Democratic Party BBQ

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=col_10022]
How the world do you expect to get all that into a 30 second political ad.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t get all that into a 30-second spot. You have a spot that says, “The 9/11 commission recommended sweeping changes to our port security system. Three years later, the Republican Congress has not enacted these changes: our ports remain unsecure. Within twenty-four hours of taking control of Congress, the Democrats will enact all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I’m Bob Dobbs, and I approve this message.”

Or something like that. And then you do that for half a dozen different issues that can be condensed into soundbites (“Too many Americans are working full-time and living below the poverty level. I don’t think that’s fair, and when Democrats take control of congress, we’ll raise the minimum wage so that all working Americans get an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. I’m Bob Dobbs, and I approve this message.”) And you blanket the airwaves with these ads.

If your opponent goes negative, maybe you can spend as much as a third of your ads defending and counterattacking–but spend the remaining 2/3 explaining what you’ll do. Make it a national push, so that in addition to ad time, you’ll get news time to reinforce the idea.

Daniel

22

The biggest beef many people have with the current administration and congress is the war in Iraq. Hamlet gave a good summary of the Democratic platform, but it’s interesting to see that the war isn’t even mentioned. Mind you, I realize it’s the toughest problem this nation faces right now. I would argue that’s all the more reason to have a plan for addressing Iraq in the platform. Those Democratic candidates who do talk about the war sound almost exactly like their Republican counterparts, in most cases. Unless that changes, the war isn’t going to be the differentiator that it could be.

23

[QUOTE=mrklutz]
Those Democratic candidates who do talk about the war sound almost exactly like their Republican counterparts, in most cases. Unless that changes, the war isn’t going to be the differentiator that it could be.
[/QUOTE]

It needs to be pointed out that it is because Republicans are sounding like the “cut-and-run” democrats.

“The Iraquis will set the time table and we will follow”

“We have set bench marks”

[the President] “my patience is not infinite”

"“We were never “stay the course””

Flip Flops galore, and just for the “insulting our intelligence” quality of the flops, reason enough to trow the rascals out.

And the bastard Republicans never bothered to mention that cut-an-run was an option very few -if any- democrats proposed, many current Republican sound bites on Iraq were like the ones Republicans declared until recently to be even treasonous to propose.

24

[QUOTE=elucidator]
About the only thing dumber than GeeDubya is whoever was dumb enough to vote for him.
[/quote]

I’ll give folks who voted for Bush in 2000 half-a-pass(*), just because his performance in the White House was an unknown at the time. The folks who voted for Bush in 2004, on the other hand, deserve no sympathy.

(* = Half, because anyone who actually did research into Bush and Gore in the 2000 runup should have heard the warning balls that Bush’s leadership skills weren’t as cracked up as his supporters said they were.)

You mean “Keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing and hope it gets better” qualifies as a plan? Geez, you’re part of the problem right there…

25

You can slam all the ‘idiots’ who voted for Bush in '04.
What does that get you? Nothing.

You can say that it only takes 20 minutes to hep yourself to the Dem platform.
Do you think Joe Dinnerbucket is going to even spend 5 minutes doing this?

The Republican strategy has worked. Smart Dems should look at this, and adopt strategies that can counter it.

I don’t see them doing this!
Talk of Hillary and Barak is a prime example. A waste of time and energy.

Dems need to find a strong STRONG candidate. They need to be concise in their sell… solid sound bites, repetition of the basic points.

“Iraq. Saddam is gone. And that’s a good thing.
Now, it’s time to let Iraq… rule… Iraq.
As your president, I will make it happen. And that’s a promise”.

Something like that. It’s the only way to sway minds. Play your opponent’s game, but play it better. Superficial? You bet. But that’s the way it works now. TV ads win elections.

26

[QUOTE=crinz83]
You can say that it only takes 20 minutes to hep yourself to the Dem platform. Do you think Joe Dinnerbucket is going to even spend 5 minutes doing this?
[/quote]

If he doesn’t, does he really deserve a better government than he’s got now?

If you think the nation would be better off with the Democratic party in control, you go and talk to Joe Dinnerbucket. If you don’t, find a more convincing argument. A more powerful and better-organized party is not necessarily the one that’s better for the country. You’ve got to look at what they’re trying to do with that power.

27

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
You don’t get all that into a 30-second spot. You have a spot that says, “The 9/11 commission recommended sweeping changes to our port security system. Three years later, the Republican Congress has not enacted these changes: our ports remain unsecure. Within twenty-four hours of taking control of Congress, the Democrats will enact all recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I’m Bob Dobbs, and I approve this message.”

Or something like that. And then you do that for half a dozen different issues that can be condensed into soundbites (“Too many Americans are working full-time and living below the poverty level. I don’t think that’s fair, and when Democrats take control of congress, we’ll raise the minimum wage so that all working Americans get an honest day’s pay for an honest day’s work. I’m Bob Dobbs, and I approve this message.”) And you blanket the airwaves with these ads.

If your opponent goes negative, maybe you can spend as much as a third of your ads defending and counterattacking–but spend the remaining 2/3 explaining what you’ll do. Make it a national push, so that in addition to ad time, you’ll get news time to reinforce the idea.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Its not just having a plan, its having a plan on Iraq that people are looking for. Right now all the Democrats have is “anything would be better than the current policy” and the problem is that our policy in Iraq will not change as a result of congressional change. You need a new president to change foreign policy. Right now its all about Iraq and it is about accountability (I believe rightly so). The republican party is being held accountable for what it did when it held the reigns of power.

If the Republican’s lose the house, the message will be loud and clear, we are voting AGAINST YOU Mr. President. I don’t know anyone that is voting FOR the Democrats but a lot of people are voting against the Republicans. The aura of incompetence and corruption does not stop with the President, it has now infected the entire Republican party and it has come down to whether you can stomach voting for a Democrat, oddly enough there is a pretty big population of people that can’t bring themselves to go quite that far.

28

[QUOTE=crinz83]
I don’t see them doing this!
Talk of Hillary and Barak is a prime example. A waste of time and energy.

Dems need to find a strong STRONG candidate. They need to be concise in their sell… solid sound bites, repetition of the basic points.
[/QUOTE]

This is what I feel is wrong with our dependancy on a two-party system. I would consider Barak Obama a strong candidate if he decided to run, but I’m supposed to kick him to the curb for the sake of the Democratic Party because too many other people can’t get past the color of his skin or his lack of experience?

Sometimes it isn’t worth winning if you have to compromise too much get there. If the Dems can’t pull it together and the Republican Reign continues in Congress…if they don’t put someone on the ballot that I can get behind to the degree that I would get behind Obama, and the Republicans win the Presidency in 2008…then I’ll continue to hope that enough people will get fed up with status quo such that critical mass is reached and we get to the point that a viable 3 party system takes hold.

If the Democratic party as it has historically been known is the first sacrificial lamb to that end, maybe that’s for the best. I don’t believe that the Republican’s can maintain their current trajectory indefinitely, and they too will be put in their place eventually.

I do worry about how much damage they’ll do on the way to that end, but I don’t worry enough to feign passion when my actions and words ring hollow in my own ears.

29

And once again, we are lectured to follow the example of people we despise. And they aren’t even that good at it! Of the last two presidential elections, these wizards of politics lost the first popular vote and barely scraped by in the second by shrieking about gay marriage at the top of their lungs! Oh, and fear. They have nothing to sell but fear itself, and foul slurs on the patriotism of their critics. The have fostered and exploited the very fear they now offer themselves to cure.

We have the truth, they can have the soundbites. They will anyway, they can afford to pay a better class of mercenaries.

30

[QUOTE=col_10022]

If the Republican’s lose the house, the message will be loud and clear, we are voting AGAINST YOU Mr. President. I don’t know anyone that is voting FOR the Democrats but a lot of people are voting against the Republicans. The aura of incompetence and corruption does not stop with the President, it has now infected the entire Republican party and it has come down to whether you can stomach voting for a Democrat, oddly enough there is a pretty big population of people that can’t bring themselves to go quite that far.
[/QUOTE]

Remember, way back when in Bush’s first run at the presidency, he claimed he was a “uniter, not a divider”?

It turns out he was telling the truth all along.

31

I agree with Elucidator here. I can’t stand people whose essentially say, “Karl Rove is an evil genius who fools the American voters with fear and hatred. And we Democrats need a Karl Rove of our own.”

It’s just stupid. First of all Karl Rove is an idiot. The president he manages has an approval rating so low they had to invent a whole new branch of mathematics just to express it, he lost the popular vote on his first election, he barely sqeaked by on his second election, and the republican party is imploding with finger–pointing and recriminations all around.

Yeah, really successful model to emulate there. How’s that Evil Genius thing working out for you, Karl?

32

[QUOTE=elucidator]
We have the truth.
[/QUOTE]

Admittedly, I don’t get any TV reception at all at my house, so the only political ads I’ve been subjected to are obnoxious push polls and the odd sprinkling on Air America. From what I’ve gathered from news stories, though, the “truth” that Democrats are paying to disseminate this campaign season is that Republicans are assholes.

Well, duh, as concerns the pubs in power. Duh. But a little more truth, a little money to pay for spots showing what the Dems would do with power, woulda been really nice.

Daniel

33

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
From what I’ve gathered from news stories, though, the “truth” that Democrats are paying to disseminate this campaign season is that Republicans are assholes.
[/QUOTE]

Don’t you have the two parties confused? It’s the Republicans who is spending 90% of their advertising budget on negative ads.

34

[QUOTE=crinz83]
George W. Bush is the stupidest president ever.
But the Democratic Party couldn’t get someone to beat him for the 2nd term (1st term election BS call allowed)?
[/quote]

He may be a moron, but he has smarter people helping him.

Nope. Their failure to nominate strong leaders didn’t help either.

Oh please. It’s a week until the election, which is really not the time to do that. Democrats already have a strong tendency to tear their own candidates apart, so encouraging them to do that now is not the way to go. It just isn’t the time.

