I don't post here much but I have a question

[anti_shrub]

Assuming things stay as they are now and Kerry's the Dem nominee, are there actually people here who won't vote for him?

I ask because I know there's a few issues that Kerry's not exactly in tune with DU on (gay marriage leaps to mind) but is it really worth 4 more years of Bush destruction to the US and the world just to not vote for a Dem that doesn't 100% reflect your stance on the issues?

I ask this question because I've seen posts like "Kerry's going to make it hard for me to vote Dem" and it scares me. Is having Bush in office worth it? Is he going to handle your issue better than Kerry will?

I know this causes heat around here, but a vote not for a Dem = one less vote needed for Bush to win. We can't afford that.

[Lisa0825]

1. I don't like Kerry, and I think he is a weak candidate for many reasons..

but I would vote for the proverbial ham sandwich in opposition to Bush*. Not only that, but I will grudgingly give money and volunteer with a fake smile plastered to my face. It's just too important to get Bush* deposed.

[still_one]

2. I agree

whoever the nominee is he should be supported.

It is not just another 4 years of Bush, but control of the Executive, legislative, and Judicial branches which will last for at least the next twenty years!

[Kimber Scott]

3. We could do a lot worse

than Kerry. I will vote for him.

[salin]

4. I would venture to guess that it is really hard to tell at this moment

a whole lot of heat of the moment posting going on - including some long-running almost feud like posting between groups - that leads to statements to which you refer. Is it lasting or temprorary? I would guess temporary - but the other ongoing debate (desiring pledges of ABB in the middle of such high emotions), unfortunately inflames those who are not on the winning side (while emboldening those on the winning side) - esp those who have not yet had a chance to vote in a primary and now will or may not have the chance to vote for their favorite in said primary. Perceived calls for pledges - seem to be read as requests for loyalty oaths - that in the context of the current heightened emotions (regardless of actual intent) - seem to act as salt thrown on open wounds.

All that said - wait until the current nominating race is over - and wait a little bit of time for folks to heal and coalesce. Then ask the question - as the answers will more likely be reflective of reality than the reflexive answers one might receive today.

[waldenx]

5. save your threats

"vote for kerry or else" won't change anyone's mind.

[anti_shrub]

6. No threat here

Bush has clearly shown what he'll do to the nation and the world.

It's not "Kerry or else" its "Anyone But Bush".

[maxanne]

8. join the

rest of the you're either with us or against us crowd.

Time for a party purge!

[NV1962]

10. There's no "threat"worse than the current reality

Nobody's threatening, besides Bush and his handlers / enablers.

It's a free country and that also includes the freedom to use your brains to enable a change for the better - or not...

[muchacho]

7. no illusions

My view is that any candidate that is anointed from either party is suspect due to the overall rules of the game. Choose any rich white guy you want!

This allows me no illusions that any one carry the flame for my ideals. I vote in the presidential elections to help the local polls get some momentum.

Kerry perfect? please...but Bush is a danger to our future and, personally, I think he's a punk and needs to be denied something in his privileged life.

[DjTj]

9. There have been polls up...

...showing that there are significant numbers that will go third-party or not vote, but they are susceptible to heat-of-the-moment passions, and it's difficult to predict what people may do in November.

[MrSlayer]

11. I totally agree. Bush must go.

By hook or by crook we have to get this bastard out of office. We must all vote for the nominee and it's going to be John Kerry. This is not time to protest the party or use petty spite to derail our efforts against the Chimp.

[maxanne]

12. we must, eh

We must all vote for the nominee and it's going to be John Kerry.

We MUST? How dare you tell anyone what they MUST do?

Last time I looked, it was still a democracy - no thanks to Mr. I voted for the Patriot Act Kerry.

[gottaB]

13. It's not about issues

You mention the issue of gay marriage. The irrefutable fact of the matter is that the handful of posters who repeatedly attack Kerry for his position on the freedom to marry do not support one of the two remaining candidates who clearly support the freedom to marry. They are advocates for a candidate whose position is not substantially different from Kerry's.

Make of it what you will.

If it is simply a matter of strongly identifying with a candidate, to the point of adopting his rhetorical punching bags as one's own arch nemeses, then I think you will see people come to their senses before November.

If it's a matter of people knowingly offering up strawmen, dissimulations and bogus claims for political gain, then as soon as there is nothing left to gain for their candidate, these people will desist.

My two cents.

[bitchkitty]

14. Many say they will not,

but when the time comes they'll pull the lever opposite Bush, so to speak. I'll vote for Kerry if I have to - I'll resent the hell out of it, and change my reg the next day, but I'll vote for him if forced to.

[Lexingtonian]

15. some, yes

DU by its nature selects pretty strongly for opinionated people who try to keep ahead of the curve. And most of them expect of Kerry, or whoever they champion or are asked to champion, to be relatively opinionated and publicly hold opinions that are ahead of the curve too.

The idea that this is foolish for a competent politician to do doesn't occur to many. A competent politician always has to create the impression of serving and standing up for his constituents, though, how ever foolish they may be, whereas the average DU pundit sees her/his job in hectoring and lecturing the willing part of the public at large- almost the opposite as responsibility goes.

Finally, being opinionated in a way that seems Democratic (or: is Left) and being a committed liberal with opinions are two different things. It's a traditional division in the Party, and IMHO at present Kerry represents the Liberal First side and Dean/Edwards/Kucinich- and Nader's Greens/Independents- the Left First side.

So that's where we really are: these threats you mention are part of a great infighting for domination of the Party. It should be settled by summer, at which point the can't-we-all-just-get-along approach you champion will become a mantra around here.

The process will amount to the Left firsters claiming the Liberal firsters to be closet Rightists (as Dean has continuously done) and the Liberal firsters will be telling the Left firsters to do something about their flip-flopping Inner Conservative (e.g. on abortion (Kucinich), on race and gay marriage (Dean), on church/state(Edwards)). I can only hope that we emerge more firmly liberal and more intelligently Left as a Party. With the country substantially more more socially liberal (by small majority) than economically liberal (under 40%), the recipe for success seems clear. And the polls show it: Kerry consistently beats Bush, the others don't.

[drfemoe]

16. I'm not a "Democrat"

life long Independent. In 1992 I gave my vote to Clinton because *B*-I was absolutely unbearable, especially coming on the heels of Reagan. I wanted to vote for Ross Perot who was anti-NAFTA. But I voted against *B* for the man I thought could beat him, just to avoid *B*'s re-election. Clinton did win and went on to disgrace his office and our nation by unzipping for a big mouthed RW operative. I wish I had voted for Perot. Of the remaining five, Dean is my first choice, and has been since the very beginning. After the debate tonight, I think Edwards or Kucinich would be workable. I will not vote for John Kerry or Al Sharpton. The only thing that makes my current position controversial is the corporate climate that has bled over into DU, making Kerry the only "acceptable" nominee. That's unacceptable to me.

You better believe people will write in, vote third party or just stay at home if John Kerry is the nominee. Heart deep progressives do not like the corporate scam machination. The abuse some take on this board from SOME of those trying to sell "ABB" aka John Kerry, use the same modus operandi used in giant corporations against junior level executives to force them to go along with unscrupulous business practices. I can't stand corporate game playing. SOME who push the "ABB" life raft argument resort to the same tactics you can hear if you attend a fiery hell and brimstone revival. "Repent, or you will suffer in eternal darkness and BURN FOREVER". I can't stand guilt trips or threats.

Our society is proof enough that these tactics work quite well on a large majority of the population. On the minority of true liberals and progressives, they absolutely backfire.

What kind of voters do we wish our fellow citizens to be?