Did John Kerry really blow it in 2004?

[RRusso1982]

A lot of people say that John Kerry should have won in 2004 but he blew it.  I beg to differ.  It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent, particulary during wartime.  At the time of the 2004 election, Bush's approvals were not great, but not terrible.  He was at about 48% or 49% approval and about 46% or 47% disapproval.  Basically treading water.  Typically what an incumbent president gets in the popular vote is his approval rating plus maybe a point or 2.  The Iraq war was not very popular, but it had not yet become the quagmire it would later become.  The economy was recovering from the early 2000s recession, and was not great, but not horrible.  Basically the election was a tie.  In baseball, a tie goes to the runner.  In politics, a tie typically goes to the incumbent unless the challenger is a really great candidate.  If you look at John Kerry, definately not enough there to justify throwing out the incumbent.  The fact that he came one big state away from winning (Ohio) reflects well on him.  I don't buy the "It was John Kerry's race to lose and he lost" rhetoric.  I think that what should have happened on paper given the fundementals happened.  A narrow Bush win.  Any opinions?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ohio 2004 was also like Florida 2016 where Kerry got the votes he needed in the Democratic Parts of the state(NE OH) where he even outperformed Clinton 96 in raw% but ended up losing as he got swamped in the rest of the state

[President Johnson]

Ohio 2004 was also like Florida 2016 where Kerry got the votes he needed in the Democratic Parts of the state(NE OH) where he even outperformed Clinton 96 in raw% but ended up losing as he got swamped in the rest of the state

However, it would have been so ironic if Kerry won Ohio by a razor thin margin and subsequently the presidency, while losing the popular vote. Four years after the opposite happened.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Ohio 2004 was also like Florida 2016 where Kerry got the votes he needed in the Democratic Parts of the state(NE OH) where he even outperformed Clinton 96 in raw% but ended up losing as he got swamped in the rest of the state

However, it would have been so ironic if Kerry won Ohio by a razor thin margin and subsequently the presidency, while losing the popular vote. Four years after the opposite happened.

Ironically Obama’s strategy for Oho was similar to Biden’s strategy for Florida which was to basically avoid further collapse in the areas trending against the democrats (SE Ohio for Obama and Central FL exurbs for Biden) and make gains and flip many traditionally Republican strongholds(SW Ohio and Columbus burbs for Obama and NE FL and SW FL for Biden).

[Sir Mohamed]

You're raising a fair point here. I think the general notion around that narrative "Kerry blew a winnable race" is that polls entering actually showed W vulnerable to a degree not expected in the months following 9/11 or even after the 2002 midterms. For sure this was more a sign of polarization.

Additionally, Kerry was (rightfully, imho) criticized for coming off as a technocrat who quite couldn't convince the public with national security credentials. The Bush campaign was very effective in defining him early as weak on the issue, similar to how Obama later defined Romney as out of touch elitist. Once this label sticks early in the campaign, it gets hard to escape. W for sure could have been beaten with the ideal candidate, though none such existed in pratice. He didn't blew the race like HRC has in 2016, that's for sure. Could he have won? Maybe. But all things considered, his performance wasn't that bad.

[UWS]

He actually did vote for the $87 billion before he voted against it. That's why Kerry has been labled as a flip-flopper throughout the campaign on issues like Iraq, Education, Patriot Act, etc.

And I think the TV ad that definitely helped George W. Bush winning re-election was the Windsurfing ad featuring Kerry on a windsurf shifting the image from left to right to emphasize Kerry's changing positions issues.

[One Term Floridian]

I still think the VP choices of the two Democrats who ran against W in 2000 and 2004 could have made all the difference. Not often is it the case that a VP pick is that decisive but those were the years where it certainly mattered most as they were both close elections. Gore/Graham & Kerry/Gephardt might have made all the difference in those years.

[RRusso1982]

I think the biggest mistake Kerry made was really going too far in criticizing Bush over Iraq.  By 2004, it was clear that rationale for invading Iraq was based on bad intelligence.  I think that a good candidate could have used that error against Bush to beat him.  Instead, the Democrats accused Bush of knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and deliberately falsifying the intelligence.  Kerry dialed it back a bit and would say, "Bush misled us into war," and would let other Democrats take it further with the "Bush lied, people died."  The problem with this argument was that it went counter to all the intelligence that had been presented over the years, including when Bill Clinton was President.  So Kerry and Edwards were put in a position of undermining a war they originally voted for based on intelligence that was consistent with the intelligence they were presented with long before Bush was President.

[President Johnson]

I still think the VP choices of the two Democrats who ran against W in 2000 and 2004 could have made all the difference. Not often is it the case that a VP pick is that decisive but those were the years where it certainly mattered most as they were both close elections. Gore/Graham & Kerry/Gephardt might have made all the difference in those years.

