The real reason JK lost

[itaintoveryet]

after reflecting on the election, here is what i think caused JK to lose this election. first of all, most people on this site would have been behind anyone whom the democrats had nominated and thus we were not objective enough to see any major problems with the way JK was running. forget about this "moral values" issue causing the defeat - i don't buy it. i believe the main reason for this loss was that JK never clearly stated what he stood for. someone please tell me what his stand was for the war on Iraq ? i know he stood for better health care, more jobs, etc. but never articulated how he was to accomplish this. he had three great chances during the debates to articulate his stands but he never did; it was all generalities.

this country was ready to get rid of Dubya but JK was never bold enough to grab the initiative - at least they knew where Dubya was taking them even if it was not a place most wanted to go. seems like JK could have easily diffused the "moral values" issues if he had stated his stands more clearly and concisely. this election needed a bold candidate and the old JK who turned his boat into enemy fire has apparently left a long time ago. looking back, i believe that Dean would have been a better choice and i hope that he is given far more backing within the democratic party.

[bitchkitty]

1. That's a load of crap -

don't even start blaming Kerry.

http://blackboxvoting.org

[itaintoveryet]

2. please point out what

is wrong with the analysis rather than simply stating that it is crap. i read all the theories that it was stolen and massive fraud and i don't know if it that is accurate or not and i don't want to discuss that. answer to what i have written; not what you wish.

[Canadian_moderate]

5. My wife felt the same way

My wife is American and she voted for Kerry, but she felt very strongly that Kerry was not articulate and clear enough about many of his positions. At least with Howard Dean and Bush you knew very clearly where they stood.

That said, my wife was liberal enough to vote for Kerry regardless. She just wanted change.

[itaintoveryet]

9. EXACTLY !!!

ABB was good enough for us but not for the general schmo and even then it was a razor thin victory. i believe 3% could have been made up with a more bold campaign.

[Maat]

12. I disagree.

First of all, they had to vote for Dubya instead of Kerry. And if they did that, they are ignorant.

I refuse to start hind-sight hacking-up of Kerry or his campaign.

Talk to the wingnut next door to me and you will understand why Dubya won. Ignorance and dogma.

[4_Legs_Good]

26. I don't think it's about "hacking-up" Kerry's campaign as much as

it is looking at the campaign and seeing what we could have done better. I don't think anyone will disagree that he blew it on the SBVFT issue, by not addressing it earlier. I also believe that it's true that he didn't define himself early enough, and the "flip-flopper" deal was allowed to fester way too long.

I also think we screwed the pooch on the Convention and that's where Bush really took off.

All in all Kerry ran a very good campaign, and contrary to what everyone may say (particularly dittoheads), I think he was an excellent candidate.

But we obviously didn't do something "right enough", and if we want to win, we have to figure out how to do it better next time.

This defeat is a crushing blow because we all worked harder than ever to win and still lost. It's hard to think of what more we could have done, but that's just what we have to do.

It's so depressing...

david

[Laelth]

48. Agreed. That's a load of hockey!

We ran a strong candidate this year against one of the weakest and worst candidates the Republicans have ever offered. As pathetic as this is to say, John Kerry actually speaks in complete sentences. Bush, quite obviously, does not. John Kerry is a decorated war hero who has served the people in public office for most of his adult life. Bush is a draft-dodger who has destroyed every business he's ever run and who seems to serve only himself and his rich friends. According to the American people, in scientific polls taken immediately afterward, John Kerry won all three debates. We had more money than usual this time--nearly as much as the Republicans. We fought toe-to-toe in television advertising across the nation. By one count, the Democrats registered three times as many new voters as the Republicans did for this election.

And you know what? None of this mattered! We still lost. There's nothing wrong with the Democratic party. There's something very wrong with America. If Kerry can't beat Bush, then I don't think we can win at all. I think we're in for about 20 years of one-party rule. Welcome to Jesusland!



I actually saw that monstrosity on a recent visit to Ohio. I was astounded. Did you know that federal funds (your money and mine) probably support that church? That's what George Bush's "faith-based initiatives" are all about--federal money to the churches which, in turn, expand the Republican base. And there's nothing those of us on the left can do about it now.

I'm not trying to demoralize the faithful, here, but I think we have to be realistic about what we're up against.

It was not Kerry's fault!

-Laelth

[bitchkitty]

51. I am so frustrated with everyone

refusing to see the simplest and most likely explanation for George Bush's sudden last minute miraculous comeback. The exit polls were not wrong. There was nothing wrong with Kerry's campaign, especially toward the end.

We'll never win another Presidential election unless we reform our voting systems, and get rid of paperless voting. I don't understand why this issue was brushed aside to focus on Iraq or gays or even the economy. What a waste of money, what a waste of hope.

I'm sorry that I said "crap". I just don't want to see Kerry blamed for losing to the thieves. His campaign's only fault is that they ignored the great big hulking black box in the living room.

[Laelth]

57. You may be right.

Either the election was stolen or the fundie base is much bigger and stronger than we ever thought. But which is worse? If the election was stolen, I don't see how we can prevent it from being stolen again. If it's the fundies, then I don't see what we can do about that, either.

I see no way for us to win. :scared:

-Laelth

[hughee99]

61. I agree with the original message

Yes, John Kerry actually speaks in complete sentences, while * doesn't. Yes, John Kerry is a decorated war hero who has served the people in public office for most of his adult life. Yes, John Kerry won all three debates. Yes, we had more money than usual this time--nearly as much as the Republicans. Yes, we fought toe-to-toe in television advertising across the nation. I think the initial poster's point was that the candidate was better than the campaign. Kerry spoke in complete sentences, but didn't use those sentences to clearly articulate is plans. Yes, he was a war hero, but he didn't respond to the SBV's quickly and clearly enough. Yes he has been in the senate for many years, but he didn't spend much time talking about his accomplishments there. Yes he won all three debates, but he did it mostly by showing where * was failing, not by clearly articulating how he would fix things. We did raise plenty of money and we put out many campaign adds, but very few of them really explained what his plan was.

We're not trying to "savage" the Kerry campaign, but we need to look at the things that were not done well, and try to improve on them next time. John Kerry didn't get his message out. I remember during the 92' and 96 campaigns, the Big Dog was talking about what was wrong with Poppy's policies, and then making detailed proposals. He didn't just say, "I will do it better", he said "Here's what I'm going to do about these issues"... 100,000 new cops, Americorps, tax cuts for working families, specific environmental initiatives, etc. As far as many Americans could tell, Kerry was promising to "do it better" but many of them never knew what he was going to do differently. Kerry talked about bringing in allies to Iraq. That's a great idea, but how was he going to do it. "Engaging the international community" isn't detailed enough for most people. He needed to explain both how he was going to do it, and how it would make things better. Kerry wanted to fix the economy, but most people were not clear on how he was going to do this. These are the kind of things you need to get specific on. You need to have defined, attainable goals, and the public needs to know what they are.

[shraby]

58. He lost because it was stolen

more evidence is turning up all the time.

[MemphisTiger]

3. Dean may have done better, BUT

if he couldn't beat JK, how could he beat W? In 2000, Gore was seen as to detail oriented so people turned to W. We are a MTV, short attention span, sound bite generation. This will not change anytime soon. Dean would have still been seen as a guy whose state allows "gays" to get married. That and abortion may have tipped the election. The repubs have defined us and we're constantly playing defense. We need to reshape th party to take the offense.

