Daily Kos

Why the Kerry Campaign Doesn't Suck

Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:56:22 AM PDT

Ben P put up a diary last night arguing that the Kerry campaign sucked.  After RedDan and I hammered him a bit, mainly for his tone of hopelessness and his tone that volunteering didn't matter, he took the diary down.

Since he's not the only one around here who seems to feel this way, let me try to explain why I think he's dead wrong.

Before I begin, let me say that there is a separate issue of whether this kind of attitude is helpful.  I think it's not.  Regardless of how well the official K/E campaign is doing, we are the unofficial K/E campaign

It's up to us to try to make a difference over the next 49 days.  And one way we can make a difference is by donating money or by volunteering.  There are many places to do both, but I'd suggest ACT as the best place to start.  This diary from Ruth in OR shows some other ways to get involved.

---

One of the main reasons for thinking the K/E campaign isn't working is because we all know that Bush is a horrible President, and so we should be ahead by 10 points, instead of being down by a couple of points.

This misses just how difficult a task we face this year.  All year, Bush's approval ratings have been in the mid-40's to low-50's.  If you take the traditional measure of an incumbent's approval rating closely equaling their final vote percentage, you see what a dogfight we are in.

Another way of looking at this is to compare Bush's spring numbers to Clinton's spring numbers in '96.  Both had similar approval ratings.  Both faced similar wrong track numbers.  While the Dole campaign wilted in the face of these numbers, the Kerry campaign has put us in a good position to win this election.

Some folks seem to think there is a problem with the K/E campaign because they're not spending enough time doing outreach with internet folks like us.  To me, this is the silliest argument I've seen.  Lets be grownups and give each other our own pep talks, and let K/E worry about reaching uneducated working class voters in Ohio.

And finally, some people are disconcerted by the way the K/E campaign got hammered in August.  I think it's obvious to the campaign that they didn't handle the day to day combat the way they wanted.  And I think they've made corrections to try to handle similar situations in the future in a better way.  But the fact that they mishandled the tactics of a battle doesn't mean their entire strategy for the war is unsound.

Stop whining and find a way to make a difference.  The enemy is stronger than we would like, but the enemy is beatable.  And the K/E campaign is nicely positioned to do just that.

And finally, don't forget that this election isn't about John Kerry, or K/E campaign tactics.  This election is about us, and about the future of our country.  Help find some way of helping us win.  This ain't a spectactor sport.

And when the ride gets bumpy, buckle in instead of running for the aisles.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 140 comments

  •  I am too stupid... (4.00 / 6)

    ...to have an opinion about how campaigns ought to be run. It does irritates me when people take down their diaries after a discussion is underway, though. Duplicate diaries, gmail invites, sure, take those down. But don't take it down just because people have called you out on what you say.
    •  Re: I am too stupid... (4.00 / 5)

      "It does irritates me when people take down their diaries after a discussion is underway, though."

      I am partly to blame.  There were multiple posters calling for him to take down the diary, and I was one of them.

      Upon further reflection, your irritation may be justified.  In the heat of the moment, it seemed like a good idea.

      ---

      What annoyed me so much about the diary was not the 'Kerry campaign sucks' attitude, which I just thought was wrong.  Instead it was the 'your individual volunteer efforts are useless' attitude, which I thought was both wrong and deeply insulting.

      •  Who sucks? (3.62 / 8)

        People who keep berating others for their opinions suck.

        Yes, we are stuck with Kerry (and no, I don't like him...sue me) however, I as every single person here wants him to win because the alternative is unthinkable.

        It also does not mean that we have to bow down and stick our heads in the sand and declare him a GENIUS for all the mistakes he has made... AND he has made alot.

        Kerry had better get his act together LIKE NOW instead of trying once again to follow the failed strategies of the DLC...it don't work.

        For the DLC strategy to work you need CLINTON point blank..he was the right guy at the right time. Clinton oozed with charm Kerry is sec. Clinton could sell ice to the eskimos whereas Kerry is having a hard time selling lifeboats to people who are drowning.

        I read Ben's diary last night and agreed with most of it. I didn't bother to comment because I knew it would only start a flame war you and that other idiot...

        So go ahead and flame me...you are only making matters worse...you are not convincing anyone with your virtrol only making them not to respond.

        DLC Centrism assumes that if Democrats move to the right the Republicans are going to stand still.

        by Genf on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:10:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then you would do well to apologise. (4.00 / 6)

        Instead it was the 'your individual volunteer efforts are useless' attitude, which I thought was both wrong and deeply insulting.

        But petey, you're one of the people who has been  insulting and deliberately trying to demoralize the DFA people and you've done so consistently for over a year.

         You're the guy who coined the 'self esteem for activists' and even after the primaries you and ronk have spent days on threads where DFA volunteers were discussing their efforts and who were all working towards getting democrats elected and spent days attacking us as individuals and as a group. Apparently for your own entertainment. This has been your primary contribution here. This is the attitude you have displayed the most consistently.

        So, was the problem that we were volunteering and organizing too early to suit you or that we weren't willing to work towards the election of pols who didn't represent us?

        •  Misrepresentation (4.00 / 3)

          you and ronk have spent days on threads where DFA volunteers were discussing their efforts and who were all working towards getting democrats elected and spent days attacking us as individuals and as a group...This has been your primary contribution here.

          Obviously you haven't been reading Petey's posts for the last few months.  You had disputes regarding the Dean campaign and Dean supporters with many people, Petey first and foremost.  I happened to agree with many of Petey's analytical points, though not with what I often thought were his extreme conclusions about "Deaniacs."  But that's pretty much water under the bridge, and bringing it up on this thread, where he makes no reference or allusion to Dean or his supporters, is off topic.  Furthermore, his posts over the last couple months have been consistently action-focused, with many plugs for donating time to the Kerry campaign and money to ACT.  

          If you want to try to discredit Petey's argument by criticizing him over his conduct during the heat of the pre-primary period, go ahead, but don't expect to get a free pass for what is essentially an attempt to start a fight where it's unprovoked and counterproductive.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Misrepresentation (none / 0)

            I second that.
          •  Baloney (none / 1)

            That was the truest and fairest representation so far of Petey and RonK. If the server was working today I would give examples from not only them but you too.

