Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People say that John Kerry should have won in 2004 and he blew it. Is that really accurate? Typically, it is very difficult to beat an incumbent, especially during wartime. To beat an incumbent, there has to be a LOT of unhappiness with the incumbent, not just a little. Think Old Man Bush in 1992 and Jimmy Carter in 1980. In 2004 Bush's approval ratings were about 48 or 49% and his disapproval ratings were around 46 or 47%. Basically treading water. The economy was recovering from the dot com bubble of the early 2000s but was still not great. The Iraq war was becoming more unpopular but hadn't yet become the quagmire it later would become. It was before Katrina. Basically a tie. A tie typically goes to the incumbent. Usually in the Popular vote the incumbent will get his approval rating plus maybe 1 or 2 points. If you look at John Kerry, definately not enough there to justify throwing out the incumbent. I think that the fundementals of the race always favored Bush winning narrowly, which is what happened.
Kerry failed to be a "common man" to the voters, the wife's billions made him a rich guy instead.
The Bush family was rich but not billions rich and the dopey Bush Jr "awe shucks" attitude made him seem more common and relatable.
I think Bush Sr/Jr were fine, neither set the world on fire but they didn't do the bad job the "impeachable" Presidents did.
Kerry failed to be a "common man" to the voters, the wife's billions made him a rich guy instead.
The Bush family was rich but not billions rich and the dopey Bush Jr "awe shucks" attitude made him seem more common and relatable.
I think Bush Sr/Jr were fine, neither set the world on fire but they didn't do the bad job the "impeachable" Presidents did.
What does the bolded mean? Whom does it refer to? Bush II was eminently impeachable; he lied to Congress about WMD in Iraq, an impeachable offense, and Congress had proof. The problem with impeachment is, that it typically occupies a LOT of Congressional time, which takes time away form the business of governing the country, whatever issues require attention at that time. So ultimately, Congress decided not to pursue impeachment.
Too bad; if anyone deserved it, Little Bush (as the Chinese call him) did, for dragging the US and some of its allies into Iraq, thereby setting up a domino effects that stirred up all kinds of thorny elements in the Near East, that did not prove beneficial in later years.
Kerry failed to be a "common man" to the voters, the wife's billions made him a rich guy instead.
The Bush family was rich but not billions rich and the dopey Bush Jr "awe shucks" attitude made him seem more common and relatable.
I think Bush Sr/Jr were fine, neither set the world on fire but they didn't do the bad job the "impeachable" Presidents did.
When did being a "common man" (or faking it well) become the path to electoral victory? JFK didn't pander to hayseeds, with any artificial "shucks" and "gosh", gee whiz! And FDR? Heck no; they won by inspiring people and projecting Presidential competence.
Hmm.... I wonder if Reagan started that trend... And Bush II ran with it, because that's all he could manage, lol. After a few dumbed-down Presidencies, maybe the public, or a segment of it anyway, had come to expect that cr@p.
As already mentioned, I think the swift boat lies are what sank Kerry. He's a good man, would have made a good president. I heard they actually paid some veterans to lie and say he was a coward in the swift boat incident when in reality he was a true hero.
And we wonder why we always get stuck with a fool for president. It's the lies. Even Hillary might have won if they hadn't come up with some sort of lie about child trafficking in a pizza place. People actually believe that and some guy actually showed up with a gun to stop it.
As already mentioned, I think the swift boat lies are what sank Kerry. He's a good man, would have made a good president. I heard they actually paid some veterans to lie and say he was a coward in the swift boat incident when in reality he was a true hero.
And we wonder why we always get stuck with a fool for president. It's the lies. Even Hillary might have won if they hadn't come up with some sort of lie about child trafficking in a pizza place. People actually believe that and some guy actually showed up with a gun to stop it.
But how can people be that dumb, to swallow crazy stuff like that? The fact that Kerry was awarded two medals for his service makes it obvious, that the swift boat issue was a lie. I missed the child trafficking story, but that's so obviously far-fetched. On our very own C-D in the Politics forum, people were slandering Clinton, saying she was gay and enjoyed gay sex (they didn't phrase it so politely, though....)
I recently read an article that described the tactics "Moscow" (meaning you-know-who and his supporters) use to defame their opposition, whoever it may be: some pesky human rights reporters, or a political candidate, or whoever gets in the way. They do exactly what they did to H Clinton: spread lies that the object of their ire is gay, is a child abuser, as so forth. This is legal in Russia. It's illegal in the US, but when it's done somehow anonymously on the internet, there's no source to drag into court.
