Someone tell me why Kerry is the most electable candidate

[Ugnmoose]

IMHO he carries alot of baggage with him that will be fully exploited by the Bushistas. And there are enough inconsistencies in his current positions and the way he voted in the past that he will have some credibility issues.

Mind you I think any Dem is better than what we have now by a long shot. But I question whether this electability thing is legit.

Personally, I think the candidate who is most electable is the one who can clearly separate himself 180 degrees from Shrub. I say let's truly give the voters a clear choice - black and white. Not black and grey.

It is safe to say that most of us are fed up with the way our government and our country are being run. I for one would like to shake things up. I'm tired of the backscratching Washington clubbers and insiders dictating what happens to us. We are the people who vote them into office. Shouldn't they be accountable to us?

I guess in the end my rub against Kerry is that he so much represents the Washington establishment. Yes he might very well be better suited than anyone of the other candidates to wheel and deal with the Congress and there is something to be said about that. I just think it is time for the voters to stand up and say we don't like the way things are done in Washington and we want it to change. The only thing a politician truly ever wants from you is your vote. Why not make him earn it?

[killbotfactory]

1. He was in vietnam

Basically.

[freetempe]

33. Because...

the DLC, DNC, corporate media, fellow DUers and the GOP said so. So you better be a good little soldier and line up behind Kerry so he can get slaughtered in November. That is the plan, and you better not deviate from it or object, got it??

[Mobius]

62. Where was Clark?

Oh yeah! He got shot 4 times, managed to drag half of his platoon to safety, earning the Purple Heart and a Bronze Star. Later , he won the Silver Star. Did he quit? No. He stayed and earned 4 stars as a General and was a public servant for 34 years and not earning sum ridiculous some of money for sitting in congress , sponsoring bill after bill that FAILED, and having 6 months off a year :D

[NNN0LHI]

2. Because he is winning states in the primary maybe? n/t

[TucsonGreen]

12. Dukakis won states in the primary...then Bush kicked his ass. n/t

[NNN0LHI]

17. Clinton won states in the primary...then kicked Bush's ass. n/t

[TucsonGreen]

28. Duh, that's the point

The Democratic nominee ALWAYS wins states in the primary. Or else they wouldn't be the nominee. It doesn't make them electable in the election that counts.

So arguing that Kerry is electable (as President) because he's winning states in the Democratic primary doesn't work as an argument. One does not relate to the other.

[Carolina]

96. yeah but Clinton

lost NH and Iowa too. The media, the Dem establishment and the Kerry people are putting too much credibility in the results of 2 small white states.

Let all the remaining states have their primaries and then annoint someone!

[MAlibdem]

82. Dukakis wasn't a war hero

Besides the fact Dukakis was a great guy who would've made a principled (i dunno about effective) president, you're looking at things too one dimensionally.

When you take several facts about Kerry and view them as building on each other, that he's a war hero, that he IS winning primary states, that he will bring the fight to Bush in a way that engages and doesn't scare voters...then you can see why he's electible and delectible!

[PVnRT]

37. He's won two states

And hasn't run against Bush yet. None of them have.

[Carolina]

99. and as I said above

Clinton lost Iowa and NH but won elsewhere. The rest is history. The important thing here is to let the process run its course and not base the nomination on the results of 2 small white states.

It ain't over 'til its over, y'all. And at this stage, it has just begun.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Because people are voting for him?

:shrug:

[Dookus]

4. it sure is a sneaky strategy, isn't it?

getting people to vote for him - how diabolical!

[NNN0LHI]

6. Its a plot. I knew it all along n/t

[killbotfactory]

7. He proclaimed himself more electable before a single vote was cast

And the pundits agreed.

Even though all the candidates were polling well against Bush.

So why was he more electable back then?

[NNN0LHI]

10. Are you saying Kerry and the media put us all into a trance or something?

Kind of like Voodoo? You guys are killing me.

Don

[killbotfactory]

13. Just answer why Kerry is the most electable

Dean was painted early on as unelectable because he opposed an unjust war and civil unions.

Kerry was painted as electable early on because... ?

[polpilot]

20. The DLC picked their pro-war candidate... Kerry. Visit the DLC site for

the cheerleaders of the same ole same ole.

Dean '04...The ONLY Hope

[Old and In the Way]

35. Because a lot of people aren't as smart as you.

A lot of people vote on their gut feeling, not a well researched analysis of each person's policy positions and political biography.

How else to explain GWB getting nearly 50% of the vote in 2000?

Of course, I'm not comparing GWB to JK, but it does explain why JK will win on people's perceptions that he is the best person to lead us out of this 4 year nightmare.

[Lorien]

45. He's boring, his IWR vote

he's got passion and no "Elvis", he's the democrats Bob Dole (those are the reasons most often cited). People vote for the guy they would most like to hang out with. Only a small percentage of us really care about the issues.

[krkaufman]

66. Military record and "anger"

Actually, I thought Dean was painted as unelectable because he was so darn "angry" (BS), and that he'd bypassed Vietnam because of a "bad back" medical discharge -- but then went skiing.

Just opinion skimmed from the airwaves. I'm not sure what else they were railing on about.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. Explain how your guy is more electable when he can't even get his own

back yard to vote for him.

[killbotfactory]

15. Why don't you answer the question

Instead of trying to get in snarky quips?

What makes an uninspiring guy like Kerry, who has a legislative record to the left of Kennedy, from New England, who personifies "ivory tower liberal", who unconvincingly flip-flopped on the Iraq war, NCLB, and the Patriot act the most electable?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Well let's see...he was elected several times to office in a state where

people actually live. He served on Senate Intelligence for 18 years, and Foreign Relations for many years, he actually IS a Democrat. His records are not sealed and he manages to avoid conniption fits for the most part when the cameras are on.

Any questions?

[killbotfactory]

22. He sat on senate intelligence and supported the Iraq war

He doesn't have the judgement to be president.

Oh wait, now he's against the war.

Yeah, people will flock to him in the GE.

[Old and In the Way]

38. "He doesn't have the judgement to be president."

I suppose if you tell yourself this often enough, you can convince yourself it's true.

[killbotfactory]

55. How can a so-called expert on intelligence...

Vote to give Bush the authority to decide to go to war? Didn't he think invading a country, surrounded by terrorist supporting countries, which was easily predicted to have a guerilla war or worse as a result, with no post-war plan presented, and no solid evidence of Iraqi WMD's? Our troops are sitting ducks for any fucking terrorist supporting asshole who can pick up a gun or make a crude bomb, while President Dumbass and friends dick around trying to form a coherent rebuilding plan and begging for the UN to come help out, all because people like Kerry trusted the president.

When the weapons inspectors couldn't find shit, even though we were helping them out, Kerry didn't say shit.

When the UAV Kerry cited as one reason Iraq was a threat was proven to be a bullcrap balsa-wood RC drone, Kerry didn't say shit.

Then when Bush cut short inspections and bypassed the UN, Kerry gave a halfassed "I would have strongly preferred more diplomacy, but Saddam is evil blah blah blah".

You're damn right I question his judgement.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

105. I just want to know if he's FOR or AGAINST the war this week.

Can somebody give a brother a hand?

[Carolina]

100. Touche

"He sat on senate intelligence and supported the Iraq war." Plus he knew from Iran-Contra what sort of people the Bushes were and are and still gave Jr. a blank check, ceding war power over to an idiot. Now that's presidential judgment. :mad:

BTW, I was a Kerry supporter, but when he did that I went looking for another candidate. So now Kerry has won in NH and Iowa. Big woo. Big Dog Bill Clinton LOST those states but we all know where he went vs the winner of both Paul Tsongas, another MA Senator with the right kind of record.

[TucsonGreen]

29. He was elected several times in MASSACHUSETTS

A state whose entire legislature and entire Congressional delegation is Democratic. How's he gonna do in Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Colorado or Florida, where the populace isn't overwhelmingly Democrat

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. Is the populace overwhelmingly Democratic in NH?

[Old and In the Way]

40. 5% of the Republicans wrote Kerry's name on the Republican ballot.

Now, I guess some might say that means Karl Rove has lots of NH operatives in the state. But, knowing a few Republican New Hampshire voters, I know better.

[goobergunch]

53. The primary electorate is (n/t)

[lurk_no_more]

68. Come on now

there are a lot of people living in.....what was the name of that state again? LOL


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[polpilot]

25. The DLC says so. It seems to be lost on them that Kerry's voting record

on important issues is Frist-like...and very uninspiring. How can a demo defend Kerry at the office water cooler? and there lies the end of the demo '04 chances.

Dean '04...The ONLY Hope

[mreilly]

75. Do you live in Massachusetts?

I do, and the Boston Sunday Globe helpfully publishes a roll call for all Congressional votes the previous week. For years now I've followed Kerry's voting record, and almost every single time he has voted on any given issue the exact same way that I would, and I'm a far-left progressive.

Every time I've written or e-mailed John Kerry's office regarding any given issue I've received a warm and prompt response discussing the issue and JK's stance on it.

