2012 will resemble 2004 very closely.

[JNelson6563]

Remember the 2004 election? The heated primary, the hard-fought GE? Most of us do, it was a difficult time that ended in disappointment.

The primary that year was especially hard-fought. The Iraq war played into it and, it seemed at least, that those who didn't support the war got the most passionate supporters during the primary.

Here in my corner of the world there was a big Dean group. Didn't see anyone else with activity for the primary. Many liked Dean but wondered if he was as electable as Kerry. When they voted apparently they thought not as they followed the previous voting states w/Kerry as the winner.

Disappointing but Bush sucks so I'm in, I guess.

Well apparently that was the commonly held view. Our local Dem party was gung-ho to beat Bush. We were so active, moved thousands of yard-signs, bumper stickers, etc. Had 25 events that year and raised a shit-ton of money, it was awesome. I was there, day in and day out, helping to make it happen.

Daily people came in for lawn-signs, they'd throw money at us, tell us how much they hated Bush and went on their way. This played out many times a day. Guess what I never heard......

"I just love that John Kerry!"

Yeah, this Republican primary is shaping up to look an awful lot like that. The "conventional wisdom" voters are making sure Romney gets the nomination. They are banking on the hope that enough people hate Obama that they will turn to the R's for a candidate.

As we learned in 2004, hating the President is not enough, there has to be someone who inspires at least some passion on your side of the ballot in order to win.

Anyone else see similarities between this election and previous?

Julie

[Renew Deal]

1. I agree

I noticed the same thing. It resembles 2004 even with a guy from Massachusetts. Hopefully it works out in our favor this time. I think it will.

[JNelson6563]

13. Yes, I meant the same but opposite

Obviously we now have the role the R's had in '04 but we're in a better position.

Julie

[politicasista]

27. +1. Though Obama will continue to seek out

the services (aka help) of Senator Kerry whether some here like it or not. JAHO.

[onehandle]

2. Yep. And election night will come down to Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to a lesser degree.

Just like 'normal.'

Don't count on North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana.

2008 was an aberration.

[WI_DEM]

4. Actually Obama is polling well against the GOP in VA & NC, but you are correct about Indiana.

[yellowcanine]

21. I believe Obama will win Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And I think there will be a couple of

surprise wins for Obama elsewhere based on a large Hispanic turnout against Republicans for demagoguing the immigration issue. Maybe Arizona. I agree we can't count of NC, VA and IN but I think Obama will get one of them at least. A big turnout in N. VA for Obama could carry him there.

[WI_DEM]

3. I think Obama has a wider electoral map than Kerry, however,

Despite John Edwards on the ticket in '04, the only southern state Kerry had a chance of carrying was Florida. On the other hand, Obama has a chance in Virginia, North Carolina, and even (according to some polls) South Carolina. He also has more of a chance in some western states such as Arizona (even McCain concedes this) and Colorado.

But you are correct, it will be a closely contested election. Hopefully the job news will continue to improve this year and that would be a big benefit to Obama.

[NorthCarolina]

5. So Diebold will pick the winner again? nt

[gateley]

6. Great piece, Julie. The difference that

concerns me, though, is the Obama hate appears to be much more passionate and wide-spread than the anti-Bush sentiments.

I knew too many people who hated Bush but didn't bother to vote -- some because they assumed everyone felt as they did and Bush's ousting was a given, others because of that "it doesn't matter who's in office they're all the same" attitude.

I think the Conservatives are NOT going to stay home and they'll vote for whoever the nominee will be.

But, yeah (back to your question ), now that you point it out I see the similarities. And I don't think any of us HATED Kerry like the current crop of Republican candidates are hated, but even with that difference, they'll be at the polls in November.

[JNelson6563]

12. I see the hate in very limited context

The self appointed "real liberals" here @ DU and, of course, the right wing. All the regular people I talk to in the real world seem to feel like Obama's trying and the Congress sucks. All my real world fellow activists are still on board with Obama too.

