Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

I'm still too much in the wound-licking phase to completely agree that John Kerry was the problem. More specifically, I don't think there was any other option that was better. I don't know who is to blame for *that*. Kerry made sense in lots of ways, a lot more sense than various other candidates. Dean? Gephardt? Clark? Edwards? No, no, no and no.

But yeah, even in the wound licking phase I can say that I think he was only finally getting it -- how to connect with people, how to be likable -- at the end.

That said - it's true that I'm on record as saying that pretty much any of the credible primary winners would have been a better candidate than Kerry - Edwards, Gephardt, Clark, perhaps even Dean on an off-chance. But that much I've got to give Kerry - or rather, to Bush - I'm thoroughly shaken about that one. It's clear to me now that Edwards, for example, would have gone down in flames without a chance. Kerry was never sympathetic, Edwards was; but take the debates, where Kerry also never once was shaken and just kept standing straight and shooting back, while Edwards stumbled and faltered. Edwards - Soz and Craven were right - turned out to be just too inexperienced, not 'weathered' enough - even for the vice-presidential spot.

And then there's culture and religion. We thought this election would be fought over Iraq. It wasn't. There was terrorism and national security, of course. But much more than expected, there were the conservative culture issues. They were never much played out in the campaign, apart from the gay marriage thing. But the exit polls show that they played a huge role, in turnout too. Kerry mobilised a lot of new voters, but Bush did as well - from among the white, evangelical/protestant, culturally conservative base he mobilised to perfection.

In the state-by-state results, one thing is more striking than anything else. In almost all the "red states", Bush did better than the polls had predicted, and often better than he had done in 2000. In a majority of the "blue states", Kerry did better than the polls had predicted. The increased turnout, the increased mobilisation, did not as Dean (or Nader) would have had us believe, open up a huge new reservoir of previously disenfranchised voters who, if anything, would turn out to massively amerge on or to the left of the Democrats. Instead, it mobilised more of the polarisation. More religious conservative people in the fly-over states who turned out in order to stop Kerry. And more secular, liberal people on the coasts and in the midwest who came out to finally send Bush home.

Polarisation helped the mobilisation effort. But it seems that the "target group" Kerry's mobilisation focused on just isn't broad enough to ensure a majority in current-day America. And the elephant in the room turned out to be culture, right up there with national security. Kerry went all out to neutralise the security issue, through the whole Convention-saluting-Vietnam thing, but the Dems just werent prepared for how many culturally conservative people are out there ready to turn out for what they consider heartland values.

These people are not necessarily right-wingers, not in the traditional economic sense anyway. There's a lot of Christians out there who have problems both with the war in Iraq and the rich-favouring, tax-cutting free-economyism of the Bush people. (I was going to link in an article that had interviews with a lot of Christian voters who still wavered, days before the election, leaning to Bush because of gay marriage, religion, abortion, but averse to his interventionist, polarising foreign policy and even more to his tax cuts for the rich, cuts of social programmes, etc - but I cant find it back, sorry.) And I think they outnumber the libertarian voters who favour the tax cuts but almost went Kerry because of Bush's Christian rhetoric and the Patriot Act. Plus, they are also more important when it comes to winning back the Senate, since the 1-seat-per-state system of the Senate makes it all the more important to win more of the less densely populated, more rural (and more culturally conservative) states.

Now if you put up a Progressive candidate who can mobilise through MoveOn as succesfully as Kerry did, but sans the aura of controversial Massachusetts cultural liberalism, you could already have your victory. I mean, you just can't change everything at once. You can't win every battle today. I'd say, put issues like gay marriage on the backburner and focus on what you can achieve, with the current American electorate: a perhaps socially more conservative, but economically progressive and internationally temperate government. And if you can find yourself a candidate who also has the personality to communicate as well as Kerry could debate, you have yourself a winner.

Is what I'm thinking right now.

Here are Six Ideas... and two Comments
The religious issue may be the biggest stumbling block. I'm not sure it can be surmounted. There are so many pressures for a person to remain in their church besides whatever beliefs they have. I think if churchfolk could realize that a state religion will obviously interfere with their beliefs, they might step back from it. I dunno -- Canada is based on a single religion, so is the UK. Probably a lot of other countries are as well.

Someone mentioned Missouri, Lola, was that you? We heard early on that Missouri had two issues: abortion and gay rights. They didn't want either. Is it possible to change people's minds on these issues?

The heartland doesn't get it about the environment. There are vast differences between land that can be plowed and mountains and seashores. We need to invite them to our beaches and let them see what it's like to hike in a pristine natural environment. (Okay, I just threw this one in for fun. Nevertheless, for westerners, the environment is important. It doesn't seem to be that way in the mid-west.)

