John Kerry, non-squirrel

[ProfessorPlum]

Every Democratic candidate in this race, present and past, has (or had) a cadre of supporters who were 1) well-informed 2) excited by politics 3) concerned for their country and 4) inspired and enthusiastic about their candidate, both in comparison to the other candidates and as an opponent to Bush.

This strikes me as an enormous testimony to the amazing subjectivity of the human experience. I honestly believe that even a candidate who was woefully unequipped for candidacy or office would garner at least some enthusiastic support, and not just from crazy people, either.

In any case, this brings me to primary voters. These are people encompass core supporters, but also include those who are energized enough to vote in primaries, but who maybe are not as well informed or enthusiastic (as compared to very enthusiastic, core supporters).

And these people have been voting, in droves, for Kerry.

As someone who never had any visceral attraction to Kerry as a candidate, I've been trying to figure this phenomenon out. And I don't mean it as an insult, like "Why would the stupid lumpen proletariat vote for Kerry?", but rather really trying to understand where the voters are coming from.

At this point, of course Kerry has a lot of momentum, and voters want to vote with a winner, so there is a lot of self-fulfilling prophecy. But he has only not come in first in 2 of the contests so far, an amazing record for such a field packed with many qualified candidates.

So what is it that primary voters are so attracted to about Kerry?

I have a theory: he is the least squirrelly of the bunch. (You might also say he has "gravitas") He towers over his opponents. He has a sonorous, leaden voice that borders on the soporific. He seems disinclined to sudden movements, or spontaneous displays of emotion. He "feels" predictable. As part of the Washington establishment, he is somewhat beholden to established power in this country, therefore not prone to bursts of populism. He does not surprise. (I know, I know - lots of people here think he is "fiery". Your mileage may vary)

I think this is exactly the quality voters are attracted to: solidity, and to some extent, inertness. It reflects their feelings that getting rid of B*$h is deadly serious business, not to be put in the hands of anyone who is the slightest bit squirrelly.

Edwards? Too chipper, looks like a kid, talks about poor people, too squirrelly.

Dean? Keeps surprising people by bringing up truths which have been taboo to mention in the public arena heretofore. Displays actual emotion, too squirrelly.

Clark? Has not been a Democrat for very long, seems like a guy who acts and reacts quickly, physically slight, too squirrelly.

Kucinich? The very definition of squirrelly (but I love his politics).

Kerry? Why, not very squirrelly at all. Moves and talks slowly. Has bulk, solidness. Has been around a while. Perfect.

Does this hypothesis resonate with anyone? What are your theories as to why Democrats, en masse, have chosen Kerry so unequivocally out of this field of qualified candidates?

[unfrigginreal]

1. My theory: CNN told them to

:)

[ProfessorPlum]

3. I don't buy it :)

Dean got plenty of good press (as well as lots of crappy press), enough that moderately informed people had a chance to look at him.

I think the choice of Kerry is a very real phenomenon - lots of people really see him as the best choice in the field, and it isn't all from the influence of the media. I mean, if the media really had that much influence, Gore would never have won in 2000.

Though I think Kerry's support among primary voters is broad but shallow, a lot of people all came to the same conclusion about him. Why?

[unfrigginreal]

12. The reason that Kerry's primary support is broad but shallow

is that he gained the frontrunner status by a sytematic tearing down of Howard Dean. Where you see it as a Kerry ascendency I see it as a Dean downfall.

I don't place all of the blame with the press, the Dean campaign made plenty of missteps. But when you have the Begala's, Carvilles, Fromme's et al on the political talk shows day in and day out talking about a candidate for their party in less than glowing (even derogative) terms, it's going to have an effect.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. Nah, I don't buy that either

had the voters decided that Dean was the best choice, they would have voted for Dean, regardless of what Kerry or even the media said about him. (I happen to disagree with what appears to be the vast majority of Democratic voters about this, by the way).

The fact is, people are NOT voting for Dean in droves. (Like the old review of the Broadway show: "people are staying away in droves") I'm just trying to get at the bottom of that thought process.

[WiseMen]

15. CNN etc has been happy to spread smear as well as the "special interest"

ploy of the RW folks without any effort to publicize the very
legitimate claims that the "special interest" charge is bogus.

[ewagner]

2. A clue

might be the age distribution of the supporters.

An entertaining hypothesis is that the squirrelier the candidate, the younger the supporter.

Early on, I noticed that the older people in the party organizations (mostly retired union types) were either Gephardt or Kerry supporters. My college-aged sons friends were (and remain) Kucinich supporters.

I have absolutely no data to support this: just anecdotal evidence.

[ProfessorPlum]

4. There may be some truth to this

though of course there are lots of counter examples - I met a lot of older Dean supporters when canvassing, as well as many younger Kerry supporters.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Another clue

There are over 8 million Vietnam veterans in America. And because of their age, they vote. That is one hell of a voting block. And I bet the majority of them voted for the Chimp in 2000. They are unlikely to make that same mistake twice.

Don

[Ripley]

21. Dean himself said 1/4 of his supporters were under 30.

That means 75% were over 30. This is another lie passed around the media that Dean's supporters are all 20 year olds in college and really aren't smart enough to see he's a dud. Just this morning CNN asked where are all the Dean youth going to go now? Well, what about me? I'm not 20 and I'm in the majority of Dean supporters. I guess we don't matter.

[papau]

38. Sad - the youth vote most likely does not matter -since most will not vote

From 68's keep clean for Gene to the current date - the under 30 voter tends to get invoved in the process - but at the end of the day in the GE only a very small percentage go vote.

Folks once said that you had to have something to lose before you were willing to kill an hour in November voting.

I still think that Dean, like Gene, has a seeded a new generation of active folks, many of whom will run for and win offices - even if they do not vote in 04!

:-)

[adadem]

26. I noticed this too

At our county dem meetings all the Dean and Kucinich supporters were new...never saw them at Dem events before. The Gephardt, Kerry and Clark supporters were "regulars" and, inho, more experienced in the process.

The unfortunate part of this is that instead of staying involved in the local Dem party and process...like running as precinct delegates and for local party posts...to help change the system...they will "take off" out of frustration and anger. Things aren't going to change unless they start getting involved at the local level and work their way up to the posts where they can make constructive change. Switching to a third party or not staying involved will not change a thing. I wish HD had said that yesterday....get involved, stay involved to make change.

[ProfessorPlum]

30. He did say all of those things

Didn't you hear his message? He urged all of his supporters to stay involved and stay active - it was his main message.

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Rule #2 violation: "Edwards?... too squirrelly."

"2. Criticism of Democratic primary candidates, their policy positions, and their campaigns is permitted. However, extreme and inflammatory attacks against Democratic primary candidates are not permitted. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether an attack is extreme and inflammatory. Inappropriate attacks include, but are not limited to, the following: Attacks involving swear words, long strings of negative words, comparisons to Hitler or Bush, unflattering graphics, etc."

Comparing my candidate to a rodent is inflammatory, per se.

[ProfessorPlum]

6. I think that's stretching it a bit

thanks for trying to shut down real discussion, though.

[Cuban_Liberal]

9. I don't.

:grr:

[JohnLocke]

72. Describing Edwards as "Squirrelly" isn't likely to lead to real discussion

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Do you honestly think that in the context of the entire post

that it is inflammatory? and/or extreme?

[Cuban_Liberal]

11. I surely do.

It's inflamed the hell out of me.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. Well, my apologies

as that was certainly not my intent. The descriptions above were meant to reflect what I think the mass of Kerry voters in the primaries were thinking about the candidates in arriving at their choice, and do not reflect my feelings about them (except for the aside about Kucinich).

[Kolesar]

20. "squirrelly" is not extreme or inflammatory eom

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. Yes it is. eom

[CWebster]

8. beats me

Why did they vote for Bush?

:-)

Really, though. What it comes down to is how you sell yourself and how you define your image in a brief, aggressive soundbite that the media mouthpiece is willing to broadcast. Kerry couldn't really compete with Dean, that was obvious enough, so he employed a calculated strategy to take down Dean based on his image as "too angry = unelectible" and promoting himself as the more "electible" one, where his elitist aloofness is spun as "presidential". Very psy-ops style of campaigning that the Republicans excel at, but is the last resort of scoundrels who really have no other recourse to compete. Wait 'til Kerry gets a nasty dose of his own medicine.

[ProfessorPlum]

14. I honestly don't think the candidates consciously think

about messing with the minds of voters that much - as much as their advisors surely do - or that it has nearly as much effect as the actual messages they personally convey through their attitudes, manner, positions, etc.

I mean, don't you think Dean was trying to present himself as "presidential" and "electable" just as much as Kerry was?

I'm talking about the messages and attitudes that voters were attuned to, not what the candidates thought they were projecting.

[CWebster]

25. Professor!

have you been hiding under a rock lately?

The voters were attuned to "electible" per directed in their ABB zeal.

[ProfessorPlum]

40. Hey you!

I've been teaching a graduate course this semester, and it has turned out to be a hell of an extra workload, as other teachers would no doubt confirm. My respect for teachers, quite large in the past, has gone way up since this all started.

Playing hookey a bit today, but probably should get back to work soon!

[WiseMen]

19. Hope you don't support the politics of inane sound-bites

[trekbiker]

13. agree

I think you've hit it right on. Had McCain been the repug nominee and been elected in 2000 we probably wouldn't be having these discussions. McCain is a solid republican... a good man. But this court appointed neo-Nazi F**k that is presently destroying our country HAS TO GO.

Dean actually inspired me to contribute money to a political campaign for the first time in my life but I recognized early on that Rove was dying to go up against him. Kerry is our best chance in the general election. Edwards is great (but your right... he does look like a kid). Kerry strikes me as a modern day Lincoln.

[ProfessorPlum]

17. I forgot to mention in the original post

that I think this is great news in the general - as NO ONE is squirrellier than our current AWOL commander in thief!

[jpgpenn]

18. ProfessorPlum in the Dining Room with the Revolver

:dunce:

[ProfessorPlum]

28. No, it's always been that piker Col. Mustard

I can't stand that guy. Loose the cheesy sideburns already!

[jpgpenn]

31. LOL

:toast:

[RichM]

24. There's something to this theory.

The Kerry bandwagon reflects more than just this, but your points are pretty well taken.

Another part of it, IMO, is that our culture conditions us to expect certain things in a politician, in order to be able take him seriously or perceive him as "solid" (ie, non-squirrely). This conditioning is not necessarily a good indicator of anything admirable or healthy, but it exists all the same.

It could be argued that our expectation that a politician not appear "prone to bursts of populism" is a remarkably pathological inculcated trait. Why in the world shouldn't "we" (ie, the people) WANT to choose someone who is a populist (ie, someone who will stand up FOR US)? Our culture teaches us deference to power & wealth. We have come to semi-unconsciously expect a potential leader to be on cordial terms with some of society's most reactionary forces. (That's part of what it means to be a "Washington insider.") If we don't see evidence of this coziness, it makes us suspicious.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. I agree.

If by culture you mean the media and the powerful forces pulling the strings behind the media, i.e., corporations. Why should politics be any different than a pet rock, a yo-yo, or a tickle-me Elmo doll?

[Ripley]

34. But this doesn't seem to be true for the Right.

I mean just look at Bush, Jr. He is utterly "squirrely" in his manner of speaking, inappropriate smiling and smirking and mouth, leg and hand movements, even the way he walks. Why do so many on the right think he is more presidential, gentlemanly, solid, whatever? He is the least presidential out of everyone who has ever run recently.

The Democrats are too prudish on this issue. Everyone should have embraced Dean's populistic cries of "You have the Power" instead of acting embarassed by it.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. I agree with you about what Democrats should have done

and I also agree that Bush's own uber-squirreliness will be a huge part of his downfall this year.

[mzmolly]

55. I totally agree Ripley. Democrats are too prudish on this and sometimes

out of touch with the average Joe because of it. Thus the term *elitist* I spose ...