For 2000, I would certainly agree. Especially if Al Gore chose Bob Graham. I'm not so sure it would have made enough of a difference in 2004 given that election was nearly as close. Still close, but Dubya won by more than a hair this time around.

Both Lieberman and Edwards were weak choices though. No question about that.

[One Term Floridian]

I still think the VP choices of the two Democrats who ran against W in 2000 and 2004 could have made all the difference. Not often is it the case that a VP pick is that decisive but those were the years where it certainly mattered most as they were both close elections. Gore/Graham & Kerry/Gephardt might have made all the difference in those years.

For 2000, I would certainly agree. Especially if Al Gore chose Bob Graham. I'm not so sure it would have made enough of a difference in 2004 given that election was nearly as close. Still close, but Dubya won by more than a hair this time around.

Both Lieberman and Edwards were weak choices though. No question about that.

It's too bad OH Dems have just about always had a weak bench. Kerry picking a statewide Ohioan would have probably gotten him the win

[MATTROSE94]

Both George W. Bush and John Kerry equally blew it in 2004.

[Vice President Christian Man]

He could've won Ohio & Iowa while making Missouri and Arkansas competitive if he chose Dick Gephardt to be his running mate. He also should've been more forceful in opposing Iraq/The Patriot Act.

[dw93]

No. Could Kerry have won? Yes,and while he wasn't in the same position as Bob Dole in 96 or Walter Mondale in 84, a Kerry win was never gonna be anything more than  a narrow win as the fundamentals (however slightly) still favored Bush.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I honestly think Bush had a better chance of winning by more than Kerry had of winning it.

[RRusso1982]

I honestly think Bush had a better chance of winning by more than Kerry had of winning it.

I agree.  I think the fundamentals favored Bush winning albeit narrowly.  Beating Bush in 2004 would not be, in golf parlance, a 3-foot putt.  More like a 10-foot putt or a 12-foot putt.  Doable?  Yes.  But not more likely than not.  In other words, could a better candidate or a better campaign by Kerry have beaten Bush?  Very possibly, but not a given either.

[sg0508]

When Wall St is happy, the incumbent usually wins, even if there's other problems.  The market had a very good year in '04 despite the job market being somewhat shaky and a unpopular war abroad.

[Agonized-Statism]

He did very well given the post-9/11 atmosphere, honestly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think the biggest mistake Kerry made was really going too far in criticizing Bush over Iraq.  By 2004, it was clear that rationale for invading Iraq was based on bad intelligence.  I think that a good candidate could have used that error against Bush to beat him.  Instead, the Democrats accused Bush of knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and deliberately falsifying the intelligence.  Kerry dialed it back a bit and would say, "Bush misled us into war," and would let other Democrats take it further with the "Bush lied, people died."  The problem with this argument was that it went counter to all the intelligence that had been presented over the years, including when Bill Clinton was President.  So Kerry and Edwards were put in a position of undermining a war they originally voted for based on intelligence that was consistent with the intelligence they were presented with long before Bush was President.

That'd have been solved by running someone who didn't support the war.

[UWS]

As the following ad indicated the National Journal named John Kerry the most liberal member of the Senate, more liberal than Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2004/doublespeak

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

2004 was an unwinnable election for Democrats, and Kerry in spite of this did just about the best possible regardless.

[dw93]

2004 was an unwinnable election for Democrats, and Kerry in spite of this did just about the best possible regardless.

Disagree. It was an uphill climb but it was winnable. The fact that the economy was weak and Bush only won so narrowly said it was.

[WalterWhite]

The fact that Kerry only won California, Hawaii, and New Jersey by single digits showed that he did blow it in 2004.

[Jim Crow]

January- Donors bought him the primaries.
March- Clinched the nomination in one of the biggest open primary landslides ever.
July- Peaked with an 8 point lead.
October- Won all 3 debates handily. 
All year- Ran against an unpopular war.
November- Received more votes than Al Gore in 2000 and picked up New Hampshire.
Result- Found a way to lose.

[UWS]

He blew it so much that the Republicans managed to flip 5 senate seats, including Tom Daschle's senate seat in SD, which was also due to George W. Bush's large margins of victory in these states which a majority of them were red states.

[ModerateRadical]

He blew it so much that the Republicans managed to flip 5 senate seats, including Tom Daschle's senate seat in SD, which was also due to Dubya's large margins of victory in these states which a majority of them were red states.

Dubya leaned hard enough into social conservatism in '04 that it was gonna be difficult for Kerry to narrow the margins in most of those southern states or South Dakota (Kerry attempting to be more socially-conservative would've likely alienated younger voters and Nader 2000 voters, both of which Kerry needed to turn out in order to have a chance at winning). The sole exception to this was Florida, but considering that Mel Martinez was eking out a narrow win while carrying Miami-Dade County, the '04 FL-Senate result might not have been changed w/ a mere narrowing of the top-of-the-ballot margin in FL, considering the different coalitions in the presidential and senate races.