Kerry ran a terrible campaign, the CW is gradually establishing.

[Julien Sorel]

Is it still true that Gore also ran a terrible campaign in 2000? When was the last time a Democrat ran a good campaign for president?

[yardwork]

1. He didn't run a terrible campaign

It could have been better. He could have been more aggressive in fighting the vicious attacks of Rove and Co, but there was a lot of good in Kerry's campaign.

In the long term, the fact that Kerry ran a clean, positive campaign will reflect well on the Democrats.

Sooner or later people will notice that bushco ran a campaign promising morality and they aren't going to deliver.

[okieinpain]

11. yes he did, he was all over the place. liberman was not a good

choice, and not using clinton bit him in the butt. kerr had some mistakes but ran a much better campaign (should have kicked that swift boat stuff in the butt).

[indigo5]

34. bad campaign

there isn't much reason he lossed, it was his election to lose... and he lost it.

[autorank]

62. "Lieberman was not good"...You are a diplomat.

Lieberman was a disgrace. He managed to combine piety with narcissism in a uniquely offensive way. He was also lazy.

I think Kerry gave it a good shot and made two big mistakes: (a) he had to call out * for the Swift Boat thing every day until they backed off and (b) didn't hit the hot issue where we just romped - stem cell research.

Ah well, it was only the future of the world at stake. I'm not willing to let him get near the nomination next time despite providing material and personal efforts for the campaign. I campaigned as a Democrat first.

[freedom_to_read]

2. a wise man once said

... that victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan.

Had Kerry won, we'd be talking about his tactical brilliance.

I think people are more comfortable blaming our loss on Kerry's "terrible campaign" than accepting the fact that the Left has serious problems connecting with a large segment of Americans.

Not to say Kerry didn't make his share of mistakes. I have my own short list, but I'll keep it to myself since it's an utterly pointless excercise.

We need to think about what the Democrats can do to counteract the Right's bullshit. Seriously. If our ideas are so much better than theirs (and I believe they are) then we need to figure out how to market them better.

[Julien Sorel]

10. I wish I could find something to argue with here.

But I can't. It's exactly my sentiments.

Flipping 50,000 votes in Ohio was the difference between President Kerry on the one hand, and, "Kerry sucks! Why did we nominate him?" on the other.

I wonder how many of those 50,000 people would have voted our way if the Democrats were seen as being reliable on national security. Kerry had his own problems, as all candidates do, but he was also selling a brand with image problems.

[freedom_to_read]

14. branding

Dems definitely need to think about it, and right quick. Rather than just creeping more to the right each cycle, we need to figure out how to present out core principles differently.

The Republicans on the right don't compromise on their principles, despicable as most of them are IMHO. BUT they are savvy about presenting them in such a way that people in the center who might not necessarily support say, outlawing abortion or massively subsidizing defense contractors, still support the GOP.

It's a dilly of a pickle, but we need to think about it. :think:

[Leilani]

59. I always thought it would be all about national security

If it comes to domestic issues, Dems win.

But we were attacked, there's a war going on, & we can argue the merits of this issue, but there is 1 consistent thing.

The American people trust Republicans more on National Security.

If I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times..."Bush will keep me safe." Of course that makes no sense, but people did not feel Kerry was as tough as Shrub.

We thought his service record would help, & AWOL would be hindered, but Kerry wasn't seen as tough enough.

That was my argument for Clark on the ticket, to shore up the Northeast Liberal Senator from Mass.

Well, he picked Edwards, & that did not add anything.

Joe Lieberman made Gore more competitive in Florida.

[eridani]

106. Right. 3000 murdered on the Republican watch-

--and they're the ones you trust with security?

[Leilani]

120. I said it didn't make any sense...

But it's all a part of perception.

[pa28]

88. I have to agree.

There is the fraud and suppression issue I know.

But, we were up against the worst president since Hoover. We should have won by a landslide and a landslide would have overcome the fraud. The problems are deeper than any mistakes Kerry might have made.

[merh]

90. Marketing our ideas is the problem . . .

Not the campaign or our platform.

Please tell me how we win back the media? Can we in some way make them fair again without controlling the corporations that own them?

Tell me how many presidents or presidential candidates were give the carte blanch access to the media and our airwaves that was given to the shrub. In the past, should a sitting president ever visit military bases during campaign under the guise of pep rallies to support our troops, would the press have let his visit go unquestioned, let alone triumph the visit as an example of a true commander in chief? Would the press have allowed any other president to deliver plastic turkeys on thanksgiving day without riding the man for the staged and insincere photo op? How about the "top gun" flight on to the air craft carrier and the mission accomplished sign, do you think Clinton could have gotten away with that.

Hell, when Clinton tried to get Usama in Afghanistan and began the efforts to bomb his training camps, the use of the military was not supported by Congress and the media started the "wag the dog" assaults, alleging that he was only using the military in his efforts to get the country's mind off of his impeachment troubles.

How many presidents or candidates can hold rallies where the attendees must sign loyalty oaths and not have the media question the legitimacy and legality of the rallies or oaths. Had it been any other candidate the media would have compared Kerry's massive rallies that did not require loyal oaths to those of the shrub and would have ridiculed the shrub's rallies.

Think about how many times you saw the shrub hold press conferences during the campaign (compared to the few he held during his entire first term) or how many of his campaign stops were given press coverage and compare those to the limited coverage afforded Kerry and Edwards. Hell, Edwards campaigns were so rarely covered by the media that many asked what it was he was doing during the campaign. Yet, we were subject to constant coverage of the shrub and his running mate, even though they said nothing new or out and out lied when they spoke.

I could go on and on, but what good would that do? As I have said in the past, given that John Kerry received 48 to 49% of the vote despite the fact that he was not afforded press coverage that was close to what the shrub received, given the fact that the media did not fully report the facts or actually investigate any of the "flaws" of the president, John Kerry did remarkably well. Just imagine what would have happened if the fairness doctrine were still in effect, just imagine if the press was fair and if they had held the shrub to the same fire of truth that they held Clinton to.

Marketing is our problem, how we get back the media is the problem and I have no answers. John Kerry and the Democratic party have nothing to apologize for and a reform of the platform is not necessary. Getting our message is the problem.

[Fla Dem]

146. It IS the message and control of the media!!!

We will not win another Presidential election, and we will continue to see RW power grow in the senate and congress until we have as much media control over the airwaves as the RW does. A concerted RW effort over the past 15-20 years to monopolize radio and TV discourse has resulted in the complete identity theft of the progressive/liberal ideology. We DO NOT have an equal voice. We DO NOT have the "rock stars" like Limbaugh and Hannity. Al Franken IS NOT in their league. He is not hard hitting, he doesn't frame RW issues in a way that impacts visceral feelings.

Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting are buying up stations so they can monopolize the airways, and block any opposing views.

Air America Radio is a start, but as much as I hate to say it, they need to take a page from the Hannity and Limbaugh play book and stop playing nice. I know they are close to beating Limbaugh in the NYC market, but SO WHAT!! They are preaching to the choir in NYC.

The RW seizes on an issue and it becomes a talking point for all the talk shows, national and local. They have brainwashed 50%+ of voting Americans. They serve a diet of talking points couched in fear, bigotry, classism and patriotism

Limbaugh rarely has guests on his show, and takes an occasional phone call, the rest of his 3 hours is taking current issues and hitting democrat's over the head with them. Everything wrong in the world is the democrat's fault. He talks nonstop either praising the RW, or demonizing democrats, continuing stressing the same themes over and over again. Hannity is very similar except he does take some phone calls and has guests. But his guests are just as hard hitting, and they parrot the same talking points and themes. They play fast and loose with facts, spinning them just enough to undermine, skew and demean our positions, and put fear into the hearts in the heartland.

Themes: elite liberal media, main stream media, Massachusetts liberal, soft on defense, tax and spend, Teddy{hic}Kennedy, tree huggers, Hillary care, environmental wackos, flip-flopper, no moral values, stacked liberal courts, etc. Continually used over and over again. Limbaugh and Hannity have convinced their following that they are the protectors of the American dream and ideals.

