From what I understand, Kerry overperformed his ‘fundamentals’. He lost because the economy was doing reasonably well and there was a war on, but he came pretty close to winning.
Of course, a Democratic Party that had different positions on some key issues might have a greater overall ‘baseline’ share of the vote, so that year to year swings wouldn’t matter as much.
“The Guy Who Is Not Revealed to be a Member of NAMBLA the Week Before the Election”
Unanimous Electoral Victory. Yay for the two party system.
All fair points.
But my own broader point is this: when we’re asked to come up with an ideal candidate, we have to put our own preferences aside and ask how this candidate is going to put together a winning coalition.
If we lost with Candidate A, we have to figure out why that candidate lost. Was it the issues? Was it the candidate’s personality? Is it something that could have been fixed by changing the candidate’s stance on an issue? Or, if he changed that stance, would he lose as many other voters as he’d gain?
IF your ideal candidate shares pretty much all of John Kerry’s positions, you have to explain why YOUR candidate would attract people who didn’t vote for Kerry, and why you’re sure you wouldn’t LOSE anybody who did.
Similarly, if your candidate shares pretty much all of Bob Dole’s positions, you have to explain why he’d do fare any better in November than Dole did in 1996. If you’re a doctrinaire conservative who believes that Mitt Romney lost because he was too moderate, you can make that case… but you also have to explain why your candidate wouldn’t scare off more moderate voters.
Tell us what states and what groups YOUR ideal candidate would attract that any nominee of your preferred party wouldn’t normally attract.
My candidate started with Romney as a base to attract the pro-business side of the right wing. But made his business something that more Americans could relate to and added a union link so that he wouldn’t be seen as just another of the 0.1% who is out of touch with the other 99.9%. I made him a Democrat so he wouldn’t have to confront the Blue wall, plus made him a governor of one of the two large swing states, choosing Ohio as being a bit more mainstream that Florida. All of his policy positions are pretty much right down the center of public opinion. Nothing that Democrats find too objectionable, but nothing that could be exactly called socialist extremist either particularly given his business background. He will of course lose the hard right, but there is no way to please everyone, and appealing to them would lose everyone else. He’s certainly not my ideal candidate, who would be far more to the left, but I would find him acceptable.
He can’t beat Hillary in terms of name recognition, primarily because he doesn’t exist. But if he did exist and had the resume described and when describing possible candidates his name was always near the top of possible candidates (say like Christie pre-bridgegate) then I think he would have enough name recognition to get by.
One other thing I meant to add but forgot: While his public persona is as warm and fuzzy as a beardless Santa Claus, behind the scenes he’s a sneaky two-faced amoral bastard akin to Francis Underwood in the house of cards who would sell his own grandmother to win the Oval office.
It would also help if Ohio had been hit by, say, a freak inland hurricanequakenami a year into his second term and he was on the news a lot pulling puppies out of rubble, that sort of thing.
Even if true, so what? This thread is about electability. Reagan is hard to touch in that category.
That’s a good start, but he needs to be less rich, less flip-floppy and with a better ability to connect with the common man and woman. And he could be Catholic. I think we’re passed that as an issue. Hispanic wife would be a huge plus. And it would be better if he had been governor of a midwestern state, not MA.
I think you might be correct in your thinking that Romney probably would have won if he been Protestant instead of Mormon, but he would still be less than ideal if you only changed that one item.
I’m sorry if I’m being off topic and ignorant, but what’s with this whole Hispanic wife when it comes to ideal presidential candidate?
To help win over the Hispanic vote.
Someone with the financial sense of Alan Simpson but 40 years younger.
While we seem to idealize military service in potential candidates, in every election since 1992, the candidate with the more distinguished war or military record lost. A wartime record also provides opportunities for smears (Kerry’s “swiftboating,” whispering campaigns about McCain).
In the recent gubernatorial election in Texas, Greg Abbott did surprisingly well among Hispanic voters and moderates/independents, in part as his wife is Mexican American. I don’t think it was simply a matter of “lets vote for this guy to make one of our own the first lady,” but it helped set aside concerns about Republican immigration rhetoric, and with the more strident talk on immigration from Lt. Governor candidate Dan Patrick. However, this is Texas, and that may not work so well nationally.
White male with a Hispanic last name. Younger than most presidents. Maybe even younger than all of them, at 40 or 41, but certainly not in his 30s. Military service in a “folksy” way, like a medic or mechanic, but with at least one anecdote of heroism under fire.
Officially one party, with a history of breaking party discipline on a couple of issues that the other side sees as distasteful, for example a Democrat who votes to cut taxes, or a Republican who supports a more socialized healthcare system.
He would come from a middle class family, have a merit scholarship that got him an ivy-league education, and a wife who is socially active in a non-controversial way, like advocating for leukemia cure research funding or something.
Man in his early sixties born to a working-class, blue-collar family in Indiana, Ohio, or Pennsylvania. Served in a combat role in the US Marine Corps in Vietnam, winning several medals and went on to go to college (probably some large Midwestern state university NOT Penn State) to become a popular district attorney who successfully prosecuted a notorious serial killer, various mob operations, and a corrupt local political machine among others. Eventually elected as governor who balanced the budget while maintaining public services and presiding over economic growth before moving to the Senate. Currently happily married to his wife of 40+years with three grown children of whom at least one has babies and at least one is serving/served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Belongs to an inoffensive mainline Protestant denomination (Methodist or Lutheran), is a genuine outdoorsman, and a moderate gun enthusiast. Speaks in “standard” American English in a plainspoken but intelligent manner, with many biblical and historical allusions, anecdotes, and humour. Is usually cheerful and optimistic in tone, but unafraid of giving a “give 'em hell”-style speech when necessary.
Politically speaking a centre-left traditional Democrat. Not overly concerned with social issues but moderately pro-choice and gay marriage, along with supporting an end to the Drug Wars and being rather sceptical of gun control. Also largely sceptical of race-based affirmative action. With regards to immigration, favours a path to citizenship for those currently in the US while tailoring future immigration policy towards the economic needs of the country, prosecution of businesses that hire illegal immigrants, opposes “guest-worker” programs, and supports English as an official language. Generally supportive of civil liberties-strongly supports reforming the PATRIOT act and opposed SOPA/PIPA (strongly supporting copyright law reform). Main passion lies in “bread and butter” economic issues where he is strongly populist and anti-Wall Street, strongly favouring retaining and strengthening programs such as Social Security and Medicare along with promoting vocational education and infrastructure spending. Not afraid of “big ideas” such as landing a man on Mars or sweeping expansion of nuclear power. Favours and defends the provisions of ACA (while favouring adjustments along the German model of health care) without mentioning its name too often, nonetheless is unafraid to stand by the Obama administration. Mostly pro-union and rather disfavourable to trade aggrements. In foreign policy favours reduction of international commitments while using drone warfare and special operations to keep genuinely dangerous groups in check. Opposes “waste” in military spending (ie F-35) and favours it being spent better elsewhere.
I’ve made him a composite of various Democrats including Joe Biden, Brian Schweitzer, Jim Webb, Sherrod Brown, and Bob Casey.