Why Kerry Would Lose

Kerry needs to get off his high horse

from JoeUser Forums
As someone who badly wants Kerry to become the next president I must say that I think Kerry should be running a better campaign.

So far, Bush's campaign has been extremely negative. He's criticized Kerry more than he's promoted himself, and succeeded in branding Kerry as a flip-flopping, tax-raising, troop hating Massachusetts liberal.

Kerry, on the other hand, has decided to take the high road to Bush's low road. Kerry can't win this way. You can't unseat an incumbent by simply promoting yourself. Kerry has to convince voters that Bush has been a bad leader during his four years and doesn't deserve a second term. Kerry should focus on pointing out the bad things Bush has done, because this is how he will convince voters to vote for him.

The Kerry campaign needs a new direction if he's to win in November.
democrat
18,524 views 34 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Are you kidding me? Kerry has been running a negative campaign along. The whole campaign is about "I am not G. W. Bush". That is why when you talk to people who are voting for Kerry, all they talk about is two things: he was a vet and he is not George W. Bush. Most Kerry supporters do not know what Kerry has done in the last 20 years. Yes, Bush has been running some negative ads against Kerry, but no way close to waht Kerry ahs been doing. How many people you talk to who are voting for Bush say their reason is "He is not John Kerry".

Look maybe you are such a Kerry fan that you cannot see straight. Yes, Bush has attack Kerry voting record and attacking he flip-flopping, but Bush spent alot of ads on himself. He talks about how he lead American through 9/11, how he is reviving the eocnomy, how he dealth with Taliban and how Iraq is now better for America and for Iraqians. You may think these are all lies, but they are not negative ads. They are so-called positive ads which talk about himself and not opponent.

The only thing John Kerry talked about beside Bush is his Vietnam experience. That is his only positive campaign he has. He doesn't talk about his lieutenant goveror experience, his 20 years in senate. Seriously, what are his positive ads beside the Vietnam thing?

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I was in Nevada, a swing state this summer. Every single one of the Bush ads I saw was an attack on John Kerry, and every single one of the Kerry ads I saw was supporting him, but not attacking Bush. There were independent groups that attacked Bush, and frankly I though they were more effective.

Since George Bush is and incumbent and running for re-election the election is much more about him. The question on most people's minds is does George Bush deserve re-election or not. Of course the Kerry voters are voting more against Bush, because their vote is mostly motivated by reaction to Bush.
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
It must be nice for Kerry to have the support of "independent" groups like MoveOn.org to do his dirty work.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
matt,

I live in Nevada and have seen all of the ads.

*Kerry has lied about Bush's position on Yucca Mountain. Bush did not initially oppose Yucca Mountain, but said we needed research to be done. Yes, Bush did eventually betray Nevadans, but his initial position has been grossly misrepresented.

*Kerry has lied about his own record on Yucca Mountain and ignored that of his running mate, John Edwards. Edwards has shown himself to be a consistent supporter of Yucca Mountain, and Kerry petitioned to have the timetable for waste disposal speeded up, far from being the friend he committed to being.

Kerry's ads have been largely attack ads; Bush's ads have been no better. The only parts of Kerry's platform that he has clearly presented here are that he will not raise taxes on the middle class (leaving both the lower and upper classes open for tax increases, of course), and that he will provide 500,000 more teachers nationwide (without mentioning how he intends to fund this, leaving me suspicious about the aforementioned claim).

From my perspective, Kerry has NOT taken the high road, at all. And I live in Nevada full time.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe I just wasn't watching T.V. at the right time, but all the Bush ads I saw were anti-Kerry (many suggested that Kerry supported violence against pregnant women) and all the Kerry ads just said something like "John Kerry, stronger at home, respected abroad." The convention also had very little Bush-bashing for a challenger trying to unseat and incumbent. I think he needs to challenge Bush more, because he's not going to make anyone voting for him by saying he would be a good president. People consider changing presidents a risk, and they're not going to change unless they feel that Bush is unacceptable for a second term. That's why I think Kerry needs to attack Bush more. The people who voted for Bush in 2000, but are now voting for Kerry didn't switch because they're wildly excited by Kerry, but because they don't like how Bush has used his four years.
Reply #6 from PolMach Forums Top
Matt and Gideon MacLeish,

