Kerry is no Nixon or Reagan
Tue Nov 09, 2004 at 04:57:36 PM PDT
The cat's out of the bag. Rumors have been flying for the past few days that Kerry is planning to run again in 2008, and now Cam Kerry has come out and publicly acknowledged that it is "conceivable" that Kerry will run in 2008. I've actually heard, from a close friend of mine who worked on the Kerry campaign, that Kerry told him that he is "strongly keeping that option open." Kerry mentioned to my friend that Ronald Reagan ran three times for the Presidency before he won, and sounded like he was leaning towards another run.
To my surprise, now that the speculation is public, apparently most people want Kerry to run again. Kos said that he hopes that Kerry won't run in 2008, but most of the comments went the other way.
(more in extended entry)
Personally, I think Kos is right--Kerry had his chance and lost. I don't think he was the best candidate--he's not as charismatic or warm as Clinton or Edwards, his long record in the Senate was a weakness, he's from Massachusetts (easy to parody), and he's somewhat aloof. Plus if we nominate Kerry again, we're nominating someone who has already been the target of hundreds of millions of dollars of negative advertising--he's been defined by the Repugs already. Far better to start over with a clean slate.
To their credit, the "Kerry in 2008" supporters had a compelling argument for a second Kerry run--the same one that Kerry himself made to my friend. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan both lost tough battles for the Presidency and came back to win, the argument goes, so why not John Kerry?
The answer is simple: Kerry is no Nixon or Reagan.
I don't mean this simply in the flippant "he's not as good of a politican" way. I mean that Kerry's present situation is far different than the situation that Nixon and Reagan were in, if you look back at history. Let's take a look:
First, while it's true that Ronald Reagan ran for President twice (1968, 1976) before he won in 1980, he never won the party's nomination until 1980, when he won the Presidency. In 1968, Reagan belatedly threw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, but he wasn't really a serious challenger--he had barely been in office for a year, and Nixon had already won most of the primaries by that point. In 1976, Reagan mounted a very serious challenge for the nomination--against a sitting President, Gerald Ford, and almost won. Reagan's success in 1976 set up his 1980 run and eventual victory over Carter.
Reagan's story doesn't suggest anything about John Kerry's chances after losing a tough race against Bush. The right parallel would be: if Reagan had narrowly lost to Jimmy Carter, would he be a viable candidate in 1984? That's the situation Kerry is in right now, and I doubt the Republicans would have wanted to try again with someone who couldn't beat an unpopular President like Carter.
As for Nixon, the parallel is closer there, because Nixon did narrowly lose to Kennedy in the 1960 election and come back to win in 1968. How did he do it? Well for one thing, the Republican Party was dejected after one of the worst losses in American history--LBJ wiped the floor with Goldwater, winning 486 electoral votes. The Republicans were divided, with the Rockefeller and Goldwater factions battling it out. No one wanted to face Johnson in 1968, at least at first--Nixon was the only major candidate in the race by the time the New Hampshire primary rolled around.
Of course the results of the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary are what everyone remembers--Eugene McCarthy almost beat Johnson, who decided not to run for re-election. With Johnson out of the race, a Republican victory looked possible, but by the time Reagan and Rockefeller entered the race, Nixon had already won most of the primaries and the race was effectively over. Nixon got the nomination for the same reason that Clinton got it in 1992--most of the perceived "big guns" sat out.
Nixon got lucky in the general election, too. The Democratic Party was bitterly divided, and news coverage of the Democratic Convention focused on the protests and police brutality. More importantly, George Wallace left the Democratic Party and launched a successful third-party bid that took 46 electoral votes and 12.9% of the vote from Humphrey. Even with Wallace's help, Nixon only beat Humphrey by less than one percent of the vote (43.4% to 42.3%)--one of the closest elections in U.S. history.
Nixon, I think, is the exception that proves the rule. For Kerry to follow in Nixon's shoes, all of the leading Dems would have to sit out of the race, leaving the nomination to Kerry ... who faces a Republican Party that suddenly implodes from within. I can only wish!
Most likely, we'll be facing a Republican Party that's as strong (and evil) as ever. If that's the case, we're going to need a better candidate. To everyone who is enthusiastic about Kerry in 2008, why? I voted for him, donated to him, and worked for him, but let's face it--we can do better. Kerry's not particularly charismatic, and he appeared aloof and was hard for most Americans to relate to. Plus he has that long record in the Senate and is from a state that is easy to parody. Why not give someone like Mark Warner or Bill Richardson or even John Edwards a look? Kerry is an okay backup plan, maybe, but I can't be enthusiastic about him as a first or even second choice.
Permalink | 17 comments