Was it really a mystery what the GOP's tactics were this year, especially given the reputation of Karl Rove? Everyone knew what was coming, including Kerry's own campaign team, and yet they seemed unprepared for the onslaught. For example, I just learned that Kerry's infamous statement about "voting for the $87 billion, before voting against it" was in response to a heckler planted by the GOP at a town hall meeting to elicit just such a response.

It is a sad fact of life in American politics that most successful campaigns are based in large part on cynicism, negative advertising and tearing down your opponent. The Republicans, quite honestly, have mastered the black art of modern campaigning. Until the Democrats have a presidential nominee with an ounce of political sense who is willing to fight fire with fire (as Bill Clinton did), they will find themselves in an all too familiar place at the end of each election cycle: the losing side.

None of Rove's dirty tricks, or anybody's -Dem or GOP, will succeed without the cooperation of the print and broadcast media. It was the Media that kept the Swift Boat stuff in the news, when it was plainly a GOP/Rove scam. Here are some truths the Media ignored. Bush is not a Texan, he's from New England just like Kerry. Bush is not a uniter, he's a "me first" spoiled rich kid. Bush is not a Conservative, he just uses the title. Bush is not a "Washington Outsider", he is the son of a US President for christs sake. All of these falsehoods were perpetuated by the Media. Karl Rove's "genius" is a gift of the GOP Media, take that away and he would be gone like a cool breeze.

The answer is not simply getting "tough." A certain amount of sophistication is required that just doesn't seem to come naturally to Democracts.

What Democrats don't see is the social game that the Republicans are playing. The Republicans are working a "group identification" angle. Think of high school. Think of the sound bytes the network news programs would always show of George doing his "stand-up comic" routine. His big "issue" was laughing at John Kerry, or at least the charicature of John Kerry that they had created. When I say that Democrats need to start ridiculing the Republicans, I mean that they have to replace the harsh criticism retaliation instinct with dismissive jokes about how stupid the Republicans are.

What the Republicans understand (and Democrats do not generally understand) is that they are trying to convince the Swing Voters that they are going to want to identify with the [social] "winners", i.e., them. Democrats need to put up reminder signs up all over the place that say, "It's the social identification thing, Stupid!"

That's what usually moves an undecided Swing Voter over to the Republican ticket on election day. It isn't a sober reflection on the issues, on which candidate's promises might best fit their interests. Ultimately, when they search their feelings about the candidates, they [perhaps unconsciously] feel that it might be a mistake to identify with the guy who always seemed to be getting ridiculed and didn't know how to respond.

Democrats don't tend to like these social games. They would rather have civil debates where each candidate relies on arguments and logic to win over observers. We have no choice but to fight fire with fire. We need to villify The Republican Politician and define him as slick Deceiver, a huckster Con-Artist who is actually a great threat to the swing voters. We need to make this malignant character trait of Republican Politicians our #1 issue. Every time they utter another one of their fabricated criticisms of our candidates, we need to jump on it and take the time to explain to voters "how they are."

We need to focus on "us vs. them" and define who we are and who they are. They are people who should be feared by swing voters, because they are "lying snakes." We need to destroy their reputation. Showing them respect is a big no-no. (Okay, in a debate, show them a perfunctory amount of respect, to show that you are polite, but always reveal a little bit of your contempt for who they are.)

If you think about it, this is exactly what they have been doing to the Democratic Party. We have to fight them on this level if only to limit the amount of damage that they do to us. If we do it in a truly righteous and morally superior way, we will again become the majority party in America.

James J. Kroeger
www.taxwisdom.org

Democrats are reluctant to go negative. But when they do they can be both viscious and effective (Anti-Goldwater ad with the mushroom cloud going up).

Where Democrats can take the moral high road is in our inclusive nature. You don't have to be just like us, or like a media manufactured image of what 'us' is. Our morality is morality of the whole, conceding that others have differing views and we should be tolerant of that.

Anything after that regarding political ads is, as Eric Cartman says, time to "Kick em' in the nuts!"