His voting record has been anything but uninspiring, with the exception of two gaffes: the resolution on the Iraq war and the Patriot Act. He screwed up, he knows it, he won't make the same mistakes again, so let's move on. Pillorying Kerry endlessly for two dropped balls amidst a decades-long crusade of touchdowns is ridiculous. Who led the fight to save ANWR? Kerry, that's who. Are the people accusing him of being a status quo politician capable of seeing the other side of the argument?

I am backing Kerry because he has the experience and the genuinely progressive credentials to back it up. I like Clark and Dean as well, but anyone who thinks there is such a virginal unicorn as a "political outsider" who is going to ride into Washington like Jimmy Stewart and clean the place up, well, all I can say is "The Matrix has you."

[polpilot]

23. Easy. Dean's fighting the DLC candidate Kerry and the repukes. He

HAS to go third party. The huge caucus/primary turnout is Dean driven but the DLC (Go to their site) backs the pro-war, pro-Ashcroft candidate who have the voting record to proclaim their republicaness.

Dean '04...The Decent Choice

[progressivebydesign]

95. That's true.. most of that "electability" has been a campaign theme..

Say it enough and people believe you. The word electability didn't come out of nowhere.. it started in the Kerry campaign.

[TucsonGreen]

14. The Primary is NOT the General

Kerry has Democratic Primary voters voting for him...this doesn't mean that he's electable in the General Election. The Democratic Primary Voters voted for Mondale too, then he lost every state but his own.

[mlawson]

27. Yep. Voters in primaries are mostly "political" voters.

They are following the election cycle when the masses can't name more than one or two Dem candidates, much less talk about them.

But in the general election, we get millions of voters who just started paying attention after the World Series ended. They might or might not pay attention to issues, but many vote following the same criteria as do high school students electing theit class presidents: looks, popularity, personal connections, etc etc. Many voters choose their president according to whether that candidate 'connects' with them at some level of personal chemistry. The beer buddy test.

Can Kerry pass it?? Mondale couldn't. Gore not well enough. Dukakis??? Oh, please...

[Casablanca]

104. So Kerry supporters can't defend their candidate.

This thread gave the Kerry supporters here a chance to give solid reasons why their candidate is more "electable" and to define "electability". The Kerry supporters here so far have failed on both counts. Their reasons (and the reasons why their reasons aren't good ones) are summed up as follows:

1. He has a military record/he is a war hero. (So is Clark. So is Max Cleland. He voted for an unjust and illegal war and hasn't acknowledged that his vote was wrong. Because of that, the Iraq war will not a campaign issue if he gets nominated - which suits Rove just fine.)

2. He seems presidential. (Well ya think? That's what a candidate is trained to do! Reagan had the presidential shtick down cold, and was a dismal failure at the actual job. Even Dole was more "presidential" than Kerry is, and Clark far more so.)

3. He's winning primaries. (Among Republicans and independents, he's _losing_ primaries. Preaching to the choir doesn't win presidential elections. What chance does his uber-liberal voting record have of winning the independent swing vote? None.)

4. We think most everyone else is going to vote for him. (And always based on what the polls and the media say. Where else would people get their ideas of what "everyone else" thinks? That kind of non-thinking is the end of democracy, folks.)

So can any Kerry supporters cite solid reasons (i.e., not the ones listed above) why a Dean/Clark ticket _won't_ be fatal to the Bush candidacy? Based on the responses in this thread so far, I doubt it.

[pocoloco]

5. He's not, but he does have "name recognition"

and also a truckload of baggage!

[library_max]

8. There's his military record, of course.

Also, he has recognized expertise in national security and an honorable record as an elected public servant (which also means that he has won elections before).

[pnziii]

9. Because

People believe what he says and pays no attention to what he does.

Voted for IWR
Voted for Patriot Act
Voted for Wire-tapping
Voted for More government funding of religious institutions.

Gee I just realized how Bush he sounds

[polpilot]

26. Frist-like voting records won't turn out the vote in November. Just won't

Dean '04...

[library_max]

47. What's this "Frist-like" nonsense?

Is it like Green Giant's "Freshlike" (which always cracks me up)? Or do you mean that he regularly votes the same way as Bill Frist? If the latter, do you have any facts to support that, or are you just blowing smoke and making stuff up?

[polpilot]

59. Bill Frist-like. Kerry's pro-war vote...pro-patriot act vote...SAME votes

on important issues. Votes that sent young men & women to Iraq.

Dean '04...

[library_max]

64. Two votes out of hundreds.

Hillary Clinton, Max Cleland, Tom Harkin, and twenty-six other Democrats voted with Kerry on the IWR. Every single Democrat in the Senate except Russ Feingold, including such liberal paragons as Paul Wellstone and Carol Moseley-Braun, voted with Kerry on the Patriot Act. So basically this Bill-Frist-like accusation is a lot of Bill-Frist-like nonsense.

