Campaign strategy...Who's hot and who's not?

[stretch-d]

Democrats or Republicans...

Who do you think is producing and implementing a more effective strategy?...and why...

[DJ®]

Truthfully........I look at it from two aspects:

A) For The People

I don't think either campaign has been effective or productive in convincing the American people what they can do "new" or change for our country.

B) Attacking Character

The Republicans have been more effective in the last 3-5 days in attacking Kerry's character, but it will begin to backfire because it's been going overboard (ex. Swift Boat Ads) and taking away from the real issues.

Democrats are guilty of this too.....but their attacks haven't been as much of a dividing issue as the Swift Boat ads. Their attacks have been focused on Bushes policies.

[mr toolio]

Truthfully........I look at it from two aspects:

A) For The People

I don't think either campaign has been effective or productive in convincing the American people what they can do "new" or change for our country.

B) Attacking Character

The Republicans have been more effective in the last 3-5 days in attacking Kerry's character, but it will begin to backfire because it's been going overboard (ex. Swift Boat Ads) and taking away from the real issues.

Democrats are guilty of this too.....but their attacks haven't been as much of a dividing issue as the Swift Boat ads. Their attacks have been focused on Bushes policies.


its funny how when Kerry uses campaign attacks towards bush, its campaign strategy, but when bush does it, its an ATTACK. double standard fed to us by the liberal media.

Adam

[Page]

its funny how when Kerry uses campaign attacks towards bush, its campaign strategy, but when bush does it, its an ATTACK. double standard fed to us by the liberal media.

Adam

when did he say it was a campaign strategy? he said that both parties were attacking. do you actually read entire posts?

[DJ®]

its funny how when Kerry uses campaign attacks towards bush, its campaign strategy, but when bush does it, its an ATTACK. double standard fed to us by the liberal media.

Adam

please re-read my post:



Democrats are guilty of this too.....


when did he say it was a campaign strategy? he said that both parties were attacking. do you actually read entire posts?

werd.......

[veritas]

Democrats IMO seem to be killing the Republicans with kindness, and it will eventually payoff. The Republicans are acting like a bunch drunk frat boys who want to rule the world. :rolleyes:

[Page]

I think it's funny how they treat each other. In the whole spectrum of political standings (from communism to... shit i forgot what) they are really actually very close together, close to the middle. yet they act like one another is on the total opposite pole.

[stretch-d]

Truthfully........I look at it from two aspects:

A) For The People

I don't think either campaign has been effective or productive in convincing the American people what they can do "new" or change for our country.


I'd say that is Kerry's job really--to provide a plan for change...and to convince the voting public that the changes he's proposing are necessary. Also, he'll need to make the case that his plan is possible, how he'll achieve it, and outline how it beneifits America.

It's Bush's job to stick to his plan already in effect and re-assure the voting public that it is the correct path for America.

I'm sure that you'll agree, when looked at in this perspective, that Kerry hasn't 'made the case'--at least up to this point.



B) Attacking Character

The Republicans have been more effective in the last 3-5 days in attacking Kerry's character, but it will begin to backfire because it's been going overboard (ex. Swift Boat Ads) and taking away from the real issues.

Democrats are guilty of this too.....but their attacks haven't been as much of a dividing issue as the Swift Boat ads. Their attacks have been focused on Bushes policies.

Attacking character is a valid course of action when it comes to a Presidential election because it takes character to hold the 'highest office' and to be the leader of the free world.

I'd agree with you about the Democrats except for a few of them which some consider to be the leaders of the party like Ted Kennedy who said Bush concocted a war for political gain, Dean who said Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks beforehand and Gore who said he betrayed his country.

That's pretty harsh stuff...I don't know about the what happened in Vietnam between Kerry and the Swiftvets, but one thing is for sure--we know what he did when he returned...and that makes some people upset to this day. It's all about loyalty, which is a character issue and makes some of the latest ads by the Swiftvets a valid issue to some people...appearently a lot according to the drop in Kerry's poll numbers.

But there's been some pretty fine examples of campaign manuvering in this election...A fresh one that comes to mind is when the Bush campaign forced Kerry to voice his stance on if he would still vote to go to Iraq knowing what we know now-which is no find of weapons of mass destruction... This is noteworthy because of how Kerry was pointed out as being a 'flip-flopper' well before this point with his vote for the war--but not the 87 billion in funding of the war.

When he said he would still vote for the war, even now, he proved that Bush was right, he's a 'flip-flopper', indecisive, and that all of the anti-war rethoric was unfounded--which was a major part of his base. Genius on the part of the Bush campaign...

Anyone else have an example of either side's strategy that was interesting?

[DJ®]

I'd say that is Kerry's job really--to provide a plan for change...and to convince the voting public that the changes he's proposing are necessary.

Not necessarily..........because the last 4 years (according to Bush) have been spent making America safer. So if Bush now says we are safer then we were 4 years ago.......then he needs to make his case on how he can change the direction of our Economy, and also change our involvement in Iraq so that our troops can come home in a reasonable amount of time.

