The real reason Kerry Lost...?

mike65

With all the hoopla about Iraq/War on Terror it may have escaped the attention of most that maybe the real reason Kerry lost was due to "The Culture Wars" which have become evermore a feature of US political life at all levels.

The USA is now a deeply divided nation, between those who belive that public and private affairs are conducted within the remit of the Almightys' reach and those who want to keep God and his minions on Earth out of thier private lives and out of public policy.

It was'nt by accident that Dick Cheney effcetivly snubed his gay daughter in public via-a-vis gay marraige or that Kerry would'nt condone same. The election of Kerry would'nt have healed the rift but on the other hand he would'nt have made matters any worse.

Bushes re-election will give the Christian right a real boost and when he fills out the Supreme Court vacanices with those of a conservative pursuasion the stage will be set for a type of civil war I feel.


Mike.

seamus

It's an interesting divide that seems to be replicating the world over. Certainly here and in Britain anyway. In general it tends to be heavily populated, urbanised areas, who'll vote for the liberals, and the less densely populated areas that vote for the conservatives. Certainly look at those maps of America, and compare them with Ireland for our last few referenda/elections, and British elections, and there's a remarkably similar pattern.

Where it will lead, who knows? As you say, I don't think Civil War is too far away at all. In the US, there are massive urban centres who have been persistently voting Democratic, and have been enraged by Bush, but aren't enough in numbers to get him out. Perhaps they may think, "Why bother? Why not just ignore Bush altogther and take the direction that we want?". It's going to be an interesting 4 years, definitely.

ixoy

You're quite right. There's a pertinent point to be made about the religious sector of American society. Statistically they're more likely to vote than the general population (90% turnout I think it was) because they're more driven by their belief system, part of their identity, than those who don't have a belief system. Unfortunately they're driven to the party that protects that system, which is conservative or - Republican.

That's the problem Democrats now face. How can you compete with God? How can you woo over and motivate people who are so firmly entrenched in their ideologies? How can you say to this base, "Yeah I know God apparently says gay marriage is wrong but *I* believe.." to get the retort, "Who are you to question God's edicts?" To this end the Democrats have tried to lobby some Christian bases by saying they won't support gay marriages, etc. but the fact is their approach is far less convincing to the adamant Christian than the current Republican administration is.

How can they fix it? I like to focus on the precepts of rationality, logic, and science and apply them as life principles. I think it's important that belief systems don't affect each other. Clearly that's not a view shared by religious groups who want everyone to hear the word. How do you convince them to take this approach when the theory of Creationism is on the rise?

Terrorism, particularly when perpetrated by "heathens", is yet another good reason why Republicans win over Democrats. It's not a physical attack so much as an emotional scar. And emotional scars are often seen as better dealth with spiritually rather than the, somewhat, more logic proof method that Democrats might employ. The economy - while important - is still, fundamentally, a somewhat tangible physical component that doesn't attack your heart. That's why fears over terrorism win over fears of economy. People may know Kerry's better for the latter, but it's the former that's more invasive to their souls.

I really can't see how the Democrats can get the required shift in thinking needed. It took decades for us to make the conceptual shift here, and we're still only in the process of doing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but for now it seems that etheral intangible spiritual concepts are going to always win out over logical reasoning.

BEAT

It may seem like there would be an uprise turning into a civil war but when it comes down to it Americans are just too lazy to do anything about it. A civil war is far from what will happen here tbh.
We will just sit by and watch Bush dig us another 4 years deeper and just hope the next president can get us out like Clinton did for us after Bush sr. made a mess.

The best thing to happen next would be for Hilary to get in office and attempt to fix what Jr has done to us. Afterall, she fixed it the first time ...first ladies do more than sit pretty and smile for the cameras. Especially in Clionton's case

p.pete

ixoy wrote:

I really can't see how the Democrats can get the required shift in thinking needed. It took decades for us to make the conceptual shift here, and we're still only in the process of doing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but for now it seems that etheral intangible spiritual concepts are going to always win out over logical reasoning.

A shift isn't that unimaginable - given that it was (will be) reasonably close this time. It'll be a case of the democrats needing to send out a strong candidate and hopefully the minds of the people who saw fit to vote Republican this time haven't been too much further entrenched...

Redleslie2

If Kerry loses it's because :

a) He was a useless candidate.
b) The Dems are useless.
c) The christian right republican base is solid.
d) The US media is hopelessly subservient.
e) Large numbers of americans don't give a crap about the rest of the world.
f) The election was rigged sufficiently.