[Carolina]

102. yeah but

the others you named are not running for president. And it is precisely because of tutu Dems like those you've listed, we the people have sought an outsider.

BTW, Carol Moseley-Braun was defeated in 1998, therefore she was no longer in the Senate to vote as you suggested.

[library_max]

107. "We the people have sought an outsider"

Which "we the people" is that? "We the people" of Iowa, or "We the people" of New Hampshire? It's always a mistake to assume that you and your friends are the voice of the majority.

And thanks for repeating the "pink tutu Dems" meme. That's surely going to help us against Bush in the general election. /sarcasm

[Duncan Grant]

16. Asked and answered many times over.

I'll leave it to the Kerry supporters to fill you in, they're probably experiencing deja vu, too.

The Washington insider thing is sure to incite a few good rebuttals.

[kaitykaity]

18. In Iowa, Dean and Gephardt killed each other

with negative advertising, allowing Kerry and Edwards to sneak through.

Then of course there was the overhyped Dean "Scream Speech", which there wasn't enough time for Dean to recover from between Iowa and New Hampshire.

Dean was recovering, however.

Kerry learned his lesson from the Dean grassroots movement, when he finally realized it was 'safe' for him to be as anti-Bush as Dean was. Add to that the media demolition job on Dean and the softball treatment of Kerry, and you get what we got. Kerry is now 'electable'.

[pacifictiger]

24. I wonder what the lemming voters

will do when questions of kerrys "electability" against bush come into play? Its the ISSUES folks - pandering for image popularity is why the people have lost washington. If you are for Kerry because of his stand on the issues, vote for him, but at least have the brains to get past "image" that almost always leads to backroom deals. Grow a spine and, in a civil manner, speak up for what you believe in. Enough washington politicospeak.

[patricia92243]

19. Some poll said he could. Of course we don't know if the poll was telling

the truth or not. Because of this - it is a self-fulfilling prophesy.
because the poll told everybody that Kerry could win over Bush, they voted in the primaries for him - and so it goes.

Let some poll show that ANY other candidate can beat Bush by a bigger margin than Kerry, and see that candidate shoot to the top of the chart. Even if that person was Joe or Rev. Al.

[LosAngelesDemocrat]

30. Electibility and political Dynamics

When I look at a candidate's attributes, I cannot view things in either black or white. A philosophical approach I take would be that your "greatest weakness is your greatest strength" and your greatest strength is your greatest weakness" The importance of electibility then relies on our(volunteers, campaign strategists, media) ability to emphasize the "greatest strength" aspect while minimizing the "greatest weakness" aspect while doing the same thing to the other candidate. The art of "spinning" unfortunately.

The problem with giving the voters a clear choice is that it shouldn't be a clear choice. There are so many different constituencies if different priorities in different orders that if such a clear position is taken, ex. anti-NRA then you lose the liberal nature pro-gun ppl. Another example would be the experienced statesman /corrupt Washington insider vs. un-experienced/uncorrupt outsider debate. There are great threats to the democratic party in this age and the last thing we need to do is to in this age is to alienate similarly minded liberal ppl who agree with us on a multitude of things but the area that they disagree with just so happens to be higher up on their own priority list.

Yes it is true that a politician wants your vote but if earning your vote means that he alienates too many other ppl's votes in earning your vote and thus losing it all, then was it worth it? Even the concept of "earning a vote" is part of the problem... whether it be pork in a certain congressional district or a lobbyist for citizen/business rights distorting the dynamics of fair and equal distribution/representation.

I do agree with you that the way things are done in Washington are a legitimate issue to be discussed as such by Sen. McCain, Sen. Jeffords, and Green party Ralph Nader have discussed this issue in depth. If this issue is #1 priority on your agenda list then I wish you luck and will assist this when paths cross. But for most other ppl, it may be #3,#7,or #20 on their list. Most liberal and moderate minded ppl have Health Care, national security, Social Security, Iraq, candidate charisma, and pro-jobs economic stimulation on their top 5.

So, according to electibility, and filtering demographics, regional appeal, ideological stance, agenda-priority mix; it is understood why just the argument or Kerry's electibility is being made by the establishment. However since PR and political strategy is such an inexact science, the same augment can and should be made for the other candidates...if not to win the democratic ticket, then at least to inoculate the democratic nominee against Bush in the final election. Regardless of how it is played in the media, it is still better (if done right) to have a democrat (colleague) criticize you than a republican (opposition).

Democrat Meetup Volunteer LA

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

42. Great post..thanks

Worth looking at in all respects.

[LosAngelesDemocrat]

56. hehe thanks... I try

Just trying to elevate the effectiveness of political action. The way I see it, you can be righteous and alienate ppl who differ from yourself by a small degree; or you can be effective and realize that our similarities tie us together since one person's opinion matters as much as another.

