• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Why John Kerry lost(November 5, 2004)

Status
Not open for further replies.

noshten

Member
HOW DID John Kerry blow it?
George W. Bush led the country into an unpopular war--based on lies. He handed out tax breaks to the wealthy while millions of workers suffered through recession and a weak recovery. He used the occupation of Iraq to reward corporate cronies while 1,100 U.S. soldiers--and 100,000 Iraqis, by the latest count--died for oil profits.

In 2000, Ralph Nader was accused of helping to elect Bush by "stealing" votes from Al Gore--a drumbeat that heard throughout this campaign as well. But this time, there's no denying that this election was the Democrats' to lose--and they handed it to Bush and the Republicans.

For the conservatives who run the Democratic Leadership Council--of which Kerry is a member--their defeat will be taken as evidence that the party is too far to the left, and that Bush won because of his appeal to "moral values." Typical was New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who declared that "the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect with the American heartland."

From the outset, Kerry's chasing of conservative "swing voters" put the race on Bush's terms. That's why he twisted and turned on the Iraq war--voting to authorize Bush's invasion, criticizing it during the primaries to cover his left flank and, after clinching the nomination, swinging right once more.

On the economy, Kerry tried to score points on Bush's tax handouts to the wealthy--and called for boosting taxes on the very wealthy. But by making tax cuts for corporations and the balancing of the federal budget the centerpieces of his economic policy, Kerry could offer only austerity--cutbacks in social spending rather than the urgently needed funding for public housing, job creation and anti-poverty programs.

The truth is that Kerry echoed Bush on issue after issue--and nowhere more than Iraq. Kerry repeatedly claimed that he'd run the Iraq occupation "better" than Bush--and endlessly vowed to "kill the terrorists." As journalist Doug Ireland put it, "Bush won by making the link between Iraq and the war on terrorism--the Big Lie which Kerry could not effectively counter, because he'd bought into it at the beginning." Kerry even tried to outflank Bush on the right, accusing the White House of going soft on Iran and North Korea.

All this was justified by antiwar movement leaders as "tactical"--and their approach relied entirely on Anybody-But-Bush sentiment to turn out the Democrats' traditional constituencies. Organized labor went much further down this road, pouring tens of millions of dollars into the Kerry operation through various nonprofit groups--but without putting forward the unions' own agenda.

Because most of the left, unions and antiwar activists backed Kerry without putting any demands on him, the issues that could appeal to working people--both union and nonunion--barely registered in the political debate. The only time the left was aggressive was to attack the independent campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo for trying to build an alternative to the Democrats.

All that remained of the Kerry campaign was an out-of-touch billionaire claiming that he cared about working people and promising that "hope was on the way"--even as he positioned himself as Bush Lite. The Democrats were so caught up in their insular world of sound bites and focus-group-driven strategies that they failed to see that Kerry and Edwards' promise of a $7-an-hour minimum wage--the same in real terms as 40 years ago--gave little reason for "hope."

An aggressive, mobilized left could have challenged these views and raised crucial issues ignored during the campaign. Instead, prominent leftists and progressives made apologies for Kerry's terrible positions--or kept silent--in the name of Anybody But Bush.

Put another way, you can't beat something (Bush) with nothing (Kerry). Thus, the Republicans' get-out-the-vote operation was more successful than the Democrats. The high pro-Kerry turnout some predicted never materialized--in particular, among young voters who were supposed to put Kerry over the top. The only records set for turnout were in the "red," pro-Bush Southern states. Yet across the U.S., more than 45 percent of the eligible voters--a disproportionate majority of them working class and poor--didn't even turn out.

The Bush victory will lead to demoralization among many activists. Liberal commentators will blame "backward" of "dumb" ordinary Americans for the right's success, rather than the Democrats' disastrous corporate strategies.

Still, as Bush strides to the right, he is sure to overreach--and take actions that will inevitably provoke a response.

http://socialistworker.org/2004-2/519/519_01_KerryLost.shtml

Interesting read for some perspective about the previous time Democrats blew the country up with their nominee choice.
 

entremet

Member
I remember Kerry.

Kerry was lame AF.

