Question for those who want to go negative - Did Clinton go negative?

[sangh0]

There are many on DU who are saying that Kerry should go negative in response to the attacks against him because "going negative works". I was wondering if any of these DUers could name one example of Clinton going negative during the 1992 campaign, when he was challenging an incumbent repuke president. Examples from 1996 will are also appropriate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

1. NO, Clinton ran a positive campaign

[lancdem]

2. That's true

but he also never left any charge go unanswered. That's the combination that works.

[Malva Zebrina]

8. for some reason there seemed to be a lot more coverage of Clinton

as he walked here and there and answered questions from reporters. I remember one incident, when there was a particulary brutal attack on his Mother and Clinton was furious. He let that anger show and answered back, throwing it right in their face saying something like, and I am paraphrasing because I do not have the direct quote -- "today they attacked my mother--a known terrorist." I remember the disgust shown on his face.

I don't watch TV much, but it seems to me there is not this following around trying to get Kerry on mike. Or perhaps it was at a time when Clinton was seeking a second term so had the bully pulpit.

Nevertheless, the genius behind the rapid throwback response was undoubtably the ragin Cajun

[sangh0]

12. Please note how Clinton's response to the reporter

did not include any attack on anyone. He merely mocked the claim without insulting anyone.

[Malva Zebrina]

35. Sure and he was visibly angry

he was not "mocking' the claim--he was stomping it to death in an impromptu moment, knowing when anger is justified.

Please note, he did not go to a Republican and make a deal with him to not insult his mother, in exchange for something else. NOr did he wait for a few days, possibly consulting with someone else on the advisability of defending his own mother.

He confronted ,rightly so, without fear, the ridiculous accusation.

I maintain that Kerry has been too long in belt way politics . His fifteen or more years spent in the Senate has led to an approach that is Senatorial, but is not impromptu and relies more upon chess playing than anything else. Not up against these thugs--they will turn over the chess board and tell everyone they won--and people will believe it and will believe they are master chess players.

Please note that Clinton was not a belt way politician. Neither was Dean, who energized great amounts of people with his impromptu direct manner, which also was not negative attacking but energetic responses, once he learned the ropes.



People voted for Kerry because of his somber like senate experience, perhaps not realizing the utter deceitful methods used by these thugs requires more than handing over the gavel to a "comrade" across the aisle.

[sangh0]

38. There's nothing wrong with some passion

I maintain that Kerry has been too long in belt way politics . His fifteen or more years spent in the Senate has led to an approach that is Senatorial, but is not impromptu and relies more upon chess playing than anything else. Not up against these thugs--they will turn over the chess board and tell everyone they won--and people will believe it and will believe they are master chess players.

I think that's a reasonable argument. However, I don't agree with it. IMO, the campaign is really just beginning. Historically, this weekend is when people start focusing on the campaign. I expect you're going to see a more aggressive Kerry from here on out, but only time will tell which of us is right.

I also think you're giving Kerry too little credit. The truth is, he has been the subject of attacks ads costing tens of millions of dollars, and they hardly dented his numbers.

[Malva Zebrina]

48. Yes we will see

by now we should be thirty points ahead, given the mess Bush has made of our country and the horrible things he has done. It is unfortunate that we are not -- more than unfortunate, it is tragic. Now we are all anxious and nervous, lashing out, in fear that George will get another four years to practice an upgraded version of fascism on us all.

[sangh0]

50. Impossible

With at least 30% of the population being die-hard Bushies, I don't see how anyone could be 30 points ahead. The math doesn't add up

[Malva Zebrina]

75. OK make it twenty

nt

[JI7]

52. even Clinton won both times with less than 50 percent of the votes

[JI7]

39. no, people just don't pay attention

kerry has responded and he responded very strongly many times.

[Malva Zebrina]

70. --I am not saying his programs are bad , they are

not and they are far better for the country than George's.

But,over the past couple of weeks, there have been numerous, numerous articles written in apparent angst, about the lack of,or the tepid response from Kerry even though he has been brutally assaulted on his military record by Bush.

Look at the assaults on him during the convention. The wearing of those purple hearted bandaids. Silence, relatively from anyone. Someone should have been out there decrying the distribution of these as an attack on any veteran who has earned a purple heart--and they were wearing them to directly attack Kerry's own purple heart.

That is baffling. Someone should have been right on it, immediately. This is not going "negative" . To expect a rebuttal from the man they were mocking is a normal expectation--it is expecting a strong response in defense of himself, just as Clinton spontaneously defended his mother.

