John Kerry's long-term campaign strategy.

[rockymountaindem]

I heard here the other day that in his past campaigns John Kerry has let his opponents put all the bad stuff out there before Kerry starts tearing it down bit by bit. Is this true?

If that is the case, I think the current campaign dynamic bodes very well for Kerry. If you ask me, Bush has used most of his ammunition already. They've already used the "tax and spend liberal" crap, the "Kerry hates the military" line and the "Kerry is pro-terrist" line. Was that thing about Kerry being French a joke or something? I can't think of anything else Kerry has said or done the the Shrub can misconstrue into an attack. Anyway, it just seems to me that Bush is spending lots of $$$ to put fire his wad really early in the campaign.

Kerry, on the other hand, could trot out a new Bush* admin. lie or error every day between now and Nov. 2 and still not run out of bad things to say. So, if Kerry is raising all this money and is just waiting for Bush to talk himself blue before he responds, Bush* is gonna be in big trouble by May, methinks.

Yeah, Kerry should define himself before Bush* defines him. However, there may be another strategy in play here. If Bush* puts out all his lies about Kerry based on shaky evidence now, people may believe them and start to trust Bush* on issues involving Kerry. When Kerry then begins to take down these lies with the truth after, say, a month or so, those who believed them at first will be doubly disappointed with Bush*. See what I mean?

Can anybody who knows about his campaigns in Massachusetts tell me if I'm right or wrong?

[rumguy]

1. the boy king went so negative, so early

people are gonna start peeking behind the curtain at the pure evil behind the boy king

[IrateCitizen]

2. If you think the Bush team has really gone nuclear yet...

... I think you're in for a surprise.

All they're really doing right now is probing for soft spots. If they find one, THEN they'll go :nuke:

Personally, I think the negative early is a good and bad thing. It's a good thing because it does tend to make people think that Bush has something to hide. But it's a bad thing because negative campaigning turns off voters -- and when more people show up at the polls Democrats historically win.

[prodigal_green]

8. correction

that is pronounced nu-ku-lar

[belle]

16. I think this year's going to see a high turnout regardless

It is an unusal situation.

[blm]

3. Well, Kerry is a long distance biker.

He holds back some and lets others seem as if they are ahead while he is cruising close behind allowing the frontrunner the facetime with the wind.

He knows exactly when to kick in. The reason he was mad at Terry Mac for openly pushing the AWOL story was because Kerry's team of vets were going all over the country speaking privately to vets groups. He wanted to go public with AWOL when the whole country was paying attention later in the campaign. I think there is still more to come on the AWOL charges.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Bush lost the election last July

when the news broke that he lied in the SotU about the yellowcake. That's when the overall impression of Bush in the public's mind started shifting from 'trustworthy' to 'liar'. Dean said it well today, (I'm paraphrasing), the biggest issue in this election is not going to be Iraq or even jobs, it's going to be about the President's credibility.

A constant barrage of $200 million in negative ads for 8 months is only going to reinforce the idea that Bush is untrustworthy.

when asked for a one-word description of Bush, equal percentages now give negative and positive responses, which marks a dramatic shift since last May when positive descriptions outnumbered negative ones by roughly two-to-one (52%-27%). The most frequently used negative word to describe Bush is "liar,"
-- Pew Research Poll

[JoePizz]

5. I don't give people that much credit

It's human nature, really. People hate to find out they have been duped. Rather than simply admit that they were snookered in by a Bush lie, they will simply choose to believe that Kerry is whatever Bush claims he is, and that he has done whatever Bush claims he has, facts be damned.

Why do you think so many people still support the Iraq invasion? Why do so many people still cling to the belief that Saddam was a real and immediate danger to the US?

I think Kerry would be better off trying to put Bush on the defensive- harass him about the economy, jobs, the war, Bush trying to cut pay to servicemen, etc. NEVER let Bush change the subject or set the tone. The republicans have done so well with the electorate simply because the are always on offense. We have recently seen that they are incapable of true defense-- they just try to go back on offense. Think of it as a game of Chess- a good balanced player can eradicate one that has no defense and relies on being constantly on attack.

