The big mistake we made in 2004 that we can't repeat in 2008

[dsc]

We picked our nominee too soon. When we decided who our nominee would be it looked like the war would be a big plus for Bush (Saddam got captured in Dec and Dean never recovered). By election time, the war was a negative for Bush.

Kerry probably was the best nominee if the war was going well but aside from Lieberman he was the worst one given that it wasn't. The ability that Kerry had to be a nuanced critic of the war looked great in December when it appeared to be going fairly well but costing us a bundle but looked ineffective in October when the war was going poorly and Kerry had to stick with his original vote.

In 2008 there are four possibilities. Either the war will be over or it won't and it will be viewed positively or it will be viewed negatively. If we are lucky, we will know which of those four senarios are operative by the time of our primaries.

The two easy cases are the war is over and viewed positively, then we run a person who favored it like we did in 1992 with the first Gulf War. If it is still going on and viewed negatively, then we run an anti war candidate, preferably one who has a plan to end the war. The notion that wartime Presidents don't lose ignores both Johnson and Truman whose party lost elections to anti war Republicans with secret plans to end the war.

The two hard cases are the war is on going and viewed positively. There we likely will lose but this is also highly unlikely. If we are in Iraq in 2008 I would be astonished if people thought positively of that development. The other hard case is if we withdrawl and people think we lost. An anti war candidate is probably our best bet, but people won't want to hear I told you so. If the Republicans can find a way to distance themselves, by running a governor or Hagel, then they may well win anyhow.

In any case we shouldn't make our decision now, and we might not want to in Jan of 2008 either. I suggest we have less front loading of our primaries so that we can exercise our choice as late as possible if we need to do so. Choosing a candidate to fit one senario when one of the others winds up being true would be a big mistake. One which would almost certainly lead to the very same results we saw in 2004.

We didn't lose because Kerry was a bad candidate, he did have a bad month but closed so well that he erased that month, we lost because he was the wrong candidate for the wrong election.

[wakeme2008]

1. Kerry was Skull and Bones just like Bush

and did not react fast to the Swift Boat Liars maybe because he was S&B.

Edwards IMHO was GREAT. But...

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Al-CIAda]

32. '-ic' .nt

[damntexdem]

2. We didn't pick our candidate too soon! They picked theirs too soon.

Once they did, all we could do was support him.

And in 2008, they may do it to us again. What can we do about it?

[dsc]

3. Like it or not

Kerry won the primaries. Yes, Dean got screwed by both the press and those ads in Iowa but Saddam's capture is what really did him in. Our primary's voters were still against the war but felt that they needed to vote for a pro war candidate to beat Bush. Kerry wound up being the one they chose.

[BeFree]

4. Geez.... Kerry won

I'm guessing you haven't red much of the Election Forum on DU? If you had you would see there is overwhelming evidence that the election was stolen. And if ya have a hard time swallowing THAT, how 'bout the election 2000? Ya really don't believe it was on the up and up?

Anyway.... nice little write up there about election scenarios. Too bad all we got (according to you) is the WAR. If it's war we got.... we lose. 'Cause, if we are still over there fighting that will mean the warmongers own this country and we peaceable types will be ducking for cover by 2007.

The only way we win is to take back the elections from the hidden software, get our troops out of Iraq, and find alternatives to oil. Right now, it looks like we ain't gonna win nuthin'.

[dsc]

7. war over but went well is how we won in 92

we also do well possibly if war over and didn't go well. Carter won that in 76.

[BeFree]

12. We won in 92 because...

Perot took so many votes away from b**h #1. The b**h base was pissed that b#1 didn't invade Iraq and some of those voted Perot. Clinton's populism won the progressive vote and it was just enough to get him elected, with about 35% of the vote.

What I'm saying is this: The warmongers run this country and if they are still mongering come 2008, we lose. Period. If we stop the war we are a shoe-in for change. We need to take away the power in waging this war, and when we do they are defeated.

[dsc]

13. Clinton got 43 not 35

and most polls showed he would have easily won even without Perot.

[Yupster]

15. Without Perot, Clinton

still wins though Bush wins a few extra states. My guess would be 51-48 %.

I looked at the states a while back and picked out about 4-5 that Bush would have likely won without Perot. It wasn't nearly enough to tilt the electoral college.