[BJ]

4. Here's a bit of Arianna Huffington's take on the election

"The Clintonistas who were having a greater and greater sway over the campaign — including Joe Lockhart, James Carville and the former president himself — were convinced it was "the economy, stupid" all over again, which dovetailed perfectly with the beliefs of chief strategist Bob Shrum and campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill."
from her e-mail update 11/03/04

[4_Legs_Good]

27. I love Arianna, but...

I have to question her campaign advice these days. She thinks she knows what the secret is, and but not for her DISASTEROUS run for Governor in California, I'd be willing to give her advice a shot. But here she did what she thought would work, and failed miserably. I don't know that I've ever had my spirits lifted so high and then dashed so low as when she ran for Governor and dropped out when it looked like she was bound for only 3% of the vote.

And this is Califorinia! You'd think we could elect a progressive Governor, but our only viable choice still ended up an action star and a conservative Democrat. Feh!

david

[still_one]

6. He lost because 51% of this country are racist bigots

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[bushisanidiot]

21. They are racist bigots. 80+% of whites voted for captain clueless

and you're gonna tell me thats coincidental?????

wake up!

[cheezus]

29. the anti-gay amendment passed in my state with 80%

and there's no shortage of bigotry

students on my campus even have an inveted slur for the natives so they can trash them in public.

[sam sarrha]

35. NAZI devide and conquer.. it was a Hollow issue, giving a piece of paper

to 2 people who are same sex isnt going to end the world..

Giving a peice of paper to heterosexuals will result in over 50% to 60% of them voiding the contract anyway... so what is the big deal giving it to anyone..????

[cheezus]

36. they know that, they just hate gays

and the republican party is based around hating a common enemy

[4_Legs_Good]

30. John Stewart seems to be making a lot of sense

when he says the middle states are basically afraid of things that don't really concern them. Manhattan went like 85% for Kerry, and they're the ones that are face to face with terrorism and homosexuality.

Is gay marriage really an issue in Wyoming? Is Al Qeda really planning to hit the BP station in Dayton?

This whole thing is really whacked. So I'd say those 51% are more motivated by fear than necessarily biggotry.

You kill what you fear and you fear what you don't understand...

david

[polmaven]

42. Not quite......

racist homophobic bigots, thank you very much.

[Anais921]

7. I know it's unpopular...

but I agree, at least to some extent. I couldn't tell you how Kerry planned to get the troops out of Iraq - and if I can't, it's pretty damn certain that your average uninformed American voter can't. I think he kind of went with generalities on purpose, but maybe it backfired. *sigh*

[displacedtexan]

8. All Bullshit, No Bull

The easiest way to damage any candidate is to claim, "I don't understand the message."

What a cheap shot!

Can you not read?

Can you not google?

Jeeeeeeez!

[itaintoveryet]

10. don't tell me about google

what a garbage reply. do you think the general electorate, who totally relies on sound-bites, is going to google for answers ?

[gWbush is Mabus]

11. the REAL problem is the media

the media especially CNN and FOX are misleading the public

[tngledwebb]

33. MOST of the media, including

all major networks, WaPo, NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc.
And the question is WHY?
Daily Howler lays out the evidence in great detail, but hasn't got found all the answers.
Yet.

[Dhalgren]

16. If Kerry had been less "general" in his message

he would have had to have come out as much more "liberal" than he did. By being less "specific" in his policies, he was able to camouflage, somewhat, the liberalism of his ideology. It is clear in todays US that displaying more liberalism is not the way to win national elections. Kerry's run was always a "stealth" sort of thing. He would run to the right and then go left after being elected. In order not to out right lie, Kerry had to be vague at times. That actually helped him, not hurt him, IMO...

[Blue Wally]

28. So "Rush is Right"??????

That is the taunt that Limbaugh is always making about the Democratic Party, that we are "afraid to tell the public where we really stand" because we know we would lose.

We should have our own "Contract With America" in 2006 like Gingrich and his gang did in 1994. It should be full of specific progressive steps which a consensus of Democrats could buy (alternate fuels, fuel economy standards, break up Walmart and Microsfot, nationalize the oil companies, whatever). We then stand or fall on whether or not the American people buy or reject our specifics.

