Why Dean/Gephardt lost and why Kerry/Edwards won

[jeter]

It had nothing to do with "going negative." Kerry went negative for a while and that only resulted in his poll numbers collapsing.

Kerry found his stride in the last couple of weeks. I always said that Kerry had the best policy proposals and he began to talk them up and he began to talk up his own record and military background. That coupled with some prominent endorsements gave Kerry the win.

Kerry will almost certainly continue this in New Hampshire.

Attacking doesn't help the candidate doing the attacking. If Dean goes negative, it will only underscore every nasty thing said about him. It will destroy his candidacy, just when he needs to get up from the canvas.

You see, Dean didn't lose tonight because he was attacked. He lost tonight because:

a) he was way too overconfident when it came to his organization and its ability to get out the vote.

b) once he captured the lead, he coasted and didn't have a message.

c) his attacks in the final days turned off many voters.

People want to vote FOR something. This seems especially true in this election when Democrats are so anxious to defeat George W. Bush, they want a candidate who can do that. That's why Kerry's strategy was so smart.

If Dean and his supporters ignore this message, they'll doom the Dean candidacy. Plain and simple.

[OneBlueSky]

1. I really think a lot of it has to do with perceived electability . . .

for most Democrats, the overriding issue is defeating George Bush in November, and they want the guy who they feel has the best shot at doing that as their candidate . . . for a whole bunch of reasons, Kerry and Edwards just seem more electable than either Dean or Gephart, and my hunch is that this perception drove a significant percentage of the votes, at least in part . . . that's also why I think Kerry may just win New Hampshire as well . . . while NH voters seem to like both Dean and Kerry, in the end they'll vote for the neighbor who they think is most electable, imo . . .

[fabius]

2. I think you've got a point.

Gephardt clearly lost it because he was reduced only to attacking Dean. Dean was taking all the shots and had been thrown off stride.

Kerry and Edwards snuck up from behind. Kerry I suspect has been doing some rough field work against Dean but we'll find out about that soon enough. Edwards has benefited from being consistently positive.

Now Kerry can take the pot shots for a while and see how it goes.

I'm a Dean supporter, but I think that since October he's had too much to lose and started to lose his message. Plenty of time to get it back.

Plus the negative stuff clearly has an effect.

I'm for Dean but mainly interesting in defeating bush* so may the best candidate win!

And I hope John Kerry hasn't used up his supply of whatever it was he used the last couple of weeks in Iowa. Because we can use that against Bush.

[Nederland]

3. Forgot one BIG reason

Dean did badly tonight because he said he would roll back the middle class tax cut. That works with a small number of Democrats and falls flat with everyone else that understands that this party cannot afford to nominate another Walter Mondale. His promise, weeks later, to make up for this roll back by cutting payroll taxes was correctly seen by voters as spin and further hurt him by getting seniors worried about an already weak Social Security system. Dean is a single issue candidate. He is about the war and nothing else. Anyone who cares about anything else gradually figured out that Dean is weak, unfocused, and not ready for prime time.

[osaMABUSh]

4. ELECTABLE

Folks fear another 4 years of *. They don't want to lose. I really think Dean appears as the least electable of the big 3 (Clark, Kerry & Dean).

I see Clark doing well in NH. Edwards is likeable but can he really beat * ?

[ShaneGR]

6. I believe Edwards is

He's a great speaker and has a really populist message.

In order of electability (IMO) of the remaining 4:

1. Clark
2. Edwards
3. Kerry







4. Dean

[Nederland]

7. I like your list (nt)

[arewethereyet]

8. well, its certainly Clark's big chance to show he can get the votes

he's never done it before and he's had the joint to himself (NH). If he fails to win, given Dean's showing in Iowa and resultant soft support droop, he's toast. The stakes went up on him tonight. The bif Dem money is waiting for people to emerge and two have, so far.

If Dean fails to win NH he's toast. Even with all that money it will run out soon enough. ABut mainly the momentum will be gone.

Kerry ought to win but won't be toast unless he's 3rd and that has to be a somewhat unconvincing 3rd.

Edwards does not need to do better than a reasonable 3rd or 4th because he's headed home after that and can expect home cooking after tonight.

Should be a fun week !

[Mattforclark]

10. A win is definitely not necessary for Clark in NH

Over 2 New Englanders (3 if you make the dubious move of counting Lieberman), over a candidate that has mo after NH, and over a candidate who has spent years campaigning in NH and has a solid base. Anything over 15% is quite acceptable, and a win would just be flat out amazing, only ~3 months into the race and with Kerry going on strong. I will be very pleased with ~20%, and then on we go to Feb 3.

[PurityOfEssence]

11. Edwards is the most electable

This isn't just long-standing partisanship rearing it's annoying head.

Kerry comes off as too wooden, will be too disliked in the South and will be characterized as an out-of-touch eastern intellectual. On the bright side, he has the solidity that many like and a rectitude that will help in comparison to the colossal smarminess of Junior.

Clark has many missteps to account for, and is strangely meek and awkward in public. Some slight defection of hardcore lefties may occur if he's nominated, but his crossover appeal is quite good. He's also learned well, and has some serious reassuring mojo working for him.

Dean comes across as reckless and nasty. His missteps come on a daily basis, and his negatives are waaaay high, especially in the South. Yes, he's stirred up a ruckus, but the numbers of new voters may not offset the disgusted crossovers.

Edwards is the best debater, the most comfortable, the warmest, the prettiest and has a highly detailed and ethical platform that makes sense. He will lose no defection from moderates or the left, and he's VERY progressive/liberal. There is no region or demographic where he's weaker than any of the others. Period. None. He also has whopping momentum and true star-power. Epitomizing the American Dream, his career arc is the stuff of grand epic theater.

He has greater positives than the others, he has far less negatives than the others and he's got the dynamic of timing working for him.

[ShaneGR]

5. I don't know about Kerry, but Edwards had to do with a positive message

Edwards never ran one television or radio ad criticizing fellow Democrats.

[Awsi Dooger]

9. Why is it a brainstorm that a positive message is preferable?

You don't buy a Toyota because the salesman put down the Honda. You don't visit Ireland because your friend had a bad experience in France.

FOR is almost always the rationale behind any significant decision.

Even GW's simpleton and phony 2000 campaign understood that, with themes like Compassionate Conservative and Reformer With Results. Do you know how many ignorant but fiery conservatives would have preferred messages that bashed Clinton and the previous 8 years?

I have been intentionally confining my DU activities primarily to the Lounge lately, once the Howard Dean activism began. Frankly, I'm thrilled that Iowans proved to be superior handicappers.

The enthusiasm for Dean is admirable and understandable, representative of our fury against Bush and Election 2000. But Howard Dean is the political version of the 2003 Kansas City Chiefs. High profile with plenty of pizazz, offensively impressive and always on attack. However, so many obvious fundamental flaws that you understand the trainwreck inevitable result if he's not shut down before it's too late.