Why do people believe really obvious lies? You don't get awards for military service for being a coward. If that's all it takes to sink an outstanding candidate, which Kerry was, what's the point in holding elections anymore?
When did being a "common man" (or faking it well) become the path to electoral victory? JFK didn't pander to hayseeds, with any artificial "shucks" and "gosh", gee whiz! And FDR? Heck no; they won by inspiring people and projecting Presidential competence.
Hmm.... I wonder if Reagan started that trend... And Bush II ran with it, because that's all he could manage, lol. After a few dumbed-down Presidencies, maybe the public, or a segment of it anyway, had come to expect that cr@p.
JFK was a world apart from Reagan who was a world apart from Bush2. Being a hayseed [not my term] or pandering to the hayseeds in 1960 was less of a thing than 20+ years later. Hayseedism, anti-intellectualism, skepticism, and distrust of government grew by leaps and bounds thanks to Vietnam & fake war claims, countercu!ture, Nixon & Watergate, Agnew, popular culture, and whatever.
Carter helped to make farmers with education and religion more socially elevated in the '70s, but there was his brother, Billy, in the background living the stereotype. Billy's persona, real or put on, was more familiar and easier to replicate than Jimmy's. There were other similar role models and they have multiplied over the years to the point where it is politically expedient to pander to them as a candidate or to bolster your ratings. Bush2 was good at that and cultivated that image...but likely didn't have to go very far.
The "common man" voter looked up to Eisenhower, JFK, and Nixon. Anti-intellectualism was alive and well in politics in the 1950s (consider the "Egghead" Adlai Stevenson campaign put on by the Republicans) but it came into full bloom during the Reagan campaigns and afterwards, mostly fostered by the GOP.
Two notable exceptions are Bill Clinton, who embraced that hayseed persona (but was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford), and our most recent past president who is in no way a "common man" or hayseed but was an expert at talking his way through life and somehow talked them into thinking he was one of their own. Being "common" comes naturally to some, almost as an art, while others are not as good at it.
Going back to John Kerry, he was the better candidate but his persona and image was of an eastern-bred guy married to a rich woman who probably hung out with intellectuals (like himself) and didn't get his hands dirty. Kerry needed a Harley, a road trip to Sturgis, maybe a cattle ranch (not sheep or pigs) and a horse, and a hankering for bass fishing. He would have had something else to talk about than Vietnam And Swift Boats. That is what we remember most.
JFK was a world apart from Reagan who was a world apart from Bush2. Being a hayseed [not my term] or pandering to the hayseeds in 1960 was less of a thing than 20+ years later. Hayseedism, anti-intellectualism, skepticism, and distrust of government grew by leaps and bounds thanks to Vietnam & fake war claims, countercu!ture, Nixon & Watergate, Agnew, popular culture, and whatever.
Carter helped to make farmers with education and religion more socially elevated in the '70s, but there was his brother, Billy, in the background living the stereotype. Billy's persona, real or put on, was more familiar and easier to replicate than Jimmy's. There were other similar role models and they have multiplied over the years to the point where it is politically expedient to pander to them as a candidate or to bolster your ratings. Bush2 was good at that and cultivated that image...but likely didn't have to go very far.
The "common man" voter looked up to Eisenhower, JFK, and Nixon. Anti-intellectualism was alive and well in politics in the 1950s (consider the "Egghead" Adlai Stevenson campaign put on by the Republicans) but it came into full bloom during the Reagan campaigns and afterwards, mostly fostered by the GOP.
Two notable exceptions are Bill Clinton, who embraced that hayseed persona (but was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford), and our most recent past president who is in no way a "common man" or hayseed but was an expert at talking his way through life and somehow talked them into thinking he was one of their own. Being "common" comes naturally to some, almost as an art, while others are not as good at it.
Going back to John Kerry, he was the better candidate but his persona and image was of an eastern-bred guy married to a rich woman who probably hung out with intellectuals (like himself) and didn't get his hands dirty. Kerry needed a Harley, a road trip to Sturgis, maybe a cattle ranch (not sheep or pigs) and a horse, and a hankering for bass fishing. He would have had something else to talk about than Vietnam And Swift Boats. That is what we remember most.
I see! Thank you for the thorough analysis, Professor! You could hold up the entire US History section of the forum on your own!
