And in June of 1992, Clinton was making Dukakis look good. He was basically getting the same VRWC/SCLM treatment that Kerry’s getting this year and Gore got in 2000; he was running third behind both Bush Sr. and Perot, and was the preferred candidate of less than 30% of the electorate.
Then Clinton got the greatest political gift that any candidate in my lifetime has received: Perot dropped out and essentially endorsed him, right on the eve of the Dem convention. Gore and Clinton both gave great speeches, and Clinton went from the worst poll support of any major-party candidate in my lifetime, to a huge lead, in the space of a few weeks.
He did a good job of taking advantage of the gift, no question. But at the end, he was just hanging on and hoping it wouldn’t slip away, as Perot jumped back in, and the “draft dodger” issue got hammered for the last couple of months.
I don’t think it’s really possible for Dems to learn any strategic lessons from 1992, although some of Clinton’s tactics (e.g. the rapid-response team) are worth emulating.
It’s true that Kerry opens his mouth and says things, and sometimes they’re political things, but do they form a message that sticks in the mind? Let’s take a look at some of the points you raise:
Either it’s got to be a B&W “Against the war!” or a really big, clear idea; otherwise there is no impact. I think Bush has totally botched it, but do I believe that Kerry has some really great plan? No. Kerry’s preferable, though, because he would not go attacking other countries.
Umm, it sets him perfectly apart from the voters: Anyone who is for the war has no problem with Bush’s M.O, and anyone who is against it wants a viceral attack against the Bush policy. Fence-sitters? Some will go for Kerry’s nuance, but a lot more will be swayed by Bush’s simple, “What, us worry?”
The nose is good, but the palate is watery. He can’t be like Dean and say, “This sucks and I voted against it.”
That’s a sawdust loaf. What about revamping our tax system so that it’s fair and makes some sense? You know, that thing called “reform” that politicians used to mention now and then.
What are the major issues; what is the concrete plan? Show some damn leadership!
Brilliant! I wonder what his actual ideas are.
Kerry’s policies would be like putting a bandaid on gangrene. We need a revolution in this country, not “I kinda would do somethings sorta different than Bush.” Weak broth!
Next topic:
I’m not a huge Clinton fan at all (at least, not of Bill), but he was a very different candidate than Kerry. He was not the anointed or frontrunner at first, as Kerry pretty much was; rather, he fought to stand out in the field and succeeded; then he tore into Bush like a badger. One phrase like, “It’s the economy, stupid!” can totally change a campaign. Kerry never comes up with such zingers. He’s got no groove.
He’s not a good orator, but it’s not for lack of a good voice and articulation. He’s just ponderous.
Yes…Kerry should note that it was the President who flip-flopped (or deceived), not him.
[:
(Bolding mine.)
[url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5941108/]George Bush and his spokespeople several times in the last few months:](]George W. Bush on September 19, 2002[/url) (This particular example is from a Sept 8, 2004 article.)
So, Mr, President, which is it that John Kerry voted for: Did he vote “for the war” or did he vote “to keep the peace”? Inquiring minds want to know!
Your question was, “where’s the message?” That’s what I was addressing. Yes, I think there is a message. If you want to know, “where’s the cheap soundbite?”, that’s a different question.
What does that have to do with my statement above? Do you disagree that Kerry’s position on the war sets him apart from Bush?
Again, I was answering your question, “where’s the message?” If you don’t like the message, or you don’t like his voting record, those are entirely different issues.
Oh yeah - that worked out really well. :rolleyes: Every time politicians “reform” the tax code, it ends up more complicated.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you ever been through a presidential campaign before? It’s not like they say, “And on February 3 at 3:00, I plan to sign a bill requiring the removal of toxins from drinking water.” I mean, go to the guy’s website and it outlines everything he wants to do for the environment. Exactly what kind of “concrete plan” do you want? What kind of “concrete plans” did the other candidates have? I mean, that’s fine if you want to criticize the guy, but try to pick something that doesn’t apply to ALL politicians.
“Kerry breathes air and processes food into waste.” Oh, no.
I’m not arguing Kerry’s merits with you. You said he has no message, and I told you he does. NOW you’re saying you want some sort of radical left-wing revolutionary. That’s fine for you, but again, it doesn’t have anything to do with what I was saying.
