Politics
Why did the democrats lose the election?
A lot of people seem to be asking themselves that hard question. I have heard many explanations so far, most of them depressingly sophomoric. I have seen their defeat attributed to America being ruled by "rednecks who breed like rats", corporations, gay bashers, rigged voting machines, religious fanatics, big media and of course Republican scare mongering. None of these is an adequate explanation for what happened. The Democratic base was mobilized, energized, and unified. The Democrats successfully closed the fund raising gap when 527s are counted, and they brought out unprecedented support from Hollywood and the music industry. They had star power, dollar power and people power. Then they were crushed. This is no overstatement of what transpired on Tuesday. The Democrats were soundly and undisputedly routed. They lost what should have been a winnable presidential race against a vulnerable incumbent and they suffered stunning setbacks in congress that will likely hamstring them for years to come. Today, and for the next 2 years, all that is left for the Democrats to do is try to figure out what went wrong.
Clearly there can be no single or simple explanation that will fully express the forces that drove this election into the hands of the Republicans but in my opinion there are two factors that stand out above all others. The first is one of the hardest for many hardcore Kerry voters to understand. The majority of the people in America do not hate Bush. Most of them don't even dislike Bush. The primary motivator of Democrats in this election appeared to be a hatred of Bush more than a love of Kerry. Bush appears to be the antithesis of everything the liberal democrat looks for and worst of all he is unapologetic in his views. He has managed to inspire such antipathy among traditional Democrats that it may well have blinded them during the campaign. This campaign, any campaign, is about the swing voters. The swing voters don't hate Bush, they may not like him, but they certainly don't hate him. While speaking to Kerry supporters during the run up to the election I almost always asked them why they were voting Kerry or what Kerry had going for him and the most typical reply was "he isn't Bush".
This sort of argument plays very well with the Democratic faithful, as was seen in the primaries, but it won't get you the time of day from a voter who doesn't feel strongly one way or the other about Bush. Howard Dean nearly captured the democratic nomination running as the anti-Bush candidate only to be defeated by Kerry once Kerry shifted his position to mirror Dean's. Meanwhile moderate Democrats and moderates everywhere looked on puzzled trying to understand who this "Kerry" was as he virtually swept the primaries. The swing voters are moderates, they always have been and always will be. Clinton won for the same reason Kerry lost, he reached the middle of the road voters and offered them what they wanted. Kerry ran on a platform that primarily consisted of being critical of Bush, that and poorly explained healthcare and social security plans that did little to appeal to the average voter. Kerry was handicapped by his years in the senate where he was by most measures among the most liberal senators and he was unable to control the more militant of his supporters who ultimately hurt their cause through their offensive actions and statements.
To quote Ann Richards, the former democratic governor of Texas, who was speaking to Larry King in the days after the 2002 elections "you just can't win an election by running on 'me too, only not so much' ". Kerry wasn't able to differentiate his principal policies from those of his opponent. This leads me to the second principal reason the Democrats were routed in this election. They have been ineffective at moving away from their own party elite and drawing in middle of the road voters. Kerry tried to distance himself from his more fringe supporters. He openly opposed gay marriage. He spoke in support of hunting and gun ownership. He even tried to court religious voters by appearing regularly at churches, 3 times in the 48 hours before the election, but the American people ultimately didn't buy it. His principal platform items simply didn't do enough to differentiate him from Bush. Bush successfully held up his legislative victories in health care and education while Kerry spent most of his time trying to tear down Bush's achievements. Bush successfully made issues out of subjects where he knew he had the vast popular support of average Americans, with gay marriage heading that list. Gay marriage was a virtual non-factor in 2002 and 2000 and wasn't even discussed in elections before that. Bush's campaign shrewdly took what had been a very cool issue and made it into one of the driving forces in this election. Kerry seemed unable to define the election failing even to make an issue of environmental policy which could have been a strength for him.
The Democrats have lost badly two elections in a row because they have not found a way to reach out to swing voters. The last vestiges of the solid south are gone and their party is in a state of disarray. If they want to regain the momentum they had under Clinton they need to find a non-traditional Democratic candidate and some new issues. The Democrats need to come into the next election with an agenda that shows them to be something more than a "me too" party. They should continue to play to their strengths in health care and education but they should also broaden beyond that. They may be able to gain some traction by taking a stand on the environment or consumer rights or possibly even reforms to our legislative system to limit pork spending. People are always concerned about those things that affect their daily lives and all the democrats need to do is create some new issues.
Feel free to disagree with me... comments are welcome.
