Do you regret ABB?

[AP]

Poll question: Do you regret ABB?

The discussion in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2802200) got me wondering: if you could do it all over again, would you discourage the "ABB" mantra and would you spend more time telling people what the Democrats stand for?


As I said in the other thread, I though ABB was not smart because it is not a compelling reason to vote Democratic. And if it doesn't work in the presidential race, it REALLY doesn't in any other race on the ticket. ABB doesn't give a moderate SD'an a reason to vote for Daschle. It doesn't give a moderate SC'ian a reason to vote for Inez Tannenbaum.

I think we should have been running on principles and not against Bush. Kerry tried to run on principles. My impression is that the rank and file -- including DU'ers -- wanted to run against Bush. Was that smart?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[brainshrub]

4. What is with all the ........... and :::::'s???

Is that supposed top be a picture or something?

[ffhc2000]

6. Whoops

It's some stupid ASCII art that doesn't apparently work well here. Sorry mate. :(

[JohnKleeb]

2. I remember you quoted someone, I believe Tip O'Neil

who said elections are won by what you are for not what you're against. Principles for me too.

[AP]

3. LBJ said that.

[JohnKleeb]

54. did he?

its a very true quote

[Walt Starr]

5. The Democratic Party has to be the party of principles

Not the party of we'll do it the same as them only better.

[sangh0]

7. I can't vote in this poll

I can't escape the feeling that those who will vote that ABB was a bad idea were probably the same people who criticized Kerry because "no one was voting FOR Kerry", thus reinforcing ABB.

[fnottr]

9. I don't agree

I think ABB would have been a bad national campaign, and I thought Kerry tried to distance himself from it as well.

[sangh0]

12. I agre, but I think you missed my point

which is that many of those who emphasized ABB were those who during the campaign complained about ABB. They will claim, and rightfully so, that they were always against ABB. They will deny, and wrongfully so, that they did nothing to promote the idea of ABB.

[fnottr]

17. ok, I think I get it

you mean the people who bemoned Kerry as a 'bad candidate', claimed no one would support him, and though we should have fielded someone else?

[Sterling]

60. I think the point is that was all he had.

Hey look I'm not Bush! I do the same shit but I am not him!

That was almost as inspirational as his tooth and nail fight to ensure the elections were fair.

[JI7]

14. i voted FOR Kerry

it's usually the re-election campaigns which is when people decide whether to vote "for" the incumbant based on their performance.

there is nothing new about voting for a challenger after deciding they don't like the incumbant. but that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch of reasons to vote FOR Kerry. based on things like middle class tax cuts while raising them for the wealthy, he has the best record on environment, wants to give people same health care plan as members of congress have, women's rights, civil rights, and just about on every issue, he was never just better than Bush, he actually has an excellent and one of the best records on those issues.

but it seemed some who were angry their candidate didn't win the primary felt a need to tell everyone how they don't really like kerry and are only voting against Bush.

but the Republicans pushed the ABB thing also because it helped Bush and some Democrats were all too willing to go along with it.

they didn't have to talk about how much they loved Kerry personally, just talk about the issues. like ron reagan did at the convention when he said he was voting FOR stem cell research by voting for Kerry.

[fnottr]

8. Though ABB was the sentiment I had

I think it kinda hurt our image with moderates, making it look like we simply had it out for * and that we didn't have any good ideas of our own. Also, in retrospect, we all might have looked a bit immature to people who were willing to give the president a chance with all of our * jokes and such. While I personally couldn't get enough anti-bush humor, I tried to only tell chimp jokes when in the company of fellow ABBers.

I blame it on * for being so damn easy to parody:P

[AP]

11. Yes, I think that was a trap that Rove set for Demcorats.

They wanted Democrats to criticize Bush personally. Everytime Bush misspoke or whatever -- it was a lure for Democrats. They were begging us to attack him personally in front of swing voters and Republicans.

Bush has an incredible skill for making sure the buck doesn't stop with him. He also has a skill for making crticisms of him reflect poorly on the person criticizing him.

The best non-verbal example I can think of this was when Gore tried to crowd him on stage at that one debate and Bush made that face like he was frightened, which sort of mocked Gore coming up to him. Bush got a big laugh and the move (which was probably intended to show voters that Gore was taller than Bush) totally backfired on Gore.