All the punditry on cable news is RW. Except for Olbermann there is no one I can stand to watch. He at least takes jabs at the right. Limbaugh started this whole myth of the elite liberal media, and the media bought it and has turned into weak kneed sissies. They are so afraid of offending the administration, or having Limbaugh/Hannity call them out for reporting the truth, they have capitulated their responsibilities.

The media has become lazy. Because of the 24 hour news cycle, they resort to using sound bites and statements issued by the WH. They don't have the time or inclination to flesh those statements out, or find out the truth. So the news is simply a rehash of the RW position. Look a what happened during the buildup to the Iraq war. No one was willing to stand up to the Administration and report opposing viewpoints.

I am very frustrated because the RW has the media infrastructure in place to continually get their message out and we don't. I fear we will all be here 4 years from now lamenting the same issues. Unless this administration severely screws up we will have another uphill battle in 2008, regardless who is running.

We have to have strong voices out there hitting back 12 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Until we do we will not overcome.

Here is a good article with similar opinions.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2004/110304.html

[deutsey]

98. Well, I think you're right to an extent, but I wasn't overly impressed

with Kerry's campaign before the election. I even knew Kerry partisans who were baffled over why he wouldn't come out swinging on things like the Swift Boats smear and his inability to explain his vote on aiding the troops, etc.

I remember one prominent Democrat leading the local Kerry campaign where I live saying at a fundraiser that she was as confused about what the national campaign was (and was not) doing as the rest of us.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

142. Agreed

Why are we NOT connecting?
What can we do to change that?
That is what we MUST concentrate on.

Our values actually encompass so much more than the RR's "bedroom" bull sh*t that passes for values these days. (only because they have pushed that meme so hard that people are starting to buy into it)

[sonicx]

3. Neither campaign was 'terrible'

[madison2000]

4. Campaigns are always terrible in hindsight when you lose

I think he did a pretty good job.

[RafterMan]

13. But it wasn't just hindsight

You remember all the criticisms here, and their suppression in the name of unity. These may not all have been valid, but they were not hindsight.

[madison2000]

21. Actually I joined DU after the election

so I don't remember the criticims! I'm just sick of Dems tearing each other down when a crisis is at hand.

[RafterMan]

87. Well, Welcome then!

If you think what you're seeing now is bad, just wait for the primaries.

Seriously, I think it's very healthy. Best to have a rousing good debate about what direction to go rather than unifying around something we're not sure about. We may not reach an ultimate consensus, but I think the strong and weak points of all the various approaches were well fleshed-out by the time the election came.

So, yes, unity -- but what do we unite around? At this point, that's a more useful question.

[sandnsea]

24. Unity is more than not bitching

It's being on message together. And if you don't know what the message is, learning it. And I'll let it go at that.

[Rumdummy]

58. What message?

For or against the war in Iraq?

For or against massive corporate subsidies/scams?

For or against 1st amendment violations like McCain-Feingold?

For or against giving more to drug companies as part of a bankrupt Medicare program?

Kerry didn't have any message- except "Kind of/sort of like Bush- except better"!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

143. If McCain-Feingold is what I think it is,

Then I would say it would be a good thing, or at least a good idea - I can't comment on the specifics of the exectution.

My understanding is that it's a bill to make it harder to spend money on political campaigning.

I agree that that is a blatant violation of freedom of speech, but I still think it's a good thing on balance even so.

Making people free to campaign as they see fit is important. Ending the naked vote-buying that appears to be going on in America is more so.

Over here in the UK there is far less money spent on campaigning, I believe, and most of it comes from individuals, and the result is that special influences have less influence (although still arguably too much).

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

144. First there has to be a message

HELP IS ON THE WAY, IMHO was NOT a message...it was a slogan.

But then again, it seems in the era of "sound bite" politics all we get is slogans.

[Rumdummy]

56. Exactly!

You remember all the criticisms here, and their suppression in the name of unity.

I heard way too much about how "electable" Kerry was...

We got screwed by trying to suck up to middle America.

[Wickerman]

5. Bush had a horrid campaign

His stumbles in the debates would've forever shackled a mere mortal. Instead, Kerry takes hits for the most miniscule things. Something,as always, smells bad.

[pa28]

12. This is a fact always missed.

Bush ran a lackluster campaign. The "flip-flop" theme was weak and they finally settled on the more obvious "Massachusetts Liberal" which gained traction.

The thing is when the media latches onto your talking points like an obedient dog and examines them from every possible angle every day it has a way of making your campaign message look effective.

[LittleClarkie]

25. I still remember all the "major speeches" Bush would give

that would turn out to be just "9/11! Vote for me!!" and the press would cover them in their entirety.

Kerry had to fight to even BE on the news half the time. I loved that press conference he gave in September. Brilliant idea. Would have liked to see more.

[robbedvoter]

48. True. People cannot accept this was NOT an election. There will not

be anymore elections until we admit/deal with this.

[leyton]

74. Bush had an excellent campaign.

I can sum up Bush's message for you off the cuff in a paragraph: "Vote for me because I've proven my leadership in the removal of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. I share your values. John Kerry will bend to the political winds, and he's liberal, and he'll kowtow to bodies like the UN."

I still don't quite know what Kerry's message is, but it was never stated as concisely as that.

In the end, Bush did a far better job communicating his message. Yeah, his first debate sucked and cost him a lot of ground, but in the end, enough voters still had confidence in him as a commander-in-chief.

[robbedvoter]

81. Yeah. That and loyalty oaths, and idiotic debates and AWOl and...

And Saddam and Osama is one and the same guy. And forget I said Osama who ?. The important thing is Kerry outed Cheney's daughter.
The media kept hiding his horrendous gaffes and praising his "message" - which you swallowed.
Here's my take: " It's hard work"

Sorry, if that was a good campaign for you, you are studying the new imperial reality


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[leyton]

131. Didn't swallow the message, but I sure understood it.

Kerry still perplexes me with his stance on the war. Yeah, I'm willing to accept that, but most voters aren't, and in the end, campaigns should be about winning over even voters who can't accept complexity. If Bush used the media to his advantage, why didn't Kerry? Frankly, I'm sicking of hearing excuses about biased media; there is some truth there, but ultimately it just becomes a blame-somebody-other-than-our-incompetent-strategists-fest.

Even horrible presidents can run excellent campaigns, and this is evidence of it. So instead of giving me this crap about "swallowing" messages, consider that it might actually be Kerry's fault that he lost what should have been an easy election.

[Wickerman]

86. Its a damn shame that folks couldn't grasp the concept

of Kerry's campaign. I assumed you were joking when you said you couldn't either, but I guess not. :freak:

This isn't a simple world, I don't want my candidate to tell me what i want to hear and I don't want him/her to have to say it in 15 words or less. I'm a big boy, I can take whole paragraphs. Hell, I can even read a website or follow an ENTIRE speech and grasp what a politician was saying.

Those who didn't get what Kerry's message was were never going to hear it or understand it anyway.

Short soundbites aren't a policy, they are, in the end, short soundbytes.

[leyton]

132. Campaigns without soundbites = policies that never get in place.

This isn't an ideal world, amigo, and people aren't going to sit around all day and parse what a candidate is saying. I would like campaigns to be about more than soundbites, but I would also like a Ferrari.

The concept that I grasped the most often from the Kerry campaign is "get the crooks out." It's something I would love to see happen, and I wanted Kerry to win with all my heart. But I am still not sure whether Kerry supported the war, and neither are a lot of people. It's his job to communicate his message to me if he wants to win the election.

This is not to say that Kerry failed at communicating. I can tell you in my sleep what the heart of his tax plan is - keep the tax cuts for everyone but those making 200K+ - because it's easy to understand. I'm going to assume that his tax plan is actually a bit more complicated than that, given Kerry's capacity for detail, and I'm sure that if I went out to his website and read all about it I'd be able to grasp it too. I'm just not particularly interested in the details of policy, and neither are 75% of the voters. I'd rather see that Kerry has the right general ideas and values the same things I do, such as fiscal sanity. That's why he was smart to boil his tax plan down to the bare bones of it when he presented it to the general public. Why couldn't he do that with the war? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the first debate Kerry said (correctly) that the war in Iraq took away attention from Afghanistan and thus was a bad decision. Yet he voted for the authority to use force. Perhaps you can reconcile these things, but I see it as a contradiction. One that I'm willing to look past because Bush is incompetent, but a contradiction nonetheless.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

145. But you are not

the highly touted "average American voter". :)

The masses want fast food, fast lanes and fast (and short) catch phrases.