I think any talk of a civil war is way overblown but if they try to bring the draft in, there could be some scuffles.

mr_angry

Even if Kerry had won, its clear that the US is deeply divided on all 4 major issues (Morality, terrorism, Iraq, the economy), and neither candidate could have hoped for a mandate from a significant majority of the population.

I think the idea of a civil war is highly unlikely though. As Beat already pointed out, the majority of Americans are too lazy to get up and act in that manner. Plus, in the previous civil war, the two ideologies were pretty much geographically separated into north and south. In this case, the ideologies are separated into urban and rural communities. Its almost impossible to imagine any kind of co-ordination between the isolated urban communities.

Unless you are John Titor.

Redleslie2

mr_angry wrote:

I think the idea of a civil war is highly unlikely though. As Beat already pointed out, the majority of Americans are too lazy to get up and act in that manner.

It's not laziness.

aidan_walsh

mr_angry wrote:

Unless you are John Titor.

Having read some of the stuff on his Wikipedia entry, I'm starting to feel a little uneasy

OfflerCrocGod

Civil War my fat foot. The chances of that happening are the same as the Second Coming ever occuring i.e. NEVER.

mike65

mike65 wrote:

Bushes re-election will give the Christian right a real boost and when he fills out the Supreme Court vacanices with those of a conservative pursuasion the stage will be set for a type of civil war I feel.

I'm not expecting Sten Guns on 5th Avenue! Something much more subtle but just as damaging where ppl simply stop communicating with anyone who is'nt "on-side". Where schools and community groups split and never re-engage. Where media talks only to its own core demographic. This is already happening to a degree.

Mike.

Redleslie2

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

Civil War my fat foot. The chances of that happening are the same as the Second Coming ever occuring i.e. NEVER.

I find rubbish like this as demoralising as the election result. Yeah, wars only happen in the history books.

Bard

It seems that one of John Kerry's main selling points was "I'm not George Bush" which is hardly the best strategy to have...

Redleslie2

mike65 wrote:

I'm not expecting Sten Guns on 5th Avenue!

Sten guns!? You been listening to The Jam?

Inclined to agree with the rest though.

SkepticOne

Bard wrote:

It seems that one of John Kerry's main selling points was "I'm not George Bush" which is hardly the best strategy to have...

True, and I think there was an inability among strong Kerry supporters to understand that there may be alternative points of view such was their Bush obsession (sounds a bit rude). Word of mouth is very important. I think it may have been a bit like on this forum, where anyone who agrees in the slightest with anything the Republicans might do is considered sub-human. This is not condusive to winning people over. I think there may have been people voting for Bush who were simply alienated from the democratic supporters position.

mike65

Redleslie2 wrote:

Sten guns!? You been listening to The Jam?

The Jam had (Eton) Rifles, it was the Clash with Sten Guns in Knightbridge.

Mike.

Tusky

An American president that has gone to war has never not been re-elected. Simple as that.

BattleBoar

Tusky wrote:

An American president that has gone to war has never not been re-elected. Simple as that.

Bush Sr.???

SkepticOne

Maybe he meant currently at war?

Redleslie2

mike65 wrote:

The Jam had (Eton) Rifles, it was the Clash with Sten Guns in Knightbridge.

Mike.

You are of course correct. An american friend of mine said recently that 1984-isms have indeed creeped up on the US like the most hysterical of the punk rock doom-sayers kept saying all along.

seamus

I think you meant "America has always re-elected its President in wartime", Tusky . I wouldn't, however, agree that America is at war. All the fabrication in the world won't make it true.

SkepticOne

seamus wrote:

I think you meant "America has always re-elected its President in wartime", Tusky . I wouldn't, however, agree that America is at war. All the fabrication in the world won't make it true.

No, they are merely providing internal military assistance to the sovereign and independent government of Iraq.

seamus

SkepticOne wrote:

No, they are merely providing internal military assistance to the sovereign and independent government of Iraq.

Actually, I was more thinking that you need to be fighting against a second defined party in order to be at war, but your definition will do too.

Sleepy

ixoy wrote:

You're quite right. There's a pertinent point to be made about the religious sector of American society. Statistically they're more likely to vote than the general population (90% turnout I think it was) because they're more driven by their belief system, part of their identity, than those who don't have a belief system. Unfortunately they're driven to the party that protects that system, which is conservative or - Republican.

That's the problem Democrats now face. How can you compete with God? How can you woo over and motivate people who are so firmly entrenched in their ideologies? How can you say to this base, "Yeah I know God apparently says gay marriage is wrong but *I* believe.." to get the retort, "Who are you to question God's edicts?" To this end the Democrats have tried to lobby some Christian bases by saying they won't support gay marriages, etc. but the fact is their approach is far less convincing to the adamant Christian than the current Republican administration is.

