is a nonstarter when running against an incumbant. Which is one of the many reasons that Kerry was a fine candidate.

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

don carville weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:07 (twenty years ago)

I would have liked to see that, too, Colin, and we'll never know if a candidate like that would have energized the base enough to overcome Bush. But that type of talk may have alienated other voters as well. The bottom line for me is that Kerry is a good guy, compromised of course by his long walk down the hallway of higher office in America which, once you've reached the end of it, has normalized and de-edgified you as surely as a belt sander strips away the knotty pine. But his opponent, "that baffled little creep," was/is so thoroughly rotten that I think we must all face reality, if we hadn't before: that the American system of electing our President is flawed. The interaction of 1) the gentleman's agreements between parties about the timing and constitution of Presidential campaigns (the primary system, the conventions, the lack of an identifiable shadow government, etc) with 2) the electoral college and 3) most importantly, the media explication of these things. How can we say otherwise but that the system has failed? Sure, this election has extenuating circumstances, the leveraging of brute fear towering above the others, but I am convinced that a system which allowed the public to judge each man on the merits of his arguments and vision would not have produced this result. I STRONGLY believe that this is not a referendum on the American public's capacity for reasonable judgement, but an indictment of the whole encrusted and vestigial clockwork of our national elections, breathlessly described by a decadent political media culture as a gleaming and faultless apparatus, in need only of occasional tweaking and maintenance. And, to a lesser extent, of the total FAILURE of that small group of cynical revolutionaries who have hijacked the Republican party in recruiting fear and personal safety to their cause of national unity and international domination. They still grip the levers of power, no doubt, and their policies will cause sometimes irreversible damage to that flotilla of good hearts trying to effect positive and progressive change on a local scale (they will continue cutting budgets for education, after-school, health care, science, appointing enemies of departments to head those departments, etc) but: the country is the opposite of unified and they can't even defeat a leaderless, armyless Iraq. Don't fear world domination. These guys couldn't dominate a third-grader. For the next four years I worry about what legacy of liberal democracy remains, but at HOME: social security, Medicare, public works, the spirit of public service. Because Bush's only philosophy is "let the big dogs eat." I worry that we're going to turn into Russia: strong, isolated, paranoid, backwards.

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:07 (twenty years ago)

Ed said that, too. I think maybe you already have.

Andrew Blood Thames (Andrew Thames), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:09 (twenty years ago)

I think you're grasping at straws. Bush wasn't elected because of a failure in the system of political parties, the media, or the fricking electoral college.

Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:19 (twenty years ago)

it's a failure in the idea of majority rule

Shmool McShmool (shmuel), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:26 (twenty years ago)

Majority rule is a great idea if you're in the majority.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:36 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I mean to be honest Tracer, mostly I've been wandering around in shock today not because of a voting shenanigan here or there, but because the people went to the polls in near-record numbers, and over half of them wanted George W Bush as president.

(previous not-so-paranoid-now ranting)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:44 (twenty years ago)

There was, if I can say, a bit of an assumption at play (not here, more in the wind) that everyone who was going to turn out would be doing so because they felt that 2000's election wasn't that important, that 'the wrong guy' got in as a result, and that 2004 was the chance to make a correction. But assuming that this would mean a decisive shift for Kerry as a result runs about as well as assuming that what is patronizingly called 'the youth vote' would also automatically go for Kerry.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:48 (twenty years ago)

The thing I don't understand about most conservative Christians is that Jesus was a gigantic "I WUV EVERYONE" hippie.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:49 (twenty years ago)

because the people went to the polls in near-record numbers

Not if you adjust it for increased population.

don carville weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:50 (twenty years ago)

The thing I don't understand about most conservative Christians is that Jesus was a gigantic "I WUV EVERYONE" hippie

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.

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:54 (twenty years ago)

i'm saying a lot of stupid things today but then it's a very stupid day.

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:55 (twenty years ago)

Those numbers would be more telling if they percentages of the whole voting age population, not merely percentages of the whole population (including babies and teens and what not).

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:57 (twenty years ago)

hey it's not so stupid. I witnessed the owner of an xtian tv channel threaten to disemowel my boss, monday last.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:57 (twenty years ago)

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors

the editors, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:59 (twenty years ago)

Those numbers would be more telling if they percentages of the whole voting age population, not merely percentages of the whole population (including babies and teens and what not).

