Please explain to a limey how on earth Kerry can win the election...

Great Debates
21

Right, correct me where I go wrong…

If you are a political animal, you can register with one of the parties. In general that gives you a say in selecting the presidential canididate. Is this right?

However as the primaries are all at different times some people’s vote is worth a lot more than others - eg a New Hampshire voter’s vote is more significant than someone in a more impoprtant state just because they go first and can set
the tempo?

If this is right…

That means that a state like New Hampshire (which I believe is considered left-wing by american standards?) gets to have a disproportionate impact on the candidate, so the candidate has to appeal to a more left wing constituency than is nationally representative? Hence the democrats end up with unelectable liberals?

Am I even close? If so…

Surely these are NATIONAL parties with national command structures and as such can see the lunacy of letting a few activists lumber them with deadweights like Kerry?

Also - why do the Republicans always seem to put up a halfway decent candidate if they use the same system? Or is this my bias showing?

You really would have been better off if you’d stuck with The Queen as head of state - we don’t have any of this nonsense here :stuck_out_tongue:

22

You think Bush Jr. and Reagan were ‘half way decent’ candidates, owl? Did you misspell ‘half wit desensitised’?

23

You must keep in mind that we are continent-sized, and our system predates instant mass communication.

In short: Each party announces that each state has a given number of delegates based on how big the party is in that state. Let’s say 5,000 (WAG) party members = 1 delegate. The people of a given party (i.e. “registered” to that party) in a given state would have a primary election, and the delegates would be assigned accordingly; the upshot is that state X would name, say, twenty delegates for Adams, ten for Baker, and two for Cash. These people were generally loyal to A, B, and C, either through ideological affinity or something rather more tangible.

They’d go to the national convention, and everyone would add up the delegates from each state for the national total, and if there was a majority, then you had a nominee. More likely, there were 20 different candidates with delegates, and after the first ballot you’d start getting the back-room deals. Adams has 40% of the delegates nationwide, and Baker has 35%. Maybe Adams will ask Baker to quit his candidacy and join the Adams team … (and Baker gets the Vice-Presidency, or Sec State, or whatever); or maybe Adams hates Baker and tries to get over 50% by cutting deals with smaller, regional candidates like Dutch, Elmo and Fink. But of course, the delegates are not under any compulsion … so they may just go wherever they want; and the conventions were political free-for-alls.

In the age of mass media, however, it’s less fun, as all candidates are national figures and everyone immediately knows who’s winning. The states that go first exercise wildly disproportionate influence, and after 20 or so primaries a clear front-runner has emerged, and the convention is a formality.

In re: your OP, you seem to assume that the two ideas you mention are mutually exclusive. I would argue that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with Bush, and that Kerry is an inept candidate. And while there were some who sincerly meant “anyone but Bush,” a lot more were voting “as far towards the center as I can stand.” Joe Lieberman was the most centrist of the dem candidates and he got waxed. All candidates have to lean into their party base to get the nomination, then lean to the center to win the general election

24

You are aware, I hope, that the ads attacking Kerry’s military record have been soundly debunked by numerous sources. In other words, the claim that Kerry exaggerated his military record is a LIE.

You are also aware, I hope, that in addition to the purple hearts Kerry earned a bronze star and a silver star. When people speak of his being a war hero, it is to those medals they refer.

Lastly, I hope you are aware that wounds received must be somewhat worse than “snagging a nail” to earn a purple heart.

25

New Hampshire is not a liberal state.

However, it is true that they have a disproportionate effect on the outcome. Further, it’s also true that primaries have a tendency to produce extremists, since fewer people (mostly just the diehards) vote in primaries. So you get nutjobs, especially in representative and senate elections, taking the party nomination. The scrutiny presidential candidates undergo usually removes nutjobs before they get the nomination.

I’m still not sure if you’re getting your OP answered. I’m still not sure if it was asked honestly.

