A tale of two ways of running a campaign

[dsc]

One worked the other didn't.

Bush appealed to his base and virtually no one else.

Kerry appealed to the center and his base as needed.

I know that Clinton won doing what Kerry did. But are we fighting the last war? Does Rove have an idea of the mood of the country that we just didn't get? Kerry was about as good a candidate as we could hope for at the appeal to the center type of campaign. He was nothing short of masterful in the debates and he had the money to go toe to toe with Bush. It is that simple. He had one bad month August, followed by two good ones September and October, and still lost.

Rove might be on to something. Maybe we are so polarized as a country that only appeals to the base are effective. We need to figure it out soon.

I think appealing to the base is what we need to do. We tried the other way, and it isn't working. It failed in 2002 and 2004. It failed nearly uniformly across region in Congressional races. Rove's approach works. That is why Bush is in the White House, Cheney is at Blair House, and Frist is Senate Majority Leader.

[unblock]

1. just imagine if we ACTUALLY had a liberal media.

:cry:

[Webster Green]

2. (Ahem!)..........Kerry won!

Not to dismiss what you are saying, but the fact that our elections are fixed has to enter into the equation.

[dsc]

4. He lost the popular vote

though I do think Ohio may well be a different matter. Even if Ohio was stolen Kerry won the same kind of victory we despised when Bush won it.

[mtnsnake]

26. Yeah, that's why he's sitting in the White House

...because "Kerry won!"

Gimme a break. Our 2004 campaign was by far the most pathetic campaign in history, bar none, but keeping using the Diebold excuse if it makes you feel better.

[Webster Green]

36. "keeping using the Diebold excuse if it makes you feel better."

Heh!

Ohio was so obviously rigged thet you would have to have your head up your ass not to notice.

It was fixed by Blackwell and his goons, pure and simple, and I don't say that to make myself feel better. It's not a good feeling knowing our votes don't count for shit.

2004 was only the last rigged election.

Remember this:

[mtnsnake]

37. "It was fixed by Blackwell and his goons, pure and simple"

Yeah, it's that simple that they're sitting in jail, eh.

Wow, that 2004 campaign we ran was perfect. Only reason we lost is because of an election fix. :eyes:

[Webster Green]

47. Yes, we're all "conspiracy theorists"...

The fact that the perps are not locked up doesn't mean that the crime never happened.

Kerry trashed the chimp in the debates. He had the momentum going into the election, and the exit polls confirmed what we all knew......that Kerry would win.

Suddenly, in the middle of the night.......it all turned for the chimp.

Bullshit!

Did you see all the dirty tricks in Ohio? It was on the TeeVee!

[mtnsnake]

51. I don't deny the possibility of voter fraud,

and I would never put it past the Bush criminals that they would do something like that to win. However, to come onto threads time after time, and totally cast aside an OPer's attempt at figuring out what went wrong with the election because you're convinced that "We didn't lose! We won!", well, it's not only counterproductive, but completely inconsiderate to whomever started the thread with hopes of positive discussion on what we can do to better our Party.

You're 100% sure that we lost because of voter fraud, and you won't admit what a brutal campaign we ran because THAT notion wouldn't lend support to your MO. I saw a poorly run campaign strapped with one mistake after another with my own two eyes. That alone is what makes me think Kerry's loss might've had something to do with something other than voter fraud.

[CJCRANE]

3. Kerry won the debates & election but not the dirty tricks campaign. nt

[Armstead]

5. I think Kerry failed as a candidate -- We can do both

The Holy Grail is a candidate who will truly rouse the liberal/progressive base in a way that generates positive enthusiasm (not just the lesser of evils), while also carrying that message to the significant perentage of the population who consider themselves moderate but unconsciously actually identify with liberal/progressive values and goals.

Kerry's a very good man, he's my senator and I'm glad he is.

But he screwed the pooch in the presidential campaign. He screwed the pooch partially for the rteason you noted -- He basically disavowed liberal/progressive politics for namby-pamby centrist mush.

He also unfortunately suffered from a basic patrician aloofness. Even though he is more from the middle class than Bush, he behaves like he was to the manor born. He also may have been correct on principle to try and stay above the Swift Boat fray. But it make him seem weak and waffling, and played into Rove's hands.

Basically we need a candidate who will say "I'm a liberal and damn proud of it, and here's why you should be a liberal and support us too."

[TayTay]

7. I disagree with that.

I think Kerry did run as a liberal progressive. He won on virtually every core Democratic issue that we have: jobs, health care, economy and so forth. I don't think the attacks based on character had that much of an impact. (Any attack on character would have followed any other Dem nominee in the Dem pool of candidates that year. Sen. Edwards was vulnerable to charges of being inexperienced and remote from voters. Gov Dean was vulnerable to charges of flip-flopping as his record as Gov of Vermont was very moderate and not the liberal image that the primaries projected.)

Every single candidate that the Dems run will be subject to 'character attacks' and every single candidate that we run will be vulnerable to these charges. Every single one. Every attack will be tailored to the specific candidate and will attack based on the perceived policy and personal weaknesses of that candidate. This is inevitable. There are no perfect candidates, only human ones and the Rethug machine is geared to taking things out of context and magnifying them to faults. This absolutely will happen again not matter who the nominee is.

The best thing any candidate can do is just be themselves and run on their own platforms and truths. The rest is somewhat irrelevant. It is a foolish pipedream to think that any one Dem is more innoculated than another from Rethug attacks. It's comforting to think that there are 'perfect candidates' out there, but there is not a single Dem holding elective office in the country right now who is not vulnerable to a character attack from the Rethugs. Not one. That's the way the Rethugs play the game. If the fault is not there or not particularly visible, then the Rethugs will make it up, as they did with Kerry. We need to plan for this in advance for every candidate we run. They are all 'fair game' for personal attacks as are every member of their families and their immediate associates. That's the way the Rethugs play this game.

[Armstead]

11. Kerry's problem was that he wasn't being his true self

He allowed himself to become overstrategized and over cautious and he listened to hacks like Bob Schrum instead of to the liberal and progressive Democratic base.

He fell off the bus in 2002, when he went against his better judgement (by his own admission) and voted to give Bush war powers. He should have done what Kennedy did, and oppose the rush to war from the beginning.

Fast forward to 2004. He tried to play the "patriot card" by emphasizing his miulitary service rather than running as a clear liberal with common sense. he made me want to throw my shoe at the screen one day when he was being interviewed on Fox News and was asked outright "Are you a liberal?" He should have said: "Hell yes, i'm a liberal and damn proud of it. Here's why..."

Instead he gave a weasly wambly non-answer like "Well I do not believe you can
characterize things that simply. I believe you have to look at what makes sense on specific issues....blah,blah,blah."

Contrast that to how a typical Republican would respond. "Yes, I'm a proud conservative."

[dsc]

16. This is what the party wanted

He was given the nomination precisely because of the fact he was murky on the war.

[TayTay]

21. Irrelevent. As it will be irrelevent going forward

The Rethugs think about 3 years ahead on their PResidential races. They tend to make opposition books on all the possible Dem candidates and devise a strategy for each one that will have the strategy of how to defeat each one by emphasizing their weaknesses, whether real or not.

This would have happened with each of the other '04 contenders. None of them would have said they were liberal either, as none of them were more libel than the one who got the nomination.

This will happen again in '08. There is no indication whatsoever nationwide that liberal has been rehabilitated as a political term. None of the Dems contemplating an '08 run is exactly running toward embracing the 'liberal term' yet. Not one.

We have to start confronting our actual opponents, the Republicans, and the successful strategies that they have been employing to defeat Democrats rather than whining about the very good candidates that we have. (Democrats have nominated excellent candidates for President. Democrats do no nominate bad candidates.) The Republicans have a strategy for defeating us. It will be the same strategy that is used on whoever the nominee is in '08. (Said strategy will start to surface next year.) Are we ready to counter this or will once again blame the inability of the Dems to defend on the candidate instead of on the Repubs?

[Armstead]

29. I'm not sure of your point

Of course the Repubs are going to pull out the big guns on whoever is nominated. That's a given. The Democrats could nominate a combination of St. Francis of Assisi and John Wayne, and the Repubs would still Swift Boat him or her.

But my point is that our side should not make the mistake that Kerry made and overcalibrate and lose our own edge just because of that.

The only way the word "liberal" will ever be rehabilitated if if we start defending it -- and championing it, just as the GOP does with the concept of "conservative."

