Kerry SHOULD appeal to swing voters, not the left

[quinnox]

I am getting tired of the sentiment that Kerry is moving too much to the center or the center-right, instead of winning over the far left.

This is what Kerry should do, he already has most of the left's support wrapped up except for the Naderites or socialists which are a lost cause anyway.

Why try to win over a few percentage points, when the centrists and swing voters are much more of a number that can win the election.

It would be a good way to lose the election to concentrate on winning over what is termed as the "loony left".

[Wonk]

1. Here's an idea: Appeal to the disenfrachised 50% who don't even vote

instead of trying to grab a few swing repugs votes :think: GOTV

[rockymountaindem]

3. You make a very good point.

However, it seems to me that a lot of those people just seem intent on not voting. I've often wondered why people can't bother, especially in modern times, to spend half an hour learning about the candidates and another half hour voting once every 4 years. I'm not challenging you assertion, but I'm not sure if most of these people will ever be inspired to vote.

[Ardee]

37. Of course they dont vote

nor have they voted for years. Why you ask? Because of sentiments like that contained in this thread starter, thats why! Unless and until the Democratic Party finds its courage, finds its roots, finds its voice it will continue to fail miserably.

If you want to continue to chase the false grail of a few swing voters fine, but I think it a strategy designed by neocons and promoted to keep the rest from actually thinking about that vast bloc of disenfranchised and left leaning voters who think, correctly, that no politician is worhty of their vote.

Quinnox may need a remedial math lesson but that shouldnt keep the rest from noting that over 60% of eligible voters refuse to vote at all. That Quinnox takes the left for granted is so sad, so misguided and so wrong as the growing numbers of those who choose third party allegiance or simply desert the democratic party for silence proves again and again that I must believe it to be a blindly neocon argument for failure.

So go ahead and continue to endorse a strategy that failed in the mid term elections, its your party and its your choice. Meanwhile the real way to win the WH and this nation back from fundie and monied control lies apathetic out there...ignored or villified.

[JPJones]

4. And what issues would bring these people to the polls?

Maybe if the American Idol finalists were also on the ballot, you might get close to 100% participation.

[quinnox]

7. This is where Dean can help

Dean can get those people he said never voted before and were apathetic about politics that were all fired up for him, and have them vote for Kerry.

[jpgray]

11. Yes, the Nader, Dean, and Kucinich landslides show how well that works

Hey wait a minute! :D

Nothing wrong with Dean or Dennis, but relying on a group that is too lazy or ill-informed to vote is not the best strategy to employ. If there were a strategy that could net those non-voters, it might be more acceptable, but no strategy seems to be viable. So far as I can tell, no policy positions from left to slightly right of center have brought out the non-voters as so many have promised, and if it isn't about policy, what is it about? It's a little idealistic and naive to think that the 50% are not voting because they are waiting for some populist hero to speak for them. More likely they don't follow politics or the major issues at all, and the media are more than happy to keep things that way.

[Selwynn]

21. Hear hear!

[JanMichael]

44. That makes too much sense. It'd also create the need to be accountable

85-90% turnout would scare the shit out of both parties.

[Nashyra]

2. Fight fire with fire

He should campaign for the swing voters and the moderates, and yes the rest of the Dems should trust him and vote for him, that way when he WINS he can govern from the left just like * did. The key is getting elected. I've gotten to the point where i don't care what anyone on the extreme left wants or says, I want to win the fucking election so that we don't have to put up with FOUR MORE YEARS of the *, do you think anyone was complaining when the idiot was running as a "compassiopnate conservative". I say let's get our heads out of our asses and go win an election! Flame away.

[quinnox]

10. I agree with you

It's time to win.

[OneTwentyoNine]

41. I've said over and over they should be in Florida signing up...

Those 50,000 people that Bush,Harris and Frank Borman scrubbed from the lists. I just heard the other day that once again Florida is about 50/50 on this election.

