Reasons why 2008 isn't the same as 2004 (with respect to "Swiftboating")

[scheming daemons]

1. Bush was at 51% approval rating in August of 2004. There were already more people willing to stick with him and willing to listen to negative attacks on Kerry. Bush is at 29% now. The Republican party is at an all-time low in percentage that "self-label" themselves as Republican.

2. John Kerry's support wasn't as passionate as Obama's. Kerry had solid support, but not to the level that Obama has. The number of Democrats that are "Extremely Satisfied" with their candidate this year is 44%. The "Satisfied" number is 33%. Kerry's support was wide...but not as deep. Obama's supporters will more vigorously fight the "swiftboating".

3. Economically, the country was pretty well-off in 2004 (compared to 2008). The public was willing to listen to distracting arguments like the swiftboaters because they didn't have more pressing worries. The American public in 2008 has little patience for petty distractions with the economy doing as badly as it is.

4. The Obama campaign has the benefit of seeing the effect of "swiftboating" and can effectively combat it. It took Kerry by surprise and took him a month to respond. It was too late.

5. Money. When the swiftboating attacks hit in 2004, it was in a lull period before the conventions in which Kerry was low on primary money and couldn't spend GE money yet. It left him with no ability to respond effectively. Obama is awash in cash on hand and won't have to sit on the sidelines for the entire month of August.

6. The media. Many in the media were snookered by the swiftboat campaign in 2004 and took it at face value. I believe many of them later came to realize that they were played, and that there will be less amplification in the media of the 2008 swiftboating campaign.



That's how I see it, anyway. Your mileage may vary.

[EV_Ares]

1. Well, it doesn't seem to take much to snooker the media. However, you

may be pretty much on in your analysis. I just don't have much faith in them and of course I may be so bias, I can't see things fairly, I don't know anymore.

[blm]

2. You are spreading a corpmedia LIE. Kerry responded quickly and media REFUSED to broadcast it.

You are helping to protect the corpmedia when you push their CYA lie that Kerry didn't respond.

Go to DU Research Forum if you CARE about the FACTS. Then, I hope you edit the corpmedia lies out of your post.

There is only ONE REASON that Kerry is not president today and that is McAuliffe's refusal to secure the election process for the four focking years after 2000s theft, allowing the RNC and GOP officials in too many states to gain control of the election process at every level where the votes are allowed, cast and counted.

Further - Swifts showed up on Aug 5, when there was NO PRIMARY MONEY that could be spent, and the DNC and outside groups should have taken up the slack as Kerry's general money needed to be used in a way that matched what Bush-Cheney would spend starting the second week of September. That's why Kerry did that big speech in August attacking the swifts and challenging Bush to stop hiding behind them - but corpmedia refused to broadcast that speech and few even reported it occurred, thus you are here today still believing the corpmedia and spreading their complicit spin.

[scheming daemons]

3. What are you talking about? I am AGREEING WITH YOU

The media didn't present Kerry's response (see my final bullet) and Kerry didn't have the money to go past the media to respond on his own (see my other bullets).

[blm]

7. Baloney - you said Kerry responded a month late. You also got the money wrong.

When you claim that Kerry didn't respond till it was too late, you let the corpmedia off the hook for their role in ignoring his counterattacks.

[scheming daemons]

8. The swiftboat attacks were out there for a week before Kerry's first response

...and it was a month before Kerry REALLY counter-attacked.


His initial tactic was to ignore them because they were completely bogus. He was right about them being bogus, but he didn't realize the media would run with them anyway.


I agree with you that the media was culpable. Hence my point #6.



And I got the money right. Kerry had a cash flow problem in August, since he couldn't receive his matching funds until after the Republican convention. He had almost a whole month where the money was tight.

[blm]

10. Your assertions are STILL wrong. He responded IMMEDIATELY. Aug5 was swifts 1st ad

and Kerry countered with his own ad. Then they went after news channels to stop airing the ad because of the lies that they provided ample proof and documentation to counter.

Then the following week or so there was no discussion as McGreevey was outed and that took up over a week of political coverage...THEN Kerry used his speech to the Firefighters Convention on Aug19 to eviscerate the swifts and challenged Bush to stop hiding behind them and publicly debate their services. If YOU didn't further that attack throughout August you were as bad as most every other Dem and blog who let it slide without backing Kerry up. The corpmedia got AWAY with not broadcasting that speech and downplaying even their reporting - some not reporting it occurred it all.

And you did misstate the use of primary money in your OP - It could NOT be used legally by Kerry, and the general money needed to be conserved for September when Bush's money kicked in. Kerry DID put up counterads in the battleground states that August, but the bulk of the money used to counter the swifts SHOULD have come from DNC and outside Dem groups at the time.

[scheming daemons]

4. Dupe

[Frances]

5. By your logic, you should give McCain's approval rating,

not Bush's because McCain is the name that will be on the ballot.

[scheming daemons]

6. McCain might be on the ballot... but it is just a placeholder for "Bush - 3rd term"

The actual Republican name on the ballot is immaterial. The Republican party is the "incumbent" party and.... just as Clinton's scandals hurt Gore even though Gore had nothing to do with them... the Bush administration will hurt McCain.

[Frances]

13. I just read that McCain's positive rating is 57%, which is higher

than Obama's.

Of course, I agree that McCain will be McBush, but I worry that the majority of people will be too stupid to realize this.

[wurzel]

9. I don't agree with #6

The media will be forced to act a little differently this time only because it is under increasing scrutiny by Stewart, Colbert, KO, Abrams, Maher, Media Matters, and the Web.

[blm]

11. BINGO - - plus, Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS. Rather admitted last year that corpmedia

NEEDED to protect Bush throughout that first term for the favorable FCC rulings they expected (and ultimately received) from Bush's second term.

[highplainsdem]

12. Agree with all your points except the first, since we aren't running against Bush.

We're running against McCain, whose approval rating is double that of Bush. Today's Rasmussen tracking poll shows McCain with a 57% favorability rating -- a point higher than yesterday, and 2 points higher than Obama.

McCain gets a lot of support from independents, too, so the shrinking number of self-identified Rethugs matters less.

Don't make the mistake of thinking we're running against Bush, when McCain's supporters don't see it that way.