Would Clark have done better in the South?

I liked Clark from the beginning and was somewhat surprised that he didn't do better in the primaries. Maybe because his motivations were somewhat suspect (at least here on DU, like was he really a Dem?) and he clearly needed a lot of practice at being a candidate.

Had he gained the nomination...
I wonder what kind of dirt the Repubs would;ve used against his military background? He couldn't have been attacked on being from Massachusetts or having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. He didn't vote for the war and against the war though he certainly had some muddy positions in the early campaign.

Would he have, despite similiar social views as Kerry, attracted more Southern voters simply because he wasn't from the North? Gotten more respect? Won votes on being a fresh face?

I think Clark was the only other viable Democratic candidate.

Thoughts on what might have been?

since I believe Kerry would have won a fair election.

The question was about the South.

and for those who think that the machines have nothing to do with this... well until we get a verifiable and trackable system, we will not have a clean election.

IMHO it was stolen, but impossible to prove. If I am correct, does not matter who we ran

As to what they could have used against him, care to remember Kossovo and he almost started WW III? (Never truly happened but the truth and the Right Wing don't mix)

There were several times when I heard the MSM talking heads ask "Where is Edwards?" It seemed as if they were implying that Edwards was at home in his bathroom watching TV and that was the reason they weren't covering him. On the other hand, I would go to the kerry website or do a search on the internet and found he was alive, well and out campaigning. I got so annoyed that I would send them e-mails telling them where to find Edward's schedule. I'm not sure why they weren't able to cover him. I chalked up to the fact they didn't care.

Anti-war GOP-ers would have voted for a general in droves.

Wes Clark would have better in my opinion and I always supported him from the word go. The ridiculous "strong leader" label that Bush & Co came up with would work against them with Clark and also he had a much more forthright manner than Kerry and coupled to the fact that he held one of the most powerful military positions in the world and successfully led a war.
Of course they would do their utmost to find something on him, I suspect they would bring up the issue regarding the Kosovo conflict where he ordered Mike Jackson to take an airport before the Russians and Mike Jackson wouldn't do it "I wasn't going to start WW3"- I can already hear Sean Hannity "How can we trust the judgement of a man who seemed to have disregard for our national security". It's sickening what they did to John Kerry and you can be sure they would have done the same to Wes Clark although Clark is more aggressive and I believe would have fought back alot harder.

;)

It's completely unfair that a northeastern social liberal can not get elected president. But it's also the reality we deal with.

But we were talking about "The South".

it would have been really hard to portray him as some of effete liberal

that's one of the main reasons I supported him in the primaries

Late start, little organization, not quite in the swing of campaigning?

But more than likely not enough to break BUsh's double digit hold in much of the south. Bush in fact did not increase his lead in states outsode of the south by very much. I am afraid that it was the openiess of the kerry vcampaign in its effort to get out the vote, and Roves secrecy that cost the election. Rove knew exactly what Democrats were doing becauwse Democrats were making an issue about all of the new voters they were registering. Republicans in secret, were phone banking like mad and frightening Republicans with this info. That if they did not come out in mass, the sheer number of new Democrats would swamp Republicans. So a large number, an even larger number of evangelicals came out than they did in 2000.

Kerry started his campaign with speculations that one could win without the south. Every poll indicated that no matter how well Kewrry got out the ote, the south was a loss to him. While the midwest was a strong possibility. Everything indicated that Kerry sould do everything possible to maximize his strength in the midwest. Yet in the end, he was suddely diviertedd from that strategy by pther polls. Polls that indicated that John Edwards was the choice democrats wanted in national polls did not translate into votes at the state level. Polls taken in the midwest before the VP slection indicated that a regional VP candidate would have had some positive effect on Kerry's campaign there. in Ohio several polls indicated that Gephardt was the only candidate who could add point to Kerry's campaign in that state. Whikle nationally Edwards was a good choice, regionally polls did not indicate this. In fact rumors out of the Kerry camp indicate that Gephardt was Kerry's chouce up until the week before the selection and a vocal majority were pushing for Gephardt. Pundits argue back and forth about whetther a VP candidate brings votes to a presidential canpaign, but in the end it always appears that they do have some effect. A few southern states came down a bit closer for Kerry than initial polls indicated. But it was the area that Edwards was supposed to strengthen for Kerry that ended up winning ofr Bush, IN rural areas where voting isusually very small, conservatves came out in record numbers. If anytihng, Kerry would have been better off trying to do what Rove did, and maximize his base, in Urban regions rather than try to snip off a few voteds in the rural areas. A one percent increase in votes for Kerry in the hurban areas of Ohio would have done more got Kerry than if he could have taken away ten percent of the rural vote from Bush, sonce in Ohio 77 percent of the population lies in the three or four major urban areas. A small increase fof Kerry in jut one city, Toledo would have had a major imnpact on the election. TOledo split almost down the middel with Kerry getting 51 percent, and BUsh getting 49. Getting out the vote in this city and a boost in two others of a percent or two would have had major consequences in the result of this race. Before Kerry made his seletion I was screaming this. Yet in the end, no one was paying attention If it was obviosu to me, I am certain it was obvious to many on Kerrys staff. Another indication thaty while popularity effects polls, just like anger and passion it does not bring home the voters. Something more lasting is usually the winning ticket when someoine actually has to put their vote on the line. Sort of like when you are buyinganything that is very expensive or a major decision>what most people say they would like to do invarably ends up not being the final decision. If they are going to be soending a great deal on an item, the ineveitable end uop choosing something that has a good track reckord for repair rather thna somethiing that looks sporty. The average americanis just conservaitve that way. Damn them.

