Why Did John Kerry Lose In 2004?

[Itsthetruth]

Bellaciao
June 9, 2005
Why did we lose?
by Gregory Stricherz

Much has been thought, said, written about how George W. Bush became President in 2000. Even more has been thought, said, written about how he became President again in 2004. But little has been written about WHY a Democrat didn’t become President in 2004. Until now.
Joshua Frank has just completed LEFT OUT! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush.

And he doesn’t pull any punches. The Democrats ignored the one true liberal candidate they had - Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats burned through campaign funds trying to keep Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo off the ballot rather than spending their money to bring new voters to the poll. The Democrats ignored their base, which was heavily against the War in Iraq, and chose the most warlike candidate they could find to “report for duty.”

Frank’s book gives us details we never heard before or perhaps have forgotten. It clearly shows WHY the Democrats lost in 2004. It is a most-worthwhile read.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6401

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: I just ordered the book. Frank is a skilled and highly talented progressive writer. I think all progressives who are working "inside" and/or "outside" of the Democratic Party ought to read and consider his views. Albert Gore and John Kerry should have and could have easily defeated Bush in a landslide. If they had run in clear opposition to Bush's agenda they would have easily won, IMO.

[ClassWarrior]

1. He didn't.

Never Give Up. :patriot:

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. EXCEPT, that the election was stolen. I don't disagree with

the points you laid out but that Kerry woulda won just on account of everyone is sick to death of the BFEE. But he didn't because it was fixed. x(

[goclark]

9. Plain and simple, Kerry DID win

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Yes, except that he didn't according to the numbers they cooked up

But on the ground it wsa clear he won. And exit polls would have proved it.

[sendero]

45. Which leaves only the question..

... why didn't he do something about it?

Never mind, I know the answer, as does anyone who's watched him for the last couple of years.

[saltpoint]

3. I support President Kerry and President Gore.

Bush cheated.

[Pacifist Patriot]

4. He lost because the election was rigged.

A better question might be why the pre-election polling numbers and the exit polls weren't wider. I personally think Kerry had a legitimate electoral landslide, but the popular vote was way too close for comfort. Why are so many people still buying the Republican bullshit?

[impeachthescoundrel]

5. Well, I like to read different points of view

But this particular one is dead wrong, IMO.

John Kerry didn't lose.

The election was STOLEN from him and all of us.

Pisses me off badly.

[Itsthetruth]

7. Read The Book! I Will

""Well, I like to read different points of view But this particular one is dead wrong, IMO."

Have you read the book? If not, I don't think it would be fair to say that his book is "dead wrong". Give it a chance.


Progressives reviews of "Left Out" By Joshua Frank:

"Here's Election 2004 on the butcher's block and Joshua Frank swings an unerring cleaver. By the time he's done, he's filleted the Democratic Party, carved up all the leading players from G.W. Bush to Howard Dean and thrown them on the grill. In these brisk pages you get the whole election industry cut and wrapped. Buy this book and take it home!"

-Alexander Cockburn, columnist for The Nation, and co-editor of CounterPunch


"From an electoral standpoint, the left is in crisis. Yet, for the most part, thinking about how to resolve the crisis follows predictable -- and predictably fruitless -- lines. Joshua Frank has broken out of the box and offered analysis so provocative that some will consider it dangerous. Fair enough. We need some dangerous discussions if there is to be any hope for progress. Frank has done the discourse a service, as will readers who use this important book to force the debate that is so greatly needed."

-John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation and author of Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire


"The evidence unearthed here will unnerve many progressives who nurse their news from the nipples of The New York Times. But it’s not too late to wean yourselves. Frank’s sober assessment offers us a nourishing shot at redemption, a chance to escape the political quagmire that has deadened the voices of opposition in this nation at the most tremulous hour of the republic."

-Jeffrey St. Clair, co-editor of CounterPunch and author of the forthcoming book Grand Theft Pentagon


"A must-read book, full of valuable insights on how the political process operates when so-called liberals throw their hats into the ring. I have learned a great deal from Frank’s fast-paced account of political reality. Indispensable reading."

-Gabriel Kolko, author of Another Century of War?


"Joshua Frank dissects the stinking corpse of Kerry’s defeat and, with intelligence, wit and, yes, tremendous optimism -- explains why the left must reject the suffocating logic of lesser evilism."

