Kerry's biggest mistake?

[Neo]

What was most damaging to Kerry's campaign? Voting against the $87 billion? Having his phrase "global test" twisted out of context? Inability to effectively explain his plans? Just being an over-all unlikeable douchbag?

[Ace195]

Bush won deal with it

[Professor S]

Kerry's biggest mistake was that his campaign was based on getting Bush out fo the office, not having himself elected.

Example: I remember in the first debate Lehrer asked him about the $87 Billion. Kerry answered as follows (more or less)

"I made a mistake in what I said*, but whats worse? Making a mistake in what you said or in a badly planned war that have caused..." and he went on against Bush.

He didn't answer the question. He didn't explain the reasons why he *VOTED against the 87 Billion. This was a formula he used over and over again. He didn't explain his positions and instead spent his whole campaign attacking Bush. People don't vote for the President based on what your opponent does, they vote depending on what you can bring to the table.

This lends itself to what I've been saying all along with Kerry. No one really knows what he stands for because he has changed positions so much and voters are more likely to vote for something familiar they can trust rather than an unknown.

[jeepnut]

The problem was that few people voted for Kerry because he was Kerry. I would venture to say that more people voted for him because he wasn't Bush. That's not how you win an election.

[Blackmane]

I agree with Strangler. He didn't have his own positions to back himself up enough and depended on the anti-Bush sentiments to push him through.

I personally think this was a planned election on the Democrats, especially those who want to see Hillary Clinton running for president in 2008. Put an uncharismatic man, unliked by a lot of his fellow senators, and generally too liberal to run against Bush, and push the point of trying to point out Bush's fault. This makes Bush less popular, and Cheney by default, and gives Hillary an easier shot in 4 years.

Just a thought, and probably too conspiracy-ish to be right, but it is an interesting idea.

[Neo]

Do you think Hillary is actually electable? I'm thinking women would vote for her just because she's a woman but who knows. On the republican side I see McCain, Guiliani, possibly Arnie in the unlikely event the constitution is changed. I don't think Cheney will run because he wasn't interested to begin with.

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by Neo

What was most damaging to Kerry's campaign? Voting against the $87 billion? Having his phrase "global test" twisted out of context? Inability to effectively explain his plans? Just being an over-all unlikeable douchbag?

Not playing the Catholicism card. This is going to be John Carpenter's Escape From L.A. all over again. Damn moral America.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Neo

Do you think Hillary is actually electable? I'm thinking women would vote for her just because she's a woman but who knows. On the republican side I see McCain, Guiliani, possibly Arnie in the unlikely event the constitution is changed. I don't think Cheney will run because he wasn't interested to begin with.

Hillary is not electable. In order for a Democrat to win they need to carry at least two states in the south. Hillary will not do that, especially considering how right the south has become.

Here's what I think the biggest problem with the Demcratic party is:

They listen to the media. As this vote has shown the voice of the media is not the voice of the people, and in fact the media has often alienated some voters and inspired opposition.

They are so wrapped up in being "progressive" that they have lost their southern base (probably forever) and most patriotic deomocrats. Zell Miller is not alone in his belief that the democratic party no longer speaks for the culturally conservative democrat. This election showed that.

Now I don't agree that cultural issues are what a president should be elected on, in fact I hate cultural issues and think the majority of them are non issues, but they are very important to a lot of southerners and mid-westerners.

Until the democratic party can find another Bill Clinton, who could speak to these issues (or speak around them), the democrats may not get elected again anytime soon.

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Hillary is not electable.

The dems' only hope lies in Edwards. He could swing some southern states. I said he should have been the main man from the beginning, Cali and NY would have elected a Dem sock monkey.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by dropCGCF

The dems' only hope lies in Edwards. He could swing some southern states. I said he should have been the main man from the beginning, Cali and NY would have elected a Dem sock monkey.

I have to disagree. Edwards gave Kerry NOTHING in the south and I have a feeling he may lose the next congressional election.

Edwards beliefs fly in the face of a lot of culturally conservative values, especially his support of partial birth abortion. That alone could kill his campaign.

The democrats need to come back to the middle because the left shift that happened in their party after the 2000 election has alientated a lot of their former base. Right now I don't see a moderate candidate that could step up, but then again a lot can change in 4 years.

Here are few things I think they would need:

1) A southerner or southern mid-westerner
2) A good military voting record
3) moderate cultural values (they don't have to be conservative)
4) A governor (senator's voting records tend to bite them in the ass)

On a side note, I'm impressed with Kerry's concession speech.

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by The Strangler

Edwards beliefs fly in the face of a lot of culturally conservative values, especially his support of partial birth abortion. That alone could kill his campaign.

I would say Edwards could have swayed some votes if he were the main man running. Clinton won because of charisma. So did Bush. Every year this comes out the same, the smart man wins the debates, the "commmon man" wins the elections. Americans are idiots.

Here are few things I think they would need:

1) A southerner or southern mid-westerner
2) A good military voting record
3) moderate cultural values (they don't have to be conservative)
4) A governor (senator's voting records tend to bite them in the ass)

I see nobody capable of beating Guliani in '08. Spitzer, Obama, Dean, and Clintion would all crumble. There are no good white male Dems anymore. Republicans rule Pres, the Senate, and the House for the next 8 years. Good God the Dems needed this one.

[Neo]

I have my doubts about Hillary too. She probably could not soke up enough of the female vote to make up for her liberal persona.

American in general and not just the south seems to be a lot more conservative than I realized. Female voters in the south may even believe that a female's place is in the home and that the presidency is a man's job.

Another problem with Hillary is the same problem that Kerry had - the fact that they're senators. It's been mentioned that Kerry is used to discussing the details and minutia of bills and doesn't really know how to talk to the common man. That and the enevitability of having your voting record turned against you makes it an uphill battle.

But I agree the democrats have got to reach out to conservative religious voters. A southern democratic governor would be ideal.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by dropCGCF

I would say Edwards could have swayed some votes if he were the main man running. Clinton won because of charisma. So did Bush. Every year this comes out the same, the smart man wins the debates, the "commmon man" wins the elections. Americans are idiots.

Except that Bush won all the debates in 2000. As for charisma, I actually think charisma had very little to do with this election as each side was just so polarized and fervent in their beliefs.

As for the "Americans are idiots" tripe, your not going to win anymore votes that way and much of that attitude that has been propogated by those like Moore and Al Franken has turned a lot of people away from the democratic party.

Its not good vs. evil. Its my opinion vs. your opinion.

[Xantar]

I believe Edwards gave up his Senate seat, so he is not in fact going to lose his next election bid because....he already lost it.

I don't think that America has in fact turned out to be surprisingly conservative. I think that on the one hand the Democrats didn't find a message other than "get Bush out" and pound it in well enough. I know what Kerry stood for, but not many did.

The other thing is Americans have apparently decided that foreign policy and homeland security are the most important issues today. More important, even, than the economy. Even if you don't believe that Bush is responsible for the weak state of the economy, the fact is that by itself is usually enough to throw a President out. The first President Bush had nothing to do with the economy being in recession either (in fact, it was booming for most of his term). But thanks to the economy and "read my lips," he got ousted.

This time, I know that many Americans voted for Bush thinking, "Well, I don't like what his education policy. His environmental policy sucks. He caters too much to those crazy fundamentalist people. But he'll keep us safe."

In most ways that are important, I actually think Kerry ran about the best campaign he could have. But he was fighting American demographics the entire way, and he just didn't win.

[ZebraRampage]

I think that another of Kerry's mistakes was that he was trying to appeal to the middle and to the far left at the same time. You can't do both, you can only support one side. I guess nobody knows where he stands on his issues, though this was mentioned before. This is what I think his biggest mistake was.