John Kerry regarded as the most "electable" by Democrats

I don't get it. Aren't we doing the electing?

So wouldn't that mean that anybody we pick will be "electable?"

I think the way we're approaching this issue is all wrong. I fear what will happen in the GE when we have a nominee that doesn't really stand for anything in particular but looks very "electable."

:scared:

is Dr. Dean.

eom

I'm so disappointed in the results and the reasoning. We will need the base to win. Apathy among our base kept voters away and drove some to Nader.

don't fret...people will barely remember his name after next week...after the South....

Yeaaarrrgghhh!

delete

:scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared::scared:

Gulf War II. I think he's confused.

.

Like you were and I was, and my Dad was and my neighbor was...

Bush is a liar. You aren't. I am not.

Well, the gullable have been led by the media manta of "electability" into voting for the most unenthusiasic candidate. Kerry is a rubberband man on all issues - sticking his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing, then making a safe vote or stand. The Repukes will eat Kerry alive.

Get ready for 4 more years of Bush, if Kerry's the nominee. Sorry to be a doomsayer, but it's patently obvious that Kerry cannot pull in the independent (right-leaning) mass public and he's not going to do well in the South, either.

JB

Just last week I was tearing into Clark's credibility.

I realize now that I would much rather have Clark as our nominee than Kerry. At least Clark was against the war. Kerry has not stood for anything at all!

The nominee has to be Edwards or Clark.

Dean or Kerry lose big to Bush.... Even though Dean is saying 100% what I believe, he's not the right messenger. He's John the Baptist... he's not "the one".

Kerry has a decent resume, but he is BORING folks. Outside of New England, he just doesn't play out here.

He makes Al Gore look like Sam Kinison. Kerry is dull and stale.

He has a big "L" on his forehead for MOST of the country.


If the country had an average IQ in three digits, Kerry could play. It doesn't. Edwards wins among us "smart" people and also among the mental lightweights who don't pay attention until September.

Kerry comes across as old, tired, and wrinkly on TV. Not telegenic at all.

Edwards has no flaws. His voting record is too short to be attack fodder for the Repukes.

... and he'll win the women's vote by a greater margin than Clinton ever did. The gender gap would be astounding.


I'm pleading with you Democrats to see the light on Feb 3. Edwards is our best chance at removing Chimp-boy.

Edwards or Clark.

Kerry is going to be wrecked by the Bushies. I like him and it's going to be painful to watch the train wreck - I really don't want to be a witness.

Edwards is a more polished candidate than Clark and gets the Democratic message a bit better, IMO, so a better choice. Also better at staying on message. He never seems to make grave political errors.

But Clark could manage to win the GE, too, with more practice at stumping and debates I think he can improve. He also needs to internalize what it means to be a Democrat - I don't think he quite has this down. But his basic package is winnable.

I agree that the thinness of both Edwards' and Clark's political record is an asset. Sad state of the world that is.

Kerry and Dean have problems that seem potentially insurmountable (not so much with their messages but that they aren't the right messenger).

Dean - I like some things about him - a lot - but I agree with Carville that he doesn't understand the power of the unspoken word. He has been dammaged by the press (a butt of late night comic jokes) - that is worrisome - also that he has run the primary to the left (putting wedge issues front and center) to the point that it will be difficult to go back and run on his record. Additionally, I really don't think he gets the South - he just thinks he does.

I think the Dean candidacy has showed a flaw in running early - he was in so early that he peaked too soon - always wondered if that might happen too him - and in fact it has.

Not sure if a dammaged Dean or a boring Kerry is a worse candidate but both have real problems.

They dred Edwards, then sit back and chuckle while we do a splendid job of eliminating him ourselves.

More proof of nothing to fear but fear itself. Fear is apparently the main repellant of Democratic primary voters from Edwards, background and inexperience.

Why aren't we terrified of nominating another awkward and uninspiring orator, who drones on and on without memorable sound bites, any threat of humor, or even the tone of someone carrying on a normal conversation?

I don't care about issues, period. A Democrat in office will take the proper course as often as possible, just like Bush wrenched the wheel straight right immediately, regardless of what he claimed in the campaign.

It's just that Kerry is the most subdued one so he won't say anything too overly controversial.

depending on one's views and area of the country. For Democratic operatives and the media, an establishment dem. For republicans, none but some are "mainstream" democrats (meaning they stand the least on Democratic party principles).

to stop these Democrats from telling pollsters who they think is most electable? Why wasn't our base there to prevent this from happening? How come so many voters came out to disappoint us tonight? What's wrong with these people? Don't they know how much it means to us to have things our way? The sky is falling. I'm melting.

Before Al Gore won his 51,000,000 votes, (nearly a record) I heard so many vile things said against him, mostly about going to Vietnam so he could work his typewriter, or being stiff, wooden and uninteresting, being a scumbag, and being a Clinton lackey. You would have thought he'd only win 35,000,000 votes, with Bush getting 60,000,000.

I don't hear that kind of vile shit even suggested about Kerry, a Vietnam war hero, at least from the Bush lovers. Remember Democrats are starving to get rid of Bush. That's the goal.

We'll see who can snatch this nomination but don't bash Kerry, he's better than Gore who only lost by a hair.

Why is everybody so angry their candidate didn't win? We're all Democrats.

It's the moderates of all party affiliations who will put Kerry in the WH.
Bush has scared the piss out of a big chunk of Middle America.
The moderates and independents will back (and are backing) Kerry.

The recriminations and the finger pointing that will follow Kerry's electoral disaster may well tear this party permanently apart.

wrong, but I'm starting to sense a divison coming within the party myself. The status quo and the Democrat's current strategy has gotten us worse than nowhere and I see no end to it. While I will do my best to oust this plague in the WH, I think another election debacle will lead to a tearing of the opposition in two. Unfortunately, with our governmental structure here that will probably lead to one party rule.

Maybe the hardcore have the patience to listen to Kerry drone, with that sad bassett hound look. But when September comes and the masses start paying attention, I'm really afraid of...

"Hmm, a dull old guy we've never heard of, or a dull old guy we're familiar with. I guess we'll stick with ol' unreliable." Ho, there, Bush!

that the very large moderate middle does NOT want to talk about the Iraqi quagmire and the "war on terra" in the campaign. I really don't know why, but they must feel that this is unbeatable ground for our regime. Of course, I don't agree with this at all and wish the truth of their insane policies could be told to those still under our coporate media's influence.