Kerry's elective record

[Mairead]

I was just reading the Boston Globe's timeline on Kerry's career and discovered that his elective record is even shallower than I'd thought.

Kerry has stood in only 6 general elections: 1 for Congress, 1 for Lt Governor, and 4 for Senate. But only 3 of those were as the challenger, and he lost the one for Congress.

So he's won only 2 elections as the Dem challenger in a state where the Dem has a huge advantage going in. In fact, the last GOP senator was Edward Brooke, defeated by Tsongas in '79 and the one before that was Henry Cabot Lodge, defeated by JFK in '53.

This somehow doesn't seem like an especially impressive record for a man with the social, economic, and political advantages Kerry has enjoyed.

[dennis4868]

1. Keep in mind....

he has also had to deal with some tough challengers as well, like in his last election. He has always shown that when he is down he can get right back up and throw a punch!

[Mairead]

3. Which challenger was that?

I live in Mass, you see, and the only potentially tough challenge I remember was Randy Forsberg's grassroots one that got 25K votes by word of mouth in 2 weeks. Which one are you thinking of?

[Monte Carlo]

8. Don't you remember Bill Weld? Jim Rappaport?

In '90 and '96? These were not gimme re-elections.

[Mairead]

10. ah, I thought it was the 2002 election that was meant.

Weld was a real challenge, I'll grant that. Not Rappaport, though.

[polmaven]

9. Um, remember a guy

named William Weld?

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. As impressive as losing as an incumbent in a heavily Democratic city

;)

[buckeye1]

4. All for you.

DK was beaten here. Carry on keep voting,mine counted!

[jmoss]

35. edwards is the one who just took on Helms repuke machine..

.....and won, when he wasn't "supposed to", in a State that just elected another Repuke Senator to take Helms' place, in a State that has very heavily supported GOP Presidential candidates & sitting Presidents.

Get it?! :silly: :D

[meegbear]

5. What about this

Dennis Kucinich was elected mayor of Cleveland in 1977 at the age of 31. He was defeated two years later after a bruising battle with local banks over the sale of the municipally-owned electric system. In 1995, some 15 years after his reelection defeat, he won a seat in the Ohio state Senate. He was elected to Congress in 1996.

Talk about shallow.

[Mairead]

6. It's incomplete, that's what about it

He has stood in 14 generals, won 11. Six of them were as the challenger. And, of course, we all know--or should know--why he was defeated for re-election as mayor: he refused to sell out.

[meegbear]

7. I got it from opensecrets.org

perhaps you should contact them and tell them that they are wrong and you are right.

[Mairead]

11. So? It's still badly incomplete.

Practically any other source gives a more complete picture, so I have to suppose that opensecrets isn't interested in completeness. You could have a go, though.

DK served as Cleveland city councilman, 1970-75 and 1983-85; Clerk of Courts, 1975-77; Cleveland mayor, 1977-79; Ohio Senate, 1995-97; U.S. House of Representatives, 1997-present

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Lesson: "Not selling out" doesn't win elections

and if you don't win you can't effect any change.

[Mairead]

19. no, sometimes it doesn't, does it.

I was under the impression that most of us don't like our alleged reps selling us out, that we think they should have more backbone even if it costs them personally. That's certainly true of me, how about you? Are you okay with it when they take care of themselves by selling you out?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. If the best one to take care of us all has to take care of himself

(occasionally) then I am all for it. Is compromise considered "selling out"?

[private_ryan]

12. agree

he's not that electable. Let's vote for DK, right? The only one who can beat Bush.

[Mairead]

13. "Let's go for DK, right?"

Well, DK has a stronger record, that's for sure.

[sangh0]

15. "only 6 general elections...only 3 of those...as the challenger"??

You make that sound as if it were easy to do.

[Mairead]

18. "You make that sound as if it were easy to do"

Easier than doing it 14 times, and winning 6 as the challenger and 5 as the incumbent, yes.

[sangh0]

27. Bait and switch

Before it was "This somehow doesn't seem like an especially impressive record for a man with the social, economic, and political advantages Kerry has enjoyed."

Now it's "This doesn't seem like an especially impressive record compared to Kucinich's"

[Mairead]

33. My point is that it's not an impressive record

Kucinich, without any of Kerry's many advantages apart from skin color and sex membership has compiled a stronger record even with his enforced 15 years on the shelf. So your implied exculpation of Kerry--that we shouldn't expect him to have done better because it's so hard--doesn't persuade. That's my point.

[sangh0]

34. I know the point. I'm looking for the logic

and you have supplied none, as far as I can tell. You claim it's not impressive without ever saying where the line between impressive and not impressive is.