[TheDonkey]

6. Not sure, but if he can make a turn-around ala primary 04

in the GE we are in for good things.

It seems that Kerry is going back into cruise control. It's a matter of when he'll pump back up and just destroy Bush and will it work this time!

It's gonna be a nail bitter.

[DinahMoeHum]

7. Methinks Kerry & Co. are acting like the Michael Corleone. . .

character in "The Godfather"

He looks effeminate, but it belies a ruthless ferocity that shows up at the right moment.


:kick:

[WilliamPitt]

9. Do some research on Kerry v. Weld 1996

Instructive. Interesting. I wouldn't want to run against Kerry for anything.

[displacedtexan]

10. Good point!

JK is a "poker playing" campaigner: you won't know what he's holding until the last minute.

[sandnsea]

13. Until after you're beat

And you look in your pockets and wonder where all your money went!

[leyton]

11. This article by Weld's campaign manager is quite interesting...

(and it brought me hope!) Kerry looks like a smart campaigner (italics mine, of course):

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=385&format=

"John Kerry won't be easy to beat. I should know since I ran Gov. Bill Weld's campaign against him for U.S. Senate in 1996. We threw everything we had at him. Nothing stuck. Kerry was as resilient as a Weeble. He wobbled but he didn't fall down. "

Explaining how flip-flops turned into a hidden strength:

"Kerry voted for Clinton's welfare reform bill in 1995, even though he voted against a workfare requirement in 1988, saying it was ``troublesome to me.'' For Weld, the vote switch meant bye-bye welfare wedge. "

Vietnam resume helps him out:

"Late in 1996, Kerry was on the defensive from reports he had accepted free cars and free housing from lobbyists and political supporters. Then Boston Globe columnist David Warsh accused Kerry of committing a war crime while serving in Vietnam. The effect was devastating - for Weld. Kerry denounced the unfounded charge, surrounded by his ``band of brothers.'' The story had legs for a few days, allowing Kerry to change the subject and stop Weld's momentum. "

Explaining how debates helped John Kerry (of course, Bush won't make Weld's mistake:

"Weld agreed to an unprecedented eight debates, seven on major TV stations, in part because we believed that Kerry would not wear well with voters. Instead, Kerry got the chance to reintroduce himself and deliver nearly flawless performances. "

[elperromagico]

14. And remember that Weld was an immensely popular governor,

elected to a second term with 76% of the vote, if I remember correctly.

[leyton]

15. I'm still reading up on him...

seems pretty liberal for a Republican. Campaign finance reform, pro-choice, fiscally responsible... Heck, I'd vote for him (not over Kerry, though).

[WilliamPitt]

18. He was

and when the campaign was over, both Kerry and Weld retained approval ratings above 60%. Amazing, considering how hard-fought the campaigns were.

I worked as a file monkey in a lawfirm where Weld was a name-on-the-door attorney who would drum up business. We bumped into each other a couple of times. He seemed to be a nice enough guy...and he worked late hours, like me. :)

Jesse Helms hated him, too. Always a positive in my book.

[elperromagico]

19. Now you know how a Republican won so big in Massachusetts.

[SendTheGOPPacking]

12. I agree with the one that says Bush going negative so soon

may not be such a good thing, and that Bush hitting with all the hard stuff early is a sign he is in trouble because it's true he is starting from a position of weakness.

People get tired of negative campaigning. Kerry has been impressive so far. I was especially impressed with Kerry's "liars and crooks" slip this last week and his refusal to apologize for it.

[AlinPA]

17. PA totally rejected negative ads in last election for Gov.

Casey (Dem) whose Dad was a popular Gov came out negative in the primary and was beaten easily by Rendell who ran a postive campaign and ppromptly answered the negative ads with short ads o0f his own on TV.

[Lexingtonian]

20. yeah, that's sort of it

Personally, I don't think the 'define him early' approach the Bush folks have gambled on works when there is so much time and energy for the opposition to counter it. Davis took out Riordan in California by throwing everything at him just weeks before the Republican primary and counting on Riordan's lack of preparation and energy to deal with it.

