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

[Shodan]

@tomndebb

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.”

Not that it matters now, but this is incorrect.

Reagan was talking about Medicare, not Social Security.

These are the kinds of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American people. Governor Reagan, again, typically is against such a proposal.

MR. SMITH: Governor?

MR. REAGAN: There you go again. When I opposed Medicare, there was another piece of legislation meeting the same problem before the Congress. I happened to favor the other piece of legislation…

@owlstretchingtime

What I am after is an explanation to a non-American of how Kerry could stand a chance in November.

It is still quite close.

Kerry got essentially no bounce from his convention, and Bush got one from his, but there are still a couple of months till the election. The debates are coming up, and it is conceivable that Kerry could gain an advantage from something that happens there. I doubt that he will, in part because Democrats still are trying to convince themselves that Bush is stupid, and that everyone in the country will perceive the results of the debate as they will. In the eyes of some, as long as Kerry doesn’t drool or run off the stage crying he will have scored a decisive victory, but that is not necessarily the case for everyone.

The lowered expectations of “Bush is a dummy - Kerry will wipe the floor with him” of course play to Bush’s advantage, as then when Bush holds his own it will be perceived as a victory for Bush.

Kerry’s big disadvantage is that he has essentially only two themes to his campaign - “I am not Bush” and “I am a war hero”. Neither are decisive.

Despite the increasingly frantic attempts to attack the Swift Boat veterans, there are some issues with Kerry’s war service. Probably not as bad as some allegations would have you believe, but he is probably not the stainless knight the Dems would present him as. Most of his fellow swift boat commanders do not support him, and Kerry’s attacks on the military in Viet Nam after his return, his discarding of his ribbons in protest, and his earlier vote against the Gulf War have lost him significant support among veterans and the military. All this, and his attempts to distance himself from his vote in favor of the Iraq invasion have put some dents in his “war hero” qualifications.

And “I am not Bush” is not a real strong selling point among those who don’t hate Bush already. Probably not strong enough (in my expectation) to overcome the advantages of incumbency, and the tendency to perceive Bush as stronger on national security.

Basically, the Dems have shot the bolt in the campaign to date, and don’t really have any new ideas on how to sell Kerry. His record in the Senate is distinguished in its lack of distinction, and what there is makes him out to be a fairly squishy-soft liberal.

Kerry’s best chance is for either the economy to go sour, badly enough that it is clear that it is not just spin by the Dems, and/or for Bush to make some major gaffe, either in the campaign trail or in the debates. Which I rather doubt will happen, although it could.

Or perhaps the level of anti-Bush animus is higher than it appears in the polls, and the "anybody but Bush"crowd turns out in record numbers. Which, ISTM, won’t happen if the status quo maintains itself.

Kerry isn’t out of it completely, by any stretch. And the polls aren’t that far away from a toss-up.

I just don’t think you can take Europe (or the SDMB) as characterizing the American electorate. There are actually good reasons to vote for Bush, try as the extremists might to deny it. Just because you can’t convince some people of it doesn’t mean you can’t convince others.

Regards,
Shodan

[blowero]

Tom&Deb:
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.

Wow. I wrote a really great response and it got eaten. :mad:

So here goes my probably not-as-good response:

You seem very studied in politics, so I guess I’ll take your word for it, but I sure don’t remember things that way. Yeah, Clinton handily won re-election with a booming economy and an extremely weak opponent, but by the end of his second term he had been humiliated in the press with the Monica-gate scandal, had been accused of “wagging the dog” when he tried to take military action against terrorists, and there were already signs that the economy was faltering, if I remember correctly. Clinton had been emasculated, and IIRC Gore didn’t want to be seen as trying to ride his coattails, especially after that stuff. I don’t see how merely being Clinton’s vice-president would have been enough to hand him the election.

But maybe I’m remembering it wrong. Are you saying Gore had a huge lead in the polls already from the starting gate, before he even started campaigning? And that he squandered that lead? What exactly did Gore do to screw things up? He was relentlessly criticized during the campaign for being “boring” and dry, yet when he stood up to Bush in the debates and took a more aggressive tact, he got criticized for that. I’m just not seeing what he could have done differently that would have made any difference.

