November 4, 2004
By John Belisarius
That’s right, they won.
And they won big.
No, it’s not just that Dems came within 3% of winning a very tough election. That alone is a very real and important accomplishment, but it’s not the key.
The real point is that if the Democrats are serious about the `long-tem` goal of building a broad and enduring democratic majority then getting 51% of the vote is not always the right test of a particular campaign’s success. Sometimes you have to lose an election to build the foundation for later victory.
Just ask the Conservative Republicans. They can recite you this lesson by heart. In every glowing account they write of their gradual rise to power they always point to Barry Goldwater’s unsuccessful 1964 campaign and Ronald Reagan’s 1976 bid for the Presidency (which did not get beyond the Republican primaries) as the pivotal campaigns that laid the foundations for all their subsequent victories.
And when you look at it from this point of view, the true scope, the genuinely impressive magnitude of the Democrats’ success this year can be expressed in a single sentence: In 2004 the Dems accomplished in 8 months what it took the `Goldwater-Reagan` conservative movement over a decade to achieve.
Last December, the Democratic party was internally divided, unsure about its message, uncertain how to talk about war and foreign affairs, financially dependent on donations from corporations and affluent donors and only beginning to build a `grass-roots` voter mobilization campaign. There was great anger and energy among the party’s core supporters, but it seemed extremely unlikely that the party as a whole would be able to agree upon a message, unite around a candidate and mount a serious challenge to a personally popular wartime president whose approval ratings hovered close to 60%.
Yet, by the time John Kerry addressed the Democratic convention in July, he was leading a political party that had become firmly united, was supported by new and powerful `grass-roots` mechanisms for fund raising and internet organizing (pioneered by Howard Dean and his supporters) and which was building a new voter mobilization network that was reconnecting the party with its political base.
Kerry and Edwards then provided the Democratic Party with a politically viable `moderate-progressive` message - one that had been eluding the party for years. In foreign affairs it combined basic patriotism and support for the troops with brutally sharp and honest criticism of the Administration’s disastrous foreign policy. In domestic affairs, it combined a cautious but sincere economic populism with greater fiscal responsibility then the Republican administration.
This political platform was sufficiently compelling to convince a large majority of those who watched the presidential debates that Kerry, not Bush, had been the victor of all three exchanges and to win him the support of a substantial majority of moderate and independent voters as well as his Democratic base.
Had the 2004 campaign halted at this point, the `Kerry-Edwards` campaign would have already accomplished more then the `Goldwater-Reagan` Republicans did from 1964 to 1976, but the campaign then pushed on to come within 3% of victory and a solid majority.
Sure, it was disappointing not to be able to snag those last few points, and the disappointment was compounded by the widespread feeling of optimism that lasted until the very last moments of election night.
But there is a vast difference between a vibrant and compelling campaign that doesn’t quite make it over the top and a campaign that is fundamentally a failure. The Dems have had more then a few of the latter kind, but 2004 wasn’t one of them.
“But we did worse then we did in 2000” people say, “We’re going backward, not forward”.
Nonsense. The truth is that in presidential elections the Democrats have basically been a minority party since 1968, when George Wallace cut deeply into the Dems `blue-collar` support in Michigan and the other industrial states as well as the South. In 1972, when the Republicans played the “Real Majority” vs. the “Elitists” game against the Dems for the first time, Nixon got 60% of the vote to McGovern’s 37%. Carter won a narrow victory in 1976 but look at the record since then.
1980 Jimmy Carter 41% vs. Reagan+Anderson 57%
1984 Walter Mondale 41% vs. Reagan 59%
1988 Michael Dukakis 46% vs. Bush Sr. 53%
1992 Bill Clinton 43% vs. Bush+Perot 56%
Democrats never got anywhere even close to 50% of the vote until Clinton’s reelection campaign in 1996 (Clinton 49%, Dole/Perot 49%) and Gore’s 2000 run (Gore 48%, Bush 48%).
But in both of these latter campaigns the Democrats were running as incumbents or former `Vice-Presidents`, not as challengers. 2004 was the first time a Democrat ran as a challenger in more then a decade and Kerry faced a President who had, at the outset, high approval ratings, the patriotic fervor of an apparently successful war behind him, the overt support of one of the major TV networks, and the most extensive `grass-roots` voter mobilization the Republican Party had ever fielded.
And yet Kerry and Edwards came closer to unseating their opponent and closer to winning 50% of the vote then had any Democratic challengers in the last three decades.
A campaign like this simply can’t be considered a failure even by narrow electoral standards and the intangible benefits make it even less so. This political campaign made rank and file Democrats from every section of the party feel proud to be Democrats in a way they have not felt in decades. It displayed Democratic candidates who were decent, thoughtful and honorable men and offered a set of policies and positions that a wide range of Americans could accept as a solid framework and point of departure for the future. It showcased a political party that was systematically building the foundations for its future victory.
So shake off the disappointment and feel the sense of pride and accomplishment you deserve to feel instead.
The Dems lost an election. OK, it happens.
But the Dems haven’t been defeated, not at all.
They’ve just been slowed down.
http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblo...m/donkeyrising/
Full Version: The Democrats Didn’t Lose in this Election, They Won
Sorry Ellliot, but the Democrats didn't win, they lost big.
They lost the presidency and got swamped in the congress. Republicans control a majority of statehouses and state legislatures. John Kerry did not fix the party. I understand that you need party building cycles, but that is not what this was. They were going for the win, they should have had it, but they missed it.
The Democratic party is still internally divided. It was never `unified-it` was a facade. It is unsure of its message now and has been for a while. John Kerry should not have been asking, "what was my message?"
I still don't think the party knows how to talk about foreign `affairs-it` seems to be letting the antiwar wing be quite vocal while leaving people like me hanging. John Kerry tried to straddle it, believing in the antiwar cause, yet hoping to remain electable.
The Democrats are lucky that the news coverage of Iraq worsened as the election drew nearer. That made it appear close.
This was a devastating election for Democrats, and we have work to do. We shouldn't sit back and enjoy what happened.
They lost the presidency and got swamped in the congress. Republicans control a majority of statehouses and state legislatures. John Kerry did not fix the party. I understand that you need party building cycles, but that is not what this was. They were going for the win, they should have had it, but they missed it.
The Democratic party is still internally divided. It was never `unified-it` was a facade. It is unsure of its message now and has been for a while. John Kerry should not have been asking, "what was my message?"
I still don't think the party knows how to talk about foreign `affairs-it` seems to be letting the antiwar wing be quite vocal while leaving people like me hanging. John Kerry tried to straddle it, believing in the antiwar cause, yet hoping to remain electable.
The Democrats are lucky that the news coverage of Iraq worsened as the election drew nearer. That made it appear close.
This was a devastating election for Democrats, and we have work to do. We shouldn't sit back and enjoy what happened.
[quote=Tago45]This was a devastating election for Democrats, and we have work to do. We shouldn't sit back and enjoy what happened.[/quote]
Tago, you have joined the Democratic Party?
Tago, you have joined the Democratic Party?
[quote=Alexa][quote=Tago45]This was a devastating election for Democrats, and we have work to do. We shouldn't sit back and enjoy what happened.[/quote]
Tago, you have joined the Democratic Party?[/quote]
Alright Alexa. For those who remember OAC - I think Tago45 is KooKoo KOKO. I guess every site has to have it's trolls. :wink:
Tago, you have joined the Democratic Party?
[/quote]
Alright Alexa. For those who remember OAC - I think Tago45 is KooKoo KOKO. I guess every site has to have it's trolls. :wink:
I was born a Democrat. I was born in Madison, Wisconsin. I don't know if I ever even talked to a Republican until I was a teenager. My name is registered with the Wisconsin Democratic party. I have spent countless hours volunteering for the Democratic `party-helping` candidates for congress, senate, district attorney, governor, state senate, and president.
Part of that included my efforts on behalf of the John Edwards campaign. I handwrote dozens of letters to voters in Iowa, South Carolina, and Minnesota. I spent the week before the Iowa caucuses canvassing in subzero weather. I slept at the YWCA, but I got to meet both John and Elizabeth.
I am a Democrat! John Edwards 2008!
Calling me kookoo is fine, even kind of fun, but I am not a troll!
