What now for the Dems?

[Jalinth]

Liberalism is the problem. It's not how it's packaged that's unappealing. Liberalism is unappealing, at least to a majority of voters. Oh, I don't mean any hint of liberalism, of course, but any candidate who is perceived as being too liberal drives the swing voters toward the Republicans. History bears this out.

Big government - Liberals are seen, again not altogether undeservedly - as championing bigger government, more government regulation, and higher taxes. This is an area where most Americans are willing to accept a government large enough and powerful enough to fulfill certain roles, and are willing to pay taxes high enough to maintain such a government, but again, liberals are seen as favoring these things to a higher degree than most Americans are comfortable with.

These are just a few examples, but I could probably think of more if I tried. They are areas where the liberal position simply does not find support among a majority of Americans. It's not the packaging.

Interesting read. You could almost reverse it for Canada - where any hint of extreme (for Canada) conservatism or religion sends voters into the arms of the Liberals. Here we essentially don't have an effective opposition - the best they could cobble together (against a fractured and weak governing party that has been governing for more than a decade straight) was a minority government. Personally, I want the Conservatives to move slightly farther left, drop a couple of loonies they have, and actually win (at least in a minority situation - we need a housecleaning in Parliament)

Also, I think Bush Jr. and the current Congress will redefine whether "big government" is solely the domain of liberals. Bush seems to be promoting Republican "big government" - interesting to see what the fiscal conservatives do. If the Dems can offer up a fiscal conservative (while they seem to be an endangered species in the US, those that have survived cross party lines), part of the Republican base could splinter.

[Perinquus]

There you go again, doing exactly as I said you are doing. Soft on crime, big government, religion? These are nothing but stereotypes created by the Republicans and it is something you've totally fallen for. No one is "soft" on crime, or that there isn't religious liberals, or for bigger government for the sake of bigger government. That's the problem, these labels. Get rid of them and you'll see that most Americans are for bigger government when it comes to health care, military, and social security, and the rest is self evident. I'll say it again. Everyone is for liberalism, unless it's called liberialism. The rest is just Republican propaganda.

Hogwash.

It is not "Republican propaganda" that the ACLU is seen as championing the rights of the accused at the expense of the innocent. When they oppose the deportation of illegal aliens they are not only shielding lawbreakers, they are championing a cause that most Americans not only do not sympathize with, most Americans think this is ludicrous. Want an example? In March 2003, the ACLU protested after the Justice Department acknowledged that FBI and Homeland Security agents were targeting and rounding up illegal Iraqi immigrants they consider dangerous. In response to the government’s crackdown on illegal Iraqis in Illinois, the ACLU quickly mobilized a legal team and opened a legal hotline to offer them free “advice” on how to avoid deportation.

Well excuse me, but what's wrong with rounding up and deporting illegal aliens? As far as I can see, the only thing wrong with this scenario is that specifically Iraqi illegal aliens, as opposed to all illegal aliens were being rounded up and deported. Most Americans agree with me on this. When the ACLU champions causes like this, they are setting themselves dead against what most Americans regard as simple common sense.

This is not Republican propaganda, this is just the ACLU doing what it does, and the American people not liking it.

It is simply not a true statement that "no one is 'soft on crime'". The outcry against the 3 strikes law I mentioned is a real example, and the outcry came from the left side of the political spectrum. I had a debate with my father's priest (who is very, very liberal) on this exact issue. He was very opposed to strict punishment, and favored a "rehabilitative method" of dealing with them. The mountains of evidence I can cite to show that punishment reduces crime and rehabilitation doesn't didn't make an impression on him. His argument was all made up of slogand like "an eye for an eye leaves us all blind". But he really was "soft on crime". Don't tell me there are no people like this, because that is simply not true.

Nearly all stereotypes have at least some basis in fact. Minority crime, welfare abuse, white racists, crooked lawyers, dishonest televangelists are all stereotypes. But minority crime is a problem, welfare abuses occur, white racists exist, crooked lawyers are out there, and dishonest televangelists are real. Soft on crime liberals are another stereotype, and like the above examples, this one has a basis in reality. Maybe the actual behavior of the exemplar in question is not as bad as the stereotypes portray, but something got that stereotype embedded in the popular consciousness; it didn't just spring into being, like Athena emerging from the forehead of Zeus. You talk of what would happen if we "get rid" of these "labels". As well to talk of what would happen if pigs grew wings. Correct the factual basis before trying to "educate" society.

