If Dean wins the primary, how should he campaign in the general?

[redeye]

Should he make the election about him, about issues, or about Bush? Should he attack Bush on the war or on the economy? Which states should he concentrate on? Which demographics should he concentrate on? Which top-down/bottom-up balance should he take (e.g. about even, 3-1 bottom up, etc.)? Should he campaign as a liberal, as a centrist, as a moderate, as a libertarian, as a combination, or as anything else? Should he talk about management (i.e. the performance of the economy), issues (i.e. Bush's extremism), or both?

And so on...

[CMT]

1. like Harry S Truman in '48 giving Bush hell

This is what I would like to see--Dean still has an the modern technology and internet as an ace in the hole going into the general election, but as a reminder of campaigns past I would love him to make a couple of extended "whistle-stop" tours barnstorming through various states and giving short rear platform speeches and several stops in smaller towns and then a major speech each night in a big city. Just like HST in '48.

In my view, I think Dean is much more like HST than any Democrat--he is plain spoken, sometimes blustery, yet he can get the crowd roaring in a "Give 'em Hell" style. He should challenge Bush on everything--Iraq, foreign policy, economy, education, health care, environment--you name it.

[Salviati]

2. heh, a whistle-stop stop whistle-ass tour...

[leftofthedial]

7. LOL!

[redeye]

4. Can you explain a little more?

I was -37 when Truman campaigned, so I don't really know what exactly happened then.

[CMT]

10. well I'm only 39 myself

but Truman campaigned agressively against a hostile press in 1948 who all felt that Dewey (his opponent) would be a shoe-in. Of course train campaigning was common place back then and with television has almost gone away except for special occassions. But I think you connect with a lot of people out in the hitherlands and it makes great visuals if you campaign by train--stopping in small towns along the way with maybe a couple of thousand people,ect and then pull into a major city at night for a big rally. People in small towns and rural areas will feel less neglected and we can make headway among them.

I'm not saying he should do this thru out the entire campaign, but it would be a good gimmick it his campaign announced that they would do one whistlestop tour in Sept and one in October following the original routes that Truman may have traveled.

[TacticalPeek]

14. The Clinton Gore Bus trip.

Get on the bus.

(or off, prankster)

[CMT]

17. bus tour is good too

anything that adds some excitement and brings the candidate closer to the people. Also Clinton did a whistlestop on his way to Chicago to accept his second nomination in 1996.

[BayCityProgressive]

5. He should focus on healthcare

That is a HUGE issue to Americans right now. He should drop the war rhetoric a little bit and focus more on the failed economic policies of Bush. He also should continue using the internet to his advantage.

[CMT]

12. health care is important

but the war is beginning to become Bush's achilles heel.

[leftofthedial]

9. I'd like to see a give Bush hell campaign

But I think any Democratic nominee (except Kucinich or Sharpton) would run to the center (that is, the right) in the general election.

[w4rma]

21. I agree. A Truman style campaign.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/weekly/aa030300b.htm

[Pepperbelly]

3. I think that ...

he should first deal with what is on his plate now which is obtaining the nomination. Believe it or not, his coronation is not a foregone conclusion.

I will be interested to see how he puts together the Super Tuesday primaries. That should tell the tale of who the nominee will be. If you are a Dean supporter, I think that is the more important question.

[redeye]

6. Can you answer my question?

There're 1001 threads dealing with Dean adn the primary. It's only fair that the question about the general should be asked - and it's only fair that people should answer it or shut up, rather than tell me why the question is irrelevant.

[Pepperbelly]

13. oh ...

excuse me. I was acting under the rather absurd notion that I could say what I FUCKING WANT.

Thanx for clearing that up for me.

[redeye]

16. You can

You can also say that the earth is flat. It's a question of relevance to the topic and not saying BS. Your post is far from BS - what it says is actually true - but is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Pepperbelly]

20. thread-jacking for fun and profit.

