Reasons John Kerry will probably lose...

[Reaganfan]

1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.
2. The incumbant is very popular.
3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.
4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.
5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.
6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.
7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.
8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.
9. Bush has a high approval.
10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.
11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Any comments. I feel I've made my point.

[Nym90]

1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.

Wrong. 3 out of the last 5 incumbents running for reelection have lost

2. The incumbant is very popular.

Wrong. His approval ratings are ok, but I wouldn't say that ratings in the 49-53% range qualify as "very popular"

3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.

Wrong. All of them are within the statistical margin of error, which means that Bush does not have the edge.

4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.

I'm sure many Republicans do. I don't see evidence that a majority of Americans feel this way.

5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.

Again, no solid evidence for this that I can see. In the Republican base, sure.

6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.

Not necessarily true. If the war is viewed as going badly (i.e. 1952, or 1968) the public is more than willing to make a change.

7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.

And what relevance does that have to the current election? Oh yeah, that's right, this is like Sesame Street...."each of these things is like one of the others..."

8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.

As is Bush, and all politicians.

9. Bush has a high approval.

I wouldn't put ratings in the 49-53% range as "high". They aren't bad, but certainly not spectacular.

10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.

Very generalized statement based on opinion, which I would disagree with.

11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Wrong.

[Siege40]

I would change that to the economy is IMPROVING, for one year of improvement there was 3 years of recession.

Siege

[California Dreamer]

Bush is polling below Clinton 96 and Reagan 84, but better than Carter 80 and Bush 92. He has yet to break through in any national polls to the level he had in real votes in 2000.

There are many factors that point to a loss and many that point to a win. It is far too early to tell and anyone who says they are sure one way or another is just basing it on 'faith'.

[Nym90]

Agreed, California Dreamer. Way too early to be calling it either way right now. I'd say it's a pure toss-up. A lot could (and will) happen between now and November 2.

[pieman]

Its not about who is ahead in the polls right now. What is important is what issues each candidate wins on and how those issues and voters perceptions of those issues might change between now and election day.

Although the race is tight now, it won't be in November unless Kerry can change the issues that are important to the voters.

A candidate has to convince people that he is a better candidate on the issues that are important to the voters. Right now those issues are the economy, Iraq, and terrorism. Leadership/charisma can help frame the issues to the candidate's advantage or at least make up for deficiencies on the issues.

ECONOMY: The economic data continues to show a stronger and stronger economy. As the job picture continues to improve Bush's position on this issue will continue to improve.

IRAQ: The situation in Iraq will likely continue to improve as power is turned over to a transitional Iraqi government. If it does not improve, War and terrorism stay in the news. Either way Bush benefits.

TERRORISM: The 911 commission report will come out later this summer. This will further emphasize that Bush is right in his premptive strike strategy rather than the old police/ legal strategy that failed us.

LEADERSHIP/CHARISMA: Unlike Bill Clinton, Kerry is weak in his ability to get people enthused about his campaign. A lot like Dole in 96. If you can't get people excited about your campaign, they don't pay attention to what you have to say, they don't contribute, they don't help with the campaign, and they don't get out to vote on election day.

Kerry would need a strong DEM issue to run on such as healthcare or education. Unfortunately for Kerry, a lot of these issues were taken off the table by Bush in the last few years with the passage of the Medicare bill and the Education bill.

     

[Gustaf]

1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.
2. The incumbant is very popular.
3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.
4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.
5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.
6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.
7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.
8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.
9. Bush has a high approval.
10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.
11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Any comments. I feel I've made my point.

1. No. Not very, very hard. It was in fact pretty easy for Clinton and Reagan.

2. Wrong. Bush is far from very popular.

3. Again wrong. No one has the edge, and even if Bush might have an edge of a point or so, it was the other way around a month ago. Not anything to go by this far out.

4. 'Many say'? Who are these many?

5. On some issues, yes, on others no. Overall though, it's true that trust isn't really Kerry's thing.

6. Often true, if the war is acute (i.e. WWII). The war on terror isn't at all viewed that way. Neither is the war in Iraq.

7. This is a repeat of the incumbency rule. Usually a party gets 2 terms in a row. 52-60, 60-68, 68-76 for instance. But this isn't a hard rule, it's broken occasionally. It was in 1992, 1988, 1980 in the post-war era.

8. Yes, but so are all politicians. His flip-flopping is also somewhat exaggerated.

9. Eh...no, he doesn't.

10. Generally speaking that's true. And since all polls indicate that this election is about economy, I don't see your point...

11. Um...no. Being on the way out of a crisis is not being good.

[California Dreamer]

Its not about who is ahead in the polls right now. What is important is what issues each candidate wins on and how those issues and voters perceptions of those issues might change between now and election day.

Although the race is tight now, it won't be in November unless Kerry can change the issues that are important to the voters.

A candidate has to convince people that he is a better candidate on the issues that are important to the voters. Right now those issues are the economy, Iraq, and terrorism. Leadership/charisma can help frame the issues to the candidate's advantage or at least make up for deficiencies on the issues.

ECONOMY: The economic data continues to show a stronger and stronger economy. As the job picture continues to improve Bush's position on this issue will continue to improve.

IRAQ: The situation in Iraq will likely continue to improve as power is turned over to a transitional Iraqi government. If it does not improve, War and terrorism stay in the news. Either way Bush benefits.

TERRORISM: The 911 commission report will come out later this summer. This will further emphasize that Bush is right in his premptive strike strategy rather than the old police/ legal strategy that failed us.

LEADERSHIP/CHARISMA: Unlike Bill Clinton, Kerry is weak in his ability to get people enthused about his campaign. A lot like Dole in 96. If you can't get people excited about your campaign, they don't pay attention to what you have to say, they don't contribute, they don't help with the campaign, and they don't get out to vote on election day.

Kerry would need a strong DEM issue to run on such as healthcare or education. Unfortunately for Kerry, a lot of these issues were taken off the table by Bush in the last few years with the passage of the Medicare bill and the Education bill.

     

As I stated earlier...these are entirely 'faith based' predictions

I agree that if lots of jobs are created (eg; 300k per month), 9-11 report has no bad news for Bush, Iraq looks like its building a Jeffersonian Democracy with the people all embracing us with hugs and flowers, etc...yes if everything breaks Bush's way he will be reelected.

...but it is just wishfull thinking at this point.

[© tweed]

Goldie's funny, I'll give him that

[pieman]

Its not about who is ahead in the polls right now. What is important is what issues each candidate wins on and how those issues and voters perceptions of those issues might change between now and election day.

Although the race is tight now, it won't be in November unless Kerry can change the issues that are important to the voters.

A candidate has to convince people that he is a better candidate on the issues that are important to the voters. Right now those issues are the economy, Iraq, and terrorism. Leadership/charisma can help frame the issues to the candidate's advantage or at least make up for deficiencies on the issues.

ECONOMY: The economic data continues to show a stronger and stronger economy. As the job picture continues to improve Bush's position on this issue will continue to improve.

IRAQ: The situation in Iraq will likely continue to improve as power is turned over to a transitional Iraqi government. If it does not improve, War and terrorism stay in the news. Either way Bush benefits.

TERRORISM: The 911 commission report will come out later this summer. This will further emphasize that Bush is right in his premptive strike strategy rather than the old police/ legal strategy that failed us.

LEADERSHIP/CHARISMA: Unlike Bill Clinton, Kerry is weak in his ability to get people enthused about his campaign. A lot like Dole in 96. If you can't get people excited about your campaign, they don't pay attention to what you have to say, they don't contribute, they don't help with the campaign, and they don't get out to vote on election day.

Kerry would need a strong DEM issue to run on such as healthcare or education. Unfortunately for Kerry, a lot of these issues were taken off the table by Bush in the last few years with the passage of the Medicare bill and the Education bill.

     

As I stated earlier...these are entirely 'faith based' predictions

I agree that if lots of jobs are created (eg; 300k per month), 9-11 report has no bad news for Bush, Iraq looks like its building a Jeffersonian Democracy with the people all embracing us with hugs and flowers, etc...yes if everything breaks Bush's way he will be reelected.

