can Kerry really beat the chimp

[GreenNADER]

Since Nader is running now. He stated that Kerry is just another Washington fat-cat, and Kerry didn't have a chance to beat the chimp.

When you truly look at the polls, and take in the fact that the chimp has been told to "speak no Evil" by rove. Kerry is only tied, and should be 10-20% ahead...................

I believe that he is correct, i supported DEAN and continue to think that he was our best pick and hope at taking the WH back and sending the chimp back to his southern home. Ever since DEAN said we needed change in our party's leadership, his campaign was destroyed by the DNC and Kerry was picked by them.


The leadership of our party, sold us out.

[sadiesworld]

1. Aren't there other web sites...

for those actively seeking another Bush term?

[BeatleBoot]

3. thank you

[buckeye1]

2. Kerry is running...

against Bush. Kerry has already beaten the "chimp".

[MikeG]

4. So you'd like another Bush term

I guess losing 3,000 people and two skyscrapers wasn't enough.

[GreenNADER]

5. you completely miss my point.

Kerry has a ton of crap behind him, the big corporations are supporting him and his voting record alone will ruin him once the chimp and the BFEE start up the campaign machine.

the campaign is for a few 2000 red states, and Kerry looks bad in all the races, plain and simple.

I'm sorry, and there is no one that hates what the chimp and the BFEE more than myself, but when you REALLY look at Kerry he has no chance.

Our leadership has sold us out

[rockymountaindem]

6. Yeah, Nader wound NEVER have anything to do with big corporations.

What a hypocritical joker he's become.

[SoonerShankle]

21. I'm a former Deaniac....

I like Howard Dean, as you obviously do. I like what he has to say, and that he's not afraid to say it. But he, like the candidate I eventually chose to support, Wesley Clark, are not polished enough for prime time in the world of the DNC. I don't for a second think the DNC sold us out though. I think the media's extreme lack of ethics or willingness to pursue truth contributed greatly to the demise of both Dean and Clark. Kerry got the "mo" as they dubbed it, when he won Iowa. What sold us out were the current media chase for sound bites and the primary system. The fact that two rural states with tiny populations basically choose our nominee is ludicrous. A national primary day would force candidates to campaign in all states (with some sort of handicapping system for smaller states delegate wise), and force voters to get to know more about the candidates. Only we can fix the system....:kick:

[mistertrickster]

7. I went door to door for Dean in Iowa--nobody supported him more

than I did, but when you look at how the primaries went, Dean just didn't appeal to the voters. I don't know why, but there it is.

Part of it was definitely the party leadership that didn't like him running against them, part of it was the unfair media reportage constantly calling him "angry," part of it was his unjustified "front-runner" status that put a big target on his back.

BUT the bottom line is that the more the voters heard Dr. Dean, the less they liked him. He did the worst in the states he spent the most time in. There's no big conspiracy here; the guy's campaign just didn't catch fire.

It's no reason to give up and play dead.

[sallyseven]

8. Saints don't run for president.

People do. When you have toiled in the fields for a long time you can do the right thing and the find out later that events make it seem otherwise. I find Nader to be a republican trick. He will go with anyone for a buck and a little time in the sun. Kerry can and will win. Bush can be defeated if people stop crying over spilled milk. Perfection is not possible in human beings, everyone has an opinion, and should have, of what they think is best but remember what is at stake. Repuks are monitoring this web site trolling for gossip about the enemy.

[MikeyMil]

9. I agree

McAuliffe and his big money interests hated the thought of Dean winning, he's uncontrollable.
I sometimes wonder if they don't hope that Kerry loses to open the door for Hillary in 08.

Nader? How many votes did he draw in Florida (the stolen election) as opposed to Buchannan.
Sombody should call Ross Perot and give him a little ego boost. lol.

[GreenNADER]

10. what we need to understand .................

First of all, i HATE the chimp.

But, everyone on this site must think about 5 major things about this years election.

1.Kerry past voting record. we must face the facts that the chimp will base his campaign on it. (look at # 3)

2. the chimp has been shut up by rove and hasn't even started campaigning, with all media we have been getting the message out and we are only ahead 2%. We should be ahead by at least 10%(look at # 3)

3. the 2000 red states is this years battle ground, and the polls show Kerry is very weak and the GOPers and BFEE has their seeds planted. Once again the chimp hasn't started their campaign. DEAN can WIN those states and the Polls proved it

4. we must not forget about the close Senate races, we will lose 4 - 7 seats if we dont fight for them and FIGHT HARD, it doesn't look good

5. our party's leaders have sold us out, destroyed the true Democrat that can beat the chimp,(look at # 3) and replaced it with one of their own.(Look at # 1)

Maybe it is time for a real 3rd party.

[mndemocrat_29]

11. To answer these points

1. If you think Kerry's voting record is unelectable (which I completely disagree with you on), then how can you believe that Nader will fare any better?

2. Despite the fact that the media has been getting the word out, the majority of the American people still aren't sure about the election, because they've just been introduced to John Kerry. Does anyone have a poll on Kerry's name recognition versus Bush? I'm sure you'll see drastic differences. That will change as the campaign begins to really kick off.

3. Tennessee is already in the margin of error, and Kerry has barely run campaigns in states like Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Arizona, all key states for 2004. Again (look at number 2), Kerry hasn't yet reached the peak of name recognition yet. And also, aren't the majority of those polls from key states from several months ago, with all the pollsters focusing more on the primaries? A lot has changed between now and December.

4. Kerry will not lose us any Senate races. He'll certainly have a Southern Democrat (Gov. Warner, Sen. Edwards, Wesley Clark) or a Southernesque Democrat (Sen. Bayh) as his running mate, and this should boost his appeal. Also, those candidates attatching themselves to Bush to get elected to office could be rethinking this strategy (I'm sure Alice Forgy Kerr would agree that it has its risks).

5. Who is this true Democrat that the party leadership has destroyed (I'm just asking) and why would they have done better than Kerry in the red states of 2000?

[SoonerShankle]

22. A vote for Nader

will only ensure a second term for Bush. So are you going to cut your nose off to spite your face, or are you going to unite with the rest of the democratic party and send Bush packing to Crawford. Are we on an uphill climb? Certainly. We have been from the beginning. I don't know what polls you've been reading, but I've yet to see a poll showing Dean beating Bush, except maybe in Vermont (certainly not nationally). Stand up for Dean's ideals; fire Bush. Hire the democratic nominee, and quit the sour grapes bit. United we stand, divided we fall. It's up to us, to work for those swing states! So let's go!!!

[WitchWay]

12. me too...

I share your fears about 2008, and Kerry just confirms these fears.
But I also wondered if they hoped to lose the 2000 election...NO one wants a war and bad economy. Then, hilary can come in after the damage has been done.

[humble truth]

13. Kerry can win, but

it's not going to be easy. Kerry and Edwards are almost broke. Bush has $100 million he doesn't need to spend on a primary opponent, so he will spend it in key states against Kerry before Kerry even gets off the ground. The DNC has about $14 million ready to combat this, but we will still be out spent. That said, Kerry is already going after Bush on jobs - we lost 2.2 million on Bush's watch after all - and people out of work in the rust belt will vote our way. It will be close.

It's just about too late for Edwards, but he might actually have a better shot against Bush. I have some republican friends (I tolerate them;-)) who say they would cross the line for Edwards, but few will cross over for Kerry.

[SoonerShankle]

23. VEEP

That's why Kerry's choice for Vice President will be so crucial. Finding someone like Edwards or Clark with strong crossover appeal is a must for Kerry.

[WitchWay]

14. Kerry has some problems as a candidate...

Kerry's mediocre record in comparison to Nader's selfless life work? You've got to be kidding? You should take a look at the nader page, and you'll catch my drift.

Look, Kerry is a Big problem. He was voted in TOO QUICKLY as an ABA candidate. Everyone who wanted bush out simply voted for Kerry based on polls. But polls are ephemeral, and Bush will let Kerry attack him till he's in. That's when Bush will start attacking, and Kerry's polls wil nosedive. He won't seem so electable then.

Also, this is important, too. Everyone voted in an ABA candidate, while neglecting "the left" and some of the base -- in order to gobble up votes from BUSH "on the right". But, wait...how many folks who like Bush will go for Kerry? Alot of people, especially the center voters, are turned off by a Multimillionaire New England liberal who emulates JFK and is schizophrenically pro and anti-war at the same time. Here's a guy who blamed his war vote on the fact that Bush lied to him (like he couldn't research?). That shows a lack of leadership. And that's just a littel criticism. Sounds like a suicidal campaign to me, and maybe thats what they want. I don't know.

Who are the true Democrat? Dennis Kucinich, of course. (Howard Dean, too) Kucinich may seem strange, but I trust the guy and I trust he's out to win. He will rip Bush to shreds in a debate, because he knows issues and is very intelligent. Also, he'll draw votes because, unlike Kuchinich, he grew up facing poverty and reality like ordinary people face. (Kerry and his wife are filty rich...and I don't think that will motivate the working class much, do you?)

