Centerfield

Good job, Jon. Very interesting thoughts about Rove. Just a couple of quibbles. The only reason Carter won was because he was running against a guy who had never been elected shortly after Watergate. That's what known as "having good field position." When he ran against a legitimate candidate, he got crushed and I suspect that's what would have happened if he had run any other time.

I think the problem with Senators running is not the lack of executive experience--which doesn't necessarily show up in the campaign--but the existence of a record that can easily be attacked. Bush was able to take Kerry's votes out of context to prove his point about weakness on defense, for example. Governors obviously don't have this problem with respect to national security and, almost inherently have to govern moe from the center. So it's just harder to attack a governor for being too radical. Even Howard Dean was not known as being a particularly liberal governor.

I agree Kerry showed class in not contesting Ohio. But the fact is, it wouldn't have been worth winning at that point. He would have lost the popular vote by several million votes and faced a highly hostile Congress.

Your point about not nominating VPs is probably good advice in general for the future, but I have a couple reservations about your historical analysis. Humphrey was defeated, not because he was VP, but because Wallace took away votes in the South that, at that time, were likely to go to Democrats--even liberal Democrats. Humphrey obviously was hamstrung by the Chicago convention and his unwillingness to break with Johnson on Viet Nam, but he probably would have won in any kind of normal year. As for Mondale, he was running against an extremely popular incumbent in a time of peace and prosperity. The Dems could have run FDR and still gotten clobbered.

I don't see what Rove has done as centrist or in the best interest of this country. He wanted to win and he did. I feel like I've been mugged.

Yes, Jamie, but not by your average everyday mugger. By a true *professional.* You know, of the horse-head-at-the-foot-of-the-bed variety. :-)

Thanks for the analysis, Jon. Very interesting points on Rove. The man scares me, but at the same time, I find him to be *brilliant.*

AmyE, that's my favorite movie. :)

Jon, I also agree that your analysis is very good and provides some insight into Rove.

I've read many different criticisms of Kerry. I think he did the best he could given the current climate. 55 million votes is very impressive. I, too, think that his concession speech was a classy move. He really had no other option. I don't think his words will result in bringing this country together or instilling confidence in our electoral system, however.

Jon credits Karl Rove with getting out the base on the issue of Gay Marriage.

Shouldn't he instead be crediting the activist Massachusettes Supreme Court, which invented gay marriage out of thin air with no legislative backing whatsoever? Or San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who sanctioned thousands of gay marriages in direct violation of California law? These people created the national political issue of gay marriage, not Karl Rove.

Large sections of the Democrat base are against gay marriage, including big majorities of blacks, latinos, union workers, the elderly. Pre-election polls showed Bush doubling his support among blacks and making huge gains among latinos, perhaps this new issue was part of the reason? As long as this new issue is kept alive it will continue to be a major political advantage for Republicans. How long the issue is kept alive is a decision for the left, not the right.

Since Catholics seem to be largely Democrats, I am curious when the more religious among them will start turning republican, if they aren't already. I am not Catholic, so I don't understand the culture at all. Any Catholics have an insight?
Is it true that Kerry isn't allowed to take Mass because of abortion votes as a Sen.? If he can't, does that bother you?

I think Dems are drastically undervaluing the importance of religion in people's lives. I think the Dems also too often devalue people who are religious.

Jason

Here's a few demographic trends to think about:

1) After 2000, the US census redistricted the electoral college and blue states had a net loss of EC votes while red states had a net gain of them. Given that the the entire sun belt (minus california) went Republican, overall is it reasonable to expect that as that area continues to grow the Democrats will become more marginalized? One caveat, most of the growth will come from outsiders moving in (Northerners moving South, immigrants from South America). These people are not neccessarily going to be conservative.

2) I read an article by a demographer that showed the Youth of America were decidedly more conservative than their parents (sorry I can't remember who or where; weak I know). In Utah (an extreme example) the 18-24 set everyone complains about voted in record numbers. However, they also voted overwhelmingly Bush.

If these two trends continue, I think the pundits who are talking about the death of the Democratic party are not wrong, just premature. How do you think the Dems can respond to these challenges, or what do you think the party that replaces them will look like?

Jason

Jon;
Good post. I like the executive experience idea (whether true or not). Interesting that the Governor in the Democratic field is looking (in hindsight) better for the Democrats. (Not to mention that Dean, in spite of the passion and anti-war stance) seemed fairly moderate. Probably not having a Senate record to run against helps the Governor candidates.

Jamie, would you feel that way about any campaign manager?