My god. I don't live in Nevada. What the hell is Yucca Mountain? Is that some kind of important issue? Ok Matt, I don't know what is happening there maybe you are right, maybe Bush has more negative ads there. My original statement is based on what I see from the Kerry and Bush websites. They have those TV ads which you can download. Kinda of cool. Oh, I also think Bush acceptance speech is less negative than Kerry's. Most people critized Bush speech sounds to much like State of the Union, which means he mostly talk about his record, his vision and himself. Seriously, how many times can you count Bush attack Kerry during his acceptance speech in the GOP convention?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yucca Mountain is the proposal to dump nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada. It has been dubbed by Nevadan statesman as the "Screw Nevada" bill. We do need a way to dispose of our nuclear waste but it has not been proved that this will be safe, and the people of Nevada are understandably worried if their kids will be growing third arms.

My point really wasn't that Bush is running a more negative campaign. That's my opinion, but I'm biased. My point really was that Kerry needs to talk more about the negatives of the Bush record, because that is how he will convince people to vote for him.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yucca Mountain is a VERY important issue. It is the proposed nuclear waste repository for all spent nuclear waste in the United States. If it ever opens, it means that nuclear waste will be transported on unsecured rail lines across the country, leaving plenty of opportunity for terrorists who would aspire to use the spent fuel for "dirty bombs".

There are also questions about the stability of the proposed canisters for waste storage; evidence questioning their safety has simply been discarded by Bechtel, the chief contractor for this project.

Yucca Mountain is also 90 miles from Las Vegas, and although studies indicate that a groundwater contamination shouldn't leak into Vegas' aquifers, there's still the possibility of atmospheric contamination. The same studies have shown that groundwater contamination would leak into the Amargosa valley, which includes Ash Meadows Wildlife Refuge, a desert oasis that contains many endangered species, including some found nowhere else on earth.

Yucca Mountain also straddles a fault line. Although the fault line hasn't been active for a long time, concerns that it could destabilize are real enough for reasonable opposition to the project.
Reply #9 from PolMach Forums Top
Sorry Matt for beating a dead horse but Gideon is right about adds in NV.

I'm not from the same area in the Nevada as he is, but I've seen twice as many negative ads here by the 527s against Bush. Kerry's own ads in my area has him attacking Bush as if Bush had commissioned the SBV ads himself and outright attacked Kerry's war record. At least Bush's ads go after things that can be proven. I have not seen one positive ad in my area from Kerry, while I have seen two from Bush.
Reply #10 from PolMach Forums Top
I am not from Nevada. I'm actually from North Carolina. I want Bush to be elected president again, but for totally different reasons than most of you would think...

Anyway, what I have seen myself about the independent groups is, I've seen so many attacking the Kerry Campaign. I've seen a couple that attack the bush campaign, but I've seen several anti-kerry campaign ads. For example, I've seen several times the attack against Kerry by the Swift Boat Vets, about how he said we were "baby-killers" and we "ravaged the land" in Veitnam. I've also seen an ad about how he is "attacking the poor with high taxes on" just about everything...

I disagree that Bush is less negative. I believe this entire campaign has been negatives, negatives, negatives. Bush has, indeed, imo, said more reasons why to vote for him, instead of the "I'm your only real candidate". Bush and Kerry insult eachother just as much, Bush just has reasons to vote for him, not just "Vote for me because I'm not him!". Bush does have more independents with him though, so he doesn't have to appear as negative. He can let them attack while he does his own campaign. This is just what I have seen in my area. I don't know about Nevada.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Thank you. Now I remember about the Yucca Mountain Bill. Matt. I don't think simjply negative will do. I mean the Democrat and media has need attacking Bush all along anywya. Bush has only a 51% approval rate which is not good and not bad. Yet you see more people are willing to vote for Bush than that ratio. The recent poll has about 62%. What this mean is that many people who dispprove Bush but are still voting for him because they either dislike Kerry more, or they don't know what Kerry's position is.