I don't know that is going to change anytime soon. So whether we like it or not we need a candidate and a campaign that can formulate the consistant "soundbite" for the masses as well as the full paragraphs for the smart people.

[JI7]

6. i think they underestimated the Republican GOTV effort

especially their campaigning through churches which is how they picked up some latino support.

[Leilani]

55. You're right about that.

Karl Rove worked for 4 years, very quietly. (Read about all this after the campaign)

We were SURE we were the most motivated, but they very quietly ran a hell of a campaign.

[ohioan]

68. True dat

Insisting that the only reason Bush and not Kerry will be sworn in next January is that the Republicans stole it fails to take into account how good the Bush ground game was. And if we ignore that in favor of whining about election theft for the next four years, they will unquestionably kick our asses next time around.

[leyton]

133. dupe

[leyton]

134. Finally! Someone said it!

Good god, I'm sick of people here sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "Tralala" when others point out the mistakes we've made in the past, because (as you said) ignoring the problem ain't gonna make it go away. Voter fraud may account for Ohio or Florida, but Bush won this thing by several million votes, and given the strength of their ground game, that doesn't surprise me at all.

[robbedvoter]

82. Riight, Those 8 million extra voters than 2000...The Amish people

Man, you guys are easy!


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[Cha]

7. bush ran the atrocious campaign but

was rewarded at the polls by ignorance and some say voter fraud.

bush lost all three debates and the convention in New York City was a blight on humanity.

The media is our enemy and they will say anything to demoralize us.

[Leilani]

57. They were better organized

Read the issue of Newsweek about the election.

They had a better get-out-the-vote effort.

Their outreach to Hispanics worked...Bush boosted his percentage of Hispanics from 2000.

They had every voter tagged, contacted, & brought to the polls.

And almost all of it was volunteer...no paid people.

[Cha]

71. When I start believing their

propoganda ..I'll let everyone know.

I don't believe a damn word they say.

Newsweak and Time are a propoganda tools.

[Yupster]

93. NY Times Magazine

had an interesting very long article last weekend. It had a reporter follow around the Ohio head of the 527 organization "America Coming Together" during election day.

There ws some very interesting parts.

He explained how extensive and expensive the 527 GOTV effort was. It went as far as buying $ 3,000 worth of Big Macs for voters standing in one line. The checks were written by unions mostly.

It talked about him getting the first exit polls around 2 pm showing Kerry up four points. The next ones came in about four pm and showed Kerry up by 2. The last round came in about 6 pm and showed a dead even race. He drove over to a Republican precinct and checked the number of voters posted on the wall each hour or two. It was a sickening feeling. With two hours to go until the poll closed, the precinct had 68 % voting, blowing away their normal turnout. The precinct ended up with 78 % voted.

It talked about Republican ex-urbs that didn't exist four years ago.

A very interesting read. I posted it a few days ago.

It ended on a sad note with Kerry conceding. The 527 workers were in an unusual position because there really wasn't even anyone to thank them for their months of work since they didn't work for the Kerry campaign.

The article made clear they absolutely were separate from the campaign and didn't do any coordinating, open or hidden or assumed or anything.

Throughout the article the guy belittles the Republican turnout effort. I know ground game and you can't run a volunteer ground game, he would tell the reporter. The reporter made ure he put that in a few times.

[rainy]

8. Dems cannot run a good campaign because they are a

walking contradiction. On the one hand they advocate equal rights, people first, unions, environment, minimum wage hikes, etc... very Democratic issues. On the other hand they support corporatism,WAR, militarism, etc... they talk out of both sides of their mouths. They are too corporate and cannot win because no matter what, corporate america supports repubs. We are not to win again until we become Democrats again. But I think it is time to go green.

[Rumdummy]

60. I heard that!

I said almost the same thing later in the thread!

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

147. How do you figure

that it's wise to pretend corporations and the military need to be kissed off?

And how does it help humanitarian (Democratic) causes by opting out of the party?

I've got nothing against greens, don't get me wrong, but as distastful as it may be, we have to accept the fact that our strength isn't enhanced by fractioning off to other (and weaker) parties.

This tendency really concerns me.

LOL...so speaketh a person who was an Independent for over 30 years. Guess I should just shut up huh?

[FrenchieCat]

9. CW....

Meaning Conventional Wisdom from the MediaWhores and Presstitutes?

Well it's all CWM= Complete Whore Manure in my book!

The media and their endless poll propaganda need to take an
EV= Endless Vacation!

[recovering democrat]

15. Can't have it both ways

Kerry ran a terrible campaign = Bush was a better candidate and his campaign management did a better job of convincing the American people to support him ON THE ISSUES. (Since Kerry tried to talk about the issues and pretty much had the better program)

Kerry ran a terrible campaign = there was no fraud involved in the election, with the electronic voting machines or with the vote suppression tactics used in many areas. (Whether they succeed in overturning the election results is not the issue; the fraud is clearly evident, documented and provable in a number of cases, and the vote suppression tactics are evidenced by the behavior of the Republican opposition and litigation to stop recounts, investigations or vote -counting.

A "war time President", cruel lies and devastating negative attacks by Bush supporters, manipulation of the military actions in Iraq to reduce media coverage until after the election.... and on and on.

It is amazing Kerry's campaign did as well as it did. The CW presumes wishful thinking and all of the above are tin-foil alerts. If so, he ran a terrible campaign. I don't think so.

[arewenotdemo]

20. The torture scandal was perhaps the best example of many

that got deep-sixed by the liberal media.

Then just think how Clinton's sex scandal gave and kept on giving...the American media essentially did the Supreme job of reselecting Bush.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

148. Media definitely sucks! eom

[LittleClarkie]

37. He was no McGovern, and he was no Dole

He wasn't Mondale, or Dukakis. He looked like a winner. He felt like a winner. He wasn't even another Gore. Several people said it was Clinton-esque toward the end there. Even Bush looked worried.

That's why I can't believe it was Kerry's fault. Just when we feared he was Gore-ing himself, he made changes to the campaign and buoyed back up. It seems easier to believe voter suppression, if not outright fraud than to believe we could have been so wrong about the feeling we had at the end. We were so damn sure! The Closer had arrived!

It wasn't a Clinton campaign, but then Kerry doesn't have that immediate charisma that Clinton has. You have to really give him a good look before you realize he's a good man. It's hard to get people to do that. They're looking for sound bites. He wasn't a sound bites kind of guy.

What do you do when you have all those generals, economists, scientist and even conservative newspapers backing you, and no one will take notice?

I'd put his campaign at a level just below Clinton's, but better than most I've seen the Democrats stage in a while. I think that any of the candidates would have been eaten alive by the Rove machine. I don't think most would have held up as well as he did.

The man needs to trust his gut more than his staff next time. His gut told him to go after the Swift vets. He should have listened.

[theangrydem]

16. Worst campaign in my lifetime

If posted it before and I'll post it again, the Kerry campaign was the worst run Democratic campaign I have ever seen and it was stated as such by some Democratic observers at the time (Some Boston official). There was a sense of urgency because they were being out maneuvered at every turn by the Bushies. The "Lets be nice" convention was a huge mistake as was the slow response to the Swift-boat liers. Kerry will go down in history as the man who lost to the most hated (internationally) president in U.S. history, and also to the president with the lowest approval rating going into a election.....a true miracle for Bush.

[liberalpragmatist]

38. Lowest approval rating?! not true

Carter and Bush, Sr. both had approval ratings in the 30s.

The Kerry campaign clearly made some mistakes. But so did Bush. And Kerry's last 2 months were excellent.

Simply put, unfortunately, Bush's ratings are not catastrophic. Incumbents win big when they have approval ratings in the 50s or 60s and lose big when approval ratings are in the low 40s or 30s. Bush was in the mid-to-high 40s and had the residual effects of 9/11. And while the economic indicators were poor, they still didn't show the country in catastrophic decline or clear recession either.