[enough already]

35. Why attack Bob Schrum?

I mean, look at his fantastic track record in Presidential elections....*barf*

[mtnsnake]

27. Yup, that he did. Kerry the honorable man, the war hero, & fine Senator

failed miserably as our presidential campaigner. Bush had already proven to be the worst president in history in his first term, and the 2004 election should have been a runaway for us. The campaign was strapped with mistake after mistake and was bungled by some of the worst campaign managers and advisors ever. Kerry should've fired them half way in after they gave him that STUPID advice about taking the high road versus the swift boat liars. Ignoring those liars and not fighting back gave one heck of a poor impression. That was just one of many mistakes.

[jackpan1260]

6. Bush appealed to more than his base

he appealed to soccer moms who wanted to protect their kids another 9-11 and somehow thought that Bush was "tough on terror." Those people are see the light now.

In 2000, Bush marketed himself as a "compassionate conservative" in an attempt to appeal to more than just his base.

I am not disagreeing with what you are saying, but I'd be interested in your reactions to Nixon vs. McGovern and Mondale vs. Reagan. In my opinion, those are two of the most left leaning democrats of the last few decades, and were annihiliated in the electoral college.

[dsc]

8. In 2000 he did run more as a centrist

but in 2004 it was hello base fu anyone else. As to your examples I think the electorate may well have changed. Appealing to the center used to work. It worked in 92 96 and 00. It also worked back in the 70 and 80 for Republicans and Carter in 76. But maybe Rove is on to something here that we just didn't see. The man is evil but he may well be a genius too.

[CTLawGuy]

38. 72, and 84

72: McGovern, (a WWII pilot and multiple medal winner) whose own party leadership hated that he won the primary and didn't support him, lost to a dirty trickster who told the people he had a secret plan to end the war.

84: Mondale, a boring senator who lost to the most charismatic politician in 100 years, who managed to turn the Solid South to the Republican side.

[AndyTiedye]

9. They Only Need Their Base and Diebold

They only need their base to shout us down (or shoot us down)
if we complain too much about all the election fraud.

We cannot win with just our base, or even the base and the center, because they have Diebold.
We need to get almost everyone to vote for us to win.
The Rethugs have to be down in the 20s or worse to be defeated,
and even then it isn't a sure thing with their control of the media.

[welshTerrier2]

10. i disagree, sort of ...

i don't think Democrats need to specifically cater to the base or any other constituency ... i think the Party's political problems lie elsewhere ... we aren't too liberal or too conservative or too anything else ...

the problems we have lie more with an unclear, muddled message ... sure, blame the media; blame the American people; blame big money; blame anything but Democrats ...

in the end, a clear confident message that LEADS the country in a better direction is what is needed ... Murtha spoke out against the war and what was the Party's reaction? ... "well, he's a really good guy but we just don't agree with him" ... lots of media coverage ... lots of attention on the Dems ... and what message did we send? we sent a muddled message ...

Democrats are so worried about being perceived as the "weak party" that they do things to make themselves seem weak ... it's not about moving left, right, center or anywhere else ... it's about changing how we communicate ... it's about a sharper, clearer message ... Americans see strength and leadership in those who aren't afraid to go toe to toe with established power ... Americans will vote for those who offer real opposition ... what Democrats are doing now is playing right into the image they hope so hard to bury ... being a "sort of" opposition party is no opposition at all ...

[omega minimo]

22. Right-- and will they get real or hang on to their handicap?

"the problems we have lie more with an unclear, muddled message"

Good point

"... sure, blame the media; blame the American people; blame big money; blame anything but Democrats ..."

Can we blame the Democrats AND big money and the incestuous relationship some of them have?

"... Americans see strength and leadership in those who aren't afraid to go toe to toe with established power ... Americans will vote for those who offer real opposition ... what Democrats are doing now is playing right into the image they hope so hard to bury ... being a "sort of" opposition party is no opposition at all ..."

Who is "established power"? Who is destroying the U.S? Who must be opposed?

THE MESSAGE needs to be the corporate takeover and gutting of the nation-- How can Democrats deliver that message if they are participating in corporate cronyism like the Republicans are?

[1932]

32. exactly right

this is exactly the problem.

