Kerry Democrats....what would it take to give up on Kerry?

[XT]

This is a lot tougher of a question than RM’s “Bush Republicans…what would it take to give up on Bush”, because Bush is a known quantity with very real issues and controversies, whereas Kerry, while not an unknown, is a question mark as far as exactly what he WILL do as president.

It seems, at least so far and at least here at the SDMB, that the Kerry supporters are a lot more solid than the Bush supporters…solidly behind the fact that they don’t what Bush that is. And this is understandable.

Thanks all for participating in this thread…I’m really finding this facinating contrasting the two threads. Keep the inputs coming and try and take the question seriously please. I think this is some valuable pre-election insites.

-XT

[Rashak_Mani]

Yep… most here are anti-Bush, not Pro-Kerry… nor Democratic Party members. Kerry seems like a nice guy… but his strong point is not being Bush… for now.

If I were american I would only give up on Kerry if he started promising to create a European style social welfare that would break american competitiveness… but then if the option were Bush I wouldn’t waste my time voting for Nader. I’d forcefully vote Kerry anyway. Kerry hasn’t proposed creating a welfare state so its a safe bet he won’t lose votes on that.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Rashak Mani

If I were american I would only give up on Kerry if he started promising to create a European style social welfare that would break american competitiveness

It’s hardly clear that Europe’s competitiveness (I assume you mean the economic kind) has been damaged by their own approach, but that’s another thread.

The only way I’d reverse my position would be if Kerry and Bush both reversed their own. Ain’t gonna happen, izzit?

Look: I’m voting for the candidate, among those who can win, who comes closest to the way I think the US government should be managed. It’s simpleminded to label that as anti-Bush or pro-Kerry, even if that is the effect.

[Rashak_Mani]

@ElvisL1ves

Look: I’m voting for the candidate, among those who can win, who comes closest to the way I think the US government should be managed. It’s simpleminded to label that as anti-Bush or pro-Kerry, even if that is the effect.

Kerry is still showing his colors and so direct support for his positions are still starting. The anti-Bush label is quite appropiate I think... if your politically correct you can change it to pro-Change position. Any of the democratic candidates would have my "vote" no matter what. I guess the "divider" Bush has created a lot of "anything but Bush" mentality.

I confess I haven't even bothered to read Kerry's proposals.   :)  Though I've read he is quite liberal... which suits me just fine.

[AHunter3]

Kimstu:

I think the Bush Doctrine is competing pretty closely with international terrorism for the status of Most Dangerous Current Geopolitical Development

Yeah, what Kimstu said.

Long before the Democratic primary season had even gotten underway, I was pretty strongly committed to voting for whoever was most likely to be able to unseat Bush.

Biting off rat’s heads at a political rally? Naah, wouldn’t faze me.

At this point, I’d probably hold my nose and wince and vote for him even if he came out against abortion rights, which would make it my first vote for an anti-abortion rights candidate in 24 years. Likewise if he came out against free speech or in favor of aggressive psychiatric incarceration of unconventional people or something, it would be with grave misgivings that I’d cast my vote for him, but I probably would.

If Kerry could nominate Osama bin Laden to be the VP candidate on his ticket, OK, that would make me reconsider, but since Osama isn’t eligible for the office…honestly, I can’t think of anything that could actually happen that would turn me away from Kerry, short of a 3rd party candidate outpolling him and therefore having a better chance of unseating Bush.

[BobLibDem]

Beyond the unthinkable realm of truly heinous criminal activity, naming Charles Manson as a running mate, or a 180 degree shift in his policies, there is absolutely nothing that would make me abandon Kerry. And should Kerry for any reason be replaced at the top of the ticket, I’d happily vote for whoever took his place.

[Knorf]

I’d give up support for Kerry if:

• I felt he were incompetent for any reason (ignorance, extreme arrogance, stupidity, etc.)
• He supported positions with which I am in strong disagreement.
• He engaged in criminal or ethically questionable behavior.

I would NOT then vote for Bush. Bush the Divider lost my vote a long time ago, basically by leading an administration whose behavior is disturbingly like a regime.
If Kerry were a seriously bad candidate, I’d try to vote for some other candidate in opposition or, if there were none I could support, I’d simply abstain.

[dropzone]

@Knorf

… an administration whose behavior is disturbingly like a regime.

THAT’S the description I’ve been lloking for! Thanks.

Count me with the “if Kerry turned out to be a Nazi war criminal in disguise but then I still wouldn’t vote for Bush” crowd. Kerry wasn’t my favorite (I thought John Edwards had potential) but he’s my current one and likely to stay that way until November.

[rjung]

“Kerry Gains Endorsements From Robertson, Falwell, and Fred Phelps.”