:D

[last1standing]

8. He needs to project a positive message.

He can, and should, campaign on all of the things you brought up, but more than anything, he needs to have a manifesto that tells the American people that he is looking towards the future and not just trying to scold them about what needs to be done. I'm not talking about detailing his plans to bring about changes, but a general campaign of feeling good and projecting confidence about himself and the country.

It may be cynical to think that this should be our message, but it works every time.

last1standing.

[TacticalPeek]

11. Whatever it takes to win.

Whoever.

[redeye]

15. And that means? (n/t)

[wryter2000]

19. It's still the economy, stupid

Conventional wisdom is that a candidate moves toward the center after getting the nomination. I don't think that's a problem for Dean, because as many of us have pointed out (sometimes in a non-flattering way), he's centrist on economic questions. He should hammer Bush on the economy and point out his successes in Vermont (admittedly a tiny state).

As to the war, he should reiterate that we were misled. And he should express admiration for our fighting people and hammer Bush on the harm he's done to soldiers, veterans, and their families. That will resonate with the Support the Troops types.

[TacticalPeek]

28. This speculation is divisible into parts.

"how should he campaign in the general?" is, I think, possibly not much different from "how should the nominee campaign in the general?".

While there might be some artifact of regionality or demographic tic, I think the path to 270 true and faithful electors would be substantially the same for any of the, say, three or four currently possible nominees.

That means Pepperbelly's point is only partially irrelevant, and I hereby mark it more sorta relevant. Meaning the battle for the White House will be Against aWol's foreign policy and national security incompetence and dangerous performance, and For our better approach, meaning a return to enlightened, self-interested multi-lateralism, rejection of agressive war, and refocusing our security resources on the real terrorist threat, in all it's challenging complexity. And the battle will be Against *'s horrorshow domestic results, economic and social ruin, and generally unsavory governing style of secrecy, mendacity, intimidation and unsavory cronyism, and For our better remedies, which in a nutshell, generally fall under the proposition that good, accountable government is possible and desirable, and is best done by, and for, the people.


So while there may be marginal differences among a Dean, or Clark, or Kerry, say, plan of attack, nevertheless, each and any would have to successfully expose the bad things about this administration, and convincingly present our solutions, and their benefits, to the American people.

This follows from the facts on the ground, namely that the chimp is the damn president, and there is a war on. The specific contours of a nominee's two main thrusts, foreign and domestic incompetence, will depend on the state of affairs next year and approaching 01 NOV 04.

"Whatever it takes" means attacking whatever weaknesses are available at whatever opportunities presented, or created. So Dean should savage this cabal's nightmare foreign and security policy debacles, and show the way back to sanity. And so should Clark, or whoever best can. And Dean should attack the chimp's disasterous economic and fiscal train wrecks, abuses of power and growing insanity. And so should Kerry, Clark, or whoever best can.

True Democrats, just like true Republicans, cannot elect a President. We true dems REQUIRE the votes of quasi-dems, independents, quasi-repubs, other parties, non-voters. Any ballot we can drag into the box marked 'change'. We need change in both Houses, too.

So, it is an historically important time for the dems to nominate someone with the best possible chance of leading dems and others against an entrenched, rich and unscrupulous foe.

Therefore, I would want to know, somewhat with you, what does Dean uniquely, or especially, bring to an attack agenda for the general election campaign? Opposition to the war, obviously, so he should go after aWol's failed militarism, emphasizing more the current quagmire than the corrupt runup. The runup tragedy should be subsumed under the general untrustworthiness and lack of accountability of the chimp's crew. I think there will be plenty of heat on the runup from outside the presidential campaign, per se. And the domestic attack lends itself to traditional dem themes of health care, education, economic growth and it's fair distribution, and the corruption of government and big corporations against the interests of the little guy, and favoring the fat cat Kenny Boys soaking us from gilded offshore P. O. boxes.

Dean already has most of this going for him, plus charisma, plus a damn efficient and productive organization, from what I hear.

[Dagaz]

18. He'll have to have a plan for Iraq

It's easy to be against the war but now that we're there what do we do? Pull out? Send more troops? Stay the course? The reality is that we'll have troops there on election day and he'll have to have a plan on how to proceed.

