Kerry Lost :(

[acropolis]

Obviously the second it was decided, many people began to write their explanation of why Kerry lost. Had Kerry lost by a single vote, their stories would have been the same, had it been the other way around, they would have worked on explanations of why Bush lost, as if 0.05% of the American people changing their minds counts as the country changing its mind. But that said, this election could have been won.

Bush voters left the polls citing one of two reasons for their vote: Bush's values (translation: Bush hates gays more thoroughly) and the war on terror (on this, there are people who actually believe Bush is better on terror, and others who were going to vote Bush anyway and found the war on terror to be the only viable explanation (Kerry's clearly better than Bush on every issue except the war on terror, and I'm voting for Bush...hmmm, Bush must be better on the war). These do not necessarily lead to ideas on what Kerry could have done differently to win. For example, Kerry's foreign policy effectively boiled down to "like Bush, but with more troops." If you think there was a large swath of Bush voters who were thinking as they went to the polls "If only there was a candidate who wanted to follow Bush's foreign policy direction only with less troops..." fine, but I don't believe it. There were some who voted Bush because they thought a vote against the standing president during the war on terror automatically counted as appeasing terrorists (that's what the man on Fox News told me!), and there were others who voted against Kerry because of his anti-war actions in the early 1970's. But there was nothing Kerry or the Dems could have done about any of this, so they do not fall into the category of "things we could have done differently to win." So I see three real things that could have been done differently; each that if changed would have swung the election.

1. We could have hated faggots more than them.

Seriously. Bush got millions of single-issue voters right here. Gay people legally married in America for the first time over the last couple years, and so like it or not one of the two presidential candidates was going to be the faglover, and was going to take a 5-10 million vote hit because of it. It would have been easy to label Bush as "the guy who let it happen." After all, he was. Ad campaigns with Bush playing golf while gay men have sex in a confessional booth would have ended this election before it started. Kerry could have asked why, after four years, we still haven't even started getting that constitutional amendment? Why wasn't the National Guard brought in in San Francisco? Is Bush secretly gay? He dresses poorly, but who knows? You know what they say about things that come from Texas.

Obviously I'd rather lose every election in the country and die than go this route. But it was a real option, and a real discussion of this election has to include it.

2. We could have gone with a negative ad campaign

I know that Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Glenn Reynolds, the entire staff at National Review, Sean Hannity, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board all recommended that Kerry stay positive all campaign long. On the other hand, Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Glenn Reynolds, the entire staff at National Review, Sean Hannity, and the Wall Street Journal editorial board all recommended that Kerry stay positive all campaign long. While "vote for the 'devil you don't' over the strong, competent war president you've all come to love and respect!" may sound like a great campaign slogan, the results have clearly been less than optimal. For some people, the only reason to vote against a president in a time of war is that you couldn't possibly do any worse. That was an easy case to make. But we didn't. "Bush did a great job after 9/11." No he didn't. Quit channeling Gillespie pls. How hard would it be to say "He took the largest budget surplus in the history of the world, and turned it into the largest deficit ever. He took the best intelligence organization on the planet, and invaded the wrong country. He took the world's most powerful military, and now appears to be trying very hard to lose. And I wouldn't bet against him, given his history"? But I never heard that. I heard "You should replace this strong war president with me! Because I have a very good record on fiscal discipline!" It's possible that he convinced some budget hawk Bush voters that it might not be the end of the world if he won. But they still voted Bush.

It really seemed that a lot of his campaign was focused on his support of issues that only people who are definitely going to vote for Bush care about. "I will never waver in my support of Israel" "I've been a hunter since I was young" "My faith is important to me" etc. There were certainly a number of right-leaning pundits who recommended Kerry come out strong in favor of all types of Republican positions and in favor of Bush in general. But you aren't supposed to take them seriously. More on point, the Democrats put together a very positive convention with a number of good speeches that was really ineffective, and the Republicans put on an Orwellian 6,000-minute hate that really pushed them ahead. Strictly in terms of negative ads, the Republican party outspent the Democrats 10 to 1. I'm still waiting for the "Where the **** was G. W. on 9/11?" ad campaign. Probably got lost in the mail.

3. We could have had a better candidate

Let's be clear about this. If you wanted principles, values, intelligence, patriotism, and real political courage, Kerry was clearly your man out of the 11 (including Bush). But I wanted to win an election, a task which Kerry was clearly less than suited to. Personal connection is important in elections, and this is not a Kerry strong suit. Now, I'm not saying Bush won because he is so charismatic; quite the opposite. Bush has all the personality of a mop. A mop that doesn't like you. Finding someone, somewhere, with even less charisma is clearly not the best way to take advantage of this. Just get him on stage with someone likeable, and it's all over. But we didn't.

Secondly here, a large section of swing voters vote for the more exciting candidate. Not quite the "cool" candidate, but something along those lines; someone who makes things interesting. Clinton cheated on his wife. Politically brilliant. Bush may be personally detestable, but he does declare war all willy-nilly. And he sure does piss off those whiny Hollywood types. And negroes. And feminists. Environmentalists. Etc.