26

Owl, I think you’re being confused by the Republican attack machine. You have to remember that the Republican party now has ruthless campaigning down to a science. Most of these horrible things you’re hearing about Kerry are nonsense. The purple-heart thing is silly. Personally, I don’t much care about a candidate’s war record, but if you do care about such things, Kerry is considered a hero because he saved others’ lives, not because of how much jewelry he has. I honestly don’t get the reasoning behind people saying, “Kerry wasn’t hurt all that bad when he got his purple heart, therefore I’ll vote for the other guy who DIDN’T EVEN GO TO VIETNAM AT ALL.” :confused: I mean, if one is really into war heroes, that’s fine - so why the fuck would one vote for Bush? If anyone is NOT a war hero, it’s Bush. This phony issue is coming mainly from the Swift Boat Veterans, who have been thouroughly discredited. Either the British press isn’t covering the part where those guys have been shown to be liars whose only contact with Kerry is that they happened to be somewhere in Vietnam at the same time, or you aren’t bothering to read that part.

Other than that, there doesn’t really seem to be any substantive criticism of Kerry in your OP. I don’t understand the charge that he is “out of touch with anyone other than his own upper class elite” at all. I can understand saying that about Bush; In fact, Bush is infamous for giving sweetheart deals to powerful businessmen, for giving tax cuts to the rich, and for addressing an audience of extremely wealthy people as his “base”. But Kerry? How do you get that? Is the British press just repeating Republican-party memes, or do they actually have anything to back up these charges?

The only things that Kerry actually seems to be guilty of is being a less dynamic speaker than he could be, perhaps not going on the offensive enough, and letting the Bush Administration bamboozle him into voting for the Iraq war. The last one I think is a valid criticism, but even so, he’s still far and above the better candidate than Bush. Kerry wasn’t my first choice for the Democratic nomination, but that’s a far cry from “god-awful” candidate.

Sorry to bring Bush into it, but when you make baseless charges against Kerry - charges which Bush is MORE guilty of, it becomes impossible not to mention Bush. It would be like Charles Manson running for office and calling his opponent a murderer.

Seems like you mention this a lot, and I’m always baffled by it. I thought Gore did very well in the debates. The usual crowd was declaring Bush the winner because he seemed to come off as a “good ol’ boy” to many people, but those types were also gushing about his recent utterly vacuous acceptance speech, too. (I actually heard him praised for not ‘stumbling over his words like he usually does’, as though that were the most important criteria.) There will always be people who consider the presidential race to be a popularity contest, but there are just as many people who consider the content of what is said to be more important. And considering that more people voted for Gore than for Bush, I would say that if we had to declare a “winner” in that debate, it would be Gore.

27

Okie dokie.

Correct. You just check a box on your voter registration card. You don’t even need to make any communication with the actual party. Although, in some states, you don’t need to be registered with the party in order to vote in that party’s primary - it’s called open ballot primaries.

Correct.

Correct, then incorrect. New Hampshire is actually more conservative than the nation at large, but not really by much. Resulting in the Democrats fielding wishy-washy candidates attempting to appeal to the conservatives in New Hampshire. Incidentally, losing in New Hampshire is hardly a death sentence on a campaign. It’s mostly really important for the more obscure candidates as it gets them a boost in media coverage.

It’s hardly a few activists lumbering anything. Kerry was actually the Party’s golden boy - the activists wanted Dean. And you really overestimate the sort of influence that the national party wields. Things are pretty decentralized, and that’s largely what the election forms a few decades ago were meant to achieve.

28

The Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, was signed on September 3, 1783. We also fought the British again in 1812, and Britain came close to supporting the Confederacy in the Civil War.

29

Hmmm, how odd, especially given the quote below

30

Owlstretchingtime, if you will examine Blowero’s post (and this is no slam on him, as I’m sure he’s proud of what he is) you will find what I described to you as the quintessential partisan Democrat. Life is unfair. Military decorations are jewelry. The Republicans aren’t just the opposition; they are the enemy. And so forth. Blowero’s Republican equivalents are also on the board from time to time, but certainly much fewer in number. Look for support of the war… still. God is on our side. And Democrats aren’t just hapless; they’re evil.

31

Well, you wanted to be corrected if you were wrong. Here goes.

Kerry is a “wimp”? Let’s define wimp as someone lacking courage. Kerry could easily have gotten into a rich boy unit and stayed at home, as Bush did. Instead he chose to go Vietnam, thus risking a sizeable chance of his own death for no reason other than that he felt his country deserved his service. Hundred of Vietnam vets have testified that while fighting there, he showed incredible courage even compared to other American soldiers. On one occasion he risked his own safety and went into the path of enemy fire to resuce a wounded comrade’s life. If your own life had been saved in such a manner, would you call your rescuer a wimp?

Second, purple hearts. They work like this. Once a name is put forward as a nominee, the army investigates whether that person actually displayed the astonsihing bravery and honor that makes them worthy of receiving a purple heart. If the investigation finds no reason to doubt the claim, then the purple heart is awarded. The injuries sustained by Kerry or any other recepient are severe, for more than snagging a nail. Let me ask you something, Owl. Suppose you were trying to save someone’s life, and you got severely injured in the process. How would you feel if someone made a completely groundless charge that you hadn’t actually been injured and that you’d faked the whole thing to make yourself look good?

There is absolutely no evidence that Kerry exaggerated his military service. If you’ve got some evidence, I’d love to see it.

“A hopeless communicator?” That’s an opinion question. At least he can get through a speech without accidentally praising terrorism or arguing against democracy, which is more than Shrub can say.

“Out of touch…” Bush has said that it’s good when working class jobs are exported to China. Kerry has said it’s bad. Who’s more out of touch? You decide.

How can Kerry win. He’s been up by as much as nine points at times. With McCain as his running mate, he would have been up by thirteen points. Given that earlier this year Repubs were patting themselves on the back and congratulating each other about the thirty-point victory they would ring up in November, it seems to me that Kerry is a pretty good choice of a candidate.

You say that the left-leaning British press is trying to make Kerry look better. But in this thread you’ve provided evidence that they are telling many viscious and slanderous lies about him to the British people. Given that, perhaps you should consider the possibility that maybe they’re actually trying to make Kerry look bad. If they’re trying to make him look good, then why are they slandering him in this manner?

32

Wow, Lib - this is weak even for you. I guess if you can’t come up with a cogent response to any of my points, you just substitute this crap. Jesus Christ, you don’t even seem to be trying anymore. If what you got out of my post was “military decorations are jewelry”, you have a very serious comprehension problem.

33

Firstly there is still legitimate inquiry imo into the 1st Purple Heart Kerry received. I mean his Commanding Officer has said point blank that that Purple Heart was not recommended by anyone other than John Kerry himself. And it’s considered pretty inappropriate to recommend yourself for any medal.

I’ve not heard any credible scandal about Kerry’s other two purple hearts or his Bronze or Silver star, but then again I’ve not read into this aspect of the campaign. Military service thirty years ago means absolutely nothing to me in terms of choosing a President.

34

owl:
Ah! I see your problem! You speak of classes of people who only talk to others like them, & we have those, but then, you only know what’s available in Britain!

Here’s the deal. We have some people in this country who actually argue with each other. I’m one of them. (Heck, sometimes I argue with myself!)

And Bush screwed up. This matters.
Dick Nixon didn’t win in 1968 because he was so great, but because the incumbent, Johnson, actually quit, refusing to run again, which indicated things were bad.
Jimmy Carter couldn’t help but beat Gerald Ford, “the President no one voted for,” after Dick Nixon resigned.
And Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter more because people weren’t that impressed with Carter’s actual accomplishments than because they were impressed with Reagan’s stint as California governor.
In all these cases, the election was a referendum on the incumbent, & the incumbent lost.

When people say they’ll vote against Bush because he put us in a war that we didn’t need to be in, I think they probably will.
The Republican base is incredible, but not a majority. Not even in most “conservative” states. And while Bush may hold his base, the Republicans typically do. The non-base voters, or “center” decide the elections.