[w4rma]

22. Dean's 7-Point Plan for Multilateral Reconstruction in Iraq

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_policy_foreign_iraq_7pointplan

[SeanT]

23. It's all economics

The war will be irrelevent, but Bush won't think so.

[TacticalPeek]

30. Welcome to DU, SeanT!

And it is all economics, but so is the war, even more blatantly than usual.

If aWol could luck into a Clinton economy for 8 to 10 months, he could probably breathe a little easier. Fat chance. But if/then, we'd have to hammer harder on other sins, and maybe have impeachment or near-impeachment as a fall-back.

[Dagaz]

25. Thanks

So it's Bush lite. I guess we'll see what role NATO or the UN is willing to take on.

[w4rma]

26. Bush's plan was unilateral. Although he may be forced to go multi.

Also, I'm absolutely positive that a Dean presidency would be more concerned with U.S. security rather than transfering U.S. middle-class wealth and Iraqi oil wealth into the pockets of the board members of Betchel and Haliburton.

[poskonig]

24. Campaign on security and jobs.

The tax cuts should be painted as weapons of job destruction. On foreign policy we have lots of ammo -- Afghanistan, North Korea, Iraq, cetera. Dean has the advantage over other candidates in that he is freer to criticize Bush on foreign policy since he didn't give him a vote of support on Iraq.

Dean should try to put as many states in play as possible, though the idea is to win the Gore states plus a couple others.

Linking Bush with Delay and the extremists in Congress is a must, but Dean is already doing this.

As far as ideology is concerned, Dean should campaign as Howard Dean and everything else will take care of itself.

[janx]

27. His American Restoration speech,

the one he gave when he officially announced his candidacy, is a classic. I bet we will see him draw from that, and I hope we do.

It's a very optimistic speech with broad-based appeal.

[WilliamPitt]

29. He should very loudly

become the candidate he is, i.e. a compromise candidate with some progressive shades and some conservative shades. He should prominently display his Second Amendment creds down South and out West. He should make it clear that being against the Iraq war does not make him some wild super-liberal flake.

Right down the middle, baby. Cut a wide swath and market directly to Republicans and independents. Win every state we won in 2000 + West Virginia or New Hampshire, and leave Florida to the wolves (no offense to Floridian DUers, but Jeb's bastards have had four more years to boll weevil into the state apparatus; as rewarding as it might feel, campaigning hard for Florida will be throwing money away).

[janx]

31. Good point! Wouldn't it be great

if we didn't even have to worry about or deal with Florida?

[TacticalPeek]

32. You're too cruel not to consider every state in play.

Admittedly, the wide-open view depends on continuing, royal clusterf**ks from the cabal, but I have no expectation that their nature is not uniform. We already have federal felonies in the WH. With 14 months to go, * will foul himself completely, and expose his dishonored party to retribution and punishment at the polls.

Fourteen months before Raygun took 49 states, hooda thunk? Well, I think its payback time.

[WilliamPitt]

33. Bush will have a quarter of a billion dollars to campaign with

Plus free 'advertising' from CNN, Fox, MSNBC and the other networks, who cannot at all be counted on to do their jobs. 100 years of Dean Meetups or Kerry Whatevers can never match that. Some states are simply going to be out of reach. Worse, Bush will have enough money to mount serious challenges in traditional strongholds like New York and California (especially the latter if this recall goes the wrong way).

It'd be great if we could have the money to run to win in every state. We don't and we won't. Play for the coasts and the states we won in 2000, and pick up a couple more states here and there. That = victory.

[TacticalPeek]

34. You are technically correct, 270 is the magic number.

But I can still talk big and dream, can't I? I dream of Texas.

(However, if one cent or one phone call in an unneeded state, caused the loss of a needed state, I would die. So I give in, you win.)

Still, Texas...

[WilliamPitt]

35. Mmmmmmm...Texasssssss...

lllllaaaaaahhhggggglllllll...

:)