[BruinAlum]

27. edited

edited

[ProfessorPlum]

33. Edited

Edited

[RichM]

41. Heh heh heh -- Ain't it frustrating?

I just love it when someone dumps a lot of huff on a post, & they haven't even read what's been written! Try to imagine the poster typing away furiously & self-righteously in a little room somewhere, paying attention only to himself... There's something dreadfully funny about it!

[ProfessorPlum]

43. Something dreadful, at least, to be sure. n/t

.

[BruinAlum]

42. This is what gave me that impression:

"but who maybe are not as well informed or enthusiastic (as compared to very enthusiastic, core supporters). "

But since I'm not sure now I will defer in your favor and edit my previous post.

[ProfessorPlum]

45. It has to follow that all primary voters

on average, are not as well informed as a candidate's core supporters about that candidate. They just aren't, and as unfortunate as that is, it is not a judgement call about them, just a fact.

Did you see some of the quotes from people the night before the primary in NH? The depth of some of the ignorance on display about all of the candidates was breathtaking.

I'm just trying to figure out what, for people who aren't as steeped in the minutiae of the candidates' positions, etc., as people around here typically are, is resonating about Kerry with respect to the others. There have to be qualities that he possesses that appeal to people who aren't making their decisions on IWR.

Frankly, a politician has to appeal to the uninformed as well as the informed, and I was trying to figure out why people who aren't hardcore supporters of any particular candidate fell so (nearly unanimously) for Kerry.

[BruinAlum]

47. Point taken

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I re-read the original post once you pointed it out and came away with a different reading.

:hi:

[ProfessorPlum]

48. Thanks for the sanity

Always a most welcome trait to come across.

[OhioDem]

29. True as far as it goes

I agree that what is commonly described as gravitas has much to do with the ascendance of Kerry in the Primary process. This is symptomatic of a more profound phenomenon, however. It is human nature to believe in our own flaws, and in the specialness of the wealthy. Both of these beliefs work for Kerry. Although there are no basic differences among the proclaimed policies of the major candidates (Dean Edwards Clark Kerry) who have sought the nomination,
Dean and Clark are seen as mavericks, and Edwards is the classic self-made man. Both ascriptions are scary to "ordinary" Americans, who are looking for reassurances.
The classic "rule of the Best" scenario has great appeal under these circumstances, which is something that, if carefully applied, should help Kerry wedge Bush right out of the White House in November, should he be the nominee.
Edwards would need a different approach, but that also is doable, because he appeals to that other classic, and more uniquely American story, the rise from humble origins to great success.
Republicans have been aware of these archtypal imapcts since the 1970s.
The irony that post-modernism should be first the political tool used to mine the sympathies of the absolutist reactionaries by the Machiavellian right must not be lost on the Democrats, if we are to turn this around.

[ProfessorPlum]

35. Oooo - that's an interesting, Calvinist spin on it

My own take is that while Kerry definitely has the most "gravitas", that his ascendence in the primary speaks as to the importance of that trait in this particular year, to a vast majority of Democrats.

[ewagner]

44. Welcome to DU

:toast:

Excellent post even though I do not entirely agree with the sum of it. What I do find as particularly important in your post is that the Republicans have indeed been aware of the archetypal impacts and they have raised the practice of archetypes to an art form. One handicap of our party is that we are idealistic enough to look upon such practices with disdain. How 'bout that: our idealism is our Achilles heal!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

46. our idealism is our Achilles heal

Jesus, isn't that the sad truth.

I think you've summed up the Democratic party in a very tight, neatly-wrapped package with that one.

[The Magistrate]

37. There Is A Great Deal To What You Say, Professor

An excellent piece, Sir!

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[ProfessorPlum]

39. "LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

Now THAT I can get behind.

[KC21304]

49. Just the postings on this thread are very revealing.

Even while making the point that the majority of the Dean supporters are not kids, some of the older ones are acting like it. I hear a lot of whining, pouting, saying they were singled out for terrible press, and even some suggestion they are going to take their ball and go home.