Kerry needs to be down their making damn sure those disenfranchised can vote in 2004.

[genius]

5. Yeah. That worked real well in 2002. Or rather it helped the Repubs

This leads to claims that there is no difference and no reason to vote. Do we want a repeat of 2002 or to win.

The party has moved too far to the right. The left contains most of the Democratic Party and most of the country. Read Moore's last book. It contains the percentages that prove that moving from the left will only pull in a small minority of voters and lose the election.

[DoktorGreg]

6. The demographics are clear...

There are really very few "swing" voters.

At the same time, Ariana Huffington had the perfect quote for this. "When your house is on fire, it is not time to remodel." Or some such.

The way I see it, it Kerry wants to be president for all people, not just his campaign contributors. I dont think he is pandering to middle at all.

Right now Bush is giving US citizens a lot of cover on credibility. After all he wasn't elected, and he lied to get this war going. However should the people of US elect Bush again, either by ignorance, willful misdirection (voting for nader), or just not showing up to polls, then OUR credibility takes a hit.

So the choice is really simple. Vote for Kerry or vote for Bush.

[TankLV]

52. There are few "swing voters"! This is the sole truth.

There are not many "swing voters" anymore. The country is vastly polorized.

This false policy will result in another 4 more years of dumbya and more repukes - just like in 2000 & 2002.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring reality.

Quinnox needs to research his illusory "facts" a bit more.

I'm a proud memeber of the "moderate" middle - and I am tired of constantly being urged to shift evermore "right".

I BELONG TO THE DEMOCRATIC WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

[movonne]

8. Well it did not stop the Loony right from getting into office. Are there

more loony right than left.

[seabeyond]

9. in reality and the universal scheme of things

isnt the president representitive of all the people. when he is elected does it mean he is only representing the percentage that voted him in, or that he becomes bigger adn is representing all.

this being the case, that he is president to all, doesnt that naturally bring him to the middle

just a thought, not a committment to an arguement

[corporatewhore]

12. remember what harry truman said

"given the choice between a republican, or a democrat in republicans clothing, they will pick they real thing."

[jpgray]

13. Playing to the center isn't about submitting to the Republican way

Unless you want to call every candidate but Kucinich and Sharpton a Democrat in Republican's clothing, since the other eight were all center to right-of-center.

As we saw in 2002, appearing to submit to a bullying right wing is not appealing to the center, it's caving in to the right. Appealing to the center would be offering a practical alternative that is not exclusively appealing to the left. De-Americanizing the Iraqi occupation is a position that fits that mold--no Republican would abandon the permanent bases and graft-filled contracts, but a centrist would see the wisdom of ending the US occupation.

[JI7]

25. what did you think of truman dropping the A-bomb on japan ?

[corporatewhore]

26. what does that have to do with this?

i find it morally reprehensible btw

[JI7]

27. you brought up truman

so was wondering if you agreed with dropping the a-bomb as much as you do with the quote.

[OneTwentyoNine]

43. Glad he did,why do you ask?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Then DON'T blame Nader if Kerry loses...

Like people like you blame Nader for Gore losing.

It is a simple equation - if there are more votes to gain in the center than are lost on the left, then Nader is NOT to blame for Gore or Kerry losing.

If there are NOT more votes to be gained in the center, then your entire proposition is wrong, and Kerry better damned well start trying to win over those people the Dems have lost in their run to the right.

[quinnox]

16. I didn't buy the argument

that Nader was the cause of the loss for Gore.

So if Kerry loses, I wouldn't blame Nader.

[Nicholas_J]

19. No matter what

It was the relatively large number of votes Nader recieved in Florida which resulted in the debacle of the recount. Without Naders 65,000 votes in the state of Florida, and even the result of a partial percentage of those votes going to Gore, Gore would have won Florida without question, regardless of the preventing of a large number of miniroty and voters from poorer districts.

