Kerry Survey

by

Now that Kerry is the frontrunner, I thought that I’d open up the floor and get a few reactions to a few questions that I’ve been curious about:

1). Kerry seems to have managed to avoid major negative attacks to this point in the real campaign season. Do people think that this is due to luck, skill, both or neither?

2). At some point during this primary campaign Kerry will be the subject of a serious political attack. How soon, from whom, likely result?

3). Gephardt has apparently endorsed Kerry. Who’s next, when will the Clintons do so, will the Clintons do so, do endorsements even matter?

Finally

4). Just how close is he to getting the nomination, anyway? Will Clark, Dean and Edwards stick it out, or is this already over bar the shouting?

Moe

9 thoughts on “Kerry Survey”

  1. I think he’s in live boy/dead girl territory.
    Everyone else is either broken or downtrodden in the polls. Check Kos for the latest. It ain’t pretty.

  2. I wouldn’t say live boy/dead girl, but those polls. Oy.
    His gay marriage answer is so. bloody. weak. It includes the sentence “I oppose gay marriage and disagree with the Massachusetts Court’s decision.” Does he know that will be the sound bite? Oh yes he does.
    Someone reporter is going to be bright enough to ask him whether he’ll support a state constitutional amendment to allow civil unions and ban gay marriage, and what will he say then? I’m not sure, but I think I can guess the answer and I do not like it one bit.
    Dean–which I expected–and Clark–which I did not expect–gave much better responses. They didn’t grab the third rail of supporting gay marriage, but they said, “equal rights for all, let the states decide how to do it and what to call it.”
    But leave Dean and Clark out of it–I’d settle for getting Senator John Kerry back. The guy who was one of 14 Senators, and the only one up for re-election, to vote against DOMA.

  3. 1. Luck. His Iowa rise came by default – Dean and Gephardt went down, Kerry and Edwards went up. Edwards was scraping bottom before he began his ascent, and finished four points shy of Kerry – that was damn impressive for a guy who’d been in Mosely-Braunsville a week or so before. Then the media hype over “Is Dean Done? Dean’s Scream!” etc. blocks out the story of Edwards’ rise and keeps the scrutiny off Kerry. Luck, luck, luck – and a compressed primary schedule – have been propelling this man, and that is one of the many reasons I do NOT think he’s the best, OR the most electable candidate out there.
    3 (skipping 2 because I’ve no thoughts on it). I don’t think Gephardt’s endorsement will make that much of a difference. The only state he could’ve helped Kerry win is Missouri and he’s already done that on his own; besides that, Gephardt’s just the guy who blew Iowa and lost the House.
    4. I still want Dean to win, really, really badly, but it’s not gonna happen. But If Clark drops out soon enough, Edwards might be able to take the nomination from Kerry. God, I do not want Kerry. God, I do not. Want. Kerry.

  4. Moe Lane wrote:

    Kerry seems to have managed to avoid major negative attacks to this point in the real campaign season. Do people think that this is due to luck, skill, both or neither?

    I think that the murder-suicide pact of Gephardt and Dean in Iowa has made the other contenders a little gun shy of making the same mistake.

    At some point during this primary campaign Kerry will be the subject of a serious political attack. How soon, from whom, likely result?

    As soon as one of the remaining Dwarves thinks he has a chance at overtaking Kerry in a key state, the knives will come out. Until then, we are saving our ammo until there is an actual nominee to become the target. At which point, Kerry’s weakness and lack of any credibility on national security issues, his Far Left voting record, his general lack of any conviction on any issues, etc. will be brought up again and again.

    Gephardt has apparently endorsed Kerry. Who’s next, when will the Clintons do so, will the Clintons do so, do endorsements even matter?

    I do not think the Clintons matter at all, but it is good that you keep mentioning them as they do wonders for Republican fundraising and GOTV efforts. 😉

    Just how close is he to getting the nomination, anyway? Will Clark, Dean and Edwards stick it out, or is this already over bar the shouting?

    I predicted more than a year ago that Kerry would be the nominee. Edwards is a lightweight and will never win because of the “untested factor.” Clark and Dean are both now (rightfully) seen as appealing to the lunatic fringe of their party and would scare off normal and more mainstream voters. Which leaves Kerry who is experienced, bland, and seen as just duplicitous enough that he will do whatever it takes to win. Did you know he fought in Vietnam?

  5. How soon will attacks on Kerry begin? I figure the Republicans will until after they’re sure he has the nomination wrapped, and then wait a few weeks more just to be safe.
    The conservatives seriously jumped the gun by attacking Dean before the Iowa caucuses (putting him on the cover of NRO, the Club For Growth ads, etc.).

  6. 1. Luck, and and his major opponent had not much savvy in exploiting the press to his advantage and K.’s disadvantage. Quite a few of the self-described ‘liberal’ journalists also seemed to have geniunely believed that Kerry is ‘electable’ whereas Dean is a disaster (per The Note) – hence sympathetic media environment is also a factor.
    2. Hard to say, but my gut feeling is that any *serious* attack would only come from the right wing, as the Dems are already in ‘fall in line’ mode. If so, the attack might not have any effect on primary voters, though it might hurt Kerry’s recent stellar performance in national polls vis-a-vis Bush.
    3. Well, as each state primary comes up, the prominent local Dem officials jump on the Kerry bandwagon. At this point, all these endorsements really do is solidify the perception that the party nominee is clear and discourage people from even looking at someone else. In states where there will actually be a contest, as TN and VA are shaping up, local endorsements might matter also in paractical terms, if they come with an active GOTV and volunteer machine. The Clintons have too much sense to endorse anybody before the final outcome has become abundantly clear.
    4. Barring shocking revelations in the next two weeks (extremely unlikely), I think Kerry’s got it. [If one of CLark/Edwards wins next week’s Southern primaries, he will get a bit of a bounce – but it’s unclear whether they will get the money required to put up a serious fight after that, and Super Tuesday States have always been a territory friendlier to Kerry than either one of them. If Dean wins Wisconsin, I don’t know. But Dean won’t win Wisconsin.]I think the rest have the full right to stick it out until the end in the hope of amassing some delegates and pulling weight at the convention – however, they will be absolutely savaged by the press and the establishment for doing so. Hence it probably won’t happen.
    Personal bias disclaimer: I’d take Dean over Kerry any day. Kerry turns me off greatly, but I’d have to take him over Edwards/Clark, as he’s vastly more qualified for the job than either one of them. My expectations from a Kerry Presidency will be very low, however.

  8. One thing people are overlooking in 1) is that Kerry’s #1 rival, Edwards, doesn’t want to go on the attack because he wants to keep VP as a possibility. It also would be a repudiation of his constant positive campaign theme, which explains a bit more why Kerry has faced so little criticism.

  9. Not answering any of your questions…
    As a quasi-Libertarian (read swing voter), I could have voted for two Dems of the field of nine. With Kerry’s apparent coronation (yes it’s still early) I know for a fact that I’d vote against him with a vote for Bush. I remember a number of conversations in 2000 about the ‘lesser of evils’ – Bush vs. Gore – and can’t avoid a comparison. Personally I would have preferred a McCain-Bradley contest, yet electability and satisfying the ‘core’ came to the fore, and as with this contest, the parties set forth the most mediocre candidates available. I did not see a difference between Gore and Bush – I do see a difference between Bush and Kerry.

Comments are closed.