:grouphug: It's all about the "big tent" party!!! Coalition forming all the way!!!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

31. Because more people vote for him than the other candidates.

lol

[PVnRT]

39. How does that prove he can beat Bush?

For that matter, how would that prove it for any of the candidates?

[Old and In the Way]

44. Maybe we should vote for Sharpton?

Let's take the counter-intuitive argument to it's logical extreme.

[0rganism]

34. I know what you mean, he seems extremely vulnerable to me

I don't see him beating shrub. His image has already been tarnished by the repukes, they don't even have to do any new research to slam him. But they will, oh, they will, and they'll enjoy doing it.

Kerry's image represents everything easy for neo-cons to smear: beltway insider, rich New England elitist, playing both sides of the field on issues of national security. The polls have Kerry beating bush right now, but how much has the GOP spent of that $300-million warchest? Watch out! "French looking" is going to be the least of his problems if he gets the nomination.

[library_max]

41. So who do you think would be more electable? /nt

[0rganism]

48. Now that's a complex question; short answer, both Dean and Clark

1) History
Dean has experience as a governor, Clark has experience as a general. Historically, either of these occupations play out to a significant electoral advantage, far moreso than that of senator. Niether Dean nor Clark are divorced, but unfortunately Kerry is; this, too, has historically been a deciding factor.

2) Smearability
Niether Dean nor Clark have legislative records which expose them to criticisms of the sort that Kerry will face. Both have a demeanor which is warmer and more emotive than Kerry, who seems to wear a perpetual poker face. Both Dean and Clark come from outside the political mainstream, and can run as reformers, even though they are well within the scope of moderate politics. This will help them beat the "too liberal for America" rap as well as the "Washington insider" smear.

3) Campaign fundraising
Kerry just took out a second mortgage on his home to raise money for his campaign. This does not bode well, in running against a candidate who can visit any metropolitan area, any time, and get 500 extremely wealthy people to pay $2000/plate to hear him talk about lowering their taxes while sending the poor away to fight wars. Both Dean and Clark have shown an aptitude for raising funds "below the waterline", so to speak. Kerry will have to seriously change his fundraising methods to tap the base the way these guys have.

4) The South
Name me five Southern states in which you think Kerry can beat bush, cos I'm not seeing it. While Dean would also struggle on this, Clark has the best chance of carrying some of those states in the general election.

Don't get me wrong, because I like Kerry and overall approve of what he's done as a senator, but as a presidential candidate he's problematic.

[library_max]

49. Kerry has political and government experience, which Clark lacks.

He has a military record, which Dean lacks. The military record will likely be important with veterans and in the south. Basically, he has the advantage of government/political background like Dean, military like Clark, and national security credentials that neither of them have.

Nothing against Dean or Clark. They both have their definite strengths as candidates, and I'd be proud to support either one as the nominee.

As far as "five southern states," we don't need five, and you can't make a realistic case for five with any Democrat. Three we can get, with Kerry or any of the others, are Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida.

[0rganism]

51. The question was electability, not political experience

In a time when "Washington insider" is used as a slam, political experience can be an outright liability. Having a military record is helpful, but only the top rank historically translates into a presidential advantage. Senatorial experience doesn't appear to make a candidate more electable, although experience as a representative might.

I've said this once already today, but it bears repeating. The last time a senator beat an incumbent, Benjamin Harrison beat Grover Cleveland in 1888. He won largely because his running mate was Levi Morton, a banker (which is a deciding factor), a fact evidenced by Harrison's subsequent loss to Grover Cleveland in 1892 when Harrison ran with Whitlaw Reid instead. (This made Cleveland the only US president to serve two non-consecutive terms, which may come in handy next time you play Trivial Pursuit.)

"five southern states" is a bit of a reach, I agree, and I'm not asking for outright victories. But there ought to be five in which the Democratic contender can at least campaign and narrow the outcome. Clark has what should be a homestate advantage in Arkansas, and Louisiana, in particular, is a possibility for the right candidate. I don't know that Kerry can be a contender in Louisiana, especially if the Catholic church lines up against Catholic Kerry. That could get extremely weird. Given the presence of Graham, Edwards, and Gephardt at various points in the race, I suspect Florida, South Carolina, and Missouri should also be in play this year. Can Kerry compete against bush in any of them? Time will tell, but I have some serious doubts.

[emulatorloo]

54. This time people may want experience, esp in nat'l security

to level the playing field with Bush.

So that the focus can be on domestic issues.

[krkaufman]

72. Looks like we've already landed a man on Mars

> Kerry has political and government experience,
> which Clark lacks.

