glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
No we were well past the wave of 'murica and Democrats were finally finding their voice and the courage to oppose the WOT. Kerry was positioned well to win and fumbled worst than Gore.
Although if Clinton loses to Trump that will be the greatest choke of all time. OF ALL TIME
Incumbency played a part but moreso it was that Kerry didn't run a particularly good campaign. Putting a huge focus on his limited military experience as a primary qualification wasn't smart and wound up backfiring on him when the Swiftboat guys came around. His reputation (fair or not) as a flip flopper was a strike against him and saying things like "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" made him look like an idiot to voters. Finally his position and votes on Iraq didn't really create a clear distinction between he and Bush for voters to favor him. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/kerry-spins-his-record-on-iraq/
Not saying he would have been a bad choice or that he would have done better than Bush, but you can't shoot yourself in the foot and expect to win either. What perplexes me is why Gore didn't run again in 2004 because he would have done far better than Kerry IMHO and would have won the second go-around.
