Why is Bob Shrum considered a campaign expert?

[x-g.o.p.er]

He has never ran a winning campaign. If I want expert analysis of who needs to do what, give me James Carville.

But not Bob Shrum.

[billyoc]

1. lol, Schleprock.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. He's Very, Very Valuable

Just do the opposite of what he says and you're in.

[mod mom]

3. Carville is a traitor to the party, as well as the concept of democracy:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward




Globalism extends to the American way of campaigning, it seems, and the hubris of the gringo strategists — earnest ex-Clintonistas employed by James Carville’s Greenberg Carville Shrum group — would be hilarious if human lives and a country’s political will weren’t at stake.
It’s a galling and provocative experience to viewers of any political persuasion, and a reminder to the left of how easily idealism can run amok.

The Carville boys were hired by Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, a.k.a. ‘‘Goni,’’ a patrician Bolivian businessman who served a rough term as Bolivia’s president in the mid-’90s. Goni’s legacy was an unsuccessful program of ‘‘capitalization’’ (i.e., he welcomed foreign investment and watched foreigners get all the jobs).

By 2002, the time of filming, unemployment is through the roof and rural campesinos are agitating for political representation. Goni is old news and his poll numbers are dismal. Enter Jeremy Rosner, Greenberg Carville Shrum’s point man in Bolivia, an articulate manipulator of mass moods (and a fellow who bears an uncanny resemblance to Seth Meyers of ‘‘Saturday Night Live’’ — reality parodies itself here better than any comic could).

-snip
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2006/06/30/a_campaign_in_bolivia_thats_made_in_america/

[DefenseLawyer]

4. Shrum is an affable loser

but I'm not sure I would call Carville a genius either. His candidate was running against Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas in the primaries, two good guys but not exactly the A list. Then in the general his candidate won with 43% of the vote. Given his track record since, one might say Carville wasn't so much a genius as he was in the right place at the right time. Although don't get me wrong, I'm glad it worked out the way it did.

[karynnj]

13. Not to mention his candidate ran against a President who was below 40% for months before the electio

Shrum and Cahill may have made mistakes, but they and Kerry ran an incredibly good under the radar run for the nomination. Kerry was very good face to face in Iowa and NH and was the strongest candidate in the debates, but the campaign had to be pretty good to win as seemingly easily against Edwards who in 2004 the media loved. People forget, due to how strong Kerry was starting January 2004, that in December 2003, Bush looked very tough to beat - in one Dec poll he was at 60% approval. That fell as the primary attacks on Bush (mostly Kerry's) hit hard.)

Kerry's problems were in the general election when their were problems between the Kerry people and the Clinton people and people brought in from other campaigns. The question is whether their was any one tough enough to do things like demand that Edwards use the correct campaign slogan and to tell the (mostly Clinton) people leaking complaints about the campaign that they would be fired if they didn't cut it out. The difference between his primary campaign and the general election campaign was stunning in terms of those types of things.

[DefenseLawyer]

15. Either your memory of Iowa 04 is off, or mine is

Edwards wasn't seen as Kerry's main rival in Iowa in 04. Is 2nd place finish was pretty unexpected as I recall. Dean and Gephardt were leading in the polls right up to the end. You can apologize for Shrum if you like, but he ran a terrible general election campaign for Kerry by any standard. Beyond that, Shrum has losing elections long before 2004. He's 0-8 I believe.

[karynnj]

20. I didn't mean to imply that Edwards was seen as the main rival in Iowa

It was nearly universal opinion of the pundits that it was Gephardt or Dean. What I am saying is that after Iowa and New Hampshire, the media really did root for Edwards. They really wanted him to jump into the lead on the first multi-state day where the sates (SC, OK, MO, DE,ND, AZ,and NM) were better for a generic Southern populist than a MA Senator. After NH, Edwards got far more praise in 2004 than his results indicated.

My point is that Shrum and Cahill are never given credit for a win that no beltway politician or media pundit predicted in December 2003. The story in December 2003 was that Kerry had so little support he had to loan his campaign money to continue to compete. The main question when his name was mentioned was when he would pull out. They clearly did something right - even if people credited Kerry with being an exceptional candidate. My point is that many here argue that they were awful campaign managers and he was a bad candidate - both of these can't be true.

As to the campaign, it should be considered that almost all the accounts are written by Clinton or Edwards people. All with agendas when written. The fact is Kerry nearly won against a sitting President at a time of war, who in December 2003 was at 60% approval - and some of the disapproval was from the Pat Buchanan side! The difficulty I see is that the Clinton people inside the campaign who wanted things done their way were wrong, but during the campaign they got their side of the story out to their allies in the media and it was written as the campaign having problems. But, as they had the allies in the media, it would have been a disaster to throw them out.

