I’d like to see a series of “straight talk” ads from average citizens and unexpected celebrities. I’m thinking along the lines of the Charles Schwab ads, but maybe without the drastic photoshop filter applied.
The theme would be “Why are you voting for the Democrats?” At the beginning of each spot, a voice-over asks this question, then you hear a different response.
They should cast those extremely attractive “average citizens” like those aspirin commercials and do close-in shots with a simple message. The migraine headache lady could say “The Republicans promised to lower our taxes, but we ended up with less money because we have to pay more for gasoline. Where are all the tax breaks that were promised for an average hard-working person like me? etc.” The hard-working farmer could say “I voted for the Republicans last time and I’m saddened and ashamed at what happened. I think it’s time to let someone else have a shot at it.”
They should try to convince someone who speaks well (but might be unpopular) like Howard Stern to do a spot. “Listen, you may not like me or agree with most of the things I do, but we probably agree that the country could be run better… etc.”
A Hollywood movie star could do a spot where he or she asks whether it’s more important to elect someone who promises to protect your children’s morality and family values, or more important to elect someone who protects your children’s life by not sending them to the other side of the world to be killed in a war.
The ads would all end with the same slogan, like “Vote Democrat in 2006”.
I think this would resonate better in the Red states and steer the focus back to issues.
Like many people in the other thread said, you have to do more than just criticize Republicans. You have to make people WANT to vote for the Democrats. What’s the agenda that the Democrats are putting forward? We already know they aren’t Republicans.
Your idea might not be a bad one, but it needs to be accompanied by some positive messages.
As as some of us have said, no you do not. Point out the Republican fuckups, say we won’t make them, say HOW we intend to avoid them (like, not invading people just for the hell of it, and forbidding torture, etc.) and that’s ALL the fuck we have to do to win.
I’m not sure- running negative campaigns suits the Republicans just fine.
Let’s take a page out of Reagan’s book and simply have the campaign be “Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?” Followed by a montage of:
flag draped coffins coming off planes
Katrina victims stranded on overpasses with bloated corpses floating below
You’re certainly correct that some of you have said that. Funny how all of those people, though, have political views aligned with the far left wing of the party. Follow them at your peril.
I think the candidates, individually, should say, “We already have enough gun laws. I won’t support any more restrictions on the right to bear arms.” The politicos have no idea how many liberals vote Republican because of the 2nd Amendment.
Problem with this is its a coin flip. We were in a recession and the midst of the dot com bust when Bush took the helm. Lots of my tech friends were out of work or working other jobs for half pay (or worse). We aren’t in a recession anymore, dot com is behind us and the economy is certainly improving…and I can’t think of a single friend of mine in the tech industry thats out of work these days (not that this means a lot, but its PERCEPTION over reality in this kind of question). Sure, we have the Iraq war and things like Katrina (from your list), but even there its a mixed message (more on the Katrina side admittedly than on the Iraq war side…but who knows where that will be in 3 more years?).
As I said in the other thread, the Dems need to (re)define themselves, not simply play ‘look how bad the Republicans are’ type games. They seriously need to sit down and decide on an agenda, even if its a left wing one, and push THAT over simply trying to say ‘we ain’t Republicans…hear us roar!’.
I know this advice will fall on deaf ears, but I really think the Dems should start by actually taking a look at what the majority of the American people (the flesh and blood ones that actually exist, not the ones the Dems wish existed) really want out of their government (especially out of the executive branch if we are talking about the Presidency) and try and craft their new agenda around THAT instead of simply repackaging the same old tripe they have been pushing (to lesser and lesser effect) for decades now. Just a thought.
I don’t understand why people keep saying this; the main plank of the Republican Party in 2004, after all, was demonizing the Democrats. The Democrats were led by a man who was Unfit for Command, and they were going to raise taxes and force everyone to have gay sex. They were Evil Liberals who were Soft On Terror.
Negative campaigning works. It is absurd to suggest that the Republicans won in 2004 because they didn’t use negative campaigning and the Democrats did. The Republicans won because they were much, much better at negative campaigning; they had a clearer negative message.
You don’t understand because you are misinterpreting. I didn’t say negative campaigning doesn’t work. I said negative campaigning alone isn’t going to work for the Democrats.
Negative campainging is great for getting out your base. Problem is, the Democrats have a smaller base than the Republicans, so it doesn’t work as well for them.
The Republicans are currently in power. To overthrow the status quo, you need to do more than say the status quo sucks. You have to offer a better alternative. Why vote for change if you don’t know what the change will bring? The Dems were so sure that “anyone but Bush” would win last time, and look it where it got them. What’s worse this time, is they aren’t even going to be running against Bush.
Don’t be so dismissive of issues like SSM. For example, folks know what they’ll get with Republicans-- no SSM. If the Democrats are in power, will we have SSM or not? I don’t think anyone can answer that question. And that’s not unique to SSM.
From the way this issue has dropped out of the Democratic playbook like a disfavored apparatchik dropping out of Stalin-era official photographs, I gather that the party leadership has figured out that, if only they’d steered clear of gun control, it would be Al Gore starting his second term.
As usual, they’ve done a poor job of communicating their stance to the public (much less overcome the extra difficulty of convincing people that they’ve abandoned their old position).
True. I have noticed this and heard others worry about it too, the democrats do not really have a positive message.
Positives of the democrats that they can run on:
Higher minimum wage
More affordable higher education
Universal healthcare access (someday at least)
A US that is respected and liked by our allies and the world
More attempts to promote human rights and humanitarian aid while fighting poverty globally
Prescription drug benefits plans
higher taxes
A military where other nations are willing to fight with us instead of us going alone
More attempts at energy independence
To Republicans, those are vote-winners. Promise to nuke other countries at random and draft comprehensive lists of innocent people to mutilate. Former Republican voters will flock to your camp.
Then when they find you’ve won their support through policies you have no intention of implementing, they’ll love you even more. Nobody knows why this is so but the evidence is irrebutable.
Exactly right. It seems to me that the Democrats have finally come to realize that gun control is a losing issue for them. So, they’ve given up on it for political reasons. Most of their base doesn’t seem to care much about the subject one way or the other in any case.
However, it’s still in the nature of liberals to want the government to have programs and policies controlling everything. Eventually, it always comes back to this with gun control. In a recent GD thread some democrats were saying they don’t want gun control and aren’t anti-gun. I believed them. Then they started talking about creating gun registries!! :eek:
If you are pro-gun registration, even if it’s with good intentions (stopping crime somehow) and not for purposes of confiscation, then you are still anti-gun. This is playing into the hands of the gun grabbers and won’t be tolerated by the NRA.
It’s not good enough to merely stop being anti-gun. You need to actively be pro-gun.
Bah. If the Democrats tomorrow started to embrace the gun enthusiasts, do you think for one minute the gun lovers would start voting Democratic? I don’t think so. The NRA will never trust the Democrats and vice versa. So the Dems moving to the right on gun control is a losing proposition- all it will do is offend the Democratic base to suck up to a group that they have no chance of wooing in the first place.
