Strategic Blunders

[island911]

Kerry had the money on his side.

Kerry had the Big Media on his side.

So what was his biggest strategic blunder?

. .. not enough Bush-hatered manufactured and sold?

. . . didn't articulate his PLAN enough?

. ...won too many debates?

. . .idealogically bankrupt party affiliation?

. . . too much jealousy of his war heroism?

.. . not convincing enough dead people to vote John Kerry ?

. . . ?

not enough purple hearts?

[Burnin' oil]

Theresa

[Burnin' oil]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
not enough purple hearts?

Nercoron!!

[Aurel]

Being fluent in french may have cost him the presidency...although I would have loved to see that stupid drift between two longtime friendly countries cease, had he been elected.

Aurel

[island911]

Just thought of an "Onion" news headline:

Class-action Lawsuit:
Buyers of Bush-Hatered to Sue for Refund.

[mikester]

He's a Senator - he has little executive experience. Typically those aren't the folks we elect to the presidency. Governors are far more likely and successful candidates.

[Tyson Schmidt]

Simply the wrong candidate. He tried to be everything to everyone. He should,ve picked a platform, and just repeated it over and over again like bush did. In the end fear won.

[island911]

So then; fear of a "dangerous plan". . .or fear of "no plan" ?. . .




He lost to that.

[Tyson Schmidt]

Yup, sad isn't it?

McCain-Schwarzenegger in '08!

[island911]

Okay, here's a new one; (stuff from CBS)

The gays lost it for Kerry.

Their argument was, the evangelicals (sp?) were (are?) so enraged by the recent push of gay marriage, that they came out in droves, to vote against Kerry.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Tyson Schmidt
McCain-Schwarzenegger in '08!

Nope...McCain-Giulliani...now THAT'S the ticket!

Randy

[dd74]

Fear didn't win it. Values won it for Bush. I said earlier that we have become a conservative country - and we have. At best, this is cyclical, though I don't know how long that cycle will last.

As far as fear, war, Iraq - nope. That made very little impact. The exit polls were very unreliable on those terms. In fact, the exit polls were taken for a loop when it came to moral values as the impetus for Bush's win.

Truth is this was Kerry's race to win. He had it all - but to address Glenn's question about strategy, Kerry was a miserable failure on one front; communicating with America. Hindsight being 20-20, what Bush said more in action than words is that you cannot take the non-affluent middle class rural America for naught, and rely only on the democratic so-called "elitists" who live in big cities as a basis of strategy. This is proven via the election map; it looks just like Gore vs. Bush in '00. What does that say? That the Dems learned nothing and have now dropped the ball twice by not doing through Kerry what Clinton was so apt to do well.

The Dems are a hopeless lot these days. They have no sense of the country leaning to the right because their heads are on appeasement of traditional democratic notions. They suffer a huge disconnection.

Big changes will come upon the dems. Here are my thoughts:

1) Clinton may become the new DNC chairman, which will be a big step forward.
2) No more Hollywood B.S. in campaigns - that impressed no one, it seems.
3) Michael Moore won't be listened to as closely - a good thing. He or someone like him might even be squelched in the future.
4) I wholeheartedly doubt the dems will anytime soon pick a Northeasterner to run for president.
5) Conversely, the Dems might get a good 'ol boy sort like Bush, though who in this rash of "boutique liberalism," that person might be, I have no idea.

[fintstone]

I agree DD...all except the '08 candidates....it will be Zell Miller/Barack Obama

[dd74]

Originally posted by fintstone
I agree DD...all except the '08 candidates....it will be Zell Miller/Barack Obama

Zell's a longshot for two reasons - mutual party distrust. But none of that is Zell's fault. In fact, I now see his point of view and discord with the Dems. It's up to the Dems to court him back to their side: a TALL order to say to least.

Barack Obama - too young; not enough experience, no true track record out of Harvard - he has to be astonishing within a four-year period. If I were the GOP, I'd have my eye on Obama, and appoint him to every commission possible to render him a political eunick.

I'd rather think Colin Powell, maybe, could be on a Dem ticket...

One thing's for sure: at the rate things have gone for The Left, you'll never hear "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message..."

[fintstone]

Zell would pull them back to the middle and would be the only way to ever win the South......By 2008, half the black/latino voters will be Republicans...Obama will be necessary to bring them back.

[dd74]

Yeah, but does Zell want to pull the Dems back? He sounded pretty disgusted by them this summer.

A roadblock to him are the mule-headed northeastern and west coast democrats who look at him as a turncoat.

I like your thinking though...

[tabs]

Kerry lost because he couldn't make a decision....and his campaign was in disaray most of the time because of it... Kerry wanted McCain so bad he was wiling to give him VP and Secratary of Defense at the same time...

McCain isn't too popular among Arizona Repblicans..they think he's gone Hollywood on them...He basically beat no one for reelection ...

[cool_chick]

I believe one reason is that people bought the lies and mistruths in the Bush campaign ads.

[Eric 951]

Michael Moore....