...but it is just wishfull thinking at this point.

The economy is growing at a faster rate than it has in 20 years. Growth in jobs always follows economic growth. All that remains to be seen is how many and how fast.

In what scenario does Kerry benefit from Iraq? Continued terrorism in Iraq keeps the terrorism issue in front of the voters=benefit Bush. Peace and tranquility=benefit Bush.

I admit that I am partisan, but I see Bush has significant upside potential, and I don't see much potential for Kerry.  

I am still waiting to hear what issues or potential issues Kerry will use to win or how he is going to overcome his leadership/charisma gap.

Remember . . .  no wishful thinking.




 

 

[zachman]

Iraq hurts Bush. It shows how stubborn and unconcerned he is. I'm not quite sure what Bush's strong issue is now. I'm not sure what Kerry's is either.

[Dave from Michigan]

I would change that to the economy is IMPROVING, for one year of improvement there was 3 years of recession.

Siege

there wasn't 3 years of recession

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Kerry doesn't really need a campaign, he's really running on the fact he's not Bush. But that might be enough.

[pieman]

Kerry doesn't really need a campaign, he's really running on the fact he's not Bush. But that might be enough.

It wasn't enough for Dean in the primaries. Dean was clearly much more anti-Bush than Kerry.

[zachman]

It wasn't enough for Dean in the primaries. Dean was clearly much more anti-Bush than Kerry.

But Kerry was "electable." I'm thinking we should have picked Dean, or even Kucinich.

[pieman]

Iraq hurts Bush. It shows how stubborn and unconcerned he is.

I can understand stubborn; otherwise known as Principled and Persistant. I assume, then, you believe we should back down against the terrorists in some way in Iraq?  

I am not sure what you mean by unconcerned. Unconcerned about freedom from tyranny for the Iraqis? Unconcerned about eliminating terrorism and those who harbor it?

[California Dreamer]

This is a 'reelection'...in November if people are happy with the way things are...Bush wins, if not, then all Kerry has to be is 'acceptable' and people will vote against Bush.


anyone who says 'things will be better' in November is just guessing, or as I said, basing their arguments on 'faith'. The  job situation could get worse or stay the same. Iraq can get even worse. There could be more attacks, Afhanistan can flare up, there can be a scandal, etc etc.

Keep the faith, but trying to pass it off as anythign else is just like trying to prove your religion has the monopoly on who is the one true god

[zachman]

I'm starting to believe that we should have our troops leave in Iraq pending that the new constitution is followed and ammended by Iraq's approval and the United States' approval. The United States should also reserve the right to intervene in Iraq if some basic civil rights iand voting rights are obstructed.

What I meant when I used unconcerned was not checking the intelligence and the possible penalties of war seriously enough. Once again Iraq was not a hub for Al-Qaeda.

[Reaganfan]

1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.
2. The incumbant is very popular.
3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.
4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.
5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.
6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.
7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.
8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.
9. Bush has a high approval.
10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.
11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Any comments. I feel I've made my point.

1. No. Not very, very hard. It was in fact pretty easy for Clinton and Reagan.

2. Wrong. Bush is far from very popular.

3. Again wrong. No one has the edge, and even if Bush might have an edge of a point or so, it was the other way around a month ago. Not anything to go by this far out.

4. 'Many say'? Who are these many?

5. On some issues, yes, on others no. Overall though, it's true that trust isn't really Kerry's thing.

6. Often true, if the war is acute (i.e. WWII). The war on terror isn't at all viewed that way. Neither is the war in Iraq.

7. This is a repeat of the incumbency rule. Usually a party gets 2 terms in a row. 52-60, 60-68, 68-76 for instance. But this isn't a hard rule, it's broken occasionally. It was in 1992, 1988, 1980 in the post-war era.

8. Yes, but so are all politicians. His flip-flopping is also somewhat exaggerated.

9. Eh...no, he doesn't.

10. Generally speaking that's true. And since all polls indicate that this election is about economy, I don't see your point...