-Sharon Smith, author of Women and Socialism: Essays on Women’s Liberation



"Like the voice who cried 'the emperor has no clothes,' Joshua Frank provides no quarter to the guilty as he peels away layer after layer of the paint of propaganda ... laying bare the myths and mendacity that fuel the American political machine. Left Out! is a wake-up call for anyone still clinging to the futile, desperate hope that the future exists within our alleged two-party system. Like a modern-day I.F. Stone, Joshua Frank is ruthless when necessary but his compassion and honesty are never in doubt."

-Mickey Z., author of There is No Good War: The Myths of World War II


"Joshua Frank does a radical thing in Left Out! -- tells the truth! The broken two party system -- better labeled a two-party dictatorship -- has blinded many political commentators about the reality of the 'system.' But it hasn't blinded Frank. I just hope 'Anybody But Bushers' read this book, understand it and don't repeat the mistake again. The lesson of 2004: you will never get what you want if you continue voting for what you don't want."

-Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising


"Joshua Frank's book is more than a wake-up call to those Americans who won’t vote Republican and shouldn't vote Democratic, but do out of desperation. Left Out! analyzes the 2004 Democratic presidential campaign from a perspective most media will never present. It rips the mask off the Democrat's so-called opposition, revealing a pitiful political assemblage without a program or an understanding of its potential constituency -- all because the party sold its soul long ago."

-Ron Jacobs, author of The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground


"Joshua Frank belongs to a small club of political writers unimpressed with the credentials of Washington’s ruling elite … Left Out! pierces the mythology and spin that Washington manufactures on a daily basis. Virtually all mainstream political reporters welcome the opportunity to join the inside-the-Beltway media elite. Not Frank. He thrives on exposing the chicanery of politicians of all political stripes, while not embracing an ideological conformity."

-Mark Hand, editor of PressAction.com


"Left Out! is not a pleasant read. Readers may find themselves uncomfortable with the indictments of Democrats who let us down. But the blame does not stop with the party's leaders and candidates. No, Joshua Frank makes it clear that the watering down of the Democratic agenda, in order to woo voters who would hate Bush enough to vote for anybody but him, was a flawed strategy. And not just because the Democrats lost. We have lost our way, and are out in left field searching not just for a leader, but for principles, and yes, values, upon which to build a new party, and lead a revolution."

-Elaine Cassel, author of The War on Civil Liberties


"The generation that taught us how consent is manufactured is aging, yet a new crop of writers, scholars and journalists has risen to make sure no one is 'Left Out.' Joshua Frank, whose clearly written, well-researched, provocative essays are already familiar to thousands of readers on the web -- is at the forefront of this new generation. He will continue to succeed where mainstream media has failed, and remain a thorn in the side of democracy's adversaries for decades to come."

-Adam Engel, author of Topiary

[impeachthescoundrel]

10. I stand corrested

But as long as I shall live there will never be a person who will convince me that an inarticulate, evil bastard like * beat him honestly and fairly.

[Itsthetruth]

16. Bush Didn't Win, Kerry Lost

Kerry lost the election, an election that he could have won in a landslide had he opposed Bush on Iraq, the Patriot Act and a few other key issues.

[marions ghost]

15. OK fine if you've read it then tell us

Excerpt from these Blurbs of Praise for the book:
"Like the voice who cried 'the emperor has no clothes,' Joshua Frank provides no quarter to the guilty as he peels away layer after layer of the paint of propaganda ... laying bare the myths and mendacity that fuel the American political machine.
------------------------
OK IF you've read it, tell us:
DOES JOSHUA FRANK ANYWHERE in this book address the issues of 1. Media Propaganda and 2. Election Fraud---????

IF NOT--then he has not peeled away enough layers of the propaganda...he has NOT laid bare the "myths and mendacity"

Maybe this is a good book for those who are guilty of something or other. But if you're talking about the big picture and you don't mention the media complicity or the election heist--well....it's not the big picture.

[Itsthetruth]

19. I Didn't Indicate That I Had Read It, But I Will!

As I wrote in my post: "Read The Book! I Will". I will read the book. That means I haven't read it yet and as I indicated earlier I have just ordered it.

Oh. I think Bush did get more votes than Kerry in the 2004 election. The election shouldn't have been even close!

Kerry should have and could have beaten Bush in a landslide if he had campaigned against the war, the Patriot Act and a few other key issues. He didn't. Millions of people didn't vote for Kerry. They simply voted against Bush. You can't win an election that way.

