If I were running against Bush I would use the following strategy.

[nogravebutthesea]

I am reticent to sound off on this until I am comfortable with my own stance(I don't like to shoot my political mouth off until i'm comfortable with the viability of my position ) However I am very interested in what you folks have to say regarding this question.

[thedancingbear]

Pretty easy, just highlight how soft he is on international terrorism and then talk about the economy a lot. Any other strategy will fail.

IS

[patio11]

My personal suggestion?

a) Go with the most middle of the road candidate you possibly can -- Lieberman or a clone if that isn't illegal already in 2004.

b) Full throated support for the war on terrorism and criticize Bush from the right for being too coddling to Saudi Arabia. Since Bush OWNS this issue, you spend approximately one sentence congratulating him for it during the entire campaign, and then map out your plan for exploiting our newly secure place in the world :

c) Chip at Bush's base by pointing out the times he has dissappointed it -- weakening his tax cut plans, no education reform, lackluster appointments and no support of controversial nominees since Ashcroft, steel tariff, etc.

d) Figure out an economic plan that sounds different (doesn't have to BE different) than Bush's, and beat it like a drum. "Its the economy, stupid" is a BAD, BAD line to associate with this stance. Fire any adviser who EVER even hints at misunderestimating Bush -- its cost two elections already. Don't try to repeal welfare reform -- its too popular and too, well, successful. Pick some entitlement programs with wide public support (drug benefits) and propose a reform of the current system that increases net spending -- call it the "peace dividend" or something.

e) Take a page from Bush's book -- your hard-core supporters (NARAL, NOW, AFLCIO, NAACP, etc) will support you no matter what you do -- they can't risk getting Bush for another four years, especially with the Supreme Court nominations coming up (n.b. DON'T mention this fact too loudly in public -- play strictly by the Bush "change the tone" rules, or he'll clobber you with that goofy smile on his face). A lot of the Democrats seem to think they need to energize the Left to win -- bad, bad, bad idea. We're in the middle of a long-term political realignment and being the darling of the academy is a good way to ensure you'll get hammered. Nancy Pelosi is NOT the kind of leader Democrats need at the moment unless they're really interested in the potentials of perpetual minority party status.

Your mileage may vary. of course.

Patrick McKenzie

[shea_d]

The situation with little Bush today is quite similar to papa Bush's situation when it came time for reelection. A war in Iraq and poor economy have happened in both administrations. I've been reading post-war analysis on the net (while taking a break from studying for finals next week, haha, you can't tell I'm a debater), and one of the things that would kill Bush's credibility is if we never find WMD's in Iraq. Already the possibility of finding weapons has been judged as low. This would do wonders for the Dems in 2004. If that were to be the case in 2004, I would run that as a platform as well as economy and health care.

[steinguitar]

In truth, this election is Bush's to lose. He will still be riding the wave of unification and patriotism that came out of 9/11, if only because he has endeavored to keep it as such. The economy matters to people, but that will only count so much. If people feel unsafe (as many americans do), they will not vote for a candidate that they feel will not protect them at any cost. If Bush can continue to paint himself as the protector of the homeland, all but the most severe economic collapse will push him out of office.
The war in Iraq went off pretty darn well, or so it seems to the american public. As far as rebuilding goes, it probably won't be glamorous enough to warrant the widespread media attention needed to make it a campaign issue. Even if we don't find weapons of mass destruction, a recent gallup poll found that 79% of americans would still think it was justified.
If Bush can continue to convince the American people that they are in a time of great peril and danger or something or other, he will be in pretty good shape come November next year.

[thedancingbear]

I'm being serious. Bush consorts with plenty of international terrorists; just distribute pictures of him shaking hands with a few major ones and make it so he doesn't automatically get "terror is bad so vote for me."

IS

[jatkins]

I would run a series of attack ads comparing President Bush to candidate Bush.

Compare his stance on being the world's policeman then vs. now. Compare his stance on Social Security then vs. now.
Compare his stance on veteran's issues then vs. now.
etc.

The candidate I would run would be (at this point, my choice is subject to change) Howard Dean. I would get him to harp endlessly on the wonders of the economy during the Clinton Administration.