[BeFree]

18. Ok, thanks for the clarification

Still, the comparison from then to now is fruitless. We've gotta get out of Iraq well before the election, and we get the vote counting back to square one.

Looking at 2008 is like seeing only the moon and wanting to be there, while ignoring the deep twenty foot hole in which we sit. We gotta stop dreaming and start climbing.

[wyldwolf]

38. Again, Perot was NO factor. There is NO proof of that...

...and plenty of proof to the contrary.

[Moondog]

5. This will sound crazy

but I think we need to look back to the days when Democrats were routinely winning national elections, and what has changed since that time.

Back in the day, when I was a young guy, candidates were selected in the infamous "smoke filled rooms." This changed as a result of LBJ / the Viet Nam war / the Chicago riots / and the candidacy of George McGovern. Out of all of this was born the primary system that we have today.

The primary system, as presently configured, plays to the strengths of the activists of the party (for that matter, the same is true of the Repukes) - people that are politically aware, politically motivated, and who frequently have a particular issue about which they care deeply. They who have fire in the belly. Us.

Unfortunately, national elections are not determined by the activist wings of the various parties. They are determined by the mushy middle, the unwashed, the unaware, the uncaring - in short, what I will call the straights, for lack of a better term. Like it or not, there are more of them than there are us.

Work with me here, I'm getting to a point.

The primary system does not appeal to the straights; it appeals to the activists. And, once again, like it or not, activists scare the straights. And in the current environment, it is very difficult for a candidate from one of the activist wings of the party to do what he or she has to do to secure the nomination through the primary process, and then tack sufficiently to the middle to reassure the straights. Ideological purity won't get it here - it scares the straights. President Clinton was right - middle of the road gets elected, obvious agendas do not.

So. We have some choices. Either the activists sublimate to the greater good, or the party changes its rules and goes back to the professional pols picking an electable candidate in the proverbial smoke filled room. Or we endure another few decades in the wilderness, watching the country come down around our ears. The choice is ours. Either we make the choice, or we don't.

[liberaliraqvet26]

6. How about 2006!!!

Winning that would pave the way for '08. It will change everything.

[dsc]

8. Our best shot in 06 is ethics

I think we could take over Congress if we used the ethics card effectively.

[liberaliraqvet26]

9. at this point we have a full deck of cards

lets hope the tide continues to turn

[TruthIsAll]

10. WE DID NOT LOSE..KERRY WON BY AT LEAST 4 MILLON VOTES..

Come over to the 2004 election forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x384064

[gulliver]

11. Clark would have won.

There is and was a spectrum of opinion on the war among the voters themselves. You can't go by what people feel in 2008 alone. You have to go by what they felt in 2004 and in 2001. You will never convince people who were punked on WMDs by Cheney, the neocons, and their front man that Dean was right to be against the IWR at the time of the IWR. The people wanted the IWR. They were being manipulated recklessly and ruthlessly by the Bushies, but they wanted the IWR nonetheless.

Our candidate has to bridge the gap between people with a radical, misguied concept of pro-war and people with the GOP rank-and-file radical, misguided concept of anti-war. I don't want a divider who demonizes Republican moderates the way the Bushist/Delayist nuts have demonized Democrats. Two wrongs don't make a right. We need unity.

If we don't take the time to understand exactly what happened with Iraq, that we were conned by our inept leadership, that they were conning each other, that they were gullible, reckless, and vain, we will not be able to resolve things. The blame must be assigned where it belongs, to Bush and his pack of fools. America must make up by waking up to the Bush administration as it really is, not by trying to get the other side to capitulate to some sort of grand "I told you so."

There is no chance that people, soured on Bush's war though they may be, will feel compelled to vote for a faux-prescient "anti-war" candidate in the Dean/Kucinich model. I personally like them both a lot. But they aren't prophets in the minds of most people, and politics is about people.

We need a candidate to bring America back to earth.

[dsc]

14. Clark was every bit against the IWR as Dean

and thus wouldn't have been much less divisive. Had Clark decided to run sooner who knows what might have happened. He ran very late and skipping Iowa, a consequence of his late start, turned out to have been fatal.

[kerrygoddess]

34. Niether of them were any more against it than Kerry

Oy...after all this time people still perpetuate this crap!

