A brilliant, brilliant analysis from a unique perspective. Honestly, I've read a whole hell of a lot about the election in the last few days, and I've more than contributed to the enormous cloud of political speculation floating around at the moment...but this is without a doubt the most interesting of the essays I've come across, and that includes those in the newspapers. Brilliant. Keep up the good work.

Jedediah Bartlett would have beaten either candidate hands down if he were real and running. Why? Because we get to SEE him think. We get to EXPERIENCE his humanity both in and out of the oval office. Politics has become such a staged event that we no longer know what's real and what's being staged. The West Wing feels real and it's not. A White House press briefing feels staged, and it's real.

Interesting analysis, Toni.

-G

Very astute. Perhaps the best analysis I've seen so far. Much as we (the liberal elite--ack) would like to think that people measure the issues and decide who to vote for, that's not how it happens. It is a character decision. I think what has us stymied is that we can't possibly see how someone could identify with W and like him. But they do. It's been clear for 4 years that they do.

Actually, Jed would win because Aaron Sorkin would write his speeches.

You are very right. Running for president is just a big sales pitch. The issue belong to the parties. The dems have these issues ond teh Republicans have those. The candidates need to sell themselves. Bush sold himself, and a lot of people liked the package. His policies seem to still be considered unpopular. So it would seem that if the Kerry people could have marketed their product better... Something like ahard worker, a man who is personally religous but respect all views, a smart man, but a man who listens. They might have had a chance. but they did not focus on those things, they got defensive on swift boat thing. The Bushies, on the other hand ignores all cricism of Bush and his policies, and pushes and pushes this package of a moral, confident, willing to make the hard chioces and stick by them kind of guy. And the message was understood.

(I don't know why I had to rehash that, pretty much what you said, huh.)

Great commentary, and this is the kind of thing we don't hear about. Of course most people don't like to believe that they are voting for a package instead of a person so it doesn't get much play.

The worst part about Kerry's campaign was when he would say "We're going to give you..." I know he wanted to appear competent and in control, but he sometimes appeared condescending.

I think your analysis is a good one, but I would like to point out one other aspect of running a negative campaign and never explaining what you are about so that voters can identify with your "story" - if a voter identifies one thing in your message they don't believe, they may distrust the rest of it.

So, in your essay, you basically said what you knew from your own experience - that the economy was slumping during the end of Clinton's term, picked up after Bush got in, was brutally sideswiped by 9/11, and then picked up again. But Kerry's message was that Bush had mishandled the economy and caused the job losses - and a decent percentage of the people doubted that.

Bush's story of his life is a pretty simple one, and easy for voters to sympathize with. Kerry's is far more complicated, and he did little to help tie it all together for voters.

I think your central thesis is right, and it shows one of the worst pitfalls of campaigning - assuming that your voters are stupid. Most of them really aren't. Farmers and businessmen follow markets just as much as Wall Street types do. Women can often forecast the dips in the economy by supermarket prices and stocking shifts. Most people can check a candidate's platform message in some way.

A very interesting and insightful post.

Excellent. I didn't read the whole thing because I couldn't. Could you possibly change the font color on that green background or change that green background? Otherwise, this place is almost impossible for us with poor eyesight to slog through. *begs*

Toni, that was an amazing analysis, and you're right, it's not one I've seen around anywhere, either.

Another point you might want to fold into this batter you've got going here is the negativism of the opposing party. It disgusted me when it was directed at Clinton and it disgusts me equally when directed toward Bush. I just read an op-ed piece about a mom who claimed the only person her family (including young children) hated was Bush. Wha? What happened to "hate is not a family value?"

Curious to read your condensed/edited version, should you get around to it.

Condensed? Edited? Toni? Am I on the right blog?

To everyone else -- much thanks.

To Corey -- pllllllllllltttttttttthhhhhhhhhhhhh. You're lucky I'd have to take a plane to get to you to smack you around.

(I've known Corey something like 12 years now. He knows I don't condense. Much.)

This election has totally divided my family, basically all of us against my dad. It's very sad that some people can't see Bush has some very negative and dangerous qualities. My dad thinks Bush is the Second Coming. Your analysis is like Kerry- smart, makes sense and difficult for GOP fans to understand, but comforting for me to think there is a reason why 59 million people can be so dumb. "Let's vote for Dubya! He's a stammering, pigheaded, hick - just like me!"
I can't stand those R.W.N.Js who think the pres is like Mommy - always right and does no wrong, and blindly believes.

Oh, yeah. The title of your essay should not be "Why Kerry Lost--". It should have been "Why President Bush Won".

Great analysis. I love the fictional character metaphor. All advertising is about telling a story.

Kerry seemed so hollow. There was the pandering, as you mentioned, where he did things seemingly for the effect, leaving people wondering who he really was behind the posturing. And there were the statements that he would do things better. He was saying he would do the things that Bush was doing, only he'd do them right. People discredit campaign promises even when they're specific, but when they're so empty, just "I'd do it better" then they are totally unbelievable.

You know those "idea" guys that seem to work at every company you've ever been at? They always have these great ideas, but they never actually accomplish anything and if you press them for specifics, they demur and say they'd work out the details later. You just have to roll your eyes. Kerry was an idea guy. He never pointed to things he'd accomplished as a senator and said, "See, I have great ideas and I can make them happen."

You might think that a president who doesn't do anything would be better than a president who acts, even if he takes the wrong action.

Here in California we had Governor Gray Davis who tried never to act, in hopes of avoiding criticism over his actions. His failure to act on the energy company ripoffs of our state cost us dearly and got him recalled from office.

I think many of us are trying to figure this one out. I have turned every which way from bashing the far-right etc. etc. but I continue to think about the psychology of this election. Too bad I can't think and write as well as you. I'm going to post a link on my blog leading here some time today. Great job!