The reason going negative won't work as well as you hope...

[Tommythegun]

As a neutral observer (not supporting Bush, not convinced of Kerry) and a Political Science student, here's my observation as to why the Republicans have had success going negative on Kerry and why similar efforts aren't as likely to pay off against Bush:

The fact is that the Bush/Cheney administration is a known quantity, they've been in office for four years already. Love them or hate them, the decision about what they represent and whether they are good or bad is already made up for most people. In other words, most people already HAVE four years of information on Bush/Cheney and adding new information now, 'reframing' to use the psychological term, is not so easy against four years of existing information. The AWOL/draft doger business and the drunk driving in Texas or whatever is all old hat: this stuff was out there in 2000.

By contrast, Kerry and Edwards were relatively unknown. Edwards hadn't even finished his first term in the Senate. And unless you were either from Massachusetts or followed politics (REALLY followed politics), you weren't likely to know much about Kerry either. That was a big wide open hole for Kerry to be defined, and opened a race as to who would be the first to do so. The idea was, near enough as I can see, that Kerry served in Vietnam... now he's running for President. The Vietnam narrative has been since thrown on the defensive and the Bush/Cheney people now are working against the intervening time between Vietnam and now, to define that negatively for the public. It seems that the Kerry people have left this flank exposed and the Bush people have taken the initiative.

I'm not predicting how the race will turn out, but what I do say is that if Kerry does win, judging by how things have gone thus far, it will be more because people are fed up with Bush than because they've been sold on Kerry.

[lagniappe]

1. I disagree about Bush being a known quantity. The problem is that

most people don't really know Bush. They've been sold a lie.

[Tommythegun]

2. You can call it a lie...

but, regardless, they have a perspective already, false or not. After the last four years, which have been, ahem, rather eventful, I very much doubt that most people don't "know Bush". Maybe they don't know him the way you "know" him, but that's your problem, is what I am saying.

[lagniappe]

8. They have a perspective because we have allowed that fiction to go

unchallenged. They've tagged Kerry as a flip-flopper. It is a lie, but guess what? It has stuck and people believe it. Hell, Kerry is a bona fide war hero, and we are hearing he is unfit to command. Unbelievable. The media takes this shit seriously. No, negativity works. Ask Max Cleland. Ask Al Gore. Ask Mike Dukakis.

Kerry does not have to attack personally, but someone needs to.

If the Democrats keep pounding the message that Bush has no credibility and his decisions are suspect, people will eventually believe it.

[Julien Sorel]

3. This is far too subtle.

Well reasoned and true, but too subtle.

A big part of the reason you see people here demanding that Kerry go all negative isn't really about the election at all. It's just that people feel personally attacked by attacks on Kerry (the Democratic Party), and they want revenge -- otherwise they feel like wimps. So they immediately project their self image on to Kerry, and you have a small but vocal crowd raging that Kerry is weak, Kerry is Dukakis, Kerry is soft, and so on. Political nationalism: personally identifying with one's party or candidate or cause to the point where the line is too blurred. It leads to some terrible decision making, but allowing emotions to overwhelm intellect usually does.

[AP]

4. When you run on hate and fear and have no other ideas, negative campaign-

ing reinforces the only thing you have to offer.

If you're running on hope and optimism and having better ideas, it undermines what you stand for.

That's why FDR didn't "get in Hoover's face" and Edwards says. He ran on his ideas and on optimism.

[Tommythegun]

9. To paraphrase the old saying...

"negative talks, bulls*** walks".

Okay, maybe that's harsh, but the point is that you can't have one without the other. You have your "Here I am, this is who I am, this is what I stand for" part of the campaign that comes from the center. Then you have your "this is why the other guy is bad, don't vote for him", the negative side, that comes from the periphery, as far away from your candidate as you can manage. Or, preferably, from as many different directions, 527s, books, blogs, media, whatever that you can that aren't directly connected to your core campaign, so that the other guy is mired down answering charges on all fronts. It's swarm-based, net-centric style warfare, in a sense, attacking from all sides.