After Kerry's numbers dropped last summer I don't think there was the whining and blaming going on. He is a more serious candidate, no doubt. That helps him with most but with shallow and superficial people it obviously hurts him.

I think Dean is a great man and he is doing a great thing for the Democratic party and Democracy. I just don't buy it that he was treated differently than any other candidate.

[ProfessorPlum]

51. Gosh, there is so much I disagree with in your post

where to start?

"After Kerry's numbers dropped last summer I don't think there was the whining and blaming going on."

You weren't paying attention - whining and blaming on all sides and for all candidates has always been the primary M.O. on the politics and campaigns board. And this is most certainly true of John Kerry supporters when his numbers were low.

"He is a more serious candidate, no doubt. "

I have to disagree with this as well. I think he projects more seriousness and gravitas, which I think is resonating with people. But, is he more "serious" than Kucinich, or Dean, for example, who really seem very genuinely worked up about about how serious the damage Bush is doing in the world? I don't think any of us really know that. If by "serious", you mean is he treated more seriously than other candidates by the media, then I guess I'd agree, to a point.

"That helps him with most but with shallow and superficial people it obviously hurts him."

Again, I have to disagree with this - I think superficial people respond to a candidate who radiates "gravitas", while other people may certainly, and just as legitimately, support Kerry or other candidates for a variety of other reasons, (even) including their positions.

"I just don't buy it that he was treated differently than any other candidate. "

The original post had very little to do with Dean, actually, and much more to do with Kerry. I would disagree that Dean was not treated differently than other candidates, though, as Dean was and is a pretty unique phenomenon, and had different coverage, both positive and negative, in the press because of it.

[On the Road]

50. I Hadn't Thought of it That Way

but I think you're on to something.

The "squirreliness" you mention may indicate characteristic of people who are out of power, or not at the top of the pecking order. Voters may be looking for someone who projects power and calmness, and Kerry certainly does that.

Perhaps voters are looking for security, only in different ways. I'd rather have them settle on a Kerry than on a warmonger.

[ProfessorPlum]

54. "voters are looking for security"

That is exactly one of the subtexts of what I was getting at. "Calmness" is another good way of putting it.

It's actually Kerry's calmness that makes me worry that he doesn't really, deep down, understand just what is at stake this year. But, that's the way the votes bounce. He'll certainly do as a replacement for Bush.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. If that were the case, Bob Graham would be the front runner right now

I chose Kerry because after Graham, he was next in line in terms of my ideology and criteria which were statesmanship, foreign policy experience, and a solid liberal voting record.

People can claim it wasn't so the last three years but I would ask them what was NORMAL about the last three years?

The behavior of the media?
The behavior of the administration?
The 02 mid terms?

[ProfessorPlum]

53. You know, I thought very much about Graham

when I was writing my post. I think if he would have stayed in the race he would have done quite well, once the actual votes (not polls) started coming in, based on the way voters are voting.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

60. I agree. Of course any coverage of candidates back then

was by and large dwarfed by Dean but I wasn't moaning about media bias.

[ProfessorPlum]

62. Yeah,

you won't find me moaning about media bias either.

Though real media bias does exist and it does have an effect, I don't think the effect is as large as most people do.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. I think I know squirrels pretty well,

I've worked in wildlife rehabilitation for several years and have had very intimate dealings with squirrels.

John Kerry is definitely a squirrel.:P

[mzmolly]

57. Very interesting. There are so many factors, but I think you touched on

one. John Kerry has been described as "Grace under pressure" and he handles the media quite well. Granted they haven't gone after him in the manner they did Dean, but he's got that *teflon* quality that is important to people in an election. Bush has the *teflon* thang too, thought they have different personalities/credentials.

There were so many other factors though. Dean peaked so soon, that he was getting blows from too many angles for too long to recover. He hadn't a chance to bounce back. There is also what is known as the murder suicide between Dean/Gep in Iowa-which effected momentum. For some reason *momentum* plays a key role because people like percieved winners. And, for that reason alone, I think all states should have their primaries on the same day, though I realize it would change how campaigns are run...

