Why Kerry Lost

Unless the Democrats Remember Their Own Past,

They're Doomed to Repeat the Present

By Vic Fingerhut

(Originally printed in Campaigns and Elections magazine)

They used to say of the Bourbon Kings of France that they neither forget anything nor learn anything.

Of the Democrats, it could be said, "they neither remember anything nor learn anything."

When it comes to developing campaign strategy, context and perspective are important, particularly when survey research for the past 70 years has shown remarkable continuity in voters' perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the two major parties.

Polls for over a half century (up to and including 2006) have consistently shown that the American public believes the Republicans are more capable of handling foreign policy than the Democrats...so much so, that the Democrats lose on the issue coming and going. Remarkably, the Republicans were net gainers among voters both as critics of the Vietnam War (in 1968) and as defenders of the war four years later.

There was, of course, no way Sen. John Kerry could have (or should have) avoided discussion of foreign policy issues. However, again there's the importance of understanding historic context.

In 1968, Hubert Humphrey's famous Salt Lake City speech on Vietnam policy which was hailed as his definitive statement on that highly negative issue for the Democrats did not -- the poll data shows -- net the Democrats many votes.

What it did do, however, was put the Vietnam issue largely behind Humphrey and allowed him to focus on the economic populist issues that enabled him to pick up eight million votes in the final three weeks of the campaign.

Kerry didn't need anywhere near the votes Humphrey did. But if he had repeated Humphrey's strategy he might be president today.

Indeed, Kerry seemed strongly drawn to the foreign policy/Iraq/terrorism issues as a moth to a flame (with the same fatal result).

Drawing unnecessary foreign policy distinctions, such as appearing to undercut Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Allawi during his visit here, not only produced some embarrassing moments for the Democrats generally but -- more importantly -- served to extend the foreign policy debate by several days, further deferring attention from the issues that could have won it for Kerry.

In fairness to Kerry, his presentation of foreign policy issues was quite articulate, and he did manage to turn a usual 35-65 percent Democratic negative on foreign policy issues into a much closer 45-55 percent deficit.

And while admirable, narrowing that negative gap was a poor substitute for advancing issues where the Democrats enjoyed significant positive margins -- particularly among swing voters -- and which could have easily won him the election.

Polls since the 1930s (and continuing to this day) show that the greatest strength of the Democrats is that they are seen as representing ordinary working and middle-income Americans.

When asked "Why are you are Democrat?", the response that the Democrats represent ordinary or working or regular Americans far surpasses any other response by a factor of nearly 10. Interestingly, and most important for winning elections, when swing voters are asked what they like most about the Democrats, they answer the same thing.

Using issues (and formulations) incorporating these powerful pro-Democratic impulses are vital to winning elections.

Thus, while voters gave the Democrats a slight edge throughout most of the campaign on "who was better at handling the economy," when you framed the economic issue in representational terms and added the words "who is best at handling the economy in a way that helps ordinary working Americans," the Democratic margin increased by 10-15 points -- more than enough to deliver states like Ohio and West Virginia.

Kerry's general avoidance of the words "working people" in favor of middle class (as well as his equal evasion of the word "Democrat") did not help capture traditional Democratic constituencies at the levels necessary to win the election.

Indeed, the Bush campaign's ability to penetrate Democratic constituencies at the levels it did is fairly remarkable given the Bush Administration's record of favoring upper-income and corporate constituencies.

While Kerry's speeches often wrapped up with the obligatory, semi-populist Democratic messages, his headline-grabbing leads tended to focus almost exclusively on the foreign policy/Iraq/terrorist issues.

And not only Kerry - but all of us - have paid the price for this absolutely misdirected focus of his campaign's message.

Let's not do it again in 2006 - or 2008.

*                              *                              *

The Lessons for 2008

The issues that this pattern of voter perceptions dictate for 2008 range from high gasoline (and electric utility) prices mixed with huge oil company profits, to the protection of American jobs (and healthcare benefits) threatened by cheap foreign imports and the outsourcing of American jobs, to the protection of pensions while corporate executives walk away with huge golden parachutes, and so on.

(We have more than enough issues for 2008 - the trick is to formulate them in a consistent pattern so they stick clearly in the minds of the swing voters - most of whom do not pay too much attention to politics.)

Also, in any given race, they must be framed the right way to localize them correctly.

Remember, if you are in a close race (and must get a strong majority of the critical swing voters) and these voters cast their vote thinking about who will lower taxes, who is the most competent to handle terrorism (and the war in Iraq), and who do they most trust to protect their cultural values, you will probably lose.

If, on the other hand, if these same swing voters cast their vote thinking about who will protect the health benefits of themselves and their loved ones, who will stand up to the big oil companies (and the local electric utility company), who will stop the export of American jobs so their kids will have a chance for a decent living -- in short, who is on their side -- you will probably win.

(There are proven techniques on how to produce this "shift" in how voters "see" a political contest. That is, of course, our job.)          

Remember, the Democratic Party remained the majority Party for more than five decades up until the 1990s by offering a clear and strong choice as the party that represented the interests of ordinary working and middle income Americans and framing that message in the appropriate economic populist terms.

It is something the Democrats should never forget.