Both campaigns were run using populist liberal rhetoric, and even scaremongering (for example, the charge that Bush is going to take Social Security away.)
I believe if Gore had run as a moderate in 2000 rather than a populist liberal, he would have won hands down.
If Bush loses, the Republicans will blame it on “liberal radicals”, especially Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and Jon Stewart. The Democrats will say it’s vindication that the neo-cons can only fool the American public for so long.
If Kerry loses, the Democrats will blame it on Karl Rove’s smear machine, Fox News, and Bush’s war chest advantage (with an option to include Diebold if e-voting makes a significantly big crater). The Republicans will trot out the same talking points they’re currently using on the campaign.
What is “KE04” and “GL2000”? Is it supposed to be self evident?
I assume “Kerry-Edwards 04” and “Gore-Lieberman 2000”.
I’ll toss down.
If Kerry wins then the phrase ‘neo-con’ will be used for ages to vilify segments of the right in an attempt to split the electorate of the right.
If Bush wins then the phrase ‘liberal’ will continue to mean ‘soft and weak’ and be used to split the electorate of the left.
I think we’re already hearing it with regard to Kerry. It will be alternately claimed that:
He was too liberal/ He was too centrist
He didn’t attack Bush hard enough/ He focused exclusively on attacking Bush
He was too nuanced - should have been more terse and used soundbites/ He used too many soundbites and not enough details.
He pandered to the majority/ He only appealed to the fringes
He wasn’t aggressive enough/ He was too aggressive
He should have tried harder to refute attackers/ He should have focused on the positive
If Bush wins, his detractors will say he has hoodwinked the public. If he loses, they will say it’s because of his poor record in office. His supporters, if he wins, will say he beat Kerry in the debates. If he loses, they will say debating isn’t really his strong suit.
Don’t forget Howard Stern.
Sorry, yes, John Corrado is correct, Kerry/Edwards 2004 and Gore/Lieberman 2000.
Mr Moto: Ah, I see now. I agree with you that the pitch of GL2000 was populist, and wrong; he should have used Bill Clinton more instead of running as a kind of refutation of some of Clinton’s worst characteristics.
I don’t really see that same kind of campaigning from KE04; in fact, I think it would help him if he did start to campaign as a populist in the Midwest battleground states, like Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
But if you think that Dems use scaremongering in their campaigns, what do you say about Bush/Cheney 04? To me, it looks like their entire campaign is based on fear–fear of Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, fear of Kerry in charge of the deficits, fear of Kerry outing lesbian daughters of his opponents even though they’ve been outed already. I haven’t heard one thing about what GWB will do in the next four years, no major policy initiatives, nothing. Am I missing something here?
You haven’t been listening, then. There were lots of policy initiatives in Bush’s convention speech.
Disagree if you like, but he has certainly made some.
Feel free to correct me, but wasn’t every major “policy” proposal he mentioned in the acceptance speech a rehash of a similar proposal from four years ago?
I believe it was. So technically, Mr. Moto is correct. But of course it raises the question of why Bush hasn’t already done those things in the 4 years he’s had.
“It’s hard work!”
–George W. Bush
In a race this close, I don’t think the losing team will have a bit of explaining to do.