The media also loved to discuss Dean because he was the only interesting candidate, and because he threatened their status quo, they discussed him in an unflattering manner.

** Remember the media moguls raised money for John Kerry, that alone should clue us in on part of the equation. There is no doubt the mass media is highly influential. But your right, in the end, it all comes down to the voters. They liked Dean as early polls would indicate but they ran scared, I think your on to something with your analysis.

[ProfessorPlum]

58. Agree with you

except that Bush's "teflon" comes from self-editing reporters and editors.


Can you imagine the flop sweat that would run in rivulets from this administration if they treated Bush with just a fraction of the disrespect and derision they went after Clinton with?

Just this week a couple of tough questions on his AWOL community service and jobs predictions for the year has made his administration look like bumbling, lying fools. Imagine what a real watchdog press could do to his "teflon".

[mzmolly]

67. Excellent point about Shrubs manufactured teflon.

His so called, *plain spoken/regular guy/relates to the people-ness...is deemed *popluar and refreshing*

Dean's plain spoken/regular guy/relates to the people-ness was labeled *unelectable-angry-lacking restraint*

Kind of echos the need to take back the media ey?

[ProfessorPlum]

68. at this point I'd even take restoration of the Fairness Doctrine

that would be a major step in the right direction.

[Padraig18]

59. Isn't comparing candidates to rodents inflammatory?

If it isn't, then I don't understand Rule 7 at all... :wtf:

[ProfessorPlum]

61. For all the complaints I'm getting

from Edwards' supporters, you'd think that at least some of them would notice that my post was probably most critical of Kerry.

Read similar complaints above, and my response, then "alert" if you feel you have to, but I don't think this is particularly extreme or inflammatory.

[Padraig18]

63. FWIW.

I'm a former Dean supporter (yesterday), and I would have still asked this question.

[ProfessorPlum]

64. also FWIW

I'm still a Dean supporter. And I don't think my post was that inflammatory. Nor do I think it is much of an advertisement for Kerry, if that is what you are worried about.

Pick your own adjective - I couldn't think of a better one for "lack of gravitas" or "having a pulse".

[spooky3]

69. I thought it was funny.

Maybe I'm not paying enough attention.

Full disclosure: I am an Edwards supporter but ABB once the nominee is chosen.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

65. my theory

1. John Kerry has a strong Democratic record
2. Kerry can speak
3. Kerry is charismatic, solid, strong
4. He can appeal to a wide majority of liberals with his diverse voting record
5. Can be serious, as you said. But he can also move a crowd. He can be predictable, but some may see that as a clue that he is always reliable.

[ProfessorPlum]

66. Yeah, but

you could make an equally compelling list like this for almost any of the candidates. And really, John Kerry="charismatic"? I've heard him give a few speeches that didn't suck, but he's not a real moving speaker.

"strong Democratic record" comes closer to it - I think long Democratic record is even more important. I would agree that "predictability" is appealing to some, but I would hesitate to call Kerry "reliable", with the way he has really disappointed his progressive constituents lately. Again, that is probably due to the crazy time period we are living through.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

70. Congratulations, Kerry supporters - he is not a squirrel

Remember when we USED to complain that the GOP made it personal?

It was predicted numerous times on this forum that they would use the Gore approach - attack the candidates over personal characteristics and ignore the issues. What do you know, they are already doing it before the primaries have even ended.

[ProfessorPlum]

71. Yes, but we've been assured,

numerous times, really, that Kerry will "fight back". So there shouldn't be anything to worry about, right? Right?

[Dookus]

73. The word "squirrelly" does not mean

having the attributes of a squirrel.

squirrelly
SYLLABICATION: squir·rel·ly
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: skwûr-l, skwr- KEY
ADJECTIVE: Slang 1. Eccentric.
2. Cunningly unforthcoming or reticent.

[ProfessorPlum]

74. Well I'll be damned

I just thought it meant eccentric or erratic. I didn't know it also meant you didn't talk much. How weird.

[littlejoe]

76. yes

[FG9942]

77. Kerry involved in a legal suite

http://tinyurl.com/3ffrw