Any? No. But he did not run a forward-thinking optimistic campaign with clearly-defined and easily-understood positions.
No, we’ve established that Laigle is part of the dem’s problem.
Right, it’s not Southern culture that sucks, just the culture of each individual southern states. Very good riposte.
Shall we chat about the political inroads of Bob Barr and David Duke? Jesse Helms? Strom Thurmond? DeMint a bit more current for you? How about the only way to win the Republican primary in South Carolina is to go to Bob Jones U and talk up the festering shitbag who runs it? Perhaps you’d prefer the ease with which Eric Robert Rudolph found safe haven? The abortion clinic shootings in Pensacola, perchance?
Great. Yet another mental image requiring brain-bleaching. Thanx a heap.
Once the Democrats united behind one candidate, they had a good shot of winning the election. They lost it for several reasons, most already mentioned.
-
Many of Kerry’s policies were seen as “Bush light”. Had Kerry won, the Conservatives would have already set his agenda.
-
The Conservatives successfully defined the election to be a referendum on the challenger, at least as much as the incumbent.
-
Kerry spent too much time talking about Vietnam, and not enough talking about fiscally conservative budgets and domestic issues.
-
Kerry did not win over Hispanic voters. He does not excite black voters (compared to Clinton). He is from the North East, not the South. Bush Junior probably doesn’t know the price of milk either, but he can sound folksy.
-
Kerry certainly doesn’t have a magnetic personality. Democrats united behind him because of the alternatives.
-
The Republicans are far better organized.
-
Kerry’s Health Insurance plan had little chance of getting through a Republican House or Senate
I am a social liberal and a fiscal conservative. If I was American, I would have voted for Kerry. I certainly don’t find him charismatic – just less corrupt and smug than Bush. I thought Bush would win the election; mainstream American values clearly differ from mine.
We really need to analyze the voting results in all the red states (Jesusland?), determine what were the total number of eligible voters in each of those states, what percentage voted Republican (x), what percentage voted Democrat (y), and deduce what percentage did not vote at all (z).
Now, if in some of those states z is greater than x, then maybe a solution is to organize and introduce a ballot in those states to make voting mandatory – like Brazil.
It constitutes a tax increase. Kerry also proposed spending increases on everything under the sun, and had no realistic alternative to the continued cost of the occupation of Iraq. Ergo, Kerry was going to raise taxes, raise spending, and cut the deficit in half. Suuuuuure he was.
But if you raise taxes, and raise spending even more, you don’t reduce the deficit at all. Just the opposite.
I said “fiscal responsibility”. Tax and spend is not “fiscal responsibility”. From either side.
Actually, we could eliminate the deficit the way the Republicans did during the 90s - grow our way out of it. But spending more and more money on health care is not going to do that.
Like I said, neither side embraced the idea of fiscal responsibility. If Kerry had, if he had a credible plan to fix Social Security, or concrete spending cuts, or had a record in the Senate that labeled him as a fiscal hawk, he could have won in a walkover. But he had none of the above.
Therefore, back to the Senate, as part of the minority party, and basically an onlooker to the Republican agenda for the next few years.
Regards,
Shodan
I asked this question in Aldebaran’s religion thread, but since you brought it up here, I’ll ask again.
Can a candidate who doesn’t discuss faith or values or religion get elected?
He’ll get asked. If he evades the question, he loses.
What might win would be someone who says, "Sure, I’m a person of faith, and I seek with all my fallible heart to do God’s will. Sometimes I screw up, and I believe God forgives me for it. But I’m not your pastor or your priest. I am running for President, and not all Americans believe the same thing. That is their right, and part of my job as President is to protect everyone’s right to worship as they choose. But that includes everybody - everybody. And the government has no right - no right at all - to interfere with what the churches and mosques and synagogues of America do in the service of God and of my neighbor.
Religious speech is not second-class speech. Religious believers don’t have to be quiet. There is no right not to be disagreed with.
Talk about timing. In Slate I find the following quote from GWB:
This is in an article by Timothy Noah.
That’s very similar to what Bill Clinton says is the right answer in his biography - he said he was given that advice from Senator Fulbright. And it obviously worked for both of them.