I think that is going to be one of the symbols of his presidency. Challenging him gives him an opportunity to appear sympathetic and funny.

I think Democrats would have been better off if they had had the attitude, "I don't know this guy personally, so I have no opinion of his personality or motivations, but I know what he's doing to the country is really bad and I have solutions to all the problems he has created."

[fnottr]

15. That's exactly what I was afraid of during the campaign

I was doing some local campaigning here, and there was a large debate over whether we should make a bunch of pro-Kerry signs, or a bunch of signs making fun of Bush. I kept arguing that a lot of the country (even some democrats) don't share our hate of, and we would look really immature and stupid to them if ABB was our main message.

[AP]

24. And did you end up making Pro-Kerry or Anti-Bush signs?

How'd people respond to your argument.

And also: your story is exactly what I'm talking about. You can only have one sign in your hand -- you have to make a choice about what your message is going to be.

Kerry is trying desperately hard to give people arguments based on what he stands for. But there's all this other cultural pressure to define yourself by what you're gainst, which is a doomed strategy. And ultimately people far from the top are going to make these decisions when they're phone banking, knocking on doors, posting at DU, making signs and talking to co-workers about what they message will be. If they don't get it right, Democrats lose votes from moderates and Republicans.

[fnottr]

28. ultimately it was a compromise

we choose to highlight the actual deficiencies of bush's policies, and also how Kerry intended to address them. So I guess it was a bit of both. Mostly people agreed with me when I presented my reasoning, it's just we all had this desire to make fun of bush, and a lot of people hadn't thought of the consequences.

[AP]

30. They were lucky you were there. I think there were a lot of...

...campaign HQs and offices and chat rooms where there wasn't a voice like yours.

And I had a similar experience to yours. If you made the argument, people realized the wisdom. But it was shocking how many people had unquestioningly adopted the ABB mantra without thinking about what it meant.

[fnottr]

36. Well thanks

I think the problem lies in that we don't understand that there are people who like bush. I don't really understand why myself, but I know it's a fact, and we don't want to put those people off, especially if it makes us seem like we don't offer any positive solutions.

[Sterling]

61. I think most people had a hard time backing him thus...

the efforts of the grass roots were focused on getting rid of Bush. These were the people on the ground and we gave them little to identify with other than their fear of four more years of Bush. These people did us a favor by getting behind Kerry against their principles. We need to understand that otherwise look forward to even less genuine enthusiasm for our candidate in 08.

[AP]

67. My only response tot that is that I guess they didn't want to beat Bush...

...that badly if they couldn't get behind Kerry and if they went arround proudly telling people they were ABB.

If you really want to win, do everything it takes to win -- including supporting your candidate in a smart manner.

If people do this again in '08, they're fools, regardless of how good or bad the candidate is. And Kerry was a very good candidate.

[Sterling]

62. Tin foil hat time?

Maybe it was what our base actually felt. I don't think the DLC that came up with ABB. It was people like DUers. That is how they felt. Kerry was not the reason they were motivated period. People were motivated in spite of Kerry.

[AP]

64. I have no problem with people who felt it. It's people who BRAGGED about

it whom I found very confusing.

[Demit]

10. My take is that "ABB" was a one-off. I don't recall it being a mantra in

any other presidential race in recent history--being only against whoever the incumbent candidate was, I mean. It's not as if we were saying "anybody but a Republican". This race in 2004 was different because the incumbent was so utterly loathesome, utterly incompetent, and/or utterly dangerous. It was a compelling mantra to me even before the primary season began.

[AP]

16. I worked with a lot of volunteers this past election and I heard people

say they were ABB more times than I can count. And it wasn't even the number of times that I heard it that was so striking. It was the confidence with which people said it, like it was a good idea.

That part I owe to the fact that I think there was a avery popular mood in the country that this election was more about being against Bush than being for Democrats. If that's the mood, then it's going to be very hard for Democrats to win.

Another part of this -- and there's nobody to blame for this -- is that the 527s were such a big part of the picture, and they, by law, cannot argue for the Democrats. So they were taking up a lot of oxygen not giving people aguments for Democrats.