If he does not--he will be perceived as weak and is being perceived, according to polls, as the less able to lead because George is perceived as stronger. George did NOT back down, in the eyes of the people over the SBV ads and that is all that is important to be perceived as the stronger. If he does not back down to Kerry, he will not back down to any terrorist, is the logic.

It has nothing to with issues, economy,health care and all the things Kerry presents admirably in his speeches--it has to do with perception in a frightened to death America, existing in the Rambo revenge mode willing to kill thousands of inocent people,to rule the world so we will not be attacked again. That is the logic--wrong of course, but nevertheless sufficiently emotional to have George pull ahead of Kerry in the polls.


There comes a time when admitting the truth, that the approach needs to be changed, can only help to improve the situation.

[JI7]

79. i'm not talking about his programs, i'm talking about him defending

himself as a person, him defending his military service. he has done it and he did long time ago. he went after the chickenhawks also. but the media and the ones who complain the most on du don't pay attention.

[Malva Zebrina]

88. If you think it has been effective then pay no attention

to these posts. I don't think it has been effective.

I for one see danger in not responding fast and with a sharpened axe and I am not the only one.

[JI7]

92. the media wont report on it

that has nothing to do with how effective it is or not responding. i saw him respond and it was effective . but it's not his fault the media wont report it. but of course that's why he is going around campaigning directly to the people and having his events as open as possible . he KNOWS he can't depend on the media to get his message out. he has to get out there himself and he is.

but rather than acknowledge the real problem, people on here just want to make false claims that he isn't responding when that's not the case. and edwards had been defending kerry's service for months, even before he became vp. just because one doesn't hear about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Malva Zebrina]

99. then that is a problem that the campaign manager has to solve

period, We saw Dean's power and it is the same media. If they can't solve the media problem, then their chances will diminish. Saying they are victimized does not help.

[JI7]

109. they aren't saying they are victimized

they are getting positive reviews in the local media from their events which is why he goes around the country and does things like the train campaign and the front porch type town hall meetings and many other events. the people who are there DO see and hear him and they help get his message out. the local media helps also.

[cmkramer]

116. I thought he was "mocking" the claim too

It was part of the "passport" smear, if I recall correctly. Anyway, I thought he was trying to convey a sense of mock indignation although I'm sure there was some real anger mixed in there too.

Clinton ran a positive campaign in that he stuck to the issues but at the same time, he didn't hesitate to criticize his opponents.

[Maddy McCall]

28. Yeah, but he had milquetoast opponents.

[sangh0]

33. One line slogans are not persuasive

particularly when they facts show the opposite. Clinton was attacked like no other Democrat before him in 100 years. You have to go back to right after the American Revolution to find the sort of vicious attacks Clinton experienced.

[Maddy McCall]

43. I don't agree...look what FDR put up with, both from the left and...

the right--in his own party!

FDR was viciously attacked, by his own party, but, like Clinton, his popularity was insurmountable.

[sangh0]

53. The attacks on FDR were nothing like the ones on Clinton

the media didn't even report on his physical condition, nevermind his sex life. The attacks against FDR were focused on the issues.

Furthermore, FDR didn't go negative, and his opponents who were negative ended up losing. I don't see how that's evidence that going negative works.

[Maddy McCall]

91. Attacks were both personal and political.

His opponents didn't lose--they won--policy-wise! During FDR's last term, liberalism became social by definition, not economic. In other words, people who had hoped to change the economic status-quo were sorely disappointed. Social liberalism offered no real change in people's lives, as economic liberalism would have.

As far as attacks on FDR and Eleanor personally, have you ever read through archived newspapers? I suggest you should. Personal attacks against him and Eleanor abounded after 1936. Even the people who emphatically supported him pre-1936 turned against him in editorials after 1936. Look at the archives.

[sangh0]

107. I am going to look into that first chance I get

Thank you for that.

[Maddy McCall]

45. And let me add that...

Even GW Bush frowned on his own father's milquetoast approach in his election vs. Clinton.

Dole attacks were not effective, either.

GW Bush and his ilk are pit bulls. This is probably the nastiest election cycle ever, save the post-1936 opposition FDR faced.

[Selwynn]

3. YES

Clinton did indeed fight back and fight back hard when he was attacked.

He even said so in his own words, while on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. He talked about one of the reason he won was because when Republicans would try this stuff on him he would go right back at them.

