Thanks for all the replies -- I was a bit apprehensive about sticking my neck out but so far everyone has proven me wrong!
The point about Nader not receiving as many votes is well taken -- I was probably wrong about making the assumption (actually, I'd assumed he would be insignificant, but I didn't want to offend Nader supporters!). I do think that more voters will want their vote "to count" (ah, the two-party system) and will shy away from voting for Nader (who they really want) and instead against Bush ("good enough"). So I should probably drop that assumption.
Quote:
|
(onetime2) Any strategy that gives serious weight to the above quote is way off base, however. Even if it were true (which I doubt) it is certainly not true of the section of the population that actually votes.
|
I totally agree with the first sentence -- I didn't mean to imply that a candidate should base strategy on misinformation (what a campaign strategy, eh?). If I can dig up the poll I'll send it along.
What I mean is that the American public still links Iraq with national security issues. I think there's the idea out there that we invaded Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda hid out there, which is "close enough" for me. But improbably, instead of pressuring Saudi Arabia next (where most of the hijackers came from), we went into Iraq. Now, in general, Iraq is better off without Saddam. But the idea that Iraq is next after Afghanistan -- presuming that we're fighting terrorism -- is a non-sequitur. The general perception, though, has become blurred, so that the American public believes that Iraq had a major hand in 911. So while we know that's almost certainly not true (maybe a little tiny financial boost, at best), I think that running on an anti-war, purely anti-Bush platform is a recipe for disaster. We want to be the party of solutions, not of carping.
Before the pro-war guys jump on me, though -- I think the liberation of Iraq was right, and a good thing. I believe we'll find evidence of WMD someday. But it's a bit enraging that there's this double standard applied to Saudi Arabia, who we haven't laid a finger on, but was much more involved in 911 than Iraq. It's fine to go into Iraq on humanitarian terms, a la Bosnia and Kosovo, but the momentum of retaliation, i.e. the support of the war against Afghanistan, should have been directed at Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
But that's way off on a tangent, sorry about that. I agree that personal attacks on Bush won't work. Look what happened to the lunatic Clinton-hating wing of the GOP -- they squandered all the political advantage of sweeping into the House after the Contract With America and got Newt booted. Just recently, the Bush-hating on the Democratic left opened the gates for "moderate" Republicans to win big in the midterm elections. Instead, the proper issue is to hit hard on the economy and propose alternative solutions -- not just to bash Bush. Focus on domestic issues -- where Democrats typically poll stronger -- and away from foreign policy, where Republicans typically win. Yes, the president doesn't have much to do with the economy, but again, in one of those quirks of democracies (and sports, and the military, etc.), if the team is doing badly, the president/coach/general is the first to go. Thus focusing on the economy hurts Bush personally, without looking like one is purely vindictive anti-Bush.
I guess I'm just afraid that Dean's popularity springs from the fact that he's the most anti-Bush, and that, I think, is a mightly narrow platform to run on. I agree that he's the most dynamic and invigorating. However, I think Dean pulls too far to the left to draw in that 21% of swing voters needed to win a general election. If he does win, the running mate will be critical.
-- Alvin