In this election, a percentage of Republicans are stating that they would vote for Nader, but the ratio is at best 2 Democrats selecting Nader, to one Republican voting for him. If that ratio were true in 2000, and Nader did not run in that state, Gore would have woon Florida by about 40,000 votes, and that would have been something that it would have been difficult to cover up.

Living in the county that had the largest number of voters prevented from voting, and the fact that in that county, there were almost no votes cast for Nader (almost all of the votes for Nader were cast in two counties, that are the largest democratic areas in the state, Palm Beach and Broward Counties) it is almost certain that if Nader had not run, Gore would be sitting in the White House right now. No matter how much Nader supporters try to deny this, the fact is that the election was lost in Florida, a state in which Nader had one his largest percentages of voters.

In the county that I lived in at that time and also in 2002, a young Green ran for the Florida Senate on the democratic ticket even though he was actually a Green Party member, and though he was defeated in a landslide by the Republican incumbent, his percentage of the vote in the relatively Republican district was appreciable. Much larger than Nader's percentage of the vote in that county. This indicates that a Nader largely was supported as a Green candidate, not because he was Nader. Nader is not doing nearly as well in Florida according to polls as he did in 2000, and the same thing is occuring in the states that Nader won his largest number of votes. Nader did rather well in Pennsylvania in 2000, but his polling percentages are plummeting in that state as well. I know that in Florida, many people recognize clearly that Nader cost Gore the state of Florida in 2000. That recognition is especially clear to those who witnessed the events. witnessed people being turned away because there names were not on the rolls, or being told they were felons, to their total surprise, or simply being stopped by police from entering the area, being told that there was an accident in the area and the road was closed, or having the polls close earlier than they were supposed to, or after the Governor extended the voting hours, closing the polling places in largely Democratic districts. Having seen the methods used to prevent minorities and the poor from voting, people who largenly didnt vote for Nader, the fact that those who voted for Nader were of a demographic group who in general were not prevented from getting to the polls or voting, and would not have been had Nader not run, and the votes he got cast elsewhere. Then entire scenario which the Bush's used to alter the votes in Florida would not have worked as easily with those who voted for Nader, and thus it was those voted which were the deciding factor in the 2000 election and its results.

It is obvious that Nader has more of a grudge against the Democrats than the Republicans, a sort of Ross Perot in reverse, and that he would prefer Bush to be in office than Kerry or any Democrat. Nader obviously resents the Democratic party and obviously beleives that it has not responded to his particular vision of the political process, The fact that Naders brand of politics does not appeal to a large enough group of people to get him elected, but just enough to draw off votes from the Democrtatic Party should be obvious to anyone. Unfortunately if Nader does get to run in a large enough number of states the and enough votes are drawn away to keep a Democrat from winning, we are likely to see something similar to what happened during the first campaign of Franlin Roosevelt. A divided group of conservative politicians were divided just enough to create the environment in which the Democratic Party became the leading party for decades. effectively creating a one party government in the United States, whic led to decades of control of the government by the Democratic Party. Kerry is right, this is probably the most critical election of our lifetime, certaily of the post FDR period, and a loss to George W.Bush due to the divisive environment being created by Nader among the liberal end of the political spectrum could easily result in such a fracturing of the democratic and progressive political grouping that we could see the complete undoing of everything created during the New Deal and its aftermath. Nader is as much of a problem for the Democratic Party as Bush, if not moreso, as he has created enough of a split in the left to create an enviroment where the Republican Party, even with a support from a minority of the population, could be in the majority for decades. A very similar thing happened in Vermont as a result of a different type of Democrat, Dean with Fiscal conservatism. This split off just enough Democrats to cause a rather large growth in the Vermont Progressive Party. Thus Republicans are winning, holding, anbd keeping control of more and more elected positions with 40 percent of the votes, as Progressives are raling in 25 percent of the votes for relatively high state positions like Lt Governor, Democrats are taking 35 percent, and an undivided right is running the show with 40 percent. Like Nader, Progressive will rarely support Democrats, so rather than work togetther to form a coalition of the progressives and liberal politicians, they stick to their guns and allow the right to divide and conquer. Nader's rather stubborn refusal to accept less than all, makes sure that the right takes the whole pie. As a result much, if not all that Nader has fought for during his entire public life is not only threatened, but has ben totally reversed by his own actions.