That swift boat campaign was incredibly nasty, though. That was when I first saw how dirty politics could get.

I was too young to remember Willie Horton.
 

Diablos

Member
And yet even Kerry won more electoral votes than Clinton. It hurts, it hurrrrts.

The article definitely proves that the "anyone but ____" strategy is a losing one.
 

Sheroking

Member
Clearly, dull non-populist career politicians do not ignite and inspire many on the left wing. It's not enough that they have someone to vote AGAINST, they must be inspired to vote for someone.
 

phanphare

Banned
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it

yep and we're already seeing establishment dems put their head in the sand again after this election

thankfully I think the democratic party has finally reached a tipping point and will be taken over by more competent leadership
 

Putzweg

Member
A lot of talk about the Dems have to move to the left but how exactly will a leftist candidate be funded based on those views?
 
D

Deleted member 80556

Unconfirmed Member
As journalist Doug Ireland put it, "Bush won by making the link between Iraq and the war on terrorism--the Big Lie which Kerry could not effectively counter, because he'd bought into it at the beginning." Kerry even tried to outflank Bush on the right, accusing the White House of going soft on Iran and North Korea.

I didn't know Kerry was that hawkish.
 
Amazing how so many mistakes were echoed in this election cycle, against a far weaker campaign. Just tells ya the democrats strategy of neoliberal economics does not resonate with voters, and that most of their policies have been republican-lite on everything but social issues.
 

Garjon

Member
And yet even Kerry won more electoral votes than Clinton. It hurts, it hurrrrts.

The article definitely proves that the "anyone but ____" strategy is a losing one.

Similar situation for the Brexit campaigns; Remain focused on how crap life would be outside the EU rather than defending it and showing how it has helped the country. Even though the Leave campaign was mostly bollocks they at least somewhat ran on the benefits of leaving the EU rather than how bad staying would be. Campaigning this way may reduce the number of votes for the opponent but it certainly does not translate into votes for themselves.
 

noshten

Member
A lot of talk about the Dems have to move to the left but how exactly will a leftist candidate be funded based on those views?

Presidential elections are easy - all Bernie did was tell his supporters how much they've raised and how much the average contribution is and the url where they can donate more. $27 I remember it like it was yesterday.
Also when you look at Clinton outspending Trump 3:1 what does money even buy in a GE.

The difference is at the local level which is why we need to get money out of politics.

it is really hard to run against an incumbent President during a war

So what you are saying is that Hillary had an easier job against Trump and yet somehow manage to screw up... or the DNC once again failed to do their job and put forth a nominee that won't have an enthusiasm and authenticity problems
 

RDreamer

Member
This was my first vote and I was coming from a very conservative family at the time. I was pretty conflicted and remember it being hard to really choose. In the end I chose Bush. Kerry's message on the war was too muddled and it didn't really resonate with me at the time. If he was going to completely pull out that seemed disastrous. If we weren't pulling out then what was the point in swapping leadership in the middle of a crucial battle? My thought was that though I didn't like the war, it seemed better to let Bush carry out his plan rather than throw a huge wrench into things and possibly fuck things up even more.

I remember being very stressed that night, not because I wanted "my guy" to win but because I didn't know and I didn't really want either of them to win... or either of them to lose. I just didn't know what the hell.
 
member all those theories about how they increased the terror level and stuff right before the election to scare people? Lot of crazy conspiracy stuff, it was only 3 years after 9/11 too. Its interesting that this year terrorism really didn't play a big part.

I remember every time I saw Kerry I would start thinking about how awesome it would be to be able to try out new secret ketchup formulas and have a lifetime supply of free ketchup. His wife is the owner/heir/whatever of the Heinz company.
 

Deku Tree

Member
All the in depth analysis obfuscates things IMO.

It was the wind surfing on Cape Cod "flip flopper" commercial, and the swift boat veterans for truth (who were full of lies).

And terrorism had people running scared. Bush convinced everyone that Kerry was a "wimp democrat" who would be soft on terrorism.

Unfortunately Clinton and Kerry made a lot of the same mistakes. Both failed to recognize and address attacks against them that were resonating with the American people and chose to take the "high road".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom