The dilemma: Public is anti-Bush but not pro-Kerry

[tomfodw]

It is increasingly clear to me that the American public does not particularly want to reelect George Bush. It's not hard to see why: the war in Iraq is bogging down with no end in sight. Bush and Cheney have succeeded in scaring us about the dangers of terrorism rather than convincing us that they've made us safer. The deficit is spiralling into the stratosphere. There are fewer jobs than when Bush took office. There are fewer people with employer-paid health insurance (and those who still have it must pay more to keep it). Our reputation in the rest of the world has never been lower. And on and on and on (add your own ills and woes to this list).

The problem is, John Kerry has been completely unable to persuade the voters to replace the incumbent with him. This is a serious problem for Democrats, because faced with a choice between an inadequate incumbent and an unappealing replacement, anything can happen. If Kerry cannot excite the electorate on his behalf, at the same time that they're turned off to Bush, large numbers of voters may just decide why bother and stay home. This has implications for Senate and House races, too.

Don't take this as just more doom-and-gloom. It isn't, but Kerry's inability so far to gain any traction must be taken seriously. It's not like nothing has gone his way. Bush has had a bad week and his post-RNC bounce is all but gone. The news is generally not what he'd like to see. But so far Kerry has been unable to take advantage of any of it; not the bad economic news nor the bad news from Iraq nor even the revelations about Bush's Vietnam war era cowardice. You'd like to think that sooner or later we'd reach a tipping point, that eventually all the Bushit would simply be too much for all but the most diehard wingnuts. But even that, if it occurred, would merely raise Bush's negatives, not necessarily Kerry's positives.

Kerry has a reputation for being a strong closer. I sincerely hope that is the case, because he is going to need a very strong sprint to the finish. So far, I have not seen or heard anything from him that would give me great confidence that he's about to catch fire. I hope I'm wrong, but hope is not a plan. The Kerry campaign has to get itself moving quickly in the right direction, and they don't have too much more time to do this.

Bush is ripe for the taking. If we blow this, we'll never forgive ourselves.

[WI_DEM]

1. Your headline says it in a nutshell

which is why turnout will probably be low. Hopefully our base will turnout.

[lancdem]

6. The predictions, though, are that turnout will be big

[TexasSissy]

2. I think you are correct, Tom. But it ain't over til the fat lady sings.

So I'm hoping Kerry "comes out" soon.

:nopity:

[SharonAnn]

3. Vote for the Democratic Platform and Principles! That's what's important,

The personality of candidate is really a minor, minor thing.

It's what they stand for and what they'll do that matters - and that's the Democratic Platform issues.

[serryjw]

42. Have you READ the "Democratic Platform"?? You are kidding?

I thought I belonged to the Republican Party!:puke::argh:

[no name no slogan]

51. This year's platform performs the physically impossible

It both sucks AND blows at the same time. Despite the fact that over 70% of Democrats oppose the Iraq war, there was almost no mention of a plan for withdrawal in the platform.

Even when we knew it was impossible to pass, previous platforms at least had a plank about universal health coverage for all Americans. This year's tepid plank about expanding insurance coverage pales in comparison.

What about responsible spending? There's nothing in this platform about the $1 TRILLION the Pentagon has "misplaced" over the last decade. That's a lot of first-response police officers, firefighters and EMTs...

This year's platform is the most tepid, uninspired piece of claptrap the Democrats have ever churned out. The whole purpose of the platform is to be visionary and tell the electorate where we'd eventually like to be. This year's platform is not even near that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. You need to pull your head out of the ground.

Kerry's been on the war path lately. You apparently haven't caught his speeches the last few days.

[tomfodw]

10. I have

but so far they have not really impressed me. Maybe the polls in the next few days will show he is starting his sprint. I hope so.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Stop reading the goddamn polls

For one, they don't mean a thing. For another, they're manipulated to get the result the buyer of the poll wants. For another, it doesn't gauge voter turn out, which is going to be HEAVILY in our corner this year.