A lot of people seem to be asking themselves that hard question. I have heard many explanations so far, most of them depressingly sophomoric. I have seen their defeat attributed to America being ruled by "rednecks who breed like rats", corporations, gay bashers, rigged voting machines, religious fanatics, big media and of course Republican scare mongering. None of these is an adequate explanation for what happened. The Democratic base was mobilized, energized, and unified. The Democrats successfully closed the fund raising gap when 527s are counted, and they brought out unprecedented support from Hollywood and the music industry. They had star power, dollar power and people power. Then they were crushed. This is no overstatement of what transpired on Tuesday. The Democrats were soundly and undisputedly routed. They lost what should have been a winnable presidential race against a vulnerable incumbent and they suffered stunning setbacks in congress that will likely hamstring them for years to come. Today, and for the next 2 years, all that is left for the Democrats to do is try to figure out what went wrong.
Clearly there can be no single or simple explanation that will fully express the forces that drove this election into the hands of the Republicans but in my opinion there are two factors that stand out above all others. The first is one of the hardest for many hardcore Kerry voters to understand. The majority of the people in America do not hate Bush. Most of them don't even dislike Bush. The primary motivator of Democrats in this election appeared to be a hatred of Bush more than a love of Kerry. Bush appears to be the antithesis of everything the liberal democrat looks for and worst of all he is unapologetic in his views. He has managed to inspire such antipathy among traditional Democrats that it may well have blinded them during the campaign. This campaign, any campaign, is about the swing voters. The swing voters don't hate Bush, they may not like him, but they certainly don't hate him. While speaking to Kerry supporters during the run up to the election I almost always asked them why they were voting Kerry or what Kerry had going for him and the most typical reply was "he isn't Bush".
This sort of argument plays very well with the Democratic faithful, as was seen in the primaries, but it won't get you the time of day from a voter who doesn't feel strongly one way or the other about Bush. Howard Dean nearly captured the democratic nomination running as the anti-Bush candidate only to be defeated by Kerry once Kerry shifted his position to mirror Dean's. Meanwhile moderate Democrats and moderates everywhere looked on puzzled trying to understand who this "Kerry" was as he virtually swept the primaries. The swing voters are moderates, they always have been and always will be. Clinton won for the same reason Kerry lost, he reached the middle of the road voters and offered them what they wanted. Kerry ran on a platform that primarily consisted of being critical of Bush, that and poorly explained healthcare and social security plans that did little to appeal to the average voter. Kerry was handicapped by his years in the senate where he was by most measures among the most liberal senators and he was unable to control the more militant of his supporters who ultimately hurt their cause through their offensive actions and statements.
To quote Ann Richards, the former democratic governor of Texas, who was speaking to Larry King in the days after the 2002 elections "you just can't win an election by running on 'me too, only not so much' ". Kerry wasn't able to differentiate his principal policies from those of his opponent. This leads me to the second principal reason the Democrats were routed in this election. They have been ineffective at moving away from their own party elite and drawing in middle of the road voters. Kerry tried to distance himself from his more fringe supporters. He openly opposed gay marriage. He spoke in support of hunting and gun ownership. He even tried to court religious voters by appearing regularly at churches, 3 times in the 48 hours before the election, but the American people ultimately didn't buy it. His principal platform items simply didn't do enough to differentiate him from Bush. Bush successfully held up his legislative victories in health care and education while Kerry spent most of his time trying to tear down Bush's achievements. Bush successfully made issues out of subjects where he knew he had the vast popular support of average Americans, with gay marriage heading that list. Gay marriage was a virtual non-factor in 2002 and 2000 and wasn't even discussed in elections before that. Bush's campaign shrewdly took what had been a very cool issue and made it into one of the driving forces in this election. Kerry seemed unable to define the election failing even to make an issue of environmental policy which could have been a strength for him.
The Democrats have lost badly two elections in a row because they have not found a way to reach out to swing voters. The last vestiges of the solid south are gone and their party is in a state of disarray. If they want to regain the momentum they had under Clinton they need to find a non-traditional Democratic candidate and some new issues. The Democrats need to come into the next election with an agenda that shows them to be something more than a "me too" party. They should continue to play to their strengths in health care and education but they should also broaden beyond that. They may be able to gain some traction by taking a stand on the environment or consumer rights or possibly even reforms to our legislative system to limit pork spending. People are always concerned about those things that affect their daily lives and all the democrats need to do is create some new issues.
Feel free to disagree with me... comments are welcome.