The excite, inspire, and primaries factor

[politicasista]

I was going to post this in TayTay's about what should Kerry do IF he runs again, but I thought it would be better this had its own thread.

As I said before, I am really focused on winning in 06, but the recent threads about 08, the polls (I know they are meaningless right now), and an interesting observation I heard on Tavis Smiley's commentary a week ago about 06 and the 08 primaries.

We all know that Kerry got more votes than the previous presidential candidates, although the argument/spin was that some of those votes were "ABB" and not pro-Kerry.

I didn't follow the primaries, but one of the criticisms of the ABB vote was that Kerry couldn't excite, inspire AA voters like Clinton or the other candidates could. I know many AA were for Dean, Clark, Edwards, and/or Kucinich, and if any of them didn't get the nomination, they either "held their nose" or stayed home. (The Clinton's strong bond with the AA community could be a factor if Hil runs)

Unfortunately, I was a witness to some of these type of complaints. My college friend voted for Kerry, but mainly because he liked Edwards. He didn't care for Kerry cause he thought he was sneaky and looked like a lurch. (kid you not!:-(). My uncle wasn't impressed either (he was a Clinton-Gore person).

How this all relates to the primaries? A week ago, I was listening to Tavis Smiley's commentary. He was very excited that the Democratic Party revamped the primary schedule cause it gives other states besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to decide on the nominee. He mentioned that after people voted in IA and NH, by the time the South got to vote in the primaries, JK had already clinched the nomination and people didn't know who he was until the debates. (Am I missing something?:shrug:)

I know none of us know what the political environment is going to look like two years from now, but I was just posting this as an observation. (If the Primary facts are wrong, just let me know).


Hope I don't irk anyone. Sorry for being so long winded and rehashing the primaries. 06 is now! :patriot:

[ProSense]

1. The political climate will be completely different

That some African Americans were for other candidates in the primaries, is true of all primaries and of all groups.

The fact is that 2.5 million more African Americans voted for Kerry than had voted for Gore. Kerry got the most African American votes of any Democratic candidate ever, and would have probably gotten even more in a fair election.

[Island Blue]

2. If you get a chance Sista, read "One Car Caravan"

by Walter Shapiro. (Can anyone tell I really liked the book?) Shapiro does an excellent job of explaining the '04 Democratic primary process, and why JK came out on top. (Yeah, the votes cast in Iowa and New Hampshire are part of the reason, but not the entire reason.) Changing the primary schedule will most likely cause some of the less well-funded candidates to either drop out before the primaries even begin or soon there after.

[ProSense]

3. Some polls for reference

CBS News Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2004. N=546 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
"Who would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate as its presidential candidate in 2004: , or someone else?" Names rotated

2/24-27/04

Kerry 57%
Edwards 18%
Sharpton 4%
Kucinich 1%
Other (vol) 8%
Don't know 12%
Dean n/a

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 19-20, 2004. N=391 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 6.
.
"Which of the following four Democrats would you MOST like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year?" Names rotated
%
John Kerry 54%
John Edwards 19%
Al Sharpton 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Howard Dean (vol) 3%
None (vol) 2%
Don't know 16%

"If the Democratic presidential race comes down to a choice between John Kerry and John Edwards, which would you rather see as the party's candidate this fall?" Names rotated
%
John Kerry 63%
John Edwards 26%
Neither (vol) 2%
Don't know 9%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 16-17, 2004. N=426 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide who are registered to vote. MoE ± 5.
.
"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2004. . . ." Names rotated

2/16/2017
%
John Kerry 65%
John Edwards 19%
Howard Dean 8%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Al Sharpton -
Other/None/No opinion 6%

University of Connecticut Poll. Feb. 12-16, 2004. N=474 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic. MoE ± 4.5.
.
"Three main candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination are still in the race. Who would you like to see get the nomination for president -- would you say ?"

%
John Kerry 64%
John Edwards 16%
Howard Dean 8%
Other (vol) 1%
Don't know 11%

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=377 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Thinking ahead to the 2004 presidential election, if you were asked to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee for president today, which of the following Democrats would you vote for? . . ."
2/5-6/04

%
John Kerry 43%
John Edwards 18%
Wesley Clark 11%
Howard Dean 8%
Al Sharpton 6%
Dennis Kucinich 5%
Other 1%
Not sure 8%
Joseph Lieberman n/a
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates. Feb. 5-6, 2004. N=383 registered Democrats and independents who lean Democratic nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Now I'm going to name six Democrats in the race for president. After I read you their names, tell me which ONE you would most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party's presidential candidate this year. Here are the choices . . . ." Names rotated
2/5/2006
%
John Kerry 48%
Howard Dean 13%
John Edwards 10%
Wesley Clark 9%
Al Sharpton 4%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Other (vol.) 0%
None (vol.) 1%
Don't know 14%
Joe Lieberman n/a
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a

Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 28-31, 2004. N=420 Democratic voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.8.
.
"Now I'm going to name seven Democrats running for president this year. After I read all seven names, tell me which one you would most like to see the Democrats nominate for president this year. Here are the choices . . . ."
1/28/1931

John Kerry 42%
Howard Dean 11%
John Edwards 10%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 6%
Al Sharpton 5%
Dennis Kucinich 1%
Don't know 14%
Dick Gephardt n/a
Carol Moseley Braun n/a


"If you had to choose, would you rather see the Democrats nominate Howard Dean or John Kerry for president this year?"
1/28-31/04

Kerry 64 %
Dean 23%
Unsure 13 %

Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 18-20 & Dec. 1-3, 2003. N=539 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.3.
.
"It is early, but if you had to choose today, which ONE of the following nine candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president? . . ."
%
Howard Dean 18%
Wesley Clark 14%
Richard Gephardt 14%
John Kerry 13%
Joe Lieberman 10%
John Edwards 6%
Al Sharpton 4%
Carol Moseley Braun 4%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Other/None/Not sure 15%

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[MH1]

8. Wow, those polls tell an important story.

that pretty well dispenses with the notions that "Kerry didn't play fair in the primaries" or that "people mostly voted ABB in 2004."

[JohnKleeb]

9. Don't it?

Seriously I remember just before the Iowa primaries they were all but declaring victory, I found it arrogant honestly, if they had won it would have been all fair, but because they didn't get their way, it was fraud, sounds like a bunch of whining and bullshit to me. Someone mentioned the contrast between the story about Dean losing his cool with an elderly heckler and the story about Kerry's reuniting with Rassman. I think its stories like that may help change minds, the Rassman story was very moving honestly.

[karynnj]

12. I agree

I watched the coverage on many channels and it really was compelling. Everything from him smile, their hug, Kerry's almost shy comment theat "anyone would do it", to Rassman's description of how he got involved. When the Republicans complained that he used Vietnam to much, it was fear of stories like this that caused them to fight it. They are correct that it says nothing about his intellect, his experience or skils - the debates showed that.

What it did show was what a genuinely good person he is. I was as affected by an ad on the web site where one crew member talked about how dangerous the missions were and how even when they were over how he was still affected. He then said that Kerry always came over to ask him how he was and would place a hand on his shoulder - and how no other officer in his entire time in VN had ever done anything like that. The hardest thing for me to remember with these stories is he was only 25 and wanted to get back to his life.

[JohnKleeb]

13. I can imagine they're still affected

I seriously find Kerry's heroism in the Vietnam War to be inspiring, its honestly because of people like Kerry that I would considering enlisting in the military, I probably won't but I won't lie and say I haven't considered it. People like Kerry, Dick Winters of Easy Company (Band of Brothers FYI), my own distant relative Sgt Mike Strank are true heroes. Kerry really is geuinely a great guy, I dont know how he got this reputation of being cold because he esems to be from every account I read about him to be genuine.

[Mass]

4. I am not sure how much of the A,A, attraction to Edwards is part of

the blogs fantasy world. Certainly, many of them, particularly in the South, relate to him because of his Southern origin and his talks about poverty. Many related to Dean, Kerry, or other people too.

Primary results from SC, Edwards's birth state and the only state he won, show that actually, while he certainly attracted many, they were not his primary voters in the South. Other exit polls reflect the same thing.

So, there is certainly a "familiarity" factor, but apparently it was not big enough for them to want him president (opposite to White Democratic Southerners).

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/sc_exit.pdf

Exit polls throughout the country had the same pattern.

[karynnj]

7. From SC exit polls - CNN exerpt

From CNN:
"But according to the exit polls, Edwards and Kerry virtually split the black vote in that state -- both drawing roughly double the minority support of the Rev. Al Sharpton, the next-closest candidate.

Kerry did appreciably better than Edwards among South Carolina's nonwhite male respondents, but the North Carolina senator made up the difference among nonwhite women.

Edwards had the support of about half of white respondents, about double the support for Kerry. Edwards also had twice as much support among Protestants, while the Massachusetts senator fared better among those who said they did not belong to any religion. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that Edwards was from the adjacent state, similar in culture and that he spent far more time and effort there - having declared it a must win state, these results dispell the myth that Edwards appealed far more to AA than Kerry did.

Also note:
Most South Carolinians, Arizonans, Oklahomans and Delaware and Missouri voters polled said issues, not electability -- a candidate's chance of beating President Bush in November -- determined their vote.

