Posted on 05/05/2007 1:01:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN
RAISING THE NEGATIVES: The Democrats Plan to Win in ‘08
By MHGinTN and grey_foxx39
In the 2006 election, Limbaugh and even the President thought that the base was going to be there supporting like they always do. But, that didn’t happen. WHY? Because the power rests with the people who vote. posted by Pan_Yans Wife
Let’s take a moment to address that simple truth. What platform issues encourage people so they make the effort to vote and be counted in the determination of our future leadership? … Oh, wait! That’s not how elections are won or lost in this era of goon generated negatives! Defeating the opponent is all about accentuating the negatives, not encouraging folks to vote for you.
We may not like that reality, but the hate Bush strategy of the DNC has shown it will motivate one party’s voters and discourage the other party’s voters from getting involved. The Democrats didn’t run on what they planned to do to fix anything, they just ran on hate Bush … and droves of conservative voters just stayed home, disillusioned and discouraged by the failure of the Republicans to address their issues and the bombardment of one-sided disclosures regarding Republican corruption and moral decay. So what will win primaries and general elections for conservative voters? … When more conservative Republicans and patriotic moderates vote than liberals and democrats vote, conservatives win elections. We can debate what motivates Democrat voters to go to the polls —other than the dead democrats that vote faithfully— but we better be about seeing clearly what will discourage conservative voters from going to the polls and what is needed to instead motivate them to vote.
Republican voters need a good communicator; they need a person with a solid conservative record on issues that matter —like immigration reform, restricting abortion and promoting life valuing policies, strong on defense, tax reduction, reduced spending, safety net to promote self sufficiency rather than dependency, traditional moral values— and a person who will speak truthfully to the people on these issues; they want a man whom the liberal press cannot successfully paint as too far from mainstream America, so conservative voters can feel they are for a representative they can support unabashedly. BUT none of those ‘we want‘ things will be in play if the Democrat trash truck can raise enough negatives to get conservatives into thrashing each other …which is a particularly effective form of ‘raising negatives‘.
If folks have been paying attention to Republican hopefuls, one key to focus upon are the words coming out of the various mouths, in which way the candidate or prospective candidate frames an issue as he begins to speak on that issue. We all know the Democrat negatives machine will raise the negatives once a candidate is selected. In a subtle contrast to the view of negatives, I’ve been watching the way Romney, Huckabee, Hunter, and Thompson start their responses to questions, because for my conservative tastes those three are the most attractive conservatives by record on conservative issues AND appear to be able to make a connection with the public as communicators.
If a speaker begins his answer to a ‘negatives raising’ question, without restating the issue in his own style, he’s vulnerable to being framed by the opposition on that issue. The Presidency of George W. Bush bears this out, sadly. The alliance of the DNC and mainstream media have triumphed in their plan to marginalize W. and tarnish his legacy, at least for the present. I think that history will show him to be an outstanding President, especially if Iraq becomes even a struggling but successful example of democracy in the Middle East. We are now, however going to have to deal with the portrait they have painted in their hatred and the wish to “get even” for the Clinton impeachment.
In the first Republican candidate’s debate, Mitt Romney did the best job of reframing the ridiculous liberal sourced questions, hands down, and combating the “raising negatives” plan for the debate. No one on that panel even came close to his skill in reframing the questions … he even used humor when asked about Bill Clinton back in the White House. I was left wondering how my favorite, Fred Thompson, would have responded to that stupid question. Unfortunately, Fred hasn’t thrown his hat into the ring yet.
Bottom line for we conservatives at FreeRepublic is how vulnerable are we to the sure-to-come DNC campaign of accentuating our candidates negatives. We see how easy it is to get at each other’s throats over Giuliani’s lack of conservative stance on our issues. How effective will a Paul Begalaesque hate-monger be at accentuating the differences between Christianity and Mormonism … and you know darned well the DNC goons will hit that issue hard if Romney gets the Republican nomination because they will trade a Harry Reid to get at an Orrin Hatch and take over the White House.
If conservative voter turnout can be suppressed, not only will the Democrat liberal leftist party likely take control of the White House, they will achieve a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and increase their numbers in the House. House and Senate seats are local races compared to the national image of presidential candidates. A high negatives presidential candidate will end up electing Democrats in greater numbers, even if the Republican candidate squeaks into the White House with moderates‘ votes.
Okay, fellow Freepers, as per O’Reilly, “What say you?” Let’s try to discuss reducing the potentials for raising negatives by picking the most adept and most positive candidate.
Ping-a-ling-a-ling
Im liking Romney more and more..
Yup, in the recent so called debate, he was hands down the best at handling the idiotic liberal-filtering Matthews garbage questions.
If we don't get what we need, don't blame us for not working our hearts out for the candidate.
First we get to fight with ourselves
FYI: According to the flawed (i.e., slanted to the left) exit polls, the REPUBLICAN BASE did ‘show up’ for the 2006 election in almost the exact percentages as the 2004 election.
The difference in the 2006, 2004 and 2002 elections: LIBERALtarians! Approximately 2% of libertarians shifted their vote from the Republican to the Libertarian candidate in states like Missouri and N/S Dakota which cost Republicans two Senate seats . . . Allen’s implosion in Virginia (an example of the MSM’s ‘political’ power) cost a third.
House losses in 2006 were by VERY small margins and in keeping with typical off year elections for the party in power.
[FYI: Reagan’s Senate losses were more severe in 1986 and immediately lead to the Iran/Contra circus. President Bush is battling similar problems today.]
I beg to differ. Republicans need a man of principle. A man that will say what he'll do and then do what he said he would do. These mealy mouthed moderates that are selling our country down the river need to be rounded up and shipped off to the Sahara for the duration of their miserable existence.
Of course this is just the opinion of most disenfranchised American voters and me.
Just wait until Fred gets into the race...he will drive his ol' red pickup truck right up to your door and shake your hand and say "howdy".
Jellybean, Fredheads may want to get in on this.
Republicans need a man of principle. A man that will say what he'll do and then do what he said he would do.
That semi-colon at the end of that clause was there for a reason.
A failure to vote is, in reality, a vote for your opponent. We never have candidates who are 100% to our liking, and rare is the once in a century leader like RWR.
It's all about discouraging the conservative base by driving wedges between them and the candidates.
Indeed, I believe that many of the attacks on Republican candidates on this forum have been generated by agents provocateur. Truly, it has been a season for "accentuating the negative...and eliminating the positive".
There are Republican candidates I prefer, others that I'd prefer not. That is a subject for my primary vote. But, once the nominee has been selected, whoever he is will have my full support against any and all Democrats.
Otherwise, I'd be doing what my enemy wanted me to do.
In elections as in wars, losing is never a good idea.
All the enemy has is hate. Let's make them choke on it.
“droves of conservative voters just stayed home”
How about backing this up with a source?
” Republicans need a man of principle. A man that will say what he’ll do and then do what he said he would do. “
Didn’t W say that he would not be driven by polls? Frankly, he comes pretty close to the description.
With all due respect, better half-Republican than 100% socialist.
Now, the trick is ‘how do we help them choke on their hate campaign’?
Didn’t W say that he would not be driven by polls? Frankly, he comes pretty close to the description.
I agree, he does fit the description.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.