It's gonna take some fuel to bring you back down here to Earth.


> He (Kerry) has a military record,

Kerry: 4-years active Navy, as Lieutenant. Wounded, hero, medals. Then 6-years reserves.

Clark: Ditto, and then add 30 MORE YEARS experience, rising to 4-star General and NATO Supreme Commander, commanding a multi-national force in Kosovo to a successful conclusion.

> he has the advantage of government/political background
> like Dean,

If you think someone who rises to 4-star General in the US military isn't a gifted politician, I'm not sure how to help you. Plus, rising to 4-star General is based on accomplishment, while maintaining a Senate seat has more to do with schmoozing and money.

Clark has the far superior executive leadership experience, while Kerry has prosecutorial and legislative experience.

> military like Clark

Not even close. Saying that Kerry's military experience is like General Clark's is like saying a Senate page has the legislative experience of Senator Kerry. (See above.)


> and national security credentials that neither of them have.

Ridiculous. Clark's national security credentials far exceed that of Kerry. Clark has commanded *today's* Army, and is considered a national security expert. Effectively, Clark's done it, Kerry's read about it.


No offense intended, either, but you, like the candidate, are puffing up Kerry's military "experience" far beyond its true value.

As I've said numerous times, I'll vote Kerry in November; but I don't view him as qualified as General Clark -- ESPECIALLY from a national security and defense perspective.

[library_max]

92. You prefer Clark? Fine. Prefer Clark.

I never intended to insult you or your candidate or your preferences. You have your reasons for preferring Wesley Clark and I respect them. I don't feel called upon to call your views "ridiculous" or imply that you must be from Mars.

I have my reasons for preferring John Kerry. I think he has a better balance of government, political, military, and security experience than the other candidates. I also think that, given the likely dirty and brutal nature of the upcoming general election, it will probably be important to have a candidate who has run successful political campaigns and won elective office before. If Gen. Clark is the nominee, I'll hope I'm wrong about that.

[Strelnikov_]

80. So, A Senator Has More National Security Experience . .

. . than a former director for strategic plans and policy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Right, got it.

[library_max]

90. I didn't say Kerry has "more national security experience."

I said he has national security credentials that the others don't have. Have either Clark or Dean served on the Senate Intelligence Committee? No? Then Kerry has credentials that they don't have. I'm not arguing that serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee makes Kerry more qualified that Clark in a holistic sense.

[frustrated_lefty]

63. Good answer (n/t)

[LosAngelesDemocrat]

58. Kerry wins the ticket and loses Oregon?

Everyone focuses on the South and it is a important part. But another threat I see is from the far left mainly due to the Kerry v Dean issue. I tie that to democratic party dynamics and a opportunity to reform the rift between the democratic party and the green party who are more likely to be Dean supporters. In actuality, Nader just put together a exploratory committee for president that he ties directly to the poor showing of Dean in Iowa and NH. Many ppl say gore lost because of Florida. That maybe so but he unnecessarily spent time in Oregon he shouldn't of have. The final election is going to be decided with a 3-8 point spread and we can lose it both on the left and in the middle.


Democrat Meetup Volunteer LA



If you need elaboration you can contact me.

[krkaufman]

69. Hammering the point continuously...

> The polls have Kerry beating bush right now

national polls mean diddly. (barring a major edge) Gore won his final national poll against Bush, by 500,000 votes.

Think Electoral Pollage.

[library_max]

77. But surely you'll concede

that winning the polls is better than losing them. If Kerry's in trouble because he's not far enough ahead of Bush in the polls, how much worse off are the candidates who aren't ahead of Bush at all?

[mreilly]

79. News flash: any Demo candidate is going to get smeared

The Repukes are covering all their bases, and here's the formula.

Kerry? Elitist French-looking out-of-touch New Englander.
Clark? Crazy unpopular whack-job who screwed up Kosovo and was hated by his own men.
Dean? Crazy angry whack-job who can't lead.
Edwards? Inexperienced silly kid.

If you are going to back someone based on how well you think the GOP is going to treat them, I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but the Repukes are going to frantically try to shit all over anyone who dares challenge their precious boob in the White House. And as for whether or not such-and-such Democrat can beat Bush, any of them can, if the people in his party support him, work to get the message out, and help persuade the voters that there is an alternative to endless fear, deficits and war. Maybe we ought to focus on doing that instead of thinking up reasons why one of our guys just can't make it.

[0rganism]

81. Obviously; the question is, which sorts of smears will resonate

"Crazy" won't stick long term, nor will "angry", IMHO. "screwed up X" will likely turn into a legitimate discussion of past policies, and could benefit the candidate -- voters have shown a soft spot for candidates who can make mistakes and move on. bush is counting on that tendency for his "re"election.

