Some thoughts on Bush, Kerry, Republicans, Democrats and 2004

[Adam D]

I think it's fair to say neither Kerry nor Bush are the ideal candidates for very many people.

If Gore had won the electoral college in 2000, I think the last four years would have played out pretty much the same. I think he would have pushed environmental issues like Bush did tax cuts, but probably would have pushed them aside after 9/11. 9/11 would have happened, so too would have Afghanistan. I think Iraq probably would have, too. I think maybe the economy would be fairing marginally better, probably most of all in terms of jobs. Had he also won, and this was Bush's first run at the presidency, he would likely stand zero shot, because of the same reason a lot of people will end up voting for Bush, to not rock the boat in such a "dangerous" time. Why? Because foreign policy is obviously going to be a critical focus for the election and Bush lacked any before 2000. Remember how much the media slammed him on foreign policy issues in 2000 (that's why he made social security and other domestic issues the focus of his platform and promptly ignored them).

If 9/11 had not happened, I think Bush would have very little chance of reelection, most of all because I suspect he would have continued on the same pathetic presidency he carried the first year and a half.

If Iraq had not occurred, Dean would still be governor of Vermont.

Kerry would probably be the Democratic candidate either way. I think he was tapped by the party to run for the same reason Dole was in 1996, simply because it was his turn at the bat. Democrats haven't put forth a real popular candidate aside from Clinton since Carter. The rest have been desperate attempts to throw up a candidate just to have one there. Kerry's popularity now stems more from the anybody-but-Bush drive than his own platform, and absent that, he would probably lose against a Republican.

If you look at 1996 and 2004, there's a lot of similarity. In 1996, Republicans lacked a real cohesive agenda. The 1994 Contract with America was pretty much over. They threw up a relatively unknown and undersupported candidate for president when clearly other people would have been more deserving candidates. They were going up against a popular Democrat with a solid focus on domestic issues. In 2004, Democrats lack a real cohesive agenda. So they have thrown up a somewhat unknown candidate (at least as far as presidential aspirations are concerned) and are barely supporting him. There are certainly better candidates amongst the party. But they are going up against a war president in a time where a war president appears to be necessary, with a solid foreign policy focus. In both cases, the two were chosen because they had obediently served the party and in a more even match both Dole and Kerry would have been unlikely to be tapped.

Democrats, since Carter, really haven't put up a candidate with a clear set of goals. Even Bush had a clear set of goals. Clinton's win really hinged on poor economic conditions, Bush I's terrible campaign skills, and Clinton's overall likeability with the public. In 1992 and 1996 he completely lacked a clear, popular agenda, but won because people liked him. (If you doubt that, consider everything that happened between 1992 and 1996 and see how well his popularity ratings were.) Gore, Mondale, Dukakis and even Carter in 1980 really lacked a clear agenda representing traditional Democrat policy areas. I think until the Democratic Party moves away from the DLC they will continue to push a vague and murky platform and will continue to lose presidential elections.

Republicans will maintain their hold on foreign policy and moral issues. The foreign policy side is what really keeps them in power in the White House, and moral issues keeps them in Congress in conservative districts. Generally, Republicans don't win much more in Congress beyond the most steadfast conservative areas because Democrats at the district level generally are more vocal about education and jobs, which are domestic issues more attenuated to Congressional seat wins. That's why Democrats have spent more time in the past 100 years in control of Congress (of course, Congressional seat wins are subject to more factors than that). In 2002, Democrats failed completely to make domestic issues important at the district level while Republicans shoved 9/11, terror, and foreign policy into the Congressional arena and muted lame Democrat attempts to make the economy a significant issue.

If the foreign policy issues of the past 3 years had not happened, Kerry would probably be in a much better position to win. Republicans would probably put forth the gay marriage issue as a critical element of the election, with significant focus on the tax cuts. Democrats would probably play social security, the negative effects of the tax cuts, education and job loss as key issues (as they should be, anyway IMO).

Lacking the ability to chastize Kerry for a lack of foreign policy experience, Republicans will continue to turn to his Viet Nam anti-war efforts and flip-flopping as reasons not to vote for him. Kerry will continue to be vague and hold no real platform.

I hate Bush, imna burn that mother down

I hate Kerry, imna burn that mother down

[Dionysos]

I think Adam's got a pretty firm grasp on the situation.