So, why did the media insist on the electability myth?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/03/elec04.prez.issues/index.html

[TayTay]

5. Not long-winded at all

and, as ever, a delight to read. I think that one of the lessons learned last time is the need for a more personal outreach that highlights the work that has been done on behalf of the AA community by Sen. Kerry. His work in trying to get help to the victims of Katrina in MS and LA has been incredible. (I think he has done the most work outside of the Sens who are actually from that area.)

I think that the folks with the Senator this time understand more that you have to show what you have done and highlight the fact that this has been a life-long committment. There is a time for being on the modest side and a time to figure out how to hightlight what you did. I think that has changed. I also think he is doing more media that reaches into the AA community and should do more.

[karynnj]

6. I think that he is overstating the impact of NH and Iowa

Bill Clinton lost those, then nearly swept the next few weeks of mostly Southern/Rural states.

In 2004, Kerry won Iowa and NH, but the next step was mini Tuesday, February 3, the first day when multiple states voted. As the winner of the first two, Kerry was clearly the favorite - but Mini- Tuesday was not friendly to NE liberals. The primary states were: Missouri, South Carolina, Arizona, Oklahoma and Delaware. New Mexico and North Dakota had caucuses. All of these states are either Southern, South-western or rural - all the states that Edwards should have won. The odd thing is that several press accounts saw that day as a victory for Kerry, but also a smaller victory for Edwards.

If John Edwards was really the nouveau Clinton - he should have swept these states. Instead, he won South Carolina, where he was born and Clark won Oklahoma. Kerry won Missouri, Arizona, Delaware, North Dakota and New Mexico. In South Carolina, Clark and Edwards both put in a lot of effort - Edwards got a commanding 45%, Kerry 30% and Clark 7.2%. In Oklahoma, Clark got 30%, Edwards 30% (slightly lower), and Kerry 27%. (To me: this also shows how weak Clark was - even with glowing press and being said by Clinton to be the only Democratic star other than Hillary.)

The next contests were on Feb 7:
Michigan - where Kerry got 52%, Edwards got 13%, Dean 17% and Clark 7%
The Democrats in Michigan include a substantial AA population and it is highly urban

Washington and Maine - liberal states where Kerry got (49%, 42%),Dean got (30%, 28%), Edwards (7%,7%), Clark(3%,3%)

The next contests were in Southern States:
Virgina and Tennessee - both won by Kerry (41%, 52%) with Edwards at 27% in both.
Note at this point NONE of the big very blue liberal coastal states have voted - just Washington. (Maine and NH are coastal but not super liberal). Many of the big states voted on March 2, including MA, CA, NY. (That day Kerry beat Edwards in GEORGIA, 47% to 41%.) On March 2, every account concluded that Kerry had sown it up. (Dean won VT - Kerry at that point had won all but 3 of the 29 (if I counted right)primaries.) Pretty good for a guy who is the worst campaigner of the 2008 group per ABC, bad on TV, with a biography and spouse who rate in the middle of the pack.

Here's a link to a chart that neatly shows the results in chronological order.

http://www.rhodescook.com/primary.analysis.html

In searching for he numbers, I read many of the articles the came up. If anything, at this point the press dragged their collective feet in saying Kerry had it sown up. (For a very jaundiced view look at: http://www.slate.com/id/2095311/ where the author interprets every exit poll answer in the least positive way for Kerry and the most favorable for the others.) Also, in every article I saw - they noted that Clark and Edwards were very close as 1 and 2 and that Kerry was third. In fact, all three of these numbers were very close. (Clark spent a huge amount of time here.)

Also, even though Kerry was winning states where Edwards needed to win, the press continued to express that he couldn't be ruled out. Both Dean and Clark spoke of Kerry imploding as late as the eve of the Wisconsin primary - Clark mentioning rumors that were beneath him to mention. Looking at the chart - there is a lot of revisionism going on in both the dKos world, the MSM, and here.

[wisteria]

10. Well after reading the Slate article, maybe Edwards should run as

a Republican. As for the comment that Edwards scored better with the Republicans and Republican leaners than Kerry indicates to me that Kerry was if fact a more formidable Bush opponent. Now, who do you think those Republican leaners and Republicans would have went for if Edwards were the candidate? My guess is they would have went with Bush.

The one thing I find so interesting in all of these polls and articles from the last election is that Kerry got no better treatment then than he does now.I didn't following the primaries very closely then, I knew who I was voting for back in December 2003. What I have discovered is that he seems like the Rodney Dangerfield of politics- he gets no respect from the media and pundits. I just can't figure out why though.
Could it be he doesn't cater to them, treat them to goodies or pay them for a good word or two?

