Kerry's Needs a "Hail Mary Pass" Strategy to Snag GOP Voters

I don't believe that Kerry is a shoe-in if he just sticks to traditional Democratic constituencies. I believe he has to make a Hail Mary Pass to attract some likely Bush voters.

What could it be?

Bush SHOULD be vulnerable that his policies are fiscally irresponsible. He ran on balanced budget... where his first priority was to strengthen Social Security... and tax cuts were second. Saving Social Security would seem to be a great issue given that it affects all non-wealthy Americans. Bush's irresponsible deficits are turning Social Security into a faith-based retirement program. The Right has been pretending that deficits don't matter as percent of GDP... it's time those REAL numbers be used (not the unified budget numbers) and done so in a manner that makes the numbers real. Dems need a Ross Perot with some pie charts. I have another thread here on how to make such big numbers less abstract.

I think there's another potential issue that cuts across party lines. I believe that the US should sell off some of its public lands in the west. I'm not talking about national parks or scenic areas... just lands on the fringes that there seems no particular benefit for the US to hold but might be of value to the states. The BLM manages 264 MILLION acres in the US http://www.blm.gov/aml/mappage.htm

I have a few key conditions on this proposal... the first that strong safeguards are instituted to prevent more than, say, .25% be sold off each year... and ALL proceeds be used to buy sensitive lands needing protection elsewhere in the nation.

Bush SHOULD be vulnerable on giving Bin Laden a 12-18 month holiday while Bush diverted resources into a needless war in Iraq... a nation that did NOT attack us. Bush SHOULD be vulnerable for trying to hide the Saudi connection to 911 while inventing one for Saddam.

You get the picture. While Bush will use same sex marriage and 911 as wedge issue... the Democrats have to have their own.... issues that will NOT turn the Democrats into GOP-lite as Clinton did.

I'm only borrowing a term used by Norman Schwartzkopf to describe the flanking maneuver US troops used in Desert Storm.

But given the definition from http://www.whooya.net/weekly_euph.htm

I would not consider such strategies acts of desperation... only common sense given how close this election may be... and how the anti-democratic EC seems to work against Democrats.

through rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure through building a better rail and metro transit systems throughout the nation...which will ultimately reduce our dependence on ME oil. If Carter or John Anderson's proposals had been put in place in the 1970's and serioulsy implemented and enforced just think where we might be today. Billions spent on space and virtually little to show for it except the use of materials on earth but little if anything spend on mondernizing and revitalizing our energy resources and consumption. It's maddening for anyone who is a visonary thinker.

What bothers me about using jobs as the main issue is that the election is 8 months away. The Democrats may have this issue pulled from beneath their feet. The same with Bin Laden. Which is why I favor the other approach with him... that Bush gave him a holiday. This would inoculate some Americans against a suspicious October Surprise.

I think the better approach with the economy is how the recovery was delayed because Bush was so intent on giving tax dollars to the wealthy instead of giving the nation a genuine stimulus plan. Bush played politics with the nation's economy... hoping a recovery would happen anyway... and he could use the recession as a pretense to give his rich buddies a massive tax break.

Those that are disaffected will vote for Kerry or another 3rd party anyway.

Independent voters are another story entirely.

JCMach1 wrote "We only need repugs to stay home"

Good plan. I'll start stocking up on duct tape. Get the word out... election eve we break into their homes, gag them... and duct tape them to chairs!

Look at the situation. They are very close in the polls right now. Bush's term has been absolutely full of controversy and instability. Gore recieved more votes than Bush last election.

The situation is not one of desperation. We simply need to upgrade our strategy, not throw it in the garbage. This of course means reaching out to vulnerable voting blocks, some that were formally locked up by republicans may now be vulnerable, but that isnt a hail mary.

What good are polls this far out? Kerry would be insane to be lulled into some false confidence. He has to play every card he has... and do so in a way that undermines Bush's claim to be the Honor and Dignity President. Bush's record is the best weapon... not hoping that today's issues will be around 8 months from now.

You seem to be reading many things I didnt say. I never said he should be confident, or that we should just sit around doing nothing. I am saying that there is no reason to conclude that we are in a situation of desperation. Therefore a massive overhaul of our campaign strategy is definately not indicated.

KW wrote: "Who said confidence? You seem to be reading many things I didn't say. I never said he should be confident, or that we should just sit around doing nothing."

Rereading your original post... plus this one, you seem to think Kerry is sitting pretty. I don't.

