I’m a conservative leaning MOR swing voter. I’ve voted Democrat, and I’ve voted Republican. To date it appears that Kerry’s main argument to vote for him (which IMO is insufficient) mainly seems to be “I’m not Bush”.
Is this (seemingly) low key unaggressive, strategy going to work? IIRC Gore is still kicking himself for not being more aggressive in his campaign.
A number of commentators (and not just conservatives) have noted that the more Kerry appears in public, the worse his numbers seem to get. Somewhat tounge-in-cheek, they advise him to go on vacation for the rest of the campaign.
Perhaps the campaign staff took the advice literally.
Well, just speaking for myself here, the fact that Kerry is indeed not Bush is more than sufficient.
Kerry’s campaigning like all get out, so far as I can tell, but I guess maybe it’s not really the season for the media to take much notice yet. For example, the Houston Chronicle does a campaign-related article on Kerry nearly every day, but it’s buried 2/3 of the way back in the first section; as are, it must be said, most articles covering the Republican campaign. Likewise, what little campaign-related stuff I’ve seen out of the Bush camp seems to mainly be “we’re not pessimists, like them dour dems”. Same difference.
Duck season really begins with the conventions, IMO, and that’s just fine with me.
I was thinking about that just the other day. I don’t know if it’s actually Kerry’'s main argument or not, but it sure seems that the news analysts (aka talking heads) paint the picture that way. I just don’t see any real passion out there for Kerry (not to be confused with passion **against ** Bush), and I’m not sure that will be enough to defeat Bush once the GOP campaign machine kicks into high gear later this summer.
If Rove has the power that the conspiracy theorists on the left seem to think he has, he’ll get the Iraqis to issue several Saddam pre-trial press releases every week, with each one highlighting an escalting pre-war horror perpetrated by the former dictator. As long as the economy is not a major issue, Bush’s fortune rises and falls with public’s perception of the Iraq war. And that perception can be positively influenced by focucssing attention on Saddam Hussein’s bloodsoaked record.
I think that’s exactly right. Kerry makes plenty of points on his own, but again and again I keep hearing this “his main argument is ‘I’m not Bush’” thing, so it makes me wonder about news coverage and whether or not people are paying attention.
Which is only going to be possible if events on the ground permit such a focusing of attention. If one of any number of plausible and dreadful scenarios begins to play out, the Tighty Righty’s can shriek about how Saddam was an evil, evil man all they like, headlines are determined by immediacy and drama.
“Invasion of Iraq Completed, Stunning Military Success” is not now, nor is it going to be, a headline grabbing revelation. Nor is “Saddam charged with war crime” followed the next day by “Saddam charged with another war crime” followed anon “By Saddam charged with another war crime, yet again!”.
As to Kerry’s relative silence, it makes perfect sense. The bad news is a parade, row upon row, rank upon rank. (Of course, at least part of this is the liberal tedia’s refusal to broadcast tape of the tens of thousands of happy Iraqi’s demonstrating at the “Gosh, Do We Ever Love George Bush!” rallys all across Iraq…)
Why should he interrupt? All that he would accomplish is to foster the appearance of gloating, an appearance, I daresay, the Bushiviks would exploit for every last drop of advantage.
As well, the Bushiviks are burning through their money advantage, running ads like crazy, and still creeping downward in the approval ratings, while Kerry is stacking basketsfull of bucks and reserving his ammo for the big push.
As the saying goes, when your opponent is busy cutting his own throat, don’t interfere.
There was a bit in Time magazine last week (or was it the week before?) noting that both the Kerry and Bush campaigns have essentially spent all the money they’ve wanted to spend so far, and are toning down the campaigning to “catch a breather,” as it were.
Not unlike how you keep hearing that Kerry “flip-flops” from folks who conveniently ignore Bush’s extensive record of flip-flops.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001968744_gao30.html
“Iraq’s basic services worse now than before war, GAO says”
Why say a word? Even more, why pay to say anything?
My understanding is that Kerry has been issuing lots of position papers recently–important work for a candidate, but rarely headline-grabbing work. As Dr. Dean put it, he’s not making the news because he’s talking policy, not issuing soundbites.
Daniel
Anyone else here in a “battleground state?”
We see Kerry (and Bush) commercials all the time. We have campaign appearances by national honchos every week.
For the last couple of weeks we’ve been treated to a series of “I wanto to be President because” ads for Kerry, and none of the reasons include “I’m not Bush.”
At least one person feels that he isn’t
Minnesota. I feel your agony.
Isn’t he legally obligated to spend most or all of this money before the convention?
Kerry has kept it close (and in some polls, pulled ahead) by NOT saying much of anything. As was pointed out earlier, the bad news that kept rolling out and over the Bush administration was free of charge.
Agreed. I should have added that caveat along with “if the economy isn’t a big issue”.
Doesn’t have the headling grabbing sex appeal as “US Hands Over Reigns to Sovereign Iraq” or “Horrors Under Saddam Worse Than Imagined”.
Massachusetts gets *so * lonely after the New Hampshire Primary commercials stop running on Boston TV. I honestly haven’t seen a Kerry ad since, or a Bush ad at all. Following the campaign from here is like following one in Australia, for all the “participation” we have in it.
But summer is always a slack season for TV ads in any presidential campaign. People just aren’t paying much attention until they’re back from vacation. It’ll pick up in September and October.
I wonder if Kerry’s silence might be a good strategy. Bush has been digging his own hole, and the Republicans have proven impressively effective at spinning gold into shite (Kerry’s seemingly unassailable record as a war hero, for example), so perhaps he’s wise to hold back for now. I assume Kerry will become better known to the electorate when the debates roll around.
“Silence” was too strong a word there–you know what I mean.
I thought Kerry was just laying low until people start caring.
(Growing up in California, I didn’t even know they HAD campaign commercials until I was in high school :-p)
That’s exactly it. He’s neck and neck with Bush without doing much of anything. With that being the case, if you were him wouldn’t you wait to see whether your opponent can blow his own foot off before you do anything?
He’s just sitting and waiting.