[dsc]

36. Yes they were

Kerry voted to let Bush go to war and then after Bush did that Kerry said "I would cast the same vote again". If Kerry had said "Hell no, Bush lied to me" then he could claim his vote didn't entitle Bush to declare war (which is both your and his arguement) but once he said that he would have voted the same way even after Bush went to war he then takes responsibility for what Bush did.

[Arkana]

16. No, our biggest mistake was letting things slide.

Our next nominee needs to learn that ALL charges must be addressed, even the ones that sound so outlandish that no one could believe them.

Had Kerry taken this into account, the Smear Boat Liars would have been sunk after their first salvo.

[Silverhair]

17. Derry didn't fight that effectively;

He never signed that form 180 and so it looked like he had something to hide. They were able to keep beating him up with it.

[fedupinBushcountry]

20. Oh pleaaaaaaase

Everything was out there that needed to be. Funny how right wing talking points always show up in Kerry bashing. :shrug:

Why aren't you questioning Shrub and his missing records and what he is still hiding ? Why didn't the so called liberal media beat up on him :argh:

[Silverhair]

21. I am talking about tactics of a campaign.

I am NOT defending Bush. If the quarterback of your favorite team doesn't see a guy in the open and throws to somebody else, is it defending the other team to point out your guy's error in the play?
No, it isn't. Kerry allowed himself to continue to be hounded about the form 180. If he had signed it, that would have taken the wind out of the swift boat people. But he didn't so it gave them something to yell about.

Without signing the 180 even a counter attack by him becomes a shouting match, and that would not have done him any good either.

[fedupinBushcountry]

23. Baloney

Nothing would have stopped those slimey liars. EVERYTHING was OUT. Kerry recently signed that 180, NOTHING came out of it accept his grades from college.

I don't know anything about football, but I do know just because a bunch of slimey bullies attack, I don't cave in to their ridiculous demands.

The main problem with the bunch of slimey f'n liars was that the LIBERAL MEDIA played them over and over again. They are now trying to do it to Cindy Sheehan. Ask her if she is going to give in ? I don't think so.

[Silverhair]

37. We disagree on tactics.

I NEVER said there was anything in his records. I said that by not signing the form 180 he helped the Swoift Boat Vets that were against him.

[0rganism]

19. Sen. Kerry let some of his key strengths be used against him

Set the black box voting issues aside for the moment. I know people here like to point to analyses showing massive fraud in Ohio, particularly, as being the reason for our defeat in 2004, but thus far we have been completely unable to make these charges resonate with the public. Really, most people are unwilling to make the necessary leap to conclude that the foundation of our democracy has been so thoroughly corrupted. So whether it has or not, I want to look at a few things that could have been done better. Call it Monday-morning quarterbacking if you like; that the refs may have been biased is not itself sufficient reason to refrain from nitpicking the playcalls.

First and foremost, Sen. Kerry's campaign let the GOP use his record as an anti-war activist come between him and the electorate, when he could have used it to his advantage. He could have said that he stood against the Vietnam war because it was unjust, destructive, expensive, and ill-advised, and remained on even ground. Better than that, he could have pointed out repeatedly that his primary concern from the Winter Soldier hearings onwards was the mental and physical health of veterans, and turned the criticisms on their collective head.

Secondly, and related, Sen. Kerry allowed the "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" to attack him repeatedly and without adequate response throughout the month of August. The very thing that gave credence to his position during the congressional hearings concerning the Vietnam war, being a decorated soldier who volunteered for multiple tours of duty, was sullied and smeared beyond recognition by a coordinated attack from the wingnuts. His campaign never quite recovered from that withering slander.

Third, Sen. Kerry chose not to emphasize his role in the BCCI investigations, perhaps deeming it too complex for voters to understand. Well, he should have hired a separate PR firm to make it understandable for the voters, because everything the Rovians did to caste him as unreliable and "soft on terrorism" would have crumbled like a vampire in daylight before a well-stated explanation of the BCCI affair. Furthermore, since that scandal directly implicated Bush sr. and his associates, many of whom have found sinecures in the junior's administration, it would have reflected poorly on Kerry's opposition.