I think Dems are drastically undervaluing the importance of religion in people's lives. I think the Dems also too often devalue people who are religious.

Ah, but Jason, that cuts both ways.
I admit that *some* Dems do what you say, but many religious people seem to chose to ignore the fact that in this country it's also ok for people to *not* be religious and to not walk an ethical path as outlined by someone else's religious code. Those individuals resent it when those who are religious start preaching about personal morality and start trying to impose some religious code of ethics on the entire nation. I think that's where so much of the venom in this society is coming from. *Both* sides suffer from a severe lack of respect for one another and from a failure to listen to one another.

Who decided Dean was a moderate all of a sudden? That's revisionist history. His own party thought he was too far left (and he is). Even if he hadn't had his little tourettes episode, I don't think he would have made it through all the primaries without being exposed. He was against the war (Republican reaction: soft on terrorism), he was proud to say he signed Vermont's civil unions law (Republican reaction: no values/against traditional family/ etc). If Kerry couldn't convince the majority of the people on these same issues, there is no way on Earth Dean could have. If the Dems had run Dean, Bush would have won going away.

Jason

Amy, you're making the same mistake Dems make. I said they devalue religion and your immediate response is that I am imposing religion on you. I am for separation of church and state. I don't see the need for prayers at school, courts, or government functions. However, I don't see the wholesale imposition you're talking about.

Give me some concrete examples of things you have problems with. I may be too biased to search for them.

Jason

Jamie, would you feel that way about any campaign manager?

No, Chris. Someone told me once that a true conservative believes in small government and minimal regulation of business and personal practices. Rove is behind the machine that is the antithesis of this definition. He's managed to exploit some nasty realities about our land of the free.

My problem with Rove isn't his politics, it's his tactics.

Jason,

I don't think I emphasized my primary point well enough. What I was saying was that there is a failue to communicate and to understand on *both* sides of that spectrum. Religious issues come up in political discussions, and some Americans bristle at that. Some religious people, on the other hand, seem to not understand (and seem to not care to understand) the strong reaction that those on the other side have when religious arguments are used to justify a given political position or policy.

This devaluing of ideals and beliefs, and this lack of understanding that is out there is not just something the Democrats are doing. We are *all* responsible for that failure to try to understand each other's positions better and to try to find common ground. We have all painted each other with very broad brush stroks and tend to think in extreme terms about each other. It's all about shouting each other down rather than about seeking understanding.

And for the record, I believe in God, even though I'm a Democrat. There are actually a lot of us out here.

I still think the attribution of the outcome to a values schism is VERY overstated. Just as previous commenters noted important influencing events and how they affected electoral outcomes (Vietnam, Watergate), IMO 9/11 is the elephant in the room for 2004.

Look at the people who used to vote Democratic but voted Republican this year. Then ask yourself, as you looked around on a variety of moderate sites, how VERY many times you heard someone express concern about Bush's social and domestic agenda, but go on to say they had to support Bush for national security reasons.

Libertarians in particular are very much running out of reasons to vote GOP, they don't like fiscally irresponsible social conservatives prone to foreign adventure.

So that's one real strong reason for the democrats to go to old school liberalism and de-emphasize overt egalitarianism and paternalistic PC policies.

I do think moral values are important, and the democrats do need to start stressing these ideas instead of continuing the de facto abdication to the GOP that occurs when democrats are too afraid to talk about virtues.

If you're a moderate, even if you are more secular than overtly religious, you know that there are lots of good ideas common to the bible, the torah, the koran, folk wisdom, and even popular entertainment. When 500 people sit in a movie theater, some evangelical and some atheist, but they all cheer because the underdog won by working hard, doing the right thing, treating people right, and having faith in good, they're really all cheering for the same thing. And there's a lesson in that.

The challenge for democrats is to find a way to talk about stuff like that, about the golden rule, about hard work, about a fair shake. Parts of the remaining democratic base are in some ways "part of the problem" in the eyes of the part of the base that has left the democratic party. If it were up to me, I'd excise the ones that stand in the way of reforms that middle class families want. To those on the left who think that's not fair, the question you need to ask yourself is, do you want to face political reality and win?

Oh, and as far as Rove goes, I have to wonder how realistic it is to blame or credit strategy. I'm not saying it has no role, but sometimes this stuff is overthinking, overanalyis.

To continue the football analogy from above where someone mentioned field position, let's look at how the losing team tends to blame the quarterback and the coaching, and points at specific plays and curious coaching decisions. When such things don't work out, people are prone to think they are wise when all they are doing is using hindsight to highlight bad things that happened.