            DLC Centrism assumes that if Democrats move to the right the Republicans are going to stand still.

            by Genf on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:33:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  If The Server Were Working... (3.12 / 8)

              ...I would show that you're the biggest regular troll at DKos, obsessed with the DLC to the point of irrationality and near-psychosis, a liar, and a corrosive influence on almost every discussion in which you participate.  

              If people think that's harsh, so be it.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:41:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  does the baloney (none / 1)

              refer to what you're saying?

              Get over it.

               Petey may have went overboard at times, but he was attacked many times just for being for someone other then Dean and pointing out Deans weaknesses on a very pro Dean site at the time

              Christ you couldnt do any kind of critique about Dean here back during the primaries without facing multiple attacks,while all the Deaniacs could say anything at all about other candidates.

              Its in the past so get over it    

          •  Beg pardon? (4.00 / 5)

            Obviously you haven't been reading Petey's posts for the last few months.

            Obviously I have, DHinMI. As just one instance, we had a late August thread which was a recommended diary the writer had intended to be reserved for an opportunity for DFA volunteers and supporters to share the successes and efforts we've been involved in for the past few months. This was post primary as DFA is post primary.

            Both ronk and petey entered into the dialogue. there was absolutely no change from their previous attitudes. It's quite possible you didn't read the thread but they went on for days. I would provide a link immediately but the search function is currently disabled. If you doubt my word I can, at some point during what is going to be a very busy day, search back through comment ratings and provide a link. I'm not trying to discredit petey because of his pre-primary activities (although they weren't helpful either and never have been.) petey's pretty much discredited himself. I want the 'experts' to acknowledge your behavior and learn from it. I strongly feel that had the interactions of the 'experts' and the manner in which several of you realte to donors and volunteers  has been counterproductive and destructive for months. The notion that it's just a primary battle has been disproved many times.

            And you miss part of my general point about DFA. We've been at the business of organizing and volunteering for a long time. Post primary I took 2 weeks off and was back at it. We were doing this for a reason and part of the reason is that we've all been aware of that this isn't 'self esteem for activists' for a long time. It's never been just about Dean, it's been about seeing that Democrats win in November. I've been trying to communicate this for over a year. 50 days before an election is a bit late to 'discover' this. My point is that had some of the 'experts' here not been quite so actively discouraging volunteers 6 months ago and 3 weeks ago we would be in better shape. Participatory democracy isn't something you can turn off and on like a faucet when it suits you.

            It's a good point, something I've thought about for months when I came home from working to register voters and read what the 'experts' here had to say and I know that y'all don't get it and I want you to treat people and their ideas with more respect.

            •  HEAR!!! HEAR!!! (none / 0)

              I am still in disbelief the DHinMI failed to understand the strategy behind the Dean Dozens.

              Who is negative and pessimistic???

              DLC Centrism assumes that if Democrats move to the right the Republicans are going to stand still.

              by Genf on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:28:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  or for the matter (none / 0)

              I am still curious as to why Kos switched to become negative towards Dean and was in a hurry also to stifle Dean supporters here.

              If there is a beef with Dean they all (kos, DHinMI) should just come out with it, instead of always insinuating their dislike or in the case of DHinMI attacking those who don't bow down to the DLC.

              DLC Centrism assumes that if Democrats move to the right the Republicans are going to stand still.

              by Genf on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:32:13 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Since You Want to Argue About Dean... (2.66 / 6)

              ...start a diary about Dean.  

              Like I said, you're trying to have a fight that has nothing directly to do with this post.  It's not about Dean, but you're tying to make it so.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:46:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well... (4.00 / 4)

                ...I'm not sure it would be about Dean so much as it would be about the diarist's sincerity in calling for volunteer effort. It's not exactly the thread Petey was presumably hoping for, but it's also not exactly off-topic. (And I don't suppose you'd want colleen to post a diary about Petey's sincerity.)

                (Supposedly Mozi was once accused of hypocrisy, and -- according to one interpretation, the text is corrupt, so it's hard to be sure -- he replied: at least you agree with what I say!)

                •  Thank you so much for this gong. (none / 0)

                  (Supposedly Mozi was once accused of hypocrisy, and -- according to one interpretation, the text is corrupt, so it's hard to be sure -- he replied: at least you agree with what I say!)

                  I can now proceed with the 10 hours of concentrated work I have to do today with a peaceful mind. I am most grateful.

              •  Like I said in my post (none / 0)

                I'm not talking about Dean. Anyone who read that knows I'm not talking about Dean. Even you know that.

                Stop wasting my time.

                •  Oh, DFA, Not Dean... (2.75 / 4)

                  ...that really turns things around.

                  Times Petey mentioned Dean or DFA on this thread=0

                  Times you mentioned DFA on this thread=5

                  For the purpose of this discussion about Petey, DFA and Dean is a distinction without a difference.

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:39:39 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My county (4.00 / 6)

                    Times you mentioned DFA on this thread=5

                    has doubled the number of registered voters from '00 before the primaries in large part because of DFA. The sole purpose of DFA is to register voters, donate to Kerry and downticket camdidates and do the other tasks necessary to get democrats elected. That is why I mentioned DFA. I could have also mentioned ACT which I am likewise involved with but the real effort here has been from DFA people. Thus I mentioned it and petey's treatment of those volunteers.

                    For the purpose of this discussion about Petey, DFA and Dean is a distinction without a difference.

                     If you (and petey) are unable to make a distinction between DFA and a failed Presidential run, I strongly suggest you try because the distinction does exist. As does my plea for greater respect towards the opinions and ideas of others.

              •  You know... (4.00 / 3)

                No one told Bob and Mickey to take it offline when they had their chat about Estes Park.  

                Sorry, I find your post patronizing, condescending, and not in the Kossack spirit.

                The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

                by ultrageek on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 02:54:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bob and Mickey Didn't Start a Fight (none / 0)

                  They didn't attack somebody for comments made on other threads, going back even 9 or 10 months ago.  They talked about vactioning.  Their's was a pleasant conversation.  It wasn't an unpleasant conversation.  

                  And partronizing, condescending and not in some undefined "spirit?"  Well, you're entitled to your opinion, although in my idea of the DKos "spirit," opinions attacking somebody else should be backed up with at least a modicum of argument, which I find utterly lacking in your comment.  

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:17:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Not that I agree with you on this one... (none / 0)

                ...but it's absurd that you're getting troll-rated for it. Now that does take me back.
        •  The problem is shouting down free speech (none / 0)

          when you happen not to agree with the speech, colleen.