> Kerry? Elitist French-looking out-of-touch New Englander.

What you've listed for the Kerry image attacks are representative, and let's add in "receives lots of lobbying money" and "may have botox'd" just to catch up with current events. "French-looking" isn't going anywhere, it's just kind of funny. "New Englander" is going to hurt him in the Yankee-hating south, there's nothing to be done about it, any northerner faces similar prejudice there. A strong local-issues awareness campaign may help him overcome that disadvantage. But "elitist" and "out-of-touch" are potentially devastating. Kerry is going to have to really slap those down as thoroughly as possible, whenever they come up. He's going to have to focus on talking WITH people, not AT people, and do it in a way that's perceived as genuine.

I think it's possible. Won't be easy, but he can do it if he wants to. Then common sense will overwhelm the "elitist" smear tactics, he can point to them as empty negative campaigning by shrub, and go back to the issues.

[Joseph Thule]

36. In short: hair, height, and Vietnam <nm>

[Auntie Bush]

43. Because he got Botox

[Old and In the Way]

46. Well, if there's a Botox attack, Kerry should be innoculated from it.

Yet another reason to vote for our next President!

[stickdog]

50. Because the media says so. It also says that Dean is the least electable.

It also says that the Iraq War was justified, and the George Bush keeps us safe.

Do you believe the corporate media?

[Joseph Thule]

52. Polls say Kerry is the most electable.

The media has basically ignored John Kerry for the past 6 months.

[seaglass]

65. Right, becasue they had already pronounced his

campaign as dead.

[stickdog]

76. At this point., these polls are largely a corporate media echo chamber.

[lurk_no_more]

70. No! actually the voters in IA and NH

said Dean is the least electable, according to the exit polls I read, ask them why.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

[stickdog]

78. Of course, this has nothing to do with the media.

It's not like the media has played & replayed the "Dean's not electable" meme in every story and every mention of Dean since Gore endorsed him.

[arewethereyet]

57. Edwards is the most electable candidate but he needs the lead

or Kerry will be carrying the sandard forward into the frey.

Relative to Dean and Clark, Kerry is more electable.

[krkaufman]

73. Opinion based on what?

It is arguable that national security experience is required to be viable in November. What can Edwards offer?

[arewethereyet]

87. terrific lack of negatives

and it is also arguable that its the right messenger with the right message can win big. Reference Clinton.

And, say what you will, he does have a chairman of the joint chiefs on his side, hard to top that in terms of chops. Even for a republican. Maybe even especially for some republicans. In the south and elsewhere. Do you suppose people might people might think Shelton would be a more effective SecDef than Rummy ? Just maybe ?

Its the ability to draw the right people to you that makes the difference.

[YNGW]

60. Why?

Dean hasn't exactly projected himself as mentally stable, Edwards needs more experience, and this is Clarks first run for any office and he is in over his head.

And you're right, Kerry has a lot of baggage.

Whether any of them can pull it off remains to be seen.

[Mobius]

61. I can't

because it bullshit media claptrap.

[The Sausage of Death]

67. "Someone tell me why Kerry is the most electable candidate"

He is the most French looking candidate.

[krkaufman]

74. *NOW* he's got my vote

Just to shove it in Tom Delay's face. (sorry for speaking of the unspeakable)

[fabius]

71. If more people vote for him, it helps his electability

depending on the outcome of next week's contests.

You gotta remember voters are what counts in this, either that or a compliant Supreme Court. Since we don't have the SC we need voters.

[sangha]

83. Expensive haircuts

and he dated Angie Dickerson

[NewHampster]

84. Because John Kerry Says So

He says he is the most electable therefore it must be true.

I can't believe you have doubts.

[Nicholas_J]

85. Because first and foremost

His record of going after Republican adminstrations who were skirting the laws of the nation is the best of any of the candidates. Not one other candidate running has stepped up to the bat and opposed Republican Administrations, and their abuses. Even though I like them Kucinich does not have as strong a record of actively and effectively opposing Republican's who have violated the laws. Neither does Clark, though he did fine things in Kosovo, and did stand up to Pentagon Yo-yos. Only Edwards has stood up and actively criticized the actions of the Bush Administration prior to running for office (after the 2000 stealing of Florida, Edwards stood up in Congress and made an overwhelmingly magnetic speech criticizing the way the election was run, I sat up and took notice of Edwards then).

Dean, well forget about Dean.The only time he has criticized Republican abuses of power, Republican Platforms, and any violations of laws or regulations by special interests and big business was sice he became a candidate. AS governor the only thing Dean ever fought for was big business and special interests. If you search Deans record thoroughly, you will not find one icident of him being in the forefront of any fight for anything that benefitted average citizens for his entire tenre as governor. ANdplenty of times he got up to the bat to fight for the interests of the likes of Monsanto.