I incline to agree with the recent suggestions from Democrat Party and Bill Clinton. What Kerry needs to do is to draw a clear distinction between him and Bush? So far here is the problem I see. Kerry try to be popular by taking too many popular stand. Americans actually like a President who disagree with them at time. Frankly, that show strength and leadership. Kerry on one hand attack Bush decision to go to Iraq. On the other hand, he voted for the war and said he would have made similar decision except he would have gotten more international support. Yet he never clearify how he will get more support from France and Germany.

He openly attacked Prescription Drug for Elder Bill before the vote. He made a big deal how he is willing to stop his primary campaign for 2-3 days just so he can go back to COngress and fight against Bush. However, he voted "Absence" while he was on Captial Hill. How can you phyically be there and vote absent when you claimed to be against it. He also critized the Patriot Act, now he is not. I think he has to stick to something and act strong and tell his supporters that he is doing the "right" thing.

That is why the Bush is successful. The War on Iraq has been unpopular for at least 6 months (more people hate it than like it). Bush simply insist it is right, and argue that it may not be popular but it is right. Kerry need to simply stick to one issue and insist his point. At the end, I think you are wrong. Kerry will lose very bad if he only goes negative. The problem is not there isn't people dislike Bush. The problem is that those people dislike Bush, dislike Kerry more.

Gallup has done a poll on the independent voters and this is what they think. You may go directly to the source:

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12892


"The Battle for Independents

To attract more voter support, Bush and Kerry seem compelled to appeal to independent voters. According to the latest poll, both candidates are already supported by roughly 9 out of 10 members of their own party -- and as history suggests, that figure is unlikely to increase much further. The target of opportunity is political independents, who currently favor Kerry over Bush by a 13-point margin, 52% to 39%.

In focusing on his image as a strong leader, Bush is tapping into a perception that resonates well with independent voters (who otherwise tend to favor Kerry). By more than 2-to-1, (54% vs. 25%) independents say the phrase "a strong and decisive leader" applies more to Bush than it does to Kerry. Independents also favor Bush over Kerry as someone who stands up for what he believes in and who can manage the government effectively."
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
chemical,

Again I must protest that the latest analysis is incomplete. I think the Libertarian Party will be a bigger factor than the pundits realize.
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top
Bush does have more independents with him though, so he doesn't have to appear as negative. He can let them attack while he does his own campaign. This is just what I have seen in my area. I don't know about Nevada.


That can't be true. Kerry has more 527 group helping him. That is why when Kerry ask Bush to condemn Swift Boat for Truth. Bush attacks all 527 groups and ask Kerry to condemn all 527. Basically there are more so-called independent organizations helping Kerry. To give you a exmaple, the largest 527 groups are MoveOn.org. I recalled the money to democrat 527 group is ten times as much as the repubican.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Kerry's own ads in my area has him attacking Bush as if Bush had commissioned the SBV ads himself and outright attacked Kerry's war record.


Ahh, I left before that.

I don't think though that Kerry is going to win by talking about healthcare or taxes on the rich. If he wants to win he has to say Bush mismanaged the economy, bush mislead us into Iraq, Bush is not fixing healthcare or social security, Bush is running up deficits.
Reply #15 from PolMach Forums Top
Again I must protest that the latest analysis is incomplete. I think the Libertarian Party will be a bigger factor than the pundits realize.


Funny, but no. Even the libertarian party strategy is to go win local first, states, then maybe national. No one know who is the libertarian nomittee for this election, and no one will vote for someone they never heard of.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
You might be right. I merely said in my area...heh.

Um, matt, that's what he's been doing. Did you watch the entire speech that Kerry did RIGHT AFTER the GOP convention?