          Which is your approach to everything.

          Rather than argue a point or express an alternative, you seek to bully opposing viewpoints into silence, or at least get them off this site.

          And, sadly, you are not alone.

          Drive-by commenting is such fun!

          by galiel on Thu Sep 16, 2004 at 10:59:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nationalism (none / 0)

    Suppose Hitler were running and we were faced with a strong opponent playing to Nationalist tendencies. If so, how can an opponenet best use the tools of democracy to combat that?

    I'm sooo tired of hearing the media spout about "Maverick McCain the war hero."

    by mperloe on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:09:22 AM PDT

      •  Re: Hitler IS running. (none / 0)

        "Hitler IS running."

        Well, since Santorum isn't up this year, I guess you mean Coburn.

        Bush is only Mussolini at the very worst.

      •  Bush isn't Hitler. (none / 1)

        He's very, very bad, but saying he's Hitler trivializes what happened to 6 million people.


        Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

        by Plutonium Page on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:34:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  10 million (4.00 / 8)

          Six million is just the number of jews killed in the holocaust. Dont forget the Roma, homosexuals, disabled, communists(and other dissident) and many many others. As a jewish homosexual dissident I feel I hafta represent ALL my teams.

          Christopher Isherwood, who wrote the book Caberet is based on tells on of my favorite anecdotes. While discussing the movie in Hollywood with a producer he mentions that 600,000 homosexuals were killed during the holocaust. The producer retorts with "Yeah...well six MILLION jews were killed"

          Isherwood pauses, then responds, "What are you, in real estate?"

          That anecdote is way off topic but allways topical. I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

          If they want a culture war, I'll give them a culture war. I intend to have as much gay sex as possible before the election. I encourage you to do the same.

          by AnarchistFag on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 06:39:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  13 million (4.00 / 3)

            I admire and attend many of the Holocaust memorials around the country. However, i think they do a disserve in ignoring the 7 million non-Jews who were killed by Hitler in the death camps. Every time I hear the "6 million" killed line I cringe.

            That was, of course, just the killing of the targeted defenseless people under Hitler's control.

            The Soviet Union lost about 20 million people due to WW II and about 22 million to Stalin's purges/policies in the '30s and '40s.

            Total deaths for WW II--over 60 million.

            Please, everyone, help us collectively remember what a tragedy war can be. Beyond our comprehension, or the chimp's ability to comprehend.

            Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

            by DyspepTex on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:15:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm Jewish (4.00 / 3)

              I was raised in a family that lost family.  I was raised in an environment where if you had a number on your arm, you were considered lucky... lucky to have survived... lucky to be here.

              And the number that I was raised with was 20 million.  

              Never forget.  Never forget that we died alongside Catholics and artists and union members and Gypsies and Russians and Poles and gays and lesbians and college professors and political activists and people who wore glasses and people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Never forget.

              That's what I was raised with.

              And, oh, btw, Bush does equal Hitler... just not Hitler in 1945... not yet... and that is why this election is so important... so he doesn't get that chance.

              The Republican Party: the party of greed, hate, anger, fear, waste, death and destruction!

              by ultrageek on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:01:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Very few non-Jews were killed in the death camps.. (none / 0)

              Besides the Roma, who were mostly killed in Auschwitz Death Camp, the death camps (Auschwitz-Birkenau, Chelmno, Sobibor, Maidanek, Treblinka, Belzec), were used almost exclusively for Jews.  About 3 million people, almost all of them Jews, were killed there.  The others were killed in various ways.  Political prisoners and homosexuals didn't tend to be killed outright, as far as I am aware - they mostly starved to death in concentration camps.  Millions more Jews were murdered by Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front.  Millions of Soviet POWs starved to death as well.  
        •  Hitler analogies - my take. (4.00 / 6)


          No, it doesn't trivialize those who died.

          In my mind it honors them.

          Our motto, as survivors and their families, as students of history, had once been never again.

          I cannot understand the logic that the memory of Hitler must not be used to stop extremism, until it is horrific.  The whole point is that it must be stopped early to succeed.  At what point, exactly, do you think it would've been reasonable to compare Hitler (as he was earlier in his rule) to the Hitler we know today?  I would submit to you that, if we go by your standard of honoring those who died, he would not be stopped if it were to happen again.

          I honor them by alerting everyone I can to what's happening in America today.  We are on the cusp of some Orwellian vortex, and I know not where it will take us.  But in their honor, I will do everything I can to stop it.  Because I know that sanity is tenuous at that line where people and power meet.  History has proven that many times.

          •  Thank you (none / 0)

            I had not heard that take before. I think I will adopt it.

            I had heard "When they came for the _, I did not speak out, because I was not a ___." And that is powerful, too.

            Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

            by DyspepTex on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:18:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah.... (none / 1)

          ...and calling Bush Hitler trivializes our debate skills, too. There's nothing more guaranteed to fall on deaf ears than the word "Hitler" at this point in rhetorical history.

          I'm pretty sure I saw a detergent commercial that compared tough, ground-in grass stains to Hitler last week.

          We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are. - Anaïs Nin

          by Valentine on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:19:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Kerry's Campaign Doesn't Suck Today (4.00 / 8)

    It doesn't suck at all today.

    "The president would have us believe that his record is the result of bad luck, not bad decisions, that he's faced the wrong circumstances, not made the wrong choices," Kerry said in excerpts of remarks prepared for delivery at the Detroit Economic Club, a traditional forum for presidential candidates.

    "In fact, this president has created more excuses than jobs. His is the Excuse Presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame. President Bush's desk isn't where the buck stops -- it's where the blame begins."

    Yup.  John Kerry said that.  It appears Ms. Gobbell isn't the only one who threw her gloves in the trash.

    No more Republican rule.

    by HarveyMilk on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:45:12 AM PDT

    •  Damn Right (4.00 / 6)

      While we've all been arguing about typewriters, Kerry's been honing his message, preparing for his next foray to center stage (the cusp of October).  Kerry also said this (linked on Sullivan's blog, under the header "Kerry Finds His Voice"):

      "So I'll be straight with you: things are getting worse. More than a thousand Americans have been killed. Instability is rising. Violence is spreading. Extremism is growing. There are now havens for terrorists that weren't there before. And the Pentagon has even admitted that entire regions of Iraq are now controlled by insurgents and terrorists. The situation is serious - and we need a president who will set a new direction and be straight with the American people."

