In the aftermath of the 2004 election something I read in the exit polls really stuck with me. Over 30% of the people polled in Ohio said they voted for Bush/Cheney because they knew what they stood for, but had no idea what Kerry/Edwards stood for. These people decided to vote for the devil they knew-even if they didn't approve of it-rather than the devil they didn't know.
This exit poll was reflected nationwide in others. John Kerry failed miserably in getting his message to voters. A campaign message is the mission of any campaign. It's the guiding principle of all campaign efforts. The Message is what you want to plant in each voter's mind when she/he enters the voting booth.
This was an area where John Kerry failed miserably.
More on the flip folks...
Does anyone remember what Kerry's message was? Since I first read this poll I've been asking this of many Democrats I know. You'd think Democrats, especially, would remember. Even Democrats who worked on the campaign.... I bet I've asked 50-60 people so far. Two have been able to respond correctly. If you remember, please put the answer in your comments.
What caused this failure? George Lakoff says a major cause was poor framing and using the Republican frames. This is certainly a contributing factor. I think labeling Kerry as a flip flopper was a bigger cause. The GOP concentrated on showing how John Kerry switched his views, his votes, and, by extension, his values and principles.
Frankly, swing and moderate voters said they don't know where Democrats stand on major issues. They said we change our minds too quickly and too easily for reasons that seem too expedient.
The Boston Globe agrees:
At a certain point, having it both ways is hypocritical. Voters can tell when you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
They wrote that this week, commenting on current events surrounding the issue of a woman's right to choose. Seems they smell hypocrisy in the air and I think they're correct.
IN WASHINGTON, Democrats are challenging the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court because he opposes abortion. In Pennsylvania, those same Democrats are working to help Robert P. Casey Jr. topple Republican Senator Rick Santorum -- because Casey opposes abortion.
They actively scoped out Casey as their weapon of choice against Santorum; Casey's antiabortion stance, they believed, would strengthen his chances against the much-despised Santorum. Casey, the current state treasurer of Pennsylvania, was recruited by party leaders, including Senator Charles Schumer of New York -- who believes that fealty to the precedent established by Roe is required of any Supreme Court nominee. Prominent prochoice Democrats such as Kerry, DNC chairman Howard Dean, and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York made fund-raising pitches on Casey's behalf.
To add to the irony, Casey is the son of the late Pennsylvania Governor Robert P. Casey, the defendant in a famous abortion rights case -- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
On one hand we are decrying the extremist views that Samuel Alito has on this issue while, on the other, we are embracing the similar extremist views of Bobby Casey Junior. No wonder voters are confused. No wonder we haven't been able to capitalize more on the collapse of the GOP.
What was Einstein's definition of insanity? When you keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Yes, it's insanity that we refuse to learn from past mistakes. Pennsylvania Democrats have lost every full term U.S. Senate race since 1962.
Voters tell us they voted for Bush instead of Kerry because they are confused about what we stand for.
We condemn Alito for his stand on abortion while we embrace Casey for the same beliefs. We look like hypocrits.
I'd have to agree with these people.
Fortunately there are answers. There is a choice in 2006. Pennsylvania Democrats can nominate someone who believes in a woman's right to choose. Someone who believes in the promise of embryonic stem cell research. Someone who believes in equal rights for all. Someone who has been against the Iraq war consistently. Someone who believes in separation of church and state. Someone who believes the government shouldn't be in our bedrooms.
As the Globe says
One of those challengers is Chuck Pennacchio, a university professor, who has been pressing Casey to no avail on the Alito nomination. ''What would Bob do?" Pennacchio asked in a press release that challenged Casey to take a stand on Alito. Casey did not respond, according to a spokesperson for Pennacchio.
Mixed messages like this have cost us the White House. What they have cost this nation is immeasurable. Let's stop the insanity and begin to form a strategy that will win.
Point of disclosure: I was campaign coordinator for Pennacchio for Pennsylvania earlier this year. This diary is in no way connected with the campaign however. These are my own opinions.