Is John Kerry Good Enough to Win?

mike65

Is John Kerry blowing his chances before the election summer has begun? It seems he cant make a defintive statement about anything as he seeks to hunt with the
hounds and run with the hare. Nafta, environment, tax, corporate donations, sanctity of marraige etc

He also seems prone to unforced errors - The Vietnam medal/ribbon controversy was entirly avoidable, he cant even admit to owning an SUV "its the wifes" lest it offend his more leftist potential voters.

Meanwhile one Ralph Nader is gathering a following, currently 7% which might yet be enough to keep Chen- er Bush in the White House till 2008. Potential Nader
voters are proberly more likely to vote esp if they get angry.

Kerry really needs to define himself and focus his "vision thing". Being a better smarter Bush wont do it for him.

Mike.

vorbis

good points mike65. I think a problem the democrats are having with Kerry is that he came from nowhere in the candicacy race. Afaik he wasn't that major a politician before the race. I think the lack of national identity has left him unsure about what he should stand for. As you say though, if he doesn't fix that soon he won't win.

arcadegame2004

The problem is that even if Kerry wins the popular vote, that won't be enough to be elected! The US Presidential Election system is profoundly undemocratic in that the result in the Electoral College is more important. Last time Al Gore got 49% of the vote compared to 48.9% for Bush. Yet Bush was declared the winner. That turns democracy on its head. Hundreds of attempts in the US Congress to abolish the Electoral-College have come to nothing. As such, I feel that the system would be fairer if each US State followed Nebraska's policy of distributing the Electoral College votes proportionately. Unfortunately even that is not always guarateed to reflect the popular vote because tinily populated states like Wyoming (pop. 500,000 and historically Republican) are disproportionately overrepresented in comparison with densely populated ones like California ( pop. 34 million and historically Democrat - at least in Presidential Elections). The current system reminds one that the US Constitution has changed little since its 18th-century inception. It still contains outdated ideas like the right to bear arms and the Electoral College, both of which reflect circumstances of the 18th century (scepticism of full democracy by the Middle Classes and the fact that the US felt that its newfound independence could be militarily threatened if people were disarmed). On the Ralph Nader issue, I would remind posters that it's still an open question as to whether he will get onto the candidate list, because A:The Green Party is not nominating him as their candidate this year, and B: Nader needs to collect a certain minimum number of signatures in each US state to be allowed to stand, and there is no certainty that 7% will do so. The 7% figure is predicated on him being on the ballot, and when his name is excluded, Kerry tends to lead or tie Bush. I hope Bush loses because I find him to be homophobic and I despise his support for the death-penalty, as well as his crazy decision to oppose the extension of the assault-weapons ban, e.g. ban on machine guns, flamethrowers etc. that was imposed in 1993 (!). Those weapons could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and be used inside or outside of the US.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The problem is that even if Kerry wins the popular vote, that won't be enough to be elected! The US Presidential Election system is profoundly undemocratic in that the result in the Electoral College is more important.

Is it comparatively that undemocratic though if you consider (a) 49% of the vote in our own country or in Britain or most other E.U countries would deliver a large over all majority.

(b) many European countries end up with coalitions of previously opposing parties eg our Labour/Fianna Fáil government of ten years ago.

The point I'm making there is the popular vote here would not deliver such a result if we were perhaps to adhere strictly to the intentions of each particular voter's vote.

TomF

John Kerry is not the right man, and he will not win the U.S. Presidential election this November. George W. Bush will win, and will serve another four year term.

vorbis

arcadegame2004 it sounds a good deal more democratic than our neighbours across the pond. In England, its quite conceivable that you could win 49% of the votes and end up with no seats!

arcadegame2004

Vorbis, that could only happen if the Tories got 50+% of the vote in every single constituency with Labour getting less. Not very likely. The US system is grossly undemocratic and has shaken my belief in American democracy. In no other Western country could a 3-candidate election be lost by the person with the most popular votes.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
arcadegame2004 it sounds a good deal more democratic than our neighbours across the pond. In England, its quite conceivable that you could win 49% of the votes and end up with no seats!

