Do we have to campaign like Republicans to win?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Do we have to campaign like Republicans to win?

[Ediacara]

1. Other

We have to campaign like Clinton. Telling the truth, but hitting hard.

[John_H]

2. Hey! There was no other!

becuase the only hope for the judo chess crowd is to set up a strawman of false choice: either you do their strategy or you're KKArl Rove with a D after of your name.

Of course, you are exactly right. The concepts of tough and truth are not mutually exclusive in any way, shape, or form.

[MikeG]

3. Problem. What problem? Everything is peachy.

Lets not panic. Right?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Actually I think YOU should panic.

Why change your long-term strategy?

[MikeG]

5. Nah. I'm going to keep my head in the sand like you have.

You in June: Kerry is ahead nationally and in the battleground states. Why worry?

How's Kerry doing now?

[JI7]

7. he never said there was no work to do

he had a problem with all those doom and gloom type posts. which mostly repeated itself . and there are many polls out, some with bush only a couple of points ahead, some with double digit leads and those polls have been shown to have used methods which favored republicans.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. I'll bet you $100 that Kerry is inauguarated on January 20

since I'm concerned about who gets inauguarated on January 20, and totally unconcerned with who the corporate media tells me is ahead now.


What say you? Will you bet against me and Kerry?

[MikeG]

11. As long as he doesn't listen to the advice he got this summer.

From inept campaign managers who want to keep everthing positive.

And got rolled by Karl Rove.

[JI7]

12. they didn't keep it positive in the sense that there was no criticism

they had been going around the country campaigning and speaking out against bush's policies AND speaking out against the swift boat liars.

[MikeG]

15. You fight fire with fire. What? Bush has no skeletons in his closet?

Not what I heard from Kitty Kelley.

This stuff works every time its tried.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Is that a yes or a no? Will you take the bet or not?

I need to recoup some of my campaign contributions.

[MikeG]

17. No. I'm an optimist. Ask Will Pitt.

I think Kerry knows why he's behind and will correct his mistakes.

[JI7]

18. yeah, because he has been off the air for a whole month

and the republicans held their convention and the attacks on him.

did you think there would be no low points ?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Will you at least admit you were wrong when Kerry wins ?

I doubt it.

[MikeG]

20. Read my prior post. He will win. But it will be by going negative.

Not by counting on the intelligence of the American people.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

22. You can't even conceive of the idea that you are wrong?

LOL

[MikeG]

23. No. I'm wrong about the Steelers often.

But not about this.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

26. Bush doesn't think he makes mistakes either.

[TNMOM]

6. yes - we have to be better at their game than they are. eom

[LTR]

9. Dems don't have to get sleazy, but they do have to be assertive

I'm not sure whether Kerry needs to get sleazy, but Bill Clinton showed in 1992 that it is possible to run a positive campaign and be a hardass at the same time.

The worst thing that could happen to Kerry is if he is thought of as a wimp. He needs to avoid that tag, and get tough with the Bush campaign. He showed flashes of that last Thursday, when he called them out.

Kerry needs to really communicate with the people. Sure, the economy stump speech resonates to a degree, but they need to hit 'em where it hurts. If they attack Bush, attack him on his record. The guy choked on 9/11/01 in front of little kids when notified that the country is under attack. He wimped out! Talk about keeping our nation safe! Hell, he can't even keep his own convention safe, seeing as it was infiltrated with little effort several times by protestors.

I'd kill to see a Kerry ad about the infamous 'seven minutes'. That'll ruffle some feathers!

As far as talking about the sleazy stuff (abortions, drinking, etc.), leave that to the outsiders. Kerry shouldn't bring it up.

[MrBenchley]

10. Can't imagine who saw the GOP hate fest...

and said "Hey, that's what we ought ot be doing..."

Just like I can't imagine who looks around this morning and thinks that the campaign that's fading into a coma is Kerry's....

[JI7]

13. it's not really that they saw it, it's more the overall coverage

in newspapers, magazines, soundbytes on the news they see in the morning or before bed etc. and of course kerry had stopped his ads in that month.

[primavera]

40. It defies reason, but...

...have you seen the latest poll figures? I'm with you, I hate to think that the only way to get through to Americans is to play on their fears and prejudices, but I have to admit, I can't remember the last time positive messaging won out over negative campaigning. We seem to have become so jaded, no one is prepared to believe a positive message anymore, yet we're all so ready to believe a negative one. Why is it that reporters report every murder and rape that takes place, but never repot on the more positive things going on in the world? I think Michael Moore was right: we live in a culture of fear and that's the only language left we understand anymore. I wish it were otherwise, I wish that the Repukes would resist the temptation to go negative so that we could both rise up out of the gutter, but, frankly, as long as one side agrees to be bound by ethical constraints and the other side makes no such concession, I think it's always going to be a lopsided contest: playing fair only works as long as both sides agree to play fair.

[BootinUp]

14. The conservatives have made big strides

over my adult life. I think we better do something to reign it in. I vote get nasty.

[Toronto Ron]

21. We should campaign the opposite:

The fascists lie, we tell the truth. Only the mechanics of getting the truth across are at issue.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. The majority of voters in this poll disgust me.

And I don't think they represent the true face of the Democratic party.

In the end, that’s what this election is about. Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope? John Kerry calls on us to hope. John Edwards calls on us to hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism here—the almost willful ignorance that thinks unemployment will go away if we just don’t talk about it, or the health care crisis will solve itself if we just ignore it. No, I’m talking about something more substantial. It’s the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker’s son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too. The audacity of hope!
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0727.html

[BootinUp]

34. Until there are some changes

in the average voters knowledge and interest in politics, or in how important campaigns are covered by the largest media outlets, I don't see how you can win against the Bush machine by only taking the high road. Because not enough people can or do discern the actual reality. I don't believe in using outright lies, or some of the other tactics some of the sleaziest politicians use, but we do need to attack with information we have, even if it cannot be proven in a court of law. Questions should be raised and gotten out there on the media. That is what I mean by playing nasty. So I really don't agree with either of the poll choices.

[Awsi Dooger]

25. This is the current version of all those Wes Clark threads

From the primaries and especially preceding the VP selection. Wes is our savior. Wes is a lock. Wes will kick Cheney's ass.

Now replaced by numerous get mean threads every day, a furious desire to stray lower into the gutter than any sleazeball Republican, lie better and steal more. And every bit as astute.

[BootinUp]

28. Oh the hypocrisy is rich

Did you feel it as you painted a whole group of supporters just because I, one single Clark supporter expressed his opinion. Your attempt at sounding above the board failed miserably.

I'm talking about campaign tactics not stealing. And while I voted for the first choice to make a point, I don't think its necessary to lie in order to win. I do think we need to use the media hunger for sensational stories to take down the Bushies.

[Awsi Dooger]

33. I'm frustrated by dupe threads, no knock on Clark or his supporters

I didn't notice your post. Since the lousy TIME poll this forum has been avalanched with let's get dirty threads. It struck me as painfully similar to the pro-Clark onslaught preceding the VP choice, when I would login and try to find any two consecutive threads that did not feature Clark in the subject line. I knew what I was going to post in this thread without looking at a single previous reply.

In reviewing my post, agreed it was poorly executed, looking more like a jab at Clark than my intention. I have expressed my belief in Kerry going positive previously, since all the apolotical friends of mine, who I speak to regularly, are completely unimpressed and uncaring when I bring up Bush's national guard duty, etc. They know what they have in Bush. Kerry needs to seek a ledge above, he will not bring Bush down.

[BootinUp]

35. its cool

I can understand frustration with the board getting swamped with posts. And while I might differ with you on campaign tactics for Kerry I wish that running clean campaigns were the norm.

[sandnsea]

27. Repubs STAY ON MESSAGE

That's how they win. Repeat, that's how they win. Whatever the message that comes from the top, they repeat it without question. I know it's not the Democratic way, but if people really want to talk about how Republicans win, THAT is how. If the Kerry campaign decides to go negative, that's when *I* go negative. And I go negative in the exact same way they do. If positive is the order, then that's what I follow. I don't matter, winning matters and that's how to win.

[Hippo_Tron]

29. Other: Nasty and mean but definately not dishonest

The truth is much worse than any lie that we can make up.

[Christof]

30. We need to be mean to win.

We have to say Bush is incompetent, stupid, and has no business running the strongest country in the world. We also need to attack Bush on his lack of speaking the English language coherently (Kerry can run his whole campaign on this...lol). We also need to attack Bush on EVERYTHING he has done wrong in the last four years, including his alienating our allies during the Iraq mess.

We need to remember to keep attacking the issues and not turn it into a hate-fest. We also need to keep to the truth.

This country, for some odd reason, thrives on negativity. If we go negative, Bush will cower in a corner. Trust me on this.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Voters will respond to a positive vision of the future

Bush offers more of the same.

Up to this point, Kerry has offered more of the same, but he can do it better.

Forget about it!

Kerry could say something dramatic like "I will go to Iraq"!

