What went wrong?

[Delta]

I think it would be interesting to have a thread of analysis of what went wrong for the democrats. I'd just as soon stay away from the gloating and the moaning, just some comments the democrats might find helpful next time around.

Personally, I think Kerry was fairly good at raising issues--Iraq, economy, healthcare, etc.--but he just never got around to saying what his position was on any of them other than that Bush was wrong. We were faced with a known element in Bush and an unknown in Kerry.

Kerry was always criticizing the war in Iraq (with good reason I think). But he never came out against the war, only against Bush. By criticizing the justification for the war and the conduct of it, all Kerry was essentially suggesting is that he'd come up with a better reason for being in Iraq.

And, I think the democrats were hurt by the media--their friends. By listening to a left-leaning media, they essentially believed they were doing okay--when in fact they weren't.

And finally, by picking the most avid democrat they could find as their candidate, they lost any chance of picking up the many dissatisfied republicans. Gephart or Lieberman may actually have won.

 

[Amazed]

JMHO but Kerry had some problems. He was further left than Kennedy. Extreme left or right just don't win. I think his wife hurt him too. And then it was hard to see what he stood for. ike you said, he only said that Bush was wrong. He needed to say WHAT his plan was, not just that he had a plan. To be truthful, with all these marks against him, he did remarkedly well.

 

[Aleph Null]

And finally, by picking the most avid democrat they could find as their candidate, they lost any chance of picking up the many dissatisfied republicans. Gephart or Lieberman may actually have won.

Lieberman might have caused a lot of defections the other way -- he is really more a Rep than a Dem.

The best comment I have seen so far is that it may really have been Edwards who cost them the election. He basically did nothing of use during the campaign, and Kerry wasn't even close to getting a single one of the southern states. He brought nothing to the table. What if Kerry had chosen Harkin as his running mate, and taken Iowa? Or Gephardt in MO? Or someone from Ohio or AZ, and so on?

But really it all boils down to Kerry. He was a shitty candidate from the start -- didn't appeal well to the masses, had a lot of baggage, and ran a sloppy campaign.

-A0-

 

[Fish Speaker]

I agree... if Lieberman or Gephart had run, I think Bush would have lost. Kerry/Edwards was just too liberal.

 

[A.T.Hagan]

Kerry's biggest problem was Kerry. He had way too much baggage. To me it wasn't what he did or did not do in the service - both of them lied about what they did - but his recorded actions while in the Senate. I simply could not bring myself to even consider voting for him and remain true to myself.

The problem with the Democratic party is the same one that the Republicans suffer from which is the primary system of choosing candidates.

It has become very difficult for any candidate to survive the primary process while still maintaining a viable appeal to the great mass of voters in the middle. Ronald Reagan was the last one to accomplish that and it was the "Reagan Democrats" that did it for him. He had a strong appeal to the middle.

I don't see anyone in the national political landscape now that has anything close to what Reagan had that way who could also survive the primary process. I foresee a long period of narrow victories for one party or the other where a mere 5% or less shift equates to victory or defeat.

.....Alan.

 

[ejagno]

Just a southern point of view here:
*His record spoke volumns about the man, not the bs expected from a politician.
*His wife was viewed as comparable to Hillary, if not even worse with her mouth alone.
*Having a lawyer for a runningmate speaks for itself.
*Going after Cheaneys daughter (no matter what her sexual preferences were). Here in the south, you just don't go after someones child for any reason let alone political gain.
*Abortion, stem cell research and the right to bear arms weighed heavy in the south.
*Married women didn't see the humor in his snide remark of "Guys, if you can't marry well then you should as least marry UP as I did" This demoralized the most sacred institution of marriage in many eyes although he thought of it as nothing more than being funny.
*Raising issues with no plans for solutions is just another waste of oxygen in a worried nation.

 

[Usually Curious]

I don't see another place to post this but I was very impressed by Kerry's concession speech. He seemed very gracious and even patriotic.

I would never have thought Kerry could impress me!

 

[ChainedLightning]

I have a plan.... I have a plan... trust me, it will work.. I have a plan... My plan will...

Okay, you have a plan... and maybe it's too complicated to tell us in a speach.. so put it out on a web page so we can see it.

You wanted to give away all kinds of money and not raise taxes? Sorry, I never believed you... and I think socialism is a REALLY bad idea.

 

[bigwavedave]

To be truthful, with all these marks against him, he did remarkedly well.

yeah, and somebody in another thread commented that the dems need to work on getting a better candidate next time. kerry was like the worst pick they could have made and look how close he came? that says a lot more about our current potus than it does about the dems. looks to me like the shoe fits either foot!

 

[Lady Wingnut]

Usually Curious,

I agree-Kerry's speech impressed me as well.

Too bad he couldn't have come across like that for the rest of his campaign.

 

[Delta]

Something else crosses my mind.