So why are you talking about it? This has nothing to do with anything.

I hope not, but sometimes I worry it’s the case. The Republicans are defining the ideals, and the Democrats seem to just be taking the contrary position. The isolationism I see from some Democrats troubles me.

See, you’re contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, Democrats need to wake up and take charge. On the other, you’re saying they can’t nominate their best-known candidate because she’s a woman, and their most attractive and inspiring candidate because he’s black. This “we can’t vote for him, he’s not electable!” bullshit has lead the Democrats to choose a lot of unappealing, “safe,” boring candidates in the past. IT DOES NOT WORK. And if you want the Democrats to have principles, you can’t tell them to start making exceptions like that.

Also, it’s okay to organize your thoughts into paragraphs.

Those are related thoughts supporting a main premise.

One sentence at a time makes for long posts full of blank space.

It’s a little annoying.

Since this is the Pit… stop fucking doing that, you goddamn asshole!

35

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
But a little more truth, a little money to pay for spots showing what the Dems would do with power, woulda been really nice.
[/quote]

You mean like Nancy Pelosi’s First 100 Hours plan? The one that’s been all but ignored by the “liberal” media?

36

[QUOTE=scr4]
Don’t you have the two parties confused? It’s the Republicans who is spending 90% of their advertising budget on negative ads.
[/QUOTE]

Are the Democrats filling the airwaves with positive ads explaining what they’ll do once they’re in power? It’s fully possible I’m confused, but the commentary I’ve been hearing suggests that both parties are spending all their advertising dollars sniping at one another.

Daniel

37

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
I agree with Elucidator here. I can’t stand people whose essentially say, “Karl Rove is an evil genius who fools the American voters with fear and hatred. And we Democrats need a Karl Rove of our own.”

It’s just stupid. First of all Karl Rove is an idiot. The president he manages has an approval rating so low they had to invent a whole new branch of mathematics just to express it, he lost the popular vote on his first election, he barely sqeaked by on his second election, and the republican party is imploding with finger–pointing and recriminations all around.

Yeah, really successful model to emulate there. How’s that Evil Genius thing working out for you, Karl?
[/QUOTE]

I’d say that evil genius thing is working out quite well for him, because if you attribute Bush’s success to him he installed the 42nd person ever to hold that office in the country’s history. All the rest is gravy after that.

As far as elucidator’s other comment referring to the stupid people that voted for Bush, I think you need to reflect a bit on what you’re saying, and maybe factor that in to why the Democrats have been taking a bath for years. You don’t win elections by telling people how stupid they are. To the best of my knowledge no candidate has ever won with that kind of strategy.

38

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Are the Democrats filling the airwaves with positive ads explaining what they’ll do once they’re in power? It’s fully possible I’m confused, but the commentary I’ve been hearing suggests that both parties are spending all their advertising dollars sniping at one another.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Here in NY, I have not seen one negative ad. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an ad for Spencer. My husband (who is deeply into the Democratic Party here in Brooklyn) momentarily forgot who was running against Hilary. But we are downstate and I don’t think Spencer is wasting a dime in NYC. Hilary’s been running ‘isn’t our State beautiful’ type ads.

The NJ race is completely different. This one’s a toss up, although it looks like the Democrat is widening his lead. Kean, the Republican, has been running ads saying Menendez-- the Dem-- wants to give your Social Security money to immigrants and has danced with indicted Democrats (NJ Dems have not been very clean). All of Menendez’s ads I’ve seen are-- I hate this war, I hate this deficit and, most importantly, I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!
So, I guess the message everyone is getting depends on what’s going on locally.

39

No contradiction with Clinton or Obama in my mind. They’re foolish choices at this point in time, because lots of Americans won’t go for it. They aren’t ready for it. You want to push for them, fine. Meanwhile, the Reps will get a guy who distances himself from Bush, has all the machinery working for him, and will win the election.
I don’t think the only Dem alternative is some boring, uncharismatic schlub. The choice is not a black man or a woman, or Mr. Cardboard. The winning Dem must be a vibrant, exciting dude.
Then, Democrats can start making a difference in the world. Until then, they will walk in the shadow of the Republican party.
Jeez, sorry spacing sentences is so irritating to you. I’m an asshole because of it?

40

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
…As far as elucidator’s other comment referring to the stupid people that voted for Bush, I think you need to reflect a bit on what you’re saying, and maybe factor that in to why the Democrats have been taking a bath for years. You don’t win elections by telling people how stupid they are. To the best of my knowledge no candidate has ever won with that kind of strategy.
[/QUOTE]

"Hello? Yeah, 'luc here, for Senator Kerry? Yeah, I’ll…John? Yeah, '**luc ** here…yeah, fine…listen, I just wanted to apologize for that “Bush voters are dumb” thingy…yeah, pretty bad advice, turns out, wish I’d never mentioned it to you…very understanding of you, John, yeah, just found out myself…yeah, got it straight from Airman Doors, wish he’d said something sooner…me too, John, sorry, yeah, boy, am I…