This is odd, as months before he decided to run, when asked who most closely of the democratic candidates, was closet to his own political point of view. He states that the candidate who was politically closest to him was Dennis Kucinich, and the candidate who was most electable who had a record closest to his own was John Kerry. e mentioned Dean in this, as an aside, stating that Dean had managed to attract a lot of young people and that he should be recognized for that. But it is odd that he is attempting to hamstring a candidate who he gave a nod of approval to less than a year ago.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

20. Here is where you are making your mistake:

Nader is as much of a problem for the Democratic Party as Bush, if not moreso, as he has created enough of a split in the left to create an enviroment where the Republican Party, even with a support from a minority of the population, could be in the majority for decades.

No, Nader did NOT create the split, he merely responded to the split created by the centrist Dems ignoring the left wing of the Dem party.

Nader had no control over Dem policy - they did it to themselves.

If I treated my friends the way the Dems treat the lefties, then I wouldn't be surprised if they found new friends, and I sure as hell wouldn't be blaming the new friends for creating the split.

In fact the more they do (and thus the more they ignore the concerns of the lefties) the more likely those lefties will not vote for the Dem candidate.

[Ardee]

40. My goodness what a lot of words...and all wasted

Those who voted for Nader were not won over by either Gore or Bush, so sad, too freaking bad.Nor is there any proof whatsoever that enough of them would have voted for Gore or even voted had Nader been absent...but you simply must beat that tired mantra into the ground so be it.

You must have a crystal ball to post such assertive numbers as a two for one dem vs. repug vote for Nader, but here, in the real world, demographics simply do not bear out your positivity,sorry. Nor is there any logical excuse for your making up numbers then positting an assertion on those numbers...I might say despicable, but I prefer to say you use silly logic.Your damned candidate failed to carry his own freaking state, deal with that, look to the basic and fatal flaws in your own party's strategies, and you actually might be doing something useful. Instead you promote the neocon take over of your party and help pave the way for more defeats...congratulations.

Almost everything in your diatribe above is personal opinion couched as cast in stone logic, this reflects poorly upon you but answers no real questions and solves no real problems here in the real world.

[Nicholas_J]

69. One fact negates the idea that if Nader didnt run in 2000

Th votes would not have gone to Gore. The polls, the fact is that just like in current polls for Kerry, when the same people are polled on who they would vote for in polls where Nader was included, the same polls were done with people asked what they would do if Nader were not running and invariably, Gores polling percentages went up. The same thing is happening in polls that are taken by the same pollsters asking Bush/Kerry/Nader, and what if only Bush/Kerry, nad in those polls when Nader is exculded, Kerry either is ahead of Bush, or instead of being a few points behind, recieves exactly the same polling percentages as Bush. There are and were many national and state polls that competely bear this fact out.

For example lets take the most recent poll in Florida, the state that Nader is blamed for causing Gores loss in 2000:

Bush and Kerry Remain Tied Among Likely Voters in Florida

George W. Bush and John Kerry remain tied among likely voters in Florida according to a survey by the American Research Group. A total of 46% of likely voters say they would vote for Bush if the presidential election were being held today and 45% say they would vote for Kerry. A total of 3% of likely voters say they would vote for Ralph Nader and 6% of likely voters are undecided. In a survey completed in March, Bush was at 44%, Kerry was at 45%, and Nader was at 4%

In a ballot question without Nader, 47% of likely voters say they would vote for Bush and 47% say they would vote for Kerry, with 6% of likely voters undecided.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/fl/

Sorry. no matrter how much those who support Nader try to excuse the harm he is purposefully doing to liberal/progressive politicle strength and goals, the fact do not bear out Naders innocence.