Part of that included my efforts on behalf of the John Edwards campaign. I handwrote dozens of letters to voters in Iowa, South Carolina, and Minnesota. I spent the week before the Iowa caucuses canvassing in subzero weather. I slept at the YWCA, but I got to meet both John and Elizabeth.
I am a Democrat! John Edwards 2008!
Calling me kookoo is fine, even kind of fun, but I am not a troll!
[quote]Tago - The Democratic party is still internally divided. It was never `unified-it` was a facade. It is unsure of its message now and has been for a while. John Kerry should not have been asking, "what was my message?"[/quote]
IMO, the Dem party is unified - one only has to look at us to prove that point. John Kerry had a good message, just not liberal enough. The Dem party's big problem was leaving their base and trying to move more to the right.
[quote]I still don't think the party knows how to talk about foreign `affairs-it` seems to be letting the antiwar wing be quite vocal while leaving people like me hanging. John Kerry tried to straddle it, believing in the antiwar cause, yet hoping to remain electable.
The Democrats are lucky that the news coverage of Iraq worsened as the election drew nearer. That made it appear close. [/quote]
The antiwar wing made up over 85% of the base. Moderate Repubs also had a majority against the war. However, I do agree Kerry tried to straddle - he should have played to his party base and come out against the war. IMHO, it was made to appear close in order for the Rove strategy to work. I don't think KE lost this election - it was corrupt.
Foreign policy - Kerry has a great foreign policy and seems to be at work even as we speak. Meanwhile, Iraq is the biggest blunder in the history of this country - I believe it will be written in history as worse than Vietnam. Just my 02.
IMO, the Dem party is unified - one only has to look at us to prove that point. John Kerry had a good message, just not liberal enough. The Dem party's big problem was leaving their base and trying to move more to the right.
[quote]I still don't think the party knows how to talk about foreign `affairs-it` seems to be letting the antiwar wing be quite vocal while leaving people like me hanging. John Kerry tried to straddle it, believing in the antiwar cause, yet hoping to remain electable.
The Democrats are lucky that the news coverage of Iraq worsened as the election drew nearer. That made it appear close. [/quote]
The antiwar wing made up over 85% of the base. Moderate Repubs also had a majority against the war. However, I do agree Kerry tried to straddle - he should have played to his party base and come out against the war. IMHO, it was made to appear close in order for the Rove strategy to work. I don't think KE lost this election - it was corrupt.
Foreign policy - Kerry has a great foreign policy and seems to be at work even as we speak. Meanwhile, Iraq is the biggest blunder in the history of this country - I believe it will be written in history as worse than Vietnam. Just my 02.
Tago, you left out a VERY improtant fact in your post - - Madison is probably the HOTBED of liberalism in the Midwest and I am proud of it. (as are you)
I also say that I graduated high school and college from there, participated in 'discussions while marching on State Street and the square and just in general enjoyed the diversity of the area.
I like and enjoy your posts (altho I don't always agree!), so please stay with us and whatever you do, don't let a few tell you you are a troll.
BTW, glad to hear you are a registered Dem!
I also say that I graduated high school and college from there, participated in 'discussions while marching on State Street and the square and just in general enjoyed the diversity of the area.
I like and enjoy your posts (altho I don't always agree!), so please stay with us and whatever you do, don't let a few tell you you are a troll.
BTW, glad to hear you are a registered Dem!
but the Democrats did win but for fraud.
Just as in 2000, just as in 2002, just as will happen in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, until people get fed up and demand the voting machines be removed.
Anybody who believes Bush "won" legitimately is either an ignoramus or a liar.
It doesn't matter what the Democratic Party does in terms of strategy. If the voting machines are rigged, the Republicans will ALWAYS "win" elections.
They have to resort to outright fraud because most people do NOT support their extremist, fascistic agenda.
Recognizing that our system of democracy doesn't work anymore, and hasn't since 1998, is half the problem.
A lot of people are in a lot of denial.
Just as in 2000, just as in 2002, just as will happen in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, until people get fed up and demand the voting machines be removed.
Anybody who believes Bush "won" legitimately is either an ignoramus or a liar.
