Blue Rectangle
Sr. Member
Posts: 2,683
Political Matrix
E: 8.50, S: -0.62
|
 |
« on: January 12, 2005, 12:12:33 PM » |
|
Maybe we shouldn't criticize Kerry's electoral strategy too much. He came close to winning the EV even though he lost the PV badly. That proves that his allocation of resources was not that bad.
Example: I thought from early on that Kerry spent way too much time and effort in PA. As it turned out, Kerry only won PA by a slim margin and therefore he only spent enough resources their to barely win, which is the best strategy.
Now, I have plenty of criticism for the actions of Kerry and the DNC that caused Bush to win the PV so easily, but these actions were the result of core defects in message and philosophy, rather than problems with strategy.
Main problem:
Kerry pretty much supported the Iraq war in 2002. He then drifted towards pretty much opposing the war in 2003. By primary season'04, he was opposed to the war. After nomination, he tempered his criticism so as not to be an "anti-war candidate" (a sure loser). Kerry's chosen rebutal to the "anti-war" label was his medals, and to hope that no one brought up his protest days.
This plan was doomed. The inconsistancies in Kerry's positions and actions were glaringly obvious. There is nothing Kerry's team could have down to counter the Swifties that would have changed this basic fact. The damage done by the Swifties was a direct result of Kerry's actions before SBVFT had run a single ad.
|