The fact that when Nader is not in the mix, those who suppoort him largely decide to vote Democrat rather than withold that vote in protest indicates that the differnmces between Naders politics and th policies and politics of the Democratic party are not all that significant.

[Ardee]

71. If its numbers you want

heres some numbers for you:

In 1992—I went up to New Hampshire before the primary date and spent about 10 days of intensive campaigning for a none-of-the-above option on each ballot line. I met with thousands of New Hampshirites in civic and school auditoriums in town after town saying that if they did not like any of the candidates on the ballot, they could write in my name as None Of The Above. Write-ins are made difficult by the authorities in that state. Nonetheless, of the thousands of votes I received, 51% were Republicans and 49% were Democrats. In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all. A poll this March in New Hampshire showed I had the support of 8% of all voters -- 10% of Independents, 9% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats.

I hope you will consider joining our Independent campaign for President.

Sincerely,
Ralph Nader

votenader.org

[Deja Q]

34. I pondered that, but I didn't look at his prior posts...

Where did he say he was against Nader?

Besides, he may have been hateful of Nader in the past, but his latest post clearly shows he's seeing things a bit differently.

Given the amount of posts from people in general about Nader being a threat and Kerry saying dumb remarks amongst everything else... if I started bookmarking those threads for reference after the Nov election, I'd likely have a field day if * wins...

[Toucano]

15. Left, Center, Right sounds like Three Card Monty.

Can you frame this in terms of issues for me?

Which issues should he sacrifice for the people who've worked to get him elected so that he can appeal to the 2% dullards who care strongly about nothing?

Abortion?
Gun control?
LGBT Issues?
Affirmative Action?
The Patriot Act?
Labor Rights?

[quinnox]

17. I don't think any of them sacrificed

All I'm saying is the issues can be framed a certain way to appeal to those in the middle.

Once he wins, then he can govern from the left.

[Toucano]

18. Which issue?

Which issue drives the "swingers" to Dubya? And how could Kerry frame it so they would find him appealing?

[JI7]

23. national security

republicans have an advantage on that issue so kerry should redirect the debate to other issues where democrats have an advantage and try to neautralize the issue of national security as much as he can. his military record kind of helps. but it's more important to make the election about issues democrats are stronger on. sometimes it takes actually being president and having to prove something with results before people will believe it.

bill clinton did this and he helped a lot on democrats being seen as better on the economy. things are tougher for kerry since some see him in the negative stereotype of massachusettes liberals the media has created.

[Toucano]

29. Let me see if I follow you.

Swing voters care about national security.
Swing voters (wrongly) believe that Republicans are strong on national security.

So Kerry should talk about something else?! He should "redirect" the dialogue to education, social welfare and the other touchy feely soft issues that Democrats are known for?

If I've understood you correctly, that's wholly illogical.

First, the Republicans are not strong on national security. They're strong on spending enormous amounts of money on developing crappy weapons systems that enrich their supporters.

They're strong on permitting US corporations to behave like total bastards around the globe, exploiting a people's natural resources for gross profits, avoiding their fair share of taxes at home, and sticking it to their US shareholders with bogus accounting schemes.

They're strong on adopting thuggish foreign policies that create men like Osama bin Laden. They're really good as starting a pre-emptive war based on clearly bogus information that undermines our credibility, pisses off our allies, impassions our enemies and makes the war on terrorism much more difficult to fight.

Feel safe yet, oh beloved swing voters?

The TRUTH is what wins the election for Democrats. Exposing the truth about the Republican agenda and evicerating them is what Kerry and every Democratic candidate must do. The truth that the Republicans conduct foreign policy based on the answer to one question: What helps our corporate donors make more money?

Will responding to the 8/6/01 PDB hijacking threat by issuing a warning hurt our airline stock? Probably. Better not risk it.

