Thehill: Dems divided on Trump attack strategy for 2018

[Technocracy Timmy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cactus Jack]

Sticking to local issues has been the way forward for us ever since the Bush years. Trump's insanity can speak for itself and create a wave scenario all on its own; it's up to the candidates to appeal to their constituents. It's certainly worked in my neck of the woods - Giffords, Kirkpatrick, and Mitchell all stand as proof of that.

[smoltchanov]

Sticking to local issues has been the way forward for us ever since the Bush years. Trump's insanity can speak for itself and create a wave scenario all on its own; it's up to the candidates to appeal to their constituents. It's certainly worked in my neck of the woods - Giffords, Kirkpatrick, and Mitchell all stand as proof of that.

+100. As i always say - "district rules!" And Trump will make enough blunders to be not especially popular even in "Trump districts", and thus - will be heavy albatross on Republican candidates. On the contrary - concentration on Trump may give Republican candidates both reasons to defend him (as "unjustly attacked", at least in some cases) AND  easy ways to distinguish himself from him if neccessary ("i disagree with my President on ......, but he is still a President, and ....."). And again - don't run "identical" (ideologically) candidates in very different districts: no one is against "bold progressives" in San Francisco, Seattle and many other areas, but it's an absurd to run them in many southern and midwestern disricts (of course - if you want to win, and not just "make the case"). Even Bernie himself ran as gun-rights supporter in mostly rural Vermont, where such position is popular....

[Adam Griffin]

I've never understood these sorts of "debates". Is it really that damn difficult to do both? Do candidates only get to run one 30-second TV spot? Does the voter file make you pick one campaign strategy for the entire campaign and only shows you voters with whom such a message would resonate? Do voters only listen to one sentence per candidate before making up their minds?

This isn't hard. Every campaign needs a "positive" and a "negative". The positive for Democrats next year is an aggressive economic pitch that puts the GOP's complete incompetence on policy to shame. The negative is a bloodbath against Trump showing him to be just another Generic GOP hack (except for the fact that he lacks the ability to get anything meaningful done) who needs to have a check placed on him so he can't do what few awful things he might actually be able to accomplish.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Attacking a president with a <40% approval rating being the primary message of a midterm has basically never been a losing strategy. All this "muh message" stuff seems to be more based on what the speakers want to hear from the democrats then what historically has been important in midterms. Also democrats have never been as centralized as republicans. Thanks to a lack of a crazy fringe wing demanding 100% pure purity(read: talking like you're rabid and not being bipartisan/voting against purity tests) and the general tendency of the left to be less "BE 100% LOYAL OR ELSE" then the right(for now...), different candidates run on different messages in different places. That's what the democrats always do. That's why we have senate seats in Montana, West Virginia, and North Dakota.

[Yank2133]

I've never understood these sorts of "debates". Is it really that damn difficult to do both? Do candidates only get to run one 30-second TV spot? Does the voter file make you pick one campaign strategy for the entire campaign and only shows you voters with whom such a message would resonate? Do voters only listen to one sentence per candidate before making up their minds?

This isn't hard. Every campaign needs a "positive" and a "negative". The positive for Democrats next year is an aggressive economic pitch that puts the GOP's complete incompetence on policy to shame. The negative is a bloodbath against Trump showing him to be just another Generic GOP hack (except for the fact that he lacks the ability to get anything meaningful done) who needs to have a check placed on him so he can't do what few awful things he might actually be able to accomplish.

Agreed.

Democrats have a terrible habit of overthinking these things.