When people say Democrats need to appear more moderate, or go right on issues, I wonder, "are you even a democrat? Do you belive in the core ideals of the Democratic party?" And then I wonder if they can be blamed if they don't, because our party does such a terrible job of explaining what they are.

But one thing of which I am certain: if the Democrats ever do find the source of the convictions of true progressives and start articulating them to voters, the Democrats are not going to lose.

[MercutioATC]

12. Bush's base was firmly behind him. Kerry's wasn't.

...at least most of the people that I know who voted for him weren't. Kerry was simply the lesser of two evils.

[dsc]

14. that is largely my point

I know why people consistently say we should go to the center but clearly Rove didn't do that and his guy won.

[MercutioATC]

18. We completely agree, then.

I think it's less about left/center/right than it is about the candidate as an individual. We need a plain-speaking take-no-prisoners candidate that people LIKE. Unfortunately, elections seem to be more a popularity contest than issue-based.

[1932]

33. I'm noy ready to blame Kerry for that. I'll blame the person who invented

ABB first.

Kerry didn't run on ABB, to his credit. But, long before we even chose a nominee, ABB was a popular phrase.

If you want a guaranteed defeat, run on the idea that it doesn't matter who you run so long as he isn't the person you're running against.

I wonder if people who embraced ABB believe in anything. It's simply nihilism that makes people not care what their party is for. It;s amazing that nihilsm ran rampant in 2004 and lead to defeat. By being so awful, Bush sowed the seeds for his own victory -- kind of like Nixon in 72.

[CTLawGuy]

39. and Bob Dole in 1996

the Republicans just wanted to get rid of Clinton.

[1932]

40. exactly.

[MercutioATC]

53. I was a Dean voter. I became an ABB voter after Kerry became the candidate

I'm not blaming Kerry for that, he just wasn't anybody I could get enthusiastic about. I thought he was a lousy choice.

...just my opinion

[1932]

58. In some respects, Dean was an ABB candidate. Have you read Cornell West's

Democracy Matters?

He says that Dean failed because, although he rallied young people desperate for a more participatory democracy, he offered little more than a criticism of Bush. He was clear about what he was against, but he wasn't clear about what he stood for.

I'm paraphrasing. I'm sure West says this in a way that is much more insiteful.

[MercutioATC]

60. I'd disagree with West.

Dean stood for universal health care, fiscal responsibility, equal rights for ALL people (including gays) and a host of other things.

I think "ABB" was in the eye of the beholder. If a candidate (any of them) was somebody you believed in...somebody you felt would make a difference, then you were voting FOR that candidate. If they didn't, they were an ABB candidate.

Dean's message certainly appealed to me. Kerry was an ABB vote for me (and almost everybody else I know who voted for him).

[ProSense]

13. Bush, Repubs and the MSM distorted reality. Was ANY of it true? n/t

[leyton]

15. Democrats need to just show a spine.

That's what people want. In my opinion, there are three reasons people don't trust Democrats. Some people don't trust them because they support gun control, gay marriage, and separation of church and state. Others don't trust them because they don't have a record on security (I think if Al Gore had won, for example, Democrats would own that issue, but unfortunately the Republicans were in power on 9/11). The third group of people - myself included - read in the newspaper every day about some Democrat who says that the party should change direction (usually to the center) in order to win elections. I read that and see a party that wants to win, not one that is willing to stand up for its principles.

[f-bush]

17. Kerry actually won...bush has cheated twice!

[1932]

19. Bush turned soccer moms into security moms using fear.

Bush won mostly because those former democratic voters switched sides.

I wish I had time to give you the links, but this is undeniable. Bush got roughly the same votes from every single group EXCEPT white, suburban women.

Kerry didn't have what it takes to convince white, suburban women that sometimes it's more dangerous to shoot first and ask questions later.

Read Richard Parker's biography of JK Galbraith. Galbraith talks about this exact same problem in elections every since Eisehnower won.

[sandnsea]

20. Cut taxes, kill terrorists, free market

That's what Bush ran on. You can cut it up any way you want, but that appeals to alot of people and has absolutely zilch to do with abortion and gays.

[wyldwolf]

23. The GOP and Bush made a concerted effort to appeal to swing voters

He had his base already - but his "credibility" on national defense attracted the swing vote.

