why people are choosing Kerry

[eclectica]

Ask people why they support John Kerry over Howard Dean and a lot of them are saying it's because John Kerry is the one who can best beat Bush in November. To them Kerry is the most electable and presidential of the candidates. Now ask the people who they respect the most, who stands for his beliefs and who champions the issues they care about, and the answer is Howard Dean. It looks like quite a few people are supporting Kerry not because they think he is the best on issues but because they think he has the best chance of beating Bush in November.

I disagree that Kerry has the best chance of beating president Bush, and I will get into those reasons later. What I would like to address for now, is how people vote strategically rather than simply voting for the best candidate. The reasoning for voting strategically, is that otherwise one would be wasting one's vote. So the reasoning goes, it is better to pool one's vote towards the lesser of two evils than to vote for the best candidate. But if you think about it, this type of strategic voting is a waste of a vote. If you are not voting for who you believe to be best, then in fact you are wasting your vote.

Let us not forget that voter apathy is high and around 55% of registered voters actually bother to go vote. John Kerry inspires little passion in people, unlike Dean. Dean has the power to create a larger voter turnout because he speaks directly to their hearts. Dean has received a hell of a lot of support at the grass roots level, and that speaks of his electability. Dean has the power of the people behind him.

After Dean's January 19th speech in Iowa, people had their doubts about how "presidential" he is, due to an intense emotional rally he had. You have to understand that Dean is passionate and his emotional outburst is exactly the type of thing we should want to see in a leader. Unfortunately so many career politicians like Kerry seem to have lost touch with reality, and with their constituents. A Limousine Liberal such as Kerry, who has a millionaire wife from the Heinz ketchup family, is totally out of it. He's a man who's forgotten what it means to "keep it real". He is a career politician with little conviction or will to stand up for what he believes in.

I am a dedicated Howard Dean supporter, and I plan on voting for him on November 2. If "His Impotency", "the old man on the mountain" Kerry or someone else wins the nomination, I refuse to vote for that person and will instead vote for who I feel to be the best. Because so many Dean supporters are highly dedicated to him, then the best thing for the Democrat party to do would be to nominate him as the front runner against Dubya. Otherwise many of those Dean supporters may not show up on election day, or write him in as I plan to do. Supporters of other candidates are less passionate and more flexible about who they will vote for, and will accept Dean as the party nominee.

[registered]

A Limousine Liberal such as Kerry, who has a millionaire wife from the Heinz ketchup family, is totally out of it. He's a man who's forgotten what it means to "keep it real". He is a career politician with little conviction or will to stand up for what he believes in.
think i'll stop buying any heinz products. don't want to contribute one penny to his campaign!

lol, i like what columnist anne coulter has to say about kerry, she titled it "just a gigolo".....
For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?

In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him.

When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.

Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.

At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.

[registered]

...

[Criminal_Sniper]

hmmm i can see the french in him
EDIT - not

[assorted]

Note that a conservative group created push calling against Dean in Iowa and ran negative ads against Dean. Then, in South Carolina, another conservative group did push calling against Edwards. Both of these actions essentially helped Kerry. Then note how Matt Drudge has been treating Kerry on his site compared to, say, Clark or Dean. You'd have to follow drudge like I do semi-closely but if you did you would see that drudge has almost been complimentary to Kerry while being vicous to Dean and Clark. Then, of course, there's the media which has been unrelenting on Dean but now pretty much leaving Kerry alone.

Why is the ultra-conservative set and the media establishment rooting for Kerry in these primaries?

[slx]

Originally posted by assorted
Why is the ultra-conservative set and the media establishment rooting for Kerry in these primaries? because it's a contest and each party does what they have to within the confines of the law to prevail


it may never be the "best" candidate that wins.....but will always be the best player

[eclectica]

I sent the first post in this thread as an e-mail to my brother in Chicago, and this is the response I got from him:
If Dean has the power to get people to turn out to
vote for him, then he'll do so in the primaries, win
enough delegates, and be the party's nominee.

And while I'd always encourage people to vote their
conscience, if Dean isn't on the ballot then writing
him in is the equivalent of writing in anyone else who
isn't on the ballot. We are asked to choose from a
group of candidates in the primary elections. Why
believe that any one of them is really the best person
to run the country? That's an incredibly limited pool
of people. In fact, anyone who wants to become
president, in my eyes, is a little insane or
narcissistic. I have friends who could do a much
better job, but they're not running. I accept who's on
the ballot and make my choice. If you're going to
write someone in in November, is Dean really the best
person out of 300 million in this country to be
president? And if your candidate, Dean, is not the
nominee but decides to endorse the nominee (very
likely), do you not respect what he stands for and his
beliefs at that point? Does he only deserve admiration
when he's a candidate?