Kerry is the only cnadidate running with a history of opposing, attacking, and repeating attacks on Republican Adminstrations.


And winning, I might add. Dean actually has harmed the Democratic Party's ability to attack Bush for the attack on Iraq by insisting and insisting that the October Resolution was a blank check to war. By doing so he has weakened the argument that this document required Bush to follow through on all peaceful diplomatic measures to deal with Iraq before going to war, and to do so through the U.N. and the U.N. alone. Dean's rather vaugue stances on Biden Lugar (which gave the president the same power to go to war without requiring that he go through the U.N.) and other slippery stances simply will not make him a credible candidate against Bush. Nor anyone else. Kucinich, who opposed the Iraq Resolution, used the Resolution as a base for a lawsuit to get an injunction against the war. a major inconsistancy.

Clark said he would have signed the document, then he said he wouldnt.

Again, only Edwards and Kerry have taken a consistant stance on the resolution. It said the president had to exhaust all peaceful, diplomatic means, and could only abandon letting the U.N. be the decisive body in this if it could be proved that they were not going to enforce resolutions, and that Saddam was seriously breaking them.

THe only real differnce between Edwards and Kerry is that Kerry has had years more experience taking on the Republicans in Congress. Edwards has had a lot less, but he has a consistant point of view on dealing with them, which his experience as a trial lawyer would lend some expereince to , but Congress is not a court room.

Dean again, far from fighting Republicnas who have been willing to violate every rule of decency in the book, has praised the very people who stole Congress first, and then the white house. We need no go through Deans praise of Gingrich and his ideas from the Contract with America.

Why Kerry. becasue Kerry has already consistantly fought and beaten members of this administration already.

[seaglass]

88. An excellent post, thank you. n/t

[MAlibdem]

97. Very nice post.

Basically what my mind has been jumbling around and unable to articulate for some time (or would have liked to be able to articulate).

[bornskeptic]

108. Excellent post, Nicholas

Of course the Kerry detractors will pretend they haven't read it, and before long they'll start a new thread asking the same question.

[CabalBuster]

86. Because the pundits and the DLC said so, so it must be true??? n/t

[jpgpenn]

89. He's not!

[democratreformed]

91. Because the pollsters say so and the media reports it

ARRRGGGHHH!!!! I'm getting so frustrated.

[Edge]

93. I don't see how he's electable either.

So I can't help you.

[progressivebydesign]

94. Up till now, he's the unexamined candidate.

He has name recognition and medals. Electability is a trap.. it's a farce. It's the wrong reason to choose someone in the primary, because it is influenced, ultimately, by media coverage, vulnerabilities one the nominee is under the microscope, and voter mood. The only test of electability is the general election returns. Every other method of determining it is faulty. Polls right now are meaningless because people don't know the candidates well enough. Wait until the eventual nominee is dragged into the Rove Zone... then we'll find out if we have a winner.

[TheDonkey]

98. war hero, liberal, pragmatic, experience with forgien & domestic policy...

great tax policy plan.

Sounds serious, has support of prominent Democrats, is tapping into the democratic vote, has vision for jobs, quirky and warm wife.

[PurityOfEssence]

101. He isn't; Edwards is.

He has less negatives and more positives than any other candidate.

Carville himself said that he's the best stump speaker he's ever seen in a presidential race.

[mlawson]

106. And the latest CNN poll puts Edwards over bush!

Hope it isn't too late!

[Carolina]

103. Clinton lost

NH and Iowa to another Massachusetts Senator named Paul Tsongas in the 1992 season. But we all know who won the nomination and the GE. A little history, folks, to put things in perspective. So, U, your post is valid and reasonable.

Let the primaries run their course. Let all the Democratic voters weigh in before proclaiming Kerry's the one. It ain't over 'til it's over and it's hardly begun!

[Southsideirish]

109. Because the media & Dem establishment have cast him as their

leading man in the powerful and well funded "Stop Dean at Any Cost" movement.
If Kerry falters they will just plug somebody else in that spot. There is a reason why he has been in DC for 19 years with no accomplishments - even the NPR commentator said his "record is very thin." Sorry to tell you but there's not much there.
That's why the voters initially rejected him during this primary race before he was cleverly re-invented by the "powers that be."

[goodhue]

110. because he won in IA and NH

seems kinda self-evident

[Forkboy]

111. because someone in another thread said so

and he used big bold letters so it must be true.

[edzontar]

112. He isn't. He will lose BIG TIME, I fear.

nt