How can they fix it? I like to focus on the precepts of rationality, logic, and science and apply them as life principles. I think it's important that belief systems don't affect each other. Clearly that's not a view shared by religious groups who want everyone to hear the word. How do you convince them to take this approach when the theory of Creationism is on the rise?

Terrorism, particularly when perpetrated by "heathens", is yet another good reason why Republicans win over Democrats. It's not a physical attack so much as an emotional scar. And emotional scars are often seen as better dealth with spiritually rather than the, somewhat, more logic proof method that Democrats might employ. The economy - while important - is still, fundamentally, a somewhat tangible physical component that doesn't attack your heart. That's why fears over terrorism win over fears of economy. People may know Kerry's better for the latter, but it's the former that's more invasive to their souls.

I really can't see how the Democrats can get the required shift in thinking needed. It took decades for us to make the conceptual shift here, and we're still only in the process of doing it. Maybe I'm missing something, but for now it seems that etheral intangible spiritual concepts are going to always win out over logical reasoning.

One of the many, many reasons I think religeon should be banned.

Manach

One of the many, many reasons I think religeon should be banned.
Bring it mate, you and what banner waving army .

Seriously - Given the increased Republican control of the Senate, and the age/poor health of Justice Ryqyist (?spelling) it seems that new conservative justices will be the key objective for the new senate term. Given they are in for life, this will set the social agenda for a generation to come.
It's about 5:4 right:left at present I think.

peckerhead

Let's face it, Kerry lost the hearts and minds of the American public back around the time of the televised debates...

GuanYin

mr_angry wrote:

Unless you are John Titor.

I'm actually beginning to worry about that thread......

John Titor

It will happen

dahamsta

ixoy wrote:

There's a pertinent point to be made about the religious sector of American society. Statistically they're more likely to vote than the general population (90% turnout I think it was) because they're more driven by their belief system, part of their identity, than those who don't have a belief system. Unfortunately they're driven to the party that protects that system, which is conservative or - Republican.

It's interesting to note that, assuming The Power of Nightmares wasn't just making it all up, the religious sector of American society weren't big voters until the early neoconcervative movement saw an opportunity and embraced them, presumably with an influx of money and media support (the docu didn't expand on how they supported the sector, but I think it's a fair assumption).

adam

shotamoose

Wow, a polite and reasonable thread about the US election. Let's see if I can ruin it ...

Firstly, I'm a little surprised at the result, but not hugely. For all the saturation coverage of the election, it occurred to me last night watching the talking heads on tv that I had no real idea what the 'popular mood' in America really was. All the coverage of 'voter mobilisation' was on the Democrat side, for example, but there seems to have been a huge turnout for Bush from some constituencies, such as evangelicals.

I think this election saw two huge but diametrically opposed political mobilisations rise up at once, with one only just trumping the other. Faith-based politics beat reality-based politics, and the Democrats find themselves in the weird position of occupying the political centre-ground, but in a minority in a country of extremists.

So far the Democrats don't seem to have the stomach for a real fight to really win America back rather than just hoping for a narrow win, but they're going to have to find it. Republicans seem to have claimed ownership of the concept of 'values', but there's such thing as centre-left 'values' too, as Labour have shown in Britain.

Looking to the future, I think Hillary Clinton would be a terrible candidate in 2008. She'll divide the country even more and won't win over any fundamenalist Christians, who basically view her as the Anti-Christ. I've only seen one Democrat who can really inspire and win back huge parts of the country: so Barack Obama for President in 2008.

Oh yeah, and Bush stole the election

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Yoda

From Phil Alterman

• November 3, 2004 | 11:11 AM ET

Let’s face it.* It’s not Kerry’s fault.* It’s not Nader’s fault (this time).* It’s not the media’s fault (though they do bear a heavy responsibility for much of what ails our political system). It’s not “our” fault either. The problem is just this:* Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the “reality-based community” say or believe about anything.

They don’t care that Iraq is turning into murderous quicksand and a killing field for our children.* They don’t care that the Bush presidency has made us less safe by creating more terrorists, inspiring more anti-American hatred and refusing to engage in the hard work that would be necessary to make a meaningful dent in our myriad vulnerabilities at home.* They don’t care that he has mortgaged our children’s future to give trillions to the wealthiest among us.* They don’t care that the economy continues to hemorrhage well-paying jobs and replace them with Wal-Mart; that the number without health insurance is over forty million and rising.* They don’t care that Medicare premiums are rising to fund the coffers of pharmaceutical companies.* They don’t care that the air they breathe and the water they drink is being slowly poisoned and though they call themselves conservatives, they even don’t care that the size of the government and its share of our national income has increased by roughly a quarter in just four years.* This is not a world of rational debate and issue preference.

