dKos and many of us have now been here through two election cycles. What are we learning from this?
I originally landed on blogs in mid-2002 because I desperately needed to hear the voices of kindred spirits. A bit later I began to add my own voice to the chorus. Then I began to learn a few things. The 2002 election taught me a lot about reading pre-election polls and other factors. The primary process taught me about the institutional power of the Democratic Party in selecting our nominee. IO taught me about what a caucus looks like (and why it should be banned).
I arrived with no difficulty reading what BushCo was up to or how they operated, but this is one area in which I think blog readers still find difficult. Far too many remain as perplexed as to what makes GWB attractive to Americans as were Democrats about Reagan. Lacking this insight, seems to me to be a reason why Democrats are so quick to adopt a "gimmick" as the answer for defeating the GOP. We've seen many in the past two years, and it is beginning to appear that Lakoff's work is going to become another one. And used as a gimmick, it will fare no better than any of the other ones that have been tried.
Still, we have come a long way in the past two and a half years, and these old errors culled from Legacy Kos should be far less likely to be repeated in the future.
May 26, 2002 Iraq invasion loosing steam
The Bush Administration is backpedaling from plans to attack Iraq. No surprise. Bush was eager to keep the nation on a war footing, probably surmizing his high poll numbers depended on it. However, the recent 9-11 disclosures have brought the Bush administration's competence into question. I believe that a few months of investigation leaks will further erode Bush's war glow.
But more importantly, a war against Iraq was always a near impossibility.
dkos
Ouch!
Re:McCain - McCain will not leave the GOP unless John Kerry convinces him to. The only way that John Kerry could convince him (I believe) is to offer him a VP slot. I think right now he enjoys being a thorn in the Bushies side.
Posted November 27, 2002
Yes, that was some thorn he stuck in Bush during the last six months of the campaign and what a beautiful rose he gave to Kerry.
Finally, I think the field will be much smaller then people were predicting pre mid-term election. They'll be maybe 4 candidates, tops. And hopefully, Edwards will not be among them. Is it just me, or is he fading fast? (snip)
Posted December 5, 2002
Maybe if there had only been four candidates instead of ten we might have been more astute in assessing them. Lucy was, however, way ahead of the curve on Edwards who saved his fastest fade for the general election.
Mark my words, as a Californian: Bush won't come close to winning this state. Nor New Mexico. (snip)
Posted December 16, 2002
Well, some words are better to mark than others.
Having just come away from an Edwards rally this weekend, I can tell you the guy is a rock star, and when the rest of the country gets a look at him really campaigning, you will get your excitement. Just wait.
Posted January 9, 2003
Too bad the rest of us never got to see that performance.
"Does anybody have any insight into how each of these candidates will play with white middle class men between the ages of 30 and 60?"
I think Kerry and Dean will do the best; Kerry, because of his seriousness and his service record, and Dean, because of his tough-guy no-B.S. style.
Posted January 20, 2003
Since only Kerry was tested, we only know that half of this was wrong.
Then this from a contributor who disappeared early in 2003:
Gore will have to battle high negatives as evidenced in recent polls. (snip) He has displayed repeatedly in past campaigns an inability to redefine himself and an inability to remain on-message. Too much at stake to risk his having 'changed.'
Therefore, he's less likely to win than a new challenger. I'm begging people not to vote for him. Don't be ruled by sentiment. Find a winner.
Posted by bcNY at December 5, 2002
Then this (emphasis added):
Graham is generating a kind of anticipatory buzz that's getting him press. In a funny way, the heart ailment may benefit him. He'll have many opportunities to 'prove' his vitality. Will be fun to watch those first few days after he announces.
I'm not at all worried about Kerry not fighting back, or being branded as "Gore". He's much tougher than spineless Al, and tougher than many people think. The only questions are whether enough people warm up to him, and whether his message comes together.
Posted by bcNY at February 11, 2003
Gore didn't lose because of his consultants. That's a ridiculous piece of spin that he himself put forward.
Consultants will almost always tell candidates to fire back immediately - just like we do here on these boards. Candidates don't always agree with their staff --- Gore, Bradley, and Dukakis all had communication problems that were rooted in their own personalities.
Consultants in general are a lot smarter than candidates. They lack the megalomania and arrogance to run for office themselves.
The fantasy that "Candidate X is a great man who just got bad advice" is just that - a fantasy.
Posted by bcNY at February 11, 2003
Anybody know whatever happened to bcNY? Or who bcNY was?
But there were a few wise voices here back then:
John Kerry's Vietnam record may be a liability. Not with me or most liberals, but I could see the right wing pulling out old footage of Kerry's days in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. That's a plus with me, mind you, but I have a feeling it won't go over too well with your average Bubba.
Posted by Robert Gregory at November 19, 2002
How can the Democratic party present a winning campaign in 2004 when they can't even form a consensus on why they lost in 2002? One segment of the party maintains that we lost because Bush was popular, 9-11, etc, no need to change the message. Another segment of the party says the message is good, we just didn't articulate it well enough. Another segment of the party says we need to turn left, while the DLC-types say the party needs to obliterate the few remaining differences between the Dems and GOP, essentially turning the Dems into the Lowell Weicker wing of the old Republican party (at least a third of the current Democratic caucus is more conservative than the the George Aiken Republicans of thirty-years ago.)
...
Posted by Alex Trevelyan at November 19, 2002 12:38 PM (Note: Alex posted a long comment and the whole thing is still well worth reading.)
Alex Trevelyan - Thank you. I hope others are listening. I know your message isn't as fun as the "handicapping" that usually takes place, but you have it right. In the absence of a strong Democratic Party voice heard throughout the country, the GOP and Bush will win -- if the economy and wars behave well enough it will be a landslide otherwise just a win. (snip)
Posted by Marie at November 19, 2002
"Once the Democratics have been effectively neutered, the conservatives won't have to worry about the fact the public doesn't actually support their extremist domestic policies -- because there won't be an opposition party left to challenge it." (Edsall, WaPo 11/26/02)
It's the corporate version of the Thousand Year Reich.
Posted by Billmon at November 27, 2002
There's so much handwringing and handicapping these days (on both sides of the fence), people seem to forget that the process of getting the nomination can hone someone, and help make good candidates great.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are acting like they're running both parties. Hey dudes, get the hell out of our house. We'll let you know when we've picked someone.
Posted by Dr Vital at December 5, 2002
As to Kerry, no matter how much the ones who like him like him, the question is "will he go over in Peoria?" Also, I have to question how he seemed to be raising a lot of questions worth raising about going to war in Iraq but turned around and voted for the resolution anyway. Did Bush have the goods on all these senators or something?
Posted by Richard P. at December 5, 2002
If a war in Iraq doesn't go badly then I don't see how Democrats will accomplish much by sounding hawkish. Bush would be able to claim he accomplished something there and the GOP would certainly want to stress that. The Democrats would have to look to other issues. OTOH if a war does go poorly, then Bush would probably be in a weak position, and I have to ask which Democrat national figure is in a position to say that they actually spoke out against going to war in Iraq?
Posted by Richard P. at December 5, 2002
Not sure which is worse, being completely wrong or being right and not being able to do a damn thing to stop the "completely wrong" forces from controlling the Democratic Party that in turn is so weak that they in turn let the GOP control the country.