[mbali]

5. He hit back at Bush & Republican Party when they hit him

But he did NOT chase down and beat up every outside group who attacked him. He let surrogates outside of his campaign do that while he and his people focused on Bush.

[sangh0]

13. Right! Clinton RESPONDED but he didn't attack anyone

or go negative.

[mzmolly]

32. * He obviously spoke about Bush's failures * that's what some call going

negative ie attacking. Rove calls anything and everything an attack. We can't let them define the rules of the game.

[sangh0]

34. Please stop citing Rove as an authority

No one here is judging this based on what Rove says. Both you and I seem to understand that there is a difference between criticism and going negative, so why bring Rove, who lies about the difference, into it?

[mzmolly]

59. Because wether we go negative (which works) or criticize Bush on

legit issues which we've been doing, we'll be accused of going negative so I say do both. Turn up the legit criticism.

[sangh0]

65. So what?

Repeating what Rove says is not something I find persuasive.

[mzmolly]

71. So what?

Repeating your bs over and over isn't persuasive either. What's persuasive to me, is that the smear on Kerry has worked.

[sangh0]

78. I have provided evidence to support me

1) Clinton's complete lack of negative ads in his campaigns
2) Clinton won

You have provided nothing but repitition, and examples of candidates who lost using negative ads. The only evidence you provided, the links relating to negative ads, don't support your claim that they work. Your links only show that they are memorable.

Even worse, you have yet to give an example of a negative campaigner winning an election, and you claim that the Kerry smears worked even though his numbers have not gone down.

[mzmolly]

90. I have provided evidence to support me, you are calling personal

insults from Clinton to Bush 'positive' ... I disagree.

Clinton got down and dirty when he had to. He did so with grace, I suggest Kerry do the same damn thing.

If you want examples of people who won because of negative campaigns here you go.

Bush 1 vs. Dukakis, BTW - Dukakis fired Joe Lockhart for being too negative, Kerry just hired him. That's a good sign.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id346.htm

and another.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/175953_joel02.html

Nixon vs. McGovern

[sangh0]

108. It can't be a personal insult

It isn't addressed to any individual person, nor does it apply to any one individual. It applies to Bush*, but it also applies to many others.

It's not a negative attack. It's a positive one. And it's a substantive one, to boot.

[bagnana]

103. Clinton had ass kicking helpers

Carville was a junkyard dog who never let anyone get the better of him. He plowed the field so that Clinton could go through with his positive message. Kerry needs a junkyard dog. This is so fucking important. Where are Kerry's rabie surrogates????

[sangh0]

6. Wrong question

I know that Clinton fought back. That's why I didn't ask about that. I asked if Clinton went negative. You can fight back without going negative.

Clinton fought back against the reports of infidelity by going on TV with Hillary and talking about their marriage. Clinton didn't have to attack anyone to defend himself.

[a new day]

42. Come now, the Bimbo alerts?

They were pretty heavy handed. As they should have been.

[sangh0]

58. What are you talking about?

Everyone agrees that Clinton was attacked viciously. The point is, Clinton didn't respond by going negative.

[a new day]

100. Betsey Wright

Back Doing the Wright Stuff for the President; In Reprise of Campaign Role, Former Clinton Aide Joins Fight Against Latest Sex Allegations;
Michael Isikoff. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Dec 25, 1993. pg. A.04

Section: A SECTION
ISSN/ISBN: 01908286
Text Word Count 722


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract (Article Summary)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The result was an apparent coup for and a critical boon to the White House in its efforts to defuse the controversy about the allegations first detailed in American Spectator magazine. But Wright's activities, which she acknowledges discussing with unnamed White House aides, have fueled charges that the White House was "orchestrating" a campaign to discredit and undermine the president's accusers.
******************************

This was a task that Wright had been doing for Clinton since she was his Arkansas chief of staff, and through the 1992 campaign, with George Stephanopolus and others.

[sangh0]

110. Exactly!!

Clinton didn't do it. He had proxies to do it for him.

Kerry shouldn't, and won't, do it either. He'll have proxies do it....Just like Bush* has proxies to do it for him.

[mzmolly]

27. That's right, no charge remained unanswered.

:hi:

[mazzarro]

4. I beg to disagree with your characterization of DU'ers wanting

Kerry to go negative. Rather, Kerry need to respond hard and immediately to any and all allegations (usually FALSE allegations). IMO that is not going negative. If they try to pull one of their fast and false allegations, there are more than enough of urgly and despicable things that W* and Cheney have done in their past that can be brought to the attention of the voting public. It is only FAIR to do that. Trying to play nice does not work anymore - look at what they did to Senator Cleland in Georgia.

