On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 1:22 PM, PGage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't disagree with the rest of what you write, but I think it is > fair to add that Obama had the advantage this cycle that the > relatively high road also played to his tactical and strategic > strengths. A big chunk of the US electorate was always going to have > less tolerance for outrageously negative campaigning under the picture > of the first serious black candidate for President, so a super-sleazy > campaign by Obama had much less upside. And Obama's appeal has been > based on being a different kind of Democrat - a different kind of > politician, which would be undercut by going super sleazy. > > McCain did have some of that second factor going for him too > originally, but in order to get the nomination, and then try to > re-energize his base, he had (or thought he had) to go hard right, and > hard negative. As he started to fade in the polls he thought the only > way he could get back in it was to go even more negative to win. I > expect him to get even more negative before this is over. And he may > yet be proven right, and the negativity may start having an effect. > But if he looses, he will have to live with the lingering thought that > if he had just had the courage of his convictions, and waged a more > issue oriented campaign, he not only would have done less harm to the > political process and his own reputation, but might actually have won.
Every political candidate, from city council to president, has to rely on a campaign manager to run his or her campaign. Presidential candidates get the best managers and staffs as they have the most money to spend and that campaign is the best a staffer can put on his or her resume. So the decisions of how to run the respective campaigns were conscious and were directed at winning the presidency. Obama takes the high road because his campaign staff feels it gives him the best chance of winning the office. McCain takes the low road because his campaign staff feels it gives him his best chance. As polling numbers come in, each campaign looks to tweak its message and see if it has to target new demographic groups. Karl Rove took lessons from the 2000 race and developed a new strategy. His strategy worked in the 2002 midterms and the 2004 election. The Democrats tried to learn the strategy and use it in 2004 and came up short. Then they retooled and figured out how to beat the strategy in 2006. McCain chose Rove disciples to run his campaign and they're using that strategy. The Democrats are countering it with 2006 strategy and they are coming out ahead. One tenet of the Rove strategy is to get in office first and worry about how you got there afterward, if at all. That means a politician should sacrifice principle for expediency in the campaign and this hasn't served McCain well at all. And it's simply too late to try and recreate his campaign along more positive lines. Tom W --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Like TV only smarter. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