      Edwards has turned into a zinger machine, not a traditional attack dog but perfectly filling the role of knocking the administration down a notch through well-crafted sound byte quips, while meanwhile Kerry has been crafting a very strong, very hard, and very presidential message.

      I'll be honest with you, I'm starting to get nervous about this election, and the Kerry campaign did indeed have a bad few weeks there, but they managed to weather it, as they have bad spots before, and may still come out the better for it.  

      This is buckle down time, make no mistake, but it's nice having a campaign leading the way with confidence and poise.  

      What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

      by glibfidget on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:08:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Damn Right (none / 0)

        "I'll be honest with you, I'm starting to get nervous about this election, and the Kerry campaign did indeed have a bad few weeks there, but they managed to weather it, as they have bad spots before, and may still come out the better for it."

        We should be nervous.  This is going to be a dogfight.

        We just have to use this nervousness to motivate ourselves to find ways to make a positive contribution toward winning.

      •  Music to my ears (none / 0)

        both yours and HarveyMilk's post. If K/E can make this type of stuff the debate, I really like our chances.
      •  Re: Damn Right (none / 1)

        "While we've all been arguing about typewriters, Kerry's been honing his message, preparing for his next foray to center stage (the cusp of October)."

        I think the arguing about typewriters needs to be done, and that is one of our jobs.  We have vast collective resources, and those of us who are interested can focus on ferretting out information, responding to arcane points of dispute and dealing with other trivial matters.  While we HAVE been arguing about typewriters, the Kerry campaign has NOT been arguing about typewriters.  I think that's important.

        It's important to give money, raise money, volunteer and do all the other things, but having such a huge labor pool, we fend off wingnut attacks while also having plenty of of time to do the other things as well.

    •  Beautiful (none / 0)

      This is so great because it turns a conservative-leaning and universally supported meme/topic - personal responsibility - on its head and in their face. This speech is a winner!
  •  And as Always (4.00 / 2)

    And as always, I'll suggest doing something the official K/E campaign can't do:

    Throw a few bucks to Texans for Truth.  They are helping to soften up Bush, so he'll be nothing but a wet peanut by the time of the debates.

    Take out your credit card and send $20 or $50.

    •  This is a great diary but (none / 0)

      I must disagree with this particular suggestion. This election will not be won on Bush's Guard record and the focus on it is part of the reason why Bush is currently leading.

      The election will be won on Iraq and the Economy. Kerry's talk in Detroit yesterday is the best sign yet that he is getting it.

      Give to ACT, the DNC, MoveOn, the Kos 12, House and Senate candidates everywhere, but don't waste in on more Guard stuff.

    •  why this is a really good idea (none / 1)

      reposted from Hunter's excellent latest diary:

      Events have overtaken the documents themselves. How USA Today carries this story (the FULL story) will matter (don't forget, they have an independent source, because as pointed out early on, they have two extra documents compared to CBS) since they are so widely known and not 'seen' as biased like Rather (the same freepers likely have a secret Nixon fetish with a shrine and alter built in a secret room).

      Perhaps now we can move on... it matters not what he did 30 some-odd years ago, but it is the key to the 'Fortunate Son' strategery. Those who wish to follow it need to follow this story through. The pattern of others doing Bush's work (clean and dirty) can be linked back to SBVT, the discrediting of Clarke, O'Neill, DiIulio, etc. the vacations while 9/11 was set up, etc..

      Modern day Iraq seems to be taking care of itself regarding staying in the news.

      Y'know, you can't trust this guy Bush. Never could, apparently. Me, I'm voting for a serious man for serious times, John Kerry.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by DemFromCT on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:47:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd rather have the "Jersey Girls" (none / 1)

        strategy. Bush's last leg to stand on is that he is "better able to keep us safe". The endorsement of Kerry by the Jersey Girls, is a devestating indictment of Bush's handling of 9/11. I wish that were dominating the news cycle instead of stories about whether Rather was duped.

        I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan

        by Lcohen on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:44:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's not either/or. (none / 0)

          if it were, I'd take the Jersey girls, too. i'd take elizabeth drew in the NY review of Books explaining why the 9/11 commision thought Bush as AWOl on terror prevention. I'd take what kerry is doing now, re the dishonesty of Bush's positions. But it all goes together.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by DemFromCT on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:50:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Recommend If... (none / 0)

    Recommend this diary if you think it'll do others some good to read it.
  •  We are ALL surrogates... (4.00 / 10)


    And that means we march in LOCK-STEP with the Kerry campaign until November 2.

    John Kerry's health care plan is better.  His Iraq strategy is better.  His economic expansion plan is better.  His environmental policy will be better.  His compassion and commitment to security and prosperity for ALL Americans is stronger.

    Bush's record speaks for itself:  Lies, religious fanaticism, bigotry, exclusion, failure to act in moments of national crisis, cronyism, and deception.

    Pass it on...

  •  Re: (none / 0)

    I think it served a useful purpose for people here to criticize the campaign when it deserves it.  But without being all doom and gloom.  And I think while I wouldn't go as far yet as to say the campaign sucks, it has an eerie resemblance to the 1988 Dukakis campaign, at least in the last month.  And I'm not even referring to adequate responses to smear.  I'm more concerned by the lack of aggressiveness on the issues of Iraq and the economy.  While Kerry should be hammering on the deepening quagmire and the lies Bush told the country regarding Iraq, as well as the record deficits and horrible jobs record of this administration, what did he harp on the last two days?  The assault weapons ban.  That is a sign of a campaign that lacks focus.

    Shill, Shill, Shill.

    by Paleo on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:29:52 AM PDT

    •  Wondering (none / 0)

      I don't watch much TV, and I watch zero news - local or cable - so I don't really know how Kerry is being covered on television other than what's posted here. I like what Kerry is saying, but it seems his message is not getting out. Is this because Kerry is not agressive enough in getting exposure, or is it because the SCLM is deliberately not covering it? Are the Dem surrogates and attack dogs out there, staying on message? Are they getting access to TV?

      Is television news deliberately minimizing Kerry's message? Is there any way for Kerry to overcome this?