I also think that if the Democrats didn't do so well on down-ballot races, ABB is a good place to look. It's a mantra that does nothing for anyone else on the ballot.

If the mood had been that the Democrats were for a set of principles rather than beign against Bush, that would have been a better template or paradigm to fit over all the races and candidates and ballot measures.

Incidentally, there are historical precedents for this race. '72 was an anti-Nixon/anti-war campaign which Democrats lost (even though Nixon and Vietnam were equally, if not more outrageous than Bush/Iraq). And '64 was an anti-LBJ campaign which the Republicans lost.

However, Clinton won by telling people what he was for, as did JFK (vs Nixon).

[Trajan]

13. I think this is a misrepresentation of reality ....

WE ..... PEOPLE ..... HUMANS ....

WE were 'ABB' ...

The party WASNT ABB ...

Kerry WASNT ABB ....

WE were associated with each other by our common bond of 'disagreement' with Bush ....

I think Bush is a liar and a cheat ...

I think he is dangerous .... and WRONG for our nation ...

I believe that nearly ANYONE would be better than Bush ....

I still believe that to be true ....

Yet: this was no 'party plank' .. it was not something that was explicitly defined in the party message .... not anymore than Bush calling Kerry a 'Massachusetts Liberal' .... Bush certainly used his 'ABML' campaign ..... Eh ? ...

No .... I dont think we ran an ABB campaign ..... We had an ABB attitude ....

[AP]

19. That's what I'm saying. It wasn't a party plank. But it definitely was a

mood among voters that wasn't coming from the party or the ticket.

I feel like lots of us got lured into forgetting to tell voters what we were for.

I think Kerry's best moments in this campaign were the weeks around the debates because for the first time people heard what he was for.

The arguments he made for himself in those debates -- those should have been the things we talked about here at DU for the last two years.

Ie, the frame should have been being FOR things, not being against things. "ABB" is a frame for what you're against -- Anybody But Bush is defnining yourself by what you're against and not what you're for. It shouldn't have been part of the lexicon at all. The first time someone said it, it should have been rejected as wrong-headed. But it didn't die at all.

[YNGW]

18. If anyone had discouraged ABB during the election cycle......

.... they would have been called down by at least one person. I've read a few threads and comments lately where, if the statements or topics had been made prior to the election, people would have been hammered for even suggesting it. Now with everything over (Yes, Kerry actually got fewer votes), people apparently feel more free to express things that were obviously going wrong during the election but few if any wanted to bring up for fear of what others would say.

I was never ABB so I never had a dog in this hunt In '96, the R's had a much smaller version of ABC which didn't work for them, so I had no reason to believe it would work this time for us though it was much more widespread. But it sure worked up the ole emotions, didn't it? :)

[Zero Gravitas]

20. ABB

Bush is still the worst, most reckless "President" this country has ever had, the problem is that too many Americans are badly informed, scared, brainwashed or whatever to realize the danger we are in from the Bush cabal.

[AP]

26. When you're badly informed about the issues, it makes ABB even more of...

...a mistake.

If people don't know the issues, spend your time telling them about the issues and not personally attakcing the person they voted for in 2000.

[superconnected]

21. let us not forget we lost by election fraud

I mean, we let that happen in 2000 and look what happened in 2004.

[Midlodemocrat]

22. No

my hatred for that man and his entourage got a lot of people fired up, mainly because I am a big mouth and I know a lot of people.

[JI7]

23. i agree, while Dems would never have won in places like South Dakota

in a presidential race, the senate and other candidates like Daschle would. those states are more conservative but the people are willing to cross over from who they support in presidential elections to vote for someone who is from their own state. this can be seen with democrats also such as supporting arlen specter.

but when it's about ABB it makes the moderate conservatives who support Bush think they are voting against Bush by voting for someone like Daschle. and that's exactly how the Republican Senate candidates ran their elections. these people have in the past and probably would have this time if they had not felt they were voting against Bush by voting for Daschle.

and i don't understand how people can say it's "not fighting" when a candidates talks about things like health care. campaigns decision to not respond to every attack wasn't about being wimps or afraid to fight back, it was about trying to get the focus on issues because that's where the democrats win. there is a reason the Republicans and the media would do anything to avoid talking about issues.

[gottaB]

25. ABB was a mantra for the primaries, not the general election

The message was that any of the 10 Dem candidates were preferable to Bush, so there should be a limit to the criticisms directed at competitors.

All of the campaigns, all of the candidates embraced this idea at one time or another. For instance, John Edwards, who, iirc, had your support and respect during the primaries, was once asked to criticize his rivals' health care proposals. He instead made the case that every one of his rivals had a health care proposal, in contrast to Bush who had none, before going on to talk about his ideas about health care. That was an instance of an ABB argument.

Do you think Edward's argument didn't make clear what the Democrats stood for, how they contrasted with Bush, or why a moderate in SD should vote Democratic?

[AP]

27. In your example Edwards is contrasting his health plan to Bush's and

not to his opponents. That's smart campaigning. But the point is, he had a health plan. It was based on principles he believed in.

His health plan wasn't just, "Bush is a bad man."

ABB is saying it doesn't matter who the candidate is or what he stands for. All that matters is that he isn't Bush.

That gives you no reason to vote for a Democrat unless you're already inclined to vote for the Democrat.

[gottaB]

31. Not quite

ABB is not saying that it doesn't matter what a candidate stands for. It's saying that all the Democratic candidates were preferable to Bush because they stood for things like providing affordable health care.

It is possible to be politically ABB without making ad hominem attacks against Bush.

[AP]

33. post 15 shows how ABB plays out in an unporductive manner.

[gottaB]

37. post 15 talks about whether to demonstrate hatred of Bush in the GE

As I said, ABB was a strategy for the primaries. Did ABB encourage vitriolic hatred of Bush? I rather think it channelled passions and encouraged people to keep their eyes on the prize. There was a lot of anger out there before anybody thought of saying "ABB."

[AP]

39. Post 15 is about how you have a limited amount of space and time

to get accross your message. A lot of Democrats wanted to fill that space and time with messages about Bush (vitriol or not). Others wanted to use it to tell you what they thought Kerry stood for.

On some levels, it's amazing that there even needed to be a debate about this.

The angriest people should have been the ones most interested in not framing themselves according to Bush. If they hated him so much they should have been the ones most interested in employing a winning strategy.

[fnottr]

52. As the author of post 15

What I was trying to get across is that simply going on a street corner and shouting, "Anyone but Bush!", "Down with Chimperialism!", etc was would have been very poor campaigning. The Kerry campaign, as a whole, was not guilty of this, but many individuals in the campaign were. While I shared their sentiments, I thought that type of campaign wouldn't reach out the the people who didn't hate bush, and those were the votes we needed to get.

So while it was a good thing for keeping moral within the party up, when the ABB sentiment was viewed by outsiders, it made us look a little immature.

[gottaB]

56. Well, I would have agreed with you

Shouting is a turnoff.

[AP]

59. Shouting "Kerry cares!" wouldn't have been a turn off.

It's not the shouting that matters. It's what you shout.

[gottaB]

63. Tone does matter, as does timing and audience

And shouting angry things is not the same as shouting pleasant things.

We both seem to agree that shouting "Down with the Chimperor" would not have been the wisest strategy for the Kerry campaign. We both agree that ABB was not an effective slogan after Kerry sealed up the nomination--though you seem not to want to acknowledge our agreement on that point. I think we have a few points of agreement regarding its use during the primary, but we still disagree on whether ABB was valuable. I have considered the points you have made, but my opinion is basically the same.

[JI7]

29. not really the same thing

he was making a specific point at that time when asked a specific question in the primary.

but he would not have and didn't run a campaign based on being against Bush. he did it based on what he was for. and of course that itself without saying it outright is being against Bush also. but it emphasizes what he is for which makes it easier for those who don't hate bush to support him. and we need votes from those who don't hate bush to win.

[AP]

32. Yes. Comparing and contrasting yourself and your ideas to Bush is a...

...way to put your ideas in greater reliefe.

It's quite another thing to define yourself by reference to Bush. Edwards would have had the same health plan had he run against any Republican.

