Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I Think Obama WILL Go Negative, But Not How You Think

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
polichick Donating Member (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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-31-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. When you multiply negatives
you get a positive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trashcanistanista Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nsd Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (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".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nsd Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-31-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Agree with the last
paragraph!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (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.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
writes3000 Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (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$$.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-31-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. Obama has a response ad
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC