An honest question about the election

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Consider this. I was channel-surfing late last night, and I came across a broadcast of a conservative student activism conference, dealing with the upcoming election. You know their mantra, "Leftists on college campuses stifle dissent, peace activists protest the war, yada yada." You know, the same old song. However, one thing I heard stuck in my mind though. One of the speakers, Lori Waters of the Eagle Forum was talking about getting Bush re-elected, and her encounter with a Kerry supporter I 'm assuming was with the DNC (that's what she said), who approached her, asking her help in defeating Bush in November. Anyway, my point is, she said something kind of interesting. She then asked the person, after pointiong out that she was pro-Bush, why wasn't she enthusiastic about the electing Kerry, as opposed to just beating Bush?


That point stuck in my mind. Should we be focusing more on why the Kerry-Edwards ticket is better for America, rather than just pointing out why Bush is bad for America? I'm being serious. The legitimate opposition to Bush and his agenda will energize the base, but will it reach those swing voters we need? Will it woo the Southern and Midwestern moderates? I know I sound like the DLC, but I think they've got a point. The perception is that Democrats don't have a plan, and just want to bash Bush in order to be elected. This perception needs to be countered. What say you?

[rogerashton]

1. Bush is the issue.

Nothing is more important for American democracy than that the coup d'etat of 2000 be repudiated. If it is confirmed by electing Bush* (for the first time) then it will surely not be our last coup d'etat, but the first of many.

[quaoar]

2. An election involving an incumbent

Is always a referendum on the incumbent. If voters liked the job Bush is doing, it really wouldn't matter how great the Democratic candidate was.

Carter, Reagan and Clinton won because the incumbents were rejected. The opponent's job is not to be fabulous, but to be acceptable.

Shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[calico1]

3. I am not one of those people voting against Bush

I am enthusiastic about having Kerry for President as I believe he will be a good one. You should have commented to this girl that not all people planning on voting for Bush are exactly full of enthusiasm. They can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry but are disappointed with a lot of what Bush has done. They will be holding their noses just as many Kerry voters will.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

8. No, I wasn't there,

I was watching this on Tv. You're point is solid though.

[Ninga]

4. Interesting you should ask.

I spoke with a Ohio Dem consultant and his take was find an issue that is important to you (jobs, healthcare, eduation, etc, etc)

And use that issue to say that "Kerry has the values on an issue that is important to me"......and then briefly explain.

Hammering Bush for the sake of hammering Bush will NOT change any voters mind if they have a foothold with their opinions.

Just my thought.

[MattG]

5. Vote for kerry, he's not Bush

I was saying the same thing until I was watching the news one day and there was a Kerry/Edwards ad that said all the great stuff about Kerry and Edwards, but didn't even mention Bush, while the Bush ad immediately after said that Kerry voted to do this and was going to raise taxes and is a LIBERAL (OH NO!!!) and Edwards was a TRIAL LAWYER (OH JESUS HELP US!!!). So I've seen a reversal of the vote Against Bush, not For Kerry stuff.

[sandnsea]

6. Yes, you need both

And there are plenty of reasons any Democrat or leftist ought to be able to find to be ecstatic about John Kerry. That's why Kerry has been running that positive ad campaign, despite so many people insisting he just bash Bush.

[quaoar]

7. Bush's ads

Are about 90 percent anti-Kerry.

I haven't seen a Bush ad that doesn't take a shot at Kerry.