We'll put this in the win column but it's going to take a lot of work. See you in the trenches my dear Gately!

Julie

[frazzled]

7. Perhaps (I hope so)

I too put a whole lotta effort into 2004, though not with Dean; I worked for the Clark campaign for several months in New Hampshire, which seems kind of naive in retrospect--he was sort of the John Huntsman of that primary season; at the very end, the Dean-Clark people banded together in the face of the Kerry onslaught in NH. (Honestly, he steamrollered that state with burly firefighters and campaign workers who really used every trick they could think of--including invading other candidates' events and blocking their signs so that no one would know where the event was.) Kerry was the favorite son there (especially in the populous southern and eastern parts of the state), like Romney, with Dean a sort of second favorite son to voters on the northern and western parts of the state.

Romney has a lot of the same deficits that Kerry had, though their politics are very different: elitist Northeast background, uncomfortable and awkward around people; definitely not great orators. Both will have tied up their nominations pretty much at the beginning, which is not really such a good thing for their campaigns. Both are/were default winners--the ones people decided had the best chance to beat the incumbent, but whom not many were really passionate about.

I think Romney is less liked among Republicans than Kerry was among Democrats. But the real question is Independents ... and turnout. It's going to be a close race, as was Kerry's with Bush. That time, it was the freshness and horror of the crazy unnecessary war he started. Now, the economy is just still too weak to make this a walk in the park for Obama.

My hope is that Republican enthusiasm for Romney will be not great enough to offset their hatred of Obama.

[JNelson6563]

11. I agree.

Romney is disliked among Republicans, at least certain important groups of them. While I never heard any passion for Kerry, I really didn't hear anything negative from our side either. Many wished they had a choice to vote for who hadn't voted for the IWR but in the end, voted for Kerry cause Bush sucked so bad.

Julie

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. I think that 2012 will be better than 2004 but not as good as 2008- somewhere in between IMHO

The economy- as well as the ramped up hatred of anything Obama by the right-wing- will almost certainly ensure that Obama won't win by the same margins that he did in 2008 IMHO. OTOH the GOP field is very lackluster, there seems to be a significant portion of the GOP base that either doesn't like Romney and still wants an alternative to him or isn't terribly enthusiastic about him. People also have been turned off by the Republican Tea Party antics in the House and in many statehouses/state legislatures and may not be willing to put one in the WH (or somebody perceived as beholden to the Tea Party- as any GOPer would undoubtedly be). Additionally, Obama has not had any serious disasters- foreign or domestic, he has had some pretty significant foreign policy successes, and, like it or not, he had a lot of legislative accomplishments during his first two years in office. What is Romney running on bringing to this country that is superior to what Obama is doing and justifies Obama's removal from office and Romney's installation in the oval office? It seems to me that the GOP's only argument against Obama is that he's been a "disaster" for this country but are most people- aside from Fox News viewers- really buying that? I hear people disappointed about Obama because of one policy decision or another and people have more "sober" and realistic assessments of him than in 2008 but I've never heard anybody but the wingers and die-hard Republicans describe him as being a "disaster" for this country. I believe that as long as we do our best to GOTV we should ultimately be o.k.

[blm]

9. No - I worked in Dem HQ in NC and I had ALOT of people here who LOVED Kerry including me.

That election was stolen.

And anyone who carried a grudge from Dean, was not dealing with the reality that Kerry WAS the better campaigner and was the more progressive candidate, especially over the entire course of his public career, than Dean, and THAT is why he was able to overcome the media entrenched against him throughout the primary (even urging Kerry to drop out and refusing to cover his endorsement from Firefighters) while Dean could not when media turned its aim at him in Dec2003. Dean made a great chairman of the party, but, his campaigning skills and organization did not surpass Kerry's.