Somewhere I heard that Kerry changed his middle name so his initials would be JFK. When I heard that it spoke to me that Kerry was more interested in his image than in what he could do for the country. Funny thing, I don't even know if that name-change thing is true. But from that point I saw Kerry as having "made everything up" (while still thinking that Bush has screwed everything up. What a choice, huh?)

P.S. I really did enjoy listening to Kerry speak. I like a speech like a preacher's sermon--something that stirrs me up, gets the emotions going. Kerry could do that. Public speaking is window dressing, not substance. But I do like a leader who can inspire me to follow.

P.P.S. Being endoresd by Osama B.L. ("vote Kerry or I'll kill you") didn't help either.

 

[Amazed]

One other problem was picking Edwards for a running mate. He brought nothing to the table. Kerry needed someone to make inroads in the south and Edwards didn't deliver.

And yes, Kerry showed some real class with his concession speech.

 

[Squid]

Analysis from an evil conservative..

I think the Democratic party thought that Clinton got elected by saying the moderate things. They nominated the most Liberal Senator from a liberal state who was in a dog fight against a Governor even more left. Kerry mouthed a fairly moderate message but was twisted every time the words were placed against his record. Then to highlight how left the most visible people representing the party became Hate-Bush leftists from Hollywood. How do you reach out to the middle when Michael Moore and the idiots from Hollywood keep speaking from the extreme spectrum.

If you look at Clintons accomplishments they were across the spectrum, so actions do mean something. The scarriest Democrat I saw was the Illinois Senator, man look at the package, well spoken, middle of the road and a freakin minority. If the Dems do not put him on the next ticket that is their loss. Ugh Hillary for the left and middle of the road Dem from the Midwest after the economy we will have to work through. I would ALMOST call that election today...

 

[A.T.Hagan]

One other problem was picking Edwards for a running mate. He brought nothing to the table. Kerry needed someone to make inroads in the south and Edwards didn't deliver.

Kerry could have chosen Robert E. Lee as his running mate and still not have gotten the South. Edwards was saddled with an impossible mission.

Lieberman and Edwards would have run away with it.

.....Alan.

 

[04Silver]

I think the DNC needs to change their platform, or at least come up with one that is not "we oppose whatever the RNC does." Bush early on gave them some of the programs they had wanted and they still found a way to come out against it, go figure. And if you figure the Dems haven't had a majority in a Presidential election since...Carter I think, something needs to change. Also consider what has happened in Congress. They have taken the Black, the unions, women, etc. vote for granted too long. Earn my vote, don't expect me to give it to you.

 

[fairbanksb]

All the above comments pretty much sum it up. The only thing I would add is that it really pisses me off when the Hollywood crowd jumps in the middle of these races. Like I'm supposed to pay attention to them because they are celebrities. Celebrity has never impressed me and the Democrats should disassociate themselves from Hollywood.

 

[A.T.Hagan]

The Republicans are much the same way. Look at the way they fawn over Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlton Heston.

Each side milks celebrity for all they are worth. Many times it works.

.....Alan.

 

[Deena in GA]

I agree that the Democrats picked the absolutely worst candidate they could field. (Actually he's tied with Hillary for that designation.) As far as I can tell, Kerry had nothing going for him. Neither did Edwards for that matter. Many Democrats, led by Kerry, have simply moved too far left for most of us "little people". Kerry's elitist attitude came through clearly. I could have voted for a Democrat if he'd been Zell Miller.

The celebrity endorsements just served to prove that Kerry was too far left. And his wife probably lost him even more votes.

 

[fairbanksb]

The Republicans are much the same way. Look at the way they fawn over Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlton Heston.

Each side milks celebrity for all they are worth. Many times it works.

.....Alan.

True but I never paid any attention to Arnold. Now Moses, I'll listen to. Especially Moses with gun.

 

[peachfuzz]

Kerry didn't define his plans clearly.
Too many attacks.
Edwards as President if something happened to Kerry? Not a good thought.

pf

 

[blueridge]

Much of the Dem's problems stemmed directly from their candidate's continuing attempts to *surround* every 'issue' - probably so he could claim he was 'for' or 'against' anything a voter/voting bloc might prefer. Voters don't like political chameleons.

His 'baggage' didn't help, and many voters prolly felt uncomfortable with someone who had few firm stances on anything AND an inability to clearly state what his PLANS actually were.

Sorry, but "I have a plan" just ain't enough!

I suspect that a significant block of voters were *really* turned off by the curious and sudden dumping of Dean. That didn't sit well and was never truly explained. Dean had fired up a large bloc of voters and might well have won.

The choice for VP clearly left everything to be desired - seeing as how Edwards was unable to carry a single Southern state and got trounced in North Carolina.

Time for the Dems to regroup and rethink their operations manual - the current one clearly no longer works.