[Perinquus]

Interesting read. You could almost reverse it for Canada - where any hint of extreme (for Canada) conservatism or religion sends voters into the arms of the Liberals. Here we essentially don't have an effective opposition - the best they could cobble together (against a fractured and weak governing party that has been governing for more than a decade straight) was a minority government. Personally, I want the Conservatives to move slightly farther left, drop a couple of loonies they have, and actually win (at least in a minority situation - we need a housecleaning in Parliament)

This is exactly why I don't want effective Demoratic opposition to the GOP to disappear completely. When a party governs too long you get complacency, arrogance, cronyism, corruption, and a host of other ills. They're always present to a degree anyway, that's just the nature of things. But when one party stays on top too long, it makes it worse.

Also, I think Bush Jr. and the current Congress will redefine whether "big government" is solely the domain of liberals. Bush seems to be promoting Republican "big government" - interesting to see what the fiscal conservatives do. If the Dems can offer up a fiscal conservative (while they seem to be an endangered species in the US, those that have survived cross party lines), part of the Republican base could splinter.

All too true, I fear. The Bush administration spends way too recklessly. Tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but they must be accompanied by restraint in spending. Bush has actually pissed off his base a lot with his spending, with his stance on illegal immigration, and with a few other issues, but since the alternative (Kerry) would have been even worse as far as conservatives were concerned, they turned out for him on election day anyway. But sooner or later, if that sort of thing keeps up, the likelihood that the Republicans might splinter may grow near to becoming a reality.

[Elfdart]

The Dems should take a few pages from the GOP's book.

1) When Clinton trounced Bush I and the Democrats held both houses, did Republicans "soul-search" (ludicrous term), rethink their positions, or compromise with the new administration? FUCK NO!

What did they do? They obstructed everything they could muster 41 votes to stop in the Senate. They shreiked at every opportunity about Whitewater, demanding investigations into everything from Vince Foster's suicide to Waco to Clinton's haircut. The fact that they were in the minority didn't deter them. They accused the Clintons of everything from devil worship to drug dealing to murder. No accusation was too slanderous or outrageous. When Clinton's flacks went on TV or radio to advocate his positions, the Republican response was "Bill is a rapist and Hillary killed Vince Foster after fucking him!"

2) Republicans realized that because the GOP tranformed itself from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of John Wilkes Booth, they could at best get @10% of the black vote. Indians and other minorities were also overwhelmingly anti-GOP. So not only does the Republic Party not even bother with trying to court these voters, they do everything they possibly can (legal or illegal) to keep them from voting.

So, Democrats who are invited on TV or radio should use the opportunity to vilify Bush and the GOP with the most inflammatory language possible -even if it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Democrats should demand investigations of everything in the administration -no matter how trivial. They should even introduce bills of impeachment against officials in the Bush regime.

Instead of trying to court rednecks and bible-thumpers (whom the GOP will NEVER be outbid for), Democrats should use some of the same tactics used to suppress the votes of blacks to keep peckerwoods away from the polls. Maybe they could print flyers for redneck neighborhoods that read:

"If you have sexual fantasies for your sister or wore a mullet after 1989, you are not eligible to vote and neither is the inbred fundamentalist cretin next to you. In fact, you should stop him from voting, too."

They have nothing to lose. Someone who is not willing -eager!- to see the economy go into the toilet, to see Social Security destroyed, see the environment raped, and another 1000 soldiers killed in the desert as long as fags can't marry; isn't going to be persuaded by silly things like reason, logic or facts. So fuck 'em.

[Perinquus]

Rant...

[Hamel]

The Dems should take a few pages from the GOP's book.

1) When Clinton trounced Bush I and the Democrats held both houses, did Republicans "soul-search" (ludicrous term), rethink their positions, or compromise with the new administration? FUCK NO!

What did they do? They obstructed everything they could muster 41 votes to stop in the Senate. They shreiked at every opportunity about Whitewater, demanding investigations into everything from Vince Foster's suicide to Waco to Clinton's haircut. The fact that they were in the minority didn't deter them. They accused the Clintons of everything from devil worship to drug dealing to murder. No accusation was too slanderous or outrageous. When Clinton's flacks went on TV or radio to advocate his positions, the Republican response was "Bill is a rapist and Hillary killed Vince Foster after fucking him!"

2) Republicans realized that because the GOP tranformed itself from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of John Wilkes Booth, they could at best get @10% of the black vote. Indians and other minorities were also overwhelmingly anti-GOP. So not only does the Republic Party not even bother with trying to court these voters, they do everything they possibly can (legal or illegal) to keep them from voting.

So, Democrats who are invited on TV or radio should use the opportunity to vilify Bush and the GOP with the most inflammatory language possible -even if it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Democrats should demand investigations of everything in the administration -no matter how trivial. They should even introduce bills of impeachment against officials in the Bush regime.

Instead of trying to court rednecks and bible-thumpers (whom the GOP will NEVER be outbid for), Democrats should use some of the same tactics used to suppress the votes of blacks to keep peckerwoods away from the polls. Maybe they could print flyers for redneck neighborhoods that read:

"If you have sexual fantasies for your sister or wore a mullet after 1989, you are not eligible to vote and neither is the inbred fundamentalist cretin next to you. In fact, you should stop him from voting, too."

They have nothing to lose. Someone who is not willing -eager!- to see the economy go into the toilet, to see Social Security destroyed, see the environment raped, and another 1000 soldiers killed in the desert as long as fags can't marry; isn't going to be persuaded by silly things like reason, logic or facts. So fuck 'em.

Co-signed.

[frigidmagi]

What needs to be done is simple. The Moderates need to be torn away from the Republician party. Doing what the Republicians did during the Clinton years is not an option for them, they are structurally unable to do it.

They need to get out there and grab has many center votes has possible. Otherwise they will die has a viable party.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Elfdart sounds like one of the foaming minions at DU.

[Perinquus]

Elfdart sounds like one of the foaming minions at DU.

You noticed that too, did you?

[frigidmagi]

Elfdart sounds like one of the foaming minions at DU

You mean he isn't? I thought for sure he was a part of that.

[Elfdart]

Elfdart sounds like one of the foaming minions at DU

You mean he isn't? I thought for sure he was a part of that.

I'm working on it.

[tharkûn]

snip rant

I see you are fond of sepuku.

First let's cut out some obvious crap. The Republicans DO court minority votes, did you miss it when Bush practically fellated the Cubano vote in Florida? Bush goes after hispanics in general by targeting their Roman Catholic values. Hell who had the first minority secretary of state and who appointed the first hispanic to the SCOTUS? The difference between the reps and the dems is that the dems go directly after minorities with "minority issues"; and piss off people who think affirmative action is reverse racism. The republicans keep their ethnic whoring more subtle in general and go after their values rather than socio-economic policy.

The reason the republicans could pull their crap a decade ago is because the democratic party was in an unteneble position. The dems had a big tent that was in collapse, it was becoming increasingly hard to keep the Reagan democrats and the liberal democrats in the same tent. The more pressure the dems were put under, the greater the strain would show between the conservative and liberal wings of the party. If you want to try that today, good bloody luck. The conservative party starts with an advantage - 60% of americans self-identify as conservative of one stripe or another; further the republican base appears quite damn solid - the religious right, the business right, and the hawks are a quite cozy camp with loads of overlap. Even Pat Buchannon has made some semblence of peace inside the GOP tent.

Who do you intend to drive out of the GOP fold? The fundy vote? The trickle-down economicists? The nuke-the-terrorist vote?

If you want to divide the repulican base you need to have some type of wedge: become the fiscally conservative party and start bedding wallstreet, pick up the cold-dead hands mantra and whore the NRA, or every time the republicans introduce a defense or terrorism bill put forth amendments to make it stronger and more hawkish.

1994 happened because the GOP saw that the democratic bedrock was fractured and they just sledgehammered away at it until it cracked. It wasn't about villifying the democratic establishment for the sake of heaping vitoral, it was done in a cold and calculated manner to split off the Reagan democrats. Villifying Bush is useless, he won't be up reelection nor does Cheney plan to run - in 2008 the GOP may be putting forth Rudy, Voinovich, Frist, or even somebody like Rice ... going after the man is only useful when the opponent is directly tied to the man.

If the democrats are serious about controlling their own destinies they need to expand the base and neutralize at least a portion of the republican base. As long as they keep the republican base vigoriously united against them they are doomed to waiting for the republicans to blow it bigtime - you can almost always position yourself to divide the moderates up. Given their lackluster performance when they had all the material for a curbstomping ... going leftward and obstructionist will only serve to unite and energize the republican base and risks their appeal with moderates.

[Master of Ossus]

In the more immediate future, who will be the Democrats' Senate Minority Leader, with Daschle now out of work?

[frigidmagi]

Please Dear and Merciful God not Hillary, the one thing certain to keep them down, not her...

[Patrick Degan]

The problem is that the democrats do not seem to learn from history. Every time they run a very liberal candidate for president they lose. McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88, Gore in '00 (perhaps the least liberal of the bunch), and now Kerry in '04. The only two Democratic presidents of the last three decades were the ones not seen as being very liberal. Carter was seen as a moderate, and as a Washington outsider (which made him look good in the aftermath of Watergate, and of Ford's pardon of Nixon). Clinton also ran as a moderate, "new Democrat". This pattern ought to be obvious to Democrats, but they just don't seem to get it. Instead, when they lose, rather than get back to the center - the course which has provided them with their only successes - they instead go further to the left. Hubert Humphrey was defeated by Nixon in 1968, and in 1972, the Democrats responded with a more liberal candidate than Humphrey was: McGovern. After Carter lost in 1980, they should have gotten another moderate; instead they ran the more liberal Mondale. And when he lost, they ran the still more liberal Dukakis. When Gore lost in 2000, they once again chose to run a more liberal candidate than his predecessor. And once again they lost.

I'm sorry, but your analysis here is flawed. Hubert Humphrey lost because he was Lyndon Johnson's VP, and LBJ had been so totally discredited by the Vietnam war that Humphrey had no chance —Tar Baby Syndrome.

McGovern lost in '72 in part because his one running mate was driven off the ticket when revelations of his previous nervous breakdown came to light (and back then, that was a career-killer) and of course also due to the ultimately-revealed criminality of CREEP, which brought about Nixon's downfall.

Mondale suffered by association with the then-discredited presidency of Jimmy Carter. It didn't help that helooked as if he had been essentially bullied into picking Geraldine Ferraro as his running-mate by the DNC machine, nor that he had what humourist Mark Russell described as "Norwegian charisma" (falling somewhere between that of a Presbyterian minister and a tree).

Dukakis... well, he simply was an idiot. He was dead the moment he made his debut on national TV tank-racing.

And I hate to have to remind you of this, but Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, and we all know about the shennanigans in Florida which have been debated to death.

Kerry did not lose because he was "too liberal". He lost because he ran an incompetent campaign —almost Dukakis-level incompetent— and because he didn't present himself as anything much beyond being the Un-Bush. He lost because Democrats apparently still don't understand that they're in a knife-fight and continue to insist on playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules. You could almost see Kerry's defeat well in advance when he let a month's organised slanders against him go unanswered, and the only reason he continued to be competitive at all was because of the manifest shortcomings of his opponnent. Bush Sr. would have disposed of Kerry on Labour Day. Likewise, Bill Clinton would have easily mopped the floor with Bush Jr. This race came down to the more incompetent campaigner losing, and in this case it was Kerry. It also came down to which campaigner was better at playing Alpha-male, which humans still respond to on an instinctive level, and Kerry wasn't up to the game —and even as it was Bush Jr. fucked it up; just not fatally so.

The Fortunate Son came up lucky once again. Against a strong and saavy challenger, Bush wouldn't have stood a chance in hell in this race.

[Elfdart]

I was hoping for a real firebreather like Tom Harkin. He knows he'll never be President, so he's free to attack constantly and be his usual obnoxious self.

[Rogue 9]

The Dems should take a few pages from the GOP's book.

1) When Clinton trounced Bush I and the Democrats held both houses, did Republicans "soul-search" (ludicrous term), rethink their positions, or compromise with the new administration? FUCK NO!

What did they do? They obstructed everything they could muster 41 votes to stop in the Senate. They shreiked at every opportunity about Whitewater, demanding investigations into everything from Vince Foster's suicide to Waco to Clinton's haircut. The fact that they were in the minority didn't deter them. They accused the Clintons of everything from devil worship to drug dealing to murder. No accusation was too slanderous or outrageous. When Clinton's flacks went on TV or radio to advocate his positions, the Republican response was "Bill is a rapist and Hillary killed Vince Foster after fucking him!"

2) Republicans realized that because the GOP tranformed itself from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of John Wilkes Booth, they could at best get @10% of the black vote. Indians and other minorities were also overwhelmingly anti-GOP. So not only does the Republic Party not even bother with trying to court these voters, they do everything they possibly can (legal or illegal) to keep them from voting.

So, Democrats who are invited on TV or radio should use the opportunity to vilify Bush and the GOP with the most inflammatory language possible -even if it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. Democrats should demand investigations of everything in the administration -no matter how trivial. They should even introduce bills of impeachment against officials in the Bush regime.

Instead of trying to court rednecks and bible-thumpers (whom the GOP will NEVER be outbid for), Democrats should use some of the same tactics used to suppress the votes of blacks to keep peckerwoods away from the polls. Maybe they could print flyers for redneck neighborhoods that read:

"If you have sexual fantasies for your sister or wore a mullet after 1989, you are not eligible to vote and neither is the inbred fundamentalist cretin next to you. In fact, you should stop him from voting, too."

They have nothing to lose. Someone who is not willing -eager!- to see the economy go into the toilet, to see Social Security destroyed, see the environment raped, and another 1000 soldiers killed in the desert as long as fags can't marry; isn't going to be persuaded by silly things like reason, logic or facts. So fuck 'em.

Co-signed.

Objection, calls for a basic change in the character of the Democratic Party. Objection, calls for unethical behavior. I could keep objecting for a while, but those will do to start with.

[Joe]

In the more immediate future, who will be the Democrats' Senate Minority Leader, with Daschle now out of work?

I've heard Harry Reid's name thrown around for the job, as well as Chris Dodd's. Put Chris Dodd in the position and you'll have the most pro-business Senate, ever.

[The Dark]

In the more immediate future, who will be the Democrats' Senate Minority Leader, with Daschle now out of work?

I've heard Harry Reid's name thrown around for the job, as well as Chris Dodd's. Put Chris Dodd in the position and you'll have the most pro-business Senate, ever.

I hope not. We're already failing to enforce the anti-trust laws that exist on the books. The FTC is the weakest it has been since the Great Depression (this is not a crack on Bush Jr.'s economic policies; please continue reading before attacking). It has been that weak since Reagan took office and began summarily dismissing lawsuits left and right, and has remained weak through Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. While the bottom 90% of the population has seen their real income decline over the last 30 years, the real income of the top 10% has more than doubled. We don't need to give any more money to big business; we're already robbing the poor to give to the rich.

[Perinquus]

I'm sorry, but your analysis here is flawed. Hubert Humphrey lost because he was Lyndon Johnson's VP, and LBJ had been so totally discredited by the Vietnam war that Humphrey had no chance —Tar Baby Syndrome.

I don't think my analysis was flawed. I do think you didn't read it carefully enough. For starters, I never said Humphrey lost because he was too liberal. You may note that I pointed to McGovern as the start of this trend. I referred to Humphrey only to note that in McGovern, the Democrats chose a more liberal politician than Humphrey was to run next time around.

McGovern lost in '72 in part because his one running mate was driven off the ticket when revelations of his previous nervous breakdown came to light (and back then, that was a career-killer) and of course also due to the ultimately-revealed criminality of CREEP, which brought about Nixon's downfall.

McGovern's VP candidate was a factor, but CREEP was far less of one. CREEP's actions can't explain the massive landslide. McGovern carried one state, for pete's sake. To this day it remains the biggest landslide victory in presidential history. CREEP couldn't magically engineer this popular disenchantment with McGovern, and his VP candidate can't explain it either. The VP doesn't have that much to do with it, as most American's are aware of what a small role the VP's job is.

Mondale suffered by association with the then-discredited presidency of Jimmy Carter. It didn't help that helooked as if he had been essentially bullied into picking Geraldine Ferraro as his running-mate by the DNC machine, nor that he had what humourist Mark Russell described as "Norwegian charisma" (falling somewhere between that of a Presbyterian minister and a tree).

All true, but again, even that doesn't fully explain it. Reagan was a popular president. But even then he was portrayed as alternately as senile old fool and a warmonger. I remember the Reagan years, and I remember how cordially Reagan was despised by his political opponents. And Reagan was still able to pull off a massive landslide.

Dukakis... well, he simply was an idiot. He was dead the moment he made his debut on national TV tank-racing.

Again, there's more to it than that. Think for a moment. What's the nearest thing to Dukakis' tank ride you can think of in the past couple of decades? A politician posturing and putting on a military image... This one's easy: George W. Bush in a navy flight suit grinning from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Yet Bush's military posturing didn't result in his political destruction the way Dukakis' tank ride did. Why? Because more than just the image is needed. What Dukakis' tank ride did was make him look silly and phony, because as a liberal (another part of the liberal reputation is being soft on defense), and as one who had opposed military spending, he was seen as a dove. He looked to people like a dove pathetically pretending to be a hawk in order to grab votes. It didn't fool anybody, and it smacked of desperation. But the key point is that if Dukakis had not been perceived as a liberal dove, the photos of him in the tank would not have had that effect. Again, it was his liberal image that hurt him. Post-Vietnam liberals, accurately or not, have a deeply imbedded image as anti-war doves to live down, so to see one dressed up, and pretending to be a warrior just revolted most people with its phoniness. Bush didn't have that dovish reputation to live down, so the image of him in warrior garb didn't have the same destructive effects.

And I hate to have to remind you of this, but Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, and we all know about the shennanigans in Florida which have been debated to death.

Again, go back and reread my post. You will see I did not mention Gore as being quite so much a part of this trend. I said:

Every time they run a very liberal candidate for president they lose. McGovern in '72, Mondale in '84, Dukakis in '88, Gore in '00 (perhaps the least liberal of the bunch), and now Kerry in '04. The only two Democratic presidents of the last three decades were the ones not seen as being very liberal.

Gore didn't portray himself as being as much of a moderate as Clinton did, (and he also lacked Clinton's charisma) and as close as the election was, I think that if he had, he'd have won.

Kerry did not lose because he was "too liberal". He lost because he ran an incompetent campaign —almost Dukakis-level incompetent— and because he didn't present himself as anything much beyond being the Un-Bush.

He certainly ran an incompetent campaign, but I still maintain his liberal image hurt him. Just as Dukakis didn't fool anyone pretending to be the warrior he wasn't, Kerry didn't fool anyone either. And he had his own photo op misteps. A presidential candidate who comes off the campaign trail one time in order to cast a vote - a vote against letting the Clinton "Assault Weapons Ban" expire - and then dresses up in hunting attire and gets photographed carrying a shotgun, isn't fooling anyone into thinking he's pro-Second Amendment. Another part of the liberal reputation is being very much in favor of gun control. Kerry not only gets tarred with this brush just for being a liberal, his voting record backs it up. Once again, his liberalism works against him with the voters.

He lost because Democrats apparently still don't understand that they're in a knife-fight and continue to insist on playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Oh come on. Kerry did not exactly shy away from negative campaigning. His whole campaign was basically negative. It was - as you yourself remarked - based around him not being Bush more than it was him being for anything. The whole thing was basically an attack on the president. And things like Kerry's references to Cheney's daughter were, rightly or wrongly, seen as low blows. He accused the president of "licensing a creed of greed", and for conducting the most arrogant and inept foreign policy in history (I'm not entirely in disagreement with him here, but you certainly can't say he's not criticizing the president with remarks like this).

You could almost see Kerry's defeat well in advance when he let a month's organised slanders against him go unanswered, and the only reason he continued to be competitive at all was because of the manifest shortcomings of his opponnent. Bush Sr. would have disposed of Kerry on Labour Day. Likewise, Bill Clinton would have easily mopped the floor with Bush Jr. This race came down to the more incompetent campaigner losing, and in this case it was Kerry.

Well, I can't actually disagree with you here. They were both pretty horrible. It's bad when the politicians of both parties are such characterless non-entities. But here too, I think that Kerry's liberal image hurt him. With an opponent who not only has as little charisma as Bush does, PLUS a record that has galvanized so many people so firmly against him, Bush still won.

It also came down to which campaigner was better at playing Alpha-male, which humans still respond to on an instinctive level, and Kerry wasn't up to the game —and even as it was Bush Jr. fucked it up; just not fatally so.

The Fortunate Son came up lucky once again. Against a strong and saavy challenger, Bush wouldn't have stood a chance in hell in this race.

I agree, more or less. The key difference is, I think a strong and savvy challenger would have played down his more liberal tendencies the way Clinton did. Kerry didn't. (Though in fairness, I don't think he could have. Clinton had the charisma to play it down without seeming phony, and he was from the southern wing of the Democratic party, rather than the eastern wing, which is an advantage in this gambit since southern Democrats are seen generally as being less liberal than New England ones.)

[MKSheppard]

Welcome back from mourning, Elfpenis. Shouldn't you be curled up in a fetal ball about now?

[HemlockGrey]

Frankly, I think the Dems need someone like Ed Rendall to make a run for the White House.

[theski]

Welcome back from mourning, Elfpenis. Shouldn't you be curled up in a fetal ball about now?

Just like the rest from DU and P4C or involved in eating their young or in the Classic Dem "Circular Firing Squad"