      •  TV coverage (none / 0)

        I try not to watch too much myself.  But the impression I'm getting is that it's hard to cut through the media's hurricaine obsession, and to a lesser extent its national guard document obsession.  But I also don't see Kerry being agressive enough, or attacking smartly enough.  The media sucks.  They're obsessed with death, disaster and scandal.  You have to keep hammering at a repetitive message, and the message has to have a good sound bite, to be heard.  "W stands for wrong" is not it.  Neither is "soft on assault weapons."  He's got to hammer on Iraq and the economy.

        Shill, Shill, Shill.

        by Paleo on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:45:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the usual TV newscast (none / 0)

          Kerry will get a phrase, at most a sentence. Currently, they are acting as if Bush has a competitive health plan. They quote Bush saying "Kerry's plan will cost $1.3 trillion in new taxes" without mentioning the roll back in taxes on the top 10%. Possibly because all of the faces on the tube are in the top 10%.

          "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

          by johnmorris on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:50:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Agree and Disagree (none / 0)

      K/E lost focus in August and made a wrong choice: if we ignore the SBVT they'll go away, if we respond they'll grow.  That was wrong, but you can see what they were thinking.

      Since then, the campaign has been punching. Kerry gave a strong response to their convention within 2 hours of Bush leaving the podium. That was great!

      "Calmer than you are."

      by Sheffield on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:05:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  August (4.00 / 2)

    Kerry didn't have any money in August. Every dime spent on the campaign between the two conventions was a quarter's advantage to Bush. They knew going into Aygust that September was going to be a fight from behind month and it is. "Don't look back, something might be gaining on you." Satchel Paige

    "If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car." Henry Ford

    by johnmorris on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 05:39:33 AM PDT

  •  perceptions (4.00 / 2)

    The misconception that KE isn't being aggressive enough is because campaign coverage has become one gigantic hurricane of spin.  Straight reporting too often cross the line and becomes an editorial.  The filter of the horse race coverage is very difficult to puncture with each election.  
  •  The million dollar question (none / 0)

    Does the Kerry team have the "killer instinct" it takes to win? That's the question.

    Kerry and Edwards (and surrogates) can have some good 1-liners. But the Atwater/Rove GOP machine is about destroying the opposition. Destroying.

    Clinton knew this in 1992 and hence Carville's War Room. It's clear that Kerry either doesn't have a War Room, or hasn't been using it.

    So the question remains: does the Kerry Team want to destroy George Bush? Because that is the ONLY wy we're going to win.

    Reality-based progressive.

    by Pops on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:31:12 AM PDT

  •  Kerry getting better (4.00 / 2)

    I just saw this over at CNN and I think its beautiful, They are getting on message.

    Kerry: Bush created 'more excuses than jobs'

    DETROIT, Michigan (AP) -- John Kerry is offering a stinging critique of President Bush's economic record, telling voters the administration has created "more excuses than jobs" and abandoned the middle class.

    "The president would have us believe that his record is the result of bad luck, not bad decisions," the Democratic candidate said in remarks prepared for delivery at the Detroit Economic Club on Wednesday. "In fact, this president has created more excuses than jobs. His is the excuse presidency -- never wrong, never responsible, never to blame."

    Go get 'em Kerry.

  •  two thoughts (4.00 / 2)

    1. Along the lines of this diary, it's important to remember that the reason we're IN a dogfight at all is because Bush fucked up so badly. He blew an unprecedented advantage that fell on his shoulders after 9/11 -- an unprecedented amount of political capital that he spent (spending things quickly seems to be one of his specialties). If Kerry does win, it will be interesting to see whether he'll also have a chance to benefit politically from 9/11: not as immediately or dramatically as Bush did, but along the lines of one party having failed America and the next party stepping up to the plate.

    2. On "uneducated swing voter in Ohio" vs. the internet base. Of course that's right, but it seems to me that part of the problem is you can't go directly after the first category of voters. The message to the swing voter is going to be filtered -- through Time magazine, CNN, local papers, radio, polls that give snapshots of the race: in short, a national zeitgeist. And this zeitgeist might be affected by DIFFERENT issues then what it might take to reach the swing voter -- but once it's in play, it has a big effect on all voters, including those in battleground states. (So, for instance, the sense of a "shake-up" in the Kerry campaign staff ISN'T of interest to swing voters, but once it's picked up in the media echo-chamber it starts to trickle through, and BECOME important to many more voters).

    "We have found the weapons of mass destruction" -- George Bush, May 30, 2003

    by awol on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:46:37 AM PDT

    •  be direct (none / 0)

      good point. the filter is foggy and owned by people who don't have our best interests in mind. So we must go directly to those swing voters: knock their doors, mail them stuff, call them, recruit their Dem neighbors to call them, knock their doors, invite them to a Bar B Q.

      "Calmer than you are."

      by Sheffield on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:10:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This has been said before (none / 0)

    But I think it needs to be said again occasionally.  The Bush campaign has all the powers of the incumbency PLUS the great advantage of not having a speck of conscience or ethics.  That, coupled with the stupid FEC rule mentioned above (that just has to be fixed before next election), makes Bush the most formidable incumbent in many years.  It will practically take a miracle to beat him.  I, for one, do not look forward to all the castigation of Kerry that will pop up around here immediately should he lose.  But I'm using that as part of my motivation to work for Kerry.  Yes, it will take a near-miracle to beat the Bush machine, but the age of miracles hasn't passed.

    "Well, for once, the rich white man is in control!' -- Mr. Burns, "The Simpsons Movie"

    by Vico on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:49:09 AM PDT

    •  We crucify our candidates (none / 0)

      It goes nicely with our messiah complex.  The Republicans keep their losing candidates around to infuse life and leadership into their party.  They build on the support, the name recognition and the familiarity.

      We lock ours up in a closet and act as if the Republicans were right!  He's a bad candidate.  Look, they stole the election from him, and therefore, he's bad, bad, I tell you.

      There are days I despair of how to convince any of the children I teach to run for office as a Democrat.

      Stephanie Dray
      of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

      by stephdray on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 03:34:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  things in flux, time left (none / 1)

    It's not "early", but it's not late either. I'd say that my "gut-meter" has Kerry about where Gore was. That is, close, could tip either way. Kerry is not exactly in a downward death spiral. There is still time and room for things to change a few more times, and they probably will.

    I don't know how "average Democrat" feels, but I suspect that the people in my neighborhood who all have their lawn signs out (my Joe Hoeffel lawn sign was recently stolen! another story for another day...) aren't sitting around in despair at every poll--they have other things to do.

