Why Kerry will lose

[Polerius]

I seem to have noticed a pattern in the way Democrats and Republicans (or liberals and conservatives) react to criticism of their candidate.

Dems accept criticism of their guy & say stuff like, “yeah, Kerry is boring/uncharismatic/etc, but I’m voting for him just because I want to get rid of Bush, and anybody but Bush will do”

Reps NEVER say anything like that. They always defend their candidate against every attack, and say that they think he is a great leader and that they are voting for him, not against Kerry. Nobody on the right says, “yes, Bush is an idiot who can’t construct a proper sentence, and he is also a liar who took us to war, but I’m voting for him because anybody but Kerry will do”.

Instead, people go to great lengths to prove that Bush is not an idiot and that he didn’t lie about WMD’s.

There was a poll about a month ago (I don’t have a cite) that said that Kerry supporters were just anti-Bush, but Bush supporters were pro-Bush.

Why are Democrats so honest about how boring/uncharismatic/etc their guy is? Why don’t they follow the right’s example of never saying anything against your guy, even if it is true?

The undecideds (who will end up deciding the election) see one side admitting their guy is crap, while the other side claims their guy is a national hero and true leader. If they keep hearing this again and again in the media, of course they will vote for Bush.

BTW, this “honesty” on the part of the Democrats (TV pundits, SDMB posters, and averaga people) about their candidate is not limited to the Kerry-Bush case. Similar things happened in the Gore-Bush race (“yeah, Gore is stiff and uncharismatic”) and in the recall of Gray Davis in California(“yeah, Davis is an asshole, but we have to vote for him”). This, of course is no way to convince independents to vote for your guy.

No one from the left said “Davis did these and these great things”. I would bet that if someone like Davis on the right was being recalled, almost everyone from the right would defend him and his record and NO ONE would say “he’s a jerk, but vote for him anyway”

Of course, the question arises as to why the Republicans are able to pull this off. Are they psychologically unable to find any flaw in their guy? Or do they have a policy of never admiting these flaws in public? What amazes me is the uniformity of the Republican response to several issues. Maybe the Democrats should try to master the level of groupthink that the Republicans have.

Latest example of why Kerry will lose:
Now that the issue of Bush’s service in the National Guard came up again, people on the right are saying “you know, this isssue isn’t that important and people won’t pay any attention”. The response from the left seems to be mostly “yeah, you’re right, this isn’t a very important issue, let’s go to the next issue”. When, instead they should be hammering how awful this is (no matter how awful it actually is) for ages and ages until it seeps into the minds of the undecideds that “yes, this is awful”, like the SBVT issue and countless other similar attacks from the right.

[SteveG1]

The Dems better start fighting back and pushing HARD for debates. They can not win by sitting on their hands. They need to go on the attack.

[XT]

The debates will decide this. Kerry needs to be smart and NOT go on the attack. What he needs to do is to define his own record instead of letting the Republicans define it. If he lashes out (as he has been since the RNC) its not going to make him look strong…its going to make him look defensive and weak. He needs to certainly hammer Bush no his record, no doubt about that…but he needs to spend some serious time telling the American people about his record as a senator…what he did, what he accomplished, and how this makes him qualified as president.

To touch on the OP though, it certainly hasn’t made Kerry a strong candidate that the majority (or at least a not insignificant minority) of his supporters are simply voting ‘not Bush’. I don’t think this will be the ONLY reason that Kerry loses (if in fact he does lose)…personally I think that the major reasons will be his badly run campaign. They have failed completely in getting a coherent and cohesive message out for Kerry…and they have failed in getting his record out to the people so that they KNOW who this Kerry guy is and what he will do if he becomes president.

-XT

[XT]

Thats Bush ON his record. Sigh.

-XT

[rjung]

@Polerius

Of course, the question arises as to why the Republicans are able to pull this off. Are they psychologically unable to find any flaw in their guy? Or do they have a policy of never admiting these flaws in public? What amazes me is the uniformity of the Republican response to several issues. Maybe the Democrats should try to master the level of groupthink that the Republicans have.

It’s that uniformity that keeps many of us from going Republican. We don’t want to be members of a zombie-like hive mind, we want to accept and tolerate true differences in opinions and lifestyles and beliefs and whatnot.

In many ways, the modern Republican Party more and more resembles a cult. Unfortunately, it’s a cult with a lot of money and very few scruples, which makes them even worse than Scientologists.

[XT]

And all that moderate centrist stuff that was being spouted at the DNC…was that REALLY the position of the majority of Democrats ( :dubious: ), or were they also bopping along in a lemming like manner rjung?? Both sides toe the line when they have too, and its your own blindness that doesn’t allow you to see that you are casting stones from your glass house…as usual.

For the record, both parties have plenty of diversity of thought…as can be plainly seen by anyone who actually looks at the PEOPLE in the two parties.

-XT

[Sevastopol]

It is a common failing of left wing parties in democracies. Why, I don’t know, perhaps the preponderance of academics and educated people, but it drives me batty.

Throw these parties a curve ball and they go into a group huddle, weigh the competing arguments, giving each nuance and speaker due respect, then eventually produce a 9 page powerpoint presentation in environmentally sensitive hues that reflects the mutually agreed consensus.

Meantime the opponent has amply recovered from laughing themselves silly, carpet bombed punchy talking points right, left and centre and moved onto point 2 of its menu, which the public laps up.

You have to hand it to them, the right wing is far more adept at street fighting politics.

[ccwaterback]

I think Bush is a crackpot, but I just can’t envision Kerry as President, he seems like a big wimp.

[elfkin477]

@Polerius

Reps NEVER say anything like that. They always defend their candidate against every attack, and say that they think he is a great leader and that they are voting for him, not against Kerry. Nobody on the right says, “yes, Bush is an idiot who can’t construct a proper sentence, and he is also a liar who took us to war, but I’m voting for him because anybody but Kerry will do”.

Instead, people go to great lengths to prove that Bush is not an idiot and that he didn’t lie about WMD’s.

@elfkin477

I’m voting for Bush too. Again. A fool is (marginally) better than a madman. Although the sick little part of me that finds perverse pleasure in accumulating snowfall totals during blizards and rising gas prices does wonder what handbasket we’d be taking to hell if Kerry does win…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4900743&highlight=Kerry#post4900743

@elfkin477

Exactly. For many of us conservatives, this election really is a case of “the devil you know.” Had you dems nominated Liberman or Edwards, some of us might have gone over to the dark side- at least for one election- but you nominated Kerry. I’m not too thrilled with Bush, but there’s no way in hell I’d vote for John Kerry, and I’m not an idealist so I’m not voting for Nader or another useless third party, so Bush it is.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4649710&highlight=Kerry#post4649710

Okay, I’ve disproven the OP’s notion that ALL people voting forBush always defend him and never say they’re voting for him because Anyone But Kerry Will Do. What do I win?

[Sam_Stone]

Another problem Kerry is having right now is that his own party is diminishing him by criticising him publically. Kerry is supposed to be ready to be the President of the United States, and he needs to take phone call from Bill Clinton and be lectured on how to behave? Kerry says he’s furious because his campaign manager told him not to respond to the Swift Vets? Hey John, remember THE BUCK STOPS HERE??? You want to be commander-in-chief, and you let your campaign manager push you around?

[Hambil]

@Sam Stone

You want to be commander-in-chief, and you let your campaign manager push you around?

Like Bush hasn’t doing whatever Rove says for the last decade of his life?

[Polerius]

@elfkin477

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4900743&highlight=Kerry#post4900743

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4649710&highlight=Kerry#post4649710

Okay, I’ve disproven the OP’s notion that ALL people voting forBush always defend him and never say they’re voting for him because Anyone But Kerry Will Do. What do I win?

Actually, in those threads people mostly critisized Bush’s policies, whereas with Clinton, Gore, Kerry, people on the left were agreeing with the right’s attacks on their character:
Clinton: “Yes, he is a scumbag, but …”
Gore: “Yes, he is stiff and almost wooden, but …”
Kerry: “Yes, he is boring and uncharismatic, but …”

I don’t see people on the right saying about Bush “Yes he is an idiot and a liar, but …”. They say stuff like “Yes, he messed up in Iraq, but …” or “Yes, he spends too much, but …”. Nobody admits to any character flaws, the way the Democrats do.

Also, to address the “never” comment: If someone is moving to Saudi Arabia and asks you how the weather is there, and you say “It’s very hot and it never rains”, and then someone finds that in September 1897 it actually did rain for a couple of hours, was your statement false? No. In pure logic terms maybe, but as a statement meant to convey to your friend how it is to live there, it was correct. (Not sure if it actually ever rains in Saudi Arabia; just using it as an example)

[Kizarvexius]

I have noticed this trend as well, and it seems to me that one of the most prominent aspects of today’s Democratic/liberal philosophy is bitter cynicism. I’ve seen plenty of arguments on this and other boards that went like this:

conservative: Fahrenheit 9/11 is a string of lies and half-truths that amounts to nothing but leftist propaganda.
liberal: So? Nobody died from it, unlike Bush’s lies.

