So, what went right in 2004 anyway?

[TayTay]

I might be preaching to the converted here, but I am convinced that there is an opposite side to the Thomas Frank analysis of the 2004 election. I have heard Sen. Kerry give mention to the fact that his campaign actually did quite a number of things right. (Which will forever be obscured by the fact that they didn't win, ahm, officially.) They did pull more Dem voters than any other Dem candidate in history. They did meet or exceed their targets in almost every area. They did get 6-8 million more Dem voters to the polls than Al Gore did in 2000. So, ahm, hat went right?

I think it is as wrong to ignore this as it is to forget the final results. First of all, it feeds that Democratic instinct to depression and near-despair that seems to just flood over everything when results don't go the way we want right away. (And we all hate that. It serves to depress people, causes meaningless feuds and can be a reason people drop out of politics altogether.) In your area, red, blue or purple, what did you see that you think went right? What message resonsated with the voters who showed up in 2004, but not in 2000? Was it John Kerry, dissatisfaction with the current Admin, ABBism or a combination of factors including some of these?

Thomas Frank has a piece of the puzzle, I think. Like the famous tale of the blind men and the elephant, he has a portion of the truth, but maybe not the whole of the truth. Do you think it is possible to assemble a fuller picture of what went on in 2004 so that the success of it can be replicated in the next elections? Or was this a singular moment in history, that leaves no footprints to follow in, good or bad? Just curious. I am oh so tired of all the 'he failed' arguments that don't include any of the good things that happened. And good things did happen or we wouldn't have this forum and the high number of folks checking in.

What say you? (To philosophical TayTay, hmm, I should get my pipe and tweed jacket with the patches on the sleeve and be a proper professor. LOL!)

[JI7]

1. i think we learned of the importance of the debates

Kerry was able to deal with all the lies against him from the media and repubulicans by showing who he really was in the debates. and in turn i think the debates hurt Gore a bit also in 2000. while it's much more clear Gore won it was still a close race and i think if Gore had done better in the debates he would have done better in some of the states. the debates helped Bush in 200 in my opinion.

i think the front porch town hall meetings are one of THE BEST ideas of his campaign. he went to the people's homes and neighborhoods himself and i think those who may not have considered voting for him or voting at all may have ended up doing so because of his visit.

and be yourself as Kerry did by never giving up his pink and other "odd" colored ties. for all the things Frank criticizes him for personally and much of it is just repeating right wing crap, Kerry did make it a close race. it wasn't like the huge losses in the past.

and it wasn't ABB since Kerry was far down in the polls at times. he had to prove himself such as in the convention and debates before numbers went up for him again.

[TayTay]

2. Just so

Again, I like Frank and he has a piece of the puzzle, but he is only focusing on the loss. By the worst estimates, for Dems anyway, * won by 3 million votes. That's not a lot of votes. I don't think it justifies all the vitriol that has been flung at Kerry by various sources. I think a lot of it goes to the systemic problems that the Dems have been having for the last 25+ years.

Frank makes the point (over and over) that the backlash is a self-reinforcing phenomenon. It is fueled by rage over powerlessness. It is fueled by RW radio and RW talking points that are repeated machine-like on all the main Talking Heads shows. (And those shows have a proven Rethug balance. 2 Cons to every 1 lib.) And the Rethugs have a huge organizing advantage in the conservative Churches which did an excellent job of turning people out for *.

So, if that is so complete and insurmountable, how did the Dems get so many votes? If the backlash is a completely sealed force, then why was the election so close? What did a rich Massachusetts liberal with a five houses and a pretty liberal voting record do that garnered so many more votes than did Al Gore in 2004? Are there seeds in here of the next victory? (Every victory contains the seeds of defeat, just as every defeat contains the seeds of victory.)

I live in MA, so I can't answer this. I know what happened right in New Hampshire, but we close neighbors. But what happened right in Wisconsin, because that was oh so close. What happened right in Pennsylvania? Just wondering. Are there seeds of victory in there that can be planted in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and other states?

