A few days ago, I opined that the 2004 Democratic campaign failed in all three ways one can fail, similar to a military campaign. These three ways were failures to adapt, anticipate and learn. The failure was most prominent in the Presidential election, but was also found in Congressional and Senate races.
Why study the failures? Why beat ourselves up more? Because failure is just as instructive as success, sometimes more so. (There were successes, but more about them later). Not studying one's own failures simply sets up more future failures.
The first way one can fail is to not adapt. Some Democratic candidates did indeed adapt to the new, more static front lines of the political landscape. Others, however, like World War I generals, thought that the answer was just more firepower, in the form of money. Money, however, is only one factor in an election...
Timing, personality, an effective platform, and exploitation of your opponent's vulnerabilities and weaknesses (both permanent and fleeting) are also important factors. Money only puts ads on the air- what those ads say influence success or failure. Too much money, I could argue, can even be a liability, allowing stupider ad to follow stupid ad.
The failure to adapt was three-fold. First, I don't think the Democrats were still over their appeasement mentality after 9-11. They did not run on security platforms effectively enough. For the biggest instance, John Kerry's "flip-flops" seemed in voter's eyes to be more substantial- and inferior than Bush's target fixation. (Never mind the latter is far more dangerous from the military perspective- we're talking generations of Americans weaned on action movies here.) Kerry could then be accused of being suckered into the Iraq war, then backtracking badly.
The second failure was more damaging. Americans are reaching a peak of religious and politcal fundamentalism. These are not necessarily a deal-breaker with the right candidates, but it is not a good time to be an atheist or even not typically devout. A few shiny moments of candidates attending church or meeting with local religious leaders (always the most liberal ones, but even a few cons if possible) could have swung voters away. One thing I thought was especially stupid was how the Dems divided their time and resources to a few key states. I'm sure Wisconsinites voted for Kerry just to get him out of our hair. Candidates should always never be afraid to go into "enemy" territory.
The failure to adequately engage the Hispanic population was particularly tragic. Overwhelmingly Catholic, they heard the messages of the bishops when nobody else did. Perhaps Dem candidiates should visit their local bishops in heavily Catholic states, and Presidential candidates should go get a photo op with the Pope as soon as they're assured of the nomination.
The third was perhaps the most damaging of all. They failed to adapt to new technologies. They used the Internet badly and inefficiently, largely just as a money-raising tool. However, they also did not recognize the increasing power of wireless phones, nor the immense organizing and motivating tools of sympathetic independent websites. (If I was an aspiring Dem candidate, I'd spend an hour a day, myself, reading the latest opinions and suggestions of bloggers and news groups.)
In a few days, I'll stick in here the ways Dems failed to anticipate.