Kerry could also say to veterans that he is sorry if many of them took his 1971 Senate appearance as an attack on their honorable service. That war crimes were indeed committed by a few, and that war crimes are currently being committed by a few in Iraq. That the National Command Authority bears full responsibility for the war crimes being committed in Iraq, as they did in Vietnam. The most important issue facing veterans is not the inappropriate conduct of a few, but the lack of care and benefits that veterans get when they return home from the war.

Kerry could also abide by the KISS principle. Forget complex and muddled answers to questions, and keep it simple!

All of the above would put to rest the refighting of the Vietnam war, and the Iraq issue. Now all that Kerry needs to do is to say what he will do different from Bush. The message should be specific, it must have meat. Endorsing universal health care would be such a program!

[molly]

32. I can remember a time when DU'ers laughed at us

Kerry supporters. They thought they had it in the bag. My first choice was always Kerry and tied for second was either Wes Clark or John Edwards.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. And yet they did not learn from the experience

We were doomed a year ago according to them, and we're doomed now... some things never change...

[incapsulated]

39. Kerry wasn't running against Republicans in the primaires

In case you forgot. Kerry never ran against KKKarl Rove and Co.

Apples and oranges.

[molly]

41. Ahhh - yes, but Kerry has debated the best of them

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. So you think Howard Dean is a less formidable opponent than Bush?

I disagree. I prefer Dean to Bush, and I think he is a more formidable oppponent.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. Obviously we all prefer Dean

However, this point needs to be made: you can't compare Kerry's comeback in the primaries to what is needed to defeat Bush. In the spring, it was OUR choice, and Democrats strategically identified Kerry after deciding Dean was flawed and vulnerable. Dean's numbers freefell in the final in the final week or two in Iowa.

In this case, Bush has a very solid base of 44 or 45 percent. It really doesn't matter who is the more formidable debater or opponent, Bush or Dean. There is no way Republicans will abandon Bush like the soft-Deaniacs "Married Kerry."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. In other words the answer doesn't support your anti-Kerry rhetoric

so you won't answer.

[Awsi Dooger]

49. Your post was directed at #39, incapsulated, not myself

I responded because I don't like improper or imbalanced comparisons. Kerry's rally in the primaries does not remotely resemble winning a fall campaign for president versus an incumbent, no matter how many blindly optimistic threads are posted here in that regard. A primary is like a decision among a family. Kerry's senate comeback over William Weld is more relevant, but that is a Democratic state and Weld made considerable mistakes down the stretch.

I have always questioned whether John Kerry has the personal dynamics to win swing and be elected, especially against a likable incumbent. His tardy and poor responses to the Swift Boaters are examples of my concern, along with the laundry list speches. I wanted Edwards and charismatic teflon, the ability to deflect any smear with a smile and a memorable short response. IMO, that quality was much more vital than Kerry's war record.

Our nominee is John Kerry and I will vote for him and straight ticket Democratic, as always.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. My post was in response to you. Thank you for reiterating my point.

48 was in response to 47

[IndianaGreen]

51. People voted for Kerry because he was "electable"

All the polls showed that most of the Democratic primary voters agreed with the views of Dennis Kucinich, but were voting for Kerry because they believed what they were sold: the number of medals one had was related to electability. This was the bullshit argument that Al From made way back in 2002 when he argued that Democrats should support the war.

Let's see what happens!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

53. That's what the media told us... and they would never distort the facts

in order to advance a hidden agenda, would they?

[IndianaGreen]

55. That's what Al From said

From and his other cohorts in the DLC kept saying that it would be a disaster to nominate an antiwar candidate, and that Democrats needed a war hero. From supported Bush's wars and he didn't want anyone that would challenge Bush on the war itself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. You didn't hear it in the media? Is that true?

Arguing that something ISN'T propaganda -- because you believe it?

lol

[IndianaGreen]

57. I read it in the NDOL website

You can find all of the imperialist filth in there that Al From, Bruce Reed, and the rest of the DLC/PPI neolib pukes wrote about the war and antiwar Democrats.

From and Reed's articles were posted and debated in DU at the time. Why don't you put your DU search capabilities to work?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. I think your denial of the simple fact that you are repeating media spin

is pretty funny.

[IndianaGreen]

59. Stop spouting talking points and do a DU search on From and Reed

and also the PPI guru, and former PNAC signer, Will Marshall. You can read the crap that NDOL posted that led some Democrats at the 2003 Indiana Jefferson-Jackson Dinner to say "Fuck the DLC!"

