Ohio Strategist Sums It Up

[sandnsea]

Gotta sludge all the way through the article to get to it, but this is one Ohio strategist's take:

“John Kerry got more votes in history than any other guy for president in Ohio, except for one. Unfortunately that guy was his opponent,” he said.

“Could we have done a better job on the security issues? That’s where we lost undecided voters, but I think we got a lot of votes on the economic issues.”

“The was able to convince enough people in Ohio, and their message was simple: I’ll keep you safe and the other guy, you don’t know if he will keep you safe. You saw me on 9/11 and you may not agree with what I did, but I will keep you safe.”

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051101/NEWS09/51101002/-1/NEWS

[JI7]

1. Kerry seems to get it also

i'm glad he isn't changing his position on the issues and still pushing them. it's not even really about all that reframing stuff. at least not as it concerns the economic issues at a national level.

i do think we have work to do there locally though. but it will be different for each place.

the Republicans have benefited from the security issue for years. it's why Reagan, Bush I got elected. Clinton won because the cold war was over allowing the other issues to be the center of the campaign.

and considering how the "massachusettes liberal" label has been viewed in such a negative way, and with it being war time after 9/11, Kerry did pretty well. it was close enough that he could have won with not too many more changes.

[sandnsea]

2. I guess I was impressed that it was blunt

After all the rambling post-mortems, this one got straight to the point. "Bush will keep you safe." If it was that simple, there's sure been alot of hand-wringing for nothing.

[JI7]

3. the other issues are deeper and go beyond just 2004 campaign

and why we are having trouble with congressional and other races in certain parts of the country.

but as far as 2004 goes, it did come down to "Bush will keep you safe". and "Kerry will ask France for permission before we can defend ourselves". they didn't have those exact thoughts. but Republicans are viewed as the party of defense and security. so no matter which Republican runs, they have that benefit of being viewed as tough.what Kerry did to get close took some work. the debates were a big part of it. they got to see him and felt he was competent and knew what he was talking about. if we had that true image of Kerry throughout the entire campaign i think it would have helped us win.

and regardless of what anyone says, his Vietnam service DID help him.

i just wish they ran ads which brought up his time as prosecutor and in the Senate going after rapists, criminals, etc.

[sandnsea]

4. That's true

Kerry also set up one of the first crime victim units. That was a really big thing, really big. That sort of thing should have been played up more, that's what I never understood about the campaign. But yeah, we still have work to do on security as a party, can't count on war records.

It's funny, I'm watching a special on Carter and do you know what Ford called him... waffler, wiggler, will say anything to get elected. They don't even have to create a campaign strategy, they just wheel out the same one they've been wheeling out for 30-40-who knows how many years. How can people continue to buy into it?

[Island Blue]

5. Funny that you should say that about Ford calling Carter

a waffler, etc. I remember seeing a Saturday Night Live special last year right before the election (it featured political skits from way back when to now) and one of them was about just that topic. Ford calling Carter a waffler. I don't remember the particulars about the skit, but I remember being surprised that almost the exact same words were being used against Kerry, and that people were still falling for it!

[WildEyedLiberal]

6. Are you up really late or really early?

:crazy: WEL needs bed NOW.... class in 5 hours...

[sandnsea]

8. Shame on WEL

I'm up late, I need to go to sleep too. I get insomnia sometimes.

[Island Blue]

9. Were you asking me or Sandnsea

I'm up normal.

[sandnsea]

7. We need to do a montage

Every Presidential candidate and their version of the waffler, wiggler, flip-flopper, line. And cut taxes. And strong on defense. And whatever smear campaign they rolled out each election. And of course, liberal liberal liberal booga booga booga. With some kind of overarching slogan, 50 Years of Riveting Republicans.

[karynnj]

10. I think he did bring up his prosecutor background

quite often in the debates. His demeanor in the debates was often that of a prosecutor. The time period when he was a prosecutor was pretty short and when he was just out of law school - if pushed more it could have backfired.

Using the fact that he took what he learned as a prosecutor and used it as a Senator was hampered by various factors. He did a great job on contra/drug but even in the early 90s when the CIA certified that the Kerry report was correct it was hidden. That time period was the nadir of Reagan's approval ratings. Reagan died and came close to being to being cannonized the summer before the election - Kerry's work was great, he was in the right, Reagan/Bush should have been held accountable in the 80s/90s. But, as that didn't happen, it would have been disasterous for Kerry to have brought it up last year.

The BCCI investigation was complicated because Bill Clinton did nothing to back Kerry in the 90s. If Kerry pushed it more than he did and he started to gain traction for seeing the danger early, Bush could have used it to place more blame on Clinton for not taking some of the actions Kerry recommended. Clinton would have defended his decision and been in a very awkward position. (Clinton, himself could have brought up the issue as Kerry being prescient, but it would have been tricky.)

So, given that the details had problems, Kerry did a great job projecing a convincing image of having the skills of a prosecutor in both Massachusetts and the Senate. He was able to redefine the Republican image of him in the debates.

I don't think he could have done more with his military record - other than maybe emphasizing his long term involvement with veteran's issues more - but this would simply have been another issue that demonstrated compassion and caring - not strength.

It might be that Kerry was positioned as strong as he could have been and what they needed was to attack the assumption that Bush made people safe. The danger in that though was doing it would have made people more afraid not less. The press didn't help then - they never called Bush on the terror warning.