[sangh0]

9. I don't see. We have threads whose title ask "Should Kerry go negative"

and others claiming that "going negative works". Still other poster are saying we need to do what the repukes do.

It is only FAIR to do that

I agree with you about responding. It's only fair. But regardless of what you and I think, there are posters calling for a negative campaign, and they don't mean just responding to attacks. They are explicitely calling for Kerry to engage in name-calling (ex "Bush* is a liar", "Bush* was complicit on 9/11")

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sangh0]

14. Old enough to address the issues

let me know when you catch up

[kentuck]

10. Clinton never had to get 50% of the vote to win either.....

But, it is correct, he didn't have to go negative but he did have an excellent response team - whenever there was a lie or distortion of his record, there was a response...immediately.

[Walt Starr]

11. Kerry shouldn't go negative, but the 527's MUST

and we MUST get the noteriety of a Smear Boat Liars campaign.

[sangh0]

15. I agree with you, Walt

.

[kentuck]

17. Are the 527's permitted after the Conventions are over ?

What's the law on that ? I know the SBVT ad just came out but didn't it come out before the Repub Convention ended??

[JI7]

16. before widespread use of internet and cable news channels

while there was some internet use and cable news in 1992 it wasn't as widespread as it is today.

these days a rumor on the internet is picked up and presented on all those cable news channels which is mostly about pundits ranting on about whatever than it is about presenting news.

so it was harder to spread stories to a large audience in a such a fast time then.

today all one needs is a computer and internet hookup and they could reach many people and it's easy for lies to spread. and it makes answering every charge harder.

kerry does answer back to the attacks but major news rarely reports on it and of course even on du many don't know about it.

(this is in response to those who claim kerry isn't answering back against the attacks and clinton did)

[Armstead]

18. Clinton's speech in Bost "went negative"

He didn't attack the GOP personally, but he struck with a stilleto in his speech at the recent convention.

He reasmed the right wing and the GOP and spelled out what is at stake in this election very forcefully and with great passion. It was positive but also very direct hit at the dark heart of the Bush machine and GOP.

That's the spirit and message we need.

[mbali]

22. Clinton can do that now - he's a surrogate, not the candidate

[sangh0]

23. Criticisms on issues are not considered "going negative"

It's hard to precisely define the difference between responding and "going negative", but generally speaking, ads/sstatements/etc that focus on the issue without going after an individual are considered "comparative" so long as they are not personal and do not engage in harsh rhetoric or name calling.

Since I'm not sure what Clinton actually said in that speech, it's hard to determine if it was negative or not, but your own words suggest it was not (ie "It was positive...)

IOW, there's a difference between responding/hitting back and "going negative"

[mzmolly]

46. Bush the person needs to be "gone after" ... and Clinton has done so.

Bush the person, drives Bush the politician. We have to fight fire with fire. We have to show Bush is an ideological, maniacal, idiot.

Clinton said about Bush "Intelligence and Strength need not be mutually exclusive" tell me was that going after Bush's person? It certainly was, and he used humor to do it.

[sangh0]

56. Clinton isn't running, and that quote doesn't support you

It doesn't mention anyone by name, and it doesn't explicitely criticize anyone. It promotes an idea.

It's a positive message, not a negative.

[mzmolly]

67. As far as I and the people who laughed in the crowd were concerned

it was about Bush.

I'd like to see Kerry do more of the same.

The quote said that Bush is ignorant in a round about way. Are you saying Bush thought that was a positive comment? :eyes:

[sangh0]

73. It didn't name Bush* and it was a positive statement

The criticism in it is implicit, which is what negative ads are not.

Kerry's entire campaign is an implicit criticism of Bush*

The quote said that Bush is ignorant in a round about way. Are you saying Bush thought that was a positive comment?

We're not going for Bush*'s vote or Rove's vote. I've never met a Democrat more worried about what they think than you. The undecideds don't listen to Rove or Bush*. If they did, they wouldn't be undecideds.

[mzmolly]

80. Your back peddling. I don't care what Rove thinks. What I'm saying

is we'll be accused of going negative if we fight back ... regardless of how hard we fight, so we might as well kick some ass.

But, you are backtracking, you said we can't criticize the person, that's what Clinton did with that quote. Parse all you want, it was a direct attack on Bush's character, what's positive about the fact that an ignorant idealogue is running our country?