So here’s Bush. Never caught Bin Laden, but opened up another front on a secular Arab ruler. Pushed through a “Patriot Act” for increased security, with enhanced surveillance rights for police, in a country where personal privacy is kind of a big deal (people like to be able to do what they want). Were these decisions wrong? Maybe not. But–oh, yeah–the man can’t finish a coherent sentence in public. He looks dumber than he is. And Kerry is–what? Oh, yeah. A Democrat.

Republicans have raised a lack of concern for social ills to the level of a supposed virtue. It’s surreal. Democrats, on the other hand, have raised concern for social ills to the level of bribing the public with money from unnamed sources–but they do have concern for their own country. And right now, that’s going to look good to a lot of people.

It’s not a foregone conclusion. People still have actually to vote, of course. And it’ll be close. But Bush does not have this in the bag.

35

And hey, I thought anointing Kerry in Iowa was stupid. I wanted Clark, or Edwards, or Dean. But, they didn’t ask me.

36

The election was Gore’s to lose. He was the heir apparent of a very popular president in a time of prosperity when only those of us who watch the economic cycles were sure that the bubble was deflating. Gore should have won in a walk. One of the reasons that a number of people think that Bush was able to get nearly 50% of the popular vote was the number of people who appear to have been swayed by the debates. In the first debate, (which Bush barely stumbled through), Gore lost a lot of people with his eye rolling and other dismissive gestures toward Bush. In the following debates, Bush got his act together and presented a picture of a potential leader. It does not matter who truly won the debate on points (Nixon was generally awarded more forensic points than Kennedy by those who care about such things); the important issue is the presentation of the candidate under fire. Reagan lied his way through the debates with Carter (in his famous “There you go again” remark, Carter was accurate and truthful and Reagan was lying), but Reagan presented himself as a leader and Carter buried himself with talk of ever more “government programs.”

I have no idea who won the scoring of the Bush-Gore debates in the second and third debates, but Bush handed Gore his head on a platter in terms of gaining popular support. Kerry faces an already popular Bush. (Nearly half of us may hate him, but that figure must change to more than half of us hate him for Kerry to win.)

37

Hillary Clinton is the key figure in this election. It’s not true to say that the Democrats want to lose this election. For John Kerry it would be his greatest ambition fulfilled. You can be sure that he’ll be doing everything he can to win. So will his team.

BUT, there exists the spectre of Hillary hovering over proceedings. She could have run in 2004, but chose not to. Chances of winning were slim, and just one failed attempt would have rendered her a no-hoper in future elections. (Just check how many failed candidates have bounced back and run again.) In 2008, she will not be running against the incumbent president (due to the constitution that prevents presidents serving more than two terms), but against another newbie. Moreover, not too often do the Republicans provide hold the Presidency for more than two terms. Given that they are philosophically inclined against big government and tend to be relatively legislatively inactive, there is a peception that they are running out of steam and have no more to offer by the time they approach the end of their second term.

I wonder who Hill’s hoping will win on 2 November.

38

Are you sure about that? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I seem to have a different recollection. Much of the criticism (and fear) regarding Reagan was that he was supposed to be this shoot-from-the-hip cowboy type and thought to be someone who would be quick to use American power against its enemies. Wasn’t Carter alluding to some sort of danger allegedly posed by Reagan’s so-called shoot-from-the-hip proclivities?

I could be wrong, but that’s how I remember it. And I don’t believe I’ve ever heard any criticism of Reagan (and I’ve read and heard plenty) to the effect that he was lying about something when he made that comment.

39

Carter made reference to a specific statement of Reagan’s in which he had called for a voluntary social security program in 1965. Reagan (who had pushed the idea on several occasions), denied having ever said that, prefacing his denial with “There you go again.” (The “again” was in reference to Carter’s earlier (correct) point that Reagan had, at one time, declared that he was not concerned about nuclear proliferation, which Reagan, typically, denied having said.)

40

tomndebb, none of what you say rings any kind of bell with me, but I know enough of your posting style to know you don’t say things frivolously. I’ll take your word for it. Thanks.