[karynnj]

3. It is so much harder identifying what went right, but

I really think from the beginning things were stacked against the Democrats. I think, in retrospect Kerry made a very close race of it.

- I agree that winning the debates hands down was essential. It let Kerry show the vast range of subjects on which he had clear detailed knowledge, both demonstrating that the Republican lie that he did nothing was false and showing his intelligence. On most issues, he was able to talk about something he did in his life.

In terms of using this next time, if Kerry is the candidate, I'm sure he'll be at least as good as he was. For any other candidate, they could do worse than to study what Kerry did.

- The web site and the blog were great. For those of us in blue states, it really allowed us to follow the campaign. We could get positions, read the blog, find when he (or others) would be on TV and hear what others say.

I hope this is continued next time and probably expanded.

- I think the use of Bruce Springsteen and others probably did heighten the feeling at the rallies in the end. (I watched the rallies in Philadelphia with Clinton and two rallies with Bruce (Nadison wisconsin and Cleeveland - I really think the latter 2 were much wilder. This is amazing as Clinton had more star power than any Democrat. I would imagine that Bruce may have pulled in more non-Democrats.

As most rock stars like the Democrats better, if they are willing the Democrats should use them again. (Especially if like Springsteen they express Democratic values. I think the Democrats should make sure that there is no Whoopi Goldberg issue. I think she can be hilarious, but I don't know where her brain was when she thought her joke was either funny or appropriate.)

-I think Kerry was a fantastic candidate. If he were given more exposure it would have helped.

[wisteria]

4. What did Kerry's campaign do right?

IMO, a grass-roots effort that brought him and his plans for America to the people. I noticed, especially during the early post convention campaign, he traveled to some out of the way places. Democratic pockets that had been long neglected and the base virtually ignored. These areas were ripe for Republican pickings.
Getting our young adults involved in the election. Many young people actually found the whole process fascinating and took time to research issues. Voting for the first times in their lives and making an educated informed choice.
John Kerry demonstrating true Presidential baring. I think he made a lot of people realize our Presidents' don't have to be "good old boys" or slick politicians.
There just a couple off the top of my head. Give me some time I'm sure I can come up with more.

[TayTay]

5. Please do.

Part of the reason I posted this was just to combat the relentless negativism that is so prevalent on DU (and elsewhere.) I think negativity perpetuates itself. And it generates blind spots. (So does winning, but I plan on having that problem in 2006 & 2008.)

The Rethugs wanted the Dems to think that they had been mastered, permanently, in GOTV efforts. I genuinely don't think so. I think there are growth spots all over the place. But until the Dems recognize that some things went right, they won't find the growth spots because they continue to see the whole of the election as a loss. Even some of the 'good news' is couched in funny language that is sort of exclusionary. (We can win Colorado or New Mexico if we never nominate Easterners, or Catholics or whatever. I'm not sure about that at all. I think the idea that an Easterner can't win is a truism, like Senators can't win or that the Religious vote is a lock for the Rethugs and such. Those truisms are only true until someone goes and shatters them.)

[ginnyinWI]

7. Wisconsin

We had a vastly larger grassroots effort than in 2000. A lot more money, and a lot more live bodies. And then they even started busing volunteers up from Chicago to go knocking on doors with us! Everyone was super-motivated this time. When * was selected the first time, I was bummed, but thought, "how bad can he be for one term?" Well we found out, didn't we. And with 9/11 and Iraq, this election was super-important to all the non-far-rightists.

I think overall, Kerry and Edwards ran a terrific campaign. They had the energy, the intelligence, the looks, and the big hearts it takes to connect with people and win votes. They made no more mistakes than the other side did. And they won all those votes they got without dirty tricks and lies. They were much better than Gore/Lieberman at deflecting the dirt, and stayed authentically themselves; stayed on message too.

What brought them down were things largely out of their control: a corporate-controlled media, a fuzzy Democratic Party identity, and the external threats that made people afraid to change presidents.

