Democrats remain ambivalent about Kerry campaign

Union Leader ^ | 6/14/04 | JIM VANDEHEI, Washington Post

[kattracks]

John F. Kerry has shattered fund-raising records, unified an oft-warring party and pushed past President Bush in some national polls. Yet many Democratic voters, officials and even members of Kerry's staff express an ambivalence - or angst - about their presidential candidate that belies this strong public standing.

These Democrats say the enthusiasm for defeating Bush runs much stronger and deeper than the passion for electing Kerry. The chief reason: The Massachusetts senator, they say, has been unable to crisply articulate what a Kerry presidency would stand for beyond undoing much of the Bush agenda.

So far, these concerns have not slowed Kerry. But if Kerry is unable to change this perception coming out of next month's Democratic convention in Boston, it could prove much harder for the Democrats to maximize turnout, win over Ralph Nader voters and keep independents from swinging to Bush, they say.

"There is a danger in that (ambivalence)," said John D. Podesta, White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration. "You can't just be against something. (Voters) want a positive vision of where the country is going, and he has to provide that."

[sgtbono2002]

Kerry has no positive vision. More and more I speak to Democrats and ash why they like Kerry and cant get an answer. I say do you really like Kerry and they answer , I like him better then Bush. Then I question them about him and they dont know him and dont want to listen when given facts. What is driving Dems this year is losing in the last election.They would sell out this country for a win. and they will if we let them.

[R. Scott]

I have been able to talk to a few people who won’t be voting for Mr. Bush in November.
They aren’t really backing Hanoi John - they just don’t want to vote for Mr. Bush, seeing him as too war-like. They can’t come up with any good reasons for voting for Hanoi John - they claim he will announce his plans for the Presidency after he accepts the nomination. They don’t think he is very trustworthy or decisive or a very good leader.
They all say he is “Anyone But Bush”.

[longtermmemmory]

So somebody please explain the recent polls?.

TEven, the Beltway boys on fox even have kerry with an electoral poll lead.

How can there be ambivalence AND a lead?

[longtermmemmory]

You know, its usually the left that says "Mister" Bush ranther than President Bush.

[fso301]

How can there be ambivalence AND a lead?

Depends on who is being polled. Since most citizens don't vote, a more accurate poll would be one focused on registered voters. Of course, not all registered voters actually vote so, to get a really accurate indication, you would need to poll just those registered voters who have a history of voting in the type election you are interested in.

[longtermmemmory]

I think they should only poll super voters. These are voters who vote faithfully at every election. Campaign managers like to isolate supervoters because your money is not wasted sending material to them, you KNOW they will vote.

These days being registered is not enough.

Of course the NAACP is going to push felongs to provisionally vote in Miami using their provisional vote system. Perhaps they should post a sign reminding the public that a convicted felon voting while on probation is a violation of said probation.

[fso301]

One problem for Bush is concerning the war on terror. From the get-go, administration officials said this war would be generally unconventional and would likely take decades if not generations to win.

I agree with that however, the administration needs to keep reminding the public that the war on terror does not end with capturing bin laden, the destruction of al Queda or finding WMD in Iraq. This lack of communication concerning where we are in this war is one problem. The other problem Bush has is he can't ask voters "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?".

[bilhosty]

"Explain the recent polls" Simple, the people are not locked on to Kerry yet, all of the any body but Bush people are liberal ideologues and with their neurotic obsessiveness are following the political scene a little closer then most people hence they are seeing the problems in their candidate that the average person who is not following it that closely does not see. They know full well that as the average person locks into Kerry the he will see the same thing. The polls do show that as Bush lost ground by the above problems Kerry could only gain a little. This too me indicates that those who are looking at Kerry do not seem to like him. Much of Bush's low standing is based on the Iraq mess from April of which he is recovering from as his poll approval numbers show. Also the economy is going full blast. If Joe Blow can't figure that out now, he will by election day. All in all it will be easier for Bush to gain ground then Kerry. That is the reverse of the usual when the challenger finds it easier to gain ground. Several polls namely the Gallup and the Los Angeles Times poll that show a 7 point Kerry lead are filled with contradictions. first, The LA Times poll plainly over sampled Democrats showing them suddenly with 38% of the vote when almost all of their previous polls showed the Democrats at 31%. Also it showed Bush in good standing in some battle ground states like Ohio which would also belie the results and it showed a good 51% approval rating. This is plainly not a good poll. I think the Gallup sample was skewed the same way. The only risk to Bush is if Iraq heats up again, otherwise he is well on his way to reelection.

[Milligan]

People are very disappointed that Dean is not running for President. He answered all their anti-war needs. They want to get the troops out of Iraq now (like Spain) and live in isolation. I think they are compromising their core values by supporting Kerry who is Pro-War. He wants to send 40,000 additional US troops to Iraq and make it into a international peacekeeping mission. How can someone who is anti-war support Kerry? Kerry is a capitalist and is promoting more imperalism. Vote for Nader if you want US out of Iraq. Peace Now!

[alloysteel]

People forget that the conflict in Iraq is only one part of the War on Terror, important in that it takes the front to the Middle East, rather than waging it in Paris, or New York City, or the Phillipines. The US is wrestling with a demon here, and so far, has not been forced to give ground. Sure, we get hurt, but we can still inflict injury and greatly restrict moves the other side can put on us. We are talking about, at most, some tens of thousands of active opponents, but with a most amazing ability, so far, to meld with and camouflage themselves as the civilian population of other Muslims.

We do not fight this War on Terror because we want to, but because we must. With President Bush, there is good reason to believe that so long as we have to fight it, there will be some degree of competency. With a President Kerry, we will still fight the war, but it will be a bumbling effort, worthy of the best effort put forth in Viet Nam, artificially hamstringing ourselves, and giving up concessions long before they are forced upon us. The war effort under Kerry would be vastly more expensive and far less effectual than what is being done now.

There would be no war effort with Ralph Nader as President.

[Rummyfan]

Well, all the 'experts' were picking the Lakers to sweep the Pistons too! When it comes to politcs and the so-called experts, nobody knows nothing! And presidential polls taken in June for an election in November are useless.

[R. Scott]

You know, its usually the left that says "Mister" Bush ranther than President Bush.

I use the term “Mr.” as a sign of respect. Even Clinton was addressed as “President”. Most of the leftists I encounter usually (if they wish to be polite) just say “Bush”.

[counterpunch]

The John Kerry Files

[Milligan]

Bush must win. Bush must win. I agree with you. Inorder to win you must do this. Let's learn something from history. Romans conquered Briton because the tribes could not unify. Power struggles broke out between the tribes and Roman's took advantage of this. I think people who are against the war in Iraq should vote with their conscience and not just vote for anybody to defeat Bush. Get my drift?

[mdmathis6]

Rassmussen has shown Bush ahead twice in the last two polling cycles!

[CyberAnt]

Excuse me .. then can anybody explain to me why all the polling places are so eager to show Kerry ahead or even with Bush .. are they padding their numbers (which I have suspected for a long time - and which was proven the LAT actually did).

I know from stats that only 37-39 percent of dems are the Bush-haters. But .. where are the other "for Kerry" numbers coming from if voters are ambivilant ..??