Why Kerry Failed

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by JohnT


... which was precisely the same advantage that Gore had over Bush... yet Gore still lost.

Al Gore really didn't Capitalize on his connection to Bill Clinton's record nearly the extent he should have. And he failed to energize his base by being so bland and moderate alot of liberals voted for Nader instead or simply didn't vote. And he let the Republican campaign define him enough to make him look like a loser. The 2000 campaign came down to voting between a liberal pretending to be conservative with intelligence but no charisma vs. a conservative pretending to be a liberal with charisma and no intelligence. You can see why it ended in a draw.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by shmily_dana
I think supporting the gay marriage ban would have been important to getting support for Kerry in some states. I remember that the Christian community (including Pat Robertson) was very excited about President Carter in 1976. I think the Democrates need a candidate that does not support 100% two of the social planks of the platform...abortion and gay rights. It would also have to be unambiguous. Not "I'm against abortion, but I'm pro-choice." That person would have to support a ban on late term abortion or something similar.

I would love to have a democrat that was against abortion

the only thing that would excite me more would be a communist against abortion

the democrat against gay rights is a turn off

Jon Miller

[St Leo]

Votes by Most Important Issue

(5%) Taxes
57% Bush / 43% Kerry

(4%) Education
26% Bush / 73% Kerry

(8%) Health Care
23% Bush / 77% Kerry

(15%) Iraq
26% Bush / 73% Kerry

(19%) Tewwawism
86% Bush / 14% Kerry

(20%) Economy/Jobs
18% Bush / 80% Kerry

(22%) Moral Values
80% Bush / 18% Kerry / 1% Nader

Bush appeared strong on Taxes, Tewwawism, and Moral Values.

Kerry appeared strong on Education, Healthcare, Iraq, and the Economy.

So, the task at hand is to convince more people about the irrelevance of the former and the preeminence of the latter.

[Agathon]

Face it, the majority of America does not embrace the Democratic viewpoint on social issues. This is the key.

Absolutely. The majority of Americans are therefore bigots. That sounds harsh, but it's basically true.

What's the point in the Democrats changing? Should they become bigots too? I don't think so. If they really want to succeed they should drive a wedge between the religious conservatives and the more socially liberal Republicans. But this would involve a wholesale remaking of the party, so it will take years.

All in all, when confronted with massive international and domestic problems more Americans cared about homos getting married. That tells you all you need to know about the electorate. It is simply not possible to run a "rational" political campaign in such circumstances.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Agathon

What's the point in the Democrats changing? Should they become bigots too?

Actually, the Democrats changing moved them OUT of being the Bigot party. They had the south up until Nixon.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Agathon
Absolutely. The majority of Americans are therefore bigots. That sounds harsh, but it's basically true.

1) Calling people bigots is not going to win you votes. So don't be surprised then if the Democrats lose elections based on "values".

2) I reject the premise that a majority of Americans are bigots.

I am amazed at the moral arrogance of the Left. They assume that they are right on every moral issue and anyone who disagrees must be a bigot. It never even occurs to the Left that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong on these issues, that a majority of Americans who oppose abortion and gay marriage are on the right side of morality.

[GePap]

The majority do NOT oppose abortion. 60% say they support the ability of a woman to chose to have an abortion (certainly early on, support declines as time goes on) even if they don't feel confortable with doing it.

That is a nuanced position- not the my way or you are going to hell moralizing of the right.

Lets put it this way: When liberals think they are right, they think the other side is stupid, and people will have to wallow in ignorance and poverty.

When religous conservatives think they are right, they think the other people are evil, or will be damned in eternity, and wait for the time when they will be in heaven - and I guess can then enjoy watching the suffering of everyone else during Armageddon.

[Arrian]

As opposed to "the Right" that labels liberals traitors. It never occurs to "the Right" that "the Left" might be right either. So much better

Pot/Kettle.

I agree that calling people bigots will not win votes (not that Aggie cares, he's up in Canada and is a commie to boot).

-Arrian

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by The diplomat

I am amazed at the moral arrogance of the Left. They assume that they are right on every moral issue and anyone who disagrees must be a bigot. It never even occurs to the Left that maybe, just maybe, they are wrong on these issues, that a majority of Americans who oppose abortion and gay marriage are on the right side of morality.

And, of course, the Right paints it as black vs. white, and doesn't treat moral issues for the complexities that they are. Have you ever considered that there isn't a right or a wrong with moral issues, only a personal feeling? For instance, John Kerry is anti-abortion but feels that there is a societal reason to keep it. Likewise, George W. Bush doesn't like illegal immigration but wants to help those who do cross the boarder. The majority doesn't make anything "right". The majority also formerly believed slaveholding was good, women shouldn't vote, and blacks should be kept segregated.

There's also this huge moral arrogance on the Right, which you yourself just demonstrated. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is heathan scum. You just showed your bigotry.

[The Mad Monk]

So much venom.

[I Am Jeff]

From what a lot of people in the news have been saying, is that the gay marriage issue indirectly won the election for bush. In important swing states like Ohio, a ballot question about gay marriage was on the ballout. The religeous right, which did not come out in force in 2000, came out to vote yes to ban gay marriage. Since they were already voting, the decided to vote and vote for bush.

Bottom line is switf boat vets and Kerry's inability to get imporant domestic issues into the spotlight and make them the major issue lost it for Kerry. Kerry seemed to have trouble getting the deficit, healthcare (which is an insolvable problem), and Bush's failures in Iraq. The gay marriage issue mobilized the religeous right. If he drove these issues harder, I think Kerry would have won.

My money is on that if gay marriage was not an issue, Kerry would be president.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Arrian
I agree that calling people bigots will not win votes (not that Aggie cares, he's up in Canada and is a commie to boot).

Yeah, but calling people "neanderthals" will?

So many labels, can't we just call our opposing side "vote decision challenged" and be done with it?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
And, of course, the Right paints it as black vs. white, and doesn't treat moral issues for the complexities that they are. Have you ever considered that there isn't a right or a wrong with moral issues, only a personal feeling? For instance, John Kerry is anti-abortion but feels that there is a societal reason to keep it. Likewise, George W. Bush doesn't like illegal immigration but wants to help those who do cross the boarder.

Well, I do tend to think that there are some moral absolutes. You mention slavery. Is it right or wrong? I assume you agree with me that slavery is wrong. Are you going to tell me that sometimes slavery is ok depending on the situation? There is nothing complex about slavery. It is one human being treating another humam being like his property. That's wrong. Abortion is the same. Abortion is where you end the life of a human being before it is born. What's complicated about that? It's wrong.

The majority doesn't make anything "right". The majority also formerly believed slaveholding was good, women shouldn't vote, and blacks should be kept segregated.

But at some point, people changed their viewpoint and realized that slavery and segregation were wrong and that women deserved the right to vote. Maybe the same will happen with gay marriage. Maybe some day, gay marriage will be legal in every State and it will be common and accepted. Right now though, a lot of people consider it to be wrong.

There's also this huge moral arrogance on the Right, which you yourself just demonstrated. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is heathan scum. You just showed your bigotry.

You are putting words in my mouth. I did not call anyone a heathen scum nor did I insinuate such a thing. I merely said that maybe the Left is wrong about abortion and/or gay marriage. Again, I am not calling anyone anything.

[Odin]

Kerry failed because Rove got out the Christian fundy vote better than Kerry could get out the young vote.

[pchang]

More people than ever voted in this election. Bush got 51% of the vote. It is actually quite uncommon for a President to get more than 50% of the vote. Kerry failed because he doesn't represent the wishes of the majority of Americans.