[dsc]

25. Tell me one thing they did to get swing voters

Compare their behavior on stem cells (wickedly unpopular) and ours on same sex marriage (also unpopular). They stuck to their guns repeatedly while we tried every position posible. On issue after issue they stayed with their base and we pandered.

[mtnsnake]

28. He did the same thing he did to get all the voters he got. He scared them

into voting for him by starting a war for oil and then using fear tactics to make Americans think he'd keep them safer than the other guy would. Bush should be sitting in jail right now JUST for the manner in which he scared people into voting for him, the fucking coward.

[wyldwolf]

31. exactly. The swing voters were snowed.

[1932]

34. They advertised on Will & Grace and in health clubs. They abandoned the

model of collecting registered Republican voter lists and reached out out beyond those lists to find a lot of women who were registered Democrats and independents.

They also used magazine subscription data.

They cared less about party registration than whether you fit a demographic they thought would find their security mom message appealing.

The Republicans definitely stayed on message, and that message was "we'll shoot first and ask questions later in order to protect you." However, the deciding votes were cast by people -- white women in the suburbs -- who voted for Clinton twice and Gore. Would you call those voters "swing" voters (they only moved once)? In any event, they hadn't voted Republican in years, so they're definitely not the base.

[dsc]

41. I actually don't agree

while the total number of women who voted for Bush went up the percentage change was negligable. Pro choicers voted almost identically to 2000. Neither of those would be the case if that ended up working for them.

[1932]

42. Where are you geting your info?

I'll google mine right now, but this is common knowledge. The only group in which Bush made noticeable gain and Democrats lost was women. I don't know why you'd call them "pro-choicers." 50% of the electorate -- women -- do not vote on that issue alone.

[dsc]

46. moderate woman who live in cities

which is what you said, not all women, are indeed pro choice.

[1932]

49. In any event, Republicans used innovative strategies to reach into the Dem

base to collect enough votes for Bush to win a narrow election.

[1932]

43. Bush won with women's votes (ie, with the DEMOCRAT's base):

If anything should have been true about the election of 2004, it was that the continuing violence in Iraq would confer an advantage to the democratic candidate among female voters, a group that has been crucial to the party’s voter base in recent elections. As is well-known, in the 2000 election Al Gore outpolled George Bush among women by 54 to 43 percent, a pattern that matched the disproportionate success among women that the democrats had enjoyed in the 1992 and 1996 (and earlier) elections.

As we will see below, John Kerry maintained a similar lead of over 10 points among women as late as July 25th, but recent survey results suggest that the margin has all but disappeared. In a spate of late September polls, Kerry is essentially tied with Bush among women voters, and he may even be slightly behind (CBS/NYT; IPSOS-AP; ABC/WashPo; Pew Center; LATimes).

This is surprising, for if there is one consistent finding of scholarly studies, it is that women are disproportionately sensitive to and critical of the human cost of armed conflict (see the additional sources listed at the end of this essay). Writing in late spring 2003, I myself generalized from this evidence by predicting that “Should establishment of stability prove a lengthy and inconclusive process, and especially if US forces continue to suffer casualties, we would expect public support for the mission in Iraq to decline, and based on the evidence….gender differences would be no small part of the loss of consensus.” (p. 141 of my study listed at the end of this essay).

http://ase.tufts.edu/polsci/faculty/eichenberg/election2004.asp

That article was written on 9/30/04.

Bush ended up with 47% of women vote, up from 43%. That was an 8 point swing in a demographic which is about one half of all voters. That's how he took the election out of Kerry's reach.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=289262

[dsc]

45. That was a four point, not an eight point swing

[1932]

48. 14% MOV down to 6%MOV for Dem = 8 point swing.

[dsc]

50. that is voodoo math

I also think it is factually wrong. 54 - 43 is 11 not 14. Kerry got 53 percent of the women's vote which means he won by 6. That would be a five point swing under your math.

[1932]

52. That shows that you don't care about the facts. Read that article.

54-43 was the (August?) polling before 04 -- what do you think the other 3% was? Neither woman nor man? That was the undecided vote.

Bush ended up with 47% and Kerry with 53%. The Democrats got 56% of women and Bush got 44% in '00. Considering how well Democrats had done with women in so many previous races, bush closing that gap by 8 points (8 point swing) is worth noting.