For those reasons, Bush had to be slightly favored. Like Truman in 1948, the facts on the ground meant that a slight Bush victory was likely. That's not to say that a Democratic campaign couldn't have unseated him. Kerry came very close. Clearly, mistakes were made, but that gets to the central point - in a race like this, where the incumbent was slightly favored, it would have taken a near-perfect campaign to dislodge him. The American people showed they were willing to consider voting for an alternative, but few outright abandoned Bush. The problem was that in this election year, with fears of terrorism and the country closely split, simply being "an alternative" wasn't enough as it was for, say, Ronald Reagan. Democrats had to simultaneously convey empathy, concern for middle-class squeeze, "strength" in national security - these were goals Kerry strove to achieve - unfortunately, he didn't totally cross the threshold. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how any other democratic candidate would have had a significantly better chance of winning.

Bush was also buoyed by a strong showing in the red states, much of which was reinforced by fears over 9/11.

Certainly the Kerry campaign made mistakes. But to say it was the worst campaign of anyone's lifetime? Please. Dukakis was far worse, and in some ways so was Gore's. Dukakis should have been favored with the time-for-change factor and blew a 17-point lead. Kerry never was able to establish a big lead and the terrain narrowly favored Bush. He does not have the lowest approval ratings of any president oging into an election. His approval rating on election day was registering at close to 50% - the break-off point.

[Mike L]

43. We've posted Kerry's misstatements before.

Everyone knows them by now. Bob Shrum was the kiss of death as far as political strategists go. They totally screwed up in August in everything they did-- seemed to agree with the Iraq invasion, tried to ignore the Swift Vets. The combination of August's screw-ups and Kerry's misstatements let Chimp take the lead and Kerry never got it back. Kerry's biggest misstatement- his 1971 Senate testimony- even came back to haunt him.

[LittleClarkie]

77. The 1971 testimony was not a misstatement

That was a shining moment, actually. And it came back to haunt him almost precisely when the Abu Ghraib report came out. Oops, probably a bad time to bring up attrocities and all. After that testimony resurfaces, I can't tell you how many places I saw "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake" quoted.

It added to the war debate, if not the campaign.

[Mike L]

85. The problem was that the Swift Vet Liars and the cable news networks

played the, "US soldiers raped, murdered, cut off ears..." part of his testimony. That's the part that hurt.

[JI7]

17. i think they should have brought up Kerry's record more

as a prosecutor and in the Senate such as the iran contra thing and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

but the election was so close and Kerry DID get a large turnout himself. it would be different if he had lost by a large amount.

i know some people say he should have responded to the swift boat thing but i also know that would have put him on the defensive and resulted in a negative campaign which helps republicans and hurts democrats. the media and others had the facts which backed up kerry's side yet they still had those people on and let them tell lies. if Kerry responded there is no way to know how things would have turned out. they might have continued to report it as just two sides of the story and he would have been caught up in that.just like that cambodia thing where they would have used an error in date of a few days to make it seem as if Kerry was lying.

but while all that crap was going on he was out there campagining. most people wanted to know about jobs, health care ,education etc. and these things did help him.

if we could go back and change things with what the campaign did i probably would not put responding to swift boat liars as one of them. instead i would put more focus on his record as prosecutor and senator, take out the mary cheney lesbian comment from the last debate, and spend some money in states that were solid red and blue to get more popular votes.

[ohioan]

70. If he'd responded earlier to Swift Boat liars, the story STILL would have

taken off - the media couldn't get enough of it - but they would have blamed Kerry for the story having legs: "This was just some anonymous rabblerousers who no one was paying attention to. It would have been a one-day story, until Kerry dignified them with a response. HE made this a story."

Kerry was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Frankly, I think it was better that he didn't respond - it would have been much worse for him to get jump down into the mud with John O'Neil and his slime, pull himself off message while allowing Bush to traipse blithely along as if he had nothing to do with it. I really believe that had Kerry responded and then lost the race, people would have blamed his loss on his being distracted and off-message.

[LittleClarkie]

80. Indeed, Kerry was trying to stick to the issues

So many things distracted from him getting his message out, from the Swiftees to Bush and the National Guard to Mary Cheney (a shot in the foot, though I know why they brought it up).

[Yupster]

95. He should have taken care of the swift boat stuff

before the campaign started or at least in the primaries.

They knew it was coming. It should have been confronted long before the campaign.

[quiet.american]

18. He ran a good enough campaign

He ran a good enough campaign that the exit polls had him winning and Bush and Co. had to pull out every dirty trick in the book to put Bush's dumb behind back in there.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I agree....

But don't get me wrong. Kerry ain't getting no more votes from me. He had his shot.

[sendero]

23. You can add me..

.... to that list. I'm not going to trash Kerry because I think he is a good man and he did his best.

But IMHO he doesn't get another shot. There is someone out there who could have beaten Bush, it shouldn't have been that hard but some people are afraid to go for the jugular the way the right does.

Next time, if we don't have someone who will play the new game, I won't bother sending money or voting, it is a waste of time.

[LittleClarkie]

31. I took a call down at Kerry HQ

The woman seemed to think we had a Kerry hotline and could just pass her comments along directly to him. But anyway, she reacted to the negativity of both candidates, and said if it kept up, she'd just stay home on Nov 2.

I wonder how many more there were like her.

If I had to name one thing I heard about Kerry from the uninformed, it was that whole flip/flop routine. A courier I see once in a blue moon saw my Kerry button, and started bouncing up and down like a little kid, going "flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop." It was rather grotesque really. But that is what I heard from several people.

I also heard from a few that he would say one thing to one group, and then another thing to another. The objection I have there is that if you strung his comments together, they didn't contradict. They were all different aspects or different ways of saying the same thing. There was a comprehension problem, I think.

Putting reporters on Kerry's plane who actually liked the guy would have been nice. But as the Rolling Stone pointed out, that was done almost on purpose.

Having more supporters that were pro-Kerry and less-ABB would have helped too. In the end, folks might agree with you that Bush sucks, but you have to give them a reason to vote FOR someone, not just against.

[sendero]

50. Here's the thing...

.... I keep hearing all the harping about how Americans don't like negative campaigning and such.

What a load of bullshit!

That's all Bush** did was dis Kerry. The right came after him like a pit bull, Swift Boat ads and all. And guess who won the election.

It's just like TV content. Americans all say there is too much sex and violence on TV, but look at what gets the ratings.

People are all talk, and they say what they think everyone wants to hear. I try to follow the bouncing ball, not the vapor words.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

149. Hear hear!

You just said a mouthful!

And that so called "moral majority" tops the list of hypocrits!

:toast:

[Meritaten1]

22. Republicans ran a far worse campaign!

The ** campaign relied on slogans rather than clearly expressed ideas.

Republicans expected people to sign loyalty oaths before allowing them to attend ** rallies, they feared diverging opinions so much.

** stumbled badly during the debates, especially the first one.

The Republicans ran a lousy campaign and the MSM knows it!

[sampsonblk]

73. Damn straight

As bas as Kerry's campaign was - and I thought it was a travesty - the Bush campaign was even worse. They spouted such indefensible nonsense that they should have been blown out of the water. But our guy never did it effectively.

[robbedvoter]

26. No one can compare with "hard work" W! he's perfect!

I've read post mortems from at least 3 campaigns - Clark, Dean & Kerry.
They were all imperfect.
But does anyone remember that W bused his audience from rally to rally, that while Kerry had audiences in tens and hundreds of thousands W was speechifying to the same 300 converts? Can anyone say :"mock campaign?"(the perfect thing for "mock elections" btw)
Can anyone explain where 8 extra million people (since 200) came from? (more than that since we all know former W voters voting for Kerry and NOT the other way)

[Rumdummy]

65. How about people like Ed Koch...

A(n apparently) gay Jew Democrat from New York-- voting for Bush!!!

Did Kerry offer a truly different viewpoint?

I didn't hear or see it...

It seemed like every state primary voter after Dean's loss in Iowa sucked down the "electability kool-aid".