It doesn't matter what the Democratic Party does in terms of strategy. If the voting machines are rigged, the Republicans will ALWAYS "win" elections.
They have to resort to outright fraud because most people do NOT support their extremist, fascistic agenda.
Recognizing that our system of democracy doesn't work anymore, and hasn't since 1998, is half the problem.
A lot of people are in a lot of denial.
I have to agree with Tago on some of his points on this one - -
First, I don't think Kerry was a good pick from the get go. However, once he became the candidate, I did what all of us did and that was to rally around him (yes it helped he made the right choice for VP!).
Kerry should have come out swinging on the Swift boat attack ads and countered with some slime of his own. We all know Bush is not lacking in what could have been very detrimental facts (like when the OBL tape was released - - where the hell was the sound byte of Bush saying he just didn't think about OBL anymore).
Additionally when they laid out the flip flopper stuff - the dems could have and should have had a field day with that one and all the Bush misappropisms. Silence. BIG MISSED OPPORTUNITY! (and again, if Brazile, Rajun cajun and Begala were so good, they would have jumped on this and INSISTED that Mary whats her nose campaign mgr answer it)
Kerry should have played his war experiences as just that - WAR...and then asked the country if they wanted a reservist with no experience except paper pushing (again at Bush's own admission) to run a war. Whether it was an unjust war or not was not the issue. It was of leadership or lack of.
Kerry had way too much baggage at the outset. With a 20 year record in the Senate, he was ripe for picking off of the tree. Please don't spout off about experience either. JRE would have been a much 'safer' choice than Kerry just based on that. JRE making a wise choice for VP could have quelled a lot of discussion about his experience.
And yes, it IS easier to be a Monday morning quaterback, but I can honestly say that this is all stuff I had posted previously.
Now, one cna only hope someone stands tomorrow and starts the redefinition of this country and our beloved democratic party.
First, I don't think Kerry was a good pick from the get go. However, once he became the candidate, I did what all of us did and that was to rally around him (yes it helped he made the right choice for VP!).
Kerry should have come out swinging on the Swift boat attack ads and countered with some slime of his own. We all know Bush is not lacking in what could have been very detrimental facts (like when the OBL tape was released - - where the hell was the sound byte of Bush saying he just didn't think about OBL anymore).
Additionally when they laid out the flip flopper stuff - the dems could have and should have had a field day with that one and all the Bush misappropisms. Silence. BIG MISSED OPPORTUNITY! (and again, if Brazile, Rajun cajun and Begala were so good, they would have jumped on this and INSISTED that Mary whats her nose campaign mgr answer it)
Kerry should have played his war experiences as just that - WAR...and then asked the country if they wanted a reservist with no experience except paper pushing (again at Bush's own admission) to run a war. Whether it was an unjust war or not was not the issue. It was of leadership or lack of.
Kerry had way too much baggage at the outset. With a 20 year record in the Senate, he was ripe for picking off of the tree. Please don't spout off about experience either. JRE would have been a much 'safer' choice than Kerry just based on that. JRE making a wise choice for VP could have quelled a lot of discussion about his experience.
And yes, it IS easier to be a Monday morning quaterback, but I can honestly say that this is all stuff I had posted previously.
Now, one cna only hope someone stands tomorrow and starts the redefinition of this country and our beloved democratic party.
[quote=SusanNunes]but the Democrats did win but for fraud.
Just as in 2000, just as in 2002, just as will happen in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, until people get fed up and demand the voting machines be removed.
Anybody who believes Bush "won" legitimately is either an ignoramus or a liar.
It doesn't matter what the Democratic Party does in terms of strategy. If the voting machines are rigged, the Republicans will ALWAYS "win" elections.
They have to resort to outright fraud because most people do NOT support their extremist, fascistic agenda.
Recognizing that our system of democracy doesn't work anymore, and hasn't since 1998, is half the problem.
A lot of people are in a lot of denial.[/quote]
I agree with this 100%. Why else would Bill Frist try to change the rules and take away the filibuster, if he and the other Republicans don't believe they will have a Republican controlled senate, and the majority, for a long time to come? He does not even consider that the Republicans could ever again be in the minority, or else he would not be trying to go nuclear.