Washington, D.C.: The DLC was openly supportive of the war in Iraq. Now that the tide is turning, do you feel that your organization is facing the same predicament that Richard Gephardt is currently faced with? Can you attack Bush for something that you supported? Likewise, how can you justify the DLC's support of the war as anything other than blatant populism in an effort to make inroads into GOP voting coalition?

Al From: I thought the war was right before we went to war. I'm proud of the way our military conducted it - a military built by Bill Clinton, I might add. I still support the war. America and the world are safer without Saddam Hussein and his two sons. So I have no quarrel with the war. But I'm not so pleased with the way the Administration was unprepared for victory. We also need to win the peace. So as we support the war, we've been critical of the Bush diplomatic and post-war efforts. America is and will be the strongest nation and the greatest force for good in the world. I'd like to be that and have some friends, too.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_politics_from072903.htm

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. We all lived through it, we all know the media mantra was

"Kerry is winning because he is 'electable' "


for you to deny such a well known reality truly makes your credibility suspect, in my eyes.

[IndianaGreen]

61. The DLC lied and was among the ones that pushed for the war

just as AIPAC did.

Your failure to do any search on the previous debates that were held in DU about this issue tells me that you are not interested in the truth, but only in rhetoric. Adios!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

62. Are you saying the media DID NOT tell us

"Kerry is winning because he is 'electable' "


I don't care how many times you prop up some strawman villian, if you don't respond to my question, I'll just repost it.


Was the media spin: "People are voting for Kerry because he is 'electable' " ???


Or not?

[IndianaGreen]

65. Most Democratic primary voters agreed with Kucinich on the war

but they voted for Kerry because they thought he was electable. Where were you at during the primaries? Did you miss the C-SPAN coverage, because that's exactly what voters said when asked on camera?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. Are you saying that the media DID NOT say that?

It simple -- either that was the media spin, or it wasn't.

LOL


Was the media mantra "Kerry is winning because voters think he is electable" or was it something else?

LOL


You are welcome to accept the pablum spoon fed to you by the corporate media if you want.

[IndianaGreen]

68. The voters said it!

If you want to believe in the prowar, pro-globalization, capitalist media, that's your problem, not mine!

I am telling you what voters said, and what the DLC website said about their love for warmongering.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. How do you know? Because that's what the media told you. LOL

In fact, the only thing we know about what the voters 'said' - are the results of the elections. Everything else is media spin, based on media-sponsored exit polling. And the gullible swallow the corporate bait hook, line and sinker...

[IndianaGreen]

72. A C-SPAN interview with voters is media spin?

No, you are the only spin meister in here.

Like we say in Puerto Rico, Adios!

BTW, nice job in avoiding commenting on the warmongering garbage the DLC posted on their website!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

74. How many voters were interviewed? How many people voted? LOL

What questions were asked? What questions weren't asked?

In fact, the only thing we know about what the voters think are the results of the elections.


You are parroting corporate media spin.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. So you spoke to most primary voters, or did the media tell you that? LOL

[incapsulated]

54. Yes, I do...

For one thing, Dean doesn't have: Rove, National black-ops working for Rove and the media in his pocket.

You can't compare two Democrats going against each other with a national election between two parties. The very debate itself is framed by different issues. And neither is a sitting President with a war and 9/11 under his watch. You can make some comparisons, but it really is very different.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. I guess if you think Bush is a better candidate than Dean ..

several conclusions inevitably follow...

I don't agree with that premise, though.

[leftofthedial]

37. there are no rules in politics anymore

and no extra credit for playing nice.

Democrats need to face reality. the American people are either 100% unlikely to change their vote or they are ignorant, stupid, delusional or all three. Furthermore, they are in a semi-permanent media stupor and are so benumbed by the all-out assault modern society wages on thier puny little primate brains 24X7 that only a slap in the face will even get their attention at all. Then their attention span is about 4 seconds.

You need to say something nasty. You need to caricature your opponent. You need to get as many people to hate and ridicule your opponent as you can as fast as you can.

I don't like that. It does not appeal to my higher nature or my hopes for our society, but that is how it works. We routinely let about 12% of the population totally kick our asses.

[incapsulated]

38. We don't need to lie

To play rough. They have to make up shit to go at Kerry. We have a bunch of crooks, liars and criminals here. If you don't use that against them, then you are waaay overestimating the intelligence and level of self-education of the average voter. It's sad but true. It's always been this way in politics, if you know anything about history. It's just that it's gotten even more underhanded and turned into more of a one-sided fight because the rethugs have bought up the media, which has an influence like never before. Ignore at your peril. Or, rather, all of our peril.

[nolabels]

43. Heck, we don't even need to tell the truth

But it might help

Today's Bush Lie

" welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

"As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.