So basically:

Kerry needs to convince Americans what he can do "new" for our country

Bush needs to convince Americans what he can differently in the next 4 years, because the focus will be different.

[stretch-d]

Not necessarily..........because the last 4 years (according to Bush) have been spent making America safer. So if Bush now says we are safer then we were 4 years ago.......then he needs to make his case on how he can change the direction of our Economy, and also change our involvement in Iraq so that our troops can come home in a reasonable amount of time.

So basically:

Kerry needs to convince Americans what he can do "new" for our country

Bush needs to convince Americans what he can differently in the next 4 years, because the focus will be different.

He has to support his ideas already implemented...like the tax-cuts for the economy and how they're working as well as keeping the troops in Iraq as long as needed.

Saying that he'll propose a new course of action in either case, would be bad campaign strategy...Here's why: It would give the impression that the direction that he has taken up to this point is incorrect...which would not be good for his base as well as many swing voters who believe Bush's policies to be correct. Then you can only imagine how the Kerry camp could use that against him.

DJ...You're thinking like a person who has a position of not supporting Bush...but look at the overall strategy.

One thing is for sure...An incumbant President must outline his future plans for his next term. That doesn't necessarily mean changing his existing policies.

[Sab0921]

Question: Do all you republicans get e mails or something to tell you the latest spin on whatever issue is the hot button topic of the moment?

case in point: swift boat ads turned from attacking kerry's war record, to a horrible and baseless attack, and now has turned to well, they were pissed because Kerry testified against the war.

[DJ®]

One thing is for sure...An incumbant President must outline his future plans for his next term. That doesn't necessarily mean changing his existing policies.

But aren't future plans, for something "new" in most cases?

Understandable......Bush can't act like the last 4 years were "bad"...but he can't have a campaign telling people "we are going to be the same way we were the last 4 years......for the next 4".

[stretch-d]

But aren't future plans, for something "new" in most cases?

Understandable......Bush can't act like the last 4 years were "bad"...but he can't have a campaign telling people "we are going to be the same way we were the last 4 years......for the next 4".

Well right before we were discussing this last night, he gave a powerful speech where he did outline his plans for the future as well as re-inforcing commitment for what has already been instituted.

He even gave his web address for greater detail on his policies.

[axio]

Bush has to prove that the last 4 years under him were good. All Kerry has to prove is that they weren't.

really simple stuff that you'd think that 4 year olds would get

But since this is Coke VS Pepsi and there really isn't much for either of them to say you get this huge pissing contest going on right now. Both say they are being the bigger man then turn around and approve ads that slander each other.

[stretch-d]

Bush has to prove that the last 4 years under him were good. All Kerry has to prove is that they weren't.

With your statement, it's easy to see how it's actually the Kerry campaign's job to be 'negative' even though they say they are being positive and optimistic...


really simple stuff that you'd think that 4 year olds would get

But since this is Coke VS Pepsi and there really isn't much for either of them to say you get this huge pissing contest going on right now. Both say they are being the bigger man then turn around and approve ads that slander each other.

I was wondering if you would post in this thread as it seems that you would appreciate the topic...but I'm glad that you brought up the 527 ads...

That is a fine example of the Kerry camp taking advantage of something that presented itself as a negative for them...

When the Swiftvet ads came out, people would naturaly wonder if the Bush's people were behind them...So the Kerry camp started trying to solidify that as fact by making the accusations that they were indeed behind them and in control of the Swiftvets...

Assuming, through lack of proof, Bush actually wasn't in control of them, he did what anyone would do and say that he had no control over them...This then makes it seem that he won't denounce the ads because they're beneficial to him and implemented them in the first place...But by the same token, if he were to denounce the Swiftvets specificly and was successful in having them pull the ads, every Democrat would have used that as proof that he did have control after all.

This creates a 'no-win' situation for the President--or at least it would seem. By Bush denouncing all of the 527s, he disassociates himself with the Swiftvets as well as denounce all of the Moveon type ads that have pelted him for his entire Presidency.

[axio]

With your statement, it's easy to see how it's actually the Kerry campaign's job to be 'negative' even though they say they are being positive and optimistic...
Both are.

They are both going to say they aren't though.

I was wondering if you would post in this thread as it seems that you would appreciate the topic...but I'm glad that you brought up the 527 ads...

That is a fine example of the Kerry camp taking advantage of something that presented itself as a negative for them...

When the Swiftvet ads came out, people would naturaly wonder if the Bush's people were behind them...So the Kerry camp started trying to solidify that as fact by making the accusations that they were indeed behind them and in control of the Swiftvets...

Assuming, through lack of proof, Bush actually wasn't in control of them, he did what anyone would do and say that he had no control over them...This then makes it seem that he won't denounce the ads because they're beneficial to him and implemented them in the first place...But by the same token, if he were to denounce the Swiftvets specificly and was successful in having them pull the ads, every Democrat would have used that as proof that he did have control after all.