[msmith537]

@rjung

It’s that uniformity that keeps many of us from going Republican. We don’t want to be members of a zombie-like hive mind, we want to accept and tolerate true differences in opinions and lifestyles and beliefs and whatnot.

In many ways, the modern Republican Party more and more resembles a cult. Unfortunately, it’s a cult with a lot of money and very few scruples, which makes them even worse than Scientologists.

THe problem with the Democrats is that their “tolerance of diversity” translates into an overly political and disjointed campaign. Unlike the Republicans who present a clear set of beliefs and objectives, the Democratic party line seems more about not offending anyone over any issue. Well, we all know that trying to please EVERYONE at once is a sure fire way to please NOONE. I think that’s the problem all along is that the Democrats try to be all things to all people.

And I have to tell you, every time I see a freak or wierdo in NY with an anti-Bush sign, I have to wonder if I really want to follow the lunatic-fringe vote.

[Fear_Itself]

@msmith537

And I have to tell you, every time I see a freak or wierdo in NY with an anti-Bush sign, I have to wonder if I really want to follow the lunatic-fringe vote.

That’s OK, we’re not to eager too have you anyway. Us freaks have some standards, y’know.

[rjung]

@msmith537

THe problem with the Democrats is that their “tolerance of diversity” translates into an overly political and disjointed campaign.

What was that Will Rogers said about not belonging to an organized political party?

Yeah, the Democrats are not as single-minded, issue-driven, black-and-white ruthlessly efficient as the Republicans are… which is, IMO, all the more reason to vote for them. In a nation with several hundred million folks having a billion different viewpoints, I don’t want a government run by folks who insist that their One True Way is the only acceptable form of governance. We had a war to get rid of that, remember?

[BrotherCadfael]

@sevastopol

It is a common failing of left wing parties in democracies. Why, I don’t know, perhaps the preponderance of academics and educated people, but it drives me batty.

Throw these parties a curve ball and they go into a group huddle, weigh the competing arguments, giving each nuance and speaker due respect, then eventually produce a 9 page powerpoint presentation in environmentally sensitive hues that reflects the mutually agreed consensus.

Meantime the opponent has amply recovered from laughing themselves silly, carpet bombed punchy talking points right, left and centre and moved onto point 2 of its menu, which the public laps up.

You have to hand it to them, the right wing is far more adept at street fighting politics.

This is, essentially, the Picard/Kirk dichotomy. While Jean-Luc is busy asking Ricker, Troi, and Data for options, Kirk just phasers his ass to Kingdom Come.

[furt]

@sevastopol

It is a common failing of left wing parties in democracies. Why, I don’t know, perhaps the preponderance of academics and educated people, but it drives me batty.

Throw these parties a curve ball and they go into a group huddle, weigh the competing arguments, giving each nuance and speaker due respect, then eventually produce a 9 page powerpoint presentation in environmentally sensitive hues that reflects the mutually agreed consensus.

Meantime the opponent has amply recovered from laughing themselves silly, carpet bombed punchy talking points right, left and centre and moved onto point 2 of its menu, which the public laps up.

You have to hand it to them, the right wing is far more adept at street fighting politics.

There is truth in this; but you catch only the half of it which flatters your side. The other side of the story is that there are times when the occasion demands a clear and confident statement of principles, plan and goal.

To mock intellectual nuance is foolish; however it is equally foolish to dismiss the ability to articulate a clear and determined message as simple sloganeering.

[MrK]

Isaac Asimov in Robots and Empire

It is not reason that is contagious but emotion.

It will be a difficult election unless the Dems can come up with an emotional appeal to the undecideds. What emotional issues can Kerry call upon to grab them? 1000 military dead in Iraq? What else does he have?

[Hazel]

@MrK

It will be a difficult election unless the Dems can come up with an emotional appeal to the undecideds. What emotional issues can Kerry call upon to grab them? 1000 military dead in Iraq? What else does he have?

Well, I think all the utterly needless death and destruction of the utterly unnecessary Iraq War might make a pretty good emotional appeal. But it’s hardly the only one. There’s also the environment, the religious right agenda, civil liberties, abortion rights, supreme court appointments, and a big tax cut whose benefits went almost entirely to the very wealthy. Emotional appeals could be made on the basis of any or all of these things.

But I don’t think it’s “the undecideds” (if such actually exist) that either side needs to appeal to – it’s the nonvoters; the half of the country who didn’t vote in 2000. Perhaps an optimist would say that the non-voters could be called undecideds, but that what they are undecided about isn’t which candidate to vote for, it’s whether there’s any point in voting. The pessimist would say that they’re not undecided at all; they’re not even considering voting.