It’s one of “them” and “us.”* He’s one of “them” and not one of “us” and that’s all they care about.* True it’s an illusion.* After all, Bush is a millionaire’s son who went to Yale and Harvard and sat out Vietnam, not even bothering to show up for his cushy National Guard duty, and succeeded only in trading on his father’s name and connections in adult life.* But somehow, they feel he understands them.* He speaks their language.* Our guys don’t.* And unless they learn it, we will continue to condemn this country and those parts of the world it affects to a regime of malign neglect at best—malignant and malicious assault at worse.*

Given the media’s talent for pandering to their lowest common denominator, the things that have driven us crazy about their past pathetic performance are bound to get a lot worse.* Most of us—readers and writers of this web log and peoplelikeus-- derive an awful lot of benefit from being Americans.* We owe it to our better selves, and though it sounds horribly clichéd, to our children-- not to walk away from this battle.* I will admit, however, it’s pretty damn hard to see through this fog just where to turn before we march.

A final word to readers while we all try to take in the news.* I deeply appreciated all the warmth and gratitude sent in yesterday, and I send it back.* Everybody should understand, however, that I get paid to do this.* Everybody else who contributes of their time and expertise does it because they just happen to care so damn much they can’t help themselves.* No one, as all my readers know, is more important to the flavor and voice of this site than the great Charles Pierce.* I know he’s done much to keep my spirits up this past year and illuminate the corners of the media that would go unseen and unreported save for his proverbial eagle eye and rapier wit.* As you can see below, Charles is particularly moving and brilliant today and I just want to say how lucky I feel that he chose Altercation as his home away from home.* Go Sox.

Response from: Charles Pierce
Hometown: Newton, MA
Hey Doc --
As Mo Udall once put it, the people have spoken, goddamn them.

They showed up.* The Republican base, that is.* The people who believe that their marriages are threatened by those of gay people, the people who believe there were WMD in Iraq and that Saddam waved a hankie at Mohammed Atta, the people who believe His eye is on every embryo.* They all showed up, and there are more of them than there are of us.* This was a faith-based electorate and, for whatever reason, their belief was stronger than our reality.* This is a country I do not recognize any more.

The kids didn't vote.* African-American turnout seems to have stayed pretty much the same as it was in 2000, despite all the talk.* We lost seats in the Senate and in the House.* (Daschle is a pretty momentous beat, despite the fact that he's not a wartime consigliore and never was.)* They elected a polite David Duke in Louisiana, and someone who doesn't believe gay people should teach school in South Carolina, and a creep in Oklahoma, and somebody who's fairly obviously drifting into the fog in Kentucky.* The pretty clearly indictable DeLay tactics in Texas worked like a charm. These are all victories won on grounds on which we cannot compete.* When gay marriage trumps dead soldiers in Iraq, how do you run a race without dissolving into fantasy?

I don't know this country's mind any more, let alone its heart.

I started getting worried when my friend inside the Kerry bunker stopped calling, and then the nets were so damned slow about calling anything.* (And NBC was precipitate in calling Ohio, no matter how it turns out, so little Russ and Jack Welch can congratulate each other this summer on Nantucket.)* They had to know about New Hampshire sooner than they called it, and Minnesota and Michigan, neither of which was very close.

So, truly, no concession, no matter how much Russert wants one.* Lawyer it up in Ohio to the very last second.* Make them sweat.* Make them bleed.* But know that you ran this time for the president of a very different United States.

Later, that same day...
Hey Doc --
OK, now I'm starting to feel the gorge rise.* Let us content ourselves with this.* The country voted for these guys with its eyes open.* Let us hear no complaining about "bait and switch," and a "uniter, not a divider," and on and on and on.* It even returned a national legislature consonant with the incumbent's agenda. There will be permanent tax cuts that will institutionalize a national debt that will force some sort of evisceration of Social Security and Medicare. There will be continued military adventurism in the Middle East. There will be Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Chief Justice Antonin Scalia. There will be more lying and more vengeance.

So let there be no whining when your husband's National Guard obligation leaves him under fire for six extra months, or when Granny and Gramps are eating cat food, or when it become increasingly impossible to meet the economic needs of the middle-class family.