They're cheaters, for sure, cheating the American people, and this needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW or we are in for a lot of hurt.
Just as in 2000, just as in 2002, just as will happen in 2006, 2008, 2010, and 2012, until people get fed up and demand the voting machines be removed.
Anybody who believes Bush "won" legitimately is either an ignoramus or a liar.
It doesn't matter what the Democratic Party does in terms of strategy. If the voting machines are rigged, the Republicans will ALWAYS "win" elections.
They have to resort to outright fraud because most people do NOT support their extremist, fascistic agenda.
Recognizing that our system of democracy doesn't work anymore, and hasn't since 1998, is half the problem.
A lot of people are in a lot of denial.[/quote]
I agree with this 100%. Why else would Bill Frist try to change the rules and take away the filibuster, if he and the other Republicans don't believe they will have a Republican controlled senate, and the majority, for a long time to come? He does not even consider that the Republicans could ever again be in the minority, or else he would not be trying to go nuclear.
They're cheaters, for sure, cheating the American people, and this needs to be addressed RIGHT NOW or we are in for a lot of hurt.
Why yes, Madison is the hotbed of liberalism in the Midwest! I'm glad you like my city! It is a two party `town-Dems` and Greens. It is a little bit `looney-Cesar` Chavez Elementary School was built by `non-union` labor- but I love it.
I am indeed a registered `Dem-I` even voted for the people that my district sent to the convention! I hope to be an Edwards delegate to the 2008 convention.
I just got back from a vacation that took me through the Florida panhandle(red area). A family friend that we visited just wrote to my mom saying that she liked that I was a Republican. I have been freaking out ever since I heard that. I'm not a Republican! It was just a one time thing, I swear!
I'm not sure Kerry made the right choice for VP. Don't get me wrong, Edwards was absolutely the right choice for the presidency, but I think there was a more interesting way Kerry could have gone for his VP. Anthony Zinni. Zinni had better foreign policy credentials and better military credentials than Kerry. He is a former general against the Iraq war, but he doesn't seem `creepy-crazy` like Gen. Clark. I support the war, but a `Kerry-Zinni` ticket would have presented a compelling antiwar ticket.
I always thought it rather odd that Kerry boasted of his foreign policy expertise. His support of Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accord, his support of Clinton's North Korea policy and his plan to give Iran nuclear fuel in case they might want it for "peaceful purposes" all gave me pause. Sen. Kerry could probably discuss at length almost any foreign policy issue. But he has never made much sense to me.
I think Bush is right on the democracy promotion stuff. I think it was wrong to have someone like Kerry, who disagreed(he favored "stability" like Poppy). The party should have nominated someone like Edwards who grasped the importance of democracy promotion even before Bush did. Edwards as candidate came complete with his own "Strategy for Freedom." It should not have been a debate over whether, but over how. Not strategy, but tactics.
I'm kind of uncomfortable with Kerry making this `well-publicized` trip and trying to assert himself in international affairs. I would prefer if he focused on the environment/energy/technology area. I think he could do a lot of good there.
[quote]A lot of people are in a lot of denial.[/quote]
You got that right.
I am indeed a registered `Dem-I` even voted for the people that my district sent to the convention! I hope to be an Edwards delegate to the 2008 convention.
I just got back from a vacation that took me through the Florida panhandle(red area). A family friend that we visited just wrote to my mom saying that she liked that I was a Republican. I have been freaking out ever since I heard that. I'm not a Republican! It was just a one time thing, I swear!
I'm not sure Kerry made the right choice for VP. Don't get me wrong, Edwards was absolutely the right choice for the presidency, but I think there was a more interesting way Kerry could have gone for his VP. Anthony Zinni. Zinni had better foreign policy credentials and better military credentials than Kerry. He is a former general against the Iraq war, but he doesn't seem `creepy-crazy` like Gen. Clark. I support the war, but a `Kerry-Zinni` ticket would have presented a compelling antiwar ticket.
I always thought it rather odd that Kerry boasted of his foreign policy expertise. His support of Yossi Beilin's Geneva Accord, his support of Clinton's North Korea policy and his plan to give Iran nuclear fuel in case they might want it for "peaceful purposes" all gave me pause. Sen. Kerry could probably discuss at length almost any foreign policy issue. But he has never made much sense to me.
I think Bush is right on the democracy promotion stuff. I think it was wrong to have someone like Kerry, who disagreed(he favored "stability" like Poppy). The party should have nominated someone like Edwards who grasped the importance of democracy promotion even before Bush did. Edwards as candidate came complete with his own "Strategy for Freedom." It should not have been a debate over whether, but over how. Not strategy, but tactics.
I'm kind of uncomfortable with Kerry making this `well-publicized` trip and trying to assert himself in international affairs. I would prefer if he focused on the environment/energy/technology area. I think he could do a lot of good there.
[quote]A lot of people are in a lot of denial.[/quote]
You got that right.
[quote]Why yes, Madison is the hotbed of liberalism in the Midwest! I'm glad you like my city! It is a two party `town-Dems` and Greens. It is a little bit `looney-Cesar` Chavez Elementary School was built by `non-union` labor- but I love it.
[/quote]
And yes Tago, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about - my parents were from small towns around Madison (DeForest/Waunakee) and if there is ONE thing they taught me was to LISTEN, GATHER my OWN facts, and then make an informed (albeit sometimes unintelligent :oops: ) decision.
If that makes me a liberal for listening and making my own mind up and not being spoon fed, then so be it, a proud liberal am I!
And tago, it's my city as well...... :wink:
I just wish I could find a job back there again so I could get the hell outta here.
I will say tho, I don't agree with a lot of the rest of your post, but I pm'd you on some of my reasons and feelings on those.
Keep the faith - us diehard free thinking LIBERALS from the Mad Cap City have to stick together! LOL!
Hey, did the square get smaller? Just kidding of course, but it sure seemed like it the last time we were there (August)...or is it just my age showing again? [/quote]
[/quote]
And yes Tago, that is EXACTLY what I am talking about - my parents were from small towns around Madison (DeForest/Waunakee) and if there is ONE thing they taught me was to LISTEN, GATHER my OWN facts, and then make an informed (albeit sometimes unintelligent :oops: ) decision.
If that makes me a liberal for listening and making my own mind up and not being spoon fed, then so be it, a proud liberal am I!
And tago, it's my city as well...... :wink:
I just wish I could find a job back there again so I could get the hell outta here.
I will say tho, I don't agree with a lot of the rest of your post, but I pm'd you on some of my reasons and feelings on those.
Keep the faith - us diehard free thinking LIBERALS from the Mad Cap City have to stick together! LOL!
Hey, did the square get smaller? Just kidding of course, but it sure seemed like it the last time we were there (August)...or is it just my age showing again?
[/quote]
Ok, it is your city too! 
It doesn't matter if you don't agree with my opinions, just that you respect my right to voice them, as I do with everyone else. Yay Mad city!
I don't think the square got `smaller-I` even got lost last time I was there! Couldn't remember where we parked.... Did you get to see the new Overture Center while you were here?
It should be relatively easy to find a job. This `liberal-run` city has one of the fastest growing economies in the country, especially in medical technology. The unemployment rate is about half the national average at 2.7%.
On the other hand, we just got about 8 inches of snow today. I have to go find my `boots-ugh`!
It doesn't matter if you don't agree with my opinions, just that you respect my right to voice them, as I do with everyone else. Yay Mad city!
I don't think the square got `smaller-I` even got lost last time I was there! Couldn't remember where we parked.... Did you get to see the new Overture Center while you were here?
It should be relatively easy to find a job. This `liberal-run` city has one of the fastest growing economies in the country, especially in medical technology. The unemployment rate is about half the national average at 2.7%.
On the other hand, we just got about 8 inches of snow today. I have to go find my `boots-ugh`!
Madison has changed so much over the years...we were at the new convention center on Lake Mendota (may be Monona, I could never keep them straight!..ask me about the Yahara River and VW bugs someday!)
Just as long as they never move Paisan's, I'll be fine.
I respect anyone's opinion and since this is still America (at least for the time being), post away. I like to argue!
Just as long as they never move Paisan's, I'll be fine.
I respect anyone's opinion and since this is still America (at least for the time being), post away. I like to argue!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.