When a cow is discovered to be infected with mad cow disease should we send a team of inspectors out to secure the beef supply? No, let's send a team if negotiators to Japan to convince them to open up their market to our untested supply. Gotta take care of them ranchers!

We've got two choices when dealing with swing voters.
1.) Forget about them. Energize the base and turn the mother out.
2.) Wake them up! Expose every instance where the Bush regime has declined to protect the interests of the public. Make the swingers care about what they should care about.

Either way, the arrows fired from the left do far more damage to the Republicans than the arrows fired from the center.

[JI7]

31. the perception is that republicans are strong on national security

even though it's not true. and most don't read up on things in depth to get a better understanding of how things really are. there are stereotypes that need to be overcome such as democrats being weak on national security. for now kerry has to neautralize the issue as much as possible and try to make the agenda more about issues democrats are percieved to be strong on. there isn't much time now to teach the swing voters how things really work. you can have thousands dead just before the election comes up in iraq, but if osama bin laden is found in afghanistan the idiots in the administration will start trying to make it like the war in iraq helped get him. never mind the fact that there is no proof for it, they will fall for it.

and kerry does do the best in getting out the base. where he needs help is mostly outside of the base.

[charlie]

42. That was the 2002 plan

Get the IWR debate out of the way, allow Dems in tight races a chance to vote yea. "Neutralize" the issue and concentrate on issues that played to Democratic strengths. Didn't turn out so well. Won't turn out so well for Kerry either, if he doesn't dip into the wealth of Bushco deceit, cynicism, and incompentence and hit him with it. Assuring the public that terrorists are toast even if the Boy King is returned to office is an endorsement, not some sort of issue ju jitsu.

[JI7]

53. Mary Landrieu and Tim Johnson did it

and many of the other places had ballot box problems.

[charlie]

56. Landrieu was a lucky duck

who got a second chance to recalibrate her campaign and run more aggressively on the next go-round. Ceding most issues to Bush, but promising to "not be a rubber stamp" the first time didn't work.

Johnson won, despite being the incumbent and enjoying the efforts of the Senate Majority Leader, in a 500-vote squeaker, hardly a testimony to an effective strategy.

I still say it's better to actively refute and diminish Republican claims to strength on issues, than merely "neutralize" them through avoidance or claiming parity.

[JI7]

60. i didn't say only neautralize them

it will probably take actually having a democratic president in power and showing they are tough before people woudld believe it. most people just aren't all that informed. and tim johnson comes from a very republican state. he was more than just lucky. his son being the only kid of a senator going off to iraq helped him a lot.

[Toucano]

49. You're kidding me, right?

Your telling me that the one issue swing voters care about is national security so we should talk about something else?

You'll surely connect with the voters by NOT talking about what they care about.

What your describing is like trying to win the Superbowl by playing baseball.

"Cause...I'm not so good at football." :crazy:

Clinton beat Bush by talking about what the electorate cared about: the economy. That was the proper fight to choose because that's what Bush sucked at (never saw a price scanner?) and Bush tried to run from the issue.

Your suggesting that Kerry run from the fight that people care about, and that's a recipe for failure.

There isn't enough time to make our case? There's never been more time. Bush is a miserable failure on national security. The left can help expose this.

[JI7]

54. i didn't say they care about ns therefore we should talk about something

else. i said the debate should tried to be emphasized and moved towards areas where democrats are strong on. and try to neautralize the issue of national security as much as possible.

and people do care about the economy and other domestic issues more than national security much of the time.

[Toucano]

58. How do you move the debate

towards "issues democrats are strong on" when what you've cited as the most important issue to these swingers is national security?

Let's see how the scenario plays out.

"On the one hand, I like Kerry's jobs initiative. But then there's the exploding buildings. I'm not nearly as fond of those.

His plan for education is appealing. But dirty bombs don't sound very good. A few of those might impact the learning environment.

I trust him to shore up social security. But if there's a mushroom cloud, I likely won't be able to collect."

We put Kerry in the fight because he could take this issue to them and beat them with it. Not so he could steer the debate to our pre-existing strengths.

What you're saying is that there's no time for us to articulate our strength on the issue of national security, but there's time to convince the swingers that national security shouldn't be their top issue.

Good luck with that.

[JI7]

61. i didn't say he should ignore national security

i'm saying he needs to try to neautralize the issue. make it so he isn't seen as being bad on the issue. but going into too much discussion about his plans will only complicate things as most people are not well read on the issue.and republicans would take quotes out of context and use it against kerry and try to make him out to be weak on defense. kerry's protests from the vietnam war is still seen as a negative by some even though he turned out to be right about it.

[Ardee]

48. hey dralston

thought you might like to know that some here appreciate your comments, thanks for them.....so sad that they fall upon mostly deaf ears......

[Toucano]

50. Oh, Ardee!

I appreciate being appreciated! :yourock:

[Ardee]

57. I just gotta....you know

I ,in turn, appreciate your appreciation of my being appreciative..Im going to lie down now!

[charlie]

24. Once he wins, then he can govern from the left...

...until the mean rightwing machine finds its groove and the ugly idea of "triangulation" becomes voguish again.

[Ardee]

46. once he wins he can govern from the left

so simply lie to the people, win their votes and then betray their trust? We certainly have a differing opinion on the way a democracy works, dont we though!

Kerry, or anyone, would have a difficult time governing at all without a majority in the houses. The question is not so much how to get Kerry elected but how to use his coattails to carry a majority into at least one house. I doubt seriously that having him portray himself as a kinder gentler Bush will do the job.

[JI7]

22. polls with Kerry losing points had to do with perception he is too liberal

many who support kerry are liberals like myself. for those who claim to be left wing, yet claim there is no difference between kerry and bush can't be depended on to support kerry anyways. he has the best record on the environment of anyone and it's one reason the league of conservation voters made an early endorsement for him. and there is the issue of supreme court justices. if those on the left wont vote for him even with differences on those issues they probably wont vote for him anyways.

but those who are truly swing voters will really consider voting for him. these are people who WILL vote. they will most likely vote for one of the 2 major party candidates. they are not looking for someone who agrees with them on many specific issues, but just someone they think will make a good president and make things better overall for them. these are the voters kerry needs to reach out to. the polls which showed kerry lost some votes had to do with people thinking he is too liberal. this is not a liberal country. it's a pretty religious nation compared to other western or "developed" nations. this is why bush still leads on the issue of terrorism. the left claims kerry needs to be more liberal, but why then do the majority of voters see bush as stronger on national security ? it sure isn't because they think he is more liberal than kerry.

[Toucano]

32. What ISSUE did these polls say Kerry was too liberal on?

I missed those polls.

But I can't really discuss this within the context of meaningless words like "liberal" and "conservative".

You see, when you apply the word liberal or conservative to something, you no longer have to think about the ISSUE.

That's the intention. Demonize a word, slap a person across the face with it and you no longer have to remember what the question was.

[JI7]

38. national security

[Toucano]

51. What is the "liberal" position on national security?

Please be sure you're not confusing the polls saying people trust Bush more on national security with them saying Kerry is "too liberal" on national security.

[JI7]

65. i mean "liberal" as those who aren't all that informed view it

liberal as in weak on defense. you can say weak on national security if you want. but i'm talking about perception of the swing voters. even if they didn't trust kerry on the issue, why such high numbers for bush? it's because they are not all that informed about it.

[KG]

28. so, y'all won't mind if he governs that way as well?

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

30. Well jeez,what are you worried about then?

That's exactly what he's doing.

[Deja Q]

33. So you're saying Nader is irrelevant?

:D Lots of DUers, since November 2000, thought he was far more.

Nice to see that some see Nader for what he is: Nothing.