At the risk of offending people, I believe that Gore appealed to intellectuals, while Bush appealed to the “average Joe” or “good ol’ boy”, and if I understand you correctly, that’s kind of what you’re saying. And the country seems to be split almost exactly down the middle between these 2 camps. But I’m not seeing how this constitutes a failure of Gore’s. Winning the popular vote is nothing to sneeze at.

Sorry for the hijack.

[roger_thornhill]

@DMC

This is the same wimp who volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn’t told to go, he asked specifically. His exact words were, on paper, “I request duty in Vietnam.”

As I understand things, John Kerry was 22 when he enlisted for service in 1966 having graduated from Yale. I have a couple of questions:

1. During his time at Yale had he formulated views pro or contra the Vietnam War? If so, what were those views and how well are they attested?

2. Since the draft was in place in 1966, when Kerry graduated, and would not be dropped until 1973, and since Kerry was 22 (an age I believe that put an individual in line for a relatively early draft), were the chances not high that, had Kerry not volunteered, he would have been drafted anyway?

[Atticus_Finch]

@roger thornhill

1. During his time at Yale had he formulated views pro or contra the Vietnam War? <snip>

2. <snip>…were the chances not high that, had Kerry not volunteered, he would have been drafted anyway?

What’s the relevance of these questions? I fail to see how they have anything to do with Kerry’s character, or the issues at hand.

[roger_thornhill]

It’s really addressed to **DMC ** and anyone else who might have the straight dope on this.

[Sam_Stone]

The new ABC News/Washington Post poll is out. As I understand it, this is the first comprehensive poll taken exclusively after the Republican convention (other polls had a mix of samples from before, during, and after).

The result: Bush 52%, Kerry 43%. Kerry is down 9 points.

But even more troubling for Kerry is that Bush leads him on almost every major subcategory:

According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, registered voters by a 27-point margin now say Bush has taken a clearer stand than Kerry on the issues, by 27 points call Bush the stronger leader and by 19 points say he would make the country safer. Bush also has a 22-point advantage in trust to handle terrorism, a 16-point lead on Iraq and perhaps a slight edge even on the lukewarm economy.

If Kerry can’t even poll higher than Bush on the economy, he’s got nothing left. He’s WAY behind on all the war/terror/security issues. His strategy seems to be moving back to “It’s the economy, stupid”. But these poll numbers would suggest there’s not a lot of traction to be had there.

Bush’s support also seems more solid. 63% of Bush supporters say they are “very enthusiastic” about him, but only 39% of the Kerry supporters say the same.

Kerry can still win the election, but he needs a home run now. A major issue, a huge stumble by Bush in the debates, a major hit to the economy that can be attributed to Bush.

[Little_Nemo]

Owl, why are you bothering with all this Kerry bashing? You’re not even an American. Shouldn’t you be whining about Blair?

This may come as a shock to you, but the British Army does not have such a medal - neither does any other vaguely first rate military nation. It’s the USA that’s the odd one out here.

And this may come as a shock to you, but there are those who think the United States is a first rate military nation. There is even a school of thought that contends that for the last ten years it’s been the only example of such.

Since the draft was in place in 1966, when Kerry graduated, and would not be dropped until 1973, and since Kerry was 22 (an age I believe that put an individual in line for a relatively early draft), were the chances not high that, had Kerry not volunteered, he would have been drafted anyway?

Kerry was initially assigned to shipboard duty on a frigate and he then specifically requested to transfer to a unit serving in Vietnam.

I would think, however, that a televised pre-election debate would be about the last place where a candidate would lie about an easily verifiable fact.

The rebuttal is that so many people remember the quip itself and so few remember what the actual content of the discussion was over. Unfortunately too many people vote for the image over the substance.

[roger_thornhill]

@Little Nemo

Kerry was initially assigned to shipboard duty on a frigate and he then specifically requested to transfer to a unit serving in Vietnam.