I completely missed out on any Billy Carter issues. What I remember, is that Carter was viewed as a refreshing change from "Tricky Dick". His "Born Again" status was viewed positively as an antidote to the moral collapse of the previous administration. If he'd run at any other time in history, he would have gotten steamrolled. (Which he did during his second campaign, as Reagan portrayed him as a worry-wart, for campaigning on economic concerns (as if double-digit interest rates and "stagflation" didn't really exist)). Carter, the peanut farmer, much later revealed (when asked), that his IQ was 179.
Bill Clinton embraced the hayseed persona? How so? Mainly what I remember (apart from the impeachment debacle), was that he was considered to be a "wonk". Wonkism became a thing during his Presidency, which is kind of the antithesis of hayseedism, isn't it?
But how can people be that dumb, to swallow crazy stuff like that? The fact that Kerry was awarded two medals for his service makes it obvious, that the swift boat issue was a lie. I missed the child trafficking story, but that's so obviously far-fetched. On our very own C-D in the Politics forum, people were slandering Clinton, saying she was gay and enjoyed gay sex (they didn't phrase it so politely, though....)
I recently read an article that described the tactics "Moscow" (meaning you-know-who and his supporters) use to defame their opposition, whoever it may be: some pesky human rights reporters, or a political candidate, or whoever gets in the way. They do exactly what they did to H Clinton: spread lies that the object of their ire is gay, is a child abuser, as so forth. This is legal in Russia. It's illegal in the US, but when it's done somehow anonymously on the internet, there's no source to drag into court.
Why do people believe really obvious lies? You don't get awards for military service for being a coward. If that's all it takes to sink an outstanding candidate, which Kerry was, what's the point in holding elections anymore?
Obama made it---twice---despite the lies.
Big lies often carry more weight than smaller ones do because they sound so horrifying. I think many people react to a "big lie" by saying "No one would say that if it wasn't true".
If you are on the receiving end of a big lie, like John Kerry was, there is a temptation to simply ignore it. It has nothing to do with the message you are trying to get across in your campaign. It isn't about any of the issues you are campaigning on. Plus, you are tempted to believe that it is so outrageous people will see through it.
The problem is that historically "the big lie" works as a campaign technique. Its been used by a number of politicians.
The only thing I can really say is that when this tactic is used against a politician there really is only effective response: Hit back against it with everything you have.
Big lies often carry more weight than smaller ones do because they sound so horrifying. I think many people react to a "big lie" by saying "No one would say that if it wasn't true".
If you are on the receiving end of a big lie, like John Kerry was, there is a temptation to simply ignore it. It has nothing to do with the message you are trying to get across in your campaign. It isn't about any of the issues you are campaigning on. Plus, you are tempted to believe that it is so outrageous people will see through it.
The problem is that historically "the big lie" works as a campaign technique. Its been used by a number of politicians.
The only thing I can really say is that when this tactic is used against a politician there really is only effective response: Hit back against it with everything you have.
It would have been so easy to blow Bush out of the water with that false accusation. But Kerry didn't want to stoop to that level. Then later, when Clinton advised him to do just that, everyone accused him of mud-slinging.
Bill Clinton embraced the hayseed persona? How so? Mainly what I remember (apart from the impeachment debacle), was that he was considered to be a "wonk". Wonkism became a thing during his Presidency, which is kind of the antithesis of hayseedism, isn't it?
"Embraced" might be too strong of an action verb. He didn't have to do much to be perceived as a "Bubba" and that was what some folks liked to call him. Some saw him as a "frat boy". But he was possibly one of the sharpest presidents we have had since WW2. Being a Rhodes Scholar, he knew it and brought all of that with him. He was intelligent and recognized intelligence in others. He knew when to turn on the country boy charm. His problem might have been boredom.
I had a much-esteemed boss for about 15 years. A mentor figure. He was from a small county-seat town, son of a county sheriff, He went to small college about fifty miles away but was well educated and well respected nationally in his field. For years he was the executive director of a national association on top of his other work. But he was able to turn on the "aw shucks, I'm just a country boy" routine when dealing with the state legislators, who were mostly country boys, and it worked every time. He could spread honey on bad news even as he was showing you the door. He had a sense of priority and was almost never distracted. I think Clinton had some of that, but there were some distractions in his case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And Bush II ran with it, because that's all he could manage, lol. After a few dumbed-down Presidencies, maybe the public, or a segment of it anyway, had come to expect that cr@p.
You could hold up the entire US History section of the forum on your own! 