It's not positive at all, it's factual, but it's not "positive" ...

spin away. :hi:

[sangh0]

83. I don't care what Rove thinks. I don't know why you do

Rove can say whatever he wants. The undecideds don't listen to Rove.

But, you are backtracking, you said we can't criticize the person, that's what Clinton did with that quote

That quote criticizes nobody. "Direct" attacks name the person being attacked.

[mzmolly]

93. Who said attacks have to be direct? Parsing and spinning again I see.

:hi:

Back ... peddle.

I'm off to the fair. Have fun !

[sangh0]

112. Personal attacks must be directly addressed to a person

That's what makes them personal.

[dsc]

19. His stump speech was replete with references

to the worse economy since Herbert Hoover (it was before this one came around), to the fact they were coddling China (it was after Tianamen Square). They also had positive plans but there was some negative stuff too.

[JI7]

20. Kerry uses the Herbert Hoover line, and refers to Saudi Arabia

relationship bush has with them.

[vetwife]

21. No but that was before 9-11 and we had a dem congress..

Now being positive sends a message we are all Tinkerbells who are afraid to have a showdown at the OK Corrall with the cowboy want a be ! He is the tinkerbell but he is projecting lies and the media loves a good story, even if they have to make it up. Like Truman said..Give em truth and it will feel like Hell. Clinton recently said..Better to be strong and wrong than weak and right. On the stump in Iowa before the primaries.

[sangh0]

25. I don't consider all criticism to be "going negative"

If it focuses on the issues, and doesn't engage in name-calling, I don't see it as going negative.

Saying "The economy is in bad shape because it has been mismanaged" is not the same as saying "Bush is a thief"

[sandraj]

31. Yeah, I think, as a general comment

this debate might be straying into semantics territory ~ maybe there's another way to phrase it than "going negative"

I agree about taking swipes at Bush's record and keeping the real issues in play, without resorting to personal attacks.

[sangh0]

36. Yes, there is some confusion about the wording

but there are definitely some people who do want Kerry to go negative, complete with allusions to attack dogs, and suggestions that Kerry do exactly what Bush* and the repukes do.

[mzmolly]

24. Perot went negative remember?

:hi:

[sangh0]

26. Perot lost.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

29. * Perot took votes from Bush 1 *

Nader is taking votes from Kerry. :hi:

The times, they are a changin'

[roseBudd]

30. Bush is incompetent, here is my proof

print and distribute en masse. We are the media if we make news.

[sangh0]

37. I don't understand how that's relevant

And Perot's campaign did best when he was positive about "getting under the hood" and his charts, etc. When he started accusing Bush I of dirty tricks, he started looking like a fool.

[mzmolly]

41. He pulled votes from Bush 1 that's why it's relevant.

Gimme a break.

[sangh0]

47. He didn't win

Campaigns are limited to pulling votes from someone else. It's about winning.

Perot lost. Perot's negativity cost him more votes than it gained him. I don't see how a loser confirms the idea that negative ads work.

[mzmolly]

54. Nader won't win either but he'll help Bush! My gawd you do understand

right?

[sangh0]

60. So what?

That does nothing to show that Kerry's going negative will help Kerry.

Nader goes negative also, and he always loses.

Don't *YOU* understand that it's about winning the election? It's not about stopping Nader.

[mzmolly]

64. It's about stopping Nader and Bush = which is HOW we win.

:hi:

[sangh0]

66. No it's not

You win by getting more votes. Negative ads don't attract votes.

Negative ads depress turnout, which is what the Repukes want.

[mzmolly]

77. What a load of crap. Negative ads depress turnout for your OPPONENT.

Which is right, that's what the R's want.

High voter turnout helps us, generally but they've already disillusioned OUR SIDE. We have to get some of the lost back into the fold.

Kerry is starting to hit back, the pundits are saying he has to show what he's made of, I agree.

[sangh0]

81. Wrong again

Negative ads depress turnout for both candidates.

High voter turnout helps us, generally but they've already disillusioned OUR SIDE.

No it hasn't. Our side is highly motivated, and the facts prove it. Registrations are up, and the turnout in the primaries was extraordinarily high. Donations are up, as well as the number of campaign volunteers.

Kerry is starting to hit back,

And his responses are barely negative. No name calling.

[mzmolly]

95. I don't recall Bush calling Kerry any names .. you? So is Bush running

a negative smear on Kerry or not?

