Great Society

Archives => Newsday Special: The Mid Terms => Topic started by: Reginald McGraw on October 20, 2006, 05:25:56 PM

Title: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 20, 2006, 05:25:56 PM
Here in Maryland, both the gubernatorial and senate races are being contested with the following sledgehammer argument:

Dem: <Republican candidate> IS BUSH!! (Literally...http://www.ehrlichisbush.com/)

Rep: Bush who?

Is this happening in other locales to this degree?
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 20, 2006, 05:31:08 PM
Yeah. I think so, though VA's race has been more of "Webb hates women!" "Allen is racist!"

George Allen, you'll remember is the current senator who got in trouble for calling some Indian dude "Macaca."

James Webb is a GOP turned Dem, and a total shitheel from I've gleaned.

I'll be writing in somebody, probably Satan.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: nacho on October 20, 2006, 05:44:36 PM
Sad to say that the 2006/2008 Dem strategy will be exactly that, Reggie.  "We ain't Bush!"  It's why we might as well just give up, really.  Once again, the Republicans will come in with a stronger win -- at least for 2008 -- simply because, by summer 08, everyone will stick a screwdriver into their eye when they hear whatever the rambling equivalent of "not Bush/he is Bush" will be.

06, thankfully, will be the backlash year.  The midterms are less about strategy and more reflective of the people, so you get slightly different results.  But the tone set by both the parties is what everyone will have to shudder and swallow in two years.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 24, 2006, 07:29:00 PM
George Allen, you'll remember is the current senator who got in trouble for calling some Indian dude "Macaca."

George Allen Insult Generator:
http://www.slate.com/id/2150347/nav/tap1/index.html?g=1&zsacategory=GeorgeAllenInsults

I'll be writing in somebody, probably Satan.

Vote Green!!
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 24, 2006, 07:36:02 PM
So today Dupont Circle was covered with Democrat volunteers carrying clipboards and saying this line to all pedestrians: "Help the Democrats take back Congress!"

I turned to the volunteer who heckled me and said with a huge grin, "Congress belongs to the people.  Green Party all the way!"  She looked nonplussed at my thumbs up sign.

Seriously, though, I'm upset by monopolies, duopolies, cartels and even more so when they're as dysfunctional as our two major parties are.  One of these parties "take back congress" just smacks me upside the head with really bad logic.  It isn't theirs.  They can't have it.  They're renting it from us and they've always been bad tenants.  They had their chance two years ago on the same issues they're expecting to win on today.  Sure, events and public opinion have changed but our leaders should've been fully capable of forming today's winning opinions years ago.  (Of course, the Green party did.)
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Cassander on October 24, 2006, 09:50:24 PM
Why can't the Dems get together some broad plan to unify them all besides the anti-bush one?  get together a few centrist planks (cutting wasteful spending, boosting health insurance rates, creating jobs), tie it up in a nice "We represent individuals, not corporations" bow, and throw all their weight behind it?  Why don't they steal a page from the winners' (republicans) playbook once in a while?  Instead they keep clinging to this anti-GOP stance.  And this is a stupid metaphor, but it's like when one person is watching another person play a video game, and the person playing just keeps failing over and over to clear a stage.  So the person watching gets fed up and just starts saying, "let me try, I bet I can do it."  They don't really have the confidence that they can do it, they're just tired of being bored and frustrated.  Even if they followed my suggestion and threw together some easy-to-swallow broad-reaching approach it doesn't mean they have to follow it.  They can switch it up as much as they want.  But if they really want power, they're going to have to do some attractive lying like the republicans do.  It's obvious that America just refuses to see the truth that the Bush administration's policies and actions have had a trickle-down effect (oo!) throughout almost all the official undertakings of our government.  They just don't want to believe that one party could fuck things up that badly. 

Seriously, though, couldn't some "Contract with America" approach work?  It's all about marketing.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 24, 2006, 10:06:19 PM
Why can't the Dems...Instead they keep clinging to this anti-GOP stance.

That's part of what made the interaction interesting.  We were both anti-GOP but she didn't like me for it.  The Dems have to win with a positive message/hope/vision/goal/etc.  Heck, even just the action item of holding war crime hearings against current officials would be *something* to vote for, even though it'd really be an extended form of voting against.

Quote
And this is a stupid metaphor, but it's like when one person is watching another person play a video game, and the person playing just keeps failing over and over to clear a stage.  So the person watching gets fed up and just starts saying, "let me try, I bet I can do it."  They don't really have the confidence that they can do it, they're just tired of being bored and frustrated.

Shut up!  That's not stupid; that's a great metaphor!

And the pages I'd like to see them steal from the GOP playbook are the ones about energizing your extreme radical members -- in this case, why not mobilize the atheists?  Seriously.  If hate politics are OK, let's just get all the atheists on board by claiming we'll tax all religious organizations like every other business -- starting with Pat Robertson's 700 Club.  Then we can take "Under God" back out of the pledge of Allegience, legalize gay marriage (and call it Marriage)....

It'd take a couple of years but I think a working strategy could be built around mirror images of many GOP stances.  But their stances lately have engaged their far-from-center freaks.  I'm a far-from-center freak on the other side and I'm really fucking jealous of all the attention their freaks got.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Cassander on October 24, 2006, 10:11:15 PM
i've got no stats, but I'd say a good percentage of atheists are already spiteful and tend to vote.  Besides, you can't take the risk of alienating the blacks (baptist) and hispanics (catholics), when they're such a big part of your base. 
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 24, 2006, 10:14:36 PM
A lot of those same religious blacks are very honest people who are pissed as hell at the hipocrisy of the megabig business "churches".  And really, just taxing religions like any other business means that anything regular businesses can deduct is still deductible.  That homeless shelter in the basement?  Deduct it!  It won't hurt all churches equally.  Not by a long shot.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Cassander on October 24, 2006, 11:18:32 PM
it wouldn't be the details of it that turned them off.  Few churches have actually seen any faith-based initiative money, but plenty of Christians were just turned on by the idea. 
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 24, 2006, 11:24:10 PM
...which has now soured in churches who have seen the overall lack of effect in hard hit areas.  Sure, First Baptist down the street got $Xk to take care of little Johnny but he was fine until Bush cut Johnny's Head Start program.

But no -- I'm saying remove the religious exemption to taxes.  A bit different.  And anyhow, beside my point.  My point was we could radicalize and include our lefties and make the Dems much more fun and exciting than just "not the guy messing up at the controls right now."  Because everyone messes up at the controls, but at least the GOP manages to try to sound like it stands for something.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 25, 2006, 09:34:54 AM
I'm saying remove the religious exemption to taxes.

Because separation of church and state only needs to go one way?
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 25, 2006, 10:25:17 AM
I was saying it as an example of energizing leftie radicals.  Not necessarily a good one, but it is an example of the kind of tactic the GOP has been using.

Although....  treating them like any other corporation hardly seems like it's interfering with the church.  It probably is  but I haven't bothered to think it through since it was just an example and not necessary to my main point.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 25, 2006, 12:31:56 PM
Ah well, I jumped the gun there then.  Sorry about that.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 25, 2006, 01:09:12 PM
I mean, seriously.  If campaigns have to go negative to win (and maybe that's true, I dunno) the left should do it like the GOP does -- manufacture unnecessary negative issues and campaign on them.  Don't bother to attack the candidates, attack their values, their lifestyles, their beliefs.  Flag burning -- there just *has* to be a dozen liberal equivalents to flag burning amendments.  Keep your hands clean of the filth of fisticuffs with candidates, just attack the concept of a Republican.  Make Conservative a dirty word. 

That's my main point.  And yeah, it's at least 2 years past its prime but I think it's still doable.

On the other hand, I'd rather they campaign on positive issues.  But when they need to go negative, use this strategy instead of "Gimme Congress!  Gimme money to take back the White House!  It's my turn!  It's my turn already, damnit!"
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 25, 2006, 04:55:57 PM
I don't think campaigns have to go negative to win.  I think that taking the high road gets you somewhere with voters. 

I mean don't we all think it's ridiculous when one candidate is bringing up negative information that really has nothing to do with any issue?

Maybe I'm in the minority there, but I wish we had a little more civility if not actual care among candidates.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Nubbins on October 25, 2006, 05:36:52 PM
I mean don't we all think it's ridiculous when one candidate is bringing up negative information that really has nothing to do with any issue?

