Bush gloating. “That’s all you got??”
Why Kerry Lost
by John C. Dvorak
It will be fun to watch the right-wing bloggers revel over a Bush victory as if they made it happen, and it will be fun to watch the Democrats kick themselves for not doing enough. The big turnout was supposed to mean a rejection of the incumbent, but it meant a lot of church-goers voting for their man. It was the churches, fear, and Democrat incompetence that won this election for Bush. But there was also one more factor: John Edwards.
I blame the whole Kerry loss on the choice of John Edwards for VP. Wesley Clark would have been the winning choice. Exactly who counseled Kerry on Edwards is the culprit. That said I was someone who liked Edwards when he was running in the primaries but would have never suspected his pathetic performance as VP candidate. He couldn’t even deliver his own state! In fact his own state, North Carolina, was huge for Bush. Did anyone in the Kerry camp have a clue?
This campaign decided not to choose Clark because he was seen as a “Clinton” Democrat and that wing of the party has been feuding with the dying Kennedy wing. It’s a known fact that Kerry was from the dying wing. And with this mediocre performance you can see why it’s dying. Exactly where was Kennedy during this entire election, anyway? I never saw him chime in once.
This election leads straight to a Hillary run at it in 2008 unless Bush ends the Iraq conflict soon and cranks up the economy. I cannot see this group doing much more than what they’ve done for four years — bumble. Their allies in all this are those folks in places like Idaho and North Dakota who are shaking in their boots about terrorists. As if Boise was a target. Still, the strategy worked. Scare the crap out of the good hearted American and you’ll get attention. The cowardly Lion rocks large in the Dakotas. “Booo! The terrorists are going to get you! Vote Bush!”
If the dumb Democrats had Wesley Clark as VP they could have convinced these same hand-wringers that an even better job of protecting the fearful was ready to roll..
The other botched opportunity is the war in Iraq. Clinton won against the first George Bush by harping on “read my lips, no new taxes” comment. Harping on a lie.
The WMD threat was a lie that was a softball down the middle of the plate for the Kerry campaign to pound. Michael Moore and Jon Stewart showed the contradictory TV clips. Kerry could have taken it to the next level with ridicule. Instead he soft-peddled. Wimped out.
Then there were the debates. Bush, who cheated with a wire on his back, was never challenged about this. Kerry could have slapped him hard on that thing after the debate. Then asked about it, in shock! Nothing. After all was said and done Kerry barely won the debates, but nobody cared. Nobody cared because Cheney killed Edwards with his assertion that they never met. It was a classic. Cheney made it sound like he was at the Senate all the time (he wasn’t) and never met this Edwards character who obviously never attended any sessions. Edwards, who had sat next to Cheney at a prayer breakfast folded! He could have said, “I’ve never seen you running the Senate, do you ever?” And, “I was sitting next to you at a prayer breakfast, are you telling me you don’t remember? Why are you lying about this?” But instead we get nothing. Stunned silence. The next day all the democrat supporters roll out video tape of the two sitting next to each other. Too late! It was Edwards’ job to slam the guy, not Jon Stewart’s job.
The only time I heard John Edwards get rocking was on the “is anybody listening?” Al Franken Show. Yeah, show off your chops to the already converted.
And let’s go back and ask exactly why the overly youthful-looking Edwards was picked in the first place. While the elder George Bush had the youthful Dan Quayle as his running pal to supposedly attract the gah-gah female vote, it should be noted that this only worked once. The younger Bush picked a mature worldly man as VP. And in a time of terror, this is exactly what you want. Kerry should have done the same and picked Clark.
Then there is the advertising. The Swift Boat angle worked to an extreme for Bush but it was eventually neutralized over time. Meanwhile, we hear of the million of dollars that George Soros and other billionaire Democrats were going to spend to grab Ohio and Florida. And we hear about the Liberal media. And we hear about the creative talent in Hollywood, all “liberals.” And with this huge intellectual advantage they cannot get Florida, already the laughing stock of the country from last time. And then they lose Ohio? This is an important industrial state with no job opportunities for the next decade. Are the Ohioans that dumb or are they just afraid of those terrorist bogeymen blowing up Dayton? Hm. Couldn’t they be slapped into reality?
None of the results make any sense to anyone unless you admit that the Democrats are complete incompetent boneheads. I mean, really. They knew exactly what they had to do. They had the skill sets to do it. Yet, they couldn’t do it. Nothing budged. Hey boys, good job wasting all that money!
