If We Nominate This Guy, Bush's Numbers Will Rise for Sure!!

[Starpass]

Pollster reminded me of something I forgot from Political Science 101. Thought I should post it before we have the inevitble hell fight and finger pointing that will break out on DU in a few months.

We have all been elated at the polls showing Bush losing (or a close race)to an "Unnamed Democrat". It's ususally assumed here (and I kept making the assumption myself) that if he's this bad already, once we fill in that name and face and message, Bush will get mauled. That, unfortunately, isn't the way it works.

What we are seeing are people registering their disgust with Bush and wanting "anyone but Bush". Once we give them a name, many will look at it and say "who the hell's that--is that all they have" and will gravitate back to Bush. They will stay with the "devil they know" instead risk the "devil they don't". Our candidates are well aware they will start with that foot dragging in the ditch and that that is why it's always hard to beat an incumbent. In fact, in those same recent polls that looked so promising, it was another story when the pollsters paired each of our candidates, one at a time, against Bush. Bush swamped them.

Now that said, we, of course, need to hit the trail hard after we know who is the nominee in order to sell him. We will have a money disadvantage; but I hope we don't have another disadvantage. If we know fairly soon in the process who the person is and the rest is just a formality, the word will start getting out. However, if we have to wait until convention time to see the winner, we only have a few short months to sell him. Anyway, I just want you to remember that the first time you see our nominee paired against Bush and you see a 15 point lead, etc. for Bush, don't go nutso on the people who supported that nominee and accuse them of "just having to have this zero as our candidate". It's predictable and, thus, we can't spend one damn precious minute going crazy about those stats. Accept them and go to work selling our candidate.

[ComerPerro]

1. Great message

I think you are right about the fact that once we have someone picked, he (or she) will be trailing Bush for a while.

Bush has been campaigning as the Republican candidate for five years now. So his base has supported him for a while.

[Richardo]

2. I thought much the same thing - once it's a specific choice the challenge

begins. The SCLM* will focus their shit-slinging on one target.

Your post is spot on.





* SCLM = So-called Liberal Media (Alterman: What Liberal Media?)

[uptohere]

3. good point and already proven in the various polls to date

the scientific polls that is, not the useless internet ones (Rev Sharpton might suggest "white's only" polls vis a vie the Digital Divide).

[Starpass]

5. Yep, if you dig deeper into those polls you're tummy tends to

turn because they still are not responding to any of our guys against Bush. That's not going to get better until we really are zeroed in on someone; but even then, as I said, a certain percentage of people will turn back to Bush. It's also so, so vital that we have Bush beatened to a pulp by then so that hopefully, that "trailing" will be as minimum as possible. Our candidates can't let this guy start climbing again. They need to constantly attack. That's all the people listen to anyhow---save the other rhetoric for another day.

[uptohere]

6. call me stupid but I don't believe in negative campaigning

I would rather we sell a better product. That can involve pointing out where the opponent's apple has worms but why not give people a reason to believe that they will be better off under our sails than under theirs ?

People vote for who will make their lives better. Ask Carter and Clinton.

[Starpass]

7. upto---and "it's the economy, Stupid, didn't hurt", did it???

Bill did more than just sell his product.

[uptohere]

8. yes but he DID sell his vision

that means that he:
-defined the need to the public,
-articulated his vision to meet that need,
-convinced the public that his vision was the better mousetrap.

that is leading. If you get a few jabs and body blows in by showing that the need arose from one's opponent's failures, so much the better. But the thrust is positive at it's heart.

This is the perfect example of what non-negative campaigning is. The right focused almost exclusively on negativity and lost twice to Clinton. Reagan won the same way, Carter won the same way, even Bush I won the same way.

I may be a little pollyanna but not insanely so. Guys who do it this way and have the ideas to win with, win. Muckrakers lose. At least at national battles.

[indigo32]

4. Thx Starpass

this is all very true.