No complaining. None of it.

You wanted this guy. Now you have him, unleashed.

unkel

Reason Kerry lost?

Same as last time the democrats lost, albeit that they didn't really :rolleyes:

Under-campaigning in Ohio in favour of Florida. Last time the decision was right and the outcome a shambles. This time the decision was plain wrong

You might believe campaigning (euphemism for spending big buck$) hasn't much influence. I do believe it has. What was that JFK quote again when he was asked about the narrow victory after winning the presidential election in 1960? Was it something like:

Interviewer: "Did you expect it to be this tight?"
JFK: "My father couldn't afford a landslide"

BattleBoar

shotamoose wrote:

Looking to the future, I think Hillary Clinton would be a terrible candidate in 2008. She'll divide the country even more and won't win over any fundamenalist Christians, who basically view her as the Anti-Christ. I've only seen one Democrat who can really inspire and win back huge parts of the country: so Barack Obama for President in 2008.

I agree completely with this. Hillary is an extremely polarizing figure that would capture every bit of the 45% of people that always vote democratic, but would lose the rest. Barack Obama is a fresh face, a great speaker, and someone that I think Americans could really rally around. I'll be watching him closely. The only problem is that he mightn't be quite well known enough in just 3 years time when the primaries would roll around - most of the time it's looked upon favourably to complete a term.

Memnoch

BattleBoar wrote:

I agree completely with this. Hillary is an extremely polarizing figure that would capture every bit of the 45% of people that always vote democratic, but would lose the rest. Barack Obama is a fresh face, a great speaker, and someone that I think Americans could really rally around. I'll be watching him closely. The only problem is that he mightn't be quite well known enough in just 3 years time when the primaries would roll around - most of the time it's looked upon favourably to complete a term.

you think a black guy who is also a "liberal" is gonna win over fundamentalist christians?
i don't think hillary will either but...

the only way out for the US to gain some "freedom" is civil war. Otherwise its going to continue its decent into the middle ages.

How long before the word heretic starts becoming popular again?

Yoda

Bollocks. What an idiotic thing to say. "The only way for the US to gain freedom is civil war." What century do you live in? I'm sorry, this really angers me. What you suggest wouldn't even make a credible science fiction novel.

Hobbes

Yoda wrote:

Bollocks. What an idiotic thing to say. "The only way for the US to gain freedom is civil war." What century do you live in? I'm sorry, this really angers me. What you suggest wouldn't even make a credible science fiction novel.

I thought that was the whole premise around the right to bare arms.

As for won't make a credible science fiction novel... You not read any John Titor lately?

Yoda

To bear arms, Hobbes. And that right is about overthrowing a tyrannical government (as opposed to a democratically-elected one), and not about engaging in civil war, which is about killing your brother because he thinks differently from you.

seamus

Yoda wrote:

To bear arms, Hobbes. And that right is about overthrowing a tyrannical government (as opposed to a democratically-elected one), and not about engaging in civil war, which is about killing your brother because he thinks differently from you.

Yes, but democractically elected Governments can become tyrannical governments or dictatorships.

That's the premise around the right to bear arms. People do make mistakes. Sometimes entire countries make mistakes. The American consitution allows for them to correct those mistakes, should it all go horribly horrible.

BattleBoar

Memnoch wrote:

you think a black guy who is also a "liberal" is gonna win over fundamentalist christians?
i don't think hillary will either but...

the only way out for the US to gain some "freedom" is civil war. Otherwise its going to continue its decent into the middle ages.

How long before the word heretic starts becoming popular again?

He's a politician. Positions can change. The only thing that matters is what he does now that he goes to the Senate. If he keeps a moderate, centrist voting record in the Senate, he is absolutely more electable than the highly abrasive Hillary.

Hippo

Obama will ultimately be more electable than Hillary, but not for a while yet. I don't think the american electorate, well certainly those who voted for Bush this time round, are anywhere near ready to elect an african american president. Maybe he could be a vice presidential candidate next time out.

Because Bush has hijacked the 'values' bandwagon, the democrats must address the issue perhaps through someone like John Edwards who doesn't sound and act like a preppy new englander, who could engage the vast swathes of middle america who ignored Kerry.

Essey

The reason why Kerry lost is because he has no message - you can only get so much milage by being the anti - Bush before is gets boring. He was a flip flopper who thought nothing about spending other peoples money in welfare schemes and low life rehab projects that never show results. He dept saying he had a plan for Iraq, a plan for health care, and plan for this, that and maybe the other thing. Jeeze - fill us in! Besides that he was a great guy.