Thanks for the input...it's always fascinating when decisions are made that are so obviously wrong and you wonder just what went on within the inner workings of an organization to make the wrong choice.

It seems that Kerry did not stay the sourse of his original judgemenmt sbout how he could win. It was obvious that he was going for an electoral college strategy, and early on he kept discussing how he could win without taking a single southern state. And in the end, his sense that he would not win a single southern state was corect, yet his sense failed him when it came tomaking decisions that would assure that he take all states that he knew woul be neccessary to win wityhout the southern states. Thins of it all he neededto do was to win all of the states that Al Gore won in 2000 and add one more small state, one within democratic terirory. Take Ohioo. Holding on to All of Gores states ,and taking two states in the No away from Bush New Hampshire and Ohio. Would have won the election. Every choice that could have optomized this should have been made.Kerry could have ignored the entire south, Focused on New Mexico and Ohio. campaign in the states Gore won and that would have been that. Why in the last few months when everything poijted to the fact that his strategy was correct, forget the south, hit the rust belt and the Gore states. and that would have been the win.


There was a considerable opposition in the Kerry campaign to Edwards, though he had support in the Senate itself, the campaign advisors were advising Gephardt. Everything pointed to Kerry just losing the entire south with some hope for Florida, there was more in Ohio. On election day I knew it was going to end up comoping down to Ihio or Florida, and we had to take one of them to win, and infact if we took one of the we would win. Iactually started losing hope of A kerry win for the first time when Gephardt wlost the bid for the VP slot. I was positively for Kerry in all of my posts on DU until that day. My post at the selection of Edwards was that we may have just lost the election. Not because of anything negative about Edwards, just about the fact that the strategy to win without the south required every tiny bit of help possible in the rust belt and in particualry in Ohio. Istill kept working towards a Kerry win and posting everything I could fins that pointed to a Kerry win, but kept havingf a nagging sense about the medwest that i could not shake. All night on election day, with people emailing me like crazzy I kept telling them not to lose heart, everything will revolve around Ohio and FLorida, and once Florida was lost, everything on Ohio. I would be glad to have been wrong. But in July I started pointing out to the complete ooss of the south and the complete need for the rust belt. I cant help but thinking that we should have stuck to our base, urban voters in the Northeast and industrial states and foget the south and rural areas.

Bush's strategy was to go after more of what he already had. We were stronger if we did the same. We didnt.

to be the top dawg on the ticket. I was a Clark supporter and loved him, but I recognized early on, as did many others, that he didn't have the political skill to win (or the debating skills).

Don't get me wrong. I think Clark would make a great President. But you have to get elected first, and politicking is a dog eat dog art that takes years to learn on the road. Clark just didn't have that sort of experience.

In hindsight, however, he might've been better on the ticket as VP than Edwards, although I was excited by Edwards. Clark would have added some gravitas to the national security issue (but then there's the two-military-men-on-the-ticket issue, so I don't know).

Besides, what's the point in this now? That's history. Are you thinking of 2008, maybe?

Who can guess what dynamics will affect the national political scene over the next three years.

So no , I'm not thinking about '08, just pondering what happened, what might've happened and why.

...however, I think that although he had a pretty good chat on class and economcis, he would have helped Bush by keepting the debate focused on war and armies and aggressiona and military service and all that other imagery that makes people lean towards the right when they're voting.

I really think the best strategy for the Democrats would have been to make the election a referendum on which direction they thought economic, cultural and political power should flow in America, either to the top into the hands of a very few very wealthy people or down to the masses, and they should have tried to deliver this message all over America and not just in the swing states. (And even the war should have been framed this way: ie, the 87 billion should have been talked about as a wealth-transfer mechanism and not a referendum on national security).

That was Clinton's strategy. That's why "Putting People First" beat GHWB so soon after Gulf War I.

n/t

Ohio (which alone would have been enough)
Florida (which alone would have been enough)
West Virginia
New Mexico
Arkansas

other possible pick ups include:
Nevada
Colorado
Tennessee
Iowa

was way too many. Every subgroup was splitting their vote three ways, which made it hard for any challenger to emerge, particularly one who was a party "outsider".

I think if there had only been a couple of moderates, instead of 4, we'd have a lot better idea who really appeals to persuadable voters. I think the primary with so many people lent itself to a long-established Democrat picking up the nomination.

The "dirt" was already dug up - The New Yorker published a smear piece by some Republican hack named Boyer. It was full of lies and half-truths, and quoted only those generals who were against him (and may have been somewhat envious). they went after the whole war in Kosovo as a "senseless adventure".

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091194/

Personally, I don't think a lot of Americans would be interested in coming up to speed on Kosovo, and accusations and refutations on issues surrounding the conflict would be ignored, and wouldn't hurt him.

He was my 1st choice, and I had hopes that Kerry would select him as VP.

In states that were close he may have made the difference. Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio. He would have brought his home state Ark over with him but thats the only Southern state he would have won outright.

He would have not done as well as Kerry in New Hampsire

I think he would have done alot better in Florida though.


The problem with Clark is that it was his 1st campaign and had he been the nominee I think he would have made too many mistakes to take it. Give him 4 years to get some more seasoning and then I think he would be a force to be reckoned with