Thanks for that. Why would anyone do that, unless they were both very brave *and * a passionate believer in the war? If one saw active service in Vietnam, was one more likely to get out of the military quicker?

I’m still interested in his stance while at Yale, since, as far as I understand, he enlisted more or less directly from there. Was he known to have pro or indeed anti war views during his 3(?) years there?

[Sam_Stone]

To be fair, Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty when they were actually doing coastal patrol, a relatively safe duty. After Kerry joined the Swiftboats, their mission got changed to river patrol and got a hell of a lot more dangerous. Kerry has written that he was really unhappy about that.

At no time did Kerry volunteer for combat duty. He wound up in combat because that’s where the Navy sent him, but it was against his wishes.

I think the point is fairly moot - 90% of the people who wind up in combat wind up there for the same reason Kerry did, so this isn’t a knock on him at all.

But it’s important to be accurate. Kerry was not gung-ho about combat. He volunteered for the Navy after a deferment to Paris was denied by the military, and he was looking at being drafted anyway. It was actually quite common then for people with the education to get away with it to volunteer for the Navy and head for officer training rather than risking being drafted into the army as an infantryman. Kerry had a boating background, the Navy was the least dangerous service to be in in Vietnam, and the draft was looming. So he made a smart decision, and signed up. Again, this is not a knock on Kerry - it’s a smart and reasonable choice to make given the options Kerry had. But again, his motivation was not to charge into combat. He was looking for the most suitable service in which to ride out the war.

[Marley23]

@roger thornhill

2. Since the draft was in place in 1966, when Kerry graduated, and would not be dropped until 1973, and since Kerry was 22 (an age I believe that put an individual in line for a relatively early draft), were the chances not high that, had Kerry not volunteered, he would have been drafted anyway?

I can’t say for sure, but I think it’s probable he could have wiggled out of it if he’d wanted to. His father did work for the State Department.

[DanBlather]

Owl: I am sure that repeated watchings of Friends and Baywatch have kept you very much on top of American politics, but perhaps you have missed an episode here or there as your post is rife with laughable assertions.

I am really not sure where to begin, but here are just a few points:

Suggesting that Kerry is somehow more of an upper-class candidate than Bush is silly. Both men come from a long line of the rich and privileged. If anything, Bush’s family is richer. That Texas twang of Bush is an affectation. Granted, Kerry did marry well (the second time).

Are you suggesting that Kerry is a poor communicator as compared to Bush? Our current president can barely string two sentences together without some sort of malapropism.

Kerry a wimp? He volunteered for swift boat duty. Whether Purple Hearts are worthwhile or not is a red-herring. The man has a Silver and Bronze star. Coming back and opposing the war in such a public manner also took a great deal of courage. Compare that to the pro-Vietnam War Bush who did not deem it worth his time to go to Vietnam. He then left his guard duty early so that he could work on the Senate campaign for another pro-war conservative.

But, Bush will probably win. Our conservative media has somehow let Bush get away with the assertion that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 (is it 11/9 on your side of the pond?) and the public has bought it.

[roger_thornhill]

@Sam Stone

To be fair, Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty when they were actually doing coastal patrol, a relatively safe duty. After Kerry joined the Swiftboats, their mission got changed to river patrol and got a hell of a lot more dangerous. Kerry has written that he was really unhappy about that.

At no time did Kerry volunteer for combat duty. He wound up in combat because that’s where the Navy sent him, but it was against his wishes.

I think the point is fairly moot - 90% of the people who wind up in combat wind up there for the same reason Kerry did, so this isn’t a knock on him at all.

But it’s important to be accurate. Kerry was not gung-ho about combat. He volunteered for the Navy after a deferment to Paris was denied by the military, and he was looking at being drafted anyway. It was actually quite common then for people with the education to get away with it to volunteer for the Navy and head for officer training rather than risking being drafted into the army as an infantryman. Kerry had a boating background, the Navy was the least dangerous service to be in in Vietnam, and the draft was looming. So he made a smart decision, and signed up. Again, this is not a knock on Kerry - it’s a smart and reasonable choice to make given the options Kerry had. But again, his motivation was not to charge into combat. He was looking for the most suitable service in which to ride out the war.