Having said all that I actually think the economy will rebound, but only because of observable cycles. Bush, to get re-elected, kept the war active, now he can wisely cut and run. He did accomplish two things his dad never did. He caught Sadaam. And he got re-elected. Now if he doesn’t get us all killed we can see what happens in 2008.
I think we know what will happen in 2008.
Bush will finally admit he wasn’t “elected” in 2000, and thus eligible for a third (2nd) term.
Whoo hoo, W through 2012, stepping aside just in time for his brother to run. It’ll be Bush’s until 2020.
It’s a quick civics lesson for those first-time voters from the MTV Generation: Just because you REGISTERED to vote, that doesn’t mean you actually voted. You still have to show up at the polls.
They failed to do that. The percentage of voters in that age group this year is the same as it was in 2000. And Kerry lost.
The backlash against it helped spur Republican voters to get to the polls. Might Michael Moore be responsible for this victory, in a roundabout way?
“Bush will finally admit he wasn’t “elected” in 2000, and thus eligible for a third (2nd) term.”
LOL!!
Of course, I’ll have a bunch to chime in with, John. But, just a 1st reaction — because I agree with you about 95%.
“he can wisely cut and run”? I don’t think so. Armageddon George didn’t have a mandate in 2000. He’ll absolutely be convinced, now, as will the Dark Prince Rove and Wolfowitz of Arabia. These dudes want greater Israel to extend to Greece and India.
It’s very likely we’ll have four more years of young Americans getting wasted in the Middle East. An invasion of Iran is possible and, if you know anything of our delightful history, stretching back to the overthrow of the Mossadegh government — you ain’t seen nuthin’ in Iraq — if we invade Iran.
I’d agree that the Democrats would have had a better shot with Clark than Edwards. Using someone that made millions off suing the health care industry is not good for image. I think he came off as a slimy lawyer and was never able to shake that image.
Another aspect is that the electorial votes themselves changed a bit from 2000. The states that Bush took in 2000 and now in 2004 combined for more electorial votes this time than before.
Lastly, I’d say the lasting impression in this election is the church vote. In 1992, the Democrats showed that the Republicans overlooked the gyno-vote (female vote). For this election, I think the Democrats will look back and see that they overlooked the church vote.
Well, John, I remember your confident assertion about three and one half years ago the W was a one-term president. So much for your political savvy.
There is no doubt that the church vote was huge, but the GOP got them motivated to vote wheareas the Dems could not motivate the blacks and the youth who were expected to vote heavily for Kerry. Failure to motivate core constituencies is a deep failure within the machine itself. And if this was the ‘most important election ever” as claimed by both sides, you’d think they would do better work. This party is a train wreck. Another part of the blame goes to the primary system which, for the Democrats, does not work. The smoke-filled rooms did a better job of finding a candidate who could win. Of course, it was the liberals within the party that eliminated the smoke-filled rooms in the first place. You see the results. Marginalization. It cannot get any better unless their system of nomination is scrapped.
What can I say? I was unaware of the marketing incompetence of the Dems. It’s not a matter of savvy. It’s a mstter of surprise. Let’s see who leaves this administration after this election. My guess is Colin Powell will be the first.
I am still amazed by all the alleged influence of Karl Rove.
Getting out the church vote has been mentioned as a key issue – and I was listeming to the radio, on the way in to work this morning, and one of the things mentioned was Rove pushing to have all those “No Gay Marriage” initiatives on the ballot in battle-ground states – then whipping-up fear that “activist” judges would impose Gay Marriage on people if they didn’t vote for the initiatives.
Genius! Killing two birds with one stone! – the people turning-out for defense of marriage would almost certainly also vote for Bush.
Between fear of terrorists and anger at gay marriage – the Democrats lost an up-hill battle.
Regardless of how this election turned out — the scary thing when looking at the turnout from this side of the pond is that seemingly ~40% of the population don’t even care who is their elected president.
The lowest participation in a national election where I live (Germany) was 77.8% — and that was in 1978. I think the last three times we always clocked in at about 80%. Besides, the parties over here don’t even spend 10% of your budget on advertising and “Go Vote!” campaigns.
Why is America so seemingly apolitical?
A great wrap-up. The Dems dropped many balls during the campaign, but this doesn’t make W a genius by any means. He was lucky to get elected the first time. Now we can enjoy the posturing among both parties, as there are no clear front-runners for the 2008 nominations in either camp.
As CNN is reporting
The article also says that Bush gained over 2000 among churchgoers, Catholics(!), Jews, and urban voters. I’ve seen elsewhere that blacks in particular were a target audience for hysteria over gay marriage.