If this happens, then either those three have suddenly gotten a lot smarter, or it’s time to reassess Kerry…

[blowero]

@Marley23

Pervert, the basic position I see Kerry taking (it was very clearly elucidated on his website, I’m trying to find it) is that it would be wrong to handicap America by not allowing it to act in its own defense without the UN, but that acting unilaterally is also a mistake. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I just don’t see Kerry as the kind of guy who’s going to launch a pre-emptive war on trumped-up evidence. He certainly had no qualms about denouncing Vietnam. It would be political suicide in the U.S. to come out as a complete pacifist; WWII taught us that unqualified pacifism isn’t an effective national policy. It’s always possible that we might have to defend our country. But that’s a far cry from a policy of naked aggression.

[Zagadka]

It would take Kerry spontaneously turning into Bush, and then I’d have to vote for Nader or something inane like that. The man can torture a kitten on national TV while a 7 year old girl stands off to the side crying, and I’d still vote for him over Bush.

This is the unfortunate reality - Bush is SO “polarizing” that you’re basically either for him or against him. The people who are turned off by Kerry and refuse to vote for him will likely just not vote, not vote for Bush. I think that is what the “swing” votes are - between voting for one of them, or just getting so demoralized by politics that they stay at home and drink heavily instead of going out to vote (I’ll probably do both).

I really don’t understand the few people who are still on the fence with Bush. He is so wildly on one side of the fence that I just can’t see how you can be “iffy” about him.

[AHunter3]

rjung

“Kerry Gains Endorsements From Robertson, Falwell, and Fred Phelps.”

If this happens, then either those three have suddenly gotten a lot smarter, or it’s time to reassess Kerry…

:eek:

Wow what a totally creepy triumvirate to invoke.

Hmm…suppose the Fundamentalist Party offers the Robertson / Phelps ticket, with Falwell acting as Chief of Staff, and by November 1 is somehow the only party with any statistical possibility of knocking off the Republican incumbent, George Bush.

Would I vote for Kerry even if he had no chance of winning, or vote for Robertson / Phelps as a means of getting George W out of office?

Ya know, that’s one of the few combination of people I wouldn’t necessarily prefer to see occupying the White House rather than Bush and Co. I guess I’d stick with Kerry, casting my absentee ballot from whatever shore I’d run off to.

::stumbles off with sudden horrible awareness that things could be even worse::

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It seems pretty clear that the choic is not really between Bush and Kerry but between Bush and Notbush. It’s also clear that there is almost no plausible scenario which would prevent a lot of us from voting for Notbush.

[Zagadka]

[QUOTE=AHunter3]
rjung
:eek:

Wow what a totally creepy triumvirate to invoke.

Hmm…suppose the Fundamentalist Party offers the Robertson / Phelps ticket, with Falwell acting as Chief of Staff, and by November 1 is somehow the only party with any statistical possibility of knocking off the Republican incumbent, George Bush.

Would I vote for Kerry even if he had no chance of winning, or vote for Robertson / Phelps as a means of getting George W out of office?/QUOTE]
shudder

That is, indeed, a frightening thought. Given that I couldn’t flee the country overnight or take up in an armed rebellion, I think I’d have to vote for Bush.

At least, in that case, relatively, Bush is only a dim-witted puppet with horrible international politics and borderline conservative domestic policy. He’s the town idiot who means well, but the bullies keep tricking him into doing stupid things.

The Triumvirate, however, are cold, calculating, fascist asshats who, given the opportunity, would likely overthrow most of the government policy and rebuild America in their own demented vision of reality as a Christian-based isolationist right-wing state.

Gives whole new meaning to “lesser of two evils”… like “Hitler or Stalin”

[XT]

@Diogenes the Cynic

It seems pretty clear that the choic is not really between Bush and Kerry but between Bush and Notbush. It’s also clear that there is almost no plausible scenario which would prevent a lot of us from voting for Notbush.

This is kind of how I was seeing things shape up…and part of the reason I wanted to start this thread. I was not really seeing the Bush vs Kerry build up for the most part. Instead, I think you nailed it on the head (from my perspective anyway) that its really a Bush vs NotBush.

Thing is, if the majority on the NotBush side are seeing things this way, what will this do at the polls do you think in November? I see two likely scenerios.

One is, that voter turn out will be worse than it was even in 2000, with a lot of apathetic folks who don’t really like Bush much, but just can’t get enthused about NotBush either and so stay home and drink heavily. Result: Bush wins by a small margin due to more motivation of his faithful followers (i.e. voting for a person is bound to get people out more than voting against a person).

The other scenerio is that the NotBush side is SO pumped up about getting rid of Bush that there will be a huge turn out to depose Bush from the NotBush side. Result: Kerry wins in a landslide.

Personally, I’m leaning towards number one unfortunately, as I just can’t see getting the masses out to vote AGAINST Bush. People are more motivated to vote FOR someone they really like, admire, agree with, etc. than to simply vote against someone they dispise. This is how I’m seeing it anyway.

I’m only going to vote this time out of what I consider my civic duty TO vote as to me both candidates are unappealing. My wife is psyked to vote (she is a Bush supporter) and can’t wait until November, as is my father and a lot of his friends. A friend of mine is a Democrat but isn’t impressed with Kerry but hates Bush. However, when I asked him he didn’t seem to be very motivated to vote (I’m trying to change his mind by bombarding him with ‘civic duty’ arguements daily). Other friends of mine seem just as apathetic (most of my friends are Democrats or non-aligned types like me, though admittedly some are disaffected Republicans…most of whom however have said in a dejected voice they will be voting for Bush anyway).

Small sample and means nothing…but this is the general feeling I’m getting right now (not including the SDMB folks, which I don’t think are very representative of Joe Citizen out there).

If Kerry remains an uninspiring candidate and is perceived as simply the lesser of two evils, and if the economy stays basically where it is now or even improves between now and November, I fear Bush is going to get 4 more years in the Whitehouse.

-XT

[elucidator]

I pretty much always leaned to Kerry, for lots of reasons. Part of it is keeping faith with one’s past. I remember Kerry’s impact on his times in the Bad Old Days, and much admired him. I became skeptical when he pushed so hard to moderate the positions of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, and then resigned when he felt the organization was becoming too radicalized. This, in my scornful opinion, after hogging so much of the credit for founding the vet’s movement, just because he was tall, smart and good looking. Grumble, grumble.

But for years, until Clinton was elected, I never imagined that the anti-war movement would be forgiven. I wouldn’t have believed that an admitted draft-dodger like Mild Bill could be elected! So when Kerry became a candidate, my feelings were decidedly mixed. I could have either him or Sonny Boy Edwards, politics wise. And I am deeply pleased that his association with the anti-war movement has so little negative impact. Sure, there are those who are eagerly trying to “Hanoi” him, but it doesn’t seem like it’s getting a lot of traction.

So, with that historical perspective, his candidacy…his viable candidacy…gives hope and comfort. If you’re patient, and persistent, and don’t die, you see change. Too slow, of course, by decades, but still…

Good warm feeling. The good cold feeling is seeing the Pubbies wearing the “Wha Happen?” look, who thought they were going to coast against Wolfman Dean from the People’s Republic of Vermont, tell Laura to go ahead and order those new drapes. Kerry’s got game.

Great Debates is too august a forum to be disgraced by a “neener-neener”. So I must abstain. Rather a pity, but there you have it.

[Loopydude]

@Kimstu

All right, skipping all the hyperbole about Republican pod people and brain transplants and baby-eating and so forth, is there a real potential deal-breaker for my support of Kerry?

What’s truly sad is that when I said I’d maybe favor another candidate if I found out Kerry was a baby rapist, it wasn’t hyperbole. I have that little regard for Bush now.

I mean, Christ, the choice would be “the imbecilic warmongering spendthrifty lying son-of-a-bitch vs. the baby rapist…hmmmm.”

Things really are that awful. Can you believe it? I hardly can.

[Zagadka]

@xtisme

Small sample and means nothing…but this is the general feeling I’m getting right now (not including the SDMB folks, which I don’t think are very representative of Joe Citizen out there).

According to Juan Cole (who unfortunately has a habit of linking to registration-required sources):

A new poll shows that as of mid-March, 57% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had given substantial support to al-Qaeda. Worse, 45% actually say that “clear evidence” has been found in Iraq to support this allegation! As for weapons of mass destruction 45 percent say they believe Saddam had them before the recent war

Statistical analysis of these results from ZagCorp scientists has proven that 54.82% of adult Americans are mentally retarded, having the mental maturity of a 9 year old, and the emotional maturity of a 6 year old.

[blowero]

[QUOTE=Zagadka]

@AHunter3

rjung
At least, in that case, relatively, Bush is only a dim-witted puppet with horrible international politics and borderline conservative domestic policy. He’s the town idiot who means well, but the bullies keep tricking him into doing stupid things.

That’s just too funny.

[Rune]

This is your election and I’m not going to bug in. I just found it a bit amusing that a cursory glance of this thread revealed not a single enthusiastic Kerry democrat - some anti-Bush democrats sure, the ubiquitous who’s-this-Kerry-guy-you’re-on-about-I’m-voting-not-Bush crowd, a bunch of any-fucking-thing-but-Bush democrats, a smattering of I’m-really-a-Nader-kinda-guy-but-am-going-to-vote-Kerry-because-I-really-hate-Bush folks, but apparently not a single wow-this-guy-Kerry-totally-rocks-I’m-voting-for-him-because-of-his-sweeping-political-visions individual. Not that I blame you; Kerry is possible the least inspiring politician since Themistocles decided to head for Persia. I think he should change his slogan to: “Vote me. I promise four years of mind numbing boredom” (this last one wasn’t all irony – I do believe that often the best politicians are the boring ones). Ok, back to Bush bashing…