We need to ask for simplicity. It seems obvious that the great body which is mass-America needs short verses to get themselves behind. We don't have to lose our values by asking for them in an easy-to-grasp way.

We need to support good, fair and factual radio shows and make them popular with kids. They'll need to play not only excellent music, but also offer commentary that doesn't pander to anyone and be truly centrist.

Bush says he is going to do everything it takes to earn our trust. Let's quickly offer him a set of values that WE believe in and can live with. Values that I think everyone would agree on.

I would like for each state to support a "Code for Corporate Citizenship" to the licensing papers of every corporation that does business in America. Why are shareholders' profit the primary goal over a fully expressed statment of corporate responsibilities? Let the corporations recognize their role from a defined goal. IKEA did it. Corporations should believe that they WANT to be members of the community by:



Finally, we have to be fair and factual and I'm sick of partisanship from any side. I don't think we need someone saying that all of these people should be put in a cage (as I saw someone say on another thread) or that all of the other side is stupid.

<sorry to be so long-winded>

I think the problem was two-fold: No great sweeping vision of anything to catch and hold the attention of the American people; and no charming, magnetic personality to sell the program. Part of being a great leader is making folks WANT to follow you and I never got a sense of that from anyone fielded by the Dems, except maybe Howard Dean at the beginning.

Tactically, I think that it was just too easy for the Repubs to "call the tune" with Swift Boat Vet and other non-issue attacks which then had to be responded to at the cost of any real discussion of the Bush record or the Democratic platform. Many times I felt that Kerry was really fighting the battle the other side wanted to fight, which is never the way to win a war.

Yep, nimh, that's back to the social AND personal moral values thing.

I recommend this, some very interesting viewpoints and ideas, changed my perspective on several things:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/divided_11-03.html

Feingold has the record and the ideas for it, but I think he'd come off as too wonky/liberal/Jewish to get the people we're talking about.

I love the idea of Obama, but he's had a charmed life so far. He didn't have any real opposition on his way to his senate seat, he hasn't gone through the wringer. If he's seriously challenged -- but prevails -- in 2006, maybe.

I totally agree.
I dont think Kerry was a BAD person, just not a good choice.
I for one voted for him ONLY because he was the democrat. Embarassing to say... but true. If there would have been another choice , a stronger person with more of a OOMPH to his style/abilities/personality etc.. I would have voted for them.
I dont know much about Kerry as a person or a politician but there wasnt anything that really caught me when it came to his speeches, presentation etc. He just seemed.. well... boring. Im sure he was capable, You dont get into the election if you arent ( well.. that isnt true.. Bush anyone?)
I am convinced this election was about MONEY . The bush family is loaded and everything Dubyah has done has been aimed at the oil industy wich is where his family gets the bulk of thier money. The republican party benefits those who already HAVE money and hurt the ones who dont. Rich get richer, poor get poorer under republican rule..
So if you have money.. who are YOU going to vote for?
Am I making sence?

What went wrong was the selection of John Kerry as the candidate for the Democratic party.

I'm so sorry that post up there just now turned out that long. I guess I was saving all my comments on this topic so far, and tried to summarize them all in one post.


Bush is a good communicator, even if he's a bad speaker or debater (or hell, policy maker). To still insist that Bush is merely a dumb annoying monkey of a hateful guy is to be in denial about what he means to a large number of Americans. Apparently, the communicator thing is as important as anything to get elected (in the US). So what else is new? Shouldnt we have already learned this from the Reagan era?


Heh. But Eva is right though. (And the Republican Senator in OK was in fact given a run for his money by the Democrat challenger, who for a while there looked like he would win even as a leftist independent was gathering what turned out to be 5% of the vote).

And perhaps not Oklahoma, but close. Why not Colorado? Salazar was elected to the Senate. And he is (at least) as popular in the countryside as he is in the city. I consider him, with Obama, the best news for the Dems to come out of this election.

Only problem is, by 2008 he'll have only been a Senator for one term ... like Obama, he will have as little experience nationally as Edwards now had.

Salazar in 2012 - but who for 2008? Honestly, I dont know. And although Kerry was obviously (too) weak, I dont really know anymore - in answer to Soz - who from the Dems would have done better this time. But then I only really know the primary candidates. Who were all those luminaries who didnt dare enter the primaries because back then, the Democrat looked like he wouldnt stand a chance in the first place?

Gee, McG, welcome the fold! This thread was for Dems, so I guess you've seen the light. Cool!

Yes, a sweeping vision would be good. Got any?

I don't like to blame Kerry. I really thought he was believable and thoughtful and trying hard to do the right thing for everybody (as we all do). Geez... I'm so going to miss having the spunk of Theresa around. I was looking forward to her being in the White House. <sigh>

Ah, but that's where we disagree, Larry. The Dems I know rejected the fear politics of Bush & Co. Unfortunately, that's one of the reasons we lost. I am suggesting that next time, the Dems need to get over themselves and use what works.

