Mr. Kerry was a weaker candidate than Mr. Gore. He lost so much ground among women, Hispanics, and other key groups, that the millions in Internet money, the most Herculean get-out-the-vote effort in party history, and the largest turnout of young voters in over a decade, couldn't save him. Had the young stayed home, the sea of red on the map would have grown to include at least Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire--perhaps one or two more.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush, received 50 million votes in 2000, and 59 million in 2004. He added nine million votes. That's because Karl Rove had a plan and the campaign executed it brilliantly. But the problem for Democrats is not Mr. Rove; it's that they're doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. That's the definition of insanity.
Since the Democratic Leadership Council, with its mantra of "moderate, moderate, moderate," took hold in D.C., the party has been in decline at just about every level of government. Forget the Kerry loss. Today the number of Democrats in the House is the lowest it's been since 1948. Democrats are on the brink of becoming a permanent minority party. Can the oldest democratic institution on earth wake from its stupor? Here are some steps to pull out of the nose-dive: Complete story
Joe thinks more union members is one way to ensure more dem victories. Bless his heart.
I'm stumped. Supposedly, Kerry lost because he wasn't liberal enough, while the DLC has been pushing for "moderate" candidates. I thought the "moderate" approach had worked in the past, that is, candidates pretending to be moderate while really being social Marxists, e.g., both Clintons. So what is it? Could it be that Kerry lost not because he was too liberal or not liberal enough, but just because he was so darned unappealing on so many levels - and people shuddered at the thought of a First Lady Mama T?