The Second Line of Defense

[welshTerrier2]

The simplest campaign strategy, the first line of defense, goes something like this: "my guy's great and your guy stinks." and to those already committed to a candidate, this simplicity is all that's needed ... it doesn't take all that much red meat to rally the faithful ...

but there's a very different message for the swing voters ... it's important to understand this message if you want to build the necessary credibility to win them over ...

and that's where the secondary line of defense comes in ... you "give a little to get a lot" ...

here's how it works ... "yes, bush has not been perfect, but Kerry really hasn't given the voters a reason to vote FOR him" ... this mantra has been repeated in the mass media over and over and over and over ... the strategy is to yield a bit to build credibility with voters about bush's record ... some people will not be taken in by telling them how great he's been for the country ... the simple approach only alienates these voters ... so you admit to some shortcomings ... you say things like "we know there's still work to be done" ... and you don't go too negative on the other guy either ... you just go negative enough to suggest that voters couldn't really articulate reasons to vote FOR Kerry as opposed to bush ... and the truth is most people don't have a clue about any of Kerry's positions ... so the "second line of defense" is an effective tool to influence swing voters ...

my read is that Kerry could be taking advantage of this strategy as well but has not been effective in using it ... "yes, not everyone agrees with every vote John Kerry has cast over his long and distinguished career, but bush has burdened us with a war in Iraq that seems to be going nowhere; he's left us with record deficits that seem to be getting worse ... and perhaps worst of all, he's left us with a bitterly divided nation ... when a president's track record is fraught with problems, voters seek a change."

Kerry is clearly losing the battle for the second line of defense ... and when you're fighting for every swing voter, that is not OK ... the campaign needs to wake up and seize control of this issue ... blaming the media is all well and good, but failing on this strategy is not an option.

[welshTerrier2]

1. hmmm ... no takers on this ???

trying to start a discussion that will hopefully be read by some of Kerry's strategy people ...

[MrBenchley]

2. I think you're wrong....

"yes, bush has not been perfect, but Kerry really hasn't given the voters a reason to vote FOR him" ... this mantra has been repeated in the mass media over and over and over and over
So how does Kerry bashing the Chimp ever become a statement of what Kerry stands for? Swing voters want somebody to vote FOR.

I think Kerry and Edwards are doing a fine job of explaining their programs and plans. Let the GOP wave their bandaids.

[welshTerrier2]

3. not sure we're on the same page here ...

i think you've missed the point i was trying to make ...

for starters, let me say that i have no disagreement with you whatsoever that "Kerry and Edwards are doing a fine job of explaining their programs and plans."

let me also fully agree with your point that bashing the Chimp doesn't give swing voters somebody to vote FOR ...

nothing in my post suggests that Kerry should not clearly articulate what his programs are and why people should vote for him ... that's the positive side of the campaign and it's critically important ... we are in full agreement as far as that goes ... but that is not at all what my post was about ...

getting out a solid positive message should not preclude fighting the battle on all fronts ... educating voters about why Kerry will make a great president should not preclude the use of negative campaigning ... more than just one approach is called for ... both can be effective simultaneously ...

i can't begin to count how many times i've heard the following in the mass media: "voters continue to give bush low approval ratings but Kerry does not seem to have given voters a reason to support him" ... the message is: "maybe bush is bad but can you really articulate why Kerry should be president" ... my point isn't that Kerry hasn't done a good job presenting his message; my point is that voters rarely can articulate the issues ...

which brings us back to the issue of credibility ... if bush says "i've done everything perfectly and everyone is much better off than they were when i took office", he would have a huge credibility problem ... it just won't fly ... but by acknowledging, in response to weak poll numbers on job approval, that there are some problems, he lowers the bar he has to meet ... "look, things are getting better but we still have work to do ... but can you really make a clear argument for the other guy ??" ... the sad truth is, most people can't make a clear argument for anybody ... voters have a "sense" about candidates; very few can articulate specific positions ...

so in this so called "second line of defense", i return to my main point that bush is using this "give a little to get a little" approach ... i hear it throughout the mass media ... and i do not hear Kerry knocking down this argument ... he should be and he could be ... the line could be something like "look, Kerry cannot be all things to all voters; no one can ... but when you look at the foreign policy crises in Iraq, when you listen to bush's flip-flops on whether the war on terrorism can be one, and when you look at record budget deficits and a very poor performance on jobs, can you really make a solid case for voting for bush?"

the point is it's easier to sell "i'm not perfect but look at the mess the other guy's made of it" than it is to win votes by presenting a laundry list of good positions ... it really shouldn't be that way but it is ...