Can ABB beat bush or do we need JFK ?

[welshTerrier2]

My read of voter awareness is that voters are still very unfamiliar with John Kerry. They may know he served in Vietnam, or that he's from Massachusetts, but out of about 100 people I've asked, only a handful could name a position, any position, that Kerry has ever taken on any issue ... is this the stuff that election victories are made of?

Hatred of bush is universal among Democrats. For once, we've put our differences aside and focussed on a more pragmatic approach ... I, for one, hated Kerry's vote on the Iraq resolution ... but I've given him all kinds of money ... he may not be my first choice, but he's the only choice ...

So, the question is not whether ABB is good enough to gain support from DU ... the question is whether ABB can garner much need votes from both the center and the far left? Can ABB beat bush or is JFK going to have to do it with a more positive approach?

source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/07/22/warming_up_to_kerry/



<snip>

Today, the anti-Bush sentiment still outranks the pro-Kerry sentiment. Even Michael Moore, in his Bush-bashing movie, doesn't have a word to say about Kerry. Ron Reagan Jr., who opposes Bush, will talk at the convention in favor of stem cells but not in favor of John. And an entirely unscientific sample of bumper sticker sales in Seattle shows that anti-Bush stickers are outselling pro-Kerry stickers 49 to 1.

It's charming to see Democrats carrying this new garment -- pragmatism -- in their carry-on bags as they descend on Beantown.

Consider the normally contentious issue groups. The day after Kerry gratuitously expressed his scientific view than life begins at conception, NARAL Pro-Choice America dubbed the Dems the "dream ticket." Gay rights activists who are fully aware that Kerry doesn't support same-sex marriage have still been civil in their union with him.

But however many ABBs there are, there aren't enough to elect one of them. Some 30 percent of the public still say they don't have an opinion of this JFK. As a native of Massachusetts, I get the same question I got in March: "What's he really like?" And I start the answer with the same word I used in March: "complicated."

<snip>

[RoyGBiv]

1. More Positive?

How exactly is Kerry supposed to get more positive than he has been? Shrub is the one running the negative campaign.

I think, possibly, you mean proactive.

Regardless, the real Presidential campaign starts in a week. If, after the convention, Kerry still remains "undefined" then yes, we have a problem. But polls suggest Kerry is not entirely undefined as it is. That he has as much support as he does even prior to the convention is quite simply remarkable against a sitting President.

A little historical perspective is in order here. Challangers are almost never defined positively among anyone but their base until their conventions. The goal prior to that convention is to counteract any negative imagery thrown at them, and Kerry has done a fine job of that so far. Naturally, the Freepers hate him, but the Freepers would hate him if he placed his hand on the Statue of Liberty and suddenly solved every American problem in existence. They'd call him a Commie.

[welshTerrier2]

3. the original intent

my point was not to suggest that Kerry was running a negative campaign ... i was trying to indicate that more voters ar supporting Kerry because they oppose bush than because they agree with Kerry on the issues ...

if you prefer "proactive" to "positive", that works for me ... i intended to place more focus on the voters' perception of why they're supporting Kerry (i.e. ABB) then on any campaign style Kerry has been using ...

If, after the convention, Kerry still remains "undefined" then yes, we have a problem.

This was essentially the question I was asking ... and it isn't necessarily clear to me that we would have a problem ... perhaps this election really is primarily a referendum on bush ... perhaps as long as Kerry seems "good enough", he'll be able to win in November ... or perhaps not ... perhaps he does need to have people vote FOR him rather than AGAINST bush ...

[sangh0]

4. Don't believe the Repuke hype

One question - Who exactly do you think is spreading the idea that Kerry isn't supported by Democrats?

[welshTerrier2]

5. where did you get that from?

my statement was, and is, that Kerry is not very well known ... not just by Democrats but by many voters ...

i made no statement that he is not being "supported by Democrats" ... in fact, I believe he is doing very well ... as I said, I'm a Democrat and I'm supporting him ...

take your own survey about how well known Kerry is and you'll find knowledge of Kerry's views to be very limited ... voters may have a vague sense of him: he seems like an intellectual or he seems very serious and confident or he seems French ... but they don't really know him ...

i'm not saying voters won't support him if they don't know the details ... far too many voters cast their votes on vague generalities ... my question remains: can Kerry ride the ABB tide to victory if voters don't really get to know him very well? it's a question; not a statement ...

