what was the "lesson of iowa"?

[bearfartinthewoods]

everyone talked about the supposed "lesson of iowa" in which Dean and Gephardt took themselves out of the running in that caucas because of mutual negative campaigning. this "lesson: helped craft the rest of the primary.

is the premise valid? is this something we should abide by, now, in the general? i think with the recent kos delinking, it looks like Kerry may be considering such an approach. thanks for any input.

[Kahuna]

1. Wes should have run there. He could be the nominee right now...

When you consider that Wes's campaign selected NH where he was running against 5 native sons, it was a foolish move. However, I think they were intimidated by Vilsak into not contesting IA. Vilsak made some very negative comments leading up to Wes' final decision to run. He wasn't at all supportive or welcoming.

[bearfartinthewoods]

3. please......

i really don't want to rehash the primary and if i did i'd do in in the right forum. thank you

[xultar]

2. WES in Iowa = President Wesley K. Clark...

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. i'm focusing on the future.

please, can we keep rehashing of the past to GD prime? thanks

[xultar]

7. IMO, I posted an HONEST and VALID lessoned learned. n/t

[JI7]

5. Kerry was a great campaigner in iowa

[Jacobin]

6. Don't EVER let Iownans pick a Dem presidential candidate

That's the lesson I learned.

[JI7]

9. why, because they don't follow the media ?

and instead vote for who they think is the best.

[librechik]

8. I thought it was all about cell phones

the lesson of Iowa was that you must stay in constant contact with your operatives so as to respond quickly to negative attacks. That's why the back and forth was so much more intense than we are used to.

I still don't know why Dean shrank up and disappeared. I just don't get it.

[BabsSong]

10. bear--I was thinking about this Iowa situation just last night and

I wanted to see if anyone had any info on just what it was the Kerry did to 'turn around' his campaign there. I know he brought in Mary Cahill and dumped staff and borrowed against his home for money, etc. BUT specifically, I would like to hear from Iowans what they noticed that he suddenly did different that caused the upset. Was it the tone of his ads, his message, what?? I so want to know this because I think he needs to "make it a double" right now. Can anyone fill me in on what changes suddenly took place???

[JI7]

11. he went directly to the people of iowa

and asked for their vote. he listened to them one on one. he answered questions, they challenged him and he continued to listen and answer as he could. in the beginning almost none were "star struck" meaning not many wanted autographs and pictures. they just wanted him to tell them how he would help with their problems. they would talk to him about problems they have with things like health care, farms, small business, even foreign policy. and he would listen and give as specific an answer as he could. he ignored the polls and media declaring his campaign over (including just days before iowa caucses) and just went on campaigning and going to the people who vote.

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. i don't know. i'm reacting to some polling i saw that said

the people view Kerry as unfairly attacking bush by almost 2 to 1. i haven't seen 'unfair attacks' but then again i'm prejudiced.

i'm worried that if the idea that the people reject candidates that engage in "negative" campaigning, how to we turn this around? or should we? since Kerry is ahead in some polls, maybe the people apprechiate the negative stuff or it doesn't affect how they vote?

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2004.htm

the first poll