Why was John Kerry such a compelling candidate for the Dem Establishment in '04?

[Indy Texas]

He brought nothing to the table. He was from a safe state in a region that had already begun to favor Democrats. He had a very liberal record as senator with little that could appeal to moderate or independent voters. His public persona was underwhelming and offputting, and his super-rich background made him easy fodder for ridicule.

Why was he considered the Establishment/default candidate to begin with? Why did he have such an easy time winning the primaries? (Compared to, say, Mitt Romney in 2012.)

[Suburbia]

He was compelling for the Democratic establishment because he was a senator from a state with established Democratic history (Kennedys), they though that his war story would play well with the country, and he wasn't too liberal as Howard Dean, although he was liberal, and he was more electable than Dick Gephardt and Gen. Wesley Clark.

[Sumner 1868]

Vietnam vet. Also, similar to Romney, the "electability" factor, as he was the only Democrat who out-polled Bush in many states during late 2003.

[Blair]

War Veteran, this literally made it for him. He built his senate career on his appearance as veteran where he was pragmatic enough to say- war is necessary, soldiers are heroes but Vietnam is wrong. The dems under someone like Dean would of got slaughtered for being anti-Iraq without a war veteran. Would be a perfect alternative to Bush who famously didn't serve.

He also had potential Kennedy magic, which was naive thinking tbh. An attractive, liberal senator from Massachusetts.

It's also because well the 2004 field was very weak. Dean was too liberal, Gephardt was too old, Edwards too inexperienced, and Clark flunked. He wasn't the Establishment candidate until he won in Iowa and New Hampshire if I recall

[sg0508]

The anti-war sentiment should have worked a lot more to his advantage than it did.  The Swift Boat deal really hurt him. Like Dukakis in '88, he wasn't quick enough to respond to how he was being defined and it hurt him. 

He was still only one state away from winning.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I always thought it was silly that Kerry considered so much more electable than Dean, but I guess it's because he had national security credentials that Dean didn't. It was the first post-9/11 election.

Still, from an Electoral College perspective, it's not clear which state Kerry was supposed to flip other than NH which wasn't sufficient after reapportionment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I always thought it was silly that Kerry considered so much more electable than Dean, but I guess it's because he had national security credentials that Dean didn't. It was the first post-9/11 election.

Still, from an Electoral College perspective, it's not clear which state Kerry was supposed to flip other than NH which wasn't sufficient after reapportionment.

Kerry announced that Dick Gephardt, accidently, was his running mate.  Now, Edwards, who was a disappointing VP candidate, but an outstanding Presidential candidate, was suppose to flip OHIO.  But couldn't.

The question was put before the voters, was Dick Cheney and Waterboarding and Abu Gharib prison abuse, was gonna doom the Dubya Bush campaign in OHIO, just like Quayle did for the elder Bush in 1992.

The VP's were just as much of a part of the campaign as the presidential candidates; Gephardt, not Edwards would have been much better in fighting the swithboating of John Kerry, that set the Dubya Bush reelection campaign back in motion.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I don't buy that Dean was too liberal to win. He provided a more clear contrast on the war issue then Bush did and domestically I think it's up for debate weather or not he was more liberal then Kerry. The problem from my understanding is that baby boomer Democratic strategists were still scarred from the experience of McGovern and thought somehow that Dean would be a repeat of that.

[The Mikado]

I've always found it baffling that people wanting a national security candidate picked the former head of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, of all people.

[Hydera]

The anti-war sentiment should have worked a lot more to his advantage than it did.  The Swift Boat deal really hurt him. Like Dukakis in '88, he wasn't quick enough to respond to how he was being defined and it hurt him. 

He was still only one state away from winning.

The swift boat attacks didn't hurt him as much as the Osama tape released just before the election did. That tape caused enough undecideds and the archtype Reagan democrat/National security democrat. To switch to Bush which allowed Bush to win Ohio despite the economy there being hit hard by the outsourcing crisis since the early 2000's.

[Bacon King]

He brought nothing to the table. He was from a safe state in a region that had already begun to favor Democrats. He had a very liberal record as senator with little that could appeal to moderate or independent voters. His public persona was underwhelming and offputting, and his super-rich background made him easy fodder for ridicule.

Why was he considered the Establishment/default candidate to begin with? Why did he have such an easy time winning the primaries? (Compared to, say, Mitt Romney in 2012.)

The front-runners were anti-war populist Dean and moderate establishment Gephardt, but in the run-up to Iowa the two went very negative against each other which basically destroyed either's chances. Kerry became the new frontrunner after winning Iowa and used his insider status to quickly clinch the nomination against all the outsiders that were still in the race, like Edwards and Clark.

I don't recall him being very popular even among partisan Democrats; he was basically just the consensus "least bad option" still standing after Iowa.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah, he basically won the nomination by default.

[retromike22]

It's also because well the 2004 field was very weak. Dean was too liberal, Gephardt was too old, Edwards too inexperienced, and Clark flunked. He wasn't the Establishment candidate until he won in Iowa and New Hampshire if I recall

I always wondered why:

6 years of Edwards Senate experience = inexperienced
4 years of Obama Senate experience = experienced

Also Gephardt was only two years older than Kerry.

[Vega]

It's also because well the 2004 field was very weak. Dean was too liberal, Gephardt was too old, Edwards too inexperienced, and Clark flunked. He wasn't the Establishment candidate until he won in Iowa and New Hampshire if I recall

I always wondered why:

6 years of Edwards Senate experience = inexperienced
4 years of Obama Senate experience = experienced

Also Gephardt was only two years older than Kerry.

And who exactly touted Obama as being experienced again?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He was the other polician that had Kennedy-esque policies, but not named Kenndy. He was called John F for a reason.

And people thought Edwards would do it as VP; cover the flaws like SSM that did Kerry in.

But, after Reagan funeral and Bin Laden tape, sealed the deal for Dubya; eventhough, he let Kerry back into race, with uneasy debate.

But, a shadow is cast over both elections Bush II won, due to the punchcard ballots in Ohio disputed election.

[Mr. Smith]

His initials are J.F.K., and he's Catholic, and he served in war, and his foreign policy record was excellent...see the parallels yet?

But seriously though, Kerry  had "electability" in a sorta Ed Muskie kinda way, inoffensively centre-left, and in spite of Dick Cheney, there were no "dirty tricks" to sabotage him.