Guess by your standards, he's running a positive campaign. :eyes:

[JI7]

97. he implies many times that Kerry is not a moral person or a person

of values.

but kerry has turned the values thing into one about issues . that values are about helping those who lose their jobs, can't afford health care etc.

[sangh0]

113. That's right. Saying Kerry betrayed vets attacks Kerry's character

and not the issues. There's a difference between "Bush* is a liar" and "Someone who misleads the nation into a war in Iraq is unfit to lead the nation"

[JI7]

55. yes, Perot was actually ahead of Clinton with Clinton being in third place

for a while. but then perot got nutty and the whole thing with him dropping out and the conspiracy theories. this resulted in a lot of people who had backed perot going to clinton and when perot got back in not enough came back to perot . so clinton ended up winning.

[sangh0]

61. Bingo!

Some people look at this too simplistically. They think "Perot went negative" but never consider the back and forths of the campaign and the effects it had. They seem to think that "Perot went negative" explains the entire campaign as if it had a static and unchanging dynamic

[depakid]

82. Perot dropped out because, he said

he didn't like the Republican dirty tricks (i.e. their smear tactics) this worked in some ways to innoculate Clinton from their effects and probably gave the Republicans more pause in using them-

[mzmolly]

40. Negative campaigns work .. that's why see here.

http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/09/02/Why_Negative_Political_Ads_Work.html

Thanks to Quatar for this.

http://cbs5.com/news/local/2004/08/30/Do_Negative_Campaign_Ads_Work%3F_Test_Yourself%2E.html

"...we made two commercials -- one promoting me, and one ripping me. We made our own focus group, showed them the spots, then we showed them the door. Twenty-four hours later we gathered them back to see what they remembered.

"In the first commercial, I can't remember one thing," said panel member Thomas McCormack. "The second one I remember."

Panelist Michelle Gallagher said about the negative ad, "It pointed out how you were selfish, and your reporting was self-centered."

Now why do you want to lose? I guess that is the question.

[sangh0]

44. Your links don't support your argument

The links show that negative ads are more MEMORABLE, not that they work.

Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt ran negative ads against each other in Iowa. Ask them how negative ads work.

Negative ads depress turnout, which is exactly what the Repukes want.

And as an example of how negativity doesn't work, your accusation that I want to lose will not convince anyone that I don't care. You can do better than such a cheap shot.

[dsc]

49. They worked very well

Both Gephard and Dean dropped like stones. This is a two man race and thus making Bush fall would likely make Kerry gain.

[sangh0]

68. Illogical

You acknowledge that their negative hurt both Gep and Dean, yet you argue that negative ads will help Kerry but hurt Bush*

[dsc]

106. who are the people going to vote for?

In the primary people had two other choices (Kerry and Edwards) that they exercised. Here they don't. Any voter who gets turned off from Bush is either not going to vote at all (good) or vote for Kerry (better). This, unlike Iowa, is a zero sum game. That is why it has worked so well for Bush.

[mzmolly]

51. The Iowa story shows they did work, it was a murder suicide ...

They took each other out of the race, but now it's down to two men, and we have a kill or be killed scenario here.

Negative ads work, the links I provided show that.

[sangh0]

76. So why advise suicide for Kerry?

And the links you provided show that negative ads are memorable, not that they work

If negative ads worked, we'd be talking about the Perot years.

[mzmolly]

96. What you advise is assisted suicide for Kerry, I advise putting Bush

in the proverbial grave instead.

The Perot comment was not about negative ads, it was about pulling votes from Bush, Clinton fought under a different dynamic then Kerry is, get it?

[sangh0]

115. And that's exactly what we don't want

Childish playground fighting analogies, filled with bluster, but don't address the issues that people care about.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Negative is not necessary. Just the truth about Iraq.

It's Bush's weak point, and all but ignored by Kerry and the Dems. Kerry is all over the map talking about stuff that is inconsequential to most of the people. But, he is timid about Iraq and the "war on terror" because of his perceived need to be "tough".

He continues to play it safe and is about to lose the election chasing the "moderate" votes by being the "me too, but not as bad" candidate.

[sangh0]

84. Right, negative isn't necessary

but I don't see why "the truth" should be limited to Iraq.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. Because it's where Bush is most vulnerable.

It needn't be limited to Iraq, but Kerry needs to focus on what the American people are most worried about. Kerry's scattershot approach of nibbling around the edges isn't working. All of the stuff about medicare, outsourcing, jobs, etc, are easily countered by BushCorp with their advertising about how much they've done to enhance medicare, how good outsourcing is for the economy, how they've added x number of jobs, etc. All total BS, but what average citizen checks?