My point was that the Kerry people have been deficient on the FIRST, the pre-emptive defense "here's who I am" part of the message, which left them open to attack.

[DancingBear]

5. Not a bad analysis

especially coming from a PoliSci student - they usually get EVERYTHING wrong. :) :)


Welcome to DU, BTW. :hi:

[acmavm]

6. I disagree. bush* supporters are deserting every day because the

more they learn about the man, the more disgusted they become. If by going negative you mean hitting hard about the facts, then I think you're wrong. bush* hides behind a facade. We need to show the cracks in the pictures he paints, show the truth that lurks behind his 'things are getting better in Iraq', 'the economy is coming back', 'my tax cuts are working', 'NCLB is a success' bullshit. Because that's exactly what it is, bullshit. The more people are exposed to what he's done, and more importantly what he's screwed up, the more they have to really think about whether or not they want to give him another four more years to destroy what I have always heard referred to as the American way of life.

Michael Moore is as sublte as a sledgehammer and look at how many people had their eyes opening after F9/11.

You fight fire with fire. Kerry can't just be Mr. Niceguy and let bush* and Cheney get away with their lies. He has to come out strong and fast and expose the liars for what they are. And this compassionate Christian crap has got to go. This bunch is neither compassionate nor Christian, at least not according the the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that's all that matters.

Enough of letting them get a pass. Al Gore might have won, but not by enough to prevent it being stolen away by fraud. We have to win big to prevent the same thing from happening again. And to win big, they have to fight hard and use the same playbook as bush* has so successfully used for too damn long.

[Tommythegun]

11. The problem...

if you read my other post, is not that you folks have not gone negative and aggressive enough. MoveOn, Moore, etc have been as aggressive as they can be. The problem was that your candidate, the core of your campaign, failed early on in their defensive scheme, to define their guy before he was defined by the opposition. It's the same reason the Pistons beat the Lakers in the NBA finals, a better defensive game.

[kentuck]

7. I'm not sure this is a rational argument??

Nobody knew Bush in 2000? At least, not as much as they know Kerry today? Al Gore was a "known quantity" but was portrayed as a liar and an exaggerator by Bush campaign. They were dishonest.

And why would anyone have to "add new information" to re-frame Bush and Cheney? Do you think there is nothing to attack Bush and Cheney on? And because it may be "old hat" to you does not mean it is "old hat" to everybody?

Of course, you may be right about leaving Vietnam flank exposed. But who would think that someone with the military record of Bush and Cheney would attack an opponent with a Silver Star with the audacity to question the severity of his injuries. Now that takes some balls? Chutzpah!

[Julien Sorel]

12. Al Gore wasn't really a known quantity in 2000.

He'd been VP for 8 years, but no one really saw him much, just as few people see Cheney, and few people saw Quayle. There was plenty of room for negative attacks to define Gore.

Want a different example? Clinton in 1992. By the time the general election hit, Clinton's closet had been emptied of skeletons, and the Republicans had nothing to slime him with. He had been so worked over in the primary, people knew him.

Nowadays, everyone knows Bush had issues with booze, probably drugs, and there are questions about his NG service. That leaves what, the LIHOP/MIHOP conspiracy theories? Election winners, those!

Kerry should attack, but he needs to stick to issues as much as possible, and he needs a positive component to his campaign. Clinton's 92 campaign was positive, a message of hope, peppered with reminders of how poorly Bush had done.

There are still some things the 527s can do on the attack though. I think trotting out the Bush daughters is begging for it, because they are losers to the fundies: smoking, drinking, loose dressing party girls. And no one had seen them much until recently.

[Tommythegun]

15. Different scenario...

And remember, it came out to Gore winning a slight majority of the popular vote and the mess in Florida (that you folks are all well aware of).

There may be plenty to attack them on and so forth, but my point was that most people already had their perspective. The best you could do would be to pack as many like-minded people on, independents, whatever, and make a push for 51+% of the vote, not try to convert everyone.