[sangh0]

23. From this

was trying to indicate that more voters ar supporting Kerry because they oppose bush than because they agree with Kerry on the issues

If I've misinterpreted your comment, then I apologize, but it does not sound like an idea the Democrats are spreading. IMO, plenty of Democrats are enthusiastic about Kerry's run. I am, and I have a hunch that those millions of Democrats who voted for Kerry in the primaries preferred Kerry to the ones they didn't vote for, regardless of what the media has reported.

I've seen absolutely no evidence that the people supporting Kerry (which is about 30-40% of the voting public) are anything less than enthusiastic, and while many are not familiar with Kerry's record, many are. I think we should be emphasizing the real and enthusiastic support that Kerry has managed to create even though it is still relatively early in the campaign.

And just to be clear, you were right to complain about my saying you said "Kerry is not supported by Dems". You never said that and it was a mistake for me to interpret it htat way. My concern is not so much about whether Kerry is "supported" or not by Dems, but this idea that Kerry's support is based on ABB more than anything specific to Kerry.

[RoyGBiv]

8. I'm voting for Kerry

I am a Democrat, plain and simple. I'm not one of these "independent" voters. I have a traditional view of party principles and party loyalty. During the primary process, I play my part in trying to shape what my party stands for, and while my candidates are in office, I play my part in trying to voice to them my concerns. But, I vote *for* Democrats because Democratic principles fit my personal political philosphy better than any other party.

I am also voting for Kerry because I like him and believe he will make a good President. He's an adult and holds up well on most of the issues I find important. I certainly won't agree with everything he does, nor do I agree with everything he has done. Should that strange character ever get into the White House, he will do things with which others will not agree. This is the nature of politics in America.

Kerry was not my first choice. My first choice would be some combination of Eugene Debs and Henry Wallace, but that isn't happening any time soon. So, I went back and forth between Dean and Kucinich in the primary, finally voting for the latter, and made up my mind quickly that Kerry would serve the purposes of the party just fine.

Kerry is my candidate. I'm voting for him. That it removes Bush from office is a substantial benefit, but not the only reason for my vote.

And, yes, this is just my view and likely not that of the independent voter. But it does seem to be the general opinion of the majority of Democrats. Kerry *did* win the primary. Over 80% of Democrats are already soldily behind him. Historically, at this time in the campaign, approval from party voters approaching 60-70 percent is considered outstanding. Kerry is doing better than outstanding, in other words.

I understand your concern, but I think it is misplaced. Republicans want us to believe our candidate is not doing well. They're trying to tell us what we do and do not support. I am not buying it. I have never seen the party so unified behind a candidate, for whatever multiple reasons for it there are, and I intend to enjoy it while it lasts.

[welshTerrier2]

9. let me clarify

Republicans want us to believe our candidate is not doing well.

again, I am not saying that Kerry is not doing well ... i think he's doing very well ... i'm afraid you may have misconstrued the intent of my post ...

the issue I raised, and I believe is true, is that Kerry is not very well known by many of those who currently support him and many of those who haven't decided yet ...

the question I was trying to ask is whether you see this as a problem?

[RoyGBiv]

12. My apologies...

I'm not misconstruing your personal intent, and I apologize if my remarks came off that way.

I just think a lot of our concerns are more about what Bush says and does and might possibly do than they are about Kerry himself. We are understandably paranoid about this election and scared out of our wits at what will happen if Kerry fails. That makes us very sensitive to subtle shifts in the wind, and believe me, I'm feeling it every bit as much as you are.

Now, as to your question, I think you're probably right that Kerry is not well known among the majority of his supporters at this point. I don't think that's particularly unusual nor a cause for concern right now. It's very hard for a national candidate to make himself well-known in the midst of primary, with all the wrangling back and forth among different members of the same party picking at subtleties. We've had this very unusual period between the primary and the start of the formal Presidential campaign during which there's been very little of that, and it's been hard to figure out what to do with that time. Kerry has tried to define himself, but as you know, Rove and his allies have done all they could to control what does get discussed. They've not succeeded as fully as they would like, and I think, to this point, that's enough.

Kerry does have to provide a clear message at the convention. Whether we will truly know him afterward is a question no one can answer. Do we truly know any politician, ever? In any case, he does need to define himself, and I think he will. For better or worse, what comes out of the next two weeks will be the candidate we have.

I hope that did a better job of addressing what you were saying.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. ABB HAS to beat Bush

Incumbents historically defeat themselves. All Kerry has to do is make himself look not horrible, and people are going to vote on whether or not they want Bush to continue, not whether or not they like John.