    That said, the power of the "blogosphere" is also still in flux. More powerful than the pundits think, but less powerful than some of us hope is probably about right. So, whining probably doesn't have as much of a detrimental effect as some think, either...

    Barack Obama will only become president if enough people pay attention, so pay attention, dammit!

    by JMS on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 07:57:48 AM PDT

  •  So shutting dissent out is a good idea ??????? (4.00 / 6)

    I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'm a fervent supporter of civil liberties. I love Kerry, and I would very literally walk through a cloud of dirty bomb radiation to vote for the guy. I believe that, if he loses in November, the wingnuts could start an aggressive, Pier 57-style campaign of terror against liberals and moderates.

    Maybe Kerry had some kind of secret strategy to look bad in August on purpose.

    But . . . Kerry looked as if he were running a bad campaign in August. Maybe Ben P was a little too  negative, but I don't see how pressuring him to take down reasonable criticism of the campaign helps Kerry. Posts talking about how great Kerry and his campaign are don't really help Kerry. What he and his campaign folks need to be reading here are the posts from people who have opinions about the weaknesses in the campaign or ideas about ways to improve the campaign.

    Example: media relations.

    My feeling is that Kerry really turned the corner in media relations and speechwriting about a week ago, when he brought Joe Lockhart in.

    But, even if you allow for the fact that Kerry had no money to spend in August, his campaign did a terrible, terrible job of handling media relations in August.

    This past summer, Kerry let the DNC make the reporters who covered the convention use port-a-potties. He hasn't answered reporters' questions in weeks, and the press releases he put out in August were a mess. Perhaps more important, in August, Kerry did a poor job of explaining how he would be different from Bush.

    One problem seems to be that a lot of Democratic activists seem to be suffering from a counterproductive level of paranoia about the media. Maybe that attitude has infected the Kerry campaign.

    Some reporters are like Colin Quinn, but I think that more are like Jon Stewart. Kerry doesn't have to like the media. But he has to realize that, somehow, his campaign has to bring out the campaign reporters' inner Jon Stewarts without exposing the fact that they're a bunch of pinko liberals.

    How to do this:

    • Treat reporters as humanely as possible. Return calls. If they're riding with Kerry in a bus, make sure it's a nice bus.

    • Put out good press releases and speeches. Hammer home the message, but include something new so that reporters can "advance the story."

    • Have realistic about what kind of research or investigative that reporters working on a daily deadline can do. In other words, very little. Have independent but friendly experts at places like the Brookings Institution call the reporters and be available at the drop of a hat.

    • Work at putting more detailed backgrounders on the Web site so that reporters who are writing issue-oriented stories have an easy time getting the meat.

    • Appeal to reporters who have to have scoops by leaking different stories to different reporters. Maybe stories about possible cabinet secretaries or Corzine's influence on economic policy.

    • Accept that there will be down cycles in media coverage. Avoid the temptation to lash out at reporters who are just trying to do their jobs.

    • Never, ever try to hide anything embarrassing, unless it's trivial and really easy to hide. If there's a chance that reporters will uncover low SAT scores, bad grades, etc., get the information together, put it on Kerry's own Web site first and present it in the best possible light, with discussions about what Kerry learned from the embarrassing events. Reporters will view anything that Kerry spoonfeeds them as straw for making bricks and anything that they themselves dig up from old documents as gold. Make sure that the embarrassing stuff is viewed more as straw than as gold.
    •  Where Did He Say That? (4.00 / 3)

      Did he say that "shutting down dissent is a good idea"?  I don't see that at all.  Essentially he's saying that too many people seem to be allowing their faulty Monday morning quarterbacking is leading them to despair.  That's bad because the source of their despair is an inaccurate and incomplete assessment of the Kerry campaign--which he admits could have performed better--and because the despair itself is toxic and self-defeating.  

      Constructive criticism that leads to action is not only welcome, it's necessary.  Defeatist and uninformed kibbitzing that leads to cynical passivity is toxic.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:31:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What is "constructive criticism"? (4.00 / 4)

        The original post included this statement:

        "After RedDan and I hammered him a bit, mainly for his tone of hopelessness and his tone that volunteering didn't matter, he took the diary down."

        To me, this sentence seems to express pride in getting Ben P to retract his statement. The government isn't involved, and it's not censorship, but, to me, it seems fairly authoritarian. Did the original poster retract his post (which sparked a fairly active thread of discussion) because he ended up disagreeing with his original statement or simply because he got hammered so hard?

        "Constructive criticism that leads to action is not only welcome, it's necessary.  Defeatist and uninformed kibbitzing that leads to cynical passivity is toxic."

        a) One person's "defeatist and uninformed kibbitzing" is another person's constructive criticism.

        I think the way to respond to what you feel to be defeatist and uninformed kibbitzing is to do what people were doing and follow up with threads explaining why the despair is foolish, or starting more constructive threads, not to hammer people (who probably are voting with you) till they slink away and start wondering if maybe voting Libertarian isn't such a bad idea.

        •  What It's Not (none / 0)

          It's not constructive criticism to say that because BenP took down his diary, that Petey and RedDan were unfair or squashing dissent.  It's no longer up, so I don't know, but it's also just as possible--and probably more likely--that BenP either rethought his position based on their arguments, or maybe he just got pissy and reacted childishly.  Who knows, but my guess is he rethought his position and didn't want others to despair.  

          As for pride, elsewhere Petey took partial blame for the dustup.  

          One person's "defeatist and uninformed kibbitzing" is another person's constructive criticism

          If there's a point or a distinction you wish to make, great.  But that's a meaningless sentence.

          Again, I didn't read the diary Petey cited, but you don't seem to be saying that Petey is wrong, just that he's being mean, and mean people suck, and saying somebody is wrong and potentially causing harm--even if their motives are pure--is bad.  I vehemently disagree.

          You post here, you have an obligation to defend yourself.  We're not ruthless around here, but elbows (and rhetoric) can be sharp, and if you post a provocative diary or comment, you have no expectation of getting a kidglove treatment in return.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:59:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I Didn't See Ben's Diary Either (4.00 / 3)

            But upthread, Petey admits

            I am partly to blame.  There were multiple posters calling for him to take down the diary, and I was one of them.