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.

don carville weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:01 (twenty years ago)

No, you're right Don, they are telling, just maybe a little incomplete.

Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:04 (twenty years ago)

Questions that occur to me:

- 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?

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:09 (twenty years ago)

I guess my point I am very suspect that the whole "huge turnout" theme has been overplayed, and I fear it being used inappropriately by both parties (i.e. the GOP referring to it as a mandate of any kind, or the Dems using it as a salve.)

don carville weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:15 (twenty years ago)

Don OTM; anyone seeing this as a "clear mandate" has a shaky grasp of basic math.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:16 (twenty years ago)

Bush wasn't elected because of a failure in the system of political parties, the media, or the fricking electoral college

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?

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 17:28 (twenty years ago)

Did Kerry run a good campaign? I think the problem with the Democrats (in all races) is that they give the American public too much credit. They think that people will look through the bullshit and see the truth. (Granted, for some, the truth lies legitimately in the Republican camp - which is fair enough. The Rs deserve those votes.) But the Dems seem to think that people will take an educated & researched approach to voting; that's the Dem base. But 80% of the remaining population is ignorant about voting and they're happy that way.

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."

dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 17:33 (twenty years ago)

hastert is too fat to run for president.

amateur!!st, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:15 (twenty years ago)

National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2000

don weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:19 (twenty years ago)

yes, and even if he lost weight he would still be way too unattractive.

Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:19 (twenty years ago)

Compared to Gore in 2000, Kerry ran a much better campaign. Kerry took much clearer and stronger positions, and was able to boil them down to simple terms without losing as much definition. I'd give him credit for a good campaign.

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

Aimless (Aimless), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:29 (twenty years ago)

I'd like to talk about the questions I asked upthread (except maybe the Mortal Kombat joke).

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:03 (twenty years ago)

Is it possible for a northern Democrat to win Southern states?

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.

don weiner, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:56 (twenty years ago)

Otherwise why would people agree w/Democrats on the issues but vote for a Repub president?
Tracer, you can't possibly compare the election of a leader via a Britain-style parliamentary democracy with the election of an American president. That's a total non-starter.

MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 22:57 (twenty years ago)

What is it that northern Democrats aren't getting about the South? Obviously some type of paradigm shift needs to happen in the way the region is viewed AND the way the Democrats attempt to communicate with the people who live there.

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?

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:01 (twenty years ago)

"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.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:04 (twenty years ago)

THROWIN BOWS LIKE JOHNNY CAGE

\(^o^)/ (Adrian Langston), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:11 (twenty years ago)

Well, I'd have to disagree with Alex, based on what I've read and seen on TV. They all get their oil dividends of $1000 a year, for a start. Drilling's pretty much all they've got there but fish, isn't it? So oil industry friendly policies are pretty important, in the face of what is widely seen as environmentalist meddling.

Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:13 (twenty years ago)

Actually I just read up a little and apparently I am mistaken. I don't know if it is the only thing keeping the state Republican though.

Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 3 November 2004 23:17 (twenty years ago)

Tourism in Alaska is a nearly $2 billion/year industry.

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

c. (synkro), Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:19 (twenty years ago)

haha in 1979 Alaskans burned Carter in effigy; now he's a

c |-| a |]. (synkro), Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:44 (twenty years ago)

WTF? again:

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

c |-| a |]. (synkro), Thursday, 4 November 2004 00:45 (twenty years ago)

no, northern Democrat ain't gonna win the south anytime in the foreseeable future. for those of you who haven't been down here lately, please study up. kerry didn't win a SINGLE state in the south, not one. Not even N. Carolina. any southern moderate would have to pander to the insane christian right in the south to win, talk about all that cultural-issue bullshit, act like he went to military school and liked it. it's probably too demeaning for any sane person to want to attempt.

eddie hurt (ddduncan), Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:11 (twenty years ago)

The Democrats just need to further polarize the nation and move all of us meaningless (read: 'heartland') lefties into swing states and solid Dem states to pump up census numbers. Get all the liberals and progressives in the Carolinas and 'bama to move to Florida, move the few of us in Texas to Michigan, etc..

milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:18 (twenty years ago)

A nice quote, I think, by William Cowper:

"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.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 01:27 (twenty years ago)

I agree that Kerry ran a great campaign, but for the one major misstep cited above, that being the absurd War Hero focus of the convention. If they(the GOP) wanted to talk about Vietnam, fine, he'd have his record as an ace up the sleeve. Making it a focal point first, however, was foolish. They learned that quickly, though, and stopped reminding people about Vietnam fairly fast.