And if you haven't been impressed with his speeches, well, sorry, but you need a pulse. He's sharpened his rhetoric and taken Bush head on. What do you want to see? Him yelling and screaming and getting all pissed off? It ain't gonna happen, nor should it.

[bambo53]

23. "You apparently haven't caught his speeches the last few days."

Apparently neither has anyone else.

Kerry has a way of putting people to sleep with long drawn out speeches that end up nowhere and say nothing of any importance. Sure, WE get it, but WE listen carefully, and hopefully. Joe Lunch Bucket ain't got time & ain't all that interested to "get it".

The Kerry campaign has somehow managed to trot out the amazingly lackluster, inept and weak campaign team of Bob Shrum, Donna Brazile and the like for our viewing pleasure & immense frustration. Is it any wonder that we"re hearing Al Gore type speeches again?

The DNC is too afraid of the RNC attack machine to let him say anything that might stick, so he makes statements that can be amended or Donna can apologize for, and the press feels like "why bother". You have to make news for news to get reported.

[lancdem]

31. Donna Brazile isn't on the Kerry campaign

but I agree about Bob Shrum. His track record in presidential elections is awful.

[bambo53]

34. Donna Brazile is all over the TV talk shows

Apologizing and retracting everything any Democrat says of substance! She has been since last winter. She claims to be good friends with Karl Rove,,, so I can't really call her a "loser". Maybe a Trojan Horse.

[lancdem]

36. I know

but she doesn't represent the campaign. She's just another weak Dem spokesperson.

[athena]

52. That's not true.

Lots of people say Kerry is a boring speaker and puts people to sleep, but if you actually listen to him without such expectations, you will realize what a great speaker he is. When I listen to Kerry, I hear a great president. His beautifully worded, powerful statements give me goosebumps.

The only way anyone can find Kerry boring despite actually listening to him is if they are so used to sound bytes, commercials, and hearing Bush speak that they don't remember what real oratory, real English sounds like.

[progressivebydesign]

66. Oh have you attended a Kerry event???

Because I have, and my friends and family have, and he had people fired up! You're promoting the Gorificiation of Kerry... lovely. I thought we learned the lesson last time around. Oh well.. I guess Kid Rock isn't available to run, I hear he's really exciting...

[TexasSissy]

47. Nope. I haven't seen any Kerry speeches. Are you in a battleground state

maybe? Here in Bush country, glimpses of Kerry are few and far between. National news doesn't show the candidates much, since they want the candidates to buy ads. So mainly Bush gets shown, since he's Prez and on the news for those sorts of reasons. I hear people talk about Kerry, but I rarely see him. Same thing for my relatives in Louisiana, they say.

[Leilani]

53. C-Span shows quite a few speeches

& you can watch them online.

Jim Lehrer does pretty good coverage, with extensive clips.

But they are nothing that will make news, so unless you really seek out the info, you will not find it.

[TexasSissy]

59. I've seen a couple of C-Span. Most of the country doesn't watch

C-Span, though.

Video on a computer? Doesn't work well for me. It's okay for a one minute or two minute clip; otherwise, my pc isn't fast enough. Same thing with most of the country, if they even have a computer.

I guess it comes down to $$$ for ads. I have seen a couple of Kerry ads, though. I've seen a few Moveon.org ads.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

61. I live in DC.

And very rarely watch television, yet in the last week, I've now him speak 5 times.

[lancdem]

5. I know what you mean

The Repukes' attacks on Kerry have been so successful that they've gotten people who don't even like the job Bush has done to not trust Kerry. The flip-flop label has been especially effective. I have to admit I strongly agree with your last two grafs. The first few days after the RNC Kerry seemed to rev it up, but in the last week or so I haven't seen any real evidence of that. I hope I'm wrong.

[soothsayer]

7. Most of the public haven't met him yet, and won't until the debates!

That's when lots of folks start tuning into the presidential race. Kerry will ROCK, despite georgie-boyz numerous rehearsals.

