NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so Kerry lost this year by a good 3 million votes. He bowed out when he knew he wouldn't win, and the election is officially over. So what can the Dems work on over the next 4 years so they have a better chance in 2008?

I hear people talking about how the Dems were afraid to be liberal this year, but I don't know if that dog'll hunt. Anyone who was liberal, except a scattered few Naderites, voted for Kerry. It was the conservatives rallying up against gay marriage and abortion that won it for Bush. So should the Dems actually try to be less liberal next time?

I also hear people saying that Kerry just wasn't a good enough candidate. That I can agree with. I would have voted for Dean or even Kucinich over Kerry. Edwards probably wasn't the best pick, either. He's too goody-goody and inexperienced, in my opinion. Who should they go for in 2008?

I don't know if they can do anything.

They seem to be trying hard to be watered down Repbulicans.

The Shrub was saved by the Red Herring Gay issue. Rove was smart to use that as it got the Evangelicals out to vote in mass.

They over estimated the youth vote.

Probably the one thing they can do is to go more centrist. With the Christians taking over the Republicans, they would probably get many defectors(McCain).

There's nothing that the Democrats can do.

Sure the democratic party can fill itself up with republicans like Zell Miller, but as for people who actually believe in democracy ever having power in this country... Not a chance.
The people have spoken. We've decided to go with plutocracy, theocracy, phobocracy, and stultocracy. Rule by money, religion, fear and stupidity.

All that's left is for us to get sacked by the Goths.

What did the democrats do wrong? Hmm, they swung way left. They tried to divide the nation with vitriol against the troops, against the president. They put all their eggs into John Kerry's basket.

They need to be more centrist on social issues, at least for the Presidential races. Two of the major groups that make up the Democratic coalition, Hispanics and Blacks, went for Bush 9% and 2% (respectively) more than they did in 2000, both of those groups are generally socially conservative, as are many poorer Democrats of any type, which Bush also poached.

They went too heavy on the anger. Kerry and company was so busy telling us how bad the current administration was, they didn't let us now why they were good.

Also, the free agent Democrat pundits (Moore, Frankel etc) talking down about the Republicans' voting base doesn't help. We are also intelligent compassionate people who just happen to have a different view on what is best for the country.

The Youth Vote wasn't over estimated. Young people voted in record numbers. They underestimated the evangelical and elderly votes.

The polarization helped Bush. People who were only slightly right of center( like myself) felt compeled to vote him to keep a far left winger out.

I'd really like to see the Repuiblicans learn from this. It was too damned close to think right wing politics are a mandate from God. We have to be willing to work with the left and realize that we all want whats best for America.

The Youth Vote wasn't over estimated. Young people voted in record numbers. They underestimated the evangelical and elderly votes.


Actually, from what I was reading, the youth vote was constant from four years ago. The problem is that the Kerry campaign expected it to increase by 5% of the total vote.

In pure numbers, the youth vote exploded, but that can be said for just about every other voter demographic. This election set records for voter turn out.

The youth vote was actually fairly proportional with their population.

They presented a canidate who was more of the same and allowed himself to be painted that way, while trying to appeal to those who wanted an outsider/change. They also went too far into what they have accused Bush of doing, living in an echo chamber where all they hear is their own views echoed back at them instead of actually trying to connect with what mot americans wanted (instead of the louldest speakers). What they really need to do is paint themselves as innovative outsiders with fresh ideas, regardless of reality or pick a real outsider and craft thier campaign for those who are tied to the status quo.

Kerry never once said that Bush made a mistake, simply that he was a mistake. I can't really think of an example where he pointed out the mistakes Bush made. Kerry was too worried about losing voters to actually gain very many. Since Kerry agreed with Bush on just about everything except the timing of the war, he never put out anything for voters to support.

Bush had abortion, gay marriage, the war on terrorism.

Kerry had the timing of the Iraq war.

Building on what Sussudio said, the greater part of Kerry's initial campaign seemed to be mostly just "Hey, at least I'm not Bush!" He eventually started working on the issues and showing his plans for things, but i think he got off to a slow start, which can be bad when you're facing an incumbent.

The Dems had a number of problems this election.

First and foremost was giving Kerry the nomination. Kerry has no charisma. He is considered, and was painted as, one of the most liberal politicians out there. America doesn't like guys way out on the wings, and prefer more moderate stances on most issues.

Kerry didn't focus his campaign. I was interested in what his platform was, and what he wanted to do for this country. When I looked at his website, all I got were broad generalizations. 'Education is good' is not going to get me to vote.

He also didn't respond to attacks like the 'Swift Boats' soon enough. He was under constant attack and didn't seem to notice.

Because for some reasons many americans think that losing 250,000 jobs under the Bush admin is progress. The Dems need to be able to take a southern state if they want to win. Unfortunately, the South is too far to the right.

Okay, so Kerry lost this year by a good 3 million votes. He bowed out when he knew he wouldn't win, and the election is officially over. So what can the Dems work on over the next 4 years so they have a better chance in 2008?

I hear people talking about how the Dems were afraid to be liberal this year, but I don't know if that dog'll hunt. Anyone who was liberal, except a scattered few Naderites, voted for Kerry. It was the conservatives rallying up against gay marriage and abortion that won it for Bush. So should the Dems actually try to be less liberal next time?

I also hear people saying that Kerry just wasn't a good enough candidate. That I can agree with. I would have voted for Dean or even Kucinich over Kerry. Edwards probably wasn't the best pick, either. He's too goody-goody and inexperienced, in my opinion. Who should they go for in 2008?

How about hunting for more candidates like Obama? Or at least finding someone who can appeal to the majority of voters by being of good character, having a good track record of bipartisanship ... things like that. Or am I off-base here?

I would have to say that the Democrats really just did not run that effective of a campaign. Kerry was not a particularly inspiring candidate, and he and his supporters never really managed to define him very much beyond the "I am not George W. Bush" message.

Kerry kept changing his mind on so many issues that no one knew exactly what he was going to do in office. Bush took more responsibility for the decisions he made. Kerry tried to point out that some of the decisions were wrong, but Bush explained why he made that decision and didn't detract from it. He didn't hide anything. No one knew what kerry was going to do, because he kept flip-flopping. Bush was a stronger leader in my eyes. We know more about Bush than Kerry. Despite all his history in the news we still don't know what exactly he was going to do once he became President. He was so all over the place he could do anything, because there wasn't really any solid promises of what he would do.