[Orsino]

5. Inertia.

Sheer inertia.

[Penndems]

6. The only person who considers Bob Schrum an expert is Bob Schrum.

He's got the Midas touch in reverse. ;)

[Sensitivity]

7. Well, he conviced Kerry to go with "peoples choice" John Edwards

Very effective is he was working for Bush.

[DefenseLawyer]

17. You really blame Kerry's loss on Edwards?

I'd blame it on Kerry getting kicked in the groin repeatedly and just standing there smiling like an idiot. Oh and not being able to answer a simple yes or no question in less than 12 minutes wasn't exactly a plus either. The duck hunting was a nice touch though.

[karynnj]

21. Give me an example of another VP who refused to use the campaign slogan chosen

using instead one similar and weaker than it. The campaign WAS criticized for seeing to alternate between "Help is on the way" and "hope is on the way" - that was totally Edwards' fault. It did NOT matter which was better, they needed ONE, not two - and it was Kerry's decision. This was a relatively small issue, but it suggests that Edwards was likely not the team player he should have been having agreed to be VP.

Kerry did respond to the SBVT as millions of threads have shown. The problem was the non-print media that continued to give them time and credibility long after they were discredited and which acted as though purple heart bandaids were convention novelties like funny hats. As to Kerry's answers, I guess you missed the debates where his answers were extremely good and succinct - not to mention far better than Edwards' mediocre VP debate answers.

I don't blame the loss on Edwards, though I think a stronger, more experienced VP would have amplified Kerry's strengths better. As the campaign was close, it could have made the difference. Although powers in the party pushed for Edwards, Kerry was responsible for that decision - though he likely couldn't have known that Edwards would be such a prima donna.

[DefenseLawyer]

22. You find me one

person who will honestly tell you that if not for Edwards he would have voted for Kerry over Bush. Those people don't exist. People don't vote for Vice-President. I appreciate that you have John Kerry's back, but you are the only sober person I have ever heard describe the Senator as "succinct".

[karynnj]

25. Thank you for calling me sober

As I said I don't blame Edwards - I agree that people do not tend to vote for the VP except in very close calls - and Kerry and Bush were sufficiently apart that the decision should have been clear. Though the Senator has given detailed answers, he has often given answers that do cut to heart of things - and even are echoed by others. I obviously love John Kerry's ability to speak to issues in far greater detail than most of his competitors. It is not that he simply throws out more words - he includes far more substance.

I never heard a Kerry answer that resembled HRC's answer on the Russia question earlier this week - she repeated in 4 sentences one fact - that Putin's likely successor was hand picked by him and Putin was likely going to be the power behind the throne. In terms of Substance to words used I can not think of a Kerry example with a lower ratio. (The answer reminded me of blue book essays where the person did not expect the question and was trying to fill the page)

By the way, I do know one person who actually did vote against Kerry due to Edwards. She was a Southern college student ambivalent on whether we should have gone to war, trying to chose who to trust, finding Kerry believable when she heard him but unwilling to believe Bush was as bad as some said. The straw that broke the tie was that she found Edwards unbelievable - and Kerry chose him. Just one not very political person.

[HelenWheels]

8. Terry McAuliffe

McAuliffe doesn't have a good winning record either. I'm not sure if he was the campaign manager for Bill but he's been in the dumper since then. He is good at adding to his bank account and has made millions with this campaign.

[x-g.o.p.er]

9. He can bring in the cash, though

And in this day and age, that counts for something.

Shrum is just more irritating than 20 grit sandpaper

[karynnj]

10. His way of bringing cash brought in scandal too and is so 1990

The new way is how Dean, Kerry and Obama did it - online in smaller amounts by more people.

[x-g.o.p.er]

11. Touche

[book_worm]

12. he's an expert at running losing presidential campaigns.

[BlueManDude]

14. He's won on the state level but has never "gotten it "about presidential politics

He runs on "health care" every time. To the extent that prez elections are about issue the threshhold is always national security and does the electorate feel comfortable with so snd so's finger on "the button."

[TexasObserver]

16. It was his work in the first Wilson campaign in 1912.

[NJSecularist]

18. I don't think he understood the impact of the Swiftboat attacks in 2004

Why, I will never know. His campaign should have spent more money fighting off the attacks, including putting money towards TV ads that specifically condemned the attacks and deemed them untruthful.

He's always been more of a speechwriter than a campaign advisor to me.

But he has won some campaigns, specifically on the Congressional level, where he helped Kerry win his re-election bid in 1996 and Edwards election bid in 1998.

[BuyingThyme]

19. Perfect record?

[Medusa]

23. He's an expert at losing

Listen to him and then do the exact opposite of what he's "advising"

[0007]

24. James Carville should ride off in the sun set with his stupid wife

Bob Shrum is a wasted hack.