The central point I was making is that the Kerry campaign failed to build a proper defense in terms of how their guy was defined. On the Vietnam thing, that was, judging from other veterans' reactions (American Legion, etc.), at best an ambiguous and nebulous strength, and not one to build a whole campaign on. Did it take chutzpah? A low blow? This is a political campaign and it isn't as though you haven't been plenty aggressive with the Bush was AWOL and other business yourselves.

[kentuck]

20. OK, big Poli-Sci guy !

:) What would you recommend the Kerry campaign do right now? at this time in te campaign? Is it hopeless? :)

[Tommythegun]

23. Not my job...

I didn't say negative WOULDN'T work, merely that, by itself, it isn't likely to go as far as I think some folks expect.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

10. the reason bush has been successful in negativity

is because the media has been protecting him. plain and simple. the media is almost part of his team.

[Tommythegun]

17. The other side says the same thing...

Everyone complains about "negative media". It's a cop-out for failing to do the basic work to get the message out & define the terms.

[Onlooker]

13. Negative gets press

Negative campaigning gets a lot more press and is one reason why there has been so many anti-Kerry news reports. That said, if Kerry goes negative, we all know the Republicans will go more negative. They are prepared to win with lies and distortions, and I'm not sure if the Democrats are capable of that kind of dishonesty. Even if we are, we're not as good at it as the Republicans are.

[Orangepeel]

14. people need a reason to change their minds

and I agree that negativitity, in the "bush is an evil moron" sense, won't work.

The best ads on our side are the ones where former bush supporters explain why they are voting for Kerry. The DNC has one with a former Air Force general and moveon has one with a financial analysist worried about limits on her freedom.

We need more with soccer moms, small business owners, old people, more veterans, etc. These ads do three things at once: 1) tell people why they shouldn't vote for bush; 2) tell people why Kerry is better; 3) give them validation that it is normal and okay to change their minds because others are.

[Democat]

16. Democrats should have been defining Bush for the last 4 years!

With a few months off for 9/11 if you want to be nice.

Instead we have weak idiots like Daschle running ads where they are (almost literally) kissing Bush's ass.

Many on our own side have defined Bush as a great leader, everyone on their side defines Kerry as a weak loser.

[Nay]

26. Yes, Cat! Very true!

All along, too many Dem poiticians have failed to be what they are supposed to be -- namely, the opposition party. For four years all but a few (Byrd, McKinney, etc.) gave these Repub bastards a pass, and now they are supposed to go on the attack?? They should have been doing it all along, but they didn't. They acted like Bush was one of them, and now they are having trouble differentiating themselves?? Well, I guess.

This is why so many of us on this board have been howling for YEARS for our reps to stand up and do something but rubberstamp these bastards. We KNEW that when it came to the 2004 election, we had to present a different choice for people, or they were still going to truthfully be able to say they could not see much difference between the parties. And, sadly, that is what has happened. You can't go for 4 years, nodding agreeably with the Repubs, and then at the last minute try to define yourself as something different.

[dumpster_baby]

18. What kind of polisci major has no opinion on this race?

Are you a pol sci major, or are you just taking a course in it?
I ask cuz it is MIGHTY weird to see a person who is interested in politics, and yet NOT have chosen sides in THIS presidential race. I do not really buy into that scenario, sorry....

[Tommythegun]

21. You can not buy into it all you like...

If you want to know my personal opinion on the race:

It looks like a meltdown of the political process to me. Do I like Bush? Not particularly, although I did vote for him in 2000. I won't try to defend him. The big issue for me is the war on terror. But, as far as I'm concerned, the Kerry campaign has failed to make its case that it takes that issue seriously. Their principle response was "our guy served in Vietnam" and "we're going to go back to the Europeans".

Vietnam happened 30 years ago and, although some people may figure those for the 'good old days', it seems that they're not ones most people would want to be reminded of. Secondly, if Kerry were to convince the Europeans or anyone else to pick up the tar-baby in Iraq, he'd have to be one hell of a better salesman than he appears to be. Personally, I think the Atlantic alliance has become an anachronism and no longer has much to offer us anymore.

