A young man amputee speaks about Iraq. He wonders if we’re accomplishing anything there. He wonders why we went there in the first place. He wonders where the WMD’s were. For about thirty seconds. No soundtrack, black and white. Cut to white text on black screen saying “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” Imagine the same commercial with a person who lost a family member in Katrina. The same commercial with someone who’s lost their job in the past four years. Always the same question at the end.
Yes, I know that it’s traditionally frowned upon to run a negative campaign, but I think the Democrats have arrived at a point where they must. The 2004 election was hijacked by negative campaign tactics used by the Republicans and their allies. Maybe the Dems big problem is they never fight back. They just try to run optimistic campaigns that tip-toe around the fact that Bush is not a good president.
We’ve found that many Americans vote based on emotional non-issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) I know that it’s cynical to say, but elections these days hinge more on style than substance. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to use this to their advantage. What do you think?
Not in the way you suggest. Neither Bush nor any senior member of this administration will be the GOP candidate in 2006. Their nominee will be someone who’s run *against * his party’s record, or at least shown strong independence from it, and can’t plausibly have it hung around his neck.
I don’t know where your preception comes from that the Dems never fight back or never run negative campaigns. Thats certainly not my perception of EITHER party.
That said…sure. I think its a great idea. Tell the American people how bad things are under the Republicans…hell, give Jimmy Carters malaise speach.
The trick is the right amount of negativity. You also need to pair a negative message about the other guy with a positive message about your man. If Iraq, the Republican corruption in Congress, and non-response to Katrina are issues that score well, then throw the punches. For too many years, the Dems have had boxing gloves on while the Pubs come at you with brass knuckles. Time for the Dems to play by Rovian rules and let some mud fly, but not too much mud.
That commercial was already tried in '04, btw. Didn’t seem to work.
Look, there is always room for negative adds. Lord knows the Republicans (esp Bush) have made huge mistakes in governing. But you need more than just negative adds, especially in midterm elections. If the Democrats also put forward a good, solid message about what they plan to do, then there’s no reason not to throw some good, negative adds to boot. The economy is doing pretty well, so it would make sense to hit those things that resonate best:
Iraq
The deficit
Corruption
Health Care
But remember, the Democrats are not running against Bush this time. The focus needs to be on Congress and what Congress can and should be doing. And the Dems need a central message. What is the Democratic message on Iraq right now? Seems like there are at least 3 different messages: Bring the troops home now (Pelosi); Bring them home in a year (Kerry?); Stay the course (Lieberman, Clinton).
It will be very hard to win back either House, but I see no reason why the Democrats can’t pick up seats in both the House and the Senate. The Republicans are very vulnerable.
Whatever method of campaigning they use, they have to be firm. It has to be “If you vote for us, we will do this, this and this.” Like John Mace says, they need a central message, and they need to stick to it and keep hammering the point home.
i think i agree with this. besides, the dems are messing up any realistic chance of winning by not nailing all these corrupt officials to the wall. the first oens they should go after are the ones in the democratic party to rty and further distance themselves from the republicans. but that won’t happen and they’ll stay passive. they’ll wait for the republicans to win an election before they try to lose one.
Oh, right, you did say '06. John, the same logic applies anyway. There won’t be many GOP Congressional candidates (in contested seats) defending their party’s record, either.
Are you kidding? The Democrats and the left have been bitterly negative for years. I don’t think I’ve seen so much raw, venomous hatred for a president since Nixon. The Dems can’t sink to the other guy’s level–they’ve already sunk well below it.
True enough. But whose policy on Iraq are the voters going to be voting on? Unless he makes a distinction himself, any GOP candidate is going to run on Bush’s positions, not only on Iraq but on Social Security, the deficit, etc. In a very real sense, Bush will be the opponent for every Democrat in 2006.
Sure, Dems need to lean hard on the “culture of corruption” that the Repubs are fostering in Congress. It wouldn’t hurt at ALL for Dems to have some very specific rules designed to make it more difficult to launder money through think tanks as Abramov did, and through the respective political parties, as DeLay did. That’ll be a good, solid, progressive piece of legislation that will hurt Pubbies MUCH more than it hurts Dems, and will further help paint the Pubbies as corrupt scum, which, let’s face it, many of them are.
Unequivocally not true. Dems have not, for example, tried to impeach Bush for any of the many substantive wrong things he’s done – misleading us about WMDs to get us into a pointless war, making America a nation that tortures – much less for something like getting a blowjob. Dems would have to sink much, much, muuuuuuuuuch lower to reach Pubbie levels of negativity. If Dems just stick to substantive issues … of which there are soooo many … they’ll still be far superior to the Pubbies.
You can ignore it or sidestep it, concentrating on portraying yourself as independent-minded, tough, working hard for your constituents’ interests, you know the drill. You do your best not to let the image that you’ve been just a tool of DeLay and Rove and the lobbyists. stick to you, no matter how true it may be, by diverting attention away from that subject - you know that drill, too.
Of course not. What would be the point? Only the House can vote to impeach; only the Senate can vote to convict. So long as there’s a Pub majority in both houses . . .
Yeah, we’re so negative, we’ve introduced impeachment resolutions over trivialities…oh wait, no we haven’t. That was them. We haven’t introduced impeachment resolutions over anything yet; maybe three Dem Congresspersons have gone so far as to mention the ‘I’ word.
And we’re so negative, we’ve slammed the GOP over the head with really trivial issues that we made out to be major ones, like Ward Churchill or The War Over ‘Happy Holidays’. Or turned one family’s tragedy into fodder for a national dogfight, like with Terry Schiavo.
