Kerry or Daschle - bigger loss for the Democratic Party?

[Ulysses]

Which of these losses is a bigger blow to the Democratic Party?

[jakethebake]

Well since they all wanted Hillary in 2008 anyway and Kerry would've just gotten in the way, I'd have to say Daschle.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Kerry.

Daschle was weak, good riddens to him.

[elwoodblues]

Kerry is clearly the bigger loss.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry is clearly the bigger loss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, besides the obvious fact that he was running for President?

[elwoodblues]

Because it was more demoralizing. The democrats (rightly or wrongly) believe that Bush should have been easy to beat. It was a demoralizing blow for the party to not be able to do it.

[LaggyLou]

Elwood is right.

One thing to remember is that Democrats had much less love for Daschle than Republicans had hate for him.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, besides the obvious fact that he was running for President?

[/ QUOTE ]

That obvious fact is pretty much the bulk of the issue - one senate seat is fairly insignificant compared to the presidency.

Daschle's leadership will be missed in some ways but there is a definite silver lining. His precarious electoral position as a Dem in a very red state has led a lot of people to believe that he was somewhat compromised. TThe best chance the Dems have right now to build towards 2006 and beyond is to stake some firm ground as an opposition party, and to do so you need a leadership that isn't worried about their own seats.

[CORed]

Kerry, and it's not even close. I think Daschle was a liability to the Dems.

[andyfox]

I agree. The Dems lost to a controversial president, barely elected (appointed? /images/graemlins/wink.gif) last time, bogged down in a war in Asia in a mediocre economic climate, who lost at least two of the debates badly, mangles the English language, and who took a 90% aproval rating and turned into barely 50% of that. Daschle was a terrible leader. Had he been reelected, they should have replaced him with Senator Reid anyway.

[BobH42]

Kerry

Not only did some Democrats think Daschle was a liability to the party, but they also felt there was a pretty good chance he would lose. No matter what side of the political aisle you happen to be from you definitely went into this election expecting a race that was either candidate's to win.

[jdl22]

Kerry by a landslide. Daschle doesn't hurt at all. He lost in a state he himself said he's now disconnected with. He was basically running on the "while you don't agree with my politics I'm very powerful so you should vote for me" platform and unfortunately it didn't work.

Kerry on the other hand was running against Bush and lost. This was an absolute slap in the face that I still can't fucking believe. Those of us on the left have thought for four years "surely the country will wake up." Not only didn't the country wake up but it went completely the opposite direction. If this election had been stolen as the last one was I would be less upset. What these results told me and the world that a MAJORITY of the people that care enough to vote support Bush's agenda. They couldn't possibly be results oriented because the results haven't been good so they must be supporting the agenda. Just to continue with the ridiculous poker references being made last night, I'm as surprised by the election results as I would be if I got a "well played" response to a thread here where I called a monstrous all in push on the turn with 23 on a board of 567K. Again, it's not necesarily that Kerry lost that was damaging, it was the distance between them that was the problem.