[Dhalgren]

32. I absolutely agree with you.

We should step up and lay our cards out.

We are for a woman's right to choose

We are for racial and sexual equality - across the board

We are for wealth redistribution towards a more fair social economy

We are for a higher minimum/living wage

We are for universal health care

We are for a strengthened, advanced Social Security system

We are against preemptive war

We are for a true and strong separation of church and state

We are for a fact based, scientific educational system

We are for universal, complete public education for as far as a citizen's abilities will take them

We are for a strong environmental protection service

We are for ending dependence on fossil fuels

You could add many more statements like these. We should do it and we should start now...

[Senior citizen]

41. We are the Green Party!

I am for every single one of the principles you listed.

They are the Green Party platform.

They have never been and are not now the Democratic Party platform, and they never will be.

[Dhalgren]

56. You're right.

I am much more in line with Green ideology than Democratic. I was a Kucinich Democrat - so maybe you'll understand...

[Blue Wally]

52. No, those are glittering generalities

Don't say we are for universal health care, say:

If we are elected, within the first thirty days, we will enact legislation extending Medicare to every American regardless of age. This will be paid for with a tax of ___% on ____ and will be kept separate from the general budget.

[Dhalgren]

55. No they aren't, they are specifics of what we wish to accomplish.

When you say "we are for a strong military", it is not necessary to say where you will get funding for it. When you say we want to protect a person's freedom of speech, thought, and choice, you don't have to say how you will pay for the defense of those rights. I don't care how a right is paid for, it simply has to be paid for. Universal health care is a right, universal employment is a right, universal education is a right - all citizens have these rights by vertue of their citizenship. Jesus! If your house catches on fire, you go to put it out, you don't stop and argue how to pay for it.

[Blue Wally]

63. To keep houses from burning down

You need to have hydrants at certain specific intervals. You need to have fire stations manned on a 24/7 basis within x number of minutes response time.

If we can't be specific, we are open to questioning as to the "how". Notice that John Kerry was not allowed to get away with saying he "had a plan". If we are specific, the debate will be framed by arguing the specifics of OUR plan.

[MrSandman]

What if Gephard were the candidate??

All the media reported during the prin=mary was that voters for Kerry were voting for the candidate most likely to defeat Bush.

How many Northern Democratic Senators, former Senators, or even governors have tried and failed in the General election since 1944?

Who has been successful in the general election since 1944 for the Democrats? Missouri, Texas, Georgia, Arkansas.

That being said, think Richardson or any emerging Democrat from south of the Mason Dixon Line or west of the Eastern Contintal Divide.

I will now retire to don my nomex.

[polmaven]

43. Um, have we forgotten

the epitome of Massachusetts liberalism John Fitzgerald Kennedy? I think 1060 came after 1944, didn't it?

[MrSandman]

66. Tha is the answer...One...nt

[spanone]

13. How about this: More people voted for the fucking idiot than Kerry

Sums it up for me.

[Benhurst]

15. Did they? Well at least that's what Diebold et al tells us. n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. DIEBOLD. It was DIEBOLD folks!

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Gyre]

47. Tepid circumstantial evidence but what we really need

is some serious direct evidence. Otherwise the mainstream media is really going to have fun mocking us.

I really hope somebody is working on this.

Gyre

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. Bev Harris is working on it. In the meantime, work on fixing the

system in your area so that the '06 races are worth something.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[RobinA]

18. I Never Believe This Rationale

when people give it as a reason for not liking Kerry. I mean, I believe it, but I think it's bogus. How specific is a non-incumbent supposed to be? How specific is any candidate? How specific was Bush, really? He's going to simplify the tax code (No one's ever tried THAT before.) How is he going to simplify the tax code? How exactly is he planning to bring democracy to Iraq? I haven't heard an answer to that, even an implausible one. We're just going to bomb them until they're free?

So I don't buy this "Kerry wasn't specific thing." Fact is, Bush was no more specific.

[CTyankee]

60. But remember

Bush's "specifics" were one helluva lot worse than Kerry's generalities. After all, we had solid evidence of what kind of Pres. Bush was. What the electorate needed was Dr. Phil asking them "How's that workin' for ya."

[RobinA]

19. I Never Believe This Rationale

when people give it as a reason for not liking Kerry. I mean, I believe it, but I think it's bogus. How specific is a non-incumbent supposed to be? How specific is any candidate? How specific was Bush, really? He's going to simplify the tax code (No one's ever tried THAT before.) How is he going to simplify the tax code? How exactly is he planning to bring democracy to Iraq? I haven't heard an answer to that, even an implausible one. We're just going to bomb them until they're free?

So I don't buy this "Kerry wasn't specific thing." Fact is, Bush was no more specific.

[bushisanidiot]

20. If anything, Kerry spoke TOO clearly. But americans' eyes glaze over if

they have to sit and listen to an answer that takes more than 2 seconds to articulate. God forbid a voter would have to engage their brain and actually THINK about what the candidate is saying.

it sounds to me like the only way to "win" americans votes is to dumb down the message and speak only in short sound-bites like president dumbass does. maybe then people will "understand" what our side is saying.

gawd..

[peacetalksforall]

22. In the old days a candidate could provide more context - in these days

of blatant sneer-in-your-face and lock-you-up thieving and lying criminal politicians, anything concrete would have been digested and vomited back at you by the republican propaganda media hosts and guests within hours. They would have distorted so swiftly and so simply that the dumbest dittoheads could echo it all within minutes at the local feed store or coffee shop with no regard for truth-seeking or analysis. Pardon my bluntness. We don't play gentlemen and women politics in this country anymore. And neither are they saying that other countries look up to us - at least they are smart enough to know that that is a grievous lie. The stakes are too high for these people. They didn't work towards this for decades to be become decent human beings.

His biggest problem was that he had no history with the a lot of people outside the Boston, New York, and Washington area and Rove and Spaeth took care of that.

[choicevoice]

23. I can tell you what I wanted to hear him say

I was anti invasion of Iraq. During the debates when bush defiantly said "If John Kerry was president Saddam Hussein would still be in power". I wanted to hear Kerry say, "You are damn right he would be. Saddam would still be in power, he would still be contained, he would still have no WMD, we would have stayed in Afghanistan and killed Osama bin Laden, 1100 of our youngest and brightest soldiers would still be alive, 28,000 of them would not be injured, the deficit would not be soaring to astronomic proportions, and on and on and on.

But that is just what I wanted to hear. I won't bash Kerry.

[Pacifist Patriot]

24. Nailed it for me.

This is what I find so frustrating with the democrats right now. Stop playing defense!!!!

[RobinA]

31. I Want To Hear

this stuff too, and I wanted to hear it from Gore in 2000. You ain't gonna hear it. Candidates think, rightly or wrongly, that taking a solid position won't get them elected. They might offend somebody. For instance, I want somebody to say: "Look guys, this primitive doesn't believe in science. People who don't believe in science are stupid at worst, uneducated at best. Do you really want a moron for President?" But no, can't say that, it would be elitest. The candiate is expected to speak on the fourth grade level, think on the fourth grade level, and appeal to the fourth grade level. I thought Kerry got pretty blunt in the end, but it didn't put him over the top.

[buckettgirl]

25. I disagree

I disagree with you in some respects. Yes, I think Kerry could have been more clear cut on his stance, especially during the debates. However, I took the time to go to Kerry/Edwards official website. I read a lot of their ideas and plans there. I was especially estatic when I saw his plan for college education, I thought it was a great idea and well thought out. Just because he didn't say every detail of all his plans when he was giving campaign speeches didn't mean that he didn't have a clear stance on anything.
I don't think that he could have defeated the moral issues thing. Lets face it: of the 11 states that ban gay-marriage, 75% of voters were for it; 75% of those voters are clearly bigots and don't care who they discriminate against. Also, Kerry could never have won the fundies, especially the anti-abortion fanatics. I must say that many people in this country either don't know what morals are, or clearly don't have their priorities straight.

[GOPBasher]

34. Not true -- we lost on "moral values." Look at the polls.

[Tangledog]

37. I don't think Kerry could have been clearer

The reason I supported him before Iowa was because he was the clearest, most specific, most thoughtful candidate.

There is a blurry line between "not specific enough" and "subsection A127b". Usually, Kerry hit it. Sometimes he didn't. Maybe in retrospect assembling an international coalition to bail us out of Iraq was too much wishful thinking. I just knew that the present way wasn't going to cut it.

More reasons in another post.

[Tangledog]

38. Toby Keith vs. P. Diddy

A LTTE in the local (moderate) newspaper pointed out an error in an AP story: identifying Sean Combs and "Rock the Vote" as associated with the Kerry campaign. I didn't notice the story, or at least that discrepancy, the first time through. And the distinction is a bit ingenuous; Sean Combs wasn't there to rock the vote for B*.

But you want cultural values? You are stopped at a traffic light and you feel it before you hear it -- some buttscratch with a stereo worth more than the car blowing out his eardrums and taking a whack at yours. Gets way in your space, doesn't it? Pisses you off, doesn't it?

Tell me, the last 15 times this happened, what was playing? Maybe metal, but probably hip-hop. Maybe Eminem. Maybe Puffy. It isn't fucking Toby Keith.

When Sean Combs wants to help you "rock the vote", run the other way. There is nothing to be gained from Eminem contributing a catchy jingle for your campaign. These people are assholes.

They're also everywhere. When you're pulled up at that traffic light, you usually don't see guys performing gay sex acts in the next car, or getting married, right? You're far more likely to have 50 Cent shaking the fillings out of your teeth and pawning them for some pimpin' blunt.

Clinton dissed Sistah Souljah. Learn from that.

[buckettgirl]

40. Hey! I have subs, and I love my country music loud! lol

[bushisanidiot]

49. My car with gay pride stickers got keyed. I'd assume a Toby Keith fan did

it before I'd assume a P. Diddy fan did it. I've had those big monster trucks pull up beside me and do disgusting things to try to piss me off (I can only assume it's because of my stickers). I've NEVER been harrassed by a hip hop music listener at a traffic light.

SO YOUR ARGUMENT IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT!

[ncteechur]

39. JK made a few mistakes but he wasn't the reason bush won.

Kerry losing and bush winning are not necessarily the same thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Repubs have figured out how to convince the electorate that what they're selling is what they need to buy. That salesmanship uses wedge issues and negative advertising to close the sale. One issue voters (abortion, gay marriage, gun rights) all belong to the repubs and unfortunately there are more one-two issue voters than we would like to think. Until we brek that stranglehold or until the country changes, we will have a very difficult time winning. And I don't know which will happen first. Although Nader wasn't a factor as much in this election as in 2000, he repubs argue that Perot did the same thing to Bush sr. in 1992. I don't know what the answer is. We will have to figure out how to keep wedge issues out or capture a few for ourselves. Obviously, it's not going to be the same ones we have used in the past like Social Security.

[Nancy Waterman]

46. Kerry lost because Bush controlled the dialogue

Whenever I saw Kerry speak, I got psyched. Then I would be drowned for several days in the talking points of Republicans. They are masters of psy-ops. Their shameless character assasination worked. They would build a straw man and then argue against him. People believed Kerry was the straw man.

The GOP repeated the same stuff over and over: flip flopper; we are better off without Saddam; Kerry would be weak on terror, blah, blah, repeated so often even Dems were beginning to wonder. We need a real strategist on the DNC, someone who will come up with crystal clear talking points, enforce that everyone on TV say them, and begin a guerrilla war now against the reigning demons. The GOP is ingenious at putting us on the defensive and off message: witness the Swift Boat Liars.

[ollie3]

44. It's the vocabulary we use too....

The Republicans are not more specific, but they are much more skillful if Framing the issues, using vocabulary that favors them.

For example, they don't call them "tax cuts" they use the vocabulary of "tax relief". Does this seem like a small difference? I don't.

Another, even more obvious is on abortion. They are not anti-choice or even anti-abortion...the vocabulary they use is "pro-life".

Even privitization is framed as part of "strengthening" social security, when it will really take money out of the fund!

I must say, the Reps are masters at framing vocabulary.

Could we put less emphasis on "choice" and build an arguement for our abortion position by emphasis that we don't like abortions either, point out that abortions were down under Clinton and up under Bush because the economic and social factors leading to abortion have more of an influence on the number of abortions than punishing them after the fact? Instead of attacking pro-lifers, could we talk about prevention more and ask them to join us in what we both can agree with--working on prevention, adoption, etc. We are never going to win over the religious right, but we CAN put more emphasis that we are opposed to abortion too, we choose to use different plan of attack to reduce them while preserving constitutional rights? Can we find a way to show we are not what they call "pro-abortion"?

[robbedvoter]

45. Kerry won. They stole it. Live with it.

I wasn't his supporter, didn't trust him to stop the war - but like THE MAJORITY of this country voted against Bush. And no media kool aid drinker is going to tell me any different. 6 million votes nationwide went uncounted in 2000. Diebold followed - and 40 million voters threw their votes into paperless machines.
I hate Kerry for minding his personal business rather than. at least making this clear: a MAJORITY voted for him 9or rather against Bush)

Famous last words:
"I have no time for those crying in your teacups for stolen elections"
John Kerry, campaign trail 2003

[rndmprsn]

50. i disagree...values were what killed us

not the lack of...but the lack of communicating them...not having over-arching strategies that pull together single issues under shared values and letting wedge issues go un-challenged, and letting the repubs frame the debate and message...in short, poor rural voters were scared of us and never got our message that we share their values...hard work, fairness, responsibility, and opportunity.

unless we can reach these people, who are our natural allies...we will always lose...perod.

[neener3]

53. Agreed

Repeatedly he said, "I have a plan for that" and never clearly spelled it out to his listeners. He repeated this line so often people began to snicker at it.

Carville is right, he lacked narrative behind his plans.

[Lefta Dissenter]

59. BULLSHIT

I'm not even bothering to read the replies to your post, so I may be repeating what other people are saying, but BULLSHIT again. We lost because the election was stolen from us. If you want to help, get off your ass and send some money to www.blackboxvoting.org and demand recounts.

Whining doesn't accomplish a damned thing.

[Cattledog]

62. It's not just one reason.....

But democrats need to appeal to rural America , Bill Clinton did it but JK was not able to make that connection. Also if 9-11 was not in the picture JK would have won easily. Bush scared alot of Dems that's why 8-9% of Dems crossed over.

CD

[bullimiami]

64. sickandtired what part of reality dont you get?

kerry won. it is fraud. massive and global.

our message was accepted, we dont need to do anything to reach out to anyone. we need to be who we are and FIX THE VOTING MACHINES.

[brettdale]

65. JOHN KERRY DIDNT LOSE

IF THIS ELECTION FAIR KERRY WOULD OF WON IT IN A LANDSLIDE.

[sr_pacifica]

67. Bush was not specific either.

He just relied on his record. He never outlined, in specifics, anything he was going to do. This is a lame argument for the loss. It came down to several things---fundamentalism and hate for "the other", engrained-belief about the republicans being stronger when it comes to defense, and the "don't change horses in midstream" during war---among some of them. It wasn't a matter of the message not being expressed clearly enough. It's the American people who are to blame for *'s reelection. Dean wouldn't have fared any better.