Why Kerry will lose

[greybeta]

Yep, another one of my fluffy opinion articles.

Major thanks to the sagely dinosaur edt for bringing this to my attention.

Blast away at my fallacies, my fine friends.

---

Why Kerry will lose
Daniel Tu

Senator John F. Kerry will lose the presidential election to President George W. Bush. Election watch parties across the nation will witness states turning blue and red, and the red number will be greater than two hundred seventy. I could cover my bases and say that I am only making my best estimate, but I will not cop out. I am going to make a prediction; therefore, I shall look like a complete fool or a complete genius. Let me share with you how I came to know that Bush will win a second term.

With the incumbent bidding for a second term, the challenger must point out the deficiencies in the previous administration if he is to win. Kerry has actually proved quite competent in this regard. Bush has severely stretched our international relations with our conduct in the war against terrorism. No Child Left Behind and Social Security face grave dangers. Our economy watches gas prices rise to match the staggering pace at which our national debt grows.

Yet, these attacks fall right into the trap that the Bush campaign has laid out. No matter how much the Kerry campaign slings mud, the Bush campaign has the perfect parry. Bush uses September 11th to wipe out any argument that Kerry musters. If Kerry criticizes Bush, then Bush can claim the Kerry fails his patriotic duty. On the other hand, if Kerry concurs with Bush then he isn’t any different from the president.

President Bush may be an idiot, but he’s also a fine salesman. His message is clear and simple: I’m here to protect America. Bush works hard to avoid fighting wars on the home front. Bush comes out strongly on social issues like abortion and gay marriage rights because those issues are important to a significant amount of voters. Bush knows Americans tend to believe something that they are told over and over.

Conversely, Kerry couldn’t sell a candy bar if his life depended on it. He or his policy makers certainly have good ideas, but Kerry himself has to convince America that he has the better plans. More importantly, Kerry has to be able to convince the media that he doesn’t flipflop on issues. Even if Kerry appeared more firm in his ideas, he wouldn’t be able to shake voters’ first impressions of him.

Third parties present another considerable factor, for they steal the extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Michael Badnarik and Ralph Nader will seep away votes from the Republican and Democratic candidates, respectively. With his name out in the 2000 election, Nader’s notoriety will steal more votes from Kerry than Badnarik will steal from Bush. Nader will indirectly decide two presidential elections.

Strangely enough, the biggest reason that Kerry will lose the election is because his own party doesn’t want him to win the presidency. The donkey party cannot fully support Kerry when they have a better candidate waiting in the wings. Given a choice between the waffling Kerry and the junior senator from New York, Democrats would choose Hillary Rodham Clinton in a heartbeat. So, the specter of Bill Clinton looms large over the Democrats.

All these little factors conclusively add up to a win for the elephant party. Remember, in an election as close as this, tiny differences go a long way. Unlike Kerry, Bush commands stronger support from his party and the media believes that the Republicans have a clearer platform. I’ve heard that he who hesitates loses, and Kerry hesitated.

Comments

[usmu.livejournal.com]

The donkey party cannot fully support Kerry when they have a better candidate waiting in the wings.

Though I can see where you're coming from on this one, there's one simple thing you're overlooking: the choice right now isn't between Kerry and Clinton, it's between Kerry and Bush. Nor has it been in the primaries. As such the whole weight of the Democrats is behind Kerry. Besideds Hillary can wait 8 years and if not Hillary, there's always Barak Obama.

Bush uses September 11th to wipe out any argument that Kerry musters.

The whole argument of this piece rest on the assumption that people think this is a good defence. There's a (growing) group of people that is growing tired with this line of reasoning and sees this as a weakness because it shows Bush lacks any answers on social and political issues that currently America faces. So though it's the strategy of the Republicans, I think it's overstretching the argument when you say it's the perfect defence.