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?

derrick (derrick), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:00 (twenty years ago)

i listened to air america this morning and all it was about is how the dems really won ohio and florida and the republicans were rigging the electronic voting machines and the dems need to fight as dirty as republicans or they will keep losing. they missed the point or they didn't notice the despicable ads stan matsunaka was running here in colorado, oh, but he got crushed by a gasp! theocon! it's about nominating a candidate with a personality who can connect with voters, not some nerdy kid who can spout policy in french while sitting on his hands underwater. bureaucratic inertia is such that most people know things will be close to the same whether there is a republican or democrat in office. clinton didn't do a thing while he was in office but he's loved because he connected with a certain segment of the population, his narcissism was almost endearing to them while merely pathetic to the rest of us. on the whole it's actually sad that people think events in washington dc will affect their lives, i have almost zero contact with the federal government other than on my paycheck and there is no changing that. democrats are losing everything because they are running entirely ont he negative, 'the republicans want to take yoru social security', 'they want to end abortion', 'they want to shoip your job to india', it's gotten old and when none of these threats ever coem to fruition people tune them out. john kerry should do the right thing and tell bush all of his secret plans for fixing everything, he was gonna fix iraq, healthcare, education, jobs, the deficit, etc...if he's a true american he'd let us know the secret plans now that his career is over. sad thing for the dems is that guiliani is waiting to take over in 2008.

keith m (keithmcl), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:12 (twenty years ago)

there's much to chew on this thread. and this has been a long, sad day. all i will say for now is, that kerry ran a very good campaign but in the end it just didn't matter. john kerry is who he is, he did the best that he could, and we still lost.

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.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:39 (twenty years ago)

Keith, your concern goes back to the tragic lack of a proper shadow gov't tradition in the US. I would swoon if the DNC did something useful on a policy level for once and held a convention to put together a shadow cabinet for Bush's next term. Put together four years of solid, credible counter positions on every issue, and you'll have something more to stand on come election time than just oppositional defiance.

derrick (derrick), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:53 (twenty years ago)

Hmm. Yeah, why couldn't they just form a shadow cabinet - that would be cool. How would people take that generally?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:56 (twenty years ago)

I would swoon if the DNC did something useful on a policy level for once and held a convention to put together a shadow cabinet for Bush's next term.

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.

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 4 November 2004 02:59 (twenty years ago)

"Did Kerry run a good campaign? I think the problem with the Democrats (in all races) is that they give the American public too much credit."

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.

lysander spooner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:13 (twenty years ago)

or we can admit that lincoln was wrong during the civil war, but allow all the sensible people down there move to a blue state of their choosing.

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?!?

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 4 November 2004 03:22 (twenty years ago)

i'd take a lesson from LBJ's bio

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

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 04:46 (twenty years ago)

career OF careers

amateur!!st, Thursday, 4 November 2004 04:46 (twenty years ago)

oh, to have LBJ back from the dead and advising today's Democratic Senators ... not an option, sadly.

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).

Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 4 November 2004 04:50 (twenty years ago)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109128/

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.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 4 November 2004 05:33 (twenty years ago)

Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich basically said the same thing on NPR tonight, and I think it's pretty OTM. Both Republicans and Democrats talk about "right and wrong," but for the former, right and wrong are moral values, and for the latter, they're pragmatic values. Obviously, moral values are more compelling to the electorate. But he suggests that they don't have to be the sole province of the right: liberals used to excel at this kind of rhetoric when it came to discussions of civil rights. Perhaps if Kerry had focused more on Iraq being a fundamentally "unjust" war (moral), rather than "the wrong war at the wrong time" (pragmatic), he would've been more galvanizing. (Then again, the problem with Kerry is that the Bushies always were able to throw his record at him.)

jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 4 November 2004 06:52 (twenty years ago)

hey keith, how's Pete Coors doing today?

gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 4 November 2004 06:56 (twenty years ago)

on the whole it's actually sad that people think events in washington dc will affect their lives

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

g--ff (gcannon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:02 (twenty years ago)

The system definitely needs a massive overhaul, but I think Tracer is painting parlimentary-style campaigns a little too rosy. In Australia, for example, the existence of a shadow cabinet and policy-based campaign wasn't enough to deter a Rove-style smear campaign about interest rates and "character". Furthermore, how would a shadow cabinet work in the U.S.--from the Senate? the house? It seems like it would make it even more difficult for new blood--and new ideas--to work it's way into the system.

C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:15 (twenty years ago)

Despite the obvious massive dissapointment about yesterday, I'm am excited about the future of the Democratic party. I think in the next 10 years, we'll see the grip of Boomer Civil Rights Movement/Vietnam-educated Dems loosen and make for some new ideas. Obama is the obvious star. But there's also Elliot Spitzer, Gavin Newsom, Jennifer Granholm and Stephanie Herseth. And hopefully Joel Hoeffel will run again.

C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:19 (twenty years ago)

Whoops, that's a lot of spelling mistakes.

C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:24 (twenty years ago)

Elliot Spitzer is dreamy.

Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:28 (twenty years ago)

Barack also does a very good job w/ the "right and wrong" moral issue.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:34 (twenty years ago)

It's hard to imagine education, the environment, the deficit, and energy independence generating as much enthusiasm as abortion and gay marriage because the former are more complicated to "fix." I think what worked for conservatives is that they framed their war as a defense against an attack on conservative values. Yesterday, I heard on NPR that exit polls suggest that these issues were more important than high profile issues like terrorism to a majority of voters. I remember a film about striking coal miners in the southeast from my western civ class. It was really moving. But if the Democratic Party draws the bulk of its support from the middle class then it's hard to imagine economic issues generating that kind of impassioned support. On the other hand, gender seems to be a more basic part of one's identity than race or ethnicity, so liberals can't fight the same war as conservatives, for example, by focusing on gay marriage as an extension of the civil rights movement.

youn, Thursday, 4 November 2004 07:36 (twenty years ago)

I really dislike the Kristof article that Dave225 linked to. And I have a feeling we're going to be hearing the sentiment again and again. Compromising doesn't mean agreeing to every suggested compromise. Suporting "Civil unions" instead of gay marriage is a bitter pill to swallow, but ultimately necessary if the Democratic party wants to remain competitive in America 2004 and civil unions would ultimately be a step forward. Embracing the Moral Majority is neither necessary nor a step forward. Their are a few politicians who speaks about their faith in an unthreatening, unimposing manner (Barrack Obama for example), but the last thing we need is more religion in politics. Kristof's logic is going to be bandied around quite a bit in the next few years, but lack of centerism and compromise isn't the party's problem. As Tracer and others have mentioned, the solution isn't to change the party's core values and ideas (many of which poll very well among Americans [not that that neccessarily means anything]), but to change the presentation.

C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Thursday, 4 November 2004 08:13 (twenty years ago)

urgent, key maybe - http://www.slate.com/id/2109133/

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 4 November 2004 08:16 (twenty years ago)

I agree w/ you Colin EXCEPT

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.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Thursday, 4 November 2004 09:17 (twenty years ago)

a Christian Left exists, in bits & pieces. it now needs to gather.

Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Thursday, 4 November 2004 09:46 (twenty years ago)

Great link, Blount.

C0L1N B3CK3TT (Colin Beckett), Thursday, 4 November 2004 11:35 (twenty years ago)

I think he did.

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.

the bluefox, Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:27 (twenty years ago)

liberal recrimination time is easily the worst song on 'surf's up'.

thanks i'm here all week

debden, Thursday, 4 November 2004 13:46 (twenty years ago)

I agree with the pinefox!

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!

You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Thursday, 4 November 2004 14:16 (twenty years ago)

Kerry-side highlights from Newsweek's inside the campaign tell-all, linked at the bottom

gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 5 November 2004 14:22 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.