What happened? Election analysis

College Confidential Community
341

<br>


<br>

<p>Newsweek does a special edition and more in-depth book after each election based on reporting by a special team of reporters following the campaigns. These reporters get special access based on a commitment that their information will not be reported until after the election and will not be shared with the daily beat reporters. So the "inside" look at the campaigns is just beginning.</p>

<p>According to the Newsweek editor in charge of this project, the single most striking thing about this election was the ineptitude of the Kerry campaign. You mention Carvelle, but the question goes much further to include far more important Clintonistas, especially pollster Stanley Greenberg. Basically, all of these strategists were locked out of the Kerry campaign from the primariies through the post-convention period.</p>

<p>By August (triggered by the failure of the Kerry campaign to address the Swift boat ads), the mess had reached critical proportions and party operatives started reaching out to some of the Clintonistas, including Stan Greenberg who started doing polling, Clinton press secretary Mike McLarty who took over the press communications effort, and Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart who took over the day to day operation of the campaign. Even this transition was handled poorly with in-fighting and the refusal of the Kerry handlers to relinquish control. </p>

<p>Carvelle played a role in which he forceful argued with Kerry's Campaign Manager Mary Beth Cahill (Ted Kennedy's Chief of Staff) that she HAD to step aside. Carvelle finally told her that if the Kerry old-guard didn't give up their power, he would appear on Meet the Press the following morning and go public with the ineptitude of the Kerry campaign. </p>

<p>Just to highlight an example of the ineptitude, it was Mary Beth Cahill who went on national TV minutes after the third debate and stated that Dick Cheney's daughter was "fair game" in the campaign because of her sexual preferences. As people talk about the role of "moral values" in this election, I would point to the visceral negative reaction to this episode. I can tell you that it played a significant role in my questioning whether the Kerry campaign even had a moral compass. Forget gay marriage, I think it is morally reprehensible to say that an candidate's daughter is "fair game" for attack in a campaign because she is gay.</p>

<p>Be that as it may, with the Clinton old-guard on board by September, they managed to push Kerry up into a dead heat, but were never able to present a rationale to vote FOR Kerry instead of against Bush.</p>

<p>Greenberg's exit polling (he made a presentation yesterday), convinces him that the election was there for the taking -- i.e. that the voters were receptive to a economic message. But, when faced with a rationale vacuum from Kerry, the election indeed turned on "moral values" -- not just specific issues like gay marriage, but rather on "moral values" as broad range of topics including trust, consistency of conviction, a candidate who shared their basic core values. </p>

<p>I think that is is probably wrong to think of "moral values" in this election as a code word for right-wing fundamentalist red-meat issues. Rather, I think it's probably more accurate to think of of it a short-hand for a more general uneasiness that the Democrats do not reflect the overall social values of mainstream America. It seems to me that the electorate probably got this right. The response among many Democrats since the election has been to attack red-state Americans as ignorant, neanderthal yahoos.</p>

342

<p>emeraldkity4 says: "Kerry was way too conservative for me to be really happy with him, and there is a large groups of voters who feel the same way."</p>

<p>I am astounded by your comment. I did not realize it was possible for Kerry to be referred to as "too conservative." Who are these large groups of voters who feel this? Why would they believe Kerry was too conservative? Did they vote for Kerry or for someone else?</p>

343

<p>ID said:
"The response among many Democrats since the election has been to attack red-state Americans as ignorant, neanderthal yahoos."</p>

<p>Exactly. I really don't understand how a Kerry voter in southern California could wake up feeling hated and afraid. Try being an outspoken Bush supporter in a blue state sometime.</p>

344

<p>Driver, let me try to explain my intent. When I said CC posters who are well read , I was referring to people like you,Carolyn,ID,taxguy and Interrestedad . I think you see the world from your blue state , educated perspective and you don't see how in the world someone would be influenced by Rush and a general muddying of the waters. I have just gotten off the phone with my sister, a nurse in the red state of MIssouri. She is exactly the kind of person I am talking about and she illustrates my point and Patients point which I also agree with, that people were fearful and wanted a known vs. an unknown quantity. When you don't have a good grasp of the issues and rely on instincts only, I believe you can be easily manipulated or in general just confused. If all you do is watch network news, I don't believe you are going to make informed decisions. </p>