Kerry fought back HARD...what he DIDN'T have was a Dem PARTY infrastructure that would or even could fight FOR him. Terry McAuliffe used his 4years as party chair to set up lavish digs in DC, instead of rebuilding party infrastructure in crucial states like Ohio and Florida where the GOP was allowed to run rampant since the mid90s with no flexing of Dem muscle there, in any way, shape or form.

Especially egregious was that there were no wellknown Dems on TV arguing FOR Kerry's positions and AGAINST Bush's - in fact, Bill Clinton used his high-profile, summer2004 book tour to 'vigorously defend' Bush's military decisions and leadership instead of backing Kerry's arguments against Bush.

Kerry was surrounded by Dem party intending to give up 2004 as far back as 2001, because McAuliffe and Clintons always had Hillary2008 as their goal.

[JNelson6563]

10. that's how it was here, in Michigan, on the ground.

Your experience does not negate mine.

Julie

[blm]

15. well, I certainly am aware how Dean folks felt, but, there were reasons why

Dean ended up losing the primary, and it certainly wasn't because of the rigging of the election. That some Dems in Michigan didn't handle the loss and weren't enthused about Kerry tells me only that THEY couldn't get it together mentally to move forward for the Dem candidate. Dems didn't need that, as we were already stuck with Clintons and their crowd undermining the race at every opportunity.

[JNelson6563]

16. I thought this might happen

BLM, I know you are absolutely mad about Kerry. I actually thought of you when I posted this, hoped you didn't see it and want to re-fight the 04 primary. Too bad for me, eh?

And you're right, if only I and others who were less than impressed with Kerry had worked harder! More than full time hours for months on end for no pay, leaving home and family to win the election. Yes, if only we Michigan Dean supporters had done more, perhaps Kerry would've won our state...oh wait!

Yeah. We worked our asses off for a guy we didn't really care for and won our state for him. Any other nasty implications to make about MI Dem voters?

Julie--who marvels at this crap

[blm]

19. It was McAuliffe and Clinton Dems that handed that election to Bush - Kerry worked his ass off with

little backup from Dem party stars. Dems like you and me worked for that election, and I only meant that being in the dumps about it was NOT a helpful state of mind because it covered up the actual reasons Bush ended up with the WH. We were ALL sold down the river by fucking do-nothing, waiting for Hillary2008 McAuliffe, and the Bushprotecting Clintons, especially Bill and James Carville.

[eridani]

17. Yes, Dean essentially rebuilt party structures at the state level.

And Bill Clinton's warmongering ass totally sucked that summer.

[blue_onyx]

14. I agree

I do think Kerry would've made a very good president but I don't remember people being that enthusiastic about him. Voters are even less enthusiastic about Romney. The only reason he'll win the primary is because Republicans see him as the only candidate with a chance of beating Obama. I don't think Romney can win unless the economy starts to slide backward. If things stay like they are now or improve, Obama will win. The economy still isn't very good so it will be closer, like 2004, but I see Obama winning

[Romulox]

18. Strong analysis. Kicking this. nt

[Major Hogwash]

20. You make a very good point.

Hate is not a very effective motivator.
The same people that hated John Kerry in 2004 hated Obama in 2008, mostly because he is a Democrat.

Oh, and also because he is Black.

[politicasista]

22. Agree

Last edited Thu Jan 12, 2012, 07:13 PM - Edit history (4)

though some people in this thread will never ever forgive the Senator for beating the favorites.

What did he do to the President or Dean?

Guess some people just hold grudges for a long time, no matter what the Senator does. Hence the comparisons to the lowlife Mittens. If people hated him or weren't so enthusiastic about him, why did those crowds show up if he was "________"?

You could say the same for the POTUS, but at least he respects the Senator more than some (not all) of his supporters do and ever will.

[MrCoffee]

23. I read that as "2012 will resemble 2014 very closely"

And was thoroughly disappointed in the lack of news from the future in this thread.

Carry on.