According to that first article (which you didn't read) Bush was acutally almost even with women in September. Kerry was lucky to claw back a 6% lead.

[karynnj]

56. I don't think Kerry gaining a 6% lead was "luck", it was

his incredible performance in the debates.

[dsc]

59. Kerry had a terrible August

and yes I read the article. And I can do math. First, some women voted for Nader so you are totally, utterly, and completely wrong about Gore getting 56, he actually got 54. 54-1 is 53. 47-44 is 3. That is a 4 point swing, which is exactly, precisely, and totally what I said. Before you accuse me of a) not reading or b) being ignorant you might, just might try to have your facts straight.

[Lexingtonian]

24. um, you are fighting the last war...

Rather than reiterate the obvious, you know what the post-9/11 Bush/Republican approval graph looks like.




-The November 2002 elections were about moderate Democratic votes and getting turnout of Democratic leaners; not quite enough showed up and a chunk of them actually voted for Republicans. Rove got all his side's moderates and a lot of leaners to go to the polls. The issues were Iraq and taxes, and the Pubbies got a narrow mandate on the first (the slight Senate majority) and more of one on the second (the 10ish seat gain in the House). Democrats got 36% or 37% of the electorate to turn out for them, Republicans got 40% or 41% iirc.

-The massive turnout efforts on both sides largely cancelled each other out in 2004. The November 2004 elections were decided by the middle 10%. The key voters ultimately only cared about sufficient facts and were pretty neutral on several issues (Iraq, foreign policy, ethics). Three issues/sets of facts were partisan- these 10% swing voters (~11 million of them) sided with Bush/Republicans on 'handling terrorism' and 'social policies' but with Kerry/Democrats on 'handling the economy'. They split 2:1 in favor of Bush. But...the overriding fact of the Presidential election was a stalemate, there was no new mandate on any particular issue or matter, only license to finish the things already begun. Democrats got 48% of Presidential and House votes, Republicans got 51%. There was slight Democratic gain in the House outside Texas but new gerrymandering against them in Texas (the only major Red State not gerrymandered against Democrats in 2002) meant a net slight loss. Senate races were simply distributed favorably to Republicans.

The Republican mandate of sorts from that election lay in their gain of 4 seats in the Senate, and was on 'social policy' (or, 'values'). (Dealing with terrorism is essentially an executive branch responsibility.) Pragmatically, that translates roughly to an additional vote for their side on the Supreme Court. Both the House and Bush tried to pretend in 2005 they had fresh mandates for new stuff early last year. I think we all know how that pretension turned out.

-The November 2006 elections see Democrats and their leaners unified and motivated to a level (42-43% of the electorate says it will turn out for them) as high or higher than Republicans got in 2002. I personally doubt that number can be increased reliably. Polling is quite clear that the story- the extent of Republican defeat- is all about the extent to which Republican voting breaks down by comparison. Right now they're averaging 35% of the electorate willing or definite to turn out for them. ~5% of the electorate, almost certainly all wavering former Republican voters, show up as Unsure. (~18% say consistently that they they won't vote.) If all the Unsures show up for Republicans, which I believe they lean to at the moment, we end up with a stalemate election result (small or useless Democratic gains).

The game to November seems to me mostly about driving down the committed Republican vote to its last ditch, hard core, electorate of 32%. I.e. getting their moderates and leaners to sit out this election. The sign of lethal Republican breakdown is when 'control of Congress' polling starts showing Democrats hitting and breaking the 60% mark (i.e. more than the Democratic voting 42% plus the 18% nonvoters). That number is running a little over or a little under 50% of all voters at the moment and gained 8-10% during 2005. Republicans cleared 60% (they got close to 70%, in fact) during a lot of 1994- it does happen- and moderate Democrats in fact stayed home in droves that election.

[xchrom]

30. if democratic candidates were direct, muscular and

authentic in their drive toward elected seats anywhere we would be unbeatable.

it's all the electorate is asking for.

and by electorate i am excluding those who are brainwashed by the right --- they will never vote for us -- and they do exist in considerable numbers.

we are country that has effectively reached political parity -- voters need something to chew on when they go to the polls.

candidates who are extremely forthright -- candidates who articulate strong messages{i.e. direction and drive} will find a home with voters.

iowa voters OVER THOUGHT their votes in the primaries -- and it was a mistake.

i'm not saying whether i think dean would have won or should have won or anything else.

but our own people succumbed to a campign of doubts in the final weeks -- and that was disaster in and of itself.

was it foreshadowing? possibly.

