Which candidate's campaign would you want to manage, and why?

[liberalhistorian]

And what would your overall strategy be? I'm curious, because DU is full of people with great intelligence and good political judgment, and I always enjoy reading posts about campaign strategy and what each campaign should do.

So, if you had the choice of being hired as the campaign manager for any of the candidates, which one would it be and how would you plan the overall strategy for the campaign?

[diamondsoul]

1. Kucinich

And I'm not telling how I would do it because some of my ideas get sent to his Headquarters.

Suffice it to say I'd have specific voting blocks to hone in our focus on and extremely unique methods of reaching them.

[liberalhistorian]

5. Are you working for his campaign now?

I live not far from his district and remember when he was mayor of Cleveland.

[diamondsoul]

12. Nope, I'm not on his staff.

Just a devoted supporter with some creative ideas once in a while.:-)

[demnan]

2. I'd love to work for Carol Moseby-Braun

I think the first thing I would do would be to draw historic parallels between her and Shirley Chishom. Work to build a core base of women voters in the the North and South. It would just be so cool!

[liberalhistorian]

3. That's a good idea, except you'd probably have

to explain to most people who Shirley Chisholm is!

[Nederland]

4. Bush's

Because I've never run a political campaign before and I'm sure I would do a horrible job...

[liberalhistorian]

6. LOL!

Or you could be an agent of sabotage!

[JohnKleeb]

11. lol I would do the same

Vote Bush he is the only candiate who was all the way for the patriot act. I would also accept money from crooks heh :). Nederland I like your point and I would do the same. :)

[sweetheart]

7. hillary, i would only manage the winner.

Dean has distinct mcgovern potential.. no win. Clark no win if hillary declares. A return to democratic prosperity is a claim hillary could make with bill compaigning for her. I could sell a make-up with Mr. Gore, and a whole unity gig around the divides of 2000... and use the liberal credentials of hillary to cement the loyalty of the more extreme left... as i admit myself, i think she's got the balls for the job... and she's the winner if she runs.

Certainly for good times, i'd love to hang with kucinich as i am most sympathetic to his views... but that is not the question. In all seriousness, hillary to win the presidency in 2004.

[liberalhistorian]

10. I agree that she'd make a great president,

but she's made it absolutely clear that she isn't running this time, and has given no indication that there's any chance she'll change her mind. Maybe in 2008?

[poskonig]

8. I'd pick Kerry -- he has the most potential.

I would take a *lot* more initiative with Kerry as a manager, getting his name in the media everywhere. I would strongly emphasize his liberal credentials in the primary, something he staffers are afraid to do. While not apologizing about the war vote, I would send signals to Democratic activists that I'm on their side.

I would also make Kerry a positive candidate. Kerry is currently too focused on toughness, while I believe selling an optimistic vision would work.

I would also stop the negative stuff. I would turn my critics and skeptics into friends instead of enemies.

The theme would be 'professionalism and experience', and this would be related to to everything from the environment to the Clinton economy.

In other words -- a sharpened message, more media saturation, bring more people together, and offer a pleasant vision that exudes optimism instead of fear.

[AquariDem]

9. I'd manage the Chimp's--I'd probably ruin it

with my lack of organizational skills. :evilgrin:

[stickdog]

13. Kerry's

Because I could do a better job than those people if I spent all day charging up my expense account.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. They all need help

I would tell them to ignore the polls, ignore the consultants (except me of course :-) ), ignore the recommendations of the party establishment, and spend a lot of time figuring out who THEY are and what THEIR core values are and why they even bothered to enter politics as Democrats anyway.

Once they have figured out what they really care about, they should make those values and ideas the centerpiece of their campaign and present them as simply and forcefully as possible.

If the voters see that the candidates' positions stem from who they are, not from what some consultant told them, they will respond more favorably.

This "what you see is what you get" approach benefited Wellstone on the left and still benefits McCain on the right. It always surprises me to see how many DUers just love McCain, but I think that they are responding to his integrity in espousing positions that he really believes in, as opposed to the Bush types who mouth pieties but are probably laughing at the rubes in private.

Having seen a lot of elections in my life, I've observed that many, many voters (perhaps a majority) based their choice not on a candidate's positions but on whether he's "likable."

And in everyday life, don't you prefer people who have a secure sense of self to people who will do anything if they think it will make the influential crowd like them?

So in the end, my advice to all the candidates would be

1. Figure out who you really are and what you believe in.
2. Run on your core values. You will be able to speak most credibly about them.