I wish this country had a parliamentary system and
multiple parties, but given a two-way race between a
Democrat and a Republican I can't imagine voting for
the Republican, especially one as moronic as Bush.

[eclectica]

Howard Dean represents a threat not just to Republicans, but to Democrats as well. He is a voice of the people and he threatens to shake up the system to make it work for the people rather than for the special interests. Career politicians of all persuasions are relieved that Kerry has pulled ahead of Dean.

On Dean's blog, "Charlie Grapski" made a good rebuttal of my brother's position:
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/003545.html#459518

[nicobie]

Dean came unshited way too easily

I figure he can't take the heat.

This is the un-presidential behavior that john-Q public picked up on. And the reason he will not be a contender.

[eclectica]

After Bill Clinton got a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, Americans ought to have a different concept of what it means to be "presidential".
:blowjob:

[nicobie]

Brilliant~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[jcmd62]

Man and here I thought it was because they remembered him from The Munsters.

Seriously stick a couple of bolts in his neck and a scar on his forehead, and the dude is Herman Munster.

Regardless I'm voting for Colin Powell.:P

[eclectica]

Originally posted by jcmd62
I'm voting for Colon Pal :mansex:

[jcmd62]

Originally posted by eclectica


While I see and enjoy your attempt at humour I am still unsure whether you feel that Mr. Powell would be a good or bad President.

Personally I think Condaleeza Rice would make a great President.

This scare you like my suggestion of Powell did? Or were you just being humourous?

[eclectica]

Colin Powell is a willing slave to the lies of George Bush. While he thinks he's being a good subordinate and following orders, he in fact has become a gear in Bush's axis of evil administration, which are the poisonous lies that capitalized on 9/11 to create Zionist conquests in Iraq and to earn money for Cheney's oil company.

Colin Powell used to be thought of as the good guy in the Bush administration, but he goes along with whatever Bush does and he lies. They cashed in on his credibility to try to get him to persuade the United Nations to support the Iraqi conquest, but his credibility and stature have now been diminished.

I think he is shit like everybody else in the Bush administration.

[jcmd62]

Slave????? This is a bit of an exaggeration, but I can see your point. I don't think we give credit where credit is due today, and we are way to easy to acknowledge failure while we completely ignore accomplishment.

I have been asking for 3 years now for SOMEONE to PLEASE take some photographical evidence of Cheney's oil tankers filling up with STOLEN/FREE Iraqi oil and then transporting it to us in the US.

Not one picture, no evidence and our gas prices still suck.

Yes Americans whole motivation behind removing this Mass Murderer from power was all this free oil that we would never see, and to raise our heating oil and gas prices beyond ridiculous like they currently reside.

Could it be that there is no FREE oil and we are still at the mercy of the very same ARABS THAT CONTROL the oil we are STILL buying, the very same ARAB's that just cut production to effectively RAISE gas prices even further?

OPEC.........the true terrorists.

Condaleeza is a slave too I presume?

[eclectica]

I watched the Democrat debate yesterday on TV. Many former Dean supporters are saying that they like Edwards better than Kerry, because they feel he is less of a Washington insider and more of a populist. That is true but I find myself liking Kerry better than Edwards. I find Edwards to be too artificial, political, and insincere. While Kerry is more of a Washington insider, Edwards is more of a politician, diarrhea mouth, and cunning liar, which is even worse than being a Washington insider.

One of Kerry's flaws is that he doesn't take responsibility for his bad decisions, but blames his opponents instead. He did that when he decided to drop out of public campaign financing right after Dean did so. His excuse was that he had no choice to do so because Dean was doing the same thing. In the debate last night he avoided responsibility as a senator for voting in favor of the Iraq war, and instead blamed Bush for the war being a failure.

Now that Ralph Nader has decided to enter the presidential race, the Democrats are worried that he will take away votes and they will lose again. Yet he is only a threat because Dean is no longer going to be the front runner. He will appeal to the same people as Dean appealed to, because he runs as an outsider. But since the Democrats have already discounted Dean, then they have no right to complain that Nader is running. Nader probably wouldn't have run or wouldn't have been a threat to the election if Dean was the front runner. It was their choice to have an "electable" candidate. And it will be their responsibility, and not Nader's, if that candidate is not elected in November 2004.