[karynnj]

11. Until I went back to get accuate numbers

and was scanning articles - I had forgotten that the media - which did profile Kerry after Iowa - had lots of happy, sunny John Edwards articles after NH. Then looking at the states, it was clear this was the point at which he had to come in to his own - and he didn't.

One article blamed it on Clark - if he weren't there Edwards could have won Oklahoma - if Clark's voters went mainly to him. This would STILL have left Kerry the big winner. Kerry really became dominant in the polls and in the real primaries and caucuses very quickly. The media record still exists - and they did him no favors. The party operatives have little to do with the primary vote. Kerry and his team won it fairly.

Today, Matthews said that Edwards could emerge as the anti-Hillary on Imus. As he doesn't hide his dislike of Hillary - I guess he fits into th ecategory in the ABC thing of a pundit wanting a candidate to win and pushing him.

[wisteria]

14. I can't see Edward's taking on Hillary.

I just don't see that match up at all. She is definitely more qualified than he is. Why push Edwards and not Warner? Warner may well be more electable than Edward's if you use the Southern strategy. He also has a very good record to run on.
Even when Kerry chose him as his running mate, I just never thought Edwards had what it takes to be President. And, after you get past the one statement about two America's his speeches get very boring and mundane.
I think Kerry is the only candidate with the ability to take on Hillary. All the others are weaker wannabes and this includes Feingold). Maybe this is why they are pushing the others and not Kerry. Hillary doesn't have to go through a tough primary and can save herself for the general election when she will really need to be forceful and competitive.

[TayTay]

16. So much depends on the unknowables

If we are still in Iraq, then that, I think, leaves some of the foreign policy lite people out of the equation. The Virginians in this group have said that Gov. Warner is a great guy and did good things for VA in his tenure. However, as a Gov, he would require a lot of on-the-job training to come to grips with foreign policy. (I feel the same way about Sen. Edwards. He just doesn't impress me as a heavy-weight thinker on foreign policy. I thought that, at best, he scratched out a draw with Cheney in their debate in '04.)

So much depends on things that we can't know at this point. I think all possible candidates have to just concentrate on staying on an even keel, helping out the Dem '06 candidates and not making any mistakes this early in the game. (Oh, and raising money.) So much won't take shape until much later in the game.

[karynnj]

17. Edwards had the same largely positive press in 2004

He was referred to as a natural politician, like Bill Clinton, charismatic and other similar words. I think he does interest people who follow politics as a high strategy game, rather than as a means to choose a leader with the skills, gravitas and experience to govern well.

Edwards, even with this positive press, ended up with votes in the teens at best in all the early contests before he was the anybody but Kerry candidate, except Iowa and those in the South. In the South, he was the only southern candidate - so he should have been the favorite son - other than SC which he won - he was in the low 30s. Only in Iowa, with the Des Moines register reccomendation and Kuchinich deal that helped him was he higher.

I agree that he at best came out a draw vs Cheney, but Cheney beat Lieberman - so he may be better than he appears. The only thing to suggest that that is not true, is that both Edwards and Lieberman were weak in the primary debates. (In the earliest debates, there were so many people that the 2 that stood out were Kerry and Dean - Dean because he was the front runner, made it about him and whined when the others responded in kind and Kerry because he was the best and most consistent. The later debates had people saying Edwards was playing for VP - I think it was just that Kerry absolutely dominated him in the debates (far more than Cheney did) - he was still fighting for the nomination. (That Kemp blew him away in the joint MTP interview on topics like their trip to Russia and Iraq, verifies that he will not be a match for Kerry or for Hillary.)

He was never the front runner in 2004, so he never got the type of scrutiny that would come. I am at heart a midwesterner, though I chose to move to the NYC area out of school - the NYT Edwards profile made him my least favorite choice out of the real 2004 candidates. The idea that he channeled the "voice" of a baby who was still born to win a case against a doctor creeps me out on many levels. It bothers me that he chose to play on the emotions of the jury in a contrived way. I have no problem with a lawyer being passionate - I thought Kerry's 3rd Alito speech where he made you see and feel what the VT family did was spectacular.

[JohnKleeb]

18. Another thing I have to add about Warner is he has great coattails

Kaine is considerably more liberal than Warner but he did just as good as Warner did in his first election and won places like Loudoun County and Prince William County which are quite a bit more conservative and republican than my own Fairfax County. He'd be in his second term, Warner that is if Virginia law wasn't FUBAR. People dismiss him here as a DLCer, one term governor, techocrat etc but they don't realize that he did improve this state after the Allen-Gilmore years. I want to know more about his stance on foreign policy, I know that he's quite pro Israel and I am ok with that but I want to know what he thinks of Sudan and other global issues.

[politicasista]

15. Thanks everyone for chiming in on this

I do think Middle America is going to be a factor also.

Thanks for the info.:hi: :patriot: