Dems, Reagan Beat Carter By Avoiding Mud-Slinging and Focusing on Issues. Do You Think Your Candidates Have?

Question

... learned anything from Reagan's resounding defeat of Carter?

I've heard many people say that they think Hillary is mean.

Reagan focused on the issues --- not on Carter. And, it gave him a huge victory even though Carter tried to assail Reagan personally.

""Our polls show if you hit too hard even people who are angered at Carter say, 'Wait a minute. He has faults, but he's not that bad.' They become defensive. There's an enormous sense of fair play in this country and you've got to be very careful." Reagan and Dailey were proven right. By the campaign's end, Reagan was seen as genial and Carter as mean--a perception that contributed to Reagan's victory."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=judis090304

Should Hillary pay attention to this?

Answer 1

in regards to Reagan/Carter election, carter did himself in with the whole hostage crisis...this was no need for reagan to resort to mudsliging carter was not great a great president and everyone knew it. hilary is a biznatch and there's no way the democrat party would ever but her on the ticket.

Answer 2

Reagan won by pure chicanery. He was like voting for a genial old gradpa. He was everybody's "Poppy". Carter's telling like it is strategy was truthful, though did not win him friends. He was always that way. Reagan had many years in Hollywood to hone his craft of sugar coating the facts.

Answer 3

A failed foreign policy, a record setting federal deficit created by Republicans in control in the executive branch and Congress, financial and sex scandals, a tired moral majority positioning, and finally, admitting adulterous candidates, an unstable economy internationally, poor education track record, need any more?

Answer 4

Mud-slinging is wrong! Stick to the issues. That's what we want to hear, not what's in their closet!

Answer 5

I don't recall.