At least half a dozen times he said "Bush has mislead us into Iraq". And he has also said how Bush has mismanaged the economy (not those words)

Here, another thing I must ask is...How can Kerry say the following, (almost quote, paraphrasing a bit)
"I'm going to take the targets off our men and women in the field, and I WILL gain more national support of our country".
Umm, yeah. Well, what if France and Germany just say "screw you filthy americans" ??? They don't have to support us, so kerry needs to just shutup about that. He can't promise us that the World Powers will love us. He can only say what he can do as a american president, with the american people. The only thing he can do is pull our troops out of Iraq, and in which, if we do, that would be a mistake. Iraq will fall back into dictatorship because they are not yet ready to rule a democracy, AND the world of the al qaeda and terrorist factions will look upon us as weak, and more attacks will occur, because we will be "Cowardly Infidels" or something of that sort.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Kerry cannot talk about Bush misled the war in Iraq if he actually vote for the same war. Unless he claims Bush knows more about the actually intelligence than he did, and he has no proof of that. Not only that, if he inisists Bush knows more than he did, that is a double edge sword.... that is to say he doesn't know.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clinton is giving Kerry some much needed advice. From his hospital bed he may help kerry win this election like the American Public needs. Thanks to Bill Clinton.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
No one know who is the libertarian nomittee for this election,


That's funny, because 3-5% of poll respondents nationally, and 8% in New Mexico have said they will vote for Michael Badnarik, a name with whom I GUARANTEE my regular readers are familar, at least.

3-5% is more than enough to significantly alter the election in battleground states.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
What poll did you read? Can you send me the poll? I thought more than 30% of the American don't even know who the British Prime Minister is, and more than 50% of American cannot name the three axis countries we fought during World War 2. I seriously doubt more than 1% of the popular know Michael Badnarik. Do they actually know Badnarik? Or the pollest simply assocaite the Badnarisk to Liberterian Party. I mean I won't be surprise that 1% of the people will vote for anyone who is Liberterian. I was challenging if people actually know who is representing the Liberterian Party is.

I seriously doubt Michael Badnarik will get 3-5% of the national vote. That is way more than Nader will ever get.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Repeat after me: Nader is not on the ballot in all fifty states, Nader is not on the ballot in all fifty states, Nader is not on the ballot in all fifty states.

You should get off your Nader fixation, it's not healthy.

What poll did you read? Can you send me the poll?


Gladly Link
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
First off, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the Congressional authorization for the Iraqi war. One of the provisions was that the UN security council approve the motion to war and that the United States had to have exhausted all other alternatives before going in to Iraq. The Bush Administration has spun Kerry's vote on that issue to make him look like he flip flops. Second, more 527s support Kerry simply b/c more Americans are worried about the direction the country is taking under Bush and oppose parts of the Bush policy that, for one reason or another, have barely been debated (considering its Constitutional ramifications, the Patriot Act is extremely underdebated in this country). Third, the whole 'flip-flop' issue is ridiculous, since theres so much information in any bill passing through either the House or the Senate that even some of the most staunchly partisan Congressmen vote both ways on any issue at any given time. If you've ever read a bill, you'd see that a bill on, say, veteran affairs can have riders addressing everything from health care premiums and social security to pork legislation at its worst. Forth, Kerry has not lost. Gore held a much more significant lead over Bush at this time (13 points if memory serves me...) Fifth, Kerry hasn't been a shining beacon of optimism but, as Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, and the entire GOP convention (which set the convention arrest record btw) show, the GOP has been far more willing to go negative. We can thank Newt Gingrich and his 'go negative early and often' strategy for that.
Finally, this war on terror is a world wide effort and the United States can not win it alone. The way the Bush administration has fought this war goes beyond mere ineptitude. A war on a noun is only exasperated by sheer military force since it's more for the hearts and minds of the people in question. If we keep merely killing terrorists instead of fighting terrorism then, quite simply, we will lose. Of all issues, I personally feel this is the most important issue. America needs to win this war. Military effort alone only makes things worse, since it radicalizes more people. But I digress...
One last note: stubborness should not be confused with leadership. It takes a brave man to take a stand but a braver man to admit a mistake and attempt to fix it.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I thought more than 30% of the American don't even know who the British Prime Minister is, and more than 50% of American cannot name the three axis countries we fought during World War 2.


This means, though, that 70% of Americans DO know who the British Prime Minister is(Tony Blair), and 50% DO know the 3 axis countries we fought in WW2 (Germany, Japan and Italy).

Incidentally, not every American was asked these questions. I wasn't, and I know of noone who was. However, I would also caution you not to rely too heavily on those statistics for your sweeping generalizations of Americans.