Why I Support Kerry: Unity

[liberalpragmatist]

Let it be stated at the outset that I will support ANY democrat who wins the nomination, and I think all 6 mainstream candidates CAN defeat Bush w/ the right campaign. As such, I will refrain from criticizing any of them or saying that they cannot win.

That said, I support Kerry because I think he'd have the BEST shot at beating Bush for the reason that he can truly unite the party. Securing the base is extremely important -- theoretically, it's possible to lose some of the base and make it up by winning more swing voters, but in reality it's very hard. A candidate who the base does not like is not going to have a great campaign. There's going to be a lack of enthusiasm and fire, possible defections, and many will stay home or badmouth the nominee throughout the fall, helping Bush.

Kerry is the BEST placed candidate to unite the party. He's acceptable to all the major groups within the party and he's sufficiently mainstream to compete well for swing voters and independents.

Though Kerry is currently not the hot name -- obviously, Dean is, let's look at who says they're willing to support Kerry: 75% of the move-on primary voters, who, despite voting overwhelmingly for Dean and Kucinich, agreed that they could well live w/ Kerry.

Kerry is perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of Deanies, because of his liberal positions and his outspokenness against Bush (less than Dean, but still quite a lot). He's acceptable to left-liberals. He's acceptable to upscale swing voters b/c of his moderation on economic issues. He's acceptable to labor b/c of his strong record in that area. He's acceptable to the centrists.

With Kerry there won't be the different groups in the party bad-mouthing his candidacy and hampering his run. None of the other candidates can say that. Edwards may come closest, but he's probably weaker in a general election b/c of his relative inexperience. Gephardt unites many, but alienates many in the party either for his strong prowar stance or for his protectionism on trade. Lieberman holds both the downscale swing voters and the upscale swing voters but loses the liberals and progressives who detest him. Dean earns the ire of the DLC and the centrists, who, despite all those on this site who despise them, ARE needed to win the general election.

Kerry can hold all those groups and make them all sufficiently excited to win in November '04. I'm not saying that no other candidate can win -- I despise it when people dismiss any of the mainstream 6 that way, b/c they all have a shot at the nomination and they all CAN win. But it'd be much more difficult for them to unite our fractious party.

If we are divided we will fall. Echoing others on the site, we need to unite and presented a common front against Bush. I think Kerry's the best placed to do that.

Check out this American Prospect link that says much of the same thing:
> http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/07/meyerson-h-07-24.html

[mjb4]

1. I'll never vote for him

and if Dean is smeared or killed, I may never vote Dem (DLC) again.

[poskonig]

2. Kerry is a great candidate.

His record is much more liberal than Dean's. Kerry has just been a reactive rather than an active campaigner.

There is division among Kerry staffers whether to attack Dean or let him peak and then attack Dean. Perhaps they would do better if they would attack Bush (channel the Bush-hatred) and focus on Kerry's excellent record of public service in the Senate.

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Kerry Has Been Very Consistent In His Bush Attacks

Even taking a quick look at the headlines and dates, you can see that Kerry has been relentless. Many at DU have been deafened by the Iraq vote, but Kerry has been on Bush's ass from the word go.

Just try the experiment and check out the headlines.

http://www.johnkerry.com/site/PageServer?pagename=news_home&JServSessionIdr009=spbgy93rhs.app13b

Dean has made a point of trying to undermine and silence the other candidates over and over again. Perhaps he should refocus on the true enemy. Rather than trying to point out the other candidates weaknesses, I think Dean would be better served by highlighting his strengths.

Whereas Dean can only tone down his rhetoric to appeal to the magic middle, Kerry is set to turn things up a notch on the chickenhawk-in-chief this fall.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. always vote the lesser of two evils

even though you still end up with evil. At least you know you aren't helping Bushco.

[SGrande]

12. I hear the Green party is recruiting

buh bye!

[crissy71]

3. watch, Little Boots will be so unpopular by Nov 04 that

Toricelli could beat him

[blm]

4. heheh...

good one.

[tpub]

5. I think you're right on--n/t

[quinnox]

6. Kerry is one of the most formidable candidates

I agree mostly with the post, he can unite the party. Where I differ is I think Edwards would have a good chance to win too, course right now it appears his candidacy is going nowhere, but that can change.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. I think Kerry is the de facto frontrunner right now

He has the support of most of the party powerful and has lots of experience and a good record. He needs to prove that he can out campaign some people, though. But I think the nomination is his to lose. If he can beat back the challenge from Dean, then it will be good training for him for when he goes after Bush. Either way, Dean's being in the race is good for this process. It will make Kerry a better candidate and will give us the best shot to beat Bush.

(My personal hope is that Dean gets the nomination and beats Bush, but as I said, either way we are in good shape with these two men honing their campaign skills against each other).

[Larkspur]

10. The nomination is Kerry's to lose and Dean has nothing to lose

trying to win it. That's why Kerry is more hesitant to attack and Dean is running a "full court press" (basketball lingo) against the favorite Dems and Bush. This aggressive strategy attracted the attention of pissed off Dems and liberal Indepenents, but Dean built upon that support by channeling it into a campaign of hope. He's setting the example to his supporters that anger plus courage to act plus innovative ideas can change this country for the better. Dean's campaign of hope is what will win over conflict adverse voters who want a vision different that Bush and the weak willed Dems who capitulated to Bush on major issues last year.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. You know that old saying

"If you aren't outraged, you haven't been paying attention?" Dean's anger seems genuine to me, and a clear indicator that he has been paying attention, like so many of us here.

I like "campaign of hope". That's the way I feel about it, too.

But we are lucky to have other good candidates in the mix as well.

[SGrande]

13. i agree with the first part

but where ya get partisan, im obviously going to disagree, but I def agree with you on the first part.

It is Kerrys to lose and Dean's to win