![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Over the last couple of days, I've been looking at the electoral maps and looking at the demographics of voters and it's struck me why Kerry didn't win (and why Gore didn't win, by some definitions thereof).
Neither of them really appealed to the common man.
By our mere presence on the Internet, and our regular committing words to paper (or the digital equivalent), many of us easily define ourselves as intellectuals. Kerry and Gore were intellectuals too. Of course we loved them, and couldn't see how they could fail.
But Kerry, he talked about Iraq being a quagmire, he talked about years of bad Bush decisions, but at least at the national podium he didn't spend his time telling the average person how he was going to make their lives better. And, Bush did. ("I won't let terrorists kill you," he said.)
Where was the talk of creating new jobs, with a clear program?
Where was the talk of reducing taxes for the Middle class?
Where was the talk of bringing jobs back to the inner cities and reducing unemployment?
Where was the talk of saving social security?
I heard some of all of these in bits and pieces, but they never became the center of the debate.
Like all of us, Kerry knew that Bush was the problem, but this tactic allowed Bush to control the debate. It became all about Iraq and terrorists. About same-sex marriage. About Bush's record. All great stuff to go right over the head of the average American because it doesn't truly touch upon the average person.
What the Democratic party needs in 2008 isn't a liberal candidate, but rather a populist candidate. They don't have to adopt the policies of the Republican party to win, but rather the policies of average blue-collar workers. We need a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not a John Kerry.
That's how the Democratic party recaptures their base.
Neither of them really appealed to the common man.
By our mere presence on the Internet, and our regular committing words to paper (or the digital equivalent), many of us easily define ourselves as intellectuals. Kerry and Gore were intellectuals too. Of course we loved them, and couldn't see how they could fail.
But Kerry, he talked about Iraq being a quagmire, he talked about years of bad Bush decisions, but at least at the national podium he didn't spend his time telling the average person how he was going to make their lives better. And, Bush did. ("I won't let terrorists kill you," he said.)
Where was the talk of creating new jobs, with a clear program?
Where was the talk of reducing taxes for the Middle class?
Where was the talk of bringing jobs back to the inner cities and reducing unemployment?
Where was the talk of saving social security?
I heard some of all of these in bits and pieces, but they never became the center of the debate.
Like all of us, Kerry knew that Bush was the problem, but this tactic allowed Bush to control the debate. It became all about Iraq and terrorists. About same-sex marriage. About Bush's record. All great stuff to go right over the head of the average American because it doesn't truly touch upon the average person.
What the Democratic party needs in 2008 isn't a liberal candidate, but rather a populist candidate. They don't have to adopt the policies of the Republican party to win, but rather the policies of average blue-collar workers. We need a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, not a John Kerry.
That's how the Democratic party recaptures their base.