penumbra

OK, boys and girls, lads and lassies, let’s hear your opinions. Regardless of who gets the nomination from the Democrats or Libertarians, it’s undoubtedly going to take a keen campaign strategy to cut down the shrub in 2004. Soooooo, aside from who to run, what’s your take on the plan most likely to be successful? What issues should be emphasized? How much “negative” attack? What voters to target? What voters to sacrifice? What issues to concede? What battle tactics will give the best odds of persuading the electorate?

Let the speculation begin.

Monkeybot

How to beat Bush in 04?

With a tire iron...

Jacey

Expose him. Call him on his lies. Talk up plans to reverse and improve on Bush's failures.

This needs to be the work of the Democratic party, not just the candidate for President.

paul30

I agree with Jacey.

I think the Dems or whoever need to hammer on Bush's lies--and in a way that hits home.

They need to show how his lies killed soldiers, and how his lies took money from the very people he SAID he was helping (Head Start kids, the elderly, firefighters, vets).

But they also need to hammer on the economy. They need to pull a Reagan on him and ask, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Most of all, they need to be bold and positive. They need to say what THEY will do, in place of what Bush has failed to do or done wrong.

They need to get specific: universal health care, universal access to higher education, money out of politics, tax cuts for the unwealthy, taxes on corporations.

99Percent

"Its the Economy, stupid"

Jimmy Higgins

Don't forget the military. His "Bring them on" quote could actually be dangerous to his military support. And with no WMDs being found in Iraq, his vision, though, supported by many in the US, won't be backed by those risking their lives for made up demands.

If the military doesn't vote for Bush, that will be a danger to him. If the military votes Democratic, it would easily be the difference.

ex-idaho

I can't say what they need to do to win but I can tell you what they shouldn't do.

Gore in 2000 didn't want to come across as being obviously smarter than Bush for fear of making him a symapthetic figure. This was the most boneheaded move I can imagine. I know that Americans are suspicous of intellectuals but come on. They wanted to make Gore look more like a "average Joe" and succeeded in making him look like he suffered from some sort of personality disorder.

McCain swore not to go on the attack against Bush and then Bush not only went negative but started to lie about him. The lies regarding McCain's position on breast cancer and then having a vet come out and spew lies about military service and his support of the troops. Because McCain had boxed himself in with his pledge not to attack he was forced to give up his run.

No matter who the nominee is they will have to work very hard to keep Bush and his operatives from spreading blatant lies about them and their positions. Rove is a man who has a complete lack of ethics and is willing to stoop to any level in order to win.

The positives here are that Bush is no longer an unknown entity. He can't play the expectation game as he did in 2000. The people know what to expect from him and this is a real opportunity for the Dems. He is also no longer an "outsider" since being in DC for 4 years. This really plays in favor of Dean who can paint himself as a true outsider.

Laci

You're not going to beat Bush.
Sorry.
You're not going to beat Bush.

cheetah

Two things. First, money should be used to bribe the media or something like that. They have to figure out a way to get the media out of Bush's pcket and, possibly into their own, or at least neutral. They have to find out what Bush is doing for the media to make them so favorable to him. Maybe money will work, though something more subtle, if it wil work, is preferable.

Second, I think they should play a bit dopey about Bush's mistakes. One of Bush's biggest strengths with people, I think, was that he played negative but he never got into a temper (in front of people). He acted surprised and hurt and shocked and confused about any of Gore's plans or mistakes or whatever. So, the other candidate, instead of coming straight out and calling Bush a jerk or whatever, should act confused about why Bush did X, Y and Z and let the public draw their own conclusions about not liking him because of it. See, I think it works well for Dean right now to get fired up and state plainly that he thinks the president is irresponsible, but you have to admit, he is mostly talking to like-minded people right now. The general American public is still surprisingly supportive of Bush, and they aren't going to be very amenable to a wholesale attack on their pal. They can't be made to feel defensive, they have to come to the decision on their own. if we make the average joe schmoe feel defensive about their kindly feelings toward Bush, it will only cement them as supporters of Bush.

Godless Dave

Agreed the Democrats really need to understand that if they want to beat him.

And let's not forget the California energy crisis of two years ago (remember that?). His Mediocrity Governor Davis accused power companies, including Enron, of price-fixing. The Bush administration said that was ludicrous. Then early this year we found out those companies, including Enron, really were price-fixing. It's that kind of obvious corruption and injustice the Dems need to point out, and to date they have been very reluctant to do so.