Do many people judge candidates on how effectively the run their campaigns...

[techs]

When the Swiftboat ads came out, and John Kerry was perceived as doing nothing effective to counter them, did people really judge Kerry on the what the ads said, or what he did or didn't do to counter them.
It seems to me many people view the Presidential campaigns as sort of a surrogate for how they will behave in office and vote accordingly.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think it all depends on who you would like to have a beer with. When times are good you want to drink with the a happy go lucky brain dead goofball. When times get bad economically you want to drink with somebody who's buying and has good taste in beer.

Unfortunately, McSame is looking for a bar fight.

 

[bamacre]

Most people look at the D or the R next to the name. That's pretty much it.

 

[nageov3t]

if functional campaigns were a marker of how effective they'd be as a leader, we'd be putting GW's face on Mount Rushmore right now.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: loki8481
if functional campaigns were a marker of how effective they'd be as a leader, we'd be putting GW's face on Mount Rushmore right now.

Exactly.

however, I'd say running a campaign properly is a necessary but not sufficient qualification.

 

[ProfJohn]

The 'campaign' is a reflection of the guy running it, not the candidate.

Rove ran the Bush campaign.
Axelrod runs the Obama campaign.
Dick Morris helped to run Clinton's 1996 campaign.

Those are three damn smart political minds.

BTW if it wasn't for TV these guy would probably be running for President instead of running campaigns.

 

[Thump553]

The "analysts" / talking heads on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and the Sunday morning network shows focus almost exclusively on the machinations of the race. Some, like Fox News in particular, overlay their political bias on their analysis, so it comes out as a begrudging compliment to Obama or a prissy screed about McCain letting us down, but even still they are mostly about admiring the chess match of politics.

Look at the centerpiece of modern presidential politics-the debates. It's far more important to nearly everyone who won, versus what did X say about issue Y, and do I agree with that?

And probably more than we care to admit it, we political junkies pretty much fall into the same gamesmanship admiration category. Face it, most of us are looking forward to McCain on Dave Letterman as one of the most important political events this week-not Obama's new economic address yesterday, or McCain's (anticipated) one today.

I've tried to isolate myself from this by getting as much as possible-the original source material, the debates and stump speeches on CSPAN. Fortunately those are run there without commentary and without commercials for Extenze.

 

[andy04]

ha ha good one, if anyone cared about the issues then these two morons wouldnt have been the presidential candidates

 

[DaveSimmons]

I'll probably be voting against the current McCain since the McCain of 1999 seems long gone.

I'm not voting -for- Obama, so the effectiveness of his anti-smear defense team doesn't really matter to me.

The effectiveness of MCain's poo flinging team doesn't influence me either, though the stench does drive me farther away from voting for him.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: andy04
ha ha good one, if anyone cared about the issues then these two morons wouldnt have been the presidential candidates

This.

 

[jpeyton]

If McCain can't run a campaign, how can he run a country?

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
If McCain can't run a campaign, how can he run a country?

Bush ran a great campaign. Does that mean he was great at running the country?

Many CEOs do a good job running their companies, but can't use email or the internet.

That crazy astronaut lady was good enough to become an astronaut, yet went crazy and drove cross-country wearing a diaper.

How many managers, especially in technical fields, can manage people but not do the jobs of their subordinates?

A poor campaign does not reflect well on McCain, that's for certain. But I think to go to the "If he can't ______, then ________" reasoning is pretty specious.

 

[Lemon law]

I somewhat disagree with all these takes, running an effective campaign is like running an effective advertisement for a product. It gets your foot in the door and the product into the public mind.

All of that is worthless is the product being advertised is worthless, no longer meets a need, or is decidedly inferior to the competition. Even if that same company later comes up with a better product, the bitter taste of gullible fools who fell for their earlier campaign ad lingers on. Somewhat the McCain problem now.

But I especially disagree with the Non Prof John contention of "BTW if it wasn't for TV these guys ( The guys that organized the effective campaigns ) would probably be running for President instead of running campaigns." At least IMHO, these guys know what they are good at and not good at, its not a matter of how photogenic they are, its a matter that they are inherently not front men. Maybe Dick Cheney is a classic example, he is a man most people enjoy hating, even when GWB had positive public approval ratings, Cheney's public trust rating were like 19%. But Cheney does his most effective work, evil work in my opinion, when he is operating behind the scenes and in the dark. Newt Gingrich is another example, most effective when he is an out of power minority, a well spring of ideas he flits between, and an effective bomb thrower,
but put him in majority power, and he is clueless in formulating an effective positive public policy. The same might be said of John Kerry, when asked to run an effective campaign, he unerringly made all the wrong calls, and snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

As for the men and women who run political campaigns, they are advertising men, and that is their passion and chosen niche in life.

 

[gevorg]

Effective campaigns? LOL!

Most people judge candidates by their looks, voice, "personality" and attractiveness. Being tough helps too.

 

[Stuxnet]

You only have 6 threads on the front page today. Running behind?

[edit]

Contrary to what most dems would like to believe, the swiftboats didn't kill John Kerry's dreams, John Kerry did. He was an idiot who couldn't be pinned down a specific thought for more than 3 seconds. All politicians pander, but he was the most overt about it and did nothing to hide the fact. No real agenda + mass pandering + very hypocritical campaign + political jockeying since the age of 5 = MASSIVE FAIL

It's hard to lose to a guy with Bush's stigma, but Kerry showed that, with the proper persistence, ignorance, and arrogance, one can prevail.

 

[sandorski]

The Media loves to discuss it, but most people don't decide on it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Most people look at the D or the R next to the name. That's pretty much it.

Not entirely. Favor goes to the one dolling out the cash.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: bamacre
Most people look at the D or the R next to the name. That's pretty much it.

Not entirely. Favor goes to the one dolling out the cash.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotta somewhat disagree with Jaskalas, its only half right, favor does not necessarily go to the fellow who doles out the cash to the wrong groups. As a larger America wakes up to the fact they are the people who got left behind.