The Republican winning strategy for 2004

The Grand Ole Party sure knows how to win. For the upcoming presidential election their plan is to make it a referendum on the "direction of the nation" and to DEEMPHASIZE BUSH. I agree, its a winning strategy. Lets just chat about direction. No need to place any responsibility on a human who has caused this country so much grief. What will they do with all the photo ops? Color me skeptical, but regardless of who the Dems nominate, the GOP will certainly chat about that candidate in human terms. We all know what "direction" the GOP is going.

coming here to du and posting madcap about every other candidate. chimp and his minions, well we know what they will stoop to, the question is what are we doing about it? Anything but slamming each others candidate with our little pictures and blurbs? If chimp gets into office again, we are doomed to the pnac, no ifs ands or butts....so, it doesnt matter how they try to get him there, whats important is that we, the People, dont let it happen.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

a winning strategy to take the emphasis off of Bush for all the negative things that have gone wrong since he took office, 'cause Rove knows there are many and to put Bush's face on the number of jobs lost will look good to the American people. So once again Rove is on the move.

However, the Democratic candidate needs to do just the opposite. Throw the blame right back at Bush and use his name over and over so the people see the name goes with the baggage.

The Republicans will use many "variations" of their strategy during this upcoming year so get ready. They NEVER stick to one strategy.

I just don't get people who don't think Rove is a genuis when it comes to campaign strategy. It doesn't mean though, that every genius uses it for the good of the people.

It's already being done, however. I don't know a lot about how the new campaign finance reform works, but, I assume special interests are a lot less able to openly endorse particular candidates. That leaves them with the option of attacking the opposition (in our case *). After all he has committed so many egregious acts there's a wealth of ammunition for each and every Dem activist group to pick and choose among.

:grr:

They can appear to be positive & lilly white because they have the media to do the attacking for them. We don't have the same luxury. But we must achieve a balance between bashing * & touting our positives or many voters will be turned off by our campaign.

We should use it. In the end, it is seldom about the personal, and our attacks on Bush, personally, have more or less failed to accomplish much. What direction do we want the country to go in? do we have a greater agenda than unseating Bush, and salving our brusied egos (election 2000)? No? then why should the voter pick us? Yes? then let's get the message out there!!!. Cripes, the American people still like Bush*, despite everything that we've said. So let's go to the issues. Then they can decide on what's importatn to them.

They are trying to do a rerun of '94. Most congressional/senatoral elections are decided on local issues. That's how you can keep Blue congressmen in red areas, and vice versa. By running a "Direction of the Nation" campaign they are going to use W to campaign for local senatorial & congressional candidates on national issues. In '02 W showed that he is an effective campaigner.

Normally the party that holds POTUS loses seats in the off year election, but the Reps, using W as a campaigner, we able to buck the trend of history and win seats in both houses.

We "misunderestimate" W at our peril.

by STEALING ELECTIONS

"Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago"? should be the nominee's first words out of his mouth.

Any answer to that would be a resounding "HELL NO!!!!!".

Then: Peace Prosperity Hope.

Now: Endless War, Deficits/Unemployment/Corporate Crime Steeling retirements/savings, Fear FEAR FEAR - every f-----g day!

that saying, "are we better off now than we were 4 years ago," would be enough to send Bush his walking papers, but in the eyes of the "right" he walks on water. These aren't the ones Rove is worried about, it's the undecided vote and this is why this particular approach will work, that is until we come up with something better!

So far, we can't get past the in-fighting to even begin to brainstorm how to counter punch Rove's strategy. If we spent half the time coming up with "strategies" here as we do bashing candidates we might actually get through the GE without a landslide.

re-elected (Reagan/Clinton) so it is a good bet. I think it will be a tougher sell for Bush though.

Keep It Simple Stupid. They understand the electorate much better than Democrats, at least how to sell themselves. They are salesmen. They are excellent at PR. This is indeed their strategy. Their plan, they already admit, is to "de-personalize" the campaign. They want Bush to be above the fray. He is the Commander in Chief and he is just doing his job protecting us from the terrorists - at least since 9/11.

Of course, a few Democrats did give them the Medicare prescription drug plan to talk about, even though it will not go into effect until 2006. They will pretend it is already at work. After all, they have their "discount cards".

They will do their best not to talk about deficits, unemployment, healthcare in general, or the jobs that are going overseas. And they will never discuss whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented and whether anyone should be held responsible.

Bush's henchmen will attack but Bush will not be "connected" to them. They will use innuendo and exaggeration and lies to make their case. At least, until they are called on it. They will call for a civilized discussion - no need to be angry. The election of 2000 is over, they will say. It is about the future and who has the vision and leadership to lead us in this "dangerous" world.

(edited spelling)

<a href="http://www.anti-bush.com/DJ Shadow - March of Death.mp3">March of death</a>

Because I don't believe they are going to be successful otherwise. Call me naive but I'm very optimistic about Bush's demise.

fumigate the WH before the D president moves in.

I'd say their direction is going along right as planned, no?

For the upcoming presidential election their plan is to make it a referendum on the "direction of the nation" and to DEEMPHASIZE BUSH.

If that's what they do, they've really lost it.

I do not like the direction of the nation!

The young man who takes care of our dogs sometimes stopped over Christmas Day. He's nineteen, a high school graduate with no particular thought of going any further with his education at the moment, and he's working forty hours a week as a security guard. His parents are salt of the earth working class. His mom drives a school bus and works at Wendy's, and his dad also drives a school bus and works at a filling station on I-95. They own a mobile home. They all detest the "direction of the nation." Why? No decent jobs that pay a decent wage, no meaningful tax cuts for them, "stupid" war in Iraq, no health care, social security in danger of privatization... those are just a few reasons a nineteen year old has come up with in talking with his own family and maybe shooting the breeze with a couple of the guys at work. He registered Democrat recently because he doesn't like the "direction of the nation" either.

I guess sometimes we don't appreciate just how fortunate we are until we read here about someone who has lost a job and probably will have to take any minimum wage job they can find to get by. But folks who are living day in and day out on two or three low paying jobs are the majority in this country.

That kid doesn't want to be a CEO. He just wants to be able to move out of his parents' trailer (they wouldn't mind that either!), buy a second hand car, and live his life. He doesn't see that happening under a Republican administration. And he doesn't like it one bit.

I have hope when I hear that nineteen year old talk. The majority are not being fooled. They aren't happy with the "direction of the nation" one little bit.

BUT, this kid doesn't see any Democratic candidate that he likes and he is thinking about voting third party. Well, lots of time until the elections. Meanwhile, I told him to at least give us a Democratic controlled Congress, and he's cool with that, but really... the Democrats have got to reach out to the poor and the less well educated somehow.

Or maybe we start by listening to them.

"Democrats have got to reach out to the poor and the less well educated somehow.

Or maybe we start by listening to them."

That's it exactly! Trouble is, in the current electoral system, politicians on both left and right seek donations first and votes second, which is definitely NOT what the holy, exalted "founding fathers" had in mind when they crafted our "democracy". The poor, numerous as we are, are not a good source of campaign donations.

Do not be mollified by the recent SCOTUS decision upholding McCain Feingold. That's a good first step -- notwithstanding the predictable whining from the NRA and ACLU, which are really a lot closer ideologically than many think, anyway -- but doesn't go nearly far enough. The only fair system is full public campaign financing, and a constitutional amendment to prohibit privately financed issue/candidate advocacy. It sounds like heresy, but democracy is being impeded by our sacred freedom of speech.

plan B