On the state by state level, I'd expand voter contact rolls to include every registered voter, not just frequent voters, and give them as much attention as frequent voters. I'd run local ads which tell the tail of real families (from that area) and their plight as a result of social service cuts. Dean would then appear on screen asking why President Bush didn't bail out the states, when the Federal government is the only governmental body allowed to deficit spend.

Finally, I'd hire James Carville. He may be really creepy, but he runs a campaign like no one in history. The speed with which he and his "rapid response team" responds to every single little thing that the other guy says absolutely flabbergasted both the Bush and Dole campaigns. I'd hire Mary Matalin, but somehow, I don't think she'd work for Dean.

[boredguy8]

"Ladies and gentlemen, as a civil servant I've had the opportunity to learn from our great nation. I've seen men like Peter Langone accept death to save the lifes of his fellow Americans. I've learned that America has the courage of her convictions. And I've learned that America can change when she needs.

I've learned that America will not stand to be attacked. Ladies and gentlemen, while serving as your President, America was attacked. Attacked without provocation. Attacked without a declaration of war. Attacked by viscious men bent on destroying our very way of life. Having learned the strength of America, I responded. I responded with haste. Ladies and gentlemen I am not a policeman, I am an American. As such, I responded the way most Americans would. I did not debate my assailant. I did not try to get in touch with my assailants feelings. I did not try to find out if my assailant had a bad relationship with his father. I moved to stop the attacker from continuing his evil. If it was wrong of me to protect America, then by all means, vote for my opponent. But if you think America is worth saving, if you think America is the land of the free and the home of the brave and should stay that way, vote for me."

There's no way you're going to win "being the international PoPo is bad" in the minds of Americans.

--Joey

[jatkins]

[quote]Originally posted by joecool12321

I've learned that America will not stand to be attacked. Ladies and gentlemen, while serving as your President, America was attacked. Attacked without provocation. Attacked without a declaration of war. Attacked by viscious men bent on destroying our very way of life.

Attacked by Saudis, none of whom had any demonstrable connection to Iraq... Oh, wait, he probably shouldn't say that.

Having learned the strength of America, I responded. I responded with haste. Ladies and gentlemen I am not a policeman, I am an American. As such, I responded the way most Americans would. I did not debate my assailant. I did not try to get in touch with my assailants feelings. I did not try to find out if my assailant had a bad relationship with his father. I moved to stop the attacker from continuing his evil.

Saddam didn't attack us.

If it was wrong of me to protect America, then by all means, vote for my opponent. But if you think America is worth saving, if you think America is the land of the free and the home of the brave and should stay that way, vote for me."

This is good campaign stuff. I expect to hear this. Perhaps I give the voters too much credit when I assume that they can see through shallow presentation of false choices.

I'm not advocating one way or the other; all I'm saying is that the hypocrisy is there, especially when he just fought a war not of necessity, but of choice. This is exactly the type of thing the Republicans ran against Clinton with; flip-flopping on the issues. Then again, that didn't work, did it?

Perhaps I do need to reevaluate my strategy.

[patio11]

Calling Bush's new willingness to be international supercop (excuse the exaggeration) a flipflop is an excellent way to see an issue blow up in your face. If he was having a good night, he'd say something like "What, you expected me to sit on my hands after The Day the World Changed?". If he was having an exceptionally Clintonian night, he would apologize for his earlier, mistaken pseudo-isolationism and claim that he had learned during his term in office... neither scenario looks very good for the challenger.

Patrick McKenzie

[welltemperedsubject]

There is still plenty of time for the American public to jump off the Bush bandwagon. It has happened before and I suspect will happen again. When Bush senior had 90% approval most of the dems gave up. Then the public forgot about the war and shifted towards other concerns and Bush lost.

The dem candidate (I suspect Lieberman) should run a international campaign that includes lots of images of the candidate meeting with other world leaders (skip France ). Since Lieberman has been consistently pro-war he will be able to say that he would have handled Iraq the same way and focus the debate on a post-Iraq world to ask if we want to be once again part of the international community. Paint Bush as too isolated in the post war (and as self serving with Halliburton/Buchtel etc) and then highlight his record on domestic issues. I suspect a good part of minimizing the influence of the war will be a combination of time and a candidate who gives off the aura of a world leader.

All of the war approval polls do not translate into job approval and I suspect if we asked the American public to evaluate Bush at the level of the economy, the environment, education, energy, labor etc that he would not score very well.

Fifteen or so months is a long time. What matters for the dems is keeping the left happy (and when the choice is pure evil and kinda evil in some ways that constituency is pretty much voting dem either way!) and to capture the middle. The only reason Bush is president today is because the left split its vote between radicals and moderates. I think even Ralph has to be a bit sorry that the thousands of votes that went to him in Florida did not go to Gore. If Ralph backs out of the election that will be three or four percent or so for the dems and that could very possibly turn the tide. Dems have NY and Cal. Even losing places like Texas is not so bad if we can keep the split states.

It is too far from election time to make predictions. Too much can change in a day. Dems need to decide which states they need and focus their efforts there.

Time will tell --- by election time the public may care as much about the war as they do about Bush losing the popular vote. While it will get air time in ads it may surprisingly count very little in how people actually vote.

[boredguy8]

Originally posted by jatkins
Perhaps I give the voters too much credit when I assume that they can see through shallow presentation of false choices.[/b]

I don't think their necessarily irrational. They just have a different value system than you do, and need to adjust. For example, I suggested he say something like "But if you think America is worth saving, if you think America is the land of the free and the home of the brave and should stay that way, vote for me." Now I bet most people would agree that the Patriot Act severely limits our freedom. However, whiney squeals of, "But, but!" are going to be drowned out by applause.

I just think that issue is too easy to spin, and too easy to dismiss. Like, maybe I could win "holocaust good" on the flow, but I'd distance myself from anyone who is reasonable and waste too much effort there when there are other issues to be won.

--Joey

[welltemperedsubject]

Tutakai - Given that we are already not using the popular vote to decide our leaders it seems pretty inevitable that our strategies be aimed at winning. We could certainly just continue to say that Bush is an illigitimate president and that he stole the election... but most people find that approach unproductive. So given the current laws being the way they are and given that this thread is aimed at strategies for winning (as opposed to a thread aimed at improving the system) I see no reason why the Dems should care if only 35% or 40% of the people in Utah or Kansas vote democrat. Likewise, I suspect the Republicans will not spend much time campaigning in Illinois or Massachusetts. Given the way the election is decided it will be specific states that determine the winner and spitting venom at those who recognize that is not going to change it. Just because the dems learn to play better does not mean they should bear the brunt of the blame for populated states mattering more in a winner take all system. For a person who consistently advocates for efficacy on other threads it is rather surprising to hear you now saying that democratic strategizing for what works is wrong minded.

The Republican party strikes me as anti-democratic. They belong heart and soul to corporate America. So I think as the lesser of two evils I will support the democrats in a strategy that works. To suggest the democrats play fair in an already rigged system would be foolhardy.

Now you keep promising to ignore me and to focus your malevolence on others and I keep waiting for it to kick in. I will be more than happy to ignore you as I am not a big fan of your tactics and your unwillingness to warrant your claims with evidence etc etc. Why on Earth do you keep quoting me and taking jabs? Doesn't it get boring after a while?

[welltemperedsubject]

sure...

[jatkins]

Originally posted by tutakai
Switching to popular vote election would only make the problem worse as it would promote regional candidates that expect to win SOLELY by dominating one (or both) coasts and COMPLETELY ignoring everything else. That is the reason the electoral college was instituted in the first place -- to prevent the complete disenfranchisement of lower-populated areas and to force candidates to run national campaigns for national office instead of intense regional campaigns.

But the assumption of the electoral college was that each state would have its own common interests. States now, though, are made up of an amalgam of interests, and all but the winners are disenfranchised in 48 of the states because all of the electoral votes from a state go to whoever wins it, even if with a plurality, by a narrow .001%. That means that (for instance) farmers in California are disenfranchised every election year, since farmers tend to vote against the guy who wins in LA, San Francisco, and San Diego. NY state goes where NY city goes. This is true, to a degree, even in states like Montana and Wyoming, where it is simply impossible to campaign in any but the largest cities; while candidates must campaign in smaller states, they still only have to talk to city folk to have a shot at winning.

A popular vote would at least enfranchise every citizen, and every group of citizens, to the degree that the size of their group made appropriate. I also don't see reason for your fears; perhaps if you could cite some examples of a popular vote system failing where an electoral vote would have succeeded I'd be more convinced.

[jatkins]

Originally posted by tutakai
Actually, John, you are getting to the core problem -- electoral systems all require tradeoffs, it is just a matter of choosing which ones you are going to prefer.

No such thing as a perfect system. On that you and I agree.

A presidential election is designed to be zero-sum and to produce a single, accountable leader.

Accountable to whom? People living in swing states? The winner-take-all process of the electoral college in all but two states makes it unreasonable for a Presidential candidate to even campaign in a state he doesn't believe he can win. Since all of the electoral votes will go to the winner of any particular state, a candidate is only beholden to those states that voted for him. On the other hand, this could be changed without eliminating the electoral college, by alloting electoral votes proportionally.

Thus, in the presidential election (only, IMHO), clarity of result is preferred to representation.

It seems to me that a Presidential victory without a popular mandate is just as unclear as a narrow popular vote victory. If we want clarity, we should require election by majority, like the French, for example. I'm sure you know this already, but for those that don't, I'll explain that the French system has two rounds; the top two candidates from the first round proceed to the second round. There are only two candidates in the second round, so whoever wins does so with a majority. Also, it would prevent individuals like Perot or Nader from throwing a wrench in the machinery; both would have been booted in the first round. So people don't have to choose between idealism and practicality in their voting: they can vote for the candidate they really like in the first round, and the lesser of two evils in the second round. Somehow, though, I don't think that you'll agree with me on the merits of this one, Jason...

The electoral college system serves the purpose of forcing presidential candidates to be NATIONAL in their scope and limiting the potential for intensely regional candidates (i.e. a candidate who could get 90% of the vote on the east coast and 20% everywhere else).

So long as forty-eight states use the winner-takes-all electoral vote allotment system, exactly the opposite seems true to me. A candidate simply has no reason to campaign in any state he can't win, and has very little reason to campaign in a state he can't lose. As such, a candidate will only campaign in a few battleground states, and will only have to serve those states that voted for him.

Research has shown that the effect of this is to create broad national parties that tend to build general consensus at roughly the median. This is probably a good thing for the presidential system.

It also creates very weak political parties with very incoherent platforms if you ask me. The French "two-rounds" system also helps to elect a moderate candidate, since most of the extremists are booted in the first round. If one somehow manages to make it into the second round, he suffers the fate of Jean-Marie LePen, who went down to Chirac worse than a socialist in rural Mississippi.

The question of representation that you raise is probably more applicable to congressional elections. Leaving the Senate aside, the single-member plurality district like the U.S. has perpetuates the presidential pattern at the legislative level.

Even then, though, good Secretaries of State try to create, every few years, election districts that represent a specific group of people most effectively. We don't rearrange state boundaries every year to reflect changes in demographics.

I would argue that it might be better to privilege accountability and clarity for president (by retaining the current system for presidential elections) but to increase representation by switching to a proportional representation system for the legislature.

I would like a proportional legislature. However, what I really want is a House of Representatives as fun to watch as the British House of Commons (don't worry, I know that the Brits aren't truly proportional). Those guys are hilarious. If we do that, though, we need to have uniform voting systems at least within each state, if not nationwide. COMPUTER BALLOTING FOR ALL!

The effect of PR systems is to represent INTERESTS instead of AREAS and to dramatically reduce the level of de facto disenfranchisement in the system from about 50% to around 5-10% (depending on the entry threshhold and size of districts -- a single nationwide district is best, IMHO).

You're preaching to the choir.

So basically, the two "major parties" would, by virtue of their broad, national character, continue to dominate the presidential election process (leading to a clear outcome, which is good) but the legislature would be open to a much broader diversity of parties.

I think this would be even more true if we instituted the two-round presidential system, or at least got rid of the "winner takes all" electoral system.

Green would probably gain about 5-10% representation in the Congress and a centrist party would almost certainly also rise. Thus coalitions and consensus building would have to increase in the Congress, severely limiting the ability of any party (even the president's) to dominate the agenda.

The Greens got more like 2% in the last Pres. election, but then, I guess you're suggesting that more people would feel comfortable voting for the Greens because the viability of a candidate is no longer a concern. I love the idea of a coalition-style Congress.

I love talking electoral institutional design...

Moi aussi, mon ami.

[Gavin499]

I heard the funniest thing on the radio (don't remember what station) but they were babbling about how the best candidate for the Democratic nomination should get the guy who ran Grey Davis' campaign the last two times. They were talking about how great this guy was and how whoever got him as their campaign manager would definately win... anyone else find this amusing? Davis barely won against the most horrifically incompetant gubernatorial campaign staff to probably ever have run a campaign... so sad... Just thought I'd share that amusement with y'all.

Gavin

[jatkins]

Originally posted by Gavin499
Davis barely won against the most horrifically incompetant gubernatorial campaign staff to probably ever have run a campaign... so sad... Just thought I'd share that amusement with y'all.

You probably weren't paying attention to the John Kitzhaber(D) / Bill Sizemore (R) race in Oregon just over four years ago. Oregon is a remarkably evenly divided state, but Kitzhaber won 75% to 25%. Sizemore was absolutely incapable of saying anything that did not offend half of Oregon during that campaign. He was barely able to salvage his political career after that, and just as he was about to become a truly powerful political force again, he got sued for racketeering. That case just ended, with Sizemore's organizations being dissolved by court order.

Anyway, I don't know anything about the campaign manager in question, but I do know that Davis had his own gubernatorial failings. He isn't exactly loved by most Californians. If the Republicans had come up with anyone even close to reasonable, I think the people of California would have dumped Davis in a hearbeat. Maybe the guys who rave about this campaign manager just think that he did a really good job of hiding all of his candidate's failings to the greatest degree possible. That's my theory, at least.

[scooter]

"At least two candidates, Mr. Gephardt and Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, said that if elected president they would issue executive orders reversing any Supreme Court ruling that might jeopardize affirmative action."


OK, let's just assume that they can do that, and that the separation of powers notion is more than a bit miscontrued in the process...

what does that suggest as to the power of the Office? Regardless of issue, it reads a bit like ol' political despotism to me....

S

[thedecline]

The best alternative to sending Ralph Nader to Baghdad would be to offer a much more clear, decisive opposition to Bush's policies. The people who voted for Nader last year often argued that there was no clear difference between Gore and Bush. That was obviously exaggerated, but maybe there's something Democrats can learn from it. Ozymandias is right, Lieberman is not the answer here.

However, this election is going to be different in terms of the Nader-threat because of several factors. First, a lot of people are really angry at Nader for helping hand Bush the election on a silver platter. I think a lot of former Nader supporters are now thinking "Wait...that was pretty stupid." I'm pretty sure that a lot of people won't be wiling to make the same mistake twice. Next, leftists know that there is a lot more at stake. I think many of them will want Bush out of office enough to abandon Ralph...and maybe Ralph will want Bush out of office enough to drop out *crosses fingers*. Finally, President Bush was nice enough to give the democrats a lot of issues that the leftists AND the moderates will be ready to rally behind: lies about Iraq, distraction from war on international terrorism, erosion of civil liberties, slaps on the wrist to perpetrators of corporate fraud, irresponsible tax cuts, increase in unemployment, the list goes on.

I think the best candidates to bring forth these issues are Dean and Kerry.

[syphos]

http://moveon.org

[thedecline]

I guess I don't understand why you posted the link...

If I was running for president, I'm not sure I'd even want MoveOn's support.

[syphos]

Point of clarification answered:

If you sign up for it, or read more about moveonpac.org, you can see that 9 of the potential candidates for the democratic nomination (including Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Dean, Sharpton, and a few others) are vying for its endorsment. Why? Well, 10 million dollars would be a nice bonus for anyone democratic hopeful and the claim of representing grassroots voices. The latter is accurate, but still, something that people might be interested in.

article.

[thedecline]

Now DB8 MissingLink, just because non-debaters are inferior doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to keep their silly opinions.

[thedancingbear]

Now seems a good time to remind everyone that Bush only agreed to the Presidential "debates" if any direct questioning was removed.