Now we need to convince the citizens who don't vote (about half the adult US population, sigh) that politicians can make a difference. There are more of them than there are centrists'n'such. I'd love to see somebody try.

[Snellius]

35. There are also swing voters on the Democrats' other side

Between progressive and left. This is the ongoing mistake Dems made in 2000: neglecting the progressive and libertarians extremes. For every vote you get from Bush in the center, you will lose 1 to Nader or 1 to just plain apathy, disgusted with either party.

[Christ was Socialist]

36. And you wonder why

the let feels marginalised. Lets see if you sing that tune when 98% of us still maintain our support for our canidates. Look at the graph the socialists had enough vots to beat bush (over 600) to make up the difference.

[ModerateMiddle]

39. Contrary to what some folks on DU believe

the vast majority of opinion in this country IS in the mushy middle. This country is not partisan for the most part. Not with 1/3 of registered voters registering as "Independent".

[TankLV]

55. And, pray tell, what parallel universe are you living in?

THE NATION IS EXTREMELY DIVIDED. SHARPLY DIVIDED. THERE IS NO "MUSHLY MIDDLE". IT IS ONLY GETTING MORE SO.

The "mushy middle" doesn't exist except for a very few. It is a complete falicy to state what you did, it is not borne out by the facts.

[HFishbine]

62. You mistakenly assume

that people register as independent because they are somewhere in between dem and repuke. I know this is anecdotal, but I changed my registration to unaffiliated a few years ago because the dems were moving away from me, away from the left. Some voters are unaffiliated because the dems aren't liberal enough. They are not of the mushy middle, but of the traditional left.

[TrueD]

45. And if he does that I become a swing vote and vote for Nader

I trust Kerrey about as far as I can throw him. If he moves any more to the right, I will move to the left.

[robbedvoter]

47. I will not be taken for granted again!

In 2000 Gore didn't even stop in NYC (unless it was for fundraising purposes).
kerry laughed at me for crying in my teacup about the stolen election.
Then he voted for the war. I was still about to vote for him.
Then he told me he wants to be "as good on terra as W"

No matter who wins the presidential election, the terrorists will lose."


- and having been in NYC, I had enough. he gets Begala's mother in law - loses me.

[Dark]

59. You fail to see that

although many liberals want Bu$h out of office, many also don't want a Bu$h-lite president.

I hate hearing democrats say "Nader shouldn't run! He'll ruin everything!" Well, maybe if the fucking democrats had a fucking spine and stood for what was right morally instead of at the polls, people wouldn't vote for Nader.

Maybe if the Democrats would support gay marriage, people wouldn't vote for Nader.

Maybe if the Democrats would support ending the drug war, people wouldn't vote for Nader.

Maybe if the Democrats would support getting our troops out of Iraq, people wouldn't vote for Nader.

Maybe if the Democrats would call Bu$h on his lies and artifices, people wouldn't vote for Nader.

Democrats, if you want my LIBERAL, not centrist vote, give me one good god-damn reason why I should vote AGAINST my morals and AGAINST my conscience. Getting Bu$h out of office by comprimising my morals is not enough. He may be a bastard, but I'd be one if I voted AGAINST my principles.

[JCMach1]

63. Go ahead cut off your Left to spite the Right

Good Plan!

NOT

[Khephra]

64. Howabout...Kerry actually runs on what he believes in?

Instead of trying to attract a mythical centralist voter?

[JI7]

66. like George McGovern ?

[Khephra]

68. No...like his namesake

JFK.

Or Carter.

Or Jefferson.

Or a lot of past Democratic Presidents.

The McGovern Hobgoblin is so unoriginal and unfair at this point that I'm sick of it.

The alternative is saying that a candidate should say anything it takes to get elected. Let Kerry say what he believes, not what the polls say he should believe.

[JI7]

70. but why did McGovern lose ?

[Classical_Liberal]

67. Bullshit issue, since the stuff he has angered the left over

aren't issues that the mushy middle pays attention to.