We could have actually done worse than Kerry here, with a Graham, or a Lieberman, or God help us a Gephardt. But we had several candidates that could easily have won it outright, and it was pretty clear this would be a problem eight months ago.

Anyway. Thought I'd clear that up.

[Sunday8pm]

Or we could look at how the vote was hacked in the small counties of Florida... not to mention some hacking going on in ohio as I posted in my thread.

Tbh the voting system in America is corrupt beyond belief and I doubt it will be long before bush declares he has 100% backing from the american population [/saddamhussein]

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Bush voters left the polls citing one of two reasons for their vote: Bush's values (translation: Bush hates gays more thoroughly)

Actually, I believe the choice on the exit polls was 'Moral values' (the question was: 'Which issue most influenced your vote?') which has to rank as one of the Dumbest Polling Questions Ever. Whose moral values? Bush's? Kerry's? The voter's? And which values in particular? The fact that so many more Bush voters cited 'moral values' as the issue which most influenced their vote is interesting, but I have no idea what that means--and neither does anyone else! The answer is so vague that it can mean anything--or nothing.

[Dante Hicks]

For an alternative spin on the matter : http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...90&ItemID=6588

[Ste]

I know your reason 1 wasn't 100% serious but it wouldn't have worked. For every voter they gained from the Republicans by being anti-homosexual they would have lost 2 outraged supporters.
What could they have done to be more homophobic anyway?

[Zar]

I think kerry should have launched a campaign to teach christians that their religion is wrong.

[Tomkat]

Old.

[LHC]

I could have been just as good a candidate as Kerry, as I am equally not George W Bush.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

Actually, I believe the choice on the exit polls was 'Moral values' (the question was: 'Which issue most influenced your vote?') which has to rank as one of the Dumbest Polling Questions Ever. Whose moral values? Bush's? Kerry's? The voter's? And which values in particular? The fact that so many more Bush voters cited 'moral values' as the issue which most influenced their vote is interesting, but I have no idea what that means--and neither does anyone else! The answer is so vague that it can mean anything--or nothing.

What is clear is that where anti-gay amendments were on the docket, people turned out in force to vote for them. And they clearly didn't pull the lever for Kerry after those intrepid journalists at FNC uncovered the vast gay-liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage and God once and for all.

Originally Posted by Ste

I know your reason 1 wasn't 100% serious but it wouldn't have worked. For every voter they gained from the Republicans by being anti-homosexual they would have lost 2 outraged supporters.
What could they have done to be more homophobic anyway?

I don't think there was anything Kerry could have said or done to prevent 'supporters' - outraged and otherwise - from voting for him. He could have come at Bush from the right on every single issue ("These deficit are way too small!" "While he is thoroughly torturing the terrorists, I'm told that their children's genitals are being left completely unscathed!" "Limits on corporate liability? Why should corporations ever be held liable for anything?") and I still would have voted for him.

Simply because I'm tired of hearing about some functional group of government that has just finished investigating their own blatant corruption and discovering no wrongdoing. I could be wrong about everything that I believe in outside of the Cartesian obvious; redistributionary economics might be bad for the standard of living, corporations policing their own pollution might dramatically reduce emission levels, private reinsurance of catastrophics might be cheaper than goverment reinsurance, etc., and I'll certainly get to find out over the next four years. But I still want accountability for criminal actions and flagrant corruption.

That's what I voted for.

On point, I could be wrong about the first one, but I don't feel that it matters because I wouldn't want to go that way anyway.

PS: i wrote this post and submitted it, and it got vaporized by a 'server not found' message. that gives me a lot of hate.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by acropolis

What is clear is that where anti-gay amendments were on the docket, people turned out in force to vote for them.

I'm very skeptical of that claim.

There were anti-same sex marriage initiatives in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon and Utah. Most of those states were solidly in the Bush column anyway. Still, none of those states switched from blue to red or vice versa compared to the 2000 election except Michigan. The key state of Ohio voted 51% for Bush--same as in 2000. Turnout was much higher all across the country, so claims that these initiatives increased turnout (selectively or otherwise) are difficult if not impossible to prove.

Finally, same-sex marriages were already illegal in those 11 states. I find it difficult to believe that significant numbers of people had no other reason to go to the polls except to re-affirm the status quo. I think it's far more likely that the coattails ran the other way--a close Presidential election brought in voters many of whom also happened to vote against same-sex marriages.

And they clearly didn't pull the lever for Kerry after those intrepid journalists at FNC uncovered the vast gay-liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage and God once and for all.

The voters in Oregon appear to have done just that. They voted for Kerry and against same-sex marriages. And since the initiatives passed by much higher margins than Bush typically got, there were clearly a lot of Kerry voters who voted against same-sex marriages in the other states as well. I don't think you can get this issue to break as cleanly along party lines as you might like.

[Dante Hicks]

I'd tend to agree with the article I posted a link to. Kerry lost because he failed to convince enough poor white people to vote for him on economic grounds and failed to make a moral case why they should do.

But then I suppose how can you make a moral stance on inequality or injustice in our society when you signed the DMCA and your party takes massive contributions from a whole range of corporations...