WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:19 PM
Original message |
I Think Obama WILL Go Negative, But Not How You Think |
|
They're going to go negative on McCain's negativity. It'll work. Watch.
|
polichick
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Exactly - and they've sure got the material! |
Blue_Roses
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:20 PM
Response to Original message |
2. "Going negative on McCain's negativity..." |
|
sounds like a song from the 80's:D
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. When you multiply negatives |
trashcanistanista
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:21 PM
Response to Original message |
4. He doesn't need to go negative - think Clintons - |
|
but, yeah, that would work. I really think he is way ahead. I don't believe the polls.
|
nsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Obama already had the nomination locked up by the time Clinton went negative. |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-31-08 01:38 PM by nsd
Obama is the nominee because of his February victories, which happened before the "3 AM" television ad, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, the "commander-in-chief test" and so on. Once the Clinton campaign decided to go after him, they did really well, winning Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. If they had gone negative even earlier, Hillary Clinton might well be the nominee right now.
That's why Obama didn't need to go negative in the primary. The contest was effectively over by the start of March (even if Clinton's supporters didn't see it that way).
Obama can't be passive here. He can't simply decry McCain's negativity. Obama has to take the guy apart.
Edited: fixed typo
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. No he didn't because clinton went negative |
|
after Iowa so that shoots down your premise.
And, Obama is not being "passive".
|
nsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
10. I disagree that the Clinton strategy in January/February compares to what came later. |
|
There was definitely a shift in tone in the build-up to Ohio and Texas. The 3 AM ad in particular was a turning point.
I'm not saying Obama right now is being passive -- his response ad yesterday was quite good -- just that talking about McCain's negativity isn't enough. We need to hit back and take apart McCain's bogus maverick image.
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
ieoeja
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
17. You are right that it changed then. But so did Obama's tactics. |
|
He switched from retail politics to wholesale.
He won his Democratic Senate primary in Illinois by carrying the rural areas because he connects really well with rural audiences.
He won the Iowa primary and all those large territory, small population primaries for the same reason.
But in the larger states in this primary, he focused on getting out the vote in the cities instead of trying to connect outside. I can see an argument for that: there just isn't enough time to canvas the whole freaking country. And with less than 100 days to the election now, I can see where it would be tough to visit much of a representation of small towns across this country.
The long primary really hurt.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message |
6. More likely, it'll sound like whinging |
|
which of course, is what Democrats seem to do best these days, if the past 8 years in Congress are any guide.
|
writes3000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. Do you have anything constructive to say? Just checking. n/t |
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
12. Constructive seems to me getting folks to acknowledge REALITY |
|
and support strategies and tactics that are proven to work- rather than embracing those which have proven to be losers, time in and time out.
Sorry if that bursts a few kumbaya bubbles- but I'm interested in beating Republicans (actually, I'm interested in relegating them back to the fringe where they belong- and where politicians who profess their beliefs actually are in damn near every other western nation.
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. Bullshit..Obama doesn't whine. |
|
Take your major case of negativity somewhere else..we have enough of that with the mccain shit.
The republicans are the one who are whinging up their fucking a$$.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
13. Maybe you should ask youself why certain things resonate |
|
with the electorate- as opposed to whether the person making the observation is somehow being "negative."
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
15. Maybe you should look to yourself and see why |
|
you're always so negative.
|
depakid
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
16. Apparently, critical thinking = negativity in some folks books |
Eric J in MN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-31-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Obama has a response ad |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |