One of the huge screw-ups of the Kerry campaign was that he proposed new spending programs in the face of mounting deficits.
I believe this was a result of the way Democratic strategists use polls to develop details of policies, while Republicans use polls to define broad themes.
There's more...
Look at the latest NY Times/CBS poll.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/03/politics/03poll.html
How serious a problem do you think the budget deficit is for the country?
Very - 52%
Somewhat -38%
Not too - 8%
Not at all - 1%
So what do Kerry, Shrum et al. do? Propose, for example, a vague yet expensive sounding health care initiative that eats up a large part of the tax rollbacks on the wealthy. What were the details of the healthcare initiative? Who the hell knows? Go to his website to find out. Of course, if you don't have health insurance, you might not have internet access. (One phrase that should never come out of a candidate's mouth is, "Go to my website".)
Our healthcare system needs?
Minor changes - 13%
Fundamental changes - 59%
Completely rebuild - 27%
So Kerry proposed a minor change to healthcare (13% support) that would make the deficit worse (9% support). Great job of reading the polls there!
You aren't going to beat an incumbent unless they have screwed something up. That 'something' was supposed to be Iraq.
Do you approve/disapprove of the way GWB is handling:
Iraq?
Approve - 45%
Disapprove - 50%
Deficit?
Approve - 29%
Disapprove - 60%
Economy? (October 28, 2004)?
Approve - 43%
Disapprove - 51%
Iraq and the economy were not so great for GWB, but the 'disapprove' was close enough to 50% to be winnable.
Compare April '92 to April '04 (while the national presidential campaigns were being developed).
Condition of the national economy?:
April 1992
Very good - 1%
Fairly good - 23%
Fairly bad - 40%
Very bad - 34%
April 2004
Very good - 4%
Fairly good - 51%
Fairly bad - 30%
Very bad - 15%
While it was the economy, stupid in 1992, IT WAS THE DEFICIT, STUPID in 2004. George Bush and the Republicans were vulnerable on the deficit. They spend money like drunken sailors (or coked-out airmen). On Iraq, healthcare, the economy, GWB had problems, but what was Kerry going to do that was different? Yet, NINETY PERCENT of the country thinks the deficit is a problem. Kerry could have said, "I'm not going to pander for votes by proposing a lot of new spending programs. I wish we had the money to help more people, but we don't. We are in big, big trouble because George Bush can't stick to a budget. George Bush has blown the surplus, and now the Chinese are financing the day-to-day operations of our government. If this doesn't worry you, it should. I don't know how much more we can take of George Bush's spending spree."
Triangulate the issue, peel off some pro-choice economic conservatives. Hit Bush where he is weakest. But no, we get a vague healthcare plan that I doubt won a single vote (remember, the people want MAJOR or FUNDAMENTAL reforms in healthcare).
And if you are tempted to say, "Monday morning quarterbacking", I said the same things on DU back in May of last year.
Finger-in-the-wind Democratic strategists. Here's another example.
Abortion should be:
Generally available - 35%
Available but stricter - 40%
Not permitted - 23%
These numbers are pretty constant over time. Shockingly, the Republicans do so well on this issue with only 23% of the population supporting their official position.
But what about that 40% who believe abortion should be available but stricter? Catering to them leads to statements like, "I'm personally against abortion but think it should be the decision of ...". Inconsistent. Pandering.
From the second debate. You probably remember it.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
KERRY: First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise.
That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
You'll help prevent AIDS.
You'll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You'll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
GIBSON: Mr. President, minute and a half.
BUSH: I'm trying to decipher that.
My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.
This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.
I signed the partial-birth -- the ban on partial-birth abortion. It's a brutal practice. It's one way to help reduce abortions. My opponent voted against the ban.
I think there ought to be parental notification laws. He's against them.
I signed a bill called the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
In other words, if you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one. My opponent was against that.
These are reasonable ways to help promote a culture of life in America. I think it is a worthy goal in America to have every child protected by law and welcomed in life.
I also think we ought to continue to have good adoption law as an alternative to abortion.
And we need to promote maternity group homes, which my administration has done.
Culture of life is really important for a country to have if it's going to be a hospitable society.
John Kerry got schooled by George Bush right there. Notice that Bush doesn't talk about his personal opposition to abortion, but rather how we should reduce the number of (controversial) abortions. Both camps looked at the same poll data, but Kerry got mired in a complex, convoluted, inconsistent strategy while Bush tapped into the feelings of that 40% while speaking in code to the 23% (e.g. 'Dred Scot', 'culture of life').
Conclusions: The deficit will still be an issue (or the issue) in 2008. MAJOR healthcare reform needs to be discussed from now through 2008. Abortion - well, after Chief Justice Scalia, it will be a different issue altogether. Iraq could be a beacon of democracy by 2008 and Bush may be considered a genius of Middle East policy. We didn't win Iraq this time and we won't in 2008.