[FreedomAngel82]

25. Then why did the exit polling

say Kerry won? The same people who did our polling did the Ukraine polling. They used the polling to see that there was fraud which proves to me that Kerry won. Leading up to the election Kerry won all the polls. The same thing happened here in my town's mayor race back in April. The new mayor won all the polls leading up to the election but one and we have paper ballots and he won the election. John Kerry had the same thing happen. I know he won. Probably 3-5%.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. A weak candidate on a weak platform who pandered to the right.

He gave Bush a free ride with his vote for the war. He had nothing to offer except the "not as bad as the Republicans" that the DLC loves.

But, he did bag a ferocious goose and display his medals.

[friesianrider]

44. Ha!

I couldn't agree more. Where oh where did the Kerry of the Vietnam-era go?

[marions ghost]

8. Fine to consider all these theories...

and books with guilt-snagging titles like "How Liberals Helped Reelect Bush" --but sorry, Kerry was a reasonable candidate.

First the media tore him to pieces and then the Rethuglicans "took care of the counting."

Until those things are corrected, why hash around about what candidate would've been better or even would've won. It's all just speculation in a corrupt and dysfunctional system.

[Cleita]

12. I agree that Kucinich was a better candidate than Kerry, however,

no one pays much attention to the fact that a few hot primary states got to select the candidate before the majority of the nation even got to cast their ballot. This has got to stop. Kerry was marketed heavily in New Hampshire and Ohio appealing directly to what those citizens in those states had concerns about. The rest of the states didn't matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. A good argument for a national primary.

After all the candidate is running to be president of the whole country. Not just Iowa, New Hampshire, SC, and Ohio.

[Cleita]

21. My point exactly.

Primaries should all be run on the same day, with results held back until the precincts close in Hawaii. Then and only then should they start posting results.

[Yupster]

27. I don't agree with the same day primary

because then it would just be even more of a name ID contest. Give the underdogs a chance to spend months in a state or two trying to get a name. Just don't make it the same states every cycle.

[Yupster]

26. I'd like to see a primary lottery

where each cycle different states would be picked out of a hat to go first, second etc.

I think it would generate a lot of excitement and be more fair.

[LittleClarkie]

48. All the candidates could have done that

it was just smart to tailor ones ads to whichever state you're trying to win. I've heard some reports that this is part of what the Deaniacs were doing wrong. They'd come flooding into a NH or Iowa (It's Iowa btw) and tell about what Dean meant to THEM, as opposed to what Dean could mean to THEM in their state.

That's just good marketing.

Even if the states are more bunched together, the ads in each should be tailored to each.

[EVDebs]

13. The 'Gresham's Law' applied politically

"Bad money chases out good" applied politically shows us that a bad message (disguised as facts, read Swift Boaters, and any of Rove/Bush's "policy" issues) crowds out good policy issues etc.

[name not needed]

14. He forgot Poland

duh.

[blm]

18. I think this is a crock of shit. Frank hates Democrats, period. He'd hate

Kucinich, too, when his entire voting record was used against him if we was the nominee.

Frank would be leading the charge to destroy Kucinich.

I don't believe one word out of his GOP operative mouth.

DLC is spinning that Kerry was too liberal and faux lefties are complaining that Kerry is no different than Bush.

What a crock of shit.

[Itsthetruth]

20. Now That Certainly Is A Crock

"I don't believe one word out of his GOP operative mouth. What a crock of shit."

That comment certainly is a "crock of shit". Whenever anyone on the left criticizes John Kerry or some other corporate Democrat charge them with being a Republican operative!

It's clear that the Democratic Party leadership has pretty much destroyed or at least marginalized Dennis Kucinich and other progressives trying to end corporate control and domination over the Democratic Party and most of its "leaders".

Now I'm sure that many progessives, including Frank, have political disagreements with Kucinich. Perhaps they think he's conducting a losing battle inside the Democratic Party. However, it's Democratic Party leaders and officials who have been trying for several years now to politically destroy and isolate Dennis Kucinich inside the Democratic Party "big tent", not Frank.

Look at how they humiliated Kucinich and his delegates at the Democratic Party convention!

[blm]

29. Horseshit. Kucinich had a strong speech spot. I've supported DK over 30yrs

and went through thick and thin with him on many issues I didn't agree with him on because he was still a solid lawmaker with the heart of a liberal.

If it was up to many of my lefty friends over the years, Kucinich would have been defeated for being a conservative Democrat, a DINO, since he started voting as a congressman in 93. People like me got his back because we understood why he voted with the Republicans for years on choice and flagburning issues.

Sorry to inform you that Kerry had the most liberal LIFETIME voting record of all the candidates, and he accumulated it over 19 years. Not easy.