This creates a 'no-win' situation for the President--or at least it would seem. By Bush denouncing all of the 527s, he disassociates himself with the Swiftvets as well as denounce all of the Moveon type ads that have pelted him for his entire Presidency.
Bullshit. Bush knew about the 527 ads, why? Because Rove funded them. Just like Kerry is going to know about every attack ad that goes out about Bush.

[stretch-d]

Bullshit. Bush knew about the 527 ads, why? Because Rove funded them. Just like Kerry is going to know about every attack ad that goes out about Bush.

We all agree that is a possibility...but where's the proof?...and I don't mean some op/ed cut and pasted from the internet.

...and if proof exists, why won't the Kerry campain produce it for all to see?

Trust me...if any existed, they'd have it. So just like in a court of law--it's not admissible as fact.

We're disscussing strategy here anyway...and examples that you thought were good or noteable?

[axio]

We all agree that is a possibility...but where's the proof?...and I don't mean some op/ed cut and pasted from the internet.

...and if proof exists, why won't the Kerry campain produce it for all to see?

Trust me...if any existed, they'd have it. So just like in a court of law--it's not admissible as fact.
Are you kidding?

Rove is responsible for running Bush's campaign. Common sense dictates that Bush would pay a shitload of attention to everything Rove is doing. If Bush was against the ads, he would have fired Rove for airing something without his support. :eh:

[stretch-d]

Are you kidding?

Rove is responsible for running Bush's campaign. Common sense dictates that Bush would pay a shitload of attention to everything Rove is doing. If Bush was against the ads, he would have fired Rove for airing something without his support. :eh:

Now you know as well as I do that would have been the 'proof' that he was involved...and bad strategy.

Besides...he's appearently a strategy genius and implementing an effective campaign...Wouldn't want to fire someone like that.

[axio]

Now you know as well as I do that would have been the 'proof' that he was involved...and bad strategy.
You just proved my point :roflmao:

Is it just a weird coincidence that Rove's buddies all decided to send money to a group that didn't exist until they created it?

[stretch-d]

You just proved my point :roflmao:

Is it just a weird coincidence that Rove's buddies all decided to send money to a group that didn't exist until they created it?

I proved your point?

Look at my post...Do you see the marks on either side of the word proof?...Like this--'proof'...Sorry.

Besides, that doesn't prove anything either way...Using your logic, it would be necessary for Bush to fire Rove just so that it would prove what you believe to be true. He can't win with you by keeping him either because you will believe that he was behind it anyway.

I still fail to see any direct proof here.

[axio]

I proved your point?

Look at my post...Do you see the marks on either side of the word proof?...Like this--'proof'...Sorry.

Besides, that doesn't prove anything either way...Using your logic, it would be necessary for Bush to fire Rove just so that it would prove what you believe to be true. He can't win with you by keeping him either because you will believe that he was behind it anyway.

I still fail to see any direct proof here.
I said Bush supported the ads because Rove was behind them, and since Rove is responsible for Bush's entire campaign do you think Bush would be in the dark about anything that is happening that might effect his campaign? No, he wouldn't.

[stretch-d]

I said Bush supported the ads because Rove was behind them, and since Rove is responsible for Bush's entire campaign do you think Bush would be in the dark about anything that is happening that might effect his campaign? No, he wouldn't.


Of couse he knows ABOUT the ads and how they effect his campaign...it doesn't mean that his camp had anything to do with it....Without proof, we're just assuming. Right? Say yes.:)

[axio]

Of couse he knows ABOUT the ads and how they effect his campaign...it doesn't mean that his camp had anything to do with it....Without proof, we're just assuming. Right? Say yes.:)
How can his campaign not have anything to do with them?!

Rove started the group, then Rove's friends provided the money to get them air time.

[stretch-d]

How can his campaign not have anything to do with them?!

Rove started the group, then Rove's friends provided the money to get them air time.


How do you know, and the Kerry camp doesn't know? Using the assumption that everyone would know if the Kerry camp had the proof.

[axio]

How do you know, and the Kerry camp doesn't know? Using the assumption that everyone would know if the Kerry camp had the proof.
It has been on the news for the last week :eh:

Even their address is registered to Susan Arceneaux (chairwoman for the Majority Leaders Fund, a PAC that has donated HEAVILY to the Bush campaign)

[PissYellowGTi]

A large portion of funding for the ads was contributed by Bob Perry, local home builder. He donates more $ to Republican canidates than anyone else in Texas.

[stretch-d]

A large portion of funding for the ads was contributed by Bob Perry, local home builder. He donates more $ to Republican canidates than anyone else in Texas.


But it doesn't mean that the Bush camp was behind it....



It has been on the news for the last week

Even their address is registered to Susan Arceneaux (chairwoman for the Majority Leaders Fund, a PAC that has donated HEAVILY to the Bush campaign)

And TS...People who are supporting Bush and donating to his campaign doesn't mean that Bush was behind it. Right?


But this thread was started to discuss the strategy itself, not necessarily who was behind a specific 527 group. Let's discuss how the ads (or something else) are creating postive results or liabilities...