11. Um...no. Being on the way out of a crisis is not being good.

Clinton and Reagan were special cases. Bush 41's approval was in the 20's. He lost MONTANA! Democrats only wish they had Clinton.

[© tweed]

GHWB's approval was in the 30's

[© tweed]

also, he only lost Montana because of Perot

[Gustaf]

1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.
2. The incumbant is very popular.
3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.
4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.
5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.
6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.
7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.
8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.
9. Bush has a high approval.
10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.
11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Any comments. I feel I've made my point.

1. No. Not very, very hard. It was in fact pretty easy for Clinton and Reagan.

2. Wrong. Bush is far from very popular.

3. Again wrong. No one has the edge, and even if Bush might have an edge of a point or so, it was the other way around a month ago. Not anything to go by this far out.

4. 'Many say'? Who are these many?

5. On some issues, yes, on others no. Overall though, it's true that trust isn't really Kerry's thing.

6. Often true, if the war is acute (i.e. WWII). The war on terror isn't at all viewed that way. Neither is the war in Iraq.

7. This is a repeat of the incumbency rule. Usually a party gets 2 terms in a row. 52-60, 60-68, 68-76 for instance. But this isn't a hard rule, it's broken occasionally. It was in 1992, 1988, 1980 in the post-war era.

8. Yes, but so are all politicians. His flip-flopping is also somewhat exaggerated.

9. Eh...no, he doesn't.

10. Generally speaking that's true. And since all polls indicate that this election is about economy, I don't see your point...

11. Um...no. Being on the way out of a crisis is not being good.

Clinton and Reagan were special cases. Bush 41's approval was in the 20's. He lost MONTANA! Democrats only wish they had Clinton.

Clinton and Reagan were special cases? What if Kerry is a special case then?

[Q]

Any comments. I feel I've made my point.

Was your point just to be senseless?  About 7 out of 11 of those are just flat-out wrong.  The rest are debatable.

Unsubstantiated conjecture, personal opinion, and glaring bias, nothing more.

Reaganfan, whom are you trying to kid?  I don't think even many Republicans can believe the stuff you come up with sometimes.

[Reaganfan]

I know many Democrats who want Bush for their safety.

[Trilobyte]

1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.
2. The incumbant is very popular.
3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.
4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.
5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.
6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.
7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.
8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.
9. Bush has a high approval.
10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.
11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Any comments. I feel I've made my point.

Some of your arguments are valid, but they've been brought up many times before. I disagree with some of your others:


1. It is VERY VERY hard to beat an incumbant.

It depends. Usually it's either very hard or very easy. But there have been close calls before (Ford vs. Carter).

2. The incumbant is very popular.

Depending on who you ask, this president is either extremely popular or extremely unpopular. This is an unusual situation, so I think it could go either way.

3. While polls are still generally tied, Bush has the edge.

You are right about the polls being tied. But the second part of your argument isn't really an argument, it's a subjective opinion.

4. Many say Kerry does not seem as nice a man.

A lot of people say Bush, with his "macho" image, is not as nice a man. To be fair to them both, voters don't necessaily want "nice guys" in times of war.

5. Many can not trust him as much as Bush.

You are absolutely right here. This is Kerry's biggest weakness IMO, but he has until November to change this image.

6. During any war, you typically do not want to change presidents.

This is somewhat true, especially with the current level of patriotism in America. I'll (reluctantly) let you have this one.

7. Republicans typically win 2-3 elections in a row.

But they also LOST the popular vote for three elections in a row, didn't they?

8. John Kerry is a flip-floper.

This is basically the same argument as #5. So yes, you are right here.

9. Bush has a high approval.

His approval rating is solid, but not spectacular. See #2.

10. Republicans are typically better on National Security, while Democrats typically have a very slight edge on handling the economy.

You are right again. But seeing how they both have their strengths, how does that give Bush an edge?

11. The economy IS GOOD!!!!

Technically the economy is IMPROVING, but we don't know how voters are perceiving the economy.