[RichM]

6. Democrats better hope ABB is enough, because the closer one looks

at the actual ticket, the less .... (Ooops, I've been advised not to try to complete that thought).

I can't imagine what you might mean by JFK#2 adopting a "more positive approach." He has no choice but to be the same voice he was during the primaries. He is better than Bush on most aspects of domestic policy, & only marginally different from Bush on foreign policy. And most of the difference there is language & style - not substance.

When he does his schtick about standing for a "strong" America, he will essentially be telling the electorate that the only problem he sees with the Iraq war is that we didn't get Europe on board before invading, and the "planning for the peace" wasn't too good. That leaves out certain small matters - such as the nettlesome detail that the entire project is a monstrous crime of enormous proportions. Certainly nothing the American people ought to bother their little heads about.

But why worry about such trifling matters? It's time for balloon drops and noisemakers and fatuous happy talk. The truth is so, well, so tiresome, you know...

[RoyGBiv]

14. Yaawwwwwnnnn.... n/t

[RichM]

15. Yes, I am aware that the typical DU Democrat yawns at this sort of thing.

This says a great deal about the mental processes of the typical DU Democrat.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Well, here's the thing...

I've tried to engage you in a dialogue, but you've seemed more content to drop your rhetorical bombs and watch the fallout than to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion.

It's not your points that bore me; it's your methods.

[Kanary]

18. You've pretty much described the essence of the candidacy

and the effect it's having on voters.

But, of course, the messenger MUST be shot, nevertheless.

I'm beginning to have VERY strong feelings of wishing that Nader would, indeed, drop out of the race. That way, if Kerry *does* lose because of an ineffective message, it can't be blamed on anyone else.

At some point, the Democratic Party has some tough lessons to learn.

Kanary

[RoyGBiv]

21. Which voters?

Which voters have been affected and how have they been affected?

No shooting of messengers here. I simply want to know what the message is, not this empty rhetoric.

[Kanary]

22. I've posted many times

That there was an article on the front page of the Sunday Denver Post a few weeks ago, interviewing Independents.

Kerry's stance was seen as so murky that many could not differentiate between him and Bush. They were *wanting* a choice, because they were turned off to Bush, but not seeing that much difference.

If you will read the article in the opening post, you will see some of the same sentiment.

Now, you gave your word you're not into shooting messengers....... I hope you intend to keep that?

Neither you, nor me, nor the original poster is responsible for Kerry's words and campaign, and there isn't much we can do about it. But, continually ignoring the hints that there is definite room for improvement in his campaign shouldn't result in blasting those who are speaking to those hints.

Your word, remember?

Kanary

[RoyGBiv]

24. I've read the article...

And I responded, eventually, to what I felt were the salient points.

But the original poster has said something different than the comment to which you replied, which expresses a sentiment that has been given by that poster repeatedly in these forums with little to no substance backing it up. That's the empty rhetoric I'm tired of hearing/reading. And I'm not particularly pleased with the aspersion cast on both my and the average DUer's intellect either; it does little to ingratiate me to the position held.

Aside from that, yes, I intend to keep my word about not shooting any messengers. I acknowledge this message. I simply do not believe it is as dire an issue *at this point* as it could be were we in the midst of September. So many of these types of discussions end up being framed in a context outside the practical realities of American politics.

I have stated that if Kerry remains undefined after the convention, we do indeed have a problem of a sort. I have also made a point backed by historical precedent that at this point in the election process, challengers all tend to be less than well defined in a positive way. That Kerry has generally managed to avoid being negatively defined among independent voters is a positive sign because it means the Rovian tactics aren't working as they are designed to work. If independent voters aren't sure what to think going into the convention, it means they are open to suggestion, and these suggestions must and will be made at that time.

Further, I would like to make a related point about who these independent voters are, or more precisely how few of them there are. In most races, the electorate tends to be comprised of substantially more so-called independent voters than is the case this year. The full Democratic base, that is people registered as Democrats, have rallied around the ticket at a much earlier time than is normal. (Specific statistics on this have been posted repeatedly on DU in the recent past.) This leaves the more genuinely independent-minded voter, those who normally don't become a target of campaigning until later in the race when all the more partisan votes are already accounted for.