In short, the Dem response to this issue has become backward looking, to Vietnam, and to the Cold War.

Feel free to take this as constructive criticism.

[JPJones]

19. There's a lot your average Joe doesn't know about Bushco.

Liberals who saw F911 were surprised. Just imagine if everyone got the message.

Nice theory and presentation. A-
Being undecided in the most important election of your life. F

[volosong]

22. NOT A BAD ANALYSIS....JUST INCORRECT

kerry needs to go as negative as possible and pull out all the stops. after watching politics for almost 40 years, nothing works better and (if it is not already too late) it will work for him.

1. GO AS NEGATIVE AS POSSIBLE, UTILIZING 527s, AND STAY THERE. Everyone knows voters say they don’t like negative ads, but they work like Hell so use them as much as possible. BRING ON THE HUNTER-KILLER SUBMARINE AND DIVE.

2. BUSH ADS WITH A "DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS" THEME...”MY PET GOAT”...dozens of possibilities.

BUSH IS “UNFIT FOR OFFICE” USE ANY OF THE 157 SUPPORTING POINTS.

HOW ABOUT ADS SHOWING THE RNC MORONS MOCKING THE PURPLE HEART?

REMIND YOUNG FOLKS THAT THE DRAFT IS JUST A MATTER OF TIME...

HOW ABOUT ADS SHOWING CLELAND AT THE RANCH WAITING FOR BUSH TO DO THE RIGHT THING?

HELL, USE THE “BUSHISMS” TOO. PEOPLE HAVE TO BE SHOWN THAT THE MAN HAS A COGNITIVE DYSFUNCTION AND IS “UNFIT FOR OFFICE.”


3. KERRY WHEN SPEAKING MUST ALWAYS INTEGRATE ISSUES OF HOMELAND SECURITY, TERROR, AND IRAQ AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. CAN'T USE IRAQ AS A WEDGE BECAUSE OF HIS "ME TOO" POSITIONS. IF HE CHANGES, MORE FLIP FLOP CHARGES.

[Mad As Hell]

24. The way these people operate is to lie.

The people were in the process of being sold on Kerry and that had to be stopped any way possible, law or morality be damned. Thus, SBVT. They're teeing up a Willie Horton ad right now that actually has Willie Horton in it. The people will ultimately be both fed up with Bush and recognize the clear and present danger to our country if he continues in office AND be sold on Kerry.

[Awsi Dooger]

25. I tried to write something similar to this

In response to another thread today. You were much more detailed and effective in making the points.

Precisely, Bush is a known quantity and vulnerable. Kerry cannot drag Bush much, if any, lower via attacks, no matter how recent or distant. If we go negative it will be the equivalent of Dean's state recital speech in Iowa, an implosion.

Now, a negative event(s) CAN sink Bush, but this year our ammo like Clarke's book and the prison scandal were frontloaded, and now all but irrelevant.

[bain_sidhe]

27. A quibble... "unknown unknowns"

(to quote rummy) I agree that you can't get much mileage out of trying to go negative in order to change perceptions people already have on bush*, but what about introducing negative "unknown unknowns"?

That is, rather than trying to *change* people's perceptions, how about introducing negative information on aspects of bush that they didn't know about? Some of this information is 'known" to the denizens of DU, but was never covered in the media that forms most people's perceptions. Bush's insider sales (and great profit) while on the board of Harken Energy, for example. The Saudi connection that "bailed out" Spectrum 7, for another. The back-channel use of the Arlington city government to confiscate private property then GIVE the Rangers the land for their stadium - so that Bush and the other investors could then make huge private profits from the resale or development of it, for yet another.

I believe there are a wealth of unknown negatives that could be used quite effectively, from both before and after bush* took office.

[kentuck]

28. Is a response to a negative attack considered a negative attack also..

As Bill Clinton said, don't throw me in that briar patch...