Maybe I'm in the minority there, but I wish we had a little more civility if not actual care among candidates.

Sure, all of us here do.  All 15 or 20 of us...  The problem is that they continue pumping those kinds of campaigns out because they work.  A significant percentage of people not associated with these forums don't find those ads ridiculous and are instead influenced by them.

I'm right with ya, though.  It would be nice to see a candidate who didn't stoop to that level, but unfortunately we live in a society that caters to the lowest common denominator in all ways.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 25, 2006, 07:07:58 PM
That's the opposite of my point.  If the Dems need a stepping stone between character assasinations and running a purely positive campaign, they could do like the GOP does: manufacture issues which look positive but are actually attacks.  Flag burning being one perfect example of a purely manufactured passive aggressive attack campaign issue.

I'm saying if they really must go negative, let them do it by finding their own divisive gimmie fake issue versions of gay marriage and flag burning to energize their base.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 26, 2006, 09:41:26 AM
I think the real problem with doing what you say for Dems is the broad swath of different issues it would take...because the Democratic party is such a conglomeration of different people.  For example (as Cass stated earlier), you've got religious Blacks and Hispanics who might be a lost cause when faced with atheist rousing rhetoric.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 26, 2006, 11:21:06 AM
How about some good old class warfare?  Normally this doesn't play well because the Dems are too milquetoast to energize people who are too poor to take off work and drive to the polls, so:

1) Everyone gets Election Day off, polls are open for 24 hours.

2) No one making less than $50,000/year pays any taxes until the richest 4% of Americans own less than 40% of the nation's wealth.  (You'd have to sloganize that.)  Currently, according to Census data as compiled by Google, the richest 4% own 59.4% of the neation's wealth.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

Doesn't matter if it happens or not -- flag burning amendments never needed to pass for them to make a political impact.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Nubbins on October 26, 2006, 11:27:11 AM
3) I can go to any Walgreens or CVS and buy a sack of herb and some rolling papers.  Hey, anyone seen the deficit around here?  Jesus... I could have sworn that thing was around here somewhere... wait... what were we talking about?
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 26, 2006, 11:57:12 AM
3) I can go to any Walgreens or CVS and buy a sack of herb and some rolling papers.  Hey, anyone seen the deficit around here?  Jesus... I could have sworn that thing was around here somewhere... wait... what were we talking about?

Vote Libertarian!
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 26, 2006, 12:10:16 PM
Vote Libertarian!

Amen.

Though they're kind of fucked up too.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 26, 2006, 01:08:30 PM
But at least they would leave me alone...not steal all my money.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 26, 2006, 07:00:34 PM
I gladly pay my taxes.  I'd pay them more gladly if they weren't used for war and actually helped provide more services useful and needed by people less lucky than I am.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 26, 2006, 09:32:49 PM
I gladly pay my taxes.  I'd pay them more gladly if they weren't used for war and actually helped provide more services useful and needed by people less lucky than I am.

Me too. Taxes are what makes the country tick.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Matt on October 27, 2006, 12:56:12 AM
That ugly woman with the huge tits in Alabama is running for governor as a libertarian. It's not cool.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Reginald McGraw on October 27, 2006, 09:28:35 AM
There are few beautiful women in politics.  A proportional percentage have been allocated libertarian.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 27, 2006, 10:07:41 AM
I vote for Mikulski every election.  Personally, I think she's prettier in person, but not a mainstream sex object, either:

great hair day! (click for pic.) (http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/SSL.photos/SSLevent.photos/2006/060313.Mikulski/060313.MikulskiVisit.080.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Mikulski
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: Nubbins on October 27, 2006, 11:03:37 AM
Holy lord... get a load of the moustache on that one.
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: nacho on October 30, 2006, 08:14:13 AM
I'm a Barb Boxer man.  America's favorite lunatic liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Barbara_Boxer_2005.jpg

Hot!
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: fajwat on October 30, 2006, 08:31:52 AM
love her!!!!  Every time she's in the news I'm so glad someone like her has been elected.  Never realized what she looked like, tho.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Campaign Strategies
Post by: nacho on October 30, 2006, 10:28:31 AM
She was on the ropes last time.  We'll see how she fares in 2008.