... but also, why Dems still often enough win.
As usual, we've seen for the past six weeks enough whining, complaining, suggesting, hand wringing, and ultimatum-issuing from Democrats about John Kerry than we've seen since, oh, I don't know, 2002 maybe? What gives, and why don't Republicans do the same?
Well, as someone who is currently as hard core Democratic as they get, but who used to be (a lifetime ago) a Republican political operative in DC (they left me, I didn't leave them), I've got a bit of a unique perspective. Here's what I think.
Fundamentally, it is different to run for office as a Democrat than as a Republican. And the higher the office, the more different it gets. When you get to the presidential level, it's night and day. Why? Because Republican partisans are different creatures than Democratic ones.
More Below
The current Republican party has three main constituent groups, but one of them doesn't even really count. The three are: Evangelical Conservatives; Old-school, good-government, fiscally conservative, socially moderate "Rockefeller Republicans"; and a broad third category of libertarian leaning types who really couldn't care less what government does, as long as it doesn't tax them or ask them to do much. Only the first two make any demands of the Party, and both are quite easy to molify. You just have to talk the talk for the evangelicals. Stick a coded biblical reference or two into your language and you're fine. All they really care about is that your character is based on religion, like them, and not secular ideals. And the Rockefeller Republicans have been voting R so long there's almost nothing you can do to sway them (although this year they will be severely challenged). That third group might as well not even be there, although damnit, they always show up and vote.
Compare that to the Democratic base. The Democratic base is made up of numerous interest groups and ethnic groups, most of whom are critically intertwined into the governmental process and extremely interested in what happens in government. That's the key difference. In fact, many of these groups' entire existence and reason for being revolves around what government allows and doesn't allow. So naturally, they have strong opinions and get upset when their candidate hasn't mentioned or campaigned on "their" issue for a while. Or when the candidate seems insufficiently passionate when their reason for being is at stake. Such never happens with Republicans.
George Bush kind of naturally straddles the line between the constituent groups in his party. He is comfortable with evangelical language, but the Rockefeller types "know" he's really from Connecticut and went to Andover or wherever. He is really under no stress as far as what he says and does, and as a result can say or do whatever he wants.
That's the key, really. When you are not under pressure to say or do various things to keep your party in line, you are free to develop whatever attack lines work, free to change the subject whenever you want, and most important of all, free to enforce message discipline on your party. And when your party regulars don't have that existential angst about what you say and do or promise to do, they are going to be that much more amenable to toe your line.
That's why it's so different -- and more challenging -- to run for President as a Dem, and why you hear so much more whining and "holding my nose to vote for Kerry". It's a huge advantage the R's have, amplifed, as always, by loads of money. What always gives Dems a fighting chance is that, basically, there are more of us than them (unless you believe the Gallup poll).
So this is all kind of natural and expected. We nerds here at Kos are kind of de facto leaders of Democratic opinion. So let's show some leadership, damnit. Let's see if we can dampen down the complaining a bit, give our guy some room to maneuver and take his shots. He can do it. I've seen him do it. He can literally take W's head off. Let's give him a chance, OK?