[Lexingtonian]

15. Oh, cut the crap and do the homework first

Kerry is only tied,

Kerry has led all but a single Fox poll against Bush since late January by an average margin of 50% to 44%. You can look up the latest CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll of three days ago yourself- Kerry 55%, Bush 43%. Kerry presently leads Bush in all Blue States, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia, and is tied (iow, would win) in Nevada. With some hard campaigning he can probably move enough Hispanic votes in Arizona to win there too. He's supposedly tied or ahead in Florida, though no head to head Kerry-Bush polls have been published there in a couple of months.

If you follow trends in voting since 1990, Democrats have gained 3% every four years on conservatives (Republicans, Perot, Buchanan) among which I count paleo-Leftists (Nader). November 2004 should be 52% Democratic, 3% Third Party, 46% Republican at equal rates of turnout. 55% is Kerry's upper ceiling, 48% Bush's, 3% Nader's.

I don't know how to argue with nonreality, so I find no answer possible to the rest of your post other than simple disbelief.

[dfitzsim]

17. Absolutely!

What's more, if you track the independent "swing" voters, they are overwhelmingly leaning Democrat this year. This is great news for the battle ground states.

From today's DonkeyRising (http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/index.shtml):

"In fact, it's quite unusual for an incumbent president to be running behind the challenger at this point in the cycle. According to a recent Gallup analysis, every incumbent president back to Harry Truman was leading their eventual opponent (and all other possible opponents) at this point in an election year with the lone exception of Gerald Ford in 1976. And of course, he lost."

This won't be a cake-walk election, but it is definitely winnable, and it is definitely winnable with Kerry or Edwards!

Nader (and you GreenNADER) could better spend your efforts working toward reforming the election process. If you want to make a difference for democracy, try getting Instant Voter Run-off or one of it's variants up and running in your community. Then third parties candidates and issue candidates might actually have a chance at getting elected.

[Harriette]

16. Social Security Is At Risk, Vote For a Change

America is slowly but surely disintegrating financially. I
hear people complaining but they need to stand up for their
rights by voting and saying, "No More Economic
Struggles!" If there is a candidate than can offer a
solution to the chaos that is in America right now, he/she
will be the right person for the job. Winning will only be
elementary at that point! 
America is currently a victim of political abuse and we need
to say enough is enough!

[demigoddess]

18. Another reason to save social security, All the children of the soldiers

That fought in the Gulf Wars that have been born with birth defects as a result. As they grow up and grow old they will not be able to support themselves. That is the reason SSI is given to handicapped adults who are retarded etc. And we are going to have even more after the men get back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Did you all know that after vietnam and gulf war one we had a large number of kids born with birth defects???? Kill off social security and what are these people going to do? Especially if their dads come back to a bad economy and fewer jobs and cannot build up the savings needed to support them throughout their lives.

[bj_liberal22]

19. not everyone agrees...

First off, the DNC didn't choose Kerry. Secondly, not everyone agrees that Kerry is bought and sold on the market - he just happens to play his cards to his advantage. THAT is what we need to beat Bush, IMHO. Kerry didn't take any PAC money when he was originally elected in 1985, but has since learned Washington politics and how to play the game to get his liberal agenda passed and listened to.. That is what you call experience and leadership, a quality you have to have IMHO.

Personally, I voted for Kucinich out of principle. But I realized his chances were nil... Did the DNC tell him to drop out? No. Did they cause him to lose every race? No.

Dean was actually a right leaning guy on several issues. NRA voted for him, he is fiscally quite conservative - of course that is relatively speaking. He's not a wacko like George W. Bush who cuts taxes AND accelerates spending.

Not every liberal thought Dean was pure...

And I find it silly to consider voting for a 3rd party under these circumstances. If you are upset that Dean didn't get picked, fine, everyone has a right to be fussy. Kerry wasn't my honest first pick either. BUT he is not the demon so many on here are making him out to be.

What about his record? Go back and read it.

Voted against Gulf War I. Fought against ANWR drilling. One of only 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act. For every meaningful gun control measure you can imagine.

The guy is pretty darn liberal, and we've been handed a guy with military service as a record.

I don't hate to disagree - I think some of you on here are dilusional when it comes to the facts. You talk about Kerry's record without reading it...

[Canadian Liberal]

20. We need experience!

Dean is inexperienced to run for President.What us liberals need is to rally behind Senator Kerry because he has the experience and knowledge to run on the issues against President Bush.:dem: