Why Kerry will win

[davidm]

@Polerius

Actually, I’ve had a very similar idea for a while now:

The video (or print ad) would be called “Difficult Choices”

• It would be split screen.
• Set during the Vietnam war era.
• On the left is Kerry in combat fatigues having to make a choice between two
  life-threatening options.
• On the right is Bush in his pajamas opening his fridge at home and having to
  make a choice between Pepsi and Coke (or Bud and Miller)

Of course, Kerry’s campaign should not produce this, but some other organization.

Also, a few similar to this one should be produced, all with the same theme. And flood the airwaves.

Good idea, except that I doubt that there is any footage of Bush in pajamas opening a fridge. There might be footage of him doing something during the time Kerry was serving, maybe working on a campaign or, even better, drinking at a party.

[rjung]

@Rune

Ahhh… An excellent example of liberal arrogance; there’s absolutely nothing wrong with us, but everybody who don’t agree with us are docile and ignorant.

Sounds to me like you just described the Republicans’ attitude regarding the United Nations and our European allies for the last four years.

“Liberal arrogance,” my ass.

[presidebt]

Idea for clay-mation boxing match: Kerry vs. Bush:

Bush comes out in cowboy boots and a floor length red satin cape that says “Bring it On!” on the back. He takes a corner opposite Kerry, who is already there, stripped to his Navy-issue shorts and boots, face down, looking mean. The red cape comes off to reveal Bush in blue satin shorts with white satin piping. The butt of the shorts is imprinted with “WALMART.” He shakes his booty at Kerry, who stands stoic, focused and pissed. The bell rings and Kerry kicks Bush’s butt and as he’s got him pinned on the floor with his head jerked back, Kerry yells, a la Alice’s Restaurant group W bench-style, “You should’ve gone to 'NAM, George, you’d at least know how to fight like a man!”

Since we’re discussing fantasy advertising and all.

Did I go too far?

[Polerius]

@davidm

Good idea, except that I doubt that there is any footage of Bush in pajamas opening a fridge. There might be footage of him doing something during the time Kerry was serving, maybe working on a campaign or, even better, drinking at a party.

Real footage would be great, but even without it, we could have footage with look-alikes (like the Bush look-alike on some Jay Leno skits), or we could have real footage of Kerry in fatigues versus a CGI Bush in a scene he never was in (like what they did for Forrest Gump meeting JFK).

Of course, this spot would be satire and it would not imply that these events actually took place (unless we are lucky to have real footage), it would just be an “artist’s interpretation” of what the two were probably up to during those years.

With real footage, the spot wouldn’t be as comical, but a bit more serious, and most likely more effective. But even without it, it would be a funny spot that would stick in peoples’ minds.

[davidm]

Speaking of ads, has anyone see Moveon’s Real People ads? I saw the Kim Mecklenburg one last night. I missed the first part of the ad so I can only describe the part I saw. I don’t recall the exact words but she said something like “I’m a Financial Consultant. Speaking out in my profession can lose clients. I don’t care. I’m a life-long Republican, and I’m voting for John Kerry.” I thought it was pretty powerful but I’m not sure if it will sway anyone or not.

[Polerius]

@davidm

Speaking of ads, has anyone see Moveon’s Real People ads?

Actually, Apple had a similar set of ads, part of their “Switch Campaign”

The “Real People” campaign from Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple debuts Monday with eight spots, each of which features an interview with a different PC-to-Macintosh convert

Unfortunately, I don’t think they were very successful, so it’s possible the ones from Moveon won’t be either. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

[matt_mcl]

What I don’t understand:

Bush either didn’t win the popular vote or won it barely, depending on your POV, in 2000.

I’ve seen tons of people who voted Republican in that election saying they’ll vote Democrat this time.

Now how is it that Kerry is behind in the polls? Is there some massive groundswell of people who voted Democrat last time who are planning to vote Republican this time? (And for gods’ sake, why?!)

[John_Mace]

@matt_mcl

What I don’t understand:

Bush either didn’t win the popular vote or won it barely, depending on your POV, in 2000.

I don’t think ANYONE disputes the fact that Gore won the PV.

[davidm]

matt_mcl, I’ve been thinking the same thing. It’s one of the things that does give me some hope. I just can’t imagine huge numbers of Gore voters switching to Bush this time. But I can imagine Bush voters voting for Kerry or at least staying home. Also, the Democrats (and progressive 527’s) have massive registration and get out the vote drives. If I’m not mistaken, most of the polls are of likely voters, so they could be missing out on these new voters.

[bup]

Yeah, my mother has voted for every Republican presidential candidate her whole life (including Goldwater) and she can’t bring herself to vote for Bush this time. So I’m wondering that too.

What I have heard about Bush’ support is that he’s very popular among college-age voters (no cite).

Of course, the re-districting from the 2000 census favors Bush (rural states picking up delegates), but that does nothing to explain why polls would have Bush and Kerry neck-and-neck.

Perhaps there are Gore voters now going for Bush, but I don’t know any (disclaimer - I’m in the Chicago area).

[LilShieste]

@John Mace

It wasn’t a slam against liberals, just a sarcastic comment to a rather silly post by LS. Let’s look in more detail:

@LilShieste

Maybe the best solution would be to educate the public, correctly (you know, no lies), so that they may make enlightened, informed votes. (Note how I left out “progressive”… it was a pointless, partisan addition to your statement; unless you think that only enlightened, informed people are progressive…?)

<snip>

The general public is ignorant, because they actually believe that Kerry doesn’t want our troops to have body armor.

The poster claims that the public is educated “incorrectly”, and then makes a statement which is, at best, a distortion of the truth. Does the poster have a cite that the “general public” believes thatn “Kerry doesn’t want our troops to have body armor”? I’d like to see it.

If you want to mince my words, of course I don’t have a cite that shows “the majority of the general public thinks Kerry voted against body armor for our troops.” How about I re-phrase it as “TOO MANY people think Kerry voted against body armor for our troops.” Surely that removes any “silliness” from my previous post. Why? Because “TOO MANY”, IMHO, is any number more than 1.

Since Bush, himself, is claiming this…

GW in his RNC speech:
*Again, my opponent and I have different approaches. I proposed, and the Congress overwhelmingly passed, $87 billion in funding needed by our troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. My opponent and his running mate voted against this money for bullets, and fuel, and vehicles, and body armor. When asked to explain his vote, the Senator said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” Then he said he was “proud” of that vote. Then, when pressed, he said it was a “complicated” matter. There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat. *

and receives such praise anytime he brings it up, I would believe (and I would like to think you would agree) that a lot of his constituents believe just that.

If there wasn’t a large number of people who believe this notion, then there wouldn’t be any need for websites like FactCheck.org to clarify the matter.

@John Mace

Do the Bush ads even say that? No, they simply say that Kerry voted against an appropriation bill, part of which was intended to supply (or re-supply) the troops with body armor.

Take a look up at the last parts of the Bush quote, above. See where Kerry tries to explain that the bill is “complicated”, and where Bush claims that it’s simple? Bush says it’s simple. That it’s clear cut. What’s the implication? I’ll tell you-- The implication is that the body armor, etc. made up a lot more than 0.3333% of the appropriation bill. Obviously that implication is false.

@John Mace

Nothinng about Kerry “not wanting” the troops to have the body armor.

I love arguments like this. Reminiscent of kindergarten, really. Let’s say I make a statement like “99.9% of people on this planet are smarter than Jim-Bob.” When Jim-Bob’s friends complain “Hey, why are you calling our friend stupid?!” I respond “I never called Jim-Bob stupid! How did you get that from my statement?!” :rolleyes:

@John Mace

There has been no lack of democratic supporting Op Ed pieces laying into Bush and his campaign ads’ spin on the truth. If LS wants newspapers to editorialize about this on the front page, then (s)he doesn’t understand what an objective press is supposed to do.

I am quite familiar with how newspapers, and the general press should operate. Don’t put words into my mouth, or insinuate that I think the press should “editorialize about this on the front page”. I couldn’t care less what crap appears on the Op/Ed pages of newspapers… I DO care that our president makes statements like the one above, which parallels the baseless accusation you just made against me.

@John Mace

And if LS thinks that Kerry doesn’t also play fast and loose with the truth, how about this gem from today’s paper:

And I also love arguments like this. You know the ones that play off of the concept “Well, this is politics… whaddya gonna do?”. Yeah, it pisses me off when my side does the same thing. But I have yet to hear the Kerry campaign generate a baseless lie about the president. Kerry blamed Bush for what he called the worst economy since the Depression? OK, that’s Kerry’s opinion. Implying that Kerry voted against body armor, etc.-- saying the matter was “simple” and “not complicated”-- is not a matter of opinion; it’s a distortion of the facts.

LilShieste

[John_Mace]

@LilShieste

If you want to mince my words, of course I don’t have a cite that shows “the majority of the general public thinks Kerry voted against body armor for our troops.” How about I re-phrase it as “TOO MANY people think Kerry voted against body armor for our troops.” Surely that removes any “silliness” from my previous post. Why? Because “TOO MANY”, IMHO, is any number more than 1.

You missed the point. “Didn’t vote for” does not equal “doesn’t want”. It’s not the number of people who believe it, but what the belief acutally is. This is hardly mincing words, especially since your post was **specifically **about how one side misrepresents the other.

Take a look up at the last parts of the Bush quote, above. See where Kerry tries to explain that the bill is “complicated”, and where Bush claims that it’s simple? Bush says it’s simple. That it’s clear cut. What’s the implication? I’ll tell you-- The implication is that the body armor, etc. made up a lot more than 0.3333% of the appropriation bill. Obviously that implication is false.

There you go again. Did you even read your own cite at factcheck? It wasn’t the body armor, etc. that was .3%, it was the body armor alone. Call it mincing words, but if you’re going to slam one side for sending the wrong impression about something, at least don’t make factual errors in doing so.

I love arguments like this. Reminiscent of kindergarten, really. Let’s say I make a statement like “99.9% of people on this planet are smarter than Jim-Bob.” When Jim-Bob’s friends complain “Hey, why are you calling our friend stupid?!” I respond “I never called Jim-Bob stupid! How did you get that from my statement?!” :rolleyes

The only “rolleyes” appropriate here is that you think your example is simlilar to what I said. It ain’t.

And I also love arguments like this. You know the ones that play off of the concept “Well, this is politics… whaddya gonna do?”. Yeah, it pisses me off when my side does the same thing. But I have yet to hear the Kerry campaign generate a baseless lie about the president. Kerry blamed Bush for what he called the worst economy since the Depression? OK, that’s Kerry’s opinion. Implying that Kerry voted against body armor, etc.-- saying the matter was “simple” and “not complicated”-- is not a matter of opinion; it’s a distortion of the facts.

I just gave you one (baseless lie from Kerry). The fact that you can call that an “opinion”, but don’t recognize that EXACTLY the same can be said about how simple or complicated the $87B vote was, is nothing but pure partisan bias. BTW, calling the economy the worst ever since the depression is beyond the realm of “opinion” and well into the realm of scare tactic. And, it’s simply untrue. Care to defend it factually? I’m sure you can cherry pick an economic statistic or two that are “the worst since the depression”, but any number that characterizes the economy as a whole (eg, GDP growth) will not.

BTW, check out what factcheck.org says about a similar claim Kerry made back in Dec (emphasis added):

John Kerry didn’t make it through the third paragraph of his formal announcement speech before stumbling over a key fact about the U.S. economy. In his Sept. 2 speech in South Carolina, Kerry claimed the U.S. is suffering “the greatest job loss since the Great Depression.” That’s wrong.

Comparing the current job slump to the Great Depression is ludicrous…

[John_Mace]

FYI, more on Kerry’s Dubious Economics from factcheck.

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention July 29 Kerry repeated a claim that the economy is creating jobs that pay $9,000 a year less than those they replace. He bases that on disputed analysis from a liberal think tank.

In fact, economists disagree about whether jobs are getting worse or better. As we said before, there’s evidence both ways. Even some Democratic economists say the economic numbers are simply too rough and contradictory to allow any conclusion about the direction of change, let alone about how much less or more the new jobs pay.

Kerry also said “wages are falling” when in fact they are increasing. It’s true wages haven’t kept up with inflation for the past several months. But even after adjusting for inflation they’re still higher than when Bush took office.

And when Kerry said the “middle class is shrinking,” he was referring to what happened in the recession of 2001 and the initially slow recovery of 2002. But the economy has picked up considerably in the 19 months since, so what was true then may be untrue when phrased in present tense.

[bup]

@John Mace

FYI, more on Kerry’s Dubious Economics from factcheck.

FactCheck has since updated that article - Kerry’s right, the middle class is shrinking.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@John Mace

That would be a huge mistake. Bush is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being the better candidate to deal with terrorism. It will be an uphilll battle to change that perception, and there just isn’t time. Maybe a few barbs about not catching ObL, but that’s it.

[…]

Go after Bush where he’s weak, not where he’s strong.

It seems to me that even there, there might be an exploitable weakness, in particular in the wake of the school attack in Russia. Putin had some rather scathing remarks about the U.S. in that regard:

A few weeks ago the United States granted asylum to Ilias Akhmadov, the “foreign minister” of the Chechen separatist movement.

While qualifying his remarks by calling President Bush friendly and decent, Putin had pointed remarks for the administration.

He said each time Russia complained to the Bush administration about meetings held between U.S. officials and Chechen separatist representatives, the U.S. response has been “we’ll get back to you” or “we reserve the right to talk with anyone we want.”

Putin blamed what he called a “Cold War mentality” on the part of some U.S. officials, but likened their demands that Russia negotiate with the Chechen separatists to the United States talking to al Qaeda.

Oddly enough, Putin’s remarks don’t seem to be getting a lot of play, even though they seem like just the kind of thing (if true) that ought to outrage those who disagree with the Bush Administration’s handling of the so-called “War on Terrorism”.

[John_Mace]

@bup

FactCheck has since updated that article - Kerry’s right, the middle class is shrinking.

Thanks. Note that the original article couched its criticism saying that it “may be untrue.”

Also, not from your link:

Some of Kerry’s other claims remain as dubious as before, or even more so.

DF: I just saw that story a few minutes ago. What do we know about that guy? Is he known to be linked to Islamic fundamentalists?

I think Bush would be volunerable if there had been another large terror attack on the US since 9/11/01. But it’s hard to argue that Bush is weak on terror (even if he is) when there hasn’t been any. I still think it’s a losing battle for Kerry. Cast your line where the fish are (I just made that up ).

[Stoid]

@Bricker

If this is true, there would seem to be a rather large problem: that public is the one casting the votes.

Unless you’d prefer we change our election system to something under which only enlightened, progressive, informed people may cast votes?

Actually, that’d be swell!

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@John Mace

DF: I just saw that story a few minutes ago. What do we know about that guy? Is he known to be linked to Islamic fundamentalists?

I think Bush would be volunerable if there had been another large terror attack on the US since 9/11/01. But it’s hard to argue that Bush is weak on terror (even if he is) when there hasn’t been any. I still think it’s a losing battle for Kerry. Cast your line where the fish are (I just made that up ).

Hell, I don’t know anything about the guy. I’m just saying that if it turns out to be true that Bush has been supporting Chechen rebels, who then go blow up school kids, Bush’s “Tough on Terror” stance might not play as well out in the sticks even if there haven’t been any attacks here in the U.S. But then, I don’t know how trustworthy Putin is, either.

[Brutus]

This is a rather clever attempt by Pooty-poot to conflate the issues of Chechan seperatism with Chechan terrorism. Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of the seperatist movement, much less the closely-related terrorists, but ol’ Akhmadov strikes me as a spokesman for the seperatists, not the terrorists. (Judging by some google-induced reading. Could be wrong, of course.)

Hey, we didn’t make a big stink out of the Russians providing advisors and whatnot to Saddam up to the last minute, (not that they were too helpful, obviously), so maybe Putin is barking up the wrong tree on this one…

[John_Mace]

Let’s see if someone can clear things up about 'ol Ilias in this GQ thread.