<p>I am like an evangelical who has found religion when it comes to being informed. The internet has changed how I look at politics as has Bush. I would have never called myself a Dem till recently. I have not been an informed voter all my life, tending to vote just the way I described above based on my family history, instinct, a little bit of network news, and how much I liked the candidate. I live amongst these red states and I know how they think. It is one of the reasons I wanted my son to experience a different part of the country. You can dismiss me as an elitist condescending liberal if you like but I think I have a valid point. As I said before, I think the condescension is actually disbelief and puzzlement at how people interpret the facts. As Patient said, I have never cared so much about who won or lost and felt such a resounding sadness, fear and anxiety.</p>

<p>Aparent, I used to really like David Brooks and I think he makes good points once in a while especially from a sociological point of view, but lately he has lost his objectivity. His op-ed about the neocons was silly and way to inflluenced by his own Jewish heritage.</p>

345

<p>they voted for Kerry at least the ones I know- they weren't too thrilled with the option of voting for whoever can get elected that isn't Bush though.</p>

<p>As for how many think differently than the "mainstream" , a Seattle dailys paper poll resulted in 52% for gay marriage
35% against
( the rest were undecided or had no opinion)
Just one issue that Kerry was against that liberal voters are for.</p>

<p>( I would have rather voted for Kucinich- he came the closest to my beliefs-)</p>

346

<p>Patient, I for one appreciate the tact you are taking and your willingness to try to understand what the Country is thinking. Unfortunately, this seems to be a rare approach a,omg dug in intellectual liberals. Black arm bands, pity parties and the like are the response on my liberal E. Coast campus. My brother, at a top W. Coast school, says it's even worse. The condensating attitudes, the red States are filled with dumb rednecks, is really eye opening for me. An intellectual fringe really believing the are smarter, more qualified to know, above it all, is startling to watch.</p>

347

<p>Here's an excerpt from The New Republic article</p>

<p>*CC does not allow the copying and pasting of entire articles. In this discussion, we are allowing links to national publications. If the links are suscribers-only, you will have to paraphrase the articles. *</p>

348

<p>First of all, I'm sorry, but Kerry is NOT a far, left wing liberal. In fact, one theory of his losing is that he tried to compete for Bush's base, straddled the middle line too much, tried to please everyone. If he had just stuck up for what he and his party believe in strongly and consistently, he might have energized his base more and won.
That's my opinion. Once again, terms such as "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless because depending on where you lie and the sperctrum, you define them very differently. Anything to the left of you is liberal and anything to the right of you is conservative. We ALL think we are the moderates.
Second, how could a Kerry supporter wake up feeling afraid and hated? Easily, with almost half the population calling us elitists and saying we are that we don't have moral values. A local radio talk show host yelling about how all the democrats are vandals and corrupt.
Does the left also criticize and spew hate at the right? ABSOLUTELY! Both sides do it!
Almost everyone does it! I am so sick of each side saying the other side does it more.
Maybe in a specific incident, one more than the other. But, if we tally it all up, both sides do it equally, and it's not helpful.
All Bush supporters are NOT redknecks, unintelligent, and intolerant.
All Kerry supporters are NOT elitist, immoral snobs.
We are all believe with extremely varying views on what is right and wrong.</p>

349

<p>Lizschup,
We have more in common than most would have thought! We have dinner guests coming (all family, many will be despondent dems), so I'm off the net for a while, but I did come across this interesting note through Instapundit.com. It's on-topic for this thread, whatever your thoughts.</p>

<p><a href="http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

350

<p>"I am astounded by your comment. I did not realize it was possible for Kerry to be referred to as "too conservative." Who are these large groups of voters who feel this? Why would they believe Kerry was too conservative? Did they vote for Kerry or for someone else?"</p>

<p>I thought Kerry was WAY too conservative for me, and as a result, I voted for someone else. But I think the more common response was to stay home - like 7 million supposed voters, college students and single women and moms - and not necessarily because he was too conservative, but because people couldn't figure out exactly what he was.</p>

