Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Did Kerry Lose? (Answer: It Wasn't 'Values.')
Wall Street Journal ^ | November 8, 2004 | JAMES Q. WILSON

Posted on 11/08/2004 5:48:35 AM PST by OESY

...There is no doubt that John Kerry showed great skill at embracing deeply contradictory positions, but that does not make him unusual; all politicians have mastered the art of self-contradiction. What was remarkable in this election is that one candidate, President Bush, never changed: He said what he meant and meant what he said.

If the Democrats could not appeal to the moral values of people, that fact must have been lost on the 48% of the voters who supported Sen. Kerry....

I am just as mystified by Mr. Friedman's lament that "Christian fundamentalists" are ruining his America by fostering "divisions and intolerance." It would make as much sense to say that liberals are fostering division and intolerance by favoring abortion and gay marriages. In fact, abortion was not an issue in the election and Messrs. Bush and Kerry both opposed gay marriage. A ban on gay marriage was approved in Oregon, a state won by Sen. Kerry....

People vote for the president for a host of reasons that pollsters have difficulty in grasping. All we seem to know very clearly is where they live.... To explain the vote requires us to explain the variety of factors.... One problem is that they have only some very gross measures on which to work, such as the state of the economy and standings in the polls.

The pollsters do no provide much information because they usually gather too few responses to permit observers to cross-tabulate data into all of the relevant categories....

I draw lessons from the election, but not very deep ones. One is that the profound liberal bias among many big-city newspapers and most TV stations did not determine the outcome....

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Florida; US: New York; US: Ohio; US: Oregon; US: Pennsylvania; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: 123whodoweappreciate; bush; bushbushbush; catholics; chappell; christian; election; evanthomas; fundamentalists; jews; kerry; kerrydefeat; newyorktimes; protestants; reagan; religion; rove; segregation; taxes; tomfriedman; values
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last
To: OESY
Why Did Kerry Lose? Repeat after me: insufferable, insufferable, insufferable.
61 posted on 11/08/2004 9:21:44 AM PST by pray4liberty (Jesus has saved us! The Victory is the Lord's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Woogit

When people can get by with no effort then they have no reason to put in an effort. Its much easier to do nothing than something. Especially for those 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation families of people on the dole. Its all they know. There has never been any drive or empowerment in their lives. Their drive is to make sure the checks keep coming.

I thought workfare was a much better idea than welfare for this reason. It teaches people to work, who in turn have their kids see them work. The kids are then used to seeing mommy/daddy work and expect to do it as well.

In addition, the people who support welfare (re: you, me and every other taxpayer) get some service back for our investment.


62 posted on 11/08/2004 10:01:26 AM PST by Personal Responsibility (W - The right man, the right war, the right time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
Glenn Reynolds November 3, 2004

"America's left today is dominated by Hollywood and academia, and their values don't resonate with actual, American voters. What's more, if the Democratic Party did represent the views of actual American voters, it's values wouldn't mesh very well with those of Hollywood and academia. That's reality."

This is an excerpt from an OpEd that I thought exemplified why the Democrats can't win the fly over states unless they change who they align themselves with. I myself always based my vote on not the party itself but on what the candidate had to offer and what he had done and stood for during his political career. Kerry did not even come close to convincing me that his "I have a Plan" rhetoric was honest based on his track record in the Senate. Bush on the other hand has done more than prove his convictions and beliefs proving to me that his actions speak louder than any "I have a Plan" BS spewed by Mr. Kerry. Toss in his behavior once he returned from Vietnam and he didn't have a chance.

I do believe that if the Democrats had selected someone who had actually had a decent political track record and who aligned themselves with main stream America this election would have gone in their favor. Wright or wrong a lot of main stream America would have probably opted to vote Bush out of office given the MS Medias un adulterated disdain for Bush.

63 posted on 11/08/2004 11:23:55 AM PST by Even Keel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Kerry lost because he was an elitist liebral who treated poorer and middle class people like garbage. He never really campagined in the South and in other red states and, instead, just blew them off.
64 posted on 11/08/2004 11:27:29 AM PST by chronotrigger (heart of dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Another reason he lost is because of the media-imposed political realignment going on in American right now. The republican and democrat parties are no longer about ideology, but instead are becoming about geography. Yankees=Democrats, Non-northerners and Southerners=Republican (regardless of personal beliefs).
65 posted on 11/08/2004 11:30:49 AM PST by chronotrigger (heart of dixie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cj2a
I'm starting to wonder if Howard Feinman was correct in his prediction that the media was worth 15 points to Kerry.

That was Evan Thomas, managing editor of Newsweek, and, I always like to add when his name comes up, great-grandson of the 1920 Socialist Party candidate for President of the United States, Norman Thomas.

66 posted on 11/08/2004 2:09:19 PM PST by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: beckett

Thanks for the correction...I had second thoughts about that name after I posted it.


67 posted on 11/08/2004 7:05:11 PM PST by cj2a (When you're pathetic, but you don't know you're pathetic, that's really pathetic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-67 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson