So should we "go negative" and dump the "positive campaign" BS?

Screw the positive campaign, you don't bring a chess board to a cage match people! :P

What say you?

I am going to call the Kerry campaign and say "GO NEGATIVE-IT WORKS"!!!

Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043

202-712-3000

:hi:

Haven't you noticed?

;)

His so-called leadership on the terror war and national security. Kerry has so much to work with, and I'm amazed he's not pushing it.

This election is about 9/11. Not about jobs and the economy.

We call it getting out the truth about Bush and Cheney.

:hi:

But, the truth isn't a positive story when were talking Bush eitha. ;)

what he said about how he served and those attacking him didn't is nothing new.

that is the biggest problem at the moment.

The Corporate Media is doing everything in their power to give the Bu$h team the advantage. They are pulling out all the stops. Fighting the beast does seem daunting at times.

I just posted my thoughts on this in a previous post... but yes, Bush is an easy target for attack ads. It's time to strike.

The deer in the headlights MUST be played up. The fact that he ignored the warnings MUST be played up.

By the time the ad campaign is finished, people will have to wonder if Bush didn't orchestrate it himself. We can't come out and say it or even imply it, simply present the truth and let nature take its course.

ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK!!!!

"We can't afford 7 more minutes of Bush."

A protester had it on his sign, and I just love it!

ive.

It has always been about offering something positive, and looking towards the future, and hope, and not definining yourself only in terms of being the oppositive of Bush, ro being anti-Bush.

Why? "Cause that's how FDR won in '32. Also, about the '64 election LBJ predicted -- and he was right -- that the Republicans could not win because they were only definining themselves in terms of hating LBJ. He said that voters won't vote for anyone unless you tell them what your for, not what your against (which was Dean's problem in the primary).

If Kerry runs around for two months just being anti-Bush and defining him in terms of being against everything Bush says and does, he's going to lose.

He has to present himself as being FOR a set of principles. He has to be positive, not negative.

Bush tried to lure Clinton into going negative -- into being a reaction to Bush.

Carvilled put that sign up in the office to remind people NOT to be reactionary. The message was a reminder to take every lure, and every attack and turn into a counterattack organized around what Clinton was FOR.

You can respond to attacks, but you can't be defined by the attacks, and that's the risk you run when you run a negative economy, or if you let negatives dilute your positives.

Would you people have told Clinton to run a campaign on his character when Bush was attacking it in '92? I doubt it. You'd say make it sound like Bush doesn't care about you economically because all he seems to talk about is personality. Which makes a bigger difference in your life?

the R's he didn't run on a pie in the sky vision alone.

Negative attacks are very effective, as you can see after the month of August, if we don't use such an effective tool against a DESERVING opponent, we will lose.

Like I said, we'll be positive all the way to the concession speech.

It sounds like you just want him to draw blood or something.

Clinton ran on the idea that the economy was hurting people and he was going to talk about things that would help them. He wouldn't get distracted by discussions about things that didn't.

Kerry is running on the idea that America is stronger when we're stronger as individuals, and that we can't use terrorism as an excuse not to make people stronger.

Kerry to make.

And Dukakis lost because of Willy Horton and, and, and ..

Clinton isn't afraid to take it to Bush, telling the truth is all it takes. We don't need to lie here because the truth about Bush is enough.

I find it incredible that you would suggest that this year's campaign is any more vicious than previous ones.

Clinton never went negative.

been effective at exposing Bush thus far.

Like Kerry said they're running a "Fear and Smear" it's time we fight back with a little of our own.

Bush is scarry, vote for Kerry!

The swiftie smear is far more negative then anything they did to Clinton before the election. Having an affair doesn't make one "Unfit For Command."

Fear makes people vote Bush* and Smear allows Bush* to justify the repuke smears.

Fear and Smear is preaching to the choir. Bush* has to do it because he is depending on his base, because after 4 years he has nothing to campaign on. His only hope is to turnout his radical base, and depress turnout in other groups, which is exactly what Fear and Smear do.

Kerry has many issues and accomplishments to run on. Kerry doesn't need to motivate his base because we already motivated. Kerry needs to reach out to voters who are not already on our side. Fear and Smear does not attract votes to Kerry.

The base is motivated, but we/they're losing hope. They/we want Kerry to fight back!

Please print and distribute the image above. High res version for printing available below. Put them on car windows. Hand them out on street corners. We don't need TV buys to get some attention on this issue. We have to undermine Bush's perceived strength. We all are potential disseminators of printed media. We do not need a newspapers permission or lots of money for TV commercials. We need viral grass roots marketing. We need to create a buzz. If we create a buzz with massive distribution of printed ads we will get media coverage. If these start miraculously appearing and no one knows where they are coming from it will start to get media attention. now someone create a Condi ad and an Ashcroft.

INCOMPETENCE is key

high resolution version for printing here:
http://somnamblst.tripod.com/

images of death and carnage ala 911.

I disagree that he has to be positive and not negative, we need to do both.

He can respond, but he needs to respond in a way that reaffirms what he stands for.

He can't define himself by the attacks, even it's only to defend the attacks.

from the R's entailed. Someone should leave the campaign and start a 527. Fight fire with fire. :hi:

What would you like to see change? Anything? Or, should we let them make Bush out to be our national savior while they paint Kerry into an opportunistic lying flip flopper?

You want some feelings to be satisfied, but you're not saying how you want those feelings satsifed.

National Security.

Expose his negligence and failure to protect America from terrorism on 911, expose his weakness on national security ~ he's got plenty.

I think this is key.

We can do a number of things, but this would be my phase 1.

because more voters feel Bush has screwed up Iraq than have done something good. Bush has almost completely removed Iraq from his campaign (now he's only running on 9/11). Kerry has covered that base -- most recently in the American Legion speech.

Now, if you're saying Kerry should run on LIHOP, that's crazy.

Kerry IS attacking Bush's weaknesses and Kerry is promoting his own strengths, so, again, I'm not sure I understand what you think he should be doing.

Give me three days and tell me what you think the message should be on those three days and how you think the message should be delvered?

I'm not giving you three days, if you want to see my suggestions, peruse the threads for the past three days.

The campaign is taking my suggestions, when I called them and said expose Bush's failure on 911 last week, they said it was a good idea and they planned to pass it on. Of course the conversation was more indepth, and I don't intend to rehash the entire thing.

I will say very simply this.

We need to stay on message, and do a better job of getting our message out ala talking points.

We need some negative/humorous talking points regarding Bush. We need to have someone help Kerry with his speeches, b/c while they're good, they lack "talking points, and humor" which Clinton was very good at incorporating.

We also need to run negative ads about Bush's failure on National Security (first) and take it from their. WE need to take Bush's message from his convention and turn it around on him.

Bush's primary message was that Bush shows "strenght and conviction" etc... we need to start by showing how he is weak and wobbly. We can do this by using his own contradictory words.

That's exposing your opponent's BS and building up your own strengths.

Going negative, to me, is running on things that are lies and don't matter, like, Willie Horton, and don't have anything to do with presenting the kind of person you want to be as president.

with you, I don't want to lie like the R's do, and we don't have to to win. :hi:

But we do have to expose Bush - now.

are called "comparative", and are generally not considered "going negative" unless the ad/speech/button/etc contains name-calling or other forms of personalization.

and the truth is negative when were talking Bush.

What counts is what the American people think of the ads, not what Rove thinks. And I am not saying we should not criticize Bush* and his policies. There's a difference between criticizing and going negative.

accused of going negative. No shit were not trying to get Rove's vote, but I do want his respect after we kick his ass.

That's what the Repugs want. It's where they are most comfortable operating because it's where they live. Let's remain the party of hope. Keep hitting them with the TRUTH and keep a positive message. Don't engage them on their level... force them to engage us on ours.

Hope only works if you can capture the imagination of the electorate.

So far the electorate is focusing on fear which is why the Repugs have the lead.

Not the polls I hope

And by fiat, all that matters to the Sheeple!

The Republicans would LOVE for us to turn this into a campaign about nothing but negative attacks, since that is their briar patch. No matter how negative our attacks, they would ALWAYS best us on that front because that's their personal territory.

or conced that he doesn't stand for anything. He wouldn't win. He needs to show that there a things he stands for that a more important than the attacks, and that the attacks themselves show that Bush doesn't want to run on the things that matter.

As an aside, when the Kerry girls went on TV and said that it was unfortunate that the swift boat stuff was distracting the public from the real issues, they had the strategy half right. Rather than talk in passive sentences, they need to give that sentence a subject. They need to have Americans think BUSH is distgracting America with the swift boats because he has nothing to say about the things that really matter: whether America is going to be stronger by making Americans stronger in their jobs, in their opportunities, in their ability to create wealth, and their ability to make America stronger. America is only as strong as its weakest link, eh?

I don;t understand why the DLC or whatever decided that exposiong the criminal corruption, lies, doubletalk, etc etc of * and the repugs is "negative".

Americans love a winner. Kerry needs to show people he's up for a fight. If he won't fight Bush*, why would people think he's strong? Sorry but the strength thing is the issue now: Bush* has framed this election in terms of national security/terror war and we cannot change that. People are concerned with "changing commander in chief during a time of war". Kerry has addressed this, yes - but actions speak louder than words.

Expose these cowards; the meme needs to be: Bush failed to prevent 9/11. All those FBI and CIA warning and they ignored Clarke, ignored OBL, stopped investigations in SA, and worried about star wars. Has anyone here read Against all Enemies?

NOT. :hi:

with strength... inferring that I'm advocating something passive? You can be aggressive with a positive message. Stick to the issues. Everytime the chimp and his handlers want to divert from the issues we've got to bring it back to the issues while exposing diversionary tactics. The debates are where this election will be decided and the Repugs know it, hence trying to lower the number of debates.

We can't let Bush remain the "strong candidate with conviciton" and Kerry remain the wishy washy opportunist in the eyes of America, or we will lose.

Negative to me = exposing Bush for who he is.

Negativity only reinforces the chimps behavior and allows the issues to die away.

because we don't have to.

I guess I took you to mean more personal attacks as opposed to attacking with the issues.

If I misunderstood you than I believe we both want the same thing.

Kerry needs to defend himself faster and with more tactility ... He needs a rapid response team to smash EVERY lie when they emerge ...

DONT wait: ATTACK when they attack you ...

This doesnt mean Kerry cannot at the same time create a positive campaign .....

If the campaign thinks that they're somehow going to get people to like Kerry better than Bush by running a positive campaign, they're just fooling themselves. Hell even many Democrats aren't crazy about Kerry. The only way we're going to beat this crowd is by driving up Bush's negatives higher than Kerry's.

96 for Republicans?

When has it worked?

If you're just saying that he should hit back, I agree, and I think that he actually ran one of the most hard-nosed primary campaigns (he was not afraid to play dirty).

But if you mean, forget the things you stand for, and just argue nastily about things that people don't care about, I don't think it's going to work.

GET NASTY ON BUSH'S ASS, HE DESERVES IT! That's what I say, show America who the hell Bush is. I don't care if you call it hitting back or playing dirty, but do it!

Yes your right, he played dirty against Dean didn't he? So why not Bush? We had the mysterious Osama ad, remember?

Time to do what works.

for Democrats? Think hard.

Doing what it takes to win (which JFK) doesn't mean you have to appeal to people's anger.

If you want fascism to prevail, run a campaign which makes the electorate -- both sides -- angry.

FDR knew not to do that. Hitler won by doing that.

Democrats do NOT win by making the public angry. They win be appealing to people's sense that things can be better. Anger isn't conducive to that feeling.

p-e-r-i-o-d?

Were trying to appeal to swing voters are we not?

what's your strategy for winning, let Bush remain superman and try to talk about jobs while he envokes images of terror? :eyes:

Moveon.org is running negative campaigns, Michael Moore made a movie based on a negative premise, would you rather they not exist, or would you rather add to the message?

Times have changed since JFK ran for office, heck people then rarely had televisions! I should mention Hitler ran before mass media also. :eyes:

My strategy for winning: remember when Edwards said in his convention sppech, "the right place to talk about race is everywhere...because we have to stand together, undivided, if we're going to be strong"? I'm paraphrasing, but what he was getting at was basically, when each individual American is strong, and wealth and happy, the nation is strongest.

Bush usese terror to get people to accept less. People misidentify the misery they feel in their lives as being caused by terror (rather than by Bush's wealth-transfer policies) and they think Bush is trying to protect them, and use their misery of evidence of Bush looking after them (it's so fucked up).

Like FDR did in WWII, the message of the Democrats should be that we can't be strong unless our citizens are strong. Kerry needs people to feel that if they aren't doing well, then America isn't doing well -- that the security risk is that our economy will be too weak, and that we're not working.

That's the message the right message for today.

The best moveon ads basically say that. The Linklater and the Morris ads are people telling stories about how they're not doing well and that is making America weak.

As for Moore, his movie was a great, well argued historical document and work of art. As far as a campaign tool, it may help in removing Iraq as something Bush can run on (and perhaps that will be the difference in the election).

Incidentally, I have a friend who saw Moore give a screaning of this movie before the final edit and he said that Moore was very concerned about it being too much of an attack on Bush. He didn't want it to seem like he just had a problem with Bush.

attack.

And, as we determined earlier, we agree. Expose Bush, and offer some hope. You still agree with that right?

As for putting a period in the middle of a sentence, who cares? Am I being graded on grammar here?

that flows from that -- whether he's building up himself, or shining a light on Bush, has to come from how Kerry defines himself.

radical strategy to address the crisis. Need some real creativity
here. Some major expose of Bushco has to be part of it.

Also, Flavia Colgin is a helluva strategist as well.

But I don't know that we have to fire anyone, reorganize though?

...campaign.

Don't you think they'd tell Kerry to do what they told Clinton to do: run on what you're for, not what you're against; appeal to people's sense that things can be better??

I think I am more in line with Carville and Begalia then you are AP.

:hi:

all along. Though we've got plenty to be angry about.

a few days ago? Then it just died. There were rumors all over about a BIG shakeup, then no one talked about it anymore. I dont think Cahill is the person for this job, just my opinion. And Kerry better put a plan together and soon, but whether these polls are pure Rovian bullshit or not the perceived view of the public is that shithead made a huge leap overnight.

Love him or hate him, we need a Carville-type. We need a pitbull like him to go on and on and on and not let go. This campaign staff is way too mild in my opinion to be fighting the 'most important election of our lifetimes.' Call me a wimp, hysterical, whatever you want, but Im worried. The perception of the public at large of these polls will be huge, my own mother is starting to give up for crissakes. The only thing Im hanging onto right now is the fact that Kerry is a HUGE finisher and really comes on in the end. It sure isnt Mary Beth Cahill, that's for sure.

Im trying like hell for this not to be a downer post, Im trying to be as optimistic as possible, really I am.
:kick:

Like this:


"My opponent has squandered a Clinton surplus and put us in debt for generations! Like the last Democratic president, I will install a plan to make the deficit go away again in a few years.


President Bush committed us to a bloody war which has cost us dearly. It would take more than somedbody telling me "it's a slam dunk" to make me
send our troops to their peril and death!


The President has misused the legal authority we gave him in 2002 to take action if necessary in Iraq. Turns out it wasn't necessary.As a former member of the Senate, I would return the United States to the spirit of the constitution, where war apould once again be in the hands of Congress to declare. No more phony wars for oil!


PLEEEEEEEAAAAASE!!!!!

I guess it depends on how "going negative" is defined.

If the Democrats continue hammering away at Bush's campaign message, and deconstructing his message with facts, that's one thing.

But personal attacks (even anything that seems like a personal attack) on Bush is likely going to seem like petty sniping and will be a turnoff, regardless of whether the Bush camp does it to Kerry.

Here is the Bush camp/neocon tactic: attack, attack, attack, then cry "foul" when you're attacked. It's like a schoolyard bully who shoves you and then cries and goes running to the teacher when you shove him back. It's a strategy they use to make the one who defends himself look like the instigator. Just mho.

not personal attacks.

I just want to hit him were he is pretending to be strong. :hi:

Your analogy of the school yard bully is a good one. I'd honestly rather see a 527 do our dirty bidding.

As you can see, negative attacks have eroded Kerry's support, I want to fight fire with fire.

:)

He had 8 months of warnings to get something going to update our security...instead, we got lax and more loose....with tragic results.

Is that good Leadership?? I think NOT

http://somnamblst.tripod.com/

We can use viral marketing techniques to distribute pre9/11 incompetence ads on paper. Everytone can distribute. Thinking outside the box could get media attention.

I think what hurt the Democrats the most in 2002 was not that they were too liberal or too conservative, but that they were too negative. They were unified in saying that Bush was messing up the economy, but they did not offer an alternative plan that they could all get behind. Ditto with Iraq, and lots of other issues. Kerry can criticize Bush, but I think he needs to make sure to not only say what Bush is doing wrong but what he will do differently. I think that offering a positive message and not going too negative helps, because a lot of people get disgusted with all the negative ads and just stay home. Since low turnout tends to hurt Democrats, the last thing Kerry wants to do is go so negative that people decide that it isn't worth going out to vote.

reason to vote for us.

Sorry, we are now in the zone where the best defense if a great offense.
Responding to lies and smears only keeps it visible and may even convince some it's legit. See the polls about veteran support going down after the controversy.

We don't have to "smear" or "go negative". All we have to do is EXPOSE THE TRUTH about this criminal syndicate. Show people what the president and his idealogues really are.

The economy/health care/future memes really worked for the midterms, when the pugs destroyed us. Just cause this is the main event doesn't mean Karl Rove will suddenly change his strategy that he's refined the last decade.

Now is the time. Go nuclear, whatever, but do something that gets them on the defensive and keeps the spotlight on this ugly undebelly of politics that is the repugs. There is wealth of things we can show the American people that will wake them up to the revolting repugs.

Do it now!

Do it now is right! :hi:

on things about which the public has already made a judgment -- his military record, etc.

It needs to be something that kneecaps him -- something that strikes at the heart of his appeal. The war on terror.

Kerry gave him a pass on his flip-flop of winnable-unwinnable. There should be ads on that.

And there should be ads that essentially say, "Where's Osama?" Sheriff Bush promised to bring him in dead or alive.

There should be ads demonstrating how incompetent the management of the war has been -- the disaster at Fallujah, the siege of Najaf, the lack of body armor, unprotected Humvees, Guardsmen earning a pittance working alongside contractors making six figures, etc.

You have to do what you have to do. If that means smearing Dubya and Dick, then I'd smear Dubya and Dick. They deserve a good smear campaign against them considering where they have led this country over the past 4 years. It's payback time for the liberal left.

of course its acatually true:

http://somnamblst.tripod.com/

these can be permitted and distributed en masse on car windshields

I think I'll use that one ;)

and come out swinging!!!!!

http://somnamblst.tripod.com/

check uout the postcard I just created
we can all print these on our home printers and distribute en masse

it would garner media attention

my August 6 2001, PDB ad called Incompetent version 1.0

http://somnamblst.tripod.com/

It's not a matter of just going negative. It's having the courage to go negative against enemies that many in the leadership of the Democratic party are still too afraid to confront: namely, religious fanaticism, mindless militarism, arrogant imperialism. The Republiban have not just gone negative. They've gone crazy. And unless someone literally calls these fanatical loonies the assholes they are, there will be a civil war in this country.

Should have done it two weeks ago. But it looks like Kerry is getting there.

Think outside the box people. We all have printers. We all can stick flyers under car windows. Help me start a viral marketing campaign;

That will be $50 million up in smoke if the ads are the same old look to the future crap with no criticism of Bush. Then we WILL be doomed.

:hi:

... "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."

square in the forehead and poor nice Dems say oh, no let's not go negative it doesn't help. Well do you think the positive talk is what got Jesus Christ killed if you are believe in the bible? They attacked his message as well as the man himself, got the crowds all heated up with hatred, things like the man is a lunatic, he eats with sinners, his disciples don't wash their hands before meals,he expels demons by means of Beelzebub and on and on and the cool aid drinkers of that time bought it all and in the end what won? Well the last I heard they killed him take a lesson from that.

I say "Go negative!"

I is now clear that his campaign has wasted most of the $200 mill
it has spent against Bush/Rove, if a quick $200k Ad buy by the
Swifties could hobble Kerry's march to victory.

I is now clear that his campaign has wasted most of the $200 mill
it has spent against Bush/Rove, if a quick $200k Ad buy by the
Swifties could hobble Kerry's march to victory.


edit: Repeat was system error on first post.