When will Dems recognize that negative campaigning work ? ALways work. Kerry's loss was partly due the fact that he refused to run a negative campaign. Max Cleland lost because he did not run a negative campaign. Look around the country. Voters are the scums of the earth because they bought the lies wholeheartedly but always lied when asked if they believe in negative advertising.

Want to win? Dig deep and play dirty. Yes, Dems stand in principles while Rethugs grab more seats in Congress.

This whole issue is far more complicated than "negative" vs "positive" ads. "Negative" ads all on their own probably don't win elections. "Negative" ads that connect with existing preconceptions or "frames" about the opposing Party or candidate are highly effective. Thus, "liberal friends in Washington" connected.

The single most effective political TV ad ever IMO was the "Daisy" ad from 1964, and very few people actually saw it. It fit within an existing "frame" for Goldwater which many people seem to have forgotten -- "nuke the place (Vietnam)" was a common sentiment that year.

At 11:55 pm in the campaign this year, Clinton (the "first Black President") and others were out there in Philadelphia trying to shore up the AA base. Why was this voting bloc unsecured so late in the race? Maybe because except for Unka Al who doesn't have broad support in the AA community, they had been ignored since 2000. Maybe because GWB pointed out to AA that they were being taken for granted by the DEM Party (and GWB knows how to play that card since he saw his father taken down when the "evangelicals" in 1992 felt that they were being taken for granted -- he also knows that when that sentiment takes hold in a voting bloc late in a race that the Party can be damned if they do and damned if they don't respond to them). Or maybe too many of them "got religion" too and voted against gays instead of their own social/economic interests.

The facts are that Kerry underperformed with AA voters and GWB overperformed (if the initial numbers are to be believed). However, Clinton never performed as well with this community as Gore did in 2000 either. Did Gore connect better with AAs than Clinton? Maybe (and at a purely intuitive level I think there may be some truth in that). Brazile, who most DEMs dismiss, has proven to be very effective in getting out the vote if 2002 LA is any measure. Yet, the AA community was highly energized in 2000 and that seemed to go beyond even Gore and Brazile. If they had been allowed to cast their ballots and those they were able to cast had been counted in FL, Gore would have moved into the WH.

There only factor that I can see that was unique in 2000 was the NAACP "Bird" ad. The one that made white DEMs and the media cringe. The one that for an AA connected at an emotional level of both fear and anger. At the time, I thought it was a brilliant ad and still do. It was negative, but crossed over into the realm of shocking and true, and that is the most powerful form of negative ad. GWB gave DEMs so much fodder to do the same this year but for a much wider segment of the voting population. Lucky Bush/Rove that DEMs didn't learn from LBJ and the NAACP.

You need to be willing to go negative more than just through ads. You need to be able slam your opponent publicly and articulate clearly why (s)he is not a good choice. The republicans publicly slammed the Democrats all year, and followed up through ads.

Now, granted it is hard to do so through a media prism. But up North in Canada, the media is just as dominated by right wing barons. The major papers are almost all right wing. But the Liberal party has never wavered. They've always slammed the Reform, Conservative or whatever right wing party they faced. They've painted them as un-Canadian, mean, and dumb. They've run religous ads in the rural areas and secular ads in the big cities. And it worked. They win over and over again.

Yeah, I know we are different from Canadians. But I think that is partly a result of the fact that the Liberal party has fought hard and won in Canada, while the Democrats have wimped out and lost South of the Border.

You need to be willing to go negative more than just through ads. You need to be able slam your opponent publicly and articulate clearly why (s)he is not a good choice. The republicans publicly slammed the Democrats all year, and followed up through ads.

Now, granted it is hard to do so through a media prism. But up North in Canada, the media is just as dominated by right wing barons. The major papers are almost all right wing. But the Liberal party has never wavered. They've always slammed the Reform, Conservative or whatever right wing party they faced. They've painted them as un-Canadian, mean, and dumb. They've run religous ads in the rural areas and secular ads in the big cities. And it worked. They win over and over again.

Yeah, I know we are different from Canadians. But I think that is partly a result of the fact that the Liberal party has fought hard and won in Canada, while the Democrats have wimped out and lost South of the Border.

Democrats want to govern, Republicans want to Rule.

The Dems must be feeling blue in a sea of red. What I'm referring to is how the 2004 election map of the United States has come to look if you adjust the map`s colors for votes by county (as at the Web sites for CNN and USA Today), even the blue states turn mostly red. Pennsylvania is blue, but between blue Philadelphia and Pittsburgh every county in the state is red.
California, except for the coastline, is almost entirely red. This didn`t happen last Tuesday. IMO, the color-coding of the 2004 election began around 1965 in the politics of the Vietnam/Civil Rights era. The Democratic Party today is the product of a generational shift that began in those years and perhaps even before under Roosevelt's "new deal" during the 30's when Blacks endeared itself to the party.

This past election you Dems couldn't decide on a candidate,1st Clarke was your man, then Dean and finally Kerry and you couldn't decide on a platform. You brought no policy changes, plans, or even rough notions, and you call the majority of Americans ignorant?

Since the Civil war, there have been 37 elections and Democrats have won 14 of them. Not a good batting average, but you Dems just keep swinging at that same curveball.

Democrats need to just once try to "smell what they are stepping in"! AMERICA has repeatedly stated that the democrat party is not an organization that belongs in the American political scene. 3 elections, and Dems are too stupid to read the writing on the wall. So much for being the party of Intelligence.
I really don't hold out any hope that Dems will wise up anytime soon. At this juncture, all we can do is wait until the next election. My gut feeling is the Dems will sink even further down the "ladder of prominent political parties". Heck, even the Libertarian Party may even pass them up! Why? Nobody likes their intelligence questioned…and Dems will continue to try and "right a wrong"…when it is the LEFT that is wrong.

But further than that, what I don't understand is just where Democrats get the idea that they're so brilliant? If they're so smart, how come they keep making the same mistakes selecting Presidential candidates from the NE? Case in point…if Hillary somehow would garner the nomination in 2008, I will have proven my point. That is unless the Dems "give up" on NE Dems to try and run for prez. In that case Hillary will most likely have to "pick up her carpetbag" and move to Alabama or Florida!

After thw SWB liars released their ads, Kerry immediately released an ad w/ McCain calling W "despicable" during the 2000 primary campaign in SC but Kerry pulled the ad few days later. Nice guys don't finish first. Kerry also did not go hard after W's TANG records after they lied repeatedly about his records and their claim that all records had been released. Every Friday, the WH released new records but where was Kerry ? Kerry AWOled. You don't have to attack W's attendance records but you have to attack W's bald-faced lies on MTP that he would release all records.

Kerry did not talk about the fact W had to testify for 7 hours on whether people from his administration exposed an undercover CIA agent and destroyed covert operations which took years to build. Did Bush lie when he said he did not know anything? Where was Kerry? wind-surfing, I guess.

Kerry did not talk about W's failure to tell the truth on the niger nookular claim. W relied on forged docs to scare the hell out of us. Where was Kerry on this issue ? Someone from W's administration may have forged it. My 6 year old son could have created ads w/ this stuff.

Kerry's team were incompetent and stupid and too timid. They wanted to talk about undecided voters and how they can get undecided voters to their side, my ass. Hope is on the way.

Um, Chevy, wasn't Bill Clinton from Arkansas? Wasn't Bush from the NE despite claiming he was a Texan?

Um, Chevy, wasn't Bill Clinton from Arkansas? Wasn't Bush from the NE despite claiming he was a Texan?

Unfortunately for you want to dwell on the exception rather then the rule. BTW Where did the DEM party strategically place Hillary? I rest my case.
I see those with ties to your party out helping the cause by debassing Jesus and people of faith. M. Dowd, Kinsley, Fat boy Michael Moore drew a map and appropriately named it "Jesus Land". Mo Dowd's Bush declared a Jihad on America, etc. etc.. LOL Keep the faith brother. Keep bashing people of faith.
Chevy
Chevy

"Democrats want to govern, Republicans want to Rule."

So the Democrats reach out with sincerity and logic to people's minds, while the Republicans ignore the fair and fancy shit and just grab 'em by the balls.

Democrats don't have to adopt the same vile tactics used by Republicans, but they do have to actually be strategic.

"Democrats want to govern, Republicans want to Rule."

So the Democrats reach out with sincerity and logic to people's minds, while the Republicans ignore the fair and fancy shit and just grab 'em by the balls.

Democrats don't have to adopt the same vile tactics used by Republicans, but they do have to actually be strategic.

The reason jerry falwell and pat robertson broke up was because of the simmering man on man love tension between the two, especially as it related to who was going to be on top.

Something like that?

I do not know if the Republicans stole the 2004 election, but I think that it was a huge mistake for Kerry to concede so quickly. His concession does not have legal weight, but it has the effect of legitimizing a Bush victory in the eyes of the public. The concession has allowed the GOP and the media whores to start spinning the narrative about a clear and strong mandate for Bush. Kerry could have issued a statement that in view of the numerous irregularities in both Florida and Ohio, he was witholding his concession until the results were thoroughly vetted and certified by officials in those states. Had he taken this approach, the public perception would be that the election is "still too close to call," and even if Bush were ultimately the winner, his victory would be diminished significantly. At the moment, 99% of Americans believe that it's over, that Bush won. If Kerry had refused to concede, the whole nation and the media would be focused on the process of reviewing vote tallies from Florida and Ohio; there would be incredible scrutiny of the numbers, and the inadequacy of our voting system would be exposed for the mess that it is. Now that Bush has been declared the winner, it will be exceedingly difficult to undo what is done, even if conclusive evidence shows that the election was rigged. Kerry rolled over too quickly, and has done a disservice to the 56 million voters who supported him.

Well if Chevy's showing up here, he must have buyer's remorse. He isn't alone in this feeling.

After thw SWB liars released their ads, Kerry immediately released an ad w/ McCain calling W "despicable" during the 2000 primary campaign in SC but Kerry pulled the ad few days later. Nice guys don't finish first. Kerry also did not go hard after W's TANG records after they lied repeatedly about his records and their claim that all records had been released. Every Friday, the WH released new records but where was Kerry ? Kerry AWOled. You don't have to attack W's attendance records but you have to attack W's bald-faced lies on MTP that he would release all records." CT

Did it ever occur to you Kerry wasn't in the position to go on the offensive? Kerry never did agree to sign the form to release all his Naval records. SWB vets challenged the Kerry campaign to sue them if they weren't telling the truth. It was Kerry that changed his website about being in Cambodia on Xmas day.
Don't you find it odd Kerry blasted the NAM war for political recognition then became the 4 month Nam war hero when he decided to run for president. Typical Kerry, enuf said.

First, we need to go after the right-wing media by boycotting all sponsors. Then we need to do exactly as many have posted, and that is put them on the defensive immediately and continually, and never let them off the hook. Fire the first bullet and never let them load to return fire. While we are using logic and rationale and truth, they are winning by lying, deceiving and fraud. Forget being nice. Start rumors, make accusations and scream the truth until people can no longer ignore it. If Bush had a girl friend who had an abortion, I would have made damn sure it got out one way or another. They would have used it if it had been Kerry.

The Democrat's blog is titled, "Kicking Ass".
The mule rolled over and died.

I thought they had a good strategy for a while: just keep hammering away with the truth.

We need not wait 2 or even 4 years to start the pounding. There are plenty of Democrats in the House and Senate who have plenty of scream power.

I begged Kerry to stop the war (constituent). I even promised I'd supply him with throat lozenges to soothe his tired windpipe, if he'd just stand up and start yelling.

Just as the Democrats in the Senate sat back while several Florida house members begged for an investigation into the 2000 Florida vote, they've again rolled over and died.

Have we been abandoned by our party?

Mark Richards: Have we been abandoned by our party?

I fear it might be worse. Based on Clinton's lecture to DEMs about how we have screwed up (not him - the rest of us) on the values issue and the large number of new Clinton/Kerry/DLC apologists that have begun to appear on the blogs in the past few days, they may be fixing to treat us the way they treated the 2000 Nader voters. Since they couldn't win with us, maybe they want to try to win without us. Either way, we seem not to get or see much of anything we value; so, it will be their loss more than ours.