Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 38% (42%) Wrong Track: 50% (44%)
* * * * *
Ipsos-Reid 9/16 - 18
"Generally speaking, would you say things in this country are heading in the right direction, or are they off on the wrong track?"
Right Track: 37% (39%) Wrong Track: 57% (56%)
* * * * *
Fox News 9/23 - 24
Who should control congress?
Democrats 41% Republicans 36% Neither/Unsure 23%
* * * * *
Democracy Corps 9/14
Who should control congress?
Democrats 47% Republicans 42% Neither 1% (unch) Not sure 11%
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Tactic: Support the Opposition Underdog
Say you are running for office and your opponent is formidable (maybe even superior). How do you most easily undermine his or her candidacy?
Sure, you can take years to rig the infrastructure of the vote or intimidate the opponent's constituency at the polls. Maybe you could even send out a "notice" to the opponent's constituency telling them that they can vote several days after the election. Heck, you can claim that the "injuns" cheated you. Who knows what they do on those "secret" reservations. Little doubt it's voter fraud.
Sure you could do these things, but if you really want to have some fun, and claim selfless bipartisanship at the same time, then it's high time you learned about the "Bush-Nader" technique. You see, why waste all that money and energy attacking a formidable opponent when you can undermine his or her election with a few, strategic acts of support for his in-party or third party opposition.
The idea is this: In most races, each party has a primary. It is before this primary that you begin your attack. Within the opposition party's primary there is typically a front-runner and the rest of the crowd. Assuming that you believe the front-runner to be your most threatening challenge, you must hit him or her with preemptive attacks:
1) Give money to the campaigns of various members of the pack that you find to be much less of a threat, but also the most realistic primary challenger to the current front-runner. This would be executed with the belief that a member of the primary pack would be easier to beat in the general election than the current frontrunner. Some things that make this also-ran easier for you to beat might include his or her extreme views on a particular issue or their lack of funding (outside of your donations) in a general election. Such funding of the underdog raises the level of competition in the primary which inevitably drains the coffers of that party's would-be winner, making them strapped for cash in the general election.
2) This also works with minor third-party candidates who have the potential to steal votes away from your opponent, but not from you. The highest profile example of this is the GOP's generous donation of about $1,000,000 in ads to Ralph Nader prior to the abortion of democracy known as the 2000 Election. A far less known example, though, is the one about George W. Bush and Bill Bradley.
Not Surprisingly, corporate CEO's heavily favored Bush in contributions for the 2000 race. Shockingly, however, their second choice, by a ratio of over 2 to 1 over the third place candidate, was Bill Bradley, a Democratic candidate that lies comfortably to the left of Al Gore. Take a look at this:
The following gave contributions to Bradley and Bush, but not Gore:
Rupert Murdoch - News Corp and Fox Entertainment Richard Notebaert - Ameritech William Avery - Crown, Cork and Seal William Steere - Pfizer August Busch III - Anheuser-Busch Charles Heimbold - Bristol-Myers Squibb Ralph Larsen - Johnson & Johnson Lewis Platt - Hewlett-Packard Fred Hassan - Pharmacia & Upjohn Thomas Stemberg - Staples William Harrison - Chase Manhattan Durk Jager - Procter & Gamble W. Howard Lester - Williams-Sonoma
Where did donors from the Top 1,000 corporations placed their bets:
Bush - 292 Bradley - 94 Gore - 44 McCain - 26 Dole - 21 Quayle - 9
Percentage of CEOs who gave to:
Republicans only - 67% Democrats only - 20% Both - 13%
Now why do you suppose CEO's, who support Republicans almost 3.5 to 1 over Democrats, would support the candidacy of a lefty like Bradley over a pro-business "New" Democrat like Gore? Sure, some will try to argue that Bradley is somehow more business friendly than the Clinton-Gore Administration. I certainly don't buy that argument, however it might be spun. These CEO's were executing this tactic, funding a Bradley candidacy knowing full well that he would pose less of a challenge to G. W. Bush in the general election.
3) Provide dirt on the front-runner to the rest of the pack. Let them do the dirty work for you. This will save on your image in the general election and otherwise provide all the benefits of funding the underdogs' campaigns. Of course the information will be "leaked" to your unsuspecting minions in the opposition party. Again, this works with third party candidates as well.
4) Where these underdogs refuse to attack the front-runner with the provided dirt, you must step up to the plate and "leak" the derogatory information to the willing press. In any event, a preemptive attack is necessary. In the 2002 California Gubernatorial race, moderate GOP frontrunner and Rove-selected prince, Richard Riordin was destroyed in a preemptive strike by Democratic Governor Gray Davis:
"Riordan's campaign unfolded as a virtual cakewalk. His two challengers, Secretary of State Bill Jones and wealthy businessman Simon (son of Nixon's former Treasury Secretary), were distant rivals who barely registered in the polls. "
"But then the hammer dropped on Riordan. Not from his Republican rivals, but in the form of an unprecedented and devastating $10 million negative TV ad campaign run by Gray Davis. The Democratic Governor intervened directly in the Republican primary, slamming Riordan from both the left and the right (in one pervasive TV spot, Democrat Davis ripped at Republican Riordan for allegedly being soft on the death penalty)."
5) As an extra treat, you can let their primary pack work for you by simply airing their attacks against the front runner. Dirty pigs that they are, Republicans jumped at the chance to air "Nader ripping apart Gore" in battleground states:
"Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president."
"The ads by the Republican Leadership Council will begin airing Monday in Wisconsin, Oregon and Washington, all states that are part of Gore's base and where Nader is polling well. The group plans to spend more than $100,000 at first and hopes to raise more over the weekend."
6) Nader is, of course, a constant reminder not to forget the third-party candidates. Indeed, they can be substituted easily and sometimes favorably in place of and/or in addition to primary opponents in the above tactics. We should know this and use it. Republicans certainly do (and did):
"In Washington State, two Republican consultants posed as Green party members and recruited naive young candidates to run for state legislature on the Green Party line in order to siphon votes away from the Democrats. The consultants - Stan Shore and Leslie Donovan, who are married - gave $250 to persuade 18-year-old Young Han to run, and funded the convention that nominated 21-year-old Michael Jepsen."
The objectives are...
a) ...to make the winner of the opposition primary emerge fatigued with severe damage, irreversible scars, cash-strapped pockets and a divided constituency.
or, in the case of the third-party candidate...
b) ...to yank just enough votes away from the opposition candidate to tip the scales in your favor.
For future examples of these tactics, keep an eye on the Bush-Nader-Copulation-Fest-2004. If you can focus past the churning in your stomach, you should learn something about the power of being truly ruthless.
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')