Thanks for that. Such information provides a factual basis for the feeling I got when watching the CNN feature on John Kerry that he was extremely ambivalent about his war record, even uncomfortable about it.

He really is caught between a rock and a hard place. More so in some ways than Bush, who footled around in Texas and Alabama(?), and didn’t cover himself with glory, to put it mildly. Bush’s behaviour can be spun as laddish, and time is a great healer, anyway. More than 30 years have passed since his ignoble conduct and he hasn’t sexed up stories about Vietnam, for the good reason that he never went there. For this reason, he is less likely to piss off the vets and those with a strong emotional tie to the military aspect of US life.

Kerry, on the other hand, as almost any smart Ivy League kid would have done, tried to minimise his chances of dying in a war he didn’t believe in, ended up doing some major frontline stuff (albeit on a boat) and then returns to the States and points out the idiocy of the war as a vet. Which of course Bush can’t do, since he never fought.

It seems to me that Bush was lucky in several respects: to be born a few years later than Kerry, to have an influential father, and to have a happy go lucky personality.

Back to the OP, I don’t see how it can benefit Kerry to push his heroism credentials in the complicated and highly emotive circumstances. But what else has he got? We’re back at the ‘anyone but Bush’ square one. And, as others have pointed out, Bush only has to put a few coherent thoughts together at the debate to come off better there too. For if Kerry gets too cute in the debating, won’t this have a net negative effect with voters, as the majority of the “teeming idiots” (and even some thinking people) will interpret his performance as disingenuous and typical of a lying lawyer?

[Barbarian]

I think there are a couple things about US politics that are necessary to point out.

1. national polls are absosmurfly irrelevant. They matter not one whit in determining anything, because of the whole electoral college thing (which seems criminally anti-democratic to me, but I’m an alien in the States). The only thing that matters is individual state polls.

2. Voter apathy is HUGE. Bigger than I can comprehend. 100 million people didn’t vote in 2000. It only takes 1/2% of that number in the right place to plant the election firmly in one camp or the other.

3. In the grand scheme of US politics, whichever party has more seats in Congress matters more than who is in the West Wing.

[owlstretchingtime]

I am not impartial; I’m not claiming to be impartial. I am a dyed in the wool conservative – I would have thought that was obvious.

However as I have also made clear I am uninvolved – ie neutral in the sense that whatever I think is worth as much as a Scouser’s cheque, as I cannot influence the outcome one iota.

However what I have been trying to do is ask this question: “Given that this is the impression I have gained from my exposure to the, partisan, British media, is there really any hope in hell of Kerry winning the election?” Maybe I haven’t explained that properly – if so; sorry.

It seems that the impression that I have picked up – which is that Kerry is a dead-in-the-water no hoper who is sailing towards electoral oblivion isn’t right – he does seem to have a live chance. That’s really what I wanted to know, so thanks for that. This isn’t the impression you would necessarily reach from the British media.

He’s still a big-chinned tosser with American hair though

Anyone care to predict the actual outcome?

[Polerius]

@roger thornhill

And, as others have pointed out, Bush only has to put a few coherent thoughts together at the debate to come off better there too.

It’s attitudes like these that almost guarantee a Bush win in November. (not your attitude roger, necessarily, just the attitude out there: in the media and among the populace)

It’s mind boggling how we have come to the point where one candidate is so inept at talking that if he manages to say a couple of sentences correct he is considered the “winner” of the debates?

Why don’t the “liberal” media point this out? I have no idea. Maybe they are lazy, or don’t want to piss off a bunch of conservative yahoos who might do the equivalent of buying “W” ketchup.

Why do the people think he will “win” the debates if he simply doesn’t screw up? I have no idea. Maybe they are stupid. People on the Right always complain that people on the Left think everyone who disagrees with them is stupid. Well, in general that may or may not be the case, but when people think someone who presents logical arguments is “being too intellectual”, and prefer a moron who can’t make a logical argument to save his life, then those people are definitely stupid.

