Are those who support Kerry because "he isn't Bush" hard or soft support?

[Mattforclark]

There seems to be two schools of thought on this question.

School 1)

People who support Kerry for this reason are "soft" support, because they don't have a clear "definition" of Kerry in their minds, and are "only" supprting him because he "is not Bush." So presumably, if Bush can define Kerry in a very negative way, these voters could be swayed. This seems to be the interpretation taken up by most of the pollsters and media pundits.

School 2)

People who support Kerry for this reason are "hard" support, because they will support him for the sole reason that he isn't Bush, and would support Kerry even if he were an inanimate object. These people have "low standards," and all Kerry has to do to keep their support is continue to not be Bush. Even if Bush manages to "define" Kerry negatively, he isn't going to win their votes, because their opinion of Bush is low enough that they will say that the main reason they support someone is that they are NOT Bush. This is therefore "hard" support.

Which one of these, if any of these interpretations, is correct?

I think the 2nd one makes more sense. Incidentally, this may be why the effectiveness of all of Bush's ads seems to be relatively low.

[Christ was Socialist]

1. #2 easy

they obviously can't be swayed, they are anti bush.

[Classical_Liberal]

2. I am number 1

don't think it matters though. I won't give Kerry an easy time as President if he is the type of President he is campaigning to be.

[freetobegay]

3. well...

I admire people who stand up for principle, and try to do so at every opportunity. However, I also recognize that sometimes real life interferes with my theoretical goals and I have to look at alternatives and see if any of them are palatable.

I see this election as if I have been in a desert for 3 years, dying of thirst, and I am dreaming of an icy cold beer.

I now have a choice of Bush, who has said he won't give me a beer, but also will not even offer me a glass of water. Additionally, he wants to pollute the well so that no one else can offer me a drink.

Another choice is Kerry, who won't give me a beer but is offering water and will support my right to move on and find a beer locally.

A third choice is Nader, who says he will give me the beer I dream of, but in reality is a mirage and we all know it.

Do I go for the mirage so that I can die being right? One thing that people have a real problem with is recognizing that there is a difference in being right and being effective.

Yes, you stand up for principles, but you also have to know when the alternatives are reasonable - or at least livable. If my choice was between the beer and water, of course I would opt for the beer - but that is not a viable alternative at this point. I choose to drink the water and survive to fight another day.

[sallyseven]

5. I go for Kerry

because I think he will be an excellent President. Unlike the shrub.

[Warpy]

6. Beautifully stated!

Another way to put it is that people who refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils will ensure that the greater evil gets elected.

Most of the time we can survive the greater evil, because there isn't that much difference between them. However, this time, there is a huge difference. Refusing to vote for the one man who can defeat the greater evil because he isn't ideologically pure enough may be fatal.

Literally.

[stepnw1f]

4. Pigeon Holing for What?

The only thing you got right so far is that People want Bush out. As for why they want Kerry in is a question you could ask people, instead of giving them two possible reasons. Seems like you are stating rather than asking.

[Mattforclark]

9. Um

"As for why they want Kerry in is a question you could ask people, instead of giving them two possible reasons"

Polls say that most people who support Kerry do so because he isn't Bush.

I'm not "giving them two possible reasons... as for why they want Kerry." I'm giving two possible explanations as for whether people who tell polls that they support Kerry because he isn't Bush are hard or soft support.

I think you missed my point.

[Selwynn]

7. The only reason I'll vote for Kerry is because Bush is in the white house

Other than that, he can take his republican-lite, compassionate imperialism and shove it up his ass.

And if and when he does get elected in Novemeber, I'll spend the next four years bitching as loudly as I have these last four years demanding that he bring american back to principles of justice in the world, fight for encomonic and social equality and justice and relfect genuinely progressive ideals - the only ideals that are truly good for America.

[Robbien]

10. Right! He is pro-war, pro-corporates, pro-Nafta, pro-Sharon

The only reason I will vote for him is that hopefully he will less effective than Bush is in pushing through his awful adgenda.

[cornermouse]

8. What I have seen of Kerry is very disappointing.

On the other hand, as you say, I would vote for a rock before I would vote for Bush. I do disapprove very strongly of Kerry's support for the Bush/Iraq war and the draft.

I hope he doesn't turn out to be a milquetoast nonentity president, but listening to him I'm unhappy.

[renegade000]

11. depends how much you don't like bush

for me its #2

[DFLforever]

12. I could be called a 'soft' supporter

But I know more than I care to about Kerry, so I don't fall under #1.

But Kerry can lose my vote, particularly by echoing Bush on foreign policy, so I don't fall under #2 either. If that should happen, I wouldn't vote for Bush, or Nader though. I simply wouldn't vote or I'd write in as I did in 1968 during that other war.

[Guaranteed]

13. I think you make a good case for both, but

it seems that your question leads to the conclusion that ABBers aren't really Kerry **supporters** at all, soft or hard.