[AndyTiedye]

38. So What If There Are No Debates?

The only debate * will participate in
is a totally scripted joint press conference,
most likely with everyong getting the script except Kerry.

[Gloria]

8. I agree completely.

He has to create a stronger, more aggressive persona and tear down Bush while he's doing it.

This is personal. This is not about plans at this point. Bush's turf if FEAR and distraction. To cut through this you have to build yourself up and at the same time, tear Bush down to release the hold of fear, apathy or whatever it is that grips the public.

Clinton said it a long time ago: people would rather follow a strong leader who is wrong, than someone who may be right but who seems weaker. (sic)

No more time for fudging.

See the PATTERN post....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x809345

[Nevernose]

9. I've been saying this since the primary

It's time to stop bashing Bush and start selling Kerry. If you don't like Bush by now, then you're a moron; people who don't know about or don't like Kerry are just ignorant, and need to be informed.

Extol Kerry's virtues, and shut up about Bush, unless it's to say "Well, he's no Ron Reagan, that's for damned sure." Look wistful for the days of Reaganomics when you say it.

[TexasSissy]

49. Oh, that's goooood. I need to practice that wistful look.

[Norquist Nemesis]

11. If true, the only reason for that perception is...

It's the media, Stupid! (Not you, personally. ;) )

[mike_c]

12. I've been saying this for some time now....

I honestly believe that if kerry wins-- and I once thought that was inevitable but now I'm not so sure-- it will be more because of votes against the shrub than votes for Kerry.

One of the things that profoundly disappoints me about the Kerry campaign is that this circumstance suggests that his real mandate is to be the anti-Bush, yet he has repeatedly failed to take real opposition positions on the issues that Bush is running hard on. There is no other national election in my memory-- and I've been voting Democratic for 30 years-- in which the opportunity to profoundly change the direction of America has presented itself so compellingly. Our failure to seize that opportunity is tremendously disappointing.

[rumguy]

13. They used to be pro-Kerry too (by a small margin) - that is until

Kerry stood down while his character was being assassinated. I wonder who we can thank for that? Shrum?

[Leilani]

55. Bill Maher on Larry King last night

was talking about the Swift Boat smears, & Bush TANG AWOL.

The fact that Kerry did not fight back, was discussed, & someone said, {Well, that tells you somthing about the measure of a man.}

That statement stuck in my mind, because I think that is where it went wrong. A failure to defend himself. People lost confidence & respect for him. Add on flip-flop charge, which remains unanswered, & he seems pretty pathetic.

[DaveinMD]

14. this is

a normal position for a challenger to be in at this point and time. Kerry just needs to prove he can be trusted. At that point the undecideds will shift his way and he'll win by 2-3 points.

[tomfodw]

17. Fine. When does he start?

So far, he has not quite made a case that we are less safe under Bush than we would be under him. That invading Iraq was the wrong response to 9-11 (and also what he would do now about Iraq).

Bush is in attack mode because he can't possibly run on his record. For some reason, when he attacks, he sounds presidential. Kerry has to attack, too, but so far he doesn't seem to me to have found his voice.

He has to make the pro-Kerry case, not just the anti-Bush case. He needs to excite us about the potential of a Kerry Administration, not just terrify us about the possibility of a second Bush Administration. So far, in my opinion, he has not done this.

[lancdem]

18. The irony is he said in that Time interview

that we are not safer under Bush. I'd love to see him push that.

[tomfodw]

22. Not enough just to say it

He needs to show how. How Bush has shorted port security in order to keep his tax cut. How he has shorted aid to first responders. How the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists than it could possibly eliminate. How airline safety has not improved. How overstretched our armed forces are. How North Korea and Iran have gone nuclear. How nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union have not been fully secured. And on and on and on.

That's a lot for the public to handle, and I don't know to make a concise, compact argument out of it that can easily be reduced to a campaign slogan or bumper sticker. But that's one of the things Kerry needs to do.

