To me, November 2004 choice comes down to a very simple question

[AP]

(and I don't mean for DU'ers -- I mean for your average voter, whom I believe is a bit left of center):

"Do you think John Kerry would make a better president than Bush?"

And the answer is, "Yes, by miles."

It's a straight up comparision.

I've seen some posts here at DU which, I think, unwittingly and inadvertantly reveal what will be the strategy by the right to drive wedges in the left -- which will be designed to lower the excitement level for Kerry, and which, they hope will suppress turnout.

But I think when you hear these strategies ("does Kerry have enough of the X factor?" or "Kerry doesn't satsify litmus test Y" or "did you hear what Kerry said about Z?") the response is simple: who's going to be a better president?

And the answer isn't a difference measured by inches. It's a difference measured by miles and miles. That fact alone -- that huge difference -- should be all the antidote needed to keep the excitement level turned up to 11.

To paraphrase Joe Jackson, JACK, if you can't get excited about the idea of having a president miles and miles better than the one we have, YOU DEAD!

[glarius]

1. From what I've observed it seems to me the right is trying to do to Kerry

what they did to Gore....Convince the public he is not likeable...That seems to be their big selling point with Bush, that he is "so likeable"...I seriously don't understand that assessment myself, but apparently many believe him to be likeable...They are constantly calling Kerry "patrician" or stand-offish,etc....

[freetobegay]

2. We don't need the right to do that

We have several right her on DU to do the bidding.

[Exgeneral]

3. Kerry is all of those negatives

yet he IS our nominee. It's hardly giving ammo to the enemy to point out reasons why the candidate we have might have a fight on his hands come November, and needs every vote he can get.

Yet, snide remarks about progressives pointing out Kerry's irritating nuances of major issues and such are mentioned in the same breath as traitorous scum.

This is NOT a convincing argument. It's Kerry that needs to show us where he's at on the vital issues, not the other way around.

If he loses, it will be his fault and the fault of the party, not the progressives who didn't vote for him because Kerry's campaign could offer no compelling reason to do so.

[AP]

5. My point is Kerry would have to be much much much worse than anyone

is alleging for him still not be a thousand times better than Bush.

And that's pretty exciting.

I'm looking forward to the Kerry administration with great anticipation notwithstanding any objections I might have to his policies.

[Exgeneral]

6. Hell yeah to that

I still plan on eliminating lobbyists from politics with or without John Kerry. I can't really tell where he comes down on the issue of disproportionate influence of big money in politics.

[Bill Todd]

7. I kind of hope that you're right

and that people like me who have grave reservations about the effect that a DLC-dominated Kerry win would have on the party can rant, rave, encourage people to vote third-party (if Kerry's positions continue moving rightward), succeed in that encouragement, and still see Kerry in the White House next January, with a large enough 3rd-party protest vote to make it clear to the party leadership that there's no way in hell they'll win another presidential election with a DLC candidate unless Dubya is the Republican nominee.

Unfortunately, an awful lot of people don't seem to agree that Kerry's 'electability' is as solid as it was portrayed during the primaries (and as you seem to think it is now). And hence they're not too happy with those of us who seriously want to use a cattle-prod (rather than trust to gentler persuasion) to move him back toward the center.

So the situation seems to me to remain fluid, which is why I'm hopeful that changes can still occur.

We'll see.

- bill

[Jack from Charlotte]

4. An election with an incumbent is ALWAYS.......

a referendum on the incumbent. If the voters think he's doing OK, he wins. If they don't think he's doing OK........ only THEN they'll CONSIDER the challenger. If the challenger provides a viable alternative, he wins.

And I'll tell you something else...... it's not likely to be very close. In an incumbent reelection bid whoever wins, usually wins easily + 5-7%..... like Reagan, Clinton, Nixon.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Thirty million, maybe more...

...of our fellow citizens are going to ask another question -- "Which one of these two men is more likely kill to Moslems in large numbers, and without remorse."

Because that's how a number of American voters large enough to fill the state of California, or make up a middle-sized EU member state feel.

That's enough people to swing an election, and Kerry will never (thank God) win on that question.

Brainstem politics.

I get nauseous just thining about it.