This shift in the paradigm of independents leads to a bit of a mis-impression of what the trends among independents are. Normally, so-called independents make up their minds at periodic intervals, and we see these results with updated polls throughout the latter part of the primary season. These periodic recruits to one ticket or the other have tendencies to vote for those tickets anyway, but hold from making a decision to which they'll give their voice for various reasons. These people, however, made up their minds early. What's left are the people that really are in the center of the political spectrum. What few undecideds there are among the extreme left or right won't be swayed by the kinds of tactics that will pull the centrist voters, and to fully get the support of that small minority on the wing risks alienating those on the center-left of the party, of which there are many more, into not voting at all.

Neither campaign has reacted particularly well to this situation, although I'd argue Kerry's right-leaning rhetoric has been a step in that direction. (FWIW, I don't like that rhetoric either, but I'm trying, at this point, to see it for what it is in the context of a campaign for President, not as a formal statement on policy. Once installed as President, if he keeps it up, the gloves are off.) The person to whom you originally responded in this thread has repeatedly suggested that this is the incorrect tactic to take, but there has been little to no evidence offered why this tactic is incorrect. And, it is a political tactic.

I spoke of the practical realities of American politics, and one of those realities is simply this. In the current political climate, the left wing of the Democratic party will never be the target of public rhetoric during a campaign. This has been true for as long as we've had elections run by a party system, and it is likely to remain true as long as we maintain that system. I don't particularly like it, but I have to live with it. The practical alternative is to let the other guy win and hope for a total devolution of society to a state of nature, out of which some new political system emerges. Few people, to borrow Kucinich's phrase, are really ready for that much change. That may or may not be a sad reality, but it is a reality we have to consider when judging our candidates.

[Kanary]

25. Then be tired, go back to your yawning,

and take it upon yourself to reach out to every single Independent and Undecided voter.

Have fun, and good luck.

:hi:

Kanary

[RoyGBiv]

26. Thanks for bothering to respond... n/t

:hi: back at ya.

[welshTerrier2]

27. let's try this again ...

perhaps my use of the phrase " a more positive approach" was a poor choice of terms ... what i was trying to ask was whether Kerry could win if voters don't get to know him any better than they do now ... much of the support for Kerry right now seems to be coming from people who are supporting ABB but don't really know very much if anything about Kerry ...

or do you think it's to Kerry's advantage that voters don't know him very well?

[mississippi]

7. Yes, the Allman Brothers Band would definitely win.**

nm

[welshTerrier2]

10. welcome to DU, mississippi

live at the fillmore ... great double album ...

[mississippi]

11. Thanks.*

nm

[bhunt70]

13. It depends, if we unify behind a candidate thats the scariest thing for *

We are doing that behind Kerry. I don't think we could do that for anyone. So its ABB but with a definate set of circumstances.

[malatesta1137]

17. both

[ibegurpard]

19. You mean John Kerry?

JFK is dead.

[AntiCoup2K4]

20. So are the Allman Brothers, for that matter.

Duane's been dead for 30 years now, in fact. I think they oughta drop the name.

[Pastiche423]

29. He died November 22, 1963

I remember the day well.

[scarletwoman]

28. "JFK" was assassinated in 1963

I am TOTALLY turned off by this cutesy-coy use of this venerated set of intitals for the current Democratic candidate. Just stop it -- it DOESN'T help anything, it just irritates the hell out of me, and I know I'm not alone. :grr:

sw

[welshTerrier2]

30. thanks for answering the question ...

look ... be as cranky as you want to be about Kerry's initials ... I used them because the gist of my post came from Ellen Goodman's column in today's Boston Globe and she had used them ...

frankly, i think there are more important things to discuss than Kerry's initials ...

[scarletwoman]

31. Frankly, Ellen Goodman pisses me off as well...

You're correct, I didn't answer your question. In fact, I didn't give a sh*t about your question due to your use of "JFK" -- and that's precisely the point I am attempting to make.

If you want to engage people in a discussion about John Kerry, then DON'T push the "JFK" button. As a person in my mid-50's, the extreme trauma of November 22, 1963 is permanently seared on my soul.

I am already unhappy enough at the prospect of having to hold my nose and vote for Kerry -- I'm committed to doing it because I feel that it's my duty to my country to do all I can to evict the bush* crime syndicate from the White House.

But don't twist the damn knife by invoking "JFK", when for people like me, there is only ONE JFK and it AIN'T John Kerry!

sw

[One_Life_To_Give]

32. Why?

Can ABB beat bush ?
Can the MultiBillion Doallar Swiss Conglomorate ABB beat Bush?
Probably without trying, but I don't think they would make good President/Board, whatever you call a multinational corp being elected tro office?