Compare how Obama's campaign is being run vs how the one in 2004 was run

[mtnsnake]

...at this point in time.

For the record, I chose option #1 because I think Obama has run an excellent campaign so far, making few mistakes, and he's not hesitating to strike back at the RW smear machine whenever necessary. IMO, why he's not doing better in the polls has little to do with how he's running his campaign so far, and his overall popularity will turn the tide as soon as more people get to know him.

[Captain Hilts]

1. This campaign has the advantage of campaigning against a thoroughly discredited president.

There's really no comparison. Gore, Kerry and Obama run under very different circumstances.

[mtnsnake]

2. So did the campaign of 2004 to an extent

Bush was already considered then as being one of the worst presidents in history.

[scheming daemons]

3. Bush's approval rating in Sept of '04 was 51%.... now it is 34%..... no comparison

[Captain Hilts]

5. That third is the hard core. His bad numbers even break that barrier in some surveys.

After the Army went after the Bonus Marchers it was clear that all FDR had to do to oust Hoover was keep breathing. It SHOULD be like that now, but is not.

The Obama campaign - and I'm volunteering - needs to stop masterbating on how great they are and focus on where they aren't so great. Obama's numbers have been flat since early March. He needs to expand his supportive demographic. I think the R's,in Palin, have handed him so good material. To get women I'd ignore the abortion issue and go for Palin's objection to the rape/incest exemption in abortion rights. That horrifies even pro-life women.

I am baffled that the message that McCain is Bush's 3rd term doesn't have more traction. I don't know why. Perhaps the economic headlines will help Dems.

[mtnsnake]

7. What does ratings have to do with how you feel Obama is running his campaign??

I asked how this campaign compares with the last one, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with approval ratings.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Playing the Patriots and playing the Chiefs calls for different game plans. One's good, one's lousy.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Not nearly enough. nt

[Forkboy]

8. By us, but not by enough others though.

It wasn't until Katrina in '05 that Bush really start to sink, and sink fast.

[Captain Hilts]

10. BINGO!

FDR: Worse than Hoover.
ER: And dreadful table manners!

[blm]

11. No - Bush was enjoying the vigorous public support of the last Dem president on the biggest issues

of that election. The last Dem president went on a high profile book tour in June-July 2004 and vigorously defended Bush from the very criticisms our Dem nominee was making against Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war at the time.

Why do you think Clinton did that, anyway?

[mtnsnake]

17. So do you think Kerry ran a greater campaign than what Obama is running so far?

Hey, you don't need to beat around the bush, blm.

[blm]

19. I think they're more alike than not. Obama's campaign is like Kerry's but with MORE ACCESS TO MEDIA.

And of course the biggest difference is that Obama doesn't have the last Dem president doing major TV interviews for over three solid weeks supporting McCain the way Bill did in support of Bush.

Did you not pay attention in 2004? Did you not KNOW Kerry's attacks on swifts and Bush were refused broadcast?

Do you think postSchiavo, post Katrina, post Iraq Civil war, post rising job losses America is a tougher campaign atmosphere for Democrats than post 9-11 America?

[mtnsnake]

20. Why don't you just start a thread on who has the most difficult task?

That's all you seem to care about because all you're doing is implying that Kerry had it way tougher running his campaign than what Obama does now.

Which ever candidate had the tougher task has nothing to do with this poll. This poll is about comparing how Obama's campaign is being run vs how Kerry's campaign was being run, just like it says in the title of this thread. It's not about who had it tougher.

[blm]

22. I said they're run more alike than not. The DNC is run completely different, media's slightly better

and Obama and his voters should be able to get their votes counted more easily. Had McAuliffe done his job in the four years he had after 2000s theft, Kerry would be in the WH and the fascist wing of the Dem party would be a memory by now.

Kerry WON 2004 - RNC stole it for Bush and McAuliffe's DNC let them do it.

[karynnj]

21. Bush was near 50% then, he at about 32% now

At 50%, he was nowhere near the worst President ever - except in liberal enclaves.

In terms of the numbers, Obama is ahead of where Kerry was then. I hope that he uses the debates to his advantage as well as Kerry did - which given that he starts at a higher place would bring him in the lead at the end

McCain is likely better than Bush at debating and from the primary debates, Obama, as a debator is not as good as Kerry - but the issues are far more drastically seen to be in our favor. These should combine to Obama doing as well - because having the issues on your side is major.

[blm]

6. The only REAL differences.... just 75% of media protects Mccain now, while 90% protected Bush

vigorously in 2004.

Democrats have a greater chance at winning with that playing field.

The other major difference is that Dean strengthened party infrastructure in states that prior chairs like McAuliffe had left to collapse, so the 2008 Dem nominee was always going to have a stronger presence state by state due to sturdier party infrastructures in ALL states.

Another major difference is that many of the best known Democrats in 2004 were publicly SUPPORTING Bush on the biggest issues of that election, especially his decisions on terrorism and Iraq war, and doing so in high profile interviews. Obama hasn't had that same serious a problem this goround as Bush's support is down to Lieberman.

[Captain Hilts]

13. I think the media's support for Obama in the primaries took some of the fight...

out of the campaign. It's rougher now and the media loves McCain. They won't talk about his temper, etc.

Obama is CLEARLY the only one running fit to be president. By a mile. But the draft-age draft dodgers in the press seek atonement by slurping McCain.

[YvonneCa]

14. I agree. And, unlike this administration, our Democrats...

...actually learn from their experience (as both Gore and Kerry have) and APPLY their learning to new situations (like a 2008 Presidential election). Let's just hope the American people do the same. :7

[Forkboy]

12. I don't know if far superior is my pick, but it's certainly a big improvement.

I didn't think Kerry's campaign was terrible, it was just too timid for my tastes.

[blm]

16. Kerry didn't have any badass surrogates or party spokesmen in 04 and famous Dems supported Bush

in nearly every TV and print interview they did from 2001-2005.

Obama has strong surrogates like KERRY always there working to get him elected.

[politicasista]

23. Exactly. People are still overlooking that point n/t

[ProSense]

15. No comparison:

The DNC was being run by Terry McAwful, now it's being run by Dean.

There was no You Tube, hence there was no DU political forum.

Kerry didn't have someone like this.

Bush's lies didn't get major media play until after the election.

[Democrafty]

25. Hear, hear! n/t

[McCamy Taylor]

18. This campaign needs to make its "weakness" (Obama's race) into its "strength".

Everyone who is going to vote against Obama because he is Black knows that he is Black. So, they need to stop trying to kid themselves and turn the candidates "difference" into a positive. Talk about his unique perspective of having seen America from the side of both races, white and Black, about how he has a broader understanding, how he knows our pain.

People will vote for the candidate they feel knows them.

Obama is keeping himself up on a pedestal so that voters will not get to know him---it is turning him into Kerry.

[Captain Hilts]

24. His having little experience at the national level is his weakness. nt