[robbedvoter]

78. Ed Koch wants to sterilize welfare mothers (since the 80s)

he wants UN out of NYC and other -...tipical gay Jew fron NY (nice stereotype, BTW - he is using it for all its worth)
In short, Ed Koch is a nazi - how does this relate to Kerry's campaign - please explain.
P.S. Ever since Stevetson, the deanie disguise for you guys wore out pretty thin. Nice try though.

[LittleClarkie]

27. Forgive me for bringing up Rush here,

But he said something that has me puzzled. He said Kerry blamed RW radio in part for his loss.

When did he do that? I don't remember hearing that.

But then Rush is an ass.

[Julien Sorel]

29. Dunno.

I don't think I've ever listened to a Rush show from start to finish, and I've certainly not listened to even one word of his in over 10 years.

I highly recommend it.

[fujiyama]

28. Kerry ran a mediocre campaign

One of the crucial mistakes was that he didn't reply early on to Bush's negative ads. Bush started hitting him early on especially on creating the flip flop meme - and Kerry's own "voted for it before voting against it" statement didn't do him any favors. Ultimate, voting against the 87 billion in the first place was a stupid idea, that too after voting for the IWR resolution itself.

But I could have excused him at the begining. After all, Kerry had no money coming out of the primaries. But Kerry was able to raise a ton of money soon after. That certainly wasn't the issue this year. We also never had effective negative ads, because Shrum was a dumbass and looked at polls and focus groups way too much and literally, where it said that people wanted positive ads.

Also by the time Kerry replied to the Swift Vets, they had caused a lot of damage.

[mtnsnake]

30. Very poor campaign, and it has nothing to do with hindsight

If it wasn't such a terrible campaign, then why did so many people, including myself and millions of others, keep asking ourselves why the campaign sucked so badly all DURING it? This was not monday morning quarterbacking. All during this dreadful campaign, I kept on beating my brains out as to things like "Why does he refuse to stand up to the swift boat fucks?", "Why the hell doesn't he start fighting fire with fire?", "Why are they taking the high road so much?", "When the fuck are they going to come out with some monstrous negative attacks of their own on TV against Bush?", "Why in God's name would his advisors tell him to say that Mary Cheney thing at the worst possible time?", "Why would he want try to fool the rednecks into voting for him by going on his highly publicized STUPID goose hunting trip?", "Why is he having so much trouble EXPLAINING himself to the American people?".

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY??????? Didn't he want to win??

This was a pathetic campaign if I ever saw one.

[LittleClarkie]

35. How many have you seen

Just putting it in context.

Yeah, everyone was saying "Why doesn't he do _______" and "Why doesn't he do ________." The problem was that everyone had a different opinion and everyone thought they were right. He got alot of that from his own party too, if I recall.

I remember wondering how he could possible follow everyone's conflicting advice. The economy, stupid! No, the war, stupid! No, he should come out in the debate and bitch-slap Bush across the floor!

Almost all of that criticism subsided in late September, when he gave that wonderful speech at Temple U, and those couple of press conferences, and the appearance on Letterman, the three debates etc. Then the volunteers came out in freakin' droves (right after the first debate) like they could smell a winner. He looked like a winner, had the big "MO" going into November, and had the freepers hatching bricks. Which is what made Nov. 2 such a shock and a slap.

More than anything, I think it was the media, and the early attacks on Kerry when he was still battling Edwards et al in the primaries that messed things up early.

I continue to believe that Kerry is a good product that needs a better PR department. That's all.

[AP]

32. Kerry was a flawed candidate who ran a great campaign for the last 6 weeks

Running a north easterner with a super rich wife was a little mad, but it almost worked out.

[AP]

33. Comparison: Gore was a slightly better candidate who ran a much worse

campaign.

Too bad we can't find the great canidate who can run a great campaign.

[Mike L]

44. Joe Lockhart was the strategist for the last 6 weeks.

But he couldn't undo the damage Bob Shrum and Kerry had already heaped upon the campaign.

I remember when Kerry "flip-flopped" 6 weeks out and strongly denounced Chimp's decision to invade Iraq. I recall getting a lift and thinking that maybe Lockhart could undo the damage Shrum and Kerry had inflicted in August. I thought to myself, "Hell, there are six weeks left. That's the most important 6 weeks and the average voter can't focus on anything for more than six weeks anyway." But, the damage was too great to overcome.

[AP]

52. Kerry needed more insulation from the fear (OBL Vid & Missing Explosives)

I wonder what they could have done?

[Mike L]

64. That's a tough question.

He talked about lax port security, but didn't say what he would do better. I think he could have come up with a detailed plan for stopping terrorists and WMDs from entering the US-- better searches at ports; building border barriers that work; beefing up Homeland Security; better background checks on legal aliens; etc.

There isn't anything else that really can be done to fight al-Qaeda outside of the US other than building better diplomatic relationships with countries in which al-Qaeda cells operate. We can't go around invading all those countries. We have to convince their leaders to root out the cells themselves. Unfortunately, "better diplomacy" doesn't sound very good to the ignorant average voter.

[AP]

69. Here's the Catch-22 to me:

He did a great job of telling people Bush messed up Iraq. I think everyone except the die-hard Republicans were willing to accept that.

But it the last week of the campaign the stories were this: (1) there are missing explosives, because of mistakes Bush made, and (2) OBL is on the loose because of mistakes Bush made.

People dropped the "mistakes Bush made" part of those realities, and were left with "OBL + missing exploisves = I think I'm scared."

And when people are scared, they always vote for the bigger fascist. That's what happened in Nazi Germany, and it's what FDR was fighting when he told people there was nothing to fear except fear. He knew that if people got scared, they'd just vote for the fascist who said, "I make you poorer, but I won't make you dead because I'm willing to attack the world (with your money)."

How do you fight that if you're John Kerry?

I really don't think there was much more he could do in therms of making people feel safer by talking more about how frightening the world is. But do you go 180 degrees in the other direction and talk only about making people healthier, wealthier and happier?

[robbedvoter]

46. Why am I not surpised? Knife in the back posting...

But then I know that the CW on a certain candidate blog was: "maybe Kerry will trip/die" and our guy will save the day"
So, there are 2 perfect candidates in this world then: W and your boy....

[AP]

53. Knife in the back? Huh? Nice spin on my post.

I supported another candidate in the primary for reasons I often stated as the most critical in this election (class, hope, and being a great contrast to Bush). I didn't think Kerry was as good on those fronts, thus I call him "flawed."

He still ran a brilliant campaign in the last 6 weeks. He overcame many of his flaws. "Service" was a great message that almost negated being from a very similar class background as Bush. I said all this after the primaries ended and as I watched the campaign unfold.

I thought it was a great campaign. But I'm not going to call myself a liar and fool by contradicting what I said thousands of times during the primaries about what the perfect candidate would look like this year (and which I still believe).

[ohioan]

79. I think Kerry ran a good campaign . . .

The only criticism I have is that, in hindsight, I think he should have used more of John Edwards' message, which was really all about moral values. Edwards often talked about issues - especially poverty, the economy and civil rights - in moral terms: "We need to talk about poverty because it's wrong;" "We should talk about civil rights everywhere because this is an American issue. It's about who we are and the kind of country we want to live in," etc.

Kerry did talk about these issues in front of some audiences, but looking back, I believe the campaign might have been able to staunch the Bush "moral values is all about whether a guy marries another guy" crap by not ignoring the moral values issue but redefining and expanding it the way John Edwards did.

Oh, well . . .

[AP]

89. If I could have one question magically answered, it would relate to this.

I ask this question up in post 69: would more focus on hope, optimism, class, opportunity have taken Kerry up higher in October and would it have insulated him from the OBL/Missing Explosives/Fear BS in the last ten days.

I suspect the answer is yes. I think that's why FDR ran on those issues instead of fear of Hitler and of Nazis. But I don't really know.

[talk hard]

36. Pretty Good Campaign

IMO, Kerry ran a too safe campaign. But at the edge of the Grand Canyon when he said he'd vote the same on Iraq knowing what he knows today, that was the dagger to the heart of his campaign. He never recovered from that. He should have responded swiftly to the Swifties. BIG mistake. (And now head liar John O'Neill is a commentator on Faux News.)

Gore was a better candidate but ran a less than desirable campaign. He was robbed in Florida in 2000.

[LittleClarkie]

41. He's WHAT!?!

!@#$%^&*

Oh, my head.

I understood what Kerry was trying to say at the Grand Canyon, but the dude tended to get muddled when he was tired. But to his way of thinking he was correct. He was thinking beyond the question, almost hypothetically saying that any president should have the authority to get the job done. Why he thought Bush would keep his word is beyond me. Maybe he was still caught in the headlights of 9/11 too. I dunno.

There was a speech Kerry gave in Ohio, standing on the very spot that Bush had stood on when he'd promised to use his authority as a last resort, with a proper coalition, and enough force to get the job done. He sounded angry that he'd been lied to.

When I try to bring those points up to Repub friends, they'd just say "but Bush did all that." They believe. How do you argue with someone who has a disconnect with reality that matches the president's.

[Rumdummy]

67. What!!!

He sounded angry that he'd been lied to.

How forkin' dumb do you have to be to believe an asshole like Bush?

[monchie]

39. IMHO, Kerry ran an excellent campaign...

...not perfect, but second only to Clinton's first campaign. Gore's was pretty good, much better than Dukakis or Mondale or Carter's 1980 campaign.

Problem is, I won't trust any election results in this country until two things happen: 1) a paper trail for every electronic machine, and 2) wherever electronic machines are used, including optical scan, mandatory audits of random precincts chosen by non-electronic means, such as the balls that are used to pick lottery winners.

I suspect that electronic fraud was part of what happened in Florida 2000 -- remember the 10,000 votes that mysteriously disappeared from Gore's total during the counting? I also suspect that electronic fraud played a part in the Senate races in 2002, particularly in Georgia but probably elsewhere as well. And, finally, I suspect that electronic fraud was even more widespread in 2004, not only in Ohio and Florida but also in other states as well. (I went into the 2004 election assuming that Jeb would probably steal Florida, though I wasn't sure whether Ohio or other states would be stolen.)

Now, I have no hard evidence, other than a few anecdotal instances, that electronic fraud was committed in 2000, 2002 and 2004. But given the design of the machines, combined with laws that are woefully inadequate for electronic voting, we currently have absolutely no protection against widespread, massive and undetectable vote fraud.

I don't know whether the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections were stolen -- but I also don't know whether they weren't stolen. They sure do smell funny, though.

So, if the electronic voting machine issue isn't addressed soon and strongly, we can assume that the Democrats will lose more Senate seats in 2006.

[TayTay]

42. Kerry Campaign

First post, be kind. (And I'll try and be coherent!)

I think John Kerry is a good and decent guy. But his campaign was unfocused and could not come up with a decent message that stuck. I am sorry to write that, as I like the guy and I have voted for him in every election he's run in MA since '82.

On the other hand, the Bush campaign didn't have contested primaries and were able to hit Kerry in March with the flip-flop ads. The Dems were clearly exhausted and didn't respond and a great deal of damage was done to Kerry's image. The later Iraq vote mess, the Swift Boat non-action and even the 'Dick Cheney's Lesbian daughter' comments all piled on to this initial problem of image control. Kerry was just to much of a risk for too many voters. The debates helped repair some of the damage, but clearly not enough.

I have no idea if Kerry will run again or not. (It's simply too early to tell and I won't take any declaration of intent seriously until 2007 from anyone.) If Kerry ran, he would have a lot to overcome. Right now, I just want him to stand up, take clear stands and push them. He owes me that, as a MA voter.

[monchie]

45. Look, if Jesus Christ was the Dem nominee...

...we'd have the so-called "liberal media" going into a month-long feeding frenzy about rumors that He had a kinky foot affair with a prostitute.

That's the reality of what we're up against...that and voting machines that smell funny.

[robbedvoter]

47. And after sliming him, they would have stolen it from him anyway

Behold: the 14 signs of fascism

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a
complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns
against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of
legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries,
and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their
judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm

[Kathy in Cambridge]

72. Welcome to DU

from a fellow Masshole! :hi:

[newyawker99]

125. Hi TayTay!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[TayTay]

136. Thanks for the welcome!

Happy Thanksgiving!
I have been 'lurking' here for a few months. Didn't want to say anything until I got some of the rules down. Didn't want to be rude!

TayTay

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

150. Good first post

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[ibegurpard]

40. The deck is stacked against the Democrats

The best-run campaign and the perfect candidate would've had a uphill climb.
We can win on a level-playing field but the right wing has spent forty years building a machine with its tentacles in all levels of public discourse. Not to mention that we have no way of being confident that our votes are even being COUNTED correctly.
All of these things have to be addressed and it's going to take a long time to do it.

[Julien Sorel]

63. Ahhh, someone says the magic words.

Or at least some of them.

The electoral map is also stacked against the Democrats. But it's easier to blame the candidate than to figure out what we need to do to compete as a party, instead of affix all our hopes to one person every few years, and then blame them when they can't win a race they start from behind.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

66. The Electoral Map Is Fucking Us, and Will Continue Doing So for Decades

We have fewer states, even if those states have larger population. Problem is, as you undoubtedly know, it's the damn "+2" for the Senate apportionment that is screwing us. We start the game around 20 EVs down from the get-go. And of course, we're also eroding in the Senate for the same reason. And in the House, too, due to the overall proportions of redistricting.

I don't know what the hell we can do about it, either. Add to that the complicit corporate media, and we really do have an uphill battle. I don't like posting often about this, because it can be depressing and lead to defeatism, but hey, since we're already on the subject...

:-(

DTH

[paulk]

49. The CW is being established by the media

to help cover-up the theft of this election.

Nothing about this election makes any sense to me. None of the polling was right, historical trends that an incumbent doesn't get any higher than his approval rating weren't right, losing all three debates..., having the majority of people think the country is going in the wrong direction, most people thinking the economy sucks, approval for the war under 50% - who voted for this guy?

Why are the election results in the Ukraine no good based on exit polls and our's ok?

Did Bush really win? Did night after night of the media nitpicking Kerry, while Bush's non-positions on the issues were glossed over or ignored, work to give Bush the victory?

Kerry made mistakes, yes - but Bush - he ran around the country preaching to his converted; his "base", so after the election the "moral values mandate" could be hauled out as both reason and justification for his victory?

I don't want to believe in fraud, I want to believe that the American people did, in fact, freely choose the disastrous course we are embarking on. It will make the next four years easier to bear. It least then I can have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" to the morons who voted for Bush.

Kerry ran a good campaign within the parameters allowed him by our media.

[tngledwebb]

99. Bingo.

And a highly complicit MSM shows the scale of the problem.

I also would like to believe that maybe only a quarter of those that voted for Bush are as insane as the current Admin. The rest, like many of my neighbors and even a few relatives, are brainwashed by the corrupt MSM, or are truly afraid of terrorists but most are NOT hate-filled fascist homophobic fundies.

[donheld]

51. Kerry did not run a terrible campaign

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: it's not his fault he couldn't get good press coverage.

[bobbieinok]

54. so you all are going to run for office or run a campaign in 2006????

sure would be a tragedy to have all your knowledge and expertise go to waste!!!!!!!!!

[Leilani]

61. LOL!

I know one person who shouldn't run a campaign...Shrummy!

[LittleClarkie]

94. But for all those people who said

they could get their cat elected and do a better job than the Kerry Campaign, well then, knock yourself out. Get out there in the next local campaign, put your ideas to work. You will either find:

1. You're talking out your ass, and need to learn a few things about the process.

2. You indeed have some good ideas, and they need to be placed where they will do the most good.

Either way, it should be interesting. Please post your experiences here if you do. We will either get an "I told you so" or an "I get it now. Wow, it's not that easy."

[cidliz2004]

75. Does C L I N T O N ring a bell?

[robbedvoter]

83. What bell would that be? Blame the Clenis bell?

[jburton]

76. My gratuitous opinion

The Democratic party chooses the "safe side".

Three things in particular that may have seemed "safe" or "polite" at the time politically and were ultimately a stinky piece of shit that stunk up the campaign:

1. "Strategists" who keep getting hired despite their horrendous losing record. But they are a "safe pick" or "legendary speech writer" (Bob Schrum). I think some of these guys should be required to do canvassing in working class neighborhoods for a month next election year to get a reality check.