<p>He ran as the centrist alternative to Gephardt, Dean, Kucinich, and Sharpton, and was being soundly rejected by Democrats across the nation as such. They accepted him, finally, (and very belatedly), as centrist "war hero" who might win because of that. It was stupid, but it worked...for a while.</p>

351

<p>Interesting post Liz, and the subject of much discussion around school these last 2 days. So you have 2 highly educated groups: 1) we'll take my professors, but many others included. Very educated biut make less than $200K. They have masters, ph.ds, good solid jobs but are "middle class" in major cities. Group 2: professional degrees, entrepreneurs, make more than $200K. Equally smart, yes, but smart in different ways. Outlook totally different. Crowd one has over the past two decades increasingly adopted more socialist values in response to the overwhelming financial success of crowd two. In crowd one we have MDs, who have seen their upper middle class lifestyles seriously eroding. In crowd 2 we have MBAs who made untold millions. Crowd 2 has be cast by crowd 1 into the role of robber barrons. These 2 extere groups are the people who fund campaigns, the people who get their voices heard and the people who argue the opposit points on sites like this. It's only going to get worse. We will move towards some type of National health care and MDs will make even less. New industries will at the same time spawn many more rich executives and bankers. The intellectual elite will continue to self righteous and dug in.</p>

352

<p>"Second, how could a Kerry supporter wake up feeling afraid and hated? Easily, with almost half the population calling us elitists and saying we are that we don't have moral values. A local radio talk show host yelling about how all the democrats are vandals and corrupt."</p>

<p>A vote for Bush was not a vote aginst "elitist" or "immoral" Democrats. Bush supporters know there are plently of elitist, immoral Republicans out there, too. I really hope you don't feel hated. Any Republican who makes you feel hated--like that talk-show host--is not worth listening to, and is certainly not representative of Republicans/Bush supporters as a whole.</p>

<p>President Bush has something Kerry didn't have--a base of supporters that really do love him. Most (though not all) Kerry votes were motivated by a dislike for Bush more than a love for Kerry. That was a big thing for Kerry to try to overcome.</p>

<p>You're right---there has been hate on both sides throughout this--but the media has mostly been anti-Bush (i.e. Dan Rather and Memogate; Rather and the planned weapons story 2 days before the election), and I think it may have turned a lot of people off---and it possibly made the Republicans feel hated. I know I got mad several times upon seeing the selective reporting of Iraq.
(Republicans might also feel resented when they see large groups of people wearing black///having mourning vigils, etc.)</p>

<p>Still, feeling hated doesn't solve anything....I'm hopeful that Dems and Repubs can work together in congress (though I wouldn't bet too much on it). Also, a majority of people (57%) believe Bush can be a uniter in his second term. That's certainly hopeful.</p>

353

<p>Bobby,How did you get that analysis from my post?</p>

354

<p>Liz, your post just backs up the analysis. What kills me Kebree, is that the worst Bush bashing media are the ones now wriring columns about listening to the other side!</p>

355

<p>What is the difference between Bush bashing and legitimate criticism of how he has handled the war and fiscal policy. Maybe you see it as bashing because you support Bush.</p>

356

<p>No kidding.</p>

<p>I thought G.W.B. was so gracious in his speech on Wed., specifically addressing Kerry voters and telling them he hoped to earn their trust...that took some humility. Kerry also did well by asking his colleagues to work with the President.</p>

<p>Edwards was tasteless...to use his "concession" as a bitter campaign speech was just pointless and bizarre. Apparently he had a fight with Kerry before that...he wanted to litigate in OH, though Kerry wisely opted not to (knowing the margin was too wide). I loved it when Mort Kondrake called his speech "wrong" and "a terrible idea". I wonder if Edwards had cleared it with Kerry beforehand....it didn't seem like it.</p>

<p>liz: Maybe you see it as legimate criticism because you support Kerry. =)
Note: Do you think Dan Rather and Peter Jennings are fair critics?</p>

357

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>Because Kerry failed to define himself, he made it easy for the Republicans to define Kerry for the voters. Hanging the "Massachusetts liberal" tag on him was like taking candy from a baby. Thus, with a simple phrase, the Republicans were able to wrap Kerry in all the negative connotations in the electorate of Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, and pointy-headed Cambridge types.</p>