And you can become the designated sucessor to the current head of state in the delivery room of a maternity hospital.

vorbis

In no other Western country could a 3-candidate election be lost by the person with the most popular votes.

This tbh honest confuses me. In our own predistental election, the person with the mmost popular vote can be defeated if most of the third person's votes go to the second person.

Victor

Originally posted by vorbis
This tbh honest confuses me. In our own predistental election, the person with the mmost popular vote can be defeated if most of the third person's votes go to the second person.

There is a difference between "popular vote" and "first count". In our system for president, the winner always has a majority.

mike65

I wonder what Kerry thinks about the electoral college system......ahem.

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by mike65
I wonder what Kerry thinks about the electoral college system......ahem.

Indeed. He may even have a position on stuff going totally off-topic.

Kerry's problem so far appears, as you say, that he looks like he's avoiding a position on pretty much anything. OK, he's against the war. Old news and in any case he voted for it. He's going to have to do better than "I'm NOT Bush" if he wants to be elected, though that might be enough to sway the vote that I don't have. He's going to have to run the risk of losing a few votes if he wants to gain some. Like Enda Kenny but that's totally off-topic and irrelevant too so let's not go there.

pork99

If he can't turn the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal into a major electoral disadvantage for Bush he probably doesn't deserve to win anyway.

PHB

Ok, so its undemocratic.

Funny that, let me give you a situation, which exists in Ireland for example, for electing the president.

We have a little tiny place, lets call it say, North Dakota.
It has a total of 1000 people
We have a big big place, lets call it, California
It has a total of about 100000

If you have a straight vote, in which it was pure majority, and the candidate ran under this headline,
"I'm going to take all the tax money going into North Dakota and put it into programs in California"
And every single person in North Dakota was againist it, yet he won, would that be democractic?

Having an electoral vote system makes it possible to have a bit of protection for North Dakota, where the values might differ greatly.

I personally feel its unfair and undemocractic not to have a electoral voting system, as I feel every type of person should have a say.

You can't just generalise by taking one statistic such as 49% vs. 48.9% and say, HEY ITS UNDEMOCRACTIC

eg.
Did you know that most TD's get elected with only 33% of the vote, THATS UNDEMOCRACTIC!!!!!!

America is growing undemocractic for many different reasons, patriot act, eupreme court rulings, etc.

The problem with its voting system is not electoral votes, its the first past the post system, now thats undemocractic

Victor

Originally posted by PHB
Did you know that most TD's get elected with only 33% of the vote, THATS UNDEMOCRACTIC!!!!!!

I imagine few enough get 33%, seeing as depending on the number of seats in the constituency, you only need 16.67%+1, 20%+1 or 25%+1.

In 2002 only 24 out of 166 TDs actually exceeded the quota on the first count. However those elected always had more votes than those who lost in the final count.

IDM

This just about sums up the thoughts of most democrats in the states.

Commenting on the electoral college: I've got american citizenship & will be voting in the upcoming election. Against Bush, of course.

But ... I live in Washington DC which always goes to the democrat. So in general, I wouldn't be worried about my vote really "counting." Whereas if it was just a straight out nationwide poll where it came down to total number of votes for each candidate then I'd feel obliged to vote.