2. Voting for the Iraqi War Resoulution before the 2002 election with the misguided understanding that it would get the issue "off the table".

3. Being too damn polite to the Rupugs. Act like a damn opposition party! Ask Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) and other conservative Dems how pleasing the White House works. Better ask Charlie fast, because he is leaving after 30 years in Congress because of the Republican redistricting in Tx.

[robbedvoter]

84. True, but the ABB coalition won IN SPITE OF THAT

So, blaming kerry's campaign is counterproductive especially- if it takes away from the win/theft

[osaMABUSh]

91. I guess if you "lose" you automatically ran a bad campaign

I think Bush ran a bad campaign but he "won"

[Redleg]

92. "Conventional Wisdom" is for people who can't handle the fucking truth.

Here is what I believe:
I do believe the mainstream media fell on their lazy asses this election (and last election) and didn't do their fucking jobs. I do believe that the Repubs ran one of the most deceitful and cyncial campaigns of all time. I do believe that many capitalists donated much money to get their "CEO president" elected. I do believe that many fundamentalist "Christian" ministers urged their parishoners to vote for Bush and painted Kerry as some sort of devil. I do believe that many Americans were duped into voting for Bush and that many Americans voted for him because they believed he was for their best interests and for the best interests of the nation.

I also believe that we Dems could have done a better job this election cycle. We did do a great deal of voter registration but need to do more. Kerry ran a good campaign but not a great campaign. He came out swinging too late in the campaign. His campaign at times responded too slowly to threats. The Democratic leadership didn't attack Bush hard enough on Bush's many failures. The Democratic pundits didn't always know the facts and fumbled the ball when they had a chance to fuck their Rethug opposites on TV news shows.

I believe we need to go on that attack and stay on the attack. Fuck the pundits if they accuse us of playing politics or of being Bush haters. We are Bush haters and we are not irrational. These fucking voters respect action and they respect power but they don't respect liberals sitting back on their haunches taking it in their hindquarters because they are afraid to fight back. To paraphrase James Carville, we need to stop apologizing, stop trying to go along to get along, and stop conceding points to the Rethugs.

I have adopted some of these ideas into my own life. When I hear a Rethug praise Bush or criticize the Dems I no longer sit back and take it. I get into their fucking faces. I go on the attack first. I write letters to the editor and respond personally to idiots who use the airwaves and broadcast media to insult Dems. It's not a grand gesture but at least I feel I am doing something to keep those fuckfaces from getting away with their bullshit without being challenged. If we all did that at least America would be aware that we have a real opposition to this fucker Bush and his cabal of swine.

Keep up the fight- no more Mr. and Ms. nice guy. (In my case it's no more Dr. niceguy). Have a safe and enjoyable Thanksgiving.

[Sideways]

96. Yeah Fuckin Great Rant Doc!

:loveya:

[robbedvoter]

101. The media was NOT lazy at all - they did their job - not the one you

think they are supposed to have, the one the media in a dictatorship IS SUPPOSED to have - prop the dictator, smear the opposition.
Nothing wrong with fighting harder - as long as we agree on what front the fight is needed; not GOTV, but voter rights.
If you believed W got 8 million voters over 2000, then you are ready for this school:


''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

[Redleg]

121. You do have a good point- I forgot to mention the election debacle.

Dammit.

[mtnsnake]

104. Great post, Redleg!! n/t

[Jack Bone]

105. Yep...Great Post...

Thanx I needed to hear that!!

[Redleg]

122. Dammit-- I forgot to mention the screwed-up electoral process.

There is a possibility that the Rethugs stole the election. Regardless whether they did or not, our election system needs to be overhauled. No more "black box" voting without a way to verify. No more blaming the exit polls for being wrong unless they were done incorrectly. No more harassing Blacks and poor folks to keep them from voting. No more scummy push polls. No more long fucking lines and broken down voting equipment.

[tngledwebb]

97. JFK?

Strange how it all changed after JFK. And look at the totality of Dems that we had- Hubert Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton with his sexual history... Were they the BEST we could offer? Of course they were better than the Republicans- but Dukakis, a small ethnic liberal from Mass? Who was the frontrunner before him? Who killed Howard Dean' campaign? And why did not one senator support the Black Caucus four years ago?

All I know is it looks like we've been in deep dark doo doo for a long long time....

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tngledwebb]

109. Sorry Rv, my fault, I think

you got the wrong ideer and you are thinking I'm a freeper?

To clarify- Yes, Nixon was awful, horrible, war criminal, etc, Reagan b-actor, and probable puppet for Bush I- now we get Arnie- and Bush I and II psycho/CIA/PNAC criminals etc. Agreed, agreed.
And Gore as good as Clinton (but why didn't he fight?)
And Kerry beat Shrub hands down in the debates without question, and won this election.
And only ignorant fools could have voted for Bush twice.

Maybe there is no pattern and I'm just getting more paranoid by the day.

But I am dead certain that for many years the MSM has pushed forward the less qualified Dems, and then attacked them consistently- whilst letting the Repugs way off the hook, and this must have been done for highly conspiratorial ends. It wasn't just to make a profit.

Btw read, if you haven't, the Daily Howler for what the MSM did to Gore, Dean and Kerry.

[robbedvoter]

111. OK, I misjudged you, but if you denigrate Dukakis , how is Vermont

a better locale than massachusets? I love McGovern, respected Dukakis, Mondale was awesome. kerry never spoke for me and Dean was hyped by the media then allowed to trip on his own tongue (finding Jebus, Osama is innocent - no shoot him, etc)
I am only defending kerry here because he won - or rather we, the ABB coalition won. The best candidate IMO was Clark - but they would have robbed him too (I am just hoping he'd put up a fight though)

[tngledwebb]

117. I didn't mean to denigrate Dukakis or his politics or his looks ...

but he seems a very long shot in hindsight. What were the exit polls like that time, I wonder, and more important, how did he get picked?
Of course if MSM wasn't complicit he may well have won. But MSM spread his tank photo like they spread the Dean scream, (and the lies about Gore, and Clinton and Kerry) and Bush I ran the Horton and the Boston harbor ads against Dukakis round the clock, like the Swiftboat ads...oh right... Deja vu, or toujours vu...

Well, there are very real reasons to be afraid, of that much I'm sure.

[Julien Sorel]

119. After Hart cratered, it was a choice between a young Al Gore

and Dukakis (Jesse Jackson notwithstanding). Gore was too conservative for the base (he was much more conservative in those days), so Dukakis got the nod. In retrospect, Gore was the perfect candidate to beat Bush I, because Bush I's appeal in the South was soft, as Clinton proved four years later. But people, myself included, thought Reagan was an abberation, a guy who made it on personal charm rather than the enduring appeal of conservatism as a movement.

Obviously we were wrong: Dukakis' nomination and the ensuing debacle were the swan song of liberalism. Six years later, after watching his national healthcare plan, and his approval ratings, go down in flames, Bill Clinton proclaimed the era of big government was over.

[tngledwebb]

140. Right- it's almost ancient history...

And odd how Hart's affair with Donna Rice paralled Clinton's problems a decade later. Didn't Hart tell the press: 'put a tail on me'?
And wasn't it church-going Jimmy Carter that 'lusted in his heart'? Would Reagan have ever said such a thing, or Bush I?

Why is it only Democrats that have sex, and cheat, and/or get caught?

Strange how the 'liberal' media has always let the Republicans off the hook, yet never gives our people an even break. Except for JFK.

[Lexingtonian]

100. That's pure crap. I reject all your assertions.

Rhetoric and theory unburdened by evidence.

What makes you think there were 61 million Americans willing and able to vote for a Democrat in 2004?

You can always pretend that a perfectly run campaign would have won one fellow or the other an election that he didn't. But with an electorate that is just about the opposite of ideal and campaigns consisting of human beings, campaigns will always be grossly imperfect. What they can be is lucky- their opponent can fail of his own accord, events can put bizarre ideas into currency.

I consider Kerry's 57 million voters a good improvement over Gore's number and 1-2 million more than we could honestly expect. Our side increases in numbers by 3-3.5 million per Presidential term; Kerry got an increase of 4.5-5 million.