            Unfair or not, in a place like this unless a diary is a specific dupe of another or flamingly offensive I don't think people should be pressured to remove them just because they're negative.

            There are other ways of answering that...this diary and thread, for example. That also makes it easier for the rest of us to read (and judge for ourselves) what people mean when they refer to someone's ideas as unconstructive and negative.

            •  Agreed (none / 0)

              I mentioned that Petey had accepted blame for telling him to take down the diary.  I agree that we should almost never tell somebody to take down a diary.  At the same time, I have no trouble with tough, biting criticism when it's warranted.  If it's not warranted, then the diarist or others can (and probably should) call out the critics.  But if it is warranted, I'm not going to protect the person whose posts or comments are being attacked as long as the attacks aren't personal or unfair.

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:13:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure how much of this I agree with (none / 0)

      First, Kerry is treating local press great, as far as I can tell. People trust their local papers more than the nationals, IMHO.

      Second, he has to bypass the filter. The national media is not going to simply report on Kerry's campaign. They're going to analyze it and most of their analysis to date has been that Kerry's campaign sucks.

      Third, when did Kerry lash out at the media? I must have missed it.

      Although I do agree that, generally, it's better to kiss and make nice with them, if only to blunt their attacks somewhat.

      God bless America. God bless our troops.
      God damn George Bush to the fires of eternal damnation.

      by Bill Rehm on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 09:51:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The filter/lashing out (none / 0)

        "Second, he has to bypass the filter. The national media is not going to simply report on Kerry's campaign. They're going to analyze it and most of their analysis to date has been that Kerry's campaign sucks."

        The national media are going to analyze Kerry's campaign, but he has to look at the templates (filters) the reporters use to write their stories and figure out how to configure his press releases, speeches, etc. to get more of his message into their articles.

        In other words, he can't give Maureen Dowd the kind of press release he'd give a Reuters reporter. He has to recognize that she's going to cover personality issues and find a way to package nice things about his personality in such a way that they can help her maintain the optimal level of snarkiness.

        Example: nice Kerry anecdotes to support a snarky article that bashes Bush or the Rovies, or maybe, if Kerry is getting a lot of death threats or facing some other threat that makes him look heroic, anecdotes that give Dowd a chance to take a non-snarky look at the darkness that surrounds us. Or, really, just figure out some way to put Kerry in a position where he can do something heroic around Dowd, or at least drive her around in a car and speak to her in a kind, honest manner, or something like that.

        I'm using Dowd as an example just because I read her a lot, but I think every reporter specializes in doing some particular kind of story. The Kerry campaign has to work at hitting each important reporter's sweet spot, not just throwing out position papers.

        "Third, when did Kerry lash out at the media? I must have missed it."

        Kerry hasn't said anything, but I was assuming that the fact that he hasn't taken questions from reporters in weeks (or at least hadn't when folks were writing about that issue) was a quiet form of lashing out at the media.

    •  You left out (none / 0)

      get more sophisticated in manipulating the media. Instead of beleiving facts speak for themselves K/E need to package this stuff with controversey. They are doing it now but could have done it all August for free.

      For instance they are now calling Bush a liar directly. The media can't pass that up and it requires a response from Bush. As Rove says when you are responding you are losing.  Now charge Bush with losing Iraq or letting Bin Laden get away etc. etc.

      I have been very critical of the Kerry campaign but I still think this election is ours to lose. I have suspected that Kerry has saved some of his best shots for late to minimize the time Bush has to respond. That would make sense but it doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of secondary issues to keep Bush on the defensive all of the way to November second. All of these issues need a unifying theme so that raising them doesn't keep the message changing. The message should be we're not safer.

      We're not safer:

      with Bin Laden on the loose

      with fewer agents in the CIA's Bin Laden unit today than before 9/11

      with a President who gets a briefing on an imminent terror attack and goes fishing, then stays on vacation for 26 days

      with President who finding the nation under attack reads to children instead acting like CinC and taking charge of military operations or at least trying to call the secretary of defense

      with a President who refuses to fix the intelligence system for three years after 9/11 and the WMD debacle

      with our allies divided and our enemies united

      with our ports, chemical and nuclear plants unsecure

      with no effort to secure nuclear materials worldwide

      with no response to Pakistan's supplying nuclear weapons technology to N. Korea, Iran and Libya

      with N. korea and Iran building nuclear bombs

      with our troops overstretched and bogged down in Iraq

      with our adventure in Iraq serving as a recruiting tool for AQ

      Nor are we safer:

      If our economy is being strangled by rising health care costs

      If our parents can't afford life saving medicines

      If assault weapons are available for purchase

      If our natinal debt is being financed by foreign powers

      You get my drift.

      I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan

      by Lcohen on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 11:05:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  wrong answer (4.00 / 1)

      The diary title, IIRC, was "Kerry Campaign Sucks." It may have been well-thought out and expressive of Ben's frustration, but it was also supremely self-indulgent and added nothing constructive to any debate.

      The emotion ratcheted up when Ben let us know that he thought volunteers were naive and that their efforts would make absolutely no difference in the world. Coming from someone who, by his own admission, hasn't tried volunteering, rubbed many of us the wrong way.

      I'm sorry that Ben ended up feeling he had to delete the diary, and I don't like the bullying that went with it. But I always felt like it was a real waste of diary space, time, and energy. Look at what a constructive diairist like ZackPunk can do here. Then think about the damage that a naysayer can do to morale and the campaign support, not just among those of us who actively engage and post here, but among the tens of thousands who just come by here to read. Or the campaigns. Or the media.

      "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

      by mcjoan on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 12:12:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, the other diary (none / 0)

        which you must have missed, which is ok because it wasn't a shining moment for discourse in Kossland.

        We'll excuse the flip-flop this time, but you know it's going in the oppo file.

        "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

        by mcjoan on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 01:07:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh? (none / 0)

          I was wondering why DHinMI seemed to have gone completely and inexplicably off the deep end.

          Where, when, and over what?  I understand the search function hasn't been working, but what thread are you referring to?  

          The only thing I can think of is a diary I wrote a week ago about some other folks at DKos losing their minds over the Time and Newsweek polls, but I hardly thought it was a case of me going off the deep end.  Maybe it was, but then that conclusion would have to be reconciled with the fact that my point in that diary has pretty much been proven--Bush's numbers are coming back down, and Kerry still appears well-positioned without any real lasting damage as a result of his lackluster August.  