ABB is LITERALLY defining yourself by what Bush is (albeit symbolically). You are saying I don't care who the Dem nominee is just so long as it is not Bush. Your defining your world by reference to Bush.

[gottaB]

34. see my reply to AP-- I don't equate ABB with Bush-bashing

Admitedly there was some overlap, but as the poll asks about ABB not bushbashing, I think my example is a good one.

[AP]

38. ABB is a mindset where you're less interested in telling people what

you're for than you are in telling them who you're against.

Even if you're not bashing Bush, you're still using him as the frame to define yourself, your party and your candidate.

It simply is not a good way to get anyone but other already angry Democrats motivate, and that isn't a big enough coalition to win an election.

Had it been a low turnout year, maybe it would have been. But that's why Republicans simply had to get their turnout up to beat it. And a lot of those peopel they got out to vote might have voted Democratic if we were focussing less on ABB and more on a frame that didn't define us by reference to Bush.

[KoKo]

41. you finally understand......what some of us were trying to say, thanks.n/t

[AP]

44. No idea what you're talking about there, KoKo01.

[gottaB]

45. Yes, it's still using Bush as a frame

Other factors to consider: (a) some say a race against an incumbent is typically a referendum on the incumbent's performance; (b) "free media," i.e. Bush's statements and policies were in the news daily; (c) Bush really is more polarizing than some other opponents the Dems have faced.

I agree with you, it's not a good enough slogan to motivate independents and swing voters. ABB should not have been mentioned after Kerry emerged as the nominee.

Should there have been more positive messages, during the primary as well as the general election? I think so. I regret that there weren't more positive messages that broke through to define us to outsiders.

[AP]

46. It is a referendum on the incumb, but you're not going to win by framing

yourself entirely by reference to the incumb. You still have to tell people what you're going to do better.

That's why Dems lost to Nixon in 72. And I'm not blaming Kerry for running that kind of campaign. But I do think a lot of Democrats didn't help Kerry by being more focused on Bush than on what Dems believe in.

I think it's obvious that "polarization" was Bush's strategy. It wasn't an accident. It was bait. Kerry didn't bite, but a lot of us did.

[Old and In the Way]

35. I was ABB and pro-Kerry. I see no contradiction there.

I'd like to know who didn't vote for Kerry. I'm willing to bet that the further to the left one was, the more likely that person voted for Kerry. I think we max'd our total available voting electorate. True, there was a small fringe, but a lot less than in 2000. And, of course, way too many didn't vote....but if this election couldn't get them off the couch and do their civic duty, I doubt any candidate would. They didn't stay home as a protest against Kerry....they just couldn't be bothered to vote.

Seems to me Kerry ran a great campaign and represented us well. His problem was the same one Gore faced....Republicans gamed the results. What candidate would have done any better? None....all would have done equally about the same....and all would have lost because the election was rigged.

[AP]

42. See post 15: if you had one chance to make a sign, what would you have

put on it?

If you had an ABB message, it might have vented your anger, but do you think that was going to win the election?

What would have been the best thing to put on that sign?

[Old and In the Way]

47. Kerry: Prosecuter in Chief

Actually, of all the candidates, I think the Bush-Republicans feared this guy the most. A Kerry win and a 2006 House change would lay the foundations for real investigations into the crime family that is known as the Republican Party today.

[KoKo]

40. "ABB" meant the Candidate wasn't "good enough" to go against a Lying

POS.

[AP]

43. Rove love you, if that's what you believed.

[Demobrat]

53. Why? The very concept that ANYBODY was better than Bush

was based on the admission that the candidate really wasn't worth much. If he was, why would he have to stoop to that? It was like saying, yes, we know he sucks, but what the heck, might as well vote for him anyway. Of course it failed.

[AP]

58. I think it was a sentiment driven from the bottom up that wasn't justified

by what was coming from the top down -- that's within the Democratic Party.

I actually think the Democrats at the grassroots level who held this sentiment were more influenced by the media and Rove's strategy to feel that way than they might be willing to admit.

I think it'll take some introspection for people to appreciate where ABB came from.

I definitely feel like Kerry earned as much if not more respect than the best Democrat who has topped the ticket since FDR was president (and did you ever hear the grassroots say they were going to vote for Kennedy just because he wasn't Nixon, or for Clinton because he wasn't Bush, or for Gore because he wasn't Bush?).