"According to officials, the actual quotation from Castro's 1992 speech reads as follows: 'There are hookers, but prostitution is not allowed in our country. There are no women forced to sell themselves to a man, to a foreigner, to a tourist. Those who do so do it on their own, voluntarily. We can say that they are highly educated hookers and quite healthy, because we are the country with the lowest number of AIDS cases.'"

"...And this isn't the first time the Internet has baffled Bush. Back in 2003, the President cited another student's thesis when making a case to go to war. The student's work ended up in a government document describing Iraq's weapons capability. Not exactly the kind of hard intelligence needed to justify an attack on another country." The Register, 07.28.04
(snip)
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

[gulfcoastliberal]

42. If we keep campaigning like democrats,

we will lose.

How is exposing he truth about Bush and 9/11, Saudi Arabia, AWOL, et, etc dihonest and/or mean? Why is focusing on what Bush* has done the last 4 years sleazy?

Fuck the focus groups and right track/wrong track BS.

This is the nastiest campaign ever; plus a state run media - we need to hit hard and keep hammering. Sissy shit about health care (which I know is important - but) while they're screaming about terror and 9/11 can't work. Wake up.

[a new day]

45. Loaded language like dishonest tips your hand

but, I want to win.

[oldcoot]

46. Yes, we have to campaign like Republicans to win

I remember living in Wyoming during the 1980s and witnessing one the nastiest political campaigns I had ever seen for the House of Representatives. The Democratic candidate had been seriously injured in a car wreck. Republican volunteers took advantage of this accident to call up voters and ask them how they would feel if they found out that the Democratic candidate was in the car with a union boss at the time of the accident. Of course, there was no union boss in the car with him but it did not matter because the Democrat got his ass kicked. Perhaps I should not been surprised by the outcome because Wyoming is a conservative state. However, I no longer believe people when they say they do not support dirty campaigning.

Moreover, I suspect that people do not always pay attention to who is running the negative ads. Even if Kerry ran the cleanest and nicest campaign, half the public would probably still say that both sides run dirty political ads. It is time for Kerry to let Bush have it.

[Zorra]

52. Today I wrote "Bu$h is AWOL, Deserted in 1972" on the back of a white

T-shirt in big black letters and wore it into a republican cantina at happy hour.

Is that campaigning like a republican?

[AlabamaYankee]

63. You can't "out-Republican" the GOP

An extremely well informed and accurate pollster here in Alabama has remarked repeatedly that when campaigns are waged on issues the Democrats win; when they're waged on smear and personalities Republicans win.

We've got a lock on the issues. The key is to deny the Republicans the advantage of smear by forcefully denouncing it, and challenging them continuously on the issues.

[NightOwwl]

66. Why is this so black and white to you?

Are you saying we shouldn't bring up the 7 minute choke after being told America was under attack?

We shouldn't mention he continued with a photo op after his aides finally dragged his ass off the chair?

He hid out for 3 days until going to ground zero. Is that off limits?

He used 9/11 and the deaths of 3000 people for political gain. Is that too nasty?

One single day...September 11...and we have enough ammunition to knock him out cold. He's a coward, plain and simple. His actions on that day were cowardly. He is the antithesis of a strong and steady leader. Do we want a coward leading our nation for another 4 years?

This is not campaigning like Republicans. This is exposing the quivering underbelly of George Bush to the American people. What do you suggest we do instead?

[OSheaman]

70. What a jaded ass poll

Someone already has an opinion.

[rocktivity]

71. You don't need dishonesty and nastiness when the FACTS are on your side

You only need to present those facts aggressively.

:headbang:
rocknation

[bushwakker]

73. No reason to lie about Bush

I don't support camapaigning on lies. I do support fighting hard and nasty with the truth.

[in_cog_ni_to]

75. HELL YES!

It's time to start bringing a gun to a gun fight. Time to fight fire with fire. Enough is enough.

[NewJeffCT]

77. we can be plenty nasty & mean, but also truthful

RepubliCONs are nasty, mean and dishonest... but, there is just so much truthful BS on Bush that we don't need to resort to lying about it. They throw so much crap out there that a lot of it slips under the radar, and a good deal of the rest of played down by their media lapdogs.

[qwlauren35]

78. There's a middle ground...

I think the truth is nasty enough. We have to TELL the truth, and USE the TRUTH to paint the true picture of Bush. And on this, we must not hold back at all.

But smearing Bush or his wife, or his children with LIES, makes no sense to me.

I'm surprised that anyone would think that this is necessary or appropriate, given how bad the truth already is.