So your implied exculpation of Kerry--that we shouldn't expect him to have done better because it's so hard--doesn't persuade.

I didn't say that. IMO, Kerry has done MORE than should be expected him. He's has put his life at risk to save others, he has investigated high crimes, and convicted the perpetrators, and now he's bringing it right into the enemy's camp as we speak.

[Mairead]

36. "where the line between impressive and not impressive is"

There is no bright line, nor did I try to imply there is. But it's not hard to look at the four candidates and rank their elective records.

I didn't say that.

Tell us how your 15 is meant to be interpreted, then. You quote me saying 'only' and respond by saying 'you make it sound like it's easy'. If that wasn't an attempt to say we shouldn't expect better because it's hard, then what was it meant to be?

[sangh0]

37. What #15 means

is that John Kerry has achieved something only a few people ever do. While some have an even longer list of electoral victories, there aren't many of them.

And IMO, that's impressive. Doing things that most people can not do impresses me. We still don't know what impresses you. So far, there is no standard being used other than "Mairead thinks otherwise". I see nothing wrong with rendering an opinion, but somewhere there ought to be an explanation of how one got there. In this case, it would imply some explanation of what "impressive" means to you.

[seaglass]

16. Am I understanding this right? He was the challenger

only once for the Senate seat because he was the incumbent the other 3 times and this is an issue?

[library_max]

17. No, it's a straw.

As in the phrase, "grasping at ---"

[eileen_d]

26. LOL

Nice one. I was going to chime in with something witty but you've nailed it! :hi:

[library_max]

30. Thanks.

:hi:

[semass]

20. Won as Dem challenger once ...

in the race for Lt. Governor. The Senate seat was open upon the decision of Paul Tsongas not to run for re-election. However, in the races for both Lt. Governor and the Senate if I remember correctly he won against the odds, not being the candidate endorsed by the Democratic State Convention.

[Mairead]

21. Nice point and one I totally missed!

I wasn't thinking about the fact that he won the Senate seat without having to challenge a GOP incumbent (duh! And I even wrote that Brooke was the last GOP senator, too!)

Was he really not the endorsee either time? I didn't know that. I thought I remember him winning the primary in each case.

[semass]

22. Yes, he won the nominations

after not winning the party endorsement at either state convention.

[Mairead]

23. Do you recall why he didn't get the endorsements? (nt)

[mr715]

24. Kerry's record

Humbly submitted.

State executive positions and Federal Senate positions are far more competitive than House and local executive races.

I live in the fine nation of NYC. Our councilmen are selected by the party and they win without a contest. Our mayor needs to appeal to the city. Our reps are concerned with their local district (mine is Charlie Rangel)

The Senate, the Govenor, and the State Att. Gen are watched very carefully.

Kerry's record is quite strong. Stronger than Edwards, Clark, Braun, Sharpton. I will not mention Kucinich because he is in a unique position, being the chair of a progressive caucus.

Kerry's record is not as strong as was Gephardt's, but I think Kerry very clearly has strength in his experience and his spectacular campaigning in the past.

[semass]

25. I remember

that he lost the convention Senate endorsement to former Congressman and State AG Jim Shannon. I'm not sure who he lost the Lt. Gov. endorsement to.

[TheStateChief]

28. No Offense...

but past performance is no indication of future returns. How many elections has Bush won as the incumbant?

[bluedog]

29. been reading

some things about Kerry I didn't know...his committe was the one that went after ollie north and the Iran Contra thing...

also when Kerry started out in the senate...bushy was ..awas..where in 84? owner of a team...a drunk...yeas kerry may have to account for many of his votes...but bush will also be shown to be out of the loop when many of these bills came up....Kerry was in the Senate when daddy bushy was VP...don't forget that...

[Mairead]

32. "bush will also be shown"

Oh I wouldn't dream of trying to claim that Smirky McCokespoon will be a worthy opponent in November. I can hardly imagine someone less qualified for the office he now disgraces.

My argument is more in the nature of an observation that Kerry really doesn't have the sort of confidence-inspiring, trample-GOP-opponents elective record you'd hope for in someone who's currently the frontrunner to oppose Bush.

And since there's not much evidence of serious public unrest, the rulers have no need to sacrifice Bush. So if I were among the faction backing Bush, I'd be happy to see the Dems put up a DLCer whose record of elective success is as meager as Kerry's (or Edwards's). We already know from 2002 that the DLC is not capable --or perhaps even willing-- to mount effective challenges to the GOP whom they so closely resemble. So it wouldn't completely surprise me if 2004 repeats 2000. All the elements seem to be being put into place!