And when people condemn Kerry for being a member of the rich elitite, when Bush is also the same and addresses a roomfull of rich eiltes saying “some call you the elite, I call you my base”, then those people are stupid.

Unfortunately, they will decide the election. Democracy can get quite bad when under the control of demagogues (Athenian Democracy killed Socrates), precisely because the masses are stupid, gullible, and in general lacking in critical thinking. I always laugh when politicians say about their oponents “they underestimate you [the public]”, because I’m pretty sure they themselves don’t think much of the masses.

The quote below is amazing:

On paper, Mr Bush’s record is dire - a soaring deficit, more jobless, an unresolved intervention in the Middle East - just the sort of menu to make voters consider ousting an incumbent.

…The truth is that Kerry has had a disastrous month, fumbling his message on Iraq and failing to refute a brutal but utterly predictable assault on his character. If, as seems likely right now, Mr Kerry loses in November, he has only himself to blame.

So, Kerry had a “disastrous” month because he “fumbled on his message” and “failed to refute an assault on his character”. If this is a disaster, what can someone call Bush’s record, which according to the source above is “dire - a soaring deficit, more jobless, an unresolved intervention in the Middle East”

So “fumbling on message” is disastrous, but “a soaring deficit, more jobless, an unresolved intervention in the Middle East” is only “dire”. And, due to this “disaster”, “Kerry has only himself to blame if he loses”

Yet, I know people buy this. It’s hopeless.

This whole episode in U.S. politics is making me think how useful the political process is. If someone with "“a soaring deficit, more jobless, an unresolved intervention in the Middle East”, wins over someone who is "“fumbling on message”, then the whole process is not at all about issues, but it is just a game of impressions and image. This may not be a surprise to many of you, and I also knew it before, but it is now hitting me how utterly useless the current U.S. political process is in addressing real issues.

[bup]

@Sam Stone

But it’s important to be accurate. Kerry was not gung-ho about combat. He volunteered for the Navy after a deferment to Paris was denied by the military, and he was looking at being drafted anyway. It was actually quite common then for people with the education to get away with it to volunteer for the Navy and head for officer training rather than risking being drafted into the army as an infantryman.

Why didn’t he volunteer for the National Guard, or Coast Guard?

[SentientMeat]

So, owl, the partisan British media have led you to the conclusion that Kerry is a no-hoper, and you have found out here that he actually has a live chance.

Does this not imply that the British media is biased against Kerry?

[owlstretchingtime]

@SentientMeat

So, owl, the partisan British media have led you to the conclusion that Kerry is a no-hoper, and you have found out here that he actually has a live chance.

Does this not imply that the British media is biased against Kerry?

No. It means that the bits I read and take seriously are biased against Kerry.

No doubt a different selection of media would give a different impression.

[Sam_Stone]

bup said:

Why didn’t he volunteer for the National Guard, or Coast Guard?

Uh, because he wanted to go into the Navy? For someone with a nautical background, the Navy is pretty enticing. And if you don’t want to go into combat, the Navy was pretty safe as well. Aside from SEALS, pilots, and deck crew, the Navy was a pretty safe place to be. Kerry wound up doing one of the most dangerous jobs a Navy man could wind up in, but by his own admission this wasn’t his intent.

Again, there’s nothing wrong with this. I wanted to join the Canadian Air Force, and I had no desire to see combat. I just wanted to fly jets (turned down because of vision). Kerry says JFK was one of his heros, and Kerry loved the ocean. Why wouldn’t he want to be a naval officer, especially if it kept him from being an infantryman?

[Little_Nemo]

I think you’re minimizing Kerry’s actions. As I wrote before, Kerry was assigned to shipboard duty; an assignment in which there was zero chance of seeing combat barring a general war with the Soviet Union. All Kerry would have had to do at that point to avoid combat was sit back and complete his tour of duty in the job he had been assigned by the Navy. Nobody could have legitimately questioned his committment or dedication (not that that would have stopped anyone) and “minimized” his chances of being killed. But Kerry then requested reassignment to a unit serving in Vietnam.