Sen. Kerry allowed himself to be misconstrued by the media. He WAS a fighter, indeed, his story is that of myriad fights against communism, against cruelty, against disregard for veterans, against corruption, against terrorism. And yet he was portrayed as a weak judas lacking moral conviction.

Part of this obviously stands as a credit to Karl Rove's campaign acumen. Hate him as much as you like, but he can play on the press like a golden chessboard. We can't do anything about that, unfortunately; many a good and decent politician has been ruined by Rove, and we will get nowhere as long as we underestimate his tactics and those of his disciples. However, some mistakes were made that could have turned the tide -- assuming, of course, that the votes were counted.

[wisteria]

22. What? The war reporting was still positive during the campaign

and well after the election. The administration made sure that casualties and war reporting was very positive.Remember the elections in Iraq in January, things were still positive for this administration even then.
This election was lost mostly because Bush's campaign made fear the number one issue and morals the second.

[dsc]

26. on election day

the war was below 50% approval.

[woodleydem]

25. 2004 was a pretty weak year for Democratic candidates. Kerry was the

best of pretty mediocre field. Dean, Gephardt, Graham, Lieberman--while all being fine men, they were all uninspiring, unexciting guys. Edwards had potential if he had a little more weight on his resume. 2008 will be much stronger field for Democrats, IMO. There will governors with very strong records (Warner, Vilsack, Richardson), a strong woman (Hillary), a four star general (Clark), a red state moderate Senator (Bayh), a foreign policy hawk (Biden), among other candidates.

Kerry lost for one main reason: he allowed himself to be painted as weak on terrorism and national security. The American people didn't view him as tough enough. Whoever the nominee is in 2008 has to clearly show strength in national security/terrorism. That strength doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of military service, (didn't matter for Kerry) but more of a concrete foreign policy doctrine that is aggressive against terrorism. Whichever Democrat does that has the best chance to win.

[politicasista]

27. Let's think about 2006 first.

We need to rebuild the party and voting reform, as well as take back Congress to succeed in 2008. We do not know what the political climate will look like three years from now. Focus on supporting the dems speaking out against this criminal administration, then think about potential candidates.

[woodleydem]

28. I agree. I like the leadership of Dean at the DNC, Emanuel at DCCC, and

Schumer at the DSCC. The key is mobilizing activists on the state level. And that needs to be done with a coordinated national campaign. (i.e. Contract w/America) The corruption angle w/Abramoff, Delay, and the like is a good strategy. Most Americans probably don't know who they are, but they can be used as part of a broad strategy to show Republicans as corrupt, drunk w/power, and out of step w/mainstream America. But a strong showing in 2006 will put the Republicans on the defensive in 2008. Honestly, the 2008 Republican field looks a lot like the 2004 Democratic field, (weak) w/the exception of McCain. If McCain actually gets the nomination, he will be unbeatable in a national election. But it remains to be seen whether McCain gets the nomination.

[kodi]

29. the big mistake was not appreciating that the GOP was absolutely ruthless

all the other things, like swift boating and election fraud flow from that characteristic of our adversaries. these latter two things are just the affects of the way they think and operate.

understanding and appreciating that your opponent is willing to do anything is the best thing to recognize because from that comes the basis for your strategies to defeat them.

[wiley]

30. What I said I Said!

It is our greatest weakness. They are busy this night, and every day, and every night interjecting themselves into every level of government. Democrats have to learn to break up the gangs by getting involved and not feeling timid when someone forcefully disagrees with them.

:evilgrin:

[kodi]

35. just read today's NY Times on "intelligent design" to see it in motion

every time i hear someone mouthing off with conservative attacking points that belittle others and lie about the facts i get right in their face. i am not about to let it go and wind up wondering what happened after we have moved back to the 15th century in science, in civil rights, in econmic policies.

one of the reasons i am quite unpopular on this site is that i am not a pacifist and am willing to get into a nasty fight in defence of my principles. most folks around here are very fine people, better people than i am, but they are way too nice to put a finger on the eye of their opponents. i would rather gouge out somebody's eyeball if they fuck with me. my grandfather, uncles and dad got the shit beat out of them for union organizing back in the 30's, 40's and 50's and the only way to fight that is employ the same tactics as your opponents, especially if they have no ethics about hurting you bad. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and fuck what gandhi said about it. if he tried his methods under the nazis he would be a lampshade today.

i was screaming on this site in june of 2004 about the swift boaters the very day i watched them on c-span initiate their attacks on kerry and for kerry to go on the attack and bury those bastards. all i got back was counter posts calling me a beast.

i no longer believe the right wing in this country can be beaten back using reason and logic nor without responding to their violence with violence in return, and while i would not start a fight i am willing to fight back if i am attacked physically and intend to fight back as nastily as i can if that is what it takes. i am not a liberal because i follow the teachings of jesus or believe in the brotherthood of mankind, but because i want economic equality. and if i have to fight for it, i will.