Back in the 80’s Ralph Reed et al. took on the mission of using government to actively promote evangelical Protestantism–specifically, to make the Republican Party synonymous with godliness. They have been fantastically successful, to the point where killing (non-Christian) people for made-up reasons, throwing out embryonic cells rather than using them to cure awful diseases, and handing a huge debt (but no health care) to our children while we party are all considered “moral,” so long they is done in the name of God by Republicans. The Democrats have been too timid or too stupid to point out that these power-obsessed Pharisees are not true to American nor Christian principles. They should learn from Karl Rove that the opponent must be attacked where he is seemingly the strongest.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
“Kerry’s flubbed pitch just before the Democratic National Convention cost him the Presidency. By bouncing the ball on the way to the plate (and pitching off the mound) Kerry angered the Fenway gods (and they are an angry bunch) and sucked up all the bad karma from Fenway — which allowed the Red Sox to go on to victory. Thanks John (Kerry)!”
It is a very sad day indeed. I too thought Kerry would pull it off. It’s amazing what’s happened… all out of fear. Well, as Ben Franklin said, “Those who would trade their liberty for temporary security deserve neither.” Bush scared Americans into voting for him, and who knows where our civil liberties will go–because most people are too frightened/stupid to care about them.
The democrats lost because their candidate wasn’t better than the incumbant. Six months of campaigning and I still had no idea of who the man was, what he stood for and where he would take the country. He’s an enigma. A man who changed his opinion at the drop of the hat. All I needed was an excuse to support someone other than Bush, but the democrats failed to deliver.
I’ve read multiple opinion pieces today insulting the millions of americans who selected and exercised their right to vote for Bush. How is this productive? What are the benefits? Democrats need to grow up and look within to fix their problems. Not whine and moan about the incompetentence of their fellow citizens .
Mike, Yes I underestimated the sheer genius of Karl Rove. The gay marriage red herring was a fantastic ploy. It topped the Swift Boat Vet ploy, in fact. Also keeping Bush in front of sympathic crowds who signed NDA’s and loyaty oaths also worked. It made it so he never got confronted by the public while any TV cameras were rolling. If Rove ever got into computer marketing he’d be worth billions.
The last three democratic presidents were from Arkansas (Clinton), Georgia (Carter), and Texas (Johnson). You can’t just go into the fringe like Tennessee (Gore) and North Carolina (Edwards), which neither won. You’ve got to go deep! The democrats are never going to win in the south and west with these un-charismatic liberals from Massachusetts (Kerry and Dukakis). May the ghost of JFK finally rest in peace! General Wesley Clark (Arkansas) would have stood a better chance, and as close as it was, would have won.
In 2000 I was admantly (?) pro Bush. I liked the war in Afahganistan. I liked the war in Iraq (for different reasons then Bush sold it with, defending treaties). I was also very troubled by Bush’s work to take away our liberties (gay marriage, patriot act, school prayer), but I still supported him.
As the campaign progressed, the Democrats sold me on the idea that Bush wasn’t a good president (gay marriage, patriot act, no planning for war in Iraq). They didn’t sell me John Kerry though. Between Kerry and Bush I would support Bush. In the election I supported the Libertarians.
I disagree. I don’t see the economy getting any better. The outsourcing of jobs to other countries is just awful, and the Republicans would have everyone believe that it’s somehow good. What sort of logic is that? Those people who are out of work will not be buying houses; will not be buying computers; will not be buying cars. That’s OK about cars though, since gas will probably hit $6.00 a gallon by the end of 2005. Good time to be a robber baron. Those guys will make a lot of money on the carcass of America. Bad time to be in the Armed Forces. They have at least 4 more tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, and they can forget about getting out of the military, since their contracts will be continuously extended. Bush didn’t need an exit strategy, since he won’t be in office when we finally do get out.
It’s going to be an interesting next four years.
The terrorists are down, but not out. I think King George is gonna snuff the rest of them out. I am sure it will involve more diplomacy with the barrel of a gun pointed at the enemy’s head.
Iran? Syria? I think King George is reface the Middle East in his image. Or am I wrong?
You’re wrong about Hillary. This sets up a downhill run for that nutcase Arnold in 2008. The reps will change that law/amendment within the first month of next Congress to make sure they keep power through 2012-16. Sad, but hey, I’m filling out my Canadian citizenship application as I write this.
