Some Reasons Kerry Lost

[andyfox]

"Most of middle America simply does not wish to be governed by an elitist New England snob"

I believe I covered this point in my last point about Kerry's coming across as contrived.

[Utah]

Hi Andy,

Respectfully, I disagree with most of this - But I could be wrong. I can't name one thing that he is passionate about. Even his anti-war stance in the 70s seemed calculated.

I think the reason he lost is that he really stood for nothing other than winning. Every position he took was politically calculated. I think that really turned people off more than anything and I believe it is the direct cause of some of the problems you listed (e.g., a bad campaign). He was rudderless.

[andyfox]

Well, Bush won with Dick Cheney twice, so I'm not so sure if it was the most important thing. The margin of victory for Bush in both Florida and Missouri was fairly big. But it sure would have given him a better chance.

[andyfox]

I said "too much PR and not enough human being" as perhaps the most important thing. So I think we're kinda on the same page here.

More importantly, how are you going to spend my money? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Regards,
Andy

[Utah]

I dont know. I have to go see if I still have the check LMAO.

If I do, I will donate it to charity. The bet sure was fun. Hopefully, we can wager again in the future.

"too much PR and not enough human being"

We could be on the same page. However, I think it is deeper than this statement. I really believe at the heart of it that Kerry doesn't have strong ideals. It is not just a question of strategy.

[Ulysses]

Andy,

I largely agree with what you wrote. However, I really think his campaign was one of the most ineptly run in recent history and that was the biggest issue by far. He is, of course, fully complicit in this failure.

I met John Kerry at a private exploratory mtg when he contemplating the candidacy. This was a small function w/ a number of high-tech people in SF. Kerry came across as a charismatic, strong, passionate man of conviction. I was more excited about a Democratic candidate than I have been in some time.

When he actually ran, though, his campaign turned him into some stiff cardboard cutout who really didn't seem to have much passion about anything nor did he seem to ever really connect with people. I really feel that Kerry did a horrible job campaigning for President, where America has consistently shown it wants two things:

1) Someone they can relate to and understand.

2) Someone whose (whether they agree to their politics or not) decision-making process they understand.

Re: #1, even people who think GWB is an idiot feel like they could sit down and have a conversation w/ the guy. I bet many Kerry supporters who know him only from this campaign don't feel the same way about him.

Re: #2, w/ Al Gore, you knew he was going to be a logical, let's figure out the problem type guy. With GWB, you know that he has certain ideals/faith/belief and he's going to use those as guiding principles in making decisions. With John Kerry, I think many were unsure about how he would decide what to do.

[Kopefire]

I think think this is a good analysis of why Kerry lost, but falls short of what the democrats need, which is a serious analysis (and action to change) why the Democrats in general lost.

-- Democrats in general do not understand the role of faith in the life of the average american, they try to pay lip service to that point, but it is only when "outsider" candidates like Carter or Clinton come along who do actually get it that they win.

-- Democrats in general do not understand the concerns or needs of rural Americans

-- The democratic party nomination process rewards hard-line views on subjects that most Americans don't like hard-liners -- such as abortion.

-- Democrats don't understand that most Americans don't really want the government to take their money on a promise to take care of them. Most Americans want lower government spending and lower taxes, social programs can be good, but you need clear explanations on how you're going to achieve them, not empty promises of not raising taxes.

-- Democrats in general are too hostile towards the military, which is a source of pride for most Americans. I know more than a few democrat leaning ex-military friends who had to hold their nose to vote for Kerry because of his medal incident . . . they voted for him, but really didn't want to. How many more didn't vote for him or voted against him on that issue alone?

The Democrat party will continue to languish, failing to take the house, senate or presidency until they find a way to resonate with the people of "fly-over" country. You can't succeed as a national party when you only have traction in New England and California.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some reasons it seems to me people decided to vote against John Kerry (as opposed to voting for George Bush):

-He was seen as a "flip-flopper":
-He was seen as weak compared to Bush
-He is a liberal:
-He ran a poor campaign:

-John Edwards: A complete bust.
-Mrs. Kerry:
-Swift Boat Veterans
-People thought Kerry would raise their taxes:
-He didn't do well in his acceptance speech:
-People didn't feel comfortable with him:

[/ QUOTE ]

Your points 1, 2 and 4 are all variations on a theme. The last 6 are symptoms of the major problem delineated at the start. His liberal record is also symptomatic, as it is seen by a lot of the rest of the country as Kerry pandering to his state to get elected Senator, rather than as any real convictions or beliefs. Kerry was a liberal of convenience, trying to out-Kennedy Ted Kennedy and the memory of JFK, who was in reality nowhere near as liberal as Teddy or Kerry or as most people today think of him.

If I remember the quote correctly, Gertrude Stein once said that the problem with Oakland was that there was no there there. That's the problem with Kerry: there's no there there. There's nothing there but a suit and an expensive haircut that wants to be president, but can't articulate why he wants it or why we should elect him.

I thought that Bush deserved to be booted out of office for his handling of Iraq, but I had zero confidence that Kerry would be any better as president. I had no sense of who Kerry was and no feeling that he was capable of running a small business, let alone the country. He never struck me as a leader. The only testimony to his leadership, from a minority of those who served with him in Nam, seemed to be more a testimony to avoiding danger to himself and his crew than to any accomplishment. Again, the campaign was symptomatic of this: there was no sense that anyone was in charge, that anyone was actually running the campaign. My impression of the Kerry campaign was of Kerry opening the newspaper in the morning, seeing the crisis du jour, and blaming it on Bush. And then saying that he had a plan to fix it. The plan is in the mail. Kerry had no plan, no policy, just a strategy of "I'm not Bush."

The lack of any determined response to the Swift Boat vets was also symptomatic of weakness. Teresa Heinz can do whatever she wants at home. On the campaign trail, she has to be part of the team. Kerry's inability to make her a team player is a sign of weakness. Kerry's choice of Edwards was weak. There was no indication of thought or strategy here, other than geographic balance, an outdated concept. Edwards is another suit, all image and no substance. There is an appearance there that a reason for picking Edwards was that Kerry didn't want a running mate who was stronger than him. Edwards is more charismatic, but not stronger.

Reality is that image is a large part of politics. The bottom line is Kerry showed us a weak image. He barely came across as competent, let alone presidential. And if you really dug down beneath the image, there was no substance beneath the image.

[Ulysses]

One more thing. Someone on one of the networks last night (Novak, maybe) said something very simple that I think sums a lot of things up.

Paraphrasing, it went something like this "America today is a conservative country and the Democrats don't understand the type of candidate America wants to support."

Kopefire touched on a lot of the specifics behind that statement, but I think it sums things up pretty well.

[Ikke]

Maybe it also has something to do with the fact that "Nearly 75 percent of President Bush's supporters continue to believe that Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction or a major program to develop them, contrary to official findings, a survey taken this month found." (see for instance http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...2iraqpol1.html )

It really blows my mind that Bush got re-elected. I consider this to be a sad, sad day.

Regards