Ehm, you're all gonna hate me for this because its probably gonna be taken as lack of solidarity or bad taste or something, but one big reason why the Dems lost was: John Kerry. I mean, seriously.
On September 21,
I posted an article and wrote:
Quote:Should Kerry indeed, God forbid, lose against Bush, a flush of analysts, commentators and intellectuals will go forth about the psychology of the American people, the unovercomeable divisions of society, etc. I won't. I'll blame him. John F. Kerry.
The commentariat would have all kinds of semi-relevant points here and there, but they would skip the obvious, because this much we can already say now: there's no way in hell this race should have gone as mediocrely as it's gone thus far.
I mean, how in heaven's name can a party that represents half the American electorate, in two consecutive elections not come up with anything better than Al Gore and John Kerry?
I'm still sticking with that - mostly. Few things I've changed my mind about, especially during the debates. John Kerry did good in the debates. Actually, I remember that when I'd just seen 'em, I declared every one of the three a tie, if twice with the edge to Kerry -- it was only later that his victories seemed to loom larger. But he was a very good debater, and I don't think any other Dem primary candidate would have done better, there.
The problem was, still, that although Kerry was an excellent
debater, he was a weak
communicator. Even in the debates, the last two anyway, while Kerry won all the arguments Bush came off looking more sympathetic - at least to most of the audience.
It drives me absolutely crazy if I see posters like Kristie (sorry Kristie) summarise their reason for voting Bush this time as being that Kerry was basically a lying turd (not her words). But thats what we were faced with. The reality is that in America (and ever more often here, too), people vote for persons as much as programs. Which, considering the ridiculous amount of power concentrated in the one man in the US, is perhaps not even so unreasonable. And Kerry failed to convince, personally. For a lot of reasons I could list, but also for some that I just can't grasp and that exasperate me (the endless repetition, by voters too, of the flip-flop thing). But thats how it is.
Kerry was a weak candidate. TNR ironically pre-commented ("precriminations") who the blame would be divvied out to when the one or the other candidate would lose, doing
first the Reps,
then the Dems, and as the obvious last point in their Dem list they've got Kerry himself:
Quote:John Kerry. I know what we'll do ... we'll nominate a liberal senator from Massachusetts with a reputation for arrogance and opportunism, a controversial past, and a near-total lack of charisma! It'll be awesome! Whether or not this characterization is entirely fair or accurate, it will be very widely held. If John Kerry loses the presidential election, he will be subject to very harsh criticism before he is relegated to history books as "Dukakis II: The Return." That he came as close as he did will be seen as irrefutable proof that The Emerging Democratic Majority thesis, from Ruy Teixeira and TNR's own John B. Judis, is clearly correct. The Democrats, the story will go, had a very strong hand--a failed president, large private-sector job losses, a profound sense of unease in the country at large--and blew it by nominating a total zero. It won't be easy being John Kerry's ego if the election doesn't go his way.
Somehow, it will recover.