Kerry gets the East and West coasts, the prime targets for terriorism, without problem. Yet, the radical policy of Bush is elected by the south and west. Why are the people in the middle of the country in so much fear, shouldn’t it be me in New Jersey? Absurd! Why do people think that going to war makes a country more safe? And, if we do go to war, why not actually go after the terriorists, in stead of difussing them into pocket fractions around the world…
Yes, the people’s mandate is for Bush, by popular and electoral vote this time, but, something needs to change. Bush seems happy keeping everything the same though, I guess that makes him a good steadfast leader!
American politics are broken.
It’s sad that gay marriage can be such a motivator while people dying in Iraq isn’t.
I disagree that Wesley Clark would have been a better choice; I think the Kerry camp needed a better campaign. Kerry should have been able to win regardless of the VP choice (I think the VP choice is overblown to begin with, witness both Quale and Cheney).
Finally, Hillary may try to run in 2008, but the party won’t nominate her. Kerry, reflecting Dukakis, has likely soured the party on nominating another Northeasterner for a while (and never in a million years will Hillary be able to claim southerner status).
I also feel that much of the argument for voting for Kerry was that it wasn’t Bush. I’m unconvinced that you can win votes for a chump challenger simply by vilifying their incumbent opponent.
It is unfortunate that gay marriage became a deciding factor, but it is hard to argue it was not the case. Eleven states essentially baked discrimination into their respective constitutions and Bush rode that hate into the While House. Without question, the ugly side of the Republican Party and their fringe. All the more reason we need more than two choices for the most powerful position on the planet.
John,
You were the sole reason I subscribed to PC mag for those many years before they went online.
I’ve a few observations/questions about your election wrap-up:
1. “Bush, who cheated with a wire on his back”, I thought it was you who said this could easily be a photoshop job (much like your take on “the letter” which you were right about from the beginning), did you end up finding out otherwise? and if so, when/where/from whom?
2. “This election leads straight to a Hillary run at it in 2008” – would you really vote for Hillary if she ran?
3. “…I actually think the economy will rebound, but only because of observable cycles”
– and –
“unless Bush … cranks up the economy”
these would appear to be rather conflicting opinions, ay? So who or what do you really think will be responsible if the economy “cranks up”?
Finally: Is there something that caught your eye in what Mr. Kerry or Mr. Edwards had done in their home states that led you to believe they were ready for a far greater responsibility?
This the best you can do?
Why don’t you bring up the fact that Halliburton had the demolition contract on the twin towers and the Pentagon, and just mis-posted the explosion date.
There is no Saddam. There is no Osama. It’s all a dream beamed into your head by the evil Republicans.
It’s the Matrix, folks!!! Wake up!!!
(BTW, for you dumb demos, the above is satire, OK?)
I must admit that it is amusing watching the left trying to figure out how they could have lost to such a “bad, bad man” as George Bush. I suppose that the right would be doing the same had we lost the election…but alas, it is not so.
Anyways…there is still a majority of people who agree with Bush’s world view. Liberals may have a hard time accepting it, but it’s the truth.
It bears repeating that this is the first presidential election since ’88 where the winner got >50% of the popular vote, and the Democrats haven’t won a presidential election with >50% in 40 years. 40 years. FORTY YEARS. There is a reason for that.
Let’s put Kerry on the ballot in 2008 and try again with John’s suggestions. We will also get Teddy Kennedy out on the road during the campaign.
Do you really think that Americans are that blind to these liberal politicians? Kerry stood for nothing. It was a He Hate He campaign.
The election was fixed in Ohio and Florida.The voting patterns make no sense in Florida and Ohio minorities came out in record numbers check out blackboxvoting.org.The most interesting part of this story is a group of republicans set up a mirror site under blackboxvoting.com, I think to water down what is said on the .org siteOn the dot org site a memo from the CEO of Diebold inc.”they make voting machines”said that he would deliver Ohio for Bush.Bush and Cheney should rot in hell or Iraq which ever is closer.Kerry knew the fix was in but was hoping for a break thats why he waitedto concede.
Chris (comment #10) is right. The Republicans edged it because they brought out members of the congregation who don’t normally vote. Why can’t the Democrats get a few hundred thousand of their own out? There are millions of potential voters out there.
The GOP looks after its voters better than the Democrats look after theirs. John, it’s worse than incompetence – it’s a dereliction of duty.
My theory is that the left has gotten so used to winning in the courts here over sixty years (since FDR packed the Supreme Court) that they’ve forgotten how to appeal to the public, and so lose their nerve. Out sourcing should have been a huge issue. When Kerry raised it he only reminded us that he wasn’t going to do much about it either. Same with health care. None of this is rocket science.