Well, the democrats are getting blown off the line of scrimmage. THAT'S the problem. It's not the quarterback's or the coach's fault. The GOP has come into the democratic kitchen and taken away the bread and butter of their base, capturing a greater share of middle class and blue collar families. Those are the ones they need to win back.

bk, I just posted a similar sentiment on another thread.

Brian, I don't think it's so much that there are democrats who "don't think that's fair," as it is that you're asking them to sacrifice *their* beliefs and principles. Democrats aren't just holding on to the issues that cause them problems because they want to be different from the Republicans, they're holding on to them because they actually *believe* those things. Giving ground on abortion and gay marriage, for example, is all well and good if you don't believe in the stand you took in the first place and don't really mind abandoning it. If you *do* believe in your stand, then it's not just a simple matter of saying, "Oh well. Hm. That didn't work. Better move right." Dems *feel* their beliefs just as fully and just as much to the core as Republicans do. If sticking to their beliefs keeps them out of power, well, that's democracy, isn't it?

Yeah, I'm not talking about giving ground on abortion rights or gay marriage.

i'm suggesting that by communicating better and more respectfully with lost constituents who should naturally be democratic, they'll develop a better understanding of American people and american issues. My views have evolved and grown on a lot of issues as I have aged from 20 to 40, and I don't feel like I've sacrificed my core beliefs. I feel like I've become more realistic about human nature and more respectful towards a wider range of life views. I think I'm a much better person for it.

And if you can't do this, and you aren't willing to try this because you want to win, then you really do have to accept the fact that you're NOT part of the mainstream here in America. Maybe you SHOULD move to Canada if you'll truly be happier there, ya know?

The problems that our country has that are most intractable are the ones that have elements that are conundrums, and you have to face them with an understanding of this, and accept that many of them may only be m,itigated, and that history has told us that some "solutions" we have tried in the past don't solve much of anything, and may even cause additional problems. The two insights I think the very "liberal" need to face are that incentives matter and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. I won't expound on them in detail, I'll just say that if you can't face them, you're not living in the real world. You're just fantasizing about some future world were people are much more altruistic, more free from fear, greed, jealousy etc, than they are on today's Earth.

AmyE, my stance is that Dems can continue to support these issues and regain power at the same time. I reject the notion that they should move to the right.

i'm suggesting that by communicating better and more respectfully with lost constituents who should naturally be democratic, they'll develop a better understanding of American people and american issues.

Oh. I apologize, I misunderstood your point. This is absolutely true--I agree with you.

Exactly what tactics did Karl Rove do which you think are so anti-democratic or evil? I think it's easy to demonize him, but I think it's too easy to dismiss this election as being that Svengali Rove, who tricked moderates into voting for Bush.

He did two things really well in retrospect. He predicted the backlash of the Gay Marriage decision in MA and connected Bush to the issue which likely helped given how all those state propositions ended up going. The second thing he did was create a great GOTV program that was very successful.

The things he didn't do which affected the election:

* He didn't push Kerry to the left to vote agains t the $87B supplemental
* He didn't convince the Dems to pick a guy who had a lot of national security baggage like Kerry's policies in the 70s (anti-war vietnam activist), 80s (nuke freeze proponent), and 90s (voting against Gulf War I)
* He didn't convince Kerry to hire big time loser Shrumm who has been populist tone-deaf for two cycles now
* He didn't hire Michael Moore to put out political propoganda and get many leading Democrats to espouse his cause and look like an arm of the DNC
* He didn't convince the 2000 Democratic Nominee turn into a raving lunatic
* He didn't convince CBS to run a story with fake documents that helped John Kerry, only to have many people question the credibility and slant of the MSM
* Unless senile Walter Cronkite is correct, he didn't have OBL pop up right before the election.

John Kerry put up a pretty damn good fight, including his own GOTV efforts and fine performances during the debates. The deciding difference in this election was small and perhaps if he went to the DLC Clintonites earlier, he would have been victorious.

There was a lot of ugliness on both sides this season, no doubt. But I think you are giving Rove too much credit- it didn't take much to tip the election either way and both campaigns made big mistakes. Rove may have made fewer, but his effort wasn't all that stellar.

Until the Democrats dispel the 60s era Vietnam Angst about the projection of American power they are going to remain national losers.

And if they can't connect to the South or Flyover somehow, they'll continue to erode even more states in the Upper Midwest and mid-Atlantic.

We almost got WI this election. Maybe in '08 we'll get both WI and MN to flip red.