"I am saying that there is no reason to conclude that we are in a situation of desperation. Therefore a massive overhaul of our campaign strategy is definitely not indicated."

And can we PLEASE get over this "desperation" red herring. I meant the term in the same sense it was used in Desert Storm... a bold move to flank the opposition.

I think Kerry would be foolish to think jobs, Bin Laden, and Iraq will be the big issues of the fall. Sure he should use them... but Kerry should now allow himself to invest so much in issues Bush is working so hard to take away. He needs some of his own... and the traditional Democratic issues are not enough to attract swing and crossover voting. He needs to outflank Bush as the GOP is trying to outflank the Democrats by trying to steal Medicare as an issue.

referring to a desperate last second long pass to the endzone from the losing team, with very low chance for victory.

It implies desperation. I don't think we need to resort to desperate tactics to attract some crossover votes.

Some more moderate, less blindly devoted Repub voters will switch or not vote because of

1) campaign of propaganda lies to push us into Iraq
2) poor fiscal stewardship without obvious benefits (jobs)
3) administration showing its true "divider not uniter" face with gay marriage amendment.

Already addressed above. There's no reason to be desperate.

But I also don't think that Schwartzkopf flaking maneuver was seen as a desperate measure. So maybe he misused the term.

He was just a much better candidate than George Bush or Bob Dole.

Clinton's strategy was to steal some key issues from the GOP... such as law enforcement (remember 100,000 more cops?) and welfare reform. It's this DLC strategy that has been seen by many as taking the Democrats too far to the right.

We see how the GOP is using a similar strategy against the Democrats by trying to steal Medicare as an issue. In reality they did so in name only... using the prescription drug benefit as a cynical way to help out the drug and insurance industries. But enough seniors might fall for the ploy.

Why did he lose the popular vote? What did he actually get... 43%

persistent pressure by Kerry and the Dems on the GOP.

* and the GOP CAN be taken on issues of national security, the military, etc.


:kick:

Please get out of your fog. I NEVER said there was one super play was needed. Can we get off this red herring and stick to possible strategies?

they have never voted for a democrat. That's a big win for Kerry. My republican family would rather drink poined koolaid than to vote for a democrat. But, bush hit them in their pocket, deep $ pockets they earned through Prez Clinton. Now Clinton Good, Bush Bad.

Even though America desperately needs to replace Bush, Kerry has no need for desperate measures.

Bush is beatable. Kerry will do it. Pass it on and get to work.

So can we get off this red herring that I'm suggesting that such strategies are a sign of desperation? Thank You.

And make sure people know he's a good christian etc

...the NeoCons can't stop them.

Media_Lies_Daily wrote: "Kerry just needs to run the same plays he's running because...the NeoCons can't stop them."

I disagree. The top issues of March could easily disappear by fall. Key should not count on Iraq being a mess... Bin Laden not being caught or killed.... or that job creation will not pic up.

On the other hand some Bush negatives that will not go away are his criminal attempt to sabotage the finances of the federal government... presumably to undermine Social Security... and his despicable use of issues such as 911 and the recession to promote his secret agenda... the Iraq invasion and tax cuts for the wealthy.

But Kerry can't win just on exploiting Bush's negatives. He has to give not just Democrats but swing voters... and even some GOPers some positive reasons to vote for him. Finding some issues... perhaps totally new issues, that cut across party lines is a no-brainer.

about Bush--I think it should be Wes Clarke--simple, to the point, knows the facts, delivers the blow at the baby Bush exactly where it should be delivered with succinct effectiveness--no one in the Bush admin has ever formulated an effective counter to anything he has said.

But what if job creation really picks up 4 months from now? It's a useful issue to bash Bush with now... but it would be foolish for Kerry to put all his eggs in one basket. Kerry should assume that Iraq, Bin Laden and jobs will NOT be issues in the Fall. Sure use them to discredit Bush in the short run... but I believe he should carve out some new bold issues for himself.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a bunch of jobs are going to be created four months from now, or at any other time the Republicans are in control of the government.

Haven't you been paying attention?

-job outsourcing
-reduction of non-military government
-tax cuts that are meaningful only to the wealthy
-deregulation of the energy chain from consumer to producer
-the drop in wages for workers
-making hamburger flippers into "industrial" jobs

They are SELLING OUR JOBS OUT and BUSTING UNIONS and STEALING PEOPLES PENSIONS.

How the hell could you possibly think they are going to create all these jobs? What will we unemployed people do in such a world?

With all due respect, the economy now IS the issue. I'll leave off the last part of that statement.

Stevie D wrote: "You must be joking. There is absolutely no reason to believe that a bunch of jobs are going to be created four months from now, or at any other time the Republicans are in control of the government."

Why not? Every time there's an economic expansion there's job creation. Ya... this recession it's more of a lagging indicator than usual... but should the job picture pic up... I suspect the public has a short memory about Bush's failures.... and never forget 8 months is an eternity in politics.

"Haven't you been paying attention?
-job outsourcing
-reduction of non-military government
-tax cuts that are meaningful only to the wealthy
-deregulation of the energy chain from consumer to producer
-the drop in wages for workers
-making hamburger flippers into "industrial" jobs"

Sure I'm paying attention... and I think Bush's economic policies are ineffective and scandalous. The Democrats SHOULD be putting out historical comparison numbers of job creation under Dems vs the GOP. But 8 months is an eternity... and Bush will be doing everything in his power to take this issue off the table. All he has to do is convince a small segment of the population that things have turned the corner.

"They are SELLING OUR JOBS OUT and BUSTING UNIONS and STEALING PEOPLES PENSIONS."

That process didn't begin with Bush. I didn't vote for Clinton in 92 because of NAFTA... and I still have a beef with Kerry about his vote for it.

"How the hell could you possibly think they are going to create all these jobs? What will we unemployed people do in such a world?"

I don't think Bush needs to create all those jobs... he can tout the trend... or the GOP can pretend to be compassionate with some extended benefits.... or they can have an October Surprise.

"With all due respect, the economy now IS the issue. I'll leave off the last part of that statement"

Your key qualification is now. That's NOT to say it still won't be in the Fall.... but Kerry needs more just in case.

But my bet is on little or no job creation before November.

As to your comment about not voting for Clinton in '92, I'm guessing that you meant '96, because NAFTA wasn't in place in '92. I didn't vote for Clinton in '96 either, I voted for Nader.

If you really mean '92, did you vote for Perot or Poppy?

As far as NAFTA and job losses are concerned, you are correct that it started while Clinton was President. It had more to do with the Republican takeover of the House in 1994 than anything else, although Clinton went along in support of NAFTA and GATT for purely political reasons.

If Bush can 'tout' all these new jobs before November, I hope I have one! And not one of those new "manufacturing burgers" jobs for less than half of what I made during the Clinton years.

Stevie D wrote: "But my bet is on little or no job creation before November."

So sure that you're willing to risk victory?

"As to your comment about not voting for Clinton in '92, I'm guessing that you meant '96, because NAFTA wasn't in place in '92. I didn't vote for Clinton in '96 either, I voted for Nader.
If you really mean '92, did you vote for Perot or Poppy?"

Clinton ran in 92 supporting NAFTA... only a variation of what Bush1 was supporting with the environmental and labor provisions. I voted Perot in 92... Nader 94 and 2001. Gore's win in my state was assured so my Nader vote did not play a part in making George dWi aWol Bush President.

in Utah and pick up a few electoral votes? It doesn't have great value because it is inhospitable AND we don't have any more water.

We think you should all stay out. Please. Thank you.

Hamlette "give up land where? in Utah and pick up a few electoral votes? It doesn't have great value because it is inhospitable AND we don't have any more water."

I'm not saying this issue would guarantee victory in any state.... only that it's an example of an issue that cuts across party lines. It has something to offer the west which has often resented the feds owning so much public land.... as well as the rest of the nation. Some regions are so overdeveloped even conservation areas of a few acres are a treat. I do volunteer work for a private group raises money, and buys land which it hands over to the state for a state park. Such efforts could use help.

The number one thing that conservatives are mad at Bush about is immigration (easing border requirements with Mexico). All Kerry has to say is that he would beef up the border and we automatically win CA and have a larger chance with the other border states.

Hell... I'm a Progressive and the unsecured borders bother me too. Implicit in the 86 immigration reforms was that after a one time amnesty... the Feds would get their act together. They didn't.

I'm not sure if Kerry took such a stand that there wouldn't be some Latino backlash. It might be a wash. But I think it's a stand that needs to be taken. I think it's a travesty to do what Grey Davis did in pandering to the Latino community by offering drivers licenses to illegal immigrants.

Is to voice some kind of positive vision for the future. A bit of a light going forward as opposed to the dark dread future of
the Bushco.
He has to find that meme, and then he can win big, and really do some good. People are crying for bush midnite to end and morning to come to america again.
tib