I think the main reason Kerry will lose the election the enormous amount of disinformation the USA has spread on the Iraq war. A vast amount of Americans think the US has found chemical weapons in Iraq. And that's just for starters. Americans still believe there was a link between Al-Quaida and Iraq. The neo-conservative lies will win Bush the election.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Though I can see where you're coming from on this one, there's one simple thing you're overlooking: the choice right now isn't between Kerry and Clinton, it's between Kerry and Bush. Nor has it been in the primaries. As such the whole weight of the Democrats is behind Kerry. Besideds Hillary can wait 8 years and if not Hillary, there's always Barak Obama.
You're right, the choice isn't between Kerry and Clinton. But, that doesn't mean that a significant amount of support isn't held back because some Democrats are looking ahead to 2008.

The whole argument of this piece rest on the assumption that people think this is a good defence. There's a (growing) group of people that is growing tired with this line of reasoning and sees this as a weakness because it shows Bush lacks any answers on social and political issues that currently America faces. So though it's the strategy of the Republicans, I think it's overstretching the argument when you say it's the perfect defence.
No, it is the perfect defense precisely because a lot of Americans buy into that line of reasoning. Yep, Americans have been known to vote on one issue that will go against their domestic, economic, and foreign policy interests.

I think the main reason Kerry will lose the election the enormous amount of disinformation the USA has spread on the Iraq war. A vast amount of Americans think the US has found chemical weapons in Iraq. And that's just for starters. Americans still believe there was a link between Al-Quaida and Iraq. The neo-conservative lies will win Bush the election.
Unfortunately, lies do win many elections.

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

I think this is a much tighter piece than your other one; the argument seems much more organic.

I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion, but I do like the writing.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Really? I can never tell, but my writing does seem to be slightly improving.

I'd be perturbed if you did agree with my opinion ;).

[correspondguy.livejournal.com]

It's a question of how much time you spend editing, I think. I am firmly of the opinion that one does not teach writing: one teaches editing. The more seriously you take your writing and the more willing you are to cut the sentences and phrases you like a lot, the better you get (and I use "you" here to mean me).

[wldntulk2knwwho.livejournal.com]

Hmmm excellent opinion. I couldn't agree more. Though your liberal editor may feel inclined to change your title.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Nah, he'll run with it because, in his words, it'll "get the intellectual juices flowing."

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

I disagree on the donkey party not wholy supporting Kerry, indeed they have better people waiting in the wing, but al those people are are activly campaigning for him, Obama, the Clintons and Edwards are what keeps his campaign going. I think their rationale is that the sitting president in 2008 is likily not to be re-elected because of the mess in afganistan, Irak and the rest of the world. They can then step up and replace the president. And in the main time Kerry will be more benificial then Bush to their agenda but he will probably be kindy nugded aside in 2008. So the party is wholy behind him.

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Kerry...kindly nudged aside in 2008? I don't believe that's not how American politics work. Once a party has an incumbent President, that party is going to have to support him unless he commits a high crime.

[culculhen.livejournal.com]

why ? He's their leader of course, but leadership exists only when the underlings want to follow, if his aproval rating is good they will. if his approval rating is bad the influencial underlings will grumble. And if they are bad enough they will sit down and have a quit little talk about Carter in 1980, the importence of an Democratic president, his chances without their support, so might it not be better to not seek re-election. It still be Kerry choice of course not to run again but that kind of little talks have a huge impact. politics is politics and it almost never plays by the rules.

besides, fill me in here because I'm not sure, are there no leadership challenges possible before the nomination? the sitting president still has to be renominated for the ticket by the party. It seems to me a dangerous path to take on incumbent for the party nomination because your chances of losing. so it will not usually be taken but if the standing of the incumbent is bad enough somebody might try it. I don't know if this works for the presidency for sure, but on the governer level it happend this election. So if it works, I think that there are a few willing to make take that change in 2008

[greybeta.livejournal.com]

Leadership challenges are possible. No one wanted to challenge Bush despite the way he came into office. If Kerry wins this election, the Democrats will have to preempt Clinton and put Kerry up for 2008.

Basically, something on the line of the Watergate scandal would have to come out for Kerry to step aside in 2008.