It's crazy to think that Dem leaders were out to destroy Kucinich for being a liberal voice. In fact, that's as stupid and crazy as those on the left who believed he was too conservative.

You're not going to snow me with your poor Kucinich baloney, because there isn't a soul here who has spent more years or dollars supporting Dennis than me. I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone to use his name in an effort to divide the party....a party that HE loves and supports.

[Itsthetruth]

32. Kucinich Wasn't On During Prime Time

He was "allowed" to speak before an almost empty convention floor.

His delegates were harassed by convention "monitors" who took away any "peace" signs they brought to the convention. Over 80% of convention delegates were opposed to the war against Iraq but were not permitted to express their views at the convention or on the convention floor.

A moderate "pro-peace" platform proposal submitted by Kucinich delegates was relegated to the waste basket. Convention organizers did not permit the proposal to be debated and voted up or down on the convention floor.

The convention was to be a "reporting for duty" pro-war show with lots of flags and military uniforms on display. And in order to put on such a display, Democratic delegates who opposed the war had to be muzzled and silenced.

Now if you wish to defend such shabby and disrespectful treatment go ahead.

[blm]

33. He had an evening spot. He was not treated shabbily. You distort for YOUR

ends not Dennis'. Real DK supporters are sick of your tactics.

[Cary]

22. I wonder how productive this inquiry is.

If they stole the election, somehow and someway that has to be definitively exposed. I'm not sure that has been done.

As far as the handwringing goes, it has no effect on me. I view things as I view them and my views are very different from those of neo-cons. I see myself as logical, rather than ideological. I cannot and will not change my views based on getting others to vote Democratic.

I see so many of these neo-cons resorting to bromides like "no taxes" or "no government." We all know what these bromides are. They have them and then they develop pseudo logic to support the bromides. Pseudo logic like "supply-side economics."

I see no choice but to just keep fighting for that which logic dictates. I just hope the damage caused by the ideologues isn't too great,and I hope someone comes along who can convince enough people that logic should win out over ideology.

[CambridgeDem]

23. Is the "Kerry really won!" view the dominant one here?

Just curious. I am new to this site. And to your lovely country.

[Yupster]

28. I don't think so

but it's a loud opinion.

[marions ghost]

30. It would certainly be the dominant one

if the people of the US knew what happened.

One of the problems is that it's very hard to account for the systemic bias which occurred nationwide, because the system is so byzantine, and there is no precedent for really investigating a federal election. Efforts were made in Ohio to expose what went on, but they were fought by Republican interests. I have seen corrupt elections go completely unprosecuted here, and you don't even have to believe in a conspiracy theory to know that there was a record amount of monkey business everywhere. If Ohio had a fair vote, Bush would not be in the White House. Also the American media has stifled any news that has anything to do with the elections ever since.

Welcome to DU CambridgeDem. :)

May I suggest that you might want to visit the DU 2004 Election Discussion forum, where all the arguments for a corrupted election, complete with media complicity, are well documented. I think it's fair to say there is a lot of controversy on the subject.

[CambridgeDem]

31. Thanks!

:)

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Kerry and Gore didn't lose

Gore did win. In 2001 after the inauguration people went back and counted all over Florida at least three times. And each time Al Gore won. It was supposed to be announced September 12, 2001 but we know what happened. This time there is no proof that Kerry didn't win or did win and the same for George Bush. Bush is in the Oval office illegally.

[EFerrari]

34. He didn't lose. And bellaciao should know better because they

helped break the story.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Oh, I remember him now.

I'm not interested really. Dennis, bless the little garden gnome, wasn't going to get elected. And in his heart of hearts, I do believe Joshua wanted Nader. He's one of those "dime's worth a difference" folk from Counterpunch I find quite annoying.

http://www.counterpunch.com/frank07142004.html

Here's an article from him about Nader vs Dean

[Dr Ron]

36. Remember George McGovern?

McGovern vs. Nixon 1972

That's the result we would have had in 2004 if we followed his advice.

Besides, if that is really what the Democartic base wanted, John Kerry would not have run away with the nomination.

"warlike" is hardly a good description of John Kerry.

[Itsthetruth]

38. "Anybody But Nixon"

"Remember George McGovern? McGovern vs. Nixon 1972 That's the result we would have had in 2004 if we followed his advice."

Yes. I remember that campaign. That was the "Anybody But Nixon" campaign. Same strategy, same result.