<p>Why did Kerry allow this to happen? The short answer is that there was nothing there to define and his voting record is sitting there like a baseball bat for Karl Rove to use on him had he tried to invent a persona. </p>

<p>I actually thought that the Republicans did a fairly poor job of tarring the guy. For example, for all his talk of global tests, multi-national coalition building, standing firm militarily, etc., he was only one of TWO senators to vote against Gulf War I -- quite astonishing given the broad ally support and UN mandate for driving Sadaam out of Kuwait.</p>

<p>But, none of that was Kerry's greatest weakness. The guy is just such a cold fish and so uncomfortable campaigning that he is totally incapable of generating any connection with voters. He makes Al Gore seem like a charismatic TV evangelist in comparison.</p>

<p>The most striking question in the Exit Polls was a question asking voters whether they had cast their vote FOR YOUR CANDIDATE or AGAINST HIS OPPONENT.</p>

<p>69% cast their votes mostly for their candidate
25% cast their votes most against his opponent</p>

<p>Of those who voted mostly FOR, the split was 59% Bush and 40% Kerry.</p>

<p>Of those who voted mostly AGAINST, the split was 30% Bush and 70% Kerry.</p>

<p>This tells me that about the only thing Kerry had going for him in this election was that he was not George Bush. Not much of a "vision thing".</p>

358

<p>I don't see Jennings as a critic and I don't think ABC news blurs the line between analysis and news. I get my news from a variety of sources. While I would grant you that most but certainly not all reporters lean Democratic, I don't think it is fair to say that it influences what they report. I see bias from time to time but not in the same vein as Fox. </p>

<p>I think it is getting more difficult to get in depth reporting because of the large corporately owned media conglomerates. It has been reported that money for news gathering has been cut as a result. I don't think most of America has much of an attention span any more and are heavily influenced by an entertainment culture. It is not because they are lazy or stupid but because they are busy and overextended. If you want old fashioned sixties and seventies style news you have to watch Jim Lehrer. </p>

<p>I believe their is a deep cultural divide in this country that the democrats have to figure out. I think the Republicans figured it out 10 or 15 years ago and have successfully marketed themselves and I would say manipulated it. The news media and how news is consumed is a huge part of this. I know this is naively idealistic , but I think our political system has come down to one big business of marketing. While the democrats do it to they don't do it as successfully as the Reps. I think they have been caught off guard, innocently believing that Americans actively seek the truth and want to discuss ideas.</p>

<p>And as I have said before, there is a huge difference between negative ads that attack a persons character as the Swift Boat Vets did and those which make a genuine attack on Bush's policies. I mean lets get serious here, the news in Iraq is NOT good no matter how you spin it. And that is Bush's war. </p>

<p>Mini, I agree with you somewhat on Kerry being defined by Bush before he could define himself. I don't agree with you about his record because I don't believe you have to actively introduce legislation to make a good president. But that is not the kind of thing you can talk about in a 30 second commercial or a shallow network news program. There is a great link on PBS about what qualities make a good president. I'll post it next. </p>

<p>I don't think many people applied the kind of scrutiny to Bush that they applied to Kerry. Bush won and Kerry lost for a myriad of reasons. Pros and cons on both sides. I don't believe Kerry LOST it as soundly as many of you would like to think or that the Dems are as out of touch as you would like to think.</p>

359

<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/leadership/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This is the Frontline link to a number of articles discussing what makes a good president.</p>

360

<p>"Mini:</p>

<p>Because Kerry failed to define himself, he made it easy for the Republicans to define Kerry for the voters. Hanging the "Massachusetts liberal" tag on him was like taking candy from a baby."</p>

<p>I don't know of anyone - not a single one -- who didn't vote for Kerry because he was a Mass. liberal anymore than they wouldn't have voted for any other Democrat. He, being among the more conservative Democrats in the primary, actually got much more of a pass as a result.</p>

<p>But I know dozens of folks who didn't vote for Kerry because of Viet Nam, and the Swift Boat thing - it was his failure to respond to that which got him in hot water, not his "liberalism". And I also know dozens of folks who didn't vote for him (including myself) and/or stayed home because he was too conservative, too pro-war, too pro-globalization.</p>