Kerry needs to renounce his IWR vote and quit doing the "not as bad", "I have a plan..but I'm not telling anyone about it", nonsense and step up to the plate and go after Bush.

To hell with the "Bush was only in the National Guard", "Bush is Stupid", type of negativity.

Bush is vulnerable where it counts. Kerry needs to go after him with the truth.

[sangh0]

114. And that's where you're wrong

There hasn't been a scattershot approach to Kerry's criticism, which is why Kerry's #'s have consistently gone up, while Bush*'s have gone down.

I'm not one to be persuaded by a glut of negative adjectives, particularly when I know the facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x748271

Kerry is in great shape.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

62. Weren't there some pretty harsh and effective "Read my lips, no new taxes"

commercials? Not Clinton himself, but negative ads.

Who ran the Bush I reelect campaign? It wasn't Rove, was it? Atwater already dead then?

[Trajan]

63. Going 'negative' neednt be insulting ...

[sangh0]

85. Could you say more?

It's hard to tell exactly what you mean by that.

[depakid]

69. Using bad analogies is faulty logic

As i mentioned on a previous post in response to this question, neither Clinton campaign is comperable in any way to the dynamics of this race. Therefore citing Clinton as an example doesn't prove anything one way or another- and it's a waste of time arguing over.

Clinton's first campaign was a three way race including Ross Perot, who took over 18% of the vote and was a loud and harsh critic of the current Bush administration policies- without Perot in the race, Clinton would have had to do a lot more of this himself. Perot gave him the ability to use the negative attacks on him to garner media attention and focus it on economic worries- and even in this he was aided by Perot. Kerry has no such luxury and has thus far not been able to turn the negative attention to suit his own purposes.

Cinton's second race was with Bob Dole, who was a loser out of the gate and never had a realistic chance of becoming President. Running attack ads- especially controversial ones is not wise in that situation and can have contradictory results. Attack ads are meant to bring up a candidates negatives and are only useful when there's a tight race or the opponent is ahead.

Maybe you're too young to remember those races- or the 1988 campaign (which is in fact a much better analogy to the dynamics of this race). Or it could be that you just don't see the differences between the various campaigns and so can't properly induce the general rules from specific examples.

[sangh0]

86. If you have a better analogy, I'm all ears

.

[depakid]

101. I'd say Dukakis in 1988 applies- as does Gore in 2000

or even what Mondale did to Hart in 1984, by repeating "where's the beef" that took the winds out of Hart's sails and with a single childish meme- took scrutiny off of Carter/Mondale's ineffectual record in the late 70's. Hart couldn't muster up the rhetoric to counter it- despite his superior intellect and detailed policies. That ad alone may well have cost us 4 years of Reagan.

1988 is eerily similar to this campaign thus far. Even though Kerry promised not to run a Dukakis style campaign- that in effect is what he decided to do in the weeks before the convention when he took someone's bad advice and actively stopped "Bush bashing." Dukakis had a wide lead- 18% points- coming out of the convention. The previous administration was embroiled in the Iran/Contra scandal- the economy had taken a pounding- including a stock market crash and the Savings and Loan crisis- involving one Niel Bush, by the way, was coming down (people don't realize just how huge that was- how much corruption took place and how severely it depleted the treasury).

In the face of all that, Dukakis not only wouldn't respond to the lies and smears that the Repulicans threw at him, but refused to underscore just how bad the Republican policies were using compelling attack ads of his own. Colleagues of mine at the time (a few of who worked in the campaign in fairly high positions) seeing what was happening, began to call him Dukarkis- because we believed he was rolling over and playing dead. Broke a lot of hearts, that campaign did. By the time the campaign finally woke up to the reality of the situation, it was too late- the damage had been done. The lies and ridicule took their toll.

The Gore campaign is analogous too, in terms of tactics and procedures. Since that was recent history, I'll let readers figure out for themselves what the similarities are and how they apply.

[sangh0]

111. You make some good points

For one thing, the "where's the beef" was childish, I would consider it a form of negative campaigning, and it is an attack, though it wasn't what I had in mind when I started the thread. So maybe there is room for something more aggressive and upfront than I was first thinking.

For another, you're probably right about Clinton not being a good analogy. Your points and others show that there's only so much to be mined from this analogy.