When Clinton was running for governor, he said people were instructed by the religious right to ask if he was a Christian. When he said yes, they were asked if he therefore believed [abortion should be illegal][blue laws should remain in effect][fill in whatever issue]. The way to short-circuit that false logic was to answer the first question, “I hope so - I love Christ, I go to church, I try to do right by my fellow man - but it’s really up to God if that’s good enough, isn’t it?”
Smart, politically expedient, but not slimy.
This link was posted in another thread by another poster. I clicked it, read it, and I was quite impressed. I don’t agree with some of the author’s stances, but I think it sheds some needed light on the topic of lessons to be learned.
http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html
It would be REALLY STUPID to take her words at face value. The most telling point: she rails against Dem expressions of hatred for Bush and some Repubs. She has apparently completely missed out on the TONS and TONS of raw, steaming hate that Repubs have been spewing for YEARS via hate radio, FOX and other outlets. Apparently, that shit didn’t bother her at all – didn’t even REGISTER wth her. I don’t think the Dems ever had a chance with her, if she exists. Reads more ike conservative self-gratification, if you know what I mean, than anyting else.
My suspicion: she’s not a talk radio listener, or a Fox News Channel watcher.
She says the Democrats had a big chance with her, so much so that she sought out Air America. I don’t find it unbelievable. But hey - it’s no skin off my nose. If the left rejects this sort of advice, it’s good for me.
Dear Lord have mercy - did an Air America host really tell a Republican caller to hang up and open a vein?
That’s pretty revolting.
Regards,
Shodan
Nah, you still can’t top conservative talk-radio for sheer revolting inanity. Check out this doozy of a gem:
My own perceptions of what the Democrats need to learn:
-
Completely abandon gun control. Do whatever it takes to make that a non-issue, and make it impossible to differentiate the candidates based upon it. There are far more single issue pro-gun control voters than not, and we need to nullify this. Even if the majority of people want it, I doubt that most of them will switch parties if a stance is changed on this. (Note that I personally would be just fine with gun control policy like Britian’s, but that’s me as a person, not as a politician.
-
Grab the “fiscal responsibility” mantle and run with it. I can’t believe how badly we messed this one up – I sense there are a fair number of voters that would have actually switched sides to vote for someone that was better at playing up the deficit and the fiscal problems of the government then the Democrats were.
-
Focus on groups of people that in the percentages that they historically vote. Getting people like the youth out to vote is just a money hole. I say this as a college student whom has become utterly cynical of every attempt that has been made to utilize his collegues as a base. Let people like Moore work at this, and instead concentrate more on ethnic minorities and the poor.
-
I agree with the adoption of a more libertarian streak, especially on social issues. I think that the democrats could have put up a much better showing in the rural areas had they played up civil liberties and inherent distrust in government and somesuch.
-
Take up a much stronger states-rights plank. This can appeal to moderate conservatives, and serve to blunt the ability of the party in power to make sweeping changes such as the gay marriage amendment. Also, this makes it more difficult to galvanize people whom vote based on “moral values” against candidates in federal elections. This will have some profoundly negative consequences, but I feel that it’s a sacrifice that has to be made.
-
Work with moderate Republicans to reform the electoral machinery, especially with regards to things such as redistricting and voting machines. Blatant gerrymandering on both sides is doing us no political favors, especially as the opposition party. It will make both nationwide and statewide races far more competitive, and make it harder to develop a party with a stranglehold on power. The voting machinery in general of the United States is a disaster, and ripe for abuse (though I do not believe at this point that they fundamentally changed the outcome of this particular election).
-
Make sure to focus demonization on the opposition candidate’s policies, and not as much the voters or the candidate themselves. I think that wild-eyed hatred expressed haphazardly can be a rather large negative if not held by a strong majority, to the point where I’m intrigued by a Hilary Clinton candidacy.
-
Better division of labor. The candidates should focus on promoting and defending themselves, while the DNC and groups like MoveOn or people like Moore should focus better on destroying the challenger and energizing the actual base. Every second Kerry outright attacked Bush is a second he could have used to expand on his own ideas while letting someone else attack Bush for him.