The Republican turnout effort in 2002 showed that they could increase their own voters by up to 15% over 2000. We had to hope that wouldn't work in 2004, but it did, and there's nothing I know that could have been done about it. The silver lining is that it's very improbable they can increase their numbers much beyond that, and even a repeat of it is going to be quite tough. They've also become wedge-able by running so far to the Right and so deeply into cultishness and alternatives to reality.

I'm not sure I see the problem. On 80-90% of U.S. problems there is very little that Kerry could possibly do that would vary greatly from Bush's. The building fiscal mess puts an awful lot of constraint on what is possible to do in a large scale. Kerry would have to deal with Republican majorities in Congress and a Supreme Court also leaning against him. So a progressive agenda would have to be put off until at least 2006.

The country is 64-65% white by population, yet 77% of American voters are whites due to the nonwhite population being on average much younger and its adults voting at lower rates. The net effect is that elderly white Americans- a demographic that leans Republican with a substantial margin- exert a disproportionately large amount of power and Latino voters a disproportionately small amount. This is where the advantage Republicans hold in votes and power and (supposed) legitimacy is generated. Kerry did about as well as I can tell possible in trying to overcome this disadvantage.

[robbedvoter]

103. GOP turnout= Diebold

Funny how everyone on this thread ignires the many calls in different states that they voted Kerry but it registered W! (and those were only the ones who noticed)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. Our Futurie Lies With Asian And Hispanic Voters...

What if the Republicans co-opt them?

[robbedvoter]

112. Or, what if , god forbid, they aren't pure enough to be admitted in your

"since birth only" party?
You got me out with your "have you ever strayed" poll - I suspoect you'll turn more impure at the door, non?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. WTF

I got the name DemocratSinceBirth from my handle at the Miami Herald Miami Dolphins Board...


I was DolfanSinceBirth there....


I don't know what you are referring to with the "have you ever strayed" poll...

I guess you are referring to my "Have You Ever Voted Republican" poll...


Yeah I wouldn't vote Republican even if someone threatened to sodomize me with a tire iron....

Oh, by the way Happy Thanksgi9ving...

[tngledwebb]

110. First, we were robbed. Agreed?

Poster's point is MSM CW spins the Dem loss as result of a 'badly run campaign.' Poster's second point is meant ironically, as I see it.

On your points- Kerry and Dems had the chance to turn bash BushCo senseless on AT LEAST 75% of the issues. Iraq, tax policy, health care, jobs, education, environment, global politics, almost every item. And that leaves out issue 1 - BushCo's completely trumped up, immoral and incompetent 'war on terror.'

[robbedvoter]

113. Agreed. And I probably missed the irony.

Only after reading his maiden name I finally got it.

[tngledwebb]

116. I missed the maiden name clue.

:+

[unfrigginreal]

108. Gore ran a good campaign, Kerry made many mistakes

but to be fair to Kerry, when only 40% of your support is more passionate for you than against your opponent, he wasn't very electable to begin with.

[LittleClarkie]

126. That's a high mark to try to reach

Your comment doesn't seem logical. People were very passionately against Bush. That translated into 4 million more votes than Gore got in 2000.

That there was 40% that could put their passion for Kerry even above their hate for Bush is sort of impressive, I do believe.

How strong was the ABB in 2000. Was Gore's vote mostly people who always vote Dem vs Bush's people who always vote Repub, thus coming out about even?

I wanna see what happens if Kerry runs in 2008. I wanna see how much vote he has without ABB.

[robbedvoter]

114. 3 candidates spared by the media in 2004: W, Lieberman and Edwards

All the others "ran terrible campaigns"

[leesa]

118. This is the WH media spin. There was little wrong with Kerry's campaign

Don't let the media con you into that again. THEY stole the election. Kerry was bringing in 10,000-30,000 people to his rallies. THAT is great campaigning. Stop believing the RW media.

[LittleClarkie]

127. How many did Gore used to get?

Looking for perspective.

[Imagevision]

123. Kerry ran an excellant campaign

It boils down to Diebold...if it didn't exist?...Kerry would now be elected the President...instead of all these fraudulant investigations going on.

[Democat]

124. Kerry lost to the worst president in recent history - his campaign sucked!

This election was Kerry's to lose and he worked hard to lose it.

There are many things to list, but the fact that he had 30 years to prepare for the Swift Liars attack and yet he had no response at all other than to beg Bush to make it stop tells you everything.

Kerry blew it.

[LittleClarkie]

128. Horsehockey

He's also had thirty years of elections. Usually the Vets for Kerry are enough to counter them. They had been in Massachusetts.

This time, though, people who'd supported him in the past came out against him, like Roy Hoffman.

And I imagine that Massachusetts media is more liberal-minded. Our RW media, esp. Fox, treated the Swiftees as if they were knights in shining armor. That makes me sick.

What makes me sicker is that Fox has now hired O'Neill, I hear.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

[Julien Sorel]

137. What did you think, that O'Neill did all that for free?

The Bush people always take care of their hired sleaze artists. Usually they do it with a position in the government somewhere, but obviously O'Neill was way too hot for that, so he got a spot at the official RNC organ, Fox.

[robbedvoter]

130. Nope. He won (blew it afterwards - another story)

[Capn Sunshine]

129. Just the fact that there were a thousand threads refuting this

during the campaign , while many posited that indeed , it WAS a badly run campaign, what did you miss in this dialog?


I never observed a unity of purpose during the campaign, the one exception being ABB......

[robbedvoter]

135. Just like Dean's, Clark's and everyone's except W, Lieberman & Edwards

Point is we won. Also, reminder - the original post was sarcastic - meant to highlight the media coverage.

[radio4progressives]

138. Yes Gore ran a VERY bad campaign and Kerry's not much better

Gore's first mistake was choosing Lieberman and then it went downhill from there. The debates were terrible - anyone keep track of how many times said : "I agree with my opponent on this issue".... in debates with Bush in 2000? (giving substance to the "tweedle dee - tweedle dum" coinage the Green Party ran on)

And in reality, Gore could have exposed Bush's 'born again' Christian crusade he was already on - but I don't recall ANYONE exposing Bush's born again/evangelical legislations he signed into law as Governor in Texas - Gore could have used the hypocrisy with Bush's Death Penalty record against the so called "sanctity of life" that Bush was preaching back then and called his Death Penalty record, the largest number of executions in the nation under one administration, make him square with his (sanctity of life rhetoric)and also called him Tax GIVE AWAYS to Religious Organizations in Texas - called him on the impropriety of that activity, and called Bush into account on Separation of Church and State.

Had more of the voting public realized Bush's actions as governor, even progressives would have thought twice about tweedle dee/tweedle dum characterization of the Bush/Gore contest - and would have likely campaigned for Gore, or at least through support behind him(like progressives did for Kerry despite misgivings and hand wringing over Kerry's pro-war position)

They both ran very bad campaigns, but apparently Kerry had a whole more in the war chest than Gore did to work with but Kerry chose to cut and run from states that would have clearly benefited.

I still say, Kerry did not run to win. He was just the party's man to put out there but the mission was to lose, because the two parties are more closely aligned on foreign policy than not, and that's why in my opinion Kerry did not run a good campaign.

However, that doesn't mean that Kerry didn't actually WIN by a LANDSLIDE - and it doesn't mean that the American citizens have not been cheated from a rightful victory with the candidate of our choice - by a rigged system.

Like Bev Harris says, don't be afraid to say the F word.

It's too bad for our democracy, for the Democratic Party and for the future of our country, that Kerry will not use the muscle of his position to get a true accounting of the vote count.

[flaminbats]

139. Kerry ran a great campaign..

even if the Mondale or McGovern campaigns were as well managed, they still would of done far worse!

[robcon]

141. Kerry ran an awful campaign.

1. He was focused too much on his Vietnam experiences, especially in the primaries and early in the general election.

2. He didn't respond to the crazies.

3. He didn't pull a Sister Souljah move: call out Michael Moore on the 'Minuteman' description of the Iraqi opposition who are killing Americans. He would have won the election, IMO, if he had done something like that effectively.

4. His responses on the war were bizarre, especially whether he would have signed the IWR if he knew there were no WMD's.

edit:spell