[lancdem]

29. I agree

I meant that's something he needs to make a central premise of his campaign.

[DaveinMD]

21. it usually occurs

after the first debate. Reagan and Carter were tied one weak out. We all remember how that turned out.

[Leilani]

56. I read the other day here at DU

that Carter approval rates at this time in the campaign were in the 30 % range.

If true, it was easier for Reagan to make his case for change.

And I know Reagan is not popular here, but Kerry is no Reagan...as far as likeability goes.

[Burma Jones]

15. Politics is Short Attention Span Theatre these days

So, Kerry being a strong closer is very helpful to us.

People are scared and are getting more scared. Bush and company are the meanest dogs on the block. I doubt that the media will soon start telling Americans things are less dangerous, danger sells. That's a big dilemna for us, we want peace and prosperity, but they're boring.

[edbermac]

19. So? I'd rather have people hold their nose and vote for Kerry over Bush.

Bush is just piling up those negatives and I don't see anyone other than the hard-core neoncons going out of their way to vote for him...:kick:

[tomfodw]

20. That's no way to win

A) It may not work

B) Kerry won't have a mandate to govern

C) I want to be pro-someone rather than just anti-Bush.


I already am very pro-Kerry, myself. On most of the issues, I agree with him. But I would be pro-anyone running against Bush. Most Americans are not as strongly liberal and Democratic as I am.

Relying on anti-Bush sentiment is extremely risky as an election strategy. Kerry needs to excite the American people about himself; as I said, Bush is ripe for the taking. Pretending that anti-Bush feeling will be enough is, to me, giving Bush too much of a chance to get back in.

[edbermac]

25. True, true but it's better than losing...ask Al Gore!

[Just Me]

26. It has worked for the right-wing.

Studies have proven that negative attack ads work.

Since our right-wing opponents are capable of doing whatever it takes to win, willing to push the envelope without respect to principles or values, we had better be aggressive and tough.

Once we win, it will be possible to get back to work on establishing and spreading the fundamental principles and values that have been but meaningless rhetoric pushed by the right.

[tomfodw]

30. Negative adds "work"...

...in the sense that they drive down support for the other candidate and tend to suppress turnout. That's all well and good, and I'm all for as much Bush-bashing as we can possibly provide. But Bush's negatives are already remarkably high for an incumbent seeking re-election. If the electorate were excited about John Kerry, rather than being turned off on Bush, Kerry would be way ahead instead of scrapping just to say slightly behind.

Kerry has to do more than simply go negative. He has to do much more to make the pro-Kerry case instead of simply finding stronger and stronger ways to make the anti-Bush case. The news will make the anti-Bush case for him, but only he can excite people about putting him in the White House instead of simply asking them again and again to throw Bush out.

[BillZBubb]

37. Your analysis leaves out some serious problems.

Kerry allowed himself to get painted as a liberal flip-flopper. The long, expensive Repug negative ad campaign of the summer was very successful. That idea is firmly planted in the body politic.

Now, a large majority of people think to one degree or another that Kerry is not resolute and is indecisive. I've talked to a number of people who will vote for Kerry, but still believe this Repug meme. I guarantee you it is the ONE item making people "undecided" in this race.

To me, the ONLY way Kerry can overcome this huge liability is to demonstrate himself to be a relentless fighter. There now isn't time or money enough to do it withs "positive" ads or policy/biography speeches.

People need to see that Kerry will fight to the last over something he believes in. And surely he believes he has to defeat Bush*. People will get more excited about Kerry if they see him fighting like hell and taking no crap.

[tomfodw]

39. It was "successful"...

...in the minimal sense that it lowered Kerry's positives while not significantly raising Bush's. For all his "successes" in August - Shit Boat Vermin For Lies, the RNC - Bush's favorability rating is still hovering at or below 50%, which is truly remarkable for an incumbent. He has not earned a second term, either in reality or in the voters' sentiments.

I agree that Kerry has to be a relentless fighter. But he has to fight as much for himself as against Bush. He has to lay out the case against Bush, but also make a truly exciting, inspiring case for himself. If he can do that, he'll win easily.

[hippiegranny]

24. Kerry has more traction than the media and polls

would have you think. The statistics also show that more new voters have registered for this election than any in recent history. People want Dumbya out. Polls are simply not giving voice to the masses. I really believe this.

[tomfodw]

27. It would be nice to think that...

...but the polls usually are accurate, at least as snapshots of the day they are taken.

It's too easy and comforting to dismiss the polls. But fooling yourself is one of the few unforgivable sins (along with deliberate cruelty and voting Republican). Kerry is in trouble. So far, it is only the fact that more than half the population has given up on Bush that has kept him in the race at all. Neither candidate has made his case. For an incumbent to be this unpopular so close to an election would ordinarily be a death sentence. As I said, it shows to me that Kerry has not yet excited the electorate. That's not good, and no amount of wishful denying what the polls are saying will make it good. Kerry needs to do better.

[paulk]

28. Carter lead Reagan in the polls well into October

This race won't break open until the last two weeks.

[Leilani]

57. Do you have any link for that?

The other day, there was some data here that said Carter had a 30 something approval rating going into the debates.

[paulk]

63. from a newspaper article yesterday

http://www.ack.net/346imstory.html


"Still, the lopsided 1980 election depended on more than just voters rejecting Mr. Carter. Deep into October 1980, Mr. Carter held a narrow lead in the polls by depicting Ronald Reagan as a mean-spirited, right-wing Hollywood actor."



I've heard this before, and it matches my recollections from the time - through the summer and fall, the race was very close. I'll search some more to see if I can find the actual numbers.

Carter's approval ratings were in the low forties and even dropped into the thirties throughout the race - perhaps that's the number you're refering to.

[paulk]

64. from gallup -

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=1252

this is a pretty interesting page - it has all the gallup presidential polls going back a long ways. Shows how wrong polls (especially Gallups) can be.

[Vincardog]

32. When KERRY HITS HIM HARD ON THE ECONOMY IN THE DEBATES

We will have a MASSIVE SHIFT FOR THE DEMOCRATS.

[Cocoa]

33. anti-Bush will be enough to get people to the polls

more than enough.

No way Kerry or any other candidate could compete with how bad Bush is.

[tomfodw]

35. Again, that's a very dangerous assumption

It may be the case that the tipping point will be reached and all the crap this administration has pulled will finally swamp them. That the public, disgusted with the lies and the cronyism and the corruption and the failure to plan for a post-invasion Iraq and spread of terrorism and nuclear proliferation and the deficits and job losses and environmental degradation, will rise up and head to the polls to vote Bush out.

Or maybe too many of them, sick of Bush but not turned on by Kerry, will stay home. You willing to take that risk? I'm not.

Besides, I want people to be pro-Kerry! What's wrong with that? Because, if he can really make the case not just against Bush but for him, he'll win easily. As I said, the clown in the oval office is ripe for the taking. The public has not been persuaded he deserves a second term. If Kerry can convince them that he deserves a first term, it'll all be over.

[Davis_X_Machina]

40. I don't think it's a dangerous assumption at all.

How much of Bush's vote in 2000 was against Clinton? Against Gore?

Junta Boy had little in the way of record, or proposals, to vote for positively, yet he kept it within stealing distance.

[tomfodw]

41. Because Gore...

...failed to make a compelling case for himself.

Granted he was running against the press, too. But Bush was the challenger in 2000 and Gore was, effectively, the incumbent. If Gore had run a good campaign, Bush would not have had a chance.

If Kerry were to run a really good campaign this year, Bush would not have a chance.

[sandersadu]

43. Tom

I totally agree w/ Tom.

Kerry's campaign is textbook how NOT to run a campaign.

First of all you've got to have a Message. One theme that 3 or 4 of your specific policies are tied into. It could be "Change", it could be "Hope" it could be "Competence." Whatever it is develop it early, like say March when he wrapped up the nomination. In 2000, Bush was the "Compassionate Conservative"; in 1992, Clinton was the "New Democrat" Those two words for each one said it all. What's Kerry's message?

Second, you've got to develop 3 or 4 major issues that support your message. Sure other issues will creep in from time to time like fair trade or farm subsidies, but get 3-4 big issues and hammer them. For Bush in 2000 it was tax cuts, strong military and "changing the tone in Washington." It "won" him the election in the sense that he's now our President.

Third, you've got to develop the lines of attack against the other guy early and stick to them. Back in March the Pubs telegraphed that they were going to define Kerry as a flip-flopper. It worked. Kerry never refuted it, so now he's stuck.

I could go on, but I'm getting tired.

[Leilani]

58. Very good analysis!

I think you are right on the mark.

For a few months now, we here at DU have been screaming about Bush flip-flopping.

It would be so easy to make a killer ad, just using tape of Bush statements contradicting each other.

Start with Bin Laden, we will smoke em out; he is not important.

If we can see these things, why is the Kerry campaign not responding?

[LisaL]

50. Negative campaign

leads to low voter turn out-for your opponent. People are not going to change a horse in the middle of war-unless the horse really sucks.

[SSFFMMM]

44. I'm glad that he's a strong closer

since it will help him.

[ima_sinnic]

45. but, but--Kerry was supposed to be most "electable"

ok, I'll shut up now because if I were to post what I'm really thinking, it would really get some people upset with me.

[demokatgurrl]

46. It's NOT Kerry's fault

or the campaign's fault- well OK maybe a little the campaign's fault, or more accurately our wimpy-assed party.

But it's really the SHEEPLE!!!! After what Bushco have done, even if you were FOR invading Iraq, they have been such total cockups ANYONE should be preferred. If people are so stupid they'd vote for Bush in the face of his incompetence, lies, pettiness, phony machismo, disregard for the voters who voted for him.... what the hell can be done to help them? Lobotomies????

[no name no slogan]

54. That's a convenient scapegoat

But so far Kerry has not made a COMPELLING argument to vote for him. That's why you still see Dubya's negatives rising, but don't see a corresponding rise in Kerry's positives. People already know Bush sucks, but so far the Kerry campaign has not given them good enough reasons to vote FOR Kerry.

Kerry is suffering from the same problem Dubya's daddy had in 1992: the "Vision Thing". He's presenting himself as a competent technocrat who will do a better job of carrying out many of the same policies that Dubya has championed. He is not offering a real alternative to color-coded terror alerts, continued bloodshed in Iraq, health care reform, and protection against corporate greed.
Three or four nice programs do not make a vision-- Kerry must know this by now.

It's hard to believe, but it appears as if Kerry is content to be Michael Dukakis. He's not talking about his Senate record, Bush's utter failure on all fronts, and what he would do to help out average people (outside of "more of the same, but not the same").

Given the fact that Dubya is the worst president we've had in 70 years, the Democratic candidate should be mopping up right about now. Instead we're still at "too close to call", and fighting battles about who did what 35 years ago.

[leftofthedial]

48. negative campaigning works

i reckon

[yardwork]

60. I'm pro-Kerry

Don't I count?

[Mr_Spock]

62. Hehe - I'm so anti-Bush that I love Kerry.

n/m

[progressivebydesign]

65. I'm active in politics in my state, and I beg to differ.

I have YET to meet ANYONE not exicted about Kerry, what he says, and what he has to offer. I think people like to propel this myth of unpopularity for various reasons... they truly support Bush and are trying to divide the Democrats, they don't understand politics and are just parroting right wing things they hear on tv, or they tire of reading other people's posts and want to have one of their own... but have to think of something new to say.

I'd say the massive crowds Kerry is attracting nationwide is an indicator that this subject is a farce.