Of course, unlike 1972, the economic conditions are totally different today for average working people. 1972 was a time of relative prosperity for most people. This election would have been won by a landslide if the Democratic Party had run someone against George Bush.

[Dr Ron]

40. Revisionist history

McGovern didn't lose because of a anybody but Nixon campaign. He lost because he was seen as from the far left.

As for the economy, things were far worse around 1972 than now. It was during Nixon's term, for example, that wage price controls were initiated because inflation was such a problem.

[Itsthetruth]

41. Economy Was Worse In 1972?

Since 1972 we have lost millions of good paying jobs because of out-sourcing. speed-up, union busting and downsizing. The labor movement was strong representing nearly one out of three workers, today it's less than 8% in private industry. Entire industries have been all but destroyed. Important social programs that benefit working people and the poor have been gutted or eliminated. That began during the Reagan administration. And that continued under Clinton and now Bush.

By every economic indicator the economy is far worse today than 33 years ago. Our living standards have gone down. People now have to work two and sometimes three jobs just to keep their heads above water.

I'm sorry that I don't have time now to present all of the facts proving just how much worse conditions are today for working people but perhaps someone else does have the time.

I have to make dinner!

[Dr Ron]

46. Nonsense

By some parameters the ecnomomy is better, and by some it is worse. You are looking at certain factors, and totally ignoring others. The fact remains that things were so bad in the Nixon years that drastic action such as wage and price controls had to be instituted.

The bottom line is that there were serious economic problems in both elections. It makes no sense to claim that economic problems in 2004 should have made the outcome any different than it was for McGovern vs. Nixon if Democrats had run from the far left.

[Itsthetruth]

47. I"ll Say Nonsense!

You will be hard pressed to find any reputable economist who thinks the American economy is no worse today than it was in 1972. You might find one at a conservative Republican think tank.

Outside of a short bout with price inflation, how else was the economy so terrible in 1972 when compared to today?

Now, if you think the big growth in the number of millionaires in the past few decades is a clear sign of economic health, you might have a point, if you're one of those millionnaires!

[Dr Ron]

49. No short bout

It was hardly a short bout. Dealing with this, from Nixon's wage and price controls to Ford's WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now) was a major problem for quite a while. Regardless of which era was worse, there is no justification for the real point here--your claim that the economy of 2004 should have led to a different result than Nixon vs. McGovern.

[eridani]

51. You've GOT to be kidding!

Weekly wages for Americans in constant dollars PEAKED in 1973!

[killbotfactory]

37. Because he voted for the IWR

He let the swift boat vets run wild, and didn't counter the flip-flopper bullshit.

That let Bush get away with "well, he saw the same evidence I did *shrug* *smirk*.

[bunny planet]

39. HE DIDN'T.

[hippiegranny]

42. trick question?

He didn't lose. Yes I know, it has been said over and over again in this thread. Just adding my name to the consensus.

[GetTheRightVote]

43. we and Kerry did not lose, it was stolen again,

Look up the Ohio news that is happening right now which is proving it, the money being embezzed, coins lost, etc.

:kick:

[Awsi Dooger]

50. Tons of reasons

We hilariously overstated Bush's vulnerability. An incumbent has now been re-elected 10 of 11 times since 1900 if his party had been in office only one term. Our hatred for Bush didn't necessarily equate to numbers. His approval rating was never as horrid as his father's in '92. He always had a 45+% failsafe base and, after 9/11, plenty of fear-enabled methods to claim another chunk of the vital swing 10%. The GOP has caught us in registration and GOTV after lagging there in '98 and '00. Those were the years we needed to capitalize on what was certain to be a short-term edge. Plenty of senate victories in 2000 were not enough. Florida 2000, of course, was the killer. We caught the GOP off guard there and a victory in that unlikely state changes the political landscape for potentially decades. Incredible misfortune that flawed ballot designs derailed everything.

Also, as I emphasized befoire the primary season, to oust an incumbent requires a special charismatic candidate. Only Reagan and Clinton have succceeded in the TV era. No way Kerry fit that mold better than a John Edwards. Our handicapping of a war hero resume as a necessity was remarkably ignorant. The race was always going to be decided by white women and Edwards was our best shot with his Southern appeal, populist message and charismatic optimism. Kerry's fortunes in the polls were always directly tied to standing among white women. Every other major block maintained its 2000 level or very close. But white women shifted to 9 point GOP advantage, from 1 point in 2000. Reclaiming the security moms is the only issue for 2006 and beyond. Frankly, there are less than 1% of the needed DU threads analyzing that necessity.