Let's do a thought experiment (or, are you smarter than Mark Penn?)

[Occam Bandage]

Poll question: Let's do a thought experiment (or, are you smarter than Mark Penn?)

You're running a campaign. Your candidate has a perceptual problem--she's a woman, and the most common emotional-response lines of attack on her is that she is "shrill" and "grating." Meanwhile, she's running against an inexperienced but charismatic Senator. She has a comfortable lead.

Before Iowa, he starts to gain in the polls. Hoping to shut him down, you tell your candidate to go negative. Your candidate drops in support and places third.

Before New Hampshire, your opponent is charging in the polls. You take a different tack, and have your candidate talk policy. She sheds a few tears in a NH coffeeshop, and people love it. She looks humanized, and that cancels the negative perceptions. She wins a stunning victory.

After that, you look ahead to South Carolina. Your opponent holds a decent lead. You decide to go ultra-negative. You have allies race-bait. You have your candidate's husband go so negative, even your allies are calling you and telling you that you're harming the party. Your candidate gets walloped. Your opponent makes up ten points nationwide.

In the run-up to Super Tuesday, you back off the attacks a bit. Your opponent makes up another ten points nationwide, but you've slowed the bleeding and you hold on to most of the states you need to in order to stay alive. You explain your losses by going negative--you have your candidate blame activists in caucus states and black voters in southern states, you have an ally claim whites won't vote for your opponent, you claim that you aren't concerned about Democrats in red states. You get walloped in the Potomac primaries. Polling shows you've lost your lead in WI.

Everything hinges on winning in Ohio and Texas, which are several weeks away--an eternity in politics. You have time to redefine your candidate and redefine the terms of the campaign. The chips are down, and you're all in. What do you decide to do?


Select OPTION A if you want to go strong negative on your opponent. Hey, fifth time's the charm!
Select OPTION B if you want to go strong positive, be gracious, humanize your candidate, and focus the debate on your superior issues-based platform.

Let's see if DU is smarter than Mark Penn.

[jgraz]

1. Have any of us managed to make $6 million fucking up a foregone conclusion?

No? Then we're no where near as smart as Mark Penn.

[Occam Bandage]

3. True. He and Shrum do have that going for them--they manage to draw huge salaries despite

being absolutely fucking terrible at their jobs.

[Angela Shelley]

2. She should show STRENGTH and INTEGRITY

She should have a national press conference, look straight into the camera and say:

"Years ago, I gave my vote to allow the US military to attack, invade and occupy Iraq. At the time, I thought I was making the correct decision. Since then, I have realized that I should have said Nay. Over one million innocent people have died because of our military activity.

I don´t have all of the answers to all of the questions which our country faces today. I do not believe that any candidate has all of the answers. It´s the people in this country who have the answers, and I want to lead a country full of creative, hardworking and peaceful people.

I want every human being on this planet to know, that I, as of this moment, will do everything I can to promote world peace.

Please vote for me, to give me the chance to prove my strength as a human being in leading this country to become a part of the peaceful international community.

May God bless this planet. Thank You."

[Occam Bandage]

4. kick. So far, 9/11 DUers are smarter than Mark Penn.

[Occam Bandage]

5. Final kick.