I've been impressed at how comprehensive the approach the combined Kerry campaign and the Party efforts have been- they've done all kinds of things that aren't obvious to play-by-play observers on what seems to be all tiers of the Presidential election problem. You probably don't know that there is a quite large and well-planned Democratic voter registration effort running in 10 of the 18 swing states, via some '527' organization you've never heard of. Kerry went out and got endorsements by a bunch of environmental activist organizations in late February- an excellent move and one of several that went unremarked upon aimed at eliminating rationales for voting Nader.

I think the best Democrats can do in the PR war of the present is to keep Team Bush frustrated, jammed up, persistently trying new lines of attack. All the aggression and effort could or will drive Kerry support down to his committed set at a level equivalent to Bush's, between 40% and 45%. But don't forget that Undecideds break against the incumbent in general and liberal leaners now outnumber conservative leaners in polls of swing voters anyway.

But let's look at the opportunities. For one thing, the principal critique of Kerry has drifted away from a whole lot of specifics. They're running on mythology (about Republican capability in wartime), which reality grinds away when the thing is put to the test of reality. Spain and Poland and South Korea and Iraq and Afghanistan are slowly killing the Bushies, for all their tough words.

The remaining primary elections that are in swing states are in West Virginia and Pennsylvania. (Colorado is also Very Important.) Kerry has an excellent opportunity to stomp on Bush's chances by hardening and raising his support there to levels Bush will seriously struggle to reach if not fail to under the most favorable circumstances.

I suspect his (Kerry's) team is working hardest on a soft counter-Nader campaign though. Most Nader voters are people simply going AWOL from the Culture War and would probably slip to any Third Party candidate disengaged from it, and we should probably let them. It's peeling off the ones that are willing to side with Democrats in the fight that is the important thing. It also outflanks the Edwards, Dean, Kucinich, and other candidates' supporters who are taking their time joining the ranks.

So in short: for the rest of the 'primary campaign' season the PR game is to fend off the Bush attacks piecemeal and prepare for what Republicans consider the 'weakness' to attack in the General. The real effort is to run up all the support possible in the swing states that haven't yet had substantial close-up looks at Kerry. The plan for spring and summer also includes building a sturdy campaign apparatus and running a campaign to peel off as many Democrats as possible out of the Nader support and bring in as many of the 25% of Democrats not yet at peace with the Kerry campaign as is feasable.

The General is, if I've put the pieces together correctly, going to be heavily focussed on rolling out the Bush scandal record and running down his support throughout the Red States. Bush is probably going to try to run on some kind of Eisenhower/Truman/Nixon-oid platform with Islamic extremists taking the place of the Communists and The Gipper's Second Coming against Those Pinko-Commie Liberals. Scorched Earth campaigning by Democrats, faux hope (Faith Based) campaigning by Republicans.

I think Team Kerry and the DNC are looking at the potential for a knockout election. I doubt Team Bush thinks it can get a majority, let alone a mandate, it's just hoping Kerry implodes or fades or they can pull off a squeaker.

The trend lines for the past 12 years say 52% Democratic, 45% Republican, 3% Other at equal strength and turnout (which will probably be high) and that Republicans can't get enough of a turnout differential for them to win. It will look a lot closer for quite a while because a big chunk of the Democratic margin is new, slow-to-become-decisive, voters. (I think there will be a 3% shift from Undecided and Third Party to Democrats on the weekend before Election Day again, mostly those voters.)

The scorched earth approach that will hit the Red States and swing states isn't fully going to pay off this November. I don't think it will succeed in getting Democrats majorities in Congress- though we'll get very close. It does pay off that way by the midterm elections in November '06, though.

Long story short: yes, I think Kerry will run a scorched earth campaign for the General that will succeed for him personally- and play a substantial part in killing off the Republican hold on Congress, but that will take until '06 to complete. Think: the role of Sherman's March in taking out the Confederacy's ability to fight.

[Democat]

21. What was your early analysis of the 2002 election?

I'm curious after reading this post.

[rockymountaindem]

22. Thanks for that detailed and inspiring post.

That's what I've been looking for all week.