[Criminal_Sniper]

haliburton got the contract for rebuilding iraq's oil infrastructure
without a bid just stright up
if the americans cant steal it they will squeez it out of them for the nest price
be the way the only way that they can get it back is to loan money from a new york based bank
they fuck everyone for money
just like they did to the native americans
and well half of the 3rd world if not more
who cares about who is president when they are all puppets

[assorted]

i've volunteered for the nader campaign.

[eclectica]

Originally posted by assorted
i've volunteered for the nader campaign.
lol, for real? He needs signatures to get on the ballot. That's your job, I'm figuring.

I'm not worried about Nader drawing away votes and Bush winning in November 2004, because the Democrats have already said that KERRY IS THE MOST ELECTABLE. ;)

[assorted]

Originally posted by eclectica
lol, for real? He needs signatures to get on the ballot. That's your job, I'm figuring.

well, that's what i volunteered to do evenings/weekends. i want to make sure nader is on the ballot in nyc so i can vote for him this year.

i also want to confront cocksucking democrats who try to argue with me.

[assorted]

Originally posted by wishful thinking
lmao, i have to ask...being a racial cocksucker, assorted..does that mean you only suck one kind of cock? and if so which kind? white or black.

i'm not sure what you mean. regardless, why do you think this forum stinks? it says "forum stink" under your name...

[assorted]

incidentally, i've discovered that nader doesn't require signatures in ny to be on the ballot (um, i don't think). so you won't see me harrasing people with a clipboard on the subway. nor do i have any interest in volunteering for the nader campaign past ensuring he is on the ballot in the state where i live so looks like my next active political activity will be causing a ruckus at the republican convention in september.

as for edwards/kerry... fucking whatever. i see no difference.

a friend said something interesting about democrats/republicans/etc. he's a pot smoker. he said "why would i ever vote for someone that feels i should be in jail?"

[eclectica]

I will vote for Nader this year if he is on the ballot. I was impressed with him in 2000 when he made his concession speech. He had a concern for things beyond just the voting constituency. He mentioned how UN sanctions were doing damage to Iraq. I thought it was impressive because he was showing concern for a group of people who had no voting power.

I wonder who Kerry will choose as a running mate.

[jcmd62]

Kerry and Running mate (http://www.morticiasmorgue.com/mu/2.html)

Who else????????

[eclectica]

Kerry is the most electable?

The Democrats are nervous because right now because Bush is ahead in polls. Polls are not too accurate though as they don't reach people like me who would never answer the phone for them or fill out their surveys. The Democrats ought to assure themselves by remembering that Kerry is the most electable, so that basically means that his victory was guaranteed in their minds once they declared him to be so. Congratulations to the folks in Iowa for choosing the electable candidate who could beat Bush, and for the rest of the Democrats with going along with them.

Here is the debate schedule. Too bad they have an audience included, as that creates more of a circus atmosphere to them.
http://www.debates.org/pages/news_040813.html

I would like to see other parties get into power besides Democrats and Republicans because I find both at fault for ruining the country and for being cowards by letting it fall apart.

[nicobie]

colon

[eclectica]

I watched the first debate between Kerry and Bush. Kerry is definitely better at debating and speaking than Bush. Bush cashes in on the Special Olympics mentality a lot, which is that either he or his decisions which resulted in mistakes should be forgiven and he is trying hard to do the best he can but the situations and problems have been unforseeably tough.

Both candidates displayed zeal in committing troops to The War Against Terrorism, but showed little zeal towards committing troops to stop the genocide in Sudan.

[tim]

I really hate both these guys and wish there was SOMEONE else to vote for instead. I'm not happy with either candidate.

I watched the first debate between Kerry and Bush. Kerry is definitely better at debating and speaking than Bush. Bush cashes in on the Special Olympics mentality a lot, which is that either he or his decisions which resulted in mistakes should be forgiven and he is trying hard to do the best he can but the situations and problems have been unforseeably tough.

Both candidates displayed zeal in committing troops to The War Against Terrorism, but showed little zeal towards committing troops to stop the genocide in Sudan.

[Maze]

Kerry has some nice ideas ...but I am voting for the man ...Bush ...On September 11, 2001, he was damned if he didn't and damned if he did. He knew everybody "did" want to. He practically was left with no choice. Though I'm sure he weighed it heavily. There was only one choice ...and one choice only ...move in and take care of this unspeakable trash that did this to us in our own land on 911. The people would not have had it any other way.

As an American, you just don't come in here and do such a horrible thing. And if you think you can, watch how quick you are castrat... ...err ...
Castro ...err ...nevermind.

I think it is so wonderful how our freedom loving countries are connectected together through interpol ...and together, we will take care of the shit heads and mentally disturbed. (I was not including myself, eclectictia, & slx in that ...lol)http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

[slx]

I am voting for the man ...Bush ...On September 11, 2001, he was damned if he didn't and damned if he did. He knew everybody "did" want to. He practically was left with no choice. Though I'm sure he weighed it heavily. There was only one choice ...and one choice only ...move in and take care of this unspeakable trash that did this to us in our own land on 911. maze...your heart appears to be on the right side babe but your geography's a bit twisted isn't it?

saddam hussein didn't fly a plane to NYC ....as i recall, and i concede my memory ain't that good these days...but as i recall, it was determined that usama bin ladin, a saudi, hired the saudi pilots on 9/11

you know....some, based on credible findings, even think gw's own administration might have had something to do with 9/11

you ever watch the manchurian candidate maze?

[mekajinn]

i saw the tv debate... what a pair of lying fuckers... i got the impression that any chance of electing a good man disappeared months ago.

American democracy needs an overhaul... I wouldn't be suprised if the usurper usurped his way back into office for another 4 years.

[eclectica]

How would a terror attack in the United States affect the election? Maybe in a close race it could be a deciding factor. Madrid Spain had an attack 3/11 and that was said to affect the elections. But maybe it was because the government steadfastly blamed the wrong people for the attacks, causing the ruling party to be ousted. I predict that in America a terrorist attack would cause people to rally behind Bush more. But I don't expect any terrorist attack in America anytime soon. The one country which I consider likely to have an attack soon is in Australia, which is having an election October 9th.

President Bush is the best recruiter for Al Qaeda because he so obviously has conducted a Crusader-Zionist war against Muslims.

Do you think Osama has a preference over Bush or Kerry? I'm going to bet he prefers Bush because he considers him to be more true to what he believes. He may see Kerry as a "Bush Lite". President Bush is the man they all love to hate. If I were Osama the target I would choose to attack in the United States would be the United Nations, because it would be the attack which would work the most towards Bush and the most against Kerry. Also the UN is corrupt and undemocratic by even my Liberal standards; you can read my fatwa (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=474) condemning it as an organization.

If you believe in democracy and the power of peaceful petitions then you are naive. You see how much those 19 hijackers on 9/11 affected US policy, compared to how millions of peace protesters opposed to the war in Iraq in a worldwide rally 2003-02-15 did nothing to steer the course of events. If you want your voice to be heard then you have to commit violence. That is the civics lesson to be learned when dealing with leaders who have the mindset of president Bush.

[eclectica]

So Kerry was never the favorite candidate and you can see how that worked out after all. Voting for a candidate based on strategy, that he's in the best position to beat Bush, has been a failure.

When they rejected the popular Howard Dean for the "electable" John Kerry that was where they sealed their fate. The fact that they lost against an unpopular president shows how much they are to blame.

People told me I was wasting my vote by voting for Nader, but all the people who voted for lame Kerry wasted their vote as it turned out that he lost.

[nanook]

So I suppose it's same ol', same ol'. huh? Sorry dudes. We watched the results all night at work on our computers. Of course we worked, but would go sneak a peek every now and then. This one guy was so worked up about Bush being ahead, it's all he talked about all night.

So what do you see for the next four years?

[eclectica]

So what do you see for the next four years?

More war. A war in Iran will be next. The government will get poor and there will be much debt. The government is already downsizing to save money. I read that they are closing emergency airfields that exist in the Pacific ocean such as in Midway (http://www.atca.org/singlenews.asp?item_ID=1639). That to me is exemplary of the decline of America. It has been acknowledged that there is a genocide in Sudan but nothing will be done, because the government doesn't have the money or troops and the lives of some people aren't worth as much to them. The national debt bothers me as it is something which hurts the country and people will have to pay off in the future. The gap between the rich and poor is growing. So when you hear that America is a wealthy country, the wealth is in the pockets of a few. Americans think their country is invincible and don't realize it is sinking. But the problem with the country is that there are a lot of idiots in it. Ultimately the blame falls on the American people. America can no longer be thought of as a light of liberty or a leader of the free world. You see it has no regard for treaties or respect of human rights. I hope some other countries like in Europe have the ability to keep the light of liberty shining. They need to learn to defend themselves and develop their own armies rather than relying on the American army presence in their countries. Then they can send soldiers to do worthwhile things, like prevent genocides, instead of wars for oil.

[nicobie]

People told me I was wasting my vote by voting for Nader,

NO, no .....

You are one of the few that voted their conscience.

I'll be unapologetic for the next 4 years about my vote because I voted alot Libertarian.

All you donkeys and pachyderm's can get fucked.