Oh, and Bear...I really appreciate your confidence, and I'll keep looking for a redneck Democrat for ya.

What I am about to say will get me trashed. However, what if we relent on some issues in order to combat this religious rush that is coming at us?

I am not talking about the gay marriage issue. In my opinion democrats have relented on to the point where we are wishy washy on it. I mean if you listen to some of our leaders, they say, "well, I believe a marriage is between one man and one woman, but I think they should enjoy all the rights of hetrosexual marriages..." I mean what is up with that. Is it just the word, "marriage." I think we should say that everyone has the right to choose how they want to live and if they want to get married they can.

But maybe we should relent on some things that might not be needed anymore. For instance it is really not fair if two people that live side by side with the only difference being that one is white and ther other is black but they have the same income but the black neighbor gets treated differently when it comes to grants for college and getting into college.

Another issue is the abortion issue. I am afraid that most people really don't agree with it. I bet if a poll was taken way more than half would say that they don't agree with abortion except in cases of a medical emergency. I know some democrats that feel that way, but they vote democrat because of the other issues. (nearly everyone in my family feels this way and a lot of people that i go to church with feel this way.)

I realize that is a hot button issues that is going to get me creamed. Nevertheless, it is an issue that makes some people vote republican who might otherwise not vote republican on other issues.

nimh wrote:


I simply don't agree that Bush is loved by anyone, Dems or Repubs. And he's a horrible communicator. He's backed by a powerful and well developed machine. We have to build a better machine than they have. Check out the PR literature. We have to sell sell sell. But we have to learn how to package it. And a charismatic candidate will help a lot. It would have been enough this time.......it would be oh so easy to out charisma Bush.....stupid monkey that he is.

It was Karl Rove and Ralph Reed.......they've been working for a lot longer than the last four years. They've been working since 1980. We've got to get smart with our presentation.

Karl Rove could sell ice to Eskimos. We've got to learn to do the same.

Sweeping vision? Gee, I don't know...

Obviously, Before I Send Your Kids To Die In a Foreign Land In An Unarmored Humvee For The Big Money Interests Of My Friends, I Promise To Tell You The Truth, doesn't work.

You fail to understand Bush, then. And while he may be a poor "enunciator," he communicates just fine. You must have missed his post-9/11 remarks, and his convention speech.

I think Lieberman would've been a better choice, but given who we had to choose from, Kerry was it. I think he should've answered back more swiftly about the swiftboat mess. I think he should've attacked harder from about August... I think he should have chosen someone else as VP, although Edwards being from the south was supposed to be a smart move... Too bad McCain hadn't been convinced to switch parties...

The whole south as republican stymies me. That has to be tackled somehow and conquered... Not sure what can be done, not sure who can do anything at this point in time... Anyone else heard this little ditty? Join grassroots efforts to question the policies to be made over the next four years...

Revel, you are almost certainly correct. Hot button issues dominate much of the vote while less publicized policies that have a much greater real-world effect are relegated to the back seat. If Democrats want any chance of uncoupling the fundamentalist Christian vote from the GOP, they need to give ultra-religious voters a choice. This country could use several competing candidates that concur with religious Americans on controversial topics, but offer differing economic or social policies beyond the hot-button issues. This may even have the additional benefit of bringing rational discourse back to political debates (or so I would hope).

[Btw: congrats for your "10,000-jespah-post", jes! :wink: ]

Nice of you to try to help us out, Ticomaya. I'd love to be helped. But I don't agree with you. Bush is not a good communicator. He's a stupid monkey puppet. He's not a good candidate, unless you're talking about the Manchurian kind. (Maybe we should say the Carlyle Group kind.) He can apparently repeat (with enough practice and technological help) just about anything he's told to say, even though it comes off a little bit rote. And he's good at making fun of his disabilities and looking all sincere. But that's it.

It's Karl Rove, people. We've got to out do him. Give a good PR person any candidate and he can be sold.

I agree with revel.......somewhat. I don't think we have to give in on any issues. But we should do what Rove did with the fanatical Christians and other extremists. He got them to tone down their rhetoric, and in the case of the religious fanatics, he got them to shut up almost entirely. We need to get smart and do the same with those issues about which there is too much prejudice. Hide some of our agenda, until we're in power.

Lola, you know I can't stand Bush, but that's separate from whether he's a good communicator. Denying that he's a good communicator is denying that he's been re-elected. "Looking all sincere"... that's communicating. Being aw shucks and down home and just folks... that's communicating, if it communicates. And he's been elected, so it does.

All of that is a far cry from Clinton-style communication -- now THAT's good communicating! And I'm hoping we can find someone who communicates that well again.