However, the main problem you are pointing towards with Dukakis analogy was his failure to respond, not a lack of negative attacks, IMO. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Kerry should not respond in any way, or that he shouldn't attack Bush*. I am just concerned about those who are saying that Kerry himself MUST get up and say that Bush* is a liar, Bush* was involved in 9/11, Bush* is stupid, etc, and those who think we should spend all our energy responding to the republicans.

[TacticalPeek]

104. Here's the salient from Clinton/Dole.

Some people say :) that the Big Dog's victory was helped by Dole shooting his wad early, running low on dough during the summer when the dems defined/'framed' him - think back to the 'vicious' dem campaign financing, the 'vicious' ads, the 'vicious' liberal media all together painting Dole into the corner where he could not stop himself from lashing out unattractively. And that's about using PR to get an audience to perceive something in the way you want them to perceive it. Dole was restrained by finances from fighting back effectively against that dem framing. But negative or positive or neutral, it would seem that a campaign that does not maintain constant and adequate pressure against the other side defining them is vulnerable to defeat by default. I could worry that Kerry did not push back enough during August. I would definitely worry if there is much use of the don't-dignify-that-charge-by-responding strategy.

A perhaps emerging dynamic that concerns me is the apparent decision by bushco to give up on winning the middle, and instead campaign for a big turnout by their base. This could be a feint, or just BS I heard on TV. But if that's the way they go, it could lead both sides to very negative campaigns, which would tend to suppress overall turnout, and that would favor the R's. Maybe that's all they have?

[depakid]

105. In another race, I'd be more concerned about turnout

But not in this one. The country is so polarized and the level of concern and colective angst is so high that I don't think attack ads- run by OUR side- will significantly affect OUR turn out.

You make an interesting point about the Dems defining Dole with 'vicious' this and that (funny how it's only characterized that way when Republicans are on the receiving end of it). I think you're right, the strategy played well on Dole's propensities- and it's instructive with regards to how the Kerry campaign could use the same sort of methods against Bush- who, like Dole has a propensity to come across very unflattering when he's on the defensive.

I don't want to revisit August, though. What's done is done, and the arguments about that are pretty much settled. My only worry is that the DNC and the strategist at the Kerry campaign still haven't learned their lesson about what not to do to beat this guy. for chrissakes, this is the most corrupt, inept, secretive and dishonest administration in American history. There's so much ammunition (so much, in fact, that it's a problem in and of itself). it's insane not to use it- just as it's been a mistake to keep letting them smear Kerry without adequate and high profile responses.

[MrBenchley]

72. You might recall

Dole and Poppa Bush both went negative against Clinton....and couldn't beat him.

There's no way to beat the GOP by going negative....because they have an infinite supply of mean-spirited crap to throw.

But the only POSITIVE ISSUE they can run on is homeland security, and we can beat that case hands down.

[sangh0]

87. I agree completely

.

[H2O Man]

74. Kerry needs to come across as strong

and people should not confuse "negative" with "strong." Kerry needs to respond to republican attacks, but not to react to them. There is a significant difference.

Please keep in mind that in 2000, the public was evenly divided in two ways: first, only half the eligible voters participated; two, those who did were fairly evenly divided, with it being close enough for the republicans to steal the election.

Since then, the divisions have become deeper: the democrats & progressive left sees corruption etc; the republicans and lobotomized right sees 9-11.

This is the most intensely divisive and hostile election since at very least the Civil War era. There is no realistic way that Kerry can have a comfortable lead right now. Considering that the republican convention pulled out all of their big guns, we are in very good shape. We need to concentrate on getting more voters registered, all voters educated, and make sure our side fully participates in the coming two months.

If we work hard, Kerry will be up in the polls within two and one-half weeks. Then we move into the deabate season. Guess what? That's when it's most important to take a more comfortable lead. And we're going to do it.

And in November, we're taking back the White House.

[sangh0]

89. Exactly!

Responding is not attacking

Reacting is not "taking the offense" and is not strong.

[mzmolly]

98. Hope your right about taking back the WH.

:hi:

[jonnyblitz]

94. He won by chance because Perot took right wing votes away

from the GOP.I doubt it had anything to do with how his campaign was run. This is coming off the top of my head, I have no links to prove this so feel free to flame me. I can take it and I might learn something . I am just throwing this out there for purposes of debate because I personally don't know what the true answer is. :hi:

[alcuno]

117. Do what * does. Go negative and say you are being positive.

Always deny that you are being negative. Say you are running a positive campaign while knocking the snot out of them. Up is down and down is up. THAT'S how Rove does it.