[mdmc]

44. thank you for your post.

regarding Clinton's campaign in 1992 - Clinton had a Ray - Gun esque charm that Bush lacked. Clinton was as gifted as they come when it came to campaigning (smart in NH, humble in IA). Positions don't really matter when you have heart - I think Clinton had positions, but won on heart.

Kerry was perceived as a liberal. Kerry was "playing to our base" to mainstream USA, but the base (you and me, progressives, anti-war activist, liberals) didn't like the Dem party war position. A Murtha like position would have served him well while campaigning, especially in August, during the swiftboating.

If you take Al Gore and Wes Clark, and they use the progressive (Bernie Saunders) play book, we would have our revolution.

I doubt 2006 will show us much gain (fear, fear, fear, I predict an October surprise, MSM shock and awe), and this will clarify the battle we face.

It is hard to see the landscape 2 years out, but it is starting to shape up.

[karynnj]

57. Have Al Gore and Wes Clark come out for the Murtha plan?

I know Clark hasn't - his position is less towards getting out than Kerry's.

In 2004, Murtha was not in favor of the "Murtha plan". Kerry's plan would have worked to extricate us. A plan that sounded like "out now" would have doomed Kerry. (I seriously doubt Kerry lost more liberal activists with the paln he had than the moderates he would have lost with a radical plan. (Note - Dean wasn't saying out now either.)

[mdmc]

61. I'm not really talkin about the war

I want a true progressive Democratic party. I want us to be running on the green platform.

[mdmc]

62. Dean was saying something better - we were wrong to go in.

Kerry is a good liberal, an anti war hero, that ran as a war hero. I have no clue what Kerry's war position was (except that he "supports the troops"), because it was basically a watered down version of what w was pitching. I Kerrys plan would have worked (what IS this plan?) then why not pitch it now, and why did he fail so in 2004 to sell it?

What the 2004 Democratic party failed to do was create a revolution. If 85% of all voters voted, we would have won. We were close, but so far from victory.

2006 wont be any better (October surprise!).

[karynnj]

54. There were major difference as well as that difference

1992- there were 3 candidates. At one point Clinton polled third. Perot mainly attacked Bush, he then acted strangely accusing Bush of wanting to harm his family and then withdrew from the race. He then later re-entered, but never regained many who left him.

Bush I was below 40% approval, while Bush II was below 50%. Bush II was in the middle of a war and used the terror card.

The media was sick of Bush I (how many times did they show him about to get sick when he was in Japan) the media adored Clinton and gave him tons of positive press. Bush II was treated with kid gloves by the press which never gave Kerry a fair shake on anything.

Clinton had 9 hours of coverage on all the networks at his convention. Kerry had 3. Remember how the "man from Hope" framed Bill's campaign - there was no time to do for Kerry - there was an hour each for speeches from Edwards, Clinton and Kerry. To put it mildly, Kerry's book "a call to service" was his basis for running - if his entire life could have been shown (as Bill's was), many RW lies would have been exposed - Kerry had one of the greatest life stories of any candidate. Framed properly, his dedication to his country, patriotism (in its fullest meaning) and to public service could have been incredibly compelling.

There are many many factors in all the races, any of these factors might have been more important.

[yurbud]

55. You are about half right--problem half pandering, half money

The GOP has articulated a clear set of values, they say them over and over again unapologetically, and with only a few glaring exceptions they actually purse them as policy goals.

Democrats aren't just bad communicators though--they have divided loyalties: their voters are progressive, but they are trying to appeal to or at least not offend the rich and corporations, who might give them money.

So when a solution to a problem or even the existence of a problem is clear to the average Joe, many Democrats can't say this obvious truth because it will piss off oil companies, health insurance companies, or the sweatshop owners who benefit from NAFTA.

The GOP has less of a problem in this way because their rank and file care about airy fairy issues like prayer in school and the flag that don't overlap let alone conflict with what the wealthy and corporations want.

Imagine running for police chief and you needed the votes of the victims, but the money of the criminals--you would say some very odd, indecipherable things.