Weak is about right. I was so frustrated hearing the excerpts from Kerry’s speech to the Detroit Economic Club. I think his message is just OFF. It doesn’t sound right, it isn’t convincing.
I was reading an article about the Jersey Girls, a group of 9/11 widows who have just endorsed Bush, and it struck me how in a few short sentences one of these broads put a campaign issue so much better than Kerry seems to be able to.
Get a message, make it a good one, and deliver the hell out of it, Kerry!
Well, let’s define our terms, shall we? By “message” I don’t just mean “Whatever he says, taken as a whole,” but a precisely crafted body of marketing and political points designed to capture attention and change minds. Kerry doesn’t have that.
It sets him apart. But not enough to convince undecideds. “Hey, he’s beige but I’m off-white.”
He doesn’t have a clear, distinct message.
So I guess we’ll just have to give up, huh? Great vision for the future there, Blow.
You meantioned the Kerry website. Here is the environment page. Overall, it’s pretty vague, but here’s a nice chunk within:
Today, approximately 45 percent of our nation’s waterways do not meet the “drinkable, swimmable and fishable” standard set out by the Clean Water Act 30 years ago. As president, John Kerry will implement a “Restore America’s Waters” campaign, an integrated approach to protecting our precious, limited water resources. He will work with states on the toughest water quality challenges, restore damaged watersheds, protect wetlands, invest in our waterfronts and coastal communities, and protect our oceans.
Here we get some numbers and and a more distinct idea of what might change with Kerry in control. A picture of the problem and a vision of change. Kerry needs to do more of this.
[/quote]
Soundbytes capture the meaty points, the slogans. Just as all products need words that will stick in the mind, so do the candidates. Unless you catch someone’s attention, all the sophistication in the world won’t do you any good.
Of course they do; I’d never dispute the value of a sound bite in the larger sense. But my point is, a lot of folks–and there’s more than we dare to believe–will be casting their vote based on the snappiest slogan they heard. That works fine for a soap. Not picking the leader of the free world.
Perhaps not. But then, as I’ve said numerous times, that’s not the question I was addressing.
No, it’s clear and distinct, it’s just not trite enough for you. It’s not a “soundbite”.
Bush gave cuts to the very wealthiest people in the country, and has run up a record defecit. You don’t have to rewrite the whole tax code to reverse that. Bush didn’t rewrite the whole tax code to DO it, so why would you have to rewrite the whole tax code to change it back?
You can’t seem to make up your mind. Do you want pithy catch-phrases, or do you want mundane details? You seem to vacillate between the two desires.
See my comment to Moody and his reply. He gets it; why don’t you?
C’mon, work with me here. There’s content, and then there’s expression of that content. As far as expression of content, Kerry is unambiguously weak. That’s what I originally meant by “message.” But in terms of the base content as well, Kerry really doesn’t provide a lot of interest or excitement. Hey, if you find him clear and distinct and all, fine. We disagree.
Oh man! How about the payroll taxes crushing the working poor, regressive sales taxes, property taxes all out of wack, and income taxes that have favored the rich for decades. Rolling back Bush’s tax cut is just such thin gruel. It’s like telling a kid he’s getting lima beans for dinner. It’s better than starving sure, but where’s the interest and excitement? With the rollback you’ll be telling most middle class families that they’ll be losing a few hundred bucks (a downer), with the consolation that the rich will be losing more. A minimal understanding of psychology will tell you that this is going to make no one happy. You’ve got to soak the rich and reduce taxes on the middle class and working poor for this kind of thing to work.
I was just telling you that those numbers and concrete facts are not mundane details. They are the way to set up a clear understanding the mind of the electorate about what the candidate is about. Anybody can and does say, “We want to protect the environment.” It’s a no-brainer, and people just ignore it. But if you can state an interesting fact, give a telling number, and then state your position, you have a better chance of making an impression.
C’mon Blow, these are just public speaking and message-making basics!
So blowero, why is Kerry falling behind in the polls? If his proposed policies are superior (and I believe they are), why aren’t people buying into them?
Marketing is important. Good candidates and good campaign teams know how to do it.
You’ve now changed your argument. First, you just said he “has no message”. Now you’ve changed it to “good public speaker with a compelling message”. I never disagreed with the latter.