[wisteria]

8. Oh yes, I agree!

I especially liked your comment about winning all those votes without dirty tricks and lies.

[sandnsea]

10. Me too

We can take alot of pride in that alone, we didn't lie.

[wisteria]

6. I've come up with a couple more

with the help of my wonderful daughter-who by the way will be eligible to vote for the first time in 2006.
1.Raised more money than any other Democratic candidate in history. (I'm relying on memory for this one. I'm sure I can verify this later if necessary).I highly doubt he raised all this money by being the ABB candidate. Most people I spoke with felt Bush was going to be hard to beat.

2.I thought the overall pacing of his campaign went well. He could have peaked too soon or fizzled out in the middle, but he didn't. He saved the rapid fire attacks and grand finale push for just the right period in the campaign.

3.The retaliation strategy used in response to the Swift Boat Attacks. I'm not referring to the unfortunately slow revelation that these attacks were becoming effective, but the well organized, a little over the top aggressiveness displayed by Kerry and company once they realized they needed to respond. I have seen some of this same strategy being used by Harry Reid in his response to the Republican tactics and tricks.

4. Democratic support/unity. Dean, Clark and Sharpton all did various interviews and appeared on many talk/news shows fully supporting John Kerry. I seem to remember a lot more elected officials coming out and supporting Kerry then I did for Bush. Bush mainly had his cutesy- pie paid spokespersons and John (we all know why he did this) McCain out campaigning for him. Other republicans didn't so much support Bush as attack Kerry.

5. Well publicized events handled efficiently and smoothly.

6. It may be a small percentage, but I know of Republicans who could not bring themselves to vote for Bush. I actually saw signs declaring "Country before Party".

7. John Kerry did very well garnering endorsements from prestigious Economic Noble Prize winners and many well respected Newspaper endorsements.

[sandnsea]

9. Took pride in our candidate

Okay, not everybody. But still, I saw tons more yard signs this year than in 2000. At least double. We helped make it acceptable to support the Democrat by doing that. People generally don't want to feel like they're oddballs and out of sync with everybody in their community.

We won the economic war. We aren't building on that, it occurs to me. People are ready to trust Democrats with their pocketbooks, but not the kids and the house. We can't let ourselves go backwards on the economy, while moving on values and security.

We opened up alot of issues. Health care, small business, global economy, WMD proliferation. Energy Independence is in the lexicon and that is a huge step forward. We have to own that one, it's absolutey critical. Kerry's speech the other day could be the bulding block because it tied in energy to national security. Bush is keeping us tied to dangerous oil sheiks, Democrats want to be independent of them.

[foreverdem]

11. Kerry got the people fired up

His rallies had so much energy, chimpy's rallies were nothing of the kind. This adminstration has done so much damage, I think what happened is that alot more of the voters woke up and were starting to say, whoa, what's going on here, chimpy and his minions have screwed up royally and blame everyone else. Kerry put what we all value back into politics, made everyone aware that there are politicians that are actually in it to make this a better country. Those who 'got him' understood this. Despite what the MSM says, I think there were alot more people that 'got him' than they would like to tell us. And alot of those who never really followed politics, like myself, remained involved and took an interest in staying informed, even after the elections.

I think people waking up and actively taking a role in the direction of this country was one of the good things that came out of the 2004 election. Unfortunately, it's going to take a lot of election reform to actually make our voices heard.

[TheDonkey]

12. The debates were amazing. Kerry stole the show 3 times.

Democratic unity was excellent, I hope we continue to unite in teh future.

[TayTay]

13. Hey, nice to hear from you

How's it been going?

[emulatorloo]

14. They Got Great Coverage in Local Media -- at least in my part of Iowa

Everytime they came out for a rally, they made themselves available to local stations and in general got excellent coverage on both TV and Newspapers. They were apparently very accessible.

[sandnsea]

15. Power of local media

That really should be a lesson to the grassroots. That's a short term way around cablenews. It's easier to get local media to respond too. Seems like we could have a stronger local news strategy.