The reasons I'm voting this time around are:
firstly, I wasn't 18 last time around so I wanna try it out :cool: ;
and if Bush wins I want to be able to put a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry" bumper sticker on my car

_CreeD_

Not that any system is perfect but something that is often forgotten, or just overlooked, is that the States in the US are NOT like counties in Ireland. They have a great deal of autonomy, their own tax systems and bylaws etc. It isn't the unified whole we tend to think of it as, therefore imho PHB has a valid point.
The thing about Kerry is he has very little credibility, a great deal of his support comes from the simple fact he is the only real Anti-Bush candidate, it's a vote against Shrub rather than for him. He's run for candidacy many times before and always lost, being somewhat of a joke. It's pretty amazing he actually made it through this time.
Conspiracy mayhaps?...;)

arcadegame2004

Little room for conspiracy CreeD. The US primary-system means that party candidates are chosen by popular vote, with registered Democratic members voting in each state for who they want as their candidate (though some States allow registered Republicand and Independent voters to vote in primaries too), and of course the Republican voters and in some cases Independents and Dem members can vote for the Republican candidate to challenge Kerry. So it wasn't just a few party bigwigs making the decision behind the scenes.

shotamoose

Originally posted by mike65
Is John Kerry Good Enough to Win?

The smart answer is that you don't have to be very good to win. Bush has been an amazing recruiter to the Democrat cause, and if his administration continues to display such incredible incompetence Kerry might be able to win simply by sitting tight and saying nothing of interest.

That would be a shame. Bush II has set the country on a terribly destructive course, and American politics needs a sharp correction to recover. For this reason, I was almost looking forward to a Bush - Dean contest, since it would at least have clarified the choice facing the country. Kerry seems to want to be all things to all men - but I think there's some prejudices you shouldn't pander to, and the more conservative you are in your campaign the less radical you can be in office.

It's hard to find anyone who particularly likes Kerry. My fear is that this means he won't accomplish much if he gets into office, since he will simply lack the momentum. So an innefectual, one-term Democratic presidency, followed by another Republican to finish the transition to Third World status.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

arcadegame2004

Daveirl I don't think thats a fair comparison. You're only including 1st Preference votes. If ALL preferences were included then clearly, Mrs.Robinson did have the most votes.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Daveirl I don't think thats a fair comparison. You're only including 1st Preference votes. If ALL preferences were included then clearly, Mrs.Robinson did have the most votes.

Ah yes, but if you are to allow all preferences, you must also accept the following :

1) Ireland does not accurately tally the transfer votes, but uses a statistical approximation based on a sample. Surely thats undemocratic? Why not just take a sample of people in the country and elect accordingly - its the same net effect.

2) Under the transfer system, if you do not consider first preference votes to carry "more weight" than 2nd pref etc. (i.e. if you cound all preferences and not just all preferences for the remaining candidates in each round) it is theoretically possible for people to be knocked out beofe they gain the benefit of transfers from others which would make them more popular than the eventual winner.

Just because that may not have happened doesn't make the system any less undemocratic.

If you're looking for perfection, then tough noogies - there is no mathematically unassailable electoral system in the world. Should one conclude, therefore, that there is no such thing as democracy?

If not, then why is one particular system undemocratic because of its weaknesses, but the others not?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

1) Ireland does not accurately tally the transfer votes, but uses a statistical approximation based on a sample. Surely thats undemocratic? Why not just take a sample of people in the country and elect accordingly - its the same net effect.

But candidates can call for a total recount can't they?
There were two or three at the last election lasting over a week which means the option is open to re-examine every ballot more closely.
Can anyone tell me if the electronic voting system was to count every preference and transfer accordingly based on every paper and not just a random surplus?
This might be more on topic elsewhere

bonkey

Originally posted by Earthman
Can anyone tell me if the electronic voting system was to count every preference and transfer accordingly based on every paper and not just a random surplus?
This might be more on topic elsewhere

It might be, so lets not get sidetracked....but from other threads about the evoting system, I believe it was designed to mirror hte existing manual process (i.e. random sample, not exact transfar-count).

jc

Lennoxschips

I second the opinion that it seems that the only thing John Kerry has going for him is the fact the he is not Bush.

Virtually any other Democratic candidate bar Lieberman would have been a better choice for the nomination. A Dean/Edwards ticket would have been unbeatable. When you consider that Bush 'won' the 2000 election campaigning as "the average guy" from the south (ironic as he's the son of a millionaire ex-president), then John Edwards would clean up in the south.

Kerry might win if he takes John Edwards as his VP, and gives him a big role campaigning in the south. Edwards would also obliterate Cheney in a VP debate.

Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton were the only candidates that came across as any bit sincere in the primaries. It's disappointing that the democrats chose to back a slimy Washington DC insider.

If John Kerry is clever he'll lie low for the next few months and let the Iraq situation eat away at the Bush presidency. He needs to resurface in August as the people's messiah, like he did when he came from nowhere in February.

mike65

Good point about Edwards, it could well come down to the choice of VP bearing in mind his opponent will be
Dr Strangelove. In a debate I'd say Edwards would get the female vote easily (and no I'm not being clever, he has definite appeal to women and Cheney sure does'nt - it could be the difference).

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
Virtually any other Democratic candidate bar Lieberman would have been a better choice for the nomination.

Sure they would have been. Thats why they didn't get the votes...because the Democrats are deliberately trying to nominate their worst candidate.

A Dean/Edwards ticket would have been unbeatable.

Why? If they're so good, why didn't they garner more votes in the Democratic nomination race???

Dean, Kucinich and Sharpton were the only candidates that came across as any bit sincere in the primaries.

And obviously thats not what the electorate wanted, so its not what they get.

I'm baffled, though, as to how you seem to continuously assert that there will be entirely different voting criteria used in the actual election than in the nomination race - that the logic which caused people to choose Kerry over your "clearly better" options will suddenly not apply.

If John Kerry is clever he'll lie low for the next few months and let the Iraq situation eat away at the Bush presidency.

You mean like he's already doing as much as possible?

jc

Lennoxschips

Most Democratic voters would prefer Dean but thought Kerry was more "electable." It's an odd situation, they picked a candidate that they think will appeal to the middle ground, and thus also moderate Republicans. In essence, the Democratic support base have picked not a candidate that they themselves would like, but a candidate that they think other people might like. If the moderate Republicans end up rejecting Kerry, then the Democrats will end up having picked a candidate that nobody likes.

And before you start, this is not established fact, it's my take on what happened.

IDM

I'll second that, Lennoxschips. Many democrats liked Dean but realised that he too far off to the left to appeal to even the most moderate republican. Although Dean would've been more likely to impress the democrat voters, I'm sure he would've been completely shunned by practically all the republicans.

Lennoxschips

If I was voting in a Democratic primary, then I'd have voted for Dean. The people that the Democrats should be trying to woo are not the Republican middle ground, but the 50% of the eligible population who don't bother to vote. It's my gut feeling that this 50% are more Democrat than Republican, and a Dean campaign would have motivated more of them to come to the polling booths. In a Bush vs Kerry election these people are likely to view the two of them as Washington insiderers and not bother voting out of apathy.

IDM

I know what you mean, but I'd say that a good part of that 50% WILL vote in November. Again, not because they like Kerry, because most don't, but because I reckon that the average voter in that group will feel guilty if they don't go out and vote this time around.

It's going to be a vote to oust Bush rather than elect Kerry.

Come on ... (as I posted before ...):

www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

bonkey

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
Most Democratic voters would prefer Dean but thought Kerry was more "electable." It's an odd situation, they picked a candidate that they think will appeal to the middle ground, and thus also moderate Republicans.

OK. I see more clearly what you mean now, and I'd mostly agree. I don't think its a choice to appeal to moderate Republicans, but rather a choice that they hope will appeal to the approximately 20% of the voting population who actually decide an election - those without strong party allegience.

I'd readily agree that I think that Dean/Edwards would make a strong Presidency, but I honestly do not think they had the "marketability" to sell to those who will ultimately make the decision.

Its for this reason that I disagree with teh sentiment that they would be unbeatable. They may have formed the most competent Democratic team, but they almost deifnitely did not form the most electable Democratic team, which is the issue.

jc