[UVASAM1]

48. not so good

It definately fired up the base. If I'm not mistaken, we had great Democrat turnout and hit our voter targets. But as I saw in an article, the full force of the Democratic party went up against the full force of the Republican party and it just wanst enough.

We need to have more of a message. Too many people have no idea what our party stands for. I just didnt see where we had sharply contrasting ideas on many of the major issues. For example, evne though I disagree with shrub's take on it, private accounts in SS is a bold idea. Where was our alternative? I cant even think of it off hand.

[robbedvoter]

49. I regret the stupid, rigged primaries. ABB was the only thing left to do

once we got saddle with the 2 zillionaire senators that voted/sponsored IWR and never gave a damn about voting rights.
In the future, I'll never vote for anyone who doesn't respect my voting rights.

[Eric J in MN]

50. ABB wasn't a strategy.

People who hated Bush voted for Kerry, of course.

Kerry tried to reach moderate, swing voters.

It wasn't the policy of the Kerry campaign to only seek votes from people who hate Bush.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

51. NO WAY !!!

Allman Brothers Band kicks patoootie!

[mike_c]

55. ABB didn't even give people INSIDE the base a good reason...

...to vote democratic. Let's face it-- at the end of the day no one really wants a ham sandwich for president.

[AP]

65. But even if you feel ABB, unless you want a Republican as president...

...you keept those feelings to yourself.

[sweetheart]

57. Clarity failed on the criminal WAR, leaving ABB as but crumbs...

from the table. I don't regret something i did not do. I was part
of the ABB coalition, a kerry voter and all. Honestly, he would have
made a great president, and i have no regrets. He was not my first
choice, that being Dennis Kucinich, someone who was right in his
policies... really dead right on.

Had we stuck with the moral high ground, with kucinich, sharpton or
someone like that, i can't say we would have won, and in this regard,
don't think ABB is the fault. It was a coalition of convenience to
bring progressives on board with a party that without the coalition
is a sinking morass of mediocrity. Sadly, the party ego'ed out on
the support and thought that all those progressive and green voters
of the coalition were actually democrats invigorating the party..
and poof!, a cinderella midnight election, and everyone is back to
being rats, mice and pumkins.

[serryjw]

66. ABB worked in the PRIMARY.....not in the General election.

[journalist3072]

68. ABB

I was definitely ABB, but you are right; maybe that was not such a good strategy.

Also, something else comes to mind.

At the Republican Convention AND one of the presidential debates, Bush said "You may not always agree with me, but you know where I stand."

And I thought, ok, that's really stupid. He's telling the American people they shouldn't worry if they don't agree with him on the issues; what should matter to them is that they know where he stands.


A lot of gullible voters probably brought that crap hook, line and sinker.

[AP]

69. Interesting catch there.

Yeah, Bush did everything to take the focus off policy and put it on personality, which is sort of like what that comment was supposed to accomplish.

And to tie that into ABB: a lot of Dems were content to frame the election in terms of Bush's personality rather than talk about the issues. Not Kerry, however. Kerry was brilliant in the debates. Still, it would have been cool if Dem voters were as interested in talking about the issues (rather than Bush's personality) as Kerry was.

[journalist3072]

70. ABB

You know, I was so dumbfounded when no one seemed to pick up on Bush saying "You may not always agree with me, but at least you know where I stand."

He was essentially telling people to vote for him, even if they didn't agree with him. In other words, he wanted them to vote against their own best interests.

I began to ask myself "Is anyone really listening to what he is saying? If so, where is the outrage?"

And you are right, Senator Kerry stayed focused on the issues. That's because he's intelligent, he knows what the issues of the day are, and he knows how to articulate them.

[bvar22]

71. What do you say to the MILLIONS who:

marched AGAINST the Iraq Invasion

were outraged and frightened by the Patriot Act

oppose Free Trade

oppose franken foods

oppose corporate personhood

support UNIVERSAL HealthCare

support equal rights for gays

oppose the Death Penality

oppose Corporate Welfare.....

How were THESE people supposed to get EXCITED about voting for Kerry/Edwards?