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:41:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What Do You Mean By That??? (none / 0)

            What are you trying to tell me?  Why are people following me, and why is everyone out to get me?  

            The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

            by DHinMI on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 04:54:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know what theoria (none / 0)

            was talking about. I was talking about the diary that this diary was about, BenP's Kerry Sucks diary, which he deleted, so this whole thing was sort of futile anyway.

            "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

            by mcjoan on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:19:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Did My First Day of Vounteering (none / 0)

    yesterday in Raleigh, and need a mini-pep talk. I was immediately put on phone canvassing with another woman who had never done calls before either. We were given lists from rural Nash Co. NC and set loose.

    The first registered Democrat I called was voting for Bush because "John Kerry likes those homosexuals." Further, "Even though Cheney's got that lesbian daughter, Bush seems better." Of the 50 people I called in an hour, only one was voting Kerry, 35 hung up on me.

    I left depressed and not feeling like I helped a bit.

    •  their obviously (none / 1)

      not giving you guys the right talking points.

      If it was me I'd start with something like

      "Are you concerned by the $200B plus price tag of the Iraq war and the resulting record deficits,  after being told by the president it would only be $1.7 B"

      Make up your own stuff, God knows theres a million things you could insert in there to make a point. It may not change anyones mind, but it may make 'em feel miserable having to vote for this loser.

      •  It Was Completely Scripted (none / 0)

        although I changed it up a bit. We were supposed to sound neutral, like not from the Kerry Campaign, so we could get a clear unbiased response.

        On the plus side, the people who allowed me a follow up with questions (only 6) were 5-1 Bowles over Burr and 6-0 Easley over Ballantine. Still, Ive got free time today, but REALLY dont want to be a political telemarketer...

    •  Thank You. (none / 1)

      For calling. It is SO hard.

      35 out of 50 calls hanging up means you got a 30 percent connect rate.  Not bad.  Forty percent connect is GREAT.

      It's like baseball: the best hitters make out 7 out of 10 time.  If they can bat .400, and make out 6 of ten times, they are literally superstars.

      Whoever ran your phone bank should have trained you (I hope they did) and made sure you knew the script and done some role play with you to learn how to swing the conversation around to the message you want to deliver. You're not going to win every vote, but putting the message out there is crucial. That message coming from a volunteer--especially one from the same town/county/etc. as the person being called--gives it more credibility.

      The idea is to 'credentialize' Kerry with local people. "Hi, I'm Rick from Raleigh, and I'm volunteering for the John Kerry and John Edwards campaign. How are you?  ... Well, there's a ton of us down here reaching to folks to talk about how important this election is, especially with the terrible job situation.  We really think it's time for new leadership so we can improve the local economy..."

      "Calmer than you are."

      by Sheffield on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 10:22:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Heart of Bush Country (none / 0)

      Hang in there RN.  Call it baptism by fire.

      Canvassing and phone banking goes through several steps.

      1. Finding the non-Bush supporters.  This would be the Kerry voters and the undecideds.  Voters registration forms don't tell how people are actually voting.  You are not finding who to convince, you are finding those folks you need to ensure get to the polls and actually vote.  You found 1; that is one more known Kerry voter.  I hope you gave that voter the opportunity to volunteer.

      2. Convincing the undecideds.  In the first canvassing, you identify the hot-button issue for each undecided voter.  On this contact you try to turn them into a Kerry voter based on Kerry's position on the hot-button issue.

      3. Removing the practical barriers that prevent them from getting to the polls.  By far, transportation is the most significant issue, especially for the elderly.

      Calling in a canvass will not convince a Bush voter to change to Bush.  You know how hard it is for the people we know; just think how hard it is with perfect strangers.  Your current job is to find every Kerry voter and undecided voter on your list.  Keep on doing it.
  •  The long view (none / 1)

    Whether the Kerry campaign sucks or not I'll leave to others. The question I have is if Kerry wins can he really  solve the mess in Iraq and the economic disaster that is about to befall us?

    I am among a growing group of posters who think maybe not. Not because Kerry does not have some good ideas, but because Bush has already run us off the cliff and we are treading on thin air awaiting our free fall. Which party will take the blame when we hit the canyon floor? Whichever one that is in power.

    In the long term I wonder if it would be a blessing for Democrats to take back the Senate in 2004 so we would at least have the ability to stop legislation, but let the GOP own the mess they have created. By 2008 the canyon floor will be fast approaching and the consequences of conservative policy undeniable.

  •  Yes sir, exactl;y right across the board ... (4.00 / 8)

    ...and especially this:

    Stop whining and find a way to make a difference.  The enemy is stronger than we would like, but the enemy is beatable.  And the K/E campaign is nicely positioned to do just that.

    And finally, don't forget that this election isn't about John Kerry, or K/E campaign tactics.  This election is about us, and about the future of our country.  Help find some way of helping us win.  This ain't a spectactor sport.

    And when the ride gets bumpy, buckle in instead of running for the aisles.

    The time for arguing whether the Kerry campaign has the right strategy is over, folks, until November 3. They've made their choice and our role ought to be that of good foot soldiers everywhere - trying to make it work. Unless, of course, we've already given up.

    John Kerry wasn't my first or second or even third choice at the outset of this contest. I don't like a lot of his stances, and I know that if he is elected I will have four years of critiques to write.

    But he's our candidate. If it were up to me instead of the people on his team who, unlike me, have actually run a national campaign before, I would have chosen to go a different route. But I sure as hell am not going to head for the lifeboats grumbling.

    For one thing, there are no lifeboats. Despair is the enemy. This contest is winnable. And winnable by Kerry. So, please, please, please, everybody, stop freaking out every time a new poll comes out or Bill O'Reilly spouts his "certainty" that Bush will get another term.

    That caveat applies equally to the Tony Coelhos of the world. They should stop damaging the campaign by making public charges that everything is falling apart and we're sinking fast.  

    I've got no problem with arguing with my fellow Democrats 365 days a year 93% of the time. We are, after all, Democrats and arguing among ourselves is a worthy tradition. But during the final three months of a presidential campaign, especially a crucial, watershed campaign like this one, can't we all keep rowing together instead of some people dropping their oars and others still trying to grab the tiller?

    I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. -- Mark Twain

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 15, 2004 at 08:27:10 AM PDT