-
Work on winning back the Christian vote. As an avowed atheist, I dislike the more religious turn this country has taken, but as an avowed Democrat, I realize we need to exploit it. Put more effort into wrapping ourselves in patriotism and God, but do it as sincerely as possible, and put emphasis on the helping the oppressed aspects of the faith. While this might not work on fundamentalist Christians, it could certainly turn less hardline groups, and especially Catholics, back to our side. This is a great opportunity to take advantage of the African-American constituency, as they tend to be the best asset the Democrats have right now as “speaking church”. Moreover, it could help swing more Hispanic voters to our side.
-
Make a tactical retreat on the gay marriage issue. Focus on anti-discrimination laws, domestic partner laws, the human side of the issue, as well as building up support for gay-rights within the Reagan Democrats and minorities especially, to make it easier to take up the issue.
These were my thoughts, I’m happy for any comments!
With you on this one. I’d be happy with a complete ban on assault weapons, but it’s not a high priority with me. I think most Dems are the same – the gun control issue is a back burner issue, why are we losing votes over it? It’s not really a core Dem value either.
Definitely. We have the record and the cred here, for everyone except die-hard Pubbie partisans. Morality trumps economics for some, but for others I’m sure it’s the other way around – and we can work the morality angle, too.
I don’t know that “Get out the vote” among the young cost all that much, as it seemed to have been voluntary. It’s not highly productive, except that it DOES produce new Democrats, something the Dems desperately need. I’d say go with Rock the Vote byt make it a voluntary effort. It’s one of those efforts that pays off long-term, rather than in the short term.
Civil liberties are a Dem core value, it should be easy to do this one. I think the Politically Correct branch of the Dems could and shoud be dumped ASAP. The Pubbies get all kinda mileage out of those freaks, and I don’t think they attract many voters at all. Let freedom reign and all.
This one I got problems with. Historically, states’ rights were used by racists as a way of opposing federally-backed moves to advance equality for black and brown people. I think the negative consequences of this one would be so great that it would do the Dems much more harm than good.
Iagree with you about the need to reform the electoral system. But I think the PUbbies LOVE our present, corruptible system, and any moderate who dares work with us will quickly be ostracized and rendered as powerless as possible by the Pubbie leadership. A more likely strategy would be to work at the state level, passing laws that create SEVERE criminal penalties for electoral fraud, and enforcing them at the state level, as I have NO confidence in the feds’ interest in prosecuting electoral fraud, given who’s in charge.
I agree here, except I think the evidence of the PUbbie hate machine is that there’s practically no downside to demonizing the opposition. Note that the majority of the proposition to it on this thread has come from conservative posters. They don’t want us using one of their best weapons against them.
Tactically, I think attackng Bush was a good thing. He needed to show that he could and would fight for his views. He got his message out there. I do think the Dems need to work hard on their plans and have them distilled down to sound bites by 2008 if they want to win. And they need a candidate who’s comfortable with speaking in Sound Bite, too.
I’m with you on this one, too. As an atheist, I live among Christians. Some are idiots, some are not. I think the Pubbies have a natural attraction for the idiot Christians, which Dems can’t overcome without in effect becoming Pubbies. We can and should get the other Christians – and they are at least a significatn minority of Christians, if not the majority.
Oh, definitely. This issue will be an albatross around Dems’ necks unless they publicly and unequivocally drop it. That doesn’t mean education and grass-roots work can’t proceed in the background, but man, the numbers are clear – gay marriage is totally FUCKED as a political issue.
Here’s another suggestion, which I suspect will be less contentious than some of the others:
The left should drop its celebrity spokespeople. Really, Bruce Springsteen and Bette Midler are not the people you want to send out to attract voters in the great midwest. It makes the party look trivial and out of touch. And apparently, it didn’t help get the kids out.
Dennis Miller said the other night that early on he did a couple of very successful fundraisers for Bush. Karl Rove heard about it, and even though Miller raised a bunch of money, they told him they didn’t want him involved anymore. You didn’t see the Republicans trotting out their collection of conservative celebrities the way the left trotted out theirs.
These people are polarizing figures. When you’re trying to expand your tent, they don’t help.
Yet they run them for office. Not as a dig, but an honestg question - why does running actors for governor of California, or asking an ex-football coach to run for senate, get taken seriously, but celebs offering their opinions not?