[Wabbajack]

31. With our front-loaded primary system

the nomminee gets chosen on Super Tuesday (March) at the LATEST. Gotta change the system.

[TheDonkey]

33. the war actually was going well... according to the msm

bush had a lot of ammo that got him in the office. sick.

[zulchzulu]

39. The MSM helped Chimpy "win" by giving him a free pass, free speech time...

...allowing groups like Swiftboat Vets for "truth" to go on unabated even after they were debunked and discredited...

If you do any research on how the media covered Kerry during most of the campaign, his speeches were minimally covered, the rumors (lies) were the only issues covered and terms like "flip flopper" were overly used, even though Bush's record as a "flip flopper" were never covered.

The MSM was lazy. They didn't care to be journalists. They loved covering the three-week coverage of Reagan's death and other hype rather than doing their job.

If it was Dean as candidate, he would have been pummeled as a meaningless, overly liberal governor of a small state...they would have repeated the scream over and over...it's not that I agree, I just know they would have applied the same lazy, easy way than actually doing their job.

If it was Clark, they would have used the story that he was fired by Clinton, that he was responsible for Waco and possibly is a little too power-crazy. He certainly would have been Swiftboated by some group. Again, I don't agree, but...

Any of the candidates would have been "Roved" and the MSM would have taken the bait.

Kerry won the candidacy because he actually DID have a LOT of support from Democrats. To try to say that "we" picked him too soon is nonsense. Look at the numbers, the percentage differences between he and the other candidates and how he was considered the best candidate to run against Bush (who he really did beat) and the story will play out historically.

Bush and the MSM kept the notion that the War was needed or at least was going "well" at the time of the Election. It's only been since the last few months that the tide has turned.

2006 may indeed be a perfect time for anti-war candidates to win big...2008 is still too far away to make a reasonable assessment.

[bread_and_roses]

40. So the candidate should tailor life/death issue stance

- like supporting war - on the basis of the political winds blowing?

Seems to me that didn't work so well in '04 - since it's exactly what Kerry did.

Aside from the quite significant moral/ethical issues involved, it's not even good strategy.

[TayTay]

41. The best dissection of the '04 race was Bill Bradley's

in the NYTimes in April of this year (I think.) The Rethugs have a permanent pyramid structure that includes a very strong organizational base, a strong set of institutional think tanks that produce talkers who can appear on TV and radio and enunciate a consistent set of talking points that come across very strongly as a united front. The Repubs can basically just switch out the top of the pyramid every 4 to 8 years when they select a new candidate for Pres. But they don't re-invent the wheel every 4 years. This saves them time, unites their base quicker and forms a distinct organizational advantage over the Dems.

The Dems have an inverted pyramid structure. They begin to form an organization based on who the nominee is and then expect a fully formed organization to emerge as the nominee assumes the role of Party Standard. This approach does re-invent the wheel every four years and makes the Democratic Party look unorganized, off message and beholden to a dis-united group of interest groups that can sway the nominee and the PArty to whatever the whim of the week is.

The Rethug approach is a superior organizational tool. The Dems are moving to adapt some of this for our Party so that whoever is nominated next time will have a better built-in advantage and won't have to form the entire structure from scratch once the title 'presumptive nominee' is bestowed on him or her.

We will unite, undertake a structure that doesn't outsource the voter registration and GOTV vote to third parties like MoveOn and America Coming Together and come up with a consistent, if loose, set of principles that all Democrats can coalesce around or we will fail again, no matter who the nominee is. We lack the discipline, the structure